The Certainty of Christianity Without Popery, Appendix
APENDIX.
CHAP. I.
I. WHereas I have here and more fully in my [More Reasons for the Christian Religion] asserted a Certainty in some Morals, it will give some light into the matter if I give you Ocham's decision of the Certainty of Moral Science in it self; which because it is short I will translate. Quod lib. l. 2. q. 14.
[Quest. Whether there can be a Demonstrative knowledge of Morals?
Resp. It seemeth not: Because there can be no demonstrative knowledge of those things that are subject to the will: But such are Morals: ergo, &c.
But contrarily, Morals are a Science.
In this Question, 1. I will expound one Term of the Question; 2. I will give you one distinction: 3. And then answer the Question.
1. As to the first I say that Moral is sometime taken largely, for humane Acts which are under the will absolutely:—Sometime more strictly, for Acts subject to the Power of the will, according to the natural dictate of Reason, and according to other circumstances.
2. As to the second you must know that Moral Doctrine hath many parts: of which one is Positive, another is Not-positive. Moral Science Positive, is that which containeth humane Laws, and Divine, which oblige us to follow or avoid things, which are neither good nor evil; nor because prohibited and commanded by a superiour to whom it belongeth to give Laws. But Moral Science not positive is that which without any command of a Superidirecteth humane actions: as Principles known by themselves, or known by experience, so direct; As that all that is honest is to be done, and all that is dishonest is to be avoided; and such like of which Aristotle speaketh in his Moral Philosophie.
3. As to the third I say, That Moral Positive Science, such as the Science of Lawyers is, is not Demonstrative, though in many things it be regulated by that which is demonstrative. Because the reasons of Lawyers are founded on humane Positive Laws, which receive not propositions evidently known. But Moral Science not positive is Demonstrative; I prove it: Because all knowledge deducing conclusions Syllogistically, from Principles known by themselves, or by experience of him that knoweth, is demonstrative: But such is Moral Doctrine: ergo, &c.
The Major is known: The Minor is proved, Because in Moral Philosophie there are many Principles known by themselves; As that the will is to conform it self to right reason; that all evil is to be avoided, and such like. In like manner, many Principles are known by Experience; as is evident to him that followeth experience. And I further say, that This is more Certain than many other things, in as much as every man may have more Experience of his own acts, than of other things: From whence it is plain that this is a Science, very Subtile, Profitable and Evident.
To the Argument for the Contrary I say, That of things subject to the will, may be formed Propositions, true and known by themselves, which can demonstrate many Conclusions.]
CHAP. II.
How much the wisest Papists are for our way of Resolving faith, before Luthers time by controversie perverted them.
IT was ordinary, till Luthers disputing convinced them that the Scriptures would not serve their turn, for the wisest Papists, 1. To make Scripture the perfect Rule of faith, without the supplement of Tradition to add more; 2. And to give such Reasons for their Faith as we now do for ours.
I. I must not be tedious in citing many. 1. Aquinas Cont. Gent. Cap. 9. fol. 3. saith [But the singular manner of convincing an adversary of this truth, is by the Authority of the Scripture confirmed of God by miracles.]
And Summ. 1. q. 1. a. 8. ad secundum, he saith that [Sacred Doctrine useth the authority of the Canonical Scripture arguing properly and from necessity: but the authorities of other Doctors of the Church as arguing from its own, but Probably. For our faith resteth on the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the Canonical Books; but not on the Revelation made to other Doctors, if there were any such. Whence August. to Hier. I have learnt to give this honour only to the Books of Scripture called Canonical, as that I firmly believe that no Author of them did at all err in writing them. But others I read so as that how excellent soever they were in Learning and Holiness, I take it not to be therefore true because they so thought or wrote.]
Durandus in his Preface hath little else but of the Scripture excellency in Dignity, Goodness, Certainty and Profundity: And from Hier. ad Paulin. saith [Let us learn that on Earth, the knowledge of which will continue with us in Heaven. But this is only in the Holy Scripture—3. The Holy Scripture exceedeth all in Certainty of Truth—We must speak of the mystery of Christ and universally of those things which meerly concern faith, comformably to what the Holy Scripture delivereth. As Christ Joh. 5. Search the Scripture, &c. If any man observe not this, &c.—The Measure is, not to exceed the Measure of Faith—which Measure consisteth in two things, that is, that we take not that from faith, which belongs to faith, nor attribute that to faith which is not of faith. For both waies is the Measure of faith exceeded, and men deviate from the continence of the Holy Scripture, which expresseth the Measure of faith: And this Measure God assisting, we will hold, that we may write or teach nothing dissonant from the Holy Scripture. But if by ignorance or inadvertencie we should write any thing, let it be ipso facto esteemed as not written. And so on.
And Prolog. q. 1. his description of Theologie is, 1. For a habit by which we only or principally assent to those things, that are delivered in Scripture, and as they are there delivered. And so Theologie differs not from faith. The reason of which is because the things that are delivered in the Scripture, are so only held by Divine Authority.
Scotus Prolog. Q. 2. doth conclude p. 7. that the Doctrine of the Canonical Scripture is sufficient to the attainment of our end: And that the Holy Scripture containeth sufficiently the Doctrine necessary to a Viator (a man in this life.)
II. And to prove this Scripture to be true he giveth us these ten proofs; (which I must not repeat at large) 1. From the predictions of Scripture which God only could do. 2. From their notable concord. 3. He proveth that their own Doctrine against Lying and such like prove that the writers lied not. 4. From the great diligence and concord of the Receivers. 5. From the Rationability of the Contents. 6. From the unreasonableness of all other waies. 7. From the stability of the Church. 8. From the Miracles, which God would never affix to a lie, which he largely urgeth. 9. From the testimony of aliens and adversaries. 10. That God would not give up those to a lie who so seek him with all their hearts as many Christians do.
Abundance of their Authors more I could cite, who thus argue for the truth of Scripture, and not from an Authoritative decision of a Pope or Council only. And what in this they give to them at other times, doth but shew that their foundation was so much weaker than ours.
CHAP. III.
That where the Learned Papists differ from us, they are so far from building on a Certainer foundation that, so far they are forced to deny all Certainty of faith.
TO prove this it may suffice to mind the Learned Reader how even the most judicious (as Greg. Armin. Prolog. Estius and commonly most Schoolmen, deny a proper Certainty of Evidence to faith: Not only that the Object is not Evident to sense, which all confess, but that the truth of the conclusion is not Demonstrable, and that Faith is a pious act of the Election of the will, which were not meritorious, if it had rational demonstration or evidence. And that it is but opinion which is resolved into humane Authority: and yet that they believe the Scripture to be Gods word, and this or that to be the sense meerly, because the Church holdeth it. I cannot stay to cite many. Plain Durandus shall be instead of all: Who Prolog. q. 1. saith p. 6. c. 1. Faith which resteth on humane Authority differeth not from opinion: because the place from humane authority is topical, and an argument thence taken is the weakest: And therefore the faith which resteth on that authority is the weakest opinion. But pag. 9. of the faith which resteth on Gods authority, he granteth us. that it may stand with Science of many of the same things, and that Divine authority and demonstrative reason may concur to cause the same assent. But p. 10. he dissenteth from them that hold that Gods attestations were such to those that saw Christs Miracles and Resurrection, &c. as certainly proved the truth of his Godhead, and so of his word (which is Aquinas his honest Doctrine 3. q. 43. act. 4. against which Durandus writeth this.) And because it is us as well as Aquinas that he opposeth I will briefly confute his reasons.
The first is, Because Demonstration necessitateth the understanding to believe: But many that saw Lazarus raised, &c. believed not Christ to be God, &c. Therefore Miracles were not a sufficient demonstration.
Answ. Not sufficient to all things, but sufficient to do their own part. By this you would prove that there is no demonstration of any thing almost in the world; For there is almost nothing which convinceth all men. I distinguish therefore of a disposed and an indisposed understanding. And as to the later I deny the major. Demonstrations constrein not millions of undisposed Intellects. Recipitur ad modum recipientis. What need any other proof than your oft mentioned denial of Bread in the Eucharist? Because millions deny the perception of all mens Senses and Intellects thereby, are not things sensible demonstrable or evident? Can you hope to bring more cogent proof, And yet this is rejected: And so were Christs miracles.
The second is Gregory, Faith hath no merit, where humane reason hath experience, and there is Science.
Answ. A falshood as easily denied as asserted without proof: If by Merit you mean Rewardableness. For it is only Natural involuntary necessity which evacuateth moral Good or Evil. The will may shew its virtue or vice in receiving or rejecting Objective ascertaining Evidence.
The third is that it was not known of it self that this miracle attested the truth of what Christ said. But whether per se or by consequence, it is a most evident certainty, that a man, yea abundance of men that assert such a point of unspeakable consequence to the world, doing abundance of open notorious miracles as professed witnesses or proofs of their Doctrine, could not do this but by Gods extraordinary providence. And that if this be not to be taken for a Divine Testimony, we know of none that mortals are capable of, nor a possibility of the worlds escaping the deceit, as caused unresistibly by God. His Answers to this are not worthy the repeating.
The same Author, li. 3. d. 23. q 7. Enquiring of the Certainty of faith, whether it be certainer than Science, brings in the several answers of others: 1. That there is a Certainty of Evidence (and this Science hath,) and a Certainty of Adhesion, (and this Faith hath.) But this he rejecteth, and sheweth (truly) that Adhesion is not properly Certainty, and also that the fullest Evidence causeth the closest Adhesion.
2. That Faith hath most Certainty in se, in the thing, and Science most Certainly quoad nos, as to us. But the vanity of this he truly sheweth: For to be Certain in it self and not to us, is but to be True: And all things True are equally True: But no truth is Certain to us or Credible, without revelation to us. And as he saith (The Certainty of Act or habit is not from the Certainty of the object in it self, but from the mode which the habit putteth as to the person, and the act: No way therefore (saith he) is the act or habit called Certain, unless it be certain as to us.
Therefore he is forced to conclude that many habits and acts of Science are Certainer to us than faith and its act, and that both extensively, Science having both certainty of Evidence and Adhesion (if that be Certainty,) And intensively; for Science hath no doubt permixt as faith oft hath.
And he is forced to conclude his faith into the further uncertainty following.
CHAP. IV.
That the most Learned Doctors of the Church of Rome resolve their faith (in earnest or jeast) into such an Inspiration of the Pope and Prelates in Council, as the Apostles had, and so are meer Fanaticks: And this against notorious sense and experience.
THe said Durandus saith ib. li. 3. d. 23. p. 573. [Nothing is more certain than experience, to which the resolution of other things is made, that we may have the fuller certainty.] But experience telleth us that there is Bread after consecration: And that he took the belief of humane authority, for the weakest opinion I told you before. And v. 12. he saith [How are we sure that God saith what we believe? Non nisi quia sic tenet Ecclesia? Only because the Church so holdeth?] Which he brings to prove that Divine Authority is not surest to us.
And Ocham Quod l. 5. q. 31. so answereth the question, Whether the substance of Bread remain after consecration, as I verily believe he did but Ironically jear them, and shew that he durst not speak his thoughts.
Mentioning three opinions: The first, that the substance of bread which was there before, is after the body of Christ, (I think he meaneth Durandus opinion condemned by Bellarmine, &c.) he rejecteth. The second saith he (that the substance of bread and wine cease to be, and the accidents only remain, and under them Christs body begins to be is the common opinion of all Divines, which I hold for the determination of the Church, and not for any other reason. The third (that there remaineth the substance of bread and wine with Christs body) would be very reasonable, if the Churches determination were not contrary: for that opinion solveth and avoideth all the difficulties which arise from seperating the accidents from the subject. And the contrary to it is not had out of the Canon of the Bible; nor doth it include any contradiction for Christs body to consist with the substance of bread any more than with the accidents—And after more, answering the argument of Mass-miracles by every Priest he saith [Sometime about some things there must more Miracles be put, though it might be done by fewer, and that because it pleaseth God; And the Church knoweth this, by some Revelation that so it is, and therefore the Church hath so determined.] Either he jeareth them, or else he professeth that their faith even of daily miracles, against common sense is resolved into a Revelation which the Church hath of that which is not in the Bible; which must be Prophetically.
The like you have in Paludanus, Durandus, (save that he leaveth them as aforesaid) Scotus, &c. I will end with learned Rada, who Vol. 4. Contr. 7. a. 1. pag. 164, 165. having shewed that This is my Body will not in its own proper sense infer what Aquinas and others gather, saith [Yet indeed now (we must not take that sense) but as the Church taught by the Holy Ghost understandeth those words. For the Scriptures are expounded by that spirit which they were made by: And so it must be supposed that the Catholick Church by that spirit which delivered us the faith, even taught by the Holy Ghost, so expounded, and exploded the first sense, and chose this, being that other was not true, as to the remaining of the substance of bread after consecration. But this sense he chose which is true, and so delivered by our Lord himself, as it is solemnly declared C. firmiter, &c. And he concludeth that [This is my body] is not enough to convince a Heretick; but [as understood by the Church by that spirit by which they were given and delivered, they exclude the substance of bread].
O all men of common sense and reason in the world; we appeal to your humanity in the Controversie between the Papists and us. While they assert a Miracle by every Priest every day that he masseth in all the world, and deny the truth of Gods primary natural Revelation to all mens common senses, they resolve their faith of the Certainty of all this, not into the Scripture, but into such an Inspiration of the Holy Ghost as the Scriptures themselves were written by: The Scripture must not be our proof of this Inspiration, but must be proved by it. We must believe that thus every wicked Pope and the Prelates of the major vote in his packt Councils have this Inspiration? When they do no Miracles, they live so much worse than other Ministers of Christ, that the Reforming of them hath long been the vain wish and attempt of the Christian world; They murder the servants of Jesus in their Inquisitions, and yet we must lay all our faith and salvation on it, that they have all a Prophetical spirit.
Well; If it be proved Certainly to the world, that the Pope and his Church are all Prophets, or Inspired by the Holy Ghost as the Apostles were, then I declare that the Papists are in the right: If not, I will be no willing Subject of the KING of Rome, while he so abuseth the Word, the Church, the Honour, of the Churches King.
FINIS.
End of the text · Richard Baxter, The Certainty of Christianity Without Popery (1672)