Concerning Certainty of Faith, Treatise (2 of 2)
Errour Nonplust, pag. 135.III. 'Tis requisite and necessary, that the Assent of Faith in divers particular Believers be formally Infallible, or that those Persons be infallibly certain by evident Reasons, that the Authority or Rule of Faith they rely on, cannot herein deceive them. Else great Wits, and acute Reflecters, whose piercing Vnderstandings require convictive Grounds for their Faith, would remain for ever unsatisfied: nor would the wisest Christians sincerely and heartily assent to, nor with honesty profess the Truth of their Faith, nor could any prove it true, or establish rational doubters in it, or convert Men of exact knowledge to it, or convince Hereticks, calling the Truth of it in question. Nor could Governors and leading Persons with any Conscience or Credit propose and preach the Truth of Faith to the Generality.
These Propositions were tender'd to two Doctors of the Sorbon, who declared,Haeres. Blakloan. p. 37, 38. The First could not be explained in a Catholick Sense; and therefore very unfit for Catholick Letters. For if (say they) a Person sees the Connexion between the Terms, it would be Science, and not Faith; it is enough to see them not to be contradictory, or that the Connexion is not repugnant to Reason. Divine Faith is above, not contrary to Reason.
As to the Second, they agreed, That neither could that be explained in a Catholick Sense, because it is destructive of Faith, and a Proposition ought not, cannot be denied, although the Respondent hath not Evidence of the Terms of which it consists; when he otherwise knows the Church (which Faith [not Demonstration] teaches to be Infallible in Matters of Faith) to propose as a Truth revealed by God.
To the Third, they say, That it cannot be explained in a Catholick Sense: Because it is sufficient that the Church be believed by Faith to be Infallible, and it is not requisite that the Infallibility of the Church be proved by evident Reason.
See here the main Design of his Catholick Letters declared to be no Catholick Doctrine; which is to prove that there must be Infallible Certainty by Conclusive Evidence of the Churches Infallibility. And if this be not Catholick Doctrine, I am infallibly certain his Letters are far from being Catholick in their Sense.
One of these Doctors writes to the A. B. of D. That the Natural Sense of the Propositions could not be Catholick; and that all Bishops were bound to suppress this Doctrine, lest it did mischief to the Flock of Christ. P. 39.And that the A. B. of Paris would revoke his Licence, if the Author did not retract them, as he hoped he would. What? Retract the Substance of his Catholick Letters! Is this possible? And yet again publish the same Doctrine as Catholick! This is indeed very surprising. But so it was. For the A. B. of D. averrs, That J. S. confessed the Propositions to be Heretical, P. 39.yea very Heretical; but he said, they were not taken in his sense; which the other said, was a ridiculous Plea. He granted, that J. S. might contradict himself, P. 40.but there was no colour for saying the Propositions were not taken in their true sense. P. 42.And Mr. S. being requir'd by the A. B. of Paris to Anathematize these Propositions, and to subscribe to the Censure that they could not be explained in a Catholick Sense; P. 44.he did it. And yet the sense of them is maintained by him in his Catholick Letters. Is not such a Man fit to hold the Cards for Mr. G.? who makes the same Doctrine to be Heretical and Catholick, as his Circumstances require. And in his own Language, he goes backwards and forwards, Third Letter, p. 65.blows and sups, declares for and against the same Principles.
This Doctrine of J. S. was complained of at Rome, and a Congregation of Cardinals was appointed to Examine it,Append. ad Haeres. Blakloan. and they sent their Instructions about it to the Popes Nuncio at Paris, where J. S. then was. And therein they took notice, that in his Vindication sent to them, he detested that Doctrine as Heretical, viz. that the Evidence of the Connexion of Predicate and Subject, and the Evidence of the Rule of Faith by which the Believer may be infallibly certain he cannot be deceived, is necessary in order to Faith. I desire the Reader to mark this Declaration which J. S. sent to Rome, and to compare it with the Doctrine of his Catholick Letters: But of that hereafter.
But it is worth our while to shew with what a double Face I. S. appeared in his Vindication and Complaint, sent to Rome, and in his Books which he published here. And by that, the Reader may judge of the Catholick Sincerity of the Writer of these Letters.