in Answer to the next Question Q. 2. By what certain Rule do you hold it A. 2. By the Divine Revelations contained in the Writings of the New Testament Here was no Subtilty or Learning requisite but to give a plain Answer as to the Rule of our Faith. Which we do assert to be the Written Word and no Oral Tradition Q. 3. Then follow'd By what certain Rule do you know that the New Testament which we now have does contain all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles A. 3. By the Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church from the Apostles time downwards In which Answer I laid down the Grounds of our different Resolution of Faith from that which you contend for and which I at large explained in the Conference it self viz. that our Certainty of Faith is chiefly resolved into the Testimony of the Apostolical Churches which first received the Books of the New Testament from the Divine Writers of them and from these Churches where the Authentick Writings themselves were preserved Copies were dispersed over other Churches which by comparing together the Testimonies of the several Churches did by degrees fix upon the Certain Canon of the New Testament Here a Question was started Whether all the Books of the New Testament were alike received I answer'd not at first but after due Examination those which were at first Controverted came to be universally received And I particularly instanced in the Church of Rome which a long time did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews when it was received by other Churches but at last did yield to the Testimony of other Churches therein From whence I observed that the Church of Rome was far from being believed then to have the Authority of making the Canon of Scripture or being Infallible in Faith it being then taxed for disbelieving a Part of Scripture and being at last over-ruled by the Testimony of the other Apostolical Churches I remember I asked you how it came about that the Church of Rome in St Ierom's time did err about the Epistle to the Hebrews if there were any Infallibility in it And your Answer was that Rome was at a great distance from Judea Which I thought a strange Answer considering the Communication the Churches then had at greater distance and the frequent Recourse of Iews to Rome but especially if that Church had any Promise of Infallibility made to it Which to be just to you I do not remember that you once asserted in all that two hours Discourse And truly you were not inconsistent with your Principles therein For Infallibility by Promise and by Oral Tradition are as different as Grace and Nature or the Assent of Faith from a Dictate of Reason In Faith a Divine Testimony is supposed in the Infallibility of Oral Tradition nothing but a Natural Principle that men must hold the same Doctrine to day that they did yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour Where the different method of our resolving Faith appears you begin at the present time and so run upwards but the force of all lies in the connexion of one link with another inseparably which I say will by no means hold but ours begins with the Apostolical Churches which first received the sacred Books and delivered them down their Testimony is the Authentick instrument of conveying down the Canon of Scripture and the following Tradition of the Church is onely a conveying down that first Testimony upon which we believe the Canon of the New Testament There were many interlocutory passages about this Subject but this is the substance of what I distinctly remember Q. 4. Was that Vniversal Testimony an Infallible Rule to assure us certainly down to our time that the New Testament contained all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles A. 4. The Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church concerning the Book of Scripture and the Doctrine contained therein is a sufficient Ground to make us certain of all matters necessary to our Salvation To make this Answer clear we are to consider that the Scripture being our sole and entire Rule of Faith all matters necessary to Salvation must be supposed to be contained therein and therefore the same Testimony which delivers the Scripture to us doth deliver all the necessary Articles of Faith as contained therein Which are there received as in the Lump and if we receive the Book which contains all we must by the same Authority receive all contained in it As if a Purse be left to a Man by his Father's Will full of Gold and Silver and this by the Executours be declared to contain all the Gold and Silver his Father left him they who deliver this Purse to him from the Executours do certainly deliver to him all the Gold and Silver left him by his Father But if he suspects there was both Gold and Silver left him by his Father which was not in that Purse then he must call in question the Integrity of the Executours who declared that all was contained therein This is now the Case of the Christian Church as to all Divine Truths which respect Mens Salvation the Primitive Church who answer to the Executours in the other Case did unanimously declare that all such Truths were undoubtedly contained in the Written Word Although therefore there may be a real difference in the nature of the Doctrines therein contained as there is between Gold and Silver yet he that receives all must receive the one as well as the other and the matters of Salvation being of greatest moment they that receive the whole Will of God upon grounds of certainty must be assured that therein they receive all matters necessary to our Salvation Against my Answer to this Question Mr. M. suggests several things p. 12. 1. As to difference of Translations Doth Mr. M. think our Faith is to be resolved into the Original Texts What becomes then of the Vulgar Latin For although the Council of Trent declares it to be Authentick yet I take it to be but a Translation But there is a difference of Translations and there is no unanimous consent of the Christian Church for any one And how is it possible there should be since the Christian Church consists of so many bodies of Men of different Countries and Languages But we have the unanimous Consent of all the ancient Christian Churches for the Translation of the Scripture into their own Languages which shews that they thought the People ought to be acquainted with it as the Word of God so translated and that they were to resolve their Faith into it as they were capable of understanding it And it is very hard to conceive how Faith can be resolved into an unknown Tongue but we have the unanimous consent of the Christian Church that Faith must rest upon the Word of God which is contained in the Books of Scripture And therefore we have the Consent of the Christian Church against resolving
you whether it did yea or no And that had been all But I urged plainly that it did and notwithstanding you charge it with Errour nay with Heresie which overthrows all the force of your Demonstration that a Church following Tradition cannot err when you charge a Church following Tradition with Heresie And is not this some thing like falsification to leave out the whole force and strength of an Argument And to leave it a very insipid toothless Question No saith Mr. M. p. 18. it was onely to spare a little unnecessary Pains for it cannot be imagined he should have any other design in leaving out those words I do not charge the Gentleman who wrote with a design to falsily but I cannot excuse you from dispersing false Copies in that when you could not but see the Notorious Defects of this Copy you would disperse it as containing a true Account of the Conference Methinks you were very sparing in the necessary pains of Correcting it before you had read it in companies for the true Copy and given it to others to transcribe As to the Conclusion Mr. M. confesses that it was not distinctly set down but I say again that Copy is false in the Conclusion For these are the Words The Greek Church followed Tradition from Father to Son till they left that Rule and took up another and so fell into Errour as the Calvinists did Here is not one Word concerning the Arians which you cannot but remember that you ran to and mentioned over and over when I told you the Greek Church did still follow Tradition as her Rule you said the Arians left the Rule and interpreted Scripture as the Calvinists did I told you again that I meant not the Arians but the present Greek Church and I do particularly remember that I desired the Gentleman who wrote for you to put down in his Paper that it was the present Greek Church I spake of I grant as Mr. M. saith p. 19. that it was not set down by your Consent any where for the Truth is when you found your self pinched by this Instance you grew so very uneasie that you did all you could to bring things into that Confusion and Disorder which Mr. M. mentions You rose up in a great heat and talked a great deal to no purpose about Calvinists c. for all the ways I could use could not bring you to set down any farther Answer to the pressing Instance of the Greek Church You confessed I had raised a vast Difficulty about it but after all you left no Answer behind you to this Difficulty and I still desire you to give it Mr. M. p. 19. doth ingenuously confess that this Point was not fully cleared No not in any measure But he saith I began with Reproaches I confess it is a terrible Reproach to tell a Man he cannot Answer an Argument but that he makes use of Tricks to avoid it and that I never met with any that excelled you in that kind Farther than this I remember not that I used any term of Reproach to you And the onely way to wipe off such a Reproach is to give a fair and Ingenuous Answer and till that be done this Reproach will stick As to Mr. T 's slip in calling the Greek Church an universal Church methinks you might excuse him for the sake of the Roman Catholick Church which in other words is the Roman universal Church And why should not such a Contradiction doe as well in Greek as Latin since the Patriarch of Constantinople had the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch But this Gentleman cannot escape so for although Mr. M. cannot deny that at the End of the first Dispute he declared that he was fully satisfied with my Answers p. 10 yet he desires leave to judge how far this satisfaction of Mr. T. was rational and what grounds he had for it If Mr. T. had been unsatisfied with my Answers no doubt he had passed for a Rational and Ingenious Man but his Misfortune is that he could not see Reason in your Demonstrations nor the want of it in what I offer'd to prove the Certainty of our Faith without your pretence to Infallibility Therefore to satisfie the World that Mr. T. had sufficient Grounds for what he then said I shall now examine and weigh all the Parts of that Conference and consider what Mr. M. hath said about it The occasion of it is thus set down by him p. 2. You had affirmed in some Companies that no Protestant could shew any Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith and that Mr. T. had promised you that if I were not able to manifest the contrary he would forsake our Communion Hitherto Mr. T. was a very rational Man because he appeared to doubt of his Religion and if a little thing had satisfied him i. e. if he had been converted by your Demonstration he had been more so than ever But if a Man cannot be convinced by your reason to change his Religion who can help it And yet I very much question whether F.W. would absolve any Man who professed to embrace the Catholick Faith on your Grounds which overthrow the Churches Authority in matters of Faith and proceed upon Pelagian Principles The first thing which was proposed saith Mr. M. p. 3. and indeed the onely Subject Mr. G. had any purpose to discourse on was Whether Protestants had a Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith or not Here the Faith spoken of is that Faith whereby we are Christians and your pretence was that without your Infallibility we can have no Absolute Certainty of the Christian Faith i. e. of the Grounds on which we believe the Scripture to contain the Word of God or all things necessary to be believ'd by us in order to Salvation Therefore when the Question was put by you Q. 1. Whether you are absolutely certain that you hold now the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught to his Apostles A. 1. My Answer was that we are absolutely certain that we now hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles Wherein I plainly distinguish between that Doctrine which Christ by his own Mouth taught his Apostles and that which the Apostles did by the Spirit of Christ teach the whole Church The Account I offered as to the Christian Faith was not as to what Christ taught by an Oral Tradition as the Iews affirm of Moses delivering an unwritten Law but I framed my Answer on purpose to shew that our Faith is not to be resolved into what Christ taught any otherwise than as it is conveyed to us by the Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists For the Resolution of our Faith as to what Christ himself taught is not to be made into the Words of Christ teaching conveyed by an Oral Tradition from his time downwards but into the Words of Christ as recorded by the holy Writers of the New Testament And so much I expressed
A SECOND LETTER To Mr. G. In ANSWER to TWO LETTERS Lately Published concerning The Conference At the D. of P. Imprimatur Guil. Needham Apr. 22. 1687. LONDON Printed for H. Mortlocke at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard 1687. A SECOND LETTER To Mr. G. SIR YOU may wonder that I continue my Application to your self when two Gentlemen have appeared in Print so lately for You but the Character they give of You is so extraordinary that I have no mind to change my man and therefore hope you will at last generously undertake the Defence of your own Cause The Authour of the first Letter saith Those that know you better think there is not an honester Man in the Nation and that if you have wronged me it is the first wrong you ever did in your Life I am afraid some will suspect your Friend was not in earnest when he wrote this and that it rather looks like libelling the Nation than commending You. But because it is so rare a thing to meet with a Person set forth with such Advantage you cannot blame me for desiring to hold a Correspondence with You in the way of Letters For all Mr. M's Arguments for Verbal Conferences have not prevailed upon 〈◊〉 and therefore I proceed in Writing another I 〈◊〉 to You looking on this Way as much freer 〈…〉 sudden heats and surprises more cautious and 〈…〉 erate and less liable to Cavils and Misrepresete 〈…〉 And methiâ—ks the Account Mr. M. gives of our Conâ—â—rence confutes all his Arguments unless they â—e â—etter managed in â—â—ffee-houses and other places i. e. with more Temper â—nd Fairness than he represents ours to have been The Truth is the Experience I have had of the Disingenuity both in and after them hath made me not very fond of them But it may be Verbal Conferences are most agreeable to Oral Tradition but we who prefer a Written Rule as far more certain rather chuse to publish in Writing the Sense of our Minds than leave it to the arbitrary Representing of others Words Which I had suffered so much by that I was forced for my own Vindication to betake my self to Writing a former Letter to you wherein I complained of the Injury done me by false and imperfect Copies of our Conference dispersed by you If that were the first wrong you ever did in your Life I am very sorry you should begin with me For after all that your Friends have said for you I am still of the same Opinion And in this Letter shall more fully give you my Reasons But I hope you are not now one hundred and fifty Miles off lest I be told again that I take advantage of your great Distance as though I durst not write to you at a less distance than between L. and Ch. But in case you were there still am I the less injured by your going so far or less obliged to vindicate my self among those who had been abused by false Reports and Copies of the Conference I now apply my self to what Mr. M. hath said for you in Answer to my former Letter Mr. M. saith p. 5. you were far from making great Boasts of a Victory after the Conference Must I rely on Mr. M.'s Authority against the Infallibility of Oral Tradition The matter of fact was deliver'd to me from several Persons who themselves heard you and in several Places What must I now believe according to your Infallible Rule of Oral Tradition Here are several Witnesses of unquestionable Credit who had it not by a long series from Father to Son but immediately from your own Mouth who could not easily forget what they heard you say and would not out of malice alter it and yet your own Advocate declares expresly contrary to them and thinks I am bound to believe his Testimony against them all I pray Sir consider what a reflexion this is upon your Rule and what little security we can have for our Faith then by Oral Tradition If so many Persons who were competent Judges of what they heard themselves and whose Testimony I had no reason to suspect could so strangely deceive me at so little a distance what Infallibility can you pretend in bare Tradition of matters of Faith when the things themselves are so much harder to conceive and deliver entire and the distance so very much greater Either therefore you must renounce your Advocate if you hold to the Infallibility of Oral Tradition or if you hold to Mr. M. you must renounce your Rule of Faith. Mr. M. seems to deny the charge of your giving out false and imperfect Copies of the Conference But that which I charged you chiefly with was from one that was received from your own hands and the rest I saw afterwards agreed with it And yet Mr. M. cannot deny that the Copies given out contained lame and unfinished Discourses p. 5. that the Noise and Wrangling might hinder the Writers from being so exact p. 15. that we parted in so great a hurry that those things which were spoken were not written nor some perhaps of what was written so nicely exact c. p. 19. that in the latter part of this Dispute things were not set down so exactly as they ought to have been ibid. that the Disputations of the Conference are lame and imperfect p. 25. These being the words of your own Advocane had I not just cause to complain that such Copies should be dispersed abroad as a true Account of the Conference between us whereas himself confesses them to have been so lame and imperfect And yet these were given about with great industry and care as though an entire Account of what passed at the Conference were contained in them and few days passed but I heard great Boasts were made of this Conference and some said that they had it under my hand that I was baffled I think therefore I had reason to complain of imperfect Copies since Mr. M. confesses they were no better But this is not all for I had said the Copies I had seen were false as well as imperfect To make out this charge I must insist on some particulars as they are in that Copy which was given by your self When Mr. T. declared himself satisfied as to the Grounds of Faith without the Roman Churches Infallibility which was the true state of the Question debated in the first part of which more by and by He desired to know for his own satisfaction How you would prove the Church of Rome to be infallible This in your Copy is said to be put by me And lest this might be thought a mere casual mistake I am certainly informed that Mr. M. told a Gentleman to whom he gave a Copy that I proposed the Question about the Church of Romes Infallibility as though I did it on purpose to divert the Discourse whereas Mr. T. declaring himself satisfied with the Answers given about the Grounds of our Certainty desired that he might propose a Question to
you How you could prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible And in a Copy sent from Ch. where you dispersed it the Title of the second Dispute is Stillingfleet's first Question How do you prove c. so that my Name was here falsly put in and it is easie to guess with what design But to proceed When you said the Infallibility of the Church of Rome consisted in following the universal Testimony of all Traditionary Christians Your Copy makes me ask a very wise Question upon it viz. How does if appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in Traditiun Whereas I put two Questions to you 1. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in the sense and meaning of Tradition 2. Is this Tradition a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture The Design of which Questions was to shew 1. That to receive a Doctrine by mere Tradition can afford no Infallible Ground of Faith unless persons be assured of the true Sense and Meaning of the Doctrine so delivered As for instance suppose the Doctrine delivered be that Christ was the Son of God if the Infallibility of Tradition goes no farther than the bare delivery from Father to Son then Faith can go no farther than the general words though an Heretical sense may lie under them If the Infallibility doth extend to the sense and meaning of these words then either every Traditionary Christian is to give this sense which will make a very large Infallibility in the whole Body of Traditionary Christians or else the explaining the sense and meaning of Tradition must belong to a certain Order of Men by virtue of a divine Promise If so then the Infallibility of Tradition cannot consist in holding the same Doctrine to day that was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour as you asserted For if the Church may explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as to oblige Men to believe that by virtue of such explication which they were not obliged to before then it is impossible the Infallibility of Tradition should be in a constant Tradition from Father to Son. For they have no power to oblige to any more than they received but according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and some will tell you it is Heresie to deny it and I appeal to F. Warner if it be not the Church hath power and authority to explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as persons are obliged upon pâ—in of Damnation to believe that Sense and Meaning of Tradition which the present Church delivers As will Appear by an undeniable instance The Tradition of a Real Presence in the Eucharist is allowed on all hands but all the Controversie is and hath been for some Ages what the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition is Whether it be a Real Presence by way of Efficacy and Influence or by a mystical Union or by a substantial Change of the very Elements into the Body and Bloud of Christ. The Tradition of the Real Presence may be preserved under every one of these Explications the Question now is whether it be sufficient to adhere to the general Tradition of the Church or it be not necessary to Salvation to adhere to the Churches Explication of the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition in the Councils of Lateran and Trent If it be said that the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition as there expressed viz. Transubstantiation was always deliver'd from Father to Son I answer 1. This is more than is pretended by many of the greatest Men in the Roman Church as hath been lately abundantly shewed And it is impossible to make it out that the manner of the Presence hath been constantly delivered from Father to Son from the time of Christ and his Apostles for the main Testimonies alledged out of Antiquity are onely for a Real Presence and there are as express Testimonies against the Change of the Elements as there are any for the other 2. This takes off from the Power and Authority of the Church of Rome if it cannot make a necessary Explication of the Sense and Meaning of Tradition and resolves all into a meer humane Faith which is the unavoidable Consequence of this Doctrine of Oral Tradition For no other Account can be given of it than from meer Natural Reason viz. that Traditionary Christians could not believe otherwise to day than they did yesterday Granting this to be true which is very far from being so as shall be shewed when Your Answer to the Instance of the Greek Church comes abroad yet the utmost this can amount to is that I resolve my Faith into a Logical Demonstration And is this the Faith Christians are to be saved by What Grace of God what Assistence of the Holy Spirit are necessary to such a Faith as this But for this I refer you to the Haeresis Blackloäna c. 2. I intended by the second Question to put a Difference between the Tradition allowed by us and the Tradition disputed If no more were meant by Tradition than the Universal Tradition of the Christian Church as to the Books of Scripture this I had before granted to be a sufficient Ground for the Certainty of our Faith as to the Canon of Scripture which is our Rule of Faith but if by Tradition be understood either some necessary Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture or a Power in the Church to make unnecessary to become necessary this I denyed and desire to see some better Proof of it than you produce All the Answer which you give in your own Paper to these two Questions is that All Traditionary Christians that is all Bishops all Priests all Fathers and all People following this Rule and receiving Faith because it was received the day before could not innovate in Faith unless they could all either forget what they received the day before or out of Malice change it therefore because no cause can be assigned for such an effect they cannot innovate If there can Assign it Now to which of the Questions that I put is this an Answer Doth this shew that the Church of Rome is Infallible in giving the Sense and Meaning of Tradition or that this Tradition is a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture But it seems to be an Answer to the Question in your Copy and therefore it is very suspicious that the Question was so framed that the Answer might seem pertinent to it To shew the vanity of this Demonstration I produced the Instance of the Greek Church which followed Tradition from Father to Son and yet you charge it with Errour in matters of Faith so that a Church following Tradition may err in matters of Faith. Here again your Copy notoriously fails for it makes me put such another wise Question as before Whether the Greek Church did follow from Father to Son the Tradition in matters of Faith or no As though I had desired Information from
Faith into the Infallibility of Oral Tradition For if this were the Christian Method of Resolving Faith there would have been very little Use or Necessity of Scripture and the Fathers were extremely mistaken in the mighty Characters which on all Occasions they give of it not onely of the excellency of the matter contained in it but as a Rule of Faith for all Christians as I might easily shew if there were occasion But I desire to see any thing like the consent of the Christian Church from the Apostles times downwards for resolving Faith into mere Oral Tradition and certainly if the Church had used this way it must have understood it and expressed it And it is a just Prescription against a method of resolving Faith that the ancient Christian Church which consisted I hope of true believers never knew any thing concerning it and yet I suppose they had absolute Certainty of their Faith though they had different Translations of the Bible among them 2. As to the Number of Books I do not deny that there was in the first Ages a difference in several Churches about the Number of Canonical Books but this doth not hinder that Vniversal Testimony I mentioned For 1. It adds weight to the Churches Testimony that where there was any Controversie about any Canonical Book of the New Testament the matter was examined and debated and at last after a through discussion the Book was received as happened about the Epistle to the Hebrews Which was not received by the Authority of one Church imposing upon another but by a fair Examination of Evidence produced for its Apostolical authority which being allow'd it hath been received by the unanimous Consent of the Christian Church 2. There hath been ever since an uncontradicted Consent of the Christian Church as to the Canonical Books of the New Testament No one Church disputing the Authority of any of them And even the Council of Trent agrees with us herein although it endeavours to obtrude some Books for Canonical in the old Testament which never had the Universal Consent of the Jewish or Christian Church for them 3. He desires to know how I understand that all the Divine Revelations are contained in the New Testament viz. whether all necessary Articles of Faith are contained in the New Testament virtually and implicitly or clearly and explicitly the former will doe me little service the latter is contradicted by the Church of Rome and therefore I can plead no Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church and so my Plea for absolute Certainty is groundless To this I answer 1. If it be agreed that all Doctrines of Faith necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture either explicitly or implicitly which Mr. M. denies not it is sufficient for my purpose For the Ground of my Faith is absolutely Certain viz. that all necessary Articles of Faith are contained in Scripture and if they be explicit I am bound to give a distinct Assent to them if they be not then no more is required of me than to believe them when they do appear to be there which is no more than a general preparation of Mind to yield my assent to whatsoever doth appear to me to be the Word of God. So that my Faith rests on the Word of God as its absolute ground of Certainty but the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrine depends upon the Evidence that it is contained in Scripture And it is the general Ground of Faith we are now upon and not the particular Acts of it 2. The Church of Romes assuming to it self the Power of making implicit Articles to become explicit by its declaring the sense of them doth not overthrow the Certainty of our Faith. For as long as it is granted that all necessary Articles of Faith are there explicitely or implicitely by an Universal Consent of the Christian Church it signifies nothing to the shaking of my Faith that a particular Part of the Church doth assume such a Power to it self For this must come among the particular Points of Faith and not the general Grounds It must be looked on as an Article of Faith and so it must be contained in Scripture either explicitely or implicitely If explicitely we desire to see it in express terms which I suppose you will not pretend to if only implicitely I pray tell me how I can be explicitely bound to believe such a Power in the Church of Rome which is only implicitely there And by what Power this implicite Article comes to be made explicite For the Power of the Church it self being the Article in question it is impossible that while it is only implicitely there it should make it self Explicit If it be said that it will become explicit to any sober Enquirer then every such Person may without the Churches help find out all Necessary Points of Faith which is a Doctrine I am so far from being ashamed of that I think it most agreeable to the Goodness of God the Nature of the Christiâ—n Faith and the Unanimous Consent of the Christian Church for many Ages But this is beyond our present business 3. The Church of Rome hath no-where declared in Council that it hath any such Power of making implicit Articles of Faith contained in Scripture to become explicit by its explaining the Sense of them For the Church of Rome doth not pretend to make new Articles of Faith but to make an implicit Doctrine to become explicit is really to make a new Article of Faith. It doth not indeed make a new Divine Revelation but it makes that which was not necessary to be believed to become necessary and what is not necessary to be believed is no Article of Faith. What is only believed implicitely is not actually believed but there is only a preparation of mind to believe it supposing it to be made appear to be a matter of Faith. Besides the Church of Rome declares that it receives its Doctrines by Tradition and although I have often heard of an implicit Faith I know not what to make of an implicit Tradition I had thought whatever is delivered by way of Tradition must be explicit or else the Father and Son might easily be mistaken And so for all that I can see Mr. M. and you must dispute it out for you say That the Infallibility of Faith depends on Oral Tradition and the Infallibility of Oral Tradition on this that the Traditionary Christians hold the same Doctrine to day that was delivered yesterday in Faith and so up to the time of our B. Saviour But what think you now of Mr. M.'s assertion That the Church hath power to interpret and make known implicit Doctrines contained in Scripture so as to make it necessary to believe them explicitely For he saith That all the Churches in Communion with Rome do hold there are Divine Revelations in Scripture which are contained there virtually and implicitely so as they need the Churches Interpretation and Authority for being