the Latins It seems then a deceptiâ— is possible in the case of testifying 〈◊〉 therefore this doth more than perâ—â—â— men to be decievable for here hath been an actual deception on one side or other But we need not fear losing mankind in this for the possibility oâ— errour supposeth mankind to continue still and if we take away that we mâ—â— sooner lose it than by the contrary But what repugnancy can we imagine to humane nature that meâ— supposing doctrines of faith to come down from Christ or his Apostles should yet mistake in judging what those doctrines are Had not men eyes and ears and common sense in Christ and the Apostles times and yet we see eveâ— then the doctrine of Christ was mistaken and is it such a wonder it should be in succeeding ages Did not the Nazarenes mistake in point of circumcision the Corinthians as to the resurrection and yet the mean time agree iâ— this that Christs doctrine was the rule of faith or that they ought to believe nothing but what came from him Diâ— not the disciples themselves err eveâ— while they were with Christ and certainly had eyes and ears an◠〈◊〉 sense as other men have concernâ—â—â—me great articles of Christian faith Christs passion resurrection and the natâ— of his Kingdom If then such who had the greatest opportunities imaginable and the highest apprehensions of Christ might so easily mistake in points of such moment what ground have we to believe that succeeding ages should not be lyable to such misapprehensions And it was not meerly the want of clear divine revelation which was the cause of their mistakes for these things were plain enough to persons not possessed with prejudices but those were so strong as to make them apprehend things quite another way than they ought to do So it was then and so it was in succeeding ages for â—et Parents teach what they pleased for matters of faith yet prejudice and â—yableness to mistake in Children might easily make them misapprehend either the nature or weight of the doctrines delivered to them So that setting aside a certain way of recording the matters of faith in the Books of Scripture and these preserved entire in every age it is an easie matter to conceive how in a short time Christian Religion would have been corrupted as much as ever any was in the world For when we consider how much notwithstanding Scripture the pride passion and interests of men have endeavoured to deface Christian Religion in the world what would not these have done if there had been no such certain rule to judge of it by Mr. S. imaginâ— himself in repub Platonis but it appearâ— he is still in faece Romuli he fancies there never were nor could be any differences among Christians and that all Christians made it their whole business to teach their posterity matters oâ— faith and that they minded nothing in the world but the imprinting thaâ— on their minds that they might have iâ— ready for their Children and that alâ— Parents had equal skill and sidelitâ— in delivering matters of Religion tâ— their posterity Whereas in truth wâ— find in the early ages of the Christiaâ— Church several differences about matters of faith and these differences continued to posterity but all parties stilâ— pleading that their doctrine came froâ— the Apostles it fell out unhappily for Mr. S. that those were commonly most grossly deceived who pretended the most to oral tradition from the Apostles still we find the grand debate was What came from the Apostles and what not whereas had tradition been so infallible a way of conveying how could this ever have come into debate among them What did not they know what their Parents taught them it seems they did not or their Parents were no more agreed than themselves for their differences could never be ended this way Afterwards came in for many ages such a succession of ignorance and barbarism that Christian Religion was little minded either by Parents or Children as it ought to have been instead of that some fopperies and superstitions were hugely in request and the men who fomented these things were cryed up as great Saints and workers of Miracles So that the miracles of S. Francis and S. Dominick were as much if not more carefully conveyed from Parents to Children in that age than those of Christ and his Apostles and on this account posterity must be equally bound to believe them and have their persons in equal veneration If men at last were grown wiser it was because they did not believe Mr. S's principles that they ought to receive what was delivered by their Parents but they began to search and enquire into the writings of former ages and to examine the opinions and practices of the present with those of the primitive Church and by this means there came a restauration of Learning and Religion together But though matters of fact be plain and evident in this case yet M. S. will prove it impossible there should any errours come into the Christian Church and his main argument is this because no age of the Church could conspire against her knowledge to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world But before I come more particularly to shew the weakness of this argument by manifesting how errours might come into the Church without such a conspiracy as this is I shall propound some Queries to him 1. What age of the Church he will instance in wherein all persons who were not cast out of the Church had the same apprehensions concerning all points of faith i. e. that none among them did believe more things delivered by Christ or the Apostles than others did I am sure he can neither instance in the age of the Apostles themselves nor in those immediately succeeding them unless Mr. S. the better to defend his hypothesis will question all written records because they consist of dead letters and unsenc't characters and wordish testimonies Never considering that while he utters this he writes himself unless he imagins there is more of life sense and certainty in his books than in the Scriptures or any other writing whatsoever 2. Where there were different apprehensions in one age of the Church whether there must not be different traditions in the next for as he looks on all Parents as bound to teach their Children so on Children as bound to believe what their Parents teach them On which supposition different traditions in the succeeding age must needs follow different apprehensions in the precedent 3. Whether persons agreeing in the substance of doctrines may not differ in their apprehensions of the necessity of them As for instance all may agree in the article of Christs descent into hell but yet may differ in the explication of it and in the apprehension of the necessity of it in order to salvation So that we must not only in tradition about matters of faith enquire
of demonstrations But Mr. S. very prudently foresees what it is I must be forced to recurre to viz. that being baffled with his former demonstration I have no other shift to betake my self to but to say the case is different between histories and points of faith And therefore to bring his business home he applyes it at large to the delivery of the Christian faith which that he might do in more ample sort he very finely descants on the old Verse Quis quid ubi c. containing the circumstances of human actions and from every one of them derives arguments for the infallibility of oral tradition which briefly and in plain English may be summed up thus Since the author of this doctrine was the son of God the doctrine it self so excellent and delivered in so publick a manner in the most convincing way by miracles and good living and for so good an end as to save mens souls and that by writing it in mens hearts and testified to others and all this at a time when men might judge of the miracles and motives for believing it therefore since in all these respects it was imcomparably beyond the story of Alexanders conquests it follows that in a manner infinitely greater must the obligation be to believe Christs doctrine than Alexanders or William the Conquerours victories or any history of the like nature whatsoever All which I freely grant but cannot yet see how from thence it follows that oral tradition is the only rule of faith or the means whereby we are to judge what is the doctrine of Christ and what not Those arguments I confess prove that the Christians of the first age were highly concerned to enquire into the truth of these things and that they had the greatest reason imaginable to believe them and that it is not possible to conceive that they should not endeavour to propagate so excellent a doctrine and of so high concernment to the world But the question is whether abstractly from the books written in the first age of the Christian Church there is so much infallibility in the oral tradition of every age that nothing could be embraced for Christs doctrine which was not and consequently whether every age were bound to believe absolutely what was delivered it by the precedent for the doctrine of Christ Mr. S. therefore puts himself to a needless task of proving that every age was bound to believe the doctrine of Christ which I never questioned but the dispute is whether every age be bound on the account of oral tradition to believe what is delivered by the precedent for Christs doctrine But it is to be observed all along how carefully Mr. S. avoids mentioning the written books of the New Testament because he knew all his game about oral tradition would be quite spoiled by a true stating the matter of fact in the first ages of the Christian Church I hope he will not be angry with me for asking him that question about the Scripture which he asks me about the Council of Trent did he never hear of such a thing as the Scripture or is it so hard to find it But if he hath heard of it I intreat him to resolve me these Questions 1. Whether he doth not believe that the books of the New Testament were written at such a time when the matâ—ers of fact therein recorded were caâ—able of being throughly examined which he cannot deny upon his own â—rinciple for tradition being then inâ—allible as to the doctrine of Christ the writers of these books cannot be conâ—eived to deliver it amiss unless they â—esolved to contradict the present tradition of the Church which if they had done those books could never have found any reception among Christians If tradition then convey the doctrine of Christ infallibly these books must convey it infallibly because they contain in them the infallible tradition of the first age of the Christian Church and were written at that time when many persons living had been able to disprove any thing contained therein repugnant to truth And that these books were written by those persons whose names they bear I appeal to Mr. S's own rule Tradition for if that be infallible in any thing it must be in this and if one age could conspire to deceive another in a matter of such concernment what security can be had that it may not do so in all other things 2. Whether he believes that those whose intention was to write an account of the life actions and doctrine of Christ did leave any thing out of their books which did relate to them as of concernment for us to believe For upon Mr. S's principles any one may easily know what the tradition of the Church is and especially such certainly who were either present themselves at the matters of fact or heard them from those who were and what satisfaction can any one desire greater then this But the question is whether this testimony were not more safely deposited in the Church to be conveyed by word of mouth then it could be by being committed to writing by such who were eye and ear-witnesses oâ— the actions and doctrine of Christ Upon which I advance some further Queries 3. If oral Tradition were the more certain way why was anything written at all it may be Mr. S. will tell us for moral instructions and to give precepts of good life buâ— then why may not these be as infallibâ— convâ—yed by tradition as doctrines of faith And why then were any matters of fact and points of faith inserted in the books of the New Testament by which it certainly appears that the intention of writing them was to preserve them to posterity Let Mr. S. tell me whether it was consistent with the wisdom of men much less with the wisdom of an Infinite Being to imploy men to do that which might be far better done another way and when it is done can give no satisfaction to the minds of men 4. Whether those things which are capable of being understood when they are spoken cease to be so when they are written For Mr. S. seems to understand those terms of a living voice and dead letters in a very strict and rigorous manner as though the sense were only quick when spoken and became buried in dead letters But Mr. S. seems with the sagacious Indian to admire how it is possible for dead letters and unsenc'd characters to express mens meanings as well as words It cannot enter into Mr. S's apprehension how 24. letters by their various disposition can express matters of faith And yet to increaâ— the wonder he writes about matteâ— of faith while he is proving that matters of faith cannot be conveyed bâ— writing So that Mr. S's own writing is the best demonstration against himself and he confutes his own Sophistrâ— with his fingers as Diogenes did Zenoâ— by his motion For doth Mr. S. hopâ— to perswade men that tradition is â— rule of faith by
his book or not iâ— not to what purpose doth he write â— if he doth then it is to be hoped soâ— matters of faith may be intelligibly conveyed by writing Especially if Mr. S. doth it but by no means we are tâ— believe that ever the Spirit of God caâ— do it For whatever is written by meâ— assisted by that is according to him buâ— a heap of dead letters and insignificanâ— characters when Mr. S. the mean while is full of sense and deâ—onstration Happy man that can thus out-do inâ—nite wisdom and write far beyond either Prophets or Apostles But if he will condescend so far as to allow that to inspired persons which he confidently believes of himself viz. that he can write a book full of sense and that any ordinary capacity may apprehend the design of it our controversie is at an end For then matters of faith may be intelligibly and certainly conveyed to posterity by the books of Scripture and if so there will be no need of any recourse to oral Tradition 5. If the books of sâ—ripture did not certainly and intelligibly convey all matters of faith what made them be received with so much veneration in the first ages of the Christian Church which were best able to judge of the truth of the matters contained â—n them and the usefulness of the books themselves And therein we still find that appeals were made to them that they thought themselves concerned to vindicate them against all objections of Heathens and others and the resolution of faith was made into them and not tradition as I have already manifested and must not repeat 6. Whether it be in the least credible since the books of Scripture were supposed to contain the doctrines of faith that every age of the Church should look on it self as obliged absolutely to believe the doctrine of the precedent by vertue of an oral tradition For since they resolved their faith into the written books how is it possible they should believe on the account of an oral tradition Although then the Apostles did deliver the doctrine of Christ to all their disciples yet since the records of it were embraced in the Church men judged of the truth or falsehood of doctrines by the conveniency or repugnancy of them to what was contained in those books By which we understand that the obligation to believe what was taught by the precedent age did not arise from the oral tradition of it but by the satisfaction of the present age that the doctrine delivered by it was the same with that contained in Sâ—ripture It is time now to return to Mr. S. who proceeds still to manifest this obligation in posterity to believe what was delivered as matter of faith by the precedent age of the Church but the force of all is the same still viz. that otherwise one age must conspire to deceive the next But the inconsequence of that I have fully shewed already unless he demonstrates it impossible for errors to come in any other way For if we reduce the substance of what he saith to a Syllogistical form it comes to this Where there is no possibility of error there is an absolute obligation to faith but there is no possibility of error in the tradition of any age of the Church Ergo in every age there is an absolute obligation to believe the tradition of the present Church The minor he thus proves If no age of the Church can be ignorant of what the precedent taught or conspire to deceive the next then there is no possibility of error coming into the tradition of the Church in any age but the antecedent is true and therefore the consequent Now who sees not that the force of all this lyes not in proving the minor proposition or that no age could conspire to deceive another but the consequence viz. that no error can come into a Church but by a general mistake in one whole age or the general imposture of it which we utterly deny and have shewed him already the falsness of it from his own concessions And I might more largely shew it from those doctrinâ—s or opinions which they themselves acknowledge to have come into their Church without any such general mistake or imposture as the doctrines of Papal Insallibility and the common belief of Purgatory The very same way that Mr. White and Mr. S. will shew us how these came in we will shew him how many others came in as erroneous and scandalous as those are For whether they account these matters of faith or no it is certain many among them do and that the far greatest number who assert and believe them to be the doctrine of their Church too If therefore these might come in without one age mistaking or deceiving the next why might not all those come in the same way which we â—harge upon them as the errors of their Church And in the same manner that corrupt doctrines come in may corrupt practises too since these as he saith spring srom the other He might therefore have saved himself the trouble of finding out how an acute Wit or great Scholar would discover the weakness of this way For without pretending to be either of these I have found out another way of attaquing it then Mr. S. looked for viz. from his own principles and concessions shewing how errors might come into a Church without a total deception or conspiracy in any one age Which if it be true he cannot bind me to believe what ever he tells me the present Church delivers unless he can prove that this never came into the Church as a speculation or private opinion and from thence by degrees hath come to be accounted a point of faith Therefore his way of proof is now quite altered and he cannot say we are bound to believe whatever the present Church delivers for that which he calls the present Church may have admitted speculations and private opinions into doctrines of faith but he must first prove such doctrines delivered by Christ or his Apostles and that from his time down to our age they have been received by the whole Church for matters of faith and when he hath done this as to any of the points in controversie between us I will promise him to be his Proselyte But he ought still to remember that he is not to prove it impossible for one whole age to conspire to deceive the next but that supposing that it is impossible for any errors to come into the tradition of the Church Let us now see what Mr. S. objects against those words I then used against the demonstrating this way It is hard to conceive what reason should inforce it but such as proves the impossibility of the contrary and they have understandings of another mould from others who can conceive it impossible men should not think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors And whatever Mr. S. sayes to the contrary
received from the former Church And Mr. S's answer is far from being satisfactory That this appears by her manifect practice never refusing communion to any man that could approve himself to believe all the former Age did For this may be resolved into a principle far different from this which is the belief of the infallibility of the present Church For supposing that they are not bound to enquire themselves into the reasons why the tradition could not faile in any age it is sufficient for them to believe the Church infallible and if it be so in proposing matters of faith it must be so in declaring what the belief of the former age was But my demands go on What evidence can you bring to convince me both that the Church alwayes observed this rule and could never be deceived in it Which question is built on these two Principles which the infallibility of oral tradition stands on 1. That the Church must alwayes go upon this ground 2. That if it did so it is impossible she should be deceived Both which are so far from that self-evidence which Mr. Serjeant still pretends to in this way that the Jesuits principles seem much more rational and consistent than these do For granting them but that one Postulatum that there must be an inherent infallibility in the testimony of the present Church to afford sufficient foundation for divine faith all the rest of their doctrine follows naturally from it Whereas this new way of resolving faith is built on such suppositions which no man well in his wits will be ready to grant For unless it be self-evident that the Church did alwayes proceed on this ground it cannot be self-evident that oral tradition is infallible because the self-evidence of this principle depends on this that in all ages of the Church the only rule and measure of faith was what was delivered by oral tradition from the age foregoing Now if it be possible that matters of faith might be conveyed in wayes quite different from this what self-evidence can there be that the Church must alwayes proceed upon this Mr. S. then must demonstrate it impossible for matters of faith to be conveyed to posterity in any other way than oral tradition and not only that the thing is impossible but that the Church in all ages judged it to be so or else he can never make it at all evident that the Church alwayes made this her rule of faith But if either there may be a certain conveyance of the doctrine of faith another way viz. by writing or that the Church might judge that way more certain whether it were so or not either way it will appear far enough from self-evidence that she alwayes judged of doctrines of faith meerly by the tradition of the preceding age If another way be granted possible there must be clear demonstration that the Church notwithstanding this did never make use of it for if it did make use of another way of resolving faith in any age of the Church then in that age of the Church oral tradition was not looked on as the ground of faith and if so notwithstanding what ever Mr. S. can demonstrate to the contrary that age might have believed otherwise that the immediately preceding did For let us but suppose thaâ— all necessary doctrines of faith were betimes recorded in the Church in books universally received by the Christians of the first ages is it noâ— possible that age which first embraceâ— these books might deliver them to posterity as the rule of their faith and so down from one age to another and doth it not hence follow that the rule of saith is quite different from â— meer oral tradition Let Mr. S. theâ— either shew it impossible that the doctrines of faith should be written or that being written they should be universally received or that being universally received in one age they â—hould not be delivered to the next â—r being delivered to the next those â—ooks should not be looked on as conâ—aining the rule of faith in them or â—hough they were so yet that still oral â—adition was wholly relyed on as the â—ule of faith then I shall freely grant â—â—at Mr. S. hath attempted something â—â—wards the proof of this new hypotheâ— But as things now stand it is so far â—om being self-evident that the Church â—ath alwayes gone upon this princiâ—e that we find it looked on as a great â—ovelty among them in their own â—hurch and it would be a rare thing â—r a new invention to have been the â—nse of the Church in all ages which it hath not been the strength of it is â—ereby taken away But let us suppose that the Church â—d proceed upon this principle that â—thing was to be embraced but what 〈◊〉 derived by tradition from the Aâ—tles how doth it thence follow that nothing could be admitted into thâ— Church but what was really so deriveâ— from them Do we not see in thâ— world at this day that among thoâ— who own this principle contradictoâ— propositions are believed and boâ— sides tell us it is on this account bâ— cause their doctrine was delivered â— the Apostles doth not the Greek Churâ— profess to believe on the account tradition from the Apostles as well the Latin If that tradition failed the Greek Church which was preservâ— in the Latin either Mr. S. must iâ—stance on his own principles in thâ— Age which conspired to deceive tâ— next or he must acknowledge tâ— while men own tradition they may deceived in what the foregoing â— taught them and consequently thâ— things may be admitted as doctriâ— coming from the Apostles which Wâ— not so and some which did may lost and yet the pretence of traditâ— remain still What self-evidence tâ— can there be in this principle wâ— two parts of the Church may bâ— own it and yet believe contradictiâ— on the account of it It is then woâ— our enquiring what self-evidence this is which Mr. S. speaks so much of which is neither more nor less but that men in all ages had eyes ears and other â—enses also common reason and as much memory as to remember their own names and frequently inculcated actions Which â—s so very reâ—sonable a postulatum that suppose none who enjoy any of these will deny it Let us therefore see how â—he proceeds upon it If you disprove â—his I doubt we have lost mankind the â—bject we speak of and till you disprove â—t neither I nor any man in his wits can doubt that this rule depending on testifyâ—ng that is sense on experience can possibly â—ermit men to be deceivable Big words inâ—eed but such as evidence that all men who are in their wits do not constantly 〈◊〉 them For I pray Sir what doth Mr. S. think of the Greek Church â—ad not those in it eyes ears and other â—â—ses as well as in the Latin Do not they pretond and appeal to what they â—eceived from their Fore-fathers as well â—s
is a novel fancy of some few half-Catholicks in England and tends to subvert the Roman Church But is the present Pope with Mr. S. a private opinator or was the last a meer schoolman I am sure what ever Mr. S. thinks of him he thought not so of himself when he said he was no Divine in the controversie of Jansenius Doth the Court of Rome signifie no more with Mr. S. then a company of scholastick Pedants that know not what the sense of the Church is concerning the rule of faith I meddle not with the Schools but with the authority of the present Church and him whom Mr. S. owns for the head of it and is it consistent with his headship to condemn that doctrine which contains in it the only certain rule of faith Mr. S. may then see they were no such impertinent Topicks which I insisted on and as stout as Mr. S. seems to be I am apt to believe he would not look on the censure of the Inquisition as an impertinent Topick But at last Mr. S. offers at something whereby he would satisfie me of the sense of the Church as to this particular and therefore asks whether I never heard of such a thing as the Council of Trent I must ingenuously confess I have and seen more a great deal of it then I am satisfied with But what of that there he tells me I may find a clear solution of my doubt by the constant procedure of that most grave Synod in its definitions That is I hope to find that oral Tradition was acknowledged there as the only self-evident rule of faith if I do this I confess my self satisfied in this enquiry But how much to the contrary is there very obvious in the proceedings of it For in the 4. Session the Decree is That Scripture and tradition should be embraced with equal piety and reverence and the reason is because the doctrine of faith is contained partly in Scripture partly in tradition but what arts must Mr. S. use to inferr from hence that oral tradition in contradistinction to Scripture was looked on as the only rule of faith I cannot but say that the ruling men of that Council were men wise enough in their Generation and they were too wise wholly to exclude Scripture but because they knew that of it self could not serve their purposes they therefore help it out with tradition and make both together the compleat rule of faith Where I pray in all the proceedings of that Council doth Mr. S. find them desine any thing on the account of oral tradition instead of which we find continual bandyings about the sense of Scripture and Fathers which might have been all spared if they had been so wise as to consider they could not but know the sense of the present Church nor that of the precedent and so up to the time of Christ. But they were either so ignorant as not to light on this happy invention or so wise and knowing as to despise it It is true they would not have their doctrines looked on as Novelties therefore they speak much of tradition and the ancient faith but that was not by what their Parents taught them but what the Fathers of the Church delivered in their writings for by these they judged of traditions and not the oral way And therefore I see little reason to believe that this was either the sense of the Council of Trent or is the sense of any number of Roman Catholicks much less of the whole Church none excepted as Mr. S. in his confident way expresses it And if he will as he saith disavow the maintaining any point or affecting any way which is not assented to by all I hope to see Mr. S. retract this opinion and either fall in with the Court of Rome or return as reason leads him into the bosom of the Church of England But there seems to be somewhat more in what follows viz. that though schoolmen question the personal infallibility of the Pope or of the Roman Clergy nay of a General Council yet all affirm the infallibility of tradition or the living voice of the Church essential and this he faith is held by all held firmly and that it is absolutely infallible To this therefore I answer either Mr. S. means that none do affirm that the universal tradition of the Church essential can erre or that the Church of Rome being the Church essential cannot erre in her tradition But which way soever he takes it I shall easily shew how far it is from proving that he designs it for For if he take it in the first sense viz. that all the faithful in all ages could not concur in an error then he may as well prove Protestants of his mind as Papists for this is the foundation on which we believe the particular books of Scripture If this therefore proves any thing it proves more then he intends viz. that while we thus oppose each other we do perfectly agree together and truly so we do as much as they do among themselves But if Mr. S's meaning be that all of their Religion own the Roman Church to be the Church essential and on that account that it cannot erre setting aside the absurdity of the opinion it self I say from hence it doth not follow that they make orâ—l tradition the rule of faith because it is most evident that the ground why they say theiâ— Church cannot erre is not on Mr. S's principles but on the supposition of an infallible assistance which preserves that Church from error So that this fallâ— far short of proving that they are all agreed in this rule of faith which is a thing so far from probability that he might by the same argument prove that Scripture is owned by them all to be the rule of faith For I hope it is held by all and held firmly that the living voice of God in Scripture as delivered to us is infallible and if so then there is as much ground for this as the other But if we enquire what it is men make a rule of faith we must know not only that they believe tradition infallible but on what account they do so For if tradition be believed infallible barely on the account of a promise of infallibility to the present Church then the resolution of saith is not into the tradition but into that infallible assistance and consequently the rule of faith is not what bare tradition delivers but what that Church which cannot erre in judging tradition doth propose to us It is not therefore their being agreed in General that tradition is infallible doth make them agree in the same rule of faith but they must agree in the ground of that infallibility viz. that it depends on this that no age could conspire to deceive the next But all persons who understand any thing of the Roman Church know very well that the general reason why tradition is believed infallible is
account of former times in the several Nations of the world For who can imagine but the barbarous Nations were as unwilling to deceive their posterity as any other yet we see a vast difference in the histories of former ages among them and more civilized people And I wish Mr. S. would rather have instanced in some history which had been preserved meerly by tradition and not in such a one which if any other hath been most carefully recorded and propagated to posterity If Mr. S. would have undertaken to have told us who they were that first peopled America and srom what place they came by the tradition of the present inhabitants and what famous actions had been done there in former ages we might have thought indeed that sole tradition had been a very safe way to convey matters of fact from one age to another But since all Mr. S's arguments will hold as well for the Sâ—ythians and Americans and the most barbarous Nations as the most civil and polite what reason can Mr. S. give why there is not among them as certain an account of former ages as among the Greeks and Romans Were not their senses who saw those matters of fact as uncapable of being dâ—ceived as others was not every aâ— among them as unâ—illing to deceive their posterity as elswhere yet notwithstanding the force of Mr. Ss. demonstration we see for want of letters how grosly ignorant they are of what was done before them And if this principle were true why have we not as true an account of the eldest ages of the world as of any other Nay why were letters invented and writing ever used if tradition had been found so infallible But it is one thing superficially to discourse what is impossible should be otherwise and another to consider what really hath been in the world Doth not the constant â—xperience of all times prove that where any history hath not been timely recorded it hath been soon corrupted by notorious â—alsities or obscured by fabulous reports As we see among our selves what difference there is in point of certainty between the several stories of K. Arthur and William the Conqueror what will Mr. S. say that these who lived in K. Arthurs time could not know what he did or that they conspired to deceive their posterity But if tradition be so infallible why have we not the ancient story of Britain as exact as the modern If Mr. S. will impute it to the peoples ignorance want of letters frequâ—nt conquests by other Nations and succeeding barbarism he may easiâ—y find how many wayes there are for matters of fact to be soon lost or corrupted when they have not been diligently preserved by authentick records and that without one age conspiring to deceive another But notwithstanding Mr. S's confidence I cannot think it possible for Mr. S. to believe that we should have had as true an account of Alexanderâ— conquest of Asia if Arrian Curtius oâ— Plutarch had never writ his story aâ— we have now Yet this he must asseâ— by vertue of his principles And he that can believe that I wonder he should scruple believing the Popes infallibility for certainly no principle oâ— the Jesuites is more wild and absurd then this is Besides I admire how it came into Mr. S's head to think no error could come into history unless oâ— age conspired to deceive another when we find no age agreed in the present matters of fact which are done in it as to the grounds and particulars of them To give Mr. S. an instance home to his purpose in the late Council of Trent we see already what different representations there are made of it in so little a time as hath already passed since the sitting of it One though he had all the advantages imaginable of knowing all proceedings in it living at the same time conversing with the persons present at it having the memoires and records of the Secretaries themselves yet his story is since endeavoured to be blasted by a great person of the Roman Church as fictitious and partial We see then it is at least supposed that interest and prejudice may have a great hand in abusing the world in matter of story though one-age never agree to deceive another And in stead of being perswaded by Mr. S's demonstrations I am still of the mind that we have no sufsicient security of the truth of any story which was not written while those persons were in being who were able to contradict the errors of it However I deny not but some notorious matters of fact such as Alexanders bare conquest of Asia might by the visible effects of it be preserved both in Asia and Greece for a long time But if we come to enquire particularly whether this or that was done by him in his conquest which is alone pertinent to our purpose we have no security at all from tradition but only from the most authentick records of that story And by this I hope Mr. S. will have cause to thank me for unblundering his thoughts his own civil expression and shewing him how errors may come into a story without one age conspiring to deceive the next and what a vast difference there is between preserving a bare matter of fact and all the particulars relating to it And hereby he may easily see how far the obligation extends in believing the report of former ages For there can be no obligation to believe any further then there is evidence of truth in the matter we are obliged to If then there be not only a possibility but a very great probability of mistakes and errors in matters of fact I pray what obligation doth there lye upon men absolutely to believe what is delivered by the preceding age But to put an issue to this controversie let Mr. S. examine himself and try if he can name one story that was never written which was ever certainly popagated from one age to another by meer oral tradition and if he cannot he may thereby see how little real force his argument hath in the world For all the force of tradition lies in an unquestionable conveyance of those books which contain in them the true reports of the actions of the times they were written in But can Mr. S. think that if the Roman history had never been written it had been possible for us to have known what was done under the Kings and Consuls as now we do yet if his principle holds this necessarily follows for those of that age could not but know them and no age since could conspire to deceive the next And from hence the most useful consequence of all is that Mr. S. might have writ a history from the beginning of the world to this day with a full relation of all particulars if there had never been any book written in the world before And doth not Mr. S. deserve immortal credit for so rare an invention as this is and all built on nothing short
being expressions of as great modesty as science I am content Mr. S. should bear away the honour of them and his demoâ—strations together The last thing he quarrels witâ— me for is that I say if we can â—v dently prove that there have been alâ— rations in the Church then it is to â— purpose to prove that impossible which we see actually done And this appears not only because the Scripture supposes a degeneracy in the Christian Church which could never be if every age of the Church did insaâ—libly believe and practise as the precedent up to Christs time did but because we can produce clear evidence that some things are delivered by the present Church which must be brought in by some age since the time of Christ. For which I refer the Reader to what I had said about communion in one kind Invocation of Saints and worship of Images In all which I say I had proved evidently that they were not in use in some ages of the Christian Church and it is as evident that these are delivered by the present Church and therefore this principle must needs be false In answer to this Mr. S. wishes I would tell him first what evidence means whether a strong fancy or a demonstration I mean that which is enough to perswade a wise man who judges according to the clearest reason which I am sure is more then ever his demonstrations will do But it is a pleasant spectacle to see how Mr. S. layes about him at my saying that the Scripture supposes a degeneracy in the Christian Church Incomparably argued saith he why see we not the place does it evidently speak of faith or manners the Universal Church or particular persons but be it in faith be it universal does it suppose this degeneracy already past which is only proper to your purpose or yet to come That is does it say there must be a total Apostacy in faith before the year 1664. Alas he had forgot this Most incomparably answered For if the degeneracy be in 1665. or any years aâ—ter what becomes of M. S's dâ—monstration then that no errors could come into the Church but it seems his demonstration holds but till 1664. and I easily believe an other year will never believe the truth of it But if such a thing as a degeneracy be possible how then stands the infallibility of tradition when there can be no degeneracy without falling from the doctrine and practices of Christ and his Apostles But that such a degeneracy hath already been in that which calls it self the Catholick Church and that both in faith and manners I shall referr Mr. S. to the learned Author of the late Idea of Antichristianism and Synopsis Prophetica where he may find enough to perswade him that his demonstration was far from holding so long as 1664. And now I leave the Reader to judge whether the foregoing evidences against the infallibility of oral tradition or Mr. S's demonstrations have the greater force of reason in them And if he will not stoop so far from the height of his perch as to take notice of what I have elsewhere said I am resolved to let him see I am not at all concerned about it I begin to understand him so well by this Appendix that I can give my self a reasonable account why he thought it not sit to meddle with any other part of my book But if Mr. S. be resolved not to answer any of the testimonies I there produce unless I single them out and print them at the end of this Answer i. e. remove them from that evidence which attends them in the series of the discourse I can only say he is the most imperious answerer I have met with who is resolved never to deal with an adversary but on his own unreasonable terms Thus heartily wishing Mr. S's Science as great as his opinion of it and a good effect of our endeavours to promote the one by removing the other I am Sir Your affectionate friend and servant Edward Stillingfleet London June 28. FINIS Postscript SIR SInce the dispatch of the former Papers I have met with another Treatise wherein I find my self concerned written by the author of Fiat Lux the Title whereof is Diaphanta I am afraid the Title affrights you for I assure you it is the most formidable thing in his whole Book But the man is a very modest man and hugely different from Mr. S's humor for he is so far from offering to demonstrate the grounds of faith that all he pretends to in the title of his book iâ— to excuse Catholick Religion against the opposition of several Adversaries What fault I pray hath the Catholick Religion committed that it must now come to be excused instâ—ad of being defended But when I look into that part which concerns my self I presently understand the meaning of it which is not to excuse Catholick Religion but themselves for not being able to defend it For he very ingenuously tells us that faith is firm and constant though all his talk for it be miserably weak i. e. he is sure they have an excellent Religion though he knows not what to say for it and their faith is a very good faith but it hath not yet had the good fortune to be understood by them For he acknowledges that as often as they dispute they are beyond the business so may any one believe who reads their late books which is in effect to say there is no way left of disputing any longer with adversaries about their faith only they must believe it stoutly themselves but it is to no purpose to offer to defend it Nay it doth their faith a great deal of mischief for saith he in reading controversies we see not so much the nature of the faith as the wit of him who opposes or defends it From whence we may easily gather what unspeakable mischief they do their cause by writing for it By which expressions we may guess at what a low ebbe the defence of their faith is among them for the way now taken to defend it is by disowning the defenders of it and by saying that they only vent their own opinions and though we confute them never so much yet their faith holds good still Was ever a good cause driven to such miserable shifts as these are especially among those who pretend to wit and learning One he saith T. C. vents a private opinion of his own and it is not a pin matter whether it stand or fall another he saith the same of I. S. a third of J. V. C. and yet for all this their religion is very firm and sure and they all at perfect agreement about it Is this the victory over me Mr. S. mentions to be so easie a thing I see that by the same figure Mr. S. calls his way of arguing demonstration running out of the field shall be accounted conquering For I never saw any person do it