If there were Oral Tradition for it how came it to be condemned If not then notwithstanding Oral Tradition dangerous Doctrines may get in under a pretence of a more Sublime and Spiritual Way of Perfection than is to be attained in the Dull and Heavy Way of Tradition from Father to Son. III. By a Pretence to a more Secret Tradition And thus Christianity was at first corrupted by such as pretended that there was a Mystical Doctrine delivered by Christ of a more purifying Nature than the Plain and Common Doctrine taught to all People by the Apostles So Hegesippus in Eusebius affirms That the Christian Church was corrupted by this Means and to the same Purpose Irenaeus So that Tradition was so far from securing the Church from Error that it was the Means of bringing it in And the Publick Tradition could not hinder this coming in of Error because the Secret Tradition was pretended to be more Divine and Spiritual the other was only for Babes and this for grown Christians IV. By Differences among Church-Guides about the Sense of Scripture and Tradition Thus it was in the Samosatenian Arian Pelagian Nestorian and Eutychian Controversies Neither of the Parties disowned Scripture or Tradition and those who were justly condemned pretended still to adhere to both And if such Flames could not be prevented so much nearer the Apostles Times by the help of Tradition What Reason can there be to expect it so long after V. By too great a Veneration to some particular Teachers not far from the Apostolical Times in regard to their Learning or Piety which made their Disciples despise Tradition in Comparison of their Notions And thus Origens Opinions came to prevail so much in the Church and the Mixture of Platonism with Christianity proved the occasion of several Errors with Respect to the State of Souls after Death as well as in other Points VI. By Compliance with some Gentile Superstitions in Hopes to gain more easily upon the Minds of the People who having been long accustomed to the Worship of Images and Tutelar Deities it was thought no Imprudent Thing in some Guides of the Church when the main Doctrines of Paganism were renounced to humour the People in these things so they were Accommodated to Christianity but others vehemently opposed this Method as repugnant to the True Primitive Christianity But by Degrees those Superstitions prevailed and the Original Tradition of the Church thereby corrupted VII By Implicit Faith which puts it into the Power of the Church-Guides to introduce what Doctrines they thought fit When the best of the People were told it was against the Fundamental Rights of the Catholick Church for them to examine any Opinions which were proposed to them by their Guides That they neither did nor could nor ought to understand them and when once this Point was gained People never troubled themselves about Scripture or Tradition for all they had to do was only to know what was decreed by the Church though with a Non-obstante to a Divine Institution as is plain in the Council of Constance notwithstanding all the Tricks to avoid it If then Errours might come into the Church all these ways what a vain thing is it to pretend That Oral Tradition will keep from any possibility of Error And so I need give no other Answer to his last Proposition That if Men did innovate in Faith it must be either through Forgetfulness or Malice for I have shewed many other Causes besides these especially since I intend to shew in a particular Discourse how the Errors and Corruptions we charge on the Church of Rome did come into it My design here being only to shew the Possibility of it There remain only two things which deserve any Consideration 1. About the Charge of Pelagianism 2. About the Council of Trents Proceeding on Tradition which will admit of an easie Dispatch I. As to the Charge of Pelagianism It doth not lie in this That he requires any Rational Inducements to Faith which we do assert as well as he But it lay in these Two things I. That a Divine Faith was to be resolved into a Natural Infallibility For we were told that Divine Faith must have Infallible Grounds and when we come to examine them we find nothing but what is Natural And now to avoid the Charge of Pelagianism this Divine Faith is declared to be meer Human Faith and so Human Faith is said to have Infallible Grounds but Divine Faith must shift for it self For saith J. S. 'T is confess'd and ever was that the Human Authority of the Church or Tradition begets only Human Faith as its Immediate Effect but by bringing it up to Christ it leads us to what 's Divine Well but what Infallible Ground is there for this Divine Faith Where doth that fix Is it on the Infallibibility of Tradition or not If not then we may have Divine Faith without it If it doth then Divine Faith is to be resolved into Natural Means And what is this but Pelagianism II. That he excludes the Pious Disposition of the Will from piecing out as he calls it the Defect of the Reasons why we Believe And in another place he excludes the Wills Assistance in these words That Faith or a Firm and Immoveable Assent upon Authority is not throughly Rational and by consequence partly Faulty if the Motives be not alone able to convince an Vnderstanding rightly disposed without the Wills Assistance How then can a pious Disposition of the Will be necessary in order to the Act of Faith And is it not Pelagianism to exclude it Therefore I was in the right when I said That this way of Oral Tradition resolves all into a meer Human Faith and that this is the unavoidable Consequence of it No he saith he resolves all into Christs and the Apostles teaching How ridiculous is this For did not Pelagius and Coelestius the very same And the thing I charged upon them was That they went no farther upon this Principle than they did Upon this he asks a very impertinent Question but if I do not Answer it I know what Clamours will follow Pray do you hold that Christ is a meer Man or that Believing him is a meer Human Faith or that the Doctrine taught by Him or Them is meerly Human What Occasion have I given for such a Question But I perceive there is a design among some to make me be believed to be no Christian. I pray God forgive the Malice of such Men. I thank God I have better Grounds for my Faith than Oral Tradition I do believe Christ to be more than meer Man even the Eternal Son of God and that his Doctrine is Divine and his Apostles had Infallible Assistance in delivering it But what is all this to the present Question I perceive some men when they are hard pinched cry out that their Adversaries are Atheists or Socinians c. and hope by this means to divert them
was a great variety as to others is evident to any one who will compare the Ancient Creeds as I have lately shewed And these main Articles are those which Aquinas calls the prima Credibilia which are therefore revealed because necessary to be believed by all that hope for Salvation by Jesus Christ. II. There are other Points of Faith which are only necessary to be believed because they are so clearly revealed As that Cajaphas was High Priest when Christ suffer'd that there were two Malefactors who suffer'd with him that he was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's Sepulchre no Man who believes the Scripture can doubt of these things and yet we do not make these Points of Faith in themselves necessary because they have no immediate Reference to Salvation which might have been as effectually carried on if there had been another High Priest or Christ had lain in another Sepulchre But in these Points there is an absolute Certainty from the unquestionable Evidence of their being contained in Scripture III. There are doctrinal points not necessary to Salvation about which some may attain to a greater Degree of Certainty than others And the same Measure is not required of all Because Mens Capacities are not equal if they do use equal Diligence and all are not obliged to the same Degrees of Diligence that some are As to the Points necessary to Salvation God is not wanting by his Grace to make them known to Men of honest and sincere Minds And this is no peculiar Doctrine of mine as J. S. would insinuate but it hath been the constant Doctrine of their most Learned and Judicious School-Divines as is evident from what they speak of the Donum Intellectus and the Lumen Fidei which secure Men from Errour in what concerns their Salvation If he hath therefore such an Inveterate Spleen against this Doctrine let him attaque the greatest Divines of the Church of Rome who have in terms asserted the same which I have done And I would fain see J. S. demonstrating against Aquinas and all his followers That there is no such Security from Errour in Points necessary to Salvation where ever God bestows true Grace As to Points not necessary to Salvation I do not affirm there is any such Ground of Absolute Certainty as to particular Persons who are only concerned as to their own Salvation And that was the Reason of my Answer to the fourth Question The Universal 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 But of this more afterwards It is sufficient here to observe that even in the Church of Rome there are Points of Doctrine which are not de Fide and consequently the Certainty of Faith is not required to them And then it is most unreasonable to require the Absolute Certainty of Faith in those things which we deny to be Points of Faith. It is as if we should ask them what Absolute Certainty of Faith they have as to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the B. Virgin or the Popes Infallibility they would tell us these are no Points of Faith with them and therefore it is unreasonable to ask after the Absolute Certainty of Faith where there is no Faith pretended The same we say in the like Case It is very absurd to demand of us the Absolute Certainty of our Faith in such things wherein we never pretend to a Certainty of Faith but of common Sense and Reason proceeding according to the Rule of Scripture As if Men impose false and absurd Doctrines upon us as Transubstantiation c. we insist upon the Common Right of Mankind not to be required to believe Contradictions and the Right of Christians not to believe what hath neither Scripture nor Reason nor Tradition for it And these are the Grounds on which we reject the Additional Creed of Pius the Fourth We make them no Points of Faith at all and if others do make them so we desire to be excused because it is as certain to us they are not so as we can be of Negatives And farther than this we go not in such Points and if this be what he means by Protestant Faith he hath my Answer IV. The General Reason of the Certainty of Faith in Particular Persons is not from Conclusive Evidence as to the Points of Faith but from some higher Cause And this Mr. S. ought to know hath been the constant Doctrine of the Schools ever since Divinity hath been brought into them I except only one Franciscus de Marchia who required conclusive Evidence to the Certainty of Faith but he is disputed against by Gregorius Ariminensis and he saith His Doctrine was condemned by the Faculty of Paris and Gregory de Valentia speaks of him with great Contempt for holding so absurd a Doctrine The Certainty of Faith is declared by the Antient School-men to be above Opinion and below Science by which they understood the Intrinsic Grounds on which Truth is built which Mr. S. makes necessary to the Profession of it Hugo de Sancto Victore saith That the highest Certainty of Faith is owing to a Pious and pure Disposition of the Mind and an immediate Divine Influence Petrus Pictaviensis That it lies not in Evidence but Adherence Guliel Parisiensis proves Conclusive Evidence repugnant to Faith in a long Discourse Gul. Antissiodorensis thinks rational Evidence good to support and defend the Faith and to prepare men for it But that the Certainty of it lies not in Speculation but in an Adherence of the Mind to the Prime Verity Alex. Alensis saith likewise its Certainty doth not lie in Speculation but in inward Affection and Adherence there is he saith an inferiour sort of Acquisite Faith which relies on Reasons and Testimonies but this he saith is meerly Natural and Preparatory to Divine Faith. Bonaventure saith the Certainty of Adherence is beyond that of Speculation because a Martyr may have doubts and yet die for his Faith. Thomas Aquinas thinks those that go about to bring Demonstrations for Faith expose it to the Scorn and Reproach of Infidels and he resolves the inward Certainty of Faith into Divine Illumination when the Objection was put That Matters of Faith could not be resolved into first Principles Which Mr. S. hath so long and so vainly pretended to Henricus Gandavensis saith There is a Certainty of Adherence in the habit of Faith and that the Evidence of Credibility falls much short of that of Science and he makes Scripture the Rule whereby we are to judge of the Doctrine of the present Church and of all Ages succeeding the Apostles Scotus distinguisheth between Acquisite and Human Faith and Divine or Infused Faith but he denies any Infallibility to belong to the former Durandus denies Faith to be consistent with Conclusive Evidence and that the Motives of
Ground they went upon and so we are come to the Debate between Scripture and Tradition II. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday This is capable of a threefold meaning I. That they do actually believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday Which is a meer contingent thing and proves nothing Or II. That they are bound to believe to Day as they did Yesterday And that may be on several Accounts I. Because they see Evidence from the Word of God to Day as well as they did Yesterday II. Or because their Guides of the Church teach them the same to Day which they did Yesterday whom they believe to be Infallible III. Or meerly because they receive it by an Oral Tradition and not on the other Accounts and then it proves no more than that they are bound to do it and it is too well known that many fail to do what they are bound to Or III. That they do Infallibly believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday But then this ought to have been inserted in the Proposition That Traditionary Christians cannot fail to believe to Day what they did Yesterday If it be said That this is implyed in their being Traditionary Christians then I say the whole is a Fallacy of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he supposes all true Christians to be Traditionary Christians and then that they Infallibly hold to Tradition as their Rule and from thence he proves Tradition to be Infallible But if the Body of Christians may go upon another Rule or if going upon Tradition they may misunderstand it then there is no inseparable connexion in the several Links of this Chain And there is a further Fallacy in supposing that if any change in Faith happens it must be as sudden and remarkable as if all Men should to day refuse to believe what they believed Yesterday Whereas the changes of Opinions are oft-times wrought by insensible Degrees and many concurrent Causes and sometimes the very same Words may be used and the Faith altered as in the Case of Merit Sacraments Sacrifice c. which sheweth Men may continue the very same Terms and yet believe quite a different thing And where Changes are gradual it is very unreasonable to pitch upon such a precise and narrow space of time as between to Day and Yesterday By the same Method one may demonstrate it to be impossible that any Language should be changed for People speak the same Language to Day which they did Yesterday and the same Yesterday which they did the Day before and so up to the very building of Babel and yet we all know that Languages are continually changed and to such a degree that in some Ages they cannot understand what was at that time intelligible by all In such cases it is enough to assign the general Causes and Reasons of Alterations without fixing a precise and determinate Time. And those I shall speak to afterwards III. And so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour To prove any thing from hence it must be shewed I. That there can be no Pretence to Tradition taken up without Ground for if there may it can by no means follow That if Men pretend to Tradition that Tradition must run up to the Time of Christ. But then they cease to be Traditionary Christians What then Not in pretence for they may call themselves so still but in reality they are not II. That if Men lay claim to a Rule they must always observe it We do not pretend to it as to the Scripture And what Reason is there for it as to Tradition But if Men may pretend to follow Tradition and do not then from their being Traditionary Christians it can by no means follow that this Tradition must be carried up to the Time of our Blessed Saviour II. The second Proposition is And if they follow this Rule they can never err in Faith. This is palpably self evident saith J. S. So say I too but it is only to be a meer Fallacy To follow this Rule is to believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday and so up to Christ or downwards If they did this from Christs time and so forwards they must continue to believe the same to the End of the World. If they really believe the same Doctrine which Christ taught no doubt they cannot err But the Question is Whether this be an Infallible Rule for us to Judge they could never mistake in this Rule nor follow any other For if either of these could happen the Demonstration is lost If it were possible for Errors to come in some other Way or for Persons to misapprehend the Doctrine delivered then it is not possible for us by this Way to be convinced they could not err The latter I have already spoken to I shall now shew that there were some other ways that Errors might come in And here I shall pass over the Common Infirmities of Human Nature which I think Oral Tradition can never Cure and which leave Men always lyable to Error but I shall name some more particular Ways of introducing them I. By the Authority of False Teachers And for this I shall not run back to the False Apostles and Seducers in the Apostles times and afterwards but I shall bring a present Instance in the Church of Rome and that is of Michael de Molinos a Person solemnly condemned at Rome Aug. 28. of this Year for 68 Propositions taken out of his Books and owned by himself as the Decree saith which are there said to be Heretical Erroneous Blasphemous Offensive Rash Seditious and contrary to Christian Discipline This Man is said to have had Thousands of Disciples in Italy in the very Heart of the Traditionary Church Now I desire J. S. to inform me If Tradition be Infallible and that be the Way followed in the Church of Rome how it was possible for such Multitudes to be deceived in Matters of such Consequence To say they were not deceived is to expose the Authority of the Guides of the Church of Rome to the greatest Contempt To say they were deceived is to own That notwithstanding Tradition a single Priest may gain such Authority as to deceive Thousands and where lies then the Infallibility of Tradition II. By Enthusiasm or a Pretence to Immediate Revelation For this I shall not produce the Old Instances in Ecclesiastical History as of Montanus Asclepiades Theodotus Manichaeus Arius AEtius c. who all pretended to Revelations for their particular Opinions But I shall keep to the late Instance of Molinos who asserts That the Perfection of a Christian State lies in a Simple Pure Infused and Perfect Contemplation above the Vse of Ratiocination or Discursive Prayer and that in order to this nothing is so necessary as Self-annihilation This Doctrine is now condemned at Rome but how came it into the Church Did not they believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday
Mr. S. is always Mr. S. pretending Demonstration when there is nothing like it If Men were always Men they were always apt to be deceived and unless Christians by being such are Infallible they are liable to Mistakes But the highest means to convey the Sense of Words are to be found in Tradition I am quite of another Opinion I think it the most uncertain way in the World and the Corruption of the first Ages of the World are an Evident Proof of it when there were all possible Advantages of Tradition and yet the Principles of Natural Religion were strangely corrupted although they were plain easie few of the highest Importance and Men lived so long to inculcate them into the Minds of their Children If therefore notwithstanding Tradition the World might then degenerate into Polytheism and Idolatry what absurdity is it to suppose that notwithstanding Tradition the Christian Doctrine might be corrupted likewise But Mr. S. alledges not only Words but Actions to determine the Sense of them as that Christ is the Son of God by Praying to him and giving Divine Reverence to Christ without stinting them or making them scruple lest they give too much or commit Idolatry by giving that to a Creature which is due only to God. And does not this Practice beyond all possibility of Mistake insinuate into them that he is equally to be adored with God the Father or Co-equal to him and so not a Creature but Very God of Very God I Answer I. Would not the very same Reasoning have made the coming in of Idolatry impossible For that there was but one True God was evident from all Acts of Worship being given only to Him as the proper Object of it How then could Men so foully mistake as to give proper Divine Worship to any Creature there being an infinite Distance between God and his Creatures which every Child could not but know by a constant Tradition from Adam II. How was it possible that External Acts of Worship should so infallibly prove Christ to be true God if all External Acts of Worship be of an Equivocal Nature and receive their Determination from the inward Sense of the Mind Did not the Arians use the same External Acts of Worship with others with respect to Christ Where did they ever separate from the Christian Assemblies on the account of the Worship given to Christ If not how was it possible from thence to prove Christ not to be a Creature So that this is very far from putting the Point of the Divinity of Christ beyond the possibility of Mistake Especially when Solemn Invocation which is one of the most natural Parts of Divine Worship came to be allowed to meer Creatures All the difference that can be assigned then must be from Mens Words and Professions and not from their External Actions III. The same Divine Reverence was given to Christ in the Apostolical Times and the utmost Care used to instruct People in the True Doctrine of Christ and yet then we find that Persons did Err in the Sense of that Proposition That Christ is the Son of God. For even then the Ebionites and Cerinthians understood it not in Respect of Nature but Adoption and so did the Artemonites and Samosatenians afterwards And how can that be proved impossible to be done which we shew was actually done Men did notoriously mistake the Sense of Christ's being the Son of God when it was received by Tradition and yet Mr. S. pretends it cannot be mistaken if it be so received Mr. S. still urges That Faith hath Sense in it and it is inconsistent with the Nature of Mankind not to hold some Sense or other and with the Nature of Christians not to instruct their Children in that Sense And I think Words written have as much Sense in them as Words spoken and less liable to Mistakes there being no such mixtures of the Infirmities of Men in a Written Rule as in Oral Tradition But Instances are unlucky things to be brought against Demonstrations and such is that of the Cerinthians and Artemonites who pleaded Tradition for their Sense and yet they were Men and pretended to deliver the true Doctrine of Christ to their Disciples I alledged another Instance how the Sense of Tradition might be mistaken and that was about a Real Presence in the Eucharist which might be understood in very different Senses No saith Mr. S. That cannot be for Faith works on our devout Affections which must either oblige us to pay an infinite Veneration to a Creature if Christ's real Body and consequently God be not there or if Christ be not God which is the greatest deviation from true Religion that is possible or else to be highly irreverent and to want the most efficacious Motive that can be imagined to excite and elevate our Devotions if he be there or Christ be indeed God. Truly Mr. S's way of Writing is the most effectual means I know to make me Question whether written Words be a good way to convey a Certain Sense to our Minds For I cannot understand how Faiths working on our devout Affections should oblige us either to pay an infinite Veneration to a Creature or else to be highly Irreverent For supposing I believe Christ's Body not to be really in the Eucharist but yet that Christ himself is God I think my self bound to shew the utmost Reverence to Christ as God even in the Act of Receiving the Eucharist And I am of Opinion that the just Apprehension of the Divine Majesty is as apt to excite and elevate our Devotion as the believing the Body of Christ to be there really present But it is observable what Mr. S. here grants that if Christ's Body be not there they are guilty of paying an Infinite Veneration to a Creature which is the greatest deviation from true Religion that is possible And upon my Word then they had need have better Assurance than what he offers to prove Christ's real Body to be there For if as great Reverence may be paid to Christ in Heaven as if he were in the Elements I cannot see how the Posture of Adoration can any ways determin the Sense of Tradition in this Matter And thus Mr. S. hath left the Sense of Tradition as uncertain as he pretends that of Scripture to be and if his Argument will hold against the One being the Rule of Faith it will do as great a Kindness for the Other also Thus I have fully answered his main Argument against Scriptures being a Rule of Faith which he hath been so free with me as to tell me I cannot Answer and he and I must now leave it to the Reader 's Judgment The summ of it is I. We distinguish Necessary Points of Faith from Matters of Speculation II. We distinguish Certainty of Faith in order to Salvation and Certainty of Opinion in Matters of Controversie III. We distinguish the Certainty of the Rule from the Certainty of the Application of that Rule
But Mr. S. saith Their Case is different from ours Do not they make the Vulgar Translation Authentick And will not the same Objections then lie against all those who rely upon it Let us see how J. S. clears this Matter 1. The Canon of the Books comes down saith he by the Testimony of all Christian Churches that are truly Christian And we say the Canon of the Books comes down by the Concurrent Testimony of all Christian Churches however differing in other things And herein I think we have much the advantage For we do not except against the Testimony of any Christian Churches nor condemn them as not truly Christian till their Cause be better heard and examin'd 2. The Doctrine of Christ saith he transfused into the hearts of the faithful both taught them how and obliged them to correct the Copy in those particular Texts that concerned Faith. What is this but in plain terms to expose the Scriptures to the Scorn and Contempt of Atheists and Infidels Who would desire no better a Concession than this that the Scripture hath been corrected in Matters of Faith according to the Faith of the Church If this be granted it is impossible to prove that we have any true Original Texts in Matters of Faith For if the Church did correct the Copy in those particular Texts which concerned Faith according to the Sense of the faithful then the Church in every Age might so correct it and consequently we can never be sure that the Texts continue the same for any two Ages together unless it be first proved impossible for the Sense of the Church to vary in any two Ages or of those who think themselves bound to correct the Texts And I should be very sorry to have my Faith rest upon such a slippery Foundation I will put the Case as to the Arian Controversie How was it possible for the Nicene Fathers to have convinced the Arians on such a Supposition as this You alledge several Texts of Scripture might they say to prove the Godhead of Christ and his Equality with the Father but how can we know that these were Original Texts and not corrected by the Guides of the Church then according to their own Sense We do not deny that there were some leading Men of this Opinion and having gained a Party to themselves they corrected the Texts according to it And therefore we can never be satisfied that these were the Original Texts because we can bring down a Tradition of a contrary Sense from the Apostles times I do not see what satisfaction they could ever receive if this pernicious Principle be allowed that the Texts were to be corrected in Matters that concern Faith according to the Sense of the Church But he saith it is If any Errour through the carelesness unattentiveness or malice of the Translators or Transcribers at any time had crept in This doth not one jot mend the Matter For if the Faith of the present Church be the Rule then the Texts are to be corrected according to it and the blame to be laid on the Carelesness or Malice of Translators and Transcribers This is a miserable Account of the Certainty of Texts of Scripture in Points of Faith As to other Texts of inferiour concern as he speaks they could be best corrected by multitudes of other ancient Copies the Churches Care still going along as was shewn in the highest manner by the Council of Trent that so it might be as exact as Human Diligence could well render it As to multitudes of Copies they serve us as well as them but as to the Care of the Council of Trent I am by no means satisfied For 1. They went no farther than a Translation and declared that Authentick without due regard to the Original Text. 2. The Care taken was not so exact for then Clemens the Eighth did great Injury to Sixtus the Fifth when he recalled and corrected his Bibles in so many Places after Sixtus the Fifth had published his for an Exact Edition 3. There are still complaints in the Church of Rome of want of Exactness in the Vulgar Latin. 4. After all this is but Human Diligence and no such Absolute Certainty as J. S. requires from us But it may be he will say That he doth not at all make it his Rule of Faith Let him declare so much and then we know what to Answer This is still putting off Therefore I will give a distinct Answer I. We do utterly deny that it is in any Churches Power to correct Original Texts because they contradict the Sense of the present Church or any Translations any farther than they differ from the Originals And I do not know any assertion that shakes more our Faith as to the Scripture than this of J. S. doth II. The early Appeals made to Scripture in Matters of Faith by the Writers of the Christian Church make us Certain that there could be no such Alterations or Corrections of the Texts according to these use of the Correctors As for Instance we find the Places produced against the Arians used before against the Samosatenians and Artemonites If it be said They might correct the Fathers to I answer That there is no imaginable Ground for any such suspicion because the Fathers lived in distant Places and Countries and therefore when their Testimonies agree about some places of Scripture alledged by them there can be no Reason to suspect any Corruption or Alteration of the Text. As for Instance no one Text of the whole New Testament hath been more suspected than that of 1 S. John 5.7 There are three that bear Record in Heaven c. And it cannot be denied that there hath been great variety both in the Greek and Latin Manuscripts about it yea there was so in S. Jeroms time as appears by his Preface to the Canonical Epistles who charges the leaving it out to the unfaithfulness of the Translators S. Jerom is cried out upon as a Party in this Controversie and therefore it is said on the other side that he put it in as favouring his own Opinion But his Integrity is vindicated herein because S. Cyprian so long before the Arian Controversie produced this Place So that our Certainty as to Scripture doth not depend upon the meer Letter but upon comparing the best and most antient Copies with the Writings of the Fathers who still made use of the Scriptures in all Discourses and Debates about Matters of Faith. III. The variety of Readings in Matters that are not of Faith cannot hinder our Certainty in Matters of Faith. We do not pretend that there is no kind of variety in the Copies of the New Testament but I am of Opinion that this rather establishes than weakens our Faith. For considering the great Multitudes of them and how insignificant they are it shews that this Book was liable to the common Accidents of Books but yet that there is no such variety as to make one
suspect any Fraud or Design in the Alterations that appear in the Manuscript Copies And as to Translations that have been made among us the People who are not able to examin them by the Originals have no Reason to suspect them as to any Matter of Faith. Not meerly from the Skill and Integrity of the Persons and the Care that hath been taken but because it was so much the Concernment of some Men to have lessen'd the Credit of our Translations as much as was possible and they have not been able to produce any thing that might shake the Faith of a considering Man. If it be said after all This is but Human Faith and not Divine I answer IV. We must be careful to distinguish the Certainty of Human and Divine Faith in this Matter We do not pretend that we have an Absolute Divine Certainty of things that are only capable of Human Certainty and we do not say that we have only Human Certainty of things capable of Divine Certainty If the Question be put concerning the Objects of Divine Faith then we do answer That we have a Divine Certainty of them from those things which are the proper Evidence of Divine Revelation We believe the Doctrine of Christ with a Divine Faith because it was confirmed by Miracles and Prophecies We believe the New Testament to be written by the Holy Spirit because the Promise of the Spirit was fulfilled upon them and especially in a thing of so great Concernment to the whole Christian Church But if the Question be asked only concerning a Matter of Fact as whether the Books that bear such Names were written by the Persons whose Names they bear then I can have no greater Certainty than belongs to a Matter of Fact but then it is so circumstantiated that I have a greater and more absolute Certainty as to this then any other Matter of Fact which wants the Proofs that this hath And if as to Books and Copies and Translations we have as high a Certainty as the thing is capable of it is madness to expect and require more For where there is but a Human Testimony there cannot be the Certainty of Divine Faith which must not only have a Divine Object but must rest on a Divine Testimony but where the Testimony is Human the Certainty must be such as relates to the highest of that kind But still such a Faith may have Absolute Certainty of its kind and although in regard of its Testimony it be Human Faith yet in regard both of its Object its inward Cause and its Effects it may be truly called Divine IX The last Objection is concerning the Number of Canonical Books Pray satisfie us saith Mr. S. about this exact Number of Books and how many will just serve turn One would think by his Objections J. S. were preparing Matter for the Critical History of the New Testament he seems so concerned to lessen the Authority of it But I shall Answer the Objections he offers 1. There may have been Books lost that were written by Persons divinely inspir'd and we have no unanimous Consent of the Christian Church that there is none lost and those Books might contain Matters different from or to be superadded to the Canon we have now and without this we can have no Certainty that the Books we have now contained all the Divine Revelations I Answer I. If we have the unanimous Consent of the Christian Church that we have the Canon of the New Testament entire then we have their Consent that there is no Book written by Divine Inspiration lost And this appears by the Contest in the IV. Century about the just Number of the Canonical Books The Churches then differ'd about some Books not then Universally receiv'd as the Apocalypse in some and the Epistle to the Hebrews in others Which shews that the Churches were then so solicitous to preserve any Books that appear'd to be written by Persons Inspir'd that although these did then want Universal Consent yet they were still kept and read and dispers'd till upon further Examination they came to be Universally read It is not therefore in the least probable they should suffer any Apostolical Writings to be lost II. This is to charge the Christian Church with so gross a Neglect as overthrows the force of all his Arguments for Tradition For we must suppose an Apostolical Writing sent to some Church by Direction of the Holy Spirit and yet that Church be so notoriously careless as to lose a Book containing in it many Points of Faith now I appeal to any one of common Sense whether he could trust their Word for Matters of Faith who could be so negligent as to lose a great many Points of Faith at once And the more such a Book were dispersed the Argument is still stronger against Tradition Besides this shews the great Insufficiency of Oral Tradition if these Points of Faith are lost because such a Book was lost wherein they were contained If Tradition had been so effectual a Means of Conveying Matters of Faith it should have appear'd in such a Case viz. in preserving such Matters of Faith though the Books were lost But we find nothing like this so much as pretended Although it were much easier pretended than proved III. This is to suppose the Providence of God not to be immediately concerned in preserving Books written by Divine Inspiration Mr. S. doth really suppose that Books written by Divine Inspiration may have been lost or at least that we cannot prove that they are not But we think it a considerable Proof that they could not because the Divine Providence doth so immediately concern it self in preserving that which tends so much to the Good of his Church If a Hair doth not fall from our Heads nor a Sparrow fall on the Ground without the Providence of God as our Saviour affirms is it not very unreasonable to suppose that a Divine Book written for the Benefit of the Christian Church should be wholly lost Especially considering the extraordinary Care the first Christians took in Times of the greatest Persecutions to preserve the Scriptures and no force or violence could extort them out of their hands On Mr. S's Supposition it was no hard Matter for a Book of Scripture to be lost viz. if the several Books had been committed to the Custody of some Men in Trust for the whole Church but if we consider the things as they really were it will appear hardly possible For the Books were not kept up at first in a few hands but dispersed abroad in multitudes of Copies and received with mighty Veneration both on the Account of the Authors of them and the Matters contained in them They were read both in Publick and in Private they heard them in their Assemblies and they made them their constant Imployment at home they were their Rule of Life as well as of Faith. And how is it possible to suppose any Book so received so
esteemed so dispersed so constantly read could be suffer'd to be lost among Christians If it be Objected That they were not all so esteemed at first as appears by the Epistle to the Hebrews and therefore might more easily be lost I Answer That however they were not universally received at first yet they were by those Churches to whom they were written and among them they were not kept up but mightily dispersed so that there was no way to lose them from the first spreading of them abroad unless we can suppose such multitudes of Christians to conspire together to suppress a Book of so great Concernment to themselves As if Persons who claim an Estate by virtue of some Deeds should all agree to imbezel them or any material part of them Here was no pretence for Registers and Abridgments which some make use of to lessen the Authority of the Books of the Old Testament for here we have the very Authentick Writings of the Apostles and their own Epistles in their own style and Expressions And supposing the Churches to whom they were sent to have received them as their Writings and to have communicated them to others as they did I do not see under these Circumstances how a Book containing Divine Revelations could be lost II. He Objects That the Canon of Scripture was not entire but deficient for some hundreds of years till the whole Canon was collected and acknowledged and therefore so long the Church had no Perfect Rule of Faith. I Answer I. I distinguish between a Compleat Rule of Faith and a Compleat Canon of Scripture For if the Books owned and universally received contain in them all Matters of Faith then the Rule of Faith is Compleat although some particular Books may be still in Dispute As for Instance it is certain that in St. Jerom's Time the Church of Rome did not receive as Canonical the Epistle to the Hebrews Had not that Church therefore a Compleat Rule of Faith If God hath so abundantly provided for his Church that there may be a full Revelation of all Points of Faith in the rest then the disputing the Authority of such an Epistle doth not derogate from the Compleatness of the Rule of Faith. For if they have all Points of Faith they must have a Compleat Rule of Faith. II. It is no Prejudice to the true Canon of Scripture that some particular Books of the New Testament were for some time disputed by some particular Churches For if it were done without Ground it doth reflect more on those Churches than on those Books especially when those very Churches afterwards received them And this was the Case of the Church of Rome as to the Epistle to the Hebrews St. Jerom affirms That not only the Greek Churches all received it but that all the Ancient Writers did so and not meerly as an Ecclesiastical but as a Canonical Epistle Therefore this must be a late thing in the Church of Rome and in probability began upon the Novatian Controversie which Epistle was thought too much to favour the Novatian Doctrine and when that Controversie did abate that Epistle recovered its Authority in the Church of Rome But Mr. S. is angry with me for reflecting on the Church of Rome for not receiving the Epistle to the Hebrews in St. Jerom 's Time which he thinks was an Act of Prudence antecedent to the Judgment or Determination of any Church whether Greek or Latin. One may see by this how well versed he is in the Canon of Scripture when St. Jerom declares that not only all the Greek Writers received it but all the Ancient and that as Canonical Was here no antecedent Judgment of the Church in this Matter Doth not the Consent of all Ancient Writers even in St. Jerom's Time make a Judgment of the Church But he adds That what I make a heinous Crime in the Church of Rome was a commendable Caution in it That which I said was That it hence appear'd 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. And what saith J. S. in Answer to this Not one Syllable but runs it off to another thing But why do I not as well blame the Greek Churches for not receiving the Apocalypse They do not pretend to such Authority and Infallibility in this Matter as the Church of Rome doth I do not deny that there were some Greeks then to blame in rejecting the Apocalypse but Bellarmin saith they were but few and obscure Persons and he produces the Testimonies of Justin Martyr Irenaeus Theophilus Antiochenus Melito Sardensis Dionysius Alexandrinus Clemens Alexandrinus Origen and Athanasius all approving it And the Occasion of disputing it arose from the Millenary Opinion which some thought they could not confute as long as the Apocalypse had such Authority in the Church And such Disputes as these which wore off by degrees are no real Prejudice to the Canon of the New Testament which was at first generally received and although some few Books were contested for a time yet they recover'd their Authority and have ever since been received by the Universal Consent of all Christian Churches III. He Objects against this Universal Consent the Testimonies of Marcion Ebion Valentinus Cerinthus and Epiphanius his other Hereticks who rejected the Canon of the New Testament Could any Man but J. S. make such an Objection as this But he had a mind to bring me in as a Favourer of all Hereticks and as such another Man of Integrity hath done of all Anti-Catholick and Anti-Christian Doctrines But where have I given any Occasion for such spiteful Reflections All that I said was We have the Universal Consent of all Christian Churches for the Canon of the New Testament i. e. Of all since the time that the Epistle to the Hebrews was receiv'd in the Latin and the Apocalypse in the Greek Churches notwithstanding all the Divisions they have since fallen into yet they had no Difference as to the Canon of the New Testament And this I insisted on as the Ground of our Certainty viz. The Unanimous Consent of all the great Bodies of Christians that have continued under different Denominations to this day To this he gives no other Answer but that my Answer to the Fifth Question is co-incident with that to the Fourth I thought J. S. in the Self-evident way would have liked my Answer the better for it But he doth not comprehend the design of it I had said before That we relied on the Universal Testimony of the Christian Church upon that the Question was asked What I meant by the Christian Church My Answer was That it was that which was made up of all Christian Churches i. e. saith J. S. That all the Parts make the Whole and what Incongruity is there When Mr. G. said That the Christian Church may be taken in several Latitudes he desired to know in
what Sense I took it and could I answer him more directly than to tell him I took it in the largest Sense as it was made up of all the Parts and not in such a Sense as they do who give the Denomination of the Whole to a Part But by this I do not seclude all Hereticks I do not take upon me to judge of all the Bodies of Christians in the World whether they be justly charged with Heresie or not but I take them only as Christians and from their Universal Consent I prove the Certainty of the Canon of Scripture Hereby I profess a Brotherhood with Excrementitious Outcasts I know not what Brotherhood lies in making use of their Testimony but I had rather do it than with unsufferable Pride and Folly call so many Bodies of Christians for whom Christ died Excrementitious Outcasts But although he seems to own that their Testimony doth strengthen the Evidence for the Canon of the New Testament yet he calls it back again and for extraordinary Reasons 1. They may have corrupted the Letter of Scripture although they may allow of the Books Let us then take their Testimony for the Books and examine the Letter afterwards 2. This Vniversal Testimony must reach to each Chapter and Verse but we must have Assurance not only of each Verse but of each significant Word in the Verse How hardly are some Men satisfied about the Certainty of Scripture Are there not different Copies in all Parts to examin and compare if there be cause of Mistrust and if there be none What Prejudice is this to our Certainty At this rate Men may argue against every thing and that there can be no Certainty of any Writing unless the Person stood by and saw the Author write and even then he might question his Senses too These Objections do indeed lead to an Incurable Scepticism in the Church of Rome 3. The Judges suspect the Justness of the Cause if known Knights of the Post are called in to corroborate the Evidence What a desperate Cause is that which forces Men to fling such Dirt in the Face of so many Christian Churches And that without the least Evidence or Proof against them How come all the Greek Abyssine Coptick Oriental Christians to be compared to Knights of the Post because they afford a Concurrent Testimony with us about the Canon of the New Testament They may be the honestest and best Part of Christendom for any thing J. S. knows and what Justice can there be in such Uncharitable Censures It is not enough for you to say They are all accounted Hereticks or Schismaticks by you for we that know how unjust and unreasonable your Censures are so near home have no Cause to regard them at such a distance Thus I have Answered all the Objections I have met with in J. S. against our Rule of Faith. I now come to the last part of my Task which is to examin the Arguments produced to prove the Infallibility of Oral and Practical Tradition The main Argument is thus set down by Mr. S. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour and if they follow this Rule they can never err in Faith and therefore are Infallible And they could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice after it All the Parts of this Argument Mr. S. endeavours to shew to be Self-evident but in truth it is a Self-evident Fallacy as I shall shew at large But before I particularly lay it open I must consider what he saith against the Method I used in the Conference for answering it I then thought and do still that the clearest Answer to an Argument which proves a thing impossible was to bring an undeniable Instance that such a thing really was which was proved impossible to be And to this purpose I produced the Instance of the Greek Church which professed to follow Tradition and yet they could not deny to have erred This Mr. S. saith Is giving no Answer at all for this is no Answer to his Argument but producing a new Argument against him And he magisterially tells me That it is my turn to answer and therefore I am confined to Concedo Nego or Distinguo as the Propositions are either true false or ambiguous or I may deny the Inference if I find more terms in the Conclusion than in the Premisses But these are my Bounds which I must not exceed But with submission to these Logicians I answer That where an Argument is designed to prove a thing impossible which is contrary to Sense and Experience the producing an evident Instance is the plainest and shortest way of Answering as well as in an Induction which is allowed to be disproved by a plain Instance As in the Case of Zeno's Argument against Motion Diogenes his Moving was a far more effectual Answer than if he had stood a great while with his Concedo Nego and Distinguo J. S. confesses That the vanity of Zeno 's Argument was not ill ridiculed by Diogenes his moving before him And why might not I then expose the vanity of this Demonstration by the Instance of the Greek Church unless some fault be found in the Instance He brings the Argument and I an Instance against it what are People the wiser and which shall they be for the Argument or the Instance Zeno brought his Argument and Diogenes his Instance were not By-standers the wiser when it so apparently proved the foppery of the Argument Doth J. S. think the vanity of it was not enough exposed by that means But he saith This is excepting against the Conclusion when there lies none against the Premisses No such Matter for it shews there is a Fallacy in the Premisses It is however but an Argument ad hominem call it what you will so it doth my business to shew the vanity of the Demonstration This way doth but sham an Adversary And truly that is a great matter if they be such as P.G. They are of no use for discovery of Truth As much as laying open Sophistry helps to the discovery of Truth which is not a little when we deal with Sophistical Disputers But we come to the Instance How doth he after all clear this Instance of the Greek Church Doth he deny that they hold to Tradition No. Doth he deny that they have erred notwithstanding All that he saith is That P. G. was no ways obliged not to deny that the Greek Church had erred in Points of Faith. No then he must grant that the Roman Church hath erred for they contradict each other Let him take his choice one doth my business as well as the other and more effectually destroys the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church But I say they did not err What is my saying to the business in hand Besides there are
other Points contradictorily held between the Greek and Roman Churches besides that of the Filioque and the Argument holds as well in any other as in that And therefore he must fix the Errour on one side or other After all this flourishing he takes heart and resolves to grapple with the Instance Let us see what your Instance will do Now I thought we shall have a direct Answer But I am strangely disappointed For he runs still back to that That I do not believe it erred Was the Instance brought against me or against P. G But his Answer doth not make or marr the business The business of the Demonstration it doth and that was my business But this doth not prove that a Church going upon Tradition errs unless I will grant that the Greek Church hath erred What strange Trifling is this The Dispute was about P. G's Argument and not my Opinion Is this the Answer to the Instance about the Greek Church which Mr. M. promised If this pass for an Answer I think J. S. may defend Sure footing I mentioned P. G's Answer That the Greek Church followed Tradition till the Arians left that Rule and took up a new one And why saith J. S. hath he not answered well Because he did not answer to the purpose which was not about the Arians but the present Greek Church But a Church may follow Tradition at one time and leave it at another Very true but the Greek Church did not forsake Tradition and yet erred And therefore Tradition and Errour were found together and therein lies the force of this undeniable Instance The rest is such Trifling that I am really ashamed to answer it over and over Still he attempts to give an Answer and still fails but it is something new and therefore shall be considered His Answer saith J. S. holds as well as to the present as past Greek Church His answer Where is it It was that those who err in Faith must leave Tradition But the Greeks did not leave Tradition and yet erred in Faith so that the Instance holds good still He denies that Errour and Tradition can be found together in the Greek Church or any other Ancient or Modern i. e. the Conclusion must be held against all the Instances in the World. But I ought to say whether the differences were in matters of Faith. Yes in such which the Church of Rome accounts matters of Faith. But how can an erring Church still plead Tradition and adhere to it Answer the Instance for the Greek Church doth plead Tradition But then pleading Tradition is no more but quoting some Expressions of ancient Writers as the Arians did Not so neither for the Greek Church relies most upon Tradition from Father to Son in Practise of any Church in the World. But if they adhere to Tradition and that Tradition leads them to Christ who could not err how can they possibly err For pray did Christ teach any Errour No certainly When a Father believed what Christ taught him and the Son what the Father believed did not the Son too believe what Christ taught Run it on to the last Son that shall be born in the World must not every one believe what Christ taught if every one believed what his Father believed And so Goodnight to the Greek Church we are come back to the Argument I might as well have Instanced in the Latin Church it self Truly I think so too and so you shall find in a short time and how little Advantage you get by such a Challenge But it is impossible for a Church to adhere to Tradition and yet to Err therefore if the present Greek Church have Erred it has not adhered to Tradition if it have adhered to Tradition it hath not Erred That is the Argument must be good let the Instance be what it will. But an easie Distinction will shew the Weakness of this Argument Adhering to Tradition may be taken Two ways I. For Adhering to Tradition as the Rule and Means of Conveyance of Matters of Faith. II. For actually Adhering to that very Doctrine which Christ taught and hath ever since been truly convey'd down by Tradition In this latter Sense we grant it impossible for Men to Err while they actually adhere to that very Doctrine which Christ taught and is supposed to be deliver'd down by Tradition But this is not the Matter before us which lies in these Two Points I. Whether Tradition be an Infallible Way to convey the Doctrine of Christ down to us II. Whether it be impossible for those who hold to This as Their Rule to Err or not And so the Answer is plain to the main Argument If by Traditionary Christians be meant such as adhere to that very Doctrine which Christ taught and was actually conveyed down to them then such Traditionary Christians so believing cannot Err. But if by Traditionary Christians be meant such as take Tradition for an Infallible Rule of conveying all Matters of Faith then we say such Traditionary Christians may and have Erred And that for Two Reasons I. Because Tradition is no Infallible Rule II. Because although it were yet Men might Err either by mistaking it or departing from it But saith J. S. They cease to be Traditionary Christians if they do not believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday and so up to Christ. If by Traditionary Christians be meant they do not really believe what Christ taught we grant it that they are If by Traditionary Christians be meant such as bear the Name of Traditionary Christians and look on Tradition as their Rule and imagine they have the same Faith which Christ taught then they are still Traditionary Christians And now I am to give a clear and distinct Answer to the Demonstration of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition as it is managed by J. S. and taken into Propositions I. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour J. S. hopes I have nothing to say to this but he is mistaken For I have many things to say to lay open the Notorious Fallacy of it in every Clause I. All Traditionary Christians Who are they Are all Christians Traditionary Christians This were to the purpose if it could be proved But how doth this appear Why is it not said All Christians have gone upon this Principle He knew this could never have been proved And therefore he puts in the thing in dispute and would have it taken for granted that there were no other but Traditionary Christians Which I deny and I am certain he can never prove it Suppose then that there were Christians not Traditionary as well as Traditionary the Proposition appears ridiculous so far is it from Demonstration Traditionary Christians believed so Non-Traditionary Christians believed otherwise and which are to be believed is the Question and that to be determined by the Certainty of the