you How you could prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible And in a Copy sent from Ch. where you dispersed it the Title of the second Dispute is Stillingfleet's first Question How do you prove c. so that my Name was here falsly put in and it is easie to guess with what design But to proceed When you said the Infallibility of the Church of Rome consisted in following the universal Testimony of all Traditionary Christians Your Copy makes me ask a very wise Question upon it viz. How does if appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in Traditiun Whereas I put two Questions to you 1. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in the sense and meaning of Tradition 2. Is this Tradition a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture The Design of which Questions was to shew 1. That to receive a Doctrine by mere Tradition can afford no Infallible Ground of Faith unless persons be assured of the true Sense and Meaning of the Doctrine so delivered As for instance suppose the Doctrine delivered be that Christ was the Son of God if the Infallibility of Tradition goes no farther than the bare delivery from Father to Son then Faith can go no farther than the general words though an Heretical sense may lie under them If the Infallibility doth extend to the sense and meaning of these words then either every Traditionary Christian is to give this sense which will make a very large Infallibility in the whole Body of Traditionary Christians or else the explaining the sense and meaning of Tradition must belong to a certain Order of Men by virtue of a divine Promise If so then the Infallibility of Tradition cannot consist in holding the same Doctrine to day that was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour as you asserted For if the Church may explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as to oblige Men to believe that by virtue of such explication which they were not obliged to before then it is impossible the Infallibility of Tradition should be in a constant Tradition from Father to Son. For they have no power to oblige to any more than they received but according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and some will tell you it is Heresie to deny it and I appeal to F. Warner if it be not the Church hath power and authority to explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as persons are obliged upon pâ—in of Damnation to believe that Sense and Meaning of Tradition which the present Church delivers As will Appear by an undeniable instance The Tradition of a Real Presence in the Eucharist is allowed on all hands but all the Controversie is and hath been for some Ages what the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition is Whether it be a Real Presence by way of Efficacy and Influence or by a mystical Union or by a substantial Change of the very Elements into the Body and Bloud of Christ. The Tradition of the Real Presence may be preserved under every one of these Explications the Question now is whether it be sufficient to adhere to the general Tradition of the Church or it be not necessary to Salvation to adhere to the Churches Explication of the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition in the Councils of Lateran and Trent If it be said that the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition as there expressed viz. Transubstantiation was always deliver'd from Father to Son I answer 1. This is more than is pretended by many of the greatest Men in the Roman Church as hath been lately abundantly shewed And it is impossible to make it out that the manner of the Presence hath been constantly delivered from Father to Son from the time of Christ and his Apostles for the main Testimonies alledged out of Antiquity are onely for a Real Presence and there are as express Testimonies against the Change of the Elements as there are any for the other 2. This takes off from the Power and Authority of the Church of Rome if it cannot make a necessary Explication of the Sense and Meaning of Tradition and resolves all into a meer humane Faith which is the unavoidable Consequence of this Doctrine of Oral Tradition For no other Account can be given of it than from meer Natural Reason viz. that Traditionary Christians could not believe otherwise to day than they did yesterday Granting this to be true which is very far from being so as shall be shewed when Your Answer to the Instance of the Greek Church comes abroad yet the utmost this can amount to is that I resolve my Faith into a Logical Demonstration And is this the Faith Christians are to be saved by What Grace of God what Assistence of the Holy Spirit are necessary to such a Faith as this But for this I refer you to the Haeresis Blackloäna c. 2. I intended by the second Question to put a Difference between the Tradition allowed by us and the Tradition disputed If no more were meant by Tradition than the Universal Tradition of the Christian Church as to the Books of Scripture this I had before granted to be a sufficient Ground for the Certainty of our Faith as to the Canon of Scripture which is our Rule of Faith but if by Tradition be understood either some necessary Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture or a Power in the Church to make unnecessary to become necessary this I denyed and desire to see some better Proof of it than you produce All the Answer which you give in your own Paper to these two Questions is that All Traditionary Christians that is all Bishops all Priests all Fathers and all People following this Rule and receiving Faith because it was received the day before could not innovate in Faith unless they could all either forget what they received the day before or out of Malice change it therefore because no cause can be assigned for such an effect they cannot innovate If there can Assign it Now to which of the Questions that I put is this an Answer Doth this shew that the Church of Rome is Infallible in giving the Sense and Meaning of Tradition or that this Tradition is a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture But it seems to be an Answer to the Question in your Copy and therefore it is very suspicious that the Question was so framed that the Answer might seem pertinent to it To shew the vanity of this Demonstration I produced the Instance of the Greek Church which followed Tradition from Father to Son and yet you charge it with Errour in matters of Faith so that a Church following Tradition may err in matters of Faith. Here again your Copy notoriously fails for it makes me put such another wise Question as before Whether the Greek Church did follow from Father to Son the Tradition in matters of Faith or no As though I had desired Information from
we have the Word of God for it that they are in the certain way to salvation but if they could be kept from all Errour and yet not be sincerely Good Can Faith save him Jam. 2.14 What doth it profit my Brethren though a man say he hath Faith even infallible Faith and have not Works I have long wonder'd at this kind of Missionary Zeal as Mr. M. speaks p. 34 against Errour and the want of I know not what Infallibility when so much less Zeal is shewed against Mens Passions and Vices whereas the Vertues of the Mind and of a good Life are far more excellent and usefull to Mankind than being kept from Involuntary Errours But saith Mr. M. It is a most uncomfortable thing to be shewn that you ought not to trust your Reason and to be told yâ—u ought In answer to this suggestion I will tell you a very comfortable thing and that is the allowance God makes for Ignorance and Weakness For if God will not charge Involuntary Errours upon us we may think our selves as safe as if we were Infallible What Reason we have we ought to make use of for the best purposes but if our Reason fail us the Goodness of God will not if we be Sincere Yet Mr. M. cannot get it out of his head but that it is my Task to give some distinguishing Mark for the finding out those Christians on whose Tradition we may safely rely for the Reception of the holy Scriptures How often must I repeat it that it is none of my Task And that if the Testimony of all Christian Churches be a sufficient Ground of Certainty I have no Reason to examine farther As for Instance suppose upon a Lord Mayor's Day I ask of all the several Liveries and Companies and other People whether my Lord Mayor be gone by and they all unanimously agree that he is have not I reason to be satisfied by this universal Consent Ay but Sir saith Mr. M. you are to consider that there was a great diversity in the Companies you met with there was my Lord Mayor's own Company and many besides some whereof had no Charters confirmed to them I desire you to tell me which of the Companies had Charters and which not for my part I will believe none but the Testimony of those Companies which could produce their Charters But say I if our Dispute was about legal Companies you say very well but since I aim at no more than knowing whether my Lord Mayor be gone by or not I think the Testimony of them all is sufficient whether incorporated or not whether they were of the Orange or Blew Regiment or any other People in the Street when I find them all to agree in the same thing I have no reason to question the Certainty of it I will not think so poorly of your Vnderstandings as to think it needs Application But I must think so if yet you think it my Task to find out a distinguishing Mark between Churches when the universal Testimony of all Christian Churches is sufficient for the Certainty of our Faith which Mr. M. so often grants was the Occasion and Subject of the Conference And now there is nothing remaining to be answered in Mr. M's Letter to me but his learned Discourses about Verbal Conferences and Coffee-Houses which will require no long Answer from me As to Verbal Conferences they depend so much on the Temper Ingenuity Presence of Mind and particular skill in Controversie which Persons have that no certain Rule can be given about them They may doe Good or Hurt be Usefull or Mischievous as the Persons and circumstances are And it is not the setting down some general Heads can prevent the Mischief of false Reports as I have had too large and fresh Experience of it Which ought to make every one more Carefull what sort of Persons he meets with upon such Occasions I do not see how any Man can be secure as to his Reputation after them if they are such as run into Companies frequent Coffee-houses and are apt to boast and to talk much of themselves as that at such a time saith one I disputed with such a Man and these were my Arguments and he gave such trifling Answers to them that I wonder he should have any Reputation And to convince you look ye Gentlemen here are the Notes of such a Conference do you mark what a pitifull Answer this is and then when he was required to go farther he Refused and pretended business and want of Time so that upon the whole Matter I conclude him to be a Mere Trifler All this while the Person concerned is at a Distance and knows nothing of all this but he is abused and reproached at the Mercy of such Persons who look on an officious Lie as a Venial sin especially when it is thought to serve a Good Cause And when the injured Person comes to understand how he hath been used he hath no way left but to publish a Vindication of himself and so Verbal Conferences must end in Writing Controversies unless some effectual way could be found out to prevent mens partial and disingenuous Representing them afterwards There is too great Reason to believe that those who are most Impertinent in a Dispute will be so after it and great Talkers are commonly great Boasters especially when they hope to recommend themselves by their pretended Victories and their Missionary Zeal of disputing in Coffee-houses A thing which Mr. M. observes p. 34. the Children of the Reformation are little acquainted with And I do not like the Mother of these Children a jot the less for it For Religion is a grave and serious thing and ought to be treated with a Respect due to the Concernments of it I am far from being a Friend to any Seditious idle or profane Discourses in those places but yet methinks it looks very oddly to turn Places of Diversion into Schools of Disputing And if such a Missionary Zeal prevails I suppose the Keepers of those Houses will give little thanks to the Promoters of it for Men do not love to drink their warm liquour in Mood and Figure nor to lace their Coffee with Controversies Mr. M. represents me p. 33. as one that thought it a Crime to go to Coffee-houses Which is a notable device to make all the Gentlemen who frequent them my Enemies Whereas I onely mentioned your reading your Paper in Coffee-houses and there boasting of your Conference wherein he might be sure I would not be present to contradict him But this is a distinguishing Mark of Mr. M's Ingenuity I shall mention one more and conclude this Letter Mr. M. confesses many Lies are told in Coffee-houses p. 33. and I have some Reason to believe him But if saith he all Places are to be avoided wherein Lies are told I am afraid Dr. St. would run the hazard of being silenced for want of a Pulpit which might be ventured on This is such an obliging Complement to the London Clergy to compare their Pulpits to Coffee-houses for Lying that it is beyond my skill to return it But if there be so little Truth in our Pulpits as Mr. M. suggests which I am sure he can never prove yet the constant Loyalty which hath been preached there might have made Mr. M. a little more civil to them than to compare them to Coffee-houses wherein himself complains of Seditious idle and profane Discourses I am Sir Your humble Servant E. S. London Apr. 21 1687. THere is in the Press and will speedily be published an Answer to the Reasons of Edward Sclateâ— Minister of â—uâ—ney for his Conversion â—o the Roman Catholick Faith and Communion Sold by H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard V. Herâ—s Blackloâ—n
Faith into the Infallibility of Oral Tradition For if this were the Christian Method of Resolving Faith there would have been very little Use or Necessity of Scripture and the Fathers were extremely mistaken in the mighty Characters which on all Occasions they give of it not onely of the excellency of the matter contained in it but as a Rule of Faith for all Christians as I might easily shew if there were occasion But I desire to see any thing like the consent of the Christian Church from the Apostles times downwards for resolving Faith into mere Oral Tradition and certainly if the Church had used this way it must have understood it and expressed it And it is a just Prescription against a method of resolving Faith that the ancient Christian Church which consisted I hope of true believers never knew any thing concerning it and yet I suppose they had absolute Certainty of their Faith though they had different Translations of the Bible among them 2. As to the Number of Books I do not deny that there was in the first Ages a difference in several Churches about the Number of Canonical Books but this doth not hinder that Vniversal Testimony I mentioned For 1. It adds weight to the Churches Testimony that where there was any Controversie about any Canonical Book of the New Testament the matter was examined and debated and at last after a through discussion the Book was received as happened about the Epistle to the Hebrews Which was not received by the Authority of one Church imposing upon another but by a fair Examination of Evidence produced for its Apostolical authority which being allow'd it hath been received by the unanimous Consent of the Christian Church 2. There hath been ever since an uncontradicted Consent of the Christian Church as to the Canonical Books of the New Testament No one Church disputing the Authority of any of them And even the Council of Trent agrees with us herein although it endeavours to obtrude some Books for Canonical in the old Testament which never had the Universal Consent of the Jewish or Christian Church for them 3. He desires to know how I understand that all the Divine Revelations are contained in the New Testament viz. whether all necessary Articles of Faith are contained in the New Testament virtually and implicitly or clearly and explicitly the former will doe me little service the latter is contradicted by the Church of Rome and therefore I can plead no Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church and so my Plea for absolute Certainty is groundless To this I answer 1. If it be agreed that all Doctrines of Faith necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture either explicitly or implicitly which Mr. M. denies not it is sufficient for my purpose For the Ground of my Faith is absolutely Certain viz. that all necessary Articles of Faith are contained in Scripture and if they be explicit I am bound to give a distinct Assent to them if they be not then no more is required of me than to believe them when they do appear to be there which is no more than a general preparation of Mind to yield my assent to whatsoever doth appear to me to be the Word of God. So that my Faith rests on the Word of God as its absolute ground of Certainty but the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrine depends upon the Evidence that it is contained in Scripture And it is the general Ground of Faith we are now upon and not the particular Acts of it 2. The Church of Romes assuming to it self the Power of making implicit Articles to become explicit by its declaring the sense of them doth not overthrow the Certainty of our Faith. For as long as it is granted that all necessary Articles of Faith are there explicitely or implicitely by an Universal Consent of the Christian Church it signifies nothing to the shaking of my Faith that a particular Part of the Church doth assume such a Power to it self For this must come among the particular Points of Faith and not the general Grounds It must be looked on as an Article of Faith and so it must be contained in Scripture either explicitely or implicitely If explicitely we desire to see it in express terms which I suppose you will not pretend to if only implicitely I pray tell me how I can be explicitely bound to believe such a Power in the Church of Rome which is only implicitely there And by what Power this implicite Article comes to be made explicite For the Power of the Church it self being the Article in question it is impossible that while it is only implicitely there it should make it self Explicit If it be said that it will become explicit to any sober Enquirer then every such Person may without the Churches help find out all Necessary Points of Faith which is a Doctrine I am so far from being ashamed of that I think it most agreeable to the Goodness of God the Nature of the Christiâ—n Faith and the Unanimous Consent of the Christian Church for many Ages But this is beyond our present business 3. The Church of Rome hath no-where declared in Council that it hath any such Power of making implicit Articles of Faith contained in Scripture to become explicit by its explaining the Sense of them For the Church of Rome doth not pretend to make new Articles of Faith but to make an implicit Doctrine to become explicit is really to make a new Article of Faith. It doth not indeed make a new Divine Revelation but it makes that which was not necessary to be believed to become necessary and what is not necessary to be believed is no Article of Faith. What is only believed implicitely is not actually believed but there is only a preparation of mind to believe it supposing it to be made appear to be a matter of Faith. Besides the Church of Rome declares that it receives its Doctrines by Tradition and although I have often heard of an implicit Faith I know not what to make of an implicit Tradition I had thought whatever is delivered by way of Tradition must be explicit or else the Father and Son might easily be mistaken And so for all that I can see Mr. M. and you must dispute it out for you say That the Infallibility of Faith depends on Oral Tradition and the Infallibility of Oral Tradition on this that the Traditionary Christians hold the same Doctrine to day that was delivered yesterday in Faith and so up to the time of our B. Saviour But what think you now of Mr. M.'s assertion That the Church hath power to interpret and make known implicit Doctrines contained in Scripture so as to make it necessary to believe them explicitely For he saith That all the Churches in Communion with Rome do hold there are Divine Revelations in Scripture which are contained there virtually and implicitely so as they need the Churches Interpretation and Authority for being