in Answer to the next Question Q. 2. By what certain Rule do you hold it A. 2. By the Divine Revelations contained in the Writings of the New Testament Here was no Subtilty or Learning requisite but to give a plain Answer as to the Rule of our Faith. Which we do assert to be the Written Word and no Oral Tradition Q. 3. Then follow'd By what certain Rule do you know that the New Testament which we now have does contain all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles A. 3. By the Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church from the Apostles time downwards In which Answer I laid down the Grounds of our different Resolution of Faith from that which you contend for and which I at large explained in the Conference it self viz. that our Certainty of Faith is chiefly resolved into the Testimony of the Apostolical Churches which first received the Books of the New Testament from the Divine Writers of them and from these Churches where the Authentick Writings themselves were preserved Copies were dispersed over other Churches which by comparing together the Testimonies of the several Churches did by degrees fix upon the Certain Canon of the New Testament Here a Question was started Whether all the Books of the New Testament were alike received I answer'd not at first but after due Examination those which were at first Controverted came to be universally received And I particularly instanced in the Church of Rome which a long time did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews when it was received by other Churches but at last did yield to the Testimony of other Churches therein From whence I observed that the Church of Rome was far from being believed then to have the Authority of making the Canon of Scripture or being Infallible in Faith it being then taxed for disbelieving a Part of Scripture and being at last over-ruled by the Testimony of the other Apostolical Churches I remember I asked you how it came about that the Church of Rome in St Ierom's time did err about the Epistle to the Hebrews if there were any Infallibility in it And your Answer was that Rome was at a great distance from Judea Which I thought a strange Answer considering the Communication the Churches then had at greater distance and the frequent Recourse of Iews to Rome but especially if that Church had any Promise of Infallibility made to it Which to be just to you I do not remember that you once asserted in all that two hours Discourse And truly you were not inconsistent with your Principles therein For Infallibility by Promise and by Oral Tradition are as different as Grace and Nature or the Assent of Faith from a Dictate of Reason In Faith a Divine Testimony is supposed in the Infallibility of Oral Tradition nothing but a Natural Principle that men must hold the same Doctrine to day that they did yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour Where the different method of our resolving Faith appears you begin at the present time and so run upwards but the force of all lies in the connexion of one link with another inseparably which I say will by no means hold but ours begins with the Apostolical Churches which first received the sacred Books and delivered them down their Testimony is the Authentick instrument of conveying down the Canon of Scripture and the following Tradition of the Church is onely a conveying down that first Testimony upon which we believe the Canon of the New Testament There were many interlocutory passages about this Subject but this is the substance of what I distinctly remember Q. 4. Was that Vniversal Testimony an Infallible Rule to assure us certainly down to our time that the New Testament contained all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles A. 4. The Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church concerning the Book of Scripture and the Doctrine contained therein is a sufficient Ground to make us certain of all matters necessary to our Salvation To make this Answer clear we are to consider that the Scripture being our sole and entire Rule of Faith all matters necessary to Salvation must be supposed to be contained therein and therefore the same Testimony which delivers the Scripture to us doth deliver all the necessary Articles of Faith as contained therein Which are there received as in the Lump and if we receive the Book which contains all we must by the same Authority receive all contained in it As if a Purse be left to a Man by his Father's Will full of Gold and Silver and this by the Executours be declared to contain all the Gold and Silver his Father left him they who deliver this Purse to him from the Executours do certainly deliver to him all the Gold and Silver left him by his Father But if he suspects there was both Gold and Silver left him by his Father which was not in that Purse then he must call in question the Integrity of the Executours who declared that all was contained therein This is now the Case of the Christian Church as to all Divine Truths which respect Mens Salvation the Primitive Church who answer to the Executours in the other Case did unanimously declare that all such Truths were undoubtedly contained in the Written Word Although therefore there may be a real difference in the nature of the Doctrines therein contained as there is between Gold and Silver yet he that receives all must receive the one as well as the other and the matters of Salvation being of greatest moment they that receive the whole Will of God upon grounds of certainty must be assured that therein they receive all matters necessary to our Salvation Against my Answer to this Question Mr. M. suggests several things p. 12. 1. As to difference of Translations Doth Mr. M. think our Faith is to be resolved into the Original Texts What becomes then of the Vulgar Latin For although the Council of Trent declares it to be Authentick yet I take it to be but a Translation But there is a difference of Translations and there is no unanimous consent of the Christian Church for any one And how is it possible there should be since the Christian Church consists of so many bodies of Men of different Countries and Languages But we have the unanimous Consent of all the ancient Christian Churches for the Translation of the Scripture into their own Languages which shews that they thought the People ought to be acquainted with it as the Word of God so translated and that they were to resolve their Faith into it as they were capable of understanding it And it is very hard to conceive how Faith can be resolved into an unknown Tongue but we have the unanimous consent of the Christian Church that Faith must rest upon the Word of God which is contained in the Books of Scripture And therefore we have the Consent of the Christian Church against resolving
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
made known to us Let us now lay these two assertions together If your Doctrine hold good All Doctrines of Faith must be explicitely delivered from Father to Son No saith Mr. M. The Church hath power to make known Doctrines implicitely and virtually contained in Scripture I pray could the Father communicate to his Son what was only implicitely and virtually contained in Scripture If Mr. M. say true here is a very possible cause of Innovation assigned without Forgetfulness or Malice viz. when the Fathers of the Church take upon them to draw forth implicit Doctrines and to make them explicit Articles of Faith. And thus undoubtedly many Innovations have come into the Church when some persons have taken up a particular Opinion and because nothing would prevail without Scripture they have attempted to bring it out of Scripture but that being not plain or clear for it they gave out it was virtually and implicitely contained in it and thus it passed from one to another till it getting footing in the Church and prevailing over a great part of it then lest the Church should be charged with Errour and Innovation the prevailing Party takes upon it to declare this to be the sense and meaning of Scripture and to require all persons of their Communion to believe it And thus Mr. M. hath answered your Demonstration But still although the Church of Rome hath assumed such a Power yet it still disowned it and even in the Council of Trent pretended to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous sense of the Fathers which is directly contrary to the Power of making known such a sense and Meaning of Scripture in Doctrines of Faith as may oblige men to believe that explicitely now which they were not obliged to by any precedent Sense or Explication I come now to the Fifth and Last Question Qu. 5. Being the words Christian Church may be taken in several latitudes by persons of different Religions I desire to know what that Christian Church is whose Testimony concerning the Books of Scripture and the Doctrine contained therein is a sufficient ground to make us certain of all matters that are necessary to our Salvation Ans. 5. By the Universal Testimony of the Christian Church concerning the Books of Scripture which are our Rule of Faith as to matters of Salvation I mean the Universal Consent of all Christian Churches from the Apostles times downwards This Mr. M. calls Trifling p. 13. and in this you agree though you differ in the Resolution of Faith. But I pray wherein does this Trifling lie Was it because I would not answer as you would have had me But I do not yet see how I could have answered more to the purpose The Question in short was What the Christian Church was whose Universal Testimony I relied upon as to the Canon of Scripture My Answer was That the Christian Church is that which is made up of all Christian Churches and their Universal Consent is that Testimony we rely upon Is this Trifling But saith Mr. M. p. 14. Mr. G. 's intention was to know what Churches I accounted Christian Churches I told you over and over since we were enquiring into the general Grounds of Faith if we had the Universal Testimony of all Christian Churches I had no reason to go any farther For if all Churches of the Christian World be agreed as they are about the Canon of the New Testament this was sufficient for the certainty of our Faith without looking after any Infallibility in the Church of Rome And this you know was the main Point in Dispute between us as appears by the occasion of it as it is set down by Mr. M. You affirmed that no Protestant could shew any ground of absolute certainty for their Faith I undertook to shew we had for our Faith is resolved into the Scripture as the Word of God and whatever is built on the Word of God is absolutely certain And that these Books of the New Testament contain our Rule of Faith as being the Word of God we have the Universal Testimony of all Christian Churches And this makes our Faith as to these Books absolutely certain And where now is the Trifling Doth the Universal Testimony of all Christian Churches afford sufficient Ground of Certainty as to the Books of Scripture or not If not why do you not shew wherein it fails If it doth what mean you to call this Trifling When it is apparent I have gained the Point I aimed at viz. That we Protestants have certain Grounds for our Faith without any need of the Roman Churches Infallibility Which was the thing to be shewed But Mr. M. tells me p. 14. That you asked me whether I included the Arians Nestorians Eutychians and Calvinists and urged that this Question might be written down to which I did not consent Because Mr. T. declared he was fully satisfied and desired to propose a New Question to Mr. G. I grant you did ask me the Question several times whether I included the Arians Nestorians c. I told you I rejected the Doctrines of all such as were condemned by the four General Councils as the Arians Nestorians and Eutychians were but it was not pertinent to our purpose to consider how far any under those Denominations might be Parts of the Catholick Church For since we had the Consent of all Christian Churches in this Matter I had no Reason to lessen the Evidence they gave by a Concurrent Testimony For the Argument was so much stronger since all Churches under all Denominations did agree in it But Mr. M. still complains that I would not permit your sixth Question viz. What Churches I look'd on as Members of the Christian Church It is strange he should forget for what Reason I rejected it viz. because it was not pertinent to our business For if the Testimony of all Christian Churches be more considerable than only of some why should I lessen the strength of the Argument taken from the Universal Consent of all Christian Churches The other Question must have led us into other Disputes foreign to our business and my design was to keep close to the Matter of Certainty about which the Conference began And now I hope I have given an Answer to the Letter desiring Information of the Conference which I did forbear in my first Letter to set down at large foreseeing that either your self or your friend would offer me farther occasion to give a suffer account of it But because the Substance of the whole Conference depended on those two Points 1. Whether the Universal Consent of all Christian Churches be not a sufficient Ground for our Certainty as to our Rule of Faith viz. the Scripture 2. Whether Tradition from Father to Son be an infallible Conveyance of Matters of Faith To shew wherein the main force of the whole Conference lay in few words I desired you to make good these two Things 1. That we have no absolute Certainty as to the Rule
me who because I had proved from St. Paul's words that Iupiter was sometimes taken among the Heathens for the true God from thence wisely infers that I am for introducing Paganism and hardly believe another Life but this is so gross and ridiculous a calumny that it hardly deserves to be taken notice of But I pray let me see this Controversie-juggle as Mr. M. phrases it and how Dr. St. is set up against Dr. St. Thus it lies In my first Proposition I seem to affirm that the Tradition of all Christian Churches is abound of absolute certainty for the admittance of Scripture and in the second I would infer that Tradition is no infallible conveyance of matters of Faith but the belief of the Scripture is a matter of Faith. A rare Discovery Methinks Mr. G. appears very well qualified to set up for a Controvertist and much such a one as those who formerly set Dr. St. against Dr. St. But the Author of the first Letter obsrves that I spare my own pains and put the proof upon you Mr. M. confesses that the occasion of the Conference was that you affirmed that Protestants could not shew any ground of absolute certainty for their Faith. Therefore since you own Tradition to be an infallible way of conveying Faith I desired to know how you could deny that we had any ground for absolute certainty of our Faith as to the Word of God when the Tradition we go upon is so much larger and firmer than any you can bring for the points of Faith in difference between us But then as to your way of explaining Tradition not with respect to the Books of Scripture but to particular Doctrines of Faith proposed the second particular to you to make good viz. That the Tradition from Father to Son is an infallible conveyance of matters of Faith notwithstanding the Greek Church is charged by you with Errour which adhered to Tradition If therefore you do own the Infallibility of Tradition you have no reason to deny that we have any ground of certainty who have a more unquestionable Tradition for the Scriptures than you can have for your distinguishing Doctrines or the matters of Controversie between us Yet how can you esteem your way of Tradition an infallible conveyance of matters of Faith when you charge the Greek Church with Heresie which adhered to Tradition Thus I leave any Reader to judge where the appearance of a contradiction lies There remains nothing more in either of the Letters which I can think requires an Answer unless it be that I charge Mr. M. with using arts to get Mr. T. to sign your Copy I do confess that when he told me Mr. M. had spoken to him that they might meet and compare and sign each others Copies without acquainting me with it or desiring that Copy which was taken for me and was read aloud till the Company rose and that he had said that I gave out false Copies I did look upon these as Arts but if he doth not like this name nor Mr. T. I can soon find out another And the matter of fact is owned by Mr. M. in these words Meeting accidentally with Mr. T. in the street I told him I heard you complained that Mr. G.'s Papers of the Conference were false and therefore I desired him to compare his copy with that which was written for Mr. G. that we might see whether Mr. G. or his Amanuensis had dealt fairly or not Here is the very thing confessed which I complained of viz. that without acquainting me with it he would have had Mr. T. to have compared his Copy with theirs after he confess I had complained that the Copy they gave out was false And if Mr. T. had complied with this Proposition and after comparing had signed your Copy what Triumphs had then been made that Mr. T. himself had owned your Copy against me And for this matter I need not make any insinuation for the thing it self is clear The only way for your justification had been when you heard of my complaint to have brought or sent your Copy to me to have examined and compared it but I say still it was very unjustisiable for you to give out a Copy for the true account of the Conference which was never read nor compared and I think I have now made appear to have been both false and imperfect And now having finished the main parts of my Answer I must make a Review that nothing which may be thought material may escape me For that is the constant method of some men to cry up what is unanswered for unanswerable although it were only passed over as not deserving it I did say in my former Letter that you took great care in the Conference it self to keep me from expecting any great ingenuity after it The Author of the first Letter desires Information what that care was I am very unwilling to expose your methods of managing Conferences but I desire that Gentleman to be present at any of them and he will find satisfaction enough But Mr. M. as a proof of your fairness insists p. 2. on your desire to put things into writing Will Mr. M. say that you carried your self fairly and ingenuously as to the manner of the Conference That you gave me no interruptions used no fleering behaviour that you never offered to put things down against my sense nor hindered me in setting it down that you made no unhandsom reflections in the interlocutory part If Charity be any part of Ingenuity you shewed it abundantly For when you spake of Churches in Communion with Rome Mr. T. said What! and all other Churches must be in Gehenna you replied with great Charity and Ingenuity that many a true word was spoke in jest If you are your self in earnest I pray let us know for what reason you damn us all Is it for want of certainty in our Faith That is very far from being proved by you And if you could prove it in your way for all that I can see you will damn almost all in the Church of Rome as well as all out of it For if this Oral Tradition be the only certain way of Faith and all are damn'd who want such certainty what will become of all those in the Church of Rome who believe as little of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition as we do But to return to your Ingenuity in the Conference I observe that Mr. M. onely mentions this Proposal of putting the Conference in Writing to shew your Ingenuity he saith not a word of it as to your manner of managing it And truly I then thought he was ashamed of it but whether he were or not I am sure he had cause for it He confesses there was Noise Wrangling Confusions Interruptions Heat Passion Personal reflexions p. 3 9 15. And all this while you were very fair and ingenuous very meek and candid very soft and obliging not in the least boisterous impertinent or
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
whether the Penalty would be reasonable in case they could not understand their duty by them but in our case the matter is of far greater moment for mens Eternal Salvation or Misery depends upon knowing and doing the will of God contained in Scripture and therefore it is of so much greater consequence and necessity that all persons who are concerned for their Salvation should be able to understand by diligent and carefull reading the Scripture so much as is required of them in order to it And this was the certain Faith of the Primitive Church that all things necessary to Salvation were plain in Scripture and if they were plain they needed no Interpreter But we have not the consent of all Christian Churches that the Scripture is a Rule of Faith without the Churches Interpretation I answer that we have the consent of all Christian Churches that the Scripture is a Rule of Faith but whether besides this Rule there be an Infallible Iudge of Controversies or Interpreter of Scripture is another distinct Controversie We have the unanimous consent of all Christian Churches for the one but in the present state of Christendom we do not pretend it for the other for we are well enough acquainted with the pretence of Infallibility in the Church of Rome but then we say that it is impossible for you to bring such an unanimous consent of all Christian Churches for your Infallible Iudge as we do bring for our Rule of Faith and therefore we have much greater certainty of our Rule than you can have of your Infallible Iudge We appeal to all the Churches of the Christian World for our Rule you dare not appeal to any one Church besides your own for your Infallibility For it is utterly denied by all the Eastern Churches though of very different denominations And when you bring an universal consent of all Christian Churches for the Roman Churches Infallibility I may safely promise to become your Convert But yet they do not agree that every man is to interpret Scripture for himself What is the meaning of inter preting Scripture for himfelf If it be that a man is to rely on Scripture as his Rule of Faith in order to Salvation then we have their universal consent in as much as they deliver this as the Rule of Faith. If it be that in doubtfull places he is to rely on his own Judgment without making life of the best helps then we pretend to no such thing for we assert the contrary and do think in all doubtfull cases that persons are bound to make use of the best and most reasonable means for their satisfaction among which we not only reckon Prayer Meditation comparing Scripture and Expositors upon it but the help of Spiritual Guides and the Sense of the Primitive Church which our Church doth especially recommend and which we look on as the best Arbitrator between us in all our Controversies about the sense of doubtfull places of Scripture But after all either there must be an Infallible Iudge or every man must judge for himself in all matters that concern his Salvation And therefore if we have the consent of all Christian Churches against the only pretended Infallible Judge we have their consent likewise that every man is to judge for his own Salvation And this all Mankind are really agreed in whatever some may pretend or else it is to no purpose for you to go about to make Converts for in so doing you make the person you intend to convert Judge of the best way to Salvation and not only so but you make him Judge of all the Controversies between Us and You and especially of the true grounds of Faith. And how ridiculous after this is it to pretend that a man is not to judge for himself in matters that concern his Salvation 3. Lastly Mr. M. p. 29. desires to know what those Christian Churches are whose Testimony is required towards the assuring us what is Scripture and what not and by what mark I distinguished them from others I answer again by no other mark than that they are Christian Churches and it is a great satisfaction to any mans mind that however they differ about other matters yet they are all agreed in the Canon of the New Testament I am by no means bound to assign any Rule in this case as you desire whereby to distinguish Orthodox Churches from Heretical for whatever they are in other points they all agree in this which is the Foundation of our Faith. As to the 2d Point I proposed in my Letter to be made good viz. That the Tradition from Father to Son is an infallible conveyance of matters of Faith notwithstanding the Greek Church is charged by you with Errours which adhered to Tradition the Author of the first Letter thinks you are concerned to answer it But then he thinks I am as well bound to answer your Argument In good time But was not that very instance of the Greek Church produced on purpose to shew the weakness of the Argument And is not making that plain answering it as effectually as the Philosopher's Argument against Motion was when the man moved before him For he proved that impossible which he shewed was so far from it that he saw him doe it And Sophistical Arguments are best answered by clear and undeniable Instances and this of the Greek Church is of that nature But he saith Objections may be raised against the most undeniable Truth and he instanceth in two things mathematically demonstrable and yet Objections may be made against them which cannot easily be answered But the difference of the case is very plain for those instances only shew that there are some things above our comprehension about Matter and Motion but what is this to an infallible Rule of Faith which every one is bound to know if according to you he would have any certainty of his Faith And if it appears by a notorious instance that it fails for a whole Church and a very great and ancient Church is accused by you of no less than Heresie and yet it adhered to Tradition then the Demonstration is quite gone But Mr. M. saith p. 29. That you never acknowledged that the Greek Church erred while it adhered to tradition and therefore my supposing it is to beg the Question and mis-represent the state of the Argument But whether you acknowledged it or not the Greek Church did adhere to Tradition when the Latin Church charged it with Heresie And certainly I may be allowed to argue from an undeniable instance as I shall believe it to be till I see the Answer to it which Mr. M. promises in his Conclusion Before he comes to that he lets me know p. 31. that himself and several others upon comparing my two Propositions together had found a contradiction in them and so they had once more Dr. St. against Dr. St. This is as witty an observation as the Author of Pax vobis had made upon
A SECOND LETTER To Mr. G. In ANSWER to TWO LETTERS Lately Published concerning The Conference At the D. of P. Imprimatur Guil. Needham Apr. 22. 1687. LONDON Printed for H. Mortlocke at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard 1687. A SECOND LETTER To Mr. G. SIR YOU may wonder that I continue my Application to your self when two Gentlemen have appeared in Print so lately for You but the Character they give of You is so extraordinary that I have no mind to change my man and therefore hope you will at last generously undertake the Defence of your own Cause The Authour of the first Letter saith Those that know you better think there is not an honester Man in the Nation and that if you have wronged me it is the first wrong you ever did in your Life I am afraid some will suspect your Friend was not in earnest when he wrote this and that it rather looks like libelling the Nation than commending You. But because it is so rare a thing to meet with a Person set forth with such Advantage you cannot blame me for desiring to hold a Correspondence with You in the way of Letters For all Mr. M's Arguments for Verbal Conferences have not prevailed upon 〈◊〉 and therefore I proceed in Writing another I 〈◊〉 to You looking on this Way as much freer 〈…〉 sudden heats and surprises more cautious and 〈…〉 erate and less liable to Cavils and Misrepresete 〈…〉 And methiâ—ks the Account Mr. M. gives of our Conâ—â—rence confutes all his Arguments unless they â—e â—etter managed in â—â—ffee-houses and other places i. e. with more Temper â—nd Fairness than he represents ours to have been The Truth is the Experience I have had of the Disingenuity both in and after them hath made me not very fond of them But it may be Verbal Conferences are most agreeable to Oral Tradition but we who prefer a Written Rule as far more certain rather chuse to publish in Writing the Sense of our Minds than leave it to the arbitrary Representing of others Words Which I had suffered so much by that I was forced for my own Vindication to betake my self to Writing a former Letter to you wherein I complained of the Injury done me by false and imperfect Copies of our Conference dispersed by you If that were the first wrong you ever did in your Life I am very sorry you should begin with me For after all that your Friends have said for you I am still of the same Opinion And in this Letter shall more fully give you my Reasons But I hope you are not now one hundred and fifty Miles off lest I be told again that I take advantage of your great Distance as though I durst not write to you at a less distance than between L. and Ch. But in case you were there still am I the less injured by your going so far or less obliged to vindicate my self among those who had been abused by false Reports and Copies of the Conference I now apply my self to what Mr. M. hath said for you in Answer to my former Letter Mr. M. saith p. 5. you were far from making great Boasts of a Victory after the Conference Must I rely on Mr. M.'s Authority against the Infallibility of Oral Tradition The matter of fact was deliver'd to me from several Persons who themselves heard you and in several Places What must I now believe according to your Infallible Rule of Oral Tradition Here are several Witnesses of unquestionable Credit who had it not by a long series from Father to Son but immediately from your own Mouth who could not easily forget what they heard you say and would not out of malice alter it and yet your own Advocate declares expresly contrary to them and thinks I am bound to believe his Testimony against them all I pray Sir consider what a reflexion this is upon your Rule and what little security we can have for our Faith then by Oral Tradition If so many Persons who were competent Judges of what they heard themselves and whose Testimony I had no reason to suspect could so strangely deceive me at so little a distance what Infallibility can you pretend in bare Tradition of matters of Faith when the things themselves are so much harder to conceive and deliver entire and the distance so very much greater Either therefore you must renounce your Advocate if you hold to the Infallibility of Oral Tradition or if you hold to Mr. M. you must renounce your Rule of Faith. Mr. M. seems to deny the charge of your giving out false and imperfect Copies of the Conference But that which I charged you chiefly with was from one that was received from your own hands and the rest I saw afterwards agreed with it And yet Mr. M. cannot deny that the Copies given out contained lame and unfinished Discourses p. 5. that the Noise and Wrangling might hinder the Writers from being so exact p. 15. that we parted in so great a hurry that those things which were spoken were not written nor some perhaps of what was written so nicely exact c. p. 19. that in the latter part of this Dispute things were not set down so exactly as they ought to have been ibid. that the Disputations of the Conference are lame and imperfect p. 25. These being the words of your own Advocane had I not just cause to complain that such Copies should be dispersed abroad as a true Account of the Conference between us whereas himself confesses them to have been so lame and imperfect And yet these were given about with great industry and care as though an entire Account of what passed at the Conference were contained in them and few days passed but I heard great Boasts were made of this Conference and some said that they had it under my hand that I was baffled I think therefore I had reason to complain of imperfect Copies since Mr. M. confesses they were no better But this is not all for I had said the Copies I had seen were false as well as imperfect To make out this charge I must insist on some particulars as they are in that Copy which was given by your self When Mr. T. declared himself satisfied as to the Grounds of Faith without the Roman Churches Infallibility which was the true state of the Question debated in the first part of which more by and by He desired to know for his own satisfaction How you would prove the Church of Rome to be infallible This in your Copy is said to be put by me And lest this might be thought a mere casual mistake I am certainly informed that Mr. M. told a Gentleman to whom he gave a Copy that I proposed the Question about the Church of Romes Infallibility as though I did it on purpose to divert the Discourse whereas Mr. T. declaring himself satisfied with the Answers given about the Grounds of our Certainty desired that he might propose a Question to
of our Faith viz. the Scripture although we have a larger and firmer Tradition for it viz. the Consent of all Christian Churches than you can have for the Points in Difference between us 2. That the Tradition from Father to Son is an infallible Conveyance in Matters of Faith notwithstanding the Greek Church is charged by you with Errour which adhered to Tradition Now upon this the Authour of the first Letter desires to be commended to me us a Man who loves to spare his own Pains For 't is as much as to say do you doe all the Work and I will sit by and tell you whether it be well done or no must Mr. G. prove that Protestants have no absolute Certainty I think you are bound to do it upon Mr. M's own Account of the Occasion of the Conference viz. that you affirmed that no Protestants could shew any Ground of Certainty for their Faith. And upon this the Conference was desired and since therein I undertake to shew what our Ground of Certainty was you ought to make it evident wherein it fails and you have not so much as offer'd at any thing to disprove it but would fairly have run into another dispute and because I would not yield to it you and Mr. M. call me a Trifler You see I have not been so sparing of my Pains now but I would commend that Gentleman to you who get other Men to do your Work for you But he goes on I thought it had concerned them to be satisfied that they have Yes so we are and are very well satisfied that we stand upon surer Grounds than those who go upon the baffled pretence of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition for which no one Church of the Christian World hath declared For the Infallibility of Tradition in the Church of Rome is another thing depending upon a Divine Promise and not a kind of meer natural Infallibility But he saith he takes no notice that the Question is veered from certainty of Protestant Doctrine to certainty of Scripture How strangely mistaken is this Gentleman in the whole Matter For the Question was wholly about the certainty of Faith in general as fully appears by what is said already When the Grounds of Faith are made clear we shall come easier to particular Points of Difference between us If we may have sufficient certainty without your pretence of Infallibility then we may have a true and sound Faith without coming into your Church and where there is such a Faith there is a Possibility of Salvation and consequently there can be no Necessity of Forsaking the Communion of a Church where we have such certain Grounds of Faith. Mr. M. in Answer to the first Particular speaks more home and close to the purpose and therefore what he saith deserves to be more strictly examined 1. It is not denied saith he p. 28. that there is in Faith an absolute certainty for that Scripture wherein we agree Thus far Mr. M. grants what you deny that we Protestants have absolute certainty for our Faith. But he will not allow us to be able to shew any such certainty on our Principles Now this is truly a hard case we are in there is an absolute Certainty and this certainty lies in Universal Tradition and we can shew this Universal Tradition and yet we cannot shew the true Ground of our certainty If this be our case we deserve to be either pitied or begg'd But surely Mr. M. hath some colour for such a strange Assertion This is all he pretends for it that in the time of the Reformation the Protestants charged all Christian Churches with Errours not only in other Articles of their Belief but even in the Tradition or Delivery of Scripture Therefore we can have no certainty now from the Universal Tradition of Christian Churches Suppose some Men were then to blame in charging some Churches with more Errours than they were guilty of must therefore no Argument be taken from their consent when things are more cleared and better understood This is just as if it had been said of the blind Man whom our Saviour cured You saw Men walking like Trees at first and therefore you have no right to judge them to be otherwise now Or like one newly escaped out of a dark Prison who fears and suspects every one he meets and takes all for Enemies till he be better acquainted with them must this man therefore never have any certain knowledge afterwards of Friends and Enemies But why doth not Mr. M. name the Churches which the Reformers charged with Errours in delivering the Canon of Scripture I am sure they plead the consent of the Eastern Churches against the Tridentine Canon as to the Old Testament and all Christian Churches are known to agree as to the New and why such an universal consent should not afford a ground of certainty to us is beyond my understanding 2. He saith Our Rule is Scripture not as interpreted or to be interpreted by the Church but as understood or to be understood without a necessity of submitting to the Interpretation of the Church by every sober Enquirer tho' of the meanest capacity for which Rule we are far from having the consent of all Christian Churches The main Question is Whether Scripture be a Rule of Faith to us or not And certainly all that believe it to be the Word of God must take it for a Rule of Faith. For since the reason of our believing is because God hath revealed whatever God hath revealed must be believed and a Book containing in it such Revelations must be the Rule of our Faith i. e. by it we are to judge what we are bound to believe as Divine Revelations The best of your Divines do all agree that our Faith is not to be resolved into any other Revelation than that which was made by Christ and his Apostles and that this Revelation is contained in the Books of the New Testament This being agreed on both sides every Christian how mean soever his capacity be must look on the Scripture as his Rule of Faith for he that is bound to believe at all must have some Rule or else he may believe any thing he finds all persons agreed that the Scripture is the Word of God and God's Word is an infallible Rule therefore he is bound to search the Scripture tor the matters of Faith. And is it possible to imagine that God himself should direct the making of this Rule for the benefit of all who are bound to believe and not to make it useful to its End viz. to be able to direct them in the necessary Points of Salvation The Founders of Monastie Orders made Rules for all those who were to live in them and obliged them to observe them under pain of Expulsion I desire to know whether this doth not suppose that those Rules are capable of being understood by all persons admitted into those Orders so far as they are concerned and