Religion to their posterity Whereas in truth we find in the early ages of the Christian Church several differences about matters of faith and these differences continued to posterity but all parties still pleading that their doctrine came from the Apostles it fell out unhappily for Mr. S. that those were commonly most grosly deceived who pretended the most to oral tradition from the Apostles still we find the grand debate was what came from the Apostles and what not whereas had tradition been so infallible a way of conveying how could this ever have come into debate among them What did not they know what their Parents taught them It seems they did not or their Parents were no more agreed than themselves for their differences could never be ended this way Afterwards came in for many ages such a succession of ignorance and barbarism that Christian Religion was little minded either by Parents or Children as it ought to have been instead of that some fopperies and superstitions were hugely in request and the men who fomented these things were cried up as great Saints and workers of miracles So that the miracles of S. Francis and S. Dominick were as much if not more carefully conveyed from Parents to Children in that age than those of Christ and his Apostles and on this account posterity must be equally bound to believe them and have their persons in equal veneration If men at last were grown wiser it was because they did not believe Mr. S's principles that they ought to receive what was delivered by their Parents but they began to search and enquire into the writings of former ages and to examine the opinions and practices of the present with those of the primitive Church and by this means there came a restauration of Learning and Religion together But though matters of fact be plain and evident in this case yet M. S. will prove it impossible there should any errors come into the Christian Church and his main argument is this because no age of the Church could conspire against her knowledg to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world But before I come more particularly to shew the weakness of this argument by manifesting how errors might come into the Church without such a conspiracy as this is I shall propound some Queries to him 1. What age of the Church he will instance in wherein all persons who were not cast out of the Church had the same apprehensions concerning all points of faith i. e. that none among them did believe more things delivered by Christ or the Apostles than others did I am sure he can neither instance in the age of the Apostles themselves nor in those immediately succeeding them unless Mr. S. the better to defend his hypothesis will question all written records because they consist of dead letters and unsenc't characters and wordish testimonies Never considering that while he utters this he writes himself unless he imagins there is more of life sense and certainty in his Books than in the Scriptures or any other writing whatsoever 2. Where there were different apprehensions in one age of the Church whether there must not be different traditions in the next For as he looks on all Parents as bound to teach their Children so on Children as bound to believe what their Parents teach them On which supposition different traditions in the succeeding age must needs follow different apprehensions in the precedent 3. Whether persons agreeing in the substance of doctrines may not differ in their apprehensions of the necessity of them As for instance all may agree in the article of Christs descent into Hell but yet may differ in the explication of it and in the apprehension of the necessity of it in order to salvation So that we must not only in tradition about matters of faith enquire what was delivered but under what notion it was delivered whether as an allowable opinion or a necessary point of faith But if several persons nay multitudes in the Church may have different notions as to the necessity of the same points by what means shall we discern what was delivered as an opinion in the Church and what as an article of faith But Mr. S. throughout his discourse takes it for granted that there is the same necessity of believing and delivering all things which concern the Christian doctrine and still supposes the same sacredness concern necessity in delivering all the points in controversie between the Romanists and Us as there was in those main articles of faith which they and we are agreed in Which is so extravagant a supposition that it is hard to conceive it should ever enter into the head of a person pretending to reason but as extravagant as it is it is that without which his whole fabrick falls to the ground For suppose we should grant him that the infinite concerns which depend on the belief of the Christian doctrine should be of so prevalent nature with the world that it is impossible to conceive any one age should neglect the knowing them or conspire to deceive the next age about them yet what is all this to the matters in difference between us Will Mr. S. prove the same sacredness necessity concern and miraculously attestedness as he phrases it in the Invocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation Supremacy c. as in the believing the death and resurrection of the Son of God If he doth not prove this he doth nothing for his arguments may hold for doctrines judged universally necessary but for no other Therefore Mr. S. hath a new task which he thought not of which is to manifest that these could not be looked on as opinions but were embraced as necessary articles of faith For unless he proves them such he can neither prove any obligation in Parents to teach them their Children nor in Children to believe what their Parents taught but only to hold them in the same degree which they did themselves When Mr. S. will undertake to prove that the whole Church from the time of Christ did agree in the points in difference between us as necessary articles of faith I may more easily believe that no age could be ignorant of them or offer to deceive the next about them But when Mr. S. reflects on his frequent concession that there are private opinions in the Church distinct from matters of faith he must remember before he can bring home his grounds to the case between their Church and ours that he must prove none of the things in debate were ever entertained as private opinions and that it is impossible for that which was a private opinion in one age to become a matter of faith in the next But because this distinction of his ruins his whole demonstration I shall first propound it in his own terms and then shew how from thence it follows that errors may come into the Church and be
rational force of Tradition supposing that the Pope and Council hold to it If oral Tradition have brought down a certain sense of these Texts why do they not produce it and agree in it If it have not to use a hot phrase of his own 't is perfect phrenzy to say they can be certain of the true sense of Scripture If he say they are by Tradition made certain of the true sense of Scripture so far as it concerns the main body of Christian Doctrine and do all agree in it and that is suffcient then I ask him What are those points of Faith which make up the body of Christian Doctrine He will tell me they are those which all Catholicks agree to have descended to them from the Apostles by a constant and uninterrupted Tradition I enquire farther how I shall know what is the certain sense of Scripture so far as it concerns these points He must answer as before that that is the true sense which all Catholicks agree to have descended to them by Tradition Which amounts to this that all Catholicks do agree in the sense of Scripture so far as they do all agree in it It is to be hoped that the Protestants how much soever at present they differ about the sense of Scripture may in time come to as good an agreement as this This brings to my remembrance a passage or two of Mr. Cressy the one in his Appendix where he tells us That as it is impossible that Hereticks should agree any other way than in Faction so it is impossible that Catholicks should differ in points of Faith Why so Were not those Catholicks first who afterwards became Hereticks and when they became so did they not differ in points of Belief Yes but here lies the conceit when they began to differ then they ceas'd to be Catholicks therefore Catholicks can never differ in points of Faith The other passage is where he says That he hath forsaken a Church where Vnity was impossible c. and betaken himself to a Church where Schism is impossible This last Clause That Schism is impossible in their Church cannot possibly be true but in the same absurd and ludicrous sense in which it is impossible for Catholicks to differ in points of Belief For he cannot deny but that it is possible for men to break off from the Communion of their Church which in his sense is Schism but here is the subtilty of it No Schismatick is of their Church because so soon as he is a Schismatick he is out of it therefore Schism is impossible in their Church And is it not as impossible in the Church of England Where Mr. Cr. might have done well to have continued till he could have given a better reason of forsaking Her § 10. But to return to our purpose Mr. Rushworth acknowledgeth that the Scripture is of it self sufficiently plain as to matters of practice for he asks Who is so blind as not to see that these things are to be found in Scripture by a sensible common and discreet reading of it though perhaps by a rigorous and exact balancing of every particular word and syllable any of these things would vanish away we know not how So that for the direction of our lives and actions he confesseth the Scripture to be sufficiently plain if men will but read it sensibly and discreetly and he sayes that he is blind that does not see this But who so blind as he that will not see that the sense of Scripture is as plain in all necessary points of Faith I am sure St. Austin makes no difference when he tells us That in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture we may find all those things in which Faith and Manners of life are comprehended And why cannot men in reference to matters of Faith as well as of Practice read the Scriptures sensibly and discreetly without such a rigorous balancing of every word and syllable as will make the sense vanish away we know not how If the Scripture be but sufficiently plain to such as will use it sensibly and discreetly I do not understand what greater plainness can be desir'd in a Rule Nor can I imagine what kind of Rule it must be that can be unexceptionably plain to captious Cavillers and such as are bent to play the fool with it Well suppose the Scripture be not sufficiently clear as to matters of Faith and hereupon I have recourse to the Church for the true sense of Scripture Must I believe the Churches sense to be the true sense of such a Text though I see it to be plainly contrary to the genuine sense of the words yes that I must or else I make my self and not the Church judg of the sense of Scripture which is the grand Heresie of the Protestants But then I must not suppose much less belive that the Churches sense of such a Text is contrary to the genuine meaning of it no although I plainly see it to be so This is hard again on the other hand especially if that be true which is acknowledged both by Dr. Holden and Mr. Cressy viz. That though general Councils cannot mistake in the Points of Faith which they decree yet they may mistake in the confirmation of them from Texts of Scripture that is they may be mistaken about the sense of those Texts And if Mr. S. think his Brethren have granted too much he may see this exemplified in the second Council of Nice to mention no other which to establish their Doctrine of Image-worship does so palpably abuse and wrest Texts of Scripture that I can hardly believe that any Papist in the World hath the forehead to own that for the true sense of those Texts which is there given by those Fathers § 11. Secondly How the Traditionary Church can be more certain of the true sense of their Traditional Doctrines than the Protestants can be of the true sense of Scripture And this is worthy our enquiry because if the business be search'd to the bottom it will appear besides all other inconveniences which oral Tradition is much more liable to than Scripture that the certain sense and meaning of Traditional Doctrine is as hard to come at as the sense of Scripture And this I will make appear by necessary consequence from their own Concessions Mr. White and Mr. S. say that the great security of Tradition is this that it is not tied to certain phrases and set-forms of expression but the same sense is conveyed and setled in mens hearts by various expressions But according to Mr. Rushworth this renders Tradition's sense uncertain for he says 'T is impossible to put fully and beyond all quarrel the same sense in divers words So that if men do not receive Tradition in a sensible common discreet way as Mr. Rushw. speaks concerning reading the Scriptures but will come to a rigorous and exact balancing of every particular phrase word and
either wholly or for the far greatest part of them take upan humour against propagating Mankind And yet both History and the experience of the present Age assures us that a great part of Asia and of Africk where the most flourishing Churches in the World once were are fallen off from Christianity and become either Mahometans or Heathens In Africk almost all those vast Regions which Christianity had gained from Heathenism Mahometanism hath regained from Christianity All the North-part of Afrique lying along the Mediterranean where Christianity flourish't once as much as ever it did at Rome is at this time utterly void of Christians excepting a few Towns in the hands of the European Princes And not to mention all particular places the large Region of Nubia which had as is thought from the Apostles time professed the Christian Faith hath within these 150 years for want of Ministers as Alvarez tells us quitted Christianity and is partly revolted to Heathenism partly fallen off to Mahometanism So that it seems that notwithstanding the Arguments of hope and fear the very Teachers of Tradition may fail in a largely extended Church As for Asia in the Easterly parts of it there is not now one Christian to four of what there were 500 years ago and in the more Southerly parts of it where Christianity had taken deepest root the Christians are far inferiour in number to the Idolaters and Mahometans and do daily decrease What thinks Mr. S. of all this Have those Christian Nations which are turn'd Mahometans and Pagans failed in their Faith or not If they have I expect from him clear Instances of more that have failed in propagating their kind § 7. But besides those who have totally Apostatized from Christianity hath not the whole Greek Church with the Jacobites and Nestorians and all those other Sects which agree with and depend upon these and which taken together are manifoldly greater than the Roman Church I say have not all these renounced Tradition for several Ages And here in Europe hath not a great part of Poland Hungary both Germany's France and Switzerland Have not the Kingdoms of great Brittain Denmark Sweden and a considerable part of Ireland in Mr. S's opinion deserted Tradition If I should once see a whole Nation fail because no body would marry and contribute to the propagation of Mankind and should find this sullen humour to prevail in several Nations and to overspread vast Parts of the World I should then in good earnest think it possible for Mankind to fail unless I could shew it impossible for other Nations to do that which I see some to have done who were every whit as unlikely to have done it So that whatever cause he assigns of Heresie as Pride Ambition Lust or any other vice or interest if these can take place in whole Nations and make them renounce Tradition then where 's the efficacy of the causes to preserve Faith indeficiently entire in any For the Demonstration holds as strongly for all Christians as for any § 8. Secondly From these grounds it would follow that no Christian can live wickedly because the end of Faith being a good life the arguments of hope and fear must in all Reason be as powerful and efficacious causes of a good life as of a true belief And that his Demonstration proves the one as much as the other will be evident from his own reasoning for he argues in this manner Good is the proper object of the will good propos'd makes the will to desire that good and consequently the known means to obtain it Now infinite goods and harms sufficiently proposed are of their own nature incomparably more powerful causes to carry the will than temporal ones Since then when two causes are counterpoised the lesser when it comes to execution is no cause as to the substance of that effect it follows that there is no cause to move the wills of a World of Believers to be willing to do that which they judge would lose themselves and their Posterity infinite goods and bring them infinite harms c. in case a sufficient Proposal or Application be not wanting which he tells us is not wanting because Christianity urged to execution gives its followers a new life and a new nature than which a nearer Application cannot be imagined Doth not this Argument extend to the lives of Christians as well as their Belief So that he may as well infer from these grounds that it is impossible that those who profess Christianity should live contrary to it as that they should fail to deliver down the Doctrine of Christ because whatever can be an inducement and temptation to any man to contradict this Doctrine by his practice may equally prevail upon him to falsifie it For why should men make any more scruple of damning themselves and their Posterity by teaching them false Doctrines than by living wicked Lives which are equally pernicious with Heretical Doctrines not only upon account of the bad influence which such examples of Fathers and Teachers are like to have upon their Scholars but likewise as they are one of the strongest arguments in the World to perswade them that their Teachers do not themselves believe that Religion which they teach for if they did they would live according to it Why should any man think that those arguments of hope and fear which will not prevail upon the generality of Christians to make them live holy Lives should be so necessarily efficacious to make them so much concerned for the preserving of a right Belief Nay we have great reason to believe that such persons will endeavour as much as may be to bend and accommodate their Belief to their Lives And this is the true source of those Innovations in Faith for which we challenge the Church of Rome which any man may easily discern who will but consider how all their new Doctrines are fitted to a secular Interest and the gratifying of that inordinate appetite after riches and dominion which reigns in the Court of Rome and in the upper part of the Clergy of that Church SECT IV. § 1. SEcondly The main grounds of his Demonstration are apparently false For First This Demonstration supposeth that the generality of Christian Parents in all Ages perfectly understood the Doctrine of Christ and did not mistake any part of it that they remembred it perfectly and that they were faithful and diligent to instruct their Children in it which is as contrary to experience as that the generality of Christians are knowing and honest It supposeth likewise that this Doctrine and every substantial part of it was received and remembred by the generality of Children as it was taught and was understood perfectly by them without the least material mistake So he tells us That the substance of Faith comes clad in such plain matters of Fact that the most stupid man living cannot possibly be ignorant of it But whether this be
it as that which was necessary to them and their Posterity incomparably beyond any thing else All this I suppose done to and by the Greeks as well as any other Nation These things being put it cannot enter into any mans understanding but that the Christian Greeks of the first Age being the Scholars of the Apostles could and would earnestly commend the Christian Doctrine to their Posterity if so it is evident that they did So that the continuance of the purity of the Faith in the Greek Church is founded upon this That Fathers always delivered the same Doctrine to their Children which they had received from their Fathers and did believe it under this very Notion and Title as received nor could any one of that Church deliver another Doctrine under this Title but he would be convinced of a Lye by the rest and if the whole Greek Church should endeavour to deliver a new Doctrine under that Title and there 's the same reason if they should leave out any Article of the old Doctrine that whole Age would be in their Consciences condemned of perfidiousness and parricide Now this is as impossible as it is that all Mankind should conspire to kill themselves And he afterwards gives the reason why it is so impossible that Tradition should fail and it is a very bold and saucy one That if the Tradition of the Christian Faith be not more firm than the course of the Sun and Moon and the propagation of Mankind then God hath shewn himself an unskilful Artificer What is there in all this Demonstration which may not be accommodated to the Greek Church with as much force and advantage as to the Catholick Unless he can shew that it is very possible that all the Men in Greece may conspire to kill themselves but yet absolutely impossible that all the Men in the World should do so which I am sure he cannnot shew unless he can demonstrate that though it be possible for a Million of as wise Men as any are to be found in the World together to conspire to do a foolish action yet it is impossible that an Hundred millions not one jot wiser than the other should agree together to the doing of it § 4. From all this it appears That Mr. White 's Answer to this Objection doth not signifie any thing to his purpose For if the Procession of the Holy Ghost was part of Christs Doctrine then it was delivered by the Apostles to the Greek Church if so they could not fail to deliver it down to the next Age and that to the next and so on but it seems they have failed Where then is the force of hopes and fears strongly applied Where are the certain Causes of actual Will to adhere to this Doctrine Why is not the effect produced the Causes being put actually causing If the Apostles delivered this Doctrine Oral Tradition is so clear and unmistakable and brings down Faith clad in such plain matters of Fact that the most stupid man living much less the Greeks that were the flower of Mankind could not possibly be ignorant of it nay it exceeds all the power of Nature to blot Knowledges thus fixt out of the Soul of one single Believer much more out of so vast a Church And since no man can hold contrary to his knowledg or doubt of what he holds nor change and innovate without knowing he did so 't is a manifest impossibility a whole Church should in any Age fall into an absurdity so inconsistent with the nature of one single man And since 't is natural for every man to speak Truth and Grace is to perfect Nature in whatever is good in it it follows that one truly Christian heart is far more fixt to Veracity than others not imbu'd with these heavenly Tenets and consequently that a multitude of such must incomparably exceed in point of testifying the same number of others unfortified by Christs Doctrine And since such a thought cannot enter into the most depraved Nature as to harm another without any good to himself and yet this must be if we put Christian Fathers misteaching their Children unreceived Doctrines for received and I hope for the same reason received Doctrines for unreceived contrary to their knowledg For supposing Sanctity in the Greek Church and why may we not as well as in the Latin That is that multitudes in it make Heaven their first love and look on spiritual goods as their main concern c. it follows that had the Fathers of that Church in any Age consented to mislead their Posterity from what themselves not only conceited but knew to be true they should do the most extream harm imaginable to others without any the least good to themselves which is perhaps impossible in one single man more in few but infinitely in a multitude especially of good men § 5. Thus I might apply the rest of his Ranting Rhetorick but that I am weary of Transcribing it concerning the natural love of Parents to their Children unless we suppose the Greek Church destitute of it which must needs engage them to use the means proper to bring them to Heaven and save them from Hell As also concerning the natural care men have of not losing their Credit by telling pernicious Lyes And not to omit the best part of his Demonstration which was therefore prudently reserved to the last place I might likewise shew how the Principles of each Science Arithmetick Geometry Logick Nature Morality Historical Prudence Politicks Metaphysicks Divinity and last of all the new Science of Controversie as he calls it or the blessed Art of Eternal wrangling and disputing the first Principle whereof he tells us is That Tradition is certain do all contribute to shew the certainty of Tradition that is the impossibility that any part of Christs Doctrine should fail in the Greek Church any more than in the Latin And surely Arithmetick Geometry Logick Natural Philosophy Metaphysicks c. will all stand up for the Greek Church in this quarrel for considering that Greece was the place where the Arts and Sciences were born and bred it is not to be imagined that they should be so disingenuous and unnatural as not to contribute their best assistance to the service of their Countrey § 6. But it may be the Greeks cannot so justly pretend to Oral Tradition as the Latins What if St. Peter the Head of the Apostles thought fit to share Scripture and Tradition between these two Churches and laying his left hand on the Greek Church and his right on the Latin was pleased to confer the great blessing of Oral Tradition upon the Latin Church which being to be the seat of Infallibility it was but fitting that she should be furnish't with this infallible way of conveying the Christian Doctrine And therefore it may be that as the Scriptures of the New Testament were left in Greek so Oral Tradition was delivered down only in Latin
proof of this I appeal to that Decree of the Council of Trent in which they declare That because the Christian Faith and Discipline are contained in written Books and unwritten Traditions c. therefore they do receive and honour the Books of Scripture and also Traditions pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ with equal pious affection and reverence which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith And consonantly to this Decree the general Doctrine of the Romish Church is that Scripture and Tradition make up the Rule of Faith So the Roman Catechism set forth by order of the Council of Trent says that the sum of the Doctrine delivered to the Faithful is contained in the Word of God which is distributed into Scripture and Tradition Bellarmine speaks to the same purpose That the Scripture is a Rule of Faith not an entire but partial one The entire Rule is the Word of God which is divided into two partial Rules Scripture and Tradition According to this the adequate Rule of Faith is the Word of God which is contained partly in Scripture and partly in the Tradition of the Church And that Scripture is look't upon by them as the principal Rule and primary foundation of their Faith and Tradition as only supplying the defects of Scripture as to some Doctrines and Rites not contained in Scripture must be evident to any one that hath been conversant in the chief of their controversial Divines Bellarmine where he gives the marks of a Divine Tradition speaks to this purpose That that which they call a Divine Tradition is such a Doctrine or Rite as is not found in Scripture but embraced by the whole Church and for that reason believed to have descended from the Apostles And he tells us further That the Apostles committed all to Writing which was commonly and publickly Preached and that all things are in Scripture which men are bound to know and believe explicitely But then he says that there were other things which the Apostles did not commonly and publickly teach and these they did not commit to Writing but delivered them only by word of mouth to the Prelates and Priests and perfect men of the Church And these are the Apostolical Traditions he speaks of Cardinal Perron says That the Scripture is the foundation of the Christian Doctrine either mediately or immediately And that the Authority of unwritten Tradition is founded in general on these sentences of the Apostle Hold the Traditions c. Again The things which thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses commit to faithful men c. And that the Authority of the Church to preserve and especially to declare these is founded in this Proposition viz. That the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth So that according to him the primary Rule of Faith is the Scripture in which the Authority of Tradition is founded Mr. Knott says expresly We acknowledg the H. Scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule we only deny that it excludes either Divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an external Judg to keep to propose to interpret it c. So that according to him Scripture is a perfect Rule only it does not exclude unwritten Tradition c. By which that he does not understand as Mr. S. does a concurrent Oral Tradition of all the same Doctrines which are contained in Scripture but other Doctrines not therein contained is plain from what he says elsewhere We do not distinguish Tradition from the written Word because Tradition is not written by any or in any Book or Writing but because it is not written in the Srripture or Bible Bellarmine also says the same And as for the interpreting of Scripture he tells us that this is not the office of a Rule but of a Judg. There is says he a great and plain distinction between a Judg and a Rule For as in a Kingdom the Judg hath his Rule to follow which are the received Laws and Customs which are not fit or able to declare and be Judges to themselves but that Office must belong to a living Judg So the Holy Scripture is and may be a Rule but cannot be a Judg. Here he makes the Scripture as much a Rule for matters of Faith as the Laws of the Land are for Civil matters And in his Reply to Mr. Chillingworth he hath a Chapter of above 150 Pages the Title whereof is Scripture is not the only Rule of Faith which had he with Mr. S. believed Oral Tradition to be the sole Rule of Faith had been as absurd as it would be to write a Book to prove that Turks are not the only Christians in the World Mr. Cressy likewise not very consistently to himself lays down this Conclusion The entire Rule of faith is contained not only in Scripture but likewise in unwritten Tradition § 2. Now all this is as contrary as can be to Mr. Rushworth's new Rule of Faith Therefore Mr. White says They speak ill who teach that some things are known in the Church from Scripture some by Tradition And Dr. Holden in opposition to those who make Scripture any part of the Rule of Faith advances one of the most wild and uncharitable Positions that ever I yet met withall viz. That if one should believe all the Articles of the Catholick Faith c. for this reason because he thought they were all expresly revealed in Scripture or implicitely contained so as they might be deduced from thence and would not have believed them had he not judged that they might be evinced from Scripture yet this man could be no true Catholick Because as he tells us afterwards we must receive the Christian Doctrine as coming to us by Tradition for only by this means excluding the Scriptures Christ hath appointed revealed Truths to be received and communicated In the mean time Cardinal Perron unless he altered his mind is in a sad case who believed the Authority of Tradition it self for this reason because it was founded in Scripture § 3. And this fundamental difference about the Rule of Faith between the generality of their Divines and Mr S's small party is fully acknowledged by the Traditionists themselves Dr. Holden says That their Divines who resolve Faith according to the common Opinion do inevitably fall into that shameful Circle of proving the Divine Authority of the Scripture by the Church and the Infallibility of the Church back again by the Scripture because they dare not build their Faith upon the natural evidence and certainty of Tradition So that Dr. Holden's way of resolving Faith is different from the common Opinion of their Divines which he says does not differ from the Opinion of those who resolve their Faith into the private Spirit and this according to Mr. White
liberty from greater imployments how ready I am to give him all reasonable satisfaction And in the first place I return him thanks for the weapon he hath made choice of viz. that of reason there being no other I desire to make use of in managing this debate between us And I hope he will find as much civility towards him throughout this discourse as he expresses towards me in the entrance to his if that may be accounted any real civility which is intended meerly out of design with the greater advantage to disparage the cause I have undertaken and yet see no reason to repent of If in his cursory view of two Chapters of my Book he had as he saith quite lost me he had no cause to be troubled for it if he had found far more excellent persons such as Dr. Hammond and the Disswader and Dr. Pierce instead of me But to be sure he intends not this in honour to any of us but by way of a common reproach to us all as though we did not talk out of nature or things but words and imagination I could heartily have wished Mr. S. would have cropt so much of the victory due to anothers learning and industry as to have shewed me one proposition in those discourses which a rational understanding that would be true to it self could not settle or rely on But if such insinuations as these must pass for answers I must needs say I judg M. S. equally happy in confuting our grounds and in demonstrating his own in both which his greatest strength lies in the self-evidence of his bare affirmations But it seems he is willing to resign the glory of this Victory to the judicious Author of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis or to some others for him and when they have once obtained it I shall not envy them the honour of it And I suppose those persons whoever they are may be able by this time to tell Mr. S. it is an easier matter to talk of Victories than to get them But if they do no more in the whole than Mr. S. hath done for his share they will triumph no-where but where they conquer viz. in their own fancies and imaginations Therefore leaving them to their silent conquests and as yet unheard-of Victories we come to Mr. S. who so liberally proclaims his own in the point of oral tradition Which in a phrase scarce heard of in our language before is the Post he tells us he hath taken upon him to explicate further and defend What the explicating a Post means I as little understand as I do the force of his demonstrations but this and many other such uncouth forms of speech up and down in his Book which make his style so smooth and easie are I suppose intended for embellishments of our tongue and as helps to sure-speaking as his whole Book is designed for sure-footing But letting him enjoy the pleasure and felicity of his own expressions I come to consider the matter in debate between us And his first controversie with me is for opposing the infallibility of oral tradition to doctrinal infallibility in Pope and Councils A controversie fitter to be debated among themselves than between him and me For is any thing more notorious than that infallibility is by the far greatest part of Romanists attributed to the present Church in teaching and delivering matters of faith not by virtue of any oral tradition but the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and that this is made by them the only ground of divine faith For which Mr. S. may if he please consult his judicious Author of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis or any other of their present Writers except Mr. White and himself He need not therefore have been to seek for the meaning of this doctrinal infallibility as opposed to traditionary if he had not either been ignorant of the opinion of their own Writers or notoriously dissembled it For this infallibility is not attributed to the Rulers of the Church meerly as Doctors or Scholars but as the representative Church whose office it is to deliver all matters of faith by way of an infallible testimony to every age and thereby to afford a sufficient foundation for divine faith But Mr. S. attributes no such infallibility to the representative Church as teaching the rest but derives their infallibility from such grounds as are common to all parts of the essential Church Wherein he apparently opposes himself to the whole current of their own Authors who resolve all faith into the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost without which they assert there could be no infallibility at all in tradition or any thing else and therefore these opinions are as opposite to each other as may be For such an infallibility is not attributed by them to the Teachers of the Church meerly on some signal occasions as Mr. S. seems to suppose when they are to explain new matters of saith but it is made by them to be as necessary as believing it self because thereby the only sure foundation of faith is laid and therefore it is very evident they make it proper to the Church in all ages Or else in some age of the Church men were destitute of suciffient grounds of faith For they by no means think it a sufficient foundation for faith that one age of the Church could not conspire to deceive another for this they will tell him at most is but a humane faith but that Christ by his promise hath assured the Church that there shall never be wanting in it the infallible assistance of his Holy Spirit whereby they shall infallibly teach and deliver all matters of saith And if this be not their opinion let them speak to the contrary which if they do I am sure they must retract their most elaborate discourses about the resolution of faith written by the greatest Artists among them Let Mr. S. then judg who it is that stumbles at the Threshold but of this difference among them more afterwards By this it appears it was not on any mistake that I remained unsatisfied in the Question I asked Whether am I bound to believe what the present Church delivers to be infallible To which Mr. S. answers I understand him not My reply shall be only that of a great Lawyers in a like case I cannot help that I am sure my words are intelligible enough for I take infallible there as he takes it himself for infallibly true although I deny not the word to be improperly used in reference to things and that for the reason given by him because fallibility infallibility belong to the knowing power or the persons that have it and not to the object But we are often put to the use of that word in a sense we acknowledg improper meerly in compliance with our Adversaries who otherwise are apt to charge us with having only uncertainties and probabilities for our faith if we do not use the term infallible as applied to
the truth of the thing I am content therefore wherever in what I have writ he meets that term so applied that he take it only in his own sense for that which is certainly true for I mean no more by it And in this sense Mr. S. answers affirmatively and gives this account of it not only because the present Church cannot be deceived in what the Church of the former age believed but because the Church in no age could conspire against her knowledg to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world The Question then is whether this be a sufficient account for me to believe that to be certainly true or to be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles which the present Church delivers and consequently whether the resolution of faith be barely into oral tradition Thus we see the clear state of the Question between us I come therefore to the vindication of those things which I had objected against this way of resolving faith into oral tradition Three things I especially insisted on 1. That it is inconsistent with the pretensions of the present Roman Church 2. That it hath not been the way owned in all ages of the Christian Church 3. That it is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages If these three be made good there will be no cause to glory in this last invention to support the sinking fabrick of that Church These three then I undertake to defend against what Mr. Serjeant hath objected against them 1. That it is contrary to the pretensions of the present Roman Church And if it be so there can be no reason for those who are of it to rely upon it For if so be that Church pretends that the obligation to faith arises from a quite different ground from this how can they who believe that Church infallible venture their faith upon any other principle than what is publickly owned by her And whosoever thinks himself bound to believe by virtue of an infallible assistance of the present Church doth thereby shew that his obligation doth not depend upon what was delivered by the former ages of the Church As those who believed the Apostles were infallible in their doctrine could not resolve their faith into the infallibility of oral tradition but into that immediate assistance by which the Apostles spake and where there is a belief of a like assistance the foundation of faith cannot ly in the indefectibility of tradition but in that infallible Spirit which they suppose the Church to be assisted by For supposing this oral tradition should fail and that men might believe that it had actually failed yet if the former supposition were true there was sufficient ground for faith remaining still And what assurance can any one have that the present Church delivers nothing for matter of faith but what hath been derived in every age from Christ and his Apostles if such an infallible Spirit be supposed in the present Church which was in the Apostles themselves For on the same reason that those who heard the Apostles were not bound to trouble themselves with the tradition of the former age no more ought they who believe the present Roman Church to have the same infallible assistance They need not then enquire whether this age knew the meaning of the former or whether one age could conspire to deceive another or whether notwithstanding both these errors might not come into the Church it is sufficient for them that the definitions of the present Church are infallible in all matters of faith Therefore my demand was built on very good reason How can you assure me the present Church obliges me to believe nothing but only what and so far as it received from the former Church And Mr. S's answer is far from being satisfactory That this appears by her manifest practice never refusing communion to any man that could approve himself to believe all the former age did For this may be resolved into a principle far different from this which is the belief of the infallibility of the present Church For supposing that they are not bound to enquire themselves into the reasons why the tradition could not fail in any age it is suffient for them to believe the Church infallible and if it be so in proposing matters of faith it must be so in declaring what the belief of the former age was But my demands go on What evidence can you bring to convince me both that the Church always observed this rule and could never be deceived in it Which question is built on these two Principles which the infallibility of oral tradition stands on 1. That the Church must always go upon this ground 2. That if it did so it is impossible she should be deceived Both which are so far from that self-evidence which M. Serjeant still pretends to in this way that the Jesuits principles seem much more rational and consistent than these do For granting them but that one Postulatum that there must be an inherent infallibility in the testimony of the present Church to afford sufficient foundation for divine faith all the rest of their doctrine follows naturally from it Whereas this new way of resolving faith is built on such suppositions which no man well in his wits will be ready to grant For unless it be self-evident that the Church did always proceed on this ground it cannot be self-evident that oral tradition is infallible because the self-evidence of this principle depends on this that in all ages of the Church the only rule and measure of faith was what was delivered by oral tradition from the age foregoing Now if it be possible that matters of faith might be conveyed in ways quite different from this what self-evidence can there be that the Church much always proceed upon this Mr. S. then must demonstrate it impossible for matters of faith to be conveyed to posterity in any other way than oral tradition and not only that the thing is impossible but that the Church in all ages judged it to be so or else he can never make it at all evident that the Church always made this her rule of faith But if either there may be a certain conveyance of the doctrine of faith another way viz. by writing or that the Church might judg that way more certain whether it were so or not either way it will appear far enough from self-evidence that she always judged of doctrines of faith meerly by the tradition of the preceding age If another way be granted possible there must be clear demonstration that the Church notwithstanding this did never make use of it for if it did make use of another way of resolving faith in any age of the Church then in that age of the Church oral tradition was not looked on as the ground of faith
and if so notwithstanding whatever Mr. S. can demonstrate to the contrary that age might have believed otherwise than the immediately preceding did For let us but suppose that all necessary doctrines of faith were betimes recorded in the Church in Books universally received by the Christians of the first ages is it not possible that age which first embraced these Books might deliver them to posterity as the rule of their faith and so down from one age to another and doth it not hence follow that the rule of faith is quite different from a meer oral tradition Let Mr. S. then either shew it impossible that the doctrines of faith should be written or that being written they should be universally received or that being universally received in one age they should not be delivered to the next or being delivered to the next those Books should not be looked on as containing the rule of faith in them or though they were so yet that still oral tradition was wholly relied on as the rule of faith and then I shall freely grant that Mr. S. hath attempted something towards the proof of this new hypothesis But as things now stand it is so far from being self-evident that the Church hath always gone upon this principle that we find it looked on as a great novelty among them in their own Church and it would be a rare thing for a new invention to have been the sense of the Church in all ages which if it hath been the strength of it is thereby taken away But let us suppose that the Church did proceed upon this principle that nothing was to be embraced but what was derived by tradition from the Apostles how doth it thence follow that nothing could be admitted into the Church but what was really so derived from them Do we not see in the world at this day that among those who own this principle contradictory propositions are believed and both sides tell us it is on this account because their doctrine was delivered by the Apostles doth not the Greek Church profess to believe on the account of tradition from the Apostles as well as the Latin If that tradition failed in the Greek Church which was preserved in the Latin either Mr. S. must instance on his own principles in that age which conspired to deceive the next or he must acknowledg that while men own tradition they may be deceived in what the foregoing age taught them and consequently those things may be admitted as doctrines coming from the Apostles which were not so and some which did may be lost and yet the pretence of tradition remain still What self-evidence then can there be in this principle when two parts of the Church may both own it and yet believe contradictions on the account of it It is then worth our enquiring what self-evidence this is which Mr. S. speaks so much of which is neither more nor less but that men in all ages had eyes ears and other senses also common reason and as much memory as to remember their own names and frequently inculcated actions Which is so very reasonable a postulatum that I suppose none who enjoy any of these will deny it Let us therefore see how he proceeds upon it If you disprove this I doubt we have lost mankind the subject we speak of and till you disprove it neither I nor any man in his wits can doubt that this rule depending on testifying that is sense or experience can possibly permit men to be deceivable Big words indeed but such as evidence that all men who are in their wits do not constantly use them For I pray Sir what doth Mr S. think of the Greek Church Had not those in it eyes ears and other senses as well as in the Latin Do not they pretend and appeal to what they received from their Fore-fathers as well as the Latins It seems then a deception is possible in the case of testifying and therefore this doth more than permit men to be deceivable for here hath been an actual deception on one side or other But we need not fear losing mankind in this for the possibility of error supposeth mankind to continue still and if we take away that we may sooner lose it than by the contrary But what repugnancy can we imagine to humane nature that men supposing doctrines of faith to come down from Christ or his Apostles should yet mistake in judging what those doctrines are Had not men eyes and ears and common sense in Christ and the Apostles times And yet we see even then the doctrine of Christ was mistaken and is it such a wonder it should be in succeeding ages Did not the Nazarenes mistake in point of circumcision the Corinthians as to the resurrection and yet the mean time agree in this that Christs doctrine was the rule of faith or that they ought to believe nothing but what came from him Did not the Disciples themselves err even while they were with Christ and certainly had eyes and ears and common sense as other men have concerning some great articles of Christian faith viz. Christs passion resurrection and the nature of his Kingdom If then such who had the greatest opportunities imaginable and the highest apprehensions of Christ might so easily mistake in points of such moment what ground have we to believe that succeeding ages should not be liable to such misapprehensions And it was not meerly the want of clear divine revelation which was the cause of their mistakes for these things were plain enough to persons not possessed with prejudices but those were so strong as to make them apprehend things quite another way than they ought to do So it was then and so it was in succeeding ages for let Parents teach what they pleased for matters of faith yet prejudice and liableness to mistake in Children might easily make them misapprehend either the nature or weight of the doctrines delivered to them So that setting aside a certain way of recording the matters of faith in the Books of Scripture and these preserved entire in every age it is an easie matter to conceive how in a short time Christian Religion would have been corrupted as much as ever any was in the world For when we consider how much notwithstanding Scripture the pride passion and interests of men have endeavoured to deface Christian Religion in the world what would not these have done if there had been no such certain rule to judg of it by Mr. S. imagins himself in repub Platonis but it appears he is still in faece Romuli he fancies there never were nor could be any differences among Christians and that all Christians made it their whole business to teach their posterity matters of faith and that they minded nothing in the world but the imprinting that on their minds that they might have it ready for their Children and that all Parents had equal skill and fidelity in delivering matters of
entertained as matters of faith His words are It being evident that we have but two ways of ordinary knowledg by acts of our soul or operations on our body that is by reason and experience the former of which belongs to Speculators or Doctors the second to Deliverers of what was received or Testifiers And this distinction he frequently admits not only in the present age of the Church but in any for the same reason will hold in all From hence I propose several Queries further to Mr. S. 1. If every one in the Church looked on himself as bound to believe just as the precedent age did whence came any to have particular opinions of their own For either the Church had delivered her sense in that case or not if not then tradition is no certain conveyer of the doctrine of Christ if she had then those who vented private speculations were Hereticks in so doing because they opposed that doctrine which the Church received from Christ and his Apostles If Mr. S. replies that private speculations are in such cases where there is no matter of faith at all he can never be able to help himself by that distinction in the case of his own Church for I demand whether is it a matter of faith that men ought to believe oral tradition infallible If not how can men ground their faith upon it If it be then either some are meer speculators in matters of faith or all who believe on the account of the Popes infallibility are Hereticks for so doing 2. If there were speculators in former ages as well as this whether did those men believe their own speculations or no If not then the Fathers were great Impostors who vented those speculations in the Church which they did not believe themselves And it is plain Mr. S. speaks of such opinions which the asserters of do firmly believe to be true And if they did then they look on themselves as bound to believe something which was not founded on the tradition of the Church and consequently did not own oral tradition as the rule of faith So that as many speculators as we find in the Churh so many testifiers we have against the infallibility of oral tradition 3. Whether those persons who did themselves believe those opinions to be true did not think themselves obliged to tell others they ought to believe them and consequently to deliver these as matters of faith to their children Let Mr. S. shew me any inconsequence in this but that it unavoidably follows upon his principles that they were bound to teach their Children what themselves received as the doctrine of Christ and that the obligation is in all respects equal as if they had believed these things on the account of oral tradition 4. If Children be obliged to believe what their Parents teach them for matters of faith then upon Mr. S's own concessions is not posterity bound to believe something which originally came not from Christ or his Apostles For it appears in this case that the first rise was from a private opinion of some Doctors of the Church but they believing these opinions themselves think themselves obliged to propagate them to others and by reason of their learning and authority these opinions may by degrees gain a general acceptance in the ruling part of the Church and all who believe them true think they ought to teach them their Children and Children they are to believe what their Parents teach them Thus from Mr. S's own principles things that never were delivered by Christ or his Apostles may come to be received as matters of faith in the present Church Thus the intelligent Reader needs no bodies help but Mr. S. to let him understand how Invocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation c. though never delivered either by Christ or his Apostles may yet now be looked on as articles of faith and yet no age of the Church conspire to deceive another Either then Mr. S. must say there never were any private opinators or speculators in the Church as distinct from testifiers and then he unavoidably contradicts himself or he must deny that posterity is bound to believe what their fore-fathers delivered them as matters of faith which destroys the force of his whole demonstration Perhaps he will answer that Children are not bound to believe what barely their Parents or any other number of persons might deliver as matters of faith but what the whole Church of every age delivers This though the only thing to be said in the case yet is most unreasonable because it runs men upon inextricable difficulties in the way of their resolving faith For suppose any Children taught by their Parents what they are to believe Mr. S. must say they are not bound to believe them presently but to enquire whether they agree with the whole Church of that age first before they can be obliged to assent Which being an impossible task either for Children or men of age to find out in the way of oral tradition this way of resolving faith doth but offer a fairer pretence for infidelity For we see how impossible it is for Mr. S. to make it appear that their Church is agreed about the rule of faith for by his own confession the far greater number as speculators oppose the way asserted by him how much more difficult then must it needs be to find out what the sense of the whole essential Church is in all matters which Parents may teach their Children for doctrines of faith So that if Children are not bound to believe what their Parents teach them till they know they teach nothing but what the whole Church teaches it is the most compendious way to teach them they are not bound to believe at all But if this distinction be admitted as Mr. S. makes much use of it then it appears how errors may come into the Church at first under the notion of speculations and by degrees to be delivered as points of faith by which means those things may be received in the Church for such which were never delivered by Christ or his Apostles and yet no age conspire to deceive the next which was the thing to be shewed This is one way of shewing how errors may come into the Church without one ages conspiring to deceive the next but besides this there are several others I might insist upon but I shall mention only two more 1. Misinterpreting the sence of Scripture 2. Supposing it in the power of some part of the Church to oblige the whole in matters of faith For the first we are to consider that no imaginable account can be given either of the writing or universal reception of the Books of the New Testament if they were not designed for the preservation of the doctrine of Christ. And although it should be granted possible for the main and fundamental articles of Christian faith such as the Apostles Creed gives a summary account of to have been preserved by
the help of tradition yet unless we be extreamly ungratful we cannot but acknowledg that God hath infinitely better provided for us in not leaving the grounds of our Religion to the meer breath of the people or the care of Mothers instructing their Children but hath given us the certain records of all the doctrines and motives of faith preserved inviolably from the first ages of the Church And when the Church saw with what care God had provided for the means of faith oral tradition was little minded thence the memory of those other things not recorded in Scripture is wholly lost all the care was imployed in searching preserving and delivering these sacred Books to posterity To these the primitive Church still appeals these they plead for against all adversaries defending their authority explaining their sense vindicating them from all corruptions Tradition they rely not on any further than as a testimony of the truth of these records or to clear the sense of them from the perverse interpretation of those Hereticks who pretended another kind of tradition than what was in Scripture And when these were silenced all the disputes that arose in the Church concerning matters of faith was about the sense of these Books as is evident by the proceedings in the case of Arius and Pelagius Wherein tradition was only used as a means to clear the sense of the Scriptures but not at all as that which the faith of all was to be resolved into But when any thing was pleaded from tradition for which there was no ground in Scripture it was rejected with the same ease it was offered and such persons were plainly told this was not the Churches way if they had plain Scripture with the concurrent sense of Antiquity they might produce it and rely upon it So that the whole use of tradition in the primitive Church besides attesting the Books was to shew the unreasonableness of imposing senses on Scripture against the universal sense of the Church from the Apostles times But as long as men were men it was not avoidable but they must fall into different apprehensions of the meaning of the Scripture according to their different judgments prejudices learning and education And since they had all this apprehension that the Scripture contained all doctrines of faith thence as men judged of the sense of it they differed in their apprehension concerning matters of faith And thence errors and mistakes might easily come into the Church without one age conspiring to deceive the next Nay if it be possible for men to rely on tradition without Scripture this may easily be done for by that means they make a new rule of faith not known to the primitive Church and consequently that very assertion is an error in which the former age did not conspire to deceive the next And if these things be possible M. S's demonstration fails him for hereby a reasonable account is given how errors may come into a Church without one age conspiring to deceive another Again let me enquire of Mr. S. whether men may not believe it in the power of the ruling part of the Church to oblige the whole to an assent to the definitions of it To speak plainer is it not possible for men to believe the Pope and Council infallible in their decrees And I hope the Jesuits as little as Mr. S. loves them or they him may be a sufficient evidence of more than the bare possibility of this If they may believe this doth it not necessarily follow that they are bound to believe whatever they declare to be matter of faith Supposing then that Transubstantiation Supremacy Invocation of Saints were but pâ—ivate opinions before but are now defined by Pope and Council these men cannot but look on themselves as much obliged to believe them as if they had been delivered as matters of faith in every age since the Apostles times Is it now repugnant to common sense that this opinion should be believed or entertained in the Church if not why may not this opinion be generally received if it be so doth it not unavoidably follow that the faith of men must alter according to the Churches definitions And thus private opinions may be believed as articles of faith and corrupt practices be established as laudable pieces of devotion and yet no one age of the Church conspire to deceive another Thus I hope Mr. S. may see how far it is from being a self-evident principle that no error can come into the Church unless one age conspire to deceive the next in a matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world Which is so wild an apprehension that I believe the Jesuits cannot entertain themselves without smiles to see their domestick adversaries expose themselves to contempt with so much confidence Thus I come to the reason I gave why there is no reason to believe that this is the present sense of the Roman Church My words are For I see the Roman Church asserts that things may be de fide in one age which were not in another at least Popes and Councils challenge this and this is the common doctrine maintained there and others are looked on as no members of their Church who assert the contrary but as persons at least meritoriously if not actually excommunicate Where then shall I satisfie my self what the sense of your Church is as to this particular Must I believe a very few persons whom the rest disown as heretical and seditious or ought I not rather to take the judgment of the greatest and most approved persons of that Church And these disown any such doctrine but assert that the Church may determine things de fide which were not before In answer to this Mr. S. begs leave to distinguish the words de fide which may either mean Christian faith or points of faith taught by Christ and then he grants 't is non-sense to say they can be in one age and not in another Or de fide may mean obligatory to be believed In this latter sense none I think saith he denies things may be de fide in one age and not in another in the former sense none holds it Upon which very triumphantly he concludes What 's now become of your difficulty I believe you are in some wonderment and think I elude it rather then answer it I shall endeavour to unperplex you I must confess it a fault of humane nature to admire things which men understand not on which account I cannot free my self from some temptation to that he calls wonderment but I am presently cured of it when I endeavour to reduce his distinction to reason For instead of explaining his terms he should have shewed how any thing can be obligatory to be believed in any age of the Church which was no point of faith taught by Christ which notwithstanding his endeavour to unperplex me is a thing as yet I apprehend not because I understand no obligation
to faith to arise from any thing but divine revelation and I do not yet believe any thing in Christian doctrine to be divinely revealed but what was delivered by Christ or his Apostles And my wonderment must needs be the greater because I suppose this inconsistent with Mr. S's principles For oral tradition doth necessarily imply that all points of faith were first taught by Christ and conveyed by tradition to us but if a thing may be de fide in this latter sense which was not before what becomes of resolving faith wholly into oral tradition For faith is resolved into that from whence the obligation to believe comes but here Mr. S. confesses that the obligation to believe doth arise from something quite different from oral tradition and therefore faith must be resolved into it Besides all the sense I can find in that distinction is that men are bound to believe something in one age which they were not in another and if so I shall desire Mr. S. to unperplex me in this how every age is bound to believe just as the precedent did and yet one age be bound to believe more than the precedent But however I am much obliged to him for his endeavour to unperplex me as he speaks for really I look on no civilities to be greater than those which are designed for clearing our understandings so great an adorer am I of true reason and an intelligible Religion And therefore I perfectly agree with him in his saying that Christianity aims not to make us beasts but more perfectly men and the perfection of our manhood consists in the use of our reasons From whence he infers that it is reasonable consequences should be drawn from principles of faith which he saith are of two sorts first such as need no more but common sense to deduce them the others are such as need the maxims of some science got by speculation to infer them and these are Theological conclusions The former sort he tell us the Church is necessitated to make use of upon occasion i. e. when any Heretick questions those and eadem opera the whole point of faith it self of which they were a part as in the case of the Monothelites about Christs having two wills But all this while I am far enough from being unperplexed nay by this discourse I see every one who offers to unperplex another is not very clear himself For since he makes no Theological conclusions to be de fide but only such consequences as common sence draws I would willingly understand how common sence receives a new obligation to faith For to my apprehension the deducing of consequences from principles by common sense is not an act of believing but of knowledg consequent upon a principle of faith And the meaning is no more than this that men when they say they believe things should not contradict themselves as certainly they would do if they deny those consequences which common sense draws from them As in the case of the Monothelites for men to assert that Christ had two natures and yet not two wills when the will is nothing else but the inclination of the nature to that good which belongs to it So that there can be no distinct obligation to believe such consequences as are drawn by common sense but every one that believes the principles from whence they are drawn is thereby bound to believe all the consequences which immediately follow from them Indeed the Church when people will be so unreasonable to deny such things may explain her sense of the article of faith in those terms which may best prevent dispute but this is only to discriminate the persons who truly believe this article from such as do not Not that any new obligation to faith results from this act of the Church but the better to prevent cavils she explains her sense of the article it self in more explicite terms Which as he saith is only to put the faith out of danger of being equivocated Which is quite another thing from causing a new obligation to believe As suppose the Church to prevent the growth of the Socinian doctrine should require from men the declaring their belief of the eternal existence of the Son of God Would this be to bind men to believe some thing which they were not bound to before No but only to express their assent to the Deity of Christ in the simplest terms because otherwise they might call him God by office and not by nature Now how can any one conceive that any should be first obliged to believe that Christ is God and yet receive a new obligation afterwards to believe his eternal existence Thus it is in all immediate consequences drawn by common sense in all which the primary obligation to believe the thing it self extends to the belief of it in the most clear and least controverted terms which are not intended to impose on mens faith but to promote the Churches peace For neither is there a new object of faith for how can that be which common sense draws from what is believed already neither is there any infallible proponent unless common sense hath usurped the Popes prerogative But Mr. S. offers at a reason for this which is that none can have an obligation to believe what they have not an obligation to think of and in some age the generality of the faithful have no occasion nor consequently obligation to mind reflect or think on those propositions involved in the main stock of faith From whence he saith it follows that a thing may be de fide or obligatory to be believed in one age and not in another But let Mr. S. shew how a man can be obliged to believe any thing as an article of faith who is not bound to think of all the immediate consequences of it Because faith is an act of a reasonable nature which ought to enquire into the reasons and consequences of things which it doth believe But Mr. S's mistake lies here in not distinguishing the obligation to believe from the obligation to an explicite declaration of that assent The former comes only from God and no new obligation can arise from any act of the Church but the latter being a thing tending to the Churches peace may be required by it on some occasions i. e. when the doctrine is assaulted by Hereticks as in the time of the four first General Councils but still a man is not at all the more obliged to assent but to express his assent in order to the Churches satisfaction But Mr. S. supposes me to enquire how the Church can have power to oblige the generality to belief of such a point To which his answer is she obliges them to believe the main point of faith by virtue of traditions being a self-evident rule and these implied points by virtue of their being self-evidently connected with those main and perpetually used points so that the vulgar can be rationally and connaturally
and all the Papists of forreign Countreys do as faithful agree with Mr. White in this It seems not so by the proceedings in the Court of Rome against him in which as appears by the censure of the Inquisition against him dated 17. November 1661. his doctrine is condemned not only as false seditious and scandalous but as heretical and erroneous in faith And if it were not for this very doctrine he was there censured why doth Mr. White set himself purposely to defend it in his Tabulae suffragiales If these then do agree as faithful who cannot but envy the excellent harmony of the Roman Church in which men condemn each other for hereticks and yet all believe the same things still Well Sir I am in hopes upon the same grounds Mr. S. will yield us the same charity too and tell us that we agree with him as faithful only we differ a little from him as discoursers for I assure you there is as great reason the only difference is we give them not such ill words as they do each other For let Mr. S. shew us wherein we differ more from him about the Rule of Faith than they do among themselves For Mr. White when he hath said that all kind of heresie doth arise from hence that men make the holy Scripture or a private spirit the rule of faith he presently adds it is all one if one make Councils or Pope any other way than as witnesses to be the authors of faith For saith he this is to subject the whole Church to that slavery to receive any errour for an article of faith which they shall define or propose modo illegitimo i. e. any other way then as witnesses of tradition Either then we differ from Mr. S. only as discoursers or he and his Brethren differ from each other more then as such And so any one would think who reads the oppositions and arguments against each other on this subject particularly Mr. Whites Tabulae suffragiales But let Mr. White say what he will Mr. S. tells me I am not aware how little they differ even as Divines The more shame for them to have such furious heats and oppositions where there is so little difference But as little as they differ Mr. White thinks it safer to talk of their unity in England than to try whether they be of his mind at Rome by going thither to clear himself for he justly fears he should find them differ from him some other way than as bare discoursers Yet let us hear Mr. S's reason for saith he though some speculators attribute to the Church a power of defining things not held before yet few will say she hath new revelations or new articles of faith But we know the temper of these men better than to rely on what they barely say For they say what they think is most for their purpose and one of Mr. White 's adversaries if himself may be credited plainly told him if the doctrine of the Popes infallibility were not true yet it ought to be defended because it was for the interest of the Church of Rome for which he is sufficiently rebuked by him It is one thing then what they say and another what necessarily follows from the Doctrine which they assert But for plain dealing commend me to the Canonists who say expresly the Church by which they mean the Pope may make new articles of faith and this is the sense of the rest though they are loth to speak out Else Mr. White was much too blame in spending so much time in proving the contrary But what man of common sense can imagine that these men can mean otherwise who assert such an infallibility in Pope and Councils as to oblige men under pain of eternal damnation to believe those things which they were not obliged to before such a definition And what can this be else but to make new articles of faith For an article of faith supposes a necessary obligation to believe it now if some doctrine may become thus obligatory by virtue of the Churches definition which was not so before that becomes thereby an article of faith which it was not before But these subtil men have not yet learnt to distinguish a new doctrine from a new article of faith they do not indeed pretend that their doctrine is new because they deny any such thing as new revelation in the Church but yet they must needs say if they understand themselves that old implicit doctrines may become new articles of faith by vertue of the Churches definition So little are they relieved by that silly distinction of explicit and implicit delivery of them which Mr. S. for a great novelty accquaints us with For what is only implicitly delivered is no article of faith at all for that can be no article of faith which men are not bound to believe now there are none will say that men are bound to believe under pain of damnation if they do not the things which are only implicitly delivered but this they say with great confidence of all things defined by the Church And let now any intelligent person judg whether those who assert such things do not differ wide enough from those who resolve all into oral tradition and make the obligation to faith wholly dependent upon the constant tradition of any doctrine from age to age ever since the Apostles times But Mr. S. is yet further displeased with me for saying that Pope and Councils challenge a power to make things de fide in one age which were not in another For 1. he sayes I speak it in common and prove it not 2. He adds That take them right this is both perfectly innocent and unavoidably necessary to a Church And is it not strange he should expect any particular proofs of so innocent and necessary a thing to the being of a Church But he will tell me it is in his own sense of de fide which I have already shewn to signifie nothing to his purpose Let him therefore speak out whether he doth believe any such thing as inherent infallibility in the definitions of Pope and Councils if not I am sure at Rome they will never believe that Mr. S. agrees with them as faithful if he doth whether doth not such an infallible definition bind men by vertue of it to the belief of what is then defined if it doth then things may become as much de fide by it as if they were delivered dy Christ or his Apostles For thereby is supposed an equal obligation to faith because there is a proposition equally infallible But will he say the Pope doth not challenge this Why then is the contrary doctrine censured and condemned at Rome Why is the other so eagerly contended for by the most zealous sons of that Church and that not as a school-opinion but as the only certain foundation of faith Mr. S. is yet pleased to inform me further that nothing will avail me
on as novelties therefore they speak much of tradition and the ancient faith but that was not by what their Parents taught them but what the Fathers of the Church delivered in their writings for by these they judged of traditions and not the oral way And therefore I see little reason to believe that this was either the sense of the Council of Trent or is the sense of any number of Roman Catholicks much less of the whole Church none excepted as Mr. S. in his confident way expresses it And if he will as he saith disavow the maintaining any point or affecting any way which is not assented to by all I hope to see Mr. S. retract this opinion and either fall in with the Court of Rome or return as reason leads him into the bosom of the Church of England But there seems to be somewhat more in what follows viz. that though schoolmen question the personal infallibility of the Pope or of the Roman Clergy nay of a General Council yet all affirm the infallibility of tradition or the living voice of the Church essential and this he saith is held by all held firmly and that it is absolutely infallible To this therefore I answer either Mr. S. means that none do affirm that the universal tradition of the Church essential can err or that the Church of Rome being the Church essential cannot err in her tradition But which way soever he takes it I shall easily shew how far it is from proving that he designs it for For if he take it in the first sense viz. that all the faithful in all ages could not concur in an error then he may as well prove Protestants of his mind as Papists for this is the foundation on which we believe the particular Books of Scripture If this therefore proves any thing it proves more then he intends viz. that while we thus oppose each other we do perfectly agree together and truly so we do as much as they do among themselves But if Mr. S's meaning be that all of their Religion own the Roman Church to be the Church essential and on that account that it cannot err setting aside the absurdity of the opinion it self I say from hence it doth not follow that they make oral tradition the rule of faith because it is most evident that the ground why they say their Church cannot err is not on Mr. S's principles but on the supposition of an infallible assistance which preserves that Church from error So that this falls far short of proving that they are all agreed in this rule of faith which is a thing so far from probability that he might by the same argument prove that Scripture is owned by them all to be the rule of faith For I hope it is held by all and held firmly that the living voice of God in Scripture as delivered to us is infallible and if so then there is as much ground for this as the other But if we enquire what it is men make a rule of faith we must know not only that they believe tradition infallible but on what account they do so For if tradition be believed infallible barely on the account of a promise of infallibility to the present Church then the resolution of faith is not into the tradition but into that infallible assistance and consequently the rule of faith is not what bare tradition delivers but what that Church which cannot err in judging tradition doth propose to us It is not therefore their being agreed in general that tradition is infallible doth make thâ—m agree in the same rule of faith but they must agree in the ground of that infallibility viz. that it depends on this that no age could conspire to deceive the next But all persons who understand any thing of the Roman Church know very well that the general reason why tradition is believed infallible is because they first believe the Church to be infallible whereas Mr. S. goes the contrary way and makes the infallibility of the the Church to depend on the infallibility of tradition And therefore for all that I can see we must still oppose private Opinators in this controversie the Church of Rome not having declared her self at all on Mr. S's behalf but the contrary and the generality believing on the account of the present Churches infallibility And it is strange Mr. S. should find no difference between mens resolving faith into common sense and into the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost If this then be the first principle of controversie as Mr. S. pretends we see how unlikely they are to agree about other matters who are so much divided about the principle of resolving them And if this be the ground of faith then most Romanists build on a wrong Foundation But if the infallibility of oral tradition be the foundation on which that formidable structure is erecting which he speaks of wo then to the Court of Rome for that is known to build on quite a different foundation And if this as he saith rises apace and has advanced many stories in a small time it only lets us know how fast their divisions grow and that they are building so fast one against another that their Church will not stand between them By this discourse Mr. S. pretends to answer all those If 's which follow which are these In case the Church may determine things de fide which were not before whether the present Church doth then believe as the precedent did or no if it did how comes any thing to be de fide which was not before if it did not what assurance can I have that every age of the Church believes just as the precedent did and no otherwise when I see they profess the contrary And if a thing may be de fide in one age which was not in a foregoing then a Church may deliver that as a matter of faith at one time which was never accounted so before by which means the present Church may oblige me to believe that as a matter of faith which never was so in Christs or the Apostles times and so the infallibility on the account of tradition is destroyed To all which Mr. S. gives a very easie answer viz. that they do not hold any disparate or unimplied points of faith but such as are involved and implied in the main point This is no more easily said then understood for if these be implied in the former how can there come a new obligation to believe them For to take his own instance will any man in his senses say that he that believes homo est animal rationale doth not believe homo est animal and this he makes choice of as an example how one point of faith may be involved in another so as to receive a distinct obligation to believe it I grant that homo est animal is involved in the other but he that shall say that after he hath assented
he never hear of such a thing as the Scripture or is it so hard to find it But if he hath heard of it I intreat him to resolve me these Questions 1. Whether he doth not believe that the Books of the New Testament were written at such a time when the matters of fact therein recorded were capable of being throughly examined which he cannot deny upon his own principle for tradition being then infallible as to the doctrine of Christ the writers of these Books cannot be conceived to deliver it amiss unless they resolved to contradict the present tradition of the Church which if they had done those Books could never have found any reception among Christians If tradition then convey the doctrine of Christ infalilbly these Books must convey it infallibly because they contain in them the infallible tradition of the first age of the Christian Church and were written at the time when many persons living had been able to disprove any thing contained therein repugnant to truth And that these Books were written by those persons whose names they bear I appeal to Mr S's own rule Tradition for if that be infallible in any thing it must be in this and if one age could conspire to deceive another in a matter of such concernment what security can be had that it may not do so in all other things 2. Whether he believes that those whose intention was to write an account of the life actions and doctrine of Christ did leave any thing out of their Books which did relate to them as of concernment for us to believe For upon Mr. S's principles any one may easily know what the tradition of the Church is and especially such certainly who were either present themselves at the matters of fact or heard them from those who were and what satisfaction can any one desire greater than this But the question is whether this testimony were not more safely deposited in the Church to be conveyed by word of mouth than it could be by being committed to writing by such who were eye and ear witnesses of the actions and doctrine of Christ Upon which I advance some further Queries 3. If oral Tradition were the more certain way why was any thing written at all It may be Mr. S. will tell us for moral instructions and to give precepts of good life but then why may not these be as infallibly conveyed by tradition as doctrines of faith And why then were any matters of fact and points of faith inserted in the Books of the New Testament By which it certainly appears that the intention of writing them was to preserve them to posterity Let Mr. S. tell me whether it was consistent with the wisdom of men much less with the wisdom of an infinite Being to imploy men to do that which might be far better done another way and when it is done can give no satisfaction to the minds of men 4. Whether those things which are capable of being understood when they are spoken cease to be so when they are written For Mr. S. seems to understand those terms of a living voice and dead letters in a very strict and rigorous manner as though the sense were only quick when spoken and became buried in dead letters But Mr. S. seems with the sagacious Indian to admire how it is possible for dead letters and unsenc'd characters to express mens meanings as well as words I cannot enter into Mr. S's apprehension how 24 letters by their various disposition can express matters of faith And yet to increase the wonder he writes about matters of faith while he is proving that matters of faith cannot be conveyed by writing So that Mr. S's own writing is the best demonstration against himself and he confutes his own Sophistry with his fingers as Diogenes did Zeno's by his motion For doth Mr. S. hope to perswade men that tradition is a rule of faith by his Book or not if not to what purpose doth he write if he doth then it is to be hoped some matters of faith may be intelligibly conveyed by writing especially if Mr. S. doth it But by no means we are to believe that ever the Spirit of God can do it For whatever is written by men assisted by that is according to him but a heap of dead letters and insignificant characters when Mr. S. the mean while is full of sense and demonstration Happy man that can thus out-do infinite wisdom and write far beyond either Prophets or Apostles But if he will condescend so far as to allow that to inspired persons which he confidently believes of himself viz. that he can write a Book full of sense and that any ordinary capacity may apprehend the design of it our controversie is at an end for then matters of faith may be intelligibly and certainly conveyed to posterity by the Books of Scripture and if so there will be no need of any recourse to oral tradition 5. If the Books of Scripture did not certainly intelligibly convey all matters of faith what made them be received with so much veneration in the first ages of the Christian Church which were best able to judg of the truth of the matters contained in them and the usefulness of the Books themselves And therein we still find that appeals were made to them that they thought themselves concerned to vindicate them against all objections of Heathens and others and the resolution of faith was made into them and not tradition as I have already manifested and must not repeat 6. Whether it be in the least credible since the Books of Scripture were supposed to contain the doctrines of faith that every age of the Church should look on it self as obliged absolutely to believe the doctrine of the precedent by virtue of an oral-tradition For since they resolved their faith into the written Books how is it possible they should believe on the account of an oral tradition Although then the Apostles did deliver the doctrine of Christ to all their Disciples yet since the records of it were embraced in the Church men judged of the truth or falsehood of doctrines by the conveniency or repugnancy of them to what was contained in those Books By which we understand that the obligation to believe what was taught by the precedent age did not arise from the oral tradition of it but by the satisfaction of the present age that the doctrine delivered by it was the same with that contained in Scripture It is time now to return to Mr. S. who proceeds still to manifest this obligation in posterity to believe what was delivered as matter of faith by the precedent age of the Church but the force of all is the same still viz. that otherwise one age must conspire to deceive the next But the inconsequence of that I have fully shewed already unless he demonstrates it impossible for errors to come in any other way For if we reduce the substance of
what he saith to a Syllogistical form it comes to this Where there is no possibility of error there is an absolute obligation to faith but there is no possibility of error in the tradition of any age of the Church ergo in every age there is an absolute obligation to believe the tradition of the present Church The minor he thus proves If no age of the Church can be ignorant of what the precedent taught or conspire to deceive the next then there is no possibility of error coming into the tradition of the Church in any age but the antecedent is true and therefore the consequent Now who sees not that the force of all this lies not in proving the minor proposition or that no age could conspire to deceive another but the consequence viz. that no error can come into a Church but by a general mistake in one whole age or the general imposture of it which we utterly deny and have shewed him already the falseness of it from his own concessions And I might more largely shew it from those Doctrines or opinions which they themselves acknowledg to have come into their Church without any such general mistake or imposture as the doctrines of Papal infallibility and the common belief of Purgatory The very same way that Mr. White and Mr. S. will shew us how these came in we will shew him how many others came in as erroneous and scandalous as those are For whether they account these matters of faith or no it is certain many among them do and that the far greatest number who assert and believe them to be the doctrine of their Church too If therefore these might come in without one age mistaking or deceiving the next why might not all those come in the same way which we charge upon them as the errors of their Church And in the same manner that corrupt doctrines come in may corrupt practises too since these as he saith spring from the other He might therefore have saved himself the trouble of finding out how an acute Wit or great Scholar would discover the weakness of this way For without pretending to be either of these I have found out another way of attaquing it than Mr. S. looked for viz. from his own principles and concessions shewing how errors might come into a Church without a total deception or conspiracy in any one age Which if it be true he cannot bind me to believe what ever he tells me the present Church delivers unless he can prove that this never came into the Church as a speculation or private opinion and from thence by degrees hath come to be accounted a point of faith Therefore his way of proof is now quite altered and he cannot say we are bound to believe whatever the present Church delivers for that which he calls the present Church may have admitted speculations and private opinions into doctrines of faith but he must first prove such doctrines delivered by Christ or his Apostles and that from his time down to our age they have been received by the whole Church for matters of faith and when he hath done this as to any of the points in controversie between us I will promise him to be his Proselyte But he ought still to remember that he is not to prove it impossible for one whole age to conspire to deceive the next but that supposing that it is impossible for any errors to come into the tradition of the Church Let us now see what Mr. S. objects against those words I then used against the demonstrating this way It is hard to conceive what reason should inforce it but such as proves the impossibility of the contrary and they have understandings of another mould from others who can conceive it impossible men should not think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors And whatever Mr. S. says to the contrary I cannot yet see but that therein I argued from the very nature and constitution of the thing For that which I looked for was a demonstration which I supposed could not be unless the impossibility of the contrary were demonstrated But if it be possible for Men Christians nay Romanists to believe on other accounts than tradition of the precedent age I pray what demonstration can there be that men must think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors did Surely if Mr. S's fancy had not been very extravagant he could never have thought here of mens being obliged to cut their Beards or wear such Garters and Hat-bands as their forefathers did For do I not mention believing first and then doing by which it were easie to apprehend that I meant matters of faith and such practices as flow from them Neither was there any such crafty and sophistical dealing as he charges me with for I am content his doctrine be taken in his own terms and I have now given a larger and fuller account why I am far from being convinced by the way he hath used for resolving faith Passing by therefore his challenge which I accept of as long as he holds to the weapon of reason and civility I come to consider his last enquiry why I should come to doubt of such an obligation in posterity to believe their ancestors in matters of faith and he judiciously resolves it into a strange distortion of human nature but such as it seems is the proper effect of the Protestants temper which is saith he to chuse every one his faith by his private judgement or wit working upon disputable words Which as far as we own it is not to believe what we see no ground for and if this be such a distortion of human nature I envy not Mr. S's uprightness and perfection If he means that we build our faith on our private judgments in opposition to Scripture or the universal tradition of the Church in all ages let him prove it evidently in one particular and I engage for my self and all true Protestants we will renounce the belief of it If he hath any thing further to object against the grounds of our Religion he knows where to attaque me let him undertake the whole or else acknowledg it a most unreasonable thing thus to charge falsities upon us and then say we have nothing else to say for our selves We pretend not to chuse our faith but heartily embrace whatever appears to have been delivered by Christ or his Apostles but we know the Church of Rome too well to believe all which she would impose upon us and are loth to have her chuse our Religion for us since we know she hath chosen so ill for her self But if Mr. S. will not believe me in saying thus what reason have I to believe him in saying otherwise Such general charges then signifie nothing but every one must judg according to the reason on both sides I now come to the last part of my task which
is to shew that this way is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages To which purpose my words are It is to no purpose to prove impossibility of motion when I see men move no more is it to prove that no age of the Church could vary from the preceding when we can evidently prove that they have done it And therefore this argument is intended only to catch easie minds that care not for a search into the history of the several ages of the Church but had rather sit down with a superficial subtilty than spend time in further enquiries But two things M. S. tells me are required ere I can see that their faith varies from the former first to see what their Church holds now and then to see what the former Church held before and he kindly tells me if he sees any thing I see neither well It seems I want Mr. S's spectacles of oral tradition to see with but as yet I have no cause to complain of the want of them but I see much better without them than with them He tells me I cannot see what their present Church holds and therefore I cannot assure any what was held before because if I renounce tradition I take away all means of knowing The reason why I cannot candidly see as he phrases it what their Church holds now is because I cannot distinguish between faith and its explication some Schoolmen and the Church By which it seems it is impossible for me to know what their Church holds concerning Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Communion in one kind for those are the points I there mention wherein it is evident that the Church of Rome hath receded from the doctrine and practise of the primitive Church Or are these only the opinions and practises of some Schoolmen among them and not the doctrine and practise of their Church But that we might come to some fuller state of these controversies I wish M. S. would settle some sure way whereby we might know distinctly what are the doctrines and practices of their Church If the Council of Trent and Roman Catechism be said to be the rule of doctrine I desire no other so that those may be interpreted by practices universally allowed among them As when that Council only defined that due honour be given to Saints the general practice of that Church may tell us what they mean by that due honour and if that be not fair I know not what is But I see all the shift Mr. S. hath is when he is pinched to say these are the opinions of Schoolmen and private speculators and not the doctrine of their Church And if such shifts as these are must serve the turn I should wonder if ever he be to seek for an answer But the shortest answer of all would be that none but those of their Church can know what she holds and therefore it is to no purpose for Protestants to write against her or it may be that none but Mr S. and one or two more can tell for many among them say those are the doctrines of their Church which they deny to be So that except Mr. White and Mr. S. and some very few demonstrators more all the rest are School-men private Opinators and not to be relied on But I cannot see what their Church held formerly neither No wonder at all of that for if I cannot see an object so near me as the present Church how can it be expected I should see one so much further off as the doctrine of former ages And his reason is so strong as may well perswade me out of one at least of my five senses For saith he if I question tradition I question whether there be any doctrine delivered and so any Fathers And is not this argued like a Demonstrator First he supposes there never was any way used in the world but oral tradition and then strongly infers if I deny that I can know nothing But I can yet hardly perswade my self that the Fathers only sate in Chimney-corners teaching their Children by word of mouth and charging them to be sure to do so to theirs but as they loved preserving the doctrine of faith they should have a great care never to write down a word of it But why I wonder should Mr. S. think that if I do not allow of oral tradition I must needs question whether there were any Fathers I had thought I might have known there had been Fathers by their Children I mean the Books they left behind them But if all Mr. S. pleads for be only this that no Books can be certainly conveyed without tradition he dispute's without an adversary but as I never opposed this so I am sure it doth him little service It is then from the Books of the Fathers that I find what the sense of the Church of their age was and from thence I have shewed how vastly different the opinions and practices of the Roman Church are from those of the primitive Although then I may not think my self obliged to believe all that the present Church delivers for matter of faith yet I hope I may find what the opinions and practice of the former Church were by the records that are left of it And the reason why I cannot think any one obliged to believe what every age of the Church delivers is because I think no man obliged to believe contradictions and I see the opinions and practices of several ages apparently contrary to each other Well but I call this way a superficial subtilty and so I think it still so little have Mr. S's demonstations wrought upon me But saith he is that which is wholly built on the nature of things superficial No but that which pretends to be so built may And of that nature I have shewed this way to be and not the former But that I may not think him superficial as well as his way he puts a profound Question to me What do I think Controversie is and that he may the better let me know what it is he answers himself I deal plainly with you saith he you may take it to be an art of talking and I think you do so though you will not profess it but I take it to be a noble science But to let him see that I will deal as plainly with him as he doth with me I will profess it that I not only think Controversie as usually managed but some mens way of demonstrating Mr. S. may easily know whom I mean to be a meer art of talking and nothing else But he takes it to be a noble science yes doubtless if Mr. S. manage it and he be the judg of it himself His meaning I suppose is by his following words that he goes upon certain principles and we do not We have already seen how certain his principles have
capable of convincing Demonstrations Again Do but consider says he how unequal and unjust a condition it is that the claim of the present Church shall not be heard unless she can confute all the Peradventures that Wit may invent and solve all the Arguments which the infinite variety of time place and occasions may have given way unto and then you will see how unreasonable an Adversary he is who will not be content with any satisfaction but such as mans nature scarcely affords And is it not equally unjust in Mr. S. not to let Scripture's claim be heard unless we can confute every Peradventure and might it not be otherwise that Wit may invent See then how unreasonable an Adversary Mr. S. is who will not be content with any satisfaction but such as according to Mr. Rushworth mans nature scarcely affords Dr. Holden I confess states the matter somewhat cautiously when he tells us That it shall suffice for present to determine that the Wisdom of the Creator hath afforded us such an assurance especially of Truths necessary to Salvation as is sutable to our nature and best fitted for the safe conduct of our lives in Moral and Religious Affairs But if we interpret these general expressions by the passages I before cited out of Mr. Rushworth as in reason we may since the Doctor is beholding to him for the best part of his Book then nothing can make more against Mr. S's Principle § 5. Mr. Cressy in his Exomologesis says That such Teachers as approached nearest to the fountain of Truth Christ and his Apostles had means of informing themselves in Apostolical Tradition incomparably beyond us Mr. S. may do well to shew what those means were which are so incomparably beyond his Infallibility and Demonstration The same Author does very much applaud Stapleton's determination of the question concerning the Churches Infallibility which is as follows That the Church does not expect to be taught by God immediately by new Revelations but makes use of several means c. as being govern'd not by Apostles c. but by ordinary Pastors and Teachers That these Pastors in making use of these several means of Decision proceed not as the Apostles did with a peculiar infallible direction of the Holy Spirit but with a prudential collection not always necessary That to the Apostles who were the first Masters of Evangelical Faith and founders of the Church such an infallible certitude of means was necessary not so now to the Church c. If this be true That an infallible certitude of means is not now necessary to the Church and that her Pastors do now in deciding matters of Faith proceed only with a prudent collection not always necessary then it should seem that a searching Wit may maintain his ground of suspence even against their Church also with A Might it not be otherwise Again Mr. Cressy tells us That truth and our obligation to believe it is in an higher degree in Scripture than in the Decisions of the Church as Bellarmine acknowledges which is to say that we may have greater assurance of the truth of Doctrines contained in the Scriptures than we can have of any Doctrine from the determination of the Church But if we have the greatest assurance that can be of Truths deliver'd to us by the Church as Mr. S. affirms then I would fain learn of him what that greater degree of assurance is which Stapleton speaks of and whether it be greater than the greatest Not to insist upon that which yet I cannot but by the way take notice of that Mr. Cressy by his approbation of this determination of Bellarmine's doth advance the Scripture above the Church as to one of the most essential Properties of the Rule of Faith viz. the certainty of it But the most eminent Testimony to my purpose in Mr. Cressy is that famous passage which hath given so much offence to several of his own Church wherein he acknowledges the unfortunateness to him of the word Infallibility and tells us That he could find no such word in any Council That no necessity appear'd to him that either he or any other Protestant should ever have heard that word nam'd and much less press'd with so much earnestness as of late it has generally been in Disputations and Books of Controversie and that Mr. Chillingworth combats this word with too to great success insomuch that if this word were once forgotten or but laid by Mr. Chillingworth's Arguments would lose the greatest part of their strength and that if this word were confin'd to the Schools where it was bred there would be still no inconvenience And that since by manifest experience the English Protetestants think themselves so secure when they have leave to stand or fall by that word and in very deed have so much to say for themselves when they are pressed unnecessarily with it Since likewise it is a word capable of so high a sense that we cannot devise one more full and proper to attribute to God himself c. Since all this is so he thinks he cannot be blamed if such Reasons move him to wish that the Protestants may never be invited to combat the Authority of the Church under that Notion A very ingenuous acknowledgment and as cross to Mr. S's Principle as any thing can be But the word Infallibility was not so unfortunate to Mr. Cressy as is his untoward Explication of the fore-cited passage in his Appendix which he afterwards published chiefly by way of Vindication of himself against the Learned Author of the Preface to my Lord Falkland's Discourse of Infallibility There he tells us That there are several degrees of Infallibility And that we may know what degree of Infallibility he thinks necessary to be attributed to the Church this following passage will inform us Methinks says he if God have furnished his divine and supernatural Truth with evidence equal to this that the Sun will shine to morrow or that there will be a Spring and Harvest next year we are infinitely obliged to bless his Providence and justly condemned if we refuse to believe the least of such Truths as shewing less affection to save our souls than the dull Plow-men to sow their Corn who certainly have far less evidence for their Harvest than Catholiques for their Faith and yet they insist not peevishly upon every capricious Objection nor exact an infallible security of a plentiful reaping next Summer but notwithstanding all difficulties and contingencies proceed chearfully in their painful Husbandry So that according to this Discourse whatever degree of assurance the Church hath or can give to those who rely upon her it is plain that no further degree is necessary than what the Husbandman when he sows hath of a plentiful Harvest and that men are justly condemned if they refuse to believe the least truth upon such security which yet by his own acknowledgment is liable to Contingencies Nay further that men are
a guide appointed for any Christian which neither Christ nor his Apostles nor any of their Followers ever mentioned yea which formally destroys one of our twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed viz. I believe the Holy Catholick Church Thus he does by Reason clearly and infallibly evince that Reason cannot be otherwise than a most blind and fallible guide This it is to talk of things when a man looks only upon one side of them as if because Reason has a blind side and is uncertain in some things therefore we ought to conclude her universally blind and uncertain in every thing and as if because all men cannot think all things reasonable which any one man thinks to be so therefore it is to be doubted whether those common Principles of Reason be true which Mankind are generally agreed in And that Mr. Cressy speaks here of the use of our private Reason in the finding out of our Rule is clear from what he says in the next Section viz. That this hood-wink't guide enquiring into Scripture and searching after Tradition may possibly stumble upon the way to Vnity and Truth that is the true Catholick Church If this be true why does Mr. S. pretend that he can by Reason demonstrate the Infallibility of Tradition and by this hood-wink't guide lead men to the true Rule of Faith And what a pitiful encouragement would this be to an inquisitive Philosopher who knowing no other guide but his Reason whereby to find out whether Scripture or Tradition be the true Rule to tell him that by the help of this hood-wink't guide he might possibly stumble upon the right A man may justly stand amazed at the inconsistency of these mens Discourses and Principles In one mood they are all for Demonstration and for convincing men in the way of perfect Science which is the true Rule of Faith But then again when another fit takes them there 's no such thing as Science humane Reason grows all on the sudden dim-sighted and at the next word is struck stark blind and then the very utmost that it can do towards the bringing of an unprejudiced and inquisitive person to the true Rule of Faith is to leave him in a possibility of stumbling upon it but if he be a Heretick that makes use of private Reason for his guide then it is impossible but that he with his blind guide should fall into the Pit I cannot for my part imagine how they can reconcile the blindness of humane Reason with all that noise which they make about Science and Demonstration but this I must confess that these kind of Discourses which I meet with in Mr. S. and Mr. Cressy are very proper Arguments to perswade a man of the blindness of humane Reason And indeed there is one passage in Mr. Cressy which gives me very great satisfaction concerning these matters where he tells us That the Wit and Judgment of Catholicks is to renounce their own Judgment and depose their own Wit Now he that professes to have done this may write Contradictions and no body ought to challenge him for it However it is a very ingenuous acknowledgment that when he forsook our Church and turned Papist he laid aside his Judgment and Wit which is just such an heroick act of Judgment as if a man in a bravery to shew his liberty should sell himself for a slave I am glad to understand from an experienced Person what charges a man must be at when he turns Roman-Catholique namely that whoever will embrace that Religion must forfeit his Reason § 3. Secondly The way of Demonstration is according to Mr. S. no certain way to find out the Rule of Faith In his 4th Appendix against my Lord of Down one of the Eight Mines as he calls them which he lays to blow up my Lords Dissuasive against Popery is this That the method he takes in dissuading cannot be held in reason to have power to dissuade unless it be proper to that effect that is not common to that effect and a contrary one Now that being most evidently no method or way to such an effect which many follow and take yet arrive not at that effect 't is plain to common sense that my Lord of Down miscalls his Book A Dissuasive and that it can have in it no power of moving the understanding one way or other unless he can first vouch some particularity in the method he takes above what 's in others in which we experience miscarriage c. If this be true then his method of Demonstration is no way to make men certain of what he pretends to demonstrate because that is most evidently no way to an effect which many follow and take yet arrive not at that effect so that 't is plain to common sense that Mr. S's Demonstrations can have in them no power of moving the understanding one way or other unless he can vouch some particularity in the Demonstrations he pretends to bring above what is in other pretended Demonstrations in which we experience miscarriage Do not Thomas and Scotus as Mr. White tells us all along pretend to demonstrate and yet it is generally believed that at least where they contradict one another one of them failed in his Demonstrations Did not Mr. Charles Thynne pretend to have demonstrated that a man at one jump might leap from London to Rome and yet I do not think any one was ever satisfy'd with his Demonstration And Mr. S. knows one in the World whom I will not name because he hath since ingenuously acknowledged his Errour who thought he had demonstrated the Quadrature of the Circle and was so confident of it as to venture the reputation of his Demonstrations in Divinity upon it and some of those Divinity Demonstrations were the very same with Mr. S's Since therefore the World hath experienced so much miscarriage in the way of Demonstration before Mr. S's Demonstrations can be allowed to signifie any thing he must according to his own Law vouch some particularity in his way and method of Demonstration above what is in other mens He hath not any where that I remember told us what that particularity is wherein his way of Demonstration is above other mens Nor can I upon the most diligent search find any peculiar advantage that his Way has more than theirs above mentioned unless this be one that he pretends to demonstrate a self-evident Principle and herein I think he hath plainly the advantage of Mr. Charles Thynne and unless this may be counted another advantage that he has so extraordinary a confidence and conceit of his own Demonstrations and in this particular I must acknowledge that he clearly excels all that have gone before him In all other things his way of Demonstration is but like his neighbours SECT II. § 1. I Come now to examine his Demonstrations of this Self-evident Principle as he often calls it that Oral Tradition is a certain and infallible way of
to be given to History St. Hierom tells us That Liberius Bishop of Rome for all his particular Title to Infallibility built upon Tradition as Mr. S. speaks Coroll 28. turned Arian And that Arianism was establish't by the Synod of Ariminum which was a Council more general than that of Trent And that almost all the Churches in the whole World under the names of Peace and of the Emperour were polluted by Communion with the Arians Again That under the Emperour Constantius Eusebius and Hippatius being Consuls Infidelity was subscribed under the names of Vnity and Faith And that the whole World groaned and wondered to see it self turned Arian And he uses this as an argument to the Luciferians to receive into the Church those who had been defiled with the Heresie of Arius because the number of those who had kept themselves Orthodox was so exceeding small For says he the Synod of Nice which consisted of above Three hundred Bishops received Eight Arian Bishops whom they might have cast out without any great loss to the Church I wonder then how some and those the followers of the Nicene Faith can think that three Confessors viz. Athanasius Hilarius Eusebius ought not to do that in case of necessity for the good and safety of the whole World which so many and such excellent Persons did voluntarily It seems Arianism had prevailed very far when St. Hierom could not name above three eminent Persons in the Church who had preserved themselves untainted with it Again Arius in Alexandria was at first but one spark but because it was not presently extinguish't it broke out into a flame which devoured the whole World Gregory Nazianzen likewise tells us to the same purpose That the Arian Heresie seized upon the greatest part of the Church And to shew that he knew nothing of Mr. S's Demonstration of the indefectibility of the generality of Christians he asks Where are those that define the Church by multitude and despise the little Flock c And this Heresie was of a long continuance for from its first rise which happened in the 20 th year of Constantine it continued as Joh. Abbas hath calculated it 266 years And the Pelagian Heresie if we may believe Bradwardine one of the great Champions of the Church against it did in a manner prevail as much as Arianism as the said Author complains in his Preface to his Book That almost the whole World was run after Pelagius into Error Will Mr. S. now say that in the height of these Heresies the generality of Christians did firmly adhere to Tradition If he say they did let him answer the express Testimonies produced to the contrary But if they did not then his Demonstration also fails as to the generality of Christians And if the greater part of Christians may fall off from Tradition what Demonstration can make it impossible for the lesser to do so Who will say it is in Reason impossible that a Thousand persons should relinquish Tradition though Nine hundred of them have already done it and though the remainder be no otherwise secured from doing so than those were who have actually relinquish't it Now is not this a clear evidence that this which he calls a Demonstration a Priori is no such thing Because every Demonstration a Priori must be from causes which are necessary whereas his Demonstration is from voluntary causes So that unless he can prove that voluntary causes are necessary he shall never demonstrate that it is impossible for the generality of any company of men to err who have every one of them free-will and are every one of them liable to passion and mâ—stake § 5. From all this it appears that his whole Discourse about the Original and Progress of Heresie and the multitudes of Hereticks in several Ages is as clear a confutation of his own Demonstration as can be desired The only thing that he offers in that Discourse to prevent this Objection which he foresaw it liable to is this It is not says he to be expected but that some contingencies should have place where an whole Species in a manner is to be wrought upon it sufficeth that the causes to preserve Faith indeficiently entire are as efficacious as those which are laid for the preservation of Mankind the vertue of Faith not being to continue longer than Mankind its only subject does and they will easily appear as efficacious as the other if we consider the strength of those causes before explicated and reflect that they are effectively powerful to make multitudes daily debar themselves of those pleasures which are the causes of Mankinds propagation and if we look into History for experience of what hath passed in the World since the propagating of Christianity we shall find more particulars failing in propagating their kind than their Faith To which I answer First That it may reasonably be expected there should be no contingencies in any particulars where causes of actual will are supposed to be put in all Because as he says truly a cause put actually causing cannot but produce its effect Suppose then constant causes laid in all Mankind of an actual will to speak Truth to the best of their knowledg were it not reasonable to expect that there would be no such contingency to the Worlds end as that any man should tell a lye Nay it were madness for any man to think any such contingency should be supposing causes actually causing men always to speak Truth Secondly It is far from Truth that the causes to preserve Faith indeficiently entire are as efficacious as those which are laid for the propagation of Mankind And whereas he would prove the strength of these causes which are laid to preserve Faith because they are effectively powerful to make multitudes daily debar themselves of those pleasurâ—s which are the causes of Mankinds propagation I hope no body that hath read the innumerable complaints which occur in their own Historians and others of the best and most credible of their own Writers of more than one Age concerning the general viciousness and debauchery of their Priests and Monks will he overforward to believe that all those who debar themselves of lawful Marriage do abstain from those unlawful pleasures § 6. But nothing can be more impudent than what he adds That if we look into Histories for experience of what hath past in the World since the first planting of Christianity we shall find far more particulars failing in propagating their kind than their Faith Do any Histories confirm it to have been the experience of the World that the far greatest part of the World did in any Age give over propagating their kind But Histories do confirm that the far greatest part of the Christian World did fall off to Arianism and Pelagianism and consequently as he supposeth did desert and renounce Tradition Did ever whole Nations and vast Territories of the World
innovated have made the same pretence to uninterrupted Tradition Fourthly That it is not the present perswasion of the Church of Rome whom he calls the Traditionary Christians nor ever was that their Faith hath descended to them solely by Oral Tradition If I can now make good these four things I hope his Demonstration is at an end SECT VII § 1. THat these Principles wholly rely upon the truth of the Grounds of his Demonstration a Priori For if the Doctrine of Christ was either imperfectly taught in any Age or mistaken by the Learners or any part of it forgotten as it seems the whole Greek Church have forgot that fundamental Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost as the Roman Church accounts it or if the Arguments of hope and fear be not necessary causes of actual will to adhere to Tradition then there may have been changes and innovations in any Age and yet men may pretend to have followed Tradition But I have shewn that Ignorance and Negligence and Mistake and Pride and Lust and Ambition and any other Vice or Interest may hinder those causes from being effectual to preserve Tradition entire and uncorrupted And when they do so it is not to be expected that those Persons who innovate and change the Doctrine should acknowledg that their new Doctrines are contrary to the Doctrine of Christ but that they should at first advance them as Pious and after they have prevailed and gained general entertainment then impudently affirm that they were the very Doctrines which Christ delivered which they may very securely do when they have it in their power to burn all that shall deny it § 2. I will give a clear Instance of the possibility of this in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by shewing how this might easily come in in the Ninth or Tenth Age after Christ. We will suppose then that about this time when universal Ignorance and the genuine Daughter of it call her Devotion or Superstition had overspread the World and the generality of People were strongly enclined to believe strange things and even the greatest Contradictions were recommended to them under the notion of Mysteries being told by their Priests and Guides that the more contradictions any thing is to Reason the greater merit there is in believing it I say let us suppose that in this state of things one or more of the most eminent then in the Church either out of design or out of superstitious ignorance and mistake of the sense of our Saviour's words used in the Consecration of the Sacrament should advance this new Doctrine That the words of Consecration This is my Body are not to be understood by any kind of Trope as the like forms in Scripture are as I am the Vine I am the Door which are plain Tropes but being used about this great Mystery of the Sacrament ought in all reason to be supposed to contain in them some notable Mystery which they will do if they be understood of a real change of the substance of Bread and Wine made by vertue of these words into the real Body and Blood of our Saviour And in all this I suppose nothing but what is so far from being impossible that it is too usual for men either out of Ignorance or Interest to advance new Opinions in Religion And such a Doctrine as this was very likely to be advanced by the ambitious Clergy of that time as a probable means to draw in the People to a greater veneration of them which advantage Mr. Rushworth seems to be very sensible of when he tells us That the power of the Priest in this particular is such a priviledg as if all the learned Clerks that ever lived since the beginning of the World should have studied to raise advance and magnifie some one state of men to the highest pitch of Reverence and Eminency they could never without special light from Heaven have thought of any thing comparable to this I am of his mind that it was a very notable device but I am apt to think invented without any special light from Heaven Nor was such a Doctrine less likely to take and prevail among the People in an Age prodigiously ignorant and strongly enclined to Superstition and thereby well prepared to receive the grossest Absurdities under the notion of Mysteries especially if they were such as might seem to conciliate a greater honour and reverence to the Sacrament Now supposing such a Doctrine as this so fitted to the humor and temper of the Age to be once asserted either by chance or out of design it would take like wild-fire especially if by some one or more who bore sway in the Church it were but recommended with convenient gravity and solemnity And although Mr. Rushworth says It is impossible that the Authority of one man should sway so much in the World because sayes he surely the Devil himself would rather help the Church than permit so little pride among men yet I am not so thoroughly satisfied with this cunning reason For though he delivers it confidently and with a surely yet I make some doubt whether the Devil would be so forward to help the Church nay on the contrary I am enclined to think that he would rather choose to connive at this humble and obsequious temper in men in order to the overthrow of Religion than cross a design so dear to him by unseasonable temptations to pride So that notwithstanding Mr. Rushworth's reason it seems very likely that such a Doctrine in such an Age might easily be propagated by the influence and authority of one or a few great Persons in the Church For nothing can be more suitable to the easie and passive temper of superstitious Ignorance than to entertain such a Doctrine with all imaginable greediness and to maintain it with a proportionable zeal And if there be any wiser than the rest who make Objections against it as if this Doctrine were new and full of contradictions they may easily be born down by the stream and by the eminency and authority and pretended sanctity of those who are the heads of this Innovation And when this Doctrine is generally swallowed and all that oppose it are looked upon and punished as Hereticks then it is seasonable to maintain that this Doctrine was the doctrine of forefathers to which end it will be sufficient to those who are willing to have it true to bend two or three sayings of the Ancients to that purpose And as for the contradictions contained in this Doctrine it was but telling the People then as they do in effect now that contradictions ought to be no scruple in the way of Faith that the more impossible any thing is 't is the fitter to be believed that it is not praise-worthy to believe plain possibilities but that this is the gallantry and heroical power of Faith this is the way to oblige God Almighty for ever to us to believe flat and down-right
that can be imagined it might then have taken place for what Weeds would not have grown in so rank a Soyl Doth Mr. S. think it impossible that those that were born in the Church then should be ignorant of the Doctrine of Christ when scarce any one would take the pains to teach it them or that it could then have been altered when so few understood and fewer practised it When ptodigious Impiety and Wickedness did overspread the Church from the Pope down to the meanest of the Laity can any one believe that men generally made Conscience to instruct their Children in the true Faith of Christ Was it impossible there should be any neglect of this Duty when all others failed That there should be any mistake about the Doctrine of Christ when there was so much Ignorance unless he be of Mr. Rushworth's mind who reckons Ignorance among the Parents of Religion Where were then the Arguments of Hope and Fear Were they strongly applied or were they not Were they causes of actual will in Christians to believe well when they lived so ill Or is Christianity only fitted to form mens minds to a right belief but of no efficacy to govern their lives Hath Christ taken care to keep his Church from Error but not from Vice As the great Cardinal Perron stooping below his own Wit and Reason to serve a bad Cause tells us That the Church sings and will sing to the end of the World I am black but I am fair that is to say I am black in Manners but fair in Doctrine As if the meaning of the Prophesies and Promises of Scripture made to the Church were this that by the extraordinary care of Gods Providence and peculiar assistance of his Holy Spirit she should be wicked but Orthodox to the end of the World Where were then the vigorous causes imprinting Christ's Doctrine and continuing it more particularly at Rome than any where else and of securing that See and its supreme Pastor in the faith and practice of the Christian Doctrine above any other See or Pastor whatsoever Who is so little versed in History as not to understand the dismal state of Religion in the Romish Church in those times Who does not know what advantages the Bishops of Rome and their servile Clergy made of the ignorance and superstition of those and the succeeding Ages and by what Arts and steps they raised themselves to that power which they held in the Church for a long while after When they could tread upon the necks of Princes and make a great King walk bare-foot and yield himself to be scourged by a company of petulant Monks When they could send any man upon an Errand to visit the holy Sepulchre or the Shrine of such a Saint and command five or six Kings with great Armies upon a needless expedition into the Holy Land that so during their absence they might play their own Game the better When they could mint Miracles and impose upon the belief of the People without the authority of any ancient Books absurd and counterfeit Tales of ancient Saints and Martyrs as delivered down to them by Tradition and could bring that foppish Book the Legend almost into equal Authority and Veneration with the Bible and perswade the easy people that St. Denys carried his own head in his hand after it was cut off two miles and kiss'd it when he laid it down Any one that shall but reflect upon the monstrous practises of the Roman Bishops and Clergy in these Ages the strange Feats they played and what absurdities they imposed upon the superstitious credulity of Princes and People may readily imagine not only the possibility but the easiness of innovating new Doctrines as they pleased under the specious pretences of Antitiquity and constant and uninterrupted Tradition § 8. And this kind of Discourse concerning the possibility of Errors coming into the Church is not as Mr. White ridiculously compares it as if an Orator should go about to perswade people that George by the help of a long staff and a nimble cast of his body and such like advantages might leap over Paul 's Steeple never considering all the while the disproportion of all these advantages to the height of the Steeple so saith he he that discourseth at large how Errors use to slide into mans life without comparing the power of the causes of Error to the strength of resisting which consists in this Principle Nothing is to be admitted but what descends by Tradition c. says no more towards proving an Error 's over-running the Church than the Orator for George 's leaping over the Steeple How vain is this When it appears from this Instance that I have given of the state of the Roman Church in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries and afterwards that the causes of Error were infinitely stronger than the power of resistance The great causes of Error are Ignorance and Vice where Ignorance reigns there 's no Power where Vice no Will to resist it And how great the Ignorance and Viciousness of all orders of men in the Roman Church was is too too apparent from the Testimonies I have brought Where was the strength of resisting Error when for 150 years together the Popes were the vilest of men Bishops and Priests overwhelmed with Ignorance abandoned to all manner of vice and most supinely negligent in instructing the People In such a degenerate state of a Church what strength is there in this Principle Nothing is to be admitted but what descends by Tradition When those who ought to teach men what that Doctrine is which was derived to them by Tradition are generally careless of their Duty and ignorant themselves what that Doctrine is When they addict themselves wholly to the satisfying of their Ambition and other Lusts and carry on designs of Gain and getting Dominion over the People What can hinder men so disposed from corrupting the Doctrine of Christ and suiting it to their own Lusts and Interests And what shall hinder the People from embracing those Corruptions when by the negligence of their Pastors to instruct them and not only so but also by their being deprived of the Scriptures in a known Tongue they are become utterly incapable of knowing what the true Doctrine of Christ is So that in an Age of such profound Ignorance and Vice and general neglect of Instruction 't is so far from being impossible for Errors to over-run a Church that the contrary is morally impossible and George's long staff and advantagious cast of his Body are more powerful causes to enable him to leap over Paul's Steeple than this Principle That nothing is to be admitted but what descends by Tradition is to keep Errors out of a Church in an ignorant and vicious Age when few or none are either able or willing to instruct men in the Truth For suppose this always to have been the Principle of Christians viz. That nothing is to be admitted as the
sense and explication thereof to have descended to them by Oral Tradition For just as the Traditionary Christians do now so Josephus tells us the Traditionary Jews of old the Pharisees did pretend by their Oral Tradition to interpret the Law more accurately and exactly than any other Sect. In like manner he tells us That all things that belonged to Prayer and Divine Worship were regulated and administred according to their interpretations of the Law And they both agree in this to make void the Word of God by their Tradition which the Pharisees did no otherwise than Mr. S. does by equalling Oral Tradition to Scripture nay preferring it above Scripture in making it the sole Rule of Faith and interpreting the Scripture according to it Hence are those common sayings in the Talmud and other Jewish Books Do not think that the written Law is the foundation but that the Law Orally delivered is the right foundation which is to say with Mr. S. that not the Scripture but Oral Tradition is the true Rule of Faith Again There is more in the words of the Scribes viz. the Testifiers of Tradition than in the words of the written Law Again The Oral Law excells the Written as much as the Soul doth the Body which accords very well with what Mr. S. frequently tells us That the Scripture without Tradition is but a dead Letter destitute of life and sense Hence also it is that they required the People as the Traditionary Church does now to yield up themselves to the dictates of Tradition even in the most absurd things as appears by that common saying among them If the Scribes say that the right hand is the left and the left the right that Bread is Flesh and Wine is Blood hearken to them that is make no scruple of whatsoever they deliver as Tradition though never so contrary to Reason or Sense And lastly The Doctrines of the Pharisees were many of them practical such were all those which concerned external rites and observances as washing of hands and cups c. So that these Pharisaical Traditions had also that unspeakable advantage which Mr. S. says renders their Traditions unmistakeable That they were daily practised and came down clad in such plain matters of Fact that the most stupid man living could not possibly be ignorant of them Therefore according to Mr. S's Principles it was impossible that any Age of the Jews should be perswaded that these things were commanded by Moses and ever since observed if they had not been so And yet our Saviour denies these Customs to have been of any such Authority as they pretended § 2. But I needed not to have taken all this pains to shew the agreement which is between the Traditionary Jews and Papists their own Writers so liberally acknowledging it Mr. White indeed says That the Faith of the Jews was not delivered to them Orally but by Writing than which nothing can be more inconsistent with his Hypothesis For if the Jewish Faith was conveyed to them not Orally but by Writing then either the Jewish Church had no sufficient Rule of Faith or else a Writing may be such a Rule But other of their Champions make great use of the Parallel between the Traditionary Jews and the Romish Church to confirm from thence their own Traditionary Doctrines Cardinal Perron hath a full passage to this purpose As this says he is to preserve a sound and entire respect to the Majesty of the ancient Mosaick Scripture to believe and observe not only all the things which are therein actually contained but also those things which are therein contained mediately and relatively as the Doctrines of Paradise c. which were not contained therein but mediately and by the authority which it gave to the deposition of the Patriarchal and Mosaick Tradition preserved by heart and in the Oral Doctrine of the Synagogue So this is to preserve a sound and entire respect to the Majesty of the Apostolical Scripture to believe and observe all the things which it contains not only immediately and by it self but mediately and by reference to the Apostolical Traditions to which in gross and generally it gives the Authority of Apostolical Doctrines and to the Church the Authority of Guardian and Depositary to preserve and attest them Voysin in his Observations upon Raymundus Martyn tells us That as in the Old Law the great Consistory at Jerusalem was the foundation of the true Tradition so says he the See of Rome is the foundation of our Traditions And as the continual succession of the High Priests and Fathers among the Jews was the great confirmation of the Truth of their Traditions so says he with us the Truth of our Catholick Doctrine is confirmed by a continual succession of Popes § 3. From all this it appears that the Pharisees among the Jews made the same pretence to Oral Tradition which the Papists do at this day according to Mr. S. And if so then Mr. S's Demonstration a Posteriori is every whit as strong for the Jews against our Saviour as it is for the Papists against the Protestants For we find that in our Saviour's time it was then the present perswasion of the Traditionary Jews that their Faith and their Rites and the true sense and interpretation of their written Law was descended from Moses and the Prophets to them uninterruptedly which we find was most firmly rooted in their hearts But the Jews had a constant Tradition among them that the Messiah was to be a great temporal Prince And though the Letters of the Prophesies concerning him might well enough have been accommodated to the low and suffering condition of our Saviour yet they did infallibly know that their Messiah was to be another kind of person from sense written in their hearts from the interpretation of those Prophesies Orally brought down to them from the Patriarchal and Mosaick Tradition preserved by heart and in the Oral Doctrine of the Synagogue and from the living voyce of their Church essential that is the universal consent of the then Traditionary Jews If it be said That the Jewish Tradition did indeed bring down several Doctrines not contained in Scripture of Paradise of Hell of the last Judgment of the Resurrection c. as Cardinal Perron affirms but it did not bring down this Point of the Messiah's being a Temporal Prince Then as Mr. S. asks us so the Jew does him By what vertue Tradition brought down those other Points and whether the same vertue were not powerful to bring down this as well as those Then he will ask him farther Is there not a necessary connexion and relation between a constant Cause and its formal Effect So that if its formal Effect be Points received as delivered ever the proper Cause must be an ever-delivery whence he will argue from such an Effect to its Cause for any particular Point and consequently for this Point that is in Controversie between Jews
made capable of this their obligation But we are not now enquiring what the obligation to believe the main points of faith is nor whether tradition be a self-evident rule but how there should be a new obligation to believe something self-evidently connected with the former points is beyond my capacity to understand And they must be vulgar understandings indeed that can rationally and connaturally be made capable of such an obligation For if it be self-evidently connected with the main points no one can believe the one without believing the other for nothing is self-evident but what a man assents to at the first apprehension of it and if he doth so how comes there a new obligation to believe it Is it possible to believe that any thing consists of parts and not believe that that whole is greater than any of those parts for this is a thing self-evidently connected with the nature of the whole But these are self-evident riddles as the former were unintelligible demonstrations And yet though these be rare Theories the application of them to the case of the Roman Church exceeds all the rest Whence saith he the Government of our Church is still justified to be sweet and according to right nature and yet forcible and efficacious Although I admire many things in Mr. S's Book yet I cannot say I do any thing more than this passage that because men are obliged to believe no implied points but such as are self-evidently connected with the main ones therefore the Government of the Roman Church is sweet and according to right nature c. Alas then how much have we been mistaken all this while that have charged her with imposing hard and unsufferable conditions of communion with her No she is so gentle and sweet that she requires nothing but the main points on the account of a self-evident rule and implied points by reason of self-evident connexion with the former I see Mr. S. if he will make good his word is the only person who is ever like to reconcile me with the Church of Rome For I assure you I never desire any better terms of communion with a Church than to have no main points of faith required from me to assent to but what are built on a self-evident rule nor any implied points but such as are self-evidently connected with the former And no work can be more easie than to convince me upon these grounds for all endeavors of proof are taken away by the things being said to be self-evident For the very offer of proof that they are so self-evidently proves they are not so For what ever is proved by somthing beside it self can never be said without a contradiction to be self-evident But not to tye up Mr. S. from his excellent faculty of proving if Mr. S. will prove to me that any of the points in difference between us as Transubstantiation Purgatory Supremacy of the Roman Church c. have any self-evident connexion with any main point of faith in the Apostles Creed I solemnly promise him to retract all I have writ against that Church so far shall I be from needing a new obligation to believe them But if these be so remote from self-evidence that they are plainly repugnant to sense and reason witness that self-evident doctrine of Transubstantiation what then must we think of Mr. S. Surely the least is that since his being a Roman Catholick his mind is strangely inlightned so far that those things are self-evident to him which are contradictions to the rest of the world But withal M. S. acquaints us with another mysterie which is how these points descended by a kind of tradition and yet confesses they were never thought of or reflected on by the generality till the Church took occasion to explain them Such a silent tradition doth very sutably follow the former self-evident connexion For he that can believe Transubstantiation ro be self-evident no wonder if he believes that to have been delivered by a constant Tradition which was never heard of from the Apostles times to these Now Mr. S. is pleased to return to me and draws up a fresh charge against me which is that I act like a Politician and would conquer them by first dividing them and making odious comparisons between two parties of Divines But to shew us how little they differ he distinguishes them as faithful and as private discoursers in the former notion he saith they all hold the same divinely constituted Church-Government and the same self-evident rule of faith but as private discoursers he acknowledges they differ in the explication of their belief I meddle not here with the Government of their Church which I have elsewhere proved to be far enough from being divinely constituted but with the rule of faith and the question is whether the infallibility of oral tradition be that self-evident rule which that Church proceeds on Yes saith Mt. S. they are all as faithful agreed in it but as discourses they differ about it Which in short is that all in the Church of Rome who are not of his opinion know not what they say and that they oppose that which they do really believe Which in plain English is that they are egregious dissemblers and prevaricators in Religion that they do intolerably flatter the Pope and present Church with loud declamations for their infallibility but they do really believe no such thing but resolve all into oral tradition But is not this an excellent agreement among them when Mr. White and his party not only disown the common doctrine of the infallibility of Pope and Councils but dispute against it as pernicious and destructive to Christian faith on the other side the far greater part of Romanists say there can be no certainty of faith unless there be an infallible divine testimony in the present Church and this lodged in Pope and Councils that those who endeavour to overthrow this are dangerous seditious heretical persons Accordingly their Books are censured at Rome their opinions disputed against and their persons condemned And yet all this while we must believe that these stick together like two smooth Marbles as faithful though they are knocked one against another as discoursers and that they perfectly agree in the same self-evident rule of faith when all their quarrels and contentions are about it and those managed with so great heat that heresie is charged of one side and Arch-heresie and undermining Religion on the other Doth he think we never heard of Mr. White 's Sonus Succinae nor of that Chapter in it where he saith that the doctrine of Pope and Councils infallibility tends to overthrow the certainty of Christian faith and that the propagating such a doctrine is a greater crime than burning Temples ravishing the sacred Virgins on the Altars trampling on the body of Christ or the sending the Turk or Antichrist into Christian Countreys Or doth he think we can believe that the Pope and Cardinals the Jesuites
but this if a Pope and Council should define a new thing and declare they ground themselves on new lights as did their first reformers in England but I shall find he saith no such fopperies in faith-definitions made by the Catholick Church Is this the man who made choice of reason for his weapon could there be a greater calumny cast on our Church than to say her reformers grounded themselves on new lights when our great charge against the Church of Rome is for introducing Novelties and receding from pure and primitive antiquity Whether the charge be true or no yet sure it follows they did not declare they ground themselves on new lights but expresly the contrary Well but Pope and Councils neither define new things nor ground themselves on them but what means the man of reason that they make no new definitions surely not for then what did they meet for and what mean their decrees but he intends that they deliver no new doctrine but how must that be tried or hath Mr. S. gained the opinion of infallibility both from Pope and Councils that we must believe his bare word but we not only say but prove that even their last Council hath defined many things which never were delivered by Christ or his Apostles And it is to no purpose whether they say they ground themselves on new lights or pretend to an infallible assistance for it comes all to the same at last For if the assistance be infallible what matter is it whether the doctrine hath been revealed or no for on this supposition it is impossible that Pope and Council should miscarry Therefore if any Church be guilty of fopperies in faith-definitions it must be that which you miscall the Catholick but is more truly known by the name of the Roman Church There is yet one piece of Mr. S's sagacity to be taken notice of as to this particular which is that I am at an end of my argument because I say the opinion of the Pope and Councils infallibility is the common doctrin maintained in which I confound the Church with the schools or some private opinaters and then carp at those mens tenets And this is the force of all that Paragraph He tells me I want not wit to know that no sober Catholick holds humane deductions the rule of their faith schoolmen definers of it nor the schools the Tribunal whence to propose it authoritatively and obligingly to the generality of the faithful Neither doth Mr. S. want the wit to know that our present enquiry is concerning the sense of their present Church about the rule of faith Since then Mr. S. must confess it necessary to faith to know what the certain rule of it is let me enquire further whether any particular person can know certainly what it is unless he knows what the Church owns for her rule of faith and whether that may be owned as the Churches judgement which is stifly opposed by the most interessed persons in the Roman Church and the most zealous contenders for it Especially when the Pope who is said to be Head of the Church condemns the doctrine asserted and that only by a small number of such who are as much opposed by themselves as by any of us Is it then possible to know the Churches judgement or not if not 't is to no purpose to search for a rule of faith if it be which way can we come to know it either by most voices or the sense of the Governours of the Church either of the ways I dare put it to a fair tryal whether oral tradition or the infallibility of Pope and Councils be the Doctrine most owned in the Church of Rome But Mr. S. still tells us these are only private opinators and schoolmen who assert the contrary doctrine to his But wiill not they much more say on the other side that this way of oral trodition is a novel fancy of some few half-Catholicks in England and tends to subvert the Roman Church But is the present Pope with Mr. S. a private opinator or was the last a meer schoolman I am sure what ever Mr. S. thinks of him he thought not so of himself when he said he was no Divine in the controversie of Jansenius Doth the Court of Rome signifie no more with Mr. S. than a company of scholastick Pedants that know not what the sense of the Church is concerning the rule of faith I meddle not with the Schools but with the authority of the present Church and him whom Mr. S. owns for the head of it and is it consistent with his headship to condemn that doctrine which contains in it the only certain rule of faith Mr. S. may then see they were no such impertinent Topicks which I insisted on and as stout as Mr. S. seems to be I an apt to believe he would not look on the censure of the Inquisition as an impertinent Topick But at last Mr. S. offers at something whereby he would satisfie me of the sense of the Church as to this particular and therefore asks whether I never heard of such a thing as the Council of Trent I must ingenuously confess I have and seen more a great deal of it than I am satisfied with But what of that there he tells me I may find a clear solution of my doubt by the constant procedure of that most grave Synod in its definitions That is I hope to find that oral tradition was acknowledged there as the only self-evident rule of faith If I do this I confess my self satisfied in this enquiry But how much to the contrary is there very obvious in the proceedings of it For in the 4 th Session the Decree is That Scripture and tradition should be embraced with equal piety and reverence and the reason is because the doctrine of faith is contain'd partly in Scripture partly in tradition but what arts must Mr. S. use to infer from hence that oral tradition in contradistinction to Scripture was looked on as the only rule of faith I cannot but say that the ruling men of that Council were men wise enough in their generation and they were too wise wholly to exclude Scripture but because they knew that of it self could not serve their purposes they therefore help it out with tradition and make both together the compleat rule of faith Where I pray in all the proceedings of that Council doth Mr. S. find them define any thing on the account of oral tradition instead of which we find continual bandyings about the sense of Scripture and Fathers which might have been all spared if they had been so wise as to consider they could not but know the sense of the present Church nor that of the precedent and so up to the time of Christ. But they were either so ignorant as not to light on this happy invention or so wise and knowing as to despise it It is true they would not have their doctrines looked
to that proposition homo est animal rationale he may be capable of a new obligation to believe the former which is involved in this it may be justly questioned whether such an one as to himself can truly say homo est animal rationale or no. But after such rare subtilties he doth very well to tell me that I ought to consider what Logick tells us that the conclusion is in the premises which reflection in his his court-like expression he saith will much unblunder my thoughts But let the conclusion be as long as it will in the premises will any man in his wits say that he that believes the truth of the premises is not hereby bound to believe the conclusion and the more the one is involved in the other the less is it possible to make the obligation to believe them distinct And it is hard for me to believe that this is a way to unblunder my thoughts when I see what horrible confusion such expressions argue in his own Let the Church then clear her thoughts never so much yet all this cannot amount to a distinct obligation to believe those things which were involved before but to a more explicit declaring them for the Churches peace and satisfaction The only conclusion then involved in these premises is that if some things may be de fide in one age which were not in another then the present age may believe otherwise than the precedent did And if this doctrine be held in the Church of Rome nothing can be more evident than that Mr. S's first principle of controversie is far from being the doctrin of the Roman Church which was the thing to be proved My second chief argument against this way of oral tradition was that it had not been owned in all ages of the Christian Church to manifest which I enquired into the reason of the obligation in any age of the Church to believe and practise just as the precedent did Mr. S. rejoices in that confession of mine that the only thing to be proved in this case is that every age of the Church and all persons in it look'd on themselves as obliged not to vary in any thing from the doctrine and practise of the precedent age And I there offer the choice of three ways to prove it reason testimony or tradition he tells me he excepts the way of reason yet quarrels with me for pressing for a demonstrative medium to prove it when yet Mr. S. seldom speaks under the rate of demonstrations But he thereby notes the unconsonancy of my carriage Wherein I wonder That I should desire them to perform this promise viz. to give us demonstrations for the grounds of faith But saith withal he will yeild me the honour of professing I have no demonstration but probability for the ground of mine and he makes this serious protestation for himself that he should esteem himself very dishonest did he assert and press on others any argument for the ground of his faith which he judged not evident that is demonstrative What is it these men mean when they cry up their own way for demonstrative and say that we build our faith meerly on probabilities Do they say that Religion is capable of strict and rigorous demonstration If so let them demonstrate the being of God and immortality of the soul with as much evidence as that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles And it is strange if they think particular problems in religion are more capable of demonstration than those Theorems on which they are built But by all the enquiry I can make all the difference between us is that Mr. S. will have that called a demonstration which is scarce a probability and we call that sufficient reason which any wise man may safely rely on in matters of Religion In the mean time how much do we suffer by our modesty that because we speak not as big as Mr. S. does we must be censured presently to have nothing but probabilities fot our faith Are those bare probabilities which leave no suspition of doubt behind them And such we freely assert the grounds of our Religion to do i. e. I assert that we have the highest actual certainty of the truth of our Religion which the mind of any reasonable man can desire and if Mr. S's demonstrations can do any more than this let him tell us what it is For my part I know nothing higher in the mind of man than a certain assent and if I did not think there was the greatest ground in Religion for that I abhor dissimulation so much that I should leave off perswading men to embrace it And if any men have made us shy of the word demonstration and infallibility they are such men as Mr. S. have done it who talk of these things when their arguments fall beneath some of the remotest probabilities we insist on Nay if there be any force in his demonstration as to matters of fact it hath been used by us long before his Book saw the light But we love to give the true names to things and not to lose our credit with all intelligent persons by playing Mountebanks in Religion crying up those things for infallible cures which an ordinary capacity may discern the insufficiency of But was it any thing but justice and reason in me to expect and call for a demonstration from them who talk of nothing under it And therefore I said that it was impossible to demonstrate this way of oral tradition unless it were proved impossible for men not to think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors did For where the contrary is not only possible but easily supposable as that men may believe those things as new articles of faith which are defined by Pope and Council I wonder how Mr. S. will demonstrate that men must look on themselves as obliged to believe just as their predecessors did For I had thought demonstrations had never place in contingent propositions but it seems Mr. S. who tells me Logick will unblunder my thoughts intends to make a new one for me And I assure you so he had need before I shall ever call his arguments demonstrations and although he thinks himself very honest in calling them so yet I should think him much wiser if he did not But before I come to the particular debate of these things I freely tell him that I grant all he requests I shall take along with me the nature of the matter in hand the doctrines and practices spoken of the manner of delivering them the necessary circumstances which give weight to both yet for all these I cannot look on his way as demonstrative And that both our meanings may be better understood it is very necessary the Reader should have a true account of the state of the Question between us And if he will believe me I never intended to dispute with him
principle And he that can believe that I wonder he should scruple believing the Popes infallibility for certainly no principle of the Jesuits is more wild and absurd than this is Besides I admire how it came into Mr. S's head to think no error could come into history unless one age conspired to deceive another when we find no age agreed in the present matters of fact which are done in it as to the grounds and particulars of them to give Mr. S. an instance home to his purpose in the late Council of Trent we see already what different representations there are made of it in so little a time as hath already passed since the sitting of it One though he had all the advantages imaginable of knowing all proceedings in it living at the same time conversing with the persons present at it having the memoires and records of the Secretaries themselves yet his story is since endeavoured to be blasted by a great person of the Roman Church as fictitious and partial We see then it is at least supposed that interest and prejudice may have a great hand in abusing the world in matter of story though one age never agree to deceive another And instead of being perswaded by Mr. S's demonstrations I am still of the mind that we have no sufficient security of the truth of any story which was not written while those persons were in being who were able to contradict the errors of it However I deny not but some notorious matters of fact such as Alexanders bare conquests of Asia might by the visible effects of it be preserved both in Asia and Greece for a long time But if we come to enquire particularly whether this or that was done by him in his conquest which is alone pertinent to our purpose we have no security at all from tradition but only from the most authentick records of that story And by this I hope Mr. S. will have cause to thank me for unblundring his thoughts his own civil expressions and shewing him how errors may come into a story without one age conspiring to deceive the next and what a vast difference there is between preserving a bare matter af fact and all the particulars relating to it And hereby he may easily see how far the obligation extends in believing the report of former ages For there can be no obligation to believe any further than there is evidence of truth in the matter we are obliged to If then there be not only a possibility but a very great probability of mistakes and errors in matters of fact I pray what obligation doth there ly upon men absolutely to believe what is delivered by the preceding age But to put an issue to this controversie let Mr. S. examine himself and try if he can name one story that was never written which was ever certainly propagated from one age to another by meer oral tradition and if he cannot he may thereby see how little real force his argument hath in the world For all the force of tradition lies in an unquestionable conveyance of those Books which contain in them the true reports of the actions of the times they were written in But can Mr. S. think that if the Roman history had never been written it had been possible for us to have known what was done under the Kings and Consuls as now we do Yet if his principle holds this necessarily follows for those of that age could not but know them and no age since could conspire to deceive the next And from hence the most useful consequence of all is that Mr. S. might have writ a history from the beginning of the world to this day with a full relation of all particulars if there had never been any Book written in the world before And doth not Mr. S. deserve immortal credit for so rare an invention as this is and all built on nothing short of demonstrations But Mr. S. very prudently foresees what it is I must be forced to recur to viz. that being baffled with his former demonstration I have no other shift to betake my self to but to say the case is different between histories and points of faith And therefore to bring his business home he applies it at large to the delivery of the Christian faith which that he might do in more ample sort he very finely descants on the old Verse Quis quid ubi c. containing the circumstances of human actions and from every one of them derives arguments for the infallibility of oral tradition which briefly and in plain English may be summed up thus Since the author of this doctrine was the Son of God the doctrine it self so excellent and delivered in so publick a manner in the most convincing way by miracle and good living and for so good an end as to save mens souls and that by writing it in mens hearts and testified to others and all this at a time when men might judg of the miracles and motives for believing it therefore since in all these respects it was incomparably beyond the story of Alexanders conquests it follows that in a manner infinitely greater must the obligation be to believe Christs doctrine than Alexanders or William the Conqerours victories or any history of the like nature whatsoever All which I freely grant but cannot yet see how from thence it follows that oral tradition is the only rule of faith or the means whereby we are to judg what is the doctrine of Christ and what not Those arguments I confess prove that the Christians of the first age were highly concerned to enquire into the truth of these things and that they had the greatest reason imaginable to believe them and that it is not possible to conceive that they should not endeavour to propagate so excellent a doctrine and of so high concernment to the world But the question is whether abstractly from the Books written in the first age of the Christian Church there is so much infallibility in the oral tradition of every age that nothing could be embraced for Christs doctrine which was not and consequently whether every age were bound to believe absolutely what was delivered it by the precedent for the doctrine of Christ Mr. S. therefore puts himself to a needless task of proving that every age was bound to believe the doctrine of Christ which I never questioned but the dispute is whether every age be bound on the account of oral tradition to believe what is delivered by the precedent for Christs doctrine But it is to be observed all along how carefully Mr. S. avoids mentioning the written Books of the New Testament because he knew all his game about oral tradition would be quite spoiled by a true stating the matter of fact in the first ages of the Christian Church I hope he will not be angry with me for asking him that question about the Scripture which he asks me about the Council of Trent did
been and I should be somewhat ashamed of my Religion if I had no better But what our rule of faith is hath been amply discoursed already by you and that in Mr. S's clearing method that nothing is left for me to do but to touch at what remains and concludes this answer I had the better to illustrate the weakness of that argument from oral tradition brought an instance in that case parallel viz. that if one ages delivering to another would prove that the faith of Christ was in every age unalterable because no age did testifie any such alteration to be in it by the same argument the world might be proved eternal because no age did ever testifie to another that the world was ever otherwise than it is So that if oral tradition were only to be relied on there could be no evidence given of the worlds being ever otherwise than it is and consequently the world must be believed to have been always what we see it is This as far as I can apprehend is a clear and distinct ratiocination and purposely designed to prove that we must admit of other rules to judg of alterations in the Church by besides oral tradition But Mr. S. in his own expression strangely roving from the mark I aimed at professes there is not a tittle in it parallel to his medium nay that he never saw in his life more absurdities couched in fewer words But I must take all patiently from a man who still perches on the specifical nature of things and never flags below the sphere of science Yet by his good leave he either apprehends not or wilfully mistakes my meaning for my argument doth not proceed upon the belief of the worlds eternity which in his answer he runs wholly upon as far as eighthly and lastly but upon the evidence of oral traditias to no discernable alteration in any age of it For the Question between us is whether in matters of alteration in the faith or practice of the Church we are bound to rely only on the testimony of oral tradition so that if no age can be instanced in wherein any alteration was made and this delivered by that age then we are bound to believe there hath been no alteration since Christ and the Apostles times now I say if this hold good I will prove the world eternal by the same argument taking this for our principle that we are bound to rely only on oral tradition in the case originally derived from the matter of fact seen by those of the first age for that which never was otherwise then it is is eternal but we cannot know by oral tradition that the world ever was otherwise then it is for no age of the world can be instanced in wherein we have any testimony of any alteration that was in it Either then we must believe that the world ever was what it is i. e. eternal or else we must say that we are not to rely barely on oral tradition in this case but we must judg whether the world were made or no by other mediums of Scripture and reason And this was all which I aimed at viz. to shew that where there is no evidence from oral tradition yet if there be Scripture and reason there is sufficient ground for our faith to stand upon And so I apply it to the present case though we could not prove barely from the tradition of any one age that there had been any alteration in the faith or practice of the Church yet if I can prove that there hath been such from Scripture and reason this is sufficient for me to believe it And now I dare appeal to the indifferent Reader whether this be so full of absurdities or it be such a rambling Chimerical argument as he calls it no two pieces of which hang together with themselves or any thing else Which being expressions of as great modesty as science I am content Mr S. should bear away the hoour of them and his demonstrations together The last thing he quarrels with me for is that I say if we can evidently prove that there have been alterations in the Church then it is to no purpose to prove that impossible which we see actually done And this appears not only because the Scripture supposes a degeneracy in the Christian Church which could never be if every age of the Church did infallibly believe and practise as the precedent up to Christs time did but because we can produce clear evidence that some things are delivered by the present Church which must be brought in by some age since the time of Christ for which I refer the Reader to what I had said about communion in one kind invocation of Saints and worship of Images In all which I say I had proved evidently that they were not in use in some ages of the Christian Church and it is as evident that these are delivered by the present Church and therefore this principle must needs be false In answer to this Mr. S. wishes I would tell him first what evidence means whether a strong fancy or a demonstration I mean that which is enough to perswade a wise man who judges according to the clearest reason which I am sure is more than ever his demonstrations will do But it is a pleasant spectacle to see how Mr. S layes about him at my saying that the Scripture supposes a degeneracy in the Christian Church Incomparably argued saith he why see we not the place does it evidently speak of faith or manners the Vniversal Church or particular persons but be it in faith be it universal does it suppose this degeneracy already past which is only proper to your purpose or yet to come That is does it say there must be a total Apostacy in faith before the year 1664 Alas he had forgot this Most incomparably answered For if the degeneracy be in 1665. or any years after what becomes of M. S's demonstration then that no errors could come into the Church but it seems his demonstration holds but till 1664. and I easily believe another year will never believe the truth of it But if such a thing as a degeneracy be possible how then stands the infallibility of tradition when there can be no degeneracy without falling from the doctrine and practices of Christ and his Apostles But that such a degeneracy hath already been in that which calls it self the Catholick Church and that both in faith and manners I shall refer Mr. S to the learned Author of the late Idea of Antichristianism and Synopsis Prophetica where he may find enough to perswade him that his demonstration was far from holding so long as 1664. And now I leave the Reader to judg whether the foregoing evidences against the infallibility of oral tradition or Mr. S's demonstrations have the greater force of reason in them And if he will not stoop so far from the height of his perch as to