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
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
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
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
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
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
can write plainly and intelligibly and that this Book which he hath endited is so written and doth not depend upon Tradition for its sense and interpretation then the most scurrilous language is not bad enough for the Scriptures then what are those Sacred Writings but Ink variously figured in a Book unsensed Characters waxen natur'd words not yet sensed nor having any certain Interpreter but fit to be plaid upon diversly by quirks of wit that is apt to blunder and confound but to clear little or nothing These with many other disgraceful terms he very liberally bestows upon Divine Oracles the consideration whereof did it not minister too much horrour would afford some comfort for by this kind of rude usage so familiar with him towards his Adversaries one may reasonably conjecture that he doth not reckon the Scriptures among his Friends § 9. And whereas he saith That the Scriptures have preserv'd many particular passages which because their source or first attestation was not universal nor their nature much practical might possibly bave been lost in their conveyance down by Tradition this is impossible according to his Hypothesis For if neither the Scriptures letter nor the certain sense of it as to the main body of Christian Doctrine could have been secured without Oral Tradition that is if we could not have known that those passages which contain the main points of Christs Doctrine either had been written by men divinely inspired or what the sense of them was but from the consonancy and agreement of those passages with the Doctrine which was orally preached by the Apostles how can we be certain either of the letter or sense of other particular passages which must necessarily want this confirmation from Oral Tradition because their first attestation was not universal nor their nature much practical Nay his discourse plainly implies that we can have no security at all either of the letter or sense of any other parts of Scripture but only those which are coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine as is evident from these words Tradition established the Church is provided of a certain and infallible Rule to preserve a copy of the Scriptures Letter truly significative of Christs sense as far as it is coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine preached at first because sense writ in mens hearts by Tradition can easily guide them to correct the alteration of the outward letter This I perceive plainly is the thing they would be at they would correct the outward letter of Scripture by sense written in their hearts and then instead of leaving out the second Commandement they would change it into a precept of giving due worship to Images according to the Council of Trent and a thousand other alterations they must make in the Bible to make it truly significative of the sense of their Church But surely the outward letter of other passages of Scripture which were not intended to signifie points of Faith is equally liable to alterations and yet the Church is not by Tradition provided of any way to correct these alterations when they happen because Tradition doth as this Corollary implies only furnish the Church with a certain and infallible Rule of preserving a copy of the Scriptures letter so far as it is coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine § 10. Again he tells us Tradition established the Church is provided of a certain infallible Rule to interpret Scripture letter by so as to arrive certainly at Christs sense as far as the letter concerns the body of Christian Doctrine preached at first or points requisite to Salvation So that whatever he may attribute to Scripture for fashions sake and to avoid Calumny with the Vulgar as he says very ingenuously in his explication of the 15 th Corollary nevertheless 't is plain that according to his own Hypothesis he cannot but look upon it as perfectly useless and pernicious That 't is altogether useless according to his Hypothesis is plain for the main body of Christian Doctrine is securely conveyed to us without it and it can give no kind of confirmation to it because it receives all at its confirmation from it only the Church is ever and anon put to a great deal of trouble to correct the alteration of the outward letter by tradition and sense written in their hearts And as for all other parts of Scriptue which are not coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine we can have no certainty either that the outward Letter is true nor if we could can we possibly arrive at any certain sense of them And that it is intolerably pernicious according to his Hypothesis is plain because * every silly and upstart Heresie fathers it self upon it and when men leave Tradition as he supposeth all Hereticks do the Scripture is the most dangerous engine that could have been invented being to such Persons only * waxen natured words not sensed nor having any certain Interpreter but fit to be play'd upon diversly by quirks of wit that is apt to blunder and confound but to clear little or nothing And indeed if his Hypothesis were true the Scriptures might well deserve all the contemptuous language which he useth against them and Mr. White 's comparison of them with Lilly's Almanack would not only be pardonable but proper and unless he added it out of prudence and for the Peoples sake whom he may think too superstitiously conceited of those Books he might have spared that cold excuse which he makes for using this similitude that it was agreeable rather to the impertinency of the Objection than the dignity of the Subject Certain it is if these men are true to their own Principles that notwithstanding the high reverence and esteem pretended to be born by them and their Church to the Scriptures they must heartily despise them and wish them out of the way and even look upon it as a great oversight of the Divine Providence to trouble his Church with a Book which if their Discourse be of any consequence can stand Catholicks in no stead at all and is so dangerous and mischievous a weapon in the hands of Hereticks SECT III. § 1. HAving thus taken a view of his opinion and considered how much he attributes to Oral Tradition and how little to the Scriptures before I assail this Hypothesis I shall lay down the Protestant Rule of Faith not that so much is necessary for the answering of his Book but that he may have no colour of objection that I proceed altogether in the destructive way and overthrow his Principle as he calls it without substituting another in its room The opinion then of the Protestants concerning the Rule of faith is this in general That those Books which we call the Holy Scriptures are the means whereby the Christian Doctrine hath been brought down to us And that he may now clearly understand this together with the grounds of it which
in reason he ought to have done before he had forsaken us I shall declare it more particularly in these following Proposiâ—ions § 2. 1. That the Doctrine of Christian Religion was by Christ delivered to the Apostles and by them first preached to the World and afterwards by them committed to Writing which Writings or Books have been transmitted from one age to another down to us So far I take to be granted by our present Adversaries That the Christian Doctrine was by Christ delivered to the Apostles and by them publish'd to the World is part of their own Hypothesis That this Doctrine was afterwards by the Apostles committed to writing he also grants Corol. 29. 'T is certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ and if so it must be as certain that they writ the same Doctrine which they taught I know it is the general Tenet of the Papists that the Scriptures do not contain the entire body of Christian Doctrine but that besides the Doctrines contained in Scripture there are also others brought down to us by oral or unwritten Tradition But Mr. S. who supposeth the whole Doctrine of Christian Religion to be certainly conveyed down to us solely by oral Tradition doth not any where that I remember deny that all the same Doctrine is contained in the Scriptures only he denies the Scriptures to be a means sufficient to convey this Doctrine to us with certainty so that we can by them be infallibly assured what is Christ's Doctrine and what not Nay he seems in that passage I last cited to grant this in saying that the Apostles did both teach and write the same Doctrine I am sure Mr. White whom he follows very closely throughout his whole Book does not deny this in his Apology for Tradition where he saith that it is not the Catholick position that all its Doctrines are not contained in the Scriptures And that those Writings or Books which we call the Holy Scriptures have been transmitted down to us is unquestionable matter of fact and granted universally by the Papists as to all those Books which are owned by Protestants for Canonical § 3. Secondly That the way of Writing is a sufficient means to convey a Doctrine to the knowledg of those who live in times very remote from the age of its first delivery According to his Hypothesis there is no possible way of conveying a Doctrine with certainty and security besides that of oral Tradition the falshood of which will sufficiently appear when I shall have shewn that the true properties of a Rule of Faith do agree to the Scriptures and not to oral Tradition In the mean time I shall only offer this to his consideration that whatever can be orally delivered in plain and intelligible words may be written in the same words and that a Writing or Book which is publick and in every ones hand may be conveyed down with at least as much certainty and security and with as little danger of alteration as an oral Tradition And if so I understand not what can render it impossible for a Book to convey down a Doctrine to the knowledg of after-ages Besides if he had looked well about him he could not but have apprehended some little inconvenience in making that an essential part of his Hypothesis which is contradicted by plain and constant experience For that any kind of Doctrine may be sufficiently conveyed by Books to the knowledg of after-ages provided those Books be but written intelligibly and preserved from change and corruption in the conveyance both which I shall be so bold as to suppose possible is as little doubted by the generality of mankind as that there are Books And surely we Christians cannot think it impossible to convey a Doctrine to posterity by Books when we consider that God himself pitched upon this way for conveyance of the Doctrine of the Jewish Religion to after-ages because it is not likely that so wise an Agent should pitch upon a means whereby it was impossible he should attain his end § 4. Thirdly That the Books of Scripture are sufficiently plain as to all things necessary to be believed and practised He that denies this ought in reason to instance in some necessary point of Faith or matter of Practice which is not in some place of Scripture or other plainly delivered For it is not a sufficient objection to say that the greatest wits among the Protestants differ about the sense of those Texts wherein the generality of them suppose the Divinity of Christ to be plainly and clearly expressed Because if nothing were to be accounted sufficiently plain but what it is impossible a great wit should be able to wrest to any other sense not only the Scriptures but all other Books and which is worst of all to him that makes this objection all oral Tradition would fall into uncertainty Doth the Traditionary Church pretend that the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity is conveyed down to her by oral Tradition more plainly than it is expressed in Scripture I would fain know what plainer words she ever used to express this point of Faith by than what the Scripture useth which expresly calls him God the true God God over all blessed for evermore If it be said that those who deny the Divinity of Christ have been able to evade these and all other Texts of Scripture but they could never elude the definitions of the Church in that matter it is easily answered that the same Arts would equally have eluded both but there was no reason why they should trouble themselves so much about the latter for why should they be solicitous to wrest the definitions of Councils and conform them to their own opinion who had no regard to the Churches Authority If those great Wits as he calls them had believed the sayings of Scripture to be of no greater authority than the definitions of Councils they would have answered texts of Scripture as they have done the definitions of Councils not by endeavouring to interpret them to another sense but by downright denying their Authority So that it seems that oral Tradition is liable to the same inconvenience with the written as to this particular § 5. And of this I shall give him a plain instance in two great Wits of their Church the present Pope and Mr. White the one the Head of the Traditionary Church as Mr. S. calls it the other the great Master of the Traditionary Doctrine These two great Wits notwithstanding the plainness of oral Tradition and the impossibility of being ignorant of it or mistaking it have yet been so unhappy as to differ about several points of Faith insomuch that Mr. White is unkindly censured for it at Rome and perhaps here in England the Pope speeds no better however the difference continues still so wide that Mr. White hath thought fit to disobey the summons of his chief Pastor and like a prudent man rather to write against him here out
but by so deep an inspection into the sense of Scripture as shall discover such secrets that Philosophy and human Industry could never have arrived to As if we could not be assured that any thing were written by men divinely inspired unless it were above the reach of human understanding and as if no man could know that this was our Saviours Doctrine Whatever ye would that men should do unto you that do ye likewise unto them because every one can understand it But if there were more mysteries in the Scriptures than there are I hope a man might be satisfied that they were written by men divinely inspired without a clear comprehension of all those mysteries The evidence of the inspiration of any person doth not depend upon the plaineness or sublimity of the things revealed to him but upon the goodness of the arguments which tend to perswade us that the person is so inspired And the Argument that is most fit to satisfy us of that is if he work miracles Now I would gladly know why a learned man cannot be assured of a miracle that is a plain sensible matter of Fact done long ago but by so deep an inspection into the sense of Scripture as shall discover such secrets that Philosophy and human Industry could never have arrived to § 4. Thirdly Because all the seeming contradictions of Scripture must be solved before we can out of the bare letter conclude the Scripture to be of God's enditing to solve which literally plainly and satisfactorily he tells us the memory of so many particulars which made them clearer to those of the Age in which they were written and the matter known must needs be so worn out by tract of time that it is one of the most difficult tasks in the World As if we could not believe a Book to be of God's enditing because there seem now to be some contradictions in it which we have reason to believe could easily have been solved by those who lived in the Age in which it was written Or as if oral Tradition could help a man to solve these contradictions when the memory of particulars necessary for the clear solution of them is as himself confesses worn out by tract of time If Mr. S. can in order to the solution of the seeming contradictions of Scripture demonstrate that oral Tradition hath to this day preserv'd the memory of those particulars necessary for that purpose the memory of which must needs be long since worn out by tract of time then I will readily yield that his Rule of Faith hath in this particular the advantage of ours But if he cannot do this why does he make that an Argument against our Rule which is as strong against his own This is just like Capt. Everard's Friend's way of arguing against the Protestants That they cannot rely upon Scripture because it is full of plain contradictions impossible to be reconciled and therefore they ought in all reason to submit to the infallibility of the Church And for an instance of such a contradiction he pitched upon the three fourteen Generations mentioned in the first of St. Matthew because the third Series of Generations if they be counted will be found to be but thirteen Not to mention now how this difficulty hath been sufficiently satisfied both by Protestant and Popish Commentators without any recourse to oral Tradition that which I take notice of is the unreasonableness of making this an Exception against the Protestants when it comes with every whit as much force upon themselves Suppose this Contradiction not capable of any solution by Protestants as he affirms and I should submit to the infallibility of the Church can he assure me that infallibility can make thirteen fourteen If it cannot how am I nearer satisfaction in this point by acknowledging the infallibility of the Church The case is the very same as to Mr S's Exception if I owned oral Tradition I should be never the nearer solving the seeming contradictions of Scripture and consequently I could not in Reason conclude it to be of God's enditing So that in truth these Exceptions if they were true would not strike at Protestancy but at Christian Religion which is the general unhappiness of most of the Popish Arguments than which there is no greater evidence that the Church of Rome is not the true Mother because she had rather Christianity should be destroyed than it should appear that any other Church hath a claim to it It was a work very proper for the Heretick Marcion to assault Religion this way who as Tertullian tells us writ a whole Book which he call'd Antitheses wherein he reckoned up all the Contradictions as he thought between the Old and New Testament But methinks it is very improper for the Papists who pretend to be the only true Christians in the World to strain their wits to discover as many contradictions as they can in the Scripture and to prove that there is no way of reconciling them The natural consequence of which is the exposing of this sacred Instrument of our Religion and even Christianity it self to the scorn of Atheists Therefore to be very plain with Mr. S. and Captain Everard I am heartily sorry to see that one of the chief fruits of their Conversion is to abuse the Bible § 5. Secondly He says that Protestants cannot know how many the Books of Scripture ought to be and which of the many controverted ones may be securely put in that Catalogue which not This he proves by saying 't is most palpable that few or at least the rude vulgar can never be assured of it And if this be a good Argument this again is a good Answer to say it is not most palpable But I shall deal more liberally and tell him that we know that just so many ought to be received as uncontroverted Books concerning which it cannot be shewn there was ever any Controversy and so many as controverted concerning which it appears that Question hath been made And if those which have been controverted have been since received by those Churches which once doubted of them there is now no further doubt concerning them because the Controversy about them is at an end And now I would fain know what greater certainty oral Tradition can give us of the true Catalogue of the Books of Scripture For it must either acknowledg some Books have been controverted or not if not why doth he make a supposition of controverted Books If oral Tradition acknowledg some to have been controverted then it cannot assure us that they have not been controverted nor consequently that they ought to be received as never having been controverted but only as such concerning which those Churches who did once raise a Controversy about them have been since satisfied that they are Canonical The Traditionary Church now receives the Epistle to the Hebrews as Canonical I ask Do they receive it as ever delivered for such That they must
if they receive it from oral Tradition which conveys things to them under this notion as ever delivered and yet St. Hierom speaking not as a Speculator but a Testifier saith expresly of it That the custom of the Latin Church doth not receive it among the Canonical Scriptures What saith Mr. S. to this It is clear from this Testimony that the Roman Church in St. Hierom's time did not acknowledg this Epistle for Canonical and 't is as plain that the present Roman Church doth receive it for Canonical Where is then the infallibility of oral Tradition How does the living voice of the present Church assure us that what Books are now received by her were ever received by her And if it cannot do this but the matter must come to be tried by the best Records of former Ages which the Protestants are willing to have their Catalogue tried by then it seems the Protestants have a better way to know what Books are Canonical than is the infallible way of oral Tradition and so long as 't is better no matter though it be not called Infallible § 6. Thirdly He says the Protestants cannot know that the very Original or a perfectly true copy of these Books hath been preserved It is not necessary that they should know either of these it is sufficient that they know that those copies which rhey have are not materially corrupted in any matter of Faith or Practice and that they have sufficient assurance of this I have already shewn And how doth he prove the contrary By his usual Argument with saying it is manifestly impossible But how do the Church of Rome know that they have perfectly true copies of the Scriptures in the Original Languages They do not pretend to know this the learned men of that Church acknowledg the various Readings as well as we and do not pretend to know otherwise than by probable conjecture as we also may do which of those Readings is the true one And why should it be more necessary for us to know this than for them If they think it reasonable to content themselves with knowing that no material corruptions have crept into those Books so may we And that there have not we know by better Arguments than oral Tradition even by the assurance we have of God's vigilant providence and from a moral impossibility in the thing that a Book so universally dispersed and translated into so many Languages and constantly read in the Assemblies of Christians should have been materially corrupted so as that all those copies and translations should have agreed in those corruptions And this reason St. Austin gives of the preservation of the Scriptures entire rather than any other Book If Mr. S. likes it not he may call St. Austin to account for it § 7. Fourthly He says the Protestants at least the rudest vulgar can have no assurance that those Books are rightly translated because they cannot be assured either of the ability or integrity of Translators Fifthly Nor can they says he be assured that the Transcribers and Printers and Correctors of the Press have carefully and faithfully done their part in Transcribing and Printing the several Copies and Translations of Scripture aright Because they only can have evidence of the right letter of Scripture who stood at their elbows attentively watching they should not err in making it perfectly like a former Copy and even then why might they not mistrust their own eyes and aptness to oversee I put these two Exceptions together because the same Answer will serve them both The grounds of these Exceptions if they have any are these That no man is to be trusted either for his skill or honesty And that it is dangerous for men to trust their own eyes Unless both these be true these Exceptions are of no force For if we can be assured that other men have sufficient skill in any thing which we our selves do not sufficiently understand we may be assured that those who translated the Bible had skill in the Original Languages because very credible persons tell us so and we have no reason to doubt their testimony in this particular more than in any other matter So that if we can have sufficient assurance of mens integrity in any thing we have no reason to doubt of the skill of Translators or Transcribers or Printers And if we can have no assurance of mens integrity in any thing then no man can be assured that there was such a man as Henry the Eighth and yet I hope the Church of Rome makes no doubt of it Nor can any man be assured there is such a City as Rome who hath not seen it nay if he have why may he not mistrust his own eyes And which is the saddest inconvenience of all if no body be to be trusted nor mens own eyes and for the same reason sure not their ears what becomes of the Infallibility of oral and practical Tradition Which necessarily supposeth a competent understanding a faithful memory an honest mind in the generality of those who delivered Christs Doctrine down to us And by what means soever a man can be assured of these by the same he may much more easily be assured of the ability and integrity of Translators Transcribers and Printers But above all it supposeth that mens ears and eyes cannot deceive them in those things which they are taught and see practised Is it not very pretty to see what pitiful shifts men that serve an Hypothesis are put to When to maintain Infallibility they are forced to run to the extremities of Scepticism and to defend the certainty of oral Tradition which depends upon the certainty of mens senses and an assurance of the ability and integrity of those who were dead 1500 years before we were born are glad to take refuge in Principles quite contrary such as these That we can have no assurance but that whole Professions of men might hap to be Knaves that we can have no sufficient evidence that any man made his Copy perfectly like the former unless we stood at his elbow attentively watching him Nay and if we did so we have still reason to distrust our senses In short all human Faith supposeth honesty among men and that for matters of Fact and plain objects of Sense the general and uncontrolled testimony of mankind is to be credited and for matters of peculiar skill and knowledg that the generality of those who are accounted skilful in that kind are to be relied upon For as Aristotle well observes there is no greater sign of an undisciplin'd wit or to use one of Mr. S's fine phrases of a man not acquainted with the paths of Science than to expect greater evidence for things than they are capable of Every man hath reason to be assured of a thing which is capable of sufficient evidence when he hath as much evidence for it as the nature of that thing will bear and
as the capacity he is in will permit him to have And as Mr. White says well Satisfaction is to be given to every one according to his capacity it is sufficient for a Child to believe his Parents for a Clown to believe his Preacher And this is universally true in all cases where we have not better or equal evidence to the contrary But such is the unhappiness of the Popish Doctrines that if people were permitted the free use of the Scripture they would easily discern them to have no probable foundation in it and some of them to be plainly contrary to it so that it cannot be safe for their Preachers to tell the people that the Scripture is the only Rule of Faith lest they should find cause not to believe them when they teach Doctrines so plainly contrary to that Rule § 8. Lastly He says the Protestants cannot be certain of the true sense of Scripture Does he mean of plain Texts or obscure ones Of the true sense of plain Texts I hope every one may be certain and for obscure ones it is not necessary every one should But it may be there are no plain Texts in the Scriptures then the reason of it must be till Mr. S. can shew a better either because it is impossible for any one to write plainly or because God cannot write so plainly as men or because we have good reason to think that he would not write things necessary for every one to believe so as men might clearly understand him But he tells us The numerous Comments upon Scripture are an evidence that no man can be certain of the true sense of it I hope not for if those numerous Commentators do generally agree in the sense of plain Texts as 't is certain they do then this Argument signifies nothing as to such Texts And as for those which are obscure let Commentators differ about them as much as they please so long as all necessary Points of Faith and matters of Practice are delivered in plain Texts He adds There are infinite disputes about the sense of Scripture even in most concerning Points as in that of Christ's Divinity But are not Commentators both Protestant and Popish generally agreed about the sense of Scripture in that Point And what if some out of prejudice do mistake or out of perverseness do wrest the plainest Texts of Scripture for the Divinity of Christ to another sense Is this any argument that those Texts are not sufficiently plain Can any thing be spoken or written in words so clear from ambiguity which a perverse or prejudiced mind shall not be able to vex and force to another meaning God did not write the Scriptures for the froward and the captious but for those who will read them with a free and unprejudiced mind and are willing to come to the knowledg of the Truth If Mr. S. had been conversant in the writings of the Fathers he could not but have taken notice with what confidence they attempt to prove the Divinity of Christ out of Scripture as if that did afford convincing arguments for this purpose St. Chrysostom professes to demonstrate out of Scripture That the Son is of the same substance with the Father and relies upon Scripture alone for this without mentioning any other kind of Argument So that it seems St. Chrysostom was not acquainted with the insufficiency of Scripture for the conviction of Hereticks in this Point and that he was either ignorant of the infallible way of Demonstrating this point from Oral Tradition or had no great opinion of it The same Father elsewhere arguing against Hereticks about the Divinity of Christ says That they pervert the Scriptures to strengthen their Heresie from thence But then he does not with Mr. S. blame the Scripture and say that this Doctrine is not there deliver'd with sufficient clearness but contrarywise he says That the Scripture is clear enough but the corrupt minds of Hereticks will not see what is there contain'd Had St. Chrysostom been a true Son of the Traditionary Church he would have lain hold of this occasion to vilifie the Scriptures and to shew the necessity of regulating our faith not by such uncertain Records but by the infallible Reports of Oral Tradition § 9. But because Mr. S. lays great weight in several parts of his Book upon this Exception against Scripture viz. That Protestants cannot be certain of the true sense of it Therefore I shall not content my self only to have shewn that we may be sufficiently certain of the sense of Scripture so far as to understand all necessary matters of Faith and Practice and that more than this is not necessary but shall likewise return this Exception upon him by enquiring into these two things 1. How the Traditionary Church can be more certain of the true sense of Scripture than the Protestants 2. How they can be more certain of the true sense of Tradition than Protestants of the true sense of Scripture 1. How the Traditionary Church can be more certain of the true sense of Scripture than Protestants They pretend to have an Oral Tradition of the true sense of it delivered down from Father to Son But this only reacheth to those Texts which are coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine as for all other parts of Scripture they are as useless to Papists as they suppose they are to us because wanting the help of Oral Tradition they cannot be certain of one tittle of them And as for those Texts the sense whereof is conveyed down by Oral Tradition this sense is I hope delivered in some words or other And have all Preachers and Fathers and Mothers and Nurses the faculty of delivering this sense in words so plain as cannot possibly be mistaken or wrested to another sense I am sorry that when every one hath this faculty of speaking their thoughts plainly the Holy Ghost should be represented as not able to convey his mind to men in intelligible words And does not his own Objection rebound upon himself If the Church have a certain sense of Scripture orally delivered whence are the numerous Comments of the Fathers upon it and of later Writers in their Church and the infinite Disputes about the sense of it in the most concerning Points viz. The efficacy of Gods grace the Supremacy of St. Peter the infallibility of a Pope and Council by immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost What a stir is made about the sense of Dabo tibi Claves Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. Pasce oves Do not they differ about the meaning of these Texts among themselves as much as they do from the Fathers and from the Protestants Some understanding them of St Peters Supremacy only others of his infallibility others of his infallibility only in and with a general Council which yet others do not allow to Pope or Council from any immediate assistance but only from the
syllable the sense of Tradition will be in the very same danger of uncertainty and be liable to vanish we know not how Dr. Holden lays down these two Principles First That no truth can be conveyed down from man to man but by speech and speech cannot be but by words and all words are either equivocal in themselves or liable to be differently understood by several persons Secondly That such is the frame of mans mind that the same truths may be differently apprehended and understood by different persons And if this be true then Traditional Doctrines if they be deliverd by speech and words will be liable to uncertainties and ambiguities as to their sense as well as Scripture Mr. Cressy tells us That Reason and Experience shews that differences will arise even about the Writings of the Fathers and any thing but the Testimony of the present Church If this be true Tradition wholly falls into uncertainty For if difference will arise about the Writings of the Fathers how they are to be interpreted I suppose the Writings of Councils will be liable to the same inconvenience And if the whole present Church cannot declare her sense of any Traditional Doctrine otherwise than by a Council unless with the Jesuites they will epitomize the Church into the Pope and the Decrees of a Council cannot be universally dispers'd or at least never use to be but by Writing And if Differences will arise about the interpretation of that Writing as well as any other then this present infallible Authority which Mr. Cressy magnifies so much for ending Differences leaves all Controversies arising about the sense of Tradition as indeterminable as ever and they must for ever remain so till general Councils have got the knack of penning their Decrees in words which will so infallibly express their meaning to the most captious Caviller that no difference can possibly arise about the interpretation of them or else which will be more suitable to this wise Hypothesis till general Councils being convinc'd by Mr. S's Demonstrations shall come to understand themselves so well as not to entrust their Decrees any more to the uncertain way of Writing but for the future to communicate them to the World by the infallible way of oral Tradition And to mention no more Mr Knott who agrees with the other thus far that the certain sense of Scripture is only to be had from the Church speaks to this purpose That before we can be certain that this is the sense of such a Text we must either be certain that this Text is capable of no other sense as Figurative Mystical or Moral or if it be we must have some certain and infallible means to know in which of them it is taken which can be known only by revelation If this be true then by a fair parity of reason before I can be certain that this is the sense of a Doctrinal Tradition delivered down to me I must either be certain that the words in which this Tradition was expressed when it was delivered to me are capable of no other sense as Figurative Mystical or Moral besides that in which I understood them or if they be as certainly they will be capable of any of these other senses then must I have some certain and infallible means whereby to know in which of these they are taken And this can no more be known without a revelation than which is the true sense of such a Text of Scripture If it be said that the sense of a Traditional Doctrine may by different expressions be still further and further explained to me till I come certainly to understand the sense of it this will not help the matter For if these kind of cavils be good that a man cannot be certain of the meaning of any words till he can by an infallible argument demonstrate either that they cannot be taken or that they are not taken in any other sense I say if this cavil will hold then every new expression whereby any one shall endeavor to explain any Traditional Doctrine is liable to the same inconvenience which those words in which it was first delivered to me were liable to From all which it is evident that the Traditionary Church can be no more certain of the sense of their Traditional Doctrines than Protestants may be of the sense of Scripture § 12. These are his Exceptions contained in his second Discourse and of what force they are hath been examined But because he foresaw that it might be replied that these defects might in part be provided against by History by the Providence of God by Testimonies of Councils and Fathers and by the sufficient clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals He endeavors to shew that these signifie little to this purpose First Not History because few are skilled in History and they that are not cannot safely rely upon those that are skill'd unless they knew certainly that the Historians whom they rely on had secure grounds and not bare hear-say for what they writ and that they were not contradicted by others either extant or perished How much credit is to be given to uncontrolled History by the learned and how much by the vulgar to men of skill I have already shewn I shall only add now that if this reasoning be true it is impossible for any man to be certain by History of any ancient matter of Fact as namely that there were such persons as Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror and that they invaded and conquered England because according to him we cannot know certainly that the Historians who relate these things and upon whose authority we rely had secure grounds and not bare hear-say for what they writ And that they were not contradicted by others either extant or perished is I am sure impossible for any man to know For who can tell now what was contained in those Books which are perished So that if this be requisite to make every Historical Relation credible to know certainly that it was not contradicted by any of those Books which we do not know what they were nor what was in them we can have no certainty of any ancient Fact or History for who knows certainly that some Books that are perished did not contradict whatever is written in Books that are extant Nay if this reasoning hold we can have no certainty of any thing conveyed by oral Tradition For what though the Priest tell me this was the Doctrine of Christ delivered to him unless I know that all others agree with him in this Tradition I cannot rely upon his testimony Nor then neither in Mr. Knott's opinion because the testimony of Preachers or Pastors is human and fallible unless according to his Jargon a conclusion deduced from Premises one of which is only probable may be sufficient to bring our understanding to an infallible act of Faith viz. if such a conclusion be taken Specificative whereas if it be taken Reduplicative
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
not reasonable but peevish in exacting infallible security and insisting upon every capricious Objection such as is Mr. S's Might it not be otherwise Now as to this degree of Assurance or as he calls it Infallibility I cannot but grant what he says of it to be most true viz. That in a severe acception of the word it is not rigorously infallible that is as he explains it it is not absolutely impossible nor does it imply a flat contradiction that the thing whereof we are so assured may be otherwise But then I utterly deny that according to any true acception of this word such a degree of Assurance as he speaks of can be called Infallibility and withall I affirm That none of those several degrees of Infallibility which he mentions excepting that only which imports an absolute impossibility can with any tolerable propriety of speech or regard to the true meaning and use of the word have the name of Infallibility given to them For Infallibility can signifie nothing else but an utter impossibility that one should be deceived in that matter as to which he is supposed to be infallible and to say such a thing is impossible is to say that the existence of it implies a flat contradiction So that whosoever asserts degrees of Infallibility is obliged to shew that there are degrees of absolute impossibilities and of perfect contradictions and he had need of a very sharp and piercing wit that is to find out degrees where there neither are nor can be any Indeed in respect of the objects of knowledge it is easie to conceive how Infallibility may be extended to more objects or fewer but in respect of the degree of assurance of which Mr. Cressy speaks it is altogether unimaginable how any one can be more or less out of all possibility of being deceived in those things wherein he is supposed to be infallible for no one can be more removed from the possibility of being deceived than he that is out of all possibility of being deceived and whosoever is less than this is not infallible because he only is so who is out of all possibility of being deceived in those matters wherein he is supposed to be infallible So that Mr. Cressy's lower degrees of Infallibility are no degrees of that assurance which may properly be called infallible for that can have no degrees but of that assurance which is less than infallible And he needed not have raised all this dust about the degrees of Infallibility had it not been that by the means of such a cloud he might make the more convenient escape out of that strait he was in between the clamours of his own Church and the advantage which his Adversaries made of his free and open discourse against Infallibility For any one that carefully reads his Book will find that he understands nothing by the Infallibility of the Church but an Authority of obliging all Christians to submit to her Decisions which is no more but what every Supreme Civil Judg hath in Civil matters viz. a power to determine those Controversies that lie before him as well as he can or will and when that is done every one is bound to submit to such determinations but yet for all this no man ever dream't a Supreme Civil Judg to be infallible more than another man I do not now dispute the extent of the Churches Authority but if she have no other Infallibility but what a full Authority of decision does suppose I am sure she hath none at all Before I leave Mr. Cressy I cannot but take notice how unfortunate and disingenuous he is in explaining the meaning of these words of his own viz. Against this word of Infallibility Mr. Chillingworth 's Book especially combats and this with too too great success which in his Appendix he interprets thus Success I mean not against the Church but against his own Soul and the Souls of his Fellow-English Protestants c. As if one that had wished well to Caesar should have said That Pompey had fought against him with too too great success and being afterwards challenged by Caesar's Party as having said that Pompey had Conquered Caesar he should explain himself thus Success I mean not against Caesar but against his own life and the lives of his followers Can any thing be finer than for a man to say that by Pompey's success in fighting against Caesar he means that Caesar had beaten Pompey which is no more than if one should take the liberty to interpret white by black § 6. Lastly Mr. White doth most expresly contradict this Principle of Mr. S's in these following passages In his Preface to Mr. Rushworth he says That such a certainty as makes the cause always work the same effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherwise ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true certainty and that those Authors are mistaken who undervalue it So that it seems Mr. S. is mistaken in affirming that a man cannot be certain of any thing so long as there is any possibility that it may be otherwise In his Answer to my Lord Falkland he says That in Moral matters and such as are subject to humane action we must expect such assurance as humane actions bear If for the government of your spiritual life you have as much as for the management of your natural and civil life what can you expect more Two or three witnesses of men beyond exception will cast a man out of not only his lands but life and all He that among Merchants will not adventure where there is a Hundred to one of gaining will be accounted a silly Factor And among Souldiers he that will fear danger where but one of a Hundred is slain shall not escape the stain of Cowardize What then shall we expect in Religion but to see a main advantage on the one side which we may rest our selves on and for the rest remember we are men subject to chance and mutability and thank God he hath given us that assurance in a supernatural way which we are contented withall in our civil ventures and possessions which nevertheless God knoweth we often love better and would hazard less than the unknown good of the life to come Again If God Almighty hath in all sorts and manners provided his Church that she may enlighten every man in his way that goeth the way of a man then let every man consider which is the sit way for himself and what in other matters of that way he accounteth evidence And if there be no interest in his Soul to make him loth to believe what in another matter of the like nature he doth not stick at or heavy to practise what he sees clearly enough I fear not his choice Once more directing a man in his search after rational satisfaction in matters of Religion he hath this passage Besides this he must have this care that he seek what
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
Moral and Intellectual part else how are they Arguments And if man according to his Moral part be as he says defectible how can the indefectibility of Tradition be founded in those Arguments which work upon man only according to his Moral part I have purposely all along both for the Readers ease and mine own neglected to take notice of several of his inconsistencies but these are such clear and transparent Contradictions that I could do no less than make an example of them SECT V. § 1. THirdly This Demonstration is confuted by clear and undeniable Instances to the contrary I will mention but two First The Tradition of the one true God which was the easiest to be preserved of any Doctrine in the World being short and plain planted in every mans Nature and perfectly suited to the reason of Mankind And yet this Tradition not having past through many hands by reason of the long Age of man was so defaced and corrupted that the World did lapse into Polytheism and Idolatry Now a man that were so hardy as to demonstrate against matter of Fact might by a stronger Demonstration than Mr. S's prove that though it be certain this Tradition hath failed yet it was impossible it should fail as Zeno demonstrated the impossibility of motion against Diogenes walking before his eyes For the Doctrine of the one true God was setled in the heart of Noah and firmly believed by him to be the way to happiness and the contradicting or deserting of this to be the way to misery And this Doctrine was by him so taught to his Children who were encouraged by these Motives to adhere to this Doctrine and to propagate it to their Children and were deterred by them from relinquishing it And this was in all Ages the perswasion of the faithful Now the Hopes of Happiness and the Fears of Misery strongly applied are the causes of actual will Besides the thing was feasible or within their power that is what they were bred to was knowable by them and that much more easily than any other Doctrine whatsoever being short and plain and natural This put it follows as certainly that a great number in each Age would continue to hold themselves and teach their Children as themselves had been taught that is would follow and stick to this Tradition of the one true God as it doth that a cause put actually causing produceth its effect Actually I say for since the cause is put and the Patient disposed it follows inevitably that the cause is put still actually causing This demonstration which concludes an apparent falshood hath the whole strength of Mr. S's and several advantages beyond it For the Doctrine conveyed by this Tradition is the most important being the first Principle of all Religion the danger of corrupting it as great the facility of preserving it much greater than of the Christian Doctrine for the causes before mentioned And yet after all it signifies nothing against certain experience and unquestionable matter of Fact only it sufficiently shews the vanity of Mr. S's pretended Demonstration built upon the same or weaker Grounds § 2. Secondly The other Instance shall be in the Greek Church who received the Christian Doctrine as entire from the Apostles and had as great an obligation to propagate it truly to Posterity and the same fears and hopes strongly applied to be the actual causes of will in a word all the same Arguments and Causes to preserve and continue Tradition on foot which the Roman Church had And yet to the utter confusion of Mr. S's Demonstration Tradition hath failed among them For as Speculators they deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and as Testifiers they disown any such Doctrine to have been delivered to them by the precedent Age or to any other Age of their Church by the Apostles as the Doctrine of Christ. § 3. To this Instance of the Greek Church because Mr. White hath offered something by way of answer I shall here consider it He tells us That the plea of the Greek Church is Non-Tradition alledging only this That their Fathers do not deliver the Doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost not that they say the contrary which clearly demonstrates there are no opposite Traditions between them and us But this was not the thing Mr. White was concerned to do to demonstrate there were no opposite Traditions between the Greeks and the Latines but to secure his main Demonstration of the impossibility of Traditions failing against this Instance For that the Greeks have no such Tradition as this That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son is as good an evidence of the failure of Tradition as if they had a positive Tradition That he proceeds only from the Father especially if we consider that they charge the Latin Church with Innovation in this matter and say that the addition of that Clause of the Procession from the Son also is a corruption of the ancient Faith and a Devilish Invention Why then does Mr. White go about to baffle so material an Objection and I fear his own Conscience likewise by a pitiful Evasion instead of a solid Answer What though there be no opposite Traditions between the Greek and Latin Church yet if their Faith be opposite Will it not from hence follow that Tradition hath failed in one of them I wonder that Mr. White who hath so very well confuted the Infallibility of Popes and Councils and thereby undermined the very Foundations of that Religion should not by the same light of Reason discover the fondness of his own Opinion concerning the Infallibility of Oral Tradition which hath more and greater absurdities in it than that which he confutes And to shew Mr. White the absurdity of it I will apply his Demonstration of the Infallibility of Christian Tradition in general to the Greek Church in particular by which every one will see that it does as strongly prove the impossibility of Traditions failing in the Greek Church as in the Roman-Catholick as they are pleased to call it His Demonstration is this Christ commanded his Apostles to preach to all the World and lest any one should doubt of the effect he sent his Spirit into them to bring to their remembrance what he had taught them which Spirit did not only give them a power to do what he enclined them to but did cause them actually to do it I cannot but take notice by the way of the ill consequence of this which is that men may doubt whether those who are to teach the Doctrine of Christ will remember it and teach it to others unless they have that extraordinary and efficacious assistance of the Holy Ghost which the Apostles had if this be true his Demonstration is at an end for he cannot plead that this assistance hath been continued ever since the Apostles He proceeds The Apostles preached this Doctrine the Nations understood it lived according to it and valued
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
This I confess is not altogether without some shew of reason Mr. S. may do well to take the matter into his deeper consideration he hath in his time improved as weak probabilities as these into lusty Demonstrations And if he could but demonstrate this it would very much weaken the force of this Instance of the Greek Church otherwise for ought I see this Instance will hold good against him and whatever he can say for the impossibility of Tradition's failing in the Latin Church may all be said of the Greek Church if he will but grant that the Apostles preached the same Doctrine to them both that the arguments of hope and fear which this Doctrine contains in it were applied as strongly to the Greeks as the Latins And yet notwithstanding all this Tradition hath plainly failed in the Greek Church Let him now assign the Age wherein so vast a number of men conspired to leave out the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost and shew how it was possible a whole Age could conspire together to damn their Posterity or how the Faith of immediate Fore-fathers might be altered without any such Conspiracy and we are ready to satisfie him how the Doctrine of the Latin Church might be corrupted and altered and to tell him punctually in what Age it was done And until he do this I would entreat him to trouble us no more with those canting questions wherein yet the whole force of his Demonstration lies How is it possible a whole Age should conspire to change the Doctrine of their Fore-fathers And in what Age was this done For if it be reasonable to demand of us in order to the overthrowing of his Demonstration to assign the particular Age wherein the Latin Church conspired to change the ancient Doctrine with the same reason we require of him in order to the maintaining of his Demonstration to name the particular Age wherein the Greek Church conspired to alter the Doctrine of Christ which was undoubtedly in the first Age truly delivered to them by the Apostles and also to shew from the rational force and strength of Tradition how it is more impossible for the whole Church to have failed in transmitting the Doctrine of Christ down to us or to have conspired to the altering of it than for such a multitude of Christians as is the vast body of the Greek Church If Mr. S. or Mr. White shew this they do something otherwise I must tell them that unless they can manage these pretty things they call Demonstrations better they must shortly either quit their Reason or their Religion or else return to the honest old Mumpsimus of the Infallibility of the Church from an extraordinary and immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost or to make the business short and stop all gaps with one Bush come over to the Jesuites and acknowledg the Popes Infallibility both in matters of Faith and Fact by which means they may reconcile themselves to him and prevent that direful stroke which threatens them from Rome and is ready to cut them off from the Body of the Traditionary Church And thus I have done with his First Demonstration and I take it for a good sign that the Popish Cause is at a very low ebb when such stuff as this must be called Demonstration SECT VI. § 1. I Come now to his Demonstration a Posteriori which although it fall of it self if the Demonstration a Priori fail yet because it hath some peculiar absurdities of its own I shall consider it by it self as well as with relation to the other § 2. Before he comes to lay it down with the Grounds of it according to his usual fashion he premiseth something as yielded by Protestants which in his sense no Protestant ever granted Just so he dealt with us before concerning the Scriptures saying That by them the Protestants must mean unsensed Letters and Characters But let us see what it is That this Demonstration a Posteriori seems a needless endeavour against the Protestants who yield that those Points in which we agree as the Trinity Incarnation c. came down by this way of Tradition And this he saith no Protestant ever denied And then he asks Whether the same vertue of Tradition would not have been as powerful to bring down other Points in which we do not agree had any such been Now if he speak any thing to his own purpose he must suppose Protestants to yield that all those Points wherein we are agreed were conveyed down to us solely by Oral Tradition without Writing But this all Protestants deny So that that only which would avail his Cause against us is to shew that those Points wherein we differ have not only come down to us by Oral Teaching but that they are likewise contained in Scripture without which we say we can have no sufficient certainty and assurance at this distance that they were the Doctrine of Christ and that they were not either totally innovated or else corrupted in the conveyance from what they were at first And if he can shew this concerning any Point in difference I promise to yield it to him § 3. I come now to his Demonstration which I shall set down in his own words with the Principles upon which it relies The effect then we will pitch upon and avow to be the proper one of such a cause is the present perswasion of Traditionary Christians or Catholicks that their Faith hath descended from Christ and his Apostles uninterruptedly which we find most firmly rooted in their heart and the existence of this perswasion we affirm to be impossible without the existence of Traditions ever indeficiency to beget it To prove this I lay this first Principle That Age which holds her Faith thus delivered from the Apostles neither can it self have changed any thing in it nor know or doubt that any Age since the Apostles had changed or innovated therein The second Principle shall be this No Age could innovate any thing and withall deliver that very thing to Posterity as received from Christ by continual Succession The Sum of which is this That because a present multitude of Christians viz. the Roman Church are perswaded that Christ's Doctrine hath descended to them solely by an uninterrupted Oral Tradition therefore this perswasion is an effect which cannot be attributed to any other cause but the indeficiency of Oral Tradition For if neither the present Age nor any Age before could make any change or innovation then the perswasion of the present Age is a plain Demonstration that this Doctrine was always the same and consequently that Tradition cannot fail § 4. In answer to this I shall endeavour to make good these four things First That these Principles wholly rely upon the Truth of the Grounds of his Demonstration a Priori Secondly That these Principles are not sufficiently proved by him Thirdly That Doctrines and Practises which must be acknowledged to have been
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
I take to be as shameful a Circle as that wherewith Dr. Holden upbraids the generality of his Brethren § 3. I proceed to his Authorities from Fathers and Councils all which not one of them excepted he hath taken out of Mr. White 's Tabulae Suffragiales without the least acknowledgment from whom he had them And that it might be evident that he had not consulted the Books themselves for them he hath taken them with all their faults and with the very same errors of Citation which Mr. White had been guilty of before him So that though he is pleas'd to say of himself that he he is a bad Transcriber yet I must do him that right to assure the Reader that he does it very punctually and exactly § 4. He begins with Councils of which he tells us he will only mention three in several Ages The first is the First Synod of Lateran One might have expected after he had told us he would mention three in several Ages he should have produced them according to the order of Time and have begun with the Council of Sardica which was near 300 years before the Lateran But there was a good reason why the Lateran should be first produced viz. because it is mentioned before the other in Mr White 's Book Well but what says this Synod We all confess unanimously and consequently with one heart and mouth the Tenets and Sayings of the Holy Fathers adding nothing substracting nothing of those things which are delivered us by them and we believe as the Fathers have believed we Preach so as they have taught The force of which Testimony Mr. S. lays upon the Word delivered as if that Word where-ever it is met with in Councils or Fathers must needs be understood of oral delivery whereas it is a general Word indifferently used for conveyance either by writing or word of mouth In this place it plainly refers to the writings of particular Fathers out of whom a long catalogue of Testimonies against the Heresie of the Monothelites had been read just before this Declaration of the Synod Now what signifies this to oral Tradition's being the Rule of Faith that this Synod declares her Faith in opposition to the Heresie of the Monothelites to be consonant in all things to those Testimonies which had been produced out of the Fathers The next is the Council of Sardica out of an Epistle of which Council he cites these words We have received this Doctrine we have been taught so we hold this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession Which are general words and indifferently applicable to Oral Tradition or Writing or both But be they what they will Mr. S. ought not to have been ignorant that this Council was rejected by St. Austin and other Orthodox Fathers as Binnius acknowledges and which is more that the latter part of this Epistle out of which part Mr. S. cites these words which contains a Confession of Faith is by Baronius and after him by Binnius proved to have been surreptitiously added For though it be found in Theodoret and mentioned by Sozomen yet Baronius thinks that it was the Arian Confession composed by the false-Synod of Sardica which sate at the same time and that Sozomen lighting upon it perhaps mistook it for the Confession of the Orthodox Synod of the same name However that be he proves out of Athanasius and from the Testimony both of the Eastern and Western Bishops that the Council of Sardica did not so much as add one word or tittle no nor so much as explain any thing in the Nicene Faith But Mr. White sayes nothing of this and therefore Mr. S. could not who is no Speculator in these matters but only as a Testifier delivers down these authorities to us as he received them by hand from Mr. White and if the word Tradition be but in them they are Demonstrative As for his Testimonies from the 2 d Council of Nice which he calls the 7 th General Council who pretended their Doctrine of Image-worship to have descended to them by an uninterrupted Tradition and proved it most doughtily by Texts of Scripture ridiculously wrested by impertinent sayings out of obscure and counterfeit Authors and by fond and immodest Stories as is acknowledged by Pope Adrian the 6 th of Apparitions and Womens Dreams c. for which I refer the Reader to the Council it self which is such a mess of Popperies that if a general Council of Atheists had met together with a design to abuse Religion by talking ridiculously concerning it they could not have done it more effectually I say as for his Testimonies from this Council I shall refer Mr. S to that Western Council under Charles the Great which a little after at Francford condemned and also fully confuted the Decisions of this Council calling their pretended Tradition of Image-worship putidissimam Traditionem a most stinking Tradition These are his authorities from Councils Where says he we see General Councils relying on the Teaching of the Fathers or fore-going Church and on the Churches Tradition as their Rule c. Where does he see any such matter Or where does he see General Councils Was the Council of Lateran a General one Or was the Council of Sardica If it was let him shew how the 2 d. of Nice could be the 7 th General Council Mr. White must write more explicitly and say which are General Councils which not otherwise he will lead his friends into dangerous mistakes § 4. After ancient Councils not so ancient neither let us says he give a glance at Fathers Glance is a modest word and yet I doubt whether ever the Fathers had so much as that from him Before I speak particularly to his Testimonies from the Fathers I shall mind him of what Mr. Rushworth says in general viz. That who seeks Tradition in the Fathers and to convince it by their Testimony takes an hard task upon him c. Again As in other Points so even in this of the Resolution of Faith as Doctors seem to differ now-adays so might the Fathers also If this be true Mr. S. is not very likely by a few Testimonies out of the Fathers to prove that Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith But let us see what he has done towards it He begins with a saying of Pope Celestine to the Fathers of the Ephesin Council Now therefore we must act with a common endeavor to preserve things believed and retained to this very time by Succession from the Apostles Binnius's other Reading of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quite spoils the force of this Citation which Mr. S. puts upon the word Succession But read it how he will why may not the Christian Doctrine be said to come by Succession from the Apostles when it is transmitted to us by Scripture as well as when by oral Tradition I am sure the same Celestine in an Epistle to Cyril commends him for defending
Church and skipt into the Opinions of human Sects not of human Election as Mr. S. blindly following Mr. Wh. does most absurdly translate it but he that hath returned from his Errors and hearkned to the SCRIPTVRES and conformed his life to the Truth is as it were advanced from a Man to a God At the same rate he goes on for several Pages together taking the Scriptures for an indemonstrable Principle from which all Divine Doctrines are to be demonstrated and for the Criterion whereby they are to be tried and charges the Hereticks in such words as we cannot find fitter for our Adversaries As says he naughty Boys shut out their School-master so these drive the Prophecies out of the Church suspecting that they will chide and admonish them and they patch together abundance of falshoods and fictions that they may seem RATIONALLY not to admit the Scriptures Again speaking of these Hereticks affronting the Scriptures he tells us they oppose the Divine Tradition with human Doctrines by other Traditions delivered from hand to hand that they may establish a Sect or Heresie Again he says they adulterate the Truth and steal the Rule of Faith c. but for ORAL Frauds they shall have WRITTEN Punishments But enough of this whosoever desires to see more of it let him read on where these men to their shame have directed us and see whether any Protestant can speak more fully and plainly in this Controversy The whole trust of the Papists is upon the equivocal sense of the word Tradition Which word is commonly used by the Fathers to signify to us the Scriptures or Divine Tradition as Clement here calls it but the Papists understand it of their unwritten Tradition and to this they apply all those passages in the Fathers where Tradition is honourably mentioned So Mr. S. deals with us in the Testimonies I have already examined And there is nothing of argument in those few which remain but from the ambiguity of this Word which I need not shew of every one of them in particular for whosoever shall read them with this Key will find that they are of no force to conclude what he drives at § 5. As for his Citations out of the Council of Trent by which he would prove it to be the perswasion of their present Church that Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith I have already shewn that that Council hath declared otherwise and is otherwise understood by the chief of their own Writers And therefore he did prudently to conceal in an c. those choaking words in which the Council declares itself to receive and honour with equal pious affection and reverence the Books of Scripture and unwritten Traditions And after a great deal of shuffling what a pitiful Account is it that he at last gives of that Council's putting Scripture constantly before Tradition because Scripture being interpreted by Tradition is of the same Authority as if an Apostle or Evangelist were present and therefore no wonder they honour Scripture-Testimony so as to put it before Tradition which is to say that because Scripture is subordinate to Tradition and to be regulated by it therefore it deserves to be put before it Besides if Scripture and Tradition be but several wayes of conveying the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine why should he imagine an Evangelist or Apostle to be more present by the Scripture than by oral Tradition Especially if it be considered that he supposes Scripture to be an uncertain and Tradition an infallible way of conveying this Doctrine SECT II. § 1. ALL that now remains is to confirm the precedent Discourse by Testimonies of the most eminent Persons of the Church in several Ages in which I shall not need to be large being so happily prevented by that full Account which is given of the sense of the Ancients in this matter in the Answer to Labyrinthus Cantuariensis which Mr. S. may if he pleases consult for his further Conviction § 2 I begin with the Historical Account which Eusebius gives of committing the Gospel to writing which is to this purpose viz That the Romans were not content with the Doctrine Preached unless it were also committed to writing and therefore did earnestly beg of Mark Peter's Companion that he would leave them a Monument in writing of that Doctrine which had been deliver'd to them by word of mouth And this was the occasion of the writing of St. Mark 's Gospel And when Peter did understand that this Work was publish'd being suggested by the Divine Revelation of the Holy Spirit it is said he was very much pleased with the ready and earnest desire of those Persons and that by his Authority he confirmed this Writing to the end that it might be every where read in the Church As for St. Matthew and St. John he tells us That of all the Disciples they two only have left monuments in Writing of whom it is also reported that they betook themselves to write being drawn thereto by necessity Matthew after he had preached the Word of God to the Jews and was resolved to go to other Nations wrote his Gospel in the Language of his Countrey and thus by the diligence and pains of Writing did abundantly supply the the want of his presence to those whom he left And when Mark and Luke had published their Gospel it is reported that John who had always used to preach the Word without writing it being at length wrought upon by the same reason did betake himself to write From this account it is clear that the Apostles thought it necessary for the preservation and secure conveyance of the Christian Doctrine that it should be put into Writing and that they judged this a better way to supply the want of their presence than oral Tradition Therefore the same Author tells us That the Disciples who immediately succeeded the Apostles as they travelled to preach the Gospel to those who had not yet heard the Word of Faith did with great care also deliver to them the Writings of the Holy Evangelists Again That Ignatius as he travelled towards Rome where he was to suffer exhorted the Churches of every City to hold fast the Tradition of the Apostles which as also by Writing he testified for greater security he held necessary to be copied in Writing § 4. That the Hereticks of Old made the same pretence which the Papists make now of oral Tradition in opposition to Scripture the same Eusebius tells us and withal that Books are a sufficient confutation of this pretence Those says he who were of the Heresie of Artemon said that all their Fore-fathers and the Apostles themselves had received and taught the same things which they also did and had preserved the true Teaching unto the time of Victor Bishop of Rome whose Successor Zephyrinus corrupted it And this saith he would have great probability were it not first of all contradicted by the Scripture and next if there
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
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
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
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
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
the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the communion of it the first Part octavo A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church octavo An Answer to Mr. Cresey's Epistle Apologetical to a person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet octavo All written by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty Knowledg and Practice or a plain Discourse of the chief things necessary to be known believed and practiced in order to Salvation by S. Cradock quarto A Book very useful for Families The Remains of Sir Walter Rawleigh in twelves A Discourse of War and Peace by Sir Robert Cotton in octavo The Moral Philosophy of the Stoicks in octavo Hodders Arithmetick twelves The Triumphs of Rome over despised Protestancy octavo The Original of Romances octavo The Advice of Charles the Fifth Emperor of Germany and King of Spain to his Son Philip the Second upon resignation of his Crown to his said Son twelves Observations upon Military and Political affairs by the Right Honourable George Duke of Albemarle folio published by Authority A Fathers Testament by Phineahs Fletcher in octavo The Explication of the Terms of the Question P. 180. * P. 4. * P. 159◠Mr. S's Rule of Faith * p. 41. * P. 117. * P. 337. * Append. 4th p. 319. * P. 68. * p. 116. * p. 117. * Apology for tradition p. 165. The Protestant Doctrine concerning the Rule of Faith * P. 117. * P. 171. P. 38 39. * P. 54. * P. 116. * Mr. Wh. Exetasis P. 9. * P. 39. How much Protestants allow to Oral Tradition * Hebr. 8.7 * P. 40. * Rushw. Dial. 4. Sect. 9. * p. 93. How much Mr. S. attributes to his Rule of Faith more than Protestants to theirs * P. 11. * P. 11. * P 3. P. 12. * P. 12. * P. 11 12. * Analys Fid. L. 1. c. 3. * P. 12. * P 12. That the Properties of a Rule of Faith belong to Scriptute * P. 13. * P. 14. * P. 17. * Luke 1.3 4. * John 20.31 Mr. S's Exceptions against Scripture examined * P. 13. * P. 13. * P. 13 14. * P. 14. * L. 1. contr Marcion * P. 14. * Com. in Esai c. 6 c. 8. * P. 15. * Ep. 48. * P. 15. * P. 16 17. * P. 16. * P. 16. * P. 16. Preface * Answ. to the Lord Falkland P. 33. * P. 17. * P. 17. * P. 17. * Hom. 32 de Consubstant * Hom. 7 de Sanctc Phoca * P. 17. * Exomolog 2 d. Edit p. 554. * Exomolog c. 53. Sect. 2. * Dial. 2. Sect. 12. * De Doctr. Christ. L. 2. * Dial. 2. Sect. 6. * Analys Fidei L. 1. c. 9. * Append. c. 6. * Answ. to Chilling c 2. Sect. 6. * P. 17 18. * Answ. to Chilling c. 1. Sect. 33. * P. 49. * Ibid. * P. 18. * P 18 19. * Dial. 2. Sect. 8. * P. 20 21. * Praefat. * Analys Fid. L. 1. c. 4. * P. 21. * L. 4. * Haeret. Fabul l. 4. That Scripture is a sufficient Rule to the Unlearned and to the most Rational doubters * P. 24. * P. 25.26 27. * Dial. 2. Sect. 7. * De bonis malis Libris * P. 27. Sect. 3. 4. * Ibid. Sect. 6. * L. 1. c. 1. * C. 19. Sect. 5. * C. 32. Sect. 4. * Append. c. 5. * C 40. Sect. 3 c. * Append. Sect. 2. 3. * C. 5. Sect. 6. * P. 14 15. * P. 30. * P. 46. * Letter to his Answerer p. 5. That Scripture is sufficient to convince the most acute Adversaries and that it is sufficiently certain * P. 28. * P. 31. * P. 31. * P. 116. * P. 32. * P. 33. * P. 34. * P. 34. * P. 34. * P. 35. * P. 36. * Dial. 2. Sect. 7. * P. 38. * P. 38. * P. 38. * P. 38. * Dial. 2. Sect. 14. * P. 41. That the Properties of a Rule of Faith do not belong to Oral Tradition * Apolog. P. 81. Considerations touching his Demonstrations in general * P. 53. * Append 2 d. P. 183. * Append. c. 6. Sect. 8. * Ibid. Sect. 9. * Ibid. Sect. 11. * Append. c. 7. Sect. 8. * Ibid. * P. 253. 254. * Extasis P. 24. Mr. S's demonstration à priori * P. 59 60. The First answer to this Demonstration * P. 60. * P. 75. * P. 54. * P. 78. * P. 89. * P. 54. * Chron. ad Annum Christ. 352. * Ad An. 363. * Ad An. 364. * Advers Lucifer * Ibid. * Ibid. * In Epist. ad Galat. l. 3. * Orat. 20. 21. * Orat. 25. * Chron. ad Annum octavum Maurit * Caus. Dei * P. 65. * Hist. Aethiop * P. 67. * P. 62. * P. 6◠The second Answer to his Demonstration * P. 53. * Heb. 5.11 12. * Advers Luciferian * P. 75. * P. 60. * P. 53. * P. 53. * Apology for Tradition p. 51. * Phoc. Ep. 7. * De Fid. Theol. Tract 1. Sect. 4. * Ibid. Sect. 5. * P. 53. 54. * Ibid. * P. 78. * P. 86. * P. 89. * P. 90 91. * P. 93. Mr. S's Demonstration à posteriori * P. 76. * P. 77 78. The First Answer to his second Demonstration * Dial. 1. Sect. 4. * Dial. 3. Sect. 7. * Dial. 1. Sect. 4. * In Vit. Romani Papae 117. A. C. 900. * In Platin. * Anno 506. * Anno 9.8 * Ennead 9. L. 1. Anno. 900. * De Regn. Ital. L. 6. * Chron. L. 4. * Fascic Tempor * Epist. 40. * Bell. Sacr. L. 1. c. 8. * Elfric Serm. ad Sacerdot * C. 2. 3. * De Rom. Pontif. L. 4. c. 12. * Annal. Tom. 10. Anno 900. * In Convers. Sancti Pauli Serm. 1. * C. 3. * C. 5. * C. 6. * C. 9. * C. 11. * C. 13 * C. 14 * C. 16. * C. 20 21 23. * C. 25. * C. 27. * Exomolog C. 68. * Ibid. * Dial. 3. Sect. 3. * Dial. 3. Sect. 7. * Reply to K. James L. 4. C. 6. * Apology for Tradition p. 49. The second Answer to his second Demonstration The third Answer to Mr. S's second Demonstration * Antiq. Jud. l. 13. c. 18. * Ibid. l. 17. c. 3. de Bell. Jud. l. 1. c. 4. l. 2. c. 12. * Antiq. l. 18. c. 2. * De Fid. Theol. Tract 1. Sect. 6. * Rep. to K. James observ 3. c. 4. * Pugio Fid. p. 145. * P. 76. * Apol. 123 c. *