Credibility affords such Evidence because that necessitates Assent And it is observable that he resolves Faith not into the Testimony of the present but of the Apostolical Church I need produce no more to shew what a Stranger Mr. S. is to the Doctrine of his own Church or else what an obstinate Opposer he is of it But this is sufficient to shew what Grounds of the Certainty of Faith are allowed by the Chief Divines of the Church of Rome and how very different they are from those of the Catholick Letters To summ up briefly therefore the State of this Controversie about the Certainty of our Faith I. I assert That we are Absolutely Certain of the Formal Object of our Faith viz. that whatever God reveals is True and to be professed by us though we do not see the Intrinsick Grounds of it II. We are Absolutely Certain of the Infallible Rule of our Faith and that All the necessary Points of Faith in order to the Salvation of Mankind are therein contained III. The General Certainty of Divine Faith in true Believers according to their own Divines doth not depend upon Conclusive Evidence or Intrinsick Grounds but an inward Perception caused by Divine Grace IV. Particular Points of Faith are more or less Certain according to the Evidence of their Deduction from Scripture as the Rule of Faith. V. Where any Propositions are imposed as Points of Faith which others deny those who impose are bound to prove the Certainty of them as such and not those who reject them And this is our Case as to the Points in Difference between us and those of the Church of Rome We do not make the Negatives any Points of our Faith any further than as the Scripture is our Rule and we cannot be bound consequently to receive any thing as a Point of Faith but what is contained in it or deduced from it But the Church of Rome requiring us to receive them as Points of Faith is bound to prove the Certainty of them as such Having thus endeavoured to set this Controversie about the Certainty of Faith in its true Light I now proceed to consider what Mr. S. doth object against it And I shall conceal nothing that looks like an Argument His Raillery I despise and his Impertinencies I shall pass over I. That which looks most like an Argument is what he hath set out by way of Propositions in his First Letter 1. God hath left us some way to know what surely Christ and his Apostles taught 2. Therefore this way must be such that they who take it shall arrive by it at the End it was intended for i. e. know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught 3. Scriptures Letter interpretable by Private Judgments is not that way for we experience Presbyterians and Socinians for Example both take that way yet differ in such high Fundamentals as the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. 4. Therefore Scriptures Letter interpretable by Private Judgments is not the way left by God to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught or surely to arrive at Right Faith. 5. Therefore they who take only that way cannot by it arrive surely at right Faith since 't is impossible to arrive at the End without the means or way that leads to it Upon setting down this Mr. S being sensible he had plaid his best Cards cannot help a little expressing the Satisfaction he had in the Goodness of his Game I do not saith he expect any Answer to this Discourse as short as it is and as plain and as nearly as it touches your Copy-hold Alas for me that am fallen into the hands of such a Gamester But I am resolved to disappoint him and to give him a clear and full Answer to this shew of Reasoning And that shall be by making it appear I. That it proceeds upon False Suppositions II. That it destroys any Rule of Faith even his own admired Oral and Practical Tradition I. That it proceeds upon False Suppositions As. 1. That no Certainty can be attained where there is no Infallibility For if Men may arrive at Certainty where there is a general Possibility of Deception all this seeming Demonstration comes to nothing And yet this is a thing all Mankind are agreed in who allow any such thing as Certainty and the contrary Opinion was which Mr. S. little thinks the very Foundation of Seepticism viz. That there could be no Certainty unless Men could find out such an Infallible Mark of Truth which could not agree to what was False as he might have learned in Cicero's Lucullus without sending him to Pyrrho's Scholars And till Zeno and his Disciples pretended to find out this Scepticism gained little Ground but when they yielded to that Principle That no Certainty was to be had without it then a mighty Advantage was given them which they improved accordingly But the more Judicious Philosophers were forced to quit the Stoicks Infallible Mark and to proceed upon such Evidence of Perception and Sense and Ratiocination as might in things not Self-evident form an Assent which excludes all reasonable Doubt of the contrary But still those who pretended to Infallibility were the most deceived As Epicurus thought there could be no Certainty in Sense unless it were made Infallible and from hence he ran into that gross Absurdity that the Sun was really no bigger than he seemed to be to our Senses For he went just upon Mr. S. his Principles If there be a possibility of Deception there can be no True Certainty and to make good this Hypothesis the Sun must be no bigger than a Bonfire But the Wiser Philosophers took in the Assistance of Reason which though not Infallible might give such Evidence as afforded Certainty where it fell short of Demonstration As in Physical and Moral things I grant that some of those who talked most and best of Demonstration fell wonderfully short of it when they came to apply Notions to Things and the Demonstrations they made were to little or no purpose in the promoting of Knowledge as that Man is a Rational Creature c. But their Physical Speculations are very far from it yet this doth not hinder but that a Certainty is attainable as to the Nature of Things And in Morals they knew and confessed there could be no Demonstration in them yet they professed a true Certainty they had as to the Nature of Happiness and the real Differences of Vertue and Vice They owned some Moral Principles to be Absolutely Certain as that Good is to be chosen and Evil to be avoided c. but in particular Cases they made use of the best Reason they had to prove some things Good and others Evil. And although they could not proceed with equal Certainty in all Vertues and Vices yet in some they had clear Evidence and in others they made use of the best means to give Satisfaction to themselves and others Thus it is in Matters of Faith there are some things
Mr. S. is always Mr. S. pretending Demonstration when there is nothing like it If Men were always Men they were always apt to be deceived and unless Christians by being such are Infallible they are liable to Mistakes But the highest means to convey the Sense of Words are to be found in Tradition I am quite of another Opinion I think it the most uncertain way in the World and the Corruption of the first Ages of the World are an Evident Proof of it when there were all possible Advantages of Tradition and yet the Principles of Natural Religion were strangely corrupted although they were plain easie few of the highest Importance and Men lived so long to inculcate them into the Minds of their Children If therefore notwithstanding Tradition the World might then degenerate into Polytheism and Idolatry what absurdity is it to suppose that notwithstanding Tradition the Christian Doctrine might be corrupted likewise But Mr. S. alledges not only Words but Actions to determine the Sense of them as that Christ is the Son of God by Praying to him and giving Divine Reverence to Christ without stinting them or making them scruple lest they give too much or commit Idolatry by giving that to a Creature which is due only to God. And does not this Practice beyond all possibility of Mistake insinuate into them that he is equally to be adored with God the Father or Co-equal to him and so not a Creature but Very God of Very God I Answer I. Would not the very same Reasoning have made the coming in of Idolatry impossible For that there was but one True God was evident from all Acts of Worship being given only to Him as the proper Object of it How then could Men so foully mistake as to give proper Divine Worship to any Creature there being an infinite Distance between God and his Creatures which every Child could not but know by a constant Tradition from Adam II. How was it possible that External Acts of Worship should so infallibly prove Christ to be true God if all External Acts of Worship be of an Equivocal Nature and receive their Determination from the inward Sense of the Mind Did not the Arians use the same External Acts of Worship with others with respect to Christ Where did they ever separate from the Christian Assemblies on the account of the Worship given to Christ If not how was it possible from thence to prove Christ not to be a Creature So that this is very far from putting the Point of the Divinity of Christ beyond the possibility of Mistake Especially when Solemn Invocation which is one of the most natural Parts of Divine Worship came to be allowed to meer Creatures All the difference that can be assigned then must be from Mens Words and Professions and not from their External Actions III. The same Divine Reverence was given to Christ in the Apostolical Times and the utmost Care used to instruct People in the True Doctrine of Christ and yet then we find that Persons did Err in the Sense of that Proposition That Christ is the Son of God. For even then the Ebionites and Cerinthians understood it not in Respect of Nature but Adoption and so did the Artemonites and Samosatenians afterwards And how can that be proved impossible to be done which we shew was actually done Men did notoriously mistake the Sense of Christ's being the Son of God when it was received by Tradition and yet Mr. S. pretends it cannot be mistaken if it be so received Mr. S. still urges That Faith hath Sense in it and it is inconsistent with the Nature of Mankind not to hold some Sense or other and with the Nature of Christians not to instruct their Children in that Sense And I think Words written have as much Sense in them as Words spoken and less liable to Mistakes there being no such mixtures of the Infirmities of Men in a Written Rule as in Oral Tradition But Instances are unlucky things to be brought against Demonstrations and such is that of the Cerinthians and Artemonites who pleaded Tradition for their Sense and yet they were Men and pretended to deliver the true Doctrine of Christ to their Disciples I alledged another Instance how the Sense of Tradition might be mistaken and that was about a Real Presence in the Eucharist which might be understood in very different Senses No saith Mr. S. That cannot be for Faith works on our devout Affections which must either oblige us to pay an infinite Veneration to a Creature if Christ's real Body and consequently God be not there or if Christ be not God which is the greatest deviation from true Religion that is possible or else to be highly irreverent and to want the most efficacious Motive that can be imagined to excite and elevate our Devotions if he be there or Christ be indeed God. Truly Mr. S's way of Writing is the most effectual means I know to make me Question whether written Words be a good way to convey a Certain Sense to our Minds For I cannot understand how Faiths working on our devout Affections should oblige us either to pay an infinite Veneration to a Creature or else to be highly Irreverent For supposing I believe Christ's Body not to be really in the Eucharist but yet that Christ himself is God I think my self bound to shew the utmost Reverence to Christ as God even in the Act of Receiving the Eucharist And I am of Opinion that the just Apprehension of the Divine Majesty is as apt to excite and elevate our Devotion as the believing the Body of Christ to be there really present But it is observable what Mr. S. here grants that if Christ's Body be not there they are guilty of paying an Infinite Veneration to a Creature which is the greatest deviation from true Religion that is possible And upon my Word then they had need have better Assurance than what he offers to prove Christ's real Body to be there For if as great Reverence may be paid to Christ in Heaven as if he were in the Elements I cannot see how the Posture of Adoration can any ways determin the Sense of Tradition in this Matter And thus Mr. S. hath left the Sense of Tradition as uncertain as he pretends that of Scripture to be and if his Argument will hold against the One being the Rule of Faith it will do as great a Kindness for the Other also Thus I have fully answered his main Argument against Scriptures being a Rule of Faith which he hath been so free with me as to tell me I cannot Answer and he and I must now leave it to the Reader 's Judgment The summ of it is I. We distinguish Necessary Points of Faith from Matters of Speculation II. We distinguish Certainty of Faith in order to Salvation and Certainty of Opinion in Matters of Controversie III. We distinguish the Certainty of the Rule from the Certainty of the Application of that Rule
If there were Oral Tradition for it how came it to be condemned If not then notwithstanding Oral Tradition dangerous Doctrines may get in under a pretence of a more Sublime and Spiritual Way of Perfection than is to be attained in the Dull and Heavy Way of Tradition from Father to Son. III. By a Pretence to a more Secret Tradition And thus Christianity was at first corrupted by such as pretended that there was a Mystical Doctrine delivered by Christ of a more purifying Nature than the Plain and Common Doctrine taught to all People by the Apostles So Hegesippus in Eusebius affirms That the Christian Church was corrupted by this Means and to the same Purpose Irenaeus So that Tradition was so far from securing the Church from Error that it was the Means of bringing it in And the Publick Tradition could not hinder this coming in of Error because the Secret Tradition was pretended to be more Divine and Spiritual the other was only for Babes and this for grown Christians IV. By Differences among Church-Guides about the Sense of Scripture and Tradition Thus it was in the Samosatenian Arian Pelagian Nestorian and Eutychian Controversies Neither of the Parties disowned Scripture or Tradition and those who were justly condemned pretended still to adhere to both And if such Flames could not be prevented so much nearer the Apostles Times by the help of Tradition What Reason can there be to expect it so long after V. By too great a Veneration to some particular Teachers not far from the Apostolical Times in regard to their Learning or Piety which made their Disciples despise Tradition in Comparison of their Notions And thus Origens Opinions came to prevail so much in the Church and the Mixture of Platonism with Christianity proved the occasion of several Errors with Respect to the State of Souls after Death as well as in other Points VI. By Compliance with some Gentile Superstitions in Hopes to gain more easily upon the Minds of the People who having been long accustomed to the Worship of Images and Tutelar Deities it was thought no Imprudent Thing in some Guides of the Church when the main Doctrines of Paganism were renounced to humour the People in these things so they were Accommodated to Christianity but others vehemently opposed this Method as repugnant to the True Primitive Christianity But by Degrees those Superstitions prevailed and the Original Tradition of the Church thereby corrupted VII By Implicit Faith which puts it into the Power of the Church-Guides to introduce what Doctrines they thought fit When the best of the People were told it was against the Fundamental Rights of the Catholick Church for them to examine any Opinions which were proposed to them by their Guides That they neither did nor could nor ought to understand them and when once this Point was gained People never troubled themselves about Scripture or Tradition for all they had to do was only to know what was decreed by the Church though with a Non-obstante to a Divine Institution as is plain in the Council of Constance notwithstanding all the Tricks to avoid it If then Errours might come into the Church all these ways what a vain thing is it to pretend That Oral Tradition will keep from any possibility of Error And so I need give no other Answer to his last Proposition That if Men did innovate in Faith it must be either through Forgetfulness or Malice for I have shewed many other Causes besides these especially since I intend to shew in a particular Discourse how the Errors and Corruptions we charge on the Church of Rome did come into it My design here being only to shew the Possibility of it There remain only two things which deserve any Consideration 1. About the Charge of Pelagianism 2. About the Council of Trents Proceeding on Tradition which will admit of an easie Dispatch I. As to the Charge of Pelagianism It doth not lie in this That he requires any Rational Inducements to Faith which we do assert as well as he But it lay in these Two things I. That a Divine Faith was to be resolved into a Natural Infallibility For we were told that Divine Faith must have Infallible Grounds and when we come to examine them we find nothing but what is Natural And now to avoid the Charge of Pelagianism this Divine Faith is declared to be meer Human Faith and so Human Faith is said to have Infallible Grounds but Divine Faith must shift for it self For saith J. S. 'T is confess'd and ever was that the Human Authority of the Church or Tradition begets only Human Faith as its Immediate Effect but by bringing it up to Christ it leads us to what 's Divine Well but what Infallible Ground is there for this Divine Faith Where doth that fix Is it on the Infallibibility of Tradition or not If not then we may have Divine Faith without it If it doth then Divine Faith is to be resolved into Natural Means And what is this but Pelagianism II. That he excludes the Pious Disposition of the Will from piecing out as he calls it the Defect of the Reasons why we Believe And in another place he excludes the Wills Assistance in these words That Faith or a Firm and Immoveable Assent upon Authority is not throughly Rational and by consequence partly Faulty if the Motives be not alone able to convince an Vnderstanding rightly disposed without the Wills Assistance How then can a pious Disposition of the Will be necessary in order to the Act of Faith And is it not Pelagianism to exclude it Therefore I was in the right when I said That this way of Oral Tradition resolves all into a meer Human Faith and that this is the unavoidable Consequence of it No he saith he resolves all into Christs and the Apostles teaching How ridiculous is this For did not Pelagius and Coelestius the very same And the thing I charged upon them was That they went no farther upon this Principle than they did Upon this he asks a very impertinent Question but if I do not Answer it I know what Clamours will follow Pray do you hold that Christ is a meer Man or that Believing him is a meer Human Faith or that the Doctrine taught by Him or Them is meerly Human What Occasion have I given for such a Question But I perceive there is a design among some to make me be believed to be no Christian. I pray God forgive the Malice of such Men. I thank God I have better Grounds for my Faith than Oral Tradition I do believe Christ to be more than meer Man even the Eternal Son of God and that his Doctrine is Divine and his Apostles had Infallible Assistance in delivering it But what is all this to the present Question I perceive some men when they are hard pinched cry out that their Adversaries are Atheists or Socinians c. and hope by this means to divert them
main of his Defence But why then doth he urge us to produce our Grounds of Certainty as to particular Points if himself doth not If he pretends no more than to prove them in general why may not we be allowed to do the same He that calls upon others to do it in such an insulting manner is presumed to do it himself and if he doth not he only banters and abuses his Reader And after all this mighty pretence to Demonstration and Infallibility the whole Dispute comes to this whether Men may attain to greater Certainty of Christ's Doctrine by Oral and Practical Traditions than we can do by Scripture Reason and Tradition But this is against his words where he saith Seeing then Christians are bound to profess their Faith true as to those Points of a Trinity for Example or Incarnation c. it follows that it must be affirm'd and held that a Trinity or Incarnation absolutely is and consequently that it is impossible not to be VII About Moral Certainty His whole Book called Faith vindicated was written against it And in the Preface to it p. 3. he opposes absolute Certainty to Moral and he saith those who have it not have no true Faith. Page 17. True Faith by reason of its immoveable Grounds can bear an asserting the absolute Impossibility of its falshood And without this he makes Faith absurd preternatural and irrational Page 34. Moral Certainty is in reality uncertainty and the highest degree of Moral Certainty is the lowest degree of Vncertainty truly so called The same he asserts pag. 36 86 93. Error Nonplust pag. 195. Fallible Certainty destroys all Efficacy all Defence and even Essence of Faith. When I read in Lominus pag. 43. that I. S. in his Vindication pleaded that he required no more than Moral Evidence for the Assent and Profession of Faith I could hardly believe him and therefore I was earnest to see what he would say in Answer to this but even there pag. 23. he owns it and saith expresly That Moral Evidence is absolutely sufficient to Faith But withal he saith There is more than Moral Evidence in Tradition Let now any indifferent Person compare those Assertions together If Moral Certainty be Vncertainty and destroy the Essence of Faith how can it be absolutely sufficient to Faith But besides the Contradiction he hath by this one Assertion overthrown the whole Design of his Catholick Letters For if true Faith may be had without Infallible Certainty what need any such contending about it For the Ground of the Dispute is about such Faith as is necessary to Salvation and if true Faith as J. S. grants which is necessary to Salvation may be had without their pretended Infallibility there is no Colour left for pressing Persons of our Communion to forsake our Church because we cannot have Infallible Certainty of Faith when themselves grant that we may be saved without it And what Sincerity is to be expected from such a Man who makes such out-cries upon us for want of Infallible Certainty for Faith when himself Confesses that Moral Certainty is sufficient to Faith what ever becomes of Moral Certainty I love Moral Honesty and I cannot see how it is consistent with it to make such mighty pretences to the Necessity of Infallible Certainty for Faith even in his Catholick Letters which seems to be the chief Design of them when himself had declared to the Cardinals at Rome that less than that is sufficient for true Faith. But the secret of it is he knows well enough there is no such Necessity for Infallible Certainty and when it will bring him off he can own it but among us Hereticks they must bluster and make a mighty noise about it because it startles weak and injudicious People and they find nothing so apt to terrifie and confound them like Infallibility which like a Flash of Lightning doth not help them to see better but strikes them down with Horror and Astonishment And here I might fairly stop and send the Reader to J. S. for an effectual Answer to his own Letters or at least to shew how very unfit he was after such going forward and backwards in this matter to undertake this Cause 2. But lest I should seem to decline any thing which may seem material I shall now proceed to state the Controversie as it lies between Mr. S. and me For what concerns another Person I shall leave it to himself as not standing in need of any Assistance from me The Occasion of the Conference was set down by Mr. M. to have been That Mr. G. affirmed in some Companies that no Protestant could shew any Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith and that Mr. S. had promised him that if I were not able to manifest the contrary he would forsake our Communion So that Mr. G. was the Aggressor by laying this charge upon us That we could shew no Ground of Absolute Certainty for our Faith. And therefore when in the Conference I assigned the Scripture for the Ground and Rule of our Faith and universal Tradition for the Proof of the Books of Scripture I had Reason in my Expostulatory Letter to Mr. G. to desire of him to shew That we have no absolute Certainty of the Rule of our Faith viz. the Scripture although we have a larger and firmer Tradition for it than you can have for the Points in difference between us This plainly relates to the Conference wherein Scripture was own'd to be our Rule and Vniversal Tradition the Evidence on which we receive the Books And to any Man of Sense this is not Shifting and Tricking off the Proof to Mr. G. as Mr. G. often calls it but it is a plain and evident Proof of our Certainty upon their own Grounds For if Tradition be such a Ground of Absolute Certainty as they assert and we have a larger and firmer Tradition for Scripture than they can produce for the Points of Faith in difference between us then it is evident we must have upon their own Principles a Ground of Absolute Certainty for our Faith which was the main Point of the Conference If he will Answer the Argument he must either deny that we have Vniversal Tradition for the Books of Scripture or that Vniversal Tradition is a Ground for the Absolute Certainty of Faith Either of these ways he had said something to the purpose but he found this way of Reasoning too hot for him and therefore he calls it Shifting and Tricking off the Proof to Mr. G. and so falls into a Tragical Declamation against my not proving and making a Secret of the Ground of our Certainty as if a Man intended to make a Secret of a Horse he had lost when he published his Marks in the Gazett Here is the Ground of our Certainty laid down in that very place where he saith I shift off the Proof to Mr. G. but alas for him He cannot see any thing like a Proof unless it be serv'd
by the Confession of Parties what thinks he of those of the Church of Rome who have charged his Doctrine about Infallible Certainty with downright Heresie and Impiety and that it leads to Atheism and Infidelity and overthrows the Christian Faith This we are told is the sense of all the Learned and Orthodox Men of your Church Let the Reader judge what J. S. hath gotten by the Confession of Parties I hope now we shall come to the State of the Question for he charges me with perverting it The First Question he saith at the Conference was Whether Protestants are absolutely Certain that they hold now the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught to his Apostles And my Answer he saith was They are By his favour my Answer was not in those words but that we are absolutely certain that we now hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles And for a certain Reason I desire my own Words may express my Mind for I do not find Oral Tradition Infallible and where Words are varied the Sense may be so too But he observes that I trick it off again as he calls it I suppose it is Gamesters Language from the Point of Absolute Certainty of Faith to Absolute Certainty of the Rule of Faith viz. the Scripture but our Saviour and Protestants believe more than that the Book so called is Scripture Is Certainty of this more and Certainty of this Book all one Here is then an enquiry after one thing plainly turned off to another It seems Mr. G. is quite gone for a Gamester for he discerned no Tricking in this matter nor can I. It is very true we do believe More than that the Book so called is Scripture for we believe All the Matters of Faith contained in that Book And what then If by his More he means Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture then I tell him plainly we believe no More And therefore when Mr. G. put his next Question as he thought very pertinently By what Certain Rule do you hold it My Answer was By the Divine Revelation contained in the Writings of the New Testament Whereby I excluded his More if it be not contained in Scripture But if by More he means our Assent to the Points of Faith contained in Scripture I shall give a full Answer to it afterwards Then he asked By what Certain Rule do you know that the New Testament which we now have does contain all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles And if he puts such Questions concerning the Rule What Tricking was it in me to give a direct Answer to them How did I turn off the Enquiry from one thing to another when I only Answered the Questions he proposed This is not playing Mr. G 's Cards but condemning him for playing unskilfully and desiring to begin a new Game for Mr. G. had a bad hand and managed it very ill But what would J. S. have done The thing to be made manifest by the Conference was the Absolute Certainty of Protestant Faith. And so it was for Protestant Faith is to believe all that is contained in Scripture and no more Mr. G. did indeed ask some Questions about your Certainty of your Rule and I gave him direct Answers Where is the Tricking in all this But I wisely cut off the Course of the Questions before they had question'd away the Certainty of Faith. So far otherwise that I let them alone till they plainly run away from the business of Certainty to another Question and then Mr. T. cut them off by declaring himself satisfied and asking How they could prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible But now we are to see how much better the Cards might have been plaid And now look ye Gentlemen the Man of Skill begins the Game After the Certainty of Scripture from Tradition was admitted there was no Refusing to admit that Tradition causes Certainty and makes Faith as certain as Scripture See the difference of these two Gamesters at Tradition But what if I should yield him that I will not refuse to give my Assent to any Point of Faith which comes down to us from the Apostles Times with as large and as firm a Tradition as the Scripture Then saith he it would have proved something difficult to satisfie even a willing Man that the Faith is certain which is opposed to a Faith come down by Tradition Something difficult Nay very much so without doubt But this is fairly to suppose that you have as Vniversal a Tradition for your Tridentine Faith as we have for the Scripture but this I utterly deny and I hope in another Treatise to shew I have not done it without Reason Let the Matter of Tradition itself as a Rule of Faith be one of these Points If there were a Constant Vniversal Tradition in the Christian Church from the Apostolical Times that there were Matters of Faith necessary to Salvation not contained in Scripture I grant that it would be difficult to prove it to be a Matter of Faith that Scripture alone is our Rule of Faith. But that is the mighty Advantage of our Cause that we have both Scripture and Tradition for us and that no Catholick Tradition can be produced against us in any one Point of the Additional Creed of Pius IV. which is the Design I have undertaken of which I shall suddenly publish the First Part and if God gives me Life and Health I hope to go through the Rest. Well but in the mean time Absolute Certainty of Scripture was not the Point of the Conference Can J. S. tell better than the Managers His meaning is it ought not to have been Nor is it the Point of Concern This is strange Not the Point of Concern to those that own it to be the Word of God and the only Rule of Faith It is of Infinite Concern to us if it be not to you I pity you for it Besides that it is agreed on all hands Men are saved by Believing and Practising what Christ taught not barely by believing Scripture is Scripture This is no New Speculation But what follows from it Therefore we ought to believe Christ's Doctrine contained in Scripture and obey his Commands and do I give the least Intimation against this But the Question was about our Rule of Faith and that I still think is the Scripture and whatever is contained therein is to be believed on that Account But Salvation is the thing that imports us in these Disputes and 't were well if nothing else were minded by Disputers And so think I too I desire no more to end our Controversies than to make Salvation our End and the Scripture our Rule But how can Salvation be the thing that imports us in these Disputes if Men cannot with Reason hold any thing true unless they can produce the Intrinsecal Grounds which prove it to be so Doth Mr. S. in earnest think
was a great variety as to others is evident to any one who will compare the Ancient Creeds as I have lately shewed And these main Articles are those which Aquinas calls the prima Credibilia which are therefore revealed because necessary to be believed by all that hope for Salvation by Jesus Christ. II. There are other Points of Faith which are only necessary to be believed because they are so clearly revealed As that Cajaphas was High Priest when Christ suffer'd that there were two Malefactors who suffer'd with him that he was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's Sepulchre no Man who believes the Scripture can doubt of these things and yet we do not make these Points of Faith in themselves necessary because they have no immediate Reference to Salvation which might have been as effectually carried on if there had been another High Priest or Christ had lain in another Sepulchre But in these Points there is an absolute Certainty from the unquestionable Evidence of their being contained in Scripture III. There are doctrinal points not necessary to Salvation about which some may attain to a greater Degree of Certainty than others And the same Measure is not required of all Because Mens Capacities are not equal if they do use equal Diligence and all are not obliged to the same Degrees of Diligence that some are As to the Points necessary to Salvation God is not wanting by his Grace to make them known to Men of honest and sincere Minds And this is no peculiar Doctrine of mine as J. S. would insinuate but it hath been the constant Doctrine of their most Learned and Judicious School-Divines as is evident from what they speak of the Donum Intellectus and the Lumen Fidei which secure Men from Errour in what concerns their Salvation If he hath therefore such an Inveterate Spleen against this Doctrine let him attaque the greatest Divines of the Church of Rome who have in terms asserted the same which I have done And I would fain see J. S. demonstrating against Aquinas and all his followers That there is no such Security from Errour in Points necessary to Salvation where ever God bestows true Grace As to Points not necessary to Salvation I do not affirm there is any such Ground of Absolute Certainty as to particular Persons who are only concerned as to their own Salvation And that was the Reason of my Answer to the fourth Question The Universal Testimony of the Christian Church concerning the Book of Scripture and the Doctrine contained therein is a sufficient Ground to make us certain of all Matters necessary to our Salvation But of this more afterwards It is sufficient here to observe that even in the Church of Rome there are Points of Doctrine which are not de Fide and consequently the Certainty of Faith is not required to them And then it is most unreasonable to require the Absolute Certainty of Faith in those things which we deny to be Points of Faith. It is as if we should ask them what Absolute Certainty of Faith they have as to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the B. Virgin or the Popes Infallibility they would tell us these are no Points of Faith with them and therefore it is unreasonable to ask after the Absolute Certainty of Faith where there is no Faith pretended The same we say in the like Case It is very absurd to demand of us the Absolute Certainty of our Faith in such things wherein we never pretend to a Certainty of Faith but of common Sense and Reason proceeding according to the Rule of Scripture As if Men impose false and absurd Doctrines upon us as Transubstantiation c. we insist upon the Common Right of Mankind not to be required to believe Contradictions and the Right of Christians not to believe what hath neither Scripture nor Reason nor Tradition for it And these are the Grounds on which we reject the Additional Creed of Pius the Fourth We make them no Points of Faith at all and if others do make them so we desire to be excused because it is as certain to us they are not so as we can be of Negatives And farther than this we go not in such Points and if this be what he means by Protestant Faith he hath my Answer IV. The General Reason of the Certainty of Faith in Particular Persons is not from Conclusive Evidence as to the Points of Faith but from some higher Cause And this Mr. S. ought to know hath been the constant Doctrine of the Schools ever since Divinity hath been brought into them I except only one Franciscus de Marchia who required conclusive Evidence to the Certainty of Faith but he is disputed against by Gregorius Ariminensis and he saith His Doctrine was condemned by the Faculty of Paris and Gregory de Valentia speaks of him with great Contempt for holding so absurd a Doctrine The Certainty of Faith is declared by the Antient School-men to be above Opinion and below Science by which they understood the Intrinsic Grounds on which Truth is built which Mr. S. makes necessary to the Profession of it Hugo de Sancto Victore saith That the highest Certainty of Faith is owing to a Pious and pure Disposition of the Mind and an immediate Divine Influence Petrus Pictaviensis That it lies not in Evidence but Adherence Guliel Parisiensis proves Conclusive Evidence repugnant to Faith in a long Discourse Gul. Antissiodorensis thinks rational Evidence good to support and defend the Faith and to prepare men for it But that the Certainty of it lies not in Speculation but in an Adherence of the Mind to the Prime Verity Alex. Alensis saith likewise its Certainty doth not lie in Speculation but in inward Affection and Adherence there is he saith an inferiour sort of Acquisite Faith which relies on Reasons and Testimonies but this he saith is meerly Natural and Preparatory to Divine Faith. Bonaventure saith the Certainty of Adherence is beyond that of Speculation because a Martyr may have doubts and yet die for his Faith. Thomas Aquinas thinks those that go about to bring Demonstrations for Faith expose it to the Scorn and Reproach of Infidels and he resolves the inward Certainty of Faith into Divine Illumination when the Objection was put That Matters of Faith could not be resolved into first Principles Which Mr. S. hath so long and so vainly pretended to Henricus Gandavensis saith There is a Certainty of Adherence in the habit of Faith and that the Evidence of Credibility falls much short of that of Science and he makes Scripture the Rule whereby we are to judge of the Doctrine of the present Church and of all Ages succeeding the Apostles Scotus distinguisheth between Acquisite and Human Faith and Divine or Infused Faith but he denies any Infallibility to belong to the former Durandus denies Faith to be consistent with Conclusive Evidence and that the Motives of
Certain to those who use it aright although it be very possible for Men through their own Faults to mistake about it And this is no way disagreeing to the infinite Wisdom of God who deals with us as with Rational Creatures and hath put Faculties into us that we might use them in order to the Certainty of our Faith. And such Moral Qualifications are required in the New Testament in order to the Discerning the Doctrine of it as Humility of Mind Purity of Heart Prayer to God Sincere Endeavour to do the Will of God that it would be very repugnant to the Design of it to suppose that the Letter of Scripture alone would give a Man immediate and certain Directions in all Matters of Doctrine being applied to it Therefore an easie Answer is to be given to Mr. S's great Difficulty viz. How the Sense drawn from the Letter can any more fail to be true than the Line drawn by the Rule to be straight For we say that the Sense truly drawn from the Scripture can never fail to be true but we do not say that every Man must draw the True Sense from the Scripture for although the Scripture be an Infallible Rule yet unless every Man that makes use of it be Infallible he may mistake in the Application of it And this to me is so clear that to make an Infallible Rule in his Sense he must make every Person that uses it Infallible or else he may err in the Application of it But the Right Way saith Mr. S. will certainly bring a Man to his Journeys End and the way must needs be a wrong way if it do it not The Right way will certainly bring them to their Journeys end if they continue in it but here we must consider what is meant by the Journeys End. If by it be understood their Salvation then we say that those who do their utmost endeavours to keep in that way shall not fail of their Journeys End. But if by it be understood the Certain Truth or Falshood of every Opinion tried by the Scripture then I answer that although the Sense of Scripture be infallibly true yet it was not designed as an Infallible Way for us to know the Truth and Falshood of all particular Opinions by For as Mr. S. well observes Salvation is that which chiefly imports us and it was for that End the Doctrine of Christ is made known to us and it is an Infallible Way to it if Men continue therein but for judging the Truth or Falshood of Opinions without respect to Salvation as the End it was not intended as an Infallible Way to every one that makes use of it and therefore it is easie for Men to mistake in judging by it of things it was not design'd for As if a Man designed to observe all the old Roman Cities and Stations here and were told the old Roman Way would be a Certain Way to lead him to them with the help of the Roman Itinerary if that Man objects that this will not do for he cannot find out all the Modern Towns and Villages by this Means is it not a just and reasonable Answer to say that is a most Certain way which leads a Man to that which it was design'd for and the Roman way was only intended for Roman Foundations but it is very unreasonable to find fault with it because it doth not lead you to all Modern Towns and Villages So say I here the Scripture was designed by Divine Wisdom to make us Wise to Salvation and thither it will infallibly lead us if we keep to it but if besides this we would know by it such things as are not necessary to Salvation we blame it for that which was not in the Original Intention and Design of it For when we make use of it to be our Rule of Judgment meerly as to Truth and Falshood of things not necessary to Salvation it is not because it was designed for that End but because it is of Divine Revelation and so is the surest Standard of Divine Truth and we are sure there is no other Rule for us to judge besides From whence we may and ought to reject any Points of Faith imposed upon us which are neither contained in Scripture nor can be proved from it And so it is our positive Rule of Faith as to all Necessary Articles and our Negative Rule as to all pretended Points of Faith which are not proved from thence II. I answer that this Method of Mr. S. will overthrow the Possibility of any Rule of Faith because none can be assigned which it is not possible for Men to misapprehend and to mistake about it Let us at present suppose Mr. S. to substitute his Rule of Faith in stead of Scripture viz. Oral and Practical Tradition Why may not Men mistake the Sense of Tradition as well as the Sense of Scripture Is Tradition more Infallible in it self Is it deliver'd by Persons more Infallible Doth it make those to whom it is delivered Infallible Why then may not those who deliver it and those who receive it both be mistaken about it This I had mention'd in my second Letter that it was very possible to mistake the Sense and Meaning of Tradition and I instanced in that of Christ's being the Son of God where the Traditionary Words may be kept and yet an Heretical Sense may be contained under them Mr. S. answers That the Sense of the Words and all the rest of Christ's Doctrine is convey'd down by Tradition This is bravely said if it could be made out and would presently put an End to all Disputes For if all the Doctrine of Christ be derived down to us in such a manner that we cannot mistake the Sense of it we must be all agreed whether we will or not For how can we disagree if we cannot mistake the Sense of Tradition Not while we hold to Tradition Then it seems it is possible not to hold to Tradition and if so we have found a terrible flaw in Human Nature that will let in Errors in abundance viz. that it may grosly err about the Rule of Faith yea so far as to Renounce it But how is this possible if the Sense of Tradition be infallibly convey'd For is not Traditions being the Rule of Faith any part of it We must in Reason suppose this And if we do so how can Persons Renounce its being the Rule while they cannot but believe its being the Rule If Men may mistake about Traditions being the Rule of Faith why may we not suppose they may as well mistake about any Points convey'd by it For the greatest Security lying in the Rule there must be more Care taken about that than about the Points convey'd by it But let us see how he proves that Men cannot mistake the Sense of Tradition in Particular Points The force of what he saith is That Men were always Men and Christians were always Christians and
in Matters of Opinion or in doubtful or obscure Places they make use of the Skill and Assistance of their Teachers wherein are they to blame The Scripture is still their Rule but the help of their Teachers is for the better understanding it And cannot our Logician distinguish between the Rule of Faith and the Helps to understand it Suppose now a Mother or a Nurse should quit honest Tradition as J. S. here calls it and be so ill inclined as to teach Children to spell and to read in the New Testament and by that means they come by degrees to understand the Doctrine which Christ preached and the Miracles which he wrought and from thence to believe in Christ and to obey his Commands I desire to know into what these Persons do Resolve their Faith. Is it indeed into those who taught them to read or into the New Testament as the Ground of their Faith When they have been all along told that the Scripture alone is the Word of God and whatever they are to believe it is because it is contained therein And so by whatever means they come to understand the Scripture it is that alone they take for the Rule and Foundation of their Faith. If a Man were resolved to observe Hippocrates his Rules but finds himself uncapable of understanding him and therefore desires a Physicians Help I would fain know whether he relies upon the Skill of his Interpreter or the Authority of Hippocrates It is possible his Interpreter may in some doubtful and obscure Places have mistaken Hippocrates his Meaning but however the Reason of his keeping to the Rules is not upon the Account of the Interpreter but of Hippocrates But suppose a College of Physicians interpret Hippocrates otherwise is he bound then to believe his own Interpreter against the Sense of the College I answer If a College of Physicians should translate Bread for Cheese or by Phlebotomy should declare was meant cutting of Arteries or of a Mans Throat let them presume to be never so Infallible I would trust any single Interpreter with the help of Lexicons and Common Sense against them all but especially if I can produce Galen and the old Physicians who understood Hippocrates best on my side This is our Case as to the People about disputable Points we do not set up our own Authority against a Church pretending to be Infallible we never require them to trust wholly to our Judgments but we give them our best Assistance and call in the old Interpreters of the Church and we desire them to use their own Reason and Judgment with Divine Assistance for settling their Minds If People be negligent and careless and will not take necessary pains to inform themselves which Mr. S. suggests we are not bound to give an Account of those who do not observe our Directions And I never yet knew the Negligent and Careless brought into a Dispute of Religion for in this Case we must suppose People to act according to the Principles of the Religion they own otherwise their Examples signifie no more against our Doctrine than Debauchery doth against the Rules of Hippocrates But suppose saith Mr. S. that one of my own Flock should tell me that I have erred in interpreting Scripture he desires to know what I would say to him This is a very easie Question and soon answer'd I would endeavour to Convince him as well as I could And is that all And what would J. S. do more Would he tell him he was Infallible I think not but only as honest Tradition makes him so and how far that goes towards it I shall examine afterwards Well but suppose John Biddle against the Minister of his Parish and the whole Church of England to boot understands Scripture to be plainly against a Trinity and Christ's Divinity And it is but fair for me to suppose him maintaining his Heresie against J. S. and let any one judge whether of us be more likely to Convince him He owns the Scripture and confesses if we can prove our Doctrine from thence he will yield but he laughs at Oral Tradition and thinks it a Jest for any one to prove such a Doctrine by it And truly if it were not for the Proofs from Scripture I do much Question whether any Argument from meer Tradition could ever confute such a one as John Biddle But when we offer such Proofs as are acknowledged to be sufficient in themselves we take the only proper way to give him Reasonable Satisfaction Suppose he will not be convinced Who can help that Christ himself met with Wilful and Obstinate Unbelievers And was this any disparagement to his Doctrine God himself hath never promised to cure those who shut their Eyes against the Light. Shall the Believing Church then have the Liberty to interpret Scripture against the Teaching Church Who ever asserted any such thing We only say that the People are to understand the Grounds of their Faith and to judge by the best Helps they can what Doctrine is agreeable to Scripture and to embrace what is so and to reject what is not But among those Helps we take in not barely the personal Assistance of their own Guide but the Evidence he brings as to the Sense of the Teaching Church in the best and purest Ages It is very strange that after this it should presently follow 'T is evident hence that Tradition of our Fathers and Teachers and not Scriptures Letter is indeed our Rule and by it we interpret Scripture If this be so evident then how is it possible we should set up the Ecclesia Credens against the Ecclesia Docens as he charged us just before If Tradition be our Rule and we interpret Scripture by it what fault then are we guilty of if Tradition be such an Infallible Rule But methinks this Hence looks a little Illogically upon the Premises and if this be his Conclusive Evidence he must excuse me as to the making it a Ground of my Faith. But he allows That we set up Scripture as our Rule when we Dispute against them but when that is done we set up our own Authority over the People and do not allow them that Priviledge against us which we take against the Church of Rome This is all the strength of what I can make out of that Paragraph For if all Writing were like his it would be the best Argument for Oral Tradition his Sense is so intricate and his Conclusions so remote from his Premises Just before he said 'T is evident hence that we follow Tradition And presently 'T is as evident we do not follow it and set up our own Authority against it We do interpret Scripture by Tradition and yet immediately we set up Scripture against Tradition We plead for the Peoples Right to a Judgment of Discretion and yet we do not allow them a Judgment of Discretion What invisible links hath Oral Tradition to connect things that seem so far asunder
other Points contradictorily held between the Greek and Roman Churches besides that of the Filioque and the Argument holds as well in any other as in that And therefore he must fix the Errour on one side or other After all this flourishing he takes heart and resolves to grapple with the Instance Let us see what your Instance will do Now I thought we shall have a direct Answer But I am strangely disappointed For he runs still back to that That I do not believe it erred Was the Instance brought against me or against P. G But his Answer doth not make or marr the business The business of the Demonstration it doth and that was my business But this doth not prove that a Church going upon Tradition errs unless I will grant that the Greek Church hath erred What strange Trifling is this The Dispute was about P. G's Argument and not my Opinion Is this the Answer to the Instance about the Greek Church which Mr. M. promised If this pass for an Answer I think J. S. may defend Sure footing I mentioned P. G's Answer That the Greek Church followed Tradition till the Arians left that Rule and took up a new one And why saith J. S. hath he not answered well Because he did not answer to the purpose which was not about the Arians but the present Greek Church But a Church may follow Tradition at one time and leave it at another Very true but the Greek Church did not forsake Tradition and yet erred And therefore Tradition and Errour were found together and therein lies the force of this undeniable Instance The rest is such Trifling that I am really ashamed to answer it over and over Still he attempts to give an Answer and still fails but it is something new and therefore shall be considered His Answer saith J. S. holds as well as to the present as past Greek Church His answer Where is it It was that those who err in Faith must leave Tradition But the Greeks did not leave Tradition and yet erred in Faith so that the Instance holds good still He denies that Errour and Tradition can be found together in the Greek Church or any other Ancient or Modern i. e. the Conclusion must be held against all the Instances in the World. But I ought to say whether the differences were in matters of Faith. Yes in such which the Church of Rome accounts matters of Faith. But how can an erring Church still plead Tradition and adhere to it Answer the Instance for the Greek Church doth plead Tradition But then pleading Tradition is no more but quoting some Expressions of ancient Writers as the Arians did Not so neither for the Greek Church relies most upon Tradition from Father to Son in Practise of any Church in the World. But if they adhere to Tradition and that Tradition leads them to Christ who could not err how can they possibly err For pray did Christ teach any Errour No certainly When a Father believed what Christ taught him and the Son what the Father believed did not the Son too believe what Christ taught Run it on to the last Son that shall be born in the World must not every one believe what Christ taught if every one believed what his Father believed And so Goodnight to the Greek Church we are come back to the Argument I might as well have Instanced in the Latin Church it self Truly I think so too and so you shall find in a short time and how little Advantage you get by such a Challenge But it is impossible for a Church to adhere to Tradition and yet to Err therefore if the present Greek Church have Erred it has not adhered to Tradition if it have adhered to Tradition it hath not Erred That is the Argument must be good let the Instance be what it will. But an easie Distinction will shew the Weakness of this Argument Adhering to Tradition may be taken Two ways I. For Adhering to Tradition as the Rule and Means of Conveyance of Matters of Faith. II. For actually Adhering to that very Doctrine which Christ taught and hath ever since been truly convey'd down by Tradition In this latter Sense we grant it impossible for Men to Err while they actually adhere to that very Doctrine which Christ taught and is supposed to be deliver'd down by Tradition But this is not the Matter before us which lies in these Two Points I. Whether Tradition be an Infallible Way to convey the Doctrine of Christ down to us II. Whether it be impossible for those who hold to This as Their Rule to Err or not And so the Answer is plain to the main Argument If by Traditionary Christians be meant such as adhere to that very Doctrine which Christ taught and was actually conveyed down to them then such Traditionary Christians so believing cannot Err. But if by Traditionary Christians be meant such as take Tradition for an Infallible Rule of conveying all Matters of Faith then we say such Traditionary Christians may and have Erred And that for Two Reasons I. Because Tradition is no Infallible Rule II. Because although it were yet Men might Err either by mistaking it or departing from it But saith J. S. They cease to be Traditionary Christians if they do not believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday and so up to Christ. If by Traditionary Christians be meant they do not really believe what Christ taught we grant it that they are If by Traditionary Christians be meant such as bear the Name of Traditionary Christians and look on Tradition as their Rule and imagine they have the same Faith which Christ taught then they are still Traditionary Christians And now I am to give a clear and distinct Answer to the Demonstration of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition as it is managed by J. S. and taken into Propositions I. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour J. S. hopes I have nothing to say to this but he is mistaken For I have many things to say to lay open the Notorious Fallacy of it in every Clause I. All Traditionary Christians Who are they Are all Christians Traditionary Christians This were to the purpose if it could be proved But how doth this appear Why is it not said All Christians have gone upon this Principle He knew this could never have been proved And therefore he puts in the thing in dispute and would have it taken for granted that there were no other but Traditionary Christians Which I deny and I am certain he can never prove it Suppose then that there were Christians not Traditionary as well as Traditionary the Proposition appears ridiculous so far is it from Demonstration Traditionary Christians believed so Non-Traditionary Christians believed otherwise and which are to be believed is the Question and that to be determined by the Certainty of the
Ground they went upon and so we are come to the Debate between Scripture and Tradition II. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday This is capable of a threefold meaning I. That they do actually believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday Which is a meer contingent thing and proves nothing Or II. That they are bound to believe to Day as they did Yesterday And that may be on several Accounts I. Because they see Evidence from the Word of God to Day as well as they did Yesterday II. Or because their Guides of the Church teach them the same to Day which they did Yesterday whom they believe to be Infallible III. Or meerly because they receive it by an Oral Tradition and not on the other Accounts and then it proves no more than that they are bound to do it and it is too well known that many fail to do what they are bound to Or III. That they do Infallibly believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday But then this ought to have been inserted in the Proposition That Traditionary Christians cannot fail to believe to Day what they did Yesterday If it be said That this is implyed in their being Traditionary Christians then I say the whole is a Fallacy of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he supposes all true Christians to be Traditionary Christians and then that they Infallibly hold to Tradition as their Rule and from thence he proves Tradition to be Infallible But if the Body of Christians may go upon another Rule or if going upon Tradition they may misunderstand it then there is no inseparable connexion in the several Links of this Chain And there is a further Fallacy in supposing that if any change in Faith happens it must be as sudden and remarkable as if all Men should to day refuse to believe what they believed Yesterday Whereas the changes of Opinions are oft-times wrought by insensible Degrees and many concurrent Causes and sometimes the very same Words may be used and the Faith altered as in the Case of Merit Sacraments Sacrifice c. which sheweth Men may continue the very same Terms and yet believe quite a different thing And where Changes are gradual it is very unreasonable to pitch upon such a precise and narrow space of time as between to Day and Yesterday By the same Method one may demonstrate it to be impossible that any Language should be changed for People speak the same Language to Day which they did Yesterday and the same Yesterday which they did the Day before and so up to the very building of Babel and yet we all know that Languages are continually changed and to such a degree that in some Ages they cannot understand what was at that time intelligible by all In such cases it is enough to assign the general Causes and Reasons of Alterations without fixing a precise and determinate Time. And those I shall speak to afterwards III. And so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour To prove any thing from hence it must be shewed I. That there can be no Pretence to Tradition taken up without Ground for if there may it can by no means follow That if Men pretend to Tradition that Tradition must run up to the Time of Christ. But then they cease to be Traditionary Christians What then Not in pretence for they may call themselves so still but in reality they are not II. That if Men lay claim to a Rule they must always observe it We do not pretend to it as to the Scripture And what Reason is there for it as to Tradition But if Men may pretend to follow Tradition and do not then from their being Traditionary Christians it can by no means follow that this Tradition must be carried up to the Time of our Blessed Saviour II. The second Proposition is And if they follow this Rule they can never err in Faith. This is palpably self evident saith J. S. So say I too but it is only to be a meer Fallacy To follow this Rule is to believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday and so up to Christ or downwards If they did this from Christs time and so forwards they must continue to believe the same to the End of the World. If they really believe the same Doctrine which Christ taught no doubt they cannot err But the Question is Whether this be an Infallible Rule for us to Judge they could never mistake in this Rule nor follow any other For if either of these could happen the Demonstration is lost If it were possible for Errors to come in some other Way or for Persons to misapprehend the Doctrine delivered then it is not possible for us by this Way to be convinced they could not err The latter I have already spoken to I shall now shew that there were some other ways that Errors might come in And here I shall pass over the Common Infirmities of Human Nature which I think Oral Tradition can never Cure and which leave Men always lyable to Error but I shall name some more particular Ways of introducing them I. By the Authority of False Teachers And for this I shall not run back to the False Apostles and Seducers in the Apostles times and afterwards but I shall bring a present Instance in the Church of Rome and that is of Michael de Molinos a Person solemnly condemned at Rome Aug. 28. of this Year for 68 Propositions taken out of his Books and owned by himself as the Decree saith which are there said to be Heretical Erroneous Blasphemous Offensive Rash Seditious and contrary to Christian Discipline This Man is said to have had Thousands of Disciples in Italy in the very Heart of the Traditionary Church Now I desire J. S. to inform me If Tradition be Infallible and that be the Way followed in the Church of Rome how it was possible for such Multitudes to be deceived in Matters of such Consequence To say they were not deceived is to expose the Authority of the Guides of the Church of Rome to the greatest Contempt To say they were deceived is to own That notwithstanding Tradition a single Priest may gain such Authority as to deceive Thousands and where lies then the Infallibility of Tradition II. By Enthusiasm or a Pretence to Immediate Revelation For this I shall not produce the Old Instances in Ecclesiastical History as of Montanus Asclepiades Theodotus Manichaeus Arius AEtius c. who all pretended to Revelations for their particular Opinions But I shall keep to the late Instance of Molinos who asserts That the Perfection of a Christian State lies in a Simple Pure Infused and Perfect Contemplation above the Vse of Ratiocination or Discursive Prayer and that in order to this nothing is so necessary as Self-annihilation This Doctrine is now condemned at Rome but how came it into the Church Did not they believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday