now the care of their Faith made them hold their Principles now you say they are less careful of their Faith than of their Principles Thus have we Circle after Circle Why would they hold their Rule or Principle Because they were render of their Faith. Why were they so tender of their Faith Because they were more tender of their Rule or Principle I ask not how men may be properly called Tenacious to relinquish but pick the best sense I can out of your pure non-sense I. S. Tradition is the Authority of the whole Ecclesia docens which could never permit it self to be thought to have attested a lye hitherto Ib. C. If Tradition be the Authority of the Church then as you said of that Authority it is of no more credit than a story told by an old woman till better reasons be given for it nor hath it this effect upon Humane Nature by its own proper Power to prove Truth But why may not the whole Ecclesia docens supposing it the Church of Rome attest to a lye I. S. It could never permit it self were there nothing but its own interest to be thought to do it Ib. C. You say well not to be thought to do it for that would spoil all Thô I know not how it can be hinder'd but some will think so It might be its Interest to advance it self and for that to pretend a false Tradition and to forge evidences to fasten a lye on former Ages I. S. None could be competent Judges what was fit to be a Rule of Faith but they who were so concern'd both in Duty and Interest Tradition should not be set aside Ib. C. Then if Interest prevail'd above Duty a false Tradition might be pretended and the World must receive it on their credit because they alone are to be accounted competent Judges I. S. There must be some great time betwixt their discarding Tradition and espousing a New Rule during which time we must imagine the whole Church except perhaps some few that discover'd it first would be made up of Seekers some hovering one way some another in which case they would as yet have no Faith and consequently there could be no Church R. p. 57 58. C. No Sir a pretence to Tradition as the only Rule might still be kept afoot and yet changes made in Points of Faith whil'st they who publickly oppos'd or privately disown'd them adhering only to the true Apostolical Tradition were the true Church I. S. If they could innovate in Faith they must pretend to Tradition still when they had evidently deserted it that is They must profess to hold the Testerday's Faith when all the World must see and every one 's own heart must tell him the contrary Which is the highest impossibility Ib. C. They might pretend to Tradition when evidently to others they had deserted it in many things and some of them not impossibly when their own hearts told them so I. S. 'T is impossible any Temptations should move all men to fall into this one sin of altering the Faith. Ib. C. How impossible I know not but I think it neither ever did or shall come to pass I. S. Summing up my Discourse Sect. 45. 't is manifest you have no way to answer our Argument but by supposing there was a time in which there were no considerable Body of Men in the World either good Christians honest Men or valuing their credit but only a company of Brutish Godless Lying Russians without the least degree of Grace or Shame in them R. p. 60. C. It is then unanswerable by me for I cannot suppose this Thô I am not convinced that Men cannot innovate in Faith till it be shewn not only that they have memory enough to remember Testerday's teaching but that they made a right use of their Memory to that purpose and farther that they had so little wickedness as not only not wittingly to damn themselves and their posterity but as not to neglect any care that should be taken for their salvation and many things more not yet shewn For what if all Sons did not understand aright all that Fathers had taught them I. S. If all did not most of the intelligent Pasters would and could easily instruct them it being both so obligatory and so easie Ib. C. Obligatory indeed yet not so easie so to instruct them as to convince them as you I doubt not find it in those whom you suppose in error Suppose again some Sons were so negligent as to take no care either to remember or teach what they had been taught by their Fathers I. S. Then the diligent would reprehend them and see things amended and those careless Persons especially if Pastors reduced to their Duty there being Orders on foot in the World to oblige them to it R. p. 61. C. How came it to pass then that all Hereticks were not long ago suppressed I. S. 'T is an unheard of Negligence not to know or remember Yesterday's Faith. R. p. 61. C. But 't is a very possible thing either not to heed what is taught to day and so to be ignorant of it to morrow or not to remember to morrow every thing that is taught to day or being taught to day to think of it no more to morrow nor many days after and to forget something of it at last But what if some through Ambition Vain-glory and Popularity set abroach New Doctrines and taught them for Apostolical Tradition I. S. Good men would set themselves to oppose them make known their Pretences and lay open their Novelties Ib. C. I doubt it not but not always so effectually as the Errors should not have many followers What if others to save themselves from Persecution conceal'd part and corrupted more of the Doctrine of Christ by their own Traditions I. S. Others would oppose their unchristian proceedings reveal what they had conceal'd restore what they had corrupted and manifest that Doctrine they subintroduced had not descended by the chanel of the Christian Church's Tradition Ib. C. Yet here 's Tradition pretended against Tradition and many it may be carried away with the Pretence and a great number as you have said attesting the attestation is to be thought sufficient and then a greater number can add nothing to it Let others then oppose and manifest what they can all possibly will not be convinced What if others through a blind zeal ignorant devotion superstitious rigour and vain credulity added many things to the Doctrine of Christ which by degrees grew into more general esteem till at last they were own'd and imposed as necessary to be believ'd and practiced I. S. If they belong'd to Faith they could not come in while the Rule of Tradition was adher'd to as has been prov'd and granted R. p. 62. C. True not whilst Apostolical Tradition wholly and solely was adher'd to by All whether they belong'd to Faith or no. I. S. Perhaps some Points involv'd in the main Body of Faith
Rome only yet not enough to cause absolute that is with you infallible certainty I. S. Are not Ten-Millions of Attesters as able to cause absolute certainty as Twenty Ib. C. Caeteris paribus the more Attesters the more certainty yet how many soever they are but men and fallible I. S. When the number comes to that pitch that it is seen to be impossible they should all be deceived in the thing they unanimously attest or conspire to deceive us their Testimony has its full effect upon us and begets in us that firm and unalterable assent we call absolute certainty and the addition of Myriads more adds nothing to the substance of that Assent since 't is wrought without it R. p. 43. C. This is as good assurance of a matter of Fact as any man can desire but what 's all this to Infallibility Here 's some certain pitch of number which is it I wish you could shew us unto which when Attesters every man of them fallible are come one unite short may spoil all it may be seen infallibly or we may be deceived that 't is impossible no less will serve they should be deceived or deceive Thus add fallible to fallible they become infallible and infallibly honest too And then we may firmly assent it should have been infallibly and the addition of Myriads more will adde nothing to the substance of that assent since it is wrought without it Now what this substance of assent is but assent who knows Of the firmness of assent I am sure there are degrees Do not these words seem then to intimate that though Myriads of Attesters cannot add to assent barely consider'd as such for so it was before yet possibly they may add to the degrees of firmness If so then seeing that assent was before infallible do not you seem to admit degrees of Infallibility I. S. But the main is you quite mistake the nature of a long successive Testimony Ib. C. My comfort is I have a wise and compassionate Instructer to set me right I. S. Let Ten Thousand men witness what two or three who were the original Attesters of a thing said at first and Twenty Thousand more witness in the next Age what those Ten Thousand told them and so forwards yet taking them precisely as Witnesses they amount to no more in order to prove the truth of that thing than the credit of those two or three first Witnesses goes R. p. 43. C. All this I knew before Where 's my mistake all this while I. S. The Tradition for the several Books of Scripture is not in any degree comparable either in regard of the largeness or the firmness of the Testimony to the Tradition for Doctrine Ib. C. I grant not this yet let 's suppose it in part at present I see first that your charging me with mistaking the nature of a successive Testimony arose from a mistake of your own I said we have a larger Testimony for Scripture than that of the Church of Rome you fancy me to speak of a larger Testimony for Scripture than for Doctrine And so all you have said since is to no purpose Again though the Testimony were larger for Doctrine than for Scripture yet is it not so firm because not so competent an Attester of Doctrine as of a Book It is sufficient indeed for the Book the Doctrine whereof depends on the credit of the first Attesters and being sufficiently attested by them leaves no credit for any other Doctrine not agreeing with it by how many soever at this day attested Still yours is but humane Testimony and that 's not infallible I. S. Is not your Tradition for Scripture humane too R p. 44. C. It is I. S. If that may be erroneous may not all Christian Faith be a company of lying Stories Ib. C. We have no reason to think or doubt it is and therefore ought not to say it may be I told you before that neither Papists nor Protestants content themselves with Tradition for the truth of their Faith but produce abundance of other Arguments for it A. p 19. But you had no end to trace me there I. S. Seeing certainty of Scripture is proved by Tradition what should hinder me from 〈◊〉 that unless some special difficulty be found in other things that light into the same chanel it must bring them down infallibly too R. p. 45. C. If no special difficulty be found in them you may infer it may bring them down as certainly These other things are I suppose things unwritten in that holy Book I. S. So your gift of interpretation expounds these words of mine but I do assure you Sir you are mightily mistaken Ib. C. All things written in the Book are convey'd down in it what then can those other things be but things unwritten in it I. S. I never yet told you that all Faith was not contain'd in Scripture explicitly or implicitly Ib. C. Well if all be either explicitly or implicitly in the Book then by Tradition all is brought down in the Book still implicitly at least And then once more whan can those other things be but things not written in Scripture I. S. The whole Body of Christ's Doctrine nay the self-same Doctrine of Faith that is contain'd in Scripture comes down by Tradition or the Church's Testimony Ib. C. I had told you all this but still you talk'd of other things How I beseech you other things and yet the same What mean you by nay the same A man would think by this you made the Doctrine of Scripture either but a part or not so much as a part of the whole Doctrine of Faith. I. S. But with this difference as to the manner among others that the Church that testifies it having the sense of it in her breast can explain her meaning so as to put it out of all question to Learners Doubters and Inquirers which the Scripture cannot Ib. C. Here 's a difference indeed The Doctrine is contain'd in Scripture but it cannot discover it self there to Learners c. The same is in the Church's breast and there alone it may be learn'd The Church testifies of the Scripture that it is the Word of God but 't is Jesuitically with an Aequivocation or Mental Reservation for it is not indeed the Word of God but a dead Letter till the sense be put to it and that 's in her breast We have now found the Scrinium pectoris but what 's in the Box who knows or when it will all come forth However the whole sense of Scripture is safely lock'd up there and by the Key of Oral Tradition it may be open'd as there is occasion Now to me it seems all one whether these call them same or other things be contain'd or not contain'd be explicitly or implicitly in Scripture they are there if they be there at all to no purpose whilst the sense is in her breast Not a rush matter if such a Book had sunk in
from the Faith first taught for this is but supposed hitherto A. p. 22. I. S. Was it not proved in the Fourth Proposition and by me p. 9 R. p. 51. C. At your rate it may be And from this self-evident Supposition you necessarily conclude thus Suppose Traditionary Christians neither did nor could err it is certain they neither did nor could err Make what more you can of it A. p. 22. I. S. You falsifie our words who ever said a Supposition is self-evident R. p. 52. C. Who ever said you did May I not use an Irony without the guilt of falsifying I. S. You falsifie again in affirming that from this self-evident Supposition I necessarily conclude c. Ib. C. Just as before in saying you necessarily conclude from a self-evident Supposition I say all you conclude amounts to no more And make you what more you can of it I. S. Our entire Discourse runs thus if we must needs put it into form for you Those who adhere to Tradition all along from the beginning neither did nor could err in Faith. R. p. 53. C. No not if it was true Apostolical Tradition and they adhered wholly and solely to it doing so they did not could not err I. S. The Roman Catholick Church does now and did from time to time adhere to Tradition Ib. C. To Apostolical Tradition wholly and only I deny that I. S. They could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice alter it Ib. C. You hope then we can have no advantage by pleading either of these in barr to the Infallibility of Tradition A. 22. I. S. You do not I suppose desire we should prove that Men had always memories or that Christians were never so malicious as to damn themselves and their posterity wittingly and yet it can stick no where else L p. 32. C. Were there no danger of Mens forgetting what had been taught 't is hard to say why the Pen-men of the Scripture should have been at the needless pains to write it A. p. 23. I. S. Your Discourse is this 'T is hard to say That Christians should have remembred their Testerday's Faith had not the Scripture been written R. p. 54. C. As thô to remember it from Night to Morning were enough I say 't is hard to say why the Scripture was written if men might in no Age forget what had been taught I. S. The Reasons why Scripture was written you might have read in St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.16 17. Where there is no such thing as to make men remember their Yesterday's Faith nor that Scripture is of necessity at all but only that it is profitable for many uses there enumerated Ib. C. I know how unwilling some of you are that Scripture should be thought necessary at all and also how much ashamed they are to say it is unnecessary altogether Let it be as you say only Profitable for Doctrine Reproof Correction Instruction For my part if men once taught the Faith can never forget it If Oral Tradition can do all this without Scripture and Scripture nothing of all this without Tradition I think it is wholly useless and unprofitable and therefore see no reason it should be written And yet if mens memories be so very faithful St. Peter seems to me to have been too forgetful of it when with so much earnestness he endeavour'd that men might be able after his decease to have these things always in remembrance 2 Pet. 1 15. and that by leaving them in writing A. p. 23. I. S. There is not so much as one word in the whole Chapter concerning the remembring or forgetting their Faith but of remembring his particular exhortations to good life R. p. 55. C. Neither said I there was it was enough for me to prove hence that men might forget what they had been taught and if an exhortation to good life why not an Article of Faith I. S. Notwithstanding all you have answer'd men had memory enough not to forget their yesterday's Faith. R. p. 56. C. Well at present suppose it Why might they not have Malice enough to alter or corrupt it I. S. Were Christians so malicious as to damn themselves and their posterity wittingly C. May they not be as careless of preserving the Faith as of maintaining Holiness in themselves and their posterity when they know that Sin is as damnable as Error A. p. 23. I. S. Be Judge your self Do not many of your Congregation sin often and yet few or none of them desert their Faith once Ib. C. I grant men may often sin yet be neither Apostates not Hereticks I. S. The Reasons why the Parallel holds not are these Ib. C. The Word of an Infallible Instructer shall pass with me for a thousand Reasons Tell me only what these Reasons prove it will suffice If it be this that men may sin often and yet not desert their Faith 't is already granted Is it any thing else you would prove by them I. S. My Reasons thwart the universal alteration of Faith while Christians proceeded on the former Rule of Tradition R. p. 59. C. 'T is granted also that Christians adhering to Apostolical Tradition there could be no universal alteration of Faith. I. S. They clearly evince an universal change in the Rule of Faith over the whole Body of Believers is absolutely impracticable R. p. 57. C. Whatever your Reasons evince we grant such an universal change will never be because Christ will always have a Church of true Believers But why might not a considerable part of the Whole Body alter the Faith first taught I. S. The change must be professed and open otherwise it alters not the case and posterity will believe still on according as things appear outwardly R p. 56. C. Men may change the Faith and at first privately teach it to a few not professing at all that they change it but that they retrieve it after a change had been made in it and they who are taught it may believe it and spread it and it may at last be openly profess'd without professing a change from what it was at first which is not the wont of Hereticks I. S. Not unless it be said they went conscienciously upon some other ground than Tradition R. p. 57. C. And why might they not do so I. S. 'T is impossible they should take up another ground Ib. C. Your reason I pray I. S. Because if they could not innovate in Faith they could not innovate in that upon which they held all their Faith. Ib. C. Very good You were proving they cannot innovate in Faith because they adhere to Tradition now you prove they must adhere to Tradition because they cannot innovate in Faith. I. S. Men are more tenacious of their Principles than they are to relinquish all they have receiv'd upon those Principles Ib. C. That which they hold upon the Principle of Tradition is all their Faith and you said but