is the Measure according to which we judg whether a thing be true or false and this is either general or more particular Common notions and the acknowledged Principles of Reason are that general Rule according to which we judg whether a thing be true or false The particular Principles of every Science are the more particular Rules according to which we judg whether things in that Science be true or false So that the general notion of a Rule is that it is a measure by the agreement or disagreement to which we judg of all things of that kind to which it belongs § 4. Faith though both among sacred and prophane Writers it be used many times more generally for a perswasion or assent of the mind to any thing wrought in us by any kind of argument yet as it is a Term of Art used by Divines it signifies that particular kind of assent which is wrought in us by Testimony or Authority So that Divine Faith which we are now speaking of is an assent to a thing upon the testimony or authority of God or which is all one an assent to a truth upon Divine revelation § 5. A Rule of Faith is the Measure according to which we judg what matters we are to assent to as revealed to us by God and what not And more particularly the Rule of Christian faith is the Measure according to which we are to judg what we ought to assent to as the Doctrine revealed by Christ to the world and what not § 6. So that this Question What is the Rule of Christian faith supposeth a Doctrine revealed by Christ to the world and that that Doctrine was intelligibly and entirely delivered by Christ to his Apostles and sufficient confirmation given to it that this Doctrine was in the same manner published to the world by the Apostles who likewise gave sufficient evidence of the truth of it All this is necessarily supposed in the Question For it would be in vain to enquire whether this or that be the Rule of Christian Faith if such a thing as the Christian Faith were not first supposed When therefore we enquire what is the Rule of Christian Faith the meaning of that enquiry is by what way and means the knowledg of Christ's Doctrine is conveyed certainly down to us who live at the distance of so many Ages from the time of it's first delivery For this being known we have the Rule of Faith that is a measure by which we may judg what we are to assent to as the Doctrine of Christ and what not So that when any Question ariseth about any particular Proposition whether this be part of Christ's Doctrine we may be able by this Rule to resolve it SECT II. § 1. THe next thing to be considered is his resolution of this Question by which we shall know what his opinion is concerning the Rule of Faith for that being known the Controversie between us will easily be stated His opinion in general is that oral or practical Tradition in opposition to writing or any other way that can be assigned is the Rule of Faith By oral or practical Tradition he means a delivery down from hand to hand by words and a constant course of frequent and visible actions conformable to those words of the sense and faith of Forefathers § 2. Now that I may bring the Controversie between us to a clear state I am first to take a more particular view of his Opinion concerning the Rule of Faith that so I may the better understand how much he attributes to Oral Tradition and what to the Scriptures or written Tradition And then I am to lay down the Protestant Rule of Faith that so it may appear how far we agree and how far we differ The sum of what he attributes to Oral Tradition so far as can be collected out of so obscure and confused a Discourse may be reduced to these five Heads § 3. First That the Doctrine of Christian Religion was delivered by Christ to the Apostles and by them published to the World and that the Age which first received it from the Apostles delivered it as they received it without any change or corruption to their Children and they to theirs and so it went on solely by this way of Oral Tradition This is the sum of his Explication of Tradition Disc. 5 th § 4. Secondly That this way alone is not only sufficient to convey this Doctrine down to all Ages certainly and without any alteration but it is the only possible way that can be imagined of conveying down a Doctrine securely from one Age to another And this is the natural result of his Discourse about the Properties of a Rule of Faith For if the true Properties of a Rule of Faith do belong to Oral Tradition then it is a sufficient means and if those Properties do solely and essentially appertain to it and are incompatible to any thing else as he endeavours to prove then it is impossible there should be any other way § 5. Thirdly That it is impossible this means should fail or miss of its end that is the Doctrine of Christ being once put into this way of conveyance it can neither cease to descend nor be at any time corrupted or changed in its descent This is that which his Demonstrations pretend to prove § 6. Fourthly That the infallibility of Oral Tradition or the impossibility of its failing is a first and self evident principle This he frequently asserts throughout his Book § 7. Fifthly That this way of Oral Tradition hath de facto in all Ages been acknowledged by Christians as the only way and means whereby the Doctrine of Christianity hath been conveyed down to them And this is that which he attempts to prove from the Consent of Authority § 8. As for the Scriptures he grants them indeed to have been written by men divinely inspired and to contain a Divine Doctrine even the same which is delivered by Oral Tradition so he tells us 'T is certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ But then he denies it to be of any use without Oral Tradition because neither the letter nor sense of it can without that be ascertain'd so he saith in his Letter to Dr. Casaubon As for the Scriptures ascertaining their letter and sense which is done by Tradition 't is clear they are of incomparable value not only for the Divine Doctrine contained in them but also for many particular passages whose source or first attestation not being universal nor their nature much practical might possibly have been lost in their conveyance down by Tradition Where though he give the Scriptures very good words it is to be understood provided they will be subordinate and acknowledg that they owe their sense and their being intelligible and useful to Oral Tradition For if any man shall presume to say That this Book hath any certain sense without Oral Tradition or that God
proof of this I appeal to that Decree of the Council of Trent in which they declare That because the Christian Faith and Discipline are contained in written Books and unwritten Traditions c. therefore they do receive and honour the Books of Scripture and also Traditions pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ with equal pious affection and reverence which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith And consonantly to this Decree the general Doctrine of the Romish Church is that Scripture and Tradition make up the Rule of Faith So the Roman Catechism set forth by order of the Council of Trent says that the sum of the Doctrine delivered to the Faithful is contained in the Word of God which is distributed into Scripture and Tradition Bellarmine speaks to the same purpose That the Scripture is a Rule of Faith not an entire but partial one The entire Rule is the Word of God which is divided into two partial Rules Scripture and Tradition According to this the adequate Rule of Faith is the Word of God which is contained partly in Scripture and partly in the Tradition of the Church And that Scripture is look't upon by them as the principal Rule and primary foundation of their Faith and Tradition as only supplying the defects of Scripture as to some Doctrines and Rites not contained in Scripture must be evident to any one that hath been conversant in the chief of their controversial Divines Bellarmine where he gives the marks of a Divine Tradition speaks to this purpose That that which they call a Divine Tradition is such a Doctrine or Rite as is not found in Scripture but embraced by the whole Church and for that reason believed to have descended from the Apostles And he tells us further That the Apostles committed all to Writing which was commonly and publickly Preached and that all things are in Scripture which men are bound to know and believe explicitely But then he says that there were other things which the Apostles did not commonly and publickly teach and these they did not commit to Writing but delivered them only by word of mouth to the Prelates and Priests and perfect men of the Church And these are the Apostolical Traditions he speaks of Cardinal Perron says That the Scripture is the foundation of the Christian Doctrine either mediately or immediately And that the Authority of unwritten Tradition is founded in general on these sentences of the Apostle Hold the Traditions c. Again The things which thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses commit to faithful men c. And that the Authority of the Church to preserve and especially to declare these is founded in this Proposition viz. That the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth So that according to him the primary Rule of Faith is the Scripture in which the Authority of Tradition is founded Mr. Knott says expresly We acknowledg the H. Scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule we only deny that it excludes either Divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an external Judg to keep to propose to interpret it c. So that according to him Scripture is a perfect Rule only it does not exclude unwritten Tradition c. By which that he does not understand as Mr. S. does a concurrent Oral Tradition of all the same Doctrines which are contained in Scripture but other Doctrines not therein contained is plain from what he says elsewhere We do not distinguish Tradition from the written Word because Tradition is not written by any or in any Book or Writing but because it is not written in the Srripture or Bible Bellarmine also says the same And as for the interpreting of Scripture he tells us that this is not the office of a Rule but of a Judg. There is says he a great and plain distinction between a Judg and a Rule For as in a Kingdom the Judg hath his Rule to follow which are the received Laws and Customs which are not fit or able to declare and be Judges to themselves but that Office must belong to a living Judg So the Holy Scripture is and may be a Rule but cannot be a Judg. Here he makes the Scripture as much a Rule for matters of Faith as the Laws of the Land are for Civil matters And in his Reply to Mr. Chillingworth he hath a Chapter of above 150 Pages the Title whereof is Scripture is not the only Rule of Faith which had he with Mr. S. believed Oral Tradition to be the sole Rule of Faith had been as absurd as it would be to write a Book to prove that Turks are not the only Christians in the World Mr. Cressy likewise not very consistently to himself lays down this Conclusion The entire Rule of faith is contained not only in Scripture but likewise in unwritten Tradition § 2. Now all this is as contrary as can be to Mr. Rushworth's new Rule of Faith Therefore Mr. White says They speak ill who teach that some things are known in the Church from Scripture some by Tradition And Dr. Holden in opposition to those who make Scripture any part of the Rule of Faith advances one of the most wild and uncharitable Positions that ever I yet met withall viz. That if one should believe all the Articles of the Catholick Faith c. for this reason because he thought they were all expresly revealed in Scripture or implicitely contained so as they might be deduced from thence and would not have believed them had he not judged that they might be evinced from Scripture yet this man could be no true Catholick Because as he tells us afterwards we must receive the Christian Doctrine as coming to us by Tradition for only by this means excluding the Scriptures Christ hath appointed revealed Truths to be received and communicated In the mean time Cardinal Perron unless he altered his mind is in a sad case who believed the Authority of Tradition it self for this reason because it was founded in Scripture § 3. And this fundamental difference about the Rule of Faith between the generality of their Divines and Mr S's small party is fully acknowledged by the Traditionists themselves Dr. Holden says That their Divines who resolve Faith according to the common Opinion do inevitably fall into that shameful Circle of proving the Divine Authority of the Scripture by the Church and the Infallibility of the Church back again by the Scripture because they dare not build their Faith upon the natural evidence and certainty of Tradition So that Dr. Holden's way of resolving Faith is different from the common Opinion of their Divines which he says does not differ from the Opinion of those who resolve their Faith into the private Spirit and this according to Mr. White
liberty from greater imployments how ready I am to give him all reasonable satisfaction And in the first place I return him thanks for the weapon he hath made choice of viz. that of reason there being no other I desire to make use of in managing this debate between us And I hope he will find as much civility towards him throughout this discourse as he expresses towards me in the entrance to his if that may be accounted any real civility which is intended meerly out of design with the greater advantage to disparage the cause I have undertaken and yet see no reason to repent of If in his cursory view of two Chapters of my Book he had as he saith quite lost me he had no cause to be troubled for it if he had found far more excellent persons such as Dr. Hammond and the Disswader and Dr. Pierce instead of me But to be sure he intends not this in honour to any of us but by way of a common reproach to us all as though we did not talk out of nature or things but words and imagination I could heartily have wished Mr. S. would have cropt so much of the victory due to anothers learning and industry as to have shewed me one proposition in those discourses which a rational understanding that would be true to it self could not settle or rely on But if such insinuations as these must pass for answers I must needs say I judg M. S. equally happy in confuting our grounds and in demonstrating his own in both which his greatest strength lies in the self-evidence of his bare affirmations But it seems he is willing to resign the glory of this Victory to the judicious Author of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis or to some others for him and when they have once obtained it I shall not envy them the honour of it And I suppose those persons whoever they are may be able by this time to tell Mr. S. it is an easier matter to talk of Victories than to get them But if they do no more in the whole than Mr. S. hath done for his share they will triumph no-where but where they conquer viz. in their own fancies and imaginations Therefore leaving them to their silent conquests and as yet unheard-of Victories we come to Mr. S. who so liberally proclaims his own in the point of oral tradition Which in a phrase scarce heard of in our language before is the Post he tells us he hath taken upon him to explicate further and defend What the explicating a Post means I as little understand as I do the force of his demonstrations but this and many other such uncouth forms of speech up and down in his Book which make his style so smooth and easie are I suppose intended for embellishments of our tongue and as helps to sure-speaking as his whole Book is designed for sure-footing But letting him enjoy the pleasure and felicity of his own expressions I come to consider the matter in debate between us And his first controversie with me is for opposing the infallibility of oral tradition to doctrinal infallibility in Pope and Councils A controversie fitter to be debated among themselves than between him and me For is any thing more notorious than that infallibility is by the far greatest part of Romanists attributed to the present Church in teaching and delivering matters of faith not by virtue of any oral tradition but the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and that this is made by them the only ground of divine faith For which Mr. S. may if he please consult his judicious Author of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis or any other of their present Writers except Mr. White and himself He need not therefore have been to seek for the meaning of this doctrinal infallibility as opposed to traditionary if he had not either been ignorant of the opinion of their own Writers or notoriously dissembled it For this infallibility is not attributed to the Rulers of the Church meerly as Doctors or Scholars but as the representative Church whose office it is to deliver all matters of faith by way of an infallible testimony to every age and thereby to afford a sufficient foundation for divine faith But Mr. S. attributes no such infallibility to the representative Church as teaching the rest but derives their infallibility from such grounds as are common to all parts of the essential Church Wherein he apparently opposes himself to the whole current of their own Authors who resolve all faith into the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost without which they assert there could be no infallibility at all in tradition or any thing else and therefore these opinions are as opposite to each other as may be For such an infallibility is not attributed by them to the Teachers of the Church meerly on some signal occasions as Mr. S. seems to suppose when they are to explain new matters of saith but it is made by them to be as necessary as believing it self because thereby the only sure foundation of faith is laid and therefore it is very evident they make it proper to the Church in all ages Or else in some age of the Church men were destitute of suciffient grounds of faith For they by no means think it a sufficient foundation for faith that one age of the Church could not conspire to deceive another for this they will tell him at most is but a humane faith but that Christ by his promise hath assured the Church that there shall never be wanting in it the infallible assistance of his Holy Spirit whereby they shall infallibly teach and deliver all matters of saith And if this be not their opinion let them speak to the contrary which if they do I am sure they must retract their most elaborate discourses about the resolution of faith written by the greatest Artists among them Let Mr. S. then judg who it is that stumbles at the Threshold but of this difference among them more afterwards By this it appears it was not on any mistake that I remained unsatisfied in the Question I asked Whether am I bound to believe what the present Church delivers to be infallible To which Mr. S. answers I understand him not My reply shall be only that of a great Lawyers in a like case I cannot help that I am sure my words are intelligible enough for I take infallible there as he takes it himself for infallibly true although I deny not the word to be improperly used in reference to things and that for the reason given by him because fallibility infallibility belong to the knowing power or the persons that have it and not to the object But we are often put to the use of that word in a sense we acknowledg improper meerly in compliance with our Adversaries who otherwise are apt to charge us with having only uncertainties and probabilities for our faith if we do not use the term infallible as applied to
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
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
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
capable of convincing Demonstrations Again Do but consider says he how unequal and unjust a condition it is that the claim of the present Church shall not be heard unless she can confute all the Peradventures that Wit may invent and solve all the Arguments which the infinite variety of time place and occasions may have given way unto and then you will see how unreasonable an Adversary he is who will not be content with any satisfaction but such as mans nature scarcely affords And is it not equally unjust in Mr. S. not to let Scripture's claim be heard unless we can confute every Peradventure and might it not be otherwise that Wit may invent See then how unreasonable an Adversary Mr. S. is who will not be content with any satisfaction but such as according to Mr. Rushworth mans nature scarcely affords Dr. Holden I confess states the matter somewhat cautiously when he tells us That it shall suffice for present to determine that the Wisdom of the Creator hath afforded us such an assurance especially of Truths necessary to Salvation as is sutable to our nature and best fitted for the safe conduct of our lives in Moral and Religious Affairs But if we interpret these general expressions by the passages I before cited out of Mr. Rushworth as in reason we may since the Doctor is beholding to him for the best part of his Book then nothing can make more against Mr. S's Principle § 5. Mr. Cressy in his Exomologesis says That such Teachers as approached nearest to the fountain of Truth Christ and his Apostles had means of informing themselves in Apostolical Tradition incomparably beyond us Mr. S. may do well to shew what those means were which are so incomparably beyond his Infallibility and Demonstration The same Author does very much applaud Stapleton's determination of the question concerning the Churches Infallibility which is as follows That the Church does not expect to be taught by God immediately by new Revelations but makes use of several means c. as being govern'd not by Apostles c. but by ordinary Pastors and Teachers That these Pastors in making use of these several means of Decision proceed not as the Apostles did with a peculiar infallible direction of the Holy Spirit but with a prudential collection not always necessary That to the Apostles who were the first Masters of Evangelical Faith and founders of the Church such an infallible certitude of means was necessary not so now to the Church c. If this be true That an infallible certitude of means is not now necessary to the Church and that her Pastors do now in deciding matters of Faith proceed only with a prudent collection not always necessary then it should seem that a searching Wit may maintain his ground of suspence even against their Church also with A Might it not be otherwise Again Mr. Cressy tells us That truth and our obligation to believe it is in an higher degree in Scripture than in the Decisions of the Church as Bellarmine acknowledges which is to say that we may have greater assurance of the truth of Doctrines contained in the Scriptures than we can have of any Doctrine from the determination of the Church But if we have the greatest assurance that can be of Truths deliver'd to us by the Church as Mr. S. affirms then I would fain learn of him what that greater degree of assurance is which Stapleton speaks of and whether it be greater than the greatest Not to insist upon that which yet I cannot but by the way take notice of that Mr. Cressy by his approbation of this determination of Bellarmine's doth advance the Scripture above the Church as to one of the most essential Properties of the Rule of Faith viz. the certainty of it But the most eminent Testimony to my purpose in Mr. Cressy is that famous passage which hath given so much offence to several of his own Church wherein he acknowledges the unfortunateness to him of the word Infallibility and tells us That he could find no such word in any Council That no necessity appear'd to him that either he or any other Protestant should ever have heard that word nam'd and much less press'd with so much earnestness as of late it has generally been in Disputations and Books of Controversie and that Mr. Chillingworth combats this word with too to great success insomuch that if this word were once forgotten or but laid by Mr. Chillingworth's Arguments would lose the greatest part of their strength and that if this word were confin'd to the Schools where it was bred there would be still no inconvenience And that since by manifest experience the English Protetestants think themselves so secure when they have leave to stand or fall by that word and in very deed have so much to say for themselves when they are pressed unnecessarily with it Since likewise it is a word capable of so high a sense that we cannot devise one more full and proper to attribute to God himself c. Since all this is so he thinks he cannot be blamed if such Reasons move him to wish that the Protestants may never be invited to combat the Authority of the Church under that Notion A very ingenuous acknowledgment and as cross to Mr. S's Principle as any thing can be But the word Infallibility was not so unfortunate to Mr. Cressy as is his untoward Explication of the fore-cited passage in his Appendix which he afterwards published chiefly by way of Vindication of himself against the Learned Author of the Preface to my Lord Falkland's Discourse of Infallibility There he tells us That there are several degrees of Infallibility And that we may know what degree of Infallibility he thinks necessary to be attributed to the Church this following passage will inform us Methinks says he if God have furnished his divine and supernatural Truth with evidence equal to this that the Sun will shine to morrow or that there will be a Spring and Harvest next year we are infinitely obliged to bless his Providence and justly condemned if we refuse to believe the least of such Truths as shewing less affection to save our souls than the dull Plow-men to sow their Corn who certainly have far less evidence for their Harvest than Catholiques for their Faith and yet they insist not peevishly upon every capricious Objection nor exact an infallible security of a plentiful reaping next Summer but notwithstanding all difficulties and contingencies proceed chearfully in their painful Husbandry So that according to this Discourse whatever degree of assurance the Church hath or can give to those who rely upon her it is plain that no further degree is necessary than what the Husbandman when he sows hath of a plentiful Harvest and that men are justly condemned if they refuse to believe the least truth upon such security which yet by his own acknowledgment is liable to Contingencies Nay further that men are
a Hundred years to a Hundred but from Month to Month and even less If this be all that Tradition doth this is nothing but what is done among Protestants and that with greater advantage because we always teach Children to say their Prayers in a known Tongue so as they may understand them And we also teach them the Creed and Ten Commandments and the Sacraments so many as Christ hath instituted and no more So that if this be so infallible a way of conveying the Doctrine of Christianity we have it among us And we do over and besides instruct them in the Scriptures which are the authentick Instrument whereby Christ's Doctrine is conveyed to us But then we do not suppose as his Hypothesis necessarily enforceth him to do that the Christian Doctrine is equally taught and learned by all but by some more by others less perfectly according to the different abilities and diligence of Parents and Teachers and the various capacities and dispositions of Children whereas his Hypothesis falls if all or at least the generality of Parents do not instruct their Children with the like exactness and if the generality of Children do not receive this Doctrine in the same perfection that it is delivered For if it be taught or received with any variation it must necessarily be so conveyed and these variations will grow daily I had thought he would have told us how all Parents do teach their Children the whole Body of Christ's Doctrine and explain to them every part of it in a Hundred or a Thousand several expressions signifying the same sense and not have instanced in two Set-forms such as the Creed and Ten Commandments for according to Mr. White That cannot be a Tradition which is delivered in set-words § 2. Having thus explained Oral Tradition he comes to shew that the Properties of a Rule of Faith agree to it I have already shewed that the true Properties of a Rule of Faith are but two viz. That it be plain and intelligible and that it be sufficiently certain The first of these that Oral Tradition may deliver a Doctrine plainly and intelligibly I grant him All the difficulty is about the second Property whether we have sufficient assurance that the Doctrine delivered down by Oral Tradition hath received no coruption or change in its conveyance And all that he pretends to prove in this Discourse is That if this Rule hath been followed and kept to all along the Christian Doctrine neither hath nor can have received any change that is if the next Age after the Apostles did truly and without any alteration deliver the Christian Doctrine to their immediate Successors and they to theirs and so on then upon this supposition the Doctrine of the present Traditionary Church must be the very same with that which was delivered to the Apostles All this is readily granted to him But that this Rule hath always been followed nay that it is impossible there should have been any deviation from it as he pretends this we deny not only as untrue but as one of the most absurd Propositions that ever yet pretended to demonstrative evidence THE RULE of FAITH PART III. In which Mr. S's Demonstrations and Corollaries are examined SECT I. § 1. BEfore I come to speak particularly to his Demonstrations I shall premise these two Considerations First That according to the Principles of the Patrons of Tradition no man can by his private Reason certainly find out the true Rule of Faith Secondly That according to Mr. S. the way of Demonstration is no certain way to find out the Rule of Faith If either of these be made out his Demonstrations lose all their force If the first be made good then he cannot demonstrate the Infallibility of Tradition nor consequently that that is the Rule of Faith If the second then the way of Demonstration which he pretends to take signifies nothing § 2. First No man can according to the principles of the Patrons of Tradition by his private Reason certainly find out what is the Rule of Faith Suppose a Heathen to be desirous to inform himself of the Christian Faith in order to which he is inquisitive after some Rule by which he may take a measure of it and come certainly to know what it is He enquires of Christians what their Rule is and finds them divided about it some saying that the Scriptures others that Oral Tradition is the Rule In this case it is not possible without a Revelation for this man to find out the Rule of Faith but by his own private Reason examining and weighing the arguments and pretences of both sides And when he hath done this unless he can by his Reason demonstrate that the one is a certain and infallible Rule and the other not so he hath not according to Mr. S. found out the Rule of Faith But Reason can never do this according to Mr. S. For speaking of demonstrating the certainty of Tradition he tells us That Tradition hath for its Basis mans nature not according to his Intellectuals which do but darkly grope in the pursuit of Science c. And again speaking how Reason brings men to the Rule of Faith he uses this comparison She is like a dim-sighted man who used his Reason to find a trusty Friend to lead him in the twilight and then relied on his guidance rationally without using his own Reason at all about the Way it self So that according to him the certainty of Tradition cannot be founded on Demonstration because it is not founded in the intellectual part of man which only can demonstrate Besides if it were founded in the intellectual part yet that can never be able to demonstrate the certainty of Tradition because that faculty which is dim-sighted and does but grope darkly in the pursuit of Science is uncapable of framing Demonstrations Nor can any man understand how dim-sighted reason should see clearly to choose its guide any more than its way especially if it be considered what a pretty Contradiction it is to say that Reason as it is dim-sighted can see clearly But Mr. Cressy is not contented to call every mans Reason dim-sighted he ventures a step further and calls it hood-winkt and blind For he tells us That private Reason is apparently a most fallible guide and he pities my Lord Falkland's case because in the search of the true Religion he did betake himself to the casual conduct of blind humane natural Reason which afterwards he calls a guide that two persons cannot possibly follow together because no two persons that ever followed any other guide beside Authority did or could think all things to be reasonable that all others thought so and by consequence such a guide that as long as he continues in that office there cannot possibly be any Church any where which says he is an infallible eviction that this is an imaginary seducing guide since it is impossible that that should be
sense and explication thereof to have descended to them by Oral Tradition For just as the Traditionary Christians do now so Josephus tells us the Traditionary Jews of old the Pharisees did pretend by their Oral Tradition to interpret the Law more accurately and exactly than any other Sect. In like manner he tells us That all things that belonged to Prayer and Divine Worship were regulated and administred according to their interpretations of the Law And they both agree in this to make void the Word of God by their Tradition which the Pharisees did no otherwise than Mr. S. does by equalling Oral Tradition to Scripture nay preferring it above Scripture in making it the sole Rule of Faith and interpreting the Scripture according to it Hence are those common sayings in the Talmud and other Jewish Books Do not think that the written Law is the foundation but that the Law Orally delivered is the right foundation which is to say with Mr. S. that not the Scripture but Oral Tradition is the true Rule of Faith Again There is more in the words of the Scribes viz. the Testifiers of Tradition than in the words of the written Law Again The Oral Law excells the Written as much as the Soul doth the Body which accords very well with what Mr. S. frequently tells us That the Scripture without Tradition is but a dead Letter destitute of life and sense Hence also it is that they required the People as the Traditionary Church does now to yield up themselves to the dictates of Tradition even in the most absurd things as appears by that common saying among them If the Scribes say that the right hand is the left and the left the right that Bread is Flesh and Wine is Blood hearken to them that is make no scruple of whatsoever they deliver as Tradition though never so contrary to Reason or Sense And lastly The Doctrines of the Pharisees were many of them practical such were all those which concerned external rites and observances as washing of hands and cups c. So that these Pharisaical Traditions had also that unspeakable advantage which Mr. S. says renders their Traditions unmistakeable That they were daily practised and came down clad in such plain matters of Fact that the most stupid man living could not possibly be ignorant of them Therefore according to Mr. S's Principles it was impossible that any Age of the Jews should be perswaded that these things were commanded by Moses and ever since observed if they had not been so And yet our Saviour denies these Customs to have been of any such Authority as they pretended § 2. But I needed not to have taken all this pains to shew the agreement which is between the Traditionary Jews and Papists their own Writers so liberally acknowledging it Mr. White indeed says That the Faith of the Jews was not delivered to them Orally but by Writing than which nothing can be more inconsistent with his Hypothesis For if the Jewish Faith was conveyed to them not Orally but by Writing then either the Jewish Church had no sufficient Rule of Faith or else a Writing may be such a Rule But other of their Champions make great use of the Parallel between the Traditionary Jews and the Romish Church to confirm from thence their own Traditionary Doctrines Cardinal Perron hath a full passage to this purpose As this says he is to preserve a sound and entire respect to the Majesty of the ancient Mosaick Scripture to believe and observe not only all the things which are therein actually contained but also those things which are therein contained mediately and relatively as the Doctrines of Paradise c. which were not contained therein but mediately and by the authority which it gave to the deposition of the Patriarchal and Mosaick Tradition preserved by heart and in the Oral Doctrine of the Synagogue So this is to preserve a sound and entire respect to the Majesty of the Apostolical Scripture to believe and observe all the things which it contains not only immediately and by it self but mediately and by reference to the Apostolical Traditions to which in gross and generally it gives the Authority of Apostolical Doctrines and to the Church the Authority of Guardian and Depositary to preserve and attest them Voysin in his Observations upon Raymundus Martyn tells us That as in the Old Law the great Consistory at Jerusalem was the foundation of the true Tradition so says he the See of Rome is the foundation of our Traditions And as the continual succession of the High Priests and Fathers among the Jews was the great confirmation of the Truth of their Traditions so says he with us the Truth of our Catholick Doctrine is confirmed by a continual succession of Popes § 3. From all this it appears that the Pharisees among the Jews made the same pretence to Oral Tradition which the Papists do at this day according to Mr. S. And if so then Mr. S's Demonstration a Posteriori is every whit as strong for the Jews against our Saviour as it is for the Papists against the Protestants For we find that in our Saviour's time it was then the present perswasion of the Traditionary Jews that their Faith and their Rites and the true sense and interpretation of their written Law was descended from Moses and the Prophets to them uninterruptedly which we find was most firmly rooted in their hearts But the Jews had a constant Tradition among them that the Messiah was to be a great temporal Prince And though the Letters of the Prophesies concerning him might well enough have been accommodated to the low and suffering condition of our Saviour yet they did infallibly know that their Messiah was to be another kind of person from sense written in their hearts from the interpretation of those Prophesies Orally brought down to them from the Patriarchal and Mosaick Tradition preserved by heart and in the Oral Doctrine of the Synagogue and from the living voyce of their Church essential that is the universal consent of the then Traditionary Jews If it be said That the Jewish Tradition did indeed bring down several Doctrines not contained in Scripture of Paradise of Hell of the last Judgment of the Resurrection c. as Cardinal Perron affirms but it did not bring down this Point of the Messiah's being a Temporal Prince Then as Mr. S. asks us so the Jew does him By what vertue Tradition brought down those other Points and whether the same vertue were not powerful to bring down this as well as those Then he will ask him farther Is there not a necessary connexion and relation between a constant Cause and its formal Effect So that if its formal Effect be Points received as delivered ever the proper Cause must be an ever-delivery whence he will argue from such an Effect to its Cause for any particular Point and consequently for this Point that is in Controversie between Jews
is the very way of the Calvinists and of the absurdest Sects Nay Mr. White says farther That he will be content to suffer all the punishment that is due to Calumniators if the Roman Divines he there speaks of do not hold the same Rule of Faith with the Calvinists and all the absurdest Sects So that it seems that the Calvinists c. do not in their Rule of Faith differ from the Papists but only from Mr. White Mr. S. c. Now the Divines he there speaks of are the Censors of Doctrines at Rome according to whose advice his infallible Holiness and the Cardinals of the Inquisition do usuall proceed in censuring of Doctrines Concerning these Divines he goes on to expostulate in this manner Shall we endure these men to sit as Censors and Judges of Faith who agree with Hereticks in the very first Principle which distinguishes Catholicks from Hereticks Again These are thy gods O Rome upon these thou dependest whil'st prating Ignorance triumphs in the Roman Colledg And he says the same likewise of the generality of their School-Divines whom he calls Scepticks because they do not own his Demonstrative way Insomuch that he tells us That few sound parts are left uninfected with this Plague of Scepticism that this is an universal Gangrene that there are but few that go the way of Demonstration and these are either wearied out or else live retiredly or despair of any remedy of these things And indeed all along that Book he bemoans himself and his Traditionary Brethren as a desolate and forlorn Party who have Truth on their side but want company and encouragement So he tells us That the true scientifical Divines dare not profess their knowledg lest they should be exposed by the Sophisters of their Church to the derision and scorn either of their Judges or of the People § 4. So that upon examination of the whole matter it appears that Mr. S's Demonstration proceeds upon a false Supposition That it is the perswasion of their present Church that Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith For there is no such matter unless Mr. S. mean by their Church a few private persons who are look'd upon by those who have the chief power in their Church as Heretical as we may reasonably conjecture by the proceedings at Rome against Mr. White many of whose Books are there condemned as containing things manifestly Heretical erroneous in the Faith rash scandalous seditious and false respectively c. And all this done notwithstanding that the chief subject of those Books is the explication and defence of this most Catholick Principle That Oral Tradition is the only Rule of Faith To sum up then the whole business If nothing be to be owned for Christian Doctrine as the Traditionists say but what is the general perswasion of those who are acknowledged to be in the communion of the Roman Catholick Church then much less can this Principle That Oral Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith which is pretended to be the foundation of the whole Christian Doctrine be received as descended from Christ and his Apostles since it is so far from being the general perswasion of that Church at the present that it has been and still is generally disowned But Mr. White has a salvo for this For although he grant That very many of their School-men maintain that Tradition is necessary only for some Points not clearly expressed in Scripture whence he says it seems to follow that they build not the whole Body of their Faith upon Tradition yet he tells us there is a vast difference betwixt relying on Tradition and saying or thinking we d◠so Suppose there be yet I hope that mens saying that they do not rely on Tradition as their only Rule is a better evidence that they do not than any mans surmise to the contrary is that they do though they think and say they do not which is in effect to say that they do though we have as much assurance as we can have that they do not Besides how is this Rule self-evident to all even to the rude Vulgar as to its ruling power as Mr. S. affirms it is when the greatest part even of the Learned among them think and say that it is not the only Rule But Mr. White endeavours to illustrate this dark point by a similitude which is to this sense As the Scepticks who deny this Principle That Contradictions cannot be true at once yet in their lives and civil actions proceed as if they owned it So the Schoolmen though they deny Tradition to be the only Rule of their Faith yet by resolving their Faith into the Church which owns this Principle they do also in practice own it though they say they do not So that the generality of learned Papists are just such Catholicks as the Scepticks are Dogmatists that is a company of absurd people that confute their Principles by their practice According to this reasoning I perceive the Protestants will prove as good Catholicks as any for they do only think and say that Tradition is not the Rule of Faith but that they practically rely upon it Mr. S. hath past his word for them For he assures us and we may rely upon a man that writes nothing but Demonstration that if we look narrowly into the bottom of our hearts we shall discover the natural method of Tradition to have unawares setled our Judgments concerning Faith however when our other Concerns awake design in us we protest against it and seem perhaps to our unreflecting selves to embrace and hold to the meer guidance of the Letter of Scripture So that in reality we are as good Catholicks and as true holders to Tradition as any Papist of them all at the bottom of our thoughts and in our setled judgments however we have taken up an humour to protest against it and may seem perhaps to our unreflecting selves to be Protestants § 5. Thus much may suffice to have spoken to his two great Arguments or as he good man unfortunately calls them Demonstrations which yet to say truth are not properly his but the Authors of Rushworth's Dialogues the main foundation of which Book is the substance of these Demonstrations Only before I take leave of them I cannot but reflect upon a passage of Mr. S s wherein he tells his Readers that they are not obliged to bend their brains to study his Book with that severity as they would do an Euclid meaning perhaps one of Mr. White 's Euclids for it does not appear by his way of Demonstration that ever he dealt with any other As for the true Euclid I suppose any one that hath tasted his Writings will at the reading of Mr. S's unbend his brains without bidding and smile to see himself so demurely discharged from a study so absurd and ridiculous SECT XI § 1. I Should now take into consideration his Ninth
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
to faith to arise from any thing but divine revelation and I do not yet believe any thing in Christian doctrine to be divinely revealed but what was delivered by Christ or his Apostles And my wonderment must needs be the greater because I suppose this inconsistent with Mr. S's principles For oral tradition doth necessarily imply that all points of faith were first taught by Christ and conveyed by tradition to us but if a thing may be de fide in this latter sense which was not before what becomes of resolving faith wholly into oral tradition For faith is resolved into that from whence the obligation to believe comes but here Mr. S. confesses that the obligation to believe doth arise from something quite different from oral tradition and therefore faith must be resolved into it Besides all the sense I can find in that distinction is that men are bound to believe something in one age which they were not in another and if so I shall desire Mr. S. to unperplex me in this how every age is bound to believe just as the precedent did and yet one age be bound to believe more than the precedent But however I am much obliged to him for his endeavour to unperplex me as he speaks for really I look on no civilities to be greater than those which are designed for clearing our understandings so great an adorer am I of true reason and an intelligible Religion And therefore I perfectly agree with him in his saying that Christianity aims not to make us beasts but more perfectly men and the perfection of our manhood consists in the use of our reasons From whence he infers that it is reasonable consequences should be drawn from principles of faith which he saith are of two sorts first such as need no more but common sense to deduce them the others are such as need the maxims of some science got by speculation to infer them and these are Theological conclusions The former sort he tell us the Church is necessitated to make use of upon occasion i. e. when any Heretick questions those and eadem opera the whole point of faith it self of which they were a part as in the case of the Monothelites about Christs having two wills But all this while I am far enough from being unperplexed nay by this discourse I see every one who offers to unperplex another is not very clear himself For since he makes no Theological conclusions to be de fide but only such consequences as common sence draws I would willingly understand how common sence receives a new obligation to faith For to my apprehension the deducing of consequences from principles by common sense is not an act of believing but of knowledg consequent upon a principle of faith And the meaning is no more than this that men when they say they believe things should not contradict themselves as certainly they would do if they deny those consequences which common sense draws from them As in the case of the Monothelites for men to assert that Christ had two natures and yet not two wills when the will is nothing else but the inclination of the nature to that good which belongs to it So that there can be no distinct obligation to believe such consequences as are drawn by common sense but every one that believes the principles from whence they are drawn is thereby bound to believe all the consequences which immediately follow from them Indeed the Church when people will be so unreasonable to deny such things may explain her sense of the article of faith in those terms which may best prevent dispute but this is only to discriminate the persons who truly believe this article from such as do not Not that any new obligation to faith results from this act of the Church but the better to prevent cavils she explains her sense of the article it self in more explicite terms Which as he saith is only to put the faith out of danger of being equivocated Which is quite another thing from causing a new obligation to believe As suppose the Church to prevent the growth of the Socinian doctrine should require from men the declaring their belief of the eternal existence of the Son of God Would this be to bind men to believe some thing which they were not bound to before No but only to express their assent to the Deity of Christ in the simplest terms because otherwise they might call him God by office and not by nature Now how can any one conceive that any should be first obliged to believe that Christ is God and yet receive a new obligation afterwards to believe his eternal existence Thus it is in all immediate consequences drawn by common sense in all which the primary obligation to believe the thing it self extends to the belief of it in the most clear and least controverted terms which are not intended to impose on mens faith but to promote the Churches peace For neither is there a new object of faith for how can that be which common sense draws from what is believed already neither is there any infallible proponent unless common sense hath usurped the Popes prerogative But Mr. S. offers at a reason for this which is that none can have an obligation to believe what they have not an obligation to think of and in some age the generality of the faithful have no occasion nor consequently obligation to mind reflect or think on those propositions involved in the main stock of faith From whence he saith it follows that a thing may be de fide or obligatory to be believed in one age and not in another But let Mr. S. shew how a man can be obliged to believe any thing as an article of faith who is not bound to think of all the immediate consequences of it Because faith is an act of a reasonable nature which ought to enquire into the reasons and consequences of things which it doth believe But Mr. S's mistake lies here in not distinguishing the obligation to believe from the obligation to an explicite declaration of that assent The former comes only from God and no new obligation can arise from any act of the Church but the latter being a thing tending to the Churches peace may be required by it on some occasions i. e. when the doctrine is assaulted by Hereticks as in the time of the four first General Councils but still a man is not at all the more obliged to assent but to express his assent in order to the Churches satisfaction But Mr. S. supposes me to enquire how the Church can have power to oblige the generality to belief of such a point To which his answer is she obliges them to believe the main point of faith by virtue of traditions being a self-evident rule and these implied points by virtue of their being self-evidently connected with those main and perpetually used points so that the vulgar can be rationally and connaturally
and all the Papists of forreign Countreys do as faithful agree with Mr. White in this It seems not so by the proceedings in the Court of Rome against him in which as appears by the censure of the Inquisition against him dated 17. November 1661. his doctrine is condemned not only as false seditious and scandalous but as heretical and erroneous in faith And if it were not for this very doctrine he was there censured why doth Mr. White set himself purposely to defend it in his Tabulae suffragiales If these then do agree as faithful who cannot but envy the excellent harmony of the Roman Church in which men condemn each other for hereticks and yet all believe the same things still Well Sir I am in hopes upon the same grounds Mr. S. will yield us the same charity too and tell us that we agree with him as faithful only we differ a little from him as discoursers for I assure you there is as great reason the only difference is we give them not such ill words as they do each other For let Mr. S. shew us wherein we differ more from him about the Rule of Faith than they do among themselves For Mr. White when he hath said that all kind of heresie doth arise from hence that men make the holy Scripture or a private spirit the rule of faith he presently adds it is all one if one make Councils or Pope any other way than as witnesses to be the authors of faith For saith he this is to subject the whole Church to that slavery to receive any errour for an article of faith which they shall define or propose modo illegitimo i. e. any other way then as witnesses of tradition Either then we differ from Mr. S. only as discoursers or he and his Brethren differ from each other more then as such And so any one would think who reads the oppositions and arguments against each other on this subject particularly Mr. Whites Tabulae suffragiales But let Mr. White say what he will Mr. S. tells me I am not aware how little they differ even as Divines The more shame for them to have such furious heats and oppositions where there is so little difference But as little as they differ Mr. White thinks it safer to talk of their unity in England than to try whether they be of his mind at Rome by going thither to clear himself for he justly fears he should find them differ from him some other way than as bare discoursers Yet let us hear Mr. S's reason for saith he though some speculators attribute to the Church a power of defining things not held before yet few will say she hath new revelations or new articles of faith But we know the temper of these men better than to rely on what they barely say For they say what they think is most for their purpose and one of Mr. White 's adversaries if himself may be credited plainly told him if the doctrine of the Popes infallibility were not true yet it ought to be defended because it was for the interest of the Church of Rome for which he is sufficiently rebuked by him It is one thing then what they say and another what necessarily follows from the Doctrine which they assert But for plain dealing commend me to the Canonists who say expresly the Church by which they mean the Pope may make new articles of faith and this is the sense of the rest though they are loth to speak out Else Mr. White was much too blame in spending so much time in proving the contrary But what man of common sense can imagine that these men can mean otherwise who assert such an infallibility in Pope and Councils as to oblige men under pain of eternal damnation to believe those things which they were not obliged to before such a definition And what can this be else but to make new articles of faith For an article of faith supposes a necessary obligation to believe it now if some doctrine may become thus obligatory by virtue of the Churches definition which was not so before that becomes thereby an article of faith which it was not before But these subtil men have not yet learnt to distinguish a new doctrine from a new article of faith they do not indeed pretend that their doctrine is new because they deny any such thing as new revelation in the Church but yet they must needs say if they understand themselves that old implicit doctrines may become new articles of faith by vertue of the Churches definition So little are they relieved by that silly distinction of explicit and implicit delivery of them which Mr. S. for a great novelty accquaints us with For what is only implicitly delivered is no article of faith at all for that can be no article of faith which men are not bound to believe now there are none will say that men are bound to believe under pain of damnation if they do not the things which are only implicitly delivered but this they say with great confidence of all things defined by the Church And let now any intelligent person judg whether those who assert such things do not differ wide enough from those who resolve all into oral tradition and make the obligation to faith wholly dependent upon the constant tradition of any doctrine from age to age ever since the Apostles times But Mr. S. is yet further displeased with me for saying that Pope and Councils challenge a power to make things de fide in one age which were not in another For 1. he sayes I speak it in common and prove it not 2. He adds That take them right this is both perfectly innocent and unavoidably necessary to a Church And is it not strange he should expect any particular proofs of so innocent and necessary a thing to the being of a Church But he will tell me it is in his own sense of de fide which I have already shewn to signifie nothing to his purpose Let him therefore speak out whether he doth believe any such thing as inherent infallibility in the definitions of Pope and Councils if not I am sure at Rome they will never believe that Mr. S. agrees with them as faithful if he doth whether doth not such an infallible definition bind men by vertue of it to the belief of what is then defined if it doth then things may become as much de fide by it as if they were delivered dy Christ or his Apostles For thereby is supposed an equal obligation to faith because there is a proposition equally infallible But will he say the Pope doth not challenge this Why then is the contrary doctrine censured and condemned at Rome Why is the other so eagerly contended for by the most zealous sons of that Church and that not as a school-opinion but as the only certain foundation of faith Mr. S. is yet pleased to inform me further that nothing will avail me
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
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
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. *