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 destroyes the force of his whole demonstration Perhaps he will answer that Children are not bound to believe what barely their Parents or aâ—other number of persons might deliver matters of faith but what the whole â—hurch of every age delivers This â—ough the only thing to be said in â—e case yet is most unreasonable beâ—â—use it runs men upon inextricable difâ—culties in the way of their resolving â—ith For suppose any Children â—ught by their Parents what they are â— believe Mr. S. must say they are â—ot bound to believe them presently â—ut to enquire whether they agree â—ith the whole Church of that Ageâ—rst â—rst before they can be obliged to asâ—nt Which being an impossible task â—ther for Children or men of age â— find out in the way of oral tradiâ—on this way of resolving faith â—oth but offer a fairer pretence for â—fidelity For we see how impossiâ—le it is for Mr. S. to make it appear â—hat their Church is agreed about the â—ule of faith for by his own confession â—he far greater number as speculatorsâ—ppose â—ppose the way asserted by him how â—uch more difficult then must it needs â—e 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 Chrildren 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 sirst 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 Scripure 2. Supposing it in the power oâ— 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 â—lthough it should be granted possible â—or the main and fundamental articles of Christian faith such as the Apostles Creed gives a summary account of â—o have been preserved by the help of â—radition yet unless we be extreamâ—y ungrateful we cannot but acknowledge that God hath infinitely â—etter provided for us in not leaving â—he grounds of our Religion to the â—eer breath of the people or the care â—f mothers instructing their Children â—ut hath given us the certain records â—fall the doctrines and motives of faith â—reserved inviolably from the first ages â—f the Church And when the Churchâ—w â—w with what care God had provided â—r the means of faith traditionâ—as â—as little minded thence the memory â—f those other things not recorded in â—cripture is wholly lost all the care â—as imployed in searching preserving and delivering these sacred books tâ— posterity To these the primitivâ— Church still appeals these they pleaâ— for against all adversaries defendinâ— their authority explaining their sense vindicating them from all corruptionâ— Tradition they rely not on any fuâ—ther then as a Testimony of the trutâ— of these records or to clear the senâ— of them from the perverse interprâ— tation of those Hereticks who pretenâ— ed another kind of tradition thâ— what was in Scripture And when theâ— were silenced all the disputes thâ— arose in the Church concerning matteâ— of faith was about the sense of the books as is evident by the proceeâ—ings in the case of Arius and Pelagiâ— Wherein Tradition was only used a means to clear the sense of the Sâ—ptures but not at all as that which tâ— faith of all was to be resolved intâ— But when any thing was pleaded frâ— tradition for which there was ground in Scripture it was reject with the same ease it was offered aâ— such persons were plainly told tâ— was not the Churches way if they bâ— plain Scripture with the concurrâ— sense of Antiquity they might produce â—t and rely upon it So that the whole â—se of Tradition in the primitive Church besides attesting the books was to shew the unreasonableness of â—mposing senses on Scripture against the universal sense of the Church from the Apostles times But as long as men were men it was not avoidable but they must fall into different apprehensions of the meaning of the Scripture according to their different judgements prejudices learning and education And since they had all this apprehension that the Scripture contained all doctrines of faith thence as men judged of the sense of it they differed in their apprehension concerning matters of faith And thence errors and mistakes might easily come into the Church without one age conspiring to deceive the next Nay if it be possible for men to rely on tradition without Scripture this may easily be done for by that means they make a new rule of faith not known to the primitive Church and consequently that very assertion is an error in which the former age did not conspire to deceive the next And if these things be possible M. S's demonstration fails him for hereby a reasonable account is given how errors may come into a Church without one age conspiring to deceive another Again let me enquire of Mr. S. whether men may not believe it in the power of the ruling part of the Church to oblige the whole to an assent to the definitions of it To speak plainer is it not possible for men to believe the Pope and Council infallible in their decrees And I hope the Jesuits as little as Mr. S. loves them or they him may be a sufficient evidence of more than the bare possibility of this If they may believe this doth it not necessarily follow that they are bound to believe whatever they declare to be matter of faith supposing then that Transubstantiation Supremacy Invocation of Saints were but private opinions before but are now defined by Pope and Council these men cannot but look on themselves as much obliged to believe them as if they had been delivered as matters of faith in every age since the Apostles times Is it
the Latins It seems then a deceptiâ— is possible in the case of testifying 〈◊〉 therefore this doth more than perâ—â—â— men to be decievable for here hath been an actual deception on one side or other But we need not fear losing mankind in this for the possibility oâ— errour supposeth mankind to continue still and if we take away that we mâ—â— sooner lose it than by the contrary But what repugnancy can we imagine to humane nature that meâ— supposing doctrines of faith to come down from Christ or his Apostles should yet mistake in judging what those doctrines are Had not men eyes and ears and common sense in Christ and the Apostles times and yet we see eveâ— then the doctrine of Christ was mistaken and is it such a wonder it should be in succeeding ages Did not the Nazarenes mistake in point of circumcision the Corinthians as to the resurrection and yet the mean time agree iâ— this that Christs doctrine was the rule of faith or that they ought to believe nothing but what came from him Diâ— not the disciples themselves err eveâ— while they were with Christ and certainly had eyes and ears an◠〈◊〉 sense as other men have concernâ—â—â—me great articles of Christian faith Christs passion resurrection and the natâ— of his Kingdom If then such who had the greatest opportunities imaginable and the highest apprehensions of Christ might so easily mistake in points of such moment what ground have we to believe that succeeding ages should not be lyable to such misapprehensions And it was not meerly the want of clear divine revelation which was the cause of their mistakes for these things were plain enough to persons not possessed with prejudices but those were so strong as to make them apprehend things quite another way than they ought to do So it was then and so it was in succeeding ages for â—et Parents teach what they pleased for matters of faith yet prejudice and â—yableness to mistake in Children might easily make them misapprehend either the nature or weight of the doctrines delivered to them So that setting aside a certain way of recording the matters of faith in the Books of Scripture and these preserved entire in every age it is an easie matter to conceive how in a short time Christian Religion would have been corrupted as much as ever any was in the world For when we consider how much notwithstanding Scripture the pride passion and interests of men have endeavoured to deface Christian Religion in the world what would not these have done if there had been no such certain rule to judge of it by Mr. S. imaginâ— himself in repub Platonis but it appearâ— he is still in faece Romuli he fancies there never were nor could be any differences among Christians and that all Christians made it their whole business to teach their posterity matters oâ— faith and that they minded nothing in the world but the imprinting thaâ— on their minds that they might have iâ— ready for their Children and that alâ— Parents had equal skill and sidelitâ— in delivering matters of Religion tâ— their posterity Whereas in truth wâ— find in the early ages of the Christiaâ— Church several differences about matters of faith and these differences continued to posterity but all parties stilâ— pleading that their doctrine came froâ— the Apostles it fell out unhappily for Mr. S. that those were commonly most grossly deceived who pretended the most to oral tradition from the Apostles still we find the grand debate was What came from the Apostles and what not whereas had tradition been so infallible a way of conveying how could this ever have come into debate among them What did not they know what their Parents taught them it seems they did not or their Parents were no more agreed than themselves for their differences could never be ended this way Afterwards came in for many ages such a succession of ignorance and barbarism that Christian Religion was little minded either by Parents or Children as it ought to have been instead of that some fopperies and superstitions were hugely in request and the men who fomented these things were cryed up as great Saints and workers of Miracles So that the miracles of S. Francis and S. Dominick were as much if not more carefully conveyed from Parents to Children in that age than those of Christ and his Apostles and on this account posterity must be equally bound to believe them and have their persons in equal veneration If men at last were grown wiser it was because they did not believe Mr. S's principles that they ought to receive what was delivered by their Parents but they began to search and enquire into the writings of former ages and to examine the opinions and practices of the present with those of the primitive Church and by this means there came a restauration of Learning and Religion together But though matters of fact be plain and evident in this case yet M. S. will prove it impossible there should any errours come into the Christian Church and his main argument is this because no age of the Church could conspire against her knowledge to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world But before I come more particularly to shew the weakness of this argument by manifesting how errours might come into the Church without such a conspiracy as this is I shall propound some Queries to him 1. What age of the Church he will instance in wherein all persons who were not cast out of the Church had the same apprehensions concerning all points of faith i. e. that none among them did believe more things delivered by Christ or the Apostles than others did I am sure he can neither instance in the age of the Apostles themselves nor in those immediately succeeding them unless Mr. S. the better to defend his hypothesis will question all written records because they consist of dead letters and unsenc't characters and wordish testimonies Never considering that while he utters this he writes himself unless he imagins there is more of life sense and certainty in his books than in the Scriptures or any other writing whatsoever 2. Where there were different apprehensions in one age of the Church whether there must not be different traditions in the next for as he looks on all Parents as bound to teach their Children so on Children as bound to believe what their Parents teach them On which supposition different traditions in the succeeding age must needs follow different apprehensions in the precedent 3. Whether persons agreeing in the substance of doctrines may not differ in their apprehensions of the necessity of them As for instance all may agree in the article of Christs descent into hell but yet may differ in the explication of it and in the apprehension of the necessity of it in order to salvation So that we must not only in tradition about matters of faith enquire
what was delivered but under what notion it was delivered whether as an allowable opinion or a necessary point of faith But if several persons nay multitudes in the Church may have different notions as to the necessity of the same points by what means shall we discern what was delivered as an opinion in the Church and what as an article of faith But Mr. S. throughout his discourse takes it for granted that there is the same necessity of believing and delivering all things which concern the Christian doctrine and still supposes the same sacredness concern necessity in delivering all the points in controversie between the Romanists and Us as there was in those main articles of faith which they and we are agreed in Which is so extravagant a supposition that it is hard to conceive it should ever enter into the head of a person pretending to reason but as extravagant as it is it is that without which his whole fabrick falls to the ground For suppose we should grant him that the infinite errors which depend on the belief of the Christian doctrine should be of so prevalent nature with the world that it is impossible to conceive any one age should neglect the knowing them or conspire to deceive the next age about them yet what is all this to the matters in difference between us Will Mr. S. prove the same sacredness necessity concern and miraculously attestedness as he phrases it in the Invocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation Supremacy c. as in the believing the death and resurrection of the Son of God if he doth not prove this he doth nothing for his arguments may hold for doctrines judged universally necessary but for no other Therefore Mr. S. hath a new task which he thought not of which is to manifest that these could not be looked on as opinions but were embraced as necessary articles of faith For unless he proves them such he can neither prove any obligation in Parents to teach them their Children nor in Children to believe what their Parents taught but only to hold them in the same degree which they did themselves When Mr. S. will undertake to prove that the whole Church from the time of Christ did agree in the points in difference between us as necessary articles of faith I may more easily believe that no age could be ignorant of them or offer to deceive the next about them But when Mr. S. reflects on his frequent concession that there are private opinions in the Church distinct from matters of faith he must remember before he can bring home his grounds to the case between their Church and ours that he must prove none of the things in debate were ever entertained as private opinions and that it is impossible for that which was a private opinion in one age to become a matter of faith in the next But because this distinction of his ruines his whole demonstration I shall â—irst propound it in his own terms and â—hen shew how from thence it follows â—hat errors may come into the Church and be entertained as matters of faith His words are it being evident that we have but two wayes of ordinary knowâ—edge by acts of our soul or operations â—n our body that is by reason and expeâ—ience the former of which belongs to â—peculators or Doctors the second to Deâ—iverers of what was received or Testiâ—iers And this distinction he frequentâ—y admits not only in the present age of the Church but in any for the same reason will hold in all From â—ence I propose several Queries further to Mr. S. 1. If every one in the Churchâ—ooked â—ooked on himself as bound to believe â—ust as the precedent age did whence came any to have particular opinions of their own For either the Churchâ—ad â—ad delivered her sense in that case or not if not then tradition is no certain conveyer of the doctrine of Christ â—f 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. replieâ— that private speculations are in such caseâ— where there is no matter of faith at all he can never be able to help himselâ— by that distinction in the case of hiâ— own Church for I demand whether iâ— it a matter of faith that men ought to believe oral tradition infallible iâ— 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 oâ— 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 Fatherâ— were great Impostors who vented those speculations in the Church which they did not believe themselves And it iâ— 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 Church so many testifiers we have against the inâ—libility 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 Churâ—â— and all who believe them true tâ—â—â—â— they ought to teach them their â—â—â—â—dren 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 saith and yet
that because â—e speak not as big as Mr. S. does we â—ust be censured presently to have noâ—hing but probabilities for our faith Are â—hose bare probabilities which leave no â—uspicion of doubt behind them and â—uch we freely assert the grounds of â—ur religion to do i. e. I assert that we have the highest actual certainty of the truth of our Religion which the mind of any reasonable man can desire and if Mr. S's demonstrations can do any more then this let him tell us what it is For my part I know nothing higher in the mind of man then a certain assent and if I did not think there was the greatest ground in Religion for that I abhorr dissimulation so much that I should leave off perswading men to embrace it And if any men have made us shye of the word demonstration and infallibility they are such men as Mr. S. have done it who talk of these things when their arguments fall beneath some of the remotest probabilities we insist on Nay if there be any force in his demonstration as to matters of fact it hath been used by us long before his book saw the light But we love to give the true names to things and not to lose our credit with all intelligent persons by playing Mountebanks in Religion crying 〈◊〉 those things for infallible cures which an ordinary capacity may discern the insufficiency of But was it any thinâ— but justice and reason in me to expeâ—â— and call for a demonstration from them who talk of nothing under it And therefore I said that it was impossible to demonstrate this way of oral tradition unless it were proved impossible for men not to think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors did For where the contrary is not only possible but easily supposable â—s that men may believe those things as new articles of faith which are defined by Pope and Council I wonder how Mr. S. will demonstrate that men must â—ook on themselves as obliged to beâ—â—eve just as their predecessors did For I had thought demonstrations had â—ever place in contingent propositions but it seems Mr. S. who tells me Logick will unblunder my thoughts inâ—ends to make a new one for me And â— assure you so he had need before I â—hall ever call his arguments demonâ—trations and although he thinks himâ—elf very honest in calling them so yet â— should think him much wiser if he did not But before I come to the particular debate of these things I freely tell him that I grant all he requests â— shall take along with me the nature of the matter in hand the doctrines anâ— practises spoken of the manner of delivering them the necessary circumstanceâ— which give weight to both yet for alâ— these I cannot look on his way as demonstrative And that both our meanings may be better understood it iâ— very necessary the Reader should havâ— a true account of the state of the Question between us And if he will believe me I never intended to disputâ— with him or any one else whether meâ— were bound to wear their clothes or builâ— houses or manage estates just as theiâ— predecessors did but whether eveâ— age is obliged to believe and practiâ— just as the precedent did by vertue oâ— meer oral tradition for about that iâ— all the controversie between us I dâ— not deny but that a succeeding agâ— may look on it self as bound to believe what the precedent did buâ— whether that obligation doth ariâ— purely from the delivery of that doctrine by the precedent in the way oâ— of tradition is the thing in dispute between us For in case the ground â— faith be wholly the written word conveyed from age to age I deny not but an obligation to believe descends with the doctrine to every succeeding age But that which Mr. S. is to prove is that abstractly from Scripture every age is absolutely bound to believe just as the precedent did without any enquiry whether that doctrine doth agree with Scriptures or no but that he is therefore bound to believe all which is proposed to him because it was the doctrine of the immediately preceding age And this is that which I deny and desire Mr. S. to prove For which he first gives us a large instance in historical matters and then comes to the matters of Christian saith His Instance is in Alexanders conquest of Asia as to which he saith that the memory of it is fresh and lively though some thousand years since And that the universal and strong perswasion of this matter of fact was not caused by Books as Curtius his History but by humane tradition that the continuance of this perswasion was the notoriety of the fact to the then livers which obliged them to relate it to their posterity and that this testifying by the fore-fathers was that which obliged posterity to believe things as true because there could be no imaginable motive why the whole world should conspire to deceive them or be deceivable in their sensations on which principle it passed to the next age and so came down by way of tradition to our dayes and the obligation to believe in every age depended upon this that the senses of the first could not be deceived and having this security in every age that no one would conspire to deceive the next it followes that no age could say a former age testified so unless it did so therefore saith he it follows demonstratively that it was testified and so the descendents in every age to the very end of the world have the same obligation to believe their immediate fore-fathers saying it was testified by theirs and so to the very first who were witnesses of his actions This is the substance of what he more largely discourses in several Paragraphs which when he hath done he tells me he expects what I will reply to this discourse Not to frustrate therefore his expectation and in order to the Readers satisfaction we are to consider that in the present case there are two distinct questions to be resolved 1. How a matter of fact evident to the world comes to be conveyed to posterity 2. By what means a compleat history of all passages relating to it may be conveyed As 〈◊〉 the first I grant that a fact so notoâ—us as Alexanders conquest of Asia might have been preserved by humane tradition and conveyed in a certain way from one age to another But if we enquire into that which is alone proper to our Question viz. by what means we may judge what is true and false as to the particulars of that conquest then I deny that bare tradition is to be relyed on in this case For the certainty of conveyance of all particulars doth depend not upon the bare veracity but the capacity and skill of communicating from one age to another For which one would think we need no clearer evidence then the considerations of the different
I cannot yet see but that therein I argued from the very nature and constitution of the thing For that which â— looked for was a demonstration which I supposed could not be unless the impossibility of the contrary were demonstrated But if it be possible for men Christians nay Romanists to believe on other accounts then the tradition of the precedent age I pray what demonstration can there be that men must think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors did Surely if Mr. S's fancy had not been very extravagant he could never have thought here of mens being obliged to cut their Beards or wear such Garters and Hat-bands as their fore-fathers did For do I not mention believing first and then doing by which it were easie to apprehend that I meant matters of faith and such practises as flow from them Neither was there any such crafty and sophistical dealing as he charges me with for I am content his doctrine be taken in his own terms and I have now given a larger and fuller account why I am far from being convinced by the way he hath used for resolving faith Passing by therefore his challenge which I accept of as long as he holds to the weapon of reason and civility I come to consider his last enquiry why I should come to doubt of such an obligation in posterity to believe their ancestors in matters of faith and he judiciously resolves it into a strange distortion of human nature but such as it seems is the proper effect of the Protestants temper which is saith he to chuse every one his faith by his private judgement or wit working upon disputable words Which as far as we own it is not to believe what we see no ground for and if this be such a distortion of humane nature I envy not Mr. S's uprightness and perfection If he means that we build our faith on our private judgements in opposition to Scripture or the Universal Tradition of the Church in all ages let him prove it evidently in one particular and I engage for my self and all true Protestants we will renounce the belief of it If he hath any thing further to object against the Grounds of our Religion he knows where to attaque me let him undertake the whole or else acknowledge it a most unreasonable thing thus to charge falsities upon us and then say we have nothing else to say for our selves We pretend not to chuse our faith but heartily embrace whatever appears to have been delivered by Christ or his Apostles but we know the Church of Rome too well to believe all which she would impose upon us and are loth to have her chuse our Religion for us since we know she hath chosen so ill for her self But if Mr. S. will not believe me in saying thus what reason have I to believe him in saying otherwise such general charges then signifie nothing but every one must judge according to the reason on both sides I now come to the last part of my task which is to shew that this way is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages To which purpose my words are It is to no purpose to prove the impossibility of motion when I see men move no more is it to prove that no age of the Church could vary from the preceding when we can evidently prove that they have done it And therefore this argument is intended only to catch easie minds that care not for a search into the history of the several ages of the Church but had rather sit down with a superficial subtilty then spend time in further enquiries But two things Mr. S. tells me are required ere I can see that their faith varies from the former First to see what their Church holds now and then to see what the former Church held before and he kindly tells me if he sees any thing I see neither well It seems I want Mr. S's spectacles of oral tradition to see with but as yet I have no cause to complain of the want of them but â— see much better without them theâ— with them He tells me I cannot see what their present Church holds anâ— therefore I cannot assure any what wâ— held before because if I renounce tradition I take away all means of knowing The reason why I cannot candidly see as he phrases it what their Church holds now is because I cannot distinguish between faith and its explication some Schoolmen and the Church By which it seems it is impossible for me to know what their Church holds concerning Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Communion in one kind for those are the points I there mention wherein it is evident that the Church of Rome hath receded from the doctrine and practise of the Primitive Church Or are these only the opinions and practises of some Schoolmen among them and not the doctrine and practise of their Church But that we might come to some fuller state of these controversies I wish M. S. would settle some sure way whereby we might know distinctly what are the doctrines and practises of their Church If the Council of Trent and Roman-Catechism be said to be the rule of doctrine I desire no other so that those may be interpreted by practises universally allowed among them As when that Council only defined that due honour be given to Saints the general practise of that Church may tell us what they mean by that due honour and if that be not fair I know not what is But I see all the shift Mr. S. hath is when he is pinched to say those are the opinions of Schoolmen and private speculators and not the doctrine of their Church And if such shifts as these are must serve the turn I should wonder if ever he be to seek for an answer But the shortest answer of all would be that none but those of their Church can know what she holds and therefore it is to no purpose for Protestants to write against her or it may be that none but Mr. S. and one or two more can tell for many among them say those are the doctrines of their Church which they deny to be So that except Mr. White and Mr. S. and some very few demonstrators more all the rest are Schoolmen private opinators and not to be relyed on But I cannot see what their Church held formerly neither No wonder at all of that for if I cannot see an object so near me as the present Church how can it be expected I should see one so much further off as the doctrine of former ages And his reason is so strong as may well perswade me out of one at least of my five senses For saith he if I question tradition I question whether there be any doctrine delivered and so any Fathers And is not this argued
more openly then this author does For he plainly confesses that his Catholick Gentleman went quite besides his business that he built upon indefensible principles that his theological ratiocination was indeed pretty but too weak to hold And are not we hugely too blame if we do not cry up such mighty Conquerors as these are Truly Sir I expect the very same answer should be returned to your book that Mr. S's argument is a pretty theological ratiocination and that your answer is not unwitty but though that way will not hold another will Thus when they are beaten off Infallibility they run to Tradition and when they are again beaten off Tradition then back again to Infallibility So that the short of all their answers is though such a one cannot defend our faith yet I can though I cannot yet the faiâ—â—s firm and constant still I wonder what their Superiors think of this â—ay of proceeding among them we â—hould imagine if they be so weak â—s they say themselves they had much â—etter keep them from appearing â—broad and exposing their cause so â—idiculously to contempt But it may â—e they think their faith is the betâ—er as well as their devotion for their â—gnorance and that it would be a â—ighty disparagement to their cause â—or such silly people to be able to deâ—end it It is enough for them to â—dmire it themselves and to say as â—heir common people use to do though â—hey cannot defend it yet there are â—ome that can And although it â—ay be no particular person can do â— yet their cause is able to defend â— self But for all that I can see by â—ck kind of answers the intention of â—hem is to intreat us not to triâ—mph over the weakness of their preâ—nt Writers but to wait till the â—ause it self thinks fit to write And when it doth so they may expect further answer but it were a greaâ— piece of cruelty for us to hasten theâ— ruine who fall so fast before us bâ— each others Pens FINIS ERRATA Page 16. l. 16. for that r. than p. 2â— l. 8. for errors r. concerns Books Printed for and Sold by Henry Mortlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard near the little North door A Rational Account of the â—rounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord-Achbishop of Canterburyes Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer by T. C. wherein the true Grounds of Faith are cleared and the false discovered the Church of England justified from the imputation of Schism and the most Important particular Controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome thoughly Examined by Edward Stillingfleeâ— B. D. Origines Sacrae or a Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained by the sam Author The third Edition Correcteâ— and Amended Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches Wounds by the same Author Shecinah A Demonstration of the Divine Presence in Places of Religious Worship by J. Stillingfleet Rector of Beckingham in Lincolnshire The Moral Philosophy of the Stoicks Bain upon the Ephesians Knowledge and Practice or a plain Discourse of the chief things necessary to be known believed and practised in order to salvation by Saâ— Cradock B. D. The second Edition Corrected and Enlarged c. The Believers Duty towards the Spirit the Sprits Office towards Believers by H. H. B. D. §. 1. p. 236. p. 202. §. 2. p. 203. P. 204. § 3. §. 4. P. 205. §. 1. 5. §. 6. p. 203. §. 7. §. 8. p. 05. p. 206. P. 207. §. 9. p. 208. §. 10. De fide Thâ—ol tract 2 sect 22. p. 158. Ibid. P. 209. Tabul suffrag p. 318. §. 11. p. 210. §. 12. p. 211. p. 212. p. 213. p. 214. §. 13. p. 216. §. 14. p. 236. p. 217. p. 218. p. 223. §. 15. p. 224. Part. 1. chap. ◠§. 16. â— 229. c. p. 231. p. 234. p. 235. p. 236. P. 237. §. 17. p. 238. p. 239. §. 18. p 240. p. 241. p. 242. p. 243. §. 19. p. 244. p. 210. p. 2â—9