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 whe 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 faith 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 sufficient 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 deliver all matters of faith 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 judge 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 and 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 acknowledge improper meerly in complyance 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 applyed to the truth of the thing I am content therefore wherever in what I have writ he meets that term so applyed 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 knowledge 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 publikly 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 lie 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 errours 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
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
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
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 odius 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 notâ—on 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 â—â—th the Government of their Church which I have elswhere proved to be far enough from being divinely constituted but with the rule of faith and the question is whether the infallibility of or altradition be that self-evident rule which that Church proceeds on Yes saith Mr. S. they are all as faithful agreed in it but as discoursers 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. Whites 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 then burning Temples ravishing the sacred Virgins on the Altars trampling on the body of Christ or the sending the Turk or Antichrist into Christian Countreys Or doth he think we can believe that the Pope and Cardinals the Jesuites and all the Papists of forreign Countreys do as faithful agree with Mr. White in this It seems not so by the proceedings in the Court of Rome against him in which as appears by the censure of the Inquisition against him dated 17. November 1661. his doctrine is condemned not only as false seditious and scandalous but as heretical and erroneous in faith And if it were not for this very doctrine he was there censured why doth Mr. White set himself purposely to defend it in his Tabulae suffragiales If these then do agree as faithful who cannot but envy the excellent harmony of the Roman Church in which men condemn each other for hereticks and yet all believe the same things still Well Sir I am in hopes upon the same grounds Mr. S. will yield us the same charity too and tell us that we agree with him as faithful only we differ a little from him as discoursers for I assure you there is as great reason the only difference is we give them not such ill words as they do each other For let Mr. S. shew us wherein we differ more from him about the Rule of Faith than they do among themselves For Mr White when he hath said that all kind of heresie doth arise from hence that men make the holy Scripture or a private spirit the rule of faith he presently adds it is all one if one make councils or Pope any other way than as witnesses to be the authors of faith For saith he this is to subject the whole Church to that slavery to receive any errour for an article of faith which they shall define or propose modo illegitimo i. e. any other way then as witnesses of tradition Either then we differ from Mr. S. only as discoursers or he and his Brethren differ from each other more then as such And so any one would think who reads the oppositions and arguments against each other on this subject particularly Mr. Whites Tabulae suffragiales But let Mr. White say what he will Mr. S. tells me I am not aware how little they differ even as Divines The more shame for them to have such furious heats and oppositions where there is so little difference But as little as they differ Mr. White thinks it safer to talk of their unity in England than to try whether they be of his mind at Rome by going thither to clear himself for he justly fears he should find them differ from him some other way theâ— as bare discoursers Yet let us heaâ— Mr. S's reason for saith he thougâ— some speculators attribute to the Churcâ— a power of defining things not held before yet few will say she hath new revelations or new articles of faith Buâ— we know the temper of these men better then to rely on what they barelâ— say For they say what they think 〈◊〉 most for their purpose and onâ— of Mr. Whites adversaries if himselâ— may be credited plainly told him iâ— the doctrine of the Popes infallibility werâ— not true yet it ought to be defended bâ—cause it was for the interest of the Churcâ— of Rome for which he is sufficientlâ— rebuked by him It is one thing theâ— what they say and another what necessarily follows from the doctrinâ— which they assert But for plain dealing commend me to the Canonists who say expresly the Church by whicâ— 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
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
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 subtle 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 aâ—ticles of faith by virtue of the Churcher definition So little are they relieved by that silly distinction of explicit and implicit delivery of them which Mr. S. for a great novelty acquaints us with For what is only implicitly delivered 〈◊〉 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 iâ— 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 judge whether those who assert such things do not differ wide enough from those who resolve all into oral trà dition 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 says 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 virtue 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 by 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 ot for then what did they meet for â—d what mean their decrees but he â—tends that they deliver no new doâ—rine but how must that be tryed â—r hath Mr. S. gained the opinion of â—fallibility both from Pope and Counâ—ls that we must believe his bare â—ord but we not only say but prove â—hat even their last Council hath defiâ—ed many things which never were â—elivered by Christ or his Apostles And it is to no purpose whether they â—y they ground themselves on new lights â—r pretend to an infallible assistance â—or it comes all to the same at last For â—f the assistance be infallible what matâ—er is it whether the doctrine hath been â—evealed or no for on this suppositiâ—n it is impossible that Pope and Councilâ—hould â—hould 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 doctrine 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 waâ— not wit to know that no sober Catholicâ— holds humane deductions the rule of their faith schoolmen definers of it noâ— 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 theâ— 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 knowâ— what the Church owns for her rule of faith and whether that may be owned as the Churches judgement which is stiffly 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 wayes I dare put it to a fair tryall 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 will not they much more say on the other side that this way of oral tradition
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