Faith into the Infallibility of Oral Tradition For if this were the Christian Method of Resolving Faith there would have been very little Use or Necessity of Scripture and the Fathers were extremely mistaken in the mighty Characters which on all Occasions they give of it not onely of the excellency of the matter contained in it but as a Rule of Faith for all Christians as I might easily shew if there were occasion But I desire to see any thing like the consent of the Christian Church from the Apostles times downwards for resolving Faith into mere Oral Tradition and certainly if the Church had used this way it must have understood it and expressed it And it is a just Prescription against a method of resolving Faith that the ancient Christian Church which consisted I hope of true believers never knew any thing concerning it and yet I suppose they had absolute Certainty of their Faith though they had different Translations of the Bible among them 2. As to the Number of Books I do not deny that there was in the first Ages a difference in several Churches about the Number of Canonical Books but this doth not hinder that Vniversal Testimony I mentioned For 1. It adds weight to the Churches Testimony that where there was any Controversie about any Canonical Book of the New Testament the matter was examined and debated and at last after a through discussion the Book was received as happened about the Epistle to the Hebrews Which was not received by the Authority of one Church imposing upon another but by a fair Examination of Evidence produced for its Apostolical authority which being allow'd it hath been received by the unanimous Consent of the Christian Church 2. There hath been ever since an uncontradicted Consent of the Christian Church as to the Canonical Books of the New Testament No one Church disputing the Authority of any of them And even the Council of Trent agrees with us herein although it endeavours to obtrude some Books for Canonical in the old Testament which never had the Universal Consent of the Jewish or Christian Church for them 3. He desires to know how I understand that all the Divine Revelations are contained in the New Testament viz. whether all necessary Articles of Faith are contained in the New Testament virtually and implicitly or clearly and explicitly the former will doe me little service the latter is contradicted by the Church of Rome and therefore I can plead no Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church and so my Plea for absolute Certainty is groundless To this I answer 1. If it be agreed that all Doctrines of Faith necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture either explicitly or implicitly which Mr. M. denies not it is sufficient for my purpose For the Ground of my Faith is absolutely Certain viz. that all necessary Articles of Faith are contained in Scripture and if they be explicit I am bound to give a distinct Assent to them if they be not then no more is required of me than to believe them when they do appear to be there which is no more than a general preparation of Mind to yield my assent to whatsoever doth appear to me to be the Word of God. So that my Faith rests on the Word of God as its absolute ground of Certainty but the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrine depends upon the Evidence that it is contained in Scripture And it is the general Ground of Faith we are now upon and not the particular Acts of it 2. The Church of Romes assuming to it self the Power of making implicit Articles to become explicit by its declaring the sense of them doth not overthrow the Certainty of our Faith. For as long as it is granted that all necessary Articles of Faith are there explicitely or implicitely by an Universal Consent of the Christian Church it signifies nothing to the shaking of my Faith that a particular Part of the Church doth assume such a Power to it self For this must come among the particular Points of Faith and not the general Grounds It must be looked on as an Article of Faith and so it must be contained in Scripture either explicitely or implicitely If explicitely we desire to see it in express terms which I suppose you will not pretend to if only implicitely I pray tell me how I can be explicitely bound to believe such a Power in the Church of Rome which is only implicitely there And by what Power this implicite Article comes to be made explicite For the Power of the Church it self being the Article in question it is impossible that while it is only implicitely there it should make it self Explicit If it be said that it will become explicit to any sober Enquirer then every such Person may without the Churches help find out all Necessary Points of Faith which is a Doctrine I am so far from being ashamed of that I think it most agreeable to the Goodness of God the Nature of the Christiâ—n Faith and the Unanimous Consent of the Christian Church for many Ages But this is beyond our present business 3. The Church of Rome hath no-where declared in Council that it hath any such Power of making implicit Articles of Faith contained in Scripture to become explicit by its explaining the Sense of them For the Church of Rome doth not pretend to make new Articles of Faith but to make an implicit Doctrine to become explicit is really to make a new Article of Faith. It doth not indeed make a new Divine Revelation but it makes that which was not necessary to be believed to become necessary and what is not necessary to be believed is no Article of Faith. What is only believed implicitely is not actually believed but there is only a preparation of mind to believe it supposing it to be made appear to be a matter of Faith. Besides the Church of Rome declares that it receives its Doctrines by Tradition and although I have often heard of an implicit Faith I know not what to make of an implicit Tradition I had thought whatever is delivered by way of Tradition must be explicit or else the Father and Son might easily be mistaken And so for all that I can see Mr. M. and you must dispute it out for you say That the Infallibility of Faith depends on Oral Tradition and the Infallibility of Oral Tradition on this that the Traditionary Christians hold the same Doctrine to day that was delivered yesterday in Faith and so up to the time of our B. Saviour But what think you now of Mr. M.'s assertion That the Church hath power to interpret and make known implicit Doctrines contained in Scripture so as to make it necessary to believe them explicitely For he saith That all the Churches in Communion with Rome do hold there are Divine Revelations in Scripture which are contained there virtually and implicitely so as they need the Churches Interpretation and Authority for being
made known to us Let us now lay these two assertions together If your Doctrine hold good All Doctrines of Faith must be explicitely delivered from Father to Son No saith Mr. M. The Church hath power to make known Doctrines implicitely and virtually contained in Scripture I pray could the Father communicate to his Son what was only implicitely and virtually contained in Scripture If Mr. M. say true here is a very possible cause of Innovation assigned without Forgetfulness or Malice viz. when the Fathers of the Church take upon them to draw forth implicit Doctrines and to make them explicit Articles of Faith. And thus undoubtedly many Innovations have come into the Church when some persons have taken up a particular Opinion and because nothing would prevail without Scripture they have attempted to bring it out of Scripture but that being not plain or clear for it they gave out it was virtually and implicitely contained in it and thus it passed from one to another till it getting footing in the Church and prevailing over a great part of it then lest the Church should be charged with Errour and Innovation the prevailing Party takes upon it to declare this to be the sense and meaning of Scripture and to require all persons of their Communion to believe it And thus Mr. M. hath answered your Demonstration But still although the Church of Rome hath assumed such a Power yet it still disowned it and even in the Council of Trent pretended to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous sense of the Fathers which is directly contrary to the Power of making known such a sense and Meaning of Scripture in Doctrines of Faith as may oblige men to believe that explicitely now which they were not obliged to by any precedent Sense or Explication I come now to the Fifth and Last Question Qu. 5. Being the words Christian Church may be taken in several latitudes by persons of different Religions I desire to know what that Christian Church is whose Testimony concerning the Books of Scripture and the Doctrine contained therein is a sufficient ground to make us certain of all matters that are necessary to our Salvation Ans. 5. By the Universal Testimony of the Christian Church concerning the Books of Scripture which are our Rule of Faith as to matters of Salvation I mean the Universal Consent of all Christian Churches from the Apostles times downwards This Mr. M. calls Trifling p. 13. and in this you agree though you differ in the Resolution of Faith. But I pray wherein does this Trifling lie Was it because I would not answer as you would have had me But I do not yet see how I could have answered more to the purpose The Question in short was What the Christian Church was whose Universal Testimony I relied upon as to the Canon of Scripture My Answer was That the Christian Church is that which is made up of all Christian Churches and their Universal Consent is that Testimony we rely upon Is this Trifling But saith Mr. M. p. 14. Mr. G. 's intention was to know what Churches I accounted Christian Churches I told you over and over since we were enquiring into the general Grounds of Faith if we had the Universal Testimony of all Christian Churches I had no reason to go any farther For if all Churches of the Christian World be agreed as they are about the Canon of the New Testament this was sufficient for the certainty of our Faith without looking after any Infallibility in the Church of Rome And this you know was the main Point in Dispute between us as appears by the occasion of it as it is set down by Mr. M. You affirmed that no Protestant could shew any ground of absolute certainty for their Faith I undertook to shew we had for our Faith is resolved into the Scripture as the Word of God and whatever is built on the Word of God is absolutely certain And that these Books of the New Testament contain our Rule of Faith as being the Word of God we have the Universal Testimony of all Christian Churches And this makes our Faith as to these Books absolutely certain And where now is the Trifling Doth the Universal Testimony of all Christian Churches afford sufficient Ground of Certainty as to the Books of Scripture or not If not why do you not shew wherein it fails If it doth what mean you to call this Trifling When it is apparent I have gained the Point I aimed at viz. That we Protestants have certain Grounds for our Faith without any need of the Roman Churches Infallibility Which was the thing to be shewed But Mr. M. tells me p. 14. That you asked me whether I included the Arians Nestorians Eutychians and Calvinists and urged that this Question might be written down to which I did not consent Because Mr. T. declared he was fully satisfied and desired to propose a New Question to Mr. G. I grant you did ask me the Question several times whether I included the Arians Nestorians c. I told you I rejected the Doctrines of all such as were condemned by the four General Councils as the Arians Nestorians and Eutychians were but it was not pertinent to our purpose to consider how far any under those Denominations might be Parts of the Catholick Church For since we had the Consent of all Christian Churches in this Matter I had no Reason to lessen the Evidence they gave by a Concurrent Testimony For the Argument was so much stronger since all Churches under all Denominations did agree in it But Mr. M. still complains that I would not permit your sixth Question viz. What Churches I look'd on as Members of the Christian Church It is strange he should forget for what Reason I rejected it viz. because it was not pertinent to our business For if the Testimony of all Christian Churches be more considerable than only of some why should I lessen the strength of the Argument taken from the Universal Consent of all Christian Churches The other Question must have led us into other Disputes foreign to our business and my design was to keep close to the Matter of Certainty about which the Conference began And now I hope I have given an Answer to the Letter desiring Information of the Conference which I did forbear in my first Letter to set down at large foreseeing that either your self or your friend would offer me farther occasion to give a suffer account of it But because the Substance of the whole Conference depended on those two Points 1. Whether the Universal Consent of all Christian Churches be not a sufficient Ground for our Certainty as to our Rule of Faith viz. the Scripture 2. Whether Tradition from Father to Son be an infallible Conveyance of Matters of Faith To shew wherein the main force of the whole Conference lay in few words I desired you to make good these two Things 1. That we have no absolute Certainty as to the Rule
of our Faith viz. the Scripture although we have a larger and firmer Tradition for it viz. the Consent of all Christian Churches than you can have for the Points in Difference between us 2. That the Tradition from Father to Son is an infallible Conveyance in Matters of Faith notwithstanding the Greek Church is charged by you with Errour which adhered to Tradition Now upon this the Authour of the first Letter desires to be commended to me us a Man who loves to spare his own Pains For 't is as much as to say do you doe all the Work and I will sit by and tell you whether it be well done or no must Mr. G. prove that Protestants have no absolute Certainty I think you are bound to do it upon Mr. M's own Account of the Occasion of the Conference viz. that you affirmed that no Protestants could shew any Ground of Certainty for their Faith. And upon this the Conference was desired and since therein I undertake to shew what our Ground of Certainty was you ought to make it evident wherein it fails and you have not so much as offer'd at any thing to disprove it but would fairly have run into another dispute and because I would not yield to it you and Mr. M. call me a Trifler You see I have not been so sparing of my Pains now but I would commend that Gentleman to you who get other Men to do your Work for you But he goes on I thought it had concerned them to be satisfied that they have Yes so we are and are very well satisfied that we stand upon surer Grounds than those who go upon the baffled pretence of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition for which no one Church of the Christian World hath declared For the Infallibility of Tradition in the Church of Rome is another thing depending upon a Divine Promise and not a kind of meer natural Infallibility But he saith he takes no notice that the Question is veered from certainty of Protestant Doctrine to certainty of Scripture How strangely mistaken is this Gentleman in the whole Matter For the Question was wholly about the certainty of Faith in general as fully appears by what is said already When the Grounds of Faith are made clear we shall come easier to particular Points of Difference between us If we may have sufficient certainty without your pretence of Infallibility then we may have a true and sound Faith without coming into your Church and where there is such a Faith there is a Possibility of Salvation and consequently there can be no Necessity of Forsaking the Communion of a Church where we have such certain Grounds of Faith. Mr. M. in Answer to the first Particular speaks more home and close to the purpose and therefore what he saith deserves to be more strictly examined 1. It is not denied saith he p. 28. that there is in Faith an absolute certainty for that Scripture wherein we agree Thus far Mr. M. grants what you deny that we Protestants have absolute certainty for our Faith. But he will not allow us to be able to shew any such certainty on our Principles Now this is truly a hard case we are in there is an absolute Certainty and this certainty lies in Universal Tradition and we can shew this Universal Tradition and yet we cannot shew the true Ground of our certainty If this be our case we deserve to be either pitied or begg'd But surely Mr. M. hath some colour for such a strange Assertion This is all he pretends for it that in the time of the Reformation the Protestants charged all Christian Churches with Errours not only in other Articles of their Belief but even in the Tradition or Delivery of Scripture Therefore we can have no certainty now from the Universal Tradition of Christian Churches Suppose some Men were then to blame in charging some Churches with more Errours than they were guilty of must therefore no Argument be taken from their consent when things are more cleared and better understood This is just as if it had been said of the blind Man whom our Saviour cured You saw Men walking like Trees at first and therefore you have no right to judge them to be otherwise now Or like one newly escaped out of a dark Prison who fears and suspects every one he meets and takes all for Enemies till he be better acquainted with them must this man therefore never have any certain knowledge afterwards of Friends and Enemies But why doth not Mr. M. name the Churches which the Reformers charged with Errours in delivering the Canon of Scripture I am sure they plead the consent of the Eastern Churches against the Tridentine Canon as to the Old Testament and all Christian Churches are known to agree as to the New and why such an universal consent should not afford a ground of certainty to us is beyond my understanding 2. He saith Our Rule is Scripture not as interpreted or to be interpreted by the Church but as understood or to be understood without a necessity of submitting to the Interpretation of the Church by every sober Enquirer tho' of the meanest capacity for which Rule we are far from having the consent of all Christian Churches The main Question is Whether Scripture be a Rule of Faith to us or not And certainly all that believe it to be the Word of God must take it for a Rule of Faith. For since the reason of our believing is because God hath revealed whatever God hath revealed must be believed and a Book containing in it such Revelations must be the Rule of our Faith i. e. by it we are to judge what we are bound to believe as Divine Revelations The best of your Divines do all agree that our Faith is not to be resolved into any other Revelation than that which was made by Christ and his Apostles and that this Revelation is contained in the Books of the New Testament This being agreed on both sides every Christian how mean soever his capacity be must look on the Scripture as his Rule of Faith for he that is bound to believe at all must have some Rule or else he may believe any thing he finds all persons agreed that the Scripture is the Word of God and God's Word is an infallible Rule therefore he is bound to search the Scripture tor the matters of Faith. And is it possible to imagine that God himself should direct the making of this Rule for the benefit of all who are bound to believe and not to make it useful to its End viz. to be able to direct them in the necessary Points of Salvation The Founders of Monastie Orders made Rules for all those who were to live in them and obliged them to observe them under pain of Expulsion I desire to know whether this doth not suppose that those Rules are capable of being understood by all persons admitted into those Orders so far as they are concerned and
provoking Which all who have been present at your Conferences will set their hands to Alas Sir How much are you wronged by being charged with Disingenuity in the Conference You are onely forced sometimes to overcome your Natural Repugnance to it as Mr. M. saith he was in writing his Letter to me There is one thing Mr. M. frequently insists upon which I must give an Answer to viz. That I was glad to put an end to the first Dispute That the Issue of it was such that you could have no Temptation for forgery in the Account of it which is not greatly for my Credit p. 9. That I was beholding to Mr. T. for breaking it off p. 20. That I was as little pleased with the true Copies as with the false ones p. 23. That the Conference it self was as little to my Satisfaction as the worst account of it p. 25. These are very fine Insinuations I must not say Artificial for Mr. M. will no more like a word taken from Arts than the word it self If he means that I was very little pleased with the Manner of your Conference I do freely confess it and none who have been present at your other Conferences will blame me for it But if he thinks that I was unsatisfied with the Grounds of Certainty which I gave I utterly deny it For I still assert the same thing and abide by the Answer I then gave and do still hold that the universal Testimony of all Christian Churches is a sufficient Ground of absolute certainty to us as to the Rule of Faith. And this is an Answer I am so fully satisfied in that neither then nor now do I fear any Objections against it But I would not be drawn off from the main Point to another Debate and because I resolved to stick there I thought it most reasonable that Mr. T. should be yielded to for breaking it off at the Point in question which was not about the true Parts of the Catholick Church but about the true Ground of Certainty we had for our Faith. And when Mr. T. declared he had full satisfaction as to that what Reason had I to go any farther As to the truest Copies of the Conference I was not forward to disperse them not out of any Mistrust of the Answers I gave but because they contained onely short Heads and General Answers for those who desire to see an Account of a Conference expect to see a Relation of all that passed or at least of all material Passages relating to it and therefore onely a general Representation of it would seem dry and jejune and not answer the expectation they had of the Relation of a Conference But as to the Matter it self so far as it is truly set down of which I have now given a fuller Account I do abide by it And if my Credit suffer by it I do assure you it is not by reason of any Objection Mr. M. hath made against it or any that I foresee can be made Mr. M. chargeth me with disingenuous and unchristian proceeding toward you p. 23. This is a home Charge and not much indeed for my Credit if he can in the least make it good But if not I leave him to judge where the disingenuous and unchristian proceeding lies and to remember his Application of the Mote and the BEAM p. 15. Whereon is the heavy Charge grounded Why forsooth When I heard of false and imperfect Copies I ought to have sent to you to know whether they were given out by you What! When they came to my hands from those very Persons to whom you gave them But I ought to have shewn you the Errours of them and desired their Amendment It was indeed a very likely and hopefull way of vindicating my self When I knew from the very Persons to whom you spake what Boasts you had made of your victory and what Publick Places you had read the Copies in it was a very probable thing that if I had shewed you the Falsity of them You would have gone to those very Places and Persons and told them Gentlemen I must beg all your Pardons for I communicated false Copies to you and told you idle and lying stories about the Conference for I have been since with Dr. St. and he hath demonstrated to me that my Copy was not true although it were my own Copy and that which I delivered to you for very true Do you think Sir You could have overcome your Natural Repugnance so much as to have yielded to this Method of Satisfaction If not when I was assured so many Copies were dispersed in Town and Countrey which you could not recall if you intended it when I was called upon time after time by my Friends and it was told me something must be done towards my vindication What could I doe more proper or effectual than to publish that Letter which hath so much provoked Mr. M. as to make him overcome his Natural Repugnance and to appear in Print But yet there are other Circumstances which make my proceeding neither Ingenuous nor Christian. As that The Letter was published so long after That shews how unwilling I was to be brought to it and nothing but mere Necessity could have overcome my Natural Repugnance in such a Case For as the Authour of the former Letter well observes I love to spare my own Pains But I took the opportunity of your Absence Therein Mr. M. did me Injury For truly Sir it was perfectly the same thing to me whether you were at Lond. or West-Chest Nay the Argument would hold the other way if it were true For I heard of your talking of going to Ch. soon after the Conference and that you told Persons you were just going and I did believe you to be there till I heard of some other Conferences of yours I do not think my self bound to enquire after your Stays or Removes but I know how you had done me wrong and therefore Mr. M. can have no Reason to blame me for doing what was necessary for my own vindication Mr. M. charges me p. 35. with having too mean an Opinion of you If I be to blame in this I hope you will take Care to rectifie it but Mr. M. hath not done much towards it However he takes a notable Advantage as he thinks from hence We saith he will be contented to pass for Weak and Ignorant and I shall be obliged to shew by whom you may be protected from Errour A very well compounded business But what if it be not in my Power or any ones else to make you infallible Did I ever promise or undertake any such thing Or set up Infallible Bills When I doe so then come to me for such Directions We never pretend to make any Persons Infallible but to put them into a certain way to be saved which we think is much better And if men be honest and sincere in their Endeavours to know and doe the Will of God