up with all its due formalities of Major Minor and Conclusion Must I be forced to tell him as the Painters did by ill Pictures This is a Horse and this a Wolf This is an Argument and this an Answer It is a hard Case if a Man cannot understand Reason unless like Scaliger's Jests against Cardan there be something in the Margin to direct where they are to be found All Men of Sense understand the force of an Argument though it be not dressed up after the way of the Schools and to tye Men up to those Methods of Reasoning in our Age in Books of Controversie is like Trammelling a Horse when he is to go a Journey it might do well to teach him to pace but it would be ridiculous when he is upon Service Upon this he runs out into a very Eloquent piece of Trifling making sad Moans and Complaints with many Exaggerations and great variety of Phrases As if I offer'd no kind of Certainty to Mens Souls but only that I bid those that doubt prove the contrary and so brings notable parallels of Peters having twenty pounds in his Purse because Paul cannot prove he hath it not or his having the more Title to an Estate because an Adversary may have the ill luck to be Nonsuited I know not how Mr. G. will take these things for they do not seem much to his Advantage If I were as he I would never trust him to play my Cards more for what means this insinuation of Nonsuiting c But Mr. S. is plainly mistaken for the force of it doth not depend upon his bare Nonsuiting but upon the Goodness of the Deeds and the Strength of the Evidence which himself relied upon and appear much stronger for us than for him It is not Pauls not proving but Peters producing the twenty pounds and laying it before him which is the Argument to prove he hath it Suppose he did not produce it in Specie but shewed good Security for it such as Paul could not deny had he not reason to believe he was owner of it There being so little colour in the Reasoning Part I pass over the Declamatory as fitter for the School at the Savoy than a Writer of Controversies But here comes in among his Flowers a very notable Point of Divinity Truth is therefore Truth because it is built on Intrinsecal Grounds which prove it to be such and not on private Mens Abilities or their saying this or that This latter is undoubtedly true and is universally believed since the School of Pythagoras was broken up Wherefore till those Grounds be produced it cannot be with Reason held Truth This is great and becoming the Scientifical I. S. But will he hold to this Will he own it to the Cardinals of the Inquisition I find a certain Gentleman with the very fame Letters J. S. writing two whole Sections wherein he denies that ever he medled with Intrinsic Mediums or that it was possible that he should But P. T. was then living and followed him close at Rome now that fright is over out come Intrinsic Grounds again and no Man can hold any thing as Truth till those Grounds be produced Suppose a Man assents to the Doctrine of Faith as True and Divine on meerly Extrinsecal Grounds or Motives of Credibility hath this Man true Faith or not Is he bound to hold and profess it to be true though he doth not see the Intrinsecal Grounds which prove Truth to be Truth Doth that Man sin who professes to believe a thing to be true though he doth not see the Intrinsic Grounds for it What kind of sin is it Mortal or Venial How far may a Man safely deny that which he cannot with Reason hold to be true How many thousand Martyrs Lives might this Doctrine have saved in the Primitive Times How might the poor Innocent Christians have pleaded for themselves That they could see no Intrinsic Grounds which made Truth to be Truth and they understood from a deep Divine that till those Grounds be produced it cannot with Reason be held Truth and if it cannot with Reason be held it may surely in our very hard Circumstances with Reason be denied or at least concealed and dissembled There seems to be more danger in professing the Faith without it than in not owning it being not able to produce Intrinsic Grounds for it And these are far above our reach and capacity and if it cannot with Reason be held Truth without it it seems very unreasonable to require us to dye for it What saith J. S. to the Case of the Jews who heard our Saviours Doctrine and saw his Miracles did they sin in their Infidelity or not It will be very hard for him prove that they saw Intrinsic Grounds for what they were required to believe and yet our Saviour charges them with very great Sin in their Infidelity I hope Mr. S. will not answer me about these things as he did some in the Conference at Paris with Tace Tace interrumpis confundis me This very Instance of the Jews was then brought against him by Dr. G. and he said That only those Jews sinned who had clear Evidence that Christs Miracles were true and Supernatural But A. B. of D. then urged That if they had such Evidence they could not have inward Vnbelief nor call in Question the Truth or Divinity of Christ and his Miracles To which J. S. replied Tace nolo tibi Respondere I hope he is better provided of an Answer now and that he will shew wherein the sin of the Jews lay who did not profess Christ's Doctrine to be true because they could not produce any Intrinsic Grounds for the Truth of it But to return to our first Controversie About the Certainty of Faith to be proved by us He tells me that I know well enough that to prove Protestants have no Absolute Certainty of their Faith is no hard Task even for a weak Man I know he saith that any Man may find it confessed to his hands by Protestants and in the Margin he cites Dr. Tillotsons Rule of Faith pag. 117 118. I wonder at Mr. S's Courage that he dares mention that Book to which he hath so many years been indebted for an Answer and what he hath offer'd towards it in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery he hath again retracted as to the main Principles of them for fear of a Censure at Rome and which he advanced out of opposition to those of that Book which he quotes here So that J. S. by disowning those Principles of his hath justified Dr. T. and hath overthrown the Absolute Certainty of his own Faith. For I have already proved from his own words That he owns Moral Evidence to be absolutely sufficient for Faith and yet this is the very thing from whence he proves that Protestants have confessed that they have no Absolute Certainty of their Faith. But if this Matter were to be decided
is I. To shew how unfit J. S. of all Men is to undertake this Cause II. To settle the true State of the Controversie between us III. To examine the Reasons he produces against our Grounds of Certainty IV. To lay open the weakness of his Arguments on behalf of the Infallibility of Oral and Practical Tradition I. As to J. S. his appearing in this Cause again we are to consider that in his Catholick Letters he frequently owns Faith vindicated Reason against Raillery and Errour nonplust and even Sure Footing it self But I shall now shew that he disowned the main Principles in those Books when he was in great danger of being Censured at Rome for them and therefore is not to be allow'd to produce them again The Account of this Matter will give great Light into the state of the present Controversie and is therefore necessary to be premised to it Out of those Books of J. S. a considerable Person in the Church of Rome selected three Propositions about the Grounds of his Infallible Certainty which were these I. That he who is obliged to profess Faith propositions true must see the Connexion between their Terms and consequently that they cannot be unconnected or false II. If the two Terms be not seen to be connected these Propositions may nay ought to be denyed by the Respondent whose Office and Right it is to grant nothing but what is evident lest he ensnare himself III. 'T is requisite and necessary that the Assent of Faith in divers particular Believers be formally Infallible or that those Persons be infallibly certain by evident Reasons that the Authority or Rule of Faith they rely on cannot herein deceive them Else great Wits and acute Reflecters whose piercing Vnderstandings require convictive Grounds for their Faith would remain for ever unsatisfied nor would the wisest Christians sincerely and heartily assent to nor with honesty profess the Truth of their Faith nor could any prove it true or establish rational doubters in it or convert Men of exact knowledge to it or convince Hereticks calling the Truth of it in question Nor could Governors and leading Persons with any Conscience or Credit propose and preach the Truth of Faith to the Generality These Propositions were tender'd to two Doctors of the Sorbon who declared The First could not be explained in a Catholick Sense and therefore very unfit for Catholick Letters For if say they a Person sees the Connexion between the Terms it would be Science and not Faith it is enough to see them not to be contradictory or that the Connexion is not repugnant to Reason Divine Faith is above not contrary to Reason As to the Second they agreed That neither could that be explained in a Catholick Sense because it is destructive of Faith and a Proposition ought not cannot be denied although the Respondent hath not Evidence of the Terms of which it consists when he otherwise knows the Church which Faith not Demonstration teaches to be Infallible in Matters of Faith to propose as a Truth revealed by God. To the Third they say That it cannot be explained in a Catholick Sense Because it is sufficient that the Church be believed by Faith to be Infallible and it is not requisite that the Infallibility of the Church be proved by evident Reason See here the main Design of his Catholick Letters declared to be no Catholick Doctrine which is to prove that there must be Infallible Certainty by Conclusive Evidence of the Churches Infallibility And if this be not Catholick Doctrine I am infallibly certain his Letters are far from being Catholick in their Sense One of these Doctors writes to the A. B. of D. That the Natural Sense of the Propositions could not be Catholick and that all Bishops were bound to suppress this Doctrine lest it did mischief to the Flock of Christ. And that the A. B. of Paris would revoke his Licence if the Author did not retract them as he hoped he would What Retract the Substance of his Catholick Letters Is this possible And yet again publish the same Doctrine as Catholick This is indeed very surprising But so it was For the A. B. of D. averrs That J. S. confessed the Propositions to be Heretical yea very Heretical but he said they were not taken in his sense which the other said was a ridiculous Plea. He granted that J. S. might contradict himself but there was no colour for saying the Propositions were not taken in their true sense And Mr. S. being requir'd by the A. B. of Paris to Anathematize these Propositions and to subscribe to the Censure that they could not be explained in a Catholick Sense he did it And yet the sense of them is maintained by him in his Catholick Letters Is not such a Man fit to hold the Cards for Mr. G. who makes the same Doctrine to be Heretical and Catholick as his Circumstances require And in his own Language he goes backwards and forwards blows and sups declares for and against the same Principles This Doctrine of J. S. was complained of at Rome and a Congregation of Cardinals was appointed to Examine it and they sent their Instructions about it to the Popes Nuncio at Paris where J. S. then was And therein they took notice that in his Vindication sent to them he detested that Doctrine as Heretical viz. that the Evidence of the Connexion of Predicate and Subject and the Evidence of the Rule of Faith by which the Believer may be infallibly certain he cannot be deceived is necessary in order to Faith. I desire the Reader to mark this Declaration which J. S. sent to Rome and to compare it with the Doctrine of his Catholick Letters But of that hereafter But it is worth our while to shew with what a double Face I. S. appeared in his Vindication and Complaint sent to Rome and in his Books which he published here And by that the Reader may judge of the Catholick Sincerity of the Writer of these Letters I. About the Faith he designs to demonstrate Faith Vindicated Preface I declare then that my chief End in this Treatise is to settle Christian Faith or to demonstrate that it must be truly or absolutely certain and that my applying it now and then to my Opposers is only a Secondary Intention and meerly Occasional Querimonia advers Lominum p. 49. He saith He speaks not of Faith in itself but as it is controverted among us The same he affirms p. 145 146. that he meddles not with Faith but with respect to his Adversaries or as it is disputed between Catholicks and those he calls Hereticks p. 148. If it were his design to settle Christian Faith and to make it truely and absolutely certain and only secondarily applying it to his Opposers how is it possible that at the same time he should not meddle with Faith in itself but meerly with respect to his Opposers Is not this a
was a great variety as to others is evident to any one who will compare the Ancient Creeds as I have lately shewed And these main Articles are those which Aquinas calls the prima Credibilia which are therefore revealed because necessary to be believed by all that hope for Salvation by Jesus Christ. II. There are other Points of Faith which are only necessary to be believed because they are so clearly revealed As that Cajaphas was High Priest when Christ suffer'd that there were two Malefactors who suffer'd with him that he was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's Sepulchre no Man who believes the Scripture can doubt of these things and yet we do not make these Points of Faith in themselves necessary because they have no immediate Reference to Salvation which might have been as effectually carried on if there had been another High Priest or Christ had lain in another Sepulchre But in these Points there is an absolute Certainty from the unquestionable Evidence of their being contained in Scripture III. There are doctrinal points not necessary to Salvation about which some may attain to a greater Degree of Certainty than others And the same Measure is not required of all Because Mens Capacities are not equal if they do use equal Diligence and all are not obliged to the same Degrees of Diligence that some are As to the Points necessary to Salvation God is not wanting by his Grace to make them known to Men of honest and sincere Minds And this is no peculiar Doctrine of mine as J. S. would insinuate but it hath been the constant Doctrine of their most Learned and Judicious School-Divines as is evident from what they speak of the Donum Intellectus and the Lumen Fidei which secure Men from Errour in what concerns their Salvation If he hath therefore such an Inveterate Spleen against this Doctrine let him attaque the greatest Divines of the Church of Rome who have in terms asserted the same which I have done And I would fain see J. S. demonstrating against Aquinas and all his followers That there is no such Security from Errour in Points necessary to Salvation where ever God bestows true Grace As to Points not necessary to Salvation I do not affirm there is any such Ground of Absolute Certainty as to particular Persons who are only concerned as to their own Salvation And that was the Reason of my Answer to the fourth Question The Universal Testimony of the Christian Church concerning the Book of Scripture and the Doctrine contained therein is a sufficient Ground to make us certain of all Matters necessary to our Salvation But of this more afterwards It is sufficient here to observe that even in the Church of Rome there are Points of Doctrine which are not de Fide and consequently the Certainty of Faith is not required to them And then it is most unreasonable to require the Absolute Certainty of Faith in those things which we deny to be Points of Faith. It is as if we should ask them what Absolute Certainty of Faith they have as to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the B. Virgin or the Popes Infallibility they would tell us these are no Points of Faith with them and therefore it is unreasonable to ask after the Absolute Certainty of Faith where there is no Faith pretended The same we say in the like Case It is very absurd to demand of us the Absolute Certainty of our Faith in such things wherein we never pretend to a Certainty of Faith but of common Sense and Reason proceeding according to the Rule of Scripture As if Men impose false and absurd Doctrines upon us as Transubstantiation c. we insist upon the Common Right of Mankind not to be required to believe Contradictions and the Right of Christians not to believe what hath neither Scripture nor Reason nor Tradition for it And these are the Grounds on which we reject the Additional Creed of Pius the Fourth We make them no Points of Faith at all and if others do make them so we desire to be excused because it is as certain to us they are not so as we can be of Negatives And farther than this we go not in such Points and if this be what he means by Protestant Faith he hath my Answer IV. The General Reason of the Certainty of Faith in Particular Persons is not from Conclusive Evidence as to the Points of Faith but from some higher Cause And this Mr. S. ought to know hath been the constant Doctrine of the Schools ever since Divinity hath been brought into them I except only one Franciscus de Marchia who required conclusive Evidence to the Certainty of Faith but he is disputed against by Gregorius Ariminensis and he saith His Doctrine was condemned by the Faculty of Paris and Gregory de Valentia speaks of him with great Contempt for holding so absurd a Doctrine The Certainty of Faith is declared by the Antient School-men to be above Opinion and below Science by which they understood the Intrinsic Grounds on which Truth is built which Mr. S. makes necessary to the Profession of it Hugo de Sancto Victore saith That the highest Certainty of Faith is owing to a Pious and pure Disposition of the Mind and an immediate Divine Influence Petrus Pictaviensis That it lies not in Evidence but Adherence Guliel Parisiensis proves Conclusive Evidence repugnant to Faith in a long Discourse Gul. Antissiodorensis thinks rational Evidence good to support and defend the Faith and to prepare men for it But that the Certainty of it lies not in Speculation but in an Adherence of the Mind to the Prime Verity Alex. Alensis saith likewise its Certainty doth not lie in Speculation but in inward Affection and Adherence there is he saith an inferiour sort of Acquisite Faith which relies on Reasons and Testimonies but this he saith is meerly Natural and Preparatory to Divine Faith. Bonaventure saith the Certainty of Adherence is beyond that of Speculation because a Martyr may have doubts and yet die for his Faith. Thomas Aquinas thinks those that go about to bring Demonstrations for Faith expose it to the Scorn and Reproach of Infidels and he resolves the inward Certainty of Faith into Divine Illumination when the Objection was put That Matters of Faith could not be resolved into first Principles Which Mr. S. hath so long and so vainly pretended to Henricus Gandavensis saith There is a Certainty of Adherence in the habit of Faith and that the Evidence of Credibility falls much short of that of Science and he makes Scripture the Rule whereby we are to judge of the Doctrine of the present Church and of all Ages succeeding the Apostles Scotus distinguisheth between Acquisite and Human Faith and Divine or Infused Faith but he denies any Infallibility to belong to the former Durandus denies Faith to be consistent with Conclusive Evidence and that the Motives of
Thing or Manner but the Revelation of such a Doctrine So that if these Points be owned to be necessary to Salvation they must be so plain that Men may understand their Duty to believe them For that is the Bound I keep my self within that all things Necessary to Salvation are so plain that we may be certain of our Duty to believe them but if not we may Err without Prejudice to our Salvation Mr S. asks what I mean by all things necessary to Salvation Nothing but what all others do mean by it Did Christ saith he teach any unnecessary Points Alas for him But are all Points taught by Christ or written in Scripture equally necessary to the Salvation of all People No he saith presently after That he will grant that fewer means than the Knowledge of all Christ taught may suffice for the Salvation of some particular Persons Very well now I hope he will make something of the main business in hand viz. To prove that Absolute Certainty of all that Christ Taught is Necessary to Mens Salvation when he grants that some may be Saved without so much as Knowing all that Christ Taught To what purpose was all this Heat about the Certainty of our Faith as to all that Christ Taught if at last some may be Saved without so much as Knowing it How doth Mr. S. prove That those some are only the Ignorant People in the Church of Rome but that all Ours are tied to no less than Infallible Certainty of all that Christ Taught He would have done well to have proved such a Privilege for Ignorance to have been limited to their Communion and that no Claim can be allowed as to the Circumstances of any other particular Persons Some few he saith again may be Saved without the Knowledge of such and such Points slender Motives being enough for their Circumstances I thank Mr. S. for this It seems the Point as to Salvation is gained unless particular Persons among us can be proved to be none of these few But where-ever they are it seems they may be Saved but I hope not without True and Saving Faith whence it follows that such Faith hath no necessary Relation to these high Points and there is no need of Infallible Certainty as to them of all Christ Taught One of these high Points is that of Transubstantiation too high for me and Thousands and Millions besides ever to apprehend let us do our utmost nay we cannot apprehend such is our dulness that we can have any Certainty as to Sense or Reason if we hold it We hope therefore J. S. will enlarge his Number and not talk only of some Few that may be Saved without the Knowledge of such deep Mysteries we desire to be admitted into his Number for truly our Capacities can never be stretched so far as to comprehend the Possibility of Transubstantiation Suppose our Motives be slender yet they are such as move us to that degree that we cannot overcome the Reluctancies of Sense and Reason and Revelation and Tradition against it But Mr. S. brings himself off with a Salvo Though all Points are not necessary for every particular Person yet all of them are necessary for the Body of the Church whose Pastors are to Instruct their Children in them and apply the Efficacy of them to their Souls as their Capacities admit and Exigencies require It seems still they are not Necessary to particular Persons but according to their Capacities and Exigencies but they are to the Body of the Church But how came they to be Necessary to the Body of the Church For Instance The Point of Transubstantiation is a very deep Point and although particular Persons may be Saved without believing it yet I cannot understand how this deep Point comes to be Necessary in any Respect for the Body of the Church I hope J. S. will not deny this to be one of his Necessary Church-Points Let him then shew how it comes to be so Necessary for the Pastors of the Church to Instruct their Children in it My Capacity I assure him will not reach to this and therefore I hope I may be excused and in his own words my mind is not capable of being cultivated by such elevating Considerations I do not believe there is any such danger of the Flocks dying or falling short of their full growth they might have had in the Plentiful Pasturage of the Church as J. S. elegantly speaks if they do not believe Transubstantiation or any such deep Points But still we have no Absolute Certainty of our highest Fundamentals No We affirm the Contrary and from Absolutely Certain Grounds It is Absolutely Certain that whatever God Reveals is true and ought to be believed by us And we are as absolutely Certain as Scripture and Reason can make us that God hath Revealed the Fundamentals of our Faith. But there is Experience to the Contrary What Experience That we are not Certain We affirm that we are and who can tell best How comes Mr. S. to know we are not Certain when we say we are But all are not as Socinians c. What are they to us Are not we certain because some are not Certain What pittiful Reasoning is this Is Mr. S. Certain of his Infallible Ground of Certainty Oral Tradition Why do I ask such a Question For very good Reason because there are some not Certain of it and even in his own Church but cry out upon it as Fallible Fallacious Dangerous and Destructive of Faith and leading to Atheism From whence it follows on Mr. S's Principles that he cannot be Certain himself because others are not Nay it is impossible he should have any Certainty on his own Grounds For he can have no Rule of Certainty as I shall evidently prove from his own Words A Rule must have Absolute Certainty Absolute Certainty there cannot be where Persons are left uncertain but there are many in the Church of Rome that not only doubt of his Rule of Infallible Certainty but utterly deny it and dispute against it How is it then possible for him to be certain of it on his own Grounds But it is time to proceed to another Objection against our Rule of Faith. VIII J. S. saith We can be no more certain of our Rule than we are of the Truth of the Letter of Scripture but we cannot be certain we have the Right Letter unless we have a Right Translation and that must be from a true Copy no Copy can be true unless Conformable to the Original and if there be any failure in any of these nay if we have not absolute Certainty of all these we cannot have any absolute Certainty of our Faith. This Objection those of the Church of Rome who believe Scripture to be a Rule of Faith though not the Complete are concerned to Answer as well as we For the Matters of Faith contained in Scripture are convey'd to their Minds after the same manner
that none are saved but Metaphysical Speculators that perch upon the specifick Nature of Things and dig into the Intrinsecal Grounds of Truth If this be his Opinion How few can be saved But if Salvation be the End the Means must be suitable to the Capacity of Mankind and I do not think the Intrinsecal Grounds of Truth are so But aftey all he saith that I stifle any further talk of the Certainty of Protestent Faith. How can that be when I own no Protestant Faith but what is contained in Scripture or may be deduced from it according to the Sixth Article of our Church I am not conscious to myself of any Art in the matter which he charges me with and he saith I avoid what cannot be performed What is that To make out that Protestants are absolutely certain that they now hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles If all that Doctrine be contained in Scripture and they hold the Scripture by Grounds of Absolute Certainty then Protestants must be certain that they hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles Afterwards Mr. S. starts something that comes nearer to the business which is that Certainty of Faith and Certainty of Scripture are two things For those who have as much Certainty of Scripture as we may have not only an Vncertain but a Wrong Faith and therefore I am concerned to shew not only that Protestants have Certainty of their Rule but of the Faith which they pretend to have from that Rule That which I am now upon is to settle the true State of the Controversie about the Certainty of Faith. In the Conference my first Answer was that We are absolutely Certain that we now hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles And when the Question was asked By what Certain Rule do we hold it I answer'd By the Divine Revelation contained in the Writings of the New Testament So that the Certainty of Scripture was that which I was obliged to answer to Now comes J. S. and he finds fault with Mr. G's management because he asked Questions about the Certainty of the Rule whereas he ought to have gone another Way to work So that now Mr. G. is given up and a New Controversie is begun upon other Grounds and the Words which I used with Respect to the Rule are applied to particular Doctrines He saith The Certainty of Scripture was not the Point for which the Conference was How comes he to know better than Mr. G. unless he directed the Point and Mr. G. mistook and lost it in the Management But I am now bound to manifest that Protestants have Absolute Certainty not only of the Scripture as the Rule but of the Faith they have from that Rule or else to own that I cannot It seems Mr. G's good Nature betray'd him when he asked Questions about the Rule of Faith and so the main Point was lost Yet methinks it was not meer good Nature in Mr. G. For when we are asked about the Grounds and Certainty of our Faith how is it possible we should answer more pertinently than to assign the Rule of our Faith And we declare it to be the Scripture by which we judge what we are to believe and what not And therefore if any ask us of the Matter of our Faith we must answer It is whatever God hath revealed in the Scripture which is our Rule If they ask us How we come to know these Books to be written by such Persons we say It is by the Vniversal Tradition of the Christian Churches If they ask us Why we believe the Doctrine contained in those Books then our Answer is From the Divine Testimonies which make us certain that it came from God. And thus we answer both to that which is called the Material and Formal Object of Faith and if we are absolutely Certain of these we must be so of our Faith. If we ask a Jew about the Certainty of his Faith he saith he is Certain of it because all his Faith is contained in the Books of Moses and he is well assured they were written by Divine Inspiration If we ask a Mahometan of his Faith his Answer is That his Faith is contained in the Alcoran and by proving that he proves the Certainty of his Faith and if that be disproved the Certainty of it is overthrown Those who resolve their Faith into a Written Rule must go thither when Questions are asked them about the Certainty of their Faith. For if I believe every thing in it and nothing but what is in it there lies my Faith and the Certainty of it depends upon the Certainty of my Rule But I must shew the Certainty of the Faith of Protestants as it is pretended to be taken from the Rule Not certainly when the Question is asked about the entire Object of our Faith or when we are to shew how we hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles for the word All makes it necessary for us to Assign our Rule wherein that All is contained If he ask us of the Certainty of any particular Point of our Faith then we are to make it out that this is contained in our Rule and our Certainty is according to the Evidence we are able to produce for it For the Case is not the same as to particular Points of Faith with that of the General Grounds of the Certainty of Faith. A Jew firmly believes all that is contained in the Books of Moses and with the highest Degree of Certainty but whether the Resurrection can be proved certainly from those Books is a particular Point and he may have Absolute Certainty of all contained in those Books though he may not have it as to such a Particular Point And when we come to Particular Points their Case is not only different from the General Rule of Faith but such Points are very different both among themselves and as to the Certainty of them For 1 There are some Points of Faith which were necessary to be Revealed because they were necessary to be Believed in order to our Salvation by Jesus Christ. For as Mr. S. saith Salvation is the thing of greatest Importance and therefore on Supposition that it is to be by Jesus Christ the Nature of the thing requires that we have a firm and established Faith in him And of these Points of Faith the Church hath given a Summary in the Creeds which were proposed to those who were to be Baptized and not only St. Augustin but Aquinas saith these were taken out of Scripture and the Certainty of them to us doth depend not upon the Authority of the Church proposing them but the Evidence of Scripture for them which is very much confirmed to us by the Concurrent Testimony of the Christian Church in all Ages from the Apostles times i. e. as to the main Articles for that there
in Matters of Opinion or in doubtful or obscure Places they make use of the Skill and Assistance of their Teachers wherein are they to blame The Scripture is still their Rule but the help of their Teachers is for the better understanding it And cannot our Logician distinguish between the Rule of Faith and the Helps to understand it Suppose now a Mother or a Nurse should quit honest Tradition as J. S. here calls it and be so ill inclined as to teach Children to spell and to read in the New Testament and by that means they come by degrees to understand the Doctrine which Christ preached and the Miracles which he wrought and from thence to believe in Christ and to obey his Commands I desire to know into what these Persons do Resolve their Faith. Is it indeed into those who taught them to read or into the New Testament as the Ground of their Faith When they have been all along told that the Scripture alone is the Word of God and whatever they are to believe it is because it is contained therein And so by whatever means they come to understand the Scripture it is that alone they take for the Rule and Foundation of their Faith. If a Man were resolved to observe Hippocrates his Rules but finds himself uncapable of understanding him and therefore desires a Physicians Help I would fain know whether he relies upon the Skill of his Interpreter or the Authority of Hippocrates It is possible his Interpreter may in some doubtful and obscure Places have mistaken Hippocrates his Meaning but however the Reason of his keeping to the Rules is not upon the Account of the Interpreter but of Hippocrates But suppose a College of Physicians interpret Hippocrates otherwise is he bound then to believe his own Interpreter against the Sense of the College I answer If a College of Physicians should translate Bread for Cheese or by Phlebotomy should declare was meant cutting of Arteries or of a Mans Throat let them presume to be never so Infallible I would trust any single Interpreter with the help of Lexicons and Common Sense against them all but especially if I can produce Galen and the old Physicians who understood Hippocrates best on my side This is our Case as to the People about disputable Points we do not set up our own Authority against a Church pretending to be Infallible we never require them to trust wholly to our Judgments but we give them our best Assistance and call in the old Interpreters of the Church and we desire them to use their own Reason and Judgment with Divine Assistance for settling their Minds If People be negligent and careless and will not take necessary pains to inform themselves which Mr. S. suggests we are not bound to give an Account of those who do not observe our Directions And I never yet knew the Negligent and Careless brought into a Dispute of Religion for in this Case we must suppose People to act according to the Principles of the Religion they own otherwise their Examples signifie no more against our Doctrine than Debauchery doth against the Rules of Hippocrates But suppose saith Mr. S. that one of my own Flock should tell me that I have erred in interpreting Scripture he desires to know what I would say to him This is a very easie Question and soon answer'd I would endeavour to Convince him as well as I could And is that all And what would J. S. do more Would he tell him he was Infallible I think not but only as honest Tradition makes him so and how far that goes towards it I shall examine afterwards Well but suppose John Biddle against the Minister of his Parish and the whole Church of England to boot understands Scripture to be plainly against a Trinity and Christ's Divinity And it is but fair for me to suppose him maintaining his Heresie against J. S. and let any one judge whether of us be more likely to Convince him He owns the Scripture and confesses if we can prove our Doctrine from thence he will yield but he laughs at Oral Tradition and thinks it a Jest for any one to prove such a Doctrine by it And truly if it were not for the Proofs from Scripture I do much Question whether any Argument from meer Tradition could ever confute such a one as John Biddle But when we offer such Proofs as are acknowledged to be sufficient in themselves we take the only proper way to give him Reasonable Satisfaction Suppose he will not be convinced Who can help that Christ himself met with Wilful and Obstinate Unbelievers And was this any disparagement to his Doctrine God himself hath never promised to cure those who shut their Eyes against the Light. Shall the Believing Church then have the Liberty to interpret Scripture against the Teaching Church Who ever asserted any such thing We only say that the People are to understand the Grounds of their Faith and to judge by the best Helps they can what Doctrine is agreeable to Scripture and to embrace what is so and to reject what is not But among those Helps we take in not barely the personal Assistance of their own Guide but the Evidence he brings as to the Sense of the Teaching Church in the best and purest Ages It is very strange that after this it should presently follow 'T is evident hence that Tradition of our Fathers and Teachers and not Scriptures Letter is indeed our Rule and by it we interpret Scripture If this be so evident then how is it possible we should set up the Ecclesia Credens against the Ecclesia Docens as he charged us just before If Tradition be our Rule and we interpret Scripture by it what fault then are we guilty of if Tradition be such an Infallible Rule But methinks this Hence looks a little Illogically upon the Premises and if this be his Conclusive Evidence he must excuse me as to the making it a Ground of my Faith. But he allows That we set up Scripture as our Rule when we Dispute against them but when that is done we set up our own Authority over the People and do not allow them that Priviledge against us which we take against the Church of Rome This is all the strength of what I can make out of that Paragraph For if all Writing were like his it would be the best Argument for Oral Tradition his Sense is so intricate and his Conclusions so remote from his Premises Just before he said 'T is evident hence that we follow Tradition And presently 'T is as evident we do not follow it and set up our own Authority against it We do interpret Scripture by Tradition and yet immediately we set up Scripture against Tradition We plead for the Peoples Right to a Judgment of Discretion and yet we do not allow them a Judgment of Discretion What invisible links hath Oral Tradition to connect things that seem so far asunder
If there were Oral Tradition for it how came it to be condemned If not then notwithstanding Oral Tradition dangerous Doctrines may get in under a pretence of a more Sublime and Spiritual Way of Perfection than is to be attained in the Dull and Heavy Way of Tradition from Father to Son. III. By a Pretence to a more Secret Tradition And thus Christianity was at first corrupted by such as pretended that there was a Mystical Doctrine delivered by Christ of a more purifying Nature than the Plain and Common Doctrine taught to all People by the Apostles So Hegesippus in Eusebius affirms That the Christian Church was corrupted by this Means and to the same Purpose Irenaeus So that Tradition was so far from securing the Church from Error that it was the Means of bringing it in And the Publick Tradition could not hinder this coming in of Error because the Secret Tradition was pretended to be more Divine and Spiritual the other was only for Babes and this for grown Christians IV. By Differences among Church-Guides about the Sense of Scripture and Tradition Thus it was in the Samosatenian Arian Pelagian Nestorian and Eutychian Controversies Neither of the Parties disowned Scripture or Tradition and those who were justly condemned pretended still to adhere to both And if such Flames could not be prevented so much nearer the Apostles Times by the help of Tradition What Reason can there be to expect it so long after V. By too great a Veneration to some particular Teachers not far from the Apostolical Times in regard to their Learning or Piety which made their Disciples despise Tradition in Comparison of their Notions And thus Origens Opinions came to prevail so much in the Church and the Mixture of Platonism with Christianity proved the occasion of several Errors with Respect to the State of Souls after Death as well as in other Points VI. By Compliance with some Gentile Superstitions in Hopes to gain more easily upon the Minds of the People who having been long accustomed to the Worship of Images and Tutelar Deities it was thought no Imprudent Thing in some Guides of the Church when the main Doctrines of Paganism were renounced to humour the People in these things so they were Accommodated to Christianity but others vehemently opposed this Method as repugnant to the True Primitive Christianity But by Degrees those Superstitions prevailed and the Original Tradition of the Church thereby corrupted VII By Implicit Faith which puts it into the Power of the Church-Guides to introduce what Doctrines they thought fit When the best of the People were told it was against the Fundamental Rights of the Catholick Church for them to examine any Opinions which were proposed to them by their Guides That they neither did nor could nor ought to understand them and when once this Point was gained People never troubled themselves about Scripture or Tradition for all they had to do was only to know what was decreed by the Church though with a Non-obstante to a Divine Institution as is plain in the Council of Constance notwithstanding all the Tricks to avoid it If then Errours might come into the Church all these ways what a vain thing is it to pretend That Oral Tradition will keep from any possibility of Error And so I need give no other Answer to his last Proposition That if Men did innovate in Faith it must be either through Forgetfulness or Malice for I have shewed many other Causes besides these especially since I intend to shew in a particular Discourse how the Errors and Corruptions we charge on the Church of Rome did come into it My design here being only to shew the Possibility of it There remain only two things which deserve any Consideration 1. About the Charge of Pelagianism 2. About the Council of Trents Proceeding on Tradition which will admit of an easie Dispatch I. As to the Charge of Pelagianism It doth not lie in this That he requires any Rational Inducements to Faith which we do assert as well as he But it lay in these Two things I. That a Divine Faith was to be resolved into a Natural Infallibility For we were told that Divine Faith must have Infallible Grounds and when we come to examine them we find nothing but what is Natural And now to avoid the Charge of Pelagianism this Divine Faith is declared to be meer Human Faith and so Human Faith is said to have Infallible Grounds but Divine Faith must shift for it self For saith J. S. 'T is confess'd and ever was that the Human Authority of the Church or Tradition begets only Human Faith as its Immediate Effect but by bringing it up to Christ it leads us to what 's Divine Well but what Infallible Ground is there for this Divine Faith Where doth that fix Is it on the Infallibibility of Tradition or not If not then we may have Divine Faith without it If it doth then Divine Faith is to be resolved into Natural Means And what is this but Pelagianism II. That he excludes the Pious Disposition of the Will from piecing out as he calls it the Defect of the Reasons why we Believe And in another place he excludes the Wills Assistance in these words That Faith or a Firm and Immoveable Assent upon Authority is not throughly Rational and by consequence partly Faulty if the Motives be not alone able to convince an Vnderstanding rightly disposed without the Wills Assistance How then can a pious Disposition of the Will be necessary in order to the Act of Faith And is it not Pelagianism to exclude it Therefore I was in the right when I said That this way of Oral Tradition resolves all into a meer Human Faith and that this is the unavoidable Consequence of it No he saith he resolves all into Christs and the Apostles teaching How ridiculous is this For did not Pelagius and Coelestius the very same And the thing I charged upon them was That they went no farther upon this Principle than they did Upon this he asks a very impertinent Question but if I do not Answer it I know what Clamours will follow Pray do you hold that Christ is a meer Man or that Believing him is a meer Human Faith or that the Doctrine taught by Him or Them is meerly Human What Occasion have I given for such a Question But I perceive there is a design among some to make me be believed to be no Christian. I pray God forgive the Malice of such Men. I thank God I have better Grounds for my Faith than Oral Tradition I do believe Christ to be more than meer Man even the Eternal Son of God and that his Doctrine is Divine and his Apostles had Infallible Assistance in delivering it But what is all this to the present Question I perceive some men when they are hard pinched cry out that their Adversaries are Atheists or Socinians c. and hope by this means to divert them
by the Confession of Parties what thinks he of those of the Church of Rome who have charged his Doctrine about Infallible Certainty with downright Heresie and Impiety and that it leads to Atheism and Infidelity and overthrows the Christian Faith This we are told is the sense of all the Learned and Orthodox Men of your Church Let the Reader judge what J. S. hath gotten by the Confession of Parties I hope now we shall come to the State of the Question for he charges me with perverting it The First Question he saith at the Conference was Whether Protestants are absolutely Certain that they hold now the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught to his Apostles And my Answer he saith was They are By his favour my Answer was not in those words but that we are absolutely certain that we now hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles And for a certain Reason I desire my own Words may express my Mind for I do not find Oral Tradition Infallible and where Words are varied the Sense may be so too But he observes that I trick it off again as he calls it I suppose it is Gamesters Language from the Point of Absolute Certainty of Faith to Absolute Certainty of the Rule of Faith viz. the Scripture but our Saviour and Protestants believe more than that the Book so called is Scripture Is Certainty of this more and Certainty of this Book all one Here is then an enquiry after one thing plainly turned off to another It seems Mr. G. is quite gone for a Gamester for he discerned no Tricking in this matter nor can I. It is very true we do believe More than that the Book so called is Scripture for we believe All the Matters of Faith contained in that Book And what then If by his More he means Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture then I tell him plainly we believe no More And therefore when Mr. G. put his next Question as he thought very pertinently By what Certain Rule do you hold it My Answer was By the Divine Revelation contained in the Writings of the New Testament Whereby I excluded his More if it be not contained in Scripture But if by More he means our Assent to the Points of Faith contained in Scripture I shall give a full Answer to it afterwards Then he asked By what Certain Rule do you know that the New Testament which we now have does contain all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles And if he puts such Questions concerning the Rule What Tricking was it in me to give a direct Answer to them How did I turn off the Enquiry from one thing to another when I only Answered the Questions he proposed This is not playing Mr. G 's Cards but condemning him for playing unskilfully and desiring to begin a new Game for Mr. G. had a bad hand and managed it very ill But what would J. S. have done The thing to be made manifest by the Conference was the Absolute Certainty of Protestant Faith. And so it was for Protestant Faith is to believe all that is contained in Scripture and no more Mr. G. did indeed ask some Questions about your Certainty of your Rule and I gave him direct Answers Where is the Tricking in all this But I wisely cut off the Course of the Questions before they had question'd away the Certainty of Faith. So far otherwise that I let them alone till they plainly run away from the business of Certainty to another Question and then Mr. T. cut them off by declaring himself satisfied and asking How they could prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible But now we are to see how much better the Cards might have been plaid And now look ye Gentlemen the Man of Skill begins the Game After the Certainty of Scripture from Tradition was admitted there was no Refusing to admit that Tradition causes Certainty and makes Faith as certain as Scripture See the difference of these two Gamesters at Tradition But what if I should yield him that I will not refuse to give my Assent to any Point of Faith which comes down to us from the Apostles Times with as large and as firm a Tradition as the Scripture Then saith he it would have proved something difficult to satisfie even a willing Man that the Faith is certain which is opposed to a Faith come down by Tradition Something difficult Nay very much so without doubt But this is fairly to suppose that you have as Vniversal a Tradition for your Tridentine Faith as we have for the Scripture but this I utterly deny and I hope in another Treatise to shew I have not done it without Reason Let the Matter of Tradition itself as a Rule of Faith be one of these Points If there were a Constant Vniversal Tradition in the Christian Church from the Apostolical Times that there were Matters of Faith necessary to Salvation not contained in Scripture I grant that it would be difficult to prove it to be a Matter of Faith that Scripture alone is our Rule of Faith. But that is the mighty Advantage of our Cause that we have both Scripture and Tradition for us and that no Catholick Tradition can be produced against us in any one Point of the Additional Creed of Pius IV. which is the Design I have undertaken of which I shall suddenly publish the First Part and if God gives me Life and Health I hope to go through the Rest. Well but in the mean time Absolute Certainty of Scripture was not the Point of the Conference Can J. S. tell better than the Managers His meaning is it ought not to have been Nor is it the Point of Concern This is strange Not the Point of Concern to those that own it to be the Word of God and the only Rule of Faith It is of Infinite Concern to us if it be not to you I pity you for it Besides that it is agreed on all hands Men are saved by Believing and Practising what Christ taught not barely by believing Scripture is Scripture This is no New Speculation But what follows from it Therefore we ought to believe Christ's Doctrine contained in Scripture and obey his Commands and do I give the least Intimation against this But the Question was about our Rule of Faith and that I still think is the Scripture and whatever is contained therein is to be believed on that Account But Salvation is the thing that imports us in these Disputes and 't were well if nothing else were minded by Disputers And so think I too I desire no more to end our Controversies than to make Salvation our End and the Scripture our Rule But how can Salvation be the thing that imports us in these Disputes if Men cannot with Reason hold any thing true unless they can produce the Intrinsecal Grounds which prove it to be so Doth Mr. S. in earnest think
other Points contradictorily held between the Greek and Roman Churches besides that of the Filioque and the Argument holds as well in any other as in that And therefore he must fix the Errour on one side or other After all this flourishing he takes heart and resolves to grapple with the Instance Let us see what your Instance will do Now I thought we shall have a direct Answer But I am strangely disappointed For he runs still back to that That I do not believe it erred Was the Instance brought against me or against P. G But his Answer doth not make or marr the business The business of the Demonstration it doth and that was my business But this doth not prove that a Church going upon Tradition errs unless I will grant that the Greek Church hath erred What strange Trifling is this The Dispute was about P. G's Argument and not my Opinion Is this the Answer to the Instance about the Greek Church which Mr. M. promised If this pass for an Answer I think J. S. may defend Sure footing I mentioned P. G's Answer That the Greek Church followed Tradition till the Arians left that Rule and took up a new one And why saith J. S. hath he not answered well Because he did not answer to the purpose which was not about the Arians but the present Greek Church But a Church may follow Tradition at one time and leave it at another Very true but the Greek Church did not forsake Tradition and yet erred And therefore Tradition and Errour were found together and therein lies the force of this undeniable Instance The rest is such Trifling that I am really ashamed to answer it over and over Still he attempts to give an Answer and still fails but it is something new and therefore shall be considered His Answer saith J. S. holds as well as to the present as past Greek Church His answer Where is it It was that those who err in Faith must leave Tradition But the Greeks did not leave Tradition and yet erred in Faith so that the Instance holds good still He denies that Errour and Tradition can be found together in the Greek Church or any other Ancient or Modern i. e. the Conclusion must be held against all the Instances in the World. But I ought to say whether the differences were in matters of Faith. Yes in such which the Church of Rome accounts matters of Faith. But how can an erring Church still plead Tradition and adhere to it Answer the Instance for the Greek Church doth plead Tradition But then pleading Tradition is no more but quoting some Expressions of ancient Writers as the Arians did Not so neither for the Greek Church relies most upon Tradition from Father to Son in Practise of any Church in the World. But if they adhere to Tradition and that Tradition leads them to Christ who could not err how can they possibly err For pray did Christ teach any Errour No certainly When a Father believed what Christ taught him and the Son what the Father believed did not the Son too believe what Christ taught Run it on to the last Son that shall be born in the World must not every one believe what Christ taught if every one believed what his Father believed And so Goodnight to the Greek Church we are come back to the Argument I might as well have Instanced in the Latin Church it self Truly I think so too and so you shall find in a short time and how little Advantage you get by such a Challenge But it is impossible for a Church to adhere to Tradition and yet to Err therefore if the present Greek Church have Erred it has not adhered to Tradition if it have adhered to Tradition it hath not Erred That is the Argument must be good let the Instance be what it will. But an easie Distinction will shew the Weakness of this Argument Adhering to Tradition may be taken Two ways I. For Adhering to Tradition as the Rule and Means of Conveyance of Matters of Faith. II. For actually Adhering to that very Doctrine which Christ taught and hath ever since been truly convey'd down by Tradition In this latter Sense we grant it impossible for Men to Err while they actually adhere to that very Doctrine which Christ taught and is supposed to be deliver'd down by Tradition But this is not the Matter before us which lies in these Two Points I. Whether Tradition be an Infallible Way to convey the Doctrine of Christ down to us II. Whether it be impossible for those who hold to This as Their Rule to Err or not And so the Answer is plain to the main Argument If by Traditionary Christians be meant such as adhere to that very Doctrine which Christ taught and was actually conveyed down to them then such Traditionary Christians so believing cannot Err. But if by Traditionary Christians be meant such as take Tradition for an Infallible Rule of conveying all Matters of Faith then we say such Traditionary Christians may and have Erred And that for Two Reasons I. Because Tradition is no Infallible Rule II. Because although it were yet Men might Err either by mistaking it or departing from it But saith J. S. They cease to be Traditionary Christians if they do not believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday and so up to Christ. If by Traditionary Christians be meant they do not really believe what Christ taught we grant it that they are If by Traditionary Christians be meant such as bear the Name of Traditionary Christians and look on Tradition as their Rule and imagine they have the same Faith which Christ taught then they are still Traditionary Christians And now I am to give a clear and distinct Answer to the Demonstration of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition as it is managed by J. S. and taken into Propositions I. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour J. S. hopes I have nothing to say to this but he is mistaken For I have many things to say to lay open the Notorious Fallacy of it in every Clause I. All Traditionary Christians Who are they Are all Christians Traditionary Christians This were to the purpose if it could be proved But how doth this appear Why is it not said All Christians have gone upon this Principle He knew this could never have been proved And therefore he puts in the thing in dispute and would have it taken for granted that there were no other but Traditionary Christians Which I deny and I am certain he can never prove it Suppose then that there were Christians not Traditionary as well as Traditionary the Proposition appears ridiculous so far is it from Demonstration Traditionary Christians believed so Non-Traditionary Christians believed otherwise and which are to be believed is the Question and that to be determined by the Certainty of the
Ground they went upon and so we are come to the Debate between Scripture and Tradition II. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday This is capable of a threefold meaning I. That they do actually believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday Which is a meer contingent thing and proves nothing Or II. That they are bound to believe to Day as they did Yesterday And that may be on several Accounts I. Because they see Evidence from the Word of God to Day as well as they did Yesterday II. Or because their Guides of the Church teach them the same to Day which they did Yesterday whom they believe to be Infallible III. Or meerly because they receive it by an Oral Tradition and not on the other Accounts and then it proves no more than that they are bound to do it and it is too well known that many fail to do what they are bound to Or III. That they do Infallibly believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday But then this ought to have been inserted in the Proposition That Traditionary Christians cannot fail to believe to Day what they did Yesterday If it be said That this is implyed in their being Traditionary Christians then I say the whole is a Fallacy of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he supposes all true Christians to be Traditionary Christians and then that they Infallibly hold to Tradition as their Rule and from thence he proves Tradition to be Infallible But if the Body of Christians may go upon another Rule or if going upon Tradition they may misunderstand it then there is no inseparable connexion in the several Links of this Chain And there is a further Fallacy in supposing that if any change in Faith happens it must be as sudden and remarkable as if all Men should to day refuse to believe what they believed Yesterday Whereas the changes of Opinions are oft-times wrought by insensible Degrees and many concurrent Causes and sometimes the very same Words may be used and the Faith altered as in the Case of Merit Sacraments Sacrifice c. which sheweth Men may continue the very same Terms and yet believe quite a different thing And where Changes are gradual it is very unreasonable to pitch upon such a precise and narrow space of time as between to Day and Yesterday By the same Method one may demonstrate it to be impossible that any Language should be changed for People speak the same Language to Day which they did Yesterday and the same Yesterday which they did the Day before and so up to the very building of Babel and yet we all know that Languages are continually changed and to such a degree that in some Ages they cannot understand what was at that time intelligible by all In such cases it is enough to assign the general Causes and Reasons of Alterations without fixing a precise and determinate Time. And those I shall speak to afterwards III. And so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour To prove any thing from hence it must be shewed I. That there can be no Pretence to Tradition taken up without Ground for if there may it can by no means follow That if Men pretend to Tradition that Tradition must run up to the Time of Christ. But then they cease to be Traditionary Christians What then Not in pretence for they may call themselves so still but in reality they are not II. That if Men lay claim to a Rule they must always observe it We do not pretend to it as to the Scripture And what Reason is there for it as to Tradition But if Men may pretend to follow Tradition and do not then from their being Traditionary Christians it can by no means follow that this Tradition must be carried up to the Time of our Blessed Saviour II. The second Proposition is And if they follow this Rule they can never err in Faith. This is palpably self evident saith J. S. So say I too but it is only to be a meer Fallacy To follow this Rule is to believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday and so up to Christ or downwards If they did this from Christs time and so forwards they must continue to believe the same to the End of the World. If they really believe the same Doctrine which Christ taught no doubt they cannot err But the Question is Whether this be an Infallible Rule for us to Judge they could never mistake in this Rule nor follow any other For if either of these could happen the Demonstration is lost If it were possible for Errors to come in some other Way or for Persons to misapprehend the Doctrine delivered then it is not possible for us by this Way to be convinced they could not err The latter I have already spoken to I shall now shew that there were some other ways that Errors might come in And here I shall pass over the Common Infirmities of Human Nature which I think Oral Tradition can never Cure and which leave Men always lyable to Error but I shall name some more particular Ways of introducing them I. By the Authority of False Teachers And for this I shall not run back to the False Apostles and Seducers in the Apostles times and afterwards but I shall bring a present Instance in the Church of Rome and that is of Michael de Molinos a Person solemnly condemned at Rome Aug. 28. of this Year for 68 Propositions taken out of his Books and owned by himself as the Decree saith which are there said to be Heretical Erroneous Blasphemous Offensive Rash Seditious and contrary to Christian Discipline This Man is said to have had Thousands of Disciples in Italy in the very Heart of the Traditionary Church Now I desire J. S. to inform me If Tradition be Infallible and that be the Way followed in the Church of Rome how it was possible for such Multitudes to be deceived in Matters of such Consequence To say they were not deceived is to expose the Authority of the Guides of the Church of Rome to the greatest Contempt To say they were deceived is to own That notwithstanding Tradition a single Priest may gain such Authority as to deceive Thousands and where lies then the Infallibility of Tradition II. By Enthusiasm or a Pretence to Immediate Revelation For this I shall not produce the Old Instances in Ecclesiastical History as of Montanus Asclepiades Theodotus Manichaeus Arius AEtius c. who all pretended to Revelations for their particular Opinions But I shall keep to the late Instance of Molinos who asserts That the Perfection of a Christian State lies in a Simple Pure Infused and Perfect Contemplation above the Vse of Ratiocination or Discursive Prayer and that in order to this nothing is so necessary as Self-annihilation This Doctrine is now condemned at Rome but how came it into the Church Did not they believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday