liberty from greater imployments how ready I am to give him all reasonable satisfaction And in the first place I return him thanks for the weapon he hath made choice of viz. that of reason there being no other I desire to make use of in managing this debate between us And I hope he will find as much civility towards him throughout this discourse as he expresses towards me in the entrance to his if that may be accounted any real civility which is intended meerly out of design with the greater advantage to disparage the cause I have undertaken and yet see no reason to repent of If in his cursory view of two Chapters of my Book he had as he saith quite lost me he had no cause to be troubled for it if he had found far more excellent persons such as Dr. Hammond and the Disswader and Dr. Pierce instead of me But to be sure he intends not this in honour to any of us but by way of a common reproach to us all as though we did not talk out of nature or things but words and imagination I could heartily have wished Mr. S. would have cropt so much of the victory due to anothers learning and industry as to have shewed me one proposition in those discourses which a rational understanding that would be true to it self could not settle or rely on But if such insinuations as these must pass for answers I must needs say I judg M. S. equally happy in confuting our grounds and in demonstrating his own in both which his greatest strength lies in the self-evidence of his bare affirmations But it seems he is willing to resign the glory of this Victory to the judicious Author of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis or to some others for him and when they have once obtained it I shall not envy them the honour of it And I suppose those persons whoever they are may be able by this time to tell Mr. S. it is an easier matter to talk of Victories than to get them But if they do no more in the whole than Mr. S. hath done for his share they will triumph no-where but where they conquer viz. in their own fancies and imaginations Therefore leaving them to their silent conquests and as yet unheard-of Victories we come to Mr. S. who so liberally proclaims his own in the point of oral tradition Which in a phrase scarce heard of in our language before is the Post he tells us he hath taken upon him to explicate further and defend What the explicating a Post means I as little understand as I do the force of his demonstrations but this and many other such uncouth forms of speech up and down in his Book which make his style so smooth and easie are I suppose intended for embellishments of our tongue and as helps to sure-speaking as his whole Book is designed for sure-footing But letting him enjoy the pleasure and felicity of his own expressions I come to consider the matter in debate between us And his first controversie with me is for opposing the infallibility of oral tradition to doctrinal infallibility in Pope and Councils A controversie fitter to be debated among themselves than between him and me For is any thing more notorious than that infallibility is by the far greatest part of Romanists attributed to the present Church in teaching and delivering matters of faith not by virtue of any oral tradition but the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and that this is made by them the only ground of divine faith For which Mr. S. may if he please consult his judicious Author of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis or any other of their present Writers except Mr. White and himself He need not therefore have been to seek for the meaning of this doctrinal infallibility as opposed to traditionary if he had not either been ignorant of the opinion of their own Writers or notoriously dissembled it For this infallibility is not attributed to the Rulers of the Church meerly as Doctors or Scholars but as the representative Church whose office it is to deliver all matters of faith by way of an infallible testimony to every age and thereby to afford a sufficient foundation for divine faith But Mr. S. attributes no such infallibility to the representative Church as teaching the rest but derives their infallibility from such grounds as are common to all parts of the essential Church Wherein he apparently opposes himself to the whole current of their own Authors who resolve all faith into the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost without which they assert there could be no infallibility at all in tradition or any thing else and therefore these opinions are as opposite to each other as may be For such an infallibility is not attributed by them to the Teachers of the Church meerly on some signal occasions as Mr. S. seems to suppose when they are to explain new matters of saith but it is made by them to be as necessary as believing it self because thereby the only sure foundation of faith is laid and therefore it is very evident they make it proper to the Church in all ages Or else in some age of the Church men were destitute of suciffient grounds of faith For they by no means think it a sufficient foundation for faith that one age of the Church could not conspire to deceive another for this they will tell him at most is but a humane faith but that Christ by his promise hath assured the Church that there shall never be wanting in it the infallible assistance of his Holy Spirit whereby they shall infallibly teach and deliver all matters of saith And if this be not their opinion let them speak to the contrary which if they do I am sure they must retract their most elaborate discourses about the resolution of faith written by the greatest Artists among them Let Mr. S. then judg who it is that stumbles at the Threshold but of this difference among them more afterwards By this it appears it was not on any mistake that I remained unsatisfied in the Question I asked Whether am I bound to believe what the present Church delivers to be infallible To which Mr. S. answers I understand him not My reply shall be only that of a great Lawyers in a like case I cannot help that I am sure my words are intelligible enough for I take infallible there as he takes it himself for infallibly true although I deny not the word to be improperly used in reference to things and that for the reason given by him because fallibility infallibility belong to the knowing power or the persons that have it and not to the object But we are often put to the use of that word in a sense we acknowledg improper meerly in compliance with our Adversaries who otherwise are apt to charge us with having only uncertainties and probabilities for our faith if we do not use the term infallible as applied to
the truth of the thing I am content therefore wherever in what I have writ he meets that term so applied that he take it only in his own sense for that which is certainly true for I mean no more by it And in this sense Mr. S. answers affirmatively and gives this account of it not only because the present Church cannot be deceived in what the Church of the former age believed but because the Church in no age could conspire against her knowledg to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world The Question then is whether this be a sufficient account for me to believe that to be certainly true or to be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles which the present Church delivers and consequently whether the resolution of faith be barely into oral tradition Thus we see the clear state of the Question between us I come therefore to the vindication of those things which I had objected against this way of resolving faith into oral tradition Three things I especially insisted on 1. That it is inconsistent with the pretensions of the present Roman Church 2. That it hath not been the way owned in all ages of the Christian Church 3. That it is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages If these three be made good there will be no cause to glory in this last invention to support the sinking fabrick of that Church These three then I undertake to defend against what Mr. Serjeant hath objected against them 1. That it is contrary to the pretensions of the present Roman Church And if it be so there can be no reason for those who are of it to rely upon it For if so be that Church pretends that the obligation to faith arises from a quite different ground from this how can they who believe that Church infallible venture their faith upon any other principle than what is publickly owned by her And whosoever thinks himself bound to believe by virtue of an infallible assistance of the present Church doth thereby shew that his obligation doth not depend upon what was delivered by the former ages of the Church As those who believed the Apostles were infallible in their doctrine could not resolve their faith into the infallibility of oral tradition but into that immediate assistance by which the Apostles spake and where there is a belief of a like assistance the foundation of faith cannot ly in the indefectibility of tradition but in that infallible Spirit which they suppose the Church to be assisted by For supposing this oral tradition should fail and that men might believe that it had actually failed yet if the former supposition were true there was sufficient ground for faith remaining still And what assurance can any one have that the present Church delivers nothing for matter of faith but what hath been derived in every age from Christ and his Apostles if such an infallible Spirit be supposed in the present Church which was in the Apostles themselves For on the same reason that those who heard the Apostles were not bound to trouble themselves with the tradition of the former age no more ought they who believe the present Roman Church to have the same infallible assistance They need not then enquire whether this age knew the meaning of the former or whether one age could conspire to deceive another or whether notwithstanding both these errors might not come into the Church it is sufficient for them that the definitions of the present Church are infallible in all matters of faith Therefore my demand was built on very good reason How can you assure me the present Church obliges me to believe nothing but only what and so far as it received from the former Church And Mr. S's answer is far from being satisfactory That this appears by her manifest practice never refusing communion to any man that could approve himself to believe all the former age did For this may be resolved into a principle far different from this which is the belief of the infallibility of the present Church For supposing that they are not bound to enquire themselves into the reasons why the tradition could not fail in any age it is suffient for them to believe the Church infallible and if it be so in proposing matters of faith it must be so in declaring what the belief of the former age was But my demands go on What evidence can you bring to convince me both that the Church always observed this rule and could never be deceived in it Which question is built on these two Principles which the infallibility of oral tradition stands on 1. That the Church must always go upon this ground 2. That if it did so it is impossible she should be deceived Both which are so far from that self-evidence which M. Serjeant still pretends to in this way that the Jesuits principles seem much more rational and consistent than these do For granting them but that one Postulatum that there must be an inherent infallibility in the testimony of the present Church to afford sufficient foundation for divine faith all the rest of their doctrine follows naturally from it Whereas this new way of resolving faith is built on such suppositions which no man well in his wits will be ready to grant For unless it be self-evident that the Church did always proceed on this ground it cannot be self-evident that oral tradition is infallible because the self-evidence of this principle depends on this that in all ages of the Church the only rule and measure of faith was what was delivered by oral tradition from the age foregoing Now if it be possible that matters of faith might be conveyed in ways quite different from this what self-evidence can there be that the Church much always proceed upon this Mr. S. then must demonstrate it impossible for matters of faith to be conveyed to posterity in any other way than oral tradition and not only that the thing is impossible but that the Church in all ages judged it to be so or else he can never make it at all evident that the Church always made this her rule of faith But if either there may be a certain conveyance of the doctrine of faith another way viz. by writing or that the Church might judg that way more certain whether it were so or not either way it will appear far enough from self-evidence that she always judged of doctrines of faith meerly by the tradition of the preceding age If another way be granted possible there must be clear demonstration that the Church notwithstanding this did never make use of it for if it did make use of another way of resolving faith in any age of the Church then in that age of the Church oral tradition was not looked on as the ground of faith
on as novelties therefore they speak much of tradition and the ancient faith but that was not by what their Parents taught them but what the Fathers of the Church delivered in their writings for by these they judged of traditions and not the oral way And therefore I see little reason to believe that this was either the sense of the Council of Trent or is the sense of any number of Roman Catholicks much less of the whole Church none excepted as Mr. S. in his confident way expresses it And if he will as he saith disavow the maintaining any point or affecting any way which is not assented to by all I hope to see Mr. S. retract this opinion and either fall in with the Court of Rome or return as reason leads him into the bosom of the Church of England But there seems to be somewhat more in what follows viz. that though schoolmen question the personal infallibility of the Pope or of the Roman Clergy nay of a General Council yet all affirm the infallibility of tradition or the living voice of the Church essential and this he saith is held by all held firmly and that it is absolutely infallible To this therefore I answer either Mr. S. means that none do affirm that the universal tradition of the Church essential can err or that the Church of Rome being the Church essential cannot err in her tradition But which way soever he takes it I shall easily shew how far it is from proving that he designs it for For if he take it in the first sense viz. that all the faithful in all ages could not concur in an error then he may as well prove Protestants of his mind as Papists for this is the foundation on which we believe the particular Books of Scripture If this therefore proves any thing it proves more then he intends viz. that while we thus oppose each other we do perfectly agree together and truly so we do as much as they do among themselves But if Mr. S's meaning be that all of their Religion own the Roman Church to be the Church essential and on that account that it cannot err setting aside the absurdity of the opinion it self I say from hence it doth not follow that they make oral tradition the rule of faith because it is most evident that the ground why they say their Church cannot err is not on Mr. S's principles but on the supposition of an infallible assistance which preserves that Church from error So that this falls far short of proving that they are all agreed in this rule of faith which is a thing so far from probability that he might by the same argument prove that Scripture is owned by them all to be the rule of faith For I hope it is held by all and held firmly that the living voice of God in Scripture as delivered to us is infallible and if so then there is as much ground for this as the other But if we enquire what it is men make a rule of faith we must know not only that they believe tradition infallible but on what account they do so For if tradition be believed infallible barely on the account of a promise of infallibility to the present Church then the resolution of faith is not into the tradition but into that infallible assistance and consequently the rule of faith is not what bare tradition delivers but what that Church which cannot err in judging tradition doth propose to us It is not therefore their being agreed in general that tradition is infallible doth make thâ—m agree in the same rule of faith but they must agree in the ground of that infallibility viz. that it depends on this that no age could conspire to deceive the next But all persons who understand any thing of the Roman Church know very well that the general reason why tradition is believed infallible is because they first believe the Church to be infallible whereas Mr. S. goes the contrary way and makes the infallibility of the the Church to depend on the infallibility of tradition And therefore for all that I can see we must still oppose private Opinators in this controversie the Church of Rome not having declared her self at all on Mr. S's behalf but the contrary and the generality believing on the account of the present Churches infallibility And it is strange Mr. S. should find no difference between mens resolving faith into common sense and into the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost If this then be the first principle of controversie as Mr. S. pretends we see how unlikely they are to agree about other matters who are so much divided about the principle of resolving them And if this be the ground of faith then most Romanists build on a wrong Foundation But if the infallibility of oral tradition be the foundation on which that formidable structure is erecting which he speaks of wo then to the Court of Rome for that is known to build on quite a different foundation And if this as he saith rises apace and has advanced many stories in a small time it only lets us know how fast their divisions grow and that they are building so fast one against another that their Church will not stand between them By this discourse Mr. S. pretends to answer all those If 's which follow which are these In case the Church may determine things de fide which were not before whether the present Church doth then believe as the precedent did or no if it did how comes any thing to be de fide which was not before if it did not what assurance can I have that every age of the Church believes just as the precedent did and no otherwise when I see they profess the contrary And if a thing may be de fide in one age which was not in a foregoing then a Church may deliver that as a matter of faith at one time which was never accounted so before by which means the present Church may oblige me to believe that as a matter of faith which never was so in Christs or the Apostles times and so the infallibility on the account of tradition is destroyed To all which Mr. S. gives a very easie answer viz. that they do not hold any disparate or unimplied points of faith but such as are involved and implied in the main point This is no more easily said then understood for if these be implied in the former how can there come a new obligation to believe them For to take his own instance will any man in his senses say that he that believes homo est animal rationale doth not believe homo est animal and this he makes choice of as an example how one point of faith may be involved in another so as to receive a distinct obligation to believe it I grant that homo est animal is involved in the other but he that shall say that after he hath assented
but this if a Pope and Council should define a new thing and declare they ground themselves on new lights as did their first reformers in England but I shall find he saith no such fopperies in faith-definitions made by the Catholick Church Is this the man who made choice of reason for his weapon could there be a greater calumny cast on our Church than to say her reformers grounded themselves on new lights when our great charge against the Church of Rome is for introducing Novelties and receding from pure and primitive antiquity Whether the charge be true or no yet sure it follows they did not declare they ground themselves on new lights but expresly the contrary Well but Pope and Councils neither define new things nor ground themselves on them but what means the man of reason that they make no new definitions surely not for then what did they meet for and what mean their decrees but he intends that they deliver no new doctrine but how must that be tried or hath Mr. S. gained the opinion of infallibility both from Pope and Councils that we must believe his bare word but we not only say but prove that even their last Council hath defined many things which never were delivered by Christ or his Apostles And it is to no purpose whether they say they ground themselves on new lights or pretend to an infallible assistance for it comes all to the same at last For if the assistance be infallible what matter is it whether the doctrine hath been revealed or no for on this supposition it is impossible that Pope and Council should miscarry Therefore if any Church be guilty of fopperies in faith-definitions it must be that which you miscall the Catholick but is more truly known by the name of the Roman Church There is yet one piece of Mr. S's sagacity to be taken notice of as to this particular which is that I am at an end of my argument because I say the opinion of the Pope and Councils infallibility is the common doctrin maintained in which I confound the Church with the schools or some private opinaters and then carp at those mens tenets And this is the force of all that Paragraph He tells me I want not wit to know that no sober Catholick holds humane deductions the rule of their faith schoolmen definers of it nor the schools the Tribunal whence to propose it authoritatively and obligingly to the generality of the faithful Neither doth Mr. S. want the wit to know that our present enquiry is concerning the sense of their present Church about the rule of faith Since then Mr. S. must confess it necessary to faith to know what the certain rule of it is let me enquire further whether any particular person can know certainly what it is unless he knows what the Church owns for her rule of faith and whether that may be owned as the Churches judgement which is stifly opposed by the most interessed persons in the Roman Church and the most zealous contenders for it Especially when the Pope who is said to be Head of the Church condemns the doctrine asserted and that only by a small number of such who are as much opposed by themselves as by any of us Is it then possible to know the Churches judgement or not if not 't is to no purpose to search for a rule of faith if it be which way can we come to know it either by most voices or the sense of the Governours of the Church either of the ways I dare put it to a fair tryal whether oral tradition or the infallibility of Pope and Councils be the Doctrine most owned in the Church of Rome But Mr. S. still tells us these are only private opinators and schoolmen who assert the contrary doctrine to his But wiill not they much more say on the other side that this way of oral trodition is a novel fancy of some few half-Catholicks in England and tends to subvert the Roman Church But is the present Pope with Mr. S. a private opinator or was the last a meer schoolman I am sure what ever Mr. S. thinks of him he thought not so of himself when he said he was no Divine in the controversie of Jansenius Doth the Court of Rome signifie no more with Mr. S. than a company of scholastick Pedants that know not what the sense of the Church is concerning the rule of faith I meddle not with the Schools but with the authority of the present Church and him whom Mr. S. owns for the head of it and is it consistent with his headship to condemn that doctrine which contains in it the only certain rule of faith Mr. S. may then see they were no such impertinent Topicks which I insisted on and as stout as Mr. S. seems to be I an apt to believe he would not look on the censure of the Inquisition as an impertinent Topick But at last Mr. S. offers at something whereby he would satisfie me of the sense of the Church as to this particular and therefore asks whether I never heard of such a thing as the Council of Trent I must ingenuously confess I have and seen more a great deal of it than I am satisfied with But what of that there he tells me I may find a clear solution of my doubt by the constant procedure of that most grave Synod in its definitions That is I hope to find that oral tradition was acknowledged there as the only self-evident rule of faith If I do this I confess my self satisfied in this enquiry But how much to the contrary is there very obvious in the proceedings of it For in the 4 th Session the Decree is That Scripture and tradition should be embraced with equal piety and reverence and the reason is because the doctrine of faith is contain'd partly in Scripture partly in tradition but what arts must Mr. S. use to infer from hence that oral tradition in contradistinction to Scripture was looked on as the only rule of faith I cannot but say that the ruling men of that Council were men wise enough in their generation and they were too wise wholly to exclude Scripture but because they knew that of it self could not serve their purposes they therefore help it out with tradition and make both together the compleat rule of faith Where I pray in all the proceedings of that Council doth Mr. S. find them define any thing on the account of oral tradition instead of which we find continual bandyings about the sense of Scripture and Fathers which might have been all spared if they had been so wise as to consider they could not but know the sense of the present Church nor that of the precedent and so up to the time of Christ. But they were either so ignorant as not to light on this happy invention or so wise and knowing as to despise it It is true they would not have their doctrines looked