you How you could prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible And in a Copy sent from Ch. where you dispersed it the Title of the second Dispute is Stillingfleet's first Question How do you prove c. so that my Name was here falsly put in and it is easie to guess with what design But to proceed When you said the Infallibility of the Church of Rome consisted in following the universal Testimony of all Traditionary Christians Your Copy makes me ask a very wise Question upon it viz. How does if appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in Traditiun Whereas I put two Questions to you 1. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in the sense and meaning of Tradition 2. Is this Tradition a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture The Design of which Questions was to shew 1. That to receive a Doctrine by mere Tradition can afford no Infallible Ground of Faith unless persons be assured of the true Sense and Meaning of the Doctrine so delivered As for instance suppose the Doctrine delivered be that Christ was the Son of God if the Infallibility of Tradition goes no farther than the bare delivery from Father to Son then Faith can go no farther than the general words though an Heretical sense may lie under them If the Infallibility doth extend to the sense and meaning of these words then either every Traditionary Christian is to give this sense which will make a very large Infallibility in the whole Body of Traditionary Christians or else the explaining the sense and meaning of Tradition must belong to a certain Order of Men by virtue of a divine Promise If so then the Infallibility of Tradition cannot consist in holding the same Doctrine to day that was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour as you asserted For if the Church may explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as to oblige Men to believe that by virtue of such explication which they were not obliged to before then it is impossible the Infallibility of Tradition should be in a constant Tradition from Father to Son. For they have no power to oblige to any more than they received but according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and some will tell you it is Heresie to deny it and I appeal to F. Warner if it be not the Church hath power and authority to explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as persons are obliged upon pâ—in of Damnation to believe that Sense and Meaning of Tradition which the present Church delivers As will Appear by an undeniable instance The Tradition of a Real Presence in the Eucharist is allowed on all hands but all the Controversie is and hath been for some Ages what the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition is Whether it be a Real Presence by way of Efficacy and Influence or by a mystical Union or by a substantial Change of the very Elements into the Body and Bloud of Christ. The Tradition of the Real Presence may be preserved under every one of these Explications the Question now is whether it be sufficient to adhere to the general Tradition of the Church or it be not necessary to Salvation to adhere to the Churches Explication of the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition in the Councils of Lateran and Trent If it be said that the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition as there expressed viz. Transubstantiation was always deliver'd from Father to Son I answer 1. This is more than is pretended by many of the greatest Men in the Roman Church as hath been lately abundantly shewed And it is impossible to make it out that the manner of the Presence hath been constantly delivered from Father to Son from the time of Christ and his Apostles for the main Testimonies alledged out of Antiquity are onely for a Real Presence and there are as express Testimonies against the Change of the Elements as there are any for the other 2. This takes off from the Power and Authority of the Church of Rome if it cannot make a necessary Explication of the Sense and Meaning of Tradition and resolves all into a meer humane Faith which is the unavoidable Consequence of this Doctrine of Oral Tradition For no other Account can be given of it than from meer Natural Reason viz. that Traditionary Christians could not believe otherwise to day than they did yesterday Granting this to be true which is very far from being so as shall be shewed when Your Answer to the Instance of the Greek Church comes abroad yet the utmost this can amount to is that I resolve my Faith into a Logical Demonstration And is this the Faith Christians are to be saved by What Grace of God what Assistence of the Holy Spirit are necessary to such a Faith as this But for this I refer you to the Haeresis Blackloäna c. 2. I intended by the second Question to put a Difference between the Tradition allowed by us and the Tradition disputed If no more were meant by Tradition than the Universal Tradition of the Christian Church as to the Books of Scripture this I had before granted to be a sufficient Ground for the Certainty of our Faith as to the Canon of Scripture which is our Rule of Faith but if by Tradition be understood either some necessary Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture or a Power in the Church to make unnecessary to become necessary this I denyed and desire to see some better Proof of it than you produce All the Answer which you give in your own Paper to these two Questions is that All Traditionary Christians that is all Bishops all Priests all Fathers and all People following this Rule and receiving Faith because it was received the day before could not innovate in Faith unless they could all either forget what they received the day before or out of Malice change it therefore because no cause can be assigned for such an effect they cannot innovate If there can Assign it Now to which of the Questions that I put is this an Answer Doth this shew that the Church of Rome is Infallible in giving the Sense and Meaning of Tradition or that this Tradition is a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture But it seems to be an Answer to the Question in your Copy and therefore it is very suspicious that the Question was so framed that the Answer might seem pertinent to it To shew the vanity of this Demonstration I produced the Instance of the Greek Church which followed Tradition from Father to Son and yet you charge it with Errour in matters of Faith so that a Church following Tradition may err in matters of Faith. Here again your Copy notoriously fails for it makes me put such another wise Question as before Whether the Greek Church did follow from Father to Son the Tradition in matters of Faith or no As though I had desired Information from
me who because I had proved from St. Paul's words that Iupiter was sometimes taken among the Heathens for the true God from thence wisely infers that I am for introducing Paganism and hardly believe another Life but this is so gross and ridiculous a calumny that it hardly deserves to be taken notice of But I pray let me see this Controversie-juggle as Mr. M. phrases it and how Dr. St. is set up against Dr. St. Thus it lies In my first Proposition I seem to affirm that the Tradition of all Christian Churches is abound of absolute certainty for the admittance of Scripture and in the second I would infer that Tradition is no infallible conveyance of matters of Faith but the belief of the Scripture is a matter of Faith. A rare Discovery Methinks Mr. G. appears very well qualified to set up for a Controvertist and much such a one as those who formerly set Dr. St. against Dr. St. But the Author of the first Letter obsrves that I spare my own pains and put the proof upon you Mr. M. confesses that the occasion of the Conference was that you affirmed that Protestants could not shew any ground of absolute certainty for their Faith. Therefore since you own Tradition to be an infallible way of conveying Faith I desired to know how you could deny that we had any ground for absolute certainty of our Faith as to the Word of God when the Tradition we go upon is so much larger and firmer than any you can bring for the points of Faith in difference between us But then as to your way of explaining Tradition not with respect to the Books of Scripture but to particular Doctrines of Faith proposed the second particular to you to make good viz. That the Tradition from Father to Son is an infallible conveyance of matters of Faith notwithstanding the Greek Church is charged by you with Errour which adhered to Tradition If therefore you do own the Infallibility of Tradition you have no reason to deny that we have any ground of certainty who have a more unquestionable Tradition for the Scriptures than you can have for your distinguishing Doctrines or the matters of Controversie between us Yet how can you esteem your way of Tradition an infallible conveyance of matters of Faith when you charge the Greek Church with Heresie which adhered to Tradition Thus I leave any Reader to judge where the appearance of a contradiction lies There remains nothing more in either of the Letters which I can think requires an Answer unless it be that I charge Mr. M. with using arts to get Mr. T. to sign your Copy I do confess that when he told me Mr. M. had spoken to him that they might meet and compare and sign each others Copies without acquainting me with it or desiring that Copy which was taken for me and was read aloud till the Company rose and that he had said that I gave out false Copies I did look upon these as Arts but if he doth not like this name nor Mr. T. I can soon find out another And the matter of fact is owned by Mr. M. in these words Meeting accidentally with Mr. T. in the street I told him I heard you complained that Mr. G.'s Papers of the Conference were false and therefore I desired him to compare his copy with that which was written for Mr. G. that we might see whether Mr. G. or his Amanuensis had dealt fairly or not Here is the very thing confessed which I complained of viz. that without acquainting me with it he would have had Mr. T. to have compared his Copy with theirs after he confess I had complained that the Copy they gave out was false And if Mr. T. had complied with this Proposition and after comparing had signed your Copy what Triumphs had then been made that Mr. T. himself had owned your Copy against me And for this matter I need not make any insinuation for the thing it self is clear The only way for your justification had been when you heard of my complaint to have brought or sent your Copy to me to have examined and compared it but I say still it was very unjustisiable for you to give out a Copy for the true account of the Conference which was never read nor compared and I think I have now made appear to have been both false and imperfect And now having finished the main parts of my Answer I must make a Review that nothing which may be thought material may escape me For that is the constant method of some men to cry up what is unanswered for unanswerable although it were only passed over as not deserving it I did say in my former Letter that you took great care in the Conference it self to keep me from expecting any great ingenuity after it The Author of the first Letter desires Information what that care was I am very unwilling to expose your methods of managing Conferences but I desire that Gentleman to be present at any of them and he will find satisfaction enough But Mr. M. as a proof of your fairness insists p. 2. on your desire to put things into writing Will Mr. M. say that you carried your self fairly and ingenuously as to the manner of the Conference That you gave me no interruptions used no fleering behaviour that you never offered to put things down against my sense nor hindered me in setting it down that you made no unhandsom reflections in the interlocutory part If Charity be any part of Ingenuity you shewed it abundantly For when you spake of Churches in Communion with Rome Mr. T. said What! and all other Churches must be in Gehenna you replied with great Charity and Ingenuity that many a true word was spoke in jest If you are your self in earnest I pray let us know for what reason you damn us all Is it for want of certainty in our Faith That is very far from being proved by you And if you could prove it in your way for all that I can see you will damn almost all in the Church of Rome as well as all out of it For if this Oral Tradition be the only certain way of Faith and all are damn'd who want such certainty what will become of all those in the Church of Rome who believe as little of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition as we do But to return to your Ingenuity in the Conference I observe that Mr. M. onely mentions this Proposal of putting the Conference in Writing to shew your Ingenuity he saith not a word of it as to your manner of managing it And truly I then thought he was ashamed of it but whether he were or not I am sure he had cause for it He confesses there was Noise Wrangling Confusions Interruptions Heat Passion Personal reflexions p. 3 9 15. And all this while you were very fair and ingenuous very meek and candid very soft and obliging not in the least boisterous impertinent or
we have the Word of God for it that they are in the certain way to salvation but if they could be kept from all Errour and yet not be sincerely Good Can Faith save him Jam. 2.14 What doth it profit my Brethren though a man say he hath Faith even infallible Faith and have not Works I have long wonder'd at this kind of Missionary Zeal as Mr. M. speaks p. 34 against Errour and the want of I know not what Infallibility when so much less Zeal is shewed against Mens Passions and Vices whereas the Vertues of the Mind and of a good Life are far more excellent and usefull to Mankind than being kept from Involuntary Errours But saith Mr. M. It is a most uncomfortable thing to be shewn that you ought not to trust your Reason and to be told yâ—u ought In answer to this suggestion I will tell you a very comfortable thing and that is the allowance God makes for Ignorance and Weakness For if God will not charge Involuntary Errours upon us we may think our selves as safe as if we were Infallible What Reason we have we ought to make use of for the best purposes but if our Reason fail us the Goodness of God will not if we be Sincere Yet Mr. M. cannot get it out of his head but that it is my Task to give some distinguishing Mark for the finding out those Christians on whose Tradition we may safely rely for the Reception of the holy Scriptures How often must I repeat it that it is none of my Task And that if the Testimony of all Christian Churches be a sufficient Ground of Certainty I have no Reason to examine farther As for Instance suppose upon a Lord Mayor's Day I ask of all the several Liveries and Companies and other People whether my Lord Mayor be gone by and they all unanimously agree that he is have not I reason to be satisfied by this universal Consent Ay but Sir saith Mr. M. you are to consider that there was a great diversity in the Companies you met with there was my Lord Mayor's own Company and many besides some whereof had no Charters confirmed to them I desire you to tell me which of the Companies had Charters and which not for my part I will believe none but the Testimony of those Companies which could produce their Charters But say I if our Dispute was about legal Companies you say very well but since I aim at no more than knowing whether my Lord Mayor be gone by or not I think the Testimony of them all is sufficient whether incorporated or not whether they were of the Orange or Blew Regiment or any other People in the Street when I find them all to agree in the same thing I have no reason to question the Certainty of it I will not think so poorly of your Vnderstandings as to think it needs Application But I must think so if yet you think it my Task to find out a distinguishing Mark between Churches when the universal Testimony of all Christian Churches is sufficient for the Certainty of our Faith which Mr. M. so often grants was the Occasion and Subject of the Conference And now there is nothing remaining to be answered in Mr. M's Letter to me but his learned Discourses about Verbal Conferences and Coffee-Houses which will require no long Answer from me As to Verbal Conferences they depend so much on the Temper Ingenuity Presence of Mind and particular skill in Controversie which Persons have that no certain Rule can be given about them They may doe Good or Hurt be Usefull or Mischievous as the Persons and circumstances are And it is not the setting down some general Heads can prevent the Mischief of false Reports as I have had too large and fresh Experience of it Which ought to make every one more Carefull what sort of Persons he meets with upon such Occasions I do not see how any Man can be secure as to his Reputation after them if they are such as run into Companies frequent Coffee-houses and are apt to boast and to talk much of themselves as that at such a time saith one I disputed with such a Man and these were my Arguments and he gave such trifling Answers to them that I wonder he should have any Reputation And to convince you look ye Gentlemen here are the Notes of such a Conference do you mark what a pitifull Answer this is and then when he was required to go farther he Refused and pretended business and want of Time so that upon the whole Matter I conclude him to be a Mere Trifler All this while the Person concerned is at a Distance and knows nothing of all this but he is abused and reproached at the Mercy of such Persons who look on an officious Lie as a Venial sin especially when it is thought to serve a Good Cause And when the injured Person comes to understand how he hath been used he hath no way left but to publish a Vindication of himself and so Verbal Conferences must end in Writing Controversies unless some effectual way could be found out to prevent mens partial and disingenuous Representing them afterwards There is too great Reason to believe that those who are most Impertinent in a Dispute will be so after it and great Talkers are commonly great Boasters especially when they hope to recommend themselves by their pretended Victories and their Missionary Zeal of disputing in Coffee-houses A thing which Mr. M. observes p. 34. the Children of the Reformation are little acquainted with And I do not like the Mother of these Children a jot the less for it For Religion is a grave and serious thing and ought to be treated with a Respect due to the Concernments of it I am far from being a Friend to any Seditious idle or profane Discourses in those places but yet methinks it looks very oddly to turn Places of Diversion into Schools of Disputing And if such a Missionary Zeal prevails I suppose the Keepers of those Houses will give little thanks to the Promoters of it for Men do not love to drink their warm liquour in Mood and Figure nor to lace their Coffee with Controversies Mr. M. represents me p. 33. as one that thought it a Crime to go to Coffee-houses Which is a notable device to make all the Gentlemen who frequent them my Enemies Whereas I onely mentioned your reading your Paper in Coffee-houses and there boasting of your Conference wherein he might be sure I would not be present to contradict him But this is a distinguishing Mark of Mr. M's Ingenuity I shall mention one more and conclude this Letter Mr. M. confesses many Lies are told in Coffee-houses p. 33. and I have some Reason to believe him But if saith he all Places are to be avoided wherein Lies are told I am afraid Dr. St. would run the hazard of being silenced for want of a Pulpit which might be ventured on This is such an obliging Complement to the London Clergy to compare their Pulpits to Coffee-houses for Lying that it is beyond my skill to return it But if there be so little Truth in our Pulpits as Mr. M. suggests which I am sure he can never prove yet the constant Loyalty which hath been preached there might have made Mr. M. a little more civil to them than to compare them to Coffee-houses wherein himself complains of Seditious idle and profane Discourses I am Sir Your humble Servant E. S. London Apr. 21 1687. THere is in the Press and will speedily be published an Answer to the Reasons of Edward Sclateâ— Minister of â—uâ—ney for his Conversion â—o the Roman Catholick Faith and Communion Sold by H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard V. Herâ—s Blackloâ—n