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
brave Undertaker to make Faith infallibly certain who so evidently contradicts himself as to his own design But it seems to us he must pretend to make Faith certain in itself but at Rome he meant no more by it but only to perplex and confound us As though his Demonstrations were only intended for a sort of Metaphysical Traps to catch Hereticks with But we are glad to see by his own Confession that Faith in itself is not made absolutely Certain by them II. About the Objects of Faith and the Evidence of them Reason against Raillery pag. 55. The strangest and wisest Souls are unapt to assent but upon Evidence Hence unless such Men see Proofs absolutely concluding those Points true they are unapt to be drawn to yield to them and embrace them as certain Truths Nothing can rationally subdue the Faculty of suspending in such Men at least but True Evidence had from the Object working this clear sight in them either by itself or by Effects or Causes necessarily connected with it Other Evidences I know none Faith Vindicated p. 12 13. The Truth of Propositions of Faith consists in the Connexion of those Notions which make the Subject and Predicate Whoever therefore sees not the Connexion between those Notions in the Principle of Faith sees not the Truth of any of those Propositions It follows that he who is obliged to profess Faith-Propositions true must see the Connexion between those Terms In his Declaration sent to Rome p. 11 13. he not only expressed his Assent to these Propositions but That the contrary to them were False Destructive of Faith and Heretical viz. I. That the Objects of Faith are not to be evident or demonstrable by Natural Reasons in order to believing them II. That in order to the believing such Objects of Faith conveyed down to us either by Scripture or Tradition it is not necessary to know evidently the Connexion of Predicate and Subject but it is sufficient if they be proposed by the Catholick Church Now let any Man try how he can reconcile these things 1 Nothing can subdue rationally the Faculty of suspending but true Evidence had from the Object and yet it is destructive to Faith and Heretical to say that the Objects of Faith are demonstrable by natural Reasons in order to believing them Is not true Evidence from the Object a natural Reason in order to believing 2 He that sees not the Connexion between Predicate and Subject sees not the Truth of Faith-propositions and he who is obliged to profess them must see it and yet in order to believing Objects of Faith it is not necessary to see it nay it is Heretical to assert it III. About Infallible Assent Reason against Raillery p. 113. 'T is most evident therefore and demonstrable that there is no Certainty but where there is Infallibility and that we can never be said to be truly certain of any thing till all Circumstances consider'd we see ourselves out of possibility of being deceived hic nunc in that very thing In his Declaration p. 11 13. he owns this Proposition to be True and the contrary to be Heretical viz. That it is not necessary in order to believing the Objects of Faith that he that believes should know evidently his Assent to be Supernatural and Infallible But if there can be no Certainty of Faith till we see ourselves out of possibility of being deceived I should think it very hard to say it was Heretical to assert it was necessary for him that believes to know his Assent to be Infallible For what difference is there between knowing we cannot be deceived in our Assent and that it is Infallible But here he will hope to escape by joyning Supernatural to Infallible and so he over-reached the Cardinals by putting those together for his is nothing but a pure Natural Infallibility IV. About the Mediums of Faith used by him Sure footing p. 172. He rejects Extrinsecal Mediums as insufficient and requires Intrinsecal Faith Vindicated Preface at the end He owns his Discourses to be built on Intrinsecal Mediums Errour Nonplust p. 169. He requires clear Evidence from the Object to ground a firm Assent Page 170 171. He makes it necessary to true Certainty that it be taken from the Thing or Object And true Certainty he saith is built on the Things being as it is and nothing can ever be truly known to be otherwise than it is In his Subscription to the Instructions from Rome p. 12. he denies that he spake of Intrinsecal Requisites to Faith but only of Extrinsecal And this he goes about to prove against his own plain Words in his Declaration Sect. 3. pag. 34 c. How can Intrinsecal Mediums and Evidence from the Object be only Extrinsecal Pre-requisites V. About Human and Divine Faith. Faith Vindicated p. 73. Divine Faith ought to have a far greater degree of Firmness in it than any Human Faith whatsoever Wherefore since Human Faith can rise to that degree of stability Divine Faith being Supernatural ought to be more firmly grounded and consequently more highly impossible to be false Errour Nonplust p. 143. He speaks expresly of Divine Faith. In his Vindication p. 97. He saith It is Evident that he spake of Faith formally as Human and not as formally Divine What Evidence can there be like a Man's plain Words Is not that Divine Faith which he goes about to demonstrate the Infallible Certainty of It seems we are all this while to seek for the Certainty of Faith formally Divine and all this mighty Noise about the Necessity of Infallibility reaches no farther than a Faith formally Human. And yet J. S. affirms that he undertook to prove the impossibility of Falshood in Divine and Supernatural Faith. And so it seems Divine and Supernatural Faith must derive its Infallible Certainty from a meer Natural Infallibility Or if it be but Human Faith he means then he falls short of what he promised which was to shew the Infallible Certainty of Divine Faith. And thus the Trap-Maker is catch'd himself VI. About particular Points of Faith. Errour Nonplust p. 161. I thought he had meant Certainty of the Points of his Faith. What we are then in Reason to expect from Dr. St. is that he would bring us Grounds for the Certainty of his Faith as to determinate Points viz. Christ's Godhead a Trinity c. Reason against Raillery p. 167. Seeing then Christians are bound to profess their Faith true as to those Points of a Trinity for Example or Incarnation c. it follows that it must be affirm'd and held that a Trinity or Incarnation absolutely is and consequently that it is impossible not to be Declaration p. 50. He peremptorily asserts and challenges his Adversaries to shew the contrary that he produced not one Argument to prove any Points of Doctrine to be Divine or Supernatural but only that such a Doctrine was delivered by Christ or his Apostles And this he frequently insists upon and is the
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
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
main of his Defence But why then doth he urge us to produce our Grounds of Certainty as to particular Points if himself doth not If he pretends no more than to prove them in general why may not we be allowed to do the same He that calls upon others to do it in such an insulting manner is presumed to do it himself and if he doth not he only banters and abuses his Reader And after all this mighty pretence to Demonstration and Infallibility the whole Dispute comes to this whether Men may attain to greater Certainty of Christ's Doctrine by Oral and Practical Traditions than we can do by Scripture Reason and Tradition But this is against his words where he saith Seeing then Christians are bound to profess their Faith true as to those Points of a Trinity for Example or Incarnation c. it follows that it must be affirm'd and held that a Trinity or Incarnation absolutely is and consequently that it is impossible not to be VII About Moral Certainty His whole Book called Faith vindicated was written against it And in the Preface to it p. 3. he opposes absolute Certainty to Moral and he saith those who have it not have no true Faith. Page 17. True Faith by reason of its immoveable Grounds can bear an asserting the absolute Impossibility of its falshood And without this he makes Faith absurd preternatural and irrational Page 34. Moral Certainty is in reality uncertainty and the highest degree of Moral Certainty is the lowest degree of Vncertainty truly so called The same he asserts pag. 36 86 93. Error Nonplust pag. 195. Fallible Certainty destroys all Efficacy all Defence and even Essence of Faith. When I read in Lominus pag. 43. that I. S. in his Vindication pleaded that he required no more than Moral Evidence for the Assent and Profession of Faith I could hardly believe him and therefore I was earnest to see what he would say in Answer to this but even there pag. 23. he owns it and saith expresly That Moral Evidence is absolutely sufficient to Faith But withal he saith There is more than Moral Evidence in Tradition Let now any indifferent Person compare those Assertions together If Moral Certainty be Vncertainty and destroy the Essence of Faith how can it be absolutely sufficient to Faith But besides the Contradiction he hath by this one Assertion overthrown the whole Design of his Catholick Letters For if true Faith may be had without Infallible Certainty what need any such contending about it For the Ground of the Dispute is about such Faith as is necessary to Salvation and if true Faith as J. S. grants which is necessary to Salvation may be had without their pretended Infallibility there is no Colour left for pressing Persons of our Communion to forsake our Church because we cannot have Infallible Certainty of Faith when themselves grant that we may be saved without it And what Sincerity is to be expected from such a Man who makes such out-cries upon us for want of Infallible Certainty for Faith when himself Confesses that Moral Certainty is sufficient to Faith what ever becomes of Moral Certainty I love Moral Honesty and I cannot see how it is consistent with it to make such mighty pretences to the Necessity of Infallible Certainty for Faith even in his Catholick Letters which seems to be the chief Design of them when himself had declared to the Cardinals at Rome that less than that is sufficient for true Faith. But the secret of it is he knows well enough there is no such Necessity for Infallible Certainty and when it will bring him off he can own it but among us Hereticks they must bluster and make a mighty noise about it because it startles weak and injudicious People and they find nothing so apt to terrifie and confound them like Infallibility which like a Flash of Lightning doth not help them to see better but strikes them down with Horror and Astonishment And here I might fairly stop and send the Reader to J. S. for an effectual Answer to his own Letters or at least to shew how very unfit he was after such going forward and backwards in this matter to undertake this Cause 2. But lest I should seem to decline any thing which may seem material I shall now proceed to state the Controversie as it lies between Mr. S. and me For what concerns another Person I shall leave it to himself as not standing in need of any Assistance from me The Occasion of the Conference was set down by Mr. M. to have been That Mr. G. affirmed in some Companies that no Protestant could shew any Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith and that Mr. S. had promised him that if I were not able to manifest the contrary he would forsake our Communion So that Mr. G. was the Aggressor by laying this charge upon us That we could shew no Ground of Absolute Certainty for our Faith. And therefore when in the Conference I assigned the Scripture for the Ground and Rule of our Faith and universal Tradition for the Proof of the Books of Scripture I had Reason in my Expostulatory Letter to Mr. G. to desire of him to shew That we have no absolute Certainty of the Rule of our Faith viz. the Scripture although we have a larger and firmer Tradition for it than you can have for the Points in difference between us This plainly relates to the Conference wherein Scripture was own'd to be our Rule and Vniversal Tradition the Evidence on which we receive the Books And to any Man of Sense this is not Shifting and Tricking off the Proof to Mr. G. as Mr. G. often calls it but it is a plain and evident Proof of our Certainty upon their own Grounds For if Tradition be such a Ground of Absolute Certainty as they assert and we have a larger and firmer Tradition for Scripture than they can produce for the Points of Faith in difference between us then it is evident we must have upon their own Principles a Ground of Absolute Certainty for our Faith which was the main Point of the Conference If he will Answer the Argument he must either deny that we have Vniversal Tradition for the Books of Scripture or that Vniversal Tradition is a Ground for the Absolute Certainty of Faith Either of these ways he had said something to the purpose but he found this way of Reasoning too hot for him and therefore he calls it Shifting and Tricking off the Proof to Mr. G. and so falls into a Tragical Declamation against my not proving and making a Secret of the Ground of our Certainty as if a Man intended to make a Secret of a Horse he had lost when he published his Marks in the Gazett Here is the Ground of our Certainty laid down in that very place where he saith I shift off the Proof to Mr. G. but alas for him He cannot see any thing like a Proof unless it be serv'd
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
Certain to those who use it aright although it be very possible for Men through their own Faults to mistake about it And this is no way disagreeing to the infinite Wisdom of God who deals with us as with Rational Creatures and hath put Faculties into us that we might use them in order to the Certainty of our Faith. And such Moral Qualifications are required in the New Testament in order to the Discerning the Doctrine of it as Humility of Mind Purity of Heart Prayer to God Sincere Endeavour to do the Will of God that it would be very repugnant to the Design of it to suppose that the Letter of Scripture alone would give a Man immediate and certain Directions in all Matters of Doctrine being applied to it Therefore an easie Answer is to be given to Mr. S's great Difficulty viz. How the Sense drawn from the Letter can any more fail to be true than the Line drawn by the Rule to be straight For we say that the Sense truly drawn from the Scripture can never fail to be true but we do not say that every Man must draw the True Sense from the Scripture for although the Scripture be an Infallible Rule yet unless every Man that makes use of it be Infallible he may mistake in the Application of it And this to me is so clear that to make an Infallible Rule in his Sense he must make every Person that uses it Infallible or else he may err in the Application of it But the Right Way saith Mr. S. will certainly bring a Man to his Journeys End and the way must needs be a wrong way if it do it not The Right way will certainly bring them to their Journeys end if they continue in it but here we must consider what is meant by the Journeys End. If by it be understood their Salvation then we say that those who do their utmost endeavours to keep in that way shall not fail of their Journeys End. But if by it be understood the Certain Truth or Falshood of every Opinion tried by the Scripture then I answer that although the Sense of Scripture be infallibly true yet it was not designed as an Infallible Way for us to know the Truth and Falshood of all particular Opinions by For as Mr. S. well observes Salvation is that which chiefly imports us and it was for that End the Doctrine of Christ is made known to us and it is an Infallible Way to it if Men continue therein but for judging the Truth or Falshood of Opinions without respect to Salvation as the End it was not intended as an Infallible Way to every one that makes use of it and therefore it is easie for Men to mistake in judging by it of things it was not design'd for As if a Man designed to observe all the old Roman Cities and Stations here and were told the old Roman Way would be a Certain Way to lead him to them with the help of the Roman Itinerary if that Man objects that this will not do for he cannot find out all the Modern Towns and Villages by this Means is it not a just and reasonable Answer to say that is a most Certain way which leads a Man to that which it was design'd for and the Roman way was only intended for Roman Foundations but it is very unreasonable to find fault with it because it doth not lead you to all Modern Towns and Villages So say I here the Scripture was designed by Divine Wisdom to make us Wise to Salvation and thither it will infallibly lead us if we keep to it but if besides this we would know by it such things as are not necessary to Salvation we blame it for that which was not in the Original Intention and Design of it For when we make use of it to be our Rule of Judgment meerly as to Truth and Falshood of things not necessary to Salvation it is not because it was designed for that End but because it is of Divine Revelation and so is the surest Standard of Divine Truth and we are sure there is no other Rule for us to judge besides From whence we may and ought to reject any Points of Faith imposed upon us which are neither contained in Scripture nor can be proved from it And so it is our positive Rule of Faith as to all Necessary Articles and our Negative Rule as to all pretended Points of Faith which are not proved from thence II. I answer that this Method of Mr. S. will overthrow the Possibility of any Rule of Faith because none can be assigned which it is not possible for Men to misapprehend and to mistake about it Let us at present suppose Mr. S. to substitute his Rule of Faith in stead of Scripture viz. Oral and Practical Tradition Why may not Men mistake the Sense of Tradition as well as the Sense of Scripture Is Tradition more Infallible in it self Is it deliver'd by Persons more Infallible Doth it make those to whom it is delivered Infallible Why then may not those who deliver it and those who receive it both be mistaken about it This I had mention'd in my second Letter that it was very possible to mistake the Sense and Meaning of Tradition and I instanced in that of Christ's being the Son of God where the Traditionary Words may be kept and yet an Heretical Sense may be contained under them Mr. S. answers That the Sense of the Words and all the rest of Christ's Doctrine is convey'd down by Tradition This is bravely said if it could be made out and would presently put an End to all Disputes For if all the Doctrine of Christ be derived down to us in such a manner that we cannot mistake the Sense of it we must be all agreed whether we will or not For how can we disagree if we cannot mistake the Sense of Tradition Not while we hold to Tradition Then it seems it is possible not to hold to Tradition and if so we have found a terrible flaw in Human Nature that will let in Errors in abundance viz. that it may grosly err about the Rule of Faith yea so far as to Renounce it But how is this possible if the Sense of Tradition be infallibly convey'd For is not Traditions being the Rule of Faith any part of it We must in Reason suppose this And if we do so how can Persons Renounce its being the Rule while they cannot but believe its being the Rule If Men may mistake about Traditions being the Rule of Faith why may we not suppose they may as well mistake about any Points convey'd by it For the greatest Security lying in the Rule there must be more Care taken about that than about the Points convey'd by it But let us see how he proves that Men cannot mistake the Sense of Tradition in Particular Points The force of what he saith is That Men were always Men and Christians were always Christians and
And then my Answer lies in these things I. That the Scripture is a certain Rule of Faith as to all Points necessary to Salvation to all such as make use of it as such and do not through their own fault make a wrong Application thereof II. That the Scripture was not designed for a Certain Rule as to Vnnecessary Opinions and therefore Mens not arriving at a Certainty in them doth not hinder its being a Rule of Faith. III. That Scripture being our Rule of Faith we are bound to reject all pretended Articles of Faith which cannot with Certainty be proved from the Sense of Scripture And so the Proof of Certainty lies upon those who affirm such Articles of Faith and not upon us who deny them This Argument is Mr. S's Goliah and now it is no wonder if his lesser Men at Arms soon quit the Field But I must take some notice of them lest they be magnified by being slighted His next Argument is That I contradict myself I hope I have in the beginning made him unwilling to repeat such a Charge against me till he hath cleared himself But wherein is it In another place he saith I deny any Absolute Certainty as to Tradition attesting the Books of Scripture which in the Conference I asserted I have looked in the Place he refers to and there I find nothing like it I deny the Necessity of any Infallible Society of Men either to Attest or Explain the Scripture Where by an Infallible Society of Men I mean such as have a Divine Assistance to that purpose And what is this to the Absolute Certainty we have of the Books of Scripture by Vniversal Tradition But he urges it further If this Society be not Infallible then it is Fallible and if it be Fallible then we cannot be more than fallibly Certain and so we can have no absolute Certainty from a Fallible Testimony This is the whole force of what he saith To which I Answer I. I understand no such thing as Infallibility in Mankind but by immediate Divine Assistance I grant that the Holy Spirit may where he pleases preserve the Minds of Men from any possibility of mistake as to those things wherein it doth inlighten them but set aside this there is no such thing as Infallibility the utmost is a rational Certainty built on clear and convincing Motives Where the Motives are meerly probable there may be Opinion but no Certainty where the Evidence is thought so strong as to determine Assent there is a Certainty as to the Mind as when we commonly say we are certain of such things we mean no more than that we firmly believe them but when the Evidence is the highest which in point of Reason the thing is capable of then there is that which I call Absolute Certainty i. e. such as depends not meerly on the Assent of the Mind but the Evidence which justifies that Assent II If by being fallibly Certain he means any Suspicion that notwithstanding such Evidence in all its Circumstances I may be deceived then I utterly deny it for otherwise I could not be absolutely Certain but if he means only that there is no Divine Infallibility and I know no other then I own that there is still human Fallibility consistent with this Absolute Certainty But Mr. S. will have Absolute Certainty to be Infallible If nothing will satisfie him but Human i. e. fallible Infallibility much good may it do him but I much rather chuse proper Terms which I know the certain meaning of than improper though they make a far greater Noise I do own an Absolute Certainty in some Acts of the Mind by inward Perception as that I think I doubt and that I am I do own an Absolute Certainty as to common Objects of Sense and as to some Deductions of Reason I do own an Absolute Certainty as to some Matters of Fact by a Concurrence of Circumstances but for all that I do not account Human Nature Infallible nor this an Infallible Certainty unless it be taken in another Sense than Divines take it in For even the Divines of the Church of Rome as well as Ours make a difference between a Human and Acquisite Certainty and that which is Divine and Infallible And if Mr. S. by Divine means Human and by Infallible no more than Certain he must not think he hath gained any great matter when he hath made use of Words in an improper and unusual Sense III. His next Argument is That our Rule of Faith is common to all the Heresies in the World which pretend Scripture as well as we This is just the Old Sceptical Argument against Certainty if there be any such thing as Certainty you must assign such a Criterion which is not common to Truth and Falshood but if you cannot assign any such Mark of Truth which may not as well agree to what is False then there is no such thing as Certainty to be had In Matters of this nature the Proof must not lie in generals but we must come to particulars to shew the Grounds of our Certainty viz. as to the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ and then if we cannot shew why we believe those Points and reject the opposite Heresies as Arianism Sabellianism Eutychianism c. then we are to be blamed for want of Certainty in these Points but not before But this he saith is to make Light and Darkness very consistent and Christ and Belial very good Friends It seems then there is no difference to be found by the Rule of Scripture between the Doctrine of Christ and the Devil Is this in Truth your avowed Principle Do you in earnest believe the Scripture to be such a Chaos where there is no difference of Light and Darkness and that nothing but Confusion can be found in it And we cannot tell by it whether we are to Worship God or the Devil If Mr. S. grants that there is enough in Scripture to distinguish these two then it is a Rule so far as to put a difference between Light and Darkness between Christ and Belial and so these Expressions must be disowned as little less than Blasphemous for all his pitiful Defence of them in his Second Letter which is That he never said that Christ and Belial could be reconciled or advanced any Position that implied it But he said That to make Scripture our Rule is to make Light and Darkness consistent and Christ and Belial very good Friends And is not this Blasphemy against Scripture and implies that if we go by that Rule only they may be very good Friends How can this be unless he asserts that by Scripture alone we can find no certain difference between Light and Darkness between Christ and Belial Let Mr. S. Answer to this and not think to escape with such a poor Evasion If he owns the Scripture a Certain Rule as to the difference of Christ and Belial and Light and Darkness then we have gained thus
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
say the contrary Tenet is ridiculous as what 's most nay that it is sottishness to hold it and to deprive Mankind of this Priviledge of judging thus is to debar him of the Light and Vse of his Reason when it is most useful for him Is not all this very obliging But where now lies the difference Why truly if his Discretion leads him to the Infallible Rule of Tradition all is well but if not it is no longer Discretion What has he been Judge of all the Controversies between Us already and is he to seek for his Rule still What Discretion had he all that time to judge without a Rule What a Judge of Controversies have we found at last Methinks the Sober Enquirer far exceeds him in point of common Discretion for he never pretended to judge without a Rule much less all the Controversies between Us. But this discreet Judge of all Controversies first determins all the Points and when he hath done this he finds out his Rule Of all the Judges of Controversies that have been yet talked of commend me to this set up by J. S. For how is it possible for him to judge amiss who had no Rule to judge by You see saith he how we allow them the Vse of their Reason and Judgment of Discretion till it brings them to find a certain Authority and when they have once found that the same Judgment of Discretion which shewed them that Authority was Absolutely Certain obliges them to trust it when it tells them what is Christ's Faith without using their private Judgments any longer about the particular Points themselves thus ascertained to them but submitting to it To which I Answer I. The same reason which enabled Men to find out this Infallible Guide or Certain Authority will help them to judge concerning this Authority and the Matters proposed by it For either he hath a Rule to find out this Authority or he hath none if he hath a Rule it must be either Scripture or pure Natural Reason If Scripture that only affords Fallible Certainty he saith over and over and so a Man can never come certainly to this Authority And if the Foundation be uncertain what can the Rule do But Mr. S. doth not pretend Scripture but Reason for his Infallible Rule Then I demand whether Reason doth afford an Infallible Ground of Certainty as to this Certain Authority or not If it doth we are yet but Fallibly Certain if it doth not then what need this Certain Authority for in the Opinion of all Reasonable Men certain Reason is better than certain Authority And he cannot deny the Certainty of Reason who builds the Certainty of Authority upon it II. Suppose the particular Points proposed by this Certain Authority be repugnant to that Certainty of Reason by which I am required to believe it As suppose this Authority tells me I am no longer to rely upon my Reason but barely to submit although the Matter proposed be never so much against it What is to be done in this Case I am to believe this Certain Authority on the Account of Reason and that requires me to believe such things as overthrow the Certainty of Reason How is it possible for me to rely on this Certain Authority on the Certainty of Reason when that Authority tells me there is no Certainty in Reason III. Must I believe Reason to be Certain just so far and no further But who sets the bounds Hath God Almighty done it When and where I may and ought to use my Reason in searching after this Certain Authority and judge all Controversies in order to the finding it out all this is allowed but as soon as ever this Certain Authority is discover'd then Goodnight Reason I have now no more Use for you But who bid you be so ungrateful to that Certain Reason which conducted you so far It is very possible it may be as Useful still why then do you turn Reason off so unkindly after so good Service IV. Are all People capable of this Certain Reason or not It requires it seems a great deal of Logick to prove this Certain Authority or this Infallible Guide by Reason and I am one of those that think it can never be done Suppose then some of us duller People can never comprehend the force of this Reason which is to lead us to an Infallible Guide What is like to become of us Uncapable People Are we all to be damned for Dunces and Blockheads No not so neither This is really some Comfort For then it is to be hoped we may go to Heaven without finding out this Certain Authority and then we may have True Faith without it This is still better and better And then I pray what need have I to find out this Certain Authority at all if I may have True Faith and be Saved without it V. I have greater Certainty by Reason of the Certain Authority of Scripture than you can have of the Certain Authority of Tradition Here is Reason on both sides and Authority on both sides but I say there is no Comparison between either the Reason or the Authority The Reason to believe the Scripture is so incomparably beyond the Reason to believe Oral Tradition And the Authority of Scripture hath so much greater Force on the Consciences of Men that it is very extraordinary among those who own Scripture to be the Word of God to find them compared in Point of Authority For we must deal plainly in this Matter the Scripture we look on as the Rule of our Faith because it is the Word of God. If you do not own it to be so but resolve all into Tradition we know what you are but if you do own the Scripture to be of Divine Revelation how can you pretend to set up any Certain Authority in Comparison with it VI. If this Certain Authority be only to lead us into the Certain Sense of Scripture then it must be either into the Sense of plain Places or of difficult and obscure If of plain Places then it is to kindle a Torch to behold the Sun if of obscure Places then who hath appointed this Certain Authority to Explain them Who is to appoint such a Certain Authority in the Church to Explain his Word but God Himself And we desire to see some plain Places that set up this Authority to Explain those which are obscure and doubtful We think it our Duty to read and search the Scripture and especially the New Testament where we find very great Occasion for this Certain Authority to be mentioned We find Churches newly settled and many Disputes and Controversies started among them and those of great and dangerous Consequence we find the Apostles giving frequent Advice to these Churches with respect to these Differences and with great earnestness giving Caution against Seducers and warning them of the danger of them but not one Word can we find in all their Epistles tending this way or mentioning
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
from the business before them But these Arts will not do And such a Dust cannot so blind the Readers Eyes but he must see it is raised on purpose that he may not be discerned in making an Escape II. As to the Council of Trents proceeding upon Tradition That which I said was The Church of Rome hath no where declared in Council that it hath any such Power of making Implicit Articles of Faith contained in Scripture to become Explicit by its explaining the Sense of them And the Reason I gave was Because the Church of Rome doth not pretend to make New Articles of Faith But to make Implicit Doctrines to become Explicit is really so to do as I there proved Now what saith J. S. to this I. He saith That the Council of Trent defines it belongs to the Church to judge of the True Sense and Interpretation of Scripture As though all that belonged to the Church must presently belong to the Church of Rome or all Judgment of Scripture must be Infallible or must make things necessary to be believed which were not so before II. He shews That the Church did proceed upon this Power What Power Of making things not Necessary to become Necessary I. It declares Sess. 13. That from some Texts mentioned the Church was ever persuaded of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation This is an admirable Argument to prove that it can make that Necessary to be believed which was not because it was always believed II. Sess. 14. It declares 1 Cor. 11. to be understood of Sacramental Confession by the Custom and Practise of the Church Then I suppose the Church thought it Necessary before III. Sess. 14. It declares Jam. 5. to be understood of Sacramental Confession But how By its Power of making it Necessary to be believed meerly by such Declaration No but by Apostolical Tradition then the meaning is that it was always so understood But because the Council of Trent doth pretend to Apostolical Tradition for the Points there determin'd and the shewing that it had not Catholick and Apostolick Tradition is the most effectual Confutation of the present Pretence of Oral Tradition I shall reserve that to another Discourse part whereof I hope will suddenly be Published FINIS A CATALOGVE of some BOOKS Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul's Church-Yard A Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer by T. C. Wherein the True Grounds of Faith are cleared and the False discovered the Church of England vindicated from the Imputation of Schism and the most important particular Controversie between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. and Dean of S. Pauls Folio the Second Edition Origines Britannicae Or the Antiquity of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in vindication of the Bishop of S. Asaph by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Pauls Folio The Rule of Faith Or an Answer to the Treatise of Mr. J. S. entituled Sure footing c. by John Tillotson D. D. to which is adjoyned A Reply to Mr. J. S.'s third Appendix c. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. A Letter to Mr. G. giving a true Account of a late Conference at the D. of P's A second Letter to Mr. G. in answer to two Letters lately published concerning the Conference at the D. of P. Veteres Vindicati In an Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney upon his Consensus Veterum c. wherein the absurdity of his Method and the weakness of his Reasons are shewn His false Aspersions upon the Church England are wiped off and her Faith concerning the Eucharist of proved to be that of the Primitive Church Together with Animadversions on Dean Boileaus French translation of and Remarks upon Bertram An Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium Wherein is shewn That Antiquity in relation to the Points in Controversie set down by him did not for the first five hundred Years Believe Teach and Practice as the Church of Rome doth at present Believe Teach and Practice together with a Vindication of Veteres Vindicati from the late weak and disingenuous Attempts of the Author of Transubstantiation Defended by the Author of the Answer to Mr. Sclater of Putney A Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuite in answer to his Letter to a Peer of the Church of England wherein the Postscript to the Answer to the Nubes Testium is Vindicated and Father Sabrans Mistakes further discovered A second Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuite in answer to his Reply A Vindication of the Principles of the Author of the Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium in answer to a late pretended Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England Scripture and Tradition Compared in a Sermon preached at Guild-Hall-Chappel Nov. 27. 1687. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Pauls the second Edition There is now in the Press and will speedily be published An Historical Examination of the Authority of Councils discovering the false Dealing that hath been used in the publishing of them and the Difference amongst the Papists themselves about their Number Faith vindicated pag. 13. Faith vindicated pag. 41. Errour Nonplust pag. 135. Haeres Blakloan p. 37 38. P. 39. P. 39. P. 40. P. 42. P. 44. Third Letter p. 65. Append. ad Haeres Blakloan First Letter pag. 4.5 6. Declaratio J. S. circa Doctrinam in suis libris contentam exhibita Sacrae Congregationi Eccles. R. D D. Cardinalium General Inquisitorum Duaci 1677. John 15.22 Haeres Blokloan pag. 315 316 317. Page 318. Page 6. Haeres Blackloan p. 33.153 c. 323. Haec nova propositio fidem Christianam destruit impellitque ad Scepticismum Atheismum Haeres Blaklo p. 66. Mecum omnes viri Docti Orthodoxi sentiunt per tua principia vastum ad Atheismum Heresin hiatum aperiri Haeres Blackloan p. 200. 2.2 a 9. ad 1. Sed circa ea quae sunt de Necessitate Salutis sufficienter instruuntur à Spiritu Sancto 2.2.9.8 a. 4. ad 1. Donum intellectus nunquam se subtrahit sanctis circa ea quae sunt necessaria ad salutem sed circa alia interdum se subtrahit ib. ad 3. A. 3. dicendum quod Lumen Fidei facit videre ea quae creduntur ita per habitum Fidei inclinatur mens hominis ad assentièndum his quae conveniunt certae Fidei non aliis 2.2.9.1 a. 4. ad 3. Per lumen Fidei divinitus infusum homini homo assentit his quae sunt Fidei non autem contrariis ideo nihil periculi vel damnationis inest his qui sunt in Christo Jesu ab ipso illuminati per fidem 2.2.9.2 a. 3. ad 2. Greg. Ariminens D. 1. A. 4. Q. 1. Greg. de Valentia Tom. 3. Disp. 1. Q. 1. Part. 4. Hugo de Sancto Victore Sumsent l. 1. c. 1. De Sacram. l. 1. p. 11. c. 2.4 Rich. de Sancto Victor Declar. Part. 1. p. 373. Petr. Pictaviens Sentent Part. 3. c. 21. Gul. Parisiens de Fide. c. 1. Gul. Antissiodor Sum. in Praef. l. 3. Tit. Q. 2. Alex. Alens Part. 1. Q. 2. M. 3. A. 4. Part. 3. Q. 68. M. 2. A. 2. Bonavent l. 3. D. 23. Q. 4. Aquin. 1.9.46 a 2. in C. 19.9.32 A. 1. in B. 2.2.9.2 a. 1. ad 1.9.1 a. 4. ad 3.9.2 a. 3.9.5 a. 4. C· Henr. Gandav Sum. Art. 7. Q. 2. N. 6 7 8. Art. 9. Q. 3. N. 13.13 Q. 1. N. 4 5. Scot. in Sentent L. 3. Q. 23. N. 14 15. Durand Prolog Q. 1. N. 43 46. L. 3. Dist. 24. Q. 3. N. 8 9. Second Letter p. 25. Second Letter pag. 6. Second Letter to Mr. G. pag. 7. Third Catholick Letter pag. 6. Third Letter p. 14. First Letter p. 32. First Letter p. 25. Second Letter p. 73 74. Theod. Haeret Fab. l. 2 3. First Letter p. 26. First Letter p. 26. Page 27. 2.2.9.4.2.6 Page â—â— Page 29. Page 29. Page 29. Page 29. Third Letter p. 92. p. 93. Bell. de verbo Dei l. 3. c. 6. sect Respondeo Third Letter p. 99· p. 102. 1 Cor. 10.15 1 Thess. 5.21 1 Joh. 4.1 Third Letter Page 104. 2d Letter p. 21. Third Letter Page 34. Luke 1.4 Job 20.31 Third Letter p. 38.39 40. Second Letter p. 17. Third Letter p. 40. Bell. de Verbo Dei l. 1.2 Third Letter p. 81. Bellar. de Verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11. Third Letter p. 44. Pag. 48. Pag. 48. Ibid. Page 49. Third Letter Page 50. Page 51. Page 51. S. Cyprian de â—nit Epist. ad Jubai Third Letter p. 58. Page 56. Mat. 10.29 30. Page 58. Hieronym ad Dardanum Third Letter p. 57. Third Letter p. 59. Page 74. Page 75. Page 76. Page 57. Page 76. First Letter p. 8. Page 10. Page 11. Page 12. Page 13. Page 14. Page 15. Page 16. Page 19. Page 20. Page 8. Euseb. l. 5. c. 3. c. 14. c. 28. l. 7. c 31. Theod. l. 1. c. 4. l. 2. Euseb. l. 3. c. 32. l. 4. c. 22. Third Letter p. 24. Faith Vindicated p. 155. Page 157. Page 27.