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
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
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
and Rulers and that which is ruled and regulated by them that we must not expect that he should be tied down to Cardinal Bellarmin's Notions and therefore I must consider what he saith after above Twenty years hard labour about these things He tells me plainly I quite mistake the meaning of the word Rule For saith he it speaks Rectitude No doubt a Right Rule doth But still I mistake his meaning How so There must be a Rectitude in the Rule That is not it What then It must be evident Rectitude i. e. Evident to be Right Not so I hope we shall come at it at last It is such an Evident Rectitude as preserves those who regulate themselves by it from Obliquity or Deviation that is in our Case from Errour And is this the wonderful Mystery There wants but one Word to make it past dispute viz. who effectually regulate themselves by it For Regulating is an ambiguous Word and may be taken either 1. For what a Man takes and professes to be his Rule which he is to act by so a Ciceronian regulates himself by Cicero i. e. he declares his Manner of Speech to be the Rule he orders his Speech by And yet it is very possible that such a Man may use Phrases which are not Cicero's for want of sufficient Skill and Care. 2. For what he doth in Conformity to his Rule And so he doth Regulate himself by Cicero who doth not in the least swerve from his Manner of Speaking But Cicero is the Rule to both these And so the Question here comes to this Whether that can be said to be a true Intellectual Rule which Men through their own default and not through any defect in the Rule may deviate from If a Rule be in it self Certain and be certainly received for a Rule that is surely enough to make it a Rule to a Man but it is not necessary to the being of a Rule that a Man can never deviate from it by his own Fault For there is no Intellectual Rule can be assigned but it is possible for a free Agent to deviate from although he do at the same time profess it to be his Rule Do not all Christians agree the Commands of Christ to be an Infallible Rule of Life And J. S. by his admirable Logick will either prove this not to be a Rule or that it is impossible for Men to Sin. For saith he A Rule speaks Rectitude and that such an evident one as preserves those who regulate themselves by it from Obliquity or Deviation Yes saith he this is very plain those who Regulate themselves by Christ's Rule cannot Sin I grant it those who do effectually Regulate themselves by it but Others may profess this to be their Rule and the most Infallible Rule of Life and yet through their own Fault may deviate from it So here Persons may own the Scripture to be a most Certain Infallible Rule as to Truth and Falshood and they are sure while they effectually regulate themselves by it they can never Err but while they profess to do it they may So that all Mr. S's Subtilty vanishes into nothing by so plain and easie a Distinction Therefore I am still of the mind that a Rule of Faith is that whereby we are to judge what we are bound to believe as to Divine Revelations No saith J. S. I ought to have said It is that by which while we follow it we shall be absolutely secured from erring in Faith. This follows from the Rectitude of the Rule that while Men keep to it they cannot Err but it doth not follow from the Nature of the Rule that Men must necessarily follow it For is it possible for Men to misunderstand a Certain Rule or not i. e. such a Rule which if they truly follow they shall be secured from Erring If not then the Rule must be plain and evident to all Capacities to such a degree that they cannot fail in judging by it If it be possible then although the Rule be in it self Certain and Infallible yet it is possible for Men to Err through such a Mistake and while they think they follow the Rule they may run into Errour And it is strange to me that Mr. S. in all this time hath not discerned the Fallacy that hath misled him If it hath really misled him and not been set up by him on purpose to Confound and Confute Hereticks as he tells the Cardinals at Rome But one of that Number hath fully proved as I have shewed already that the Scripture was intended for a Rule of Faith to the People and then it follows from J. S. himself that while they Regulate themselves by it they can never Err. What Reason then can be given why such a Rule of Faith should be kept from them And the Purse be tied up with so many Mysterious Knots which are utterly inconsistent with the Notion of a Rule of Faith. II. They grant that there is a great difference in the Points contained in Scripture of which some are allowed to be simply necessary to Salvation as those which are required to Baptism and Bellarmin yields That all these Points are certainly contained in Scripture and were the things which the Apostles constantly preached to all People Who cannot be denied to have been capable of Understanding these things when they heard them preached and how could they lose the Capacity of Understanding them when they were written And if they might still Understand them then the Scripture hath no such Mysterious Knots but all Points necessary to Salvation may be understood by the People So that as to these Points of greatest Importance the Scripture must be left as a Legacy to all Christians and not only to the Guides of the Church But J. S. craves leave to Explain himself and it is great pity to deny it him Mistake me not saith he I do not mean Scriptures Letter is not clear in such Passages as concern Morality or the X Commandments nor in Matters of Fact as the Marks or Signs of the Messias foretold by the Prophets Methinks the Mysterious Knots should have been about Prophecies nor in Parables explained by himself and such like but in Dogmatical Points or Tenets which are Spiritual and oftentimes profound Mysteries as a Trinity Christ's Godhead the Real Presence of his Body in the Sacrament and such like and in such as these our Rule is not intelligible enough to keep the Followers of it from Erring I Answer Either the Apostles Preached these Points to all Persons as necessary to their Salvation or they did not If not how come they to be necessary to be believed now If they did then the People were capable of Understanding them when they heard them and therefore may as well understand them when they read them I do not mean the Manner as to the Trinity and Incarnation as to Transubstantiation I know nothing in Scripture about it either as to
esteemed so dispersed so constantly read could be suffer'd to be lost among Christians If it be Objected That they were not all so esteemed at first as appears by the Epistle to the Hebrews and therefore might more easily be lost I Answer That however they were not universally received at first yet they were by those Churches to whom they were written and among them they were not kept up but mightily dispersed so that there was no way to lose them from the first spreading of them abroad unless we can suppose such multitudes of Christians to conspire together to suppress a Book of so great Concernment to themselves As if Persons who claim an Estate by virtue of some Deeds should all agree to imbezel them or any material part of them Here was no pretence for Registers and Abridgments which some make use of to lessen the Authority of the Books of the Old Testament for here we have the very Authentick Writings of the Apostles and their own Epistles in their own style and Expressions And supposing the Churches to whom they were sent to have received them as their Writings and to have communicated them to others as they did I do not see under these Circumstances how a Book containing Divine Revelations could be lost II. He Objects That the Canon of Scripture was not entire but deficient for some hundreds of years till the whole Canon was collected and acknowledged and therefore so long the Church had no Perfect Rule of Faith. I Answer I. I distinguish between a Compleat Rule of Faith and a Compleat Canon of Scripture For if the Books owned and universally received contain in them all Matters of Faith then the Rule of Faith is Compleat although some particular Books may be still in Dispute As for Instance it is certain that in St. Jerom's Time the Church of Rome did not receive as Canonical the Epistle to the Hebrews Had not that Church therefore a Compleat Rule of Faith If God hath so abundantly provided for his Church that there may be a full Revelation of all Points of Faith in the rest then the disputing the Authority of such an Epistle doth not derogate from the Compleatness of the Rule of Faith. For if they have all Points of Faith they must have a Compleat Rule of Faith. II. It is no Prejudice to the true Canon of Scripture that some particular Books of the New Testament were for some time disputed by some particular Churches For if it were done without Ground it doth reflect more on those Churches than on those Books especially when those very Churches afterwards received them And this was the Case of the Church of Rome as to the Epistle to the Hebrews St. Jerom affirms That not only the Greek Churches all received it but that all the Ancient Writers did so and not meerly as an Ecclesiastical but as a Canonical Epistle Therefore this must be a late thing in the Church of Rome and in probability began upon the Novatian Controversie which Epistle was thought too much to favour the Novatian Doctrine and when that Controversie did abate that Epistle recovered its Authority in the Church of Rome But Mr. S. is angry with me for reflecting on the Church of Rome for not receiving the Epistle to the Hebrews in St. Jerom 's Time which he thinks was an Act of Prudence antecedent to the Judgment or Determination of any Church whether Greek or Latin. One may see by this how well versed he is in the Canon of Scripture when St. Jerom declares that not only all the Greek Writers received it but all the Ancient and that as Canonical Was here no antecedent Judgment of the Church in this Matter Doth not the Consent of all Ancient Writers even in St. Jerom's Time make a Judgment of the Church But he adds That what I make a heinous Crime in the Church of Rome was a commendable Caution in it That which I said was That it hence appear'd that the Church of Rome was far from being believed then to have the Authority of making the Canon of Scripture or being Infallible in Faith. And what saith J. S. in Answer to this Not one Syllable but runs it off to another thing But why do I not as well blame the Greek Churches for not receiving the Apocalypse They do not pretend to such Authority and Infallibility in this Matter as the Church of Rome doth I do not deny that there were some Greeks then to blame in rejecting the Apocalypse but Bellarmin saith they were but few and obscure Persons and he produces the Testimonies of Justin Martyr Irenaeus Theophilus Antiochenus Melito Sardensis Dionysius Alexandrinus Clemens Alexandrinus Origen and Athanasius all approving it And the Occasion of disputing it arose from the Millenary Opinion which some thought they could not confute as long as the Apocalypse had such Authority in the Church And such Disputes as these which wore off by degrees are no real Prejudice to the Canon of the New Testament which was at first generally received and although some few Books were contested for a time yet they recover'd their Authority and have ever since been received by the Universal Consent of all Christian Churches III. He Objects against this Universal Consent the Testimonies of Marcion Ebion Valentinus Cerinthus and Epiphanius his other Hereticks who rejected the Canon of the New Testament Could any Man but J. S. make such an Objection as this But he had a mind to bring me in as a Favourer of all Hereticks and as such another Man of Integrity hath done of all Anti-Catholick and Anti-Christian Doctrines But where have I given any Occasion for such spiteful Reflections All that I said was We have the Universal Consent of all Christian Churches for the Canon of the New Testament i. e. Of all since the time that the Epistle to the Hebrews was receiv'd in the Latin and the Apocalypse in the Greek Churches notwithstanding all the Divisions they have since fallen into yet they had no Difference as to the Canon of the New Testament And this I insisted on as the Ground of our Certainty viz. The Unanimous Consent of all the great Bodies of Christians that have continued under different Denominations to this day To this he gives no other Answer but that my Answer to the Fifth Question is co-incident with that to the Fourth I thought J. S. in the Self-evident way would have liked my Answer the better for it But he doth not comprehend the design of it I had said before That we relied on the Universal Testimony of the Christian Church upon that the Question was asked What I meant by the Christian Church My Answer was That it was that which was made up of all Christian Churches i. e. saith J. S. That all the Parts make the Whole and what Incongruity is there When Mr. G. said That the Christian Church may be taken in several Latitudes he desired to know in
Dr. Stillingfleet's ANSWER TO J. S's Catholick Letters Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Discourse Concerning the Nature and Grounds of the Cerrainty of Faith c. Jan. 5. 1687. H. Maurice Rmo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cantuariensi a Sacris A DISCOURSE Concerning the Nature and Grounds OF THE CERTAINTY OF FAITH IN ANSWER To J. S. his Catholick Letters By EDW. STILLINGFLEET D. D. Dean of St. Pauls LONDON Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII THE CONTENTS THe Title of Catholick Letters Examin'd Page 1 How J. S. comes to be concerned in this Debate 3 His Doctrine denied to be Catholick by the Sorbon Doctors and others 5 His Self-Contradiction about it in seven Particulars 7 The State of the present Controversie about the Certainty of Faith 15 How it is altered by J. S. 25 Of the Certainty of Particular Points of Faith 27 The Grounds of the Certainty of Faith laid down by the General Consent of the School-Divines 31 J. S's main Argument against our Certainty of Faith Answer'd and Retorted 34 An Evident Proof of the Certainty of Faith without Infallibility 37 The Notion of a Rule of Faith Explained 38 The Sense of Tradition may be mistaken as well as Scripture 43 The Instances of it defended 44 The Second Argument about Fallible Certainty Answer'd 49 The Third about our Rule of Faith being common to all Heresies Answer'd 50 The Fourth about making our Private Judgment our Rule Answer'd 53 The Fifth about Judgment of Discretion Consider'd and Answer'd 54 How far the Scripture is a Rule to our People 55 What Certainty they have as to things necessary to Salvation 61 What Judgment of Discretion allowed by him 62 That it doth not serve only to find an Infallible Authority proved at large 64 His severe Conclusion of his Third Letter Answer'd 69 The Answer to the Argument summ'd up 71 The Sixth Argument about the Apostles not using a Written Rule in their Preaching Answer'd 73 The Seventh about Points necessary to Salvation Answer'd 74 The Similitude of the Purse defended 76 Scripture owned to be a Rule of Faith though not complete by the Divines of the Church of Rome 78 And that all Points simply necessary are therein contained 81 J. S. his Concession that all Points are not necessary to all Persons 83 Some Mens Vncertainty overthrows not the Certainty of Others 85 The Eighth Argument about the Certainty of the Letter of Scripture 86 J. S. overthrows it by allowing it to be corrected by the Sense of the Faithful 87 The Grounds of our Certainty laid down 89 Of Human and Divine Faith 91 The Last Argument about the Number of Canonical Books Answer'd 92 No Books of the New Testament lost 93 How the Canon was entire in the First Ages 95 Of the Vniversal Consent of all Christian Churches 97 The Demonstration for Oral Tradition laid down 100 The Instance of the Greek Church not Answer'd 101 The Argument it self consider'd 104 A clear and distinct Answer given to it and its notorious Fallacy laid open 105 How Errors might come into the Church 109 The late Instance of Molinos produced 109 110 Many other Causes of Errors besides Forgetfulness and Malice set down ibid. The Charge of Pelagianism defended against J. S. 113 Of the Council of Trents Proceeding on Tradition 115 The Proof that it did not referr'd to another Discourse 116 ERRATA PAge 16. line 9. for as Mr. G. read as Mr. S. p. 32. Marg. for 9.6 times r. q. for 19.9 r. 1 2. q. ibid. Marg. l. 9. for the 2 d. 13. r. A. 10. p. 62. l. 23. r. and how far and. p. 105. l. 15. blot out not before really l. 16. add not after are A DISCOURSE Concerning the NATURE GROUNDS OF THE CERTAINTY OF FAITH c. WHEN I published my Two Letters to Mr. G. I had good Reason to expect an Answer from him who began the Controversie But it seems he had better Reason to forbear and it is not hard to guess at it and I am turned over to one who pretends to write Catholick Letters against me I have a great and just Reverence for some Catholick Epistles and believe them written by an Infallible Spirit but for these Catholick Letters though their whole design be Infallibility yet I cannot find so much as a fair Probability in them But why must these be call'd Catholick Letters Are they written by some Catholick Bishop to give an Account of his Faith according to the Custom of the Antient Church Is it that the Doctrine contained in them is undoubtedly Catholick So far from it that I shall make it appear that no one Church of the Christian World ever own'd it But suppose it had been the Doctrine of the Roman Church how could this make them Catholick Letters unless so great a Logician had first proved that a Part may assume the Denomination of the whole But then why not Roman Catholick Letters according to the new Style There was a Reason for this J. S. hath not forgotten how hardly he had lately escaped Censure at Rome for the Principles contained in them and therefore though he hopes they may pass for Catholick here yet he durst not joyn Roman to Catholick in the Title of his Letters But how comes J. S. to be concerned in this Controversie with Mr. G. The Account he gives of it in the beginning of his First Letter is very pleasant He saith He accepted a Commission from Mr. G. to hold his Cards while he is not in Circumstances to play out his Game himself I will not examine Mr. G's Circumstances nor the Game he plays at but methinks this is no very decent way of expressing the undertaking a Debate about Matters of Faith and Salvation But in Truth he makes the business of Infallibility as he handles it to be a Matter of Sport and Diversion notwithstanding all his Grimaces and Tragical Expressions about it It is hard to be severe upon a Metaphor but suppose it be allowed yet I wonder of all Men he should pitch upon J. S. to hold his Cards for him who had plaid his own so ill and so much to the dissatisfaction of the leading Men of his own Church Yet he now appears as brisk and confident as if he were some New Gamester although he produces his old sullied Cards a little wiped over again and seems to have forgotten the Answer to his Sure Footing and the Accompt he still owes to the World for it I know not how far it agrees with the Laws of Ecclesiastical Chivalry for one who hath not defended himself to appear a Champion for another especially in the same Cause but there is no great Reason to apprehend he should do much for another who hath done next to nothing for himself The main Subject of the Debate is about the Nature and Grounds of the Certainty of Faith and the Method I think most natural and effectual to proceed in
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
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
Absolutely Certain as that God cannot deceive us that the Scripture is our Rule of Faith but then whether such Points be contained in that Rule and be of Divine Revelation is not Self-evident and therefore these must be deduced by all the best Methods of Reasoning from a written Rule and when Persons have examined the Scripture with all the Care and Diligence which one who would arrive at Certainty thinks himself obliged to then I do affirm that such a Man may attain to a true Certainty and Satisfaction of Mind about it And that true Certainty is attainable without Infallibility I shall prove by an undeniable Instance if an Instance willl be allowed and I hope I shall make it appear as reasonable for me to produce Instances as himself and that is concerning a Point of Faith of the greatest Importance viz. That Jesus Christ was the true Messias foretold by the Prophets The Proof of this depended on the Interpretation of Scripture and there could be no Infallible Interpreter relied upon in this Case As to Christ himself although he really was so yet we suppose the Question to be about him whether he were an Infallible Teacher or not and therefore we must not suppose the thing to be proved As to the Publick Interpretation which Mr. S. makes his Infallible Rule if that were to be relied upon then a Jew was bound not to believe Christ to be the true Messias because the Publick Interpretation was against him and the Traditional Sense of the Prophecies was against him being for a Temporal Prince I now demand of Mr. S. whether the Jews were capable of Certainty in this Point or not If not then the Jews were excused in their Infidelity If they were then true Certainty may be had without an Infallible Guide although the Publick Interpretation and Tradition be against it And if it may be had in so difficult a Case which depended on the Sense of obscure Prophecies much more certainly under the clear Revelation of the Gospel wherein all Necessary Points are laid down with so much clearness that the Fault must be more in Mens Wills than their Vnderstandings if they do not apprehend them 2. The Second false Supposition is That a Rule of Faith must be a Mechanical Rule and not a Rational i. e. It must be like a Carpenters Rule that hath all its Dimensions fixed and ready to be applied to Material things but in matters of Understanding no such Rule is to be expected The Philosophers who disputed so much about Certainty would have laughed at any man who had applied a Material Rule to Intellectual things yet this is Mr. S's great Example I take my Ruler saith he and draw a Line by it does the streightness or crookedness of this Line depend upon my Vnderstanding By no means But is there any such Intellectual Rule as this There have been great Disputes in the World among Men of Wit and Subtilty about the Certainty of Human Knowledg Whether any Infallible Criterion could be found to discern Truth and Falshood But they never imagined any such thing as an Intellectual Ruler to draw Lines by but that there were certain Differences of Truth and Falshood which men might find out but not without Diligence and Application of their Minds to it And notwithstanding the Characters of Truth and Falshood were in themselves Certain yet it was very possible for Men to mistake about them not only for want of Judgment but of Diligence and Impartiality So we say here as to a Rule of Faith we do not suppose it to be a Material Rule i. e. If a Man take the Letter of Scripture and apply it to any Opinions he must presently know whether they be true or false but it is a Rational and Intellectual Rule which is absolutely Certain in it self and whatever agrees to it is True and whatever doth not is false But still there may be mistakes in the Vnderstanding and Applying it and therefore Care and Diligence and Impartiality are required by which some may attain to that Certainty which others miss off As in the Points he mentions of the Presbyterians and Socinians differing about such high Fundamentals as the Trinity and Godhead of Christ. 1. Why Presbyterians and Socinians I beseech him There is a notable Insinuation in this as though we of the Church of England were Socinians in those Points and none but Papists and Presbyterians were Orthodox in them But this is an Insinuation which hath as much Folly as Malice in it since our solemn and express Declarations are to the contrary And he may as well call us Papists as Socinians since our Writings are as plainly against one as the other What our Sense as to these Matters is he may find in the Dialogues of the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared not long since Published by a Divine of the Church of England But to pass this over 2. Suppose the Difference between us and the Socinians What then Both take the same way of Scriptures Letter Interpretable by private Judgments and yet differ in these Fundamental Points And what follows That the Scripture is no Certain Rule By no means But that the Socinians may err and certainly do in misinterpreting this Rule But how can it be a certain Rule if men that use it may err in using it How can Reason be certain in any thing if Men following Reason may mistake How can Arithmetick be a certain way of computation if Men following the Rules of Arithmetick may mistake in casting up a sum Doth any Man question the Certainty of the Rule for Mens blundering in their Accompts yet this is his way of Reasoning And I will put it just with his Propositions I. Arithmetick prescribes a Certain way by Addition and Substraction for us to find out any Sum. II. Therefore it must be such that they who take it shall arrive by it at the exact Sum. III. But two Men who have made use of the same way differ at least a hundred in casting up the Sum. IV. Therefore Arithmetick doth not prescribe a certain way to attain at a Certain Sum. V. Therefore they who take only that way cannot by it arrive at the Certain Sum. Is not this clear and evident Demonstration But those who consider a little better than Mr. S. hath done will distinguish between the rule and the application of it The Rule of Arithmetick may be nevertheless Certain although those who want Skill or Care and Diligence may mistake in casting up a particular Accompt The same we say here Scripture is a Certain Rule in all Fundamental Points to such as have Capacity and Use due Care and Diligence in finding them But we do not deny but Men through Prejudice Weakness want of Attention Authority of False Teachers Impatience of throughly examining things and not using proper Helps may run into gross Errors such as these about the Trinity and Incarnation but still the Rule is
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
much that in some Matters of very great Moment the Scripture is a very sufficient Rule and Ground of Certainty as to all Points between Us and Infidels And if it be so as to these Points then why not as well as to other Points consequent upon these If Christ be the Eternal Son of God in opposition to Heathen Deities and we can know him by Scripture to be so then we may as well know him to be the Eternal Son of God in opposition to Arians and Socinians If against the Heathens we can prove from Scripture that the Word was made Flesh Why will not this as well hold against Nestorians and Eutychians And so the Scripture becomes a very sufficient Rule to distinguish Light and Darkness in such Points among Christians too For is it ever the less fit to be a Rule because both Parties own it But they differ about the Sense of it and therefore Controversies can never be ended by it If Church-History deceive us not the greatest Controversies were ended by it before General Councils were heard of and more than have been since Many of those we read of in the First Ages were quite laid asleep as Theodoret observes but since Church-Authority interposed in the most Reasonable manner some Differences have been perpetuated as appears by the Nestorian and Eutychian Controversies I do not blame the Authority of Councils proceeding as they then did by the Rule of Scriptures but the Event shewed that the most probable Means are sometimes very ineffectual for ending Controversies And those which Men think will most effectually Suppress Heresies do often give a New Life and Spirit to them So vain are the Imaginations of Men about putting an End to Controversies till they do come to a Certainty about the true Sense of Scripture It is possible to stop Mens Mouths by Force and Power but nothing brings Men to a true Satisfaction but inward Conviction as to the true Sense of Scripture and there can be no rational Certainty as to these Points without it If Controversies be not ended let us not blame the Wisdom of Providence for God doth not always appoint the Means most effectual in our Judgment but such as are most suitable to his own Design And we see Reason enough to blame the Folly and weakness the Prejudice and Partiality the Wilfulness and Obstinacy of Mankind and till Human Nature be brought to a better Temper we may despair of seeing any End of Controversies Men may Dispute and for all that I know will do to the Worlds End about the Method to put an End to Disputes For the Controversies about Certainty and Fatality have been always the Matters of Debate among disputing Men under several Names and Hypotheses and are like so to be to the general Conflagration IV. He saith Scripture is not our distinguishing Rule of Faith but our own particular Judgments about Scripture for that which distinguishes my Rule from that of the most abominable Heresies can only be my own Judgment upon the Letter of Scripture and wriggle which way I will there it will and must end at last I wish Mr. S. had been a little better conversant in the old Disputes about Certainty for it would have saved me the trouble of answering some impertinent Objections such as this before us For they would have been thought mean Logicians who could not put a difference between the Rule of Judgment and the Judgment which a Man made according to the Rule Suppose the Question were about Sense whether that were a certain Rule or not to judge by and Epicurus should affirm it and say he so firmly believed it that he judged the Sun to be no bigger than he seemed to his Senses would not he have been thought ridiculous who should have said this Fancy of Epicurus was his Rule The Rule he went by was in it self certain but he made a wrong Judgment upon it but that was not his Rule So it is here We declare the Scripture to be our only certain and standing Rule whereby we are to judge in Matters of Faith and we understand it as well as we can and form our Judgments by it but doth it hence follow that our Judgment is our Rule We may be deceived in our Judgments but our Rule is Infallible we may differ in our Judgments but our Rule is one and the same And how is it possible for those who differ in Judgment to have the same Rule if our Rule and our Judgments be the same For then their Rules must be as different as their Judgments I know not what Modern Logick Mr. S. learnt but I am sure he learnt not this way of Reasoning from the Antient Philosophers who discoursed about the Criterion after another manner than our great pretender to Logick doth V. He objects That our People do not make Scripture the Rule of their Faith not one in a Million relying upon it and therefore this pretence of mine he saith books like a meer Jest and he cannot perswade himself that I am in earnest while I advance such a Paradox What doth J. S. mean to call one of the Articles of our Church a Jest and a Paradox For the Words of our Sixth Article are Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation Doth J. S. now take this for a Paradox among us I assure him I love not to make Jests about Scripture nor matters of Faith and Salvation But wherein doth this Jest lie Why forsooth I make the People to make Scripture their Rule and not one in a Million thinks of relying on it Have they then any other Rule of Faith which they rely upon What is it I pray Is it the Churches Infallibility No. Is it Pius the Fourth's Creed No truly while they are Children they believe Tradition Now I think J. S. hath hit it Tradition is indeed a Rule of Faith for Children who are very apt simply to believe their Fathers and Teachers But suppose they come to years of Discretion what Rule of Faith have they then Have they a Judgment of Discretion then No this is another Jest. For he supposes all our People to be a dull sort of Animals that understand nothing of Scripture or Faith themselves I wonder then that they make no more Converts among them but trust their Parson for all For Boves arabant Asinae pascebantur juxta eos therefore the People have no Judgment of Discretion I hope J. S. knows whose Jest or rather Argument that was Whatever he insinuates as to our People I have Reason to believe far better of them and that all those who mind their Salvation do seriously read and consider the Holy Scriptures as the Rule of their Faith. But if
But however it be expressed or connected his meaning is That we only set up Scripture against the Church of Rome and then set up our own Authority over the People This is not possible if we do allow them a Judgment of Discretion and this is one of the things he so much charges upon me and saith He never read any Protestant that puts Matters more into private hands than I do and yet in the very next Page he saith I deny the People the same Priviledge against Pastoral Authority How can I deny them such a Priviledge if I put Matters into their hands above any other Protestant I do not know that I do in the least differ from the sixth Article of our Church nor do I take off from the due Authority of Bishops and Pastors of Churches But all our Dispute is about this Judgment of Discretion whether it be allowable to People and how far In his Third Letter he resumes this Argument and thither I follow him that I may lay things together into some Method The words he cavils at are If we have the Consent of all Christian Churches against the only pretended Infallible Judge we have their Consent likewise that every Man is to judge for his own Salvation What hurt is there in this It seems then nothing will content us now but Infallibility Was there ever such an awkard Man at Reasoning It follows indeed that either there must be an Infallible Judge or every Man must judge for himself Do I then allow no Authority to Church-Governors that do not pretend to Infallibility Yes very much while they do not pretend to Impose on our Faith by a pretence to Infallibility But what Occasion do I give for this when I say only That every Man must judge for his own Salvation and yet he had the Conscience to leave this out in repeating my Sense but two lines after May not you mistake or pervert to Day what you heard Yesterday when I find you mistaking or perverting my Sense but at two lines distance And then run on in a long Discourse as though you had taken the true Sense of my Words Is not this a fit Person to play out Mr. G 's Game who shuffles in so strange a manner and so openly plays false Cards Where did I ever dispute against Church-Authority in due proposing Matters of Faith provided that every Man is to judge for his own Salvation But I have he saith an aking Tooth at the Churches intermeddling in Matters of Faith. From whence doth this appear This must either arise from great Ignorance as to the Right of Judging every Man hath as to his own Salvation or from a Malicious Design to expose me to all Church-Governors but I pity his Ignorance and despise his Malice What pleasant Entertainment doth he make with the Sober Enquirer 'T is pity saith he but he had a blew Apron on and a Tub to Hold-forth in as a Sober Enquirer may possibly find some Pretenders to Infallibility have done in their Time. But what is the meaning of all this ado about a Sober Enquirer I had said many years ago That the Scriptures being owned as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly revealed that no Sober Enquirer can miss of what is necessary for Salvation there can be no Necessity supposed of an Infallible Society of Men either to Attest or Explain these Writings among Christians any more than there was for some Ages before Christ of such a Body of Men among the Jews to Attest or Explain to them the Writings of Moses and the Prophets And where lies the Heresie or Danger of this Doctrine If I said that no Sober Enquirer can miss of things necessary to Salvation in Scripture it is no more than St. Chrysostom St. Augustin Aquinas and other School-men had said before me and Were they for blew Aprons and Tubs to Hold forth in Nay to shew how unskilful J. S. is in the Writers of his own Church if they do own him even Bellarmin himself grants as much as I say For being to Answer that Place Jam. 1.5 If any Man lack Wisdom let him ask it of God who giveth liberally c. he Answers This is to be understood of Sapientia necessaria ad Salutem so then a Sober Enquirer praying to God to give him Wisdom shall not want that which is Necessary to his Salvation And he quotes several Passages of St. Augustin to prove that Prayer obtains nothing Infallibly but that which is necessary or useful to the Salvation of him that prays If this be then obtained Infallibly then we see an Infallible Ground of Certainty as to what is Necessary or Useful to Salvation Bellarmin indeed saith that a Gift of Interpretation is not to be had by Prayer and Do I ever say it is Did I ever give the least Countenance to Enthusiastick Pretenders or to the Breakers of the Laws and Orders of our Established Church What means then these spiteful Insinuations Doth the Man hope to raise Himself by exposing Me Or to be caressed by F.P. and F. W. by the brave attempt of throwing Dirt so plainly in my Face Which will never stick being so unskilfully thrown either to my Prejudice or his Advantage But this Matter about the Peoples Judgment of Discretion must not be thus pass'd over For he resumes it at the End of his Third Letter and thought it a good relishing bit to conclude with And towards the very end he begins to state the Controversie this true Logician having forgotten it before or reserved it for a Disert at the last To come closer saith he and take a more distinct view of this Judgment of Discretion It was even time to come closer in the 99th p. of the Third Letter Alas for Mr. G. he is like to have a hopeful Game of it when his Substitute talks at this rate at the very end of the Game But let us see what feats he will do now he comes closer Now he will acquaint me how far he allows it and far and how in what he rejects it This is well but why no sooner He was at ' another Game before viz. two or three throws at the Sober Enquirer and having knock'd him down with his blew Apron and Tub he now comes to T. G's Cards again And let us see how well he plays them First He grants That every Man is to judge for his own Salvation i. e. he yields what the Sober Enquirer aimed at and now methinks he desires the blew Apron and Tub to Hold-forth himself Secondly He saith All Mankind are agreed in it It seems then the Fanaticks are true Catholicks in Mr. S's Opinion Thirdly He yields That every Man is to judge of the best way to Salvation and of all the Controversies between Them and Vs. Now the Tub is turn'd to a Chair and the Holder-forth become a Judge of Controversies Nay he goes so far as to
of Faith And hath he found out the Churches Authority too without the Churches Help and yet doth he want some necessary Points of Faith Then it follows that after the submitting to the Churches Authority there are still necessary Points of Faith which may be wanting and then an absolute Submission is not all that is required of one that hath found out the Churches Authority But my whole Argument there proceeds upon a Supposition viz. that if one may without the Churches Help find out the Churches Authority in Scripture then why not all necessary Points of Faith So that it goes upon a Parity of Reason and I see no Answer at all given or pretended but only he endeavours to stop my Mouth with a handful of Dirt. Thus I have dispatched this long Argument about the Judgment of Discretion And I shall now sum up my Answer in these particulars I. Every Christian as such is bound to enquire after the true Way to Salvation and hath a Capacity of Judging concerning it II. Every Christian proceeding according to the best Rules of judging hath Reason to receive the Scripture as the Rule of his Faith. III. The Scripture is so plain in all Necessaries and God hath promised such Assistance to them that sincerely seek it that none who do so shall want the knowledge of such things as are necessary to their Salvation IV. When any thing is offer'd as necessary to be believed in order to Salvation every Christian hath a Right and Liberty of Judging whether it can be proved by the Scripture to be so necessary or not V. We do not allow to particular Persons the same Faculty of Judging in doubtful Points of Controversie which we do as to Matters that immediately concern their Salvation VI. No pretence of Infallibility or Authority can take away that Right of Judging which was allowed them by the Apostles whose Authority was Infallible VII This Right of Judging doth not exclude the Churches due Authority as to Matters of Faith and Controversies of Religion as it is declared Art. 20. of our Church but all that we now plead for is not any Authority as to others but a Right of Judging as to themselves in Matters that concern their Salvation VIII The Certainty of Faith as to them depends upon two Things 1. The clearness of Scripture about them which implies the Certainty of Reason 2. The Promise of Divine Assistance which makes their Faith Divine both as to its Principle its Ground and its Effect But I have not yet ended his Objections about our Rule of Faith For VI. He objects That we cannot necessarily resolve our Faith into the Writings of the Apostles only What is the meaning that we cannot necessarily resolve it I think we must Resolve it into a Written Rule till we see another proved Did the Apostles when they went to convert the World go with Books in their Hands or Words in their Mouths Doubtless with Words in their Mouths Or were those Words a jot less Sacred when they came from their Mouths than when they put them in a Book Not one jot Or lastly doth any Command from Christ appear to write the Book of Scripture or any Revelation before hand that it was to be a Rule of Faith to the future Church No such matter and the Accidental Occasions of its writing at first and its Acceptation afterwards bar any such pretences On the other side their grand Commission was not scribite but only praedicate Evangelium I have given an Account so lately of the Reasons and Occasions of writing the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament that I need only here to give these general Answers I. Whatsoever was done as to the Writing the Books of the New Testament was done by the immediate Direction and Appointment of the Holy Ghost II. The Reason given by the Writers of the Gospels themselves is that Matters of Faith might be delivered with the greatest Certainty III. Those Writings were not intended only for the Benefit of the Church then being but for future Ages and thence the Books of Scripture were so received and esteemed in the Primitive Churches IV. The most Antient Writers of the Christian Church assure us that the Apostles wrote the same Doctrine they taught and for that purpose that they might be a Pillar and Foundation of Faith. V. The most certain way we now have to know what Doctrine the Apostles taught is by their Writings since they taught and wrote the same Doctrine and we are certain we have the Doctrine they wrote but we have no other Way to be certain what Doctrine they taught VII He objects That the Question being put concerning the New Testament's containing all Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles I gave no direct Answer but shuffled it off to Matters necessary to Salvation The setting out of this is the Subject of some pages To which I give an easie Answer The Question concerning the New Testament containing all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles may be taken in two Senses 1. As relating to the entire Object of Faith and so the Answer was most direct and plain to the second Question That the Rule whereby we hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles is by the Divine Revelations contained in the Writings of the New Testament For since we believe all that is there and nothing but what is there that must contain the Entire Object of our Faith. And the word All must relate to that 2. As to all those things which particular Persons are bound to believe as contained therein and so the Question being put about the Vniversal Testimony to assure us i. e. all particular Christians That the New Testament contained all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles My Answer was direct and apposite to this Sense viz. that the Universal Testimony of the Christian Church as to the Book of Scripture and the Doctrine therein contained is a sufficient Ground to make us certain i. e. all particular Persons of all Matters necessary to our Salvation So that the Substance of my Answer lies in these three things I. That all our Faith is contained in Scripture and thereby we hold all the Doctrine taught by Christ and his Apostles II. That although all particular Persons may not reach to the entire Object of Faith contained in Scripture yet they had thereby a Certainty as to all Matters necessary to their Salvation III. That the Ground of Certainty as to both these was the Universal Testimony of the Christian Church concerning the Books of Scripture and the Doctrine contained therein The Words of my Letter are We are to consider that the Scripture being our sole and entire Rule of Faith all Matters necessary to Salvation must be supposed to be contained therein and therefore the same Testimony which delivers the Scripture to us doth deliver all the necessary Articles as contained therein
Which are there received as in the Lump and if we receive the Book which contains all we must by the same Authority receive all contained in it As if a Purse be left to a Man by his Fathers Will full of Gold and Silver and this by the Executors be declared to contain all the Gold and Silver his Father left him they who deliver this Purse to him from the Executors do certainly deliver to him all the Gold and Silver left him by his Father But if he suspects there was both Gold and Silver left him by his Father which was not in that Purse then he must call in Question the Integrity of the Executors who declared that all was contained therein This is now the Case of the Christian Church as to all Divine Truths which respect Mens Salvation the Primitive Church who answer to the Executors in the other Case did unanimously declare that all such Truths were undoubtedly contained in the Written Word Although therefore there may be a real Difference in the nature of the Doctrines therein contained as there is between Gold and Silver yet he that receives all must receive one as well as the other and the Matters of Salvation being of greatest Moment they that receive the whole Will of God upon Grounds of Certainty must be assured that therein they receive all Matters necessary to our Salvation Never was any Purse so rifled as this is by J. S. he examines not only the Coin in it but the very Strings and Linings of it He is a dreadful Man at Ransacking a Metaphor He tells me My Similitude is so far from running on four Legs that it is in many regards lame on the right and indeed only foot it ought to stand on and which is worse perhaps against my self The sum of it amounts to this that because Scripture contains all and Protestants have Scripture therefore they have all A strange kind of Discourse As if because they have it in a Book therefore they have it in their Minds and Souls in which and no where else Faith is to reside But was not the Question put whether we had All the Points of Faith which our Saviour taught And how could I answer a Question about All but by shewing where we had All If All the Doctrine of Christ be there we must be certain we have all if we have the Scripture which contains all But it is not enough to have it in a Book I grant it But still if you ask where all my Faith is contained I must refer you to that Book which contains All. For I profess to believe every thing there and nothing as a Point of Faith but what is there We do not pretend that it is enough for Persons to say their Faith is in such a Book but we grant that they ought to read and search and actually believe what ever they find in that Book but still all Points are not equally necessary to all Persons that are therein contained but all such as are necessary to Salvation lie there open to the Capacities of all who desire to know them Now this is one of the things J. S. finds fault with this similitude of a Purse for viz. That People think it is an easie thing to open and as easie to come at the Sense of Scripture as to take Money out of a Purse 'T is but plucking the Strings and the Deed is done And is this any Disparagement to a Rule of Faith to be plain and easie If it were not so it could not be a Rule of Faith for all Persons We do not say that any Person by opening the Scriptures may presently attain to the Certain Sense of all Places of Scripture but that which I assert is That no Man who sets himself to read and consider the Scriptures as he ought and prays for Wisdom from God shall miss of knowing all things necessary to his Salvation But Mr. S. is for mending the Similitude and truly he doth it after an extraordinary manner He will allow the Scripture to be a Purse provided the Purses Mouth were tied up with a Knot of such a mysterious contrivance that none could open it but those who knew the Mind of the Bequeather and that the Church to which it was left as a Legacy had knowledge of his Mind and so could open it whilst Others only perplexed themselves more while they went about it The Point then between Us is whether the Scripture were left only to the Church to Interpret it to the People in all Points or whether it were intended for the general good of the whole Church so as thereby to direct themselves in their Way to Heaven and consequently whether it may not be opened and understood by all Persons in Matters that are necessary to their Salvation One would think by the Church of Romes management of the Scripture keeping it so much out of the Peoples hands and talking so much of the Danger and Mischief that comes by it that they did esteem it just as the Old Romans did the Sybillin Oracles which were to be kept up from the view of the People and only to be consulted in Cases of great Difficulty and no farther Questions were to be asked but what the Keepers of them declared to be their meaning was to be so received without any farther Examination And this is the Sense of the Politicians of that Church concerning the Scripture But when they have written like Divines and have been driven to state the Controversie truly they have been forced to such Concessions as have overthrown the Political Hypothesis For I. They cannot deny that the Scripture was designed to be a Certain and Infallible Rule of Faith to all This Bellarmin proves in the beginning of his Controversies where he shews at large That the Law was the Rule in the Old Testament To the Law and to the Testimony Blessed are they that search thy Commandments c. That in the New Testament Christ proves his Doctrine by the Scriptures and refers the Pharisees to the Scriptures and confuted the Sadduces out of them That the Apostles direct Christians to honour and esteem and to rely upon them And then he proves that a Rule of Faith must be Certain and Known and for the Scriptures he saith Nihil est Notius nihil Certius Nothing is more Known nothing more Certain How can this be if there be such Mystical Knots which tye it together that none but the Church-Guides can unloose How can this then ever be so Known as to be a Rule of Faith to the People And not meerly a Rule but a most Certain and Safe Rule Which is the greatest Non-sense in the World if it cannot be understood by those who are to make it their Rule They may as well say That Algebra was a Rule for Masons and Carpenters and a Jacob's Staff for a Taylor 's Measure But Mr. S. hath beaten his Brains so long about Rules
Thing or Manner but the Revelation of such a Doctrine So that if these Points be owned to be necessary to Salvation they must be so plain that Men may understand their Duty to believe them For that is the Bound I keep my self within that all things Necessary to Salvation are so plain that we may be certain of our Duty to believe them but if not we may Err without Prejudice to our Salvation Mr S. asks what I mean by all things necessary to Salvation Nothing but what all others do mean by it Did Christ saith he teach any unnecessary Points Alas for him But are all Points taught by Christ or written in Scripture equally necessary to the Salvation of all People No he saith presently after That he will grant that fewer means than the Knowledge of all Christ taught may suffice for the Salvation of some particular Persons Very well now I hope he will make something of the main business in hand viz. To prove that Absolute Certainty of all that Christ Taught is Necessary to Mens Salvation when he grants that some may be Saved without so much as Knowing all that Christ Taught To what purpose was all this Heat about the Certainty of our Faith as to all that Christ Taught if at last some may be Saved without so much as Knowing it How doth Mr. S. prove That those some are only the Ignorant People in the Church of Rome but that all Ours are tied to no less than Infallible Certainty of all that Christ Taught He would have done well to have proved such a Privilege for Ignorance to have been limited to their Communion and that no Claim can be allowed as to the Circumstances of any other particular Persons Some few he saith again may be Saved without the Knowledge of such and such Points slender Motives being enough for their Circumstances I thank Mr. S. for this It seems the Point as to Salvation is gained unless particular Persons among us can be proved to be none of these few But where-ever they are it seems they may be Saved but I hope not without True and Saving Faith whence it follows that such Faith hath no necessary Relation to these high Points and there is no need of Infallible Certainty as to them of all Christ Taught One of these high Points is that of Transubstantiation too high for me and Thousands and Millions besides ever to apprehend let us do our utmost nay we cannot apprehend such is our dulness that we can have any Certainty as to Sense or Reason if we hold it We hope therefore J. S. will enlarge his Number and not talk only of some Few that may be Saved without the Knowledge of such deep Mysteries we desire to be admitted into his Number for truly our Capacities can never be stretched so far as to comprehend the Possibility of Transubstantiation Suppose our Motives be slender yet they are such as move us to that degree that we cannot overcome the Reluctancies of Sense and Reason and Revelation and Tradition against it But Mr. S. brings himself off with a Salvo Though all Points are not necessary for every particular Person yet all of them are necessary for the Body of the Church whose Pastors are to Instruct their Children in them and apply the Efficacy of them to their Souls as their Capacities admit and Exigencies require It seems still they are not Necessary to particular Persons but according to their Capacities and Exigencies but they are to the Body of the Church But how came they to be Necessary to the Body of the Church For Instance The Point of Transubstantiation is a very deep Point and although particular Persons may be Saved without believing it yet I cannot understand how this deep Point comes to be Necessary in any Respect for the Body of the Church I hope J. S. will not deny this to be one of his Necessary Church-Points Let him then shew how it comes to be so Necessary for the Pastors of the Church to Instruct their Children in it My Capacity I assure him will not reach to this and therefore I hope I may be excused and in his own words my mind is not capable of being cultivated by such elevating Considerations I do not believe there is any such danger of the Flocks dying or falling short of their full growth they might have had in the Plentiful Pasturage of the Church as J. S. elegantly speaks if they do not believe Transubstantiation or any such deep Points But still we have no Absolute Certainty of our highest Fundamentals No We affirm the Contrary and from Absolutely Certain Grounds It is Absolutely Certain that whatever God Reveals is true and ought to be believed by us And we are as absolutely Certain as Scripture and Reason can make us that God hath Revealed the Fundamentals of our Faith. But there is Experience to the Contrary What Experience That we are not Certain We affirm that we are and who can tell best How comes Mr. S. to know we are not Certain when we say we are But all are not as Socinians c. What are they to us Are not we certain because some are not Certain What pittiful Reasoning is this Is Mr. S. Certain of his Infallible Ground of Certainty Oral Tradition Why do I ask such a Question For very good Reason because there are some not Certain of it and even in his own Church but cry out upon it as Fallible Fallacious Dangerous and Destructive of Faith and leading to Atheism From whence it follows on Mr. S's Principles that he cannot be Certain himself because others are not Nay it is impossible he should have any Certainty on his own Grounds For he can have no Rule of Certainty as I shall evidently prove from his own Words A Rule must have Absolute Certainty Absolute Certainty there cannot be where Persons are left uncertain but there are many in the Church of Rome that not only doubt of his Rule of Infallible Certainty but utterly deny it and dispute against it How is it then possible for him to be certain of it on his own Grounds But it is time to proceed to another Objection against our Rule of Faith. VIII J. S. saith We can be no more certain of our Rule than we are of the Truth of the Letter of Scripture but we cannot be certain we have the Right Letter unless we have a Right Translation and that must be from a true Copy no Copy can be true unless Conformable to the Original and if there be any failure in any of these nay if we have not absolute Certainty of all these we cannot have any absolute Certainty of our Faith. This Objection those of the Church of Rome who believe Scripture to be a Rule of Faith though not the Complete are concerned to Answer as well as we For the Matters of Faith contained in Scripture are convey'd to their Minds after the same manner
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.
other Points contradictorily held between the Greek and Roman Churches besides that of the Filioque and the Argument holds as well in any other as in that And therefore he must fix the Errour on one side or other After all this flourishing he takes heart and resolves to grapple with the Instance Let us see what your Instance will do Now I thought we shall have a direct Answer But I am strangely disappointed For he runs still back to that That I do not believe it erred Was the Instance brought against me or against P. G But his Answer doth not make or marr the business The business of the Demonstration it doth and that was my business But this doth not prove that a Church going upon Tradition errs unless I will grant that the Greek Church hath erred What strange Trifling is this The Dispute was about P. G's Argument and not my Opinion Is this the Answer to the Instance about the Greek Church which Mr. M. promised If this pass for an Answer I think J. S. may defend Sure footing I mentioned P. G's Answer That the Greek Church followed Tradition till the Arians left that Rule and took up a new one And why saith J. S. hath he not answered well Because he did not answer to the purpose which was not about the Arians but the present Greek Church But a Church may follow Tradition at one time and leave it at another Very true but the Greek Church did not forsake Tradition and yet erred And therefore Tradition and Errour were found together and therein lies the force of this undeniable Instance The rest is such Trifling that I am really ashamed to answer it over and over Still he attempts to give an Answer and still fails but it is something new and therefore shall be considered His Answer saith J. S. holds as well as to the present as past Greek Church His answer Where is it It was that those who err in Faith must leave Tradition But the Greeks did not leave Tradition and yet erred in Faith so that the Instance holds good still He denies that Errour and Tradition can be found together in the Greek Church or any other Ancient or Modern i. e. the Conclusion must be held against all the Instances in the World. But I ought to say whether the differences were in matters of Faith. Yes in such which the Church of Rome accounts matters of Faith. But how can an erring Church still plead Tradition and adhere to it Answer the Instance for the Greek Church doth plead Tradition But then pleading Tradition is no more but quoting some Expressions of ancient Writers as the Arians did Not so neither for the Greek Church relies most upon Tradition from Father to Son in Practise of any Church in the World. But if they adhere to Tradition and that Tradition leads them to Christ who could not err how can they possibly err For pray did Christ teach any Errour No certainly When a Father believed what Christ taught him and the Son what the Father believed did not the Son too believe what Christ taught Run it on to the last Son that shall be born in the World must not every one believe what Christ taught if every one believed what his Father believed And so Goodnight to the Greek Church we are come back to the Argument I might as well have Instanced in the Latin Church it self Truly I think so too and so you shall find in a short time and how little Advantage you get by such a Challenge But it is impossible for a Church to adhere to Tradition and yet to Err therefore if the present Greek Church have Erred it has not adhered to Tradition if it have adhered to Tradition it hath not Erred That is the Argument must be good let the Instance be what it will. But an easie Distinction will shew the Weakness of this Argument Adhering to Tradition may be taken Two ways I. For Adhering to Tradition as the Rule and Means of Conveyance of Matters of Faith. II. For actually Adhering to that very Doctrine which Christ taught and hath ever since been truly convey'd down by Tradition In this latter Sense we grant it impossible for Men to Err while they actually adhere to that very Doctrine which Christ taught and is supposed to be deliver'd down by Tradition But this is not the Matter before us which lies in these Two Points I. Whether Tradition be an Infallible Way to convey the Doctrine of Christ down to us II. Whether it be impossible for those who hold to This as Their Rule to Err or not And so the Answer is plain to the main Argument If by Traditionary Christians be meant such as adhere to that very Doctrine which Christ taught and was actually conveyed down to them then such Traditionary Christians so believing cannot Err. But if by Traditionary Christians be meant such as take Tradition for an Infallible Rule of conveying all Matters of Faith then we say such Traditionary Christians may and have Erred And that for Two Reasons I. Because Tradition is no Infallible Rule II. Because although it were yet Men might Err either by mistaking it or departing from it But saith J. S. They cease to be Traditionary Christians if they do not believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday and so up to Christ. If by Traditionary Christians be meant they do not really believe what Christ taught we grant it that they are If by Traditionary Christians be meant such as bear the Name of Traditionary Christians and look on Tradition as their Rule and imagine they have the same Faith which Christ taught then they are still Traditionary Christians And now I am to give a clear and distinct Answer to the Demonstration of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition as it is managed by J. S. and taken into Propositions I. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour J. S. hopes I have nothing to say to this but he is mistaken For I have many things to say to lay open the Notorious Fallacy of it in every Clause I. All Traditionary Christians Who are they Are all Christians Traditionary Christians This were to the purpose if it could be proved But how doth this appear Why is it not said All Christians have gone upon this Principle He knew this could never have been proved And therefore he puts in the thing in dispute and would have it taken for granted that there were no other but Traditionary Christians Which I deny and I am certain he can never prove it Suppose then that there were Christians not Traditionary as well as Traditionary the Proposition appears ridiculous so far is it from Demonstration Traditionary Christians believed so Non-Traditionary Christians believed otherwise and which are to be believed is the Question and that to be determined by the Certainty of the
Ground they went upon and so we are come to the Debate between Scripture and Tradition II. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday This is capable of a threefold meaning I. That they do actually believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday Which is a meer contingent thing and proves nothing Or II. That they are bound to believe to Day as they did Yesterday And that may be on several Accounts I. Because they see Evidence from the Word of God to Day as well as they did Yesterday II. Or because their Guides of the Church teach them the same to Day which they did Yesterday whom they believe to be Infallible III. Or meerly because they receive it by an Oral Tradition and not on the other Accounts and then it proves no more than that they are bound to do it and it is too well known that many fail to do what they are bound to Or III. That they do Infallibly believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday But then this ought to have been inserted in the Proposition That Traditionary Christians cannot fail to believe to Day what they did Yesterday If it be said That this is implyed in their being Traditionary Christians then I say the whole is a Fallacy of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he supposes all true Christians to be Traditionary Christians and then that they Infallibly hold to Tradition as their Rule and from thence he proves Tradition to be Infallible But if the Body of Christians may go upon another Rule or if going upon Tradition they may misunderstand it then there is no inseparable connexion in the several Links of this Chain And there is a further Fallacy in supposing that if any change in Faith happens it must be as sudden and remarkable as if all Men should to day refuse to believe what they believed Yesterday Whereas the changes of Opinions are oft-times wrought by insensible Degrees and many concurrent Causes and sometimes the very same Words may be used and the Faith altered as in the Case of Merit Sacraments Sacrifice c. which sheweth Men may continue the very same Terms and yet believe quite a different thing And where Changes are gradual it is very unreasonable to pitch upon such a precise and narrow space of time as between to Day and Yesterday By the same Method one may demonstrate it to be impossible that any Language should be changed for People speak the same Language to Day which they did Yesterday and the same Yesterday which they did the Day before and so up to the very building of Babel and yet we all know that Languages are continually changed and to such a degree that in some Ages they cannot understand what was at that time intelligible by all In such cases it is enough to assign the general Causes and Reasons of Alterations without fixing a precise and determinate Time. And those I shall speak to afterwards III. And so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour To prove any thing from hence it must be shewed I. That there can be no Pretence to Tradition taken up without Ground for if there may it can by no means follow That if Men pretend to Tradition that Tradition must run up to the Time of Christ. But then they cease to be Traditionary Christians What then Not in pretence for they may call themselves so still but in reality they are not II. That if Men lay claim to a Rule they must always observe it We do not pretend to it as to the Scripture And what Reason is there for it as to Tradition But if Men may pretend to follow Tradition and do not then from their being Traditionary Christians it can by no means follow that this Tradition must be carried up to the Time of our Blessed Saviour II. The second Proposition is And if they follow this Rule they can never err in Faith. This is palpably self evident saith J. S. So say I too but it is only to be a meer Fallacy To follow this Rule is to believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday and so up to Christ or downwards If they did this from Christs time and so forwards they must continue to believe the same to the End of the World. If they really believe the same Doctrine which Christ taught no doubt they cannot err But the Question is Whether this be an Infallible Rule for us to Judge they could never mistake in this Rule nor follow any other For if either of these could happen the Demonstration is lost If it were possible for Errors to come in some other Way or for Persons to misapprehend the Doctrine delivered then it is not possible for us by this Way to be convinced they could not err The latter I have already spoken to I shall now shew that there were some other ways that Errors might come in And here I shall pass over the Common Infirmities of Human Nature which I think Oral Tradition can never Cure and which leave Men always lyable to Error but I shall name some more particular Ways of introducing them I. By the Authority of False Teachers And for this I shall not run back to the False Apostles and Seducers in the Apostles times and afterwards but I shall bring a present Instance in the Church of Rome and that is of Michael de Molinos a Person solemnly condemned at Rome Aug. 28. of this Year for 68 Propositions taken out of his Books and owned by himself as the Decree saith which are there said to be Heretical Erroneous Blasphemous Offensive Rash Seditious and contrary to Christian Discipline This Man is said to have had Thousands of Disciples in Italy in the very Heart of the Traditionary Church Now I desire J. S. to inform me If Tradition be Infallible and that be the Way followed in the Church of Rome how it was possible for such Multitudes to be deceived in Matters of such Consequence To say they were not deceived is to expose the Authority of the Guides of the Church of Rome to the greatest Contempt To say they were deceived is to own That notwithstanding Tradition a single Priest may gain such Authority as to deceive Thousands and where lies then the Infallibility of Tradition II. By Enthusiasm or a Pretence to Immediate Revelation For this I shall not produce the Old Instances in Ecclesiastical History as of Montanus Asclepiades Theodotus Manichaeus Arius AEtius c. who all pretended to Revelations for their particular Opinions But I shall keep to the late Instance of Molinos who asserts That the Perfection of a Christian State lies in a Simple Pure Infused and Perfect Contemplation above the Vse of Ratiocination or Discursive Prayer and that in order to this nothing is so necessary as Self-annihilation This Doctrine is now condemned at Rome but how came it into the Church Did not they believe the same to Day which they did Yesterday