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
is I. To shew how unfit J. S. of all Men is to undertake this Cause II. To settle the true State of the Controversie between us III. To examine the Reasons he produces against our Grounds of Certainty IV. To lay open the weakness of his Arguments on behalf of the Infallibility of Oral and Practical Tradition I. As to J. S. his appearing in this Cause again we are to consider that in his Catholick Letters he frequently owns Faith vindicated Reason against Raillery and Errour nonplust and even Sure Footing it self But I shall now shew that he disowned the main Principles in those Books when he was in great danger of being Censured at Rome for them and therefore is not to be allow'd to produce them again The Account of this Matter will give great Light into the state of the present Controversie and is therefore necessary to be premised to it Out of those Books of J. S. a considerable Person in the Church of Rome selected three Propositions about the Grounds of his Infallible Certainty which were these I. That he who is obliged to profess Faith propositions true must see the Connexion between their Terms and consequently that they cannot be unconnected or false II. If the two Terms be not seen to be connected these Propositions may nay ought to be denyed by the Respondent whose Office and Right it is to grant nothing but what is evident lest he ensnare himself III. 'T is requisite and necessary that the Assent of Faith in divers particular Believers be formally Infallible or that those Persons be infallibly certain by evident Reasons that the Authority or Rule of Faith they rely on cannot herein deceive them Else great Wits and acute Reflecters whose piercing Vnderstandings require convictive Grounds for their Faith would remain for ever unsatisfied nor would the wisest Christians sincerely and heartily assent to nor with honesty profess the Truth of their Faith nor could any prove it true or establish rational doubters in it or convert Men of exact knowledge to it or convince Hereticks calling the Truth of it in question Nor could Governors and leading Persons with any Conscience or Credit propose and preach the Truth of Faith to the Generality These Propositions were tender'd to two Doctors of the Sorbon who declared The First could not be explained in a Catholick Sense and therefore very unfit for Catholick Letters For if say they a Person sees the Connexion between the Terms it would be Science and not Faith it is enough to see them not to be contradictory or that the Connexion is not repugnant to Reason Divine Faith is above not contrary to Reason As to the Second they agreed That neither could that be explained in a Catholick Sense because it is destructive of Faith and a Proposition ought not cannot be denied although the Respondent hath not Evidence of the Terms of which it consists when he otherwise knows the Church which Faith not Demonstration teaches to be Infallible in Matters of Faith to propose as a Truth revealed by God. To the Third they say That it cannot be explained in a Catholick Sense Because it is sufficient that the Church be believed by Faith to be Infallible and it is not requisite that the Infallibility of the Church be proved by evident Reason See here the main Design of his Catholick Letters declared to be no Catholick Doctrine which is to prove that there must be Infallible Certainty by Conclusive Evidence of the Churches Infallibility And if this be not Catholick Doctrine I am infallibly certain his Letters are far from being Catholick in their Sense One of these Doctors writes to the A. B. of D. That the Natural Sense of the Propositions could not be Catholick and that all Bishops were bound to suppress this Doctrine lest it did mischief to the Flock of Christ. And that the A. B. of Paris would revoke his Licence if the Author did not retract them as he hoped he would What Retract the Substance of his Catholick Letters Is this possible And yet again publish the same Doctrine as Catholick This is indeed very surprising But so it was For the A. B. of D. averrs That J. S. confessed the Propositions to be Heretical yea very Heretical but he said they were not taken in his sense which the other said was a ridiculous Plea. He granted that J. S. might contradict himself but there was no colour for saying the Propositions were not taken in their true sense And Mr. S. being requir'd by the A. B. of Paris to Anathematize these Propositions and to subscribe to the Censure that they could not be explained in a Catholick Sense he did it And yet the sense of them is maintained by him in his Catholick Letters Is not such a Man fit to hold the Cards for Mr. G. who makes the same Doctrine to be Heretical and Catholick as his Circumstances require And in his own Language he goes backwards and forwards blows and sups declares for and against the same Principles This Doctrine of J. S. was complained of at Rome and a Congregation of Cardinals was appointed to Examine it and they sent their Instructions about it to the Popes Nuncio at Paris where J. S. then was And therein they took notice that in his Vindication sent to them he detested that Doctrine as Heretical viz. that the Evidence of the Connexion of Predicate and Subject and the Evidence of the Rule of Faith by which the Believer may be infallibly certain he cannot be deceived is necessary in order to Faith. I desire the Reader to mark this Declaration which J. S. sent to Rome and to compare it with the Doctrine of his Catholick Letters But of that hereafter But it is worth our while to shew with what a double Face I. S. appeared in his Vindication and Complaint sent to Rome and in his Books which he published here And by that the Reader may judge of the Catholick Sincerity of the Writer of these Letters I. About the Faith he designs to demonstrate Faith Vindicated Preface I declare then that my chief End in this Treatise is to settle Christian Faith or to demonstrate that it must be truly or absolutely certain and that my applying it now and then to my Opposers is only a Secondary Intention and meerly Occasional Querimonia advers Lominum p. 49. He saith He speaks not of Faith in itself but as it is controverted among us The same he affirms p. 145 146. that he meddles not with Faith but with respect to his Adversaries or as it is disputed between Catholicks and those he calls Hereticks p. 148. If it were his design to settle Christian Faith and to make it truely and absolutely certain and only secondarily applying it to his Opposers how is it possible that at the same time he should not meddle with Faith in itself but meerly with respect to his Opposers Is not this a
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
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.
Credibility affords such Evidence because that necessitates Assent And it is observable that he resolves Faith not into the Testimony of the present but of the Apostolical Church I need produce no more to shew what a Stranger Mr. S. is to the Doctrine of his own Church or else what an obstinate Opposer he is of it But this is sufficient to shew what Grounds of the Certainty of Faith are allowed by the Chief Divines of the Church of Rome and how very different they are from those of the Catholick Letters To summ up briefly therefore the State of this Controversie about the Certainty of our Faith I. I assert That we are Absolutely Certain of the Formal Object of our Faith viz. that whatever God reveals is True and to be professed by us though we do not see the Intrinsick Grounds of it II. We are Absolutely Certain of the Infallible Rule of our Faith and that All the necessary Points of Faith in order to the Salvation of Mankind are therein contained III. The General Certainty of Divine Faith in true Believers according to their own Divines doth not depend upon Conclusive Evidence or Intrinsick Grounds but an inward Perception caused by Divine Grace IV. Particular Points of Faith are more or less Certain according to the Evidence of their Deduction from Scripture as the Rule of Faith. V. Where any Propositions are imposed as Points of Faith which others deny those who impose are bound to prove the Certainty of them as such and not those who reject them And this is our Case as to the Points in Difference between us and those of the Church of Rome We do not make the Negatives any Points of our Faith any further than as the Scripture is our Rule and we cannot be bound consequently to receive any thing as a Point of Faith but what is contained in it or deduced from it But the Church of Rome requiring us to receive them as Points of Faith is bound to prove the Certainty of them as such Having thus endeavoured to set this Controversie about the Certainty of Faith in its true Light I now proceed to consider what Mr. S. doth object against it And I shall conceal nothing that looks like an Argument His Raillery I despise and his Impertinencies I shall pass over I. That which looks most like an Argument is what he hath set out by way of Propositions in his First Letter 1. God hath left us some way to know what surely Christ and his Apostles taught 2. Therefore this way must be such that they who take it shall arrive by it at the End it was intended for i. e. know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught 3. Scriptures Letter interpretable by Private Judgments is not that way for we experience Presbyterians and Socinians for Example both take that way yet differ in such high Fundamentals as the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. 4. Therefore Scriptures Letter interpretable by Private Judgments is not the way left by God to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught or surely to arrive at Right Faith. 5. Therefore they who take only that way cannot by it arrive surely at right Faith since 't is impossible to arrive at the End without the means or way that leads to it Upon setting down this Mr. S being sensible he had plaid his best Cards cannot help a little expressing the Satisfaction he had in the Goodness of his Game I do not saith he expect any Answer to this Discourse as short as it is and as plain and as nearly as it touches your Copy-hold Alas for me that am fallen into the hands of such a Gamester But I am resolved to disappoint him and to give him a clear and full Answer to this shew of Reasoning And that shall be by making it appear I. That it proceeds upon False Suppositions II. That it destroys any Rule of Faith even his own admired Oral and Practical Tradition I. That it proceeds upon False Suppositions As. 1. That no Certainty can be attained where there is no Infallibility For if Men may arrive at Certainty where there is a general Possibility of Deception all this seeming Demonstration comes to nothing And yet this is a thing all Mankind are agreed in who allow any such thing as Certainty and the contrary Opinion was which Mr. S. little thinks the very Foundation of Seepticism viz. That there could be no Certainty unless Men could find out such an Infallible Mark of Truth which could not agree to what was False as he might have learned in Cicero's Lucullus without sending him to Pyrrho's Scholars And till Zeno and his Disciples pretended to find out this Scepticism gained little Ground but when they yielded to that Principle That no Certainty was to be had without it then a mighty Advantage was given them which they improved accordingly But the more Judicious Philosophers were forced to quit the Stoicks Infallible Mark and to proceed upon such Evidence of Perception and Sense and Ratiocination as might in things not Self-evident form an Assent which excludes all reasonable Doubt of the contrary But still those who pretended to Infallibility were the most deceived As Epicurus thought there could be no Certainty in Sense unless it were made Infallible and from hence he ran into that gross Absurdity that the Sun was really no bigger than he seemed to be to our Senses For he went just upon Mr. S. his Principles If there be a possibility of Deception there can be no True Certainty and to make good this Hypothesis the Sun must be no bigger than a Bonfire But the Wiser Philosophers took in the Assistance of Reason which though not Infallible might give such Evidence as afforded Certainty where it fell short of Demonstration As in Physical and Moral things I grant that some of those who talked most and best of Demonstration fell wonderfully short of it when they came to apply Notions to Things and the Demonstrations they made were to little or no purpose in the promoting of Knowledge as that Man is a Rational Creature c. But their Physical Speculations are very far from it yet this doth not hinder but that a Certainty is attainable as to the Nature of Things And in Morals they knew and confessed there could be no Demonstration in them yet they professed a true Certainty they had as to the Nature of Happiness and the real Differences of Vertue and Vice They owned some Moral Principles to be Absolutely Certain as that Good is to be chosen and Evil to be avoided c. but in particular Cases they made use of the best Reason they had to prove some things Good and others Evil. And although they could not proceed with equal Certainty in all Vertues and Vices yet in some they had clear Evidence and in others they made use of the best means to give Satisfaction to themselves and others Thus it is in Matters of Faith there are some things
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
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
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