of the opinion of their own Writers or notoriously dissembled it For this infallibility is not attributed to the Rulers of the Church meerly as Doctors or Scholars but as the representative Church whose office it is to deliver all matters of faith by way of an infallible testimony to every age and thereby to afford a sufficient foundation for divine faith But Mr. S. attributes no such infallibility to the representative Church as teaching the rest but derives their infallibility from such grounds as are common to all parts of the essential Church Wherein he apparently opposes himself to the whole current of their own authors whe resolve all faith into the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost without which they assert there could be no infallibility at all in tradition or any thing else and therefore these opinions are as opposite to each other as may be For such an infallibility is not attributed by them to the teachers of the Church meerly on some signal occasions as Mr. S. seems to suppose when they are to explain new matters of faith but it is made by them to be as necessary as believing it self because thereby the only sure foundation of faith is laid and therefore it is very evident they make it proper to the Church in all ages Or else in some age of the Church men were destitute of sufficient grounds of faith For they by no means think it a sufficient foundation for faith that one age of the Church could not conspire to deceive another for this they will tell him at most is but a humane faith but that Christ by his promise hath assured the Church that there shall never be wanting in it the infallible assistance of his Holy Spirit whereby they shall infallibly teach deliver all matters of faith And if this be not their opinion let them speak to the contrary which if they do I am sure they must retract their most elaborate discourses about the resolution of faith written by the greatest Artists among them Let Mr. S. then judge who it is that stumbles at the Threshold but of this difference among them more afterwards By this it appears it was not on any mistake that I remained unsatisfied in the Question I asked Whether am I bound to believe what the present Church delivers to be Infallible to which Mr. S. answers I understand him not My reply shall be only that of a great Lawyers in a like case I cannot help that I am sure my words are intelligible enough for I take infallible there as he takes it himself for infallibly true although I deny not the word to be improperly used in reference to things and that for the reason given by him because fallibility and infallibility belong to the knowing power or the persons that have it and not to the object But we are often put to the use of that word in a sense we acknowledge improper meerly in complyance with our Adversaries who otherwise are apt to charge us with having only uncertainties and probabilities for our faith if we do not use the term infallible as applyed to the truth of the thing I am content therefore wherever in what I have writ he meets that term so applyed that he take it only in his own sense for that which is certainly true for I mean no more by it And in this sense Mr. S. answers affirmatively and gives this account of it not only because the present Church cannot be deceived in what the Church of the former Age believed but because the Church in no age could conspire against her knowledge to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world The Question then is whether this be a sufficient account for me to believe that to be certainly true or to be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles which the present Church delivers and consequently whether the resolution of faith be barely into oral tradition Thus we see the clear state of the Question between us I come therefore to the vindication of those things which I had objected against this way of resolving faith into oral tradition Three things I especially insisted on 1. That it is inconsistent with the pretensions of the present Roman Church 2. That it hath not been the way owned in all ages of the Christian Church 3. That it is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages If these three be made good there will be no cause to glory in this last invention to support the sinking fabrick of that Church These three then I undertake to defend against what Mr. Serjeant hath objected against them 1. That it is contrary to the pretensions of the present Roman Church And if it be so there can be no reason for those who are of it to rely upon it For if so be that Church pretends that the obligation to faith arises from a quite different ground from this how can they who believe that Church infallible venture their faith upon any other principle than what is publikly owned by her And whosoever thinks himself bound to believe by virtue of an infallible assistance of the present Church doth thereby shew that his obligation doth not depend upon what was delivered by the former ages of the Church As those who believed the Apostles were infallible in their doctrine could not resolve their faith into the infallibility of oral tradition but into that immediate assistance by which the Apostles spake and where there is a belief of a like assistance the foundation of faith cannot lie in the indefectibility of tradition but in that infallible Spirit which they suppose the Church to be assisted by For supposing this oral tradition should fail and that men might believe that it had actually failed yet if the former supposition were true there was sufficient ground for faith remaining still And what assurance can any one have that the present Church delivers nothing for matter of faith but what hath been derived in every age from Christ and his Apostles if such an infallible spirit be supposed in the present Church which was in the Apostles themselves For on the same reason that those who heard the Apostles were not bound to trouble themselves with the tradition of the former age no more ought they who believe the present Roman Church to have the same infallible assistance They need not then enquire whether this age knew the meaning of the former or whether one age could conspire to deceive another or whether notwithstanding both these errours might not come into the Church it is sufficient for them that the definitions of the present Church are infallible in all matters of faith Therefore my demand was built on very good reason How can you assure me the present Church obliges me to believe nothing but only what and so far as it
Which as he saith is only to put the faith out of danger of being equivocated Which is quite another thing from causing a new obligation to believe As suppose the Church to prevent the growth of the Socinian doctrine should require from men the declaring their belief of the eternal existence of the Son of God Would this be to bind men to believe some thing which they were not bound to before no but only to express their assent to the Deity of Christ in the simplest terms because otherwise they might call him God by office and not by nature Now how can any one conceive that any should be first obliged to believe that Christ is God and yet receive a new obligation afterwards to believe his eternal existence Thus it is in all immediate consequences drawn by common sense in all which the primary obligation to believe the thing it self extends to the belief of it in the most clear and least controverted terms which are not intended to impose on mens faith but to promote the Churches peace For neither iâ— there a new object of faith for how can that be which common sense draws from what is believed already neither is there any infallible proponent unless common sense hath usurped the Popes prerogative But Mr. S. offers at a reason for this which is that none can have an obligation to believe what they have not an obligation to think of and in some age the Genâ—rality of the faithful have no occasion nor consequently obligation to mind reflect or think on those propositions involved in the main stock of faith From whence he saith it follows that a thing may be de fide or obligatory to be believed in one age and not in another But let Mr. s. shew how a man can be obliged to believe any thing as an article of faith who is not bound to thinâ— of all the immediate consequences oâ— it Because faith is an act of a reasonable nature which ought to enquire into the reasons and consequences of things which it doth believe Buâ— Mr. s. mistake lies here in not distinguishing the obligation to believe from the obligation to an explicite declaration of that assent The former comes only from God and no new obligation can arise from any act of the Church but the latter being a thing tending to the Churches peace may be required by it on some occasions i. e. when the doctrine is assaulted by hereticks as in the time of the four first General Councils but still a man is not at all the more obliged to assent but to express his assent in order to the Churches satisfaction But Mr. S. supposes me to enquire how the Church can have power to oblige the Generality to belief of such a point To which his answer is she obliges them to believe the main point of faith by vertue of traditions being a self-evident rule and these implyed points by vertue of their being self-evidently connected with those main and perpetually used points so that the vulgar can be rationally and connaturally made capable of this their obligation But we are not now enquiring what the obligation to believe the main points of faith is nor whether traditiou be a self-evident rule but how there should be a new obligation to believe something self-evidently connected with the former points is beyond my capacity to understand And they must be vulgar understandings indeed that can rationally and connaturally be made capable of such an obligation For if it be self-evidently connected with the main points no one can believe the one without believing the other for nothing is self-evident but what a man assents to at the first apprehension of it and if he doth so how comes there a new obligation to believe it Is it possible to believe that any thing consists of parts and not believe that the whole is greater than any of those parts for this is a thing self-evidently connected with the nature of the whole But these are self-evident riddles aâ— the former were unintelligible demonstrations And yet though these bâ— rare Theories the application of them to the case of the Roman Church exceeds all the rest Whence saith he the Government of our Church is still justified to be sweet and according to right nature and yet forcible and efficacious Although I admire many things in Mr. S's Book yet I cannot say I do any thing more than this passage that because men are obliged to believe no implyed points but such as are self-evidently connected with the main ones therefore the Government of the Roman Church is sweet and according to right nature c. Alas then how much have we been mistaken all this while that have charged her with imposing hard and unsufferable conditions of communion with her no she is so gentle and sweet that she requires nothing but the main points on the account of a self-evident rule and implyed points by reason of self-evident connexion with the former I see Mr. S. if he will make good his word is the only person who â—s ever like to reconcile me with the Church of Rome For I assure you I â—ever desire any better terms of communion with a Church than to have no â—ain points of faith required from me â—o assent to but what are built on a self-evident rule nor any implyed points â—ut such as are self-evidently connected with the former And no work can â—e more easie than to convince me upon these grounds for all endeavours of proof are taken away by the things being said to be self-evident For the very offer of proof that they are so self-evidently proves they are not so For what ever is proved by something beside it self can never be said without a contradiction to be self-evident But not to tye up Mr. S. from his excellent faculty of proving if Mr. S. will prove to me that any of the points in difference between us as Transubstantiation Purgatory Supremacy of the Roman Church c. have any self-evident connexion with any main poinâ— of faith in the Apostles Creed I solemnly promise him to retract all I have writ against that Church so far shall bee from needing a new obligation to believe them But if these be so remotâ— from self-evidence that they are plainly repugnant to sense and reason witneâ— that self-evident doctrine of Transubstantiation what then must we thinâ— of Mr. S. Surely the least is that sinâ— his being a Roman Catholick his minâ— is strangely inlightned so far that thoâ— things are self-evident to him whiâ— are contradictions to the rest of tâ— world But withal Mr. S. acquaints us with another mysterie which is how these points descended by a kind of tradition and yet confesses they were never thought of or reflected on by the Generality till the Church took occasion to explain them Such a silent tradition doth very sutably follow the former self-evident connexion For he that can believe Transubstantiation to be
no age of the Church conspire to deceive another Either then Mr. S. must say there never were any private opinators or speculators in the Church as distinct from testifiers and then he unavoidably contradicts himself or he must deny that posterity is bound to believe what their fore-fathers delivered them as matters of faith which destroyes the force of his whole demonstration Perhaps he will answer that Children are not bound to believe what barely their Parents or aâ—other number of persons might deliver matters of faith but what the whole â—hurch of every age delivers This â—ough the only thing to be said in â—e case yet is most unreasonable beâ—â—use it runs men upon inextricable difâ—culties in the way of their resolving â—ith For suppose any Children â—ught by their Parents what they are â— believe Mr. S. must say they are â—ot bound to believe them presently â—ut to enquire whether they agree â—ith the whole Church of that Ageâ—rst â—rst before they can be obliged to asâ—nt Which being an impossible task â—ther for Children or men of age â— find out in the way of oral tradiâ—on this way of resolving faith â—oth but offer a fairer pretence for â—fidelity For we see how impossiâ—le it is for Mr. S. to make it appear â—hat their Church is agreed about the â—ule of faith for by his own confession â—he far greater number as speculatorsâ—ppose â—ppose the way asserted by him how â—uch more difficult then must it needs â—e to find out what the sense of the whole essential Church is in all matters which Parents may teach their Children for doctrines of faith So that if Chrildren are not bound to believe what their Parents teach them till they know they teach nothing but what the whole Church teaches it is the most compendious way to teach them they are not bound to believe at all But if this distinction be admitted as Mr. S. makes much use of it then it appears how errors may come into the Church at sirst under the notion of speculations and by degrees to be delivered as points of faith by which means those things may be received in the Church for such which were never delivered by Christ or his Apostles and yet no age conspire to deceive the next which was the thing to be shewed This is one way of shewing how errors may come into the Church without one ages conspiring to deceive the next but besides this there are several others I might insist upon but I shall mention only two more 1. Misinterpreting the sence of Scripure 2. Supposing it in the power oâ— some part of the Church to oblige the whole in matters of faith For the first we are to consider that no imaginable account can be given either of the writing or universal reception of the books of the New Testament if they were not designed for the preservation of the doctrine of Christ. And â—lthough it should be granted possible â—or the main and fundamental articles of Christian faith such as the Apostles Creed gives a summary account of â—o have been preserved by the help of â—radition yet unless we be extreamâ—y ungrateful we cannot but acknowledge that God hath infinitely â—etter provided for us in not leaving â—he grounds of our Religion to the â—eer breath of the people or the care â—f mothers instructing their Children â—ut hath given us the certain records â—fall the doctrines and motives of faith â—reserved inviolably from the first ages â—f the Church And when the Churchâ—w â—w with what care God had provided â—r the means of faith traditionâ—as â—as little minded thence the memory â—f those other things not recorded in â—cripture is wholly lost all the care â—as imployed in searching preserving and delivering these sacred books tâ— posterity To these the primitivâ— Church still appeals these they pleaâ— for against all adversaries defendinâ— their authority explaining their sense vindicating them from all corruptionâ— Tradition they rely not on any fuâ—ther then as a Testimony of the trutâ— of these records or to clear the senâ— of them from the perverse interprâ— tation of those Hereticks who pretenâ— ed another kind of tradition thâ— what was in Scripture And when theâ— were silenced all the disputes thâ— arose in the Church concerning matteâ— of faith was about the sense of the books as is evident by the proceeâ—ings in the case of Arius and Pelagiâ— Wherein Tradition was only used a means to clear the sense of the Sâ—ptures but not at all as that which tâ— faith of all was to be resolved intâ— But when any thing was pleaded frâ— tradition for which there was ground in Scripture it was reject with the same ease it was offered aâ— such persons were plainly told tâ— was not the Churches way if they bâ— plain Scripture with the concurrâ— sense of Antiquity they might produce â—t and rely upon it So that the whole â—se of Tradition in the primitive Church besides attesting the books was to shew the unreasonableness of â—mposing senses on Scripture against the universal sense of the Church from the Apostles times But as long as men were men it was not avoidable but they must fall into different apprehensions of the meaning of the Scripture according to their different judgements prejudices learning and education And since they had all this apprehension that the Scripture contained all doctrines of faith thence as men judged of the sense of it they differed in their apprehension concerning matters of faith And thence errors and mistakes might easily come into the Church without one age conspiring to deceive the next Nay if it be possible for men to rely on tradition without Scripture this may easily be done for by that means they make a new rule of faith not known to the primitive Church and consequently that very assertion is an error in which the former age did not conspire to deceive the next And if these things be possible M. S's demonstration fails him for hereby a reasonable account is given how errors may come into a Church without one age conspiring to deceive another Again let me enquire of Mr. S. whether men may not believe it in the power of the ruling part of the Church to oblige the whole to an assent to the definitions of it To speak plainer is it not possible for men to believe the Pope and Council infallible in their decrees And I hope the Jesuits as little as Mr. S. loves them or they him may be a sufficient evidence of more than the bare possibility of this If they may believe this doth it not necessarily follow that they are bound to believe whatever they declare to be matter of faith supposing then that Transubstantiation Supremacy Invocation of Saints were but private opinions before but are now defined by Pope and Council these men cannot but look on themselves as much obliged to believe them as if they had been delivered as matters of faith in every age since the Apostles times Is it
now repugnant to common sense that this opinion should be believed or entertained in the Church if not why may not this opinion be generally received if it be so doth it not unavoidably follow that the faith of men must alter according to the Churches definitions And thus private opinions may be believed as articles of faith and corrupt practices be established as laudable pieces of devotion and yet no one age of the Church conspire to deceive another Thus I hope Mr. S. may see how far it is from being a self-evident principle that no error can come into the Church unless one age conspire to deceive the next in a matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world Which is so wild an apprehension that I believe the Jesuits cannot entertain themselves without smiles to see their domestick adversaries expose themselves to contempt with so much confidence Thus I come to the reason I gave why there is no reason to believe that this is the present sense of the Roman Church My words are For I see the Roman Church asserts that things may be de fide in one age which were not in another at least Popes and Councils challenge this and this is the common doctrine maintained there and others are looked on as no members of their Câ—urch who assert the contrary but as pâ—rsons at least meritoriously if not actually excommunicate Where then shall I satisfie my self what the sense of your Church is as to this particular Must I believe a very few persons whom the rest disown as heretical and soditious or ought I not rather to take the judgement of the greatest and most approved persons of that Church And these disown any such doctrine but assert that the Church may determine things de fide which were not before In answer to this Mr. S. begs leave to distinguish the words de fide which may either mean Christian faith or points of faith taught by Christ and then he grants 't is non-sense to say they can be in one age and not in another Or de fide may mean obligatory to be believed In this latter sense none I think saith he denies things may be de fide in one age and not in another in the former sense none holds it Upon which very triumphantly he concludes Whatrs now become of your difficulty I believe you are in some wonderment and think I elude it rather then answer it I shall endeavour to unperplex you I must confess it a fault of humane nature to admire things which men understand not on which account I cannot free my self from some temptation to that he calls wonderment but I am presently cured of it when I endeavour to reduce his distinction to reason For instead of explaining his terms he should have shewed how any thing can be obligatory to be believed in any age of the Church which was no point of faith taught by Christ which notwithstanding his endeavour to unperplex me is a thing as yet I apprehend not Because I understand no obligation to faith to arise from any thing but divine revelation and I do not yet believe any thing in Christian doctrine to be divinely revealed but what was delivered by Christ or his Apostles And my wonderment must needs be the greater because I suppose this inconsistent with Mr. S's principles For oral tradition doth necessarily imply that all points of faith were first taught by Christ and conveyed by tradition to us but if a thing may be de side in this latter sense which was not before what becomes of resolving faith wholly into oral tradition For faitb is resolved into that from whence the obligation to believe comes but here Mr. S. confesses that the obligation to believe doth arise from something quite different from oral tradition and therefore faith must be resolved into it Besides all the sense I can find in that distinction is that men are bound to believe something in one age which they were not in another and if so I shall desire Mr. S. to unperplex me in this how every age is bound to believe just as the precedent did and yet one age be bound to believe more then the precedent But however I am much obliged to him for his endeavour to unperplex me as he speaks for really I look on no civilities to be greater than those which are designed for clearing our understandings so great an adorer am I of true reason and an intelligible Religion And therefore I perfectly agree with him in his saying that Christianity aims not to make us beasts but more perfectly men and the perfection of our manhood consists in the use of our reasons From whence he inferrs that it is reasonable consequences should be drawn from principles of faith which he saith are of two sorts first such as need no more but common sense to deduce them the others are such as need the maxims of some science got by speculation to infer them and these are Theological conclusions the former sort he tells us the church is necessitated to make use of upon occasion i. e. when any heretick questions those and eadem opera the whole point of faith it self of which they were a part as in the case of the Monothelites about Christs baving two wills But all this while I am far enough from being unperplexed nay by this discourse I see every one who offers to unperplex another is not very clear himself For since he makes no Theological conclusions to be de side but only such consequences as common sence drawes I would willingly understand how common sence receives a new obligation to faith For to my apprehension the deducing of consequences from principles by common sense is not an act of believing but of knowledge consequent upon a principle of faith And the meaning is no more then this that men when they say they believe things should not contradict themselves as certainly they would do if they deny those consequences which common sense draws from them As in the case of the Monothelites for men to assert that Christ had two natures and yet not two wills when the will is nothing else but the inclination of the nature to that good which belongs to it So that there can be no distinct obligation to believe such consequences as are drawn by common sense but every one that believes the principles from whence they are drawn is thereby bound to believe all the consequences which immediately follow from them Indeed the Church when people will be so unreasonable to deny such things may explain her sense of the article of faith in those terms which may best prevent dispute but this is only to discriminate the persons who truly believe this article from such as do not Not that any new obligation to faith results from this act of the Church but the better to prevent cavils she explains her sense of the article it self in more explicite terms
self-evident no wonder if he believes that to have been delivered by a constant Tradition which was never heard of from the Apostles times to these Now Mr. S. is pleased to return to me and draws up a fresh charge against me which is that I act like a Politician and would conquer them by first dividing them and making odius comparisons between two parties of Divines But to shew us how little they differ he distinguishes them as faithful and as private discoursers in the former notâ—on he saith they all hold the same divinely constituted Church-Government and the same self-evident rule of faith but as private discoursers he acknowledges they differ in the explication of their belief I meddle not here â—â—th the Government of their Church which I have elswhere proved to be far enough from being divinely constituted but with the rule of faith and the question is whether the infallibility of or altradition be that self-evident rule which that Church proceeds on Yes saith Mr. S. they are all as faithful agreed in it but as discoursers they differ about it Which in short is that all in the Church of Rome who are not of his opinion know not what they say and that they oppose that which they do really believe Which in plain English is that they are egregious dissemblers and prevaricators in Religion that they do intolerably flatter the Pope and present Church with loud declamations for their infallibility but they do really believe no such thing but resolve all into oral tradition But is not this an excellent agreement among them when Mr. White and his party not only disown the common doctrine of the infallibility of Pope and Councils but dispute against it as pernicious and destructive to Christian faith on the other side the far greater part of Romanists say there can be no certainty of faith unless there be an infallible divine testimony in the present Church and this lodged in Pope and Councils that those who endeavour to overthrow this are dangerous seditious heretical persons Accordingly their Books are censured at Rome their opinions disputed against and their persons condemned And yet all this while we must believe that these stick together like two smooth Marbles as faithful though they are knocked one against another as discoursers and that they perfectly agree in the same self-evident rule of faith when all their quarrels and contentions are about it and those managed with so great heat that heresie is charged of one side and Arch-heresie and undermining Religion on the other Doth he think we never heard of Mr. Whites Sonus Succinae nor of that Chapter in it where he saith that the doctrine of Pope and Councils infallibility tends to overthrow the certainty of Christian faith and that the propagating such a doctrine is a greater crime then burning Temples ravishing the sacred Virgins on the Altars trampling on the body of Christ or the sending the Turk or Antichrist into Christian Countreys Or doth he think we can believe that the Pope and Cardinals the Jesuites and all the Papists of forreign Countreys do as faithful agree with Mr. White in this It seems not so by the proceedings in the Court of Rome against him in which as appears by the censure of the Inquisition against him dated 17. November 1661. his doctrine is condemned not only as false seditious and scandalous but as heretical and erroneous in faith And if it were not for this very doctrine he was there censured why doth Mr. White set himself purposely to defend it in his Tabulae suffragiales If these then do agree as faithful who cannot but envy the excellent harmony of the Roman Church in which men condemn each other for hereticks and yet all believe the same things still Well Sir I am in hopes upon the same grounds Mr. S. will yield us the same charity too and tell us that we agree with him as faithful only we differ a little from him as discoursers for I assure you there is as great reason the only difference is we give them not such ill words as they do each other For let Mr. S. shew us wherein we differ more from him about the Rule of Faith than they do among themselves For Mr White when he hath said that all kind of heresie doth arise from hence that men make the holy Scripture or a private spirit the rule of faith he presently adds it is all one if one make councils or Pope any other way than as witnesses to be the authors of faith For saith he this is to subject the whole Church to that slavery to receive any errour for an article of faith which they shall define or propose modo illegitimo i. e. any other way then as witnesses of tradition Either then we differ from Mr. S. only as discoursers or he and his Brethren differ from each other more then as such And so any one would think who reads the oppositions and arguments against each other on this subject particularly Mr. Whites Tabulae suffragiales But let Mr. White say what he will Mr. S. tells me I am not aware how little they differ even as Divines The more shame for them to have such furious heats and oppositions where there is so little difference But as little as they differ Mr. White thinks it safer to talk of their unity in England than to try whether they be of his mind at Rome by going thither to clear himself for he justly fears he should find them differ from him some other way theâ— as bare discoursers Yet let us heaâ— Mr. S's reason for saith he thougâ— some speculators attribute to the Churcâ— a power of defining things not held before yet few will say she hath new revelations or new articles of faith Buâ— we know the temper of these men better then to rely on what they barelâ— say For they say what they think 〈◊〉 most for their purpose and onâ— of Mr. Whites adversaries if himselâ— may be credited plainly told him iâ— the doctrine of the Popes infallibility werâ— not true yet it ought to be defended bâ—cause it was for the interest of the Churcâ— of Rome for which he is sufficientlâ— rebuked by him It is one thing theâ— what they say and another what necessarily follows from the doctrinâ— which they assert But for plain dealing commend me to the Canonists who say expresly the Church by whicâ— they mean the Pope may make new articles of faith and this is the sense of the rest though they are loth to speak out Else Mr. White was much too blame in spending so much time in proving the contrary But what man of common sense can imagine that these men can mean otherwise who assert such an infallibility in Pope and Councils as to oblige men under pain of eternal damnation to believe those things which they were not obliged to before such a definition And what can this be else but to make new
articles of faith For an article of faith supposes a necessary obligation to believe it now if some doctrine may become thus obligatory by virtue of the Churches definition which was not so before that becomes thereby an article of faith which it was not before But these subtle men have not yet learnt to distinguish a new doctrine from a new article of faith they do not indeed pretend that their doctrine is new because they deny any such thing as new revelation in the Church but yet they must needs say if they understand themselves that old implicit doctrines may become new aâ—ticles of faith by virtue of the Churcher definition So little are they relieved by that silly distinction of explicit and implicit delivery of them which Mr. S. for a great novelty acquaints us with For what is only implicitly delivered 〈◊〉 no article of faith at all for that can be no article of faith which men are not bound to believe now there are none will say that men are bound to believe under pain of damnation iâ— they do not the things which are only implicitly delivered but this they say with great confidence of all things defined by the Church And let now any intelligent person judge whether those who assert such things do not differ wide enough from those who resolve all into oral trà dition and make the obligation to faith wholly dependent upon the constant tradition of any doctrine from age to age ever since the Apostles times But Mr. S. is yet further displeased with me for saying that Pope and Councils challenge a power to make things de fide in one age which were not in another For 1. he says I speak it in common and prove it not 2. He adds That take them right this is both perfectly innocent and unavoidably necessary to a Church And is it not strange he should expect any particular proofs of so innocent and necessary a thing to the being of a Church But he will tell me it is in his own sense of de fide which I have already shewn to signifie nothing to his purpose Let him therefore speak out whether he doth believe any such thing as inherent infallibility in the definitions of Pope and Councils if not I am sure at Rome they will never believe that Mr. S. agrees with them as faithful if he doth whether doth not such an infallible definition bind men by virtue of it to the belief of what is then defined if it doth then things may become as much de fide by it as if they were delivered by Christ or his Apostles For thereby is supposed an equal obligation to faith because there is a proposition equally infallible But will he say the Pope doth not challenge this Why then is the contrary doctrine censured and condemned at Rome Why is the other so eagerly contended for by the most zealous sons of that Church and that not as a school-opinion but as the only certain foundation of faith Mr. S. is yet pleased to inform me further that nothing will avail me but this if a Pope and Council should define a new thing and declare they ground themselves on new lights as did their first reformers in England but I shall find he saith no such fopperies in faith-definitions made by the Catholick Church Is this the man who made choice of reason for his weapon could there be a greater calumny cast on our Church than to say her reformers grounded themselves on new lights when our great charge against the Church of Rome is for introducing Novelties and receding from pure and primitive antiquity Whether the charge be true or no yet sure it follows they did not declare they ground themselves on new lights but expresly the contrary Well but Pope and Councils neither define new things nor ground themselves on them but what means the man of reason that they make no new definitions surely ot for then what did they meet for â—d what mean their decrees but he â—tends that they deliver no new doâ—rine but how must that be tryed â—r hath Mr. S. gained the opinion of â—fallibility both from Pope and Counâ—ls that we must believe his bare â—ord but we not only say but prove â—hat even their last Council hath defiâ—ed many things which never were â—elivered by Christ or his Apostles And it is to no purpose whether they â—y they ground themselves on new lights â—r pretend to an infallible assistance â—or it comes all to the same at last For â—f the assistance be infallible what matâ—er is it whether the doctrine hath been â—evealed or no for on this suppositiâ—n it is impossible that Pope and Councilâ—hould â—hould miscarry Therefore if any Church be guilty of fopperies in faith-definitions it must be that which you miscall the Catholick but is more truly known by the name of the Roman Church There is yet one piece of Mr. S's sagacity to be taken notice of as to this particular which is that I am at an end of my argument because I say the opinion of the Pope and Councils infallibility is the common doctrine maintained in which I confound the Church with the schools or some private opinaters and then carp at those mens tenets And this is the force of all that Paragraph He tells me I waâ— not wit to know that no sober Catholicâ— holds humane deductions the rule of their faith schoolmen definers of it noâ— the schools the Tribunal whence to propose it authoritatively and obligingly to the generality of the faithful Neither doth Mr. S. want the wit to know that our present enquiry is concerning the sense of their present Church about the rule of faith Since theâ— Mr. S. must confess it necessary to faith to know what the certain rule of it is let me enquire further whether any particular person can know certainly what it is unless he knowâ— what the Church owns for her rule of faith and whether that may be owned as the Churches judgement which is stiffly opposed by the most interessed persons in the Roman Church and the most zealous contenders for it Especially when the Pope who is said to be Head of the Church condemns the doctrine asserted and that only by a small number of such who are as much opposed by themselves as by any of us Is it then possible to know the Churches judgement or not if not t is to no purpose to search for a rule of faith if it be which way can we come to know it either by most voices or the sense of the Governours of the Church either of the wayes I dare put it to a fair tryall whether oral tradition or the infallibility of Pope and Councils be the doctrine most owned in the Church of Rome But Mr. S. still tells us these are only private opinators and schoolmen who assert the contrary doctrine to his But will not they much more say on the other side that this way of oral tradition
is a novel fancy of some few half-Catholicks in England and tends to subvert the Roman Church But is the present Pope with Mr. S. a private opinator or was the last a meer schoolman I am sure what ever Mr. S. thinks of him he thought not so of himself when he said he was no Divine in the controversie of Jansenius Doth the Court of Rome signifie no more with Mr. S. then a company of scholastick Pedants that know not what the sense of the Church is concerning the rule of faith I meddle not with the Schools but with the authority of the present Church and him whom Mr. S. owns for the head of it and is it consistent with his headship to condemn that doctrine which contains in it the only certain rule of faith Mr. S. may then see they were no such impertinent Topicks which I insisted on and as stout as Mr. S. seems to be I am apt to believe he would not look on the censure of the Inquisition as an impertinent Topick But at last Mr. S. offers at something whereby he would satisfie me of the sense of the Church as to this particular and therefore asks whether I never heard of such a thing as the Council of Trent I must ingenuously confess I have and seen more a great deal of it then I am satisfied with But what of that there he tells me I may find a clear solution of my doubt by the constant procedure of that most grave Synod in its definitions That is I hope to find that oral Tradition was acknowledged there as the only self-evident rule of faith if I do this I confess my self satisfied in this enquiry But how much to the contrary is there very obvious in the proceedings of it For in the 4. Session the Decree is That Scripture and tradition should be embraced with equal piety and reverence and the reason is because the doctrine of faith is contained partly in Scripture partly in tradition but what arts must Mr. S. use to inferr from hence that oral tradition in contradistinction to Scripture was looked on as the only rule of faith I cannot but say that the ruling men of that Council were men wise enough in their Generation and they were too wise wholly to exclude Scripture but because they knew that of it self could not serve their purposes they therefore help it out with tradition and make both together the compleat rule of faith Where I pray in all the proceedings of that Council doth Mr. S. find them desine any thing on the account of oral tradition instead of which we find continual bandyings about the sense of Scripture and Fathers which might have been all spared if they had been so wise as to consider they could not but know the sense of the present Church nor that of the precedent and so up to the time of Christ. But they were either so ignorant as not to light on this happy invention or so wise and knowing as to despise it It is true they would not have their doctrines looked on as Novelties therefore they speak much of tradition and the ancient faith but that was not by what their Parents taught them but what the Fathers of the Church delivered in their writings for by these they judged of traditions and not the oral way And therefore I see little reason to believe that this was either the sense of the Council of Trent or is the sense of any number of Roman Catholicks much less of the whole Church none excepted as Mr. S. in his confident way expresses it And if he will as he saith disavow the maintaining any point or affecting any way which is not assented to by all I hope to see Mr. S. retract this opinion and either fall in with the Court of Rome or return as reason leads him into the bosom of the Church of England But there seems to be somewhat more in what follows viz. that though schoolmen question the personal infallibility of the Pope or of the Roman Clergy nay of a General Council yet all affirm the infallibility of tradition or the living voice of the Church essential and this he faith is held by all held firmly and that it is absolutely infallible To this therefore I answer either Mr. S. means that none do affirm that the universal tradition of the Church essential can erre or that the Church of Rome being the Church essential cannot erre in her tradition But which way soever he takes it I shall easily shew how far it is from proving that he designs it for For if he take it in the first sense viz. that all the faithful in all ages could not concur in an error then he may as well prove Protestants of his mind as Papists for this is the foundation on which we believe the particular books of Scripture If this therefore proves any thing it proves more then he intends viz. that while we thus oppose each other we do perfectly agree together and truly so we do as much as they do among themselves But if Mr. S's meaning be that all of their Religion own the Roman Church to be the Church essential and on that account that it cannot erre setting aside the absurdity of the opinion it self I say from hence it doth not follow that they make orâ—l tradition the rule of faith because it is most evident that the ground why they say theiâ— Church cannot erre is not on Mr. S's principles but on the supposition of an infallible assistance which preserves that Church from error So that this fallâ— far short of proving that they are all agreed in this rule of faith which is a thing so far from probability that he might by the same argument prove that Scripture is owned by them all to be the rule of faith For I hope it is held by all and held firmly that the living voice of God in Scripture as delivered to us is infallible and if so then there is as much ground for this as the other But if we enquire what it is men make a rule of faith we must know not only that they believe tradition infallible but on what account they do so For if tradition be believed infallible barely on the account of a promise of infallibility to the present Church then the resolution of saith is not into the tradition but into that infallible assistance and consequently the rule of faith is not what bare tradition delivers but what that Church which cannot erre in judging tradition doth propose to us It is not therefore their being agreed in General that tradition is infallible doth make them agree in the same rule of faith but they must agree in the ground of that infallibility viz. that it depends on this that no age could conspire to deceive the next But all persons who understand any thing of the Roman Church know very well that the general reason why tradition is believed infallible is
because they first believe the Church to be infallible whereas Mr. S. goes the contrary way and makes the infallibility of the Church to depend on the infallibility of Tradition And therefore for all that I can see we must still oppose private opinators in this controversie the Church of Rome not having declared her self at all on Mr. S's behalf but the contrary and the generality believing on the account of the present Churches infallibility And it is strange Mr. S. should find no difference between mens resolving faith into common sense and into the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost If this then be the first principle of controversie as Mr. S. pretends we see how unlikely they are to agree about other matters who are so much divided about the principle of resolving them And if this be the ground of faith then most Romanists build on a wrong Foundation But if the infallibility of oral tradition be the foundation on which that formidable structure is erecting which he speaks of woe then to the Court of Rome for that is known to build on quite a different foundation And if this as he saith rises apace and has advanced many stories in a small time it only lets us know how fast their divisions grow and that they are building so fast one against another that their Church will not stand between them By this discourse Mr. S. pretends to answer all those If 's which follow which are these In case the Church may determine things de fide which were not before whether the present Church doth then believe as the precedent did or no if it did how comes any thing to be de fide which was not before if it did not what assurance can I have that every age of the Church believes just as the precedent did and no otherwise When I see they profess the contrary And if a thing may be de fide in one age which was not in a foregoing then a Church may deliver that as a matter of faith at one time which was never accounted so before by which means the present Church may oblige me to believe that as a matter of faith which never was so in Christs or the Apostles times and so the infallibility on the account of tradition is destroyed To all which Mr. S. gives a very easie answer viz. that they do not hold any disparate or unimplyed points of faith but such as are involved and implyed in the main point This is more easily said then understood For if these be implyed in the former how can there come a new obligation to believe them For to take his own Instance will any man in his senses say that he that believes homo est animal rationale doth not believe homo est animal and this he makes choice of as an example how one point of faith may be involved in another so as to receive a distinct obligation to believe it I grant that homo est animal is involved in the other but he that shall say that after he hath assented to that proposition homo est animal rationale he may be capable of a new obligation to believe the former which is involved in this it may be justly questioned whether such a one as to himself can truly say homo est animal rationale or no. But after such rare subtilties he doth very well to tell me that I ought to consider what Logick tells us that the conclusion is in the premises which reflection in his courtlike expression he saith will much unblunder my thoughts But let the conclusion be as long as it will in the premises will any man in his wits say that he that believes the truth of the premises is not thereby bound to believe the conclusion and the more the one is involved in the other the less is it possible to make the obligation to believe them distinct And it is hard for me to believe that this is a way to unblunder my thoughts when I see what horrible confusion such expressions argue in his own Let the Church then clear her thoughts never so much yet all this cannot amount to a distinct obligation to believe those things which were involved before but to a more explicit declaring them for the Churches peace and satisfaction The only conclusion then involved in these premises is that if some things may be de fide in one age which were not in another then the present age may believe otherwise then the precedent did And if this doctrine be held in the Church of Rome nothing can be more evident then that Mr. S's first principle of controversie is far from being the doctrine of the Roman Church which was the thing to be proved My second chief argument against this way of oral tradition was that it had not been owned in all ages of the Christian Church to manifest which I enquired into the reason of the obligation in any age of the Church to believe and practise just as the precedent did Mr. S. rejoyces in that confession of mine that the only thing to be proved in this case is that every age of the Church and all persons in it looked on themselves as obliged not to vary in any thing from the doctrine and practise of the precedent age And I there offer the choice of three wayes to prove it reason testimony Or tradition he tells me he accepts the way of reason yet quarrels with me for pressing for a demonstrative medium to prove it when yet Mr. S. seldome speaks undeâ—â—he rate of demonstrations But he thereby notes the unconsonancy of my carriage Wherein I wonder that I should desire them to perform their promise viz. to give us demonstrations for the grounds of faith But he saith withal he will yield me the honour of professing I have no demonstration but probability for the ground of mine and he makeâ— this serious protestation for himself thaâ— he should esteem himself very dishonest did he assert and press on others anâ— argument for the ground of his faith which he judged not evident that is demonstrative What is it these men mean when they cry up their own way for demonstrative and say that we build â—ur faith meerly on probabilities Do â—hey say that Religion is capable of â—rict and rigorous demonstration If 〈◊〉 let them demonstrate the Being of â—od and Immortality of the soul with as â—uch evidence as that the three angles â—f a triangle are equal to two right angles â—nd it is strange if they think particuâ—r problems in religion are more capaâ—le of demonstration then those Theoremsâ—n â—n which they are built But by all he enquiry I can make all the diffeâ—ence between us is that Mr. S. will â—ave that called a demonstration which â— scarce a probability and we call thaâ— â—fficient reason which any wise man â—ay safely rely on in matters of religiâ—n In the mean time how much do â—e suffer by our modesty
I cannot yet see but that therein I argued from the very nature and constitution of the thing For that which â— looked for was a demonstration which I supposed could not be unless the impossibility of the contrary were demonstrated But if it be possible for men Christians nay Romanists to believe on other accounts then the tradition of the precedent age I pray what demonstration can there be that men must think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors did Surely if Mr. S's fancy had not been very extravagant he could never have thought here of mens being obliged to cut their Beards or wear such Garters and Hat-bands as their fore-fathers did For do I not mention believing first and then doing by which it were easie to apprehend that I meant matters of faith and such practises as flow from them Neither was there any such crafty and sophistical dealing as he charges me with for I am content his doctrine be taken in his own terms and I have now given a larger and fuller account why I am far from being convinced by the way he hath used for resolving faith Passing by therefore his challenge which I accept of as long as he holds to the weapon of reason and civility I come to consider his last enquiry why I should come to doubt of such an obligation in posterity to believe their ancestors in matters of faith and he judiciously resolves it into a strange distortion of human nature but such as it seems is the proper effect of the Protestants temper which is saith he to chuse every one his faith by his private judgement or wit working upon disputable words Which as far as we own it is not to believe what we see no ground for and if this be such a distortion of humane nature I envy not Mr. S's uprightness and perfection If he means that we build our faith on our private judgements in opposition to Scripture or the Universal Tradition of the Church in all ages let him prove it evidently in one particular and I engage for my self and all true Protestants we will renounce the belief of it If he hath any thing further to object against the Grounds of our Religion he knows where to attaque me let him undertake the whole or else acknowledge it a most unreasonable thing thus to charge falsities upon us and then say we have nothing else to say for our selves We pretend not to chuse our faith but heartily embrace whatever appears to have been delivered by Christ or his Apostles but we know the Church of Rome too well to believe all which she would impose upon us and are loth to have her chuse our Religion for us since we know she hath chosen so ill for her self But if Mr. S. will not believe me in saying thus what reason have I to believe him in saying otherwise such general charges then signifie nothing but every one must judge according to the reason on both sides I now come to the last part of my task which is to shew that this way is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages To which purpose my words are It is to no purpose to prove the impossibility of motion when I see men move no more is it to prove that no age of the Church could vary from the preceding when we can evidently prove that they have done it And therefore this argument is intended only to catch easie minds that care not for a search into the history of the several ages of the Church but had rather sit down with a superficial subtilty then spend time in further enquiries But two things Mr. S. tells me are required ere I can see that their faith varies from the former First to see what their Church holds now and then to see what the former Church held before and he kindly tells me if he sees any thing I see neither well It seems I want Mr. S's spectacles of oral tradition to see with but as yet I have no cause to complain of the want of them but â— see much better without them theâ— with them He tells me I cannot see what their present Church holds anâ— therefore I cannot assure any what wâ— held before because if I renounce tradition I take away all means of knowing The reason why I cannot candidly see as he phrases it what their Church holds now is because I cannot distinguish between faith and its explication some Schoolmen and the Church By which it seems it is impossible for me to know what their Church holds concerning Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Communion in one kind for those are the points I there mention wherein it is evident that the Church of Rome hath receded from the doctrine and practise of the Primitive Church Or are these only the opinions and practises of some Schoolmen among them and not the doctrine and practise of their Church But that we might come to some fuller state of these controversies I wish M. S. would settle some sure way whereby we might know distinctly what are the doctrines and practises of their Church If the Council of Trent and Roman-Catechism be said to be the rule of doctrine I desire no other so that those may be interpreted by practises universally allowed among them As when that Council only defined that due honour be given to Saints the general practise of that Church may tell us what they mean by that due honour and if that be not fair I know not what is But I see all the shift Mr. S. hath is when he is pinched to say those are the opinions of Schoolmen and private speculators and not the doctrine of their Church And if such shifts as these are must serve the turn I should wonder if ever he be to seek for an answer But the shortest answer of all would be that none but those of their Church can know what she holds and therefore it is to no purpose for Protestants to write against her or it may be that none but Mr. S. and one or two more can tell for many among them say those are the doctrines of their Church which they deny to be So that except Mr. White and Mr. S. and some very few demonstrators more all the rest are Schoolmen private opinators and not to be relyed on But I cannot see what their Church held formerly neither No wonder at all of that for if I cannot see an object so near me as the present Church how can it be expected I should see one so much further off as the doctrine of former ages And his reason is so strong as may well perswade me out of one at least of my five senses For saith he if I question tradition I question whether there be any doctrine delivered and so any Fathers And is not this argued