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
Mr. S. is always Mr. S. pretending Demonstration when there is nothing like it If Men were always Men they were always apt to be deceived and unless Christians by being such are Infallible they are liable to Mistakes But the highest means to convey the Sense of Words are to be found in Tradition I am quite of another Opinion I think it the most uncertain way in the World and the Corruption of the first Ages of the World are an Evident Proof of it when there were all possible Advantages of Tradition and yet the Principles of Natural Religion were strangely corrupted although they were plain easie few of the highest Importance and Men lived so long to inculcate them into the Minds of their Children If therefore notwithstanding Tradition the World might then degenerate into Polytheism and Idolatry what absurdity is it to suppose that notwithstanding Tradition the Christian Doctrine might be corrupted likewise But Mr. S. alledges not only Words but Actions to determine the Sense of them as that Christ is the Son of God by Praying to him and giving Divine Reverence to Christ without stinting them or making them scruple lest they give too much or commit Idolatry by giving that to a Creature which is due only to God. And does not this Practice beyond all possibility of Mistake insinuate into them that he is equally to be adored with God the Father or Co-equal to him and so not a Creature but Very God of Very God I Answer I. Would not the very same Reasoning have made the coming in of Idolatry impossible For that there was but one True God was evident from all Acts of Worship being given only to Him as the proper Object of it How then could Men so foully mistake as to give proper Divine Worship to any Creature there being an infinite Distance between God and his Creatures which every Child could not but know by a constant Tradition from Adam II. How was it possible that External Acts of Worship should so infallibly prove Christ to be true God if all External Acts of Worship be of an Equivocal Nature and receive their Determination from the inward Sense of the Mind Did not the Arians use the same External Acts of Worship with others with respect to Christ Where did they ever separate from the Christian Assemblies on the account of the Worship given to Christ If not how was it possible from thence to prove Christ not to be a Creature So that this is very far from putting the Point of the Divinity of Christ beyond the possibility of Mistake Especially when Solemn Invocation which is one of the most natural Parts of Divine Worship came to be allowed to meer Creatures All the difference that can be assigned then must be from Mens Words and Professions and not from their External Actions III. The same Divine Reverence was given to Christ in the Apostolical Times and the utmost Care used to instruct People in the True Doctrine of Christ and yet then we find that Persons did Err in the Sense of that Proposition That Christ is the Son of God. For even then the Ebionites and Cerinthians understood it not in Respect of Nature but Adoption and so did the Artemonites and Samosatenians afterwards And how can that be proved impossible to be done which we shew was actually done Men did notoriously mistake the Sense of Christ's being the Son of God when it was received by Tradition and yet Mr. S. pretends it cannot be mistaken if it be so received Mr. S. still urges That Faith hath Sense in it and it is inconsistent with the Nature of Mankind not to hold some Sense or other and with the Nature of Christians not to instruct their Children in that Sense And I think Words written have as much Sense in them as Words spoken and less liable to Mistakes there being no such mixtures of the Infirmities of Men in a Written Rule as in Oral Tradition But Instances are unlucky things to be brought against Demonstrations and such is that of the Cerinthians and Artemonites who pleaded Tradition for their Sense and yet they were Men and pretended to deliver the true Doctrine of Christ to their Disciples I alledged another Instance how the Sense of Tradition might be mistaken and that was about a Real Presence in the Eucharist which might be understood in very different Senses No saith Mr. S. That cannot be for Faith works on our devout Affections which must either oblige us to pay an infinite Veneration to a Creature if Christ's real Body and consequently God be not there or if Christ be not God which is the greatest deviation from true Religion that is possible or else to be highly irreverent and to want the most efficacious Motive that can be imagined to excite and elevate our Devotions if he be there or Christ be indeed God. Truly Mr. S's way of Writing is the most effectual means I know to make me Question whether written Words be a good way to convey a Certain Sense to our Minds For I cannot understand how Faiths working on our devout Affections should oblige us either to pay an infinite Veneration to a Creature or else to be highly Irreverent For supposing I believe Christ's Body not to be really in the Eucharist but yet that Christ himself is God I think my self bound to shew the utmost Reverence to Christ as God even in the Act of Receiving the Eucharist And I am of Opinion that the just Apprehension of the Divine Majesty is as apt to excite and elevate our Devotion as the believing the Body of Christ to be there really present But it is observable what Mr. S. here grants that if Christ's Body be not there they are guilty of paying an Infinite Veneration to a Creature which is the greatest deviation from true Religion that is possible And upon my Word then they had need have better Assurance than what he offers to prove Christ's real Body to be there For if as great Reverence may be paid to Christ in Heaven as if he were in the Elements I cannot see how the Posture of Adoration can any ways determin the Sense of Tradition in this Matter And thus Mr. S. hath left the Sense of Tradition as uncertain as he pretends that of Scripture to be and if his Argument will hold against the One being the Rule of Faith it will do as great a Kindness for the Other also Thus I have fully answered his main Argument against Scriptures being a Rule of Faith which he hath been so free with me as to tell me I cannot Answer and he and I must now leave it to the Reader 's Judgment The summ of it is I. We distinguish Necessary Points of Faith from Matters of Speculation II. We distinguish Certainty of Faith in order to Salvation and Certainty of Opinion in Matters of Controversie III. We distinguish the Certainty of the Rule from the Certainty of the Application of that Rule
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
If there were Oral Tradition for it how came it to be condemned If not then notwithstanding Oral Tradition dangerous Doctrines may get in under a pretence of a more Sublime and Spiritual Way of Perfection than is to be attained in the Dull and Heavy Way of Tradition from Father to Son. III. By a Pretence to a more Secret Tradition And thus Christianity was at first corrupted by such as pretended that there was a Mystical Doctrine delivered by Christ of a more purifying Nature than the Plain and Common Doctrine taught to all People by the Apostles So Hegesippus in Eusebius affirms That the Christian Church was corrupted by this Means and to the same Purpose Irenaeus So that Tradition was so far from securing the Church from Error that it was the Means of bringing it in And the Publick Tradition could not hinder this coming in of Error because the Secret Tradition was pretended to be more Divine and Spiritual the other was only for Babes and this for grown Christians IV. By Differences among Church-Guides about the Sense of Scripture and Tradition Thus it was in the Samosatenian Arian Pelagian Nestorian and Eutychian Controversies Neither of the Parties disowned Scripture or Tradition and those who were justly condemned pretended still to adhere to both And if such Flames could not be prevented so much nearer the Apostles Times by the help of Tradition What Reason can there be to expect it so long after V. By too great a Veneration to some particular Teachers not far from the Apostolical Times in regard to their Learning or Piety which made their Disciples despise Tradition in Comparison of their Notions And thus Origens Opinions came to prevail so much in the Church and the Mixture of Platonism with Christianity proved the occasion of several Errors with Respect to the State of Souls after Death as well as in other Points VI. By Compliance with some Gentile Superstitions in Hopes to gain more easily upon the Minds of the People who having been long accustomed to the Worship of Images and Tutelar Deities it was thought no Imprudent Thing in some Guides of the Church when the main Doctrines of Paganism were renounced to humour the People in these things so they were Accommodated to Christianity but others vehemently opposed this Method as repugnant to the True Primitive Christianity But by Degrees those Superstitions prevailed and the Original Tradition of the Church thereby corrupted VII By Implicit Faith which puts it into the Power of the Church-Guides to introduce what Doctrines they thought fit When the best of the People were told it was against the Fundamental Rights of the Catholick Church for them to examine any Opinions which were proposed to them by their Guides That they neither did nor could nor ought to understand them and when once this Point was gained People never troubled themselves about Scripture or Tradition for all they had to do was only to know what was decreed by the Church though with a Non-obstante to a Divine Institution as is plain in the Council of Constance notwithstanding all the Tricks to avoid it If then Errours might come into the Church all these ways what a vain thing is it to pretend That Oral Tradition will keep from any possibility of Error And so I need give no other Answer to his last Proposition That if Men did innovate in Faith it must be either through Forgetfulness or Malice for I have shewed many other Causes besides these especially since I intend to shew in a particular Discourse how the Errors and Corruptions we charge on the Church of Rome did come into it My design here being only to shew the Possibility of it There remain only two things which deserve any Consideration 1. About the Charge of Pelagianism 2. About the Council of Trents Proceeding on Tradition which will admit of an easie Dispatch I. As to the Charge of Pelagianism It doth not lie in this That he requires any Rational Inducements to Faith which we do assert as well as he But it lay in these Two things I. That a Divine Faith was to be resolved into a Natural Infallibility For we were told that Divine Faith must have Infallible Grounds and when we come to examine them we find nothing but what is Natural And now to avoid the Charge of Pelagianism this Divine Faith is declared to be meer Human Faith and so Human Faith is said to have Infallible Grounds but Divine Faith must shift for it self For saith J. S. 'T is confess'd and ever was that the Human Authority of the Church or Tradition begets only Human Faith as its Immediate Effect but by bringing it up to Christ it leads us to what 's Divine Well but what Infallible Ground is there for this Divine Faith Where doth that fix Is it on the Infallibibility of Tradition or not If not then we may have Divine Faith without it If it doth then Divine Faith is to be resolved into Natural Means And what is this but Pelagianism II. That he excludes the Pious Disposition of the Will from piecing out as he calls it the Defect of the Reasons why we Believe And in another place he excludes the Wills Assistance in these words That Faith or a Firm and Immoveable Assent upon Authority is not throughly Rational and by consequence partly Faulty if the Motives be not alone able to convince an Vnderstanding rightly disposed without the Wills Assistance How then can a pious Disposition of the Will be necessary in order to the Act of Faith And is it not Pelagianism to exclude it Therefore I was in the right when I said That this way of Oral Tradition resolves all into a meer Human Faith and that this is the unavoidable Consequence of it No he saith he resolves all into Christs and the Apostles teaching How ridiculous is this For did not Pelagius and Coelestius the very same And the thing I charged upon them was That they went no farther upon this Principle than they did Upon this he asks a very impertinent Question but if I do not Answer it I know what Clamours will follow Pray do you hold that Christ is a meer Man or that Believing him is a meer Human Faith or that the Doctrine taught by Him or Them is meerly Human What Occasion have I given for such a Question But I perceive there is a design among some to make me be believed to be no Christian. I pray God forgive the Malice of such Men. I thank God I have better Grounds for my Faith than Oral Tradition I do believe Christ to be more than meer Man even the Eternal Son of God and that his Doctrine is Divine and his Apostles had Infallible Assistance in delivering it But what is all this to the present Question I perceive some men when they are hard pinched cry out that their Adversaries are Atheists or Socinians c. and hope by this means to divert them
Dr. Stillingfleet's ANSWER TO J. S's Catholick Letters Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Discourse Concerning the Nature and Grounds of the Cerrainty of Faith c. Jan. 5. 1687. H. Maurice Rmo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cantuariensi a Sacris A DISCOURSE Concerning the Nature and Grounds OF THE CERTAINTY OF FAITH IN ANSWER To J. S. his Catholick Letters By EDW. STILLINGFLEET D. D. Dean of St. Pauls LONDON Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII THE CONTENTS THe Title of Catholick Letters Examin'd Page 1 How J. S. comes to be concerned in this Debate 3 His Doctrine denied to be Catholick by the Sorbon Doctors and others 5 His Self-Contradiction about it in seven Particulars 7 The State of the present Controversie about the Certainty of Faith 15 How it is altered by J. S. 25 Of the Certainty of Particular Points of Faith 27 The Grounds of the Certainty of Faith laid down by the General Consent of the School-Divines 31 J. S's main Argument against our Certainty of Faith Answer'd and Retorted 34 An Evident Proof of the Certainty of Faith without Infallibility 37 The Notion of a Rule of Faith Explained 38 The Sense of Tradition may be mistaken as well as Scripture 43 The Instances of it defended 44 The Second Argument about Fallible Certainty Answer'd 49 The Third about our Rule of Faith being common to all Heresies Answer'd 50 The Fourth about making our Private Judgment our Rule Answer'd 53 The Fifth about Judgment of Discretion Consider'd and Answer'd 54 How far the Scripture is a Rule to our People 55 What Certainty they have as to things necessary to Salvation 61 What Judgment of Discretion allowed by him 62 That it doth not serve only to find an Infallible Authority proved at large 64 His severe Conclusion of his Third Letter Answer'd 69 The Answer to the Argument summ'd up 71 The Sixth Argument about the Apostles not using a Written Rule in their Preaching Answer'd 73 The Seventh about Points necessary to Salvation Answer'd 74 The Similitude of the Purse defended 76 Scripture owned to be a Rule of Faith though not complete by the Divines of the Church of Rome 78 And that all Points simply necessary are therein contained 81 J. S. his Concession that all Points are not necessary to all Persons 83 Some Mens Vncertainty overthrows not the Certainty of Others 85 The Eighth Argument about the Certainty of the Letter of Scripture 86 J. S. overthrows it by allowing it to be corrected by the Sense of the Faithful 87 The Grounds of our Certainty laid down 89 Of Human and Divine Faith 91 The Last Argument about the Number of Canonical Books Answer'd 92 No Books of the New Testament lost 93 How the Canon was entire in the First Ages 95 Of the Vniversal Consent of all Christian Churches 97 The Demonstration for Oral Tradition laid down 100 The Instance of the Greek Church not Answer'd 101 The Argument it self consider'd 104 A clear and distinct Answer given to it and its notorious Fallacy laid open 105 How Errors might come into the Church 109 The late Instance of Molinos produced 109 110 Many other Causes of Errors besides Forgetfulness and Malice set down ibid. The Charge of Pelagianism defended against J. S. 113 Of the Council of Trents Proceeding on Tradition 115 The Proof that it did not referr'd to another Discourse 116 ERRATA PAge 16. line 9. for as Mr. G. read as Mr. S. p. 32. Marg. for 9.6 times r. q. for 19.9 r. 1 2. q. ibid. Marg. l. 9. for the 2 d. 13. r. A. 10. p. 62. l. 23. r. and how far and. p. 105. l. 15. blot out not before really l. 16. add not after are A DISCOURSE Concerning the NATURE GROUNDS OF THE CERTAINTY OF FAITH c. WHEN I published my Two Letters to Mr. G. I had good Reason to expect an Answer from him who began the Controversie But it seems he had better Reason to forbear and it is not hard to guess at it and I am turned over to one who pretends to write Catholick Letters against me I have a great and just Reverence for some Catholick Epistles and believe them written by an Infallible Spirit but for these Catholick Letters though their whole design be Infallibility yet I cannot find so much as a fair Probability in them But why must these be call'd Catholick Letters Are they written by some Catholick Bishop to give an Account of his Faith according to the Custom of the Antient Church Is it that the Doctrine contained in them is undoubtedly Catholick So far from it that I shall make it appear that no one Church of the Christian World ever own'd it But suppose it had been the Doctrine of the Roman Church how could this make them Catholick Letters unless so great a Logician had first proved that a Part may assume the Denomination of the whole But then why not Roman Catholick Letters according to the new Style There was a Reason for this J. S. hath not forgotten how hardly he had lately escaped Censure at Rome for the Principles contained in them and therefore though he hopes they may pass for Catholick here yet he durst not joyn Roman to Catholick in the Title of his Letters But how comes J. S. to be concerned in this Controversie with Mr. G. The Account he gives of it in the beginning of his First Letter is very pleasant He saith He accepted a Commission from Mr. G. to hold his Cards while he is not in Circumstances to play out his Game himself I will not examine Mr. G's Circumstances nor the Game he plays at but methinks this is no very decent way of expressing the undertaking a Debate about Matters of Faith and Salvation But in Truth he makes the business of Infallibility as he handles it to be a Matter of Sport and Diversion notwithstanding all his Grimaces and Tragical Expressions about it It is hard to be severe upon a Metaphor but suppose it be allowed yet I wonder of all Men he should pitch upon J. S. to hold his Cards for him who had plaid his own so ill and so much to the dissatisfaction of the leading Men of his own Church Yet he now appears as brisk and confident as if he were some New Gamester although he produces his old sullied Cards a little wiped over again and seems to have forgotten the Answer to his Sure Footing and the Accompt he still owes to the World for it I know not how far it agrees with the Laws of Ecclesiastical Chivalry for one who hath not defended himself to appear a Champion for another especially in the same Cause but there is no great Reason to apprehend he should do much for another who hath done next to nothing for himself The main Subject of the Debate is about the Nature and Grounds of the Certainty of Faith and the Method I think most natural and effectual to proceed in
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
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
main of his Defence But why then doth he urge us to produce our Grounds of Certainty as to particular Points if himself doth not If he pretends no more than to prove them in general why may not we be allowed to do the same He that calls upon others to do it in such an insulting manner is presumed to do it himself and if he doth not he only banters and abuses his Reader And after all this mighty pretence to Demonstration and Infallibility the whole Dispute comes to this whether Men may attain to greater Certainty of Christ's Doctrine by Oral and Practical Traditions than we can do by Scripture Reason and Tradition But this is against his words where he saith Seeing then Christians are bound to profess their Faith true as to those Points of a Trinity for Example or Incarnation c. it follows that it must be affirm'd and held that a Trinity or Incarnation absolutely is and consequently that it is impossible not to be VII About Moral Certainty His whole Book called Faith vindicated was written against it And in the Preface to it p. 3. he opposes absolute Certainty to Moral and he saith those who have it not have no true Faith. Page 17. True Faith by reason of its immoveable Grounds can bear an asserting the absolute Impossibility of its falshood And without this he makes Faith absurd preternatural and irrational Page 34. Moral Certainty is in reality uncertainty and the highest degree of Moral Certainty is the lowest degree of Vncertainty truly so called The same he asserts pag. 36 86 93. Error Nonplust pag. 195. Fallible Certainty destroys all Efficacy all Defence and even Essence of Faith. When I read in Lominus pag. 43. that I. S. in his Vindication pleaded that he required no more than Moral Evidence for the Assent and Profession of Faith I could hardly believe him and therefore I was earnest to see what he would say in Answer to this but even there pag. 23. he owns it and saith expresly That Moral Evidence is absolutely sufficient to Faith But withal he saith There is more than Moral Evidence in Tradition Let now any indifferent Person compare those Assertions together If Moral Certainty be Vncertainty and destroy the Essence of Faith how can it be absolutely sufficient to Faith But besides the Contradiction he hath by this one Assertion overthrown the whole Design of his Catholick Letters For if true Faith may be had without Infallible Certainty what need any such contending about it For the Ground of the Dispute is about such Faith as is necessary to Salvation and if true Faith as J. S. grants which is necessary to Salvation may be had without their pretended Infallibility there is no Colour left for pressing Persons of our Communion to forsake our Church because we cannot have Infallible Certainty of Faith when themselves grant that we may be saved without it And what Sincerity is to be expected from such a Man who makes such out-cries upon us for want of Infallible Certainty for Faith when himself Confesses that Moral Certainty is sufficient to Faith what ever becomes of Moral Certainty I love Moral Honesty and I cannot see how it is consistent with it to make such mighty pretences to the Necessity of Infallible Certainty for Faith even in his Catholick Letters which seems to be the chief Design of them when himself had declared to the Cardinals at Rome that less than that is sufficient for true Faith. But the secret of it is he knows well enough there is no such Necessity for Infallible Certainty and when it will bring him off he can own it but among us Hereticks they must bluster and make a mighty noise about it because it startles weak and injudicious People and they find nothing so apt to terrifie and confound them like Infallibility which like a Flash of Lightning doth not help them to see better but strikes them down with Horror and Astonishment And here I might fairly stop and send the Reader to J. S. for an effectual Answer to his own Letters or at least to shew how very unfit he was after such going forward and backwards in this matter to undertake this Cause 2. But lest I should seem to decline any thing which may seem material I shall now proceed to state the Controversie as it lies between Mr. S. and me For what concerns another Person I shall leave it to himself as not standing in need of any Assistance from me The Occasion of the Conference was set down by Mr. M. to have been That Mr. G. affirmed in some Companies that no Protestant could shew any Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith and that Mr. S. had promised him that if I were not able to manifest the contrary he would forsake our Communion So that Mr. G. was the Aggressor by laying this charge upon us That we could shew no Ground of Absolute Certainty for our Faith. And therefore when in the Conference I assigned the Scripture for the Ground and Rule of our Faith and universal Tradition for the Proof of the Books of Scripture I had Reason in my Expostulatory Letter to Mr. G. to desire of him to shew That we have no absolute Certainty of the Rule of our Faith viz. the Scripture although we have a larger and firmer Tradition for it than you can have for the Points in difference between us This plainly relates to the Conference wherein Scripture was own'd to be our Rule and Vniversal Tradition the Evidence on which we receive the Books And to any Man of Sense this is not Shifting and Tricking off the Proof to Mr. G. as Mr. G. often calls it but it is a plain and evident Proof of our Certainty upon their own Grounds For if Tradition be such a Ground of Absolute Certainty as they assert and we have a larger and firmer Tradition for Scripture than they can produce for the Points of Faith in difference between us then it is evident we must have upon their own Principles a Ground of Absolute Certainty for our Faith which was the main Point of the Conference If he will Answer the Argument he must either deny that we have Vniversal Tradition for the Books of Scripture or that Vniversal Tradition is a Ground for the Absolute Certainty of Faith Either of these ways he had said something to the purpose but he found this way of Reasoning too hot for him and therefore he calls it Shifting and Tricking off the Proof to Mr. G. and so falls into a Tragical Declamation against my not proving and making a Secret of the Ground of our Certainty as if a Man intended to make a Secret of a Horse he had lost when he published his Marks in the Gazett Here is the Ground of our Certainty laid down in that very place where he saith I shift off the Proof to Mr. G. but alas for him He cannot see any thing like a Proof unless it be serv'd
by the Confession of Parties what thinks he of those of the Church of Rome who have charged his Doctrine about Infallible Certainty with downright Heresie and Impiety and that it leads to Atheism and Infidelity and overthrows the Christian Faith This we are told is the sense of all the Learned and Orthodox Men of your Church Let the Reader judge what J. S. hath gotten by the Confession of Parties I hope now we shall come to the State of the Question for he charges me with perverting it The First Question he saith at the Conference was Whether Protestants are absolutely Certain that they hold now the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught to his Apostles And my Answer he saith was They are By his favour my Answer was not in those words but that we are absolutely certain that we now hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles And for a certain Reason I desire my own Words may express my Mind for I do not find Oral Tradition Infallible and where Words are varied the Sense may be so too But he observes that I trick it off again as he calls it I suppose it is Gamesters Language from the Point of Absolute Certainty of Faith to Absolute Certainty of the Rule of Faith viz. the Scripture but our Saviour and Protestants believe more than that the Book so called is Scripture Is Certainty of this more and Certainty of this Book all one Here is then an enquiry after one thing plainly turned off to another It seems Mr. G. is quite gone for a Gamester for he discerned no Tricking in this matter nor can I. It is very true we do believe More than that the Book so called is Scripture for we believe All the Matters of Faith contained in that Book And what then If by his More he means Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture then I tell him plainly we believe no More And therefore when Mr. G. put his next Question as he thought very pertinently By what Certain Rule do you hold it My Answer was By the Divine Revelation contained in the Writings of the New Testament Whereby I excluded his More if it be not contained in Scripture But if by More he means our Assent to the Points of Faith contained in Scripture I shall give a full Answer to it afterwards Then he asked By what Certain Rule do you know that the New Testament which we now have does contain all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles And if he puts such Questions concerning the Rule What Tricking was it in me to give a direct Answer to them How did I turn off the Enquiry from one thing to another when I only Answered the Questions he proposed This is not playing Mr. G 's Cards but condemning him for playing unskilfully and desiring to begin a new Game for Mr. G. had a bad hand and managed it very ill But what would J. S. have done The thing to be made manifest by the Conference was the Absolute Certainty of Protestant Faith. And so it was for Protestant Faith is to believe all that is contained in Scripture and no more Mr. G. did indeed ask some Questions about your Certainty of your Rule and I gave him direct Answers Where is the Tricking in all this But I wisely cut off the Course of the Questions before they had question'd away the Certainty of Faith. So far otherwise that I let them alone till they plainly run away from the business of Certainty to another Question and then Mr. T. cut them off by declaring himself satisfied and asking How they could prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible But now we are to see how much better the Cards might have been plaid And now look ye Gentlemen the Man of Skill begins the Game After the Certainty of Scripture from Tradition was admitted there was no Refusing to admit that Tradition causes Certainty and makes Faith as certain as Scripture See the difference of these two Gamesters at Tradition But what if I should yield him that I will not refuse to give my Assent to any Point of Faith which comes down to us from the Apostles Times with as large and as firm a Tradition as the Scripture Then saith he it would have proved something difficult to satisfie even a willing Man that the Faith is certain which is opposed to a Faith come down by Tradition Something difficult Nay very much so without doubt But this is fairly to suppose that you have as Vniversal a Tradition for your Tridentine Faith as we have for the Scripture but this I utterly deny and I hope in another Treatise to shew I have not done it without Reason Let the Matter of Tradition itself as a Rule of Faith be one of these Points If there were a Constant Vniversal Tradition in the Christian Church from the Apostolical Times that there were Matters of Faith necessary to Salvation not contained in Scripture I grant that it would be difficult to prove it to be a Matter of Faith that Scripture alone is our Rule of Faith. But that is the mighty Advantage of our Cause that we have both Scripture and Tradition for us and that no Catholick Tradition can be produced against us in any one Point of the Additional Creed of Pius IV. which is the Design I have undertaken of which I shall suddenly publish the First Part and if God gives me Life and Health I hope to go through the Rest. Well but in the mean time Absolute Certainty of Scripture was not the Point of the Conference Can J. S. tell better than the Managers His meaning is it ought not to have been Nor is it the Point of Concern This is strange Not the Point of Concern to those that own it to be the Word of God and the only Rule of Faith It is of Infinite Concern to us if it be not to you I pity you for it Besides that it is agreed on all hands Men are saved by Believing and Practising what Christ taught not barely by believing Scripture is Scripture This is no New Speculation But what follows from it Therefore we ought to believe Christ's Doctrine contained in Scripture and obey his Commands and do I give the least Intimation against this But the Question was about our Rule of Faith and that I still think is the Scripture and whatever is contained therein is to be believed on that Account But Salvation is the thing that imports us in these Disputes and 't were well if nothing else were minded by Disputers And so think I too I desire no more to end our Controversies than to make Salvation our End and the Scripture our Rule But how can Salvation be the thing that imports us in these Disputes if Men cannot with Reason hold any thing true unless they can produce the Intrinsecal Grounds which prove it to be so Doth Mr. S. in earnest think
Thing or Manner but the Revelation of such a Doctrine So that if these Points be owned to be necessary to Salvation they must be so plain that Men may understand their Duty to believe them For that is the Bound I keep my self within that all things Necessary to Salvation are so plain that we may be certain of our Duty to believe them but if not we may Err without Prejudice to our Salvation Mr S. asks what I mean by all things necessary to Salvation Nothing but what all others do mean by it Did Christ saith he teach any unnecessary Points Alas for him But are all Points taught by Christ or written in Scripture equally necessary to the Salvation of all People No he saith presently after That he will grant that fewer means than the Knowledge of all Christ taught may suffice for the Salvation of some particular Persons Very well now I hope he will make something of the main business in hand viz. To prove that Absolute Certainty of all that Christ Taught is Necessary to Mens Salvation when he grants that some may be Saved without so much as Knowing all that Christ Taught To what purpose was all this Heat about the Certainty of our Faith as to all that Christ Taught if at last some may be Saved without so much as Knowing it How doth Mr. S. prove That those some are only the Ignorant People in the Church of Rome but that all Ours are tied to no less than Infallible Certainty of all that Christ Taught He would have done well to have proved such a Privilege for Ignorance to have been limited to their Communion and that no Claim can be allowed as to the Circumstances of any other particular Persons Some few he saith again may be Saved without the Knowledge of such and such Points slender Motives being enough for their Circumstances I thank Mr. S. for this It seems the Point as to Salvation is gained unless particular Persons among us can be proved to be none of these few But where-ever they are it seems they may be Saved but I hope not without True and Saving Faith whence it follows that such Faith hath no necessary Relation to these high Points and there is no need of Infallible Certainty as to them of all Christ Taught One of these high Points is that of Transubstantiation too high for me and Thousands and Millions besides ever to apprehend let us do our utmost nay we cannot apprehend such is our dulness that we can have any Certainty as to Sense or Reason if we hold it We hope therefore J. S. will enlarge his Number and not talk only of some Few that may be Saved without the Knowledge of such deep Mysteries we desire to be admitted into his Number for truly our Capacities can never be stretched so far as to comprehend the Possibility of Transubstantiation Suppose our Motives be slender yet they are such as move us to that degree that we cannot overcome the Reluctancies of Sense and Reason and Revelation and Tradition against it But Mr. S. brings himself off with a Salvo Though all Points are not necessary for every particular Person yet all of them are necessary for the Body of the Church whose Pastors are to Instruct their Children in them and apply the Efficacy of them to their Souls as their Capacities admit and Exigencies require It seems still they are not Necessary to particular Persons but according to their Capacities and Exigencies but they are to the Body of the Church But how came they to be Necessary to the Body of the Church For Instance The Point of Transubstantiation is a very deep Point and although particular Persons may be Saved without believing it yet I cannot understand how this deep Point comes to be Necessary in any Respect for the Body of the Church I hope J. S. will not deny this to be one of his Necessary Church-Points Let him then shew how it comes to be so Necessary for the Pastors of the Church to Instruct their Children in it My Capacity I assure him will not reach to this and therefore I hope I may be excused and in his own words my mind is not capable of being cultivated by such elevating Considerations I do not believe there is any such danger of the Flocks dying or falling short of their full growth they might have had in the Plentiful Pasturage of the Church as J. S. elegantly speaks if they do not believe Transubstantiation or any such deep Points But still we have no Absolute Certainty of our highest Fundamentals No We affirm the Contrary and from Absolutely Certain Grounds It is Absolutely Certain that whatever God Reveals is true and ought to be believed by us And we are as absolutely Certain as Scripture and Reason can make us that God hath Revealed the Fundamentals of our Faith. But there is Experience to the Contrary What Experience That we are not Certain We affirm that we are and who can tell best How comes Mr. S. to know we are not Certain when we say we are But all are not as Socinians c. What are they to us Are not we certain because some are not Certain What pittiful Reasoning is this Is Mr. S. Certain of his Infallible Ground of Certainty Oral Tradition Why do I ask such a Question For very good Reason because there are some not Certain of it and even in his own Church but cry out upon it as Fallible Fallacious Dangerous and Destructive of Faith and leading to Atheism From whence it follows on Mr. S's Principles that he cannot be Certain himself because others are not Nay it is impossible he should have any Certainty on his own Grounds For he can have no Rule of Certainty as I shall evidently prove from his own Words A Rule must have Absolute Certainty Absolute Certainty there cannot be where Persons are left uncertain but there are many in the Church of Rome that not only doubt of his Rule of Infallible Certainty but utterly deny it and dispute against it How is it then possible for him to be certain of it on his own Grounds But it is time to proceed to another Objection against our Rule of Faith. VIII J. S. saith We can be no more certain of our Rule than we are of the Truth of the Letter of Scripture but we cannot be certain we have the Right Letter unless we have a Right Translation and that must be from a true Copy no Copy can be true unless Conformable to the Original and if there be any failure in any of these nay if we have not absolute Certainty of all these we cannot have any absolute Certainty of our Faith. This Objection those of the Church of Rome who believe Scripture to be a Rule of Faith though not the Complete are concerned to Answer as well as we For the Matters of Faith contained in Scripture are convey'd to their Minds after the same manner
But Mr. S. saith Their Case is different from ours Do not they make the Vulgar Translation Authentick And will not the same Objections then lie against all those who rely upon it Let us see how J. S. clears this Matter 1. The Canon of the Books comes down saith he by the Testimony of all Christian Churches that are truly Christian And we say the Canon of the Books comes down by the Concurrent Testimony of all Christian Churches however differing in other things And herein I think we have much the advantage For we do not except against the Testimony of any Christian Churches nor condemn them as not truly Christian till their Cause be better heard and examin'd 2. The Doctrine of Christ saith he transfused into the hearts of the faithful both taught them how and obliged them to correct the Copy in those particular Texts that concerned Faith. What is this but in plain terms to expose the Scriptures to the Scorn and Contempt of Atheists and Infidels Who would desire no better a Concession than this that the Scripture hath been corrected in Matters of Faith according to the Faith of the Church If this be granted it is impossible to prove that we have any true Original Texts in Matters of Faith For if the Church did correct the Copy in those particular Texts which concerned Faith according to the Sense of the faithful then the Church in every Age might so correct it and consequently we can never be sure that the Texts continue the same for any two Ages together unless it be first proved impossible for the Sense of the Church to vary in any two Ages or of those who think themselves bound to correct the Texts And I should be very sorry to have my Faith rest upon such a slippery Foundation I will put the Case as to the Arian Controversie How was it possible for the Nicene Fathers to have convinced the Arians on such a Supposition as this You alledge several Texts of Scripture might they say to prove the Godhead of Christ and his Equality with the Father but how can we know that these were Original Texts and not corrected by the Guides of the Church then according to their own Sense We do not deny that there were some leading Men of this Opinion and having gained a Party to themselves they corrected the Texts according to it And therefore we can never be satisfied that these were the Original Texts because we can bring down a Tradition of a contrary Sense from the Apostles times I do not see what satisfaction they could ever receive if this pernicious Principle be allowed that the Texts were to be corrected in Matters that concern Faith according to the Sense of the Church But he saith it is If any Errour through the carelesness unattentiveness or malice of the Translators or Transcribers at any time had crept in This doth not one jot mend the Matter For if the Faith of the present Church be the Rule then the Texts are to be corrected according to it and the blame to be laid on the Carelesness or Malice of Translators and Transcribers This is a miserable Account of the Certainty of Texts of Scripture in Points of Faith As to other Texts of inferiour concern as he speaks they could be best corrected by multitudes of other ancient Copies the Churches Care still going along as was shewn in the highest manner by the Council of Trent that so it might be as exact as Human Diligence could well render it As to multitudes of Copies they serve us as well as them but as to the Care of the Council of Trent I am by no means satisfied For 1. They went no farther than a Translation and declared that Authentick without due regard to the Original Text. 2. The Care taken was not so exact for then Clemens the Eighth did great Injury to Sixtus the Fifth when he recalled and corrected his Bibles in so many Places after Sixtus the Fifth had published his for an Exact Edition 3. There are still complaints in the Church of Rome of want of Exactness in the Vulgar Latin. 4. After all this is but Human Diligence and no such Absolute Certainty as J. S. requires from us But it may be he will say That he doth not at all make it his Rule of Faith Let him declare so much and then we know what to Answer This is still putting off Therefore I will give a distinct Answer I. We do utterly deny that it is in any Churches Power to correct Original Texts because they contradict the Sense of the present Church or any Translations any farther than they differ from the Originals And I do not know any assertion that shakes more our Faith as to the Scripture than this of J. S. doth II. The early Appeals made to Scripture in Matters of Faith by the Writers of the Christian Church make us Certain that there could be no such Alterations or Corrections of the Texts according to these use of the Correctors As for Instance we find the Places produced against the Arians used before against the Samosatenians and Artemonites If it be said They might correct the Fathers to I answer That there is no imaginable Ground for any such suspicion because the Fathers lived in distant Places and Countries and therefore when their Testimonies agree about some places of Scripture alledged by them there can be no Reason to suspect any Corruption or Alteration of the Text. As for Instance no one Text of the whole New Testament hath been more suspected than that of 1 S. John 5.7 There are three that bear Record in Heaven c. And it cannot be denied that there hath been great variety both in the Greek and Latin Manuscripts about it yea there was so in S. Jeroms time as appears by his Preface to the Canonical Epistles who charges the leaving it out to the unfaithfulness of the Translators S. Jerom is cried out upon as a Party in this Controversie and therefore it is said on the other side that he put it in as favouring his own Opinion But his Integrity is vindicated herein because S. Cyprian so long before the Arian Controversie produced this Place So that our Certainty as to Scripture doth not depend upon the meer Letter but upon comparing the best and most antient Copies with the Writings of the Fathers who still made use of the Scriptures in all Discourses and Debates about Matters of Faith. III. The variety of Readings in Matters that are not of Faith cannot hinder our Certainty in Matters of Faith. We do not pretend that there is no kind of variety in the Copies of the New Testament but I am of Opinion that this rather establishes than weakens our Faith. For considering the great Multitudes of them and how insignificant they are it shews that this Book was liable to the common Accidents of Books but yet that there is no such variety as to make one
suspect any Fraud or Design in the Alterations that appear in the Manuscript Copies And as to Translations that have been made among us the People who are not able to examin them by the Originals have no Reason to suspect them as to any Matter of Faith. Not meerly from the Skill and Integrity of the Persons and the Care that hath been taken but because it was so much the Concernment of some Men to have lessen'd the Credit of our Translations as much as was possible and they have not been able to produce any thing that might shake the Faith of a considering Man. If it be said after all This is but Human Faith and not Divine I answer IV. We must be careful to distinguish the Certainty of Human and Divine Faith in this Matter We do not pretend that we have an Absolute Divine Certainty of things that are only capable of Human Certainty and we do not say that we have only Human Certainty of things capable of Divine Certainty If the Question be put concerning the Objects of Divine Faith then we do answer That we have a Divine Certainty of them from those things which are the proper Evidence of Divine Revelation We believe the Doctrine of Christ with a Divine Faith because it was confirmed by Miracles and Prophecies We believe the New Testament to be written by the Holy Spirit because the Promise of the Spirit was fulfilled upon them and especially in a thing of so great Concernment to the whole Christian Church But if the Question be asked only concerning a Matter of Fact as whether the Books that bear such Names were written by the Persons whose Names they bear then I can have no greater Certainty than belongs to a Matter of Fact but then it is so circumstantiated that I have a greater and more absolute Certainty as to this then any other Matter of Fact which wants the Proofs that this hath And if as to Books and Copies and Translations we have as high a Certainty as the thing is capable of it is madness to expect and require more For where there is but a Human Testimony there cannot be the Certainty of Divine Faith which must not only have a Divine Object but must rest on a Divine Testimony but where the Testimony is Human the Certainty must be such as relates to the highest of that kind But still such a Faith may have Absolute Certainty of its kind and although in regard of its Testimony it be Human Faith yet in regard both of its Object its inward Cause and its Effects it may be truly called Divine IX The last Objection is concerning the Number of Canonical Books Pray satisfie us saith Mr. S. about this exact Number of Books and how many will just serve turn One would think by his Objections J. S. were preparing Matter for the Critical History of the New Testament he seems so concerned to lessen the Authority of it But I shall Answer the Objections he offers 1. There may have been Books lost that were written by Persons divinely inspir'd and we have no unanimous Consent of the Christian Church that there is none lost and those Books might contain Matters different from or to be superadded to the Canon we have now and without this we can have no Certainty that the Books we have now contained all the Divine Revelations I Answer I. If we have the unanimous Consent of the Christian Church that we have the Canon of the New Testament entire then we have their Consent that there is no Book written by Divine Inspiration lost And this appears by the Contest in the IV. Century about the just Number of the Canonical Books The Churches then differ'd about some Books not then Universally receiv'd as the Apocalypse in some and the Epistle to the Hebrews in others Which shews that the Churches were then so solicitous to preserve any Books that appear'd to be written by Persons Inspir'd that although these did then want Universal Consent yet they were still kept and read and dispers'd till upon further Examination they came to be Universally read It is not therefore in the least probable they should suffer any Apostolical Writings to be lost II. This is to charge the Christian Church with so gross a Neglect as overthrows the force of all his Arguments for Tradition For we must suppose an Apostolical Writing sent to some Church by Direction of the Holy Spirit and yet that Church be so notoriously careless as to lose a Book containing in it many Points of Faith now I appeal to any one of common Sense whether he could trust their Word for Matters of Faith who could be so negligent as to lose a great many Points of Faith at once And the more such a Book were dispersed the Argument is still stronger against Tradition Besides this shews the great Insufficiency of Oral Tradition if these Points of Faith are lost because such a Book was lost wherein they were contained If Tradition had been so effectual a Means of Conveying Matters of Faith it should have appear'd in such a Case viz. in preserving such Matters of Faith though the Books were lost But we find nothing like this so much as pretended Although it were much easier pretended than proved III. This is to suppose the Providence of God not to be immediately concerned in preserving Books written by Divine Inspiration Mr. S. doth really suppose that Books written by Divine Inspiration may have been lost or at least that we cannot prove that they are not But we think it a considerable Proof that they could not because the Divine Providence doth so immediately concern it self in preserving that which tends so much to the Good of his Church If a Hair doth not fall from our Heads nor a Sparrow fall on the Ground without the Providence of God as our Saviour affirms is it not very unreasonable to suppose that a Divine Book written for the Benefit of the Christian Church should be wholly lost Especially considering the extraordinary Care the first Christians took in Times of the greatest Persecutions to preserve the Scriptures and no force or violence could extort them out of their hands On Mr. S's Supposition it was no hard Matter for a Book of Scripture to be lost viz. if the several Books had been committed to the Custody of some Men in Trust for the whole Church but if we consider the things as they really were it will appear hardly possible For the Books were not kept up at first in a few hands but dispersed abroad in multitudes of Copies and received with mighty Veneration both on the Account of the Authors of them and the Matters contained in them They were read both in Publick and in Private they heard them in their Assemblies and they made them their constant Imployment at home they were their Rule of Life as well as of Faith. And how is it possible to suppose any Book so received so
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.