proof of this I appeal to that Decree of the Council of Trent in which they declare That because the Christian Faith and Discipline are contained in written Books and unwritten Traditions c. therefore they do receive and honour the Books of Scripture and also Traditions pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ with equal pious affection and reverence which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith And consonantly to this Decree the general Doctrine of the Romish Church is that Scripture and Tradition make up the Rule of Faith So the Roman Catechism set forth by order of the Council of Trent says that the sum of the Doctrine delivered to the Faithful is contained in the Word of God which is distributed into Scripture and Tradition Bellarmine speaks to the same purpose That the Scripture is a Rule of Faith not an entire but partial one The entire Rule is the Word of God which is divided into two partial Rules Scripture and Tradition According to this the adequate Rule of Faith is the Word of God which is contained partly in Scripture and partly in the Tradition of the Church And that Scripture is look't upon by them as the principal Rule and primary foundation of their Faith and Tradition as only supplying the defects of Scripture as to some Doctrines and Rites not contained in Scripture must be evident to any one that hath been conversant in the chief of their controversial Divines Bellarmine where he gives the marks of a Divine Tradition speaks to this purpose That that which they call a Divine Tradition is such a Doctrine or Rite as is not found in Scripture but embraced by the whole Church and for that reason believed to have descended from the Apostles And he tells us further That the Apostles committed all to Writing which was commonly and publickly Preached and that all things are in Scripture which men are bound to know and believe explicitely But then he says that there were other things which the Apostles did not commonly and publickly teach and these they did not commit to Writing but delivered them only by word of mouth to the Prelates and Priests and perfect men of the Church And these are the Apostolical Traditions he speaks of Cardinal Perron says That the Scripture is the foundation of the Christian Doctrine either mediately or immediately And that the Authority of unwritten Tradition is founded in general on these sentences of the Apostle Hold the Traditions c. Again The things which thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses commit to faithful men c. And that the Authority of the Church to preserve and especially to declare these is founded in this Proposition viz. That the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth So that according to him the primary Rule of Faith is the Scripture in which the Authority of Tradition is founded Mr. Knott says expresly We acknowledg the H. Scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule we only deny that it excludes either Divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an external Judg to keep to propose to interpret it c. So that according to him Scripture is a perfect Rule only it does not exclude unwritten Tradition c. By which that he does not understand as Mr. S. does a concurrent Oral Tradition of all the same Doctrines which are contained in Scripture but other Doctrines not therein contained is plain from what he says elsewhere We do not distinguish Tradition from the written Word because Tradition is not written by any or in any Book or Writing but because it is not written in the Srripture or Bible Bellarmine also says the same And as for the interpreting of Scripture he tells us that this is not the office of a Rule but of a Judg. There is says he a great and plain distinction between a Judg and a Rule For as in a Kingdom the Judg hath his Rule to follow which are the received Laws and Customs which are not fit or able to declare and be Judges to themselves but that Office must belong to a living Judg So the Holy Scripture is and may be a Rule but cannot be a Judg. Here he makes the Scripture as much a Rule for matters of Faith as the Laws of the Land are for Civil matters And in his Reply to Mr. Chillingworth he hath a Chapter of above 150 Pages the Title whereof is Scripture is not the only Rule of Faith which had he with Mr. S. believed Oral Tradition to be the sole Rule of Faith had been as absurd as it would be to write a Book to prove that Turks are not the only Christians in the World Mr. Cressy likewise not very consistently to himself lays down this Conclusion The entire Rule of faith is contained not only in Scripture but likewise in unwritten Tradition § 2. Now all this is as contrary as can be to Mr. Rushworth's new Rule of Faith Therefore Mr. White says They speak ill who teach that some things are known in the Church from Scripture some by Tradition And Dr. Holden in opposition to those who make Scripture any part of the Rule of Faith advances one of the most wild and uncharitable Positions that ever I yet met withall viz. That if one should believe all the Articles of the Catholick Faith c. for this reason because he thought they were all expresly revealed in Scripture or implicitely contained so as they might be deduced from thence and would not have believed them had he not judged that they might be evinced from Scripture yet this man could be no true Catholick Because as he tells us afterwards we must receive the Christian Doctrine as coming to us by Tradition for only by this means excluding the Scriptures Christ hath appointed revealed Truths to be received and communicated In the mean time Cardinal Perron unless he altered his mind is in a sad case who believed the Authority of Tradition it self for this reason because it was founded in Scripture § 3. And this fundamental difference about the Rule of Faith between the generality of their Divines and Mr S's small party is fully acknowledged by the Traditionists themselves Dr. Holden says That their Divines who resolve Faith according to the common Opinion do inevitably fall into that shameful Circle of proving the Divine Authority of the Scripture by the Church and the Infallibility of the Church back again by the Scripture because they dare not build their Faith upon the natural evidence and certainty of Tradition So that Dr. Holden's way of resolving Faith is different from the common Opinion of their Divines which he says does not differ from the Opinion of those who resolve their Faith into the private Spirit and this according to Mr. White
capable of convincing Demonstrations Again Do but consider says he how unequal and unjust a condition it is that the claim of the present Church shall not be heard unless she can confute all the Peradventures that Wit may invent and solve all the Arguments which the infinite variety of time place and occasions may have given way unto and then you will see how unreasonable an Adversary he is who will not be content with any satisfaction but such as mans nature scarcely affords And is it not equally unjust in Mr. S. not to let Scripture's claim be heard unless we can confute every Peradventure and might it not be otherwise that Wit may invent See then how unreasonable an Adversary Mr. S. is who will not be content with any satisfaction but such as according to Mr. Rushworth mans nature scarcely affords Dr. Holden I confess states the matter somewhat cautiously when he tells us That it shall suffice for present to determine that the Wisdom of the Creator hath afforded us such an assurance especially of Truths necessary to Salvation as is sutable to our nature and best fitted for the safe conduct of our lives in Moral and Religious Affairs But if we interpret these general expressions by the passages I before cited out of Mr. Rushworth as in reason we may since the Doctor is beholding to him for the best part of his Book then nothing can make more against Mr. S's Principle § 5. Mr. Cressy in his Exomologesis says That such Teachers as approached nearest to the fountain of Truth Christ and his Apostles had means of informing themselves in Apostolical Tradition incomparably beyond us Mr. S. may do well to shew what those means were which are so incomparably beyond his Infallibility and Demonstration The same Author does very much applaud Stapleton's determination of the question concerning the Churches Infallibility which is as follows That the Church does not expect to be taught by God immediately by new Revelations but makes use of several means c. as being govern'd not by Apostles c. but by ordinary Pastors and Teachers That these Pastors in making use of these several means of Decision proceed not as the Apostles did with a peculiar infallible direction of the Holy Spirit but with a prudential collection not always necessary That to the Apostles who were the first Masters of Evangelical Faith and founders of the Church such an infallible certitude of means was necessary not so now to the Church c. If this be true That an infallible certitude of means is not now necessary to the Church and that her Pastors do now in deciding matters of Faith proceed only with a prudent collection not always necessary then it should seem that a searching Wit may maintain his ground of suspence even against their Church also with A Might it not be otherwise Again Mr. Cressy tells us That truth and our obligation to believe it is in an higher degree in Scripture than in the Decisions of the Church as Bellarmine acknowledges which is to say that we may have greater assurance of the truth of Doctrines contained in the Scriptures than we can have of any Doctrine from the determination of the Church But if we have the greatest assurance that can be of Truths deliver'd to us by the Church as Mr. S. affirms then I would fain learn of him what that greater degree of assurance is which Stapleton speaks of and whether it be greater than the greatest Not to insist upon that which yet I cannot but by the way take notice of that Mr. Cressy by his approbation of this determination of Bellarmine's doth advance the Scripture above the Church as to one of the most essential Properties of the Rule of Faith viz. the certainty of it But the most eminent Testimony to my purpose in Mr. Cressy is that famous passage which hath given so much offence to several of his own Church wherein he acknowledges the unfortunateness to him of the word Infallibility and tells us That he could find no such word in any Council That no necessity appear'd to him that either he or any other Protestant should ever have heard that word nam'd and much less press'd with so much earnestness as of late it has generally been in Disputations and Books of Controversie and that Mr. Chillingworth combats this word with too to great success insomuch that if this word were once forgotten or but laid by Mr. Chillingworth's Arguments would lose the greatest part of their strength and that if this word were confin'd to the Schools where it was bred there would be still no inconvenience And that since by manifest experience the English Protetestants think themselves so secure when they have leave to stand or fall by that word and in very deed have so much to say for themselves when they are pressed unnecessarily with it Since likewise it is a word capable of so high a sense that we cannot devise one more full and proper to attribute to God himself c. Since all this is so he thinks he cannot be blamed if such Reasons move him to wish that the Protestants may never be invited to combat the Authority of the Church under that Notion A very ingenuous acknowledgment and as cross to Mr. S's Principle as any thing can be But the word Infallibility was not so unfortunate to Mr. Cressy as is his untoward Explication of the fore-cited passage in his Appendix which he afterwards published chiefly by way of Vindication of himself against the Learned Author of the Preface to my Lord Falkland's Discourse of Infallibility There he tells us That there are several degrees of Infallibility And that we may know what degree of Infallibility he thinks necessary to be attributed to the Church this following passage will inform us Methinks says he if God have furnished his divine and supernatural Truth with evidence equal to this that the Sun will shine to morrow or that there will be a Spring and Harvest next year we are infinitely obliged to bless his Providence and justly condemned if we refuse to believe the least of such Truths as shewing less affection to save our souls than the dull Plow-men to sow their Corn who certainly have far less evidence for their Harvest than Catholiques for their Faith and yet they insist not peevishly upon every capricious Objection nor exact an infallible security of a plentiful reaping next Summer but notwithstanding all difficulties and contingencies proceed chearfully in their painful Husbandry So that according to this Discourse whatever degree of assurance the Church hath or can give to those who rely upon her it is plain that no further degree is necessary than what the Husbandman when he sows hath of a plentiful Harvest and that men are justly condemned if they refuse to believe the least truth upon such security which yet by his own acknowledgment is liable to Contingencies Nay further that men are
a guide appointed for any Christian which neither Christ nor his Apostles nor any of their Followers ever mentioned yea which formally destroys one of our twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed viz. I believe the Holy Catholick Church Thus he does by Reason clearly and infallibly evince that Reason cannot be otherwise than a most blind and fallible guide This it is to talk of things when a man looks only upon one side of them as if because Reason has a blind side and is uncertain in some things therefore we ought to conclude her universally blind and uncertain in every thing and as if because all men cannot think all things reasonable which any one man thinks to be so therefore it is to be doubted whether those common Principles of Reason be true which Mankind are generally agreed in And that Mr. Cressy speaks here of the use of our private Reason in the finding out of our Rule is clear from what he says in the next Section viz. That this hood-wink't guide enquiring into Scripture and searching after Tradition may possibly stumble upon the way to Vnity and Truth that is the true Catholick Church If this be true why does Mr. S. pretend that he can by Reason demonstrate the Infallibility of Tradition and by this hood-wink't guide lead men to the true Rule of Faith And what a pitiful encouragement would this be to an inquisitive Philosopher who knowing no other guide but his Reason whereby to find out whether Scripture or Tradition be the true Rule to tell him that by the help of this hood-wink't guide he might possibly stumble upon the right A man may justly stand amazed at the inconsistency of these mens Discourses and Principles In one mood they are all for Demonstration and for convincing men in the way of perfect Science which is the true Rule of Faith But then again when another fit takes them there 's no such thing as Science humane Reason grows all on the sudden dim-sighted and at the next word is struck stark blind and then the very utmost that it can do towards the bringing of an unprejudiced and inquisitive person to the true Rule of Faith is to leave him in a possibility of stumbling upon it but if he be a Heretick that makes use of private Reason for his guide then it is impossible but that he with his blind guide should fall into the Pit I cannot for my part imagine how they can reconcile the blindness of humane Reason with all that noise which they make about Science and Demonstration but this I must confess that these kind of Discourses which I meet with in Mr. S. and Mr. Cressy are very proper Arguments to perswade a man of the blindness of humane Reason And indeed there is one passage in Mr. Cressy which gives me very great satisfaction concerning these matters where he tells us That the Wit and Judgment of Catholicks is to renounce their own Judgment and depose their own Wit Now he that professes to have done this may write Contradictions and no body ought to challenge him for it However it is a very ingenuous acknowledgment that when he forsook our Church and turned Papist he laid aside his Judgment and Wit which is just such an heroick act of Judgment as if a man in a bravery to shew his liberty should sell himself for a slave I am glad to understand from an experienced Person what charges a man must be at when he turns Roman-Catholique namely that whoever will embrace that Religion must forfeit his Reason § 3. Secondly The way of Demonstration is according to Mr. S. no certain way to find out the Rule of Faith In his 4th Appendix against my Lord of Down one of the Eight Mines as he calls them which he lays to blow up my Lords Dissuasive against Popery is this That the method he takes in dissuading cannot be held in reason to have power to dissuade unless it be proper to that effect that is not common to that effect and a contrary one Now that being most evidently no method or way to such an effect which many follow and take yet arrive not at that effect 't is plain to common sense that my Lord of Down miscalls his Book A Dissuasive and that it can have in it no power of moving the understanding one way or other unless he can first vouch some particularity in the method he takes above what 's in others in which we experience miscarriage c. If this be true then his method of Demonstration is no way to make men certain of what he pretends to demonstrate because that is most evidently no way to an effect which many follow and take yet arrive not at that effect so that 't is plain to common sense that Mr. S's Demonstrations can have in them no power of moving the understanding one way or other unless he can vouch some particularity in the Demonstrations he pretends to bring above what is in other pretended Demonstrations in which we experience miscarriage Do not Thomas and Scotus as Mr. White tells us all along pretend to demonstrate and yet it is generally believed that at least where they contradict one another one of them failed in his Demonstrations Did not Mr. Charles Thynne pretend to have demonstrated that a man at one jump might leap from London to Rome and yet I do not think any one was ever satisfy'd with his Demonstration And Mr. S. knows one in the World whom I will not name because he hath since ingenuously acknowledged his Errour who thought he had demonstrated the Quadrature of the Circle and was so confident of it as to venture the reputation of his Demonstrations in Divinity upon it and some of those Divinity Demonstrations were the very same with Mr. S's Since therefore the World hath experienced so much miscarriage in the way of Demonstration before Mr. S's Demonstrations can be allowed to signifie any thing he must according to his own Law vouch some particularity in his way and method of Demonstration above what is in other mens He hath not any where that I remember told us what that particularity is wherein his way of Demonstration is above other mens Nor can I upon the most diligent search find any peculiar advantage that his Way has more than theirs above mentioned unless this be one that he pretends to demonstrate a self-evident Principle and herein I think he hath plainly the advantage of Mr. Charles Thynne and unless this may be counted another advantage that he has so extraordinary a confidence and conceit of his own Demonstrations and in this particular I must acknowledge that he clearly excels all that have gone before him In all other things his way of Demonstration is but like his neighbours SECT II. § 1. I Come now to examine his Demonstrations of this Self-evident Principle as he often calls it that Oral Tradition is a certain and infallible way of
Discourse in which he pretends to open the incomparable strength of the Churches humane Authority and the Advantages which accrue to it by the supernatural assistances of the Holy Ghost But that there is nothing material in it which hath not been answered already Only I desire him to explain how the supernatural Assistances of the Holy Ghost can according to his Principles add to our assurance of the certainty of Tradition Because we can have no greater certainty of the supernatural Assistance of the Holy Ghost than we have that there is an Holy Ghost and of this we can have no certainty according to Mr. S. but by Tradition which conveys this Doctrine to us And if Tradition of it self can infallibly assure us that there are supernatural Assistances of the Holy Ghost then a man must know that Tradition is infallible antecedently to his knowledg of any supernatural Assistance And if so what can any supernatural Assistance add to my assurance of the certainty of Tradition which I do suppose to be infallible before I can know of any supernatural Assistance Can any thing be more ludicrous than to build first all our certainty of the Assistance of the Holy Ghost upon the certainty of Tradition and then afterwards to make the certainty of Tradition to rely upon the Assistance of the Holy Ghost As if that could contribute to our assurance of the certainty of Tradition which unless Tradition be first supposed certain is it self wholly uncertain § 2. The Conclusion of this Ninth Discourse is somewhat Extatical possibly from a sudden disorder of his fancy upon the contemplation of his own performances to see what a Man he has made himself with the help of Rushworth's Dialogues or rather what his Party has made him by the Office they put upon him For it seems by his telling Mr. Cressy and the rest are ordained to cajoll the Fools leaving him the way of Reason and Principles and that himself is chosen out to Demonstrate to the Wise or those who judg of things per altissimas causas In the discharge of which glorious Office he declares that he intends no Confutation of those Authors which Mr. Cressy and others have medled with Yet if any will be so charitable as to judg he hath solidly confuted them because he hath radically and fundamentally overthrown all their Arguments c. he shall rejoyce and be thankful That the intelligent Reader for he writes to none but such may also rejoyce with him I shall recite the whole passage for it is thick of Demostration and as likely as any in his Book to have the altissimas causas contained in it § 3. It would require a large Volume to unfold particularly how each virtue contributes to shew the inerrable indeficiency of Tradition and how the Principles of almost each Science are concerned in demonstrating its Certainty Arithmetick lends her Numbring and Multiplying Faculty to scan the vast Number of Testifiers Geometry her Proportions to shew a kind of infinite strength of Certitude in Christian Tradition above those Atté stations which breed Certainty in humane Affairs Logick her skill to frame and make us see the connexions it has with the Principles of our Vnderstanding Nature her Laws of Motion and Action Morality her first Principle that nothing is done gratis by a cognoscitive Nature and that the Body of Traditionary Doctrine is most conformable to Practical Reason Historical Prudence clears the Impossibility of an undiscernable revolt from Points so descended and held so Sacred Politicks shew this to be the best way imaginable to convey down such a Law as it concerns every man to be skilful in Metaphysicks engages the Essences of Things and the very notion of Being which fixes every Truth so establishing the scientifical Knowledges which spring from each particular Nature by their first Causes or Reasons exempt from change or motion Divinity demonstrates it most worthy God and most conducive to bring Mankind to Bliss Lastly Controversie evidences the total uncertainty of any thing concerning Faith if this can be uncertain and makes use of all the rest to establish the Certainty of this First Principle A very fit conclusion for such Demonstrations as went before It is well Mr. S. writes to none but intelligent Readers for were it not a thousand pities that so manly and solid and convincing a discourse as this should be cast away upon fools SECT XII § 1. AS for his Corollaries supposing them to be rightly deduced from his former Discourses they must of necessity fall with them For they signifie nothing but upon this supposition that his fore-going Discourses are true And yet this being granted it were easie to shew that most of them are grosly faulty For First Several of them are plainly coincident The second viz. None can with right pretend to be a Church but the followers of Tradition is the very same in sense with the 11 th viz No company of men hang together like a Body of a Christian Commonwealth or Church but that which adheres to Tradition So likewise the 12 th and 14 th are contained in the 15 th The 16 th and 17 th in the 19 th The 16 th 17 18 th and 19 th in the 21 st And the 32 d and 34 th in the 31 st Secondly Divers of them are manifestly absurd as the 12 th 13 th 14 th 16 th 17 th 18 th 19 th the sum of which is That there is no arguing against Tradition from Scripture or the Authority of the Church or Fathers and Councils or from History and Testimonial Writings or from contrary Tradition or Reason or any Instances whatsoever which is as much as to say If this Proposition be true That Tradition is certain then it cannot by any kind of Argument be proved to be false But is this any peculiar Consectary from the truth of this Proposition Doth not the same follow from every Proposition That if it be true it cannot be proved to be false yet no man was ever yet so frivolous as to draw such a consequence from the supposed truth of any Proposition His 23 d also is singularly absurd That there is no possibility of arguing at all against Tradition rightly understood or the living voyce of the Catholick Church with any shew of Reason These are large words It might have contented a reasonable man to have said that no good Argument could be brought against it But he is jealous of his Hypothesis and can never think it safe till it be shot-free nor will that content him but it must be also impossible for any one to make a shew of shooting at it This were I confess a peculiar priviledg of Mr. S's Discourses above other mens if they were as he says by evidence of Demonstration so secured that not only no substantial Argument could be brought against them but that even the most subtile Schoolman of them all should not be able to come near
principle And he that can believe that I wonder he should scruple believing the Popes infallibility for certainly no principle of the Jesuits is more wild and absurd than this is Besides I admire how it came into Mr. S's head to think no error could come into history unless one age conspired to deceive another when we find no age agreed in the present matters of fact which are done in it as to the grounds and particulars of them to give Mr. S. an instance home to his purpose in the late Council of Trent we see already what different representations there are made of it in so little a time as hath already passed since the sitting of it One though he had all the advantages imaginable of knowing all proceedings in it living at the same time conversing with the persons present at it having the memoires and records of the Secretaries themselves yet his story is since endeavoured to be blasted by a great person of the Roman Church as fictitious and partial We see then it is at least supposed that interest and prejudice may have a great hand in abusing the world in matter of story though one age never agree to deceive another And instead of being perswaded by Mr. S's demonstrations I am still of the mind that we have no sufficient security of the truth of any story which was not written while those persons were in being who were able to contradict the errors of it However I deny not but some notorious matters of fact such as Alexanders bare conquests of Asia might by the visible effects of it be preserved both in Asia and Greece for a long time But if we come to enquire particularly whether this or that was done by him in his conquest which is alone pertinent to our purpose we have no security at all from tradition but only from the most authentick records of that story And by this I hope Mr. S. will have cause to thank me for unblundring his thoughts his own civil expressions and shewing him how errors may come into a story without one age conspiring to deceive the next and what a vast difference there is between preserving a bare matter af fact and all the particulars relating to it And hereby he may easily see how far the obligation extends in believing the report of former ages For there can be no obligation to believe any further than there is evidence of truth in the matter we are obliged to If then there be not only a possibility but a very great probability of mistakes and errors in matters of fact I pray what obligation doth there ly upon men absolutely to believe what is delivered by the preceding age But to put an issue to this controversie let Mr. S. examine himself and try if he can name one story that was never written which was ever certainly propagated from one age to another by meer oral tradition and if he cannot he may thereby see how little real force his argument hath in the world For all the force of tradition lies in an unquestionable conveyance of those Books which contain in them the true reports of the actions of the times they were written in But can Mr. S. think that if the Roman history had never been written it had been possible for us to have known what was done under the Kings and Consuls as now we do Yet if his principle holds this necessarily follows for those of that age could not but know them and no age since could conspire to deceive the next And from hence the most useful consequence of all is that Mr. S. might have writ a history from the beginning of the world to this day with a full relation of all particulars if there had never been any Book written in the world before And doth not Mr. S. deserve immortal credit for so rare an invention as this is and all built on nothing short of demonstrations But Mr. S. very prudently foresees what it is I must be forced to recur to viz. that being baffled with his former demonstration I have no other shift to betake my self to but to say the case is different between histories and points of faith And therefore to bring his business home he applies it at large to the delivery of the Christian faith which that he might do in more ample sort he very finely descants on the old Verse Quis quid ubi c. containing the circumstances of human actions and from every one of them derives arguments for the infallibility of oral tradition which briefly and in plain English may be summed up thus Since the author of this doctrine was the Son of God the doctrine it self so excellent and delivered in so publick a manner in the most convincing way by miracle and good living and for so good an end as to save mens souls and that by writing it in mens hearts and testified to others and all this at a time when men might judg of the miracles and motives for believing it therefore since in all these respects it was incomparably beyond the story of Alexanders conquests it follows that in a manner infinitely greater must the obligation be to believe Christs doctrine than Alexanders or William the Conqerours victories or any history of the like nature whatsoever All which I freely grant but cannot yet see how from thence it follows that oral tradition is the only rule of faith or the means whereby we are to judg what is the doctrine of Christ and what not Those arguments I confess prove that the Christians of the first age were highly concerned to enquire into the truth of these things and that they had the greatest reason imaginable to believe them and that it is not possible to conceive that they should not endeavour to propagate so excellent a doctrine and of so high concernment to the world But the question is whether abstractly from the Books written in the first age of the Christian Church there is so much infallibility in the oral tradition of every age that nothing could be embraced for Christs doctrine which was not and consequently whether every age were bound to believe absolutely what was delivered it by the precedent for the doctrine of Christ Mr. S. therefore puts himself to a needless task of proving that every age was bound to believe the doctrine of Christ which I never questioned but the dispute is whether every age be bound on the account of oral tradition to believe what is delivered by the precedent for Christs doctrine But it is to be observed all along how carefully Mr. S. avoids mentioning the written Books of the New Testament because he knew all his game about oral tradition would be quite spoiled by a true stating the matter of fact in the first ages of the Christian Church I hope he will not be angry with me for asking him that question about the Scripture which he asks me about the Council of Trent did
he never hear of such a thing as the Scripture or is it so hard to find it But if he hath heard of it I intreat him to resolve me these Questions 1. Whether he doth not believe that the Books of the New Testament were written at such a time when the matters of fact therein recorded were capable of being throughly examined which he cannot deny upon his own principle for tradition being then infallible as to the doctrine of Christ the writers of these Books cannot be conceived to deliver it amiss unless they resolved to contradict the present tradition of the Church which if they had done those Books could never have found any reception among Christians If tradition then convey the doctrine of Christ infalilbly these Books must convey it infallibly because they contain in them the infallible tradition of the first age of the Christian Church and were written at the time when many persons living had been able to disprove any thing contained therein repugnant to truth And that these Books were written by those persons whose names they bear I appeal to Mr S's own rule Tradition for if that be infallible in any thing it must be in this and if one age could conspire to deceive another in a matter of such concernment what security can be had that it may not do so in all other things 2. Whether he believes that those whose intention was to write an account of the life actions and doctrine of Christ did leave any thing out of their Books which did relate to them as of concernment for us to believe For upon Mr. S's principles any one may easily know what the tradition of the Church is and especially such certainly who were either present themselves at the matters of fact or heard them from those who were and what satisfaction can any one desire greater than this But the question is whether this testimony were not more safely deposited in the Church to be conveyed by word of mouth than it could be by being committed to writing by such who were eye and ear witnesses of the actions and doctrine of Christ Upon which I advance some further Queries 3. If oral Tradition were the more certain way why was any thing written at all It may be Mr. S. will tell us for moral instructions and to give precepts of good life but then why may not these be as infallibly conveyed by tradition as doctrines of faith And why then were any matters of fact and points of faith inserted in the Books of the New Testament By which it certainly appears that the intention of writing them was to preserve them to posterity Let Mr. S. tell me whether it was consistent with the wisdom of men much less with the wisdom of an infinite Being to imploy men to do that which might be far better done another way and when it is done can give no satisfaction to the minds of men 4. Whether those things which are capable of being understood when they are spoken cease to be so when they are written For Mr. S. seems to understand those terms of a living voice and dead letters in a very strict and rigorous manner as though the sense were only quick when spoken and became buried in dead letters But Mr. S. seems with the sagacious Indian to admire how it is possible for dead letters and unsenc'd characters to express mens meanings as well as words I cannot enter into Mr. S's apprehension how 24 letters by their various disposition can express matters of faith And yet to increase the wonder he writes about matters of faith while he is proving that matters of faith cannot be conveyed by writing So that Mr. S's own writing is the best demonstration against himself and he confutes his own Sophistry with his fingers as Diogenes did Zeno's by his motion For doth Mr. S. hope to perswade men that tradition is a rule of faith by his Book or not if not to what purpose doth he write if he doth then it is to be hoped some matters of faith may be intelligibly conveyed by writing especially if Mr. S. doth it But by no means we are to believe that ever the Spirit of God can do it For whatever is written by men assisted by that is according to him but a heap of dead letters and insignificant characters when Mr. S. the mean while is full of sense and demonstration Happy man that can thus out-do infinite wisdom and write far beyond either Prophets or Apostles But if he will condescend so far as to allow that to inspired persons which he confidently believes of himself viz. that he can write a Book full of sense and that any ordinary capacity may apprehend the design of it our controversie is at an end for then matters of faith may be intelligibly and certainly conveyed to posterity by the Books of Scripture and if so there will be no need of any recourse to oral tradition 5. If the Books of Scripture did not certainly intelligibly convey all matters of faith what made them be received with so much veneration in the first ages of the Christian Church which were best able to judg of the truth of the matters contained in them and the usefulness of the Books themselves And therein we still find that appeals were made to them that they thought themselves concerned to vindicate them against all objections of Heathens and others and the resolution of faith was made into them and not tradition as I have already manifested and must not repeat 6. Whether it be in the least credible since the Books of Scripture were supposed to contain the doctrines of faith that every age of the Church should look on it self as obliged absolutely to believe the doctrine of the precedent by virtue of an oral-tradition For since they resolved their faith into the written Books how is it possible they should believe on the account of an oral tradition Although then the Apostles did deliver the doctrine of Christ to all their Disciples yet since the records of it were embraced in the Church men judged of the truth or falsehood of doctrines by the conveniency or repugnancy of them to what was contained in those Books By which we understand that the obligation to believe what was taught by the precedent age did not arise from the oral tradition of it but by the satisfaction of the present age that the doctrine delivered by it was the same with that contained in Scripture It is time now to return to Mr. S. who proceeds still to manifest this obligation in posterity to believe what was delivered as matter of faith by the precedent age of the Church but the force of all is the same still viz. that otherwise one age must conspire to deceive the next But the inconsequence of that I have fully shewed already unless he demonstrates it impossible for errors to come in any other way For if we reduce the substance of
syllable the sense of Tradition will be in the very same danger of uncertainty and be liable to vanish we know not how Dr. Holden lays down these two Principles First That no truth can be conveyed down from man to man but by speech and speech cannot be but by words and all words are either equivocal in themselves or liable to be differently understood by several persons Secondly That such is the frame of mans mind that the same truths may be differently apprehended and understood by different persons And if this be true then Traditional Doctrines if they be deliverd by speech and words will be liable to uncertainties and ambiguities as to their sense as well as Scripture Mr. Cressy tells us That Reason and Experience shews that differences will arise even about the Writings of the Fathers and any thing but the Testimony of the present Church If this be true Tradition wholly falls into uncertainty For if difference will arise about the Writings of the Fathers how they are to be interpreted I suppose the Writings of Councils will be liable to the same inconvenience And if the whole present Church cannot declare her sense of any Traditional Doctrine otherwise than by a Council unless with the Jesuites they will epitomize the Church into the Pope and the Decrees of a Council cannot be universally dispers'd or at least never use to be but by Writing And if Differences will arise about the interpretation of that Writing as well as any other then this present infallible Authority which Mr. Cressy magnifies so much for ending Differences leaves all Controversies arising about the sense of Tradition as indeterminable as ever and they must for ever remain so till general Councils have got the knack of penning their Decrees in words which will so infallibly express their meaning to the most captious Caviller that no difference can possibly arise about the interpretation of them or else which will be more suitable to this wise Hypothesis till general Councils being convinc'd by Mr. S's Demonstrations shall come to understand themselves so well as not to entrust their Decrees any more to the uncertain way of Writing but for the future to communicate them to the World by the infallible way of oral Tradition And to mention no more Mr Knott who agrees with the other thus far that the certain sense of Scripture is only to be had from the Church speaks to this purpose That before we can be certain that this is the sense of such a Text we must either be certain that this Text is capable of no other sense as Figurative Mystical or Moral or if it be we must have some certain and infallible means to know in which of them it is taken which can be known only by revelation If this be true then by a fair parity of reason before I can be certain that this is the sense of a Doctrinal Tradition delivered down to me I must either be certain that the words in which this Tradition was expressed when it was delivered to me are capable of no other sense as Figurative Mystical or Moral besides that in which I understood them or if they be as certainly they will be capable of any of these other senses then must I have some certain and infallible means whereby to know in which of these they are taken And this can no more be known without a revelation than which is the true sense of such a Text of Scripture If it be said that the sense of a Traditional Doctrine may by different expressions be still further and further explained to me till I come certainly to understand the sense of it this will not help the matter For if these kind of cavils be good that a man cannot be certain of the meaning of any words till he can by an infallible argument demonstrate either that they cannot be taken or that they are not taken in any other sense I say if this cavil will hold then every new expression whereby any one shall endeavor to explain any Traditional Doctrine is liable to the same inconvenience which those words in which it was first delivered to me were liable to From all which it is evident that the Traditionary Church can be no more certain of the sense of their Traditional Doctrines than Protestants may be of the sense of Scripture § 12. These are his Exceptions contained in his second Discourse and of what force they are hath been examined But because he foresaw that it might be replied that these defects might in part be provided against by History by the Providence of God by Testimonies of Councils and Fathers and by the sufficient clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals He endeavors to shew that these signifie little to this purpose First Not History because few are skilled in History and they that are not cannot safely rely upon those that are skill'd unless they knew certainly that the Historians whom they rely on had secure grounds and not bare hear-say for what they writ and that they were not contradicted by others either extant or perished How much credit is to be given to uncontrolled History by the learned and how much by the vulgar to men of skill I have already shewn I shall only add now that if this reasoning be true it is impossible for any man to be certain by History of any ancient matter of Fact as namely that there were such persons as Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror and that they invaded and conquered England because according to him we cannot know certainly that the Historians who relate these things and upon whose authority we rely had secure grounds and not bare hear-say for what they writ And that they were not contradicted by others either extant or perished is I am sure impossible for any man to know For who can tell now what was contained in those Books which are perished So that if this be requisite to make every Historical Relation credible to know certainly that it was not contradicted by any of those Books which we do not know what they were nor what was in them we can have no certainty of any ancient Fact or History for who knows certainly that some Books that are perished did not contradict whatever is written in Books that are extant Nay if this reasoning hold we can have no certainty of any thing conveyed by oral Tradition For what though the Priest tell me this was the Doctrine of Christ delivered to him unless I know that all others agree with him in this Tradition I cannot rely upon his testimony Nor then neither in Mr. Knott's opinion because the testimony of Preachers or Pastors is human and fallible unless according to his Jargon a conclusion deduced from Premises one of which is only probable may be sufficient to bring our understanding to an infallible act of Faith viz. if such a conclusion be taken Specificative whereas if it be taken Reduplicative
the nature of the subject can yield and not as those Physitians who when they have promised no less than Immortality can at last only reach to some conservation of health or youth in some small degree So I could wish the Author to well assure himself first that there is possible an Infallibility before he be too earnest to be contented with nothing less for what if humane nature should not be capable of so great a good Would he therefore think it fitting to live without any Religion because he could not get such a one as himself desired though with more than a mans wish Were it not rational to see whether among Religions some one have not such notable advantages over the rest as in reason it might seem humane nature might be contented withall Let him cast his account with the dearest things he hath his own or friends lives his estate his hope of posterity and see upon what terms of advantage he is ready to venture all these and then return to Religion and see whether if he do not venture his soul upon the like it be truly reason or some other not confessed motive which withdraws him For my own part as I doubt not of an Infallibility so I doubt not but setting that aside there be those Excellencies found on the Catholick party which may force a man to prefer it and to venture all he hath upon it before all other Religions and Sects in the World Why then may not one who after long searching findeth no Infallibility rest himself on the like supposing mans nature affords no better Are not these fair Concessions which the evidence and force of Truth have extorted from these Authors So that it seems that that which Mr. S. calls a civil piece of Atheistry is advanced in most express words by his best Friends and therefore I hope he will as he threatens me be smart with them in opposition to so damnable and fundamental an Error And whenever he attempts this I would entreat him to remember that he hath these two things to prove First That no evidence but demonstration can give a man sufficient assurance of any thing Secondly That a bare possibility that a thing may be otherwise is a rational cause of doubting and a wise ground of suspense which when he hath proved I shall not grudge him his Infallibility SECT V. § 1. THE last part of this Third Discourse endeavours to shew that the Scripture is not convictive of the most obstinate and acute Adversaries As for the obstinate he knows my mind already Let us see why the most acute Adversary may not be convinced by Scripture Because as he objects First We cannot be certain that this Book is Gods Word because of the many strange Absurdities and Heresies in the open letter as it lies as that God hath hands and feet c. and because of the contradictions in it To which I have already returned an answer Secondly Because as he saith we cannot be certain of the Truth of the letter in any particular Text that it was not foisted in or some way altered in its significativeness and if it be a negative proposition that the particle not was not inserted if affirmative not left out And if we pretend to be certain of this he demands our demonstration for it But how unreasonable this demand is I hope I have sufficiently shewn And to shew it yet further I ask him How their Church knows that the particle not was not left out of any Text in which it is now found in their Copies I know he hath a ready answer viz. by Oral Tradition But this according to him only reaches to Scriptures letter so far as it is coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine concerning the rest of Scripture it is impossible according to his own principles that they should have any security that the particle not was not unduly inserted or left out by the Transcribers Nay as to those Texts of Scripture which fall in with the main body of Christian Doctrine I demand his demonstration that the particle not was not unduly inserted or left out not only in those Texts but also in the Oral Tradition of the Doctrines coincident with the sense of those Texts If he say It was impossible any Age should conspire to leave out or insert the particle not in the Oral Tradition so say I it was that they should conspire to leave it out of the written Text But then I differ from him thus far That I do not think this naturally impossible so as that it can rigorously be demonstrated but only morally impossible so that no body hath any reason to doubt of it which to a prudent man is as good as a demonstration Pyrrho himself never advanced any Principle of Scepticism beyond this viz. That men ought to question the credit of all Books concerning which they cannot demonstrate as to every sentence in them that the particle not was not inserted if it be affirmative or left out if it be negative If so much be required to free a man from reasonable doubting concerning a Book how happy are they that have attained to Infallibility What he saith concerning the Variae Lectiones of Scripture hath already had a sufficient answer § 2. In his Fourth Discourse he endeavours to shew That the Scripture is not certain in it self and consequently not ascertained to us First Not certain materially considered as consisting of such and such Characters because Books are liable to be burnt torn blotted worn out We grant it is not impossible but that any or all the Books in the World may be burnt But then we say likewise That a Book so universally dispersed may easily be preserved though we have no assurance that God will preserve it in case all men should be so foolish or so careless as to endeavour or suffer the abolition of it But it seems the Scriptures cannot be a Rule of Faith if they be liable to any external accidents And this he tells us Though it may seem a remote and impertinent Exception yet to one who considers the wise dispositions of Divine Providence it will deserve a deep consideration because the salvation of Mankind being the end of Gods making nature the means to it should be more setled strong and unalterable than any other piece of nature whatever But notwithstanding this wise reason this Exception still seems to me both remote and impertinent For if this which he calls a Reason be a Truth it will from thence necessarily follow not only that the Doctrine of Christ must be conveyed by such a means as is more unalterable than the course of nature but also by a clear parity of Reason that all the means of our salvation do operate towards the accomplishing of their end with greater certainty than the fire burns or the Sun shines which they can never do unless they operate
sayes Neither ought I now to alledg the Nicene Council nor thou that of Arminium for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor thou of the other Let us both contest with the Authorities of Scripture which are Wtinesses common to us both And also against the Donatists in these words Let them if they can demonstrate their Church not by the Talk and Rumors or oral Tradition of the Africans not by the Councils of their own Bishops not by the Books of their Disputers not by deceitful Miracles c but by the prescript of the Law Prophets c. i. e. by all the Canonical Authorities of the Holy Books Hierom saith Of those things which without the Authorities and Testimonies of the Scripture men invent of their own heads as from Apostolical Tradition they are smitten with the Sword of God Theophilus Alexandr whom Hierom hath Translated calls Scripture more than once the Rule and the Testimonies of it the firm foundations of Doctrine And again saith It comes from a Demonical spirit that men follow the Sophisms of humane minds and think any thing Divine that wants the Authority of Scripture Theodoret charges all Heresies upon the not following of Scripture which he calls the inflexible Rule of Truth Again We have have learned the Rule of Opinions from the Divine Scripture After the Fathers I shall produce the Testimonies of two Eminent Persons of latter Times Gerson and Lyra. Gerson in his Book of the Tryal of Doctrines hath this remarkable passage In the Tryal of Doctrines that which is first and principally to be considered is Whether a Doctrine be conformable to the H. Scripture c. The reason of this is because the Scripture is deliver'd to us as a SVFFICIENT and INFALLIBLE RVLE for the Goverment of the whole Ecclesiastical Body and its Members to the end of the world So that it is such an Art such a Rule or Exemplar that any other Doctrine which is not conformable to it is to be renounc'd as Heretical or to be accounted suspicious or not at all appertaining to Religion Again It is evident how pernicious the rejection of the H. Scripture is and how certain a preparatory for the reception of Antichrist Once more What mischief what danger what confusion hath happen'd thorough contempt of the H. Scripture which sure is sufficient for the Government of the Church else Christ must have been an imperfect Law-giver let us ask Experience c. Lyra also writes thus As in Philosophy truth is discovered by reducing things to their first and self-evident Principles so in the Writings deliver'd by the H. Doctors Truth is discover'd as to matters of Faith by reducing them to the Canonical Scriptures Sir You know how easy it were to swell up a large Volume with Testimonies to this purpose especially if I should take the course that Mr. Wh. does to hale in quotations though never so impertinent or use the wretched importunity which Mr. S. does to perswade them to be pertinent But these Testimonies which I have nakedly set down leaving them to speak for themselves are enough to satisfie an unpassionate Reader such an one as dares trust himself with the use of his own eyes and reason As for that sort of men which chuses to follow noise rather than light we must be content to leave them to the blind conduct of those Guides who having no better means to keep their Followers to them go halloing in the dark and fill their ears with the insignificant sounds of Infallibility Indefectibility Self-evidence and Demonstration Concerning the Appendix wherein you are particularly challeng'd I hope for an Account very shortly and so take leave SIR Your Affectionate Friend JOHN TILLOTSON Lincolns-Inn Febr. 20. 1665. FINIS A REPLY TO M r. J. S. his 3 d APPENDIX Containing some Animadversions ON THE BOOK ENTITULED A RATIONAL ACCOUNT of the Grounds of Protestant Religion By Ed. Stillingfleet B. D. London Printed by H.C. for Henry Mortlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard near the little North-door 1675. An Appendix to the Rule of Faith To his honoured Friend Mr. John Tillotson SIR AS soon as I understood your intentions to answer Mr. Serjeant I could not but rejoice on his behalf as well as on the truths and your own For I have that real kindness for him that I heartily wish him that reason and science he pretends to which I could not but despair of his attaining unless he were undeceived in that monstrous opinion he hath of himself and his undertakings And I knew no person more fit than you to let him understand the truth and himself together In which your performances have been so clear and satisfactory that I hope Mr. Sergeant in stead of another Letter of directions to his Answerer will write you one of thanks for the reason and kindness you have shewed him throughout your Book Unless it fares with you as it hath done with some other Adversaries of theirs that their civility hath been interpreted as an argument of their uncertainty and their own confidence cried up for a demonstration In which sense only I shall grant our Protestant Writers to build on uncertainties and Mr. White and Mr. Serjeant to be the great Demonstrators of this age If their own reason had been as severe as the censures at Rome against them they had saved us the labour of any answer and would have found out their own sophistry without a confutation But the least thing we can imagine by their excessive confidence is that they are deceived themselves and therefore it is a part of charity to them as well as justice to the truth to let the world see that big words are quite another thing from science and a strong presumption from a regular demonstration As to which no more need to have been said than what you have already done if Mr. Serjeant had not thought it an accession to the glory of his atchievements to lead two Pages of my Book in triumph after him I confess I was somewhat surprized to see a person who would be noted for his valour in assaulting Protestant Writers steal so behind the main bulk and design of my Book and when he had gotten two single Pages by themselves fall upon them with as much pomp and ostentation as if he had attack'd the whole And this must be noised abroad as an Answer to me by the same figure that his arguments are called demonstrations which is by an hyperbole unfit for any but such who never flag below the sphere of Science in their own judgments though they seem not to come near it in others Yet since Mr. Serjeant is not only pleased to concern himself so far as to answer that part of my Book relating to oral tradition but in most express terms to challenge me to reply to him he may now see assoon as I could get any
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 an 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 his court-like 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 hereby 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 than the precedent did And if this doctrine be held in the Church of Rome nothing can be more evident than that Mr. S's first principle of controversie is far from being the doctrin 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. rejoices 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 look'd 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 ways to prove it reason testimony or tradition he tells me he excepts the way of reason yet quarrels with me for pressing for a demonstrative medium to prove it when yet Mr. S. seldom speaks under the rate of demonstrations But he thereby notes the unconsonancy of my carriage Wherein I wonder That I should desire them to perform this promise viz. to give us demonstrations for the grounds of faith But saith withal he will yeild me the honour of professing I have no demonstration but probability for the ground of mine and he makes this serious protestation for himself that he should esteem himself very dishonest did he assert and press on others any 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 our faith meerly on probabilities Do they say that Religion is capable of strict and rigorous demonstration If so let them demonstrate the being of God and immortality of the soul with as much evidence as that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles And it is strange if they think particular problems in religion are more capable of demonstration than those Theorems on which they are built But by all the enquiry I can make all the difference between us is that Mr. S. will have that called a demonstration which is scarce a probability and we call that sufficient reason which any wise man may safely rely on in matters of Religion In the mean time how much do we suffer by our modesty that because we speak not as big as Mr. S. does we must be censured presently to have nothing but probabilities fot our faith Are those bare probabilities which leave no suspition of doubt behind them And such we freely assert the grounds of our Religion to do i. e. I assert that we have the highest actual certainty of the truth of our Religion which the mind of any reasonable man can desire and if Mr. S's demonstrations can do any more than this let him tell us what it is For my part I know nothing higher in the mind of man than a certain assent and if I did not think there was the greatest ground in Religion for that I abhor dissimulation so much that I should leave off perswading men to embrace it And if any men have made us shy of the word demonstration and infallibility they are such men as Mr. S. have done it who talk of these things when their arguments fall beneath some of the remotest probabilities we insist on Nay if there be any force in his demonstration as to matters of fact it hath been used by us long before his Book saw the light But we love to give the true names to things and not to lose our credit with all intelligent persons by playing Mountebanks in Religion crying up those things for infallible cures which an ordinary capacity may discern the insufficiency of But was it any thing but justice and reason in me to expect and call for a demonstration from them who talk of nothing under it And therefore I said that it was impossible to demonstrate this way of oral tradition unless it were proved impossible for men not to think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors did For where the contrary is not only possible but easily supposable as that men may believe those things as new articles of faith which are defined by Pope and Council I wonder how Mr. S. will demonstrate that men must look on themselves as obliged to believe just as their predecessors did For I had thought demonstrations had never place in contingent propositions but it seems Mr. S. who tells me Logick will unblunder my thoughts intends to make a new one for me And I assure you so he had need before I shall ever call his arguments demonstrations and although he thinks himself very honest in calling them so yet I should think him much wiser if he did not But before I come to the particular debate of these things I freely tell him that I grant all he requests I shall take along with me the nature of the matter in hand the doctrines and practices spoken of the manner of delivering them the necessary circumstances which give weight to both yet for all these I cannot look on his way as demonstrative And that both our meanings may be better understood it is very necessary the Reader should have a true account of the state of the Question between us And if he will believe me I never intended to dispute with him
been and I should be somewhat ashamed of my Religion if I had no better But what our rule of faith is hath been amply discoursed already by you and that in Mr. S's clearing method that nothing is left for me to do but to touch at what remains and concludes this answer I had the better to illustrate the weakness of that argument from oral tradition brought an instance in that case parallel viz. that if one ages delivering to another would prove that the faith of Christ was in every age unalterable because no age did testifie any such alteration to be in it by the same argument the world might be proved eternal because no age did ever testifie to another that the world was ever otherwise than it is So that if oral tradition were only to be relied on there could be no evidence given of the worlds being ever otherwise than it is and consequently the world must be believed to have been always what we see it is This as far as I can apprehend is a clear and distinct ratiocination and purposely designed to prove that we must admit of other rules to judg of alterations in the Church by besides oral tradition But Mr. S. in his own expression strangely roving from the mark I aimed at professes there is not a tittle in it parallel to his medium nay that he never saw in his life more absurdities couched in fewer words But I must take all patiently from a man who still perches on the specifical nature of things and never flags below the sphere of science Yet by his good leave he either apprehends not or wilfully mistakes my meaning for my argument doth not proceed upon the belief of the worlds eternity which in his answer he runs wholly upon as far as eighthly and lastly but upon the evidence of oral traditias to no discernable alteration in any age of it For the Question between us is whether in matters of alteration in the faith or practice of the Church we are bound to rely only on the testimony of oral tradition so that if no age can be instanced in wherein any alteration was made and this delivered by that age then we are bound to believe there hath been no alteration since Christ and the Apostles times now I say if this hold good I will prove the world eternal by the same argument taking this for our principle that we are bound to rely only on oral tradition in the case originally derived from the matter of fact seen by those of the first age for that which never was otherwise then it is is eternal but we cannot know by oral tradition that the world ever was otherwise then it is for no age of the world can be instanced in wherein we have any testimony of any alteration that was in it Either then we must believe that the world ever was what it is i. e. eternal or else we must say that we are not to rely barely on oral tradition in this case but we must judg whether the world were made or no by other mediums of Scripture and reason And this was all which I aimed at viz. to shew that where there is no evidence from oral tradition yet if there be Scripture and reason there is sufficient ground for our faith to stand upon And so I apply it to the present case though we could not prove barely from the tradition of any one age that there had been any alteration in the faith or practice of the Church yet if I can prove that there hath been such from Scripture and reason this is sufficient for me to believe it And now I dare appeal to the indifferent Reader whether this be so full of absurdities or it be such a rambling Chimerical argument as he calls it no two pieces of which hang together with themselves or any thing else Which being expressions of as great modesty as science I am content Mr S. should bear away the hoour of them and his demonstrations together The last thing he quarrels with me for is that I say if we can evidently prove that there have been alterations in the Church then it is to no purpose to prove that impossible which we see actually done And this appears not only because the Scripture supposes a degeneracy in the Christian Church which could never be if every age of the Church did infallibly believe and practise as the precedent up to Christs time did but because we can produce clear evidence that some things are delivered by the present Church which must be brought in by some age since the time of Christ for which I refer the Reader to what I had said about communion in one kind invocation of Saints and worship of Images In all which I say I had proved evidently that they were not in use in some ages of the Christian Church and it is as evident that these are delivered by the present Church and therefore this principle must needs be false In answer to this Mr. S. wishes I would tell him first what evidence means whether a strong fancy or a demonstration I mean that which is enough to perswade a wise man who judges according to the clearest reason which I am sure is more than ever his demonstrations will do But it is a pleasant spectacle to see how Mr. S layes about him at my saying that the Scripture supposes a degeneracy in the Christian Church Incomparably argued saith he why see we not the place does it evidently speak of faith or manners the Vniversal Church or particular persons but be it in faith be it universal does it suppose this degeneracy already past which is only proper to your purpose or yet to come That is does it say there must be a total Apostacy in faith before the year 1664 Alas he had forgot this Most incomparably answered For if the degeneracy be in 1665. or any years after what becomes of M. S's demonstration then that no errors could come into the Church but it seems his demonstration holds but till 1664. and I easily believe another year will never believe the truth of it But if such a thing as a degeneracy be possible how then stands the infallibility of tradition when there can be no degeneracy without falling from the doctrine and practices of Christ and his Apostles But that such a degeneracy hath already been in that which calls it self the Catholick Church and that both in faith and manners I shall refer Mr. S to the learned Author of the late Idea of Antichristianism and Synopsis Prophetica where he may find enough to perswade him that his demonstration was far from holding so long as 1664. And now I leave the Reader to judg whether the foregoing evidences against the infallibility of oral tradition or Mr. S's demonstrations have the greater force of reason in them And if he will not stoop so far from the height of his perch as to