A REPLY TO Mr. J. S. his 3ᵈ. APPENDIX Containing some Animadversions ON THE BOOK ENTITLED A RATIONAL ACCOUNT of the Grounds of PROTESTANT RELIGION By Ed. Stillingfleet B. D. London Printed by R. W. for Henry Mortlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Churchyard near the little North-door 1666. An Appendix to the RULE of FAITH To his honoured Friend Mr. John Tillotson SIR AS soon as I understood your intentions to answer §. 1. 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 undertake 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 showed 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. Sergeant 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 i● is a part of charity to them as well a● justice to the truth to let the world ●e that big words are quite another ●ing from science and a strong preemption from a regular demonstra●on As to which no more need to ●ve been said than what you have al●ady done if Mr. Serjeant had not ●ought it an accession to the glory of ●s achievements to lead two Pages ●f my book in triumph after him I ●nfess I was somewhat surprised to see person who would be noted for his ●lour in assaulting Protestant Writers ●eal so behind the main bulk and design ●f my Book and when he had gotten ●o single pages by themselves fall ●pon them with as much pomp and ●tentation as if he had attacked the ●hole And this must be noised abroad an Answer to me by the same figure ●at his arguments are called demon●rations which is by an Hyperbole un● for any but such who never flag beaw the sphere of Science in their own ●dgements though they seem not to ●ome near it in others Yet since ●r Sergeant is not only pleased to ●ncern himself so far as to answer that ●rt of my Book relating to oral tradition but in most express terms t● challenge me to reply to him he ma● p. 236. now see assoon as I could get any liberty from greater employments ho● ready I am to give him all reasonabl● satisfaction And in the first place return him thanks for the weapon h● hath made choice of viz. that of re●son there being no other I desire t● make use of in managing this deba● between us and I hope he will find much civility towards him througho● this discourse as he exptesses toward me in the entrance to his if that m● be accounted any real civility which intended merely out of design wi● the greater advantage to disparage t● cause I have undertaken and yet ● no reason to repent of If in his curs● view of two chapters of my Book he h● as he saith quite lost me he had no ca● to be troubled for it if he had fou● p. 202. far more excellent persons such Dr. Hammond and the Dissuader a● Dr. Pierce instead of me But to sure he intends not this in honour any of us but by way of a comm● reproach to us all as though we did talk out of nature or things but wo● and imagination I could heartily have wished Mr. S. would have cropped so much of the victory due to another's learning and industry as to have showed me one proposition in those discourses which a rational understanding that would be true to itself could not settle or rely on but if such insinuations as these must pass for answers I must needs say I judge Mr. S. equally happy in confuting our grounds and in demonstrating his own in both which his greatest strength lies in the self-evidence of his bare affirmations But it seems he is willing to resign the glory of this Victory to the judicious author of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis or to some others for him and when they have once obtained it I shall not envy them the honour of it And I suppose those persons whoever they are may be able by this time to tell Mr. S. it is an easier matter to talk of Victories than to get them But if they do no more in the whole than Mr. S. hath done for his share they will triumph nowhere but where they conquer viz. in their own fancies and imaginations Therefore leaving them to their silent conquests and as yet unheard of Victories we come to Mr. S. who so liberally proclaims his own in the point of oral Tradition Which in a phrase scarce heard of in our language before is the Post he tells us he hath taken upon him to explicate further and defend What the explicating a Post means I as little understand as I do the force of his demonstrations but this and many other such uncouth forms of speech up and down in his Book which make his style so smooth and easy are I suppose intended for embellishments of our tongue and as helps to sure-speaking as his whole Book is designed for sure-footing But letting him enjoy the pleasure §. 2. and felicity of his own expressions I come to consider the matter in debate between us And his first controversy with me is for opposing the infallibility of oral tradition to doctrinal infallibility p. 203. in Pope and Councils A controversy fitter to be debated among themselves than between him and me for is any thing more notorious than that Infallibility is by the far greatest part of Romanists attributed to the present Church in teaching and delivering matters of faith not by virtue of any oral tradition but the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and that this is made by them the only ground of divine faith For which Mr. S. may if he please consult his judicious author of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis or any other of their present Writers except Mr. White and himself He need not therefore have been to seek for the meaning of this doctrinal infallibility as opposed to traditionary if he had not either been ignorant of the opinion of their own Writers or notoriously dissembled it For this infallibility is not attributed to the Rulers of the Church merely as Doctors or Scholars but as the representative Church whose office it is to deliver all matters of faith by way of an infallible testimony to every age and thereby to afford a sufficient foundation for divine faith But Mr. S. attributes no such infallibility to the representative Church as teaching the rest but derives their infallibility from such grounds as are common to all parts of the essential Church Wherein he apparently opposes himself to the whole current of their own authors when resolve all faith into the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost without which they assert there could be no infallibility at all in tradition or any thing else and therefore these opinions are as opposite to each other as may be For such an infallibility is not attributed by them to the teachers of the Church merely on some signal occasions as Mr. S. seems to suppose when they are to explain new matters of faith but it is made by them to be as necessary as believing itself because thereby the only sure foundation of faith is laid and therefore it is very evident they make it proper to the Church in all ages Or else in some age of the Church men were destitute of sufficient grounds of faith For they by no means think it a sufficient foundation for faith that one age of the Church could not conspire to deceive another for this they will tell him at most is but a humane faith but that Christ by his promise hath assured the Church that there shall never be wanting in it the infallible assistance of his Holy Spirit whereby they shall infallibly teach & deliver all matters of faith And if this be not their opinion let them speak to the contrary which if they do I am sure they must retract their most elaborate discourses about the resolution of faith written by the greatest Artists among them Let Mr. S. then judge who it is that stumbles at the Threshold but of this difference among them more afterwards By this it appears it was not on any mistake that I remained unsatisfied in the Question I asked Whether am I bound to believe what the present Church delivers to be Infallible to which Mr. S. answers I understand him not My reply shall be only that of a great Lawyers in a like case I cannot help that I am sure my words are intelligible enough for I take infallible there as he takes it himself for infallibly true although I deny not the word to be improperly used in reference to things and that for the reason given by him because fallibility and infallibility belong to the knowing power or the persons that P. 204. have it and not to the object But we are often put to the use of that word in a sense we acknowledge improper merely in compliance with our Adversaries who otherwise are apt to charge us with having only uncertainties and probabilities for our faith if we do not use the term infallible as applied to the truth of the thing I am content therefore wherever in what I have writ he meets that term so applied that he take it only in his own sense for that which is certainly true for I mean no more by it And in this sense Mr. S. answers affirmatively and gives this account of it not only because the present Church cannot be deceived in what the Church of the former Age believed but because the Church in no age could conspire against her knowledge to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world The Question than is whether this be a sufficient account for me to believe that to be certainly true or to be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles which the present Church delivers and consequently whether the resolution of faith be barely into oral tradition Thus we see the clear state of the § 3. Question between us I come therefore to the vindication of those things which I had objected against this way of resolving faith into oral tradition Three things I especially insisted on 1. That it is inconsistent with the pretensions of the present Roman Church 2. That it hath not been the way owned in all ages of the Christian Church 3. That it is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages If these three be made good there will be no cause to glory in this last invention to support the sinking fabric of that Church These three than I undertake to defend against what Mr. Sergeant hath objected against them 1. That it is contrary to the pretensions of the present Roman Church And if it be so there can be no reason for those who are of it to rely upon it For if so be that Church pretends that the obligation to faith arises from a quite different ground from this how can they who believe that Church infallible venture their faith upon any other principle than what is publicly owned by her And whosoever thinks himself bound to believe by virtue of an infallible assistance of the present Church doth thereby show that his obligation doth not depend upon what was delivered by the former ages of the Church As those who believed the Apostles were infallible in their doctrine could not resolve their faith into the infallibility of oral tradition but into that immediate assistance by which the Apostles spoke and where there is a belief of a like assistance the foundation of faith cannot lie in the indefectibility of tradition but in that infallible Spirit which they suppose the Church to be assisted by For supposing this oral tradition should fail and that men might believe that it had actually failed yet if the former supposition were true there was sufficient ground for faith remaining still And what assurance can any one have that the present Church delivers nothing for matter of faith but what hath been derived in every age from Christ and his Apostles if such an infallible spirit be supposed in the present Church which was in the Apostles themselves For on the same reason that those who heard the Apostles were not bound to trouble themselves with the tradition of the former age no more ought they who believe the present Roman Church to have the same infallible assistance They need not then inquire whether this age knew the meaning of the former or whether one age could conspire to deceive another or whether notwithstanding both these errors might not come into the Church it is sufficient for them that the definitions of the present Church are infallible in all matters of faith Therefore my demand was built on very good reason How can you assure me the present Church obliges me to believe nothing but only what and so far as it received from the former Church And Mr. S' answer is far from being satisfactory That this appears by her manifect practice never refusing communion to any man that could approve himself to believe all the former Age did For this may be resolved into a principle far different from this which is the belief of the infallibility of the present Church For supposing that they are not bound to inquire themselves into the reasons why the tradition could not fail in any age it is sufficient for them to believe the Church infallible and if it be so in proposing matters of faith it must be so in declaring what the belief of the former age was But my demands go on What evidence can you bring to convince me both that the Church always observed this rule and could never be deceived in it Which question is built on these two Principles which the infallibility of oral tradition stands on 1. That the Church must always go upon this ground 2. That if it did so it is impossible she should be deceived Both which are so far from that self-evidence which Mr. Sergeant still pretends to in this way that the Jesuits principles seem much more rational and consistent than these do For granting them but that one Postulatum that there must be an inherent infallibility in the testimony of the present Church to afford sufficient foundation for divine faith all the rest of their doctrine follows naturally from it Whereas this new way of resolving faith is built on such suppositions which no man well in his wits will be ready to grant For unless it be self-evident that the Church did always proceed on this ground it cannot be self-evident that oral tradition is infallible because the self-evidence of this principle depends on this that in all ages of the Church the only rule and measure of faith was what was delivered by oral tradition from the age foregoing Now if it be possible that matters of faith might be conveyed in ways quite different from this what self-evidence can there be that the Church must always proceed upon this Mr. S. then must demonstrate it impossible for matters of faith to be conveyed to posterity in any other way than oral tradition and not only that the thing is impossible but that the Church in all ages judged it to be so or else he can never make it at all evident that the Church always made this her rule of faith But if either there may be a certain conveyance of the doctrine of faith another way viz. by writing or that the Church might judge that way more certain whether it were so or not either way it will appear far enough from self-evidence that she always judged of doctrines of faith merely by the tradition of the preceding age If another way be granted possible there must be clear demonstration that the Church notwithstanding this did never make use of it for if it did make use of another way of resolving faith in any age of the Church then in that age of the Church oral tradition was not looked on as the ground of faith and if so notwithstanding what ever Mr. S. can demonstrate to the contrary that age might have believed otherwise that the immediately preceding did For let us but suppose tha● all necessary doctrines of faith were betimes recorded in the Church in books universally received by the Christians of the first ages is it no● possible that age which first embrace● these books might deliver them to posterity as the rule of their faith and so down from one age to another and doth it not hence follow that the rule of saith is quite different from ● mere oral tradition Let Mr. S. the● either show it impossible that the doctrines of faith should be written or that being written they should be universally received or that being universally received in one age they ●hould not be delivered to the next ●r being delivered to the next those ●ooks should not be looked on as containing the rule of faith in them or ●hough they were so yet that still oral ●adition was wholly relied on as the ●ule of faith & then I shall freely grant ●●at Mr. S. hath attempted something ●●wards the proof of this new hypothe● But as things now stand it is so far ●om being self-evident that the Church ●ath always gone upon this princi●e that we find it looked on as a great novelty among them in their own church and it would be a rare thing ●r a new invention to have been the ●nse of the Church in all ages which it hath not been the strength of it is ●ereby taken away But let us suppose that the Church ●d proceed upon this principle that §. 4. othing was to be embraced but what derived by tradition from the A●tles how doth it thence follow that nothing could be admitted into th● Church but what was really so derive● from them Do we not see in th● world at this day that among tho● who own this principle contradictor propositions are believed and bo● sides tell us it is on this account b● cause their doctrine was delivered ● the Apostles doth not the Greek Chur● profess to believe on the account tradition from the Apostles as well the Latin If that tradition failed the Greek Church which was preserus in the Latin either Mr. S. must instance on his own principles in th● Age which conspired to deceive t● next or he must acknowledge t● while men own tradition they may deceived in what the foregoing ● taught them and consequently th● things may be admitted as doctri● coming from the Apostles which W● not so and some which did may lost and yet the pretence of tradit● remain still What self-evidence t● can there be in this principle w● two parts of the Church may b● own it and yet believe contradicti● on the account of it It is then wo● our enquiring what self-evidence this is which Mr. S. speaks so much of which is neither more nor less but that men in all ages had eyes ears and other P. 205. ●enses also common reason and as much memory as to remember their own names and frequently inculcated actions Which ●s so very reasonable a postulatum that suppose none who enjoy any of these will deny it Let us therefore see how ●he proceeds upon it If you disprove ●his I doubt we have lost mankind the ●bject we speak of and till you disprove ●t neither I nor any man in his wits can doubt that this rule depending on testifying that is sense on experience can possibly ●ermit men to be deceivable Big words indeed but such as evidence that all men who are in their wits do not constantly them For I pray Sir what doth Mr. S. think of the Greek Church ●ad not those in it eyes ears and other ●●ses as well as in the Latin Do not they pretond and appeal to what they ●eceived from their Forefathers as well ●s the Latins It seems then a decepti● is possible in the case of testifying therefore this doth more than per●●● men to be decievable for here hath been an actual deception on one side or other But we need not fear losing mankind in this for the possibility o● error supposeth mankind to continue still and if we take away that we m●● sooner lose it than by the contrary But what repugnancy can we imagine to humane nature that me● supposing doctrines of faith to come down from Christ or his Apostles should yet mistake in judging what those doctrines are Had not men eyes and ears and common sense in Christ and the Apostles times and yet we see eve● then the doctrine of Christ was mistaken and is it such a wonder it should be in succeeding ages Did not the Nazarenes mistake in point of circumcision the Corinthians as to the resurrection and yet the mean time agree i● this that Christ's doctrine was the rule of faith or that they ought to believe nothing but what came from him Di● not the disciples themselves err eve● while they were with Christ and certainly had eyes and ears an● sense as other men have concern●●●me great articles of Christian faith Christ's passion resurrection and the nat● of his Kingdom If then such who had the greatest opportunities imaginable and the highest apprehensions of Christ might so easily mistake in points of such moment what ground have we to believe that succeeding ages should not be liable to such misapprehensions And it was not merely the want of clear divine revelation which was the cause of their mistakes for these things were plain enough to persons not possessed with prejudices but those were so strong as to make them apprehend things quite another way than they ought to do So it was then and so it was in succeeding ages for ●et Parents teach what they pleased for matters of faith yet prejudice and ●yableness to mistake in Children might easily make them misapprehend either the nature or weight of the doctrines delivered to them So that setting aside a certain way of recording the matters of faith in the Books of Scripture and these preserved entire in every age it is an easy matter to conceive how in a short time Christian Religion would have been corrupted as much as ever any was in the world For when we consider how much notwithstanding Scripture the pride passion and interests of men have endeavoured to deface Christian Religion in the world what would not these have done if there had been no such certain rule to judge of it by Mr. S. imagin● himself in repub Platonis but it appear● he is still in faece Romuli he fancies there never were nor could be any differences among Christians and that all Christians made it their whole business to teach their posterity matters o● faith and that they minded nothing in the world but the imprinting tha● on their minds that they might have i● ready for their Children and that al● Parents had equal skill and sidelit● in delivering matters of Religion t● their posterity Whereas in truth w● find in the early ages of the Christia● Church several differences about matters of faith and these differences continued to posterity but all party's stil● pleading that their doctrine came fro● the Apostles & it fell out unhappily for Mr. S. that those were commonly most grossly deceived who pretended the most to oral tradition from the Apostles still we find the grand debate was What came from the Apostles and what not whereas had tradition been so infallible a way of conveying how could this ever have come into debate among them What did not they know what their Parents taught them it seems they did not or their Parents were no more agreed than themselves for their differences could never be ended this way Afterwards came in for many ages such a succession of ignorance and barbarism that Christian Religion was little minded either by Parents or Children as it ought to have been instead of that some fopperies and superstitions were hugely in request and the men who fomented these things were cried up as great Saints and workers of Miracles So that the miracles of S. Francis and S. Dominick were as much if not more carefully conveyed from Parents to Children in that age than those of Christ and his Apostles and on this account posterity must be equally bound to believe them and have their persons in equal veneration If men at last were grown wiser it was because they did not believe Mr. S' principles that they ought to receive what was delivered by their Parents but they began to search and inquire into the writings of former ages and to examine the opinions and practices of the present with those of the primitive Church and by this means there came a restauration of Learning and Religion together But though matters of fact be plain and evident in this case yet M. S. will §. 1. 5. prove it impossible there should any errors come into the Christian Church and his main argument is this because no age of the Church could conspire against her knowledge to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world But before I come more particularly to show the weakness of this argument by manifesting how errors might come into the Church without such a conspiracy as this is I shall propound some Queries to him 1. What age of the Church he will instance in wherein all persons who were not cast out of the Church had the same apprehensions concerning all points of faith i. e. that none among them did believe more things delivered by Christ or the Apostles than others did I am sure he can neither instance in the age of the Apostles themselves nor in those immediately succeeding them unless Mr. S. the better to defend his hypothesis will question all written records because they consist of dead letters and unsenced characters and wordish testimonies Never considering that while he utters this he writes himself unless he imagines there is more of life sense and certainty in his books than in the Scriptures or any other writing whatsoever 2. Where there were different apprehensions in one age of the Church whether there must not be different traditions in the next for as he looks on all Parents as bond to teach their Children so on Children as bond to believe what their Parents teach them On which supposition different traditions in the succeeding age must needs follow different apprehensions in the precedent 3. Whether persons agreeing in the substance of doctrines may not differ in their apprehensions of the necessity of them As for instance all may agree in the article of Christ's descent into hell but yet may differ in the explication of it and in the apprehension of the necessity of it in order to salvation So that we must not only in tradition about matters of faith inquire what was delivered but under what notion it was delivered whether as an allowable opinion or a necessary point of faith But if several persons nay multitudes in the Church may have different notions as to the necessity of the same points by what means shall we discern what was delivered as an opinion in the Church and what as an article of faith But Mr. S. throughout his discourse takes it for granted that there is the same necessity of believing and delivering all things which concern the Christian doctrine and still supposes the same sacredness concern necessity in delivering all the points in controversy between the Romanists and Us as there was in those main articles of faith which they and we are agreed in Which is so extravagant a supposition that it is hard to conceive it should ever enter into the head of a person pretending to reason but as extravagant as it is it is that without which his whole fabric falls to the ground For suppose we should grant him that the infinite errors which depend on the belief of the Christian doctrine should be of so prevalent nature with the world that it is impossible to conceive any one age should neglect the knowing them or conspire to deceive the next age about them yet what is all this to the matters in difference between us Will Mr. S. prove the same sacredness necessity concern and miraculously attestedness as he phrases it in the Invocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation Supremacy etc. as in the believing the death and resurrection of the Son of God if he doth not prove this he doth nothing for his arguments may hold for doctrines judged universally necessary but for no other Therefore Mr. S. hath a new task which he thought not of which is to manifest that these could not be looked on as opinions but were embraced as necessary articles of faith For unless he proves them such he can neither prove any obligation in Parents to teach them their Children nor in Children to believe what their Parents taught but only to hold them in the same degree which they did themselves When Mr. S. will undertake to prove that the whole Church from the time of Christ did agree in the points in difference between us as necessary articles of faith I may more easily believe that no age could be ignorant of them or offer to deceive the next about them But when Mr. S. reflects on his frequent concession that there are private opinions in the Church distinct from matters of faith he must remember before he can bring home his grounds to the case between their Church and ours that he must prove none of the things in debate were ever entertained as private opinions and that it is impossible for that which was a private opinion in one age to become a matter of faith in the next But because this distinction of his §. 6. ruins his whole demonstration I shall ●irst propound it in his own terms and ●hen show how from thence it follows ●hat errors may come into the Church and be entertained as matters of faith His words are it being evident that we have but two ways of ordinary knowledge p. 203. by acts of our soul or operations ●n our body that is by reason and expe●ience the former of which belongs to ●peculators or Doctors the second to Deliverers of what was received or Testi●iers And this distinction he frequently admits not only in the present age of the Church but in any for the same reason will hold in all From ●ence I propose several Queries further to Mr. S. 1. If every one in the Church●ooked ●ooked on himself as bond to believe ●ust as the precedent age did whence came any to have particular opinions of their own For either the Church●ad ●ad delivered her sense in that case or not if not than tradition is no certain conveyer of the doctrine of Christ ●f she had than those who vented private speculations were heretics in so doing because they opposed that doctrine which the Church received from Christ and his Apostles If Mr. S. replie● that private speculations are in such case● where there is no matter of faith at all he can never be able to help himself by that distinction in the case of hi● own Church for I demand whether i● it a matter of faith that men ought to believe oral tradition infallible i● not how can men ground their faith upon it If it be then either some are mere speculators in matters of faith or all who believe on the account o● the Pope's infallibility are heretics for so doing 2. If there were speculators in former ages as well as this whether did those men believe their own speculations or no if not than the Father● were great Impostors who vented those speculations in the Church which they did not believe themselves And it i● plain Mr. S. speaks of such opinions which the asserters of do firmly believe to be true and if they did than they look on themselves as bond to believe something which was not founded on the tradition of the Church and consequently did not own oral tradition as the rule of faith So that as many speculators as we find in the Church so many testifiers we have against the in●libility of oral tradition 3. Whether those persons who did themselves believe those opinions to be true did not think themselves obliged to tell others they ought to believe them and consequently to deliver these as matters of faith to their children Let Mr. S. show me any inconsequence in this but that it unavoidably follows upon his principles that they were bound to teach their Children what themselves received as the doctrine of Christ and that the obligation is in all respects equal as if they had believed these things on the account of oral tradition 4 If Children be obliged to believe what their Parents teach them for matters of faith then upon Mr. S' own concessions is not posterity bound to believe something which originally came not from Christ or his Apostles For it appears in this case that the first rise was from a private opinion of some Doctors of the Church but they believing these opinions themselves think themselves obliged to propagate them to others and by reason of their learning and authority these opinions may by degrees gain a general acceptance in the ruling part of the Chur●● and all who believe them true t●●●● they ought to teach them their ●●●●dren and Children they are to believe what their Parents teach them Thus from Mr. S' own principles things that never were delivered by Christ or his Apostles may come to be received as matters of faith in the present Church Thus the intelligent Reader needs no bodies help but Mr. S. to let him understand how Invocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation etc. though never delivered either by Christ or his Apostles may yet now be looked on as articles of saith and yet no age of the Church conspire to deceive another Either then Mr. S. must say there never were any private opinators or speculators in the Church as distinct from testifiers and then he unavoidably contradicts himself or he must deny that posterity is bound to believe what their forefathers delivered them as matters of faith which destroys the force of his whole demonstration Perhaps he will answer that Children are not bound to believe what barely their Parents or another number of persons might deliver matters of faith but what the whole church of every age delivers This ●ough the only thing to be said in ●e case yet is most unreasonable because it runs men upon inextricable difficulties in the way of their resolving ●ith For suppose any Children ●ught by their Parents what they are ● believe Mr. S. must say they are ●ot bound to believe them presently ●ut to inquire whether they agree ●ith the whole Church of that Age●rst ●rst before they can be obliged to as●nt Which being an impossible task ●ther for Children or men of age ● find out in the way of oral tradi●on this way of resolving faith ●oth but offer a fairer pretence for ●fidelity For we see how impossible it is for Mr. S. to make it appear ●hat their Church is agreed about the ●ule of faith for by his own confession ●he far greater number as speculators●ppose ●ppose the way asserted by him how ●uch more difficult than must it needs ●e to find out what the sense of the whole essential Church is in all matters which Parents may teach their Children for doctrines of faith So that if Chrildrens are not bound to believe what their Parents teach them till they know they teach nothing but what the whole Church teaches it is the most compendious way to teach them they are not bound to believe at all But if this distinction be admitted as Mr. S. makes much use of it than it appears how errors may come into the Church at sirst under the notion of speculations and by degrees to be delivered as points of faith by which means those things may be received in the Church for such which were never delivered by Christ or his Apostles and yet no age conspire to deceive the next which was the thing to be showed This is one way of showing how errors may come into the Church §. 7. without one ages conspiring to deceive the next but besides this there are several others I might insist upon but I shall mention only two more 1. Misinterpreting the sense of Scripure 2. Supposing it in the power o● some part of the Church to oblige the whole in matters of faith For the first we are to consider that no imaginable account can be given either of the writing or universal reception of the books of the New Testament if they were not designed for the preservation of the doctrine of Christ And although it should be granted possible ●or the main and fundamental articles of Christian faith such as the Apostles Creed gives a summary account of ●o have been preserved by the help of tradition yet unless we be extremely ungrateful we cannot but acknowledge that God hath infinitely ●etter provided for us in not leaving ●he grounds of our Religion to the ●eer breath of the people or the care ●f mothers instructing their Children ●ut hath given us the certain records ofall the doctrines and motives of faith preserved inviolably from the first age's ●f the Church And when the Church●w ●w with what care God had provided ●r the means of faith tradition●as ●as little minded thence the memory ●f those other things not recorded in scripture is wholly lost all the care ●as employed in searching preserving and delivering these sacred books t● posterity To these the primitive Church still appeals these they plea● for against all adversaries defending their authority explaining their sense vindicating them from all corruption Tradition they rely not on any further than as a Testimony of the trut● of these records or to clear the sen● of them from the perverse interpr● tation of those Heretics who preten● ed another kind of tradition th● what was in Scripture And when the● were silenced all the disputes th● arose in the Church concerning matte● of faith was about the sense of the books as is evident by the proceeding in the case of Arius and Pelagic Wherein Tradition was only used a means to clear the sense of the S●ptures but not at all as that which t● faith of all was to be resolved into But when any thing was pleaded fr● tradition for which there was ground in Scripture it was reject with the same ease it was offered a● such persons were plainly told t● was not the Church's way if they b● plain Scripture with the concurr● sense of Antiquity they might produce ●t and rely upon it So that the whole ●se of Tradition in the primitive Church besides attesting the books was to show the unreasonableness of imposing senses on Scripture against the universal sense of the Church from the Apostles times But as long as men were men it was not avoidable but they must fall into different apprehensions of the meaning of the Scripture according to their different judgements prejudices learning and education And since they had all this apprehension that the Scripture contained all doctrines of faith thence as men judged of the sense of it they differed in their apprehension concerning matters of faith And thence errors and mistakes might easily come into the Church without one age conspiring to deceive the next Nay if it be possible for men to rely on tradition without Scripture this may easily be done for by that means they make a new rule of faith not known to the primitive Church and consequently that very assertion is an error in which the former age did not conspire to deceive the next And if these things be possible M. S' demonstration fails him for hereby a reasonable account is given how errors may come into a Church without one age conspiring to deceive another Again let me inquire of Mr. S. whether men may not believe it in the power of the ruling part of the Church to oblige the whole to an assent to the definitions of it To speak plainer is it not possible for men to believe the Pope and Council infallible in their decrees And I hope the Jesuits as little as Mr. S. loves them or they him may be a sufficient evidence of more than the bare possibility of this If they may believe this doth it not necessarily follow that they are bound to believe whatever they declare to be matter of faith supposing then that Transubstantiation Supremacy Invocation of Saints were but private opinions before but are now defined by Pope and Council these men cannot but look on themselves as much obliged to believe them as if they had been delivered as matters of faith in every age since the Apostles times Is it now repugnant to common sense that this opinion should be believed or entertained in the Church if not why may not this opinion be generally received if it be so doth it not unavoidably follow that the faith of men must alter according to the Church's definitions And thus private opinions may be believed as articles of faith and corrupt practices be established as laudable pieces of devotion and yet no one age of the Church conspire to deceive another Thus I hope Mr. S. may see how far it is from being a self-evident principle that no error can come into the Church unless one age conspire to deceive the next in a matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world Which is so wild an apprehension that I believe the Jesuits cannot entertain themselves without smiles to see their domestic adversaries expose themselves to contempt with so much confidence Thus I come to the reason I gave §. 8. why there is no reason to believe that this is the present sense of the Roman Church My words are For I see the Roman Church asserts that things may be de fide in one age which were not in another at least Popes and Councils challenge this and this is the common doctrine maintained there and others are looked on as no members of their Church who assert the contrary but as p●rsons at least meritoriously if not actually excommunicate Where then shall I satisfy myself what the sense of your Church is as to this particular Must I believe a very few persons whom the rest disown as heretical and soditious or aught I not rather to take the judgement of the greatest and most approved persons of that Church And these disown any such doctrine but assert that the Church may determine things de fide which were not before In answer to this Mr. S. begs leave to distinguish the words de fide which may either mean p. 05. Christian faith or points of faith taught by Christ and then he grants 't is nonsense to say they can be in one age and not in another Or de fide may mean obligatory to be believed In this latter sense none I think saith he denies things may be de fide in one age and not in another in the former sense none holds it Upon which very triumphantly he concludes Whatrs now become of your difficulty I believe you are in some wonderment and think I elude it rather than answer it I shall endeavour to unperplex you I must confess it a fault of humane nature to admire things which men understand not on which account I cannot free myself from some temptation to that he calls wonderment but I am presently cured of it when I endeavour to reduce his distinction to reason For instead of explaining his terms he should have showed how any thing can be obligatory to be believed in any age of the Church which was no point of faith taught by Christ which notwithstanding his endeavour to unperplex me is a thing as yet I apprehend not Because I understand no obligation to faith to arise from any thing but divine revelation and I do not yet believe any thing in Christian doctrine to be divinely revealed but what was delivered by Christ or his Apostles And my wonderment must needs be the greater because I suppose this inconsistent with Mr. S' principles For oral tradition doth necessarily imply that all points of faith were first taught by Christ and conveyed by tradition to us but if a thing may be the side in this latter sense which was not before what becomes of resolving faith wholly into oral tradition For faitb is resolved into that from whence the obligation to believe comes but here Mr. S. confesses that the obligation to believe doth arise from something quite different from oral tradition and therefore faith must be resolved into it Besides all the sense I can find in that distinction is that men are bound to believe something in one age which they were not in another and if so I shall desire Mr. S. to unperplex me in this how every age is bound to believe just as the precedent did and yet one age be bound to believe more than the precedent But however I am much obliged to him for his endeavour to unperplex me as he speaks for really I look on no civilities to be greater than those which are designed for clearing our understandings so great an adorer am I of true reason and an intelligible Religion And therefore I perfectly agree with him in his saying that Christianity p. 206. aims not to make us beasts but more perfectly men and the perfection of our manhood consists in the use of our reasons From whence he infers that it is reasonable consequences should be drawn from principles of faith which he saith are of two sorts first such as need no more but common sense to deduce them the others are such as need the maxims of some science got by speculation to infer them and these are Theological conclusions the former sort he tells us the church is necessitated to make use of upon occasion i. e. when any heretic questions those and eadem opera the whole point of faith itself of which they were a part as in the case of the Monothelites about Christ's baving two wills But all this while I am far enough from being unperplexed nay by this discourse I see every one who offers to unperplex another is not very clear himself For since he makes no Theological conclusions to be the side but only such consequences as common sense draws I would willingly understand how common sense receives a new obligation to faith For to my apprehension the deducing of consequences from principles by common sense is not an act of believing but of knowledge consequent upon a principle of faith And the meaning is no more than this that men when they say they believe things should not contradict themselves as certainly they would do if they deny those consequences which common sense draws from them As in the case of the Monothelites for men to assert that Christ had two natures and yet not two wills when the will is nothing else but the inclination of the nature to that good which belongs to it So that there can be no distinct obligation to believe such consequences as are drawn by common sense but every one that believes the principles from whence they are drawn is thereby bound to believe all the consequences which immediately follow from them Indeed the Church when people will be so unreasonable to deny such things may explain her sense of the article of faith in those terms which may best prevent dispute but this is only to discriminate the persons who truly believe this article from such as do not Not that any new obligation to faith results from this act of the Church but the better to prevent cavils she explains her sense of the article itself in more explicit terms Which as he saith is only to put the faith out of danger of being P. 207. equivocated Which is quite another thing from causing a new obligation to believe As suppose the Church to prevent the growth of the Socinian doctrine should require from men the declaring their belief of the eternal existence of the Son of God Would this be to bind men to believe some thing which they were not bound to before no but only to express their assent to the Deity of Christ in the simplest terms because otherwise they might call him God by office and not by nature Now how can any one conceive that any should be first obliged to believe that Christ is God and yet receive a new obligation afterwards to believe his eternal existence Thus it is in all immediate consequences drawn by common sense in all which the primary obligation to believe the thing itself extends to the belief of it in the most clear and least controverted terms which are not intended to impose on men's faith but to promote the Church's peace For neither i● there a new object of faith for how can that be which common sense draws from what is believed already neither is there any infallible proponent unless common sense hath usurped the Pope's prerogative But Mr. S. offers at a reason for this which is that none can have an obligation to believe what they have not an obligation to think of and in some age the Generality of the faithful have no occasion nor consequently obligation to mind reflect or think on those propositions involved in the main stock of faith From whence he saith it follows that a thing may be de fide or obligatory to be believed in one age and not in another But let Mr. s. show how a man can be obliged to believe any thing as an article of faith who is not bound to thin● of all the immediate consequences o● it Because faith is an act of a reasonable nature which ought to inquire into the reasons and consequences of things which it doth believe Bu● Mr. s. mistake lies here in not distinguishing the obligation to believe from the obligation to an explicit declaration of that assent The former comes only from God and no new obligation can arise from any act of the Church but the latter being a thing tending to the Church's peace may be required by it on some occasions i. e. when the doctrine is assaulted by heretics as in the time of the four first General Councils but still a man is not at all the more obliged to assent but to express his assent in order to the Church's satisfaction But Mr. S. supposes me to inquire §. 9 p. 208. how the Church can have power to oblige the Generality to belief of such a point To which his answer is she obliges them to believe the main point of faith by virtue of traditions being a self-evident rule and these employed points by virtue of their being self-evidently connected with those main and perpetually used points so that the vulgar can be rationally and connaturally made capable of this their obligation But we are not now enquiring what the obligation to believe the main points of faith is nor whether traditiou be a self-evident rule but how there should be a new obligation to believe something self-evidently connected with the former points is beyond my capacity to understand And they must be vulgar understandings indeed that can rationally and connaturally be made capable of such an obligation For if it be self-evidently connected with the main points no one can believe the one without believing the other for nothing is self-evident but what a man assents to at the first apprehension of it and if he doth so how comes there a new obligation to believe it Is it possible to believe that any thing consists of parts and not believe that the whole is greater than any of those parts for this is a thing self-evidently connected with the nature of the whole But these are self-evident riddles a● the former were unintelligible demonstrations And yet though these b● rare Theories the application of them to the case of the Roman Church exceeds all the rest Whence saith he the Government of our Church is still justified to be sweet and according to right nature and yet forcible and efficacious Although I admire many things in Mr. S' Book yet I cannot say I do any thing more than this passage that because men are obliged to believe no employed points but such as are self-evidently connected with the main ones therefore the Government of the Roman Church is sweet and according to right nature etc. Alas then how much have we been mistaken all this while that have charged her with imposing hard and unsufferable conditions of communion with her no she is so gentle and sweet that she requires nothing but the main points on the account of a self-evident rule and employed points by reason of self-evident connexion with the former I see Mr. S. if he will make good his word is the only person who ●s ever like to reconcile me with the Church of Rome For I assure you I ●ever desire any better terms of communion with a Church than to have no ●ain points of faith required from me ●o assent to but what are built on a self-evident rule nor any employed points ●ut such as are self-evidently connected with the former And no work can ●e more easy than to convince me upon these grounds for all endeavours of proof are taken away by the things being said to be self-evident For the very offer of proof that they are so self-evidently proves they are not so For what ever is proved by something beside itself can never be said without a contradiction to be self-evident But not to tie up Mr. S. from his excellent faculty of proving if Mr. S. will prove to me that any of the points in difference between us as Transubstantiation Purgatory Supremacy of the Roman Church etc. have any self-evident connexion with any main poin● of faith in the Apostles Creed I solemnly promise him to retract all I have writ against that Church so far shall be from needing a new obligation to believe them But if these be so remote from self-evidence that they are plainly repugnant to sense and reason witney that self-evident doctrine of Transubstantiation what then must we thin● of Mr. S. Surely the least is that sin● his being a Roman Catholic his min● is strangely enlightened so far that tho● things are self-evident to him whi● are contradictions to the rest of t● world But withal Mr. S. acquaints us with another mystery which is how these points descended by a kind of tradition and yet confesses they were never thought of or reflected on by the Generality till the Church took occasion to explain them Such a silent tradition doth very suitably follow the former self-evident connexion For he that can believe Transubstantiation to be self-evident no wonder if he believes that to have been delivered by a constant Tradition which was never heard of from the Apostles times to these Now Mr. S. is pleased to return to me §. 10. and draws up a fresh charge against me which is that I act like a Politician and would conquer them by first dividing them and making odious comparisons between two parties of Divines But to show us how little they differ he distinguishes them as faithful and as private discoursers in the former not●on he saith they all hold the same divinely constituted Church-Government and the same self-evident rule of faith but as private discoursers he acknowledges they differ in the explication of their belief I meddle not here ●●th the Government of their Church which I have elsewhere proved to be far enough from being divinely constituted but with the rule of faith and the question is whether the infallibility of or altradition be that self-evident rule which that Church proceeds on Yes saith Mr. S. they are all as faithful agreed in it but as discoursers they differ about it Which in short is that all in the Church of Rome who are not of his opinion know not what they say and that they oppose that which they do really believe Which in plain English is that they are egregious dissemblers and prevaricators in Religion that they do intolerably flatter the Pope and present Church with loud declamations for their infallibility but they do really believe no such thing but resolve all into oral tradition But is not this an excellent agreement among them when Mr. White and his party not only disown the common doctrine of the infallibility of Pope and Councils but dispute against it as pernicious and destructive to Christian faith on the other side the far greater part of Romanists say there can be no certainty of faith unless there be an infallible divine testimony in the present Church and this lodged in Pope and Councils that those who endeavour to overthrow this are dangerous seditious heretical persons Accordingly their Books are censured at Rome their opinions disputed against and their persons condemned And yet all this while we must believe that these stick together like two smooth Marbles as faithful though they are knocked one against another as discoursers and that they perfectly agree in the same self-evident rule of faith when all their quarrels and contentions are about it and those managed with so great heat that heresy is charged of one side and Arch-heresie and undermining Religion on the other Doth he think we never heard of Mr. Whites Sonus Succinae nor of that Chapter in it where he saith that the doctrine of Pope and Councils De fide & Th●ol tract 2 sect 22. p. 158. infallibility tends to overthrow the certainty of Christian faith and that the propagating such a doctrine is a greater crime than burning Temples ravishing the sacred Virgins on the Altars trampling on the body of Christ or the sending the Turk or Antichrist into Christian Countries Or doth he think we can believe that the Pope and Cardinals the Jesuits and all the Papists of foreign Country's do as faithful agree with Mr. White in this It seems not so by the proceedings in the Court of Rome against him in which as appears by the censure of the Inquisition against him dated 17. November 1661. his doctrine is condemned not only as false seditious and scandalous but as heretical and erroneous in faith And if it were not for this very doctrine he was there censured why doth Mr. White set himself purposely to defend it in his Tabulae suffragiales If these than do agree as faithful who cannot but envy the excellent harmony of the Roman Church in which men condemn each other for heretics and yet all believe the same things still Well Sir I am in hopes upon the same grounds Mr. S. will yield us the same charity too and tell us that we agree with him as faithful only we differ a little from him as discoursers for I assure you there is as great reason the only difference is we give them not such ill words as they do each other For let Mr. S. show us wherein we differ more from him about the Rule of Faith than they do among themselves For Mr White when he hath said that all kind of heresy doth arise from hence that men make the holy Scripture or a private spirit the rule of faith he presently Ibid. adds it is all one if one make councils or Pope any other way than as witnesses to be the authors of faith For saith he this is to subject the whole Church to that slavery to receive any error for an article of faith which they shall define or propose modo illegitimo i. e. any other way then as witnesses of tradition Either then we differ from Mr. S. only as discoursers or he and his Brethren differ from each other more than as such And so any one would think who reads the oppositions and arguments against each other on this subject particularly Mr. Whites Tabulae suffragiales But let Mr. White say what he will Mr. S. tells me I am not aware how little they differ even as Divines The more shame for them to have such furious P. 209. heats and oppositions where there is so little difference But as little as they differ Mr. White thinks it safer to talk of their unity in England than to try whether they be of his mind at Rome by going thither to clear himself for he justly fears he should find them differ from him some other way the● as bare discoursers Yet let us hea● Mr. S' reason for saith he though some speculators attribute to the Church a power of defining things not held before yet few will say she hath new revelations or new articles of faith Bu● we know the temper of these men better than to rely on what they barel● say For they say what they think most for their purpose and on● of Mr. Whites adversaries if himself may be credited plainly told him i● the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility wer● Tabul suffrag p. 318. not true yet it ought to be defended b●cause it was for the interest of the Church of Rome for which he is sufficiently rebuked by him It is one thing the● what they say and another what necessarily follows from the doctrine which they assert But for plain dealing commend me to the Canonists who say expressly the Church by whic● they mean the Pope may make new articles of faith and this is the sense of the rest though they are loath to speak out Else Mr. White was much too blame in spending so much time in proving the contrary But what man of common sense can imagine that these men can mean otherwise who assert such an infallibility in Pope and Councils as to oblige men under pain of eternal damnation to believe those things which they were not obliged to before such a definition And what can this be else but to make new articles of faith For an article of faith supposes a necessary obligation to believe it now if some doctrine may become thus obligatory by virtue of the Church's definition which was not so before that becomes thereby an article of faith which it was not before But these subtle men have not yet learned to distinguish a new doctrine from a new article of faith they do not indeed pretend that their doctrine is new because they deny any such thing as new revelation in the Church but yet they must needs say if they understand themselves that old implicit doctrines may become new articles of faith by virtue of the Churcher definition So little are they relieved by that silly distinction of explicit and implicit delivery of them which Mr. S. for a great novelty acquaints us with For what is only implicitly delivered no article of faith at all for that can be no article of faith which men are not bound to believe now there are none will say that men are bound to believe under pain of damnation i● they do not the things which are only implicitly delivered but this they say with great confidence of all things defined by the Church And let now any intelligent person judge whether those who assert such things do not differ wide enough from those who resolve all into oral tràdition and make the obligation to faith wholly dependent upon the constant tradition of any doctrine from age to age ever since the Apostles times But Mr. S. is yet further displeased with me for saying that Pope and Councils §. 11. challenge a power to make things de fide in one age which were not in another For 1. he says I speak it in common and prove it not 2. He adds That take them right this is both perfectly innocent and unavoidably necessary to a Church And is it not strange he should expect any particular proofs of so innocent and necessary a thing to the being of a Church But he will tell me it is in his own sense of de fide which I have already shown to signify nothing to his purpose Let him therefore speak out whether he doth believe any such thing as inherent infallibility in the definitions of Pope and Councils if not I am sure at Rome they will never believe that Mr. S. agrees with them as faithful if he doth whether doth not such an infallible definition bind men by virtue of it to the belief of what is then defined if it doth than things may become as much de fide by it as if they were delivered by Christ or his Apostles For thereby is supposed an equal obligation to faith because there is a proposition equally infallible But will he say the Pope doth not challenge this Why then is the contrary doctrine censured and condemned at Rome Why is the other so eagerly contended for by the most zealous sons of that Church and that not as a school-opinion but as the only certain foundation of faith Mr. S. is yet pleased to inform me further that nothing will avail me but this if a Pope and Council should define a new thing and declare they ground themselves on new lights as did their first reformers in England but I shall find he saith no such fopperies in faith-definitions made by the Catholic Church Is this the man who made choice of reason for his weapon could there be a greater calumny cast on our Church than to say her reformers grounded themselves on new lights when our great charge against the Church of Rome is for introducing Novelties and receding from pure and primitive antiquity Whether the charge be true or no yet sure it follows they did not declare they ground themselves on new lights but expressly the contrary Well but Pope and Councils neither define new things nor ground themselves on them but what means the man of reason that they make no new definitions surely ot for than what did they meet for ●d what mean their decrees but he ●tends that they deliver no new do●rine but how must that be tried ●r hath Mr. S. gained the opinion of ●fallibility both from Pope and Coun●ls that we must believe his bare ●ord but we not only say but prove ●hat even their last Council hath defi●ed many things which never were delivered by Christ or his Apostles And it is to no purpose whether they ●y they ground themselves on new lights ●r pretend to an infallible assistance ●or it comes all to the same at last For ●f the assistance be infallible what mat●er is it whether the doctrine hath been revealed or no for on this supposition it is impossible that Pope and Council●hould ●hould miscarry Therefore if any Church be guilty of fopperies in faith-definitions it must be that which you miscall the Catholic but is more truly known by the name of the Roman Church There is yet one piece of Mr. S' sagacity to be taken notice of as to this particular which is that I am at an end of my argument because I p. 210. say the opinion of the Pope and Councils infallibility is the common doctrine maintained in which I confound the Church with the schools or some private opinaters and then carp at those men's tenets And this is the force of all that Paragraph He tells me I wa● not wit to know that no sober Catholic● holds humane deductions the rule of their faith schoolmen definers of it no● the schools the Tribunal whence to propose it authoritatively and obligingly to the generality of the faithful Neither doth Mr. S. want the wit to know that our present enquiry is concerning the sense of their present Church about the rule of faith Since the● Mr. S. must confess it necessary to faith to know what the certain rule of it is let me inquire further whether any particular person can know certainly what it is unless he know● what the Church owns for her rule of faith and whether that may be owned as the Church's judgement which is stiffly opposed by the most interessed persons in the Roman Church and the most zealous contenders for it Especially when the Pope who is said to be Head of the Church condemns the doctrine asserted and that only by a small number of such who are as much opposed by themselves as by any of us Is it then possible to know the Church's judgement or not if not 't is to no purpose to search for a rule of faith if it be which way can we come to know it either by most voices or the sense of the Governors of the Church either of the ways I dare put it to a fair trial whether oral tradition or the infallibility of Pope and Councils be the doctrine most owned in the Church of Rome But Mr. S. still tells us these are only private opinators and schoolmen who assert the contrary doctrine to his But will not they much more say on the other side that this way of oral tradition is a novel fancy of some few half-Catholicks in England and tends to subvert the Roman Church But is the present Pope with Mr. S. a private opinator or was the last a mere schoolman I am sure what ever Mr. S. thinks of him he thought not so of himself when he said he was no Divine in the controversy of Jansenius Doth the Court of Rome signify no more with Mr. S. then a company of scholastic Pedants that know not what the sense of the Church is concerning the rule of faith I meddle not with the Schools but with the authority of the present Church and him whom Mr. S. owns for the head of it and is it consistent with his headship to condemn that doctrine which contains in it the only certain rule of faith Mr. S. may then see they were no such impertinent Topics which I insisted on and as stout as Mr. S. seems to be I am apt to believe he would not look on the censure of the Inquisition as an impertinent Topick But at last Mr. S. offers at something §. 12. whereby he would satisfy me of the sense of the Church as to this particular and therefore asks whether I never heard of such a thing as the Council of Trent I must ingenuously p. 211. confess I have and seen more a great deal of it than I am satisfied with But what of that there he tells me I may find a clear solution of my doubt by the constant procedure of that most grave Synod in its definitions That is I hope to find that oral Tradition was acknowledged there as the only self-evident rule of faith if I do this I confess myself satisfied in this enquiry But how much to the contrary is there very obvious in the proceedings of it For in the 4. Session the Decree is That Scripture and tradition should be embraced with equal piety and reverence and the reason is because the doctrine of faith is contained partly in Scripture partly in tradition but what arts must Mr. S. use to infer from hence that oral tradition in contradistinction to Scripture was looked on as the only rule of faith I cannot but say that the ruling men of that Council were men wise enough in their Generation and they were too wise wholly to exclude Scripture but because they knew that of itself could not serve their purposes they therefore help it out with tradition and make both together the complete rule of faith Where I pray in all the proceedings of that Council doth Mr. S. find them desine any thing on the account of oral tradition instead of which we find continual bandyings about the sense of Scripture and Fathers which might have been all spared if they had been so wise as to consider they could not but know the sense of the present Church nor that of the precedent and so up to the time of Christ But they were either so ignorant as not to light on this happy invention or so wise and knowing as to despise it It is true they would not have their doctrines looked on as Novelties therefore they speak much of tradition and the ancient faith but that was not by what their Parents taught them but what the Fathers of the Church delivered in their writings for by these they judged of traditions and not the oral way And therefore I see little reason to believe that this was either the sense of the Council of Trent or is the sense of any number of Roman Catholics much less of the whole Church none excepted as Mr. S. in his p. 212. confident way expresses it And if he will as he saith disavow the maintaining any point or affecting any way which is not assented to by all I hope to see Mr. S. retract this opinion and either fall in with the Court of Rome or return as reason leads him into the bosom of the Church of England But there seems to be somewhat more in what follows viz. that though schoolmen question the personal infallibility of the Pope or of the Roman Clergy nay of a General Council yet all affirm the infallibility of tradition or the living voice of the Church essential and this he faith is held by all held firmly and that it is absolutely infallible To this therefore I answer either Mr. S. means that none do affirm that the universal tradition of the Church essential can err or that the Church of Rome being the Church essential cannot err in her tradition But which way soever he takes it I shall easily show how far it is from proving that he designs it for For if he take it in the first sense viz. that all the faithful in all ages could not concur in an error than he may as well prove Protestants of his mind as Papists for this is the foundation on which we believe the particular books of Scripture If this therefore proves any thing it proves more than he intends viz. that while we thus oppose each other we do perfectly agree together and truly so we do as much as they do among themselves But if Mr. S' meaning be that all of their Religion own the Roman Church to be the Church essential and on that account that it cannot err setting aside the absurdity of the opinion itself I say from hence it doth not follow that they make or●l tradition the rule of faith because it is most evident that the ground why they say thei● Church cannot err is not on Mr. S' principles but on the supposition of an infallible assistance which preserves that Church from error So that this fall● far short of proving that they are all agreed in this rule of faith which is a thing so far from probability that he might by the same argument prove that Scripture is owned by them all to be the rule of faith For I hope it is held by all and held firmly that the living voice of God in Scripture as delivered to us is infallible and if so then there is as much ground for this as the other But if we inquire what it is men make a rule of faith we must know not only that they believe tradition infallible but on what account they do so For if tradition be believed infallible barely on the account of a promise of infallibility to the present Church than the resolution of saith is not into the tradition but into that infallible assistance and consequently the rule of faith is not what bare tradition delivers but what that Church which cannot err in judging tradition doth propose to us It is not therefore their being agreed in General that tradition is infallible doth make them agree in the same rule of faith but they must agree in the ground of that infallibility viz. that it depends on this that no age could conspire to deceive the next But all persons who understand any thing of the Roman Church know very well that the general reason why tradition is believed infallible is because they first believe the Church to be infallible whereas Mr. S. goes the contrary way and makes the infallibility of the Church to depend on the infallibility of Tradition And therefore for all that I can see we must still oppose private opinators in this controversy the Church of Rome not having declared herself at all on Mr. S' behalf but the contrary and the generality believing on the account of the present Church's infallibility And it is strange Mr. S. should find no difference between men's resolving faith into common sense and into the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost If this than be the first principle of controversy as Mr. S. p. 213. pretends we see how unlikely they are to agree about other matters who are so much divided about the principle of resolving them And if this be the ground of faith than most Romanists build on a wrong Foundation But if the infallibility of oral tradition be the foundation on which that formidable structure is erecting which he speaks of woe then to the Court of Rome for that is known to build on quite a different foundation And if this as he saith rises apace and has advanced many stories in a small time it only lets us know how fast their divisions grow and that they are building so fast one against another that their Church will not stand between them By this discourse Mr. S. pretends to answer all those If 's which follow which are these In case the Church may determine things de fide which were not before whether the present Church doth then believe as the precedent did or no if it did how comes any thing to be de fide which was not before if it did not what assurance can I have that every age of the Church believes just as the precedent did and no otherwise When I see they profess the contrary And if a thing may be de fide in one age which was not in a foregoing than a Church may deliver that as a matter of faith at one time which was never accounted so before by which means the present Church may oblige me to believe that as a matter of faith which never was so in Christ's or the Apostles times and so the infallibility on the account of tradition is destroyed To all which Mr. S. gives a very easy answer viz. that they do not hold any disparate or unimplyed points of faith but such as are involved and employed in the main point This is more easily said then understood For if these be employed in the former how can there come a new obligation to believe them For to take his own Instance will any man in his senses say that he that believes homo est animal rationale doth not believe homo est animal and this he makes choice of as an example how one point of faith may be involved in another so as to receive a distinct obligation to believe it I grant that homo est animal is involved in the other but he that shall say that after he hath assented to that proposition homo est animal rationale he may be capable of a new obligation to believe the former which is involved in this it may be justly questioned whether such a one as to himself can truly say homo est animal rationale or no. But after such rare subtleties he doth very well to tell me that I ought to consider what Logic tells us that the conclusion is in the premises which reflection in his courtlike expression he saith will much unblunder p. 214. my thoughts But let the conclusion be as long as it will in the premises will any man in his wits say that he that believes the truth of the premises is not thereby bound to believe the conclusion and the more the one is involved in the other the less is it possible to make the obligation to believe them distinct And it is hard for me to believe that this is a way to unblunder my thoughts when I see what horrible confusion such expressions argue in his own Let the Church then clear her thoughts never so much yet all this cannot amount to a distinct obligation to believe those things which were involved before but to a more explicit declaring them for the Church's 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 than the present age may believe otherwise then the precedent did And if this doctrine be held in the Church of Rome nothing can be more evident than that Mr. S' first principle of controversy is far from being the doctrine of the Roman Church which was the thing to be proved My second chief argument against §. 13. 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 p. 216. proved in this case is that every age of the Church and all persons in it looked on themselves as obliged not to vary in any thing from the doctrine and practice of the precedent age And I there offer the choice of three ways to prove it reason testimony Or tradition he tells me he accepts the way of reason yet quarrels with me for pressing for a demonstrative medium to prove it when yet Mr. S. seldom speaks unde●●he rate of demonstrations But he thereby notes the unconsonancy of my carriage Wherein I wonder that I should desire them to perform their promise viz. to give us demonstrations for the grounds of faith But he saith withal he will yield me the honour of professing I have no demonstration but probability for the ground of mine and he make● this serious protestation for himself tha● he should esteem himself very dishonest did he assert and press on others an● 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 ●ur faith merely on probabilities Do ●hey say that Religion is capable of ●rict and rigorous demonstration If let them demonstrate the Being of ●od and Immortality of the soul with as ●uch evidence as that the three angles ●f a triangle are equal to two right angles ●nd it is strange if they think particu●r problems in religion are more capable of demonstration than those Theorems●n ●n which they are built But by all he enquiry I can make all the difference between us is that Mr. S. will ●ave that called a demonstration which ● scarce a probability and we call tha● efficient reason which any wise man ●ay safely rely on in matters of religion In the mean time how much do ●e suffer by our modesty that because ●e speak not as big as Mr. S. does we ●ust be censured presently to have nothing but probabilities for our faith Are ●hose bare probabilities which leave no suspicion of doubt behind them and ●uch we freely assert the grounds of ●ur 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' 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 then 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 persuading 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 those things for infallible cures which an ordinary capacity may discern the insufficiency of But was it any thin● but justice and reason in me to expe●● 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 ●s 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 ●ook on themselves as obliged to be●●eve just as their predecessors did For I had thought demonstrations had ●ever place in contingent propositions but it seems Mr. S. who tells me Logic will unblunder my thoughts intends to make a new one for me And ● assure you so he had need before I ●hall ever call his arguments demon●trations and although he thinks himself very honest in calling them so yet ● should think him much wiser if he did not But before I come to the particular §. 14. debate of these things I freely tell him that I grant all he requests ● shall take along with me the nature of the matter in hand the doctrines an● p. 236. practices spoken of the manner of delivering them the necessary circumstance● which give weight to both yet for al● these I cannot look on his way as demonstrative And that both our meanings may be better understood it i● very necessary the Reader should hav● a true account of the state of the Question between us And if he will believe me I never intended to dispute with him or any one else whether me● were bound to wear their clothes or buil● houses or manage estates just as thei● p. 217. predecessors did but whether eve● age is obliged to believe and practic just as the precedent did by virtue o● mere oral tradition for about that i● all the controversy between us I d● not deny but that a succeeding ag● may look on itself as bond to believe what the precedent did bu● whether that obligation doth ari● purely from the delivery of that doctrine by the precedent in the way o● of tradition is the thing in dispute between us For in case the ground ● faith be wholly the written word conveyed from age to age I deny not but an obligation to believe descends with the doctrine to every succeeding age But that which Mr. S. is to prove is that abstractly from Scripture every age is absolutely bound to believe just as the precedent did without any enquiry whether that doctrine doth agree with Scriptures or no but that he is therefore bound to believe all which is proposed to him because it was the doctrine of the immediately preceding age And this is that which I deny and desire Mr. S. to prove For which he first gives us a large instance in historical matters and then comes to the matters of Christian saith His Instance is in Alexander's conquest of Asia as to which he saith that the memory of it is fresh and lively though some thousand p. 218. years since And that the universal and strong persuasion of this matter of fact was not caused by Books as Curtius his History but by humane tradition that the continuance of this persuasion was the notoriety of the fact to the then livers which obliged them to relate it to their posterity and that this testifying by the forefathers was that which obliged posterity to believe things as true because there could be no imaginable motive why the whole world should conspire to deceive them or be deceivable in their sensations on which principle it passed to the next age and so came down by way of tradition to our days and the obligation to believe in every age depended upon this that the senses of the first could not be deceived and having this security in every age that no one would conspire to deceive the next it follows that no age could say a former age testified so unless it did so therefore saith he it follows demonstratively that it was testified and so the descendants in every age to the very end of the world have the same obligation to believe their immediate forefathers saying it was testified by theirs and so to the very first who were witnesses of his actions This is the substance of what he more largely discourses in several Paragraphs which when he hath done he tells me he expects what I will reply to this discourse Not to frustrate therefore his p. 223. expectation and in order to the Readers satisfaction we are to consider that in the present case there are two distinct questions to be resolved 1. How a matter of fact evident to the world comes to be conveyed to posterity 2. By what means a complete history of all passages relating to it may be conveyed As the first I grant that a fact so noto●us as Alexander's conquest of Asia might have been preserved by humane tradition and conveyed in a certain way from one age to another But if we inquire into that which is alone proper to our Question viz. by what means we may judge what is true and false as to the particulars of that conquest than I deny that bare tradition is to be relied on in this case For the certainty of conveyance of all particulars doth depend not upon the bare veracity but the capacity and skill of communicating from one age to another For which one would think we need no clearer evidence than the considerations of the different account of former times in the several Nations of the world For who can imagine but the barbarous Nations were as unwilling to deceive their posterity as any other yet we see a vast difference in the histories of former ages among them and more civilised people And I wish Mr. S. would rather have instanced in some history which had been preserved merely by tradition and not in such a one which if any other hath been most carefully recorded and propagated to posterity If Mr. S. would have undertaken to have told us who they were that first peopled America and srom what place they came by the tradition of the present inhabitants and what famous actions had been done there in former ages we might have thought indeed that sole tradition had been a very safe way to convey matters of fact from one age to another But since all Mr. S' arguments will hold as well for the Scythians and Americans and the most barbarous Nations as the most civil and polite what reason can Mr. S. give why there is not among them as certain an account of former ages as among the Greeks and Romans Were not their senses who saw those matters of fact as uncapable of being deceived as others was not every a● among them as unwilling to deceive their posterity as elsewhere yet notwithstanding the force of Mr. Ss. demonstration we see for want of letters how grossly ignorant they are of what was done before them And if this principle were true why have we not as true an account of the eldest ages of the world as of any other Nay why were letters invented and writing ever used if tradition had been found so infallible But it is one thing superficially to discourse what is impossible should be otherwise and another to consider what really hath been in the world Doth not the constant experience of all times prove that where any history hath not been timely recorded it hath been soon corrupted by notorious falsities or obscured by fabulous reports As we see among ourselves what difference there is in point of certainty between the several stories of K. Arthur and William the Conqueror what will Mr. S. say that these who lived in K. Arthur's time could not know what he did or that they conspired to deceive their posterity But if tradition be so infallible why have we not the ancient story of Britain as exact as the modern If Mr. S. will impute it to the people's ignorance want of letters frequent conquests by other Nations and succeeding barbarism he may easily find how many ways there are for matters of fact to be soon lost or corrupted when they have not been diligently preserved by authentic records and that without one age conspiring to deceive another But notwithstanding Mr. S' confidence I cannot think it possible for Mr. S. to believe that we should have had as true an account of Alexander● conquest of Asia if Arrian Curtius o● Plutarch had never writ his story a● we have now Yet this he must asse● by virtue of his principles And he that can believe that I wonder he should scruple believing the Pope's infallibility for certainly no principle o● the Jesuits is more wild and absurd then this is Besides I admire how it came into Mr. S' head to think no error could come into history unless o● 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 memoirs 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 than 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 in stead of being persuaded by Mr. S' demonstrations I am still of the mind that we have no sufsicient 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 Alexander's bare conquest 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 inquire 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 authentic records of that story And by this I hope Mr. S. will have cause to thank me for unblundering his thoughts his own civil expression and showing 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 of 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 lie upon men absolutely to believe what is delivered by the preceding age But to put an issue to this controversy let Mr. S. examine himself and try if he can name one story that was never written which was ever certainly popagated from one age to another by mere 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 recurre to §. 15. p. 224. viz. that being baffled with his former demonstration I have no other shift to betake myself 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 etc. 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 itself so excellent and delivered in so public a manner in the most convincing way by miracles and good living and for so good an end as to save men's souls and that by writing it in men's hearts and testified to others and all this at a time when men might judge of the miracles and motives for believing it therefore since in all these respects it was imcomparably beyond the story of Alexander's conquests it follows that in a manner infinitely greater must the obligation be to believe Christ's doctrine than Alexander's or William the conquerors 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 judge 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 inquire 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 Christ's 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 Christ's 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 ask 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 entreat 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 mat●ers 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 infallibly 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 that 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' 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' 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 o● the actions and doctrine of Christ Upon which I advance some further Queries 3. If oral Tradition were the more certain way why was anything written at all it may be Mr. S. will tell us for moral instructions and to give precepts of good life bu● then why may not these be as infallibly conv●yed 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 employ 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 unsenced characters to express men's meanings as well as words It cannot enter into Mr. S' apprehension how 24. letters by their various disposition can express matters of faith And yet to increase the wonder he writes about matte● of faith while he is proving that matters of faith cannot be conveyed b● writing So that Mr. S' own writing is the best demonstration against himself and he confutes his own Sophistry with his fingers as Diogenes did Zeno● by his motion For doth Mr. S. hop● to persuade men that tradition is ● rule of faith by his book or not i● not to what purpose doth he write ● if he doth than it is to be hoped so● matters of faith may be intelligibly conveyed by writing Especially if Mr. S. doth it but by no means we are t● believe that ever the Spirit of God ca● do it For whatever is written by me● assisted by that is according to him bu● 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 outdo inanite 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 controversy is at an end For than 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 and 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 judge of the truth of the matters contained ●n 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 Part. 1. chap. ● credible since the books of Scripture were supposed to contain the doctrines of faith that every age of the Church should look on itself 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. §. 16. ● 229. etc. 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 showed already unless he demonstrates it impossible for errors to come in any other way For if we reduce the substance of what he saith to a Syllogistical form it comes to this Where there is no possibility of error there is an absolute obligation to faith but there is no possibility of error in the tradition of any age of the Church Ergo in every age there is an absolute obligation to believe the tradition of the present Church The minor he thus proves If no age of the Church can be ignorant of what the precedent taught or conspire to deceive the next than there is no possibility of error coming into the tradition of the Church in any age but the antecedent is true and therefore the consequent Now who sees not that the force of all this lies not in proving the minor proposition or that no age could conspire to deceive another but the consequence viz. that no error can come into a Church but by a general mistake in one whole age or the general imposture of it which we utterly deny and have showed him already the falseness of it from his own concessions And I might more largely show it from those doctrines or opinions which they themselves acknowledge to have come into their Church without any such general mistake or imposture as the doctrines of Papal Infallibility and the common belief of Purgatory The very same way that Mr. White and Mr. S. will show us how these came in we will show him how many others came in as erroneous and scandalous as those are For whether they account these matters of faith or no it is certain many among them do and that the far greatest number who assert and believe them to be the doctrine of their Church too If therefore these might come in without one age mistaking or deceiving the next why might not all those come in the same way which we charge upon them as the errors of their Church And in the same manner that corrupt doctrines come in may corrupt practices too since these as he saith spring srom the other He might therefore have saved himself the trouble of finding out how an acute Wit or great Scholar would discover the p. 231. weakness of this way For without pretending to be either of these I have found out another way of attaquing it then Mr. S. looked for viz. from his own principles and concessions showing how errors might come into a Church without a total deception or conspiracy in any one age Which if it be true he cannot bind me to believe what ever he tells me the present Church delivers unless he can prove that this never came into the Church as a speculation or private opinion and from thence by degrees hath come to be accounted a point of faith Therefore his way of proof is now quite altered and he cannot say we are bound to believe whatever the present Church delivers for that which he calls the present Church may have admitted speculations and private opinions into doctrines of faith but he must first prove such doctrines delivered by Christ or his Apostles and that from his time down to our age they have been received by the whole Church for matters of faith and when he hath done this as to any of the points in controversy between us I will promise him to be his Proselyte But he ought still to remember that he is not to prove it impossible for one whole age to conspire to deceive the next but that supposing that it is impossible for any errors to come into the tradition of the Church Let us now see what Mr. S. objects against those words I then used against the demonstrating this way It is hard to conceive what reason should enforce it but such as proves the impossibility of the contrary and they have understandings of another mould from others who can conceive it impossible men should not think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors And whatever Mr. S. says to the contrary p. 234. I cannot yet see but that therein I argued from the very nature and constitution of the thing For that which ● looked for was a demonstration which I supposed could not be unless the impossibility of the contrary were demonstrated But if it be possible for men Christians nay Romanists to believe on other accounts then the tradition of the precedent age I pray what demonstration can there be that men must think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors did Surely if Mr. S' fancy had not been very extravagant he could never have thought here of men's being obliged to cut their Beards or wear such Garters and Hatbands as their forefathers did For do I not mention believing first and then doing by which it were easy to apprehend that I meant matters of faith and such practices as flow from them Neither was there any such crafty and sophistical dealing as he charges me with for p. 235. I am content his doctrine be taken in his own terms and I have now given a larger and fuller account why I am far from being convinced by the way he hath used for resolving faith Passing by therefore his challenge which I accept of as long as he holds to the weapon of reason and civility I come to consider his last enquiry why I should come to doubt of such an obligation p. 236. in posterity to believe their ancestors in matters of faith and he judiciously resolves it into a strange distortion of human nature but such as it seems is the proper effect of the Protestants temper P. 237. which is saith he to choose every one his faith by his private judgement or wit working upon disputable words Which as far as we own it is not to believe what we see no ground for and if this be such a distortion of humane nature I envy not Mr. S' uprightness and perfection If he means that we build our faith on our private judgements in opposition to Scripture or the Universal Tradition of the Church in all ages let him prove it evidently in one particular and I engage for myself and all true Protestants we will renounce the belief of it If he hath any thing further to object against the Grounds of our Religion he knows where to attaque me let him undertake the whole or else acknowledge it a most unreasonable thing thus to charge falsities upon us and then say we have nothing else to say for ourselves We pretend not to choose our faith but heartily embrace whatever appears to have been delivered by Christ or his Apostles but we know the Church of Rome too well to believe all which she would impose upon us and are loath to have her choose our Religion for us since we know she hath chosen so ill for herself But if Mr. S. will not believe me in saying thus what reason have I to believe him in saying otherwise such general charges than signify nothing but every one must judge according to the reason on both sides I now come to the last part of my §. 17. task which is to show that this way is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages To which purpose my words are It is to no purpose to prove the impossibility of motion when I see men move no more is it to prove that no age of the Church could vary from the preceding when we can evidently prove that they have done it And therefore this argument is intended only to catch easy minds that care not for a search into the history of the several ages of the Church but had rather sit down with a superficial subtlety then spend time in further inquiries But two things Mr. S. tells me are required ere I can see that their faith varies p. 238. from the former First to see what their Church holds now and then to see what the former Church held before and he kindly tells me if he sees any thing I see neither well It seems I want Mr. S' spectacles of oral tradition to see with but as yet I have no cause to complain of the want of them but ● see much better without them the● with them He tells me I cannot see what their present Church holds an● therefore I cannot assure any what w● held before because if I renounce tradition I take away all means of knowing The reason why I cannot candidly see as he phrases it what their Church holds now is because I cannot distinguish between faith and its explication some Schoolmen and the Church By which it seems it is impossible for me to know what their Church holds concerning Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Communion in one kind for those are the points I there mention wherein it is evident that the Church of Rome hath receded from the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church Or are these only the opinions and practices of some Schoolmen among them and not the doctrine and practice of their Church But that we might come to some fuller state of these controversies I wish M. S. would settle some sure way whereby we might know distinctly what are the doctrines and practices of their Church If the Council of Trent and Roman-Catechism be said to be the rule of doctrine I desire no other so that those may be interpreted by practices universally allowed among them As when that Council only defined that due honour be given to Saints the general practice of that Church may tell us what they mean by that due honour and if that be not fair I know not what is But I see all the shift Mr. S. hath is when he is pinched to say those are the opinions of Schoolmen and private speculators and not the doctrine of their Church And if such shifts as these are must serve the turn I should wonder if ever he be to seek for an answer But the shortest answer of all would be that none but those of their Church can know what she holds and therefore it is to no purpose for Protestants to write against her or it may be that none but Mr. S. and one or two more can tell for many among them say those are the doctrines of their Church which they deny to be So that except Mr. White and Mr. S. and some very few demonstrators more all the rest are Schoolmen private opinators and not to be relied on But I cannot see what their Church held formerly neither p. 239. No wonder at all of that for if I cannot see an object so near me as the present Church how can it be expected I should see one so much further off as the doctrine of former ages And his reason is so strong as may well persuade me out of one at least of my five senses For saith he if I question tradition I question whether there be any doctrine delivered and so any Fathers And is not this argued like a Demonstrator First he supposes there never was any way used in the world but oral tradition and then strongly infers if I deny that I can know nothing But I can yet hardly persuade myself that the Fathers only sat in Chimney corners teaching their Children by word of mouth and charging them to be sure to do so to theirs but as they loved preserving the doctrine of faith they should have a great care never to write down a word of it But why I wonder should Mr. S. think that if I do not allow of ●ral tradition I must needs question whether there were any Fathers I had thought I might have known there had ●een Fathers by their Children I mean ●he Books they left behind them But if ●ll Mr. S. pleads for be only this that ●o books can be certainly conveyed without tradition he disputes without an adversary but as I never oppose this so I am sure it doth him light service It is then from the books ●f the Fathers that I find what the sense ●f the Church of their age was and ●om thence I have showed how vastly different the opinions and practices of ●e Roman Church are from those of ●e Primitive Although then I may ●ot think myself obliged to believe ●ll that the present Church delivers for ●atter of faith yet I hope I may find ●hat the opinions and practice of the ●ormer Church were by the records ●hat are left of it And the reason ●hy I cannot think any one obliged ●o believe what every age of the church delivers is because I think no man obliged to believe contradictions and I see the opinions and practices of several ages apparently contrary to each other Well but I call this way a superficial §. 18. subtlety and so I think it still so little have Mr. S' demonstrations wrought upon me But saith he is that which is wholly built on the nature of things superficial No but that which pretends to be so built may And of that nature I have showed thi● way to be and not the former Bu● that I may not think him Superficial as well as his way he puts a profound Question to me What do I think Controversy is and that he may the better let me know what it is he answers himself I deal plainly with you saith he you may take it to be an a● of talking and I think you do so though you will not profess it but I take it to be a noble science But to let him see that I will deal as plainly with him as he doth with me I will profess it that I not only think Controversy as usually managed but some men's way of demonstrating Mr. S. may easily know whom I mean to be a mere art of ●alking and nothing else But he takes ●t to be a noble science yes doubtless ●f Mr. S. manage it and he be the ●udge of it himself His meaning I suppose is by his following words p 240. ●hat be goes upon certain principles and ●e do not We have already seen how ●ertain his principles have been and I ●hould be somewhat ashamed of my religion if I had no better But what ●ur rule of faith is hath been so amply discoursed already by you and that in ●r S' clearing method that nothing ● left for me to do but to touch at ●hat remains and concludes this an●er I had the better to illustrate ●he weakness of that argument from ●ral tradition brought an instance in ●hat case parallel viz. that if one ages delivering to another would prove that ●e faith of Christ was in every age ●nalterable because no age did testify ●ny such alteration to be in it by ●he same argument the world might be ●roved eternal because no age did ●ver testify to another that the world ●as ever otherwise than it is So that ●f oral tradition were only to be relied on there could be no evidence given of the world's being ever otherwise than it is and consequently the world must be believed to have been always what we see it is This a● far as I can apprehend is a clear and distinct ratiocination and purposely designed to prove that we must admit o● other rules to judge of alterations i● the Church by besides oral tradition But Mr. S. in his own expression strangely roving from the mark I aime● at professes there is not a tittle in i● p. 241. parallel to his medium nay that he never saw in his life more absurdities couche● in fewer words But I must take al● patiently from a man who still perche● 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 no● proceed upon the belief of the world● eternity which in his answer he run● wholly upon as far as eighthly and lastly p. 242. but upon the evidence of oral tradition as to no discernible alteration in an● age of it For the Question between us● is whether in matters of alteration i● the fa● 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 than we are bound to believe there hath been no alteraration since Christ and the Apostles times now I say if this ●old 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 judge whether the world were made or no by other mediums of Scripture and reason And this was all which I aimed at viz. to show 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 ●ether thi● be so full of absurdities or it b● such a rambling Chimerical argument as he calls it no two pieces ● which hang together with themselves p. 243. any thing else Which being expressions of as great modesty as science I am content Mr. S. should bear away the honour of them and his demo●strations together The last thing he quarrels wit● me for is that I say if we can tv dently §. 19 prove that there have been al● rations in the Church than it is to ● 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 insa●libly believe and practise as the precedent up to Christ's 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 persuade 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. lays 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 Universal 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 Apostasy in faith before the year 1664. Alas he had forgot this Most incomparably answered For if the degeneracy be in 1665. or any years a●ter what becomes of M. S' demonstration then that no errors could come into the Church but it seems his demonstration holds but till 1664. and I easily believe an other 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 itself the Catholic 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 persuade him that his demonstration was far from holding so long as 1664. And now I leave the Reader to judge whether the foregoing evidences against the infallibility of oral tradition or Mr. 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 take notice of what I have elsewhere said I am resolved to let him see I am not at all concerned about it I begin to understand him so well by this Appendix that I can give myself a reasonable account why he thought it not sit to meddle with any other part of my book But if Mr. S. be resolved not to answer any of the testimonies I there produce unless I p. 244. single them out and print them at the end of this Answer i. e. remove them from that evidence which attends them in the series of the discourse I can only say he is the most imperious answerer I have met with who is resolved never to deal with an adversary but on his own unreasonable terms Thus heartily wishing Mr. S' Science as great as his opinion of it and a good effect of our endeavours to promote the one by removing the other I am Sir Your affectionate friend and servant Edward Stillingfleet London June 28. FINIS Postscript SIR SInce the dispatch of the former Papers I have met with another Treatise wherein I find myself concerned written by the author of Fiat Lux the Title whereof is Diaphanta I am afraid the Title affrights you for I assure you it is the most formidable thing in his whole Book But the man is a very modest man and hugely different from Mr. S' humour for he is so far from offering to demonstrate the grounds of faith that all he pretends to in the title of his book i● to excuse Catholic Religion against the opposition of several Adversaries What fault I pray hath the Catholic Religion committed that it must now come to be excused instead of being defended But when I look into that part which concerns myself I presently understand the meaning of it which is not to excuse Catholic Religion but themselves for not being able to defend it For he very ingenuously tells us that faith is firm and constant p. 210. though all his talk for it be miserably weak i. e. he is sure they have an excellent Religion though he knows not what to say for it and their faith is a very good faith but it hath not yet had the good fortune to be understood by them For he acknowledges that as often as they dispute p. 2●9 they are beyond the business so may any one believe who reads their late books which is in effect to say there is no way left of disputing any longer with adversaries about their faith only they must believe it stoutly themselves but it is to no purpose to offer to defend it Nay it doth their faith a great deal of mischief for saith he in reading controversies we see not so much the nature of the faith as the wit of him who opposes or defends it From whence we may easily gather what unspeakable mischief they do their cause by writing for it By which expressions we may guests at what a low ebb the defence of their faith is among them for the way now taken to defend it is by disowning the defenders of it and by saying that they only vent their own opinions and though we confute them never so much yet their faith holds good still Was ever a good cause driven to such miserable shifts as these are especially among those who pretend to wit and learning One he saith T. C. vents a private opinion of his own and it is not a pin matter whether it stand or fall another he saith the same of I. S. a third of J. V. C. and yet for all this their religion is very firm and sure and they all at perfect agreement about it Is this the victory over me Mr. S. mentions to be so easy a thing I see that by the same figure Mr. S. calls his way of arguing demonstration running out of the field shall be accounted conquering For I never saw any person do it more openly than this author does For he plainly confesses that his Catholic Gentleman went quite besides his business that he built upon indefensible principles that his theological ratiocination was indeed pretty but too weak to hold And are not we hugely too blame if we do not cry up such mighty Conquerors as these are Truly Sir I expect the very same answer should be returned to your book that Mr. S' argument is a pretty theological ratiocination and that your answer is not unwitty but though that way will not hold another will Thus when they are beaten off Infallibility they run to Tradition and when they are again beaten off Tradition than back again to Infallibility So that the short of all their answers is though such a one cannot defend our faith yet I can though I cannot yet the fai●●s firm and constant still I wonder what their Superiors think of this ●ay of proceeding among them we ●hould imagine if they be so weak ●s they say themselves they had much ●etter keep them from appearing abroad and exposing their cause so ridiculously to contempt But it may ●e they think their faith is the bet●er as well as their devotion for their ●gnorance and that it would be a ●ighty disparagement to their cause ●or such silly people to be able to de●end it It is enough for them to admire it themselves and to say as ●heir common people use to do though ●hey cannot defend it yet there are ●ome that can And although it ●ay be no particular person can do ● yet their cause is able to defend ● self But for all that I can see by ●ck kind of answers the intention of ●hem is to entreat us not to triumph over the weakness of their pre●nt Writers but to wait till the ●ause itself thinks fit to write And when it doth so they may expect further answer but it were a grea● piece of cruelty for us to hasten the● ruin who fall so fast before us b● each others Pens FINIS ERRATA Page 16. l. 16. for that r. than p. 2● l. 8. for errors r. concerns Books Printed for and Sold by Henry Mortlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Churchyard near the little North door A Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord-Achbishop of Canterburyes Relation of a Conference etc. from the pretended Answer by T. C. wherein the true Grounds of Faith are cleared and the false discovered the Church of England justified from the imputation of Schism and the most Important particular Controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome thoughly Examined by Edward Stillingflee● B. D. Origines Sacrae or a Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained by the same Author The third Edition Correcte● and Amended Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Church's Wounds by the same Author Shecinah A Demonstration of the Divine Presence in Places of Religious Worship by J. Stillingfleet Rector of Beckingham in Lincolnshire The Moral Philosophy of the Stoics Bain upon the Ephesians Knowledge and Practice or a plain Discourse of the chief things necessary to be known believed and practised in order to salvation by Sa● Cradock B. D. The second Edition Corrected and Enlarged etc. The Believers Duty towards the Spirit the Spirits Office towards Believers by H. H. B. D.