in reason he ought to have done before he had forsaken us I shall declare it more particularly in these following Proposiâ—ions § 2. 1. That the Doctrine of Christian Religion was by Christ delivered to the Apostles and by them first preached to the World and afterwards by them committed to Writing which Writings or Books have been transmitted from one age to another down to us So far I take to be granted by our present Adversaries That the Christian Doctrine was by Christ delivered to the Apostles and by them publish'd to the World is part of their own Hypothesis That this Doctrine was afterwards by the Apostles committed to writing he also grants Corol. 29. 'T is certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ and if so it must be as certain that they writ the same Doctrine which they taught I know it is the general Tenet of the Papists that the Scriptures do not contain the entire body of Christian Doctrine but that besides the Doctrines contained in Scripture there are also others brought down to us by oral or unwritten Tradition But Mr. S. who supposeth the whole Doctrine of Christian Religion to be certainly conveyed down to us solely by oral Tradition doth not any where that I remember deny that all the same Doctrine is contained in the Scriptures only he denies the Scriptures to be a means sufficient to convey this Doctrine to us with certainty so that we can by them be infallibly assured what is Christ's Doctrine and what not Nay he seems in that passage I last cited to grant this in saying that the Apostles did both teach and write the same Doctrine I am sure Mr. White whom he follows very closely throughout his whole Book does not deny this in his Apology for Tradition where he saith that it is not the Catholick position that all its Doctrines are not contained in the Scriptures And that those Writings or Books which we call the Holy Scriptures have been transmitted down to us is unquestionable matter of fact and granted universally by the Papists as to all those Books which are owned by Protestants for Canonical § 3. Secondly That the way of Writing is a sufficient means to convey a Doctrine to the knowledg of those who live in times very remote from the age of its first delivery According to his Hypothesis there is no possible way of conveying a Doctrine with certainty and security besides that of oral Tradition the falshood of which will sufficiently appear when I shall have shewn that the true properties of a Rule of Faith do agree to the Scriptures and not to oral Tradition In the mean time I shall only offer this to his consideration that whatever can be orally delivered in plain and intelligible words may be written in the same words and that a Writing or Book which is publick and in every ones hand may be conveyed down with at least as much certainty and security and with as little danger of alteration as an oral Tradition And if so I understand not what can render it impossible for a Book to convey down a Doctrine to the knowledg of after-ages Besides if he had looked well about him he could not but have apprehended some little inconvenience in making that an essential part of his Hypothesis which is contradicted by plain and constant experience For that any kind of Doctrine may be sufficiently conveyed by Books to the knowledg of after-ages provided those Books be but written intelligibly and preserved from change and corruption in the conveyance both which I shall be so bold as to suppose possible is as little doubted by the generality of mankind as that there are Books And surely we Christians cannot think it impossible to convey a Doctrine to posterity by Books when we consider that God himself pitched upon this way for conveyance of the Doctrine of the Jewish Religion to after-ages because it is not likely that so wise an Agent should pitch upon a means whereby it was impossible he should attain his end § 4. Thirdly That the Books of Scripture are sufficiently plain as to all things necessary to be believed and practised He that denies this ought in reason to instance in some necessary point of Faith or matter of Practice which is not in some place of Scripture or other plainly delivered For it is not a sufficient objection to say that the greatest wits among the Protestants differ about the sense of those Texts wherein the generality of them suppose the Divinity of Christ to be plainly and clearly expressed Because if nothing were to be accounted sufficiently plain but what it is impossible a great wit should be able to wrest to any other sense not only the Scriptures but all other Books and which is worst of all to him that makes this objection all oral Tradition would fall into uncertainty Doth the Traditionary Church pretend that the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity is conveyed down to her by oral Tradition more plainly than it is expressed in Scripture I would fain know what plainer words she ever used to express this point of Faith by than what the Scripture useth which expresly calls him God the true God God over all blessed for evermore If it be said that those who deny the Divinity of Christ have been able to evade these and all other Texts of Scripture but they could never elude the definitions of the Church in that matter it is easily answered that the same Arts would equally have eluded both but there was no reason why they should trouble themselves so much about the latter for why should they be solicitous to wrest the definitions of Councils and conform them to their own opinion who had no regard to the Churches Authority If those great Wits as he calls them had believed the sayings of Scripture to be of no greater authority than the definitions of Councils they would have answered texts of Scripture as they have done the definitions of Councils not by endeavouring to interpret them to another sense but by downright denying their Authority So that it seems that oral Tradition is liable to the same inconvenience with the written as to this particular § 5. And of this I shall give him a plain instance in two great Wits of their Church the present Pope and Mr. White the one the Head of the Traditionary Church as Mr. S. calls it the other the great Master of the Traditionary Doctrine These two great Wits notwithstanding the plainness of oral Tradition and the impossibility of being ignorant of it or mistaking it have yet been so unhappy as to differ about several points of Faith insomuch that Mr. White is unkindly censured for it at Rome and perhaps here in England the Pope speeds no better however the difference continues still so wide that Mr. White hath thought fit to disobey the summons of his chief Pastor and like a prudent man rather to write against him here out
I take to be as shameful a Circle as that wherewith Dr. Holden upbraids the generality of his Brethren § 3. I proceed to his Authorities from Fathers and Councils all which not one of them excepted he hath taken out of Mr. White 's Tabulae Suffragiales without the least acknowledgment from whom he had them And that it might be evident that he had not consulted the Books themselves for them he hath taken them with all their faults and with the very same errors of Citation which Mr. White had been guilty of before him So that though he is pleas'd to say of himself that he he is a bad Transcriber yet I must do him that right to assure the Reader that he does it very punctually and exactly § 4. He begins with Councils of which he tells us he will only mention three in several Ages The first is the First Synod of Lateran One might have expected after he had told us he would mention three in several Ages he should have produced them according to the order of Time and have begun with the Council of Sardica which was near 300 years before the Lateran But there was a good reason why the Lateran should be first produced viz. because it is mentioned before the other in Mr White 's Book Well but what says this Synod We all confess unanimously and consequently with one heart and mouth the Tenets and Sayings of the Holy Fathers adding nothing substracting nothing of those things which are delivered us by them and we believe as the Fathers have believed we Preach so as they have taught The force of which Testimony Mr. S. lays upon the Word delivered as if that Word where-ever it is met with in Councils or Fathers must needs be understood of oral delivery whereas it is a general Word indifferently used for conveyance either by writing or word of mouth In this place it plainly refers to the writings of particular Fathers out of whom a long catalogue of Testimonies against the Heresie of the Monothelites had been read just before this Declaration of the Synod Now what signifies this to oral Tradition's being the Rule of Faith that this Synod declares her Faith in opposition to the Heresie of the Monothelites to be consonant in all things to those Testimonies which had been produced out of the Fathers The next is the Council of Sardica out of an Epistle of which Council he cites these words We have received this Doctrine we have been taught so we hold this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession Which are general words and indifferently applicable to Oral Tradition or Writing or both But be they what they will Mr. S. ought not to have been ignorant that this Council was rejected by St. Austin and other Orthodox Fathers as Binnius acknowledges and which is more that the latter part of this Epistle out of which part Mr. S. cites these words which contains a Confession of Faith is by Baronius and after him by Binnius proved to have been surreptitiously added For though it be found in Theodoret and mentioned by Sozomen yet Baronius thinks that it was the Arian Confession composed by the false-Synod of Sardica which sate at the same time and that Sozomen lighting upon it perhaps mistook it for the Confession of the Orthodox Synod of the same name However that be he proves out of Athanasius and from the Testimony both of the Eastern and Western Bishops that the Council of Sardica did not so much as add one word or tittle no nor so much as explain any thing in the Nicene Faith But Mr. White sayes nothing of this and therefore Mr. S. could not who is no Speculator in these matters but only as a Testifier delivers down these authorities to us as he received them by hand from Mr. White and if the word Tradition be but in them they are Demonstrative As for his Testimonies from the 2 d Council of Nice which he calls the 7 th General Council who pretended their Doctrine of Image-worship to have descended to them by an uninterrupted Tradition and proved it most doughtily by Texts of Scripture ridiculously wrested by impertinent sayings out of obscure and counterfeit Authors and by fond and immodest Stories as is acknowledged by Pope Adrian the 6 th of Apparitions and Womens Dreams c. for which I refer the Reader to the Council it self which is such a mess of Popperies that if a general Council of Atheists had met together with a design to abuse Religion by talking ridiculously concerning it they could not have done it more effectually I say as for his Testimonies from this Council I shall refer Mr. S to that Western Council under Charles the Great which a little after at Francford condemned and also fully confuted the Decisions of this Council calling their pretended Tradition of Image-worship putidissimam Traditionem a most stinking Tradition These are his authorities from Councils Where says he we see General Councils relying on the Teaching of the Fathers or fore-going Church and on the Churches Tradition as their Rule c. Where does he see any such matter Or where does he see General Councils Was the Council of Lateran a General one Or was the Council of Sardica If it was let him shew how the 2 d. of Nice could be the 7 th General Council Mr. White must write more explicitly and say which are General Councils which not otherwise he will lead his friends into dangerous mistakes § 4. After ancient Councils not so ancient neither let us says he give a glance at Fathers Glance is a modest word and yet I doubt whether ever the Fathers had so much as that from him Before I speak particularly to his Testimonies from the Fathers I shall mind him of what Mr. Rushworth says in general viz. That who seeks Tradition in the Fathers and to convince it by their Testimony takes an hard task upon him c. Again As in other Points so even in this of the Resolution of Faith as Doctors seem to differ now-adays so might the Fathers also If this be true Mr. S. is not very likely by a few Testimonies out of the Fathers to prove that Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith But let us see what he has done towards it He begins with a saying of Pope Celestine to the Fathers of the Ephesin Council Now therefore we must act with a common endeavor to preserve things believed and retained to this very time by Succession from the Apostles Binnius's other Reading of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quite spoils the force of this Citation which Mr. S. puts upon the word Succession But read it how he will why may not the Christian Doctrine be said to come by Succession from the Apostles when it is transmitted to us by Scripture as well as when by oral Tradition I am sure the same Celestine in an Epistle to Cyril commends him for defending
enough for the perpetuating of Christian Religion in the world § 2. Secondly Nor do we say that that certainty and assurance which we have that these Books are the same that were written by the Apostles is a first and self-evident Principle but only that it is a truth capable of evidence sufficient and as much as we can have for a thing of that nature Mr. S. may if he please say that Traditions certainty is a first and self-evident Principle but then he that says this should take heed how he takes upon him to demonstrate it Aristole was so wise as never to demonstrate first Principles for which he gives this very good reason because they cannot be demonstrated And most prudent men are of opinion that a self-evident Principle of all things in the World should not be demonstrated because it needs not For to what purpose should a man write a Book to prove that which every man must assent to without any proof so soon as it is propounded to him I have always taken a self-evident Principle to be such a Proposition as having in it self sufficient evidence of its own truth and not needing to be made evident by any thing else If I be herein mistaken I desire Mr. S. to inform me better § 3. So that the true state of the Controversie between us is Whether Oral and Practical Tradition in opposition to Writing and Books be the only way and means whereby the Doctrine of Christ can with certainty and security be conveyed down to us who live at this distance from the age of Christ and his Apostles This He affirms and the Protestants deny not only that it is the sole means but that it is sufficient for the certain conveyance of this Doctrine and withall affirm that this Doctrine hath been conveyed down to us by the Books of holy Scripture as the proper measure and standard of our Religion But then they do not exclude Oral Tradition from being the means of conveying to us the certain knowledg of these Books Nor do they exclude the authentick Records of former Ages nor the constant teaching and practise of this Doctrine from being subordinate means and helps of conveying it from one age to another Nay so far are they from excluding these concurrent means that they suppose them always to have been used and to have been of great advantage for the propagating and explaining of this Doctrine so far as they have been truly subordinate to and regulated by these sacred Oracles the Holy Scriptures which they say do truly and fully contain that Doctrine which Christ delivered to his Apostles and they preached to the world To illustrate this by an instance suppose there were a Controversy now on foot how men might come to know what was the true Art of Logick which Aristotle taught his Scholars and some should be of opinion that the only way to know this would be by oral Tradition from his Scholars which we might easily understand by consulting those of the present age who learned it from those who received it from them who at last had it from Aristotle himself But others should think it the surest way to study his Organon a Book acknowledged by all his Scholars to have been written by himself and to contain that Doctrine which he taught them They who take this latter course suppose the authority of oral Tradition for the conveying to them the knowledg of this Book and do suppose this Doctrine to have been taught and practised in all Ages and a great many Books to have been written by way of Comment and explication of this Doctrine and that these have been good helps of promoting the knowledg of it And they may well enough suppose all this and yet be of opinion that the truest measure and standard of Aristotle's Doctrine is his own Book and that it would be a fond thing in any man by forcing an interpretation upon his Book either contrary to or very forreign and remote from the obvious sense of his words to go about to reconcile this Book with that method of disputing which is used by the professed Aristotelians of the present age and withal that scholastick Jargon which Mr. S. learn'd at Lisbon and has made him so great a man in the Science of Controversie as to enable him to demonstrate first and self-evident Principles a trick not to be learn'd out of Aristotle's Organon The Application is so easy that I need not make it THE RULE of FAITH PART II. Concerning the Properties of the Rule of Faith and whether they agree solely to Oral Tradition SECT I. § 1. HAving thus endeavoured to bring the Controversy between us to its clear and true state that so we might not quarrel in the dark and dispute about we know not what I come now to grapple more closely with his Book And the main foundations of his Discourse may be reduced to these three Heads First That the essential Properties of such a way and means as can with certainty and security convey down to us the Doctrine of Christ belong solely to Oral Tradition This he endeavors to prove in his five first Discourses Secondly That it is impossible that this way of Oral Tradition should fail And this he pretends to prove in his four last Discourses Thirdly That Oral Tradition hath been generallly reputed by Christians in all Ages the sole way and means of conveying down to them the Doctrine of Christ. And this he attempts to shew in his last Chapter which he calls The Consent of Authority to the substance of his foregoing Discourses If he make good these three things he hath acquitted himself well in his undertaking But whether he hath made them good or not is now to be examined § 2. First Whether the essential Properties of such a way and means as can with certainty and security convey down to us the knowledge of Christ's Doctrine belong solely to Oral Tradition The true way to measure the essential Properties of this or that means is by considering its sufficiency for its end For whatsoever is necessary to make any means sufficient for the obtaining of its end is to be reputed and essential Property of that Means and nothing else Now because the end we are speaking of is the conveyance of the knowledg of Christ's Doctrine to all those who are concerned to know it in such a manner as they may be sufficiently certain and secure that it hath received no change or corruption from what it was when it was first delivered From hence it appears that the means to this end must have these two Properties 1. It must be sufficiently plain and intelligible 2 ly It must be sufficiently certain to us that is such as we may be fully satisfied concerning it that it hath received no corruption or alteration If it have these two conditions it is sufficient for its end but if it want either of them it must necessarily fall short of
not reasonable but peevish in exacting infallible security and insisting upon every capricious Objection such as is Mr. S's Might it not be otherwise Now as to this degree of Assurance or as he calls it Infallibility I cannot but grant what he says of it to be most true viz. That in a severe acception of the word it is not rigorously infallible that is as he explains it it is not absolutely impossible nor does it imply a flat contradiction that the thing whereof we are so assured may be otherwise But then I utterly deny that according to any true acception of this word such a degree of Assurance as he speaks of can be called Infallibility and withall I affirm That none of those several degrees of Infallibility which he mentions excepting that only which imports an absolute impossibility can with any tolerable propriety of speech or regard to the true meaning and use of the word have the name of Infallibility given to them For Infallibility can signifie nothing else but an utter impossibility that one should be deceived in that matter as to which he is supposed to be infallible and to say such a thing is impossible is to say that the existence of it implies a flat contradiction So that whosoever asserts degrees of Infallibility is obliged to shew that there are degrees of absolute impossibilities and of perfect contradictions and he had need of a very sharp and piercing wit that is to find out degrees where there neither are nor can be any Indeed in respect of the objects of knowledge it is easie to conceive how Infallibility may be extended to more objects or fewer but in respect of the degree of assurance of which Mr. Cressy speaks it is altogether unimaginable how any one can be more or less out of all possibility of being deceived in those things wherein he is supposed to be infallible for no one can be more removed from the possibility of being deceived than he that is out of all possibility of being deceived and whosoever is less than this is not infallible because he only is so who is out of all possibility of being deceived in those matters wherein he is supposed to be infallible So that Mr. Cressy's lower degrees of Infallibility are no degrees of that assurance which may properly be called infallible for that can have no degrees but of that assurance which is less than infallible And he needed not have raised all this dust about the degrees of Infallibility had it not been that by the means of such a cloud he might make the more convenient escape out of that strait he was in between the clamours of his own Church and the advantage which his Adversaries made of his free and open discourse against Infallibility For any one that carefully reads his Book will find that he understands nothing by the Infallibility of the Church but an Authority of obliging all Christians to submit to her Decisions which is no more but what every Supreme Civil Judg hath in Civil matters viz. a power to determine those Controversies that lie before him as well as he can or will and when that is done every one is bound to submit to such determinations but yet for all this no man ever dream't a Supreme Civil Judg to be infallible more than another man I do not now dispute the extent of the Churches Authority but if she have no other Infallibility but what a full Authority of decision does suppose I am sure she hath none at all Before I leave Mr. Cressy I cannot but take notice how unfortunate and disingenuous he is in explaining the meaning of these words of his own viz. Against this word of Infallibility Mr. Chillingworth 's Book especially combats and this with too too great success which in his Appendix he interprets thus Success I mean not against the Church but against his own Soul and the Souls of his Fellow-English Protestants c. As if one that had wished well to Caesar should have said That Pompey had fought against him with too too great success and being afterwards challenged by Caesar's Party as having said that Pompey had Conquered Caesar he should explain himself thus Success I mean not against Caesar but against his own life and the lives of his followers Can any thing be finer than for a man to say that by Pompey's success in fighting against Caesar he means that Caesar had beaten Pompey which is no more than if one should take the liberty to interpret white by black § 6. Lastly Mr. White doth most expresly contradict this Principle of Mr. S's in these following passages In his Preface to Mr. Rushworth he says That such a certainty as makes the cause always work the same effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherwise ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true certainty and that those Authors are mistaken who undervalue it So that it seems Mr. S. is mistaken in affirming that a man cannot be certain of any thing so long as there is any possibility that it may be otherwise In his Answer to my Lord Falkland he says That in Moral matters and such as are subject to humane action we must expect such assurance as humane actions bear If for the government of your spiritual life you have as much as for the management of your natural and civil life what can you expect more Two or three witnesses of men beyond exception will cast a man out of not only his lands but life and all He that among Merchants will not adventure where there is a Hundred to one of gaining will be accounted a silly Factor And among Souldiers he that will fear danger where but one of a Hundred is slain shall not escape the stain of Cowardize What then shall we expect in Religion but to see a main advantage on the one side which we may rest our selves on and for the rest remember we are men subject to chance and mutability and thank God he hath given us that assurance in a supernatural way which we are contented withall in our civil ventures and possessions which nevertheless God knoweth we often love better and would hazard less than the unknown good of the life to come Again If God Almighty hath in all sorts and manners provided his Church that she may enlighten every man in his way that goeth the way of a man then let every man consider which is the sit way for himself and what in other matters of that way he accounteth evidence And if there be no interest in his Soul to make him loth to believe what in another matter of the like nature he doth not stick at or heavy to practise what he sees clearly enough I fear not his choice Once more directing a man in his search after rational satisfaction in matters of Religion he hath this passage Besides this he must have this care that he seek what
a Hundred years to a Hundred but from Month to Month and even less If this be all that Tradition doth this is nothing but what is done among Protestants and that with greater advantage because we always teach Children to say their Prayers in a known Tongue so as they may understand them And we also teach them the Creed and Ten Commandments and the Sacraments so many as Christ hath instituted and no more So that if this be so infallible a way of conveying the Doctrine of Christianity we have it among us And we do over and besides instruct them in the Scriptures which are the authentick Instrument whereby Christ's Doctrine is conveyed to us But then we do not suppose as his Hypothesis necessarily enforceth him to do that the Christian Doctrine is equally taught and learned by all but by some more by others less perfectly according to the different abilities and diligence of Parents and Teachers and the various capacities and dispositions of Children whereas his Hypothesis falls if all or at least the generality of Parents do not instruct their Children with the like exactness and if the generality of Children do not receive this Doctrine in the same perfection that it is delivered For if it be taught or received with any variation it must necessarily be so conveyed and these variations will grow daily I had thought he would have told us how all Parents do teach their Children the whole Body of Christ's Doctrine and explain to them every part of it in a Hundred or a Thousand several expressions signifying the same sense and not have instanced in two Set-forms such as the Creed and Ten Commandments for according to Mr. White That cannot be a Tradition which is delivered in set-words § 2. Having thus explained Oral Tradition he comes to shew that the Properties of a Rule of Faith agree to it I have already shewed that the true Properties of a Rule of Faith are but two viz. That it be plain and intelligible and that it be sufficiently certain The first of these that Oral Tradition may deliver a Doctrine plainly and intelligibly I grant him All the difficulty is about the second Property whether we have sufficient assurance that the Doctrine delivered down by Oral Tradition hath received no coruption or change in its conveyance And all that he pretends to prove in this Discourse is That if this Rule hath been followed and kept to all along the Christian Doctrine neither hath nor can have received any change that is if the next Age after the Apostles did truly and without any alteration deliver the Christian Doctrine to their immediate Successors and they to theirs and so on then upon this supposition the Doctrine of the present Traditionary Church must be the very same with that which was delivered to the Apostles All this is readily granted to him But that this Rule hath always been followed nay that it is impossible there should have been any deviation from it as he pretends this we deny not only as untrue but as one of the most absurd Propositions that ever yet pretended to demonstrative evidence THE RULE of FAITH PART III. In which Mr. S's Demonstrations and Corollaries are examined SECT I. § 1. BEfore I come to speak particularly to his Demonstrations I shall premise these two Considerations First That according to the Principles of the Patrons of Tradition no man can by his private Reason certainly find out the true Rule of Faith Secondly That according to Mr. S. the way of Demonstration is no certain way to find out the Rule of Faith If either of these be made out his Demonstrations lose all their force If the first be made good then he cannot demonstrate the Infallibility of Tradition nor consequently that that is the Rule of Faith If the second then the way of Demonstration which he pretends to take signifies nothing § 2. First No man can according to the principles of the Patrons of Tradition by his private Reason certainly find out what is the Rule of Faith Suppose a Heathen to be desirous to inform himself of the Christian Faith in order to which he is inquisitive after some Rule by which he may take a measure of it and come certainly to know what it is He enquires of Christians what their Rule is and finds them divided about it some saying that the Scriptures others that Oral Tradition is the Rule In this case it is not possible without a Revelation for this man to find out the Rule of Faith but by his own private Reason examining and weighing the arguments and pretences of both sides And when he hath done this unless he can by his Reason demonstrate that the one is a certain and infallible Rule and the other not so he hath not according to Mr. S. found out the Rule of Faith But Reason can never do this according to Mr. S. For speaking of demonstrating the certainty of Tradition he tells us That Tradition hath for its Basis mans nature not according to his Intellectuals which do but darkly grope in the pursuit of Science c. And again speaking how Reason brings men to the Rule of Faith he uses this comparison She is like a dim-sighted man who used his Reason to find a trusty Friend to lead him in the twilight and then relied on his guidance rationally without using his own Reason at all about the Way it self So that according to him the certainty of Tradition cannot be founded on Demonstration because it is not founded in the intellectual part of man which only can demonstrate Besides if it were founded in the intellectual part yet that can never be able to demonstrate the certainty of Tradition because that faculty which is dim-sighted and does but grope darkly in the pursuit of Science is uncapable of framing Demonstrations Nor can any man understand how dim-sighted reason should see clearly to choose its guide any more than its way especially if it be considered what a pretty Contradiction it is to say that Reason as it is dim-sighted can see clearly But Mr. Cressy is not contented to call every mans Reason dim-sighted he ventures a step further and calls it hood-winkt and blind For he tells us That private Reason is apparently a most fallible guide and he pities my Lord Falkland's case because in the search of the true Religion he did betake himself to the casual conduct of blind humane natural Reason which afterwards he calls a guide that two persons cannot possibly follow together because no two persons that ever followed any other guide beside Authority did or could think all things to be reasonable that all others thought so and by consequence such a guide that as long as he continues in that office there cannot possibly be any Church any where which says he is an infallible eviction that this is an imaginary seducing guide since it is impossible that that should be
sayes Neither ought I now to alledg the Nicene Council nor thou that of Arminium for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor thou of the other Let us both contest with the Authorities of Scripture which are Wtinesses common to us both And also against the Donatists in these words Let them if they can demonstrate their Church not by the Talk and Rumors or oral Tradition of the Africans not by the Councils of their own Bishops not by the Books of their Disputers not by deceitful Miracles c but by the prescript of the Law Prophets c. i. e. by all the Canonical Authorities of the Holy Books Hierom saith Of those things which without the Authorities and Testimonies of the Scripture men invent of their own heads as from Apostolical Tradition they are smitten with the Sword of God Theophilus Alexandr whom Hierom hath Translated calls Scripture more than once the Rule and the Testimonies of it the firm foundations of Doctrine And again saith It comes from a Demonical spirit that men follow the Sophisms of humane minds and think any thing Divine that wants the Authority of Scripture Theodoret charges all Heresies upon the not following of Scripture which he calls the inflexible Rule of Truth Again We have have learned the Rule of Opinions from the Divine Scripture After the Fathers I shall produce the Testimonies of two Eminent Persons of latter Times Gerson and Lyra. Gerson in his Book of the Tryal of Doctrines hath this remarkable passage In the Tryal of Doctrines that which is first and principally to be considered is Whether a Doctrine be conformable to the H. Scripture c. The reason of this is because the Scripture is deliver'd to us as a SVFFICIENT and INFALLIBLE RVLE for the Goverment of the whole Ecclesiastical Body and its Members to the end of the world So that it is such an Art such a Rule or Exemplar that any other Doctrine which is not conformable to it is to be renounc'd as Heretical or to be accounted suspicious or not at all appertaining to Religion Again It is evident how pernicious the rejection of the H. Scripture is and how certain a preparatory for the reception of Antichrist Once more What mischief what danger what confusion hath happen'd thorough contempt of the H. Scripture which sure is sufficient for the Government of the Church else Christ must have been an imperfect Law-giver let us ask Experience c. Lyra also writes thus As in Philosophy truth is discovered by reducing things to their first and self-evident Principles so in the Writings deliver'd by the H. Doctors Truth is discover'd as to matters of Faith by reducing them to the Canonical Scriptures Sir You know how easy it were to swell up a large Volume with Testimonies to this purpose especially if I should take the course that Mr. Wh. does to hale in quotations though never so impertinent or use the wretched importunity which Mr. S. does to perswade them to be pertinent But these Testimonies which I have nakedly set down leaving them to speak for themselves are enough to satisfie an unpassionate Reader such an one as dares trust himself with the use of his own eyes and reason As for that sort of men which chuses to follow noise rather than light we must be content to leave them to the blind conduct of those Guides who having no better means to keep their Followers to them go halloing in the dark and fill their ears with the insignificant sounds of Infallibility Indefectibility Self-evidence and Demonstration Concerning the Appendix wherein you are particularly challeng'd I hope for an Account very shortly and so take leave SIR Your Affectionate Friend JOHN TILLOTSON Lincolns-Inn Febr. 20. 1665. FINIS A REPLY TO M r. J. S. his 3 d APPENDIX Containing some Animadversions ON THE BOOK ENTITULED A RATIONAL ACCOUNT of the Grounds of Protestant Religion By Ed. Stillingfleet B. D. London Printed by H.C. for Henry Mortlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard near the little North-door 1675. An Appendix to the Rule of Faith To his honoured Friend Mr. John Tillotson SIR AS soon as I understood your intentions to answer Mr. Serjeant I could not but rejoice on his behalf as well as on the truths and your own For I have that real kindness for him that I heartily wish him that reason and science he pretends to which I could not but despair of his attaining unless he were undeceived in that monstrous opinion he hath of himself and his undertakings And I knew no person more fit than you to let him understand the truth and himself together In which your performances have been so clear and satisfactory that I hope Mr. Sergeant in stead of another Letter of directions to his Answerer will write you one of thanks for the reason and kindness you have shewed him throughout your Book Unless it fares with you as it hath done with some other Adversaries of theirs that their civility hath been interpreted as an argument of their uncertainty and their own confidence cried up for a demonstration In which sense only I shall grant our Protestant Writers to build on uncertainties and Mr. White and Mr. Serjeant to be the great Demonstrators of this age If their own reason had been as severe as the censures at Rome against them they had saved us the labour of any answer and would have found out their own sophistry without a confutation But the least thing we can imagine by their excessive confidence is that they are deceived themselves and therefore it is a part of charity to them as well as justice to the truth to let the world see that big words are quite another thing from science and a strong presumption from a regular demonstration As to which no more need to have been said than what you have already done if Mr. Serjeant had not thought it an accession to the glory of his atchievements to lead two Pages of my Book in triumph after him I confess I was somewhat surprized to see a person who would be noted for his valour in assaulting Protestant Writers steal so behind the main bulk and design of my Book and when he had gotten two single Pages by themselves fall upon them with as much pomp and ostentation as if he had attack'd the whole And this must be noised abroad as an Answer to me by the same figure that his arguments are called demonstrations which is by an hyperbole unfit for any but such who never flag below the sphere of Science in their own judgments though they seem not to come near it in others Yet since Mr. Serjeant is not only pleased to concern himself so far as to answer that part of my Book relating to oral tradition but in most express terms to challenge me to reply to him he may now see assoon as I could get any