you How you could prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible And in a Copy sent from Ch. where you dispersed it the Title of the second Dispute is Stillingfleet's first Question How do you prove c. so that my Name was here falsly put in and it is easie to guess with what design But to proceed When you said the Infallibility of the Church of Rome consisted in following the universal Testimony of all Traditionary Christians Your Copy makes me ask a very wise Question upon it viz. How does if appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in Traditiun Whereas I put two Questions to you 1. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in the sense and meaning of Tradition 2. Is this Tradition a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture The Design of which Questions was to shew 1. That to receive a Doctrine by mere Tradition can afford no Infallible Ground of Faith unless persons be assured of the true Sense and Meaning of the Doctrine so delivered As for instance suppose the Doctrine delivered be that Christ was the Son of God if the Infallibility of Tradition goes no farther than the bare delivery from Father to Son then Faith can go no farther than the general words though an Heretical sense may lie under them If the Infallibility doth extend to the sense and meaning of these words then either every Traditionary Christian is to give this sense which will make a very large Infallibility in the whole Body of Traditionary Christians or else the explaining the sense and meaning of Tradition must belong to a certain Order of Men by virtue of a divine Promise If so then the Infallibility of Tradition cannot consist in holding the same Doctrine to day that was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour as you asserted For if the Church may explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as to oblige Men to believe that by virtue of such explication which they were not obliged to before then it is impossible the Infallibility of Tradition should be in a constant Tradition from Father to Son. For they have no power to oblige to any more than they received but according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and some will tell you it is Heresie to deny it and I appeal to F. Warner if it be not the Church hath power and authority to explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as persons are obliged upon pâ—in of Damnation to believe that Sense and Meaning of Tradition which the present Church delivers As will Appear by an undeniable instance The Tradition of a Real Presence in the Eucharist is allowed on all hands but all the Controversie is and hath been for some Ages what the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition is Whether it be a Real Presence by way of Efficacy and Influence or by a mystical Union or by a substantial Change of the very Elements into the Body and Bloud of Christ. The Tradition of the Real Presence may be preserved under every one of these Explications the Question now is whether it be sufficient to adhere to the general Tradition of the Church or it be not necessary to Salvation to adhere to the Churches Explication of the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition in the Councils of Lateran and Trent If it be said that the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition as there expressed viz. Transubstantiation was always deliver'd from Father to Son I answer 1. This is more than is pretended by many of the greatest Men in the Roman Church as hath been lately abundantly shewed And it is impossible to make it out that the manner of the Presence hath been constantly delivered from Father to Son from the time of Christ and his Apostles for the main Testimonies alledged out of Antiquity are onely for a Real Presence and there are as express Testimonies against the Change of the Elements as there are any for the other 2. This takes off from the Power and Authority of the Church of Rome if it cannot make a necessary Explication of the Sense and Meaning of Tradition and resolves all into a meer humane Faith which is the unavoidable Consequence of this Doctrine of Oral Tradition For no other Account can be given of it than from meer Natural Reason viz. that Traditionary Christians could not believe otherwise to day than they did yesterday Granting this to be true which is very far from being so as shall be shewed when Your Answer to the Instance of the Greek Church comes abroad yet the utmost this can amount to is that I resolve my Faith into a Logical Demonstration And is this the Faith Christians are to be saved by What Grace of God what Assistence of the Holy Spirit are necessary to such a Faith as this But for this I refer you to the Haeresis Blackloäna c. 2. I intended by the second Question to put a Difference between the Tradition allowed by us and the Tradition disputed If no more were meant by Tradition than the Universal Tradition of the Christian Church as to the Books of Scripture this I had before granted to be a sufficient Ground for the Certainty of our Faith as to the Canon of Scripture which is our Rule of Faith but if by Tradition be understood either some necessary Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture or a Power in the Church to make unnecessary to become necessary this I denyed and desire to see some better Proof of it than you produce All the Answer which you give in your own Paper to these two Questions is that All Traditionary Christians that is all Bishops all Priests all Fathers and all People following this Rule and receiving Faith because it was received the day before could not innovate in Faith unless they could all either forget what they received the day before or out of Malice change it therefore because no cause can be assigned for such an effect they cannot innovate If there can Assign it Now to which of the Questions that I put is this an Answer Doth this shew that the Church of Rome is Infallible in giving the Sense and Meaning of Tradition or that this Tradition is a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture But it seems to be an Answer to the Question in your Copy and therefore it is very suspicious that the Question was so framed that the Answer might seem pertinent to it To shew the vanity of this Demonstration I produced the Instance of the Greek Church which followed Tradition from Father to Son and yet you charge it with Errour in matters of Faith so that a Church following Tradition may err in matters of Faith. Here again your Copy notoriously fails for it makes me put such another wise Question as before Whether the Greek Church did follow from Father to Son the Tradition in matters of Faith or no As though I had desired Information from
Faith into the Infallibility of Oral Tradition For if this were the Christian Method of Resolving Faith there would have been very little Use or Necessity of Scripture and the Fathers were extremely mistaken in the mighty Characters which on all Occasions they give of it not onely of the excellency of the matter contained in it but as a Rule of Faith for all Christians as I might easily shew if there were occasion But I desire to see any thing like the consent of the Christian Church from the Apostles times downwards for resolving Faith into mere Oral Tradition and certainly if the Church had used this way it must have understood it and expressed it And it is a just Prescription against a method of resolving Faith that the ancient Christian Church which consisted I hope of true believers never knew any thing concerning it and yet I suppose they had absolute Certainty of their Faith though they had different Translations of the Bible among them 2. As to the Number of Books I do not deny that there was in the first Ages a difference in several Churches about the Number of Canonical Books but this doth not hinder that Vniversal Testimony I mentioned For 1. It adds weight to the Churches Testimony that where there was any Controversie about any Canonical Book of the New Testament the matter was examined and debated and at last after a through discussion the Book was received as happened about the Epistle to the Hebrews Which was not received by the Authority of one Church imposing upon another but by a fair Examination of Evidence produced for its Apostolical authority which being allow'd it hath been received by the unanimous Consent of the Christian Church 2. There hath been ever since an uncontradicted Consent of the Christian Church as to the Canonical Books of the New Testament No one Church disputing the Authority of any of them And even the Council of Trent agrees with us herein although it endeavours to obtrude some Books for Canonical in the old Testament which never had the Universal Consent of the Jewish or Christian Church for them 3. He desires to know how I understand that all the Divine Revelations are contained in the New Testament viz. whether all necessary Articles of Faith are contained in the New Testament virtually and implicitly or clearly and explicitly the former will doe me little service the latter is contradicted by the Church of Rome and therefore I can plead no Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church and so my Plea for absolute Certainty is groundless To this I answer 1. If it be agreed that all Doctrines of Faith necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture either explicitly or implicitly which Mr. M. denies not it is sufficient for my purpose For the Ground of my Faith is absolutely Certain viz. that all necessary Articles of Faith are contained in Scripture and if they be explicit I am bound to give a distinct Assent to them if they be not then no more is required of me than to believe them when they do appear to be there which is no more than a general preparation of Mind to yield my assent to whatsoever doth appear to me to be the Word of God. So that my Faith rests on the Word of God as its absolute ground of Certainty but the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrine depends upon the Evidence that it is contained in Scripture And it is the general Ground of Faith we are now upon and not the particular Acts of it 2. The Church of Romes assuming to it self the Power of making implicit Articles to become explicit by its declaring the sense of them doth not overthrow the Certainty of our Faith. For as long as it is granted that all necessary Articles of Faith are there explicitely or implicitely by an Universal Consent of the Christian Church it signifies nothing to the shaking of my Faith that a particular Part of the Church doth assume such a Power to it self For this must come among the particular Points of Faith and not the general Grounds It must be looked on as an Article of Faith and so it must be contained in Scripture either explicitely or implicitely If explicitely we desire to see it in express terms which I suppose you will not pretend to if only implicitely I pray tell me how I can be explicitely bound to believe such a Power in the Church of Rome which is only implicitely there And by what Power this implicite Article comes to be made explicite For the Power of the Church it self being the Article in question it is impossible that while it is only implicitely there it should make it self Explicit If it be said that it will become explicit to any sober Enquirer then every such Person may without the Churches help find out all Necessary Points of Faith which is a Doctrine I am so far from being ashamed of that I think it most agreeable to the Goodness of God the Nature of the Christiâ—n Faith and the Unanimous Consent of the Christian Church for many Ages But this is beyond our present business 3. The Church of Rome hath no-where declared in Council that it hath any such Power of making implicit Articles of Faith contained in Scripture to become explicit by its explaining the Sense of them For the Church of Rome doth not pretend to make new Articles of Faith but to make an implicit Doctrine to become explicit is really to make a new Article of Faith. It doth not indeed make a new Divine Revelation but it makes that which was not necessary to be believed to become necessary and what is not necessary to be believed is no Article of Faith. What is only believed implicitely is not actually believed but there is only a preparation of mind to believe it supposing it to be made appear to be a matter of Faith. Besides the Church of Rome declares that it receives its Doctrines by Tradition and although I have often heard of an implicit Faith I know not what to make of an implicit Tradition I had thought whatever is delivered by way of Tradition must be explicit or else the Father and Son might easily be mistaken And so for all that I can see Mr. M. and you must dispute it out for you say That the Infallibility of Faith depends on Oral Tradition and the Infallibility of Oral Tradition on this that the Traditionary Christians hold the same Doctrine to day that was delivered yesterday in Faith and so up to the time of our B. Saviour But what think you now of Mr. M.'s assertion That the Church hath power to interpret and make known implicit Doctrines contained in Scripture so as to make it necessary to believe them explicitely For he saith That all the Churches in Communion with Rome do hold there are Divine Revelations in Scripture which are contained there virtually and implicitely so as they need the Churches Interpretation and Authority for being
we have the Word of God for it that they are in the certain way to salvation but if they could be kept from all Errour and yet not be sincerely Good Can Faith save him Jam. 2.14 What doth it profit my Brethren though a man say he hath Faith even infallible Faith and have not Works I have long wonder'd at this kind of Missionary Zeal as Mr. M. speaks p. 34 against Errour and the want of I know not what Infallibility when so much less Zeal is shewed against Mens Passions and Vices whereas the Vertues of the Mind and of a good Life are far more excellent and usefull to Mankind than being kept from Involuntary Errours But saith Mr. M. It is a most uncomfortable thing to be shewn that you ought not to trust your Reason and to be told yâ—u ought In answer to this suggestion I will tell you a very comfortable thing and that is the allowance God makes for Ignorance and Weakness For if God will not charge Involuntary Errours upon us we may think our selves as safe as if we were Infallible What Reason we have we ought to make use of for the best purposes but if our Reason fail us the Goodness of God will not if we be Sincere Yet Mr. M. cannot get it out of his head but that it is my Task to give some distinguishing Mark for the finding out those Christians on whose Tradition we may safely rely for the Reception of the holy Scriptures How often must I repeat it that it is none of my Task And that if the Testimony of all Christian Churches be a sufficient Ground of Certainty I have no Reason to examine farther As for Instance suppose upon a Lord Mayor's Day I ask of all the several Liveries and Companies and other People whether my Lord Mayor be gone by and they all unanimously agree that he is have not I reason to be satisfied by this universal Consent Ay but Sir saith Mr. M. you are to consider that there was a great diversity in the Companies you met with there was my Lord Mayor's own Company and many besides some whereof had no Charters confirmed to them I desire you to tell me which of the Companies had Charters and which not for my part I will believe none but the Testimony of those Companies which could produce their Charters But say I if our Dispute was about legal Companies you say very well but since I aim at no more than knowing whether my Lord Mayor be gone by or not I think the Testimony of them all is sufficient whether incorporated or not whether they were of the Orange or Blew Regiment or any other People in the Street when I find them all to agree in the same thing I have no reason to question the Certainty of it I will not think so poorly of your Vnderstandings as to think it needs Application But I must think so if yet you think it my Task to find out a distinguishing Mark between Churches when the universal Testimony of all Christian Churches is sufficient for the Certainty of our Faith which Mr. M. so often grants was the Occasion and Subject of the Conference And now there is nothing remaining to be answered in Mr. M's Letter to me but his learned Discourses about Verbal Conferences and Coffee-Houses which will require no long Answer from me As to Verbal Conferences they depend so much on the Temper Ingenuity Presence of Mind and particular skill in Controversie which Persons have that no certain Rule can be given about them They may doe Good or Hurt be Usefull or Mischievous as the Persons and circumstances are And it is not the setting down some general Heads can prevent the Mischief of false Reports as I have had too large and fresh Experience of it Which ought to make every one more Carefull what sort of Persons he meets with upon such Occasions I do not see how any Man can be secure as to his Reputation after them if they are such as run into Companies frequent Coffee-houses and are apt to boast and to talk much of themselves as that at such a time saith one I disputed with such a Man and these were my Arguments and he gave such trifling Answers to them that I wonder he should have any Reputation And to convince you look ye Gentlemen here are the Notes of such a Conference do you mark what a pitifull Answer this is and then when he was required to go farther he Refused and pretended business and want of Time so that upon the whole Matter I conclude him to be a Mere Trifler All this while the Person concerned is at a Distance and knows nothing of all this but he is abused and reproached at the Mercy of such Persons who look on an officious Lie as a Venial sin especially when it is thought to serve a Good Cause And when the injured Person comes to understand how he hath been used he hath no way left but to publish a Vindication of himself and so Verbal Conferences must end in Writing Controversies unless some effectual way could be found out to prevent mens partial and disingenuous Representing them afterwards There is too great Reason to believe that those who are most Impertinent in a Dispute will be so after it and great Talkers are commonly great Boasters especially when they hope to recommend themselves by their pretended Victories and their Missionary Zeal of disputing in Coffee-houses A thing which Mr. M. observes p. 34. the Children of the Reformation are little acquainted with And I do not like the Mother of these Children a jot the less for it For Religion is a grave and serious thing and ought to be treated with a Respect due to the Concernments of it I am far from being a Friend to any Seditious idle or profane Discourses in those places but yet methinks it looks very oddly to turn Places of Diversion into Schools of Disputing And if such a Missionary Zeal prevails I suppose the Keepers of those Houses will give little thanks to the Promoters of it for Men do not love to drink their warm liquour in Mood and Figure nor to lace their Coffee with Controversies Mr. M. represents me p. 33. as one that thought it a Crime to go to Coffee-houses Which is a notable device to make all the Gentlemen who frequent them my Enemies Whereas I onely mentioned your reading your Paper in Coffee-houses and there boasting of your Conference wherein he might be sure I would not be present to contradict him But this is a distinguishing Mark of Mr. M's Ingenuity I shall mention one more and conclude this Letter Mr. M. confesses many Lies are told in Coffee-houses p. 33. and I have some Reason to believe him But if saith he all Places are to be avoided wherein Lies are told I am afraid Dr. St. would run the hazard of being silenced for want of a Pulpit which might be ventured on This is such an obliging Complement to the London Clergy to compare their Pulpits to Coffee-houses for Lying that it is beyond my skill to return it But if there be so little Truth in our Pulpits as Mr. M. suggests which I am sure he can never prove yet the constant Loyalty which hath been preached there might have made Mr. M. a little more civil to them than to compare them to Coffee-houses wherein himself complains of Seditious idle and profane Discourses I am Sir Your humble Servant E. S. London Apr. 21 1687. THere is in the Press and will speedily be published an Answer to the Reasons of Edward Sclateâ— Minister of â—uâ—ney for his Conversion â—o the Roman Catholick Faith and Communion Sold by H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard V. Herâ—s Blackloâ—n
you whether it did yea or no And that had been all But I urged plainly that it did and notwithstanding you charge it with Errour nay with Heresie which overthrows all the force of your Demonstration that a Church following Tradition cannot err when you charge a Church following Tradition with Heresie And is not this some thing like falsification to leave out the whole force and strength of an Argument And to leave it a very insipid toothless Question No saith Mr. M. p. 18. it was onely to spare a little unnecessary Pains for it cannot be imagined he should have any other design in leaving out those words I do not charge the Gentleman who wrote with a design to falsily but I cannot excuse you from dispersing false Copies in that when you could not but see the Notorious Defects of this Copy you would disperse it as containing a true Account of the Conference Methinks you were very sparing in the necessary pains of Correcting it before you had read it in companies for the true Copy and given it to others to transcribe As to the Conclusion Mr. M. confesses that it was not distinctly set down but I say again that Copy is false in the Conclusion For these are the Words The Greek Church followed Tradition from Father to Son till they left that Rule and took up another and so fell into Errour as the Calvinists did Here is not one Word concerning the Arians which you cannot but remember that you ran to and mentioned over and over when I told you the Greek Church did still follow Tradition as her Rule you said the Arians left the Rule and interpreted Scripture as the Calvinists did I told you again that I meant not the Arians but the present Greek Church and I do particularly remember that I desired the Gentleman who wrote for you to put down in his Paper that it was the present Greek Church I spake of I grant as Mr. M. saith p. 19. that it was not set down by your Consent any where for the Truth is when you found your self pinched by this Instance you grew so very uneasie that you did all you could to bring things into that Confusion and Disorder which Mr. M. mentions You rose up in a great heat and talked a great deal to no purpose about Calvinists c. for all the ways I could use could not bring you to set down any farther Answer to the pressing Instance of the Greek Church You confessed I had raised a vast Difficulty about it but after all you left no Answer behind you to this Difficulty and I still desire you to give it Mr. M. p. 19. doth ingenuously confess that this Point was not fully cleared No not in any measure But he saith I began with Reproaches I confess it is a terrible Reproach to tell a Man he cannot Answer an Argument but that he makes use of Tricks to avoid it and that I never met with any that excelled you in that kind Farther than this I remember not that I used any term of Reproach to you And the onely way to wipe off such a Reproach is to give a fair and Ingenuous Answer and till that be done this Reproach will stick As to Mr. T 's slip in calling the Greek Church an universal Church methinks you might excuse him for the sake of the Roman Catholick Church which in other words is the Roman universal Church And why should not such a Contradiction doe as well in Greek as Latin since the Patriarch of Constantinople had the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch But this Gentleman cannot escape so for although Mr. M. cannot deny that at the End of the first Dispute he declared that he was fully satisfied with my Answers p. 10 yet he desires leave to judge how far this satisfaction of Mr. T. was rational and what grounds he had for it If Mr. T. had been unsatisfied with my Answers no doubt he had passed for a Rational and Ingenious Man but his Misfortune is that he could not see Reason in your Demonstrations nor the want of it in what I offer'd to prove the Certainty of our Faith without your pretence to Infallibility Therefore to satisfie the World that Mr. T. had sufficient Grounds for what he then said I shall now examine and weigh all the Parts of that Conference and consider what Mr. M. hath said about it The occasion of it is thus set down by him p. 2. You had affirmed in some Companies that no Protestant could shew any Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith and that Mr. T. had promised you that if I were not able to manifest the contrary he would forsake our Communion Hitherto Mr. T. was a very rational Man because he appeared to doubt of his Religion and if a little thing had satisfied him i. e. if he had been converted by your Demonstration he had been more so than ever But if a Man cannot be convinced by your reason to change his Religion who can help it And yet I very much question whether F.W. would absolve any Man who professed to embrace the Catholick Faith on your Grounds which overthrow the Churches Authority in matters of Faith and proceed upon Pelagian Principles The first thing which was proposed saith Mr. M. p. 3. and indeed the onely Subject Mr. G. had any purpose to discourse on was Whether Protestants had a Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith or not Here the Faith spoken of is that Faith whereby we are Christians and your pretence was that without your Infallibility we can have no Absolute Certainty of the Christian Faith i. e. of the Grounds on which we believe the Scripture to contain the Word of God or all things necessary to be believ'd by us in order to Salvation Therefore when the Question was put by you Q. 1. Whether you are absolutely certain that you hold now the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught to his Apostles A. 1. My Answer was that we are absolutely certain that we now hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles Wherein I plainly distinguish between that Doctrine which Christ by his own Mouth taught his Apostles and that which the Apostles did by the Spirit of Christ teach the whole Church The Account I offered as to the Christian Faith was not as to what Christ taught by an Oral Tradition as the Iews affirm of Moses delivering an unwritten Law but I framed my Answer on purpose to shew that our Faith is not to be resolved into what Christ taught any otherwise than as it is conveyed to us by the Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists For the Resolution of our Faith as to what Christ himself taught is not to be made into the Words of Christ teaching conveyed by an Oral Tradition from his time downwards but into the Words of Christ as recorded by the holy Writers of the New Testament And so much I expressed
of our Faith viz. the Scripture although we have a larger and firmer Tradition for it viz. the Consent of all Christian Churches than you can have for the Points in Difference between us 2. That the Tradition from Father to Son is an infallible Conveyance in Matters of Faith notwithstanding the Greek Church is charged by you with Errour which adhered to Tradition Now upon this the Authour of the first Letter desires to be commended to me us a Man who loves to spare his own Pains For 't is as much as to say do you doe all the Work and I will sit by and tell you whether it be well done or no must Mr. G. prove that Protestants have no absolute Certainty I think you are bound to do it upon Mr. M's own Account of the Occasion of the Conference viz. that you affirmed that no Protestants could shew any Ground of Certainty for their Faith. And upon this the Conference was desired and since therein I undertake to shew what our Ground of Certainty was you ought to make it evident wherein it fails and you have not so much as offer'd at any thing to disprove it but would fairly have run into another dispute and because I would not yield to it you and Mr. M. call me a Trifler You see I have not been so sparing of my Pains now but I would commend that Gentleman to you who get other Men to do your Work for you But he goes on I thought it had concerned them to be satisfied that they have Yes so we are and are very well satisfied that we stand upon surer Grounds than those who go upon the baffled pretence of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition for which no one Church of the Christian World hath declared For the Infallibility of Tradition in the Church of Rome is another thing depending upon a Divine Promise and not a kind of meer natural Infallibility But he saith he takes no notice that the Question is veered from certainty of Protestant Doctrine to certainty of Scripture How strangely mistaken is this Gentleman in the whole Matter For the Question was wholly about the certainty of Faith in general as fully appears by what is said already When the Grounds of Faith are made clear we shall come easier to particular Points of Difference between us If we may have sufficient certainty without your pretence of Infallibility then we may have a true and sound Faith without coming into your Church and where there is such a Faith there is a Possibility of Salvation and consequently there can be no Necessity of Forsaking the Communion of a Church where we have such certain Grounds of Faith. Mr. M. in Answer to the first Particular speaks more home and close to the purpose and therefore what he saith deserves to be more strictly examined 1. It is not denied saith he p. 28. that there is in Faith an absolute certainty for that Scripture wherein we agree Thus far Mr. M. grants what you deny that we Protestants have absolute certainty for our Faith. But he will not allow us to be able to shew any such certainty on our Principles Now this is truly a hard case we are in there is an absolute Certainty and this certainty lies in Universal Tradition and we can shew this Universal Tradition and yet we cannot shew the true Ground of our certainty If this be our case we deserve to be either pitied or begg'd But surely Mr. M. hath some colour for such a strange Assertion This is all he pretends for it that in the time of the Reformation the Protestants charged all Christian Churches with Errours not only in other Articles of their Belief but even in the Tradition or Delivery of Scripture Therefore we can have no certainty now from the Universal Tradition of Christian Churches Suppose some Men were then to blame in charging some Churches with more Errours than they were guilty of must therefore no Argument be taken from their consent when things are more cleared and better understood This is just as if it had been said of the blind Man whom our Saviour cured You saw Men walking like Trees at first and therefore you have no right to judge them to be otherwise now Or like one newly escaped out of a dark Prison who fears and suspects every one he meets and takes all for Enemies till he be better acquainted with them must this man therefore never have any certain knowledge afterwards of Friends and Enemies But why doth not Mr. M. name the Churches which the Reformers charged with Errours in delivering the Canon of Scripture I am sure they plead the consent of the Eastern Churches against the Tridentine Canon as to the Old Testament and all Christian Churches are known to agree as to the New and why such an universal consent should not afford a ground of certainty to us is beyond my understanding 2. He saith Our Rule is Scripture not as interpreted or to be interpreted by the Church but as understood or to be understood without a necessity of submitting to the Interpretation of the Church by every sober Enquirer tho' of the meanest capacity for which Rule we are far from having the consent of all Christian Churches The main Question is Whether Scripture be a Rule of Faith to us or not And certainly all that believe it to be the Word of God must take it for a Rule of Faith. For since the reason of our believing is because God hath revealed whatever God hath revealed must be believed and a Book containing in it such Revelations must be the Rule of our Faith i. e. by it we are to judge what we are bound to believe as Divine Revelations The best of your Divines do all agree that our Faith is not to be resolved into any other Revelation than that which was made by Christ and his Apostles and that this Revelation is contained in the Books of the New Testament This being agreed on both sides every Christian how mean soever his capacity be must look on the Scripture as his Rule of Faith for he that is bound to believe at all must have some Rule or else he may believe any thing he finds all persons agreed that the Scripture is the Word of God and God's Word is an infallible Rule therefore he is bound to search the Scripture tor the matters of Faith. And is it possible to imagine that God himself should direct the making of this Rule for the benefit of all who are bound to believe and not to make it useful to its End viz. to be able to direct them in the necessary Points of Salvation The Founders of Monastie Orders made Rules for all those who were to live in them and obliged them to observe them under pain of Expulsion I desire to know whether this doth not suppose that those Rules are capable of being understood by all persons admitted into those Orders so far as they are concerned and
me who because I had proved from St. Paul's words that Iupiter was sometimes taken among the Heathens for the true God from thence wisely infers that I am for introducing Paganism and hardly believe another Life but this is so gross and ridiculous a calumny that it hardly deserves to be taken notice of But I pray let me see this Controversie-juggle as Mr. M. phrases it and how Dr. St. is set up against Dr. St. Thus it lies In my first Proposition I seem to affirm that the Tradition of all Christian Churches is abound of absolute certainty for the admittance of Scripture and in the second I would infer that Tradition is no infallible conveyance of matters of Faith but the belief of the Scripture is a matter of Faith. A rare Discovery Methinks Mr. G. appears very well qualified to set up for a Controvertist and much such a one as those who formerly set Dr. St. against Dr. St. But the Author of the first Letter obsrves that I spare my own pains and put the proof upon you Mr. M. confesses that the occasion of the Conference was that you affirmed that Protestants could not shew any ground of absolute certainty for their Faith. Therefore since you own Tradition to be an infallible way of conveying Faith I desired to know how you could deny that we had any ground for absolute certainty of our Faith as to the Word of God when the Tradition we go upon is so much larger and firmer than any you can bring for the points of Faith in difference between us But then as to your way of explaining Tradition not with respect to the Books of Scripture but to particular Doctrines of Faith proposed the second particular to you to make good viz. That the Tradition from Father to Son is an infallible conveyance of matters of Faith notwithstanding the Greek Church is charged by you with Errour which adhered to Tradition If therefore you do own the Infallibility of Tradition you have no reason to deny that we have any ground of certainty who have a more unquestionable Tradition for the Scriptures than you can have for your distinguishing Doctrines or the matters of Controversie between us Yet how can you esteem your way of Tradition an infallible conveyance of matters of Faith when you charge the Greek Church with Heresie which adhered to Tradition Thus I leave any Reader to judge where the appearance of a contradiction lies There remains nothing more in either of the Letters which I can think requires an Answer unless it be that I charge Mr. M. with using arts to get Mr. T. to sign your Copy I do confess that when he told me Mr. M. had spoken to him that they might meet and compare and sign each others Copies without acquainting me with it or desiring that Copy which was taken for me and was read aloud till the Company rose and that he had said that I gave out false Copies I did look upon these as Arts but if he doth not like this name nor Mr. T. I can soon find out another And the matter of fact is owned by Mr. M. in these words Meeting accidentally with Mr. T. in the street I told him I heard you complained that Mr. G.'s Papers of the Conference were false and therefore I desired him to compare his copy with that which was written for Mr. G. that we might see whether Mr. G. or his Amanuensis had dealt fairly or not Here is the very thing confessed which I complained of viz. that without acquainting me with it he would have had Mr. T. to have compared his Copy with theirs after he confess I had complained that the Copy they gave out was false And if Mr. T. had complied with this Proposition and after comparing had signed your Copy what Triumphs had then been made that Mr. T. himself had owned your Copy against me And for this matter I need not make any insinuation for the thing it self is clear The only way for your justification had been when you heard of my complaint to have brought or sent your Copy to me to have examined and compared it but I say still it was very unjustisiable for you to give out a Copy for the true account of the Conference which was never read nor compared and I think I have now made appear to have been both false and imperfect And now having finished the main parts of my Answer I must make a Review that nothing which may be thought material may escape me For that is the constant method of some men to cry up what is unanswered for unanswerable although it were only passed over as not deserving it I did say in my former Letter that you took great care in the Conference it self to keep me from expecting any great ingenuity after it The Author of the first Letter desires Information what that care was I am very unwilling to expose your methods of managing Conferences but I desire that Gentleman to be present at any of them and he will find satisfaction enough But Mr. M. as a proof of your fairness insists p. 2. on your desire to put things into writing Will Mr. M. say that you carried your self fairly and ingenuously as to the manner of the Conference That you gave me no interruptions used no fleering behaviour that you never offered to put things down against my sense nor hindered me in setting it down that you made no unhandsom reflections in the interlocutory part If Charity be any part of Ingenuity you shewed it abundantly For when you spake of Churches in Communion with Rome Mr. T. said What! and all other Churches must be in Gehenna you replied with great Charity and Ingenuity that many a true word was spoke in jest If you are your self in earnest I pray let us know for what reason you damn us all Is it for want of certainty in our Faith That is very far from being proved by you And if you could prove it in your way for all that I can see you will damn almost all in the Church of Rome as well as all out of it For if this Oral Tradition be the only certain way of Faith and all are damn'd who want such certainty what will become of all those in the Church of Rome who believe as little of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition as we do But to return to your Ingenuity in the Conference I observe that Mr. M. onely mentions this Proposal of putting the Conference in Writing to shew your Ingenuity he saith not a word of it as to your manner of managing it And truly I then thought he was ashamed of it but whether he were or not I am sure he had cause for it He confesses there was Noise Wrangling Confusions Interruptions Heat Passion Personal reflexions p. 3 9 15. And all this while you were very fair and ingenuous very meek and candid very soft and obliging not in the least boisterous impertinent or