The Reflecters Defense of His Letter to a Friend — Clement Ellis

The Reflecters Defense of His Letter to a Friend · Clement Ellis

The Third Dialogue.

TO prove the Infallibility of the Catholick Church, (or as you put it, the Abſolute Certainty of the Catholick Rule) You will grant to be your part, if you think it need any proof, as I queſtion whether you do or no, for (L. p. 12.) you ſay, It is vain to talk against one Infallibility, unleſs we will ſet up another.

I. S.

It has been demonſtrated to you, (Faith Vindic. p. 37, 38.) that Infallibility and Certainty are the ſame. R. p. 39.

I have not ſeen your Demonſtrations yet, nor can I hope that I ever ſhall; becauſe I am ſure there are degrees of Certainty, and there can be none of Infallibility. If you think otherwiſe, to what purpoſe talk you of Abſolute Certainty, and will not conſent to have the word left out. If Certainty be no leſs than Infallibility, Abſolute Certainty can be no more, therefore you might have ſpared the word.

I. S.

Nature tells us, that all Diſcourſe ſuppoſes ſomething Certain. Ib.

What thon?

I. S.

How is it poſſible then to Diſcourſe againſt Infallibility, or any thing elſe, without ſetting up and proceeding upon ſomething that is Certain, or Infallibly true? Ib.

A Certainty we grant, Infallibility we deny. The former's enough to ground a rational Diſcourſe upon, even againſt Infallibility.

I. S.

If you will needs declare againſt Infallible Certainty; be but ſo candid, as to ſay ſtill you are Fallibly Certain, and ſee how your Readers will ſmile at your Folly. Pray ſpeak to this Point. Ib.

To be ſtill telling men, what they know already, might make them ſmile indeed; but ſhould we tell them, whilſt we are denying Infallibility, that we are infallible, it would make them laugh outright.

I. S.

Are you not deſerters of Humane Nature, ſuppoſing there is no Infallibility, that is, true Certainty to be found amongſt men? R p. 40.

True Certainty there is, and that's enough for Human Nature.

I. S.

Are you not heirayers of Chriſtion Faith, whilſt you leave it all capable to be a lye; nay, maintain the full ſence of that wicked Poſition, [All Chriſtian Faith is paſſible to be falſe] in Diſcourſes directly framed for that for purpoſe? Ib.

Have the Authors of thoſe Diſcourſes no Names? Or are you too modest to name them? All we ſay, is, That Men are capable of being deceived. We affirm ourſelves as certain as men can be, that no part of the Chriſtian Faith can be a lye, or is poſſible to be falſe.

I. S.

Are you not Blaſphemers of God's Providence, in declaring that he hath left leſs certain grounds for Faith, and for the ſalvation of Mankind, for which the World was created, and God himſelf died, than he hath for other things of trifling importance?

Do we declare all this, when we ſay, The Infallible God hath by Men inſpired with his Infallible Spirit, left us his Word plainly written, which is a ſufficient means to ſecure us from being dangerouſly deceived in any thing neceſſary to our Salvation, if we diligently attend unto it, and uſe the proper helps of underſtanding it? A. p. 17, 18.

I. S.

Will it expiate from thoſe Crimes, to talk cantingly? —Sayings fit to take the good Women that are much pleas'd with Godly talk in a Sermon, but frivalous in our Controverſie! Ib.

Nay, Sayings, that ſhew his wickedneſs, that focuſeth us for denying the certainty of the Chriſtian Faith, againſt his own knowledge; and eſteems the talking of what God hath done to ſecure us from Error, frivolous Talk in a controverſie about the Certainty of our Faith; and which ſhow we have ſufficient certainty.

I. S.

I ſuppoſe you mean a certainty that is neither fallible nor infallible. Ib.

An undoubted certainty, ſo as we cannot doubt that we are, thô 'tis not impoſſible but we may be deceiv'd.

I. S.

You tell men, that after all their pains, they can never be ſatisfied, but their Faith may be falſe, that is, they can never be ſatisfied that it is true. R. p. 41.

Not ſatisfied? Yes, fully. Which they can never be, if they muſt ſtay till they be infallible.

I. S.

When the certainty of your Grounds fail you, your laſt Refuge is, that the ſame Infallible God, that hath given the means, has aſſured his bleſſing to them that diligently uſe them. Ib.

I confeſs, 'tis God's bleſſing we moſt truſt to. And if you can hope for certainty by the uſe of any means without it, 'tis more than we can do.

I. S.

This begs the Queſtion: For if the Rule you follow be not the means ordain'd by God to arrive at Faith, you have neither the right means, nor can you be aſſured of any bleſſing by uſing them. Ib.

The preſent Queſtion is of Infallibility, without which, ſay you, we want means of ſecuring us from being deceived, and are diſcouraged from taking due pains to compaſs the good we deſire. No, ſay I, for thô there be no Infallibility among men, yet if we uſe the means, we may be ſecured by the promiſe of a bleſſing from the infallible God. How doth this beg the Queſtion? If our Certainty be not enough, where ſhall we find this Infallibility of your's? In Tradition ſure, if any where; for after we have been ſent from place to place to ſeek it, we have miſſed it every where elſe. A. p. 18.

I. S.

Pray, Sir, who ſent you? We with whom you are diſcourſing, never directed you to any other, but to that of Tradition. Ib.

Roman Catholicks they were who ſent us. And who you are, I know not, whether One or Many, or what your We ſignifies.

I. S.

What an everlaſting Trifler are you, to confeſs you have been running after Butterfties all this while? Ib.

Is your Infallibility but a Butterfly. Then it is fitter for you to keep and play with, than for me to run after.

I. S.

The certainty of Scripture is from Tradition. L. p. 7.

We have the Books of Scripture from Tradition, &c. Ap. 19.

I. S.

Therefore Tradition cauſes certainty. Ib.

Tradition we own a ground of ſufficient certainty of this matter of Fact — But this Tradition is not that of the Church of Rome only, but a more univerſal Tradition of all Chriſtians. Ib.

I. S.

Then Tradition makes Faith as certain as Scripture. Ib.

Conveying the Book to us, it conveys the Faith contained in the Book; and witneſſing to the Book, as written by men divinely inſpired; it gives as good credit to the Faith therein contain'd, as humane Teſtimony can do, yet this certainty comes not up to Infallibility. Ib.

I. S.

Yes, it does: for the certainty here ſpoken of, was abſolute certainty; and I proved it was the ſame with Infallibility. R. p. 42.

It does ſo, I know in your Account. But I now ſay, humane Teſtimony is not enough to ground an infallible certainty upon.

I. S.

You ſay, Tradition for Scripture was more univerſal; ſuppoſe it ſo, was not Tradition for Doctrine large enough to cauſe abſolute certainty? Ib.

More univerſal, I meant and ſaid, than that of the Church of Rome only, yet not enough to cauſe abſolute, that is with you, infallible certainty.

I. S.

Are not Ten-Millions of Atteſters as able to cauſe abſolute certainty, as Twenty? Ib.

Caeteris paribus, the more Atteſters, the more certainty; yet how many ſoever, they are but men, and fallible.

I. S.

When the number comes to that pitch, that it is ſeen to be impoſſible they ſhould all be deceived in the thing they unanimouſly attest, or conſpire to deceive us; their Teſtimony has its full effect upon us, and begets in us that firm and unalterable aſſent we call abſolute certainty: and the addition of Myriads more, adds nothing to the ſubſtance of that Aſſent, ſince 'tis wrought without it. R. p. 43.

This is as good aſſurance of a matter of Fact, as any man can deſire; but what's all this to Infallibility? Here's ſome certain pitch of number (which is it, I wiſh you could ſhew us) unto which when Atteſters (every man of them fallible) are come, (one unite ſhort may ſpoil all) it may be ſeen (infallibly or we may be deceived) that 'tis impoſſible (no leſs will ſerve) they ſhould be deceived or deceive. Thus add fallible to fallible, they become infallible, and infallibly honest too. And then we may firmly aſſent (it ſhould have been infallibly) and the addition of Myriads more, will adde nothing to the ſubſtance of that aſſent, ſince it is wrought without it. Now what this ſubſtance of aſſent is but aſſent, who knows? Of the firmneſs of aſſent, I am ſure there are degrees. Do not theſe words ſeem then to intimate, that though Myriads of Atteſters cannot add to aſſent, barely conſider'd as ſuch, for ſo it was before; yet poſſibly they may add to the degrees of firmneſs? If ſo, then ſeeing that aſſent was before infallible, do not you ſeem to admit degrees of Infallibility?

I. S.

But the main is, you quite miſtake the nature of a long ſucceſſive Teſtimony. Ib.

My comfort is, I have a wiſe and compaſſionate Inſtructer to ſet me right.

I. S.

Let Ten Thouſand men witneſs what two or three, who were the original Atteſters of a thing ſaid at firſt; and Twenty Thouſand more witneſs in the next Age what thoſe Ten Thouſand told them, and ſo forwards, yet (taking them preciſely as Witneſſes) they amount to no more, in order to prove the truth of that thing, than the credit of thoſe two or three firſt Witneſſes goes. R. p. 43.

All this I knew before. Where's my miſtake all this while?

I. S.

The Tradition for the ſeveral Books of Scripture is not in any degree comparable either in regard of the largeneſs or the firmneſs of the Teſtimony to the Tradition for Doctrine. Ib.

I grant not this, yet let's ſuppoſe it in part at preſent. I ſee firſt, that your charging me with miſtaking the nature of a ſucceſſive Teſtimony aroſe from a miſtake of your own. I ſaid we have a larger Teſtimony for Scripture than that of the Church of Rome; you fancy me to ſpeak of a larger Teſtimony for Scripture than for Doctrine. And ſo all you have ſaid ſince, is to no purpoſe. Again, though the Teſtimony were larger for Doctrine than for Scripture, yet is it not ſo firm, becauſe not ſo competent an Atteſter of Doctrine, as of a Book. It is ſufficient indeed for the Book, the Doctrine whereof depends on the credit of the first Atteſters, and being ſufficiently atteſted by them, leaves no credit for any other Doctrine not agreeing with it, by how many ſoever at this day atteſted. Still yours is but humane Teſtimony, and that's not infallible.

I. S.

Is not your Tradition for Scripture, humane too? R p. 44.

It is.

I. S.

If that may be erroneous, may not all Chriſtian Faith be a company of lying Stories? Ib.

We have no reaſon to think or doubt it is, and therefore ought not to ſay it may be. I told you before, that neither Papiſts nor Proteſtants content themſelves with Tradition for the truth of their Faith, but produce abundance of other Arguments for it. A. p: 19. But you had no end to trace me there.

I. S.

Seeing certainty of Scripture is proved by Tradition, what ſhould hinder me from …, that unleſs ſome ſpecial difficulty be found in other things that light into the ſame chanel, it muſt bring them down infallibly too? R. p. 45.

If no ſpecial difficulty be found in them, you may infer it may bring them down as certainly. Theſe other things are, I ſuppoſe, things unwritten in that holy Book.

I. S.

So your gift of interpretation expounds theſe words of mine, but I do aſſure you, Sir, you are mightily miſtaken. Ib.

All things written in the Book are convey'd down in it, what then can thoſe other things be, but things unwritten in it?

I. S.

I never yet told you that all Faith was not contain'd in Scripture explicitly or implicitly. Ib.

Well, if all be either explicitly or implicitly in the Book, then by Tradition all is brought down in the Book ſtill implicitly at leaſt. And then once more, whan can thoſe other things be, but things not written in Scripture?

I. S.

The whole Body of Chriſt's Doctrine, nay the ſelf-ſame Doctrine of Faith that is contain'd in Scripture, comes down by Tradition or the Church's Teſtimony. Ib.

I had told you all this, but ſtill you talk'd of other things. How, I beſeech you, other things, and yet the ſame? What mean you by [nay the ſame?] A man would think by this you made the Doctrine of Scripture either but a part, or not ſo much as a part of the whole Doctrine of Faith.

I. S.

But with this difference (as to the manner) among others, that the Church that teſtifies it, having the ſenſe of it in her breaſt, can explain her meaning ſo, as to put it out of all queſtion to Learners, Doubters, and Inquirers, which the Scripture cannot. Ib.

Here's a difference indeed! The Doctrine is contain'd in Scripture, but it cannot diſcover it ſelf there to Learners, &c. The ſame is in the Church's breast, and there alone it may be learn'd. The Church teſtifies of the Scripture, that it is the Word of God, but 'tis Jeſuitically with an Aequivocation or Mental Reſervation, for it is not indeed the Word of God, but a dead Letter till the ſenſe be put to it, and that's in her breast. We have now found the Scrinium pectoris, but what's in the Box, who knows, or when it will all come forth? However, the whole ſenſe of Scripture is ſafely lock'd up there, and by the Key of Oral Tradition it may be open'd as there is occaſion. Now to me it ſeems all one, whether theſe (call them ſame or other things) be contain'd or not contain'd, be explicitly or implicitly in Scripture; they are there, if they be there at all, to no purpoſe, whilſt the ſenſe is in her breast. Not a ruſh matter if ſuch a Book had ſunk in the chanel. Yet it ſeems the Church had the kindneſs to hold up the empty Cabinet in her hand, whilſt ſhe ſecured the Jewel in her boſom.

I. S.

St. Peter's Ship (the Church) that caught ſo many Fiſhes at firſt, (the Body of Primitive Chriſtians—) hath ſtored up Proviſion enough for the ſucceſſion of Faith to the Worlds end, and there we may find it to our hands. We need not therefore fiſh for our Faith in the chanel of Tyber, as your great Wit tells us. Ib.

I would not though for two pence, not have ventur'd that little Conceit of mine, ſeeing it is return'd home again with ſo rare a diſcovery. It would not be mannerly to enquire, when Ships catch Fiſhes, when they ſail, or when they ſink; nor how Fiſhes catch themſelves, or how the Body of Chriſtians, which are the Church, are caught by the Church which is that Body; or how thoſe Chriſtians are now the Proviſion of Faith ſtored up to the World's end? 'Tis plain, you mean the Church of Rome hath the whole Doctrine of Faith ſtored up in her breast for all Ages, and we are fools for ſeeking it in the unſenſed character of Scripture where 'tis not. Yet have you, Sir, a worthy opinion of the Scripture. I would have ſaid, St. Peter and his Partners with their Net, the Word of God, caught Men inſtead of Fiſhes, as Christ had promiſed; and with the ſame Net convey'd to us by Tradition in Scripture, the Miniſters of Christ do ſtill fiſh with good ſucceſs. Conſider if this Allegorizing of yours, would not ſuit better alſo with one of your Sermons, than with your Controverſie.

I. S.

All this is but prelude. Now comes Mr. G.'s Argument, the first Propoſition whereof is this: All Traditionary Chriſtians believe the ſame to day, which they did yeſterday, and ſo up to the time of our Bleſſed Saviour. There is no denying this Propoſition, but by affirming, that Traditionary Chriſtians are not Traditionary Chriſtians. L. p. 8.

But ſuppoſe theſe Traditionary Chriſtians be ſo call'd from their adhering to a Tradition which reacheth not ſo high as our B. Saviour's time, but only pertends to it, &c. A. p. 20.

I. S.

Whether we only pretend to it or no, will be ſeen, when the Fourth Propoſition comes to be examined. R. p. 26. The Second Propoſition is this: If they follow this Rule, they cannot err in Faith. This is palpably ſelf evident. Whence follows the Third; and therefore they are infallible. R. p. 47.

But unleſs the Rule of Tradition which they follow be longer than it is yet proved to be, they may follow it, and err all along by following it. A. p. 21.

I. S.

No doubt of it. R. p. 47.

Then prove it to be of ſufficient length.

I. S.

As if we had never proved our Tradition reaches to our Saviour's days. Ib.

I know not when. Suppoſe you had, that's not all: for let it be never ſo long, yet if you follow it not, you may err; and therefore are not infallible, except you ſhew you cannot chuſe but follow it. A. p. 21.

I. S.

The Fourth Propoſition brought to prove that this Tradition we lay claim to, does indeed reach to Christ and his Apoſtles, is this: They could not innovate in Faith, unleſs they did forget what they held the day before, or out of malice alter it. R. p. 48.

You undertake to make this out more clearly, (L. p. 18.) and therefore I would hear what you ſay there for our better Information. A. p. 21.

I. S.

This is a moſt evident and a moſt unconſcionable Falſification: clear your Credit when you can, I charge it upon you as a voluntary inſincerity. R. p. 48, 49.

Good words, I pray, Sir. What is it I have done?

I. S.

You have directly falfified that whole Diſcourſe, by pretending here that the words you cite, were to make out that Fourth Propoſition clearly; whereas the truth of that Propoſition was made out by me. L. p. 9.

I ſaw it, Sir, and ſpake to it too, as I ſhall ſhew anon. What are thoſe words of yours I cite? Recite them, I pray, and I'll recite my Anſwers to them.

I. S.

Did Chriſt teach any Error? L. p. 18.

He did not. A. p. 21.

I. S.

When a Father believ'd what Chriſt taught him, and the Son what the Father believ'd, did not the Son too believe what Chriſt taught? Ib.

No doubt of it but he did. Ib.

I. S.

Run it on to the last Son that ſhall be born in the World, must not every one believe what Chriſt taught, if every one believ'd what his Father believ'd? Ib.

It is certain he muſt. Ib.

I. S.

And will you then go about to perſwade us that there actually is a company of men in the World, who adher'd to this method, all Sons believing always as their Fathers did, whereof the first believ'd as Chriſt taught, and who notwithſtanding err'd in matters of Faith?

No, you may be ſure on't. Theſe then are your words I cited.

I. S.

This Diſcourſe was level'd at a quite different buſineſs, viz. That a Church could not adhere to Tradition, and err in Faith at the ſame time.

'Tis true, and I ſaw it, that this was it you there made out; but I do not yet ſee how it is a quite different buſineſs from that which I ſaid you undertook to make out more clearly. It was not proving I meant by making out more clearly, but illuſtrating or explaining; nor was it the whole (which, according to you, conſiſts of a Propoſition and its proof) but the Propoſition only I ſaid you undertook there to illuſtrate; and therefore I would not proceed to the proof which you would ſeem to make out (p. 9.) till I had conſider'd how you explain'd the Propoſition (p. 18.): which after I had done, I came to examine your proof (as you call it) both as it is p. 9. and as you again talk of it, p. 32. This you ſaw, A. p. 23. Where then lies the Falſification? The Propoſition is, They could not innovate in Faith. Who are they that cannot? Traditionary Chriſtians. And who are theſe? They that hold the ſame to day, which they did yeſterday, &c. What cannot theſe do? They cannot innovate, or err in Faith. So ſay I you explain it (p. 18.) And do you not ſo, though it was upon another occaſion? Do you not ſhew, that if they hold to Tradition, or be Traditionary Chriſtians, they cannot, whilst they are ſo, (and when they are not ſo, they are none of the they in the Propoſition) innovate or err in Faith? Overcharging often occaſions recoiling; and if your Conſcience feel it not, ſo much the worſe.

And now after all this noiſe, one little thing is yet to be proved, viz. That theſe Traditionary Chriſtians adhere undecliningly to an unqueſtionable Tradition, deſcending really and unvariably from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and could not poſſibly do otherwiſe; that is, that they neither did nor could err from the Faith firſt taught, for this is but ſuppoſed hitherto. A. p. 22.

I. S.

Was it not proved in the Fourth Propoſition, and by me? p. 9? R. p. 51.

At your rate it may be. And from this ſelf-evident Suppoſition, you neceſſarily conclude thus—Suppoſe Traditionary Chriſtians neither did nor could err, it is certain, they neither did nor could err. Make what more you can of it. A. p. 22.

I. S.

You falſifie our words, who ever ſaid a Suppoſition is ſelf-evident? R. p. 52.

Who ever ſaid you did? May I not uſe an Irony, without the guilt of falſifying?

I. S.

You falſifie again, in affirming that from this ſelf-evident Suppoſition, I neceſſarily conclude, &c. Ib.

Juſt as before, in ſaying you neceſſarily conclude from a ſelf-evident Suppoſition. I ſay, all you conclude, amounts to no more. And make you what more you can of it.

I. S.

Our entire Diſcourſe runs thus, if we muſt needs put it into form for you: Thoſe who adhere to Tradition all along from the beginning, neither did nor could err in Faith. R. p. 53.

No, not if it was true Apoſtolical Tradition, and they adhered wholly and ſolely to it, doing ſo they did not, could not err.

I. S.

The Roman Catholick Church does now, and did from time to time adhere to Tradition. Ib.

To Apoſtolical Tradition wholly and only? I deny that.

I. S.

They could not innovate in Faith, unleſs they did forget what they held the day before, or out of malice alter it. Ib.

You hope then we can have no advantage by pleading either of theſe, in barr to the Infallibility of Tradition. A. 22.

I. S.

You do not, I ſuppoſe, deſire we ſhould prove, that Men had always memories, or that Chriſtians were never ſo malicious, as to damn themſelves and their poſterity wittingly; and yet it can ſtick no where elſe. L p. 32.

Were there no danger of Mens forgetting what had been taught, 'tis hard to ſay, why the Pen-men of the Scripture ſhould have been at the needleſs pains to write it. A. p. 23.

I. S.

Your Diſcourſe is this. 'Tis hard to ſay, That Chriſtians ſhould have remembred their Teſterday's Faith, had not the Scripture been written. R. p. 54.

As thô to remember it from Night to Morning were enough. I ſay, 'tis hard to ſay, why the Scripture was written, if men might in no Age forget what had been taught.

I. S.

The Reaſons why Scripture was written, you might have read in St. Paul, 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. Where there is no ſuch thing, as to make men remember their Yeſterday's Faith, nor that Scripture is of neceſſity at all, but only that it is profitable for many uſes there enumerated. Ib.

I know how unwilling ſome of you are that Scripture ſhould be thought neceſſary at all, and alſo how much aſhamed they are to ſay it is unneceſſary altogether. Let it be (as you ſay) only Profitable for Doctrine, Reproof, Correction, Inſtruction: For my part, if men once taught the Faith can never forget it; If Oral Tradition can do all this without Scripture, and Scripture nothing of all this without Tradition, I think it is wholly uſeleſs and unprofitable, and therefore ſee no reaſon it ſhould be written. And yet if mens memories be ſo very faithful, St. Peter ſeems to me to have been too forgetful of it, when with ſo much earneſtneſs he endeavour'd, that men might be able after his deceaſe to have theſe things always in remembrance, 2 Pet. 1, 15. and that by leaving them in writing. A. p. 23.

I. S.

There is not ſo much as one word in the whole Chapter concerning the remembring or forgetting their Faith, but of remembring his particular exhortations to good life. R. p. 55.

Neither ſaid I there was; it was enough for me to prove hence, that men might forget what they had been taught: and if an exhortation to good life, why not an Article of Faith?

I. S.

Notwithſtanding all you have anſwer'd, men had memory enough not to forget their yeſterday's Faith. R. p. 56.

Well, at preſent ſuppoſe it. Why might they not have Malice enough to alter or corrupt it?

I. S.

Were Chriſtians ſo malicious as to damn themſelves and their poſterity wittingly?

May they not be as careleſs of preſerving the Faith, as of maintaining Holineſs in themſelves and their poſterity, when they know that Sin is as damnable as Error? A. p. 23.

I. S.

Be Judge your ſelf. Do not many of your Congregation ſin often, and yet few or none of them deſert their Faith once? Ib.

I grant men may often ſin, yet be neither Apoſtates not Hereticks.

I. S.

The Reaſons why the Parallel holds not are theſe. Ib.

The Word of an Infallible Inſtructer ſhall paſs with me for a thouſand Reaſons. Tell me only what theſe Reaſons prove, it will ſuffice. If it be this, that men may ſin often, and yet not deſert their Faith, 'tis already granted. Is it any thing elſe you would prove by them?

I. S.

My Reaſons thwart the univerſal alteration of Faith, while Chriſtians proceeded on the former Rule of Tradition. R. p. 59.

'Tis granted alſo, that Chriſtians adhering to Apoſtolical Tradition, there could be no univerſal alteration of Faith.

I. S.

They clearly evince an univerſal change in the Rule of Faith over the whole Body of Believers is abſolutely impracticable. R. p. 57.

Whatever your Reaſons evince, we grant ſuch an univerſal change will never be, becauſe Chriſt will always have a Church of true Believers. But why might not a conſiderable part of the Whole Body alter the Faith firſt taught?

I. S.

The change muſt be profeſſed and open, otherwiſe it alters not the caſe; and poſterity will believe ſtill on, according as things appear outwardly. R p. 56.

Men may change the Faith, and at firſt privately teach it to a few, not profeſſing at all that they change it, but that they retrieve it, after a change had been made in it; and they who are taught it, may believe it and ſpread it, and it may at laſt be openly profeſs'd, without profeſſing a change from what it was at firſt, which is not the wont of Hereticks.

I. S.

Not unleſs it be ſaid they went conſcienciouſly upon ſome other ground than Tradition. R. p. 57.

And why might they not do ſo?

I. S.

'Tis impoſſible they ſhould take up another ground. Ib.

Your reaſon I pray.

I. S.

Becauſe if they could not innovate in Faith, they could not innovate in that upon which they held all their Faith. Ib.

Very good. You were proving they cannot innovate in Faith, becauſe they adhere to Tradition; now you prove they muſt adhere to Tradition, becauſe they cannot innovate in Faith.

I. S.

Men are more tenacious of their Principles—, than they are to relinquiſh all they have receiv'd upon thoſe Principles. Ib.

That which they hold upon the Principle of Tradition is all their Faith, and you ſaid but now, the care of their Faith made them hold their Principles; now you ſay, they are leſs careful of their Faith, than of their Principles. Thus have we Circle after Circle. Why would they hold their Rule or Principle? Becauſe they were render of their Faith. Why were they ſo tender of their Faith? Becauſe they were more tender of their Rule or Principle. I ask not, how men may be properly called, Tenacious to relinquiſh: but pick the beſt ſenſe I can out of your pure non-ſenſe.

I. S.

Tradition is the Authority of the whole Eccleſia docens—, which could never permit it ſelf to be thought to have atteſted a lye hitherto. Ib.

If Tradition be the Authority of the Church, then (as you ſaid of that Authority) it is of no more credit, than a ſtory told by an old woman, till better reaſons be given for it; nor hath it this effect upon Humane Nature by its own proper Power, to prove Truth. But why may not the whole Eccleſia docens (ſuppoſing it the Church of Rome) attest to a lye?

I. S.

It could never permit it ſelf (were there nothing but its own intereſt) to be thought to do it. Ib.

You ſay well, not to be thought to do it, for that would ſpoil all: Thô I know not how it can be hinder'd, but ſome will think ſo, It might be its Intereſt to advance it ſelf, and for that, to pretend a falſe Tradition, and to forge evidences to faſten a lye on former Ages.

I. S.

None could be competent Judges, what was fit to be a Rule of Faith, but they who were ſo concern'd both in Duty and Intereſt, Tradition ſhould not be ſet aſide. Ib.

Then if Intereſt prevail'd above Duty, a falſe Tradition might be pretended, and the World muſt receive it on their credit, becauſe they alone are to be accounted competent Judges.

I. S.

There muſt be ſome great time betwixt their diſcarding Tradition, and eſpouſing a New Rule; during which time we muſt imagine the whole Church (except perhaps ſome few that diſcover'd it firſt) would be made up of Seekers, ſome hovering one way, ſome another; in which caſe they would as yet have no Faith, and conſequently there could be no Church. R. p. 57, 58.

No, Sir, a pretence to Tradition as the only Rule might ſtill be kept afoot, and yet changes made in Points of Faith: whil'ſt they who publickly oppos'd or privately diſown'd them, adhering only to the true Apoſtolical Tradition, were the true Church.

I. S.

If they could innovate in Faith, they muſt pretend to Tradition ſtill, when they had evidently deſerted it, that is, They muſt profeſs to hold the Teſterday's Faith, when all the World muſt ſee, and every one's own heart muſt tell him the contrary. Which is the higheſt impoſſibility. Ib.

They might pretend to Tradition, when evidently to others, they had deſerted it in many things; and ſome of them, not impoſſibly, when their own hearts told them ſo.

I. S.

'Tis impoſſible any Temptations ſhould move all men, to fall into this one ſin of altering the Faith. Ib.

How impoſſible I know not, but I think it neither ever did or ſhall come to paſs.

I. S.

Summing up my Diſcourſe, (Sect. 45.) 'tis manifeſt, you have no way to anſwer our Argument, but by ſuppoſing there was a time, in which there were no conſiderable Body of Men in the World either good Chriſtians, honeſt Men, or valuing their credit; but only a company of Brutiſh, Godleſs, Lying Ruſſians, without the leaſt degree of Grace or Shame in them. R. p. 60.

It is then unanſwerable by me, for I cannot ſuppoſe this. Thô I am not convinced that Men cannot innovate in Faith, till it be ſhewn, not only that they have memory enough to remember Teſterday's teaching; but that they made a right uſe of their Memory to that purpoſe; and farther, that they had ſo little wickedneſs, as not only not wittingly to damn themſelves and their poſterity, but as not to neglect any care that ſhould be taken for their ſalvation; and many things more not yet ſhewn. For, what if all Sons did not underſtand aright all that Fathers had taught them?

I. S.

If all did not, moſt of the intelligent Paſters would, and could eaſily inſtruct them, it being both ſo obligatory and ſo eaſie. Ib.

Obligatory indeed, yet not ſo eaſie ſo to inſtruct them as to convince them; as you, I doubt not, find it in thoſe whom you ſuppoſe in error. Suppoſe again, ſome Sons were ſo negligent as to take no care either to remember or teach what they had been taught by their Fathers?

I. S.

Then the diligent would reprehend them, and ſee things amended; and thoſe careleſs Perſons, eſpecially if Paſtors, reduced to their Duty, there being Orders on foot in the World to oblige them to it. R. p. 61.

How came it to paſs then, that all Hereticks were not long ago ſuppreſſed?

I. S.

'Tis an unheard of Negligence, not to know or remember Yeſterday's Faith. R. p. 61.

But 'tis a very poſſible thing, either not to heed what is taught to day, and ſo to be ignorant of it to morrow; or not to remember to morrow every thing that is taught to day; or being taught to day, to think of it no more to morrow, nor many days after, and to forget ſomething of it at laſt. But what if ſome through Ambition, Vain-glory, and Popularity, ſet abroach New Doctrines, and taught them for Apoſtolical Tradition?

I. S.

Good men would ſet themſelves to oppoſe them, make known their Pretences, and lay open their Novelties. Ib.

I doubt it not; but not always ſo effectually, as the Errors ſhould not have many followers. What if others to ſave themſelves from Perſecution, conceal'd part, and corrupted more of the Doctrine of Chriſt by their own Traditions?

I. S.

Others would oppoſe their unchriſtian proceedings, reveal what they had conceal'd, reſtore what they had corrupted, and manifest that Doctrine they ſubintroduced had not deſcended by the chanel of the Chriſtian Church's Tradition. Ib.

Yet here's Tradition pretended againſt Tradition, and many, it may be, carried away with the Pretence; and a great number (as you have ſaid) atteſting, the atteſtation is to be thought ſufficient; and then a greater number can add nothing to it. Let others then oppoſe and manifest what they can, all poſſibly will not be convinced. What if others through a blind zeal, ignorant devotion, ſuperſtitious rigour, and vain credulity, added many things to the Doctrine of Christ, which by degrees grew into more general eſteem, till at laſt they were own'd, and impoſed as neceſſary to be believ'd and practiced?

I. S.

If they belong'd to Faith they could not come in, while the Rule of Tradition was adher'd to, as has been prov'd and granted. R. p. 62.

True, not whilſt Apoſtolical Tradition wholly and ſolely was adher'd to by All, whether they belong'd to Faith or no.

I. S.

Perhaps ſome Points involv'd in the main Body of Faith, not yet ſo explicitly or univerſally known, might, on emergent occaſions be ſingled out, defin'd, and more eſpecially recommended than formerly, without any detriment to the Faith receiv'd, but rather to the advantage and farther explication of it. Ib.

I underſtand you thus. All Points of Faith are no more explicitly convey'd to us by Tradition, than by Scripture; but ſome of them implicitly only. 'Tis ſomething elſe which hath all in its breast, and by degrees vents it in parcels, as there is occcaſion to define and recommend; and then, thô men might before be ſaved, without the knowledge of it, it becomes as neceſſary an Article of Faith as any of the rest. This is the great Myſtery, had all been given out at first, the Box being empty, would have been in ſome danger to have been laid aſide and diſregarded. Well, but after all this, If ſomebody ſhould ſtart up and ſay, this or that Article thus defined is no part of the old Apoſtolical Tradition, but a meer innovation, who muſt decide the matter? Who but the Church? All Truth is lodg'd in her breast. But which is this Church? That which holds to Tradition, the Church of Rome: Which is the true Tradition? That which the Church; viz. of Rome holds. What now if Error any of the former Ways brought forth, grew, multipli'd, ſpread, obtain'd moſt power, and drove out all that held the naked truth from all thoſe Countreys where it came?

I. S.

Do any Hiſtories tell you, This Error ſpread over the Whole Church, without your ſuppoſing the Queſtion, that ſuch or ſuch a Tenet is an Error, which you pretend ſuch; which is above the skill of Hiſtorians to decide, and is only to be determin'd by examining first who have, who have not a certain Rule of Faith? Ib.

Over the Whole Church is too much. Hiſtories tell us of the ſpreading of Error, ſuch as both You and We account ſo, over divers Countreys. What need is there of ſuppoſing the Queſtion, that ſuch or ſuch a Tenet is an Error, betwixt us who are agreed about it, as I think we are in that of Arianiſm? But as to what you add, pray tell me. If Tradition be the Rule of Faith, who can be fitter to decide what Tenet is Error than Hiſtorians, who ſhould know beſt what belongs to former Ages? But I forget, 'tis the Oral Tradition of the prefent Church is your Rule of Faith, and Hiſtorians have to do only with things past: and I agree with you, that it exceeds their Skill to ſhew us, that all thoſe things which your preſent Church calls Errors, were decided to be ſuch in the first Ages. However, ſeeing what is Error is only to be decided by examining firſt who have, who have not a certain Rule of Faith, I beſeech you be not ſo haſty, as you uſe to be, to call us Hereticks, whil'ſt this Point is but yet under examination.

I. S.

But what are all theſe rambling Queſtions to our Argument, which inſiſts on the impoſſibility of altering the Yeſterday's Faith, but either out of want of Memory, or out of Malice? R. p. 62, 63.

They ramble home to your Argument, where you would not ſee them.

I. S.

Apply them to this, and they loſe all their force. Ibid.

If Faith may be alter'd all or any of theſe Ways, then, if they all ſhould imply forgetfulneſs or malice, (as you ſay moſt of them do in ſome degree) men may through forgetfulneſs or malice innovate in Faith; and if they imply neither, men may innovate otherwiſe than through forgetfulneſs or malice. Either way your Arguments ſpoil'd.

I. S.

I long to ſee't made out, that an erring Church can ſtill plead Tradition, and adhere to it. L. p. 18.

That an erring Church adheres (as I have formerly ſaid) to Tradition, I know no man that will undertake to make out to ſave your longing. But may not a Church that once adher'd to Tradition, leave it?

I. S.

That a Church may follow Tradition at one time, and leave it at another, is no news. L. p. 15.

If this be no News, then though we ſhould grant Tradition to be an infallible conveyance of the Truth, yet would it not make even that Church which now adheres to it iufallible; and therefore the Church of Rome (though we ſhould confeſs her at preſent to adhere to infallible Tradition) could not prove her ſelf thereby to be infallible. That Church only is infallible, which cannot err; the Church that at one time follows Tradition, may leave it at another, and ſo doing errs. Therefore if the Church of Rome will be infallible, ſhe muſt prove not only, that ſhe follows Tradition, for ſo ſhe proves only, that ſhe does not err; but alſo that ſhe cannot leave it, for infallibility excludes all poſſibility of erring, by leaving Tradition. She muſt therefore ſeek out a new Medium to prove her ſelf infallible. A. p. 25.

I. S.

Do not you ſee this already proved to your hand? R. p. 63.

No, truly, and I deſpair of ever hearing him prove, that a Church which now follows Tradition, cannot leave it, who has told me, 'tis no News, but a common caſe, for a Church that follows it, to leave it.

I. S.

Not to repeat the many Reaſons produced for this point, Sect. 45. R p. 63.

You did not ſure mean, I ſaw it proved to my hand in thoſe Reaſons which you had not then produced. And I ſee as little yet, that they were produced for this point. I granted you all that for which you told me you produced them, when you mention'd them, but that the Church of Rome cannot leave Tradition was not it you then told me you produced them for.

I. S.

Innovation and Tradition being formally and diametrically oppoſite, what proves ſhe could not innovate, proves alſo that ſhe could not leave Tradition, for this were to innovate R. p. 63.

But where was it proved ſhe could not innovate?

I. S.

Our Argument you ſee has already proved it. I wonder you ſhould diſſemble a thing ſo obvious, and run forwards upon that affected inadvertence of yours. 'Tis the very thing our Argument chieſly aims at. R. p. 63, 64.

Aiming and hitting are two things; you ſay it aim'd at it, but I have ſhewn you it miſs'd it. And farther I tell you, that if ever you hit it, you will wound your ſelf. Will you prove a Church that follows Tradition cannot leave it, and yet ſay the contradictory to it is true?

I. S.

You would perſwade us rather to prove our Church free from Error. R. p. 64.

I think it good advice, and for your encouragement have told you, that I think we are obliged (whenever you prove it) to be of her Communion. Will you not take my advice to make us your Converts? I ſaid alſo, 'tis the eaſier task for you, if ſhe be ſo; and if ſhe be not ſo, you in vain attempt to prove her more than ſo, infallible.

I. S.

Your wiſe advice amounts to this, that you would have us prove our concluſion, without beginning with our Premiſes. Ib.

No, but that you would be content with a concluſion eaſier to be prov'd, and enough for you when proved; and that you would prove it by better Premiſes, better known than the concluſion.

I. S.

All our Faith may be Error, if the Teſtimony of the Church (our Rule) may be erroneous; and if it cannot, nothing we hold of Faith can be ſo. Ib.

Then either the Faith of Chriſt may be Error, or yours is not the Faith of Chriſt. May the Faith of Chriſt be all Error, if the Church of Rome can err in her Teſtimony, then doth it depend on the Infallibility of your Church for its truth, not on Chriſt's Veracity.

I. S.

Your meaning is, we ſhould only prove ſhe embraces no Error now; but what proviſion would this make, for her not falling perhaps into Error to morrow? Ib.

Againſt the poſſibility of her falling into Error hereafter, I know of no proviſion can be made; but to be ſure ſhe does not err at preſent, is the beſt ſecurity ſhe can have, and (to you) muſt needs be good enough: for ſure you will not have it ſaid your Church can be guilty of ſo unheard-of a Negligence as to forget to morrow her yeſterdays Faith.

I. S.

Were our Rule granted fallible, by what more certain way could we be directed to arrive at Chriſt's ſenſe? Ib.

Take the plain Scripture for your Rule.

I. S.

However, your counſel ſuits better with your conveniences, than theſe crabbed Demonſtrations. R. p. 65.

Yours are indeed crabbed enough, and plain Demonſtrations would ſuit better with Infallibility. But why will you labour to no purpoſe? All the World knows that a ſingle Inſtance in one Error, is enough to anſwer all the Arguments can be brought for her Infallibility, ſeeing it muſt needs be falſe to ſay ſhe cannot err, who in any one thing doth err. A.p. 25.

I. S.

If the Premiſes be right and the Inference good, the concluſion muſt be neceſſarily true. Ib.

I grant it.

I. S.

First then you are to anſwer our Argument, and next to ſee the Authority that qualifies your Inſtance for an Argument, be above Moral certainty. Ib.

Your Arguments are not hard to anſwer, yet if I could not anſwer an Argument brought by ſome cunning Sophiſters to prove, that Men can know as certainly as God, though ſome Scholar might laugh at me, no Chriſtian would do ſo. If an Inſtance lie before me, ſo certain as there is no juſt cauſe to doubt of it, which is Moral certainty, it is enough to ſatisfie me an Argument which contradicts it, it is falſe, though I may not be able to diſcern the Fallacy, and will always be enough for one that values the truth more than the credit of a Logician.

I. S.

'Tis the right of the Reſpondent, to deny any thing that is not driven up to Evidence. R. p. 66.

'Tis our Right then to deny an Argument to be good, ſo long as we have a clear inſtance againſt it.

I. S.

You ſeem ſo kind as not to undertake to prove that an Erring Church adheres to Tradition, if it be true Apoſtolical Tradition, and that it adhere to it wholly and ſolely. Ib.

'Tis no kindneſs, Sir, but abſolute neceſſity, I cannot undertake to prove what I know can never be proved.

I. S.

Do not you mean by Tradition, ſuch an one as is built upon living Voice and Practice? Ib.

I mean a Tradition coming down unvariably from the Apoſtles, build it on what you pleaſe, or can, for me. I thought you had meant by it living Voice and Practice, and therefore know not well what you mean by its being built on them.

I. S.

Then you quit your own Rule, by requiring men ſhould adhere to the other wholly and ſolely, and admit that a Church adhering to ſuch a Rule, is not an erring Church. Ib.

This is wonderful indeed! The later I admit, and have promiſed, that when you ſhew us ſuch a Church, we will be of her Communion, and yet not grant her Infallible, A. p. 26. But how do I quit our own Rule, or require men to adhere to ſuch Tradition wholly and ſolely? Is it in ſaying they do not err that adhere to it, on ſuppoſition they be ſure they have it? What a pleaſant Invention was this? When you are ſure of ſuch a Tradition, beſides Scripture, tell us of it, and we will embrace it willingly, as you were told before, A. p. 20.

It ſeems very odd to me, in the mean time, that men ſhould call us Hereticks—and yet prove their own Infallibility by an Argument; which, if it prove any thing to purpoſe, muſt prove that no man who hath been taught the Faith, can err from it, and ſtill withal confeſs that whole Churches may err. A. p. 26.

I. S.

How do you ſhew our Argument muſt prove this abſurd Poſition? R. p. 67.

I ſay not it must ſimply, but if it prove any thing to purpoſe: For if it prove not this, ſome may forget or alter their yeſterday's Faith.

I. S.

Our Tenet is, that though not one ſingle man can err while he adheres to our Rule, yet even ſome particular Churches may leave off adhering to it, and ſo err in Faith. R. p. 67.

How came you then to charge me ſo ſuriouſly with falfifying? Was not your Argument brought to prove, that Traditionary Chriſtians could not innovate in Faith? When could they not innovate? Whilſt they hold to Tradition, ſay you. And was not this it I ſaid you undertook to make out elſewhere? And do not you now confeſs 'twas the ſame? Surely you do, when you ſay they might err by leaving it. Yet then your Argument muſt prove this abſurd Poſition, as you call it, or it proves nothing to purpoſe.

Christ and his Apoſtles taught one and the ſame Doctrine, Alterations, 'tis certain, have been made in this Doctrine; and therefore without diſpute ſome have believed and taught otherwiſe than men were at firſt taught, &c. A. p. 26, 27.

I. S.

Some particular Churches may err in Faith. Ib.

You are then to ſhew what ſpecial Priviledge the Church of Rome hath above all other Churches that ſhe cannot err. You ſay, they of that Church believe the ſame to day they did yeſterday, and ſo upwards. We bid you prove it. You tell us, if they follow this Rule, they could never err in Faith. But did they follow this Rule? You ſay they did. And if we will not believe it, there's an end on't. A. p. 27.

I. S.

This is built on ſome few of your wilful Falſifications. R. p. 68.

If men will believe you, there's an end on't again.

I. S.

Where did we ever bring theſe words [if they follow'd this Rule] for a proof that they hold the ſame, &c. Ib.

You brought thoſe words as an Introduction to your Proof, which amounts to no more than your, or your Church's ſaying, ſhe did follow it. And what ſay you more, I pray? Yes, ſay you, ſhe could not innovate. Why could ſhe not? If ſhe could, ſhe muſt either forget, or through malice alter it. Why not ſo, or ſome other way alter the Faith? You ſay you need not prove that men had always Memories, &c. What's all this, but to ſay, your Church has men of good Memories and little Malice? And ſo if we believe you, ſtill there's an end on't.

The Reflecters Defense of His Letter to a Friend, Dialogue 3

p. 41The Third Dialogue.

The Third Dialogue.