never are more powerfull than when you use your wit to make Authours fall out with one another and unnaturall mee with my self But to the point In the first Citation I say That the common course of humane Conversation makes it a madness not to beleeve great multitudes of Knowers c. But I add Sure-footing p. 49. what you omit that in the way of Tradition all Deliverers or immediate Forefathers are Knowers all the Knowledge requisit being of what they were taught and practic 't accordingly all their lives I beseech you Sir are those great multitudes of immediate Forefathers Knowers when they deliver down a Book for a right one that is do they all know the Translation is right made the Copy right printed or written and all the Perquisits which are needfull that they may bee truly said to know this Book is rightly qualify'd You see then how far I am from contradicting my self unless you show that I hold all Recommenders or Accepters of a Book to bee Knowers as they are of the practicall Doctrine they were bred and brought up to which I neither do nor can with any Sence profess The Reader also will see that the stratagem by virtue of which you made mee contradict my self was your omitting those words of mine which made the contrary clear The next place you cite p. 104. from mee to the same purpose is this that none but madmen can suspect deceit where such multitudes agree unanimously in a matter of Fact Now the words such multitudes mean all their immediate Fore-fathers qualifi'd as Knowers as I exprest myself a little before which will veryill sute your purpose in regard the matters of Fact employ'd about the delivering a right Book as in translating transcribing pointing right c. of which their Sences onely can make them Knowers are so inumerable and minute yet such that very great miscarriages may ensue upon a very little over-sight that to think all Forefathers can know no Fault in any of these interven'd is such an extravagant conceit that onely a most obstinate passion could make a rationall soul entertain it The point is at present that you affect to represent mee to the half part and by that art you take mee up perpetually before I bee down For it is not an agreement in any matter of Fact but in such a one as may bee known by all in which I place the force of being able to oblige others to assent to their proposalls You treat mee far worse p. 105. making mee say that the Providence of God is no security against those Contingencies the Scripture is liable to because wee cannot bee certain of the divine Providence or Assistance to his Church but by the Letter of Scripture which is to put upon mee a ridiculous Argument making mee infer there is no such Assistance from this that wee cannot bee Certain of it but such a way Whereas Common sence tells every one that our Certainty being an Effect of the Thing 's Existence must depend indeed on their Existence in regard we cannot bee Certain of what is not But the things can exist whether wee bee Certain of them or no I affirm then and charge upon you that I have no where either such words or sence in my whole book as you with a strange precipitancy to say no worse affirm p. 104. that I tell you Sure-footing p. 18. where my discourse onely pretends to show that who will argue orderly must first bee Certain of that on which hee builds his Conclusion ere hee asserts the Conclusion it self This was the tenour of my discourse there which I conceive to bee evident beyond Cavill If I err'd any where 't was in supposing you onely took from Scripture that God assisted his Church in preserving a right Copy of Scripture and therefore argu'd preposterously if you inferr'd God has a Providence over his Church in preserving right Scripture therefore 't is preserv'd right But this I spoke onely with an If and besides had good grounds for it For I conceiv'd there being but two wayes to know this by Revelation which you profess to have onely by way of Scripture and by naturall Reason whence you could not have it For however meer nature might teach it's exact Followers there was a God and that hee had Providence over his Creatures as it taught Socrates Seneca and such like yet I remember not that wee have any Ground to say meer nature inform'd any God had a Church much less that there was no way to Provide for her continuance in Faith or deriving his Doctrine down in her but by way of Books Hence I concluded and conclude still it must bee either by Scripture or no way you can know God has such a kind of Providence over his Church You are pleased to tell your Reader p. 119. that this Principle That in matters of Religion a man cannot bee reasonably satisfy'd with any thing less than that Infallible Assurance which is wrought by Demonstration is the main Pillar of Mr. S' s. Book whereas I assure you Sir the last part of the kind slur you put upon mee which is wrought by Demonstration was never either my words nor sence neither Pillar nor the least part of Sure-footing wherefore as you put those words in a different Letter for mine so you had done well to have put down the place too where those words were found which you wisely omitted If I had affirm'd that that Assurance which grounds Faith must bee wrought by Demonstration how should I pretend the Vulgar can bee sav'd who are manifestly incapable of Demonstration as I also frequently acknowledge Understand then my Tenet at length which you ought to have done e're you begun to write against it but that to use your own words you thought it an absurd and ridiculous study to bend your brains to read my Book as you would do Euclid p. 292. which yet is no more but to consider attentively my Principles and my Consequences My Tenet is that all the Faithfull have and those who seek after Faith may have and those who seek after Faith may have Assurance of their Faith wrought in them by Practicall Self-evidence in the same naturall manner but with far better Reason than they beleeve there was a Henry the 8th and that 't is onely Schollars that go about to Demonstrate what the Faithfull know but for want of Study or Reflexion on their own thoughts and on the Causes and Manners with which they were so assur'd are ignorant how to make it out I beseech you Sir repress this overflowing of Kindness in giving mee so many Advantages against you and take a little pains to understand what I say nor to borrow your elegant expression p. 292. suffer your self to bee so demurely discharged of a Study so necessary and so honorable I had affirm'd in my Letter to my Answerer p. 5th that it was a civill piece of Atheistry to say Faith is possible
my own express and avow'd Doctrine Is not this a strange mistake But Sir let me reflect on my Obligations First you write a Book against Tradition and yet discover plainly in this last mistake you understand not in what I put Tradition to consist that is you impugn I thank you you know not what Wee are like to find a wise confutation of it when wee come to examin it's rationall part which still misses in what 's most substantiall and fundamentall Next you revile mee all over as abusing Scripture for unsenc't or without Sence when wee speak of it as your Rule of Faith and yet you see now wee speak the same of our own as to that point which I am sure you think mee too highly venerate and your mistake springs hence that which is a shame for a Schollar especialy for one Mr. Stillingfleet so highly praises you understand not the nature of Abstraction and imagine and represent mee to say 't is devoid of sence senceles without sence c. Which I no where affirm of it absolutely butas ti 's abstractedly consider'd as a means to arrive at Sence and as so taken it must not bee conceiv'd as having that Sence which ti 's a way to arrive at Once more for all that I may clear your mistakes to you know that wee make account there is the same reason for our Rule 's being onely significative or a way to Sence that is as such not-yet senc't as for yours but wee put the difference here that wee make account Living voice and Constant Practice of the circumstant Faithfull of the Church Essentiall is by our perpetuall comnverse with them and other conveniencies so perfectly significative of their sence in deliver'd points or points belonging to naturall Christianity that they leave to the Generality no possible ambiguity or occasion of mistake the persons being alive to explain themselves in any such Difficulty if their carriage and Expressions could possibly leave any wheras the Letter of Scripture as left to be interpreted by private heads is given both by reason and Experience to bee diversly interpretable and cannot by way of living voice apply it self pertinently to explain its own meaning when it 's sence is perverted by any but lies at the mercy of the interpreters pretending to draw it into different faces by alluding one place to another Criticizing and other fallible knacks You make a great noise all over your Book as if wee would make God unable to write intelligibly but you beg the question all the while which is whether God intended the Scripture for a Rule of Faith or no for if not then why is it not as intelligible as it need bee Again the question is whether God intended it for every private man to interpret or rather that they should hear the Church in that as well as in all things else belonging to Christianity If he did then They not God lead themselves into errour though their Spirituall Pride which makes them usurp the Churches Prerogative But Tuetullian long ago has given you the best Answer de Praescrip Haer. c. 39. Nec periclitor dicere ipfas quoque Scripturas sic esse ex Dei voluntate compositas ut haereticis materias subministrarent cum legam oportere haereses esse quae sine Scripturis esse non possunt Nor am I affraid to say that the Scriptures themselves are so fram'd by the will of God that they should afford matter to Hereticks for I read that there must bee Heresies which without the Scriptures could not bee I hope now you are satisfi'd that Tertullian is as great a Reviler of the Letter of Scripture as is your Friend I. S. As for the point it self it needs no more to evince it to any except verball Cavillers but this That Sence is no where formally but in intelligent Things that is in our case onely in mens minds nor can it bee otherwise in words then as in Signes that is Significatively Since then I deny not but the protestants are to hold Scriptures Letter Apt to signify Gods Sence as is seen Sure-footing p. 13. the very passage you cavil at I wonder what you would have or upon what Grounds you can require more You proceed as if you meant to overwhelm mee with your Favours and tell the Reader p. 64. it is pleasant to observe with what cross and untoward Arguments hee goes about to proove dead Characters not to have the Properties of a Rule of Faith May not one without danger of infidelity fear Sir that as some vessels give every thing that comes into them a tincture of the ill sent with which they are imbu'd so every thing that passes into your Fancy grows cross and untoward by a predominancy of those Qualities there You will give the Reader a tast or two you say but the artificiall sawce you adde to it will bee found to alter quite the naturall one of the dish it self The first tast is that I say It cannot bee evident those Books were writ by men divinely inspir'd till all the seeming Contradictions bee solv'd Upon this your fluent wit works thus How can this bee an Argument against those who by Scriptures must mean unsenc't characters I had thought Contradictions had been in the sense of words not in the Letters and Characters but I perceive hee hath a peculiar Opinion that the four and twenty Letters contradict one another Sir I perceive you have been us'd formerly to bee humm'd at the University for breaking Iests when you should dispute and have taken such a liking to the Grande 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those Applauses you cannot for your heart yet wean your self of that merry pin of Fancy But though you bee pleasant as you say and follow your sport yet I must bee sober and regard the profit of our Readers I discourse then thus Contradictions are formally in mens minds and significatively in words Since then in the very place you quarrell at I allow your Tenet to bee necessarily this that those Characters are Significative of God's Sense my discourse runs evidently thus Since God cannot tell a ly or which is all one signify a Contradiction if the Letter of Scripture cannot bee clear'd from being Significative of Contradictions it cannot bee held of God's enditing See you any occasion Sir in this plain discourse which can deserve such mirth and triumph You might have pleased then after my words that the Protestants must mean by Scripture unsenc't Characters have added what imediatly follows there p. 13 with their Aptnes to signify to them assuredly Gods mind which I repeat again in the same place and then where 's the difficulty It being very good reason in my mind to say that Gods Spirit cannot order words to bee written which signify a ly But this passage dear Sir showes plainly you value honesty and fair dealing much less then your Jest dismembring a Sentence which ought necessarily go all together to gain a sorry
therefore that persons to bee converted may come to Faith without demonstration at all I may perhaps say that in an Assent thus grounded there is found at the bottom what is demonstrable by a learned man or apt to yeeld matter for a demonstration but that those who come to Faith must demonstrate or frame demonstrations which 't is manifest onely Schollers and good ones too can do is fa from my Tenet however 't is your Kindness to put it upon mee right or wrong You shall take your choice whether the Reader shall think you understand not the Tenet you are confuting or that understanding it you wilfully injure it You proceed p. 153. that according to Mr. S. Reason can never demonstrate that the one is a Certain and Infallible Rule the other not That never is a hard word and it will seem wonderfull to some Readers I should say Reason can never demonstrate this and yet in that very Book contend to demonstrate it by Reason my self nay make that the main scope of my Book But Sir those Readers know not yet the power of your wit and sincerity which can make mee say any thing nay say and unsay as it pleases Yet you quote my express words for it Sure-footing p. 53. where you say I tell you Tradition hath for it's basis Man's Nature not according to his Intellectualls because they do but darkly grope in the pursuit of Science c. I deny them Sir to bee my words or sence you have alter'd the whole face and frame of them by putting in the word Because which makes mee discourse as if man's Intellectualls could never arrive at Evidence nor consequently Certainty and you keep the Reader from knowing the true sence of my words by curtailing the sentence with an c. my words are not according to his Intellectualls darkly groping in the pursuit of Science by reflected thoughts or Speculations amidst the misty vapours exhal'd by his Passion predominant over his rationall will which discovers I speak of our Intellectualls plac't in such circumstances or employ'd about such a matter as our Passion or Affection is apt to blind and mislead us in it which wee experience too too often But do I therefore affirm our understanding can never arrive at Science at all or that our Passion exhales vapours to hinder us from seeing the Truth of the first Proposition in Euclid or was it ever heard that any man was transported so by his Passion as to deny there was a Henry the 8th Or can any one out of Passion bee ignorant of or forget what is inculcated into his Sences almost every day which naturall Knowledge I there make the Basis of Tradition Pray Sir reflect on my words once more and on the Tenour of my Discourse and you shall see it onely says that Tradition has for it's Basis man's Nature not according to his morall part which is of it self pervertible nor yet his Intellectualls as subject to his Moralls but on naturall Knowledges imprinted by direct Sensations not subject at all to his Will but necessary and inevitable and when you have done this you will easily see how you injure mee though I expect not from you any Acknowledgment of it You commit those Faults too often to concern your self in such a trifle as any handsome Satisfaction Your next Citation p. 153. layes on load 'T is taken out of my 2d Appendix p. 183. My whole Discourse there is to show how Reason behaves her self in finding out the Authority shee is to rely on that this is God's Sence or Faith and how in the points of Faith themselves Concerning the former I discourse there § 3. and have these Expressions that No Authority deserves assent farther than true Reason gives it to deserve that the Church's Authority is found by my Reason to bee Certain that 't is perfectly rationall to beleeve the Church assuring mee the Divine Authority is engag'd for such and such points that Gods and the Church's Authority as Objects imprinting a conceit of themselves in my mind as they are in themselves oblig'd my Reason to conclude and my Iudgment to hold them such as they were nor have I the least expression of diffidence of naturall Reason's certifying mee perfectly of the Ground of my Faith which can no wayes bee done by Acts of reflected Reason which I there speak of but by demonstrating it After this § 4. I come to discourse how differently Reason bears her self in order to the points of Faith or the mysteries themselves Hereupon I have these words p. 183. Reason acts now much differently than formerly Before I came at Faith shee acted about her own Objects Motives or Maxims by which shee scan'd the Autho rities wee spoke of but in Acts of Faith shee hath nothing to do with the Objects of those Acts or Points of Faith Then follow immediately the words you cite Shee is like a dim-sighted man who us'd his Reason to find a trusty Friend to lead him in the twy-light and then rely'd on his guidance rationally without using his own Reason at all about the Way it self Which most plainly signifies that as a dim-sighted man cannot use his Reason about the Way for that requir'd it should well affect his Senses and imprint it's right notion there which it did not but yet could use his Reason about chusing a trusty Friend to guide him for this depended not on his dim-sight but the converse and negotiation with his neighbours and relations which hee had been inur'd to and so was capable to wield and manage such a Discourse So our Reason dim-sighted in the Mysteries of Faith in which neither Senses nor Maxims of Human Science had given her light enough could not employ her talent of discoursing evidently and scientifically to conclude the Points of Faith themselves but yet was by Motives and Maxims within her own Sphere enabled to scan the nature of Authorities and find out on which as on a trusty Friend shee might safely rely This Sir is evidently my Discourse from whence you will needs force mee to say Reason is dim-sighted about the Authority wee come to Faith by or the Rule of Faith Now my whole Discourse in that very place aiming at the direct contrary and you leaving out the immediately foregoing words which clearly discover'd it I hope you will not take it ill Sir if I tell you I fear any sincere Examiner of it will judge that though you hold Plain-dealing a Jewell yet you would not bee willing to go to too much cost for it Especially when he reflects that you build better half your Confutation in your Book on such kind of willing mistakes and hope to blind it and make it take by Sophister-like quibbles flouts and jeers with which you use to sound your own triumph I expected sweet Sir some First Principles of your Discourse and I see now you intend those Artifices for such none else have I met with nor do you
A LETTER OF THANKS From the AUTHOR OF SURE-FOOTING To his Answerer Mr. J. T. Quis autem magis de his novit hic ne seductus homo qui etiam nunc superest hucusque in hoc mundo versatur aut qui ante nos Testes fuerunt habentes ante nos Traditionem in Ecclesiâ quique etiam à Patribus suis Traditum acceperunt quemadmodum etiam hi à Patribus suis didicerunt qui ante ipsos fuerunt quomodo Ecclesia acceptam à Patribus suis veram fidem usque huc continet itemque Traditiones Epiphan contra Aerium haer 75. Paris 1666. SIR 1. YOur Friend Mr. Stillingfleet who I thank him professes a great deal of real kindness for mee tells your self in the beginning of his Appendix that your performances in your Book have been so clear and satisfactory that hee hopes Mr. S. in stead of another Letter of directions to his Answerer will write you one of Thanks for the Reason and Kindness you have shew'd him throughout your Book I hate to be ungratefull and have that reall kindness for him and your self too as not to suffer your hopes to be defeated My Obligations of Gratitude hee concieves to spring from a twofold Head the Reason and the Kindness you have shown mee The former of which is to be examin'd by reducing the respective parts of your Discourse to Grounds or Principles which I shall do when it shall please God to give me leasure and health to answer your Book and I promise you faithfully to own as much Reason in it as these will allow mee I fear you may dislike the verdict of Principles and think them discourteous because of their inflexible genius and self-confident too because they love naturally to express themselves with an Assuredness and are oft so bold as unconcern'd in the Sceptical humour of others to talk of those bug bears to Fancy Evidence and Demonstration But be assur'd Sir though they are not altogether so good-natur'd nor bashfull as your timorous quivering Probabilities which you phrase modest yet they are very just and honest and as they cannot flatter you so neither will they injure you in the least My other Obligation to Gratitude is the Kindness you have shew'd me and as Mr. Stillingfleet sayes very truly throughout your Book which it were a Sin to deny For I know no greater Kindness from one that opposes me than to write in such a manner as to put himself upon the greatest Disadvantages imaginable to give me so many Advantages against him and his Cause Nor am I to expect your Intention should go along with your Favours 't is abundant Kindness in an Adversary that by his means I enjoy the reality of the Benefit and this I have receiv'd from you never to bee forgotten but with Ingratitude As oft as you omit what 's important mistake either voluntarily or weakly triumph causlesly injure me undeservedly cavill groundlesly prevaricate from the business purposely revile bitterly jeer sillily or falsify and pervert my meaning or words palpably so many reall Kindnesses you conferr upon your poor Servant of which in this Letter of mine both to your self and the world I here make my hearty Profession and Acknowledgment 2. And first I am to give you very humble thanks for totally waving to take notice of my Letter to my Answerer The whole scope of it was to request you would hold to a Method which was evidently Conclusive that you would begin with some First Principles and vouch them to bee as First Principles should bee self-evident That as all Art and Common Sence gives it you would not produce any Thing against Tradition till you show it depends not on Tradition for its Certainty that you would either confess your Testimonies unapt to Certify or declare in what their virtue of Certifying consists which must needs either show them feeble if they be such or if otherwise enforce and strengthen them That you would uphold your Arguments satisfactory that is able to subdue the Understanding to Assent and show us how they come by that virtue with diverse other Requests not Prescriptions as you call them onely tending to make a short End of Controversy by bringing Truth quickly to a clearing by the way of Principles Now who sees not that I had oblig'd my self to the same severe Laws of Concluding by proposing them to you and so had you had any Principles worthy to be call'd such or the confidence in your Cause to venture upon any Conclusive method you had gain'd a notable advantage against me in laying hold of that method and obliging me to stand to it because I was the Proposer of it At least you might have pleas'd to have shown my Way Inconclusive and substituted and establish't a better in case you had thought any Evident or Conclusive method your Advantage But 't is a manifest signe you judg'd any rigorous way of Concluding unsutable to your Causes and your own Interest and that to continue still on Foot Inconclusive endlesly-talking wayes of Discourse as is yours which consists in being able to say a great many pretty plausible any-things to every thing was more proportion'd and advantageous to your moderate modest courteous and probable Faith which is I dare say for it far from that Boldness and Self-confidence as to talk of Principles Evidence Demonstration or even Certainty unless minc't and allay'd with the Epithet Sufficient though you will never show us how acknowledg'd possibility to be otherwise can ever convince us sufficiently to Assent the thing is so or why a Capacity to bee false for any thing wee know is not the very notion of Incertainty and so most abusively pinn'd to the notion of Certainty Now that you should so perfectly wave speaking to that Letter it being particularly directed to your self whereas the Book you pretend to answer was not the end aym'd at in it being by all men's Confession very importantly good that is to shorten Controversies and bring our Disputes to a period also the method of Discoursing being as Logick tells us one of the praecognoscenda to the Discourse it self and so either Disputant has right to require it should be first treated of though I civilly requested it of you Lastly it being so indifferently fram'd to your or my interest or rather totally for his who had Truth or Grounds on his side that is for you were your cause so qualify'd and as such equally lik't by Judicious Protestants as well as Catholicks This being so that you should so totally sleight and disregard it in these circumstances is a clear argument you think it not safe to venture your cause and Credit upon Principles or any Evident or Conclusive method of discoursing and a plain Confession by way of Fact that all your discourse against my Book has neither Principles to subsist by nor Evidence to conclude by Which acknowledgment of yours though tacitly and modestly exprest for you are a
admit not I have no more to do but to alledge experience confest by all that many Sects who have the outward Letter inform it with different Sences which evidently argues a Divisibility or Distinction between that Letter and it's Sence Admitting then this Distinction and that the Sence of words is the Soul of them I cannot allow that Letter with any propriety to be called Gods word unless inform'd and enlivened with Gods Sence but onely dead Characters for sincerely Sr I never saw a Bible creep about and move it self that I should call it that is the paper and characters Living Now taking those Letters in complexion with Gods Sence and as inform'd by it I challenge your utmost spight which most of your book especially the end of this Section shows to be very bitter against me whether you ever read any man give a higher respect to those Oracles then my self See my words Sure-Footing p. 40. 146. which you might have had the Candour to acknowledge And as for the Author of Rushworths Dialogues whom you accuse of the same crimes I know not whether you will take my word or no but I assure those who will that when on occasion I was moving him to write a Comment on the Books of the New Testament he shook his head and reply'd Ah Sr do you know what you ask They are so full of profound heavenly sence that 't is beyond the wit of man to declare it without injuring it assuring me it was to sublime a task and required such perfection of Science especially Divinity that he durst not undertake it I challenge you therefore as you hope to bee held an honest man to show mee any one expression in all my writings where I speak of the Letter of Scripture in Complexion with it's Sence which onely is truly Gods word otherwise then with highest reverence nay of that very Letter as manag'd by any method of arriving at a Certain and determinate Sence of it but with respect For otherwise the meer Letter of Scripture quoted by the Devill and taken in his sence is the Devills Word not Gods and for the same reason the same Letter cited by you to signify your Sence is your Word though you tell your Auditors boldly that all is Gods Word you talk out of the Pulpit unless you first make Evident you adhere to a Certain method of interpreting it right which you shall never evince nay Certainer Solider then is the living Voice and Practice of the Church Essentiall which you so laugh at and would perswade your Readers to renounce and disbeleeve it to adhere to your Grammatical Quibbling Criticisms So that all your anger at us in reality springs hence that we will not let Your Word bee taken for Gods and honour'd forsooth and reverenc't with a sacred and Divine veneration Hence all this heat and foam of ill language And good reason for this one point of not permitting your private Interpretations of Scripture that is your Word to be held Gods so deeply concerns your Copy-hold that if this cheat bee once discover'd your self all the Books you write nay all your whole Profession signifies just nothing This short and plain Discourse once understood by our Readers as I hope it will your fierce Calumny against mee as a Blasphemous person devolves to this that you venerate your own Talent or Fancy in sencing the Letter of Scripture as a most Sacred thing nay place it in stead of the Holy Ghost who first dictated that Sence to the Divine Writers And can you do mee a greater Kindness than to discover this and bee so highly concern'd for it 9. You tell the Reader p. 13. that whatever I attribute to Scripture for fashion's sake or say you to avoid Calumny with the vulgar as hee sayes very ingeniously in this Explication of the 15th Corollary nevertheless 't is plain that according to his own Hypothesis hee cannot but look upon it as perfectly useless and pernicious By which words you would make mee acknowledge I attribute nothing to Scripture but to avoyd Calumny with the vulgar whereas in the place you cite there is no such matter but only that some of our Controvertists not I condescended to the Protestants sleight-way of quibbling out of Scripture lest they should calumniate them to desert Scripture it self But this is your usuall sincerity 10. You quoted after you have discours't as if there could bee no use of Scripture besides making it the Rule of Faith And that it is intolerably pernicious according to his Hypothesis is plain because every silly upstart heresy fathers it self upon it and then quote for these words Sure-footing p. 40. But look there and one may read I speak of Scripture only as ill-manag'd by you that is putting it without any distinction of the Persons in the peoples hands and leaving it to their Interpretation to make use of it for a Rule of Faith Now if Scripture as mis-manag'd bear the same notion with Scripture it self then you have dealt very honestly and done mee no Kindness in falsifying my intentions evident from my words in that very place and inveighing against mee accordingly As for your next citation that Scripture-words not senc't nor having any certain Interpreter under which notion I express my self to take them are waxen-natur'd that is appliable to diverse sences 't is so beat out by manifest experience that 't is beyond Cavill to confute it and the very Disputes between Iohn Biddle and the Protestants is sufficient to evince it But your Candour is pleased to confound Scripture's Letter taken as unsenc't with the same Letter as taken with it's true Sence that is taken as God's Word and that Letter as taken without any Certain Interpreter with the same Letter as certainly interpreted and then who so abhominable miscreants as the poor Papists who must bee forc't to say not what themselves in reality say but what their disingenuous though even therein kind Adversaries will needs have them say 11. Your third Section tells us that you are much puzled for Instances of Traditions Followers differing in Faith and you are so put to it that you cannot I mean you will not distinguish between the Head of our Church acting as a Definer of Faith or Proceeder upon Tradition and acting as a prudent Governour Please then to take notice how this Affair of Censuring Books is manag'd Diverse Books perhaps of twenty severall Authors are order'd to bee read over by some Divines and their Judgments concerning them to bee given in which they do The Chief Officers of the Church perhaps have twenty other things to handle that very day and Themselves have neither leasure to peruse the Books nor discuss the Propositions which coming clad in a Theologicall dress would in Prudence require a great deal of deliberation ere any of them were expresly and particularly to bee declar'd against with it's peculiar Censure All that the nature of their Circumstances permits
not You know better than my self I never use to read the Fathers you can pronounce fearlesly that I never read Euclid and here you can tell to a hair where I borrow'd my Chief Properties of the Rule of Faith and that it was Dr. Holden ' s Analysis What Mephostophilus reveals these secrets to you But Sir I beg your pardon I will not put this gift of yours upon such a score you are a Divine and so no doubt know these things by the Spirit of Prophecy nor am I a little proud to know that so great a Prophet is so near related to mee by his Friendship and Kindnesses But Sir take heed even holy men and Prophets themselves have been deceiv'd sometimes I need not quote Scripture to you how a certain person offer'd to bee a lying Spirit in the mouth even of Prophets and as for your present Prophecy I do faithfully assure you that I never read a leaf in Dr. Holden's Analysis in my life nor knew till your Book told mee it hee treated at all of the Properties of the Rule of Faith The occasion of this neglect was that I was told hee went the way of Rushworth's Dialogues which I made account I comprehended sufficiently and so minded not to peruse it You see Sir what you gain by being persoually affrontive which you exceedingly affect in your Book to mee and others and so studiously endeavour it that to find occasions for it you stick not to say the most false and unjustifiable things rather than not humour that Infirmity of your Will Now your Kindness in this partinular carriage consists in this that you discover plainly a resolution to cavill though you engage your self by that means to assert things which may easily bee false and which 't is impossible for you to prove or justify were they true which signifies you are neither too civill over honest nor endow'd with any exceeding proportion of Prudence But Mr. Stillingfleet likes you never the less for it and perhaps will proclaim your praises the louder for your victory however atchiev'd by Stratagem Dolus an virtus 15. You are pleas'd p. 60. to Cavill that the words absolutely ascertainable to us are as you who are master of Language and so may say any thing deliver your self most contradictiously exprest And why because they import with respect to us without respect to us As if it were such an unheard of thing that the word absolutely should ofttimes signify perfectly as when wee say absolutely good an absolute Workman Scholar c. And then I beseech you inform mee what Contradiction there is in saying the Rule of Faith is perfectly ascertainable to us Besides you should as well have plac't the contradictiō in the words absolutely ascertainable For if it bee once sence that it is absolutely ascertainable it cannot bee ill to adde to us for the word ascertainable implies a respect to some or other On this occasion that I may not trouble my Reader often with such nitty Exceptions with which your Book abounds it were not amiss to reflect how industriously your friend Mr. Stillingfleet and you who as 't is most sit eccho mutuall praises to one another affect and pursue such empty cavills any misplac't word whether it happen through the Compositors letting it in in a wrong place or printing it whennot sufficiently blotted out in the originall any less propriety in an expression occasion'd by the hast I was in when I writ my Appendix against him which was sent to the press in loose Quarters of sheets any Metaphor which light unsutable to your Cavilling Genius as that of perching which makes your self verry jollyly merry any pretended degree of obscurity in a word as that of Regulate in stead of Rule any expression that sounds not roundly and tersely Rhetoricall in a book in which I meant no Rhetorick at all These and divers others such wordish Faults or no Faults 't is all one with you are judg'd mighty pieces of ignorance according to the genius of such aiery kind of Schollarship and great Triumphs made upon them Wheras I should rather wish to combat the inward meaning and sence of a discourse than it 's outward dress or manner of expression provided the manner of expressing wrong not that sence Hence I except mainly against the Titles of Mr. Stillingfleets and Mr. Tillotsons books It being both highly improper and abusive of the signification of words to call that a Rule which is Confessedly possible to be False that is which possibly has no power in it to rule at all and equally absurd to call that a Rationall Account of any thing which is built on no First that is Self-evident Principle without which no rationall discourse can subsist nor Conclusion bee deduc't as I showd lately § 5. Unless perhaps Mr. Stillingfleet takes Rationall as wee use the word reasonable when wee say a thing is reasonable strong that is wee hope it will hold but yet wee see not but it may break This is my way of excepting but were Mr. Tillotson to work upon the word Rationall 't is good luck hee is Mr. Stillingfleets dedicated and dedicating friend for otherwise t is forty to one he would have about with him And first he would have called the Title of his Book his Definition of it and then have fal'n foul with him for setting forth a Book to Englishmen and using the word Rationall which was neerer the Latin instead of the word Reasonable which was plain English and so more intelligible to his Readers But enough of these Fooleries 't is now high time I return to my Friend and his Kindnesses Your present one Sir which I acknowledge common to you and your Friend and you ought to applaud one another for it consists in this that by your magnifying and frequently insisting upon exceptions against my words not upon a Logical score because they are Equivocall or injure the Sence wee are discussing but upon a Grammaticall or Rhetoricall that is a Superficiall account in which the point under debate is no way concern'd is a very hearty acknowledgment to your Reader that you value the aiery gingling of words more than the solid substance of Sence which discovers you how much soever you have read noted and scribled to bee very Empty of true Learning or Science This is a reall Kindness Sir and I humbly thank you both for it Your second Section and some following ones for the main part of them speak nothing but pure Reason I mean in your way that is sophistically and knowingly deforming every passage you meet with Yet to do you right you speak a great Truth in the beginning of your § 4. p. 65. when you say And thus I might trace him through all the Properties of the Rule of Faith for nothing is more Certain than that Thus that is handling things as you do one may do any thing nay even write a Book against the First Principles themselves The Rule of
were dead Writing then became needfull But that in those Circumstances Orall Tradition was a sufficient way of conveying a Doctrine What I note is that you ended your citation at the words before those Books were universally spread amongst the Vulgar but had you added what follow'd immediately to compleat that period much less the Catalogue collected and acknowledged you had been put to confess too that Tradition was a sufficient way for diverse Ages after the Apostles were dead which had been little favourable to your Tenet I complain then that by citing mee by halves as you do frequently you slip the answering better half of my Arguments and here particularly as appears by the words much less that part in which I put the most force P. 41. You put mee to say expresly that Tradition is the best way imaginable to convey down such Laws to us Now if by the word such you onely meant such as it concerns every man to bee skilfull in and had so exprest it you had done well for 't is my position but you had brought an ill-resembling Instance of Magna Charta and make mee seem to allow your Instance and to affirm Tradition is the best way to bring down Magna Charta as appears by your words Mr. S. saith expresly it is but how truly I appeal to the Experience and the wisedome of our Law-givers who seem to think otherwise making my word such mean such as Magna Charta which is far from my meaning in regard I judge not Magna Charta a thing in which 't is every man's particular concern to bee skilfull in but Lawyers onely whom others trust few in England but they being thoroughly acquainted with the Laws found there Take your own Liberty Sir in making Parallells 't is my Advantage you should you pick out such aukward ones but when you have made them do not disingenuously put them upon mee and quote mee to say them expresly Thus you use my words Why may not hee mistrust his own Eyes which p. 16 and 17. were apply'd by mee to the business of mistaking or not mistaking in transcribing perfectly a whole Book or correcting the Press in which we daily experience miscarriage but you apply these words to your own senceless Parallell of seeing the City of Rome p. 83 and then by such an application endeavour to make them seem ridiculous as they must needs for you had discourst ridiculously and by making them part of your Discourse and not taking them as any part of mine had made them so too I could instance in many others of this nature but I am too long already P. 61. being to state the point you alledge my words Sure-footing p. 13. That the Protestants cannot by Scriptures mean the Sence of them but the Book that is such or such Characters not yet senc't or interpreted And there you stop my immediately following words explaining my meaning are these that is such and such Characters in a Book with their Aptness to signifie to them assuredly God's mind or ascertain them of their Faith And this Explication you omit which had been nothing had you not made an ill use of that omission but your Cavills afterwards and the loud out-cries in your Book in many places of a senceless Book my Ignorance of your Tenet what not are all grounded upon your own fly omitting those words in which I exprest your Tenet to bee that those Characters were significative of your Faith I wonder what else you would have a Rule of Faith to bee but a Mean's to signifie to you God's Sence or the Faith Christ taught those inspir'd Writers It was one of my requests in my Letter that wee might agree to acknowledge what was Truth in one another's Books but you use all the Arts Insincerity can suggest to deprave wrest or diminish my words rather than I should appear to speak reason in any thing All must bee monstrous in your Adversary when your pregnant Fancy and dextrous pencil come to delineate it which shews indeed much crafty wit but I doubt the Reader will think it argues not too much Honesty I affirm'd Sure-footing p. 17. that the numerous Comments writ upon the Scripture and the infinite Disputes about the Sence of it even in most concerning points as in that of Christ's Divinity beat it out so plain to us that this to wit to find out a Certain Sence of Scripture by their Interpretation is not the task of the Vulgar that 't is perfect phrenzy to deny it which you quote p. 85. and diverse other places leaving out still my words and sence that this is not the task of the Vulgar upon which that whole § proceeds and impugning it accordingly See your own words p. 86. making mee say The Protestants cannot bee certain of the true Sence of it as if Protestants and Vulgar were the same notion Also p. 86. Hee tells us say you the numerous Comments upon Scripture are an Evidence that no man can bee Certain of the true Sence of it This improves it into a very ample Falsification for the word no man excludes all Catholikes too and indeed all the world however proceeding to interpret it whereas I onely engage in the place cited against the Vulgar And after you have ended you Confute all built on your own omission of those important words you single out after your old fashion two or three of my words 't is perfect phrenzy to deny it and call it a hot phrase whereas 't is very luke-warm taken in the occasion I spoke it namely that the Vulgar could not bee certain of the right Interpretation of Scripture since even Learned Commentators so strangely differ'd about it How you will clear your self of this kind Insincerity without casting a mist before men's eyes that they cannot read right I cannot in your behalf imagin P. 104 You quote mee twice as endeavouring to prove that men may safely rely on a generall and uncontroll'd Tradition Which though you pretend not my words yet I count it an injury to impose upon mee such a Sence Uncontroll'd joyn'd to Tradition is such another Epithet as Sufficient joyn'd by you to Certainty I who contend for the absolute Certainty of Faith would say Uncontrollable not Uncontroll'd for a thing may be Uncontroll'd meerly because it had the good Fortune that none had occasion to look into it and so controll it whereas nothing can bee Uncontrollable but by virtue of it's Grounds 't is built on preserving it from a Possibility of ever being controll'd Your intent in producing those two Citations from mee is as you declare it p. 105. is to show the Unhappiness of my Demonstrations that in order to demonstrate the uncertainty of Books and Writings must suppose all those Principles to bee uncertain which I take to bee self-evident and unquestionable when I am to demonstrate the Infallibility of Orall Tradition A hard case yet it will bee harder to come of for you
build on any thing so much as these but one of these laid for a Ground you run on with such a Carreer as if you would overthrow all the Sence and Reason that ever comes in your way You tell mee p. 158. by a parallell Discourse to mine against my Lord of Downs that my demonstrations are none unless I vouch some particularity in my Method above what 's in others which p. 160. you say you remember not I have done any where It seems you read my Transition not with any sober intent to understand it and speak solidly to it but onely to carp at it and break jests upon it Have you so soon forgot the pleasant mood it put you into p. 3 and 4. I contest then that the Method I there declare my self to pursue is particular above what I ever observ'd in any of your Controvertists not that they want better Parts to lay it but because they want a good Cause to bear it and give them leave to follow it I declare also that I hold that Method sufficient to demonstrate by though I pretend it not the exactest than can bee made As for those great men whom you alledge to differ in demonstrations Charles Thynn I leave to bear you company you are both such merry Blades I doubt not but were the business well examin'd their differences spring from not attending heedfully to the Method of concluding and that no miscarriage could ensue in any Discourse were the way of Discoursing perfectly laid agreed to and exactly follow'd nay that those few Differences amongst Geometricians arise from the same defect as were it seasonable I could show particularly with the help of a Friend you must think in that famous one about angulus contingentiae But to our present purpose meethinks Sir you may remember a thing call'd a Letter to my Answerer where I endeavour'd at least at some means to settle some particularity in our Method above what has been practic 't in other Controversies formerly begging you would agree to it that so wee might both follow it but you would have none you thank't mee Since then you would not accept it when offer'd you should not ask for it again when your Book is writ and the Circumstances of using it past But perhaps there lies the policy of it You end with a Glance or two at my Self-confidence But are you Propheticall in this too Sir that 't is some proud and vain humour in mee and not rather my Assuredness of the Truth of my Cause and of the Conclusiveness of my Method which makes mee deliver my self undauntedly See my Letter to my Answerer where I have these words p. 18. By this means it will bee quickly discover'd whether or no you have overthrown my Discourse by showing it ill-coherent and how far 't is faulty that if I cannot clear it to bee connected I may confess my fault and endeavour to amend it For however I see my Grounds evident yet I am far from judging my self Infallible in drawing my Consequences though I see withall the Method I take will not let me err much or if I do my Errour will bee easily discoverable because I go not about to cloud my self in Words but to speak out as plain as I can from the nature of the Thing Had you a desire to practice the due candour towards mee I should have done to you you would not have sought occasions to put in upon a personall priding my self in my performances which I so frequently disown and place all my advantage in my Cause and my Method But you are angry I deliver my self so boldly in what I take to bee Truth I beseech you Sir is it not naturall for any one who judges hee speaks what 's Evident to express himself fear lesly when hee disputes against an Adversary of the Truth whose Cause hee has espoused as 't is on the contrary for one who judges hee has onely Probability for what hee sayes to speak dis-confidently and condescendingly and when hee indeed sneaks not daring to speak out then to praise himself and his party for modest and moderate men You know by experience Sir ' t is Has there in our late age come out a Book more brisk than this of yours not in asserting but in scorn and proud petulancy and which is to bee pittied proud of an aiery jest or some gay conceit Shall I bee bold to tell you Sir what is Self confidence To undertake to write a Discourse about the Ground of Faith without so much as one Principle that deserves to bee call'd such to bless himself with to lay for Grounds all along Falsifications of his Adversaries meaning and words and then quibbling taunting and vapouring as if all the world were his own Lastly to tell his Auditours soberly and sadly out the Pulpit all is God's Word hee preaches and press they should beleeve him and yet when hee writes against us confess all hee preaches concerning Salvation and the Way to it may possibly bee false that is for any thing hee absolutely knows hee has not told them one true word all the while This Sir I must needs confess is such a Heroick strain of self-confidence that however it bee familiar and naturall to others yet I dispair for my part ever to attain it To bear ones self as holding a thing a demonstration which he judges hee has Evidence that 't is such is a puling and trifling kind of self-conceit but to carry it out with the greatest Formality in the world as if it were most Certain and yet hold at the same time and profess 't is possible to bee false that is may for any thing any man knows bee shown false to morrow is a noble and gallant Self confidence and such a one as fears not the face of any man living P. 161. You come to examin my demonstrations à priori and in order to it my four Grounds which you affirm you will set down in my own words Which intimates you did not do so formerly though it bee your duty to do it alwayes However 't is a Kindness which I am bound to thank you for and as far as I discern you have not faltred in it of which I here make my hearty Acknowledgment But Sir may I not fear this particular Resolution of yours here to bee Sincere springs hence because in this Sect. 2. where you put down my words you do not yet go about to apply them to your Discourse and attempt to confute which in your next Section p. 163. you endeavour I foresee you will bee shrew'dly tempted there for want of other Answer to break your resolution till wee come there then I leave you with my hearty wishes of strength constancy against that habituall Infirmity which so often overcoms all your resolutions of that nature And wee are now come to your third Sect p. 163. the place of the triall of your perseverance where you begin your confute and
the reason of your mistaking mee here and in some other passages was this I minded not Rhetorick at all but onely Sense you as became a solid Confuter minded not the Sence at all but onely the Rhetorick which by mee was never aim'd at either there or in any other part of my Book If what I write bee Truth and my Expression Intelligible I have my End and can without Envy permit you to dress up your own Falshoods in the gingle of periods and empty flourishes The second place brought to make mee liberally acknowledge that it follows from my Principles no man can possibly relinquish Tradition is found in you p. 165 and 166. and thus Since no man can hold contrary to his knowledge nor doubt of what hee holds nor change or innovate without knowing hee doth so it is a manifest Impossibility a whole Age should fall into an absurdity so inconsistent with the nature of one single man Is here any liberall acknowledgment that no man can desert Tradition Or is there a word here to that purpose but onely that no man can doubt of or hold the contrary to what hee knows nor go about so visible an action as innovating without knowing hee does so with which yet may well consist that not onely one single man but all mankind may for any thing is there said knowingly and wilfully desert Tradition and turn Apostates I wonder learned Sir what you are akin to that Philosopher who maintain'd Snow was black you have so admirable a faculty of identifying the most disparate nay contrary notions and by a knack of placing things in false lights make even Propositions which signifie the self-same become perfect Contradictions The third place of mine which you say must make mee liberally acknowledge it a genuine consequence from my Principles that 't is impossible one single man should relinquish Tradition is cited by you p. 166. from Sure-footing p. 87. That it is perhaps impossible for one single man to attempt to deceive posterity to which you add in another Letter by renouncing Tradition It had been better in such nice points to put down my own words especially when you put them in a different Letter Mine are 'T is perhaps impossible that they should mislead posterity in what themselves conceit to bee true which is different from the Words and Sense you represent for mine for many weak persons by Sophistry or fine words pretended from Scripture and baptiz'd God's Word may bee inveigled to conceit that Tradition is false in which case should they renounce Tradition yet they would not therefore mislead posterity from what they conceit true which is all I there say or undertake for But the main is you represent mee to say 't is perhaps impossible in one single man which reaches any man whether good or bad whereas my discourse there proceeds upon good and holy men onely It begins thus p. 89. For supposing Sanctity in the Church that is that multitudes in it make heaven their first love had those Fathers that is those Holy men misled Posterity c. and then follow some of the words you cite I mean all of them that are mine This being so bee Judge your self Sir whether bating you the perhaps and speaking absolutely it bee not impossible for one good and holy man to mislead posterity in what he conceits to be true and whether it may not consist well enough with this branch of my discourse that great multitudes may turn bad that is chuse some false good for their last end and then out of affection to that disregard what 's true what 's false and mislead their children contrary to their own knowledge You say p. 171. that the onely thing I offer in that discourse to prevent this Objection is this Sure-footing p. 65. 'T is not to bee expected but some contingencies should have place where a whole Species in a manner is to bee wrought upon c. And had there been no more mee thinks it might have made you wary to challenge mee with the direct contrary had you not resolv'd to lay the necessity of my contradicting my self in every passage for one of your first Principles to confute mee with But I offer'd far more and more obvious preventions than that See the immediate Conclusion from my Grounds put down by your self p. 162. which one would think should inform you best what is the most genuine consequence from the same Principles This put it follows as certainly that a GREAT NUMBER OR BODY of the first Beleevers and after-faithful in each Age would continue to hold themselves and teach their children as themselves had been taught that is would follow and stick to Tradition c. Does a great number or Body signifie all not one excepted which you falsly put upon mee How disingenuous a proceeding is this to perswade your Reader those are not my Consequences from my Principles which I make my self but those which you make for mee and how do you make them by perverting constantly my words and sense Again you know I had writ a discourse declaring how Heresies came to bee introduc't and therefore one would think any sober Confuter that were not bent upon Cavill ere hee had challeng'd mee to hold that no one man could possibly turn Heretick that is that no Heresie could possibly come in should have look't first in that place to see how and by what means I made Heresies actually come in But you were resolv'd before-hand what to do that is to make mee speak contradictions and so it was not your Interest to see it or take notice of it Otherwise there you had seen mee prevent all the imputations which you by virtue of your forg'd monosyllable All had put upon mee See Sure-footing p. 66. We will reflect how an Heresie is first bred Wee must look then on Christs Church not onely as on a Congregation having in their hearts those most powerful motives able of their own Nature to carry each single heart possest by them but as on the perfectest form of a Common-wealth having within her self Government and Officers to take care all those Motives bee ACTUALLY APPLY'D AS MUCH AS MAY BEE to the subject Laity and that all the sons of the Church c. notwithstanding it happens sometimes that because 't is impossible the perfection of discipline should extend it self in so vast a multitude to every particular some one or few persons by neglect of applying Christian motives to their souls fall into extravagancies c. and if Governours bee not vigilant and prudent draw other curious or passionate men into the same faction with themselves which words would have clearly shown you that for want of due application which was one of the requisites my demonstrations went upon the Cause fell short of producing its effect of adhering to Tradition And this you might have seen neerer hand namely in the foregoing Discourse the very same which pretended to demonstrate
True and hee expresses himself to do it lest Adversaries from his being wholly silent should take occasion to bee more impudent That is the reason of the thing requir'd it not but the unresaonableness of the Carping humour of Adversaries You alledge his words That Faith which was profest by the Fathers in the Nicene Council according to the Scriptures 315. l. 3. 4. c. is to mee sufficient c. Whence your discourse makes his opinion to bee that Scripture is the sufficient Rule of Faith Lord Sir where are your thoughts wandring or what 's the Nominative Case in that clause is to mee sufficient to the word is Is it not that Faith to wit the Nicene which you mistake for the Rule of Faith and joyn the Epithet sufficient to Rule of Faith which in the Testimony is joyned to Faith Your conceit that it seems hence the Scripture was to him the Rule to judge the Creeds of Generall Councills is a very weak one hee told you before his Faith came to him by Tradition of Ancestours all that is here intimated is that hee judg'd the Nicene Creed to be according to the Scriptures and what Catholik judges not so of that and the Council of Trent too and yet holds not Scripture which is to bee interpreted by the Church the Rule and Standard to judge the Church by To use your own words p. 332. You use a wretched importunity to perswade Testimonies to bee pertinent yet all will not do and your too violent straining them makes them the more confess their naturall reluctancy But now comes the Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus charg'd to be taken not by mee but by the Authour I borrowed it of out of the middle of a long Sentence and both before it and after it Scripture nam'd so as to make it quite opposit to our Tenet I have already given account of my action and my Adversary now become my Judge charges it not wholly upon mee Alas I am not able to read the Testimonies in the books and understand them there 't is such a peece of mastery and therefore am fain to take them upon trust from others that can read them there But my Seducer how hee will acquit himself of so foul an Imputation is left to any Ingenuous Papist to judge c Sir let mee tell you you should consider circumstances ere you come to lay on such heavy charges I beseech you was the book in which this Seducer forsooth us'd this Testimony writ against Protestants who hold Scripture the Rule of Faith or against some Catholik Divines holding the Opinion of Personall Infallibility Clearly against the later This being so what was hee concern'd to transcribe the whole large Testimony no wrong being done to them either position of Ecclesiasticall Tradition which hee cites or of Scripture which hee cites not equally making against that Tenet or rather that passage of Ecclesiasticall Tradition being far more efficacious upon them than that which concern'd Scripture which they account not obligatory unless interpreted by the Church By this time the Reader will discern there was a great deal of rashness in the Accuser but no Insincerity at all in the Alledger Nor is there the least danger of the Testimonies following upbraiding them who patch together abundance of false words and fictions that they may seem rationally not to admit the Scriptures For what is this to us whose endeavours are to lay 〈◊〉 beginning from First Principles why wee and every man may and ought rationally admit the Scriptures and neither make our Faith ridiculous by admitting into it what 's uncertain nor leaving any excuse to Atheisticall Impiety in not admitting what 's Certain This is the summe of my aim and endeavours though nothing will content you but that wee admit the Letter to bee plain to all and by consequence to you and then your Fancy is to bee accepted for God's Word and your pride of understanding will bee well at ease You pass over nine of my Testimonies two from St. Basil and three from St. Austin alledg'd by mee Sure-footing p. 135 136 137. one from Ireneus and two from Tertullian and another from St. Peter Chrysologus Sure-footing p. 138 139. sleighting them as but a few whereas speaking of Testimonies from the Fathers as you do here you had answer'd but eight in all which you seem by your words to judge such a great multitude in comparison of 9 and those 9 or those few which remain as you call them so inconsiderable for their number in respect of the other numerous or innumera le 8 that the paucity of their number made them less deserve speaking to Yet a careless generall kind of Answer you give such as it is p. 318. telling the Reader that there is nothing of Argument in those few which remain but from the ambiguity of this word Tradition which wee will needs take for unwritten Tradition You add p. 318. that you need not show this of every one of them in particular for whosoever shall read them with this Key will find that they are of no force to conclude what hee drives at I was going Sir to use your own words and to ask with what face you could pretend this Let 's bring the book I 'le undertake it shall not blush to tell you how careless you are of what you say I omit that the word Tradition doth by Ecclesiasticall use signifie in the first place unwritten Tradition Moreover that wee may let Mercy triumph over Justice wee will pardon the first Testimony found p. 135. though St. Basil by counterposing Tradition of Faith to the conceits of the Heretick Eunomius seems to mean by Tradition Sense receiv'd from Fathers attesting this being the most opposit to Conceits or new-invented Fancies that can bee for even an Interpretation of Scripture may bee a Conceit or Fancy newly invented whereas what 's barely deliver'd cannot bee such The 2d is the same St. Basil's p. 136. Let Tradition bridle thee Our Lord taught thus the Apostles preach't it the Fathers conserv'd it our Ancestours confirm'd it bee content to say as thou art taught Is not here enough to signifie unwritten Tradition Did Christ teach it by reading it in a written Book or the Apostles preach it by book or is the perpetuating it by Fathers and Ancestours the keeping it by way of writing The third is St. Austin's p. 136. I will rather beleeve those things which are Celebrated now by the Consent of Learned and unlearned and are confirm'd throughout all Nations by most grave Authority Is universall consent and most grave Authority of all nations the book of Scripture or written Tradition or rather is it not most Evidently unwritten universall Tradition or Sense in the hearts of all Beleevers learned and unlearned or the Church Essentiall The 4th is from the same St. Austin 'T is manifest that the Authority of the Catholik Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance Do these
or driving them home to any point my very sorting them under these Heads sounds a greater particularity in my Exceptions and Answer than you show'd any in alledging them Next you had refus'd to do mee the reason I begg'd in my Letter to my Answerer § 8. in vouching you Testimonies to bee Conclusive or Satisfactory which unless you did I had already told you there it was my resolution to give them no other Answer And I shall candidly make known my Intention why I do so and shall ever do so till you come to some good point in that particular I had observ'd what multitudes of voluminous Books had and might bee writ in the way of Citation without any possibility of satisfying that is to the extream loss of time and prejudice to rational souls while any Citation however qualify'd was admitted and no Principles laid to sort them and show which were Conclusive wherefore I judg'd it the best way to drive you from that insignificant and endless way of writing to tell in short my exceptions against each Testimony and to force you to vouch them Conclusive And I pray why should I or any be put to show each of those Citations to our excessive pains inefficacious whereas your self who is the Alledger will not take pains to show any one of them to bee efficacious But your way here is the weakest in that kind I ever read or heard of You huddle together a clutter of Citations never apply them particularly as I constantly did mine Overleap all considerations of their qualifications nakedly set them down as you say p. 332 and then tell us they are enough to satisfie any unpassionate Reader that dare trust himself with the use of his own Eyes and Reason Which is plausible indeed to flatter fools that are passionately self-conceited otherwise I conceive an unpassionate Reader will require much more if he ever knew what Controversy meant Hee would know the variety of Circumstances Antecedents Consequents c. Besides speaking Equivocally or Rhetorically not distinctly and literally may alter every Testimony there Above all hee would consider whether they were expressive onely of some persons Opinions and not rather of the solid and constant sense of the faithful in that Age vvithout which they want the nature of Testimonies Is it clear to every man's Eyes and Reason none of these or other faults render all yours Inefficacious Is it clear that when they say Scripture is plain they mean plain to all even Heathens that never heard of Faith such must bee the Plainness of the Rule of Faith or onely to those who have learn't Christian Doctrin already by the Church that is who bring their Rule with them I am sure St. Austin de Doctrinâ Christianâ your best Testimony speaks of such Readers as are timentes Deum ac pietate mansueti those which fear God and are meek with piety that is those which are not onely Faithful or Christians already but pious and good Christians which makes it nothing to your purpose Again some one passage may bee so plain as a learned man may in the opinion of learned men plainly confound an Adversary but will it bee clear and plain in all necessary points to the vulgar who hear a great many hard words brought on both sides and have no skill to judge who has the better in such contests yet the Rule of Faith must bee plain even to the vulgar and able to give them Satisfaction Again when the Fathers provoke to the Scripture is it not against those who deny the Church but accept the Scripture and so the necessity of disputing out of some commonly-acknowledg'd Principle may bee the onely reason they take that method 'T is evidently so in that you quote from St. Austin against Maximinus p. 329. and against the Donatists who deny'd the Judgment of the Catholik Church quae ubique terrarum diffunditur and so hee was to prove his point ubi sit Ecclesia out of Scripture or no way Again is it clear out of the Citations nakedly set down what went before and after Is it clear for example that when they speak highly of Scripture they mean not Scripture unsenc't but onely taken as Significative of God's sence as it must to bee the Rule of Faith or if of Scripture senc't they mean not senc't by the Church but by the human skill of private persons which is the true point between us St. Austin without doubt makes the Church the Interpreter of Scripture as is clearly seen by his Discourse at the end of his 17. Chap. Of the Profit of Beleeving which spoils your pretence to his Authority Nay do not they often mean by Scripture the very Sence of it that is Christs Doctrine or the Gospel As oft as you hear them speak of the Things that are written or call them Principles or The Rule of Truth and Opinions or speak of conforming other Doctrines to them and such like so oft they speak of the Doctrin it self contain'd in Scripture or the Truths found there Such is that of Clemens cited by you p. 316. 317. which speaks meerly of the Sence of it or the Truths in it which hee makes deservedly the Rule to other Truths and hence now hee names Scripture then the Tradition of the Church then Scripture again it being indifferent to his purpose the same Sense which hee onely intends being included in both Such is also evidently your best Testimony to wit that of Irenaeus which speaks of the Gospell it self preach't and writ that is clearly of the Sence indifferent to either way of Expression But what is this or indeed all that is said there to the Letter of Scripture taken as Significative of God's Sense that is not for that Sense nor as including it but as the Means and Way to it as it must bee taken when 't is meant for a Rule of Faith and the plainness and Certainty of that Way to all that are yet to come to Faith taking that Letter as interpretable by private Skill and Maxims of Language-learning which is the true point between you and us Bring Testimonies for this and you will do wonders To use your own words p. 318. I need not shew what I have discours't here of every of his Testimonies in particular for whosoever shall read them with this Key will find they are of no force to conclude what hee drives or ought to drive at I am loath to suggest any Jealousie of your Insincerity in all these Citations though you have seldome fail'd in that point Present my service to your Friend Mr. Stillingfleet and assure him hee shall not bee neglected though there were no other reason but your high commendations of him Your humble Servant J. S. A Postscript to the Reader READER THough I write to Mr. T. yet I publish to thee and so have a Title to salute thee with a line or two Tell mee then dost not find thy Expectation deluded which Sure-footing
manner is compounded of putting tricks upon your Adversaries that is putting their sayings upon such accounts they never intended then impugning your own fictions 'T is not on the impossibility of any going out of us nor meerly because whenany one is out of our Church hee is not in it wee ground the Necessity of our Churches Unity but in this that her nature and Constitution is so fram'd that shee can admit no division in her Bowells but keeps her self distinguisht from Aliens If any one recede from Faith it must bee by not hearing the present Churches living voice teaching him points which the Knowledge Practice and Expressions of the Teachers determins and make Evident what they are whence his disbeleef if exprest is an Evident matter of Fact which is most apt to make a plain distinction between the disbeleever and the Beleevers and an Evidence beyond Cavill for the Church Governours to proceed upon This done as likewise in the case of high disobedience against Church-Laws or Governours shee Excommunicates that is solemnly separates the Schismaticall Offender from the Obedient Faithfull Hence those Faithfull look upon him as a Rebell or Outlaw or as our Saviour expresses as a Heathen or Publican no Church-officer admits him to Sacraments but upon his pennance and Satisfaction nor any Son of the Church will communicate with him in Sacred duties Pray you Sir is this the Temper of your Church of England Your Rule is the Letter of Scripture as conceiv'd significative of Gods word and this to private understandings Again you say all necessary points of Faith are plain in it nay that nothing is fundamentally necessary but what is plain there Hence all that hold the Letter to bee plainly Expressive of Gods Sence and intend to hold to what they conceive plain there whether Socinians Anabaptists Independents or whatever other faction all hold to your Rule of Faith and so are all Protestants For if you would ty any of these to any determinable points you force them from the Rule of Faith Scripture as seeming plain to them and would instead thereof bring them to a reliance on your Judgement And if you would punish them for not doing it you cannot evidence their Fault by way of matter of Fact that so you may proceed upon it for as long as they profess their intention to hold to what seems plain to them in Scripture and that your Text seems less plain to them there than their own you ought not to proceed against them Ecclesiastically without disannulling your avowed Rule of Faith And your carriage executes accordingly neither using Church-discipline against them for Tenets nor yet for denying or disobeying your Goverment Episcopacy though held by you divinely instituted When did you put any distinction by any solemn Ecclesiastical declaration between an Anabaptist Presbyterian Socinian c. and your selves When did you excommunicate them warn the purer Protestants by any Publick Ecclesiasticall Act not to joyn with them in Sacred Offices but to look upon them as Aliens Might not any of them come to receive the Communion if hee would or has any discipline past upon him to debar him from being admitted None that wee see Your Party then in indeed no Ecclesiasticall body cohering by Unity of Tenets or Government but a Medly rather consisting of men of any tenet almost and so bears division disunion and Schism that is the Formal cause of non-Entity of a Church in it's very Bowells These two flams of yours are Sir the Favours you have done my Friends and I can onely tell you in a country complement I thank you as much for them as if you had done them to my self Seeing your Reason begin to play it's part bravely in the following part of your Book I thought I had done my duty of Thanking but I percieve one main Engin your Reason made use of was to make mee perpetually contradict my self And this you perform'd by singling a few words out of my Book from their fellows introducing them in other circumstances and so almost in every Citation falsifying my Intentions and this purposely as will bee seen by this that you practis'd designe and Artifice in bringing it about This obliges mee in stead of making an End to return back and to show how sincerly you have us'd mee in almost all your Citations I omit your false pretence that I mean't to define contrary to my express words You tell your Reader p. 11. That if any presume to say this Book Scripture depends not on Tradition for it's Sence then the most scurrilous language is not bad enough then are those Sacred writings but Ink variously figur'd in a Book quoting for those words App. 4th p. 319. But if wee look there not a word is there found of it's depending or not depending on Tradition for it's Sence nor of making that the Cause why I us'd those words you object cite for it but onely that whereas my Lord of Downs sayes his Faith has for its object the Scriptures I tell him that since he means not by the word Scripture any determinate Sence which is the formall parts of words hee must mean the Characters or Ink thus figur'd in a Book as is evident there being nothing imaginable in them besides the matter and the form which every Schollar knows compound the thing This being then the plain tenour of my discourse there and not the least word of Tradition sencing Scripture Whatever the Truth of the Thing is 't is evident you have abus'd my words as found in the place you cite My Citation p. 12. which abstracts from what security wee can have of those parts of Scripture which concern not Faith you will needs restrain to signifie no security at all either of Letter or Sence which is neither found in my words nor meaning How you have abus'd my words to avoid Calumny with the Vulgar cited by you p. 13. as also the former of those cited p. 14. I have already shown § 9 and 10. P. 17. You quote my words 'T is certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ whence you infer they writ the same Doctrine they taught Which your introducing Discourse would make to signifie an Equality of Extent in Writing and Tradition by saying I grant this Doctrine which signifies there the First deliver'd Doctrine was afterwards by the Apostles committed to writing Whereas whoever reads my 29th Cor. will see I can onely mean by the word same Doctrine a not-different Doctrine Whatever the truth of the point is this shows you have an habituall imperfection not to let the words you cite signifie as the Authour evidently meant them but you must bee scruing them to serve your own turn You quote mee p. 36. to say that Primitive Antiquity learn'd their Faith by another method a long time before many of those Books were universally spread amongst the Vulgar The summe of your Answer is that when the Apostles who did miracles