words Authority of the Catholick Church mean the Book of Scriptures Or can I desire more then this Father offers mee in express terms or a greater Testimony that you are to seek for an Answer to it then the strange Evasion you substitute instead of a reply Especially if wee take the Testimony immediatly following which from the best establisht Seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthen'd by the Series of Bishops succeeding them and by the Assertion of so many nations Is here the word Tradition pretended Indifferent and apt to bee taken ambiguously and not rather Assertions of so many nations or Consent of nations and Authority of the Catholik Church of force to cause Faith and Assu rance which to demonstrate is the whole Endeavour of Sure-fooring The 5th is the same Fathers cited p. 137. The Faithfull do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church Is the word Church the same with the word Tradition or in danger of being ambiguous or as you say of the word Tradition p. 318. commonly us'd by the Fathers to signify to us the Scriptures The 6th is of St. Irenaeus All those who will hear Truth may at present perfectly discern in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles manifest in the whole world What means the world at present but that the Tradition of the Apostles is yet vigorous and fresh in the Church which remark had very unfitly suted with Scriptures The 7th and 8th are Tertullians Both say the same Sence that what is establisht as Sacred or profest at this present day in the Churches of the Apostles is manifestly deliver'd by the Apostles or a Tradition of the Apostles which is incompetent to Scripture it not being a Tradition or point delivered but the Delivery The last is of Chrysologus which has indeed the word Tradition but by the additionall words of the Fathers not left ambiguous but determin'd to unwritten Tradition For the Fathers according to you are not to give or diliver down the Sence of Scriptures it being plain of it self This Sir is the upshot of your skill in Notebook-learning the three first Testimonies from Scripture you answerd not mistaking quite what they were brought for the 4th you omitted You have given pittiful answers to eight from the Fathers and shufled off nine more without answer pleading you had given us a Key to open them which was never made for those locks By which I see you reserve your greatest Kindnesses like a right friendly man till the last You will not have the Councill of Trent make Tradition the onely Rule of Faith you had oblig'd mee had you answer'd my reason for it in my 4th note p. 145. 146. But this is not your way you still slip over my reasons all along as if none had been brought and then say some sleight thing or other to the Conclusion as if it had never been inferrd by mee but meerly gratis and rawly affirm'd I have explicated our Divines that seem to differ from mee herein Sure footing p. 187. 188. and the Council it self takes my part in it by defining and practising the taking the Sence of Scripture from that quod tenuit tenet Sanct a Mater Ecclesia which in this antecedency to Scriptures Sence can no where bee had but from Tradition You cavill at mee for not putting down the words in which that Councill declares it self to honour the Holy Scripture and Tradition with equall pious affection and reverence Why should I you see I was very short in all my allegations thence and rather touch't at them for Catholicks to read them more at large than transcrib'd them fully But how groundless your Cavill is may bee understood hence that I took notice of a far more dangerous point to wit it's putting the Holy Scriptures constantly before Tradition and show'd good reason why But you approve not even of any honour done to the Scriptures upon those Terms and your interest makes you wish that rather it's Letter and Sence both should remain uncertain than it should owe any thing to the Catholick Church You ask how an Apostle and Evangelist should bee more present by the Scripture ascertain'd as to words and Sence then by or all Tradition I answer because that Book is in that case Evident to bee peculiarly and adequately his whereas Orall Tradition was common to all and 't is doubtable what hand some of those Apostles or Evangelists might have had in the source of that which was lineally deriv'd to us Sir I wonder how you hit so right once as not to answer likewise the Testimony I brought p. 152. of the Catholick Clergy's adhering to Tradition in the â—ick of the breach you might as well have spoke to that as to the Council of Trent divers others But I perceive it had some peculiar difficulty as had divers of the neglected nine else your Genius leads you naturally to flie at any thing that has but the semblance or even name of a Testimony whereas unactive I stoop at no such game till I see certainly 't is worth my pains and I fear yours will scarce prove so THey come in play p. 320. And because they are huddled together here something confusedly it were not amiss to sort them under Dr. Pierce's Heads found Sure-footing p. 170. To the first Head which comprises those which are onely brought to vapour with belongs that of St. Hierom. p. 323. To the second Head which consists of those which are raw unapply'd and onely say something in common which never comes home to the point belong all those of Eusebius That of St. Chrysostome and St. Austin's p. 324. of Iustin and Theodoret p. 325. That of Hilary p. 327. of St. Basil. p. 328. of Chrysostom p. 328. and 329. and those of St. Austin in the same place Of Theoph. Alexandr p. 330. Theodoret p. 330. 331. The 2d and 3d. from Gerson p. 331. To the 4th that of St. Austin p. 325. To the 7th Head which comprises those which are false and signifie not the thing they are quoted for appertain that of Ireneus p. 326. of St. Austin St. Hierome and the 2d of Theoph. Alexandrinus p. 330. To the 8th consisting of those which labour of obscurity by an evidently ambiguous word that of Optatus p. 327. The first from Gerson p. 331. and that from Lyra p. 332. St. Cyprian's Testimony was writ by him to defend an Errour which both wee and the Protestants hold for such and therefore no wonder if as Bellarmin sayes more errantium ratiocinaretur hee discoursed after the rate of those that err that is assumes false Grounds to build his errour on Whence the inferring an acknowledg'd false Conclusion from it is an argument rather his Principle was not sound I know Sir you will fume at this usage of your Testimonies but with what reason For first you putting them down rawly without particularizing their force or import
occasion for your pastime and merriment The next tast you give of mee is enough to give any Reader who loves sincerity a whole belly full of your manner of confuting 'T is found p. 65. where you make mee say that the Scripture cannot bee the Rule of Faith because those who are to bee rul'd and guided by the Scriptures Letter to Faith cannot bee Certain of the true Sence of it Upon this you descant thus Which is to say that unsenc't Letters and Characters cannot bee the Rule of Faith because the Rule of Faith must have a certain Sence that is must not bee unsenc't Letters and Characters which in plain English amounts to thus much Unsenc't Letters and Characters cannot bee the Rule of Faith that they cannot Here is not much rumbling of Rhetorick as you call it p. 63. but here is a strange jumbling of Sence Let 's see if I can set right what you have taken such pains to disorder I discourse then thus Points of Faith are determinate Sences and Faith is Certain therefore the Way or Means to Faith that is the Rule of Faith must bee a Certain Way of arriving at those determinate Sences These Sences say you Protestants are arriv'd at by the Scripture's Letter signifying it to you therefore you must bee Certain by it that those Determinate Sences were mean't by God Not that the Rule of Faith was those Sences but the Way to them and They the End of it of which that Rule must bee significative as I all over exprest so it was properly related to those Sences as the thing Signify'd Whence in proper Speech they are to bee called its Sence in the same manner as 't is call'd my Hand-writing which my Hand writ though neither my Hand is the writing nor involves writing in any part of it's Definition but is distinguisht from it as Cause from Effect nor yet does the Letter taken as the Way to Faith or God's Sence imply as any part of it self the Sence 't is to cause in my Knowing Power If by this time you bee awake you will see how you wilfully abuse mee and how far I am from tautologizing which for a blind to avoid a more pertinent Answer you pretend The pith of the Cavill lies in those words in your Descant The Rule of Faith must have a certain Sence that is as you put it upon mee it must not bee unsenc't Letters and Characters or it must bee senc't Letters c. Observe the words have and bee the former of which means no more than when wee say a Cause must have an Effect but wee do not therefore infer that the Cause taken as a Cause has in it self that very Effect which it produces in another for Example the Fire which causes or heats is not heated not the Cold that cools cooled nor for the same reason the Letters which are the Cause of Sence in us are not as such senc't that is have not that very Effect in themselves which they produce in another viz. in the understanding For Senc't means made to bee understood and they cannot bee made to bee understood taken as significative or as the way to bee understood I hope by this you see how the Rule of Faith being the Means Way or Cause of arriving at Faith or Sence may have a certain Sence caus'd by it as it's Effect and yet it self not bee or include the Effect it causes in another but for that very reason exclude it and so bee unsenc't but yet significative or apt to bee senc't After this follows the Triumph And thus I might trace him through all his Properties of the Rule of Faith Which I heartily yield too and I beleeve my Reader that examins these Passages will bee verily perswaded not onely that you may do it but that you will do it 't is so naturall to you and necessary to boot Now the greatest Favour you have done mee herein is that by a few unselected Passages you have so acquainted our Readers with your manner of writing and what may bee expected from it that it will render it needless for mee to spend time in laying you open any farther Besides I foresee your Reason such as it is begins to come into play Yet some few Favours scatter'd here and there will I fear not cease to sollicit my Gratitude You drop some of them upon my Friends Capt. Everard you say p. 75. or his Friend affirm there are plain contradictions in Scripture impossible to bee reconcil'd and therefore Protestants ought to submit to the Infallibility of the Church instancing in the third Series of Generations Mat. 1. said there to bee fourteen yet counted amount but to thirteen And has hee not good reason since neither can Scripture alone recommend it self to an Unbeleever to bee of God's enditing if it bee found by him to bee significative of irreconcileable Contradictions and so needs the Churches Authority to ascertain it to bee such nor can wee have any security such Contradictions might not bee found in the main points of Faith themselves did not the Churches Faith writ in her heart keep the Letter of it safe from such enormous Corruptions Yet you must have your jest and to bring it in you constantly mistake on set purpose asking p. 76. if the Infallibility of the Church can make Thirteen Fourteen notwithstanding you say p. 75. this difficulty has been sufficiently satisfy'd by Commentators I suppose therefore you judge those Commentators have sufficiently satisfy'd you that Thirteen are Fourteen Any body can sufficiently satisfy any difficulty with you provided the Church and her Infallibility have no hand in it On this occasion I beseech you Sir give mee leave to ask you what Commentator has reconcild that most Evident Contradiction in your Translation of the Scripture Look in your Psalms put in the Book of Common-Prayer and there Ps. 105 v. 28. wee have these words Hee sent darkness and it was dark and they were not obedient unto his word But in the same Psalm and verse put in the middle of the Bible these Hee sent darkness and made it dark and they rebelled not against his word the former place sayes they were not obedient the latter they were obedient I suppose you conceit mistaking the whole thing your Church without Infallibility can reconcile those things which ours even with Infallibility is at a horrible puzzle with Mr. Cressy's turn is next against whom you have many a fling but one especially p. 93. because hee sayes Schism is impossible in our Church Which you call absurd and ludicrous you tell him hee cannot deny but 't is possible for men to break from our Communion but that the Subtility of it lies here that therfore Schism is impossible in our Church because so soon as a man is a Schismatick hee is out of it This done you ask And is it not as impossible in the Church of England Sir I must tell you your whole Book in a
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