with his own hand and Seal'd with his Archiepiscopall Seal in these words Infrascripti testamur c. Wee underwritten do attest that we have read thorough diligently and accurately and that with both Profit and Pleasure three Books writ in the English Dialect Publish'd by that Learned Person Mr. Iohn Sergeant whose Titles and Arguments are these Surefooting in Christianity Faith vindicated and Reason against Raillery In which I have not only found nothing against the Integrity of the True Faith and of good manners but moreover Clear and Solid Principles which admirably conspire to the Estabishing and confirming the Catholick Doctrin For both by Reasons and Authorities they excellently impugn the Protestants affirming the Holy Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and vigorously maintain that the genuin Doctrin of Christ and his Apostles has descended by the force of Tradition from Century to Century nay from year to year incorruptedly to our time and still remains inviolably in the Orthodox Church In Testimony whereof we have Subscrib'd and have caus'd our portatil Seal to be assixt this 15 th of March 1674. at Armagh Oliversus Armachanus totius Hiberniae Primas Can any man imagin that this Grave and Learned Personage who had for twelve years profest Divinity in the Sacra Congregatio at Rome and had been advanc'd by them to this high Dignity would have hazarded his Credit there in approving so highly the Writings of one who was a Stranger to him and no ways capable to oblige him had he not been perfectly assur'd there was nothing Censurable in them Yet this tho' known to our ingenuous Dr. is nothing with him He crys still Lominus for my money let him be what he will and assures the Reader upon his Morall Honesty he is Infallibly Certain my Doctrin in my Letters is not Catholik 18. The next in Dignity is that Illustrious and Right Reverend Personage Mr. Peter Talbot Arch Bishop of Dublin who dy'd a Confessor of the Catholik Faith in Dublin Castle in the time of that truly Hellish tho' not Popish Plot. This Eminent Person more than once has approv'd and highly commended my Doctrin The Author of Surefooting says he has with great zeal writ divers Treatises of this matter viz. the force of Tradition and has overwhelm'd those who defend only Morall Certainty in Faith with so great Confusion that they can no way clear themselves from the blemish of Atheism to which their Principles and meer Probability of Faith lead of which crime the foresaid Author proves them Guilty beyond all possibility of Reply And a little after he acknowledges that the Rule of Faith viz. in our Controversies is the Humane Authority of the Church and that it must be an Infallible Directress otherwise it might lead us out of the way Unfortunate Dr. St. to quote an Authority against me which so highly approves my Doctrine and condemns his as leading to Atheism The Reader may hence discern how likely 't is the Archbishop of Dublin should be the Author of Lominus his Book where he and Dr. Tillotson are praised for Writing so Catholickly against mee whereas that Right Reverend Prelate so highly extolls my Books as writing so unanswerably against Them. Lastly in his Appendix to that Book of his cited above he has this solid Discourse Altho' Tradition does not demonstrate or conclude evidently the Divinity of Christ nor consequently can demonstrate or conclude evidently that the Revelation of our Faith was Divine yet 't is a Conclusive Argument ad hominem against Protestants and all those who acknowledge the Divinity of Christ that God reveal'd all the Articles which the Roman Catholick Church professes in regard they acknowledge Christ to be God. And thus the Author of Sure-footing Faith Vindicated c. argues invincibly against his Adversaries for the Conclusive Evidence by the force of Tradition that God reveal'd all the Articles of the Roman Catholick Faith out of the Supposition that Christ is God. Note that this Appendix was write purposely to clear me after the Conference in Abbot Montague's Chamber where tho' I would not then answer to propositions taken out of books when no Books were there to clear them by the Context Yet after I had the Objections in writing I did answer them and this to the Satisfaction of the Arch-Bishop himself and of Dr. Gough who was present and prejudic'd formerly against my Writings 19. I had compriz'd the Sum of my Doctrine into a short Treatise Entituled A Method to arrive at Satisfaction in Religion which when I was at Paris I translated into Latin and shew'd it to that Excellent Prelate the Bishop of Condom my singular Friend and Patron desiring his Judgment of it He read it and at my request made his Exceptions which being clear'd by me he askt me why I did not Print it I reply'd I would so his Grandeur would please to give me leave to Dedicate it to himself Which obtain'd it was propos'd to the Sorbon for their Approbation of it the former of them Monsieur Pirot testifying it contain'd nothing against Faith or good manners the later of them Dr Gage added that the most certain Rule of Faith was in that Treatise exactly settled and invincibly defended But still obscure Lominus is worth twenty Sorbons in Dr. St's Learned Judgment Tho' 't is here to be observed that the Bishop of Condoms Approbation was antecedent to theirs not only as allowing and owning the Book but as inviting me to Print it 20. I alledge in the Fourth place the Testimony of my Superiour here in England Mr. Humphry Ellice an Ancient Dr. and Professor of Divinity and late Dean of our Catholick Chapter whose Sanctity of Life and solid Judgment gave him a high Esteem with all that knew him This Grave and Venerable Person besides the Ordinary and Customary Approbation of my Books added that They do clearly demonstrate out of the very nature of Ecclesiastical Tradition that the Doctrin delivered by Christ and his Apostles was inviolably eonserv'd in the Roman-Catholick and Apostolick Church even to this Age in which we now live and by Irrefragable force of Reason did evidently convince the Grounds of the Hereticks meaning Dr. St. and Dr. Till against whom I had writ to be meer Tricks and vain Fallacies But still Lominus that is the Lord knows who is Dr. St's only Saint and Infallible Oracle 21. It were not amiss to add next the Testimony or rather Judgment of that deservedly Esteemed and Learned man Mr. R. H. Author of The Guide of Controversy This Excellent Writer though he inclines rather to the School-opinion of the sufficiency of Moral Certainty yet like a truly ingenuous and Charitable man preferring the Common Good of Christianity before his own private Sentiment after having discourst according to his own Grounds he in allusion to my way of proceeding subjoyns these words But then if any after all this can make good any farther
to direct passengers in their Way and leaves Men much at like Liberty to regard either More is justly and prudently requir'd viz. A Power to make her Declarations Law and this as to Matters of Faith not only in things belonging to Order and Decency otherwise the Later without the Former makes as he argues very well some kind of Fence about the Church against Schismaticks but lays her open to all manner of Hereticks 57. This just Censure of mine upon the Drs. Principles was such a Choak-Pear to him that 't is no wonder he keck't at it so vehemently The Great Credit he had got whether for defending Christian Faith or no the Reader is to judge made him scorn to bring it up again and retract it But he uses all the Arts imaginable to Palliate and Excuse it and those such wretched ones that 't is a shame to mention them and certainly never was so Heavy a Charge so Miserably refuted He says confidently this Doctrine of his is own'd by all Men of Understanding in both Churches Whereas if he can show me any one Catholick who maintains that he can have any Faith at all or ground such a Firm sacred Assent upon his own private Interpretation of Scripture without the Churches Help in those most sublime and necessary Articles which have been dubious and contested between the Church and any Heretick of which only we speak he will do more than Miracle But I am mightily mistaken he will name one and who should that be but I. S. himself What a boldness is this to make me his Patron to defend him in that very Position which I am in this very place Impugning Well but what says I. S. Why he says that every man is to judge for his own Salvation and of the best way to his Salvation and of all the Controversies between them and us and especially of the true Grounds of Faith and all this without the Churches Help Now I. S. says indeed that a man coming to Faith does by his Reason find out the True Rule and True Church that thus he Iudges for his own Salvation by using his Reason to find out a Rule Ground or Way to right Faith which is to bring him to Salvation that by his Rule thus found out he Judges of all our Controversies in judging that to be Christ's true Doctrin which that Rule recommends as such but is this to judge of Points of Faith without the Churches Help when that very Rule by which he judges of them is avow'd by him to be the Churches Testimony Above all does he not all along declare his abhorrence of finding out Faith in Scripture's Letter by private Judgments which is the Drs Position And must I. S. still be of the Drs Sentiment tho' he in all occasions contradicts it disputes against it and baffles it What will not this nonplust man say when he is put to his Shifts Any Common words tho' when apply'd to particulars they be directly contrary to him must be presum'd to be for him in despite of a long and constant Tenour of all circumstances and whole discourses to the contrary whoever peruses my Third Catholick Letter from p. 99. to the End will see that my way of Iudging for our Salvation is as opposite to his as one Pole is to another and he has the incredible Confidence to make them the Same At length he hopes to come off by alledging that he spoke it only by way of Supposition that If one may without the Churches Help find out the Churche's Authority in Scripture then why not all necessary Points of Faith And was this All he said Indeed he craftily introduc't his Position Conditionally but did he not after the words Then every such Person viz. any sober Enquirer may without the Churche's Help find out all necessary Points of Faith Espouse the Position it self which had been thus introduc't and this most Peremptorily by immediately subjoyning these words which is a Doctrin I am so far from being asham'd of that I think it most agreeable to the Goodness of God the Nature of the Christian Faith and the Vnanimous Consent of the Christian Church for many Ages And will he now tell us after all this Positive asserting it that it only proceeds upon a Supposition a why not a Parity of Reason He objects I answer it not Why was it an Argument or must I stand answering every voluntary saying of his which are infinit every Supposition and every why not If I must needs speak to it the Imparity of Reason consists in this that the Church being constituted by God to instrust the Faithfull in their Faith it was but fitting Scripture should be Clearer in those Texts that concern the Churches Governing them in Faith and their Obligation to hear her than in the particular Points which they were to be assur'd of by her Teaching Besides the Former Point viz. the following the Churche's Instructions and being govern'd by her in their Faith is a kind of Morall Point whereas the other Points were many of them Sublime Mysteries and therefore not so easily Intelligible without a Master And St. Austin had beforehand confuted his pretended Parity of Reason by telling him that Proinde quamvis hujus rei c. Wherefore tho' no Example of this thing were produc't out of the Canonicall Scriptures yet the Truth of the same Scriptures is held by us even in this Matter when we do what seems good to the Universall Church which the Authority of the same Scripture Commends And because the Holy Scripture cannot deceive us whoever fears to be deceiv'd by the Obscurity of this Question let him consult the same Church concerning it which Church the Holy Scripture demonstrates without any Ambiguity Where he clearly intimates the infallibility of the Church that 't is to be consulted in dubious Points and all Controverted Points of which we speak have been call'd into Doubt which makes its Help very Needfull and which I chiefly insist on that its Authority is Clearly and without any Ambiguity demonstrated in Scripture whereas yet in his Second Book de Doctrinâ Christianâ he acknowledges the Obscurity of Scripture in divers places Obscurè quaedam dicta densissimam caliginem obducunt Some things spoken obscurely involve us in thickest Darkness And if any be Obscure then surely those necessary and High Mysteries of our Faith which are of such a Deep Sense must be such when they come to be scann'd by Eyes as yet unenlighten'd with Faith as the same Father cited in my Fourth Catholick Letter has also told him 58. After this he sums up his Performances and tells us in short how he has err'd at large Next he gives us a lame excuse for his Indirect Answer to the Fourth Question propos'd at the Conference and in effect only commits over again the same Faults he was charg'd with a little more formally as his fashion is and
which Premise your self in your own heart think is not true Can you deal thus with their Souls who pin them upon you perswade them of what you are not perswaded your self and offer them a Securiy for their Eternity in which your own judgment tells you there is a flaw For you have declar'd your self upon this Matter in your Rational Account and taken great pains to clear the Greek Church at least upon the Article of the Holy Ghost in which consists their main difference with the Latins and to which the other two you mention were added I suppose for fashion sake I know you there propose to free that Church from the charge of Heresie But pray what difference betwixt Heresie and Error in matter of Faith unless you will trifle about Obstinacy and such collateral considerations which neither concern us here nor were any part of your Defence there I see too that you word it here conditionally and with reference to Mr. G's Answer As if his Answer made or marr'd and the Greek Church did or did not err as he says I or No. Whatever Mr. G. may say or you have said unless the Greek Church actually does Err your Instance is no Instance of a Church that goes upon Tradition and Errs and your Inference that then a Church holding to Tradition was not Infallible is wondrous pertinently inferr'd from the Example of a Church that errs not Pray take it well that I intreat you by all the care you have of your own Soul and should have of others to manage Disputes about Faith a little otherwise and not propose Arguments in which you must needs think your self there is no force For there is plainly none in this if the Greek Church does not err and you at least think she does not I am sure 't is what I would not do my self for all the World. 15. But to proceed to Mr. G's Answer p. 5. It was say you that the Greek Church follow'd Tradition till the Arians left that Rule and took up a new one c. And why has he not answer'd well You assum'd that the Greek Church err'd while it went upon Tradition If you did not you said nothing for that a Church may follow Tradition at one time and leave it at another is no news 'T is the case of all erring Churches which ever follow'd Tradition at all Mr. G's Reply then that Tradition was follow'd till another Rule was taken up denies that Tradition and Error were found together as you contended in the Greek Church And pray what more direct or more full Answer can there be to an Argument than to deny the Premises As slightly as you would seem to think of him he understood disputing better than to start aside into an Exception against your Conclusion but answers fair and home by denying the Assumption from which you infer it which now he has done you know it rests with you to prove it and yet you never think on 't as far as I see but as if you had no more to do fall a complaining against Mr. G. for speaking of the Arians and not of the present Greek Church and against his Copy for leaving out the Inference which you drew In doing which if he did so he did you no small kindness there being no Premises to draw the Inference from as has been shewn above or if any such as put you to contradict your own Doctrin ere any thing could follow from them 16. As for the omission of the Inference I know not how it happen'd nor mean to meddle with matter of Fact. But I see they had reason who observ'd before me that 't is a thing of no manner of Consequence I verily think in your own Judgment Unless you think the Age we live in so dull that without much hammering it into their Heads it cannot be perceiv'd that if a Church has err'd which held to Tradition a Church may err which holds to Tradition Or unless you think it of mighty Consequence to have an Inference stand in the Relation which fell with the Premises at the Conference Mr. G. took them away by his denial and you must begin again and bring something from whence you may draw an Inference if you will needs have an Inference for an Inference cannot be drawn from nothing Pray divert us not perpetually from minding what we are about but remember the Question now is Whether the Greek Church held to Tradition and err'd at once and bethink your self if you please of a Medium which will infer that Point for you for Mr. G. you see denies it 17. From his mentioning the Arians you take occasi-to speak big and bear us in hand he was hard put to it and sought an occasion and affirm p. 6. you could get no Answer at all to the Case of the present Greek Church As if his Answer pincht on the Arians and were not as full to the present as past Greek Church It goes on this That those who err in Faith let them be who they will and the Error what it will and in what Time and Place you will all leave Tradition Whether the Case of the present Greek Church be the same with the Arians is matter of Fact with which Mr. G. did well not to meddle it is for you to make it out if you will make good your Argument Modern or Ancient Heresie is all one to his Answer which is applicable to all Heresie And you complain of the want of an Answer when you have one Pray if a Man should put an Objection to you about an Animal for Example and you answer it of all Animals would you think it just in him to quarrel with you for not mentioning the Rational or Irrational in particular And yet this is your Quarrel to Mr. G. All your magnificent Talk p. 6. of undeniably true granted by Mr. G. known to every one c. as apt as I see it is to make a Reader believe your Instance is notoriously true and against which Mr. G. has nothing to say cannot make me or any Man of Reason who examins the Point believe he has any Reason to say more till you do He has answer'd directly and positively deny'd that Error and Tradition can be found together in the Greek Church or any other modern or ancient There it sticks and you may drive it on farther it being your own Argument if you please Only when you tell us p. 6. that the present Greek Church in all its Differences with the Roman still pleaded Tradition and adher'd to it I wish you had told us whether you speak of Differences in matter of Faith or no. For Differences may be occasion'd by matters of Faith which are not Differences in Faith. If you do not you support your Instance very strongly and prove the consistence of Tradition with Error in Faith very Learnedly from Differences which belong not to Faith. If you do as Nature itches after strange
held whence they could need no Proof to us and if they needed any to others it was certainly our proper Duty not theirs to produce them Many when they are hard put to it have wav'd the consideration of Shame but 't is a sad thing utterly to renounce Common Sence too Yet what is it you will not do What absurd pretences not lay hold of rather than be brought to this odious and dangerous thing call'd Proving You reflect out your Paragraph with the H. Scripture the good men who penn'd it with the Primitive Church and Primitive Creeds and the Council of Trent and this you call Reflecting on my Letter 16. Yet you set a good face on 't at pâ—râ—ing and tell us You decline no Proof that is incumbent on you as if it were not incumbent on you to prove what you say You add That we see by this time as if there were any thing to be seen in all your Reflections but that they decline all Proof and that with the most aukward shifts in the World as Because the Council of Trent had made a Declaration concerning Grace p. 3. Because a Minister is as good a man as a Priest p. 4. Because the Infallibility and Authority of the Church of Rome might run a risque p. 5. Because Catholicks and Protestants hit it not about Judgment of Discretion Ibid. Because Dr. Tillotson is an Excellent man p. 6. Because we will not dispense with the word Absolute which was Dr. St's but will needs take it in its natural sense and not admit of your no-sense of it Ibid. These and many other such weighty Reflections have been our chief entertainment and yet your scrupulous Modesty has the Confidence to say you decline no Proof that is incumbent on you when you have incumb'd all the while if that be the word on nothing but throwing out Baits to draw us from your incumbent Proof to other matters You talk indeed of Proof at last and that which you say of it is That you prove when you prove Moreover you blame me for desiring Proof of two things more whereof One is the very thing your selves have made the point to be prov'd and the other I never desir'd you to prove at all With this stuff you face it out that You prove Scripture to be the Word of God which if one should put you to it you cannot and every Article of your Faith by the Scripture common words which every Heretick may and does use when I have been all this while solliciting with all the earnestness I can to know which way you can prove any Article with Absolute Certainty by Scripture and you will not tell me and I am sure cannot Though you have the Confidence to say you do it yet every body may perceive you know you cannot For your very next words are Thus we prove we have sufficient Certainty of our whole Faith which is to say You decline Dr. St's Absolute Certainty nor know of any way to prove more than sufficient Certainty And this sufficient Certainty of yours may be no-Certainty For there goes no more to make a thing sufficient than to make a man content with it A Yard of Cloth will make a sufficient Garment for him who is content to go half naked and a Table without Meat is a sufficient Meal for him who is contented to fast And so as long as you can prevail with your Protestants to be content without Certainty you can prove they have Certainty abundantly Sufficient because no-Certainty will suffice Marry if they will insist upon having at least this Sufficient Certainty which you promise I know not how you will do without Weights and Scales to weigh out your Certainty according to several mens Exigencies and make down-weight Sufficient except they will take your word for you have no more to give them even for so much But for Absolute True Certainty the only Certainty of which Dr. Stillingfleet spake and I demanded Proof They must absolutely excuse you Poor Protestants to be thus us'd That Empty Words and solemn Outsides and Confident Noise should be offer'd to them for Truth and which is more deplorable pass upon them That they should not yet perceive they are but the Stratagems of those no-principled men who impose on them and secretly laugh at them for their Easiness and yet reflect not that they must answer one day with their souls for suffering themselves to be so impos'd upon 17. From your Proving Talent you pass to your Answering Talent and will try to answer a Discourse of mine in which there are but Five Propositions The First God has left us some way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught This you grant to be a Certain Truth and so there is one step of our Journey made I think you grant the second too not that you positively say I or No for that is too precise dull a Method for a Man of your parts But as Plain Truth seems always ridiculous to you you laugh at it for a foolish Inference because 't is so visibly in the Antecedent You are not aware I perceive that your Raillery is Complement To be contain'd in the Antecedent which you make the Fault is the Praise of an Inference without which it would indeed be good for nothing or rather not be at all For which way can an Inference be drawn from an Antecedent in which it was not to be drawn Would you have us draw Wine out of an empty Cask or Beer out of a Jarr of Oyl Again the more we know the thing is where we would draw it the surer our Draught But you seem to be so little acquainted with Antecedents Inferences that 't is no wonder by making them your sport you make your self the sport of those who do understand them In the mean time your laughing is owning that the Inference is contain'd in the Antecedent and therefore Certain as you before own'd the Antecedent was And so we are another step onwards and might so forwards without stopping longer if you could have let my Proposition alone But you must needs be wording on 't your own way to shew that either you did not understand it or that you had a mind to inform us how neatly and dexterously you could change and pervert words as well as Answer My Words were Therefore this way must be such that they who take it shall arrive by it at the End it was intended for that is know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught Your Words which you pretend equivalent to mine are these If God has left us a Way to know then by that Way we may know Pray Sir do You take my sence or say what I do Is shall know and may know all one I say that they who take the Way left by God shall that is cannot chuse but know as he cannot chuse but draw a straight Line who draws it by a straight
differenced from both Romanists and other Hereticks and Sectaries viz. Scripture plainly delivering a Sense own'd and declar'd by the Primitive Church of Christ in the Three Creeds Four First General Councils and Harmony of the Fathers After which you add This I hope is plain dealing and no wriggling and here we take up our stand let him endeavour to draw us whither he can Never fear it Sir you are out of danger of being drawn any whither Ten thousand Cart-Ropes will not go round you and we must be at least Twenty Years in fastening them But let 's examin this your particular Rule 1. I ask whether since Differences use to be Essential these words own'd and declar'd by the Primitive Church c. which are found in the Difference of your Rule from that of others be at all Essential or not If not Essential since if you be Orthodox you ought to have a Rule essentially distinct from that of Hereticks and Sectaries what is this Essentially-different Rule of yours for 't is this we are enquiring after If you say 't is Essential then Scripture had not all the due power to regulate you as to your Faith without their additional Light And by consequence Scripture is not your Only and Intire Rule as you ever pretended hitherto since these are Part of it 2 When you say your Rule is Scripture plainly delivering a Sense c. I suppose you must mean such a particular Sense as is of Faith with you and can any more be requir'd to your particular Rule than Scripture plainly delivering your particular Faith Certainly you will not say it For there is the Divine Authority in the Scripture which is the Formal Motive of Divine Faith. There is Plainness which gives it a Directive Vertue and qualifies it for a Rule and the Clear Light of this plain Rule must shine bright upon the particular Tenets you hold for 't is to shine there and no where else Which once put what can all the other esteem'd by you but Human Authorities serve for Can they add weight to the Divine Authority or clear that to us which is already so plain by Scripture 3. Pray be candid and tell us After a thing is plain in Scripture are you to value a straw what either Primitive Church Creeds or Fathers say I dare say you will grant you are not Wherefore all these are utterly useless unless they be pretended to give you some light to interpret Scripture But this cannot be neither both because you tell us here plain Scripture is your Rule and it would not be plain but obscure if it needed an Explainer Besides you put this as a constitutive difference of your Rule and yet deny'd that any Interpretation of Scripture is such but Extrinsical to it 'T is then a great Mystery still how these Human Authorities affect your General Rule or influence your Faith already had by plain Scripture or to what end they serve but for a Show only 4. The Lutherans proceed upon all these as much as you and yet hold a Reall Presence of Christ's very Body in the Sacrament as much as we do So that this does not difference you in your Grounds or Rule from all other Sects for sure you will not deny that to be a Sect that holds an Errour which Dr. St. has taken such pains to prove is Idolatry My last question shall be Whether your sober Enquirers are not to come to their particular Faith by this their particular Rule of Faith And since 't is Evident they must we would know next how many of them are to arrive at any Faith at all For it will take up many Years to examin and compare all the Fathers and be sure of their Harmony with one another and with the Scripture too Nay the Duration of the World will be too short to compass that Satisfaction if we may believe the Bishop of Downs who assures us That out of the Fathers succeeding the Primitive Times both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring Sayings for themselves respectively Can any man living make Sense of such stuff or ever come at his Faith by such a Rule 57. For this last Reason chiefly I affirm'd That not one Protestant in a million follow'd Dr. St's Rule but honestly follow'd the Tradition of their own Church Pastours or Fathers that is believ'd as they had been educated To the first part of this Assertion you say little but that if there be any Fault 't is the Fault of the People only But if this peculiar Rule of yours which takes in the seeing your Sense of Scripture own'd and declar'd by the Primitive Church Four first General Councils and the Harmony of the Fathers be to be followed e're you can come at your Faith I doubt the Fault will prove to be in the Rule For very few Persons have Learning fewer Leisure enough and none of them security of having any Faith by this Method unless you could ensure their Salvation by inspiring those who are ignorant with competent Learning to understand all the Fathers and their Harmony and withal by letting them good long Leases of their Lives which I am of opinion you cannot The second part that they follow'd the Method of Tradition puts you in a marvelvellous jocund humour and as if you had forgot your way a thing not unusual with you you ask all amaz'd Where are we now In the Church of Rome e're we are aware of it We are all good Roman-Catholicks on a sudden we are become an Infallible Church c. and away you run with the Jest laughing and giggling as if you had found a Mare 's Nest. Surcease your fears good Sir you are not a jot the nearer being Catholicks for following your own Tradition It reaches no farther than Iohn Calvin Martin Luther or some such Reforming Heroe and there it ends and stops in a flat Novelty Whereas Catholicks abhor a Tradition that has any known Beginning or takes a Name from any Particular Author or has any Original but Christ his Apostles and the Church in the very first Age who were the Original Deliverers of it to the next and so to the succeeding ones Pray Sir what 's become of your Jest All I said was that You followed the Way of Tradition however misplac'd I prov'd it by Reasons and Instances you hint some omit others and pervert the rest You tell us 't is all Scriptural Tradition But we will trust our Eyes and Experience before your bare Word We see some taught before they can read we see them Catechiz'd in Churches and they repeat and believe what 's there told them tho' Scripture be not quoted for the distinct Passages We see them read the Scripture afterwards but we see withal not One in Thousands trusts his own Judgment of Discretion for the sense of it but without reluctancy or jealousie accepts that which his Pastours assign to it especially in Spiritual Points or Mysteries of
Faith about which we are chiefly discoursing But do not your self incline to admit as much as we can expect from a man that affects not too much candour that very thing you so laugh at here I affirm'd that Not one in a million thinks of relying on your Rule of Faith in order to make choice of their Faith c. This you answer with hems and hahs Tho' I fear yet I hope he is out in his Account I am apt to think they are more attentive Yet be it as he would have it c. Now since they must either have their Faith by Reliance on their Pastours and Preachers delivering it to them and educating them in it that is by some kind of Tradition or else by relying on Scripture and your self seems to doubt or rather in a manner grants it That they have it not the later way you must at least doubt that they have it by the Way of Tradition But your Fancy was so big with your empty Jest that you had forgot what you had allow'd but a little before 58. Thus Sir I have trac'd you punctually step by step not as is your constant use pickt out a few words scatter'd here and there which you thought you might most commodiously pervert wherefore I have reason to expect the same exact measure from you The Sum of your Answer is manifestly this Shuffles and wilful Mistakes without number Evasions endless Falsifications frequent Godly Talk frivolous Jests groundless and all these brought in still to stop Gaps when your Reason was Nonplust Be pleas'd to leave off your Affected Insincerities otherwise I must be forc't to Expose them yet farther than which there can be no Task more Ungrateful imposed upon Your Servant J. S. ERRATA Page 3. l. 28. Read both of uâ— p. 10. l. ult find it in p. 11. l. 11 notice there p. 21. l. 24. go forwards p. 22. l. 27. Secret. Again p. 23. l. 9. as I had not p. 32. l. 30. Is it a Way Ibid. l. 32. upon it p. 39. l. 7. Your Reason is because p. 44. l. 17. may hap p. 45. l. 5. Gift Ibid. l. 32. Prince of p. 46. l. 7. it Whether p. 48. l. 27. a most p. 53. l. 12. Adherers p. 57. l. 14. to be at a loss Ibid. l. ult discover'd it p. 60. l. 8. Speculaters p. 62. l. 9. Yet not so explicitly or p. 63. l. 28. formally and. p. 73. l. 13. other then THE THIRD Catholick Letter IN ANSVVER To the Arguing Part of Doctor Stillingfleet's SECOND LETTER To Mr. G. By I. S. Published with Allowance LONDON Printed and sold by Matthew Turner at the Lamb in High-Holbourn 1687. THE THIRD Catholick Letter c. SIR 1. I Come now to take a view of your Second Letter with my Eye as in the former fixt only upon what I think you mean for Argument Whether you give us just your First Words at the Conference or second Thoughts since whether no troublesome Part of Mr. G's Discourse be left out in short whatever belongs to matter of Fact shall be out of my prospect which shall be bounded by what you think fit to open to it You acquaint us here Pag. 7. that you put two Questions 1. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in the sense and meaning of Tradition 2. Is this Tradition a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture And you complain of Mr. G. that his Copy makes you ask a very wise Question viz. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in Tradition Why this Question should be ironically call'd a very wise one I cannot imagin I am sure it is very pertinent to the Intention of your Dispute and directly points at one of the Chief Subjects of the Conference But you shall have your Will tho' I beleive it will appear Mr. G's question made better Provision for your Credit in point of Wisdom than you have done for your self 2. For your Second was in truth a very needless Question because both your self and all your Auditours if they ever heard any thing of this kind of Controversy knew beforehand without needing to ask that the Tradition we lay claim to pretends to derive down the Intire Body of Christ's Doctrin and not only the Books of Scripture of which P. 9. you very learnedly seem to counterfeit your self ignorant And this is the first part of your distinguishing the plain Sense of this Word Tradition as held by Mr. G. By this Question you tell us p. 9. you intended to put a difference between the Tradition held by us Protestants and the Tradition disputed For the first meaning of the Word Tradition which you grant you put the Vniniversal Testimony of the Christian Church as to the Books of Scripture The second and deny'd meaning you contra distinguish from the former in these words But if by Tradition be understood either some necessary Articles of Faith not contain'd in Scripture or a Power in the Church to make unnecessary to become necessary this I deny'd c. Certainly Sir you have a Logick of your own so peculiarly fitted to your designes that no man living but your self ever us'd it I ever thought and apprehended I had all the World on my side for thinking so that all Differences or Distinctions were to be Opposites and to divide the Common Genus or the Notion that was to be distinguish't and therefore since the first sense of the Word Tradition was Tradition for Books of Scripture which is your Tenet I verily expected the opposit sense of it should have been Tradition for Doctrines which is Ours and that as the former was Tradition for Christ's Words so the latter should be Tradition for Christ's Sense But while I was vainly imagining the second sense of the Word would be Tradition for Faith instead of that I found nothing but such Articles and such a Power Did ever any mortal Man think or pretend that Tradition was an Article or a Power any more than that it was a Horse shoe Did your self when you granted the Latin and Greek Churches follow'd Tradition intend to signify that they follow'd Articles and Powers The summ then of your learned Distinction is in plain Terms this Tradition is two-fold One is a Tradition for Books the other is no Tradition at all but only Articles and Power Had it not been better then to have accepted of Mr. G's Civility and have answer'd to the purpose rather than out of a pique to his Copy and a desire to make it stand in need to be corrected thus to pervert common sense and out of a too zealous care not to forfeit your Wisdome to commit such an illogical Absurdity But Sense and Logick tho' they be plain and honest true Friends yet I must own that like the Queens Old Courtiers they may appear scandalous Companions to a man of your more polite and modish Education However I dare answer for you it was
intrinsick and full Meaning In which case the Preacher sticks not to assure his Auditory that what he has Preach't to them all the while is Gods Word and to press them to regard it as such as far as his small Authority over them can reach And had he more in case he did verily judge his Explication of that Text was genuin and consequently Christ's true Sense he would questionless esteem himself bound to make use of that Authority to his utmost to edify them with the Explicit Belief of each Particular contain'd in so Excellent a Truth This being so why should not the same Priviledge be granted to the Church and her Pastours to explicate upon due occasion the Sense of Christ's Faith in many particular Propositions involv'd in the main Tenet even tho' we should suppose them to be not heard of perhaps not distinctly thought of before which is allow'd to every private man and any ordinary Preacher And if those Governours of the Church be by their Office Conservers of Christs Law and see that these Propositions newly singled out are included in any Point of Faith receiv'd upon their Rule why ought they not out of their Duty and Zeal to preserve Christ's Faith Intire both define these Points and also use their Authority to oblige the Faithful to accept them as such or if they disaccept them and express themselves against them to exclude them from their Communion 7. But still say you these particular Points came not down by Tradition nor were deliver'd as held yesterday and so upwards till Christ's Time for they were not held at all before they were defin'd or declar'd I distinguish These Propositions were held ever and descended ever as they were involv'd in the Intire Point in the bowels of which the Sense of those others were found But as singled out in such and such particularizing manners of Expression they were perhaps not held ever I say not held ever formerly at least not universally Which is the true reason why some Private Writers nay possibly some Great Men might out of a dutiful fear not to add to Faith have doubted of them or disaccepted them perhaps oppos'd them till the Collective Church or some Great Body of them who are able to look more intelligently into those Points declar'd and unfolded the Sense of the main Article in which they were hitherto enwrapt For besides that it is their peculiar Office and as it were Trade to look deeper into the Sense of the several Points of Faith then others do 't is very Rational to conceive that those Tenets were found more particularly explicated in some parts of the Body of the Church than in others which makes it difficult to affirm any particular Point defin'd since Christ's time was not in many places of the Church held ever tho' it was not in All nor made as yet any great Noise being as yet neither oppos'd which alarum'd the Church to reflect heedfully upon it nor so powerfully recommended which oblig'd the Faithful more briskly and manifestly to own it What difficulty or disagreeableness to the connatural course of things there is in all this I cannot imagin Nor I am confident your self unless your thoughts startling at the unwelcom Conclusion should recoil back to your former mistake that only Words came down by Tradition or that Christ's Sense was never in the Breast of the Diffusive Church his Spouse and the Pillar and Ground of Truth and in the Understandings of her Pastours which takes all Faith out of the world and destroys the very Essence of a Church Or lastly that many particular or rather partial Propositions are not included in the Total Sense of every main Tenet and disclos'd by a full explication of it whence it comes to be discover'd to be a Part of It that is in part It. 8. I am sorry you will needs give me occasion to interrupt such Discourses as tend to the clearing some Truth to defend Tradition against your reproachful mistakes with which in defiance to all Sense I had almost said against your own Conscience too you have loaded it But these are some of your Extrinsecal Arguments which for want of better jealousy of your cause and reputation prevails with you still to make use of and so you will triumph mightily if they be past over unconfuted You attempt p. 8. to play your Politick Game and to conquer us by dividing us in our Rule of Faith tho' it cost your Credit very dear to effect it To this end running on in your former mistake of the plain word Tradition and that it means Points and Articles you tell us sadly that this denying to the Church of Rome Power to explain Tradition takes off from its Power Authority That it resolves all into meer Humane Faith meer Natural Reason That the utmost it can amount to is resolving Faith into a Logical Demonstration Then follows the Holy Cant. And is this the Faith Christians are to be sav'd by what Grace of God what Assistance of the Holy Spirit are necessary to such a Faith as this But for this I refer you to the Haeresis Blacloana You should have added where Dr. Tillotson and my self have the honour to be brought in for writing so Catholickly Truly Sir you have given us a very pretty Period in which many of your modish qualifications vy for the precedency and 't is hard to determin which has most Title to it Nay p. 13. you tell Mr. G. that our Grounds overthrow the Church's Authority in matters of Faith and proceed upon Pelagian Principles Your Charge Sir is very grievous and heavy and therefore unless the Evidence you bring to prove it be answerable you will manifest your self to proceed upon a new Christian in truth an old Unchristian Principle but which suits it seems with your humour and is requisite to your Cause Calumniare fortiter I need not tell you whose it was 9. To stop your mouth therefore once for all concerning Haeresis Blacloana know that that Book tho' Printed in a Catholick Country could not be licenc't but came out surreptitiously without any Printers name at it or any other then a fictitious name of the Author Know that it was sent to Rome and was compar'd there with the Doctrin of Tradition which it impugn'd And yet it was not found that this Doctrine either overthrew the Churches Authority in matters of Faith nor that there was any Pelagianism in it Otherwise those Books which were accus'd of it and defended Tradition to the height had not escap't their Censure This shews how shallow this Exception of yours is and to what mean shifts you are reduc't since you can quote a squabbling Book of one Roman-Catholick against another about Tradition in stead of answering the Argument for it An ill-natur'd man might you know very well name Authors of another Communion not too well thought and spoken of by Eminent Persons of their own side and written
against too by others Yet I shall not be so like some I know to turn a Dispute into a Wrangle but shall apply my self to shew how far the Doctrine of Tradition is from deserving to be charg'd with such injurious reflexions 10. But before I go farther I must take notice of your quoting F. Warner here p. 8. and your appealing to him where you put Haeresis Blacloana in the Margent By which you seem to hint that he is the Author of that Book and an Adversary to the Doctrin of Tradition even so far as to judg it not sound in Faith for no less aversion could make you very much question whether F. W. would absolve any man who professed to embrace Catholick Faith on Mr. G's Grounds But as that very Reverend Person declares he never saw that Book till some of them were presented him bound so himself has forestal'd your little policies aiming to set us at variance in our Tenets in his Anti-Haman p. 203. We Catholicks have Faith because we believe firmly those Truths that God has reveal'd because he reveal'd them to the Church Which as a faithful Witness gives hitherto and will give to the end of the World Testimony to that Revelation And we cannot be Hereticks because we never take the liberty to chuse our selves or admit what others chuse but we take bona fide what is deliver'd us reveal'd by the greatest Authority imaginable on Earth which is that of the Catholick Church He proceeds Here then is the Tenure of our Faith. The Father sent his only begotten Son consubstantial to himself into the world and what he heard of his Father he made known to us Io. 15.11 The Father and Son sent the H. Ghost and hee did not speak of himself but what he heard that he spoke Io. 16.13 The Holy Ghost sent the Apostles and they declared unto us what they had seen and heard 1 Io. 1.3 The Apostles sent the Highest and Lowest Prelates in the Church and the Rule by which they fram'd their Decrees was Let nothing be alter'd in the Depositum Let no Innovation be admitted in what 's deliver'd Quod Traditum est non innovetur But he more expresly yet declares himself no Adversary to this way ibid. p. 267. Your Friend Mr. G. B. had call'd this way of proving Doctrines that They had them from their Fathers they from theirs a New method of proving Popish Doctrines and receives for Answer these words You discover your Ignorance in saying that Method was New or that Arnaud invented it Mr. Thomas White had it before Arnaud Mr. Fisher a Iesuite before T. W. Bellarmin before him St. Austin St. Stephen Pope Tertullian before them all Where you see he both allows this very Method we take as practis'd by Modern Controvertists of note nay by some of his own Order too whom he is far from disapproving and by Antient Fathers also whom he highly venerates Your petty Project thus defeated I shall endeavour to open your Eyes if they be not which God grant they be not wilfully shut 11. The Asserters of Tradition observing that the Adversaries they had to deal with admitted Christ's Doctrin to be Divine held it the most compendious way to put a speedier End to all Controversies which Experience taught them were otherwise liable to be spun out into a voluminous length and the most efficacious Method to conclude all the Heterodox of what denomination soever to prove That the Doctrin held now by the Catholick Church was Christ's or the self-same that was taught at first by Himself and his Apostles It was bootless for them to attempt to prove this by Texts of Scripture manag'd by their Private Wits For the Truth of our Faith depending on Christ's Teaching it if it were not Absolutely Certain Christ taught it it could not be evinc't with Absolute Certainty to be True. Now the same Experience inform'd them that no Interpretation of Scripture made by Private Judgments of themselves or others could arrive to such a pitch of Certainty and consequently would leave Faith under the scandalous ignominy of being possibly and perhaps actually false It was to as little purpose to alledge against such Adversaries the Divine Assistance to the Church or Christs Promise of Infallibility to it as you very weakly object to Mr. G. p. 16. as not once asserted by him For tho' this was believ'd by the Faithful yet it was disown'd by all those Heterodox and being it self a point of Faith it seem'd improper to be produc't for a Rule of Faith. Besides how should they prove this Divine Assistance If by Scripture interpreted by their Private Judgments these not being Absolutely Certain it would have weaken'd the Establishment of that Grand Article which to the Faithful was a kind of Principle to all the rest in regard that upon the Certainty of it the Security they had of all the other Articles was to depend If by the Divine Authority of the Church it self it was not so easie to defend that method not to run round in a Circle whereas all Regular Discourse ought to proceed straight forwards These Considerations oblig'd them to set themselves to make out by Natural Mediums that the Human Authority of such a Great Body as was that of the Church was Absolutely Certain or Infallible in conveying down many visible and notorious Matters of Fact and among the rest or rather far above the rest the Subject being Practical and of infinite Concern that such and such a Doctrin was first taught to the Age contiguous to the Apostles and continued ever since By this means they resolv'd the Doctrin of the present Church into that of Christ and his Authority and consequently these being suppos'd by both Parties to be Divine into the Divine Authority granted by all to be the Formal Motive of Divine Faith. 12. This is the true state of that Affair And now I beseech you Learned Sir Where 's the Polagianism Where is the least Ground or shadow of Ground for all these bugbear words and false accusations which to make them sink deeper into the Reader 's Belief and create a more perfect abhorrence of our Tenet come mask't here under an affected shew of Godliness All hold their Faith relies on the Divine or Christs Authority into which they finally resolve it and all Catholicks hold Grace necessary to believe the Mysteries of Divine Faith tho' all perhaps do not judge Grace needful to believe upon Human Authority this Matter of Fact viz. That Christ taught it Yet my self in Faith vindicated seeing that the admitting this Truth would oblige the Heterodox to relinquish their ill-chosen Tenets and return to the Church against which they had a strong aversion did there declare my particular Sentiment That God's Grace and some Assistance of the Holy Ghost was requir'd to make them willing to see the force even of this Natural Demonstration so much against their Humour and Interest Is it
tho' a private person can discover those Explicit Points and I suppose may declare them too to as many as he pleases for how can he in Charity do less But alas The silly insignificant Church can do nothing at all she must submit to the wondrous Gifts you have bestow'd upon the Rabble and her Governors and Pastors be accounted Tyrants if they shall dare to encroach upon their high Prerogatives or presume to share in their Priviledges of being able to unfold or know the Explicit Meaning of Scripture-Texts For in case they can know this and this Knowledge be good for the Faithful as it is being as you say necessary to Salvation 't is without question they may declare them or make them known to others nay and use their Authority too if you will vouchsafe to allow them any to edify the Faithful by making this Knowledge sink into them Nor can it prejudice their Reason that the Church obliges them to believe them for this is no more than obliging them to act according to Reason which tells them that since they must either trust themselves or their Pastours in such things and the Pastours must be incomparably better qualify'd than themselves are for the discovering of such mysterious Truths and withall appointed by God to teach them 't is far more Rational to submit to their Judgments in such things than to use their own But indeed you have reason to stand up for your Sober Enquirer for all Ring-leaders of any Heresy or Faction against the Church took this very Method in their proceedings The Spirit of Pride which possest them principled them with these Rational and Peaceable Maxims that they had Authority to judge their Judges teach their Teachers direct their Guides and that their own Wit excell'd that of all the World before them But when a Faction was form'd into a good lusty Body the Scripture-Rule was laid aside again so that 't is doubtful whether we have had ever a Sober Enquirer since as was shewn in my First Letter Sect. 25. 33. You desire to see this Power of the Church in Scripture in Express Terms and we tell you we need not let you see it in Scripture at all for Tradition even Common Sense tells us that the Church has Power to feed and instruct her Flock and enlighten them in what she knows and they are ignorant of If you demand how the Roman Church came by this knowledge of making Implicit Points Explicit I answer by Tradition giving her the Sense of Christ's whole Law and each Intire point of it and by the Light of Nature purify'd by supernatural knowledges antecedently as also by her Application when occasion required to reflect upon and penetrate deeply into that Sense which enables her to explicate her own thoughts or the Points of Faith more clearly now which she had indeed before but did not so distinctly look into them or set her self to explain them But pray what express Scripture has your Sober Enquirer for his Power to make the Implicit Points Explicit You reckon up diverse agreeablenesses p. 21. why this should be but not one word of express Scripture do you pretend to for it And if himself pretend to any such Power besides that it will look a little odd that God should take more care of private men than of his Church let him either shew us he has better means Natural or Supernatural to do this than the Church has or he discovers his Pride and Folly both to pretend to it You say p. 21. that the Church of Rome has no where declar'd in Council it has any such Power viz. to declare explicitly Points imply'd in Scripture But First you may please to know It has made such a declaration Sect. 4. where it defines that it belongs to the Church judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum to judge of the true sense and Interpretation of Scripture Next It accordingly proceeds upon this Power as I shall manifest by three several Instances One Sess. 13. cap. 4. where it explains those Texts Luc. 22. Io. 6. and 2 Cor. 11. to be meant of being truly Christ's Body and declares thence that the Church was ever perswaded of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation Another Sess. 14. cap. 7. Where it declares the Text 1 Cor. 1. Let a man examin himself c. to be understood by the Custome or Practice of the Church of Sacramental Confession necessary to be us'd before receiving the Sacrament by all those who are conscious to themselves of mortal sin The Third Sess. 14. cap. 1. where it interprets that Text of S. Iames cap. 5. to be by Apostolical Tradition understood of the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction Which places you do not judge so much as implicitly to contain that Sense but hold that they contain another thing How the Churches declaring explicitly Points descending by Tradition makes no new Articles of Faith is discours't above Sect. 4 5 6 7. By which you may see that Mr. G. and Mr. M. whom pag. 22. you will needs set at variance are notwithstanding very good Friends For if the Church knew the the sense which is contain'd in that place before the Doctrin is Old tho' the declaring it to be signifi'd by that particular Text be perhaps New. I say perhaps for in some signal passages much in use in the Churches Preaching Catechisms and Practise I doubt not but that not only the particular Doctrin but also that 't is signifi'd by such a Text comes down by Tradition in the Ecclesia docens Notwithstanding the agreeableness of these two Positions you triumph mightily here p. 23. that Thus Mr. M. has answer'd Mr. G 's Demonstration As much as to say I know not for my life what to say to it my self and therefore would gladly shift it off upon any Body so I could handsomely rid my Hands of it Thus you make for you can make any thing by your Method of mistaking every thing the Council of Trent clash with the Church of Rome a hard Task one would think by pretending to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous sense of the Fathers which you judge contradicts the making known and obliging Men to believe that explicitly now which they were not oblig'd to by any precedent Sense or Explication What mean the words Men and They If they signify all men and intend to signify that no man knew those imply'd Points before but all might hap to contradict them you mistake our Tenet for we judge it absolutely impossible that none of the Fathers should reflect more attentively on the full sense of the Points deliver'd or look into their own thoughts as Faithful and therefore it was much more impossible they should unanimously contradict those Points And unless they did so the Council of Trent and the Church of Rome may by the Grace of God very well correspond in their Doctrin for all your mistake For the Intention of the Fathers in
to the next Age that They had heard seen and practic 't and the whole next Age to the Third and so forwards with an Obligation still to transmit it Equal to that the First Age had to believe it there had been no place left for his ridiculous Raillery But his constant Method is this he endeavours to put you out of conceit with Tradition by concealing every thing that might give you a true Conceit what Tradition is and what we mean by it § 14. The Argument or Instance he brings to prove that the Authority of Tradition was mightily sunk in the Second Century is if possible ten thousand times worse One would verily think from those big words he would prove that All the Christians of the First Age had conspir'd to tell a Ly to the Second concerning Christ's Doctrin But this mountainous Expectation came off with a poor little mouse the relation of one single man Papias of what an Apostle had told him which he being a good honest Soul gain'd credit with diverse Tho' as for his wit Dr. St's Author Eusebius tells us he was a man of a mean capacity and scarce understood the meaning of what was spoken I wonder the Dr. blush't not to put such a Slur upon his Auditory as to compare the Publick Authority of the whole Christian World and the Universal Testimony of God's Church to the private story of one weak man or to pretend hence that if he were mistaken the Authority of Tradition mightily sinks and fails whereas 't is only his own Credit that falls into that disaster by making such a senseless Argument Yet this is the best and as far as I can find the only one he has brought to prove directly the First Age of Christians had bely'd Christ's Doctrin to the Second and that because one man of a mean Capacity mistook we may stand in doubt of our Assurance whether all the Learneder Faithfull nay all the Pastours and Bishops in the Church had Capacity enough to know an open matter of Fact viz. what had been taught and practis'd publickly every day by a World of Fore-fathers or the Integrity not to deceive us § 15. Of the same stamp is his alledging that St. Luke's reason why he writ his Gospel was to give Theophilus Certainty of those things wherein he had been instructed The Subject of our Enquiry is about the High Points of Christian Belief Does the Dr. think then that Theophilus was not a Christian or had no Certain Knowledg of his Faith ere St. Luke writ Or that the Apostles did not instruct people in those Main Articles Or that St. Luke's Writing those Points in short for those Points we speak of take up a very inconsiderable part of his Gospel could make him know it better and with more Certainty than their Preaching it at large With what Sense can any of this be pretended The Apostles did Miracles to attest their Doctrin Did St. Luke do any to attest the True Sense of all he writ in those Points Again what did his Gospel contain Only those Dogmatical Points controverted from time to time between the Sons of the Church and her Deserters of which and none but which we speak Alas these are the least part of his Gospel and make but a small appearance in it He relates our Saviour's Genealogy Temptation Fasting Miracles Parables his sending his Apostles and Disciples his Exhortations to Repentance and good Life the Manner of his Entring into Ierusalem his Instituting the Last Supper the particulars of his being apprehended accus'd condemn'd and Crucify'd Lastly his Burial Resurrection Apparitions and Ascension These are laid out in that Gospel at large together with many excellent sayings of our Blessed Saviour related verbatim And These as they were never pretended by us to be the Object of Tradition so tho' spoken of frequently and perhaps variously amongst Christians were Impossible ever to be perfectly remember'd by the Generality unless put in a Book and therefore St. Luke gives Theophilus and others the Certain and particular knowledge of all these Passages by Writing And Dr. St. confesses the same p. 17. and that his aym and Intention was to give an Account of the Life and Actions of Christ but not a word that his Writing was to give Theophilus Certainty or a Clearer Knowledge of those Main Articles to ascertain which Tradition is pretended by us to be the most proper Means § 16. Now let 's see how many notorious prevarications and faults he has fallen into in this one Instance 1. Our whole Controversy is about the Certainty of those sublime Points of Christian Faith which he conceals and confounds them with a multitude of particular Passages 2. He intimates our Tradition is to ascertain all that 's contain'd in St. Luke's Gospel Whereas he knows well we rely upon no Tradition but what 's in some degree Practical which those Particulars are not unless it be those of which we keep Anniversary Solemnities 3. He is so angry at Tradition that he pretends the very Oral Tradition or Preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles needed something to strengthen and confirm it Lastly he makes our Tradition to begin with the first Preaching of the Apostles whereas it dates it 's Original from the first Age of Christianity already perfectly instructed by them during all their Lives and settled into Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline at their Decease § 17. He seems at length to come neerer the Point and affirms That the Writings of the Apostles when Matters of Doctrin came to be contested were the Infallible Rule whereby they were to judge which was the true and genuin Doctrin of Christ and which is yet better that They were intended by the Holy Ghost to be a standing Rule whereby the Church was to judge which was the true and genuin Doctrine of Christ. I am glad with all my heart to hear him speak of the Church being a Judge of Controversies or that he allows Her any hand in ascertaining and proposing Faith. I ever understood him hitherto That every sober Enquirer was to judge of the sense of Scripture for himself That it was plain to him even in the highest Points and that if in any contested or dubious Articles the Letter of Scripture did not declare it explicitly his sober Enquirer could by parity of Reason render any Implicit Point Explicit without the Church's Help tho' this was the most difficult Task as to the penetrating the Sense of Scripture that is possible and far beyond the understanding what 's there Explicitly He told us too in his second Letter p. 31 32. that because there is no Infallible Iudge every man is to Iudge for himself and this by Scripture his Rule But here the case is alter'd and the Church is to judge of Christ's Doctrin by Scripture I can allow honest Retractions without upbraiding them and am contented that the Church should judge by Scripture both when
retract them Nor shall he name any one Learned and Orthodox man of our Church who says my Explication is not Genuin and Sincere whereas I have nam'd him many Eminent in both those Qualities who have attested under their hands they are such He ends with bidding the Reader judge what I. S. has gotten by the Confession of Parties As much as in Modesty he could have wisht as appears by the Approbations of his Books and Success in his Suit. What Dr. St. has got by the Confession of his Party may be seen by an Eminent man not writing in hugger-mugger and Disguise but owning his Name viz. that he is accus'd of having Mountebankt and Quackt for full five and twenty years And these wretched shifts he has thought fit to use here to avoid the Point le ts us see he has not left it yet Nor am I to expect he should easily quit such an Inveterate Habit grown into a kind of Nature by a five and twenty years Custom and Practice 31. Now comes the State of the Question as his Second Letter has craftily put it tho' I conceive it was best Stated by shewing the Occasion and sole End of the Conference to which I will hold nor will I be beat off from it by any Excursions either then or since There was a Question then put to Dr. St. in these words Whether you are absolutely Certain that you hold now the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught his Apostles I thought I did well in putting him to answer directly that He was He says by my favour he us'd other words And what were those Why instead of the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught to his Apostles he answer'd All the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles There 's a Cloud in this carriage of his it being against the Clear way of honest Nature Was the Position as it lay in the terms of the Proposer true and so to be granted Why did he not grant it then Was it False why did he not deny it Was it Ambiguous why did he not the Proposer being present desire him to explain it No neither None of these plain and common Methods would please him What then He would needs change the words of the Question in his Answer And by what Rule Was his Answer the same in Sense with the Question If not his Answer was no Answer to that Question but the saying another thing on his own head If it was the same Sense why did he not speak to it directly in the Proposers words The reason he gives is because he 's afraid of Orall Tradition lest it should vary the Sense Whose Sense The Proposer's His Sense was fixt in determinate words and if it were not known the Doctor might have known it if he had pleas'd He means then his own Sense What must he put what Sense he thinks fit to the Question This is a quaint way of Answering And why should not the Proposer fear as himself did here lest by changing his words as he did enormously he should change his Sense too But this Orall Tradition like a Spright so haunts his Fancy that all along as shall be seen he either starts perpetually into Excursions and counterfeit Mirth or stumbles into downright Nonsense And this I believe verily is the General reason of all his failings But we are now to seek out his particular reason of changing the words here The last words that differ in the Question and Answer can break no squares for Christ and his Apostles agreed well enough and that Heavenly Master of theirs taught them All Faith either by Himself or the Holy Ghost sent in his name The danger then must be in these words the same Tenets in Faith which he changes for his security into the same Doctrin Because the word Doctrin signifies all in the lump as he expresses it to shew which he hop't it might be sufficient to shew the Book of Scripture whereas the Plural word Tenets might come to oblige him to shew how he has Absolute Certainty of each or any Point in particular to which he has a great Antipathy And accordingly when he came to perform this he chang'd again the Absolute Certainty of Faith into Absolute Certainty of Scripture I answer'd They held more to be of Faith than that the Book so call'd is Scripture He first trifles that we mean more than is contain'd in Scripture contrary to our express words where there 's not a Syllable of containing or not-containing all Faith. However if I mean his assent to Points of Faith contain'd in Scripture he promises a full Answer afterwards which we impatiently long to see Only we intreat him because 't is a far off he would not lose Absolute Certainty by the way nor fool our expectations when we come at it by letting the full Answer promist us vanish away into a flat denial he has any such Certainty of those Points at all 32. I argu'd ad hominem that since he confesses Tradition causes Certainty it makes Faith as Certain as Scripture He seems to confess it but denies we have such an Universal Tradition for our Tridentin Faith. As if the Faith come down by Tradition were not the same before and since that Council or that the Tradition we build on did not consist of such a vast Body of Attesters as were able to evince the truth of a plain matter of Fact unless those who had renounc't Tradition did club to it's Certainty But is it not pretty to observe that he pretends not to hold Faith to be Certain by our Tradition because 't is not Universal and yet at the same time disputes against Tradition's being a Certain Deriver of Christ's Faith even tho' it were Universal For his Principles allow no more hand in our Faith to Universal Tradition but only to bring down the Book of Scripture and then make that Book the only Ascertainer of our Faith. He threatens to shew the Tridentin Council had not Universal Tradition for it's Decrees and to give us a taste before-hand of that Treatise he adds Let the matter of Tradition it self as a Rule of Faith be one of those Points Well shot Doctor The Points he speaks of here are exprest to be Points of Faith and the Tradition we defend in our Controversy at present is the Human Authority of the Church which we make to be the Rule to those coming to Faith and so it is Antecedent to Faith and the Object of pure Natural Reason And does he in his Great Learning think This is a Point of Faith Or is it not possible to keep this roving Pen of his to any thing But he designs to prove this mighty Advantage of his Cause and that no Catholick Tradition can be produc't against his Church in any one Point of the Additional Creed of Pius IV. Suppose it could not has he therefore
that all the Main Points of Christian Doctrin may be false for any thing they know These and such like Discourses I hope would at first startle him and at length cure him if he were not too deeply tainted with Enthusiasm or a high opinion of his own Moral Qualifications and Divine Assistances For if he were he is got beyond the reach of Reason and Humane Discourse and is not to be helpt by any thing under a Miracle perhaps not by that neither 51. He seems to deny People the Liberty to interpret Scripture against the Teaching Church But his discourse sounds Hollow when he comes to show he does so Some sleight thing he says about the Sense of the Teaching Church in the best and purest Ages but not a word of what they owe to the present Church which is their Proper and Immediate Instructress and Governess by which discourse it should seem he holds the Church of England none of the best nor purest The main point is whether if after having consulted the Primitive Church and consider'd what Grounds she brought for her Doctrin and Decrees the Enquirer still likes his own Interpretation better he is in that case to submit his private Judgment to the Decrees of That or Any Church And how the Church is to look upon him in case his private Interpretation leads him into a flat Heresy These are the true Points and Tests of Dr. St's Principles and yet undiscover'd Consequences but these are slubber'd over or rather indeed never toucht Yet he complains of me for being Obscure when as 't is acknowledg'd he writes Clearly but 't is Clearly from the Point nor has any packing the Cards c. He says too that 't is aukward reasoning to say nothing but Infallibility will content him now Pray which is more aukward If the Judges acknowledge themselves Fallible in which case nothing can be said to be True that is held upon their Testimony then he allows them very much Authority but not upon other terms But he is high in choler against me for saying he has an aversion against the Churches intermeddling in matters of Faith and imputes it either to great Ignorance or a malicious Design to expose him to Church Governors But his comfort is he pities my Ignorance and despises my Malice This is Stately and Great I do assure him my only Design is to oppose such Principles as leave all to the Fanatick phrenzy of every private Interpreter and till he satisfies the World better that his Principles are not guilty of this Enormity I shall still oppose him let him huff never so high The Point is how does he clear himself Why he says he disputes not against Church-Authority in due proposing matters of Faith Certainly Church-Authority is mightily oblig'd to him A Genuin and Learned Son of the Church of England speaking of this very Doctrin of his tells him that Proposals of their own nature are so far from inferring an Authority to Command their reception that they rather imply a Power in those to whom they are propos'd at Discretion to Reiect them and so in the Issue gives the Authority to the People Which words contain the full sense of my Discourse here against the Dr and his beloved Sober Enquirer Why is he then so high against me for exposing him when those of the Church of England have already expos'd him more than I have done This is no great sign either of Ignorance or Malice when persons who are otherwise of different Judgments and Communions do center in the same opinion of his Doctrin as destructive of Church-Government But 't is yet more pleasant that he will not promise he will not dispute against Church-Authority even in this due proposing Matters of Faith but with a Proviso that every man is to judge for his own Salvation As much as to say If the Church will be so sawcy or so wicked as not to let my Sober Enquirers alone to interpret Scripture as they list or hold what seems to their Wise Worships to be the Sense of it which with him is judging for their own Salvation but will be censuring or Excommunicating them for Hereticks if they hap to err in Christ's Godhead for example or any other such Point then Church-Authority have at you for I tell you plainly if you do this I shall and will dispute against you It would be worth our knowing too what the pretty cautious words due proposing means There seems to lurk some hidden Mystery in that little monasyllable Due which may come to help the Sober Enquirers with an Evasion from submitting to Church-Authority or obeying it in case it misbehaves it self unduly or grows so malapert as to restrain them in their licentious Prerogative of interpreting Scripture as their Gifted Fancy inspires them It looks oddly and seems to have some ambidextrous meaning in it but we will hope the best till he comes to unfold it Now because Honourable Company is creditable to those who are highly obnoxious he names St. Chrysostom St. Austin St. Thomas of Aquin and Bellarmin as of his opnion but with the same sincerity as he pretended all Divines of both Churches and even my self to hold all Necessary Points may be found by every Sober Enquirer without the Churches Help as may be seen hereafter § 57. 'T is indeed the General Opinion of the Fathers that we are not always heard when we pray for Temporal Things or even Spiritual Goods for others but that our Request is always granted when we ask Spiritual Goods for our selves But then 't is ever understood with this restriction that we must not make our suit to have Knowledge or Virtue by Extraordinary ways and neglect the Ordinary Methods laid already by God's Providence to attain those good Gifts Our Question then being of understanding those difficult places of Scripture which contain the main Articles of our Christian Belief and whether they can better attain to the Sense of Scripture with unerring Certainty by their own Private Judgments without the Churches Help or by the Churches Means and Dr St's Principles asserting the former Method mine the Later I do affirm that none of those Authors hold with him but would condemn his Tenet for Heresy He Quotes none of the places except Bellarmin who speaks not of persons looking for Faith in Scripture's Letter as to those Points but of the Faithfull Praying for Wisdom to live well and he as the Dr relates it denies the Gift of Interpretation the Dr's way to come to Faith is to be had by Prayer which is our main Point However our Dr pretends himself wonderfully skillfull in our Authors because he can make a shew of Quoting them tho' it be quite from the purpose He should have kept an Eye to the State of the Question and brought his Citations home to it but this is not his way His main art through this whole Treatise is to keep that from the Readers
then calls it an easy Answer and if it be an answer at all I must confess 't is an easy one for any man may with ease answer a thousand Objections in a trice at that rate nothing is easier than to omit all that is objected But I dare undertake that whoever reads my Third Catholick Letter p. 37.38.39.40 where four several prevarications were charg'd upon him in giving one single Answer to Mr. G's Question will judge it so far from easy that 't is Impossible for him to answer even with any degree of plausibility But with this sleightness he slips over most of my Objections in my Letters and supplies the defect with confident Talk or a Scornfull Iest. But because his main shuffle is his altering those words of the Question All the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles into All matters necessary to Salvation and this is his constant evasion we will examin it more particularly in order to the sole End of the Conference to which all the particular Questions were to be directed viz. his showing Grounds of Asbolute Certainty for his Faith. 1. I ask with the good leave of his Jest Does he think Christ and his Apostles taught any unnecessary Points If not why did he use such cautious diminishing expressions and instead of All their Doctrin put All matters necessary to our Salvation 2. Christians are wrought up to the Love of Heaven the Immediate Disposition to it by Motives and Some may need more than Others nay the variety of Peoples Tempers and Circumstances is so Infinite that scarce two persons will precisely need the same He is to acquaint us then how he knows or how he can make out that every man shall by reading the Scripture be sure to find his own Quota of Motives adjusted and serving for his particular Exigencies 3. Is he Sure they cannot err as to what 's necessary to their Salvation If provided they do their best they cannot then every man is so far Infallible which the Doctor has deny'd hitherto to all Mankind but to himself If they can err in matters necessary to Salvation then doubtless many will err and how can errour Save them 4. Tho' all cannot err in all Moral Points yet can he shew us any thing securing them from Erring in all those Articles of Faith held by the Church and renounc't by her Heretical Dissenters ever since Christ's time If he cannot and he declines shewing us they can nay he by his Doctrin confesses they may then they may be Sav'd tho' holding all the Heresies that ever were in which case I doubt he will scarce find them competent Assurance of their Salvation Again how knows he but the mixture of many of those gross Errours may not as much deprave their Souls as their understanding plainer places will edify them especially if the Church interposes and Excommunicates them for Hereticks For his Grounds forbid them to meddle with those high Points but leave the whole Scripture to their scanning and his approved Friend Dr. T. says they are Plain and so are subject to their profound Judgment of Discretion 5. He must tell us how must Church-Disciplin be exerciz'd upon such a Miscellany of Heterogeneous Members of which many obstinately deny what others pertinaciously affirm 6. Is the holding the Godhead of Christ and that God dy'd to save and redeem Mankind a Matter Necessary to Salvation Or is it enough to hold it was only a Man to whom they owe that highest Obligation to Love him Let him speak to this at least For I am not to expect but his aiery wordish Divinity makes him look upon the Mystery of the most Blessed Trinity as on a kind of dry Speculation Tho' were it seasonable to dilate on that Article I could shew him that besides it's exceeding Usefulness to the sublime Contemplatives the most Sacred and most Influential Points of Christian Faith and the main Body of Christian Language and the Truth of it depend on it's Verity Lastly Who told him that all sorts of People who are yet Unbelievers and looking after Christ's true Doctrin shall by reading Scripture come to all-saving Faith Has he it by Divine Revelation or by Reason Or will he recurr to Divine Assistances to keep Particular Persons from Errour and yet deny them to the Church If so how proves he This at least I wish he would speak out fairly and candidly to these Points and make something cohere For I profess with all sincerity I cannot for my heart make any Idea or Sense of this Motly Church which his Principles would patch up The several Members of it hang more loosely together than if they were ty'd to one another with Points Nay they agree worse than Fire and Water and all the several Contrarieties in in Nature for they are distanced by direct Contradiction of one to the other Whence they are utterly incapable of any kind of Coalition there being no imaginable means left to refract the irreconcileably-opposit Qualities of his Affirmative and Negative Faithfull or reduce so many Independent private-spirited Members into one Compound He is to shew us then how the parts of this Rope of Sand as it may more fitly be called must hang together I much fear it will be Invisibly by vertue of their being of the Elect and at the same rate as the Terms coher'd in the Invisible Proofs he alledg'd to shew us he and his Followers had Christ's true Doctrin 59. We shall never have done with this Purse of his He is so fond of the pretty Similitude that he puts it here over again at large and spends incomparably more time and pains in defending it than he does in making out the Absolute Certainty of his Faith tho' he both stood engag'd to do it and any good Christian too would think it were far more worth his while Had he done this the rest might have been more fairly compounded and his Purse have remain'd unransack't However he thinks it sutes well with the Conceit he had of Scripture but I am sure it sutes not at all with our purpose his shewing the Absolute Certainty of his Faith. Hence I told him that Scripture's containing Faith was impertinent to the whole drift of the Conference That the only business was how to get the Gold and Silver of Faith out thence with Absolute Certainty and how to secure those that aim'd to enrich themselves by it that instead of extracting the Pure Gold of Truth by understanding right those high and most Inestimable Articles the ransackers of it did not draw out thence the Impure Dross of Errour and Heresy Lastly that he ought to have put two Purses One the Heads and Hearts of the Faithfull into which the Apostles put this Heavenly Treasure of Faith by their Preaching the Other the Book of Scripture into which they put it by Writing and that Faith was properly in the Former only in regard Truth is no where Formally but in the
the highest Mysteries of our Faith be necessary for Salvation But must we still be put off with that frigid Evasion that such sublime Points are as intelligible now at this distance from the time of the Apostles tho' only couch't in a few words in a Book as they were when spoke by those Living Teachers who doubtless not only deliver'd their Sense in a few set words but such Points needing it explain'd it and dilated upon it to settle it better and sink an express conceit of it deeper into the minds of their Auditors Can it be imagin'd but that many of the People and the Pastours especially put their doubts and askt them Questions concerning the Points of Faith they had Preacht and receiv'd pertinent Answers none of which a Book could do How ridiculous a pretence then is this Yet this is his best shift For unless the Book have This or an Equivalent Virtue to make Clear its Sense it cannot have the Plainness or Clearness requisit to a Rule of Faith. He contends that if those Points be necessary to Salvation they must be so Plain that we may be Certain of our Duty to believe them Which retorts his Discourse upon himself for if those two sublime Articles there spoken of be Necessary for the Salvation of the Generality which cannot be deny'd without accusing the Primitive Church of Tyranny for casting those out of the Church who deny'd them then they must be Certain one way or other that 't is their Duty to believe them and since he does not think fit to say this Duty can be Certainly shewn them by the Letter of Scripture it follows that this Duty to believe them must be made Certain by the Testimony of the Church delivering them 'T is easy to be seen the whole force of his Discourse here is built on his begging the Question that Scriptures Letter as understood by Private Judgments is the Rule of Faith and that it is plain in all Necessary Points Which he ought not to do without shewing us first which Points are Necessary at least those of the Trinity and Godhead of Christ if he think them so and then proving his Rule is Plain in all such Points and not still to suppose presume upon and occurr to that which is yet under Dispute Vngranted and Unprov'd Let me then mind him of one piece of Logick which tho' it be not Admirable yet 't is Solid and never regarded by him 'T is this that no Argument has any force upon another but either by its being so Evident that he must forfeit his Reason to deny it or Granted by his Adversary so that he must either Argue from something Clear of it self or made Clear by Proof or else argue Ex concessis from the Party 's own Concession By which Rule if all the Reasons he brings here were examin'd it will manifestly appear he has not spoken one word of True Reason against me in his whole Answer I do here Challenge him to shew me so much as any One Argument of his that has either of these Qualifications and to encourage him to such a performance if he can shew me any One such I promise him to pass all the rest for valid and good I end with desiring the considering Reader to reflect on the Drs Discourse here p 82. and upon an exact review of it to determine whether Principles are not deeply laid here to make the Socinians and many other known Hereticks Members of his Church and to free them from Church Censurers For if they find not in Scripture that the Apostles Preacht the Trinity and Godhead of Christ in clear and Express terms and with this Connotate as necessary to Salvation they cannot be Certain of their Duty to believe them the Consequences of which I need not dilate on His own Church is more concern'd to look to his Tenets than I am 63. He triumphs much that I grant Some may be sav'd without the Knowledge of all Christ Taught He means those Spiritual Points so often mention'd But if he knew how little advantage he gains by it he would not think it worth his taking notice of What may be done in an abstracted case is one thing what if they live in a Church and hold Heresies contrary to Christ's and the Church's Doctrin is Another Some Catholick Divines treating of Faith do mantain that to hold There is a God and that He is a Rewarder and Punisher is Simply enough for Salvation if they live up to those Tenets whence they conceive hopes that Nebuchadnezzar was sav'd tho' he was no Iew. But what 's this to our case Christ has left us a Body of Doctrin and since he did nothing Unnecessary for the Salvation of Mankind this being the End of his Coming and Preaching each Point conduced to that End either immediately or by Consequence whence by the way 't is a Folly to expect the Apostles Taught such Points as necessary to Salvation others as not necessary since no Point was Vnnecessary for the Salvation of Mankind except when they said for Distinction Dico ego non Christus or us'd some Equivalent expression But to return God has also settled a Church to conserve that Doctrin of Christ Intire Whence if any falls into Heresies contrary to that Doctrin by Misunderstanding Scripture's Letter in such passages 't is her Duty to cast them out of the Church and deliver them over to Satan for their contumacious Pride in preferring their own Private Judgments before the Judgment of their Pastours and the Church whom God appointed to Teach Them. Whence I do assure him I do not hold that any one such Privative Unbeliever will ever be sav'd tho' he holds some Points which of their own Nature might suffice for Salvation For such a man believes nothing at all but upon his own Self conceit and the very Ground of his Faith let him prate of Scripture as much as he will is Spiritual Pride which Vice alone is enough to damn him even tho' he held all those Points of Christ's Faith to a Tittle Hence follows that either the Primitive Church as hinted above was very uncharitable in Excommunicating those who dissented from those High Articles Or else the Rule of Faith must be so Plain and Clear that it must preserve those from Heresy who follow it and render them Inexcusable who by deserting it do fall into the opposit Heresies And therefore that we may bring our Discourse back to the Question he must either prove his Rule of Faith thus Qualify'd or 'T is no Rule What follows to p. 85. is meer Drollery which gives all the seeming Strength to his Weak reasoning Only he has a fling at Transubstantiation which is a Topick of course in his Controversy He thinks 't is Unnecessary to the Church but the Church it seems thought it necessary to define it in her Circumstances and I humbly conceive the necessary occasion of defining it was because such as He
Ages As if this had not been prov'd already and never yet answer'd but by Shuffles and Evasions 7. He frames a Plea for the Arians against the Nicene Councill from my Principles but very untowardly for the Arians allow'd the Copies and quoted Scripture as fast as Catholicks did and yet Err'd most abominably which makes against himself Lastly he tells us that 't is a pernicious Principle a miserable Account c. At which I wonder not For every thing is miserable and pernicious with him that makes the Church good for any thing Yet he could grant the Churches Testimony was needfull at first to abett the Truth of the Gospells and she enjoy'd that Priviledge in St. Austins time and I wonder how she came to lose her Title to God's Gracious Providence and Assistance or how she came to be disabled in the following ages to preserve the Letter uncorrupted in those Texts that contain'd known Points of Faith. It seems Translaters and Transcribers for the most part Mercenary are Sacred with him and admirable Preservers of the Letter but alas the Miserable Church is good for nothing I have already told him why I hold Scriptures Letter no Rule how 't is sometimes call'd a Rule in an improper Sense and why that Sense is improper and his Friend Dr. Tillotson has told him what a Rule of Faith means in our Controversies but he never heeds either but runs on here with frivolous descants upon an ambiguous word and will needs take Rule in a Sense never meant nor possible to be meant in our circumstances He 's not satisfy'd with the Care of the Council of Trent in correcting the Copy But let him remember I spoke there of Texts of Inferiour Concern not of those that concern'd Faith. And why is he not satisfy'd Did she not do her best in the present Circumstances How will he prove it Because Clemens the 8 th recall'd and corrected the Bibles put out by Sixtus the 5 th for an exact Edition But if both did their best according to the Observations were made in their time and the Light they had then neither of them were to blame But all this Humane Diligence amounts not to Absolute Certainty as I. S. requires of us And is it not more reason I should require it of him than he of me since he makes it Scriptures Letter the Proper Rule of Faith which he knows I do not and yet which is pleasant he calls upon me aloud to declare as much and then he knows how to answer And now I know the true Reason why he has answer'd nothing hitherto viz. because I had not declar'd what I had own'd in all my Books near a thousand times over But we have lost our point by answering a multitude of Impertinent Cavills 'T is this The Sense of Scripture cannot be Absolutely Certain unless there be Absolute Certainty the Letter is right Nor can there be Absolute Certainty the Letter is right even in Texts relating to Faith by his Principles which deny this was perform'd by the Churches Knowledge of the Points of Faith but by making out with Absolute Certainty how the Letter was by some other Means secur'd from being wrong This he never attempts even in this very occasion when it lay upon him to do it and therefore for all his empty flourishes he has said just nothing Nor has shewn or defended that even the Ground of his Faith Scriptures Letter is Absolutely Certain Besides his Discourse still beats upon this mistake that We do not hold the Letter Absolutely Certain in such concerning Texts whereas we only say He cannot prove it to be such by his Principles and he makes our words good with not performing it or so much as attempting it Only he tells us for our comfort that as to Books Copies and Translations he has as high a Certainty as the thing is capable of and then 't is Madness to expect and require more So that tho' it happen that the Certainty be but a very sleight one his kind of Faithfull and Converts may take their choice whether they will be Fools if they will believe it or Madmen if they will not He tells us indeed faintly the Faith previous to Divine Faith may have Absolute Certainty but if it only may have it it may not have it In the mean time what is all this voluntary Saying to his Proving that he has really and indeed Absolute Certainty of those Books Copies and Translations 'T is his Proofs we lookt for and not bare Narrations of his own weak Tenets with which he thus puts us off continually 66. But how strangely Insincere if any such carriage could after so frequent use of it be strange in him is the Dr to pretend we hold it is in any Churches Power to correct Original Texts because they contradict the Sense of the present Church These words he puts into Italick Letter as if they were mine but he cites no place and I do assure the Reader I have neither such Words nor Sense The first Originals are not extant so cannot be corrected those call'd Originals which are already acknowledg'd ought as little to be corrected as the other in Texts belonging to Faith. All the Power we give the Church is to correct succeeding Copies upon occasion in Texts relating to the Articles of our Faith when they deviate from the Faith of the Church or which is the same from former Copies allow'd by her universally 67. I desir'd the Dr to satisfy us concerning the Number of Books requisit to a Rule of Faith and how many will just serve the turn as also whether some Book for any thing his Principles can assure us were not lost This lay upon him to prove and this with Absolute Certainty if he would have Scripture an Intire Rule of his Faith How proves he it Why he makes me mightily concern'd to lessen the Authority of the New Testament and that I charge the Christian Church with a Gross Neglect For all this Noise he knows well enough that I agree with him that 't is not in the least probable the Churches should suffer any such Book disperst among them to be last nor do I so much as suppose they did What I say is that he who holds all Humane Authority Fallible can never prove it True they deliver'd down All unless he can convince the World that a Fallible Medium can prove a thing True which he cannot do without proving that What may be False is True. Nor can he do This without proving the same thing may be and not be at once I wish then he would set himself to work and prove this abominable First Principle to be False For otherwise This alone will confute all the substantial parts of his Book and convince every man of Common Sense that his Grounds confest by himself to be Fallible can never make out that 't is True that he has either Right
weakly and insincerely objected Lastly he tells us that if Divine Faith fixes not on the Infallibility of Tradition then we may have Divine Faith without it Yes by his Enthusiastick Principles but not by Connatural ways since himself must acknowledge that neither the Letter nor Sense of Scripture is Absolutely Certain without it 79. It would be very pleasant to see how this Gallant Caviller would prove St. Paul a Pelagian Heretick That Blessed Apostle affirm'd that Fides per auditum Faith comes to our knowledge by Hearing For the Certainty of the Primitive Faith was resolv'd into the Certainty of the Senses as the Means to come to the first knowledge of the Doctrin and of That Sense more particularly because Preaching was the Way of instilling Faith then Now comes Dr St. and having pray'd I suppose for Wisdom before-hand tells that Holy Apostle that Divine Faith must have Infallible Grounds but that the Certainty of the Senses is meerly Natural That he runs from Divine Motives to Humane ones He asks him smartly what Infallible Ground is there for this Divine Faith and where it fixes If not on the Certainty of the Senses then we may have Divine Faith without them If it does fix on their Certainty then Divine Faith is to be resolv'd into Naturall Means And what is this but Pelagianism Thus the stupendiously Learned and more then supernaturally Enlighten'd Dean of St. Pauls has clearly prov'd St. Paul himself an arrant Pelagian But if St. Paul should answer as I do that he spoke not of Divine Faith or the Doctrin of it as in it self or as 't is formally supernatural but only of Divine Faith as standing under Natural Means for us to come to know it then it would follow that it would require higher Grounds to be resolv'd into as 't is Divine yet for all that that he could have no Faith at all nor certainty of it unless by Miracle but by virtue of these Natural Means to give him knowledge of it But our Verball Controvertist never reflects that there may be divers Resolutions made of Faith as 't is controverted according to the nature or exigency of the Dispute Against a Deist that holds it not Divine it is to be resolv'd into the Divine Authority and this must be shewn to be engag'd for it by those Motives of Credibility which prove it to be such But this is quite besides our present Dispute since both parties grant it and consequently all his Discourse here is quite besides the purpose 80. I doubt not but the Dr would have had another fling at St. Paul for Pelagianism in case he would not allow that a Pious Disposition of the Will did make the verdict of the Sense of Hearing Certain and piece out the Deafishness of the Auditours when that Sense had some Imperfection as he does here by making me a Pelagian for saying the Will 's Assistance cannot make an Argument if it be defective Especially should we both say that Dr St's Moral Qualifications Purity of Heart Humility of Mind and Prayer for Wisdom would not make a deaf Ear hear well or a bad Argument conclude For both our cases are perfectly Parallel since we both speak of the Way to come at the Knowledge of Divine Faith. But his Logick I see would have his Readers when an Argument drawn from meer Nature is propos'd which is short of Concluding let it be in Physicks Metaphysicks or what he will for it alters not our case shake their heads very piously and answer Truly Sir tho' I see your Reason does not conclude or satisfy my Understanding that the thing you would prove is True yet out of a Pious Inclination to the Cause I will call in my Wills Assistance and out of pure Goodness think it does conclude and that the Thing is for all that really True. I would wish him by all means to maintain still that 't is Pelagianism to deny that the Inconclusiveness of an Argument is supply'd by the kind-heartedness of the Will. Nothing in the World but this can justify all his Insignificant Proofs make them pass for valid good ones 'T is ridiculous he says to alledge that I resolve all into Christ's and the Apostles Teaching Why Is it not agreed on between us that Christ is God and his Doctrine Divine And is not this to bring us to Divine Faith if we prove it to be His Doctrine Or is it not enough for our purpose when 't is confess'd on both sides that Christ's Doctrine is Divine Why is it then ridiculous to profess we do this Because Caelestius Pelagius did the very same And so I must be a Pelagian still that 's resolv'd on Those Hereticks did indeed pretend their Heresies were Christ's Doctrin But this is no particularity in Them for every Heretick since Christ's time did the same else they had not been Hereticks but Pagans Iews Turks or Deists But we go no further upon this Principle than they did Why Did they ever alledge that the Tradition or Immediate Testimony of the Body of the Church deliver'd down their Doctrin for Christ's Or durst they disgrace themselves by going about to avail themselves of such an open and Notorious Lye This he should have prov'd solidly and clearly But instead of proving it he barely says it and who will at this time of day believe his word And yet if he does not this every sincere Reader must see that he has sacrific'd his sincerity to his spite against Catholicks and judges Slander and Calumny no Sin. Observe here by the way his consistency with himself In his Second Letter to Mr G. p. 9. he affirm'd that we resolv'd All into meer Humane Faith and here he confesses we resolve all into Christ's and his Apostles Teaching Had not I then good reason to ask him if Christ was a meer Man it falling in so Naturally Yet he is mighty angry at those words and says he gave no occasion for them and imputes it to Malice I do assure him that I us'd those words to shew that by resolving All into Christ's Teaching I resolv'd Faith finally into what is confessedly Divine Why he should take it so to heart or apply it to himself when it was not in the least intended his conscience best knows However it puts him to make a Profession of his Faith in that point which I heartily pray may be sincere 82. The last point which he thinks fit to take notice of omitting by his favour many which were more concerning is that the Council of Trent disowns a power of making Implicit Articles of Faith contain'd in Scripture to become Explicit by its Explaining the Sense of them He proves this Because the Church of Rome doth not pretend to make New Articles of Faith whereas to make Implicit Doctrines to become Explicit is really so to do This a little varies from what he said in his Second Letter nor can I find a
yet for all his flourishes about Criterions he has said nothing to those Reasons only he has made a sleight Discourse of his own p. 53.54 but never shew'd any particular Means securing his Party from Erring more than the vilest Hereticks us'd Why little or no regard to my Reasons shewing that Scripture Interpretable by their private Judgment of Discretion is not the Rule which the Generality of Protestants rely on which if true utterly overthrows his whole Pretence to That for his Rule He blunders indeed about it in clear words and tells his own Tale very prettily but he has not answer'd my Reasons as the Reader may discern who is pleas'd to compare them with his Reply Lastly why no Answer to each particular Proposition of my Short Discourse or shewn it inconnected demonstrating that none who follow'd his Rule can have Assurance that what they believe is Christ's Doctrin But instead of this Duty bringing pretended False Suppositions against the Whole which suppos'd nothing but that we could have no more Reason to judge the Socinians Insincere or Careless or less Skilfull in the Sense of words than we have to think He is 86. These are his Omissions in Answering my First Catholick Letter As for my Second since his Title pretends an Answer to them All in Generall and he referrs us to another able to speak for himself meaning his Reflecter we are to imagin he makes account he has Answer'd them All by Himself or by his Proxy But good God! what an Answer has that weak man given us His Discourse is a Chain of Sand. 'T is a mess of Controversy dish't up in Sippets a meer Hash of Repartees or reason torn into Raggs A Discourse as every man knows has it's true Force by the Constant Tenour of it and this Tenour is shatter'd all to pieces by a new invented Method of short Dialogues where he makes me at his pleasure say as little at a time as he lists and he plays upon it as much as he pleases I must break-off just where he thinks fitting and he Enlarge against an imperfect Discourse unassisted by it's Comparts as long as he Judges convenient Now he 's at the beginning of my Book and immediately at the Middle or End of it gathering thrums-ends of little Sentences which he patches together so aukwardly that they have no Connexion at all but what his unskillfull or Partiall hand bestows upon them If we expect Reason from him he tells us he never undertook to Prove but to Reflect A very pretty come off I wonder what Answer is proper to a man who proves nothing nay not so much as Vndertook it Thus much for his Method But the Tricks and Shifts in managing it are Innumerable 'T is almost as easy to determin how many words may be made of the four and Twenty Letters as to trace all the Anagrams he makes of my Sense by weaving it in his loom to sute his own Fancy or Interest When our Question is only about a Certain Rule of Faith he alters it when he lists to a Certain Rule of Life p. 33. as if we pretended Scripture not Clear in Morall Points by which means he turns the whole Question to a quite different Subject His Contradictions are frequent for he never speaks of the Nature of any thing that concerns our Dispute but he constantly falls into that irrecoverable lapse As he turn'd the precise Duty of proving into the Needless Impertinency of Reflecting so tell him of Falsifications he tells you p. 52. he meant them for Ironies And indeed his whole Reflexionary if I may call it so is nothing but a continu'd Irony it being very hard to know when he 's in Jest when in Earnest Only he garnishes his Scorn with demure pretences of Charity and Civility that so he may affront his Adversary with a more plausible Garb of Affected Gravity and Godliness 87. As for the strength of his Reasons since one Instance is held by Dr St. and him a Competent Answer to a pretended Demonstration I hope one pregnant Instance how he quite misses the whole matter in hand may be allow'd sufficient to render insignificant his Hopping and Skipping Dialogues by shewing plainly that his ill-levell'd Reflexions hit not me but Squint aside to other Subjects E're I come to my Instance I desire the Reader to bear in Remembrance for I cannot repeat it too often because my Adversary is resolv'd never to take notice of it that Our Controversy Supposes as agreed to by both Parties that Christ's Doctrin is Divine and that our Whole Question is about the Means to bring down to us those Sublime Spiritual Articles of Christian Faith with such a Certainty and Clearness as may oblige us to assent firmly and unalterably that what we hold concerning them now at present is the self-same that was taught by him and his Apostles and consequently is Divine and True. Next we affirm that the Letter of Scripture not being Clear to people of all sorts looking after Christ's True Doctrin in those Texts which relate to such High Points the best way to satisfy such men that those Articles came down invariably from Christ is the Humane Authority of the Christian Church And Lastly that the Credibleness of this Authority is prov'd by Intrinsical Mediums taken from the Natures of Things lying levell to our Reason which contribute to support it from being liable to be deceiv'd or to deceive us in that affair viz. from the Nature of Man who being a Rational Creature cannot possibly act without a Motive or a Reason and is withall endow'd with such and such Faculties belonging to such a Nature As also from the Practical Nature Highest Import of the Doctrin to be deliver'd and the Nature of those most powerfull Motives obliging the Generality to whom they are apply'd to transmit down faithfully a Doctrin held Divine and Lastly from the Nature of divers Circumstances of the Universe All which are laid out in my Second Cath. Letter p. 57.58.59.60 To which nothing but a very sleight return with many Omissions has been given us by Him and nothing at all by Dr St. tho' these as the Reader may see if he pleases to review them be the most forcible part of that Treatise to prove the uninterrupted Perpetuity of Tradition hitherto on which the Resolution of our Grand Question mainly depends 'T is enough it seems for such a trifling Reflecter at the end of his Pamphlet to call the passages he has omitted amongst which are the Natures of those things Hedges and Puddles and close Reasons drawn from them frisking Fancies and that 's all can justly be expected from one who seems to be a sworn Schollar to the Great Professor of Learned Jests and Ingenious Prevarications 88. These particulars concerning our Tenet known to all that have read our Controversy being reflected on let 's see how this Gentleman represents it and how profoundly he discourses against us In
his 12th Page he will needs repeat our Tenet or as he with much Formality is pleas'd to call it the Lesson I have taught him which put into distinct Sentences he makes to be this 1. Your Churches Authority is Human Authority Answ. Our Church'es Authority is also Divine and as such 't is the Rule of Faith to those who are already Faithfull But in our Controversy which is about the Way for men to come to Faith 't is not proper to alledge any other than her Natural or Humane Authority consisting of a vast Body of Men both able and oblig'd to testify such open matters of Fact as is the Delivery of a Doctrin so Qualify'd by those that educated us And the Reason is because 'till men come at Christ's Faith they can only guide themselves by their Reason whence the Credibility of that Authority must be provable by Reason against those who shall deny it 2. He says It has force to prove the Truths which depend upon it Yes it has force to prove to us this matter of Fact that those Truths descended from Christ but not the Intrinsical Truth of any one Article in it self To do this is the work of Divine Revelation not of Humane Authority 3. It has this force and concludes against such as own its Veracity but it deserves no Assent further than Reason gives it to deserve Well then since we bid him guide himself by his Reason e're he admits it will he at least admit it and yield assent to it when Reason shews him it deserves it This is all we desire of him and 't is a very reasonable request in us for it only desires he would not renounce his Reason and forfeit his Manhood Now come his Conclusions from mistaken Premisses Hence I conclude Seeing We admit not your Church'es Authority nor own its Veracity it proves nothing to us nor concludes any thing against us From what Antecedent is this Conclusion drawn Did we ever press him to admit it blindly the Point is will he renounce his Reason when it tells him this Authority ought to be believ'd This is our Tenet and should have been taken in e're he had inferr'd any thing at all but then it would have marr'd his Conclusion and his admirable Method of taking every Discourse of mine to pieces and never putting it together again and so it was thought expedient to neglect it His next Conclusion is Seeing Articles of Faith depend not on Humane Authority your Church'es Authority can have no effect on Humane Nature to oblige to a Belief of them Where we have near as many Faults as Words For First Articles of Faith in themselves or as to their Intrinsicall Verity depend only on the Divine Authority as their Formall Motive but as to us or as to our knowledge of those Articles Now which were taught by Christ long since which is our only business a successive Human Authority the most strongly supported of any that ever was in the World to convey down a matter of Fact of Infinit Concern is the properest way to Attest them whence all those Articles in that regard do depend on that Human Authority after the same manner as even himself also holds the Book of Scripture does Secondly What an Incredible Folly is it not to distinguish between those Articles which were Taught at First and so are Divine as in Themselves and the same Articles as Knowable by us Now to have been Taught Long ago nor to reflect that our Controversy only treats of them under this latter Consideration Nor to know that as thus Consider'd All Articles of Faith not only May but Must necessarily depend on Human or Naturall Means since without Such they cannot be introduc't into our understandings connaturally nor by any way but by Immediate Inspiration which is perfect Enthusiasm Nor Lastly not to advert that even the Divinity of Faith depends in some sort on Naturall Means St. Paul tells us Faith comes by Hearing and if so then Faith depended on Hearing as to its coming to be Known by us Nay as Christian Faith was Formally from God it depended thus on Miracles which could not be known to be such but by their being above the Course of Nature nor could they be known to be above the Course of Nature unless the course of Nature it self had been fore-known the Knowledge of which is only Naturall or Human. Thirdly His following words in this Ridiculous Conclusion shew him utterly ignorant of our whole Question otherwise he could not with any degree of sincerity have put it upon us that we hold the Human Authority of our Church obliges to a Belief of the Articles themselves whereas what we hold is that it only obliges us to Assent they came from Christ or were inerrably deliver'd down by the Churche's Testimony Fourthly By leaving out all mention of what 's most particularly our Tenet in this Point he puts it upon us to hold that Human Authority has effect upon Human Nature of it self whereas we never presum'd or affirm'd it either had or ought to have any but by Vertue of the Reasons which vouch't for its Veracity nay I both Affirm'd and Prov'd the direct Contrary His Third Conclusion is Seeing all its Credit depends on its Intrinsicall Reasons produc't till they be produc't we are not bound to give any Credit to it No nor bound to mind them much it seems nor Answer them fully when produc't as appears by his omitting the most forcible Reasons for the Certainty of Tradition's Continuance as was Lately shown But why is this made a distinct Conclusion or disjoynted from the rest whereas it was the most necessary and Essentiall part of our true Tenet Because the Method he so Religiously observ'd throughout his Dialogue-Answer which is to shatter asunder the intire Sense of every passage would not allow it His Fourth Conclusion is When these Reasons shall be produc't its Testimony has but the Nature of an Externall Motive not of an Intrinsicall Ground Answ. Intrinsicall Ground To what To Christian Faith as 't is Divine 'T was never pretended nor can it belong in any regard to our Question since 't is not disputed between us but Acknowledg'd by us both that Christ's Doctrin is Such Means he then 't is not a Proper Medium to prove Christ's Faith deriv'd to us who live now How can he even pretend to shew that so vast a Testimony is not proper to Attest a Notorious Matter of Fact viz. what Doctrin was Deliver'd immediately before and this throughout every Age Year or Day Again what means he when he says Testimony is not an Intrinsicall Ground What man in his senses ever said or thought it We spoke indeed of Intrinsicall Grounds to prove the Credibleness of that Testimony but not a word have we even hinting that Testimony it self is an Intrinsical Ground to any thing If he will needs be talking Nonsense let him take it to himself and not put it upon me
acknowledg'd it was rather a very commendable cautiousness in the Latin Greek Church too not to admit into such a sacred Roll Books that were not yet clearly prov'd to be authentickly such than a blameable Lapse or so hainous a Crime that for committing it she must needs lose all her Title to Christ's promis'd Assistance 31. This gives me occasion to ask you what becomes of Your Rule and consequently of Your Faith all that while If the Letter of the Canonical Books that is of the whole Canon of the New Testament be your Rule and those Books were part of this Canon they must necessarily be part of your Rule too whence it follows that your Rule was not Intire but deficient for some hundreds of years till the whole Canon was Collected and Acknowledg'd I see you do but complement with the Primitive Church of the first 300 years and that you onely cry it up to avoid the unkindness which the succeeding Ages shew to your Cause for by your Doctrine you cannot but hold that the Ages which follow'd it are to be prefer'd Since These had your intire Rule the Others wanted some parts of it and sometimes held but three parts of it half of it or less and so by your Principles were but three quarters or half Christians according as the several pieces came by degrees to be acknowledg'd and universally accepted I doubt Mr. M's Discourse about the Number of Books more perplexes you than your are willing to make shew of For pray how many of these Books go to make up your Rule of Faith If any one or some few then you should not have stood upon the Canon we have now that is all the Apostolical Books or Scripture in general If all the Canonical Writings be your Rule then perhaps the Primitive Christians had but half their Faith or less it may be none at all because wanting yet those other Books they wanted necessary places to compare those Texts with they already had which is a great part of your Method to find out your Faith in Scripture Pray satisfy us about this exact Number of Books and how many will just serve the turn and make something cohere for I cannot for my heart as yet find any thing that does You talk to us of a Purse and say it must be full but when we come to look at it more narrowly it appears to have been for some time but half a Purse and wanted one side of it at least had a great Hole in it so that you put us into an apprehension that many of the Gold and Silver Points might have dropt out of it in the time of the Primitive Church by which Church notwithstanding and no other in our disputes about Faith you seem heartily willing to be judg'd But let us examin a little the Consent of all your Christian Churches for Scripture you make such brags of In the first place marches and leads the Van your Christian Church of the Noble Arch-Heretick Marciou who blotted out of the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews that to Titus and both those to Timothy who admitted onely St. Luke's Gospel to be Divine and rejected all the Epistles of St. Paul as an Apostate from the Law. In the next rank go abreast those three Famous Christian Churches of Ebion Valentinus and Cerinthus Of which the First admitted onely St. Matthews Gospel the second onely St. Iohn's and the third onely St. Mark 's After them come others mentioned by St. Hierom and Epiphanius who in a manner brought all into doubt especially if Faith depended in those days on the comparing of places for they held that diverse things both in the Old Testament and the New were not inspir'd by GOD but writ by a Human spirit I need not acquaint you that Luther Brentius Chemnitius did revive the old Doubts about the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse of later dayes Nor need it be recounted how many Orthodox Christian Churches did not accept diverse Books formerly And tho' afterwards as you say well they came by degrees to fix on the Certain Canon of the New Testament yet I am apt to judge that this was not perform'd by Immediate Testimony For the Witnesses were long ago dead and their Grand-Fathers too who could attest that such a Book was indeed to their knowledge written by such an Apostle or Evangelist It descended then by Oral Tradition in those respective Churches Whence as that Tradition was not so Practical so it was restrain'd to some few in each Church and was withal very narrow at first in comparison of our Tradition for Christ's Doctrin which was in a manner universally and publickly preach't and practis'd Now the strength of a Tradition and the largeness of it are to be taken from the largeness of the first Attestation and all that after-Ages can do when they attest such things is to witness that they received it from some others but so that the Tradition was still narrower as it came nearer the fountain which very much weakens it By what other Lights the Church guided her self in her accepting such and such Books for Canonical Scripture belongs to another place Your Tradition then was not Universal for Scripture in the first 300 years and its Original Attestation was weak in comparison of that which was for Doctrin 32. I have little to say to your Explicit or Implicit Points contain'd in Scripture For I see they are both equally to no purpose while but contain'd there till you bring us a Rule to interpret the Letter with Absolute Certainty If any ought to be explicitely there none can have so good a Title to it as those high and most Fundamental Articles spoken of so often yet we see there are no places producible for them but may have other senses given them and bear as experience shews us not yet ended and for ought we know endless Disputes among your sober Enquirers attending to your Rule Onely I a little wonder you should say 't is sufficient for your purpose that all Doctrin of Faith necessary to Salvation are contain'd in the Letter of Scripture either explicitly or implicitly If they be necessary to Salvation they must be necessary to be believ'd or known to be there for they must save men by believing them and acting according to that Belief or no way and if they be onely implicitly there they are as yet unknown or not believ'd So that according to you that is a Point necessary to Salvation which does not at all conduce to it But I wonder more at the happiness of your Sober Enquirer to whom you affirm and stand to it stoutly those Implicit Points will become Explicit without the help of the Church and yet you call it assuming in the Church of Rome to do the same or declare the Sense of such Articles Certainly this Sober Enquirer is your special Darling and Favourit He