that none are saved but Metaphysical Speculators that perch upon the specifick Nature of Things and dig into the Intrinsecal Grounds of Truth If this be his Opinion How few can be saved But if Salvation be the End the Means must be suitable to the Capacity of Mankind and I do not think the Intrinsecal Grounds of Truth are so But aftey all he saith that I stifle any further talk of the Certainty of Protestent Faith. How can that be when I own no Protestant Faith but what is contained in Scripture or may be deduced from it according to the Sixth Article of our Church I am not conscious to myself of any Art in the matter which he charges me with and he saith I avoid what cannot be performed What is that To make out that Protestants are absolutely certain that they now hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles If all that Doctrine be contained in Scripture and they hold the Scripture by Grounds of Absolute Certainty then Protestants must be certain that they hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles Afterwards Mr. S. starts something that comes nearer to the business which is that Certainty of Faith and Certainty of Scripture are two things For those who have as much Certainty of Scripture as we may have not only an Vncertain but a Wrong Faith and therefore I am concerned to shew not only that Protestants have Certainty of their Rule but of the Faith which they pretend to have from that Rule That which I am now upon is to settle the true State of the Controversie about the Certainty of Faith. In the Conference my first Answer was that We are absolutely Certain that we now hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles And when the Question was asked By what Certain Rule do we hold it I answer'd By the Divine Revelation contained in the Writings of the New Testament So that the Certainty of Scripture was that which I was obliged to answer to Now comes J. S. and he finds fault with Mr. G's management because he asked Questions about the Certainty of the Rule whereas he ought to have gone another Way to work So that now Mr. G. is given up and a New Controversie is begun upon other Grounds and the Words which I used with Respect to the Rule are applied to particular Doctrines He saith The Certainty of Scripture was not the Point for which the Conference was How comes he to know better than Mr. G. unless he directed the Point and Mr. G. mistook and lost it in the Management But I am now bound to manifest that Protestants have Absolute Certainty not only of the Scripture as the Rule but of the Faith they have from that Rule or else to own that I cannot It seems Mr. G's good Nature betray'd him when he asked Questions about the Rule of Faith and so the main Point was lost Yet methinks it was not meer good Nature in Mr. G. For when we are asked about the Grounds and Certainty of our Faith how is it possible we should answer more pertinently than to assign the Rule of our Faith And we declare it to be the Scripture by which we judge what we are to believe and what not And therefore if any ask us of the Matter of our Faith we must answer It is whatever God hath revealed in the Scripture which is our Rule If they ask us How we come to know these Books to be written by such Persons we say It is by the Vniversal Tradition of the Christian Churches If they ask us Why we believe the Doctrine contained in those Books then our Answer is From the Divine Testimonies which make us certain that it came from God. And thus we answer both to that which is called the Material and Formal Object of Faith and if we are absolutely Certain of these we must be so of our Faith. If we ask a Jew about the Certainty of his Faith he saith he is Certain of it because all his Faith is contained in the Books of Moses and he is well assured they were written by Divine Inspiration If we ask a Mahometan of his Faith his Answer is That his Faith is contained in the Alcoran and by proving that he proves the Certainty of his Faith and if that be disproved the Certainty of it is overthrown Those who resolve their Faith into a Written Rule must go thither when Questions are asked them about the Certainty of their Faith. For if I believe every thing in it and nothing but what is in it there lies my Faith and the Certainty of it depends upon the Certainty of my Rule But I must shew the Certainty of the Faith of Protestants as it is pretended to be taken from the Rule Not certainly when the Question is asked about the entire Object of our Faith or when we are to shew how we hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles for the word All makes it necessary for us to Assign our Rule wherein that All is contained If he ask us of the Certainty of any particular Point of our Faith then we are to make it out that this is contained in our Rule and our Certainty is according to the Evidence we are able to produce for it For the Case is not the same as to particular Points of Faith with that of the General Grounds of the Certainty of Faith. A Jew firmly believes all that is contained in the Books of Moses and with the highest Degree of Certainty but whether the Resurrection can be proved certainly from those Books is a particular Point and he may have Absolute Certainty of all contained in those Books though he may not have it as to such a Particular Point And when we come to Particular Points their Case is not only different from the General Rule of Faith but such Points are very different both among themselves and as to the Certainty of them For 1 There are some Points of Faith which were necessary to be Revealed because they were necessary to be Believed in order to our Salvation by Jesus Christ. For as Mr. S. saith Salvation is the thing of greatest Importance and therefore on Supposition that it is to be by Jesus Christ the Nature of the thing requires that we have a firm and established Faith in him And of these Points of Faith the Church hath given a Summary in the Creeds which were proposed to those who were to be Baptized and not only St. Augustin but Aquinas saith these were taken out of Scripture and the Certainty of them to us doth depend not upon the Authority of the Church proposing them but the Evidence of Scripture for them which is very much confirmed to us by the Concurrent Testimony of the Christian Church in all Ages from the Apostles times i. e. as to the main Articles for that there
much that in some Matters of very great Moment the Scripture is a very sufficient Rule and Ground of Certainty as to all Points between Us and Infidels And if it be so as to these Points then why not as well as to other Points consequent upon these If Christ be the Eternal Son of God in opposition to Heathen Deities and we can know him by Scripture to be so then we may as well know him to be the Eternal Son of God in opposition to Arians and Socinians If against the Heathens we can prove from Scripture that the Word was made Flesh Why will not this as well hold against Nestorians and Eutychians And so the Scripture becomes a very sufficient Rule to distinguish Light and Darkness in such Points among Christians too For is it ever the less fit to be a Rule because both Parties own it But they differ about the Sense of it and therefore Controversies can never be ended by it If Church-History deceive us not the greatest Controversies were ended by it before General Councils were heard of and more than have been since Many of those we read of in the First Ages were quite laid asleep as Theodoret observes but since Church-Authority interposed in the most Reasonable manner some Differences have been perpetuated as appears by the Nestorian and Eutychian Controversies I do not blame the Authority of Councils proceeding as they then did by the Rule of Scriptures but the Event shewed that the most probable Means are sometimes very ineffectual for ending Controversies And those which Men think will most effectually Suppress Heresies do often give a New Life and Spirit to them So vain are the Imaginations of Men about putting an End to Controversies till they do come to a Certainty about the true Sense of Scripture It is possible to stop Mens Mouths by Force and Power but nothing brings Men to a true Satisfaction but inward Conviction as to the true Sense of Scripture and there can be no rational Certainty as to these Points without it If Controversies be not ended let us not blame the Wisdom of Providence for God doth not always appoint the Means most effectual in our Judgment but such as are most suitable to his own Design And we see Reason enough to blame the Folly and weakness the Prejudice and Partiality the Wilfulness and Obstinacy of Mankind and till Human Nature be brought to a better Temper we may despair of seeing any End of Controversies Men may Dispute and for all that I know will do to the Worlds End about the Method to put an End to Disputes For the Controversies about Certainty and Fatality have been always the Matters of Debate among disputing Men under several Names and Hypotheses and are like so to be to the general Conflagration IV. He saith Scripture is not our distinguishing Rule of Faith but our own particular Judgments about Scripture for that which distinguishes my Rule from that of the most abominable Heresies can only be my own Judgment upon the Letter of Scripture and wriggle which way I will there it will and must end at last I wish Mr. S. had been a little better conversant in the old Disputes about Certainty for it would have saved me the trouble of answering some impertinent Objections such as this before us For they would have been thought mean Logicians who could not put a difference between the Rule of Judgment and the Judgment which a Man made according to the Rule Suppose the Question were about Sense whether that were a certain Rule or not to judge by and Epicurus should affirm it and say he so firmly believed it that he judged the Sun to be no bigger than he seemed to his Senses would not he have been thought ridiculous who should have said this Fancy of Epicurus was his Rule The Rule he went by was in it self certain but he made a wrong Judgment upon it but that was not his Rule So it is here We declare the Scripture to be our only certain and standing Rule whereby we are to judge in Matters of Faith and we understand it as well as we can and form our Judgments by it but doth it hence follow that our Judgment is our Rule We may be deceived in our Judgments but our Rule is Infallible we may differ in our Judgments but our Rule is one and the same And how is it possible for those who differ in Judgment to have the same Rule if our Rule and our Judgments be the same For then their Rules must be as different as their Judgments I know not what Modern Logick Mr. S. learnt but I am sure he learnt not this way of Reasoning from the Antient Philosophers who discoursed about the Criterion after another manner than our great pretender to Logick doth V. He objects That our People do not make Scripture the Rule of their Faith not one in a Million relying upon it and therefore this pretence of mine he saith books like a meer Jest and he cannot perswade himself that I am in earnest while I advance such a Paradox What doth J. S. mean to call one of the Articles of our Church a Jest and a Paradox For the Words of our Sixth Article are Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation Doth J. S. now take this for a Paradox among us I assure him I love not to make Jests about Scripture nor matters of Faith and Salvation But wherein doth this Jest lie Why forsooth I make the People to make Scripture their Rule and not one in a Million thinks of relying on it Have they then any other Rule of Faith which they rely upon What is it I pray Is it the Churches Infallibility No. Is it Pius the Fourth's Creed No truly while they are Children they believe Tradition Now I think J. S. hath hit it Tradition is indeed a Rule of Faith for Children who are very apt simply to believe their Fathers and Teachers But suppose they come to years of Discretion what Rule of Faith have they then Have they a Judgment of Discretion then No this is another Jest. For he supposes all our People to be a dull sort of Animals that understand nothing of Scripture or Faith themselves I wonder then that they make no more Converts among them but trust their Parson for all For Boves arabant Asinae pascebantur juxta eos therefore the People have no Judgment of Discretion I hope J. S. knows whose Jest or rather Argument that was Whatever he insinuates as to our People I have Reason to believe far better of them and that all those who mind their Salvation do seriously read and consider the Holy Scriptures as the Rule of their Faith. But if
If there were Oral Tradition for it how came it to be condemned If not then notwithstanding Oral Tradition dangerous Doctrines may get in under a pretence of a more Sublime and Spiritual Way of Perfection than is to be attained in the Dull and Heavy Way of Tradition from Father to Son. III. By a Pretence to a more Secret Tradition And thus Christianity was at first corrupted by such as pretended that there was a Mystical Doctrine delivered by Christ of a more purifying Nature than the Plain and Common Doctrine taught to all People by the Apostles So Hegesippus in Eusebius affirms That the Christian Church was corrupted by this Means and to the same Purpose Irenaeus So that Tradition was so far from securing the Church from Error that it was the Means of bringing it in And the Publick Tradition could not hinder this coming in of Error because the Secret Tradition was pretended to be more Divine and Spiritual the other was only for Babes and this for grown Christians IV. By Differences among Church-Guides about the Sense of Scripture and Tradition Thus it was in the Samosatenian Arian Pelagian Nestorian and Eutychian Controversies Neither of the Parties disowned Scripture or Tradition and those who were justly condemned pretended still to adhere to both And if such Flames could not be prevented so much nearer the Apostles Times by the help of Tradition What Reason can there be to expect it so long after V. By too great a Veneration to some particular Teachers not far from the Apostolical Times in regard to their Learning or Piety which made their Disciples despise Tradition in Comparison of their Notions And thus Origens Opinions came to prevail so much in the Church and the Mixture of Platonism with Christianity proved the occasion of several Errors with Respect to the State of Souls after Death as well as in other Points VI. By Compliance with some Gentile Superstitions in Hopes to gain more easily upon the Minds of the People who having been long accustomed to the Worship of Images and Tutelar Deities it was thought no Imprudent Thing in some Guides of the Church when the main Doctrines of Paganism were renounced to humour the People in these things so they were Accommodated to Christianity but others vehemently opposed this Method as repugnant to the True Primitive Christianity But by Degrees those Superstitions prevailed and the Original Tradition of the Church thereby corrupted VII By Implicit Faith which puts it into the Power of the Church-Guides to introduce what Doctrines they thought fit When the best of the People were told it was against the Fundamental Rights of the Catholick Church for them to examine any Opinions which were proposed to them by their Guides That they neither did nor could nor ought to understand them and when once this Point was gained People never troubled themselves about Scripture or Tradition for all they had to do was only to know what was decreed by the Church though with a Non-obstante to a Divine Institution as is plain in the Council of Constance notwithstanding all the Tricks to avoid it If then Errours might come into the Church all these ways what a vain thing is it to pretend That Oral Tradition will keep from any possibility of Error And so I need give no other Answer to his last Proposition That if Men did innovate in Faith it must be either through Forgetfulness or Malice for I have shewed many other Causes besides these especially since I intend to shew in a particular Discourse how the Errors and Corruptions we charge on the Church of Rome did come into it My design here being only to shew the Possibility of it There remain only two things which deserve any Consideration 1. About the Charge of Pelagianism 2. About the Council of Trents Proceeding on Tradition which will admit of an easie Dispatch I. As to the Charge of Pelagianism It doth not lie in this That he requires any Rational Inducements to Faith which we do assert as well as he But it lay in these Two things I. That a Divine Faith was to be resolved into a Natural Infallibility For we were told that Divine Faith must have Infallible Grounds and when we come to examine them we find nothing but what is Natural And now to avoid the Charge of Pelagianism this Divine Faith is declared to be meer Human Faith and so Human Faith is said to have Infallible Grounds but Divine Faith must shift for it self For saith J. S. 'T is confess'd and ever was that the Human Authority of the Church or Tradition begets only Human Faith as its Immediate Effect but by bringing it up to Christ it leads us to what 's Divine Well but what Infallible Ground is there for this Divine Faith Where doth that fix Is it on the Infallibibility of Tradition or not If not then we may have Divine Faith without it If it doth then Divine Faith is to be resolved into Natural Means And what is this but Pelagianism II. That he excludes the Pious Disposition of the Will from piecing out as he calls it the Defect of the Reasons why we Believe And in another place he excludes the Wills Assistance in these words That Faith or a Firm and Immoveable Assent upon Authority is not throughly Rational and by consequence partly Faulty if the Motives be not alone able to convince an Vnderstanding rightly disposed without the Wills Assistance How then can a pious Disposition of the Will be necessary in order to the Act of Faith And is it not Pelagianism to exclude it Therefore I was in the right when I said That this way of Oral Tradition resolves all into a meer Human Faith and that this is the unavoidable Consequence of it No he saith he resolves all into Christs and the Apostles teaching How ridiculous is this For did not Pelagius and Coelestius the very same And the thing I charged upon them was That they went no farther upon this Principle than they did Upon this he asks a very impertinent Question but if I do not Answer it I know what Clamours will follow Pray do you hold that Christ is a meer Man or that Believing him is a meer Human Faith or that the Doctrine taught by Him or Them is meerly Human What Occasion have I given for such a Question But I perceive there is a design among some to make me be believed to be no Christian. I pray God forgive the Malice of such Men. I thank God I have better Grounds for my Faith than Oral Tradition I do believe Christ to be more than meer Man even the Eternal Son of God and that his Doctrine is Divine and his Apostles had Infallible Assistance in delivering it But what is all this to the present Question I perceive some men when they are hard pinched cry out that their Adversaries are Atheists or Socinians c. and hope by this means to divert them
from the business before them But these Arts will not do And such a Dust cannot so blind the Readers Eyes but he must see it is raised on purpose that he may not be discerned in making an Escape II. As to the Council of Trents proceeding upon Tradition That which I said was The Church of Rome hath no where declared in Council that it hath any such Power of making Implicit Articles of Faith contained in Scripture to become Explicit by its explaining the Sense of them And the Reason I gave was Because the Church of Rome doth not pretend to make New Articles of Faith But to make Implicit Doctrines to become Explicit is really so to do as I there proved Now what saith J. S. to this I. He saith That the Council of Trent defines it belongs to the Church to judge of the True Sense and Interpretation of Scripture As though all that belonged to the Church must presently belong to the Church of Rome or all Judgment of Scripture must be Infallible or must make things necessary to be believed which were not so before II. He shews That the Church did proceed upon this Power What Power Of making things not Necessary to become Necessary I. It declares Sess. 13. That from some Texts mentioned the Church was ever persuaded of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation This is an admirable Argument to prove that it can make that Necessary to be believed which was not because it was always believed II. Sess. 14. It declares 1 Cor. 11. to be understood of Sacramental Confession by the Custom and Practise of the Church Then I suppose the Church thought it Necessary before III. Sess. 14. It declares Jam. 5. to be understood of Sacramental Confession But how By its Power of making it Necessary to be believed meerly by such Declaration No but by Apostolical Tradition then the meaning is that it was always so understood But because the Council of Trent doth pretend to Apostolical Tradition for the Points there determin'd and the shewing that it had not Catholick and Apostolick Tradition is the most effectual Confutation of the present Pretence of Oral Tradition I shall reserve that to another Discourse part whereof I hope will suddenly be Published FINIS A CATALOGVE of some BOOKS Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul's Church-Yard A Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer by T. C. Wherein the True Grounds of Faith are cleared and the False discovered the Church of England vindicated from the Imputation of Schism and the most important particular Controversie between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. and Dean of S. Pauls Folio the Second Edition Origines Britannicae Or the Antiquity of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in vindication of the Bishop of S. Asaph by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Pauls Folio The Rule of Faith Or an Answer to the Treatise of Mr. J. S. entituled Sure footing c. by John Tillotson D. D. to which is adjoyned A Reply to Mr. J. S.'s third Appendix c. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. A Letter to Mr. G. giving a true Account of a late Conference at the D. of P's A second Letter to Mr. G. in answer to two Letters lately published concerning the Conference at the D. of P. Veteres Vindicati In an Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney upon his Consensus Veterum c. wherein the absurdity of his Method and the weakness of his Reasons are shewn His false Aspersions upon the Church England are wiped off and her Faith concerning the Eucharist of proved to be that of the Primitive Church Together with Animadversions on Dean Boileaus French translation of and Remarks upon Bertram An Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium Wherein is shewn That Antiquity in relation to the Points in Controversie set down by him did not for the first five hundred Years Believe Teach and Practice as the Church of Rome doth at present Believe Teach and Practice together with a Vindication of Veteres Vindicati from the late weak and disingenuous Attempts of the Author of Transubstantiation Defended by the Author of the Answer to Mr. Sclater of Putney A Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuite in answer to his Letter to a Peer of the Church of England wherein the Postscript to the Answer to the Nubes Testium is Vindicated and Father Sabrans Mistakes further discovered A second Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuite in answer to his Reply A Vindication of the Principles of the Author of the Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium in answer to a late pretended Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England Scripture and Tradition Compared in a Sermon preached at Guild-Hall-Chappel Nov. 27. 1687. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Pauls the second Edition There is now in the Press and will speedily be published An Historical Examination of the Authority of Councils discovering the false Dealing that hath been used in the publishing of them and the Difference amongst the Papists themselves about their Number Faith vindicated pag. 13. Faith vindicated pag. 41. Errour Nonplust pag. 135. Haeres Blakloan p. 37 38. P. 39. P. 39. P. 40. P. 42. P. 44. Third Letter p. 65. Append. ad Haeres Blakloan First Letter pag. 4.5 6. Declaratio J. S. circa Doctrinam in suis libris contentam exhibita Sacrae Congregationi Eccles. R. D D. Cardinalium General Inquisitorum Duaci 1677. John 15.22 Haeres Blokloan pag. 315 316 317. Page 318. Page 6. Haeres Blackloan p. 33.153 c. 323. Haec nova propositio fidem Christianam destruit impellitque ad Scepticismum Atheismum Haeres Blaklo p. 66. Mecum omnes viri Docti Orthodoxi sentiunt per tua principia vastum ad Atheismum Heresin hiatum aperiri Haeres Blackloan p. 200. 2.2 a 9. ad 1. Sed circa ea quae sunt de Necessitate Salutis sufficienter instruuntur à Spiritu Sancto 2.2.9.8 a. 4. ad 1. Donum intellectus nunquam se subtrahit sanctis circa ea quae sunt necessaria ad salutem sed circa alia interdum se subtrahit ib. ad 3. A. 3. dicendum quod Lumen Fidei facit videre ea quae creduntur ita per habitum Fidei inclinatur mens hominis ad assentièndum his quae conveniunt certae Fidei non aliis 2.2.9.1 a. 4. ad 3. Per lumen Fidei divinitus infusum homini homo assentit his quae sunt Fidei non autem contrariis ideo nihil periculi vel damnationis inest his qui sunt in Christo Jesu ab ipso illuminati per fidem 2.2.9.2 a. 3. ad 2. Greg. Ariminens D. 1. A. 4. Q. 1. Greg. de Valentia Tom. 3. Disp. 1. Q. 1. Part. 4. Hugo de Sancto Victore Sumsent l. 1. c. 1. De Sacram. l. 1. p. 11. c. 2.4 Rich. de Sancto Victor Declar. Part. 1. p. 373. Petr. Pictaviens Sentent Part. 3. c. 21. Gul. Parisiens de Fide. c. 1. Gul. Antissiodor Sum. in Praef. l. 3. Tit. Q. 2. Alex. Alens Part. 1. Q. 2. M. 3. A. 4. Part. 3. Q. 68. M. 2. A. 2. Bonavent l. 3. D. 23. Q. 4. Aquin. 1.9.46 a 2. in C. 19.9.32 A. 1. in B. 2.2.9.2 a. 1. ad 1.9.1 a. 4. ad 3.9.2 a. 3.9.5 a. 4. C· Henr. Gandav Sum. Art. 7. Q. 2. N. 6 7 8. Art. 9. Q. 3. N. 13.13 Q. 1. N. 4 5. Scot. in Sentent L. 3. Q. 23. N. 14 15. Durand Prolog Q. 1. N. 43 46. L. 3. Dist. 24. Q. 3. N. 8 9. Second Letter p. 25. Second Letter pag. 6. Second Letter to Mr. G. pag. 7. Third Catholick Letter pag. 6. Third Letter p. 14. First Letter p. 32. First Letter p. 25. Second Letter p. 73 74. Theod. Haeret Fab. l. 2 3. First Letter p. 26. First Letter p. 26. Page 27. 2.2.9.4.2.6 Page â—â— Page 29. Page 29. Page 29. Page 29. Third Letter p. 92. p. 93. Bell. de verbo Dei l. 3. c. 6. sect Respondeo Third Letter p. 99· p. 102. 1 Cor. 10.15 1 Thess. 5.21 1 Joh. 4.1 Third Letter Page 104. 2d Letter p. 21. Third Letter Page 34. Luke 1.4 Job 20.31 Third Letter p. 38.39 40. Second Letter p. 17. Third Letter p. 40. Bell. de Verbo Dei l. 1.2 Third Letter p. 81. Bellar. de Verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11. Third Letter p. 44. Pag. 48. Pag. 48. Ibid. Page 49. Third Letter Page 50. Page 51. Page 51. S. Cyprian de â—nit Epist. ad Jubai Third Letter p. 58. Page 56. Mat. 10.29 30. Page 58. Hieronym ad Dardanum Third Letter p. 57. Third Letter p. 59. Page 74. Page 75. Page 76. Page 57. Page 76. First Letter p. 8. Page 10. Page 11. Page 12. Page 13. Page 14. Page 15. Page 16. Page 19. Page 20. Page 8. Euseb. l. 5. c. 3. c. 14. c. 28. l. 7. c 31. Theod. l. 1. c. 4. l. 2. Euseb. l. 3. c. 32. l. 4. c. 22. Third Letter p. 24. Faith Vindicated p. 155. Page 157. Page 27.
Absolutely Certain as that God cannot deceive us that the Scripture is our Rule of Faith but then whether such Points be contained in that Rule and be of Divine Revelation is not Self-evident and therefore these must be deduced by all the best Methods of Reasoning from a written Rule and when Persons have examined the Scripture with all the Care and Diligence which one who would arrive at Certainty thinks himself obliged to then I do affirm that such a Man may attain to a true Certainty and Satisfaction of Mind about it And that true Certainty is attainable without Infallibility I shall prove by an undeniable Instance if an Instance willl be allowed and I hope I shall make it appear as reasonable for me to produce Instances as himself and that is concerning a Point of Faith of the greatest Importance viz. That Jesus Christ was the true Messias foretold by the Prophets The Proof of this depended on the Interpretation of Scripture and there could be no Infallible Interpreter relied upon in this Case As to Christ himself although he really was so yet we suppose the Question to be about him whether he were an Infallible Teacher or not and therefore we must not suppose the thing to be proved As to the Publick Interpretation which Mr. S. makes his Infallible Rule if that were to be relied upon then a Jew was bound not to believe Christ to be the true Messias because the Publick Interpretation was against him and the Traditional Sense of the Prophecies was against him being for a Temporal Prince I now demand of Mr. S. whether the Jews were capable of Certainty in this Point or not If not then the Jews were excused in their Infidelity If they were then true Certainty may be had without an Infallible Guide although the Publick Interpretation and Tradition be against it And if it may be had in so difficult a Case which depended on the Sense of obscure Prophecies much more certainly under the clear Revelation of the Gospel wherein all Necessary Points are laid down with so much clearness that the Fault must be more in Mens Wills than their Vnderstandings if they do not apprehend them 2. The Second false Supposition is That a Rule of Faith must be a Mechanical Rule and not a Rational i. e. It must be like a Carpenters Rule that hath all its Dimensions fixed and ready to be applied to Material things but in matters of Understanding no such Rule is to be expected The Philosophers who disputed so much about Certainty would have laughed at any man who had applied a Material Rule to Intellectual things yet this is Mr. S's great Example I take my Ruler saith he and draw a Line by it does the streightness or crookedness of this Line depend upon my Vnderstanding By no means But is there any such Intellectual Rule as this There have been great Disputes in the World among Men of Wit and Subtilty about the Certainty of Human Knowledg Whether any Infallible Criterion could be found to discern Truth and Falshood But they never imagined any such thing as an Intellectual Ruler to draw Lines by but that there were certain Differences of Truth and Falshood which men might find out but not without Diligence and Application of their Minds to it And notwithstanding the Characters of Truth and Falshood were in themselves Certain yet it was very possible for Men to mistake about them not only for want of Judgment but of Diligence and Impartiality So we say here as to a Rule of Faith we do not suppose it to be a Material Rule i. e. If a Man take the Letter of Scripture and apply it to any Opinions he must presently know whether they be true or false but it is a Rational and Intellectual Rule which is absolutely Certain in it self and whatever agrees to it is True and whatever doth not is false But still there may be mistakes in the Vnderstanding and Applying it and therefore Care and Diligence and Impartiality are required by which some may attain to that Certainty which others miss off As in the Points he mentions of the Presbyterians and Socinians differing about such high Fundamentals as the Trinity and Godhead of Christ. 1. Why Presbyterians and Socinians I beseech him There is a notable Insinuation in this as though we of the Church of England were Socinians in those Points and none but Papists and Presbyterians were Orthodox in them But this is an Insinuation which hath as much Folly as Malice in it since our solemn and express Declarations are to the contrary And he may as well call us Papists as Socinians since our Writings are as plainly against one as the other What our Sense as to these Matters is he may find in the Dialogues of the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared not long since Published by a Divine of the Church of England But to pass this over 2. Suppose the Difference between us and the Socinians What then Both take the same way of Scriptures Letter Interpretable by private Judgments and yet differ in these Fundamental Points And what follows That the Scripture is no Certain Rule By no means But that the Socinians may err and certainly do in misinterpreting this Rule But how can it be a certain Rule if men that use it may err in using it How can Reason be certain in any thing if Men following Reason may mistake How can Arithmetick be a certain way of computation if Men following the Rules of Arithmetick may mistake in casting up a sum Doth any Man question the Certainty of the Rule for Mens blundering in their Accompts yet this is his way of Reasoning And I will put it just with his Propositions I. Arithmetick prescribes a Certain way by Addition and Substraction for us to find out any Sum. II. Therefore it must be such that they who take it shall arrive by it at the exact Sum. III. But two Men who have made use of the same way differ at least a hundred in casting up the Sum. IV. Therefore Arithmetick doth not prescribe a certain way to attain at a Certain Sum. V. Therefore they who take only that way cannot by it arrive at the Certain Sum. Is not this clear and evident Demonstration But those who consider a little better than Mr. S. hath done will distinguish between the rule and the application of it The Rule of Arithmetick may be nevertheless Certain although those who want Skill or Care and Diligence may mistake in casting up a particular Accompt The same we say here Scripture is a Certain Rule in all Fundamental Points to such as have Capacity and Use due Care and Diligence in finding them But we do not deny but Men through Prejudice Weakness want of Attention Authority of False Teachers Impatience of throughly examining things and not using proper Helps may run into gross Errors such as these about the Trinity and Incarnation but still the Rule is
But however it be expressed or connected his meaning is That we only set up Scripture against the Church of Rome and then set up our own Authority over the People This is not possible if we do allow them a Judgment of Discretion and this is one of the things he so much charges upon me and saith He never read any Protestant that puts Matters more into private hands than I do and yet in the very next Page he saith I deny the People the same Priviledge against Pastoral Authority How can I deny them such a Priviledge if I put Matters into their hands above any other Protestant I do not know that I do in the least differ from the sixth Article of our Church nor do I take off from the due Authority of Bishops and Pastors of Churches But all our Dispute is about this Judgment of Discretion whether it be allowable to People and how far In his Third Letter he resumes this Argument and thither I follow him that I may lay things together into some Method The words he cavils at are If we have the Consent of all Christian Churches against the only pretended Infallible Judge we have their Consent likewise that every Man is to judge for his own Salvation What hurt is there in this It seems then nothing will content us now but Infallibility Was there ever such an awkard Man at Reasoning It follows indeed that either there must be an Infallible Judge or every Man must judge for himself Do I then allow no Authority to Church-Governors that do not pretend to Infallibility Yes very much while they do not pretend to Impose on our Faith by a pretence to Infallibility But what Occasion do I give for this when I say only That every Man must judge for his own Salvation and yet he had the Conscience to leave this out in repeating my Sense but two lines after May not you mistake or pervert to Day what you heard Yesterday when I find you mistaking or perverting my Sense but at two lines distance And then run on in a long Discourse as though you had taken the true Sense of my Words Is not this a fit Person to play out Mr. G 's Game who shuffles in so strange a manner and so openly plays false Cards Where did I ever dispute against Church-Authority in due proposing Matters of Faith provided that every Man is to judge for his own Salvation But I have he saith an aking Tooth at the Churches intermeddling in Matters of Faith. From whence doth this appear This must either arise from great Ignorance as to the Right of Judging every Man hath as to his own Salvation or from a Malicious Design to expose me to all Church-Governors but I pity his Ignorance and despise his Malice What pleasant Entertainment doth he make with the Sober Enquirer 'T is pity saith he but he had a blew Apron on and a Tub to Hold-forth in as a Sober Enquirer may possibly find some Pretenders to Infallibility have done in their Time. But what is the meaning of all this ado about a Sober Enquirer I had said many years ago That the Scriptures being owned as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly revealed that no Sober Enquirer can miss of what is necessary for Salvation there can be no Necessity supposed of an Infallible Society of Men either to Attest or Explain these Writings among Christians any more than there was for some Ages before Christ of such a Body of Men among the Jews to Attest or Explain to them the Writings of Moses and the Prophets And where lies the Heresie or Danger of this Doctrine If I said that no Sober Enquirer can miss of things necessary to Salvation in Scripture it is no more than St. Chrysostom St. Augustin Aquinas and other School-men had said before me and Were they for blew Aprons and Tubs to Hold forth in Nay to shew how unskilful J. S. is in the Writers of his own Church if they do own him even Bellarmin himself grants as much as I say For being to Answer that Place Jam. 1.5 If any Man lack Wisdom let him ask it of God who giveth liberally c. he Answers This is to be understood of Sapientia necessaria ad Salutem so then a Sober Enquirer praying to God to give him Wisdom shall not want that which is Necessary to his Salvation And he quotes several Passages of St. Augustin to prove that Prayer obtains nothing Infallibly but that which is necessary or useful to the Salvation of him that prays If this be then obtained Infallibly then we see an Infallible Ground of Certainty as to what is Necessary or Useful to Salvation Bellarmin indeed saith that a Gift of Interpretation is not to be had by Prayer and Do I ever say it is Did I ever give the least Countenance to Enthusiastick Pretenders or to the Breakers of the Laws and Orders of our Established Church What means then these spiteful Insinuations Doth the Man hope to raise Himself by exposing Me Or to be caressed by F.P. and F. W. by the brave attempt of throwing Dirt so plainly in my Face Which will never stick being so unskilfully thrown either to my Prejudice or his Advantage But this Matter about the Peoples Judgment of Discretion must not be thus pass'd over For he resumes it at the End of his Third Letter and thought it a good relishing bit to conclude with And towards the very end he begins to state the Controversie this true Logician having forgotten it before or reserved it for a Disert at the last To come closer saith he and take a more distinct view of this Judgment of Discretion It was even time to come closer in the 99th p. of the Third Letter Alas for Mr. G. he is like to have a hopeful Game of it when his Substitute talks at this rate at the very end of the Game But let us see what feats he will do now he comes closer Now he will acquaint me how far he allows it and far and how in what he rejects it This is well but why no sooner He was at ' another Game before viz. two or three throws at the Sober Enquirer and having knock'd him down with his blew Apron and Tub he now comes to T. G's Cards again And let us see how well he plays them First He grants That every Man is to judge for his own Salvation i. e. he yields what the Sober Enquirer aimed at and now methinks he desires the blew Apron and Tub to Hold-forth himself Secondly He saith All Mankind are agreed in it It seems then the Fanaticks are true Catholicks in Mr. S's Opinion Thirdly He yields That every Man is to judge of the best way to Salvation and of all the Controversies between Them and Vs. Now the Tub is turn'd to a Chair and the Holder-forth become a Judge of Controversies Nay he goes so far as to