may make false Construction and yet the Rule be a good Rule Tho' you should go thither for your Notion of a Rule we should be but where we were For as the Grammar-Rule let it be never so ill understood will make good Construction in case it be us'd so the Scripture-Rule if it be as you put it us'd must needs produce right sense But the truth is a Grammar-Rule is not a Rule till it be understood for he who understands not what 't is for Cases and Verbs to agree has no Rule to make them agree And then if you will make the Letter of Scripture such a Rule you will make the Letter first understood to be the Rule of understanding it and people misunderstand what they understand and the misunderstood Rule be a Rule which is only a Rule by being understood In short turn it which way you will you will to borrow an Expression be much beholden to the Reader to make Sense of what you say 22. You question on Must a Way be a wrong Way because some that take it will not keep it Riddle my Riddle again Pray who are or can be those some who take it and will not keep it As long as they take it they keep it I think and they keep it not against their Wills sure He who has no Will to keep it may when he pleases go out of it but then he does no longer take it and is none of the some of whom the Question speaks for they all take it and so we have nothing to do with him When all is done the Will here is to no more purpose than the Vnderstanding before For he who takes the Way shall certainly arrive at his Journeys end let him Will what he pleases and the Way must needs be a wrong way if he do not 'T is great pity you are not in the right You would save more men than the Benefit of their Clergy For the Thief in a Cart upon the Way to Tyburn would never come there if willing not to keep that Way would keep him from it But by affirming that some take the Way who yet will not keep it you affirm that some do and do not Take it And so Dr. St. is well holp up with a Reflecter who imagins we are talking of one who only takes the Way at first and afterwards leaves it whereas 't is plain the Argument proceeds of such as make the Way their Choice and persist to follow no other to their lifes End. 23. Lastly You tell us that Till it be prov'd God has left such a Way or Rule as no man can possibly err out of it mistake it or abuse it c. For you must permit me to stop by the way I am too short breath'd to run over the long period at a loose But let you alone to make all sure You are safe enough if all must go on your side till some body prove to you that no man can err out of the Way left by God mistake or abuse it that is till some body prove that Ways are Prisons out of which there is no escaping or that the man cannot possibly fall into Errour who is out of the Way to Truth As many as leave the Catholick Church leave the Way left by God and you like a right pleasant man would have it prov'd that the thing cannot possibly be done which we see is done by millions and would have us who say they all do err and mistake prove they cannot All this while I a little suspect you mean otherwise than you say and that by your words Errour and Mistake and Abuse of the Way you understand missing the End of the Way Truth But let us see what you will make of it What would you have prov'd next Why That it is not enough that God has left us such a Way or Rule as men may understand and observe if they be not wanting to themselves What do you call being wanting to themselves I understand how a man that will not travel or leaves a right and takes a wrong way is wanting to himself but he who puts himself upon the Way continues on in it and changes not his Road is not wanting to himself in any thing I can imagin which belongs to the Way And the way of this Traveller I maintain against you has not enough to be a Way if it barely may and yet may not bring him to his Journeys End. What will this come to at last Why till these things be prov'd It will not follow that the Scripture's Letter in the sense you have own'd it is not the Way tho' not only Presbyterians and Socinians but the greater number of Mankind should own it and yet differ about Fundamental Points contain'd in it What you call the Sense which you own of the Letter of Scripture will come by and by But will not that follow which you say here will not Will it not follow that the Way by which a man that goes in it comes to Errour is not the Way to Truth Will it not follow that he who at his Journeys End finds himself at York did not go the Way to London Pray what 's the Way to a Place Is it not that Passage that he who has past it finds himself at that Place And so the Way to know the Doctrin of Christ and his Apostles is it not the Means which he who has us'd knows that Doctrin Why then since Presbyterians and Socinians both interpret by their private Judgments and one side knows not the Doctrin of Christ it follows as unavoidably that the Way of private Interpretation is no sure way to know it as that he who has gone through the Strand and finds himself at Charing Cross has not gone the way to Moorfields That is as certainly as that a Way is a Way or Means to bring a man to such a Place 24. What do you talk then of erring for and mistaking and abusing the Way Or what do you mean 'T is true those erring men do mistake the true Way and for that reason err But they mistake not the Way which you say is the true Way They do interpret by their private Judgment and so take not mistake it use not abuse it Sure you mean that they mistake the Doctrin of Christ and so by mistaking the Way you very wisely understand mistaking the End. And then what a man are you to contend their way is a Way and a sure Way too to bring them to the Knowledge of Christ's Doctrin when they pursue it and are not brought to that Knowledge And what Eyes have you who perceive not that therefore it cannot be a sure way Again to what purpose do you tell us that men may understand and observe as if Observing concern'd our Question of Knowing if they be not wanting to themselves when they who take a right Way not only may but must and cannot possibly fail of coming whither
profess to hold the Yesterdays Faith when all the World must see and every man 's own Heart must tell him the contrary Which is the highest Impossibility Luther alter'd Calvin alter'd so did many others but none of them had the face to say they still adher'd to Tradition or the Faith deliver'd immediately before and that they had not alter'd 4. Men fall into Sins through Temptations and Temptations are various according to mens Tempers and Circumstances whence it happens that one falls into one sort of Sin others into another as things light But 't is impossible there should have been Causes laid in the World so Universal as to reach a whole Body of men consisting of so many Millions of different Countries Tempers and Circumstances so as to impel them effectually to fall into the same Individual sort of sin and this such a horrid and shameful one viz. The Altering the Faith they hop'd to be sav'd by and this so suddenly The Nature of the thing shows evidently 't is above Chance and the very Interest of the World would forbid such a Conspiracy were there neither Religion Conscience nor Common Humanity in it Their very Passions Disaffections and Enmity to one another would make them disagree in carrying on such a wicked Project Their Natural Tempers abstracting from their Common Propension to Truth and the care of preserving their Credits utterly lost by speaking such open and pernicious falshoods would render them apt out of a meer Antipathy of Humour to oppose one another and all this supposing there were no Goodness at all in the World to suppose which evacuates all Christian Motives and their Efficacy and makes our dear Saviour preach and dye in vain especially since there never wanted no not even in the worst times a fair Degree of Disciplin to apply those Motives Nay State-Interest or the Quarrels of Princes would make them glad to take hence an Advantage against their emulous Neighbours and to think it the best Policy to lay hold on such an occasion to fight in behalf of Faith and Common Honesty against a pack of shameless Lyars and Deserters both of Religion and Human Nature who car'd not what became of their own Salvation or that of others Lastly Thâ—se Causes thwarting the Universal Alteration of Faith while Christians proceeded on the former Rule of Tradition and full as much hindring the taking up a New Rule in opposition to the Testimony of the Universal Church as there could be no Cause to make men conspire to alter the Yesterdays Faith so Christian Motives which contain the greatest Hopes and Fears imaginable the Hopes of never-ending Bliss and Fears of Eternal and Intolerable Misery which were believ'd and apply'd to the generality of Christians could not on the contrary side but influence them most powerfully to preserve unchanged and inviolate both the Rule and the Faith. 'T is as Certain then that a very Great Body of Adherers to Tradition and consequently to the first deliver'd Faith would still remain on Foot in the World as that Effects could not be without Proper Causes or that Motives which are the Proper Causes to work upon Rational Nature will produce their Effect I mean such Motives as engage their very Nature Add That such a Change must needs have been publickly known and so have excited the Pens Tongues Interests perhaps Swords too of the Traditionary and Innovating Party one against another at the time of the Change as we see has happen'd in our late Alterations or Reformations Yet no such thing was ever mentioned in History or come to us by Tradition or any thing alledg'd but some differences amongst particular Spectators and their Adherents siding with them which amounts to nothing comparable to that Universal and most Memorable Concussion such a vast Change as this we speak of must needs have made in the whole Body of the Church 46. Summing up then this Discourse 't is manifest you have no way to answer our Argument but by supposing there was a time the Lord knows when in which there were no considerable Body of Men in the World either good Christians honest men or valuing their Credit but only a company of brutish Godless Lying Ruffians without the least Degree of Grace or Shame in them Unfortunate Confuter Aristotle lookt upon things as they were Plato on things as they should be but to make a show of an Answer to our Argument you would have your Readers look upon the Christian World as it neither is was should be or can be 47. But you object What if all Sons did not understand aright all that Fathers had Taught them Answer If All did not most of the Intelligent and Pastours who were of greater Authority than those some less-understanding Persons and ty'd by their Duty and Office to instruct their Ignorance would and could easily do it when the Doctrin open Practice and Disciplin of the Christian Church was settled and made it both so obligatory and so easie 2. What if some Sons were so negligent as to take no care either to remember or teach what they had been taught by their Fathers Answ. If only some were so then those who were diligent to do this would reprehend them and see to have things amended and those careless Persons especially if Pastours reduc'd to their Duty there being Orders on foot in the World to oblige them to it Besides 't is an unheard-of Negligence not to know or remember the next day the Faith they held the day before nor did it require that care you pretend to retain the remembrance of it four and twenty hours 3. What if some through Ambition Vain-Glory and Popularity set a broach New Doctrines and taught them for Apostolical Tradition Answ. If only some were so then those others who were good Men and free from those Vices would set themselves to oppose them make known their false pretences and lay open their Novelties Both Reason assuring us that Good men use not to be so stupidly careless in such Sacred Concerns and History informing us they were ever very zealously vigilant to oppose Hereticks when ever they began to vent their Pestilent Doctrins 4. What if others to save themselves from Persecution conceal'd part and corrupted more of the Doctrin of Christ by their own Traditions taken not from Christ but from their Forefathers Iews or Gentiles Then those who were out of Persecution or valu'd it not so much as they did their Conscience would oppose their Unchristian Proceedings Then the Fathers Doctors and Pastours of the Church would reveal what they had conceal'd restore what they had corrupted and manifest that their Pretences and Subterfuges were False and that the Doctrin they subintroduc'd had not descended by the open Channel of the Christian Church's Tradition 5. What if some through a blind Zeal ignorant Devotion Superstitious Rigour and vain Credulity added many things to the Doctrin of Christ which by degrees grew into more general esteem
Pelagianism to conclude that Human Motives which are Preliminaries to Faith and on which the assuredness of Faith it self depends as to us are Truly Certain And Might you not with as much reason say the same if one should maintain the Absolute Certainty of our Senses which is one of those Preliminaries How strangely do you misrepresent every thing you are to meddle with How constantly do you make your voluntary mistake of every Point serve for a Confutation of it 'T is confest 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 yet not by its own force but by Vertue of the Supposition agreed upon That Christ's Doctrin is such Is it Pelagianism to say we must use our Reason to come to Faith or do you pretend all the World must be the worst of Phanaticks and use none Or does it trouble you we offer to justifie that the Reasons we bring to make good that Preliminary which in our way of Discoursing is to introduce Faith are not such as may deceive us And that we do not confess they are Fallible or may deceive us as you grant of your Interpretations of Scripture which ground your Belief No surely we shall not quit the Certainty we have because you have none For if it be not Certain such Doctrines are indeed Christ's who is our Law-giver we cannot be sure they are True their Truth depending on his Authority and would you have us for fear of Pelagianism confess all our Faith may perhaps be but a story But into what an unadvisedness does your Anger transport you to run the Weapon through your own Side to do us a Mischief You bore us in hand First Letter p. 7. that you had a larger and firmer Tradition for Scripture than we have for what we pretend to Yet this Tradition could cause no more but Human Faith for I do not think you will say you had Divine Faith before you were got to your Rule of Divine Faith. By your Discourse then your self are an Arrant Pelagian too Perhaps worse than we because you pretend to a larger and firmer Human Tradition than you say we have nay you pretend it to be Absolutely Certain too which is a dangerous Point indeed Pray have a care what you do for you are upon the very brink of Pelagianism The knowing you have the true Books of Scripture is a most necessary Preliminary to your Faith for without knowing that you cannot pretend to have any Faith at all and if it be Pelagianism in us to hold such Preliminaries absolutely Certain I fear the danger may come to reach you too Yet you have one Way and but one to escape that damnable Heresy which is that you do not go about to demonstrate the Absolute Certainty of Your Tradition as we do of Ours That that is the very Venom of Pelagianism But take comfort Sir my life for yours you will never fall so abominably into the mire as to demonstrate or conclude any thing For what Idaea soever you may frame of it we mean no more by Demonstrating but plain honest Concluding Your way of Discoursing does not look as if it intended to conclude or demonstrate 'T is so wholly pass for as great a Man as you will made up of mistakes misrepresentations petty cavils witty shifts untoward explications of your own Words constant prevarications and many more such neat dexterities that whatever fault it may through human frailty provok't by powerful Necessity be liable to I dare pawn my life it will never be guilty of that hainous Crime of demonstrating or concluding any thing no not the Absolute Certainty of your firmer Tradition And yet unless you can prove or conclude 't is thus Certain 't is a Riddle to us how can you either hold or say 't is such 13 Pray be not offended if on this occasion I ask You a plain downright Question Is it not equally blamable to Falsify your Adversaries Tenet perpetually as 't is to falsify his Words Nay is it not worse being less liable to discovery and so more certainly and more perniciously Injurious And can any thing excuse You from being thus faulty but Ignorance of our Tenet I fear that Plea will utterly sail you too and leave you expos'd to the Censure of every sincere Reader when I shew him to his Eye that You could not but know all this before For in Error Non-plust p. 121. Sect. 8. You must needs have read the quite contrary Doctrine and how those who maintain Tradition do resolve their Faith. There is no necessity then of proving this Infallibility viz. Of the Church meerly by Scripture interpreted by Virtue of this Infallibility Nor do the Faithful or the Church commit a Circle in believing that the Church is Infallible upon Tradition For they believe onely the supernatural Infallibility built on the Assistance of the Holy Ghost that is on the Church's Sanctity and this is prov'd by the Human Authority of the Church to have been held ever from the Beginning and the force of the Human Testimony of the Church is prov'd by Maxims of meer Reason The same is more at large deliver'd in the foregoing Section and in divers other places Now this Book was Writ against your self and so 't is as hardly Conceiveable you should never have read it as 't is Unconceiveable how you should ever answer it And if you did read it what was become of your sincerity when you counterfeited your Ignorance of our Tenet All is resolv'd say you here p. 9. into meer Human Faith which is the unavoidable consequence of the Doctrin of Oral Tradition How shrewdly positive you are in your Sayings how modest and meek in your Proofs Nothing can be more manifest from our constantly avow'd Doctrin and your own opposing it too than 't is that Tradition resolves all into Christ's and the Apostles Teaching And pray do you hold that Christ is a meer man or that the Believing Him is a meer human Faith or that the Doctrin taught by Him and Them is meerly Human If this be indeed your Tenet I am sorry I knew it not before for then I should have thought fit to begin with other Principles to confute you And I pray God by your impugning known Truths you may never need e'm I see I had reason to alledge in Faith Vindicated that the Grace of God was requisit to make men assent to a Natural Conclusion when it came very cross to their Interest For it appears too plain 't is exceedingly needful to assist you here in a meer Point of Common Morality which is to enable you not to speak and represent things directly contrary to your own knowledge And I am sorry I must tell you and too evidently prove it that the greatest part of your Writings against Catholicks when the Point is to be manag'd by Reason
against Hereticks who had rejected the Authority of the Church even the Council of Trent does so another to say they had no firmer Ground for their Faith but their own private Iudgments of it's sense T is one thing to give it high Commendations for it's Excellency Divine Doctrin Usefulness and Sufficiency for the Ends for which it was Ordained by God 'T is another to say that in those places which relate to Spiritual Points and high Mysteries of our Faith it is so clear that private Fancies can with Absolute Certainty fix upon it's true sense and on that Ground their Faith. T is one thing to say sometimes 't is Plain and Evident when they are Arguing against Hereticks this is a thing not unusual even among us when we are disputing and have an opinion that what we alledge is manifest and those Fathers or Councils which insisted on it had good reason to have that opinion of what they alledg'd having the Doctrin of Faith Scripture's best Interpreter in their hearts Besides when there is full assurance of it's sense who doubts but it is of a vast Authority too being in that case the same as if the Apostle or Christ himself were there and spoke his Mind in the Point under debate Whence they confuted Hereticks with defining from Scripture upon the assurance that they had the true sense of it another Way than the Heretick had by his private Interpretations But 't is another thing to say that as manag'd by Private Judgments working on the bare Letter or relying on Fallible Interpreters it is so unavoidably convictive beyond all possibility of giving it another plausible sense that all Mankind must think him a Renouncer of the clear Light of Reason or stark blind with Passion and Interest and abhorr him as such who shall interpret it after another manner And such the Rule of Faith must be otherwise none could with Conscience think or say any Heretick is obstinate nor any man no not the Church it self condemn him much less abhorr him for being such as was ever her Custome All the former Perfections we as heartily fully and constantly ascribe to Scripture as any Protestant in the world nay we say moreover that this want of Clearness which unqualifies it for being a Rule springs from a very high perfection in it viz. It 's deep Sense onely this one of giving every particular man who by his private Judgment Interprets it such assurance of its sense as is competent to Ground his Faith on we cannot grant this being no less contrary to common Reason than 't is even to Experience also To return then to your Objection You see Sect. 10. that the Antient Fathers were not such Strangers to this Method of Tradition we follow and explicate And you might have observ'd many others both nam'd and cited Surefooting p. 131. to 137. What matters it that they did not express That our Tenet or Dilate upon it in such Terms as we do now so they taught others to hold to what was deliver'd and not to rely on their own private Interpretations of Scripture against the present Churches Doctrin Since in doing this they held the substance of that which we have since more diffusely explain'd and reduc't our Discourses to more Methodical and Formal Resolutions of Faith which were not so much in fashion in former Ages Besides you are not to be told we both have could alledge Fathers enow for our Tenet and the Obligation to hold to the Doctrin deliver'd from Fathers that is to Tradition and how smartly and unanswerably they prest it against Hereticks as a certain Determiner of the Controversies between the Catholicks and Them. On the other side how often they complain'd of the Vncertainty of the Scripture interpreted by private Men as Grounding all Heresies by reason of the mysterious Obscurity of the Letter and its liableness to be misinterpreted and misunderstood Whereas it was never heard that the Rule of Tradition taken in the sense in which we hold it viz. for a Delivery of a Practical Doctrin publickly preach't to great multitudes at first practised by them and held and recommended as Divine and the way to Salvation did ever give rise to any Heresy and impossible it should Which one Reflexion to a Considerate Man is sufficient to conclude the whole present Controversy about the Rule of Faith. 30. From the Qualities requisit to make Scripture's Letter a Rule of your Faith we come to consider the Quantity it ought to have or the Number of Books which you tell us p. 19. Mr. M. suggested In order to which I have onely two things to ask you 1. Whether as I said formerly you have any unanimous Consent of the Christian Church that there was never a Book lost that was writ by some who were Divinely inspir'd and consequently did contain some Divine Revelations Or if you cannot prove but there was how do you know but those Divine Revelations which that Book or Books contain'd were not different from or to be superadded to those contain'd in the Canon we have now If you cannot prove these two Points then 't is manifest you cannot prove with Absolute Certainty that the Books Wee have now contain'd all the Divine Revelations 2. You insist onely on this Universal Testimony for the Canonical Books of the New Testament but I would know whether this Testimony reaches to each Chapter and every Verse of those Chapters nay each material Word in those Verses If it does not as you neither say nor with any Reason can say for 't is hard to prove the former impossible to prove the later but by our Rule then you are as far from your Faith as ever unless you bring some other Testimony that is Absolutely Certain to assure you that such and such a Verse which you would quote and rely on for such and such a Point of Faith nay the main and most significant Word in that Verse is true Scripture which I am sure you cannot For what Testimony else can be invented to do this if the other which was of the whole Christian Church cannot reach it Is there any possible way to ascertain this but by our Doctrin-Rule Upon this occasion pray inform me with what reason you could reflect so severely pag. 15. on the Church of Rome for not receiving the Epistle to the Hebrews in St. Hierom's Time assoon as other Churches and not on the Greek Churches which you use to prefer before the Latin who in the same Father's time refus'd to admit the Apocalypse The accepting or not accepting such Books even according to your own Doctrin depended on their being satisfied of the Evidence produced for their Apostolical Authority and so was an Act of Prudence antecedent to the Judgment or Determination of any Church whether Greek or Latin. But so unreasonable is your pique against the Church of Rome that she cannot act prudently without forfeiting her Infallibility Tho' another man would have
Kindness for his Friend whom he suffers to Write on this manner If he were not they will suspect his Friends have as little Kindness for him and less Regard who manage his Cause without his Privity However it be the Answer affords no work for a Replier but the most ungrateful one in the World to be perpetually telling men of their Faults without the least hopes of doing them good or contributing to their amendment They being of such a nature that they are our Adversaries most necessary supports in their unlucky circumstances And indeed the whole Piece seems to have no other Design but to bring the Dispute into a Wrangle Yet this Profit may be hoped that every moderate Iudgment will see by the very methods we take which side desires and sincerely endeavours that Truth may appear It would be much a greater if Dr. St. or whom he pleases to employ would plainly shew the Absolute Certainty which he says they have or else plainly confess they have it not But this is not to be hoped Yet I entreat the Reader because I distrust my own Credit to sollicit him if he thinks it not too dangerous for him to do the one or the other and in doing it to use as much Reason as he will and as little Laughing as he can We are sufficiently satisfy'd of his faculty of Risibility and would be glad to see a touch or two of his Rationality REFLECTIONS ON Dr. St's Reflecters Defence Addrest to Himself 1. I Enquire not Sir since it concerns me not to know why you would needs become a Party or rather an Advocate in a Cause depending between Dr. St. and another If it were desir'd of you you are to be excus'd so you perform well what you undertook that is to defend the Dr. especially his Logick and his Absolute Certainty But if you had nothing to draw you in besides the Weight of what you had to say I think you might very well have kept out You begin like a man of Art with prepossessing your Reader against your Adversary and in favour of your self and so would have me pass for a pleasant artificial deluding Companion and your self for a man Godly even to scruple and who cannot barely repeat the Metaphor of holding ones Cards without asking Pardon The Reader will find by your writing to which of us your former Character is most like In the mean time I own the Confidence of talking of Self-evidence and Absolute Certainty and Infallibility and bless the Mercy of God for making me of a Communion in which that Language is Proper and humbly pray Him to preserve me from the Face if I must not say Confidence of setting up for a Guide without them For between a blind Guide and one who sees not his way I think the difference is not great Much good may your Modesty do you your Obscurity your Vncertainty and Fallibility If your Conscience perswade you these are the best qualifications of Christan Doctrin and best Security which God would provide for the Souls of men mine would sooner use Twenty Metaphors than perswade People to venture their Eternity upon them But at worst it is no greater fault in me sure than in Dr. St. to talk of Absolute Certainty Unless he perhaps repent and would be content an unfortunate Word inconsiderately blurted out should be retracted for him by another which 't is not so handsome to retract himself whereas I like a man of Confidence meant what I said and stand to it and can have no good opinion of those modest men that say and unsay as sutes with the occasion 2. To fall to our Business your Discourse has Three Parts The First reflects on what I said of turning Proof over from your Protestants to Catholicks The Second pretends to answer my Argument And the Third Mr. G's Some Gleanings in your Language there are besides but this is the main Crop. Upon the first Point since Proof does or does not belong to Protestants there is nothing more to be said to purpose but either to shew that Proof does not belong to them or to bring it if it does But let us see how you handle the matter 3. I had exprest my self to grieve and wonder there should be so little value for Souls among your Party as to send Men to the Tribunal of God without furnishing them with assurance that they can justifie their Accounts themselves But if say you they may be assured they can give up a good account may they not be assur'd that they have the Grace of God and of their Iustification and Salvation And then what becomes of the Council of Trent Of what Account do you speak I beseech you If as I did of an Account of Faith I hope you will not perswade us a man cannot know why he believes without knowing whether he be in the State of Grace or sure of his Salvation and therefore I hope you will not persist to think it hard to conceive how the bare assurance of the Truth of what is taught should enable a man to justifie his account without an Assurance of Grace too since his very Assurance of the Truth which he believes is a Iustification of his Account for believing it If you speak of an Account of our whole lives it becomes you huge well to talk of my Confidence who have your self the Confidence to turn things against the plain Scope of my Discourse against my plain Words and I much fear against your own Knowledge For where the only Question was of the Certainty of Protestant Faith or which is all one of Christian Faith upon your Protestant Grounds an Account why your Protestants believe who cannot tell whether Christ taught it was the only Account that belongs to that Question But what needs more Are not you I too fully perswaded while we are writing this very Controversie that we maintain the Truth of our Faith by such arguments as can justifie us not to have fail'd of that Duty and if we do so cannot both us justifie our selves in that particular and all who assent upon them to God as well as man And cannot either of us bring a solid Argument to prove that Christ Taught what we hold without being assur'd before-hand we are in the state of Grace and shall be sav'd Or Is this any thing to the Council of Trent as you pretend What paltring is this then to pretend that no Controvertist can bring a Proof that concludes Christ Taught such a Doctrin and so justifies them that adhere to the Truth it evinces for fear forsooth of making men sure of their Iustification and Salvation and of contradicting the Council of Trent A pretty fetch to excuse your selves from bringing any Arguments worth a Straw to justifie your Followers for believing upon them Alas you have store enough of them but out of pure Conscience we must think dare not produce them for fear of enabling your People
distance with the true Sense of what was deliver'd by the Founders of the Church in the beginning without danger of losing it by the way which cannot be imagin'd as long as Tradition is held to the same believ'd to day which was held yesterday or that the immediately succeeding Fathers still deliver'd the same Doctrin To do which there wanted no Power as has been lately shewn to the full nor Will to use that Power being oblig'd to it by the greatest Penalties GOD himself could inflict the Damning Themselves and their Posterity 4. But say you pag. 8. If the Church may explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as to oblige men to believe that by Virtue of such Explication which they were not oblig'd to before then 't is impossible the Infallibility of Tradition should ly in a constant Tradition from Father to Son for they have no Power to oblige to any more than they received How Plausibly and smoothly this Discourse runs and how shrewdly it seems to conclude Would any well-meaning Reader imagin that it were perfect Non-sense all the while and wholly built on your own Liberality giving us another sort of Tradition which is no Tradition This malignant word Tradition must not be taken in its right sense that 's resolv'd for then it would grow too troublesom but take it in any other sense that is mistake it and then have at it For when you speak of explaining the sense and meaning of Tradition you do not take Tradition as you know well we do and as the word plainly imports for the Delivery of Doctrin but for Doctrins Delivered and so again we have once more lost the Question For what can these words mean If the Church may explain the sense and meaning of Tradition that is of the Method of conveying down Christs Doctrin The Method of Delivery is the very Signification of that Doctrin from Age to Age and how can one Explain the Sense and meaning of a signification of Christ's sense when it 's self is that very Explication of it This gives me occasion to reflect how oddly you have hamper'd our Tradition hitherto instead of handling it P. 9. You seem to doubt by your If no more were meant c. Whether it does not mean Tradition for the Books of Scripture and this you knew well enough before was none of our Tradition in dispute here which as may be seen by Mr. G's Demonstration put down by your self First Letter p. 4. and 5. is confest to be Tradition for matters of Faith or Doctrin Now in this new sense you give us there of Tradition you kindly grant it for 't is your own not that which we here mean by that word Next comes another If and makes it seem to signify Articles and Power And this is no Tradition at all neither ours nor yours nor any body's For neither those Articles nor that Power you speak of p. 10. are or can be the Delivery of Christ's Doctrin from day to day for that speaks such a Method of bringing down things not the things brought down And this you very gravely deny And so you may with my good leave either deny or expunge or condemn it to what doom you please for certainly it comes with a felonious Intention to draw the Reader out of his Road into a Labyrinth of Non-sense and then robb him of his Reason Again p. 7. you make it a Delivery of bare Words at best with a general impossible sense and perhaps a Heretical one too into the bargain whereas you cannot but know Tradition as We mean it is a Delivery of the sense of Christian Tenets and this a particular sense too and such a one as cannot possibly be Heretical while this Rule is adher'd to unless the First-Taught Faith were Heretical which is Blasphemy to imagin And here again p. 8. you make Tradition or Delivery to mean the Point delivered and would have us give you the signification and Explication of That which is it's self the signification and Explication of Christ's Faith and this too the very best that can be imagin'd Is it possible to deform Tradition more untowardly or wrest it into more misconstructions than has been done already After a serious manner certainly 't is impossible But Drollery is now to act its part And to cheer your spirits which droop't under the difficulty of answering the Argument for Tradition you put your self in masquerade and would make the Relation of perhaps two or three it may be partial Friends of yours concerning Mr. G's Discourse about You a perfect parallel to our Rule of Faith and that if they can mistake or misrepresent down goes Tradition Which amounts to this that sooner may all the Christian Fathers in any Age consisting of many millions and those disperst in far-distant Parts of the World be mistaken in their Faith which it imported them no less than their Salvation to know sooner may all of them conspire to deliver to their Children another Doctrin than that which they held the way to Heaven than that a very few of your own Party should to gratify you tell you a false Story or Aggravate tho' all of them were besides profest Adversaries to the Person against whom they witnest and indeed Witnesses in their Own Common Cause I beseech you Sir tho' you be never so much to seek for a solid Answer yet speak at least plausible things and do not thus expose your Credit while you affect to play the Wit. Poor Tradition what has it done to be thus misrepresented Did it deserve no better for bringing down the Book of Scripture but to be expos'd in so many aukward Vizards when it was to come upon the Stage and not once suffer'd to shew it's true face but still travestee'd into another Form and put in all shapes but its own This Carriage of yours is enough to make the Reader think you apprehend it to be some terrible Gorgons Head or some Basilisk and that the very sight of it unless it came thus muffled up would undo you At least he will suspect from such an untoward broken Scene that the Dramma is not like to be regular Indeed you shift too often and to catch and confute you I must travel thro' the whole Compass for no sooner can a man steer one way but your Discourse like the Wind whips straight into another quarter and about we must tack or we must not make forwards at all But I will insist no more at present on this dexterity of yours you will afford your Friends many fresh Instances of it through the whole course of this Letter hereafter Onely I must note your forgetfulness or what else may I call it For you took the Notion of Tradition very right First Letter p. 7. where you alledg'd you had a larger and firmer Tradition for Scripture than we had for us You did not there take Tradition of that Book for the Book delivered
is in a manner made up of such study'd Insincerities 14 You give us another Instance of this Indisposition of your Will p. 13. where you tell us Mr. M. says that the first thing which was propos'd and indeed the onely subject Mr. G. had any purpose to discourse on was whether Protestants had a Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith or not This you do not deny but turn it off to a quite different business and then slide from that to another till you had wheel'd about the Question from what was intended to the Point you thought best serv'd your turn to shuffle in Here say you the Faith spoken of is that Faith whereby we are Christians How Are Protestants and Christians then Convertible Terms or Synonyma's Are there not many sorts of Christians which are not Protestants And is it not plain and not contradicted by your self that it was demanded whether your Protestants had a Ground of Absolute Certainty for their that is Protestant Faith Does not the word their signify theirs as distinct from all other sorts of Christians And is it come now to signify theirs simply as Christians or as conjoyn'd with all the rest This is too open dodging to pass upon the Reader 'T is granted you hold many of the same Christian Points which Catholicks do but 't is deny'd you can as you are Protestants I mean still such Protestants as are of your Principles hold them to be Absolutely Certain or hold them upon such Grounds as are able to support that Firm and Unalterable Assent call'd Faith The Grounds proper to your Protestants being as was shewn in my Former Letter Sect. 24. to hold them upon the Letter interpreted by your selves Of which Letter by virtue of your Principles you can have no Absolute Certainty as shall be shewn hereafter and of that Letter Interpreted by your private Iudgments much less In a word either you speak of Points held by Protestants which you pretend to be all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles and then you are distinguisht not onely from those Christians call'd Catholicks but from Socinians Lutherans and to omit others Calvinists too if you be one of those that hold Episcopacy to be of Divine Right Or else you mean the Assent given to those Points of Protestant Faith on their pretended Rule and then you must shew your Assent is more Absolutely Certain than that of the three last and divers others who Dissent from you in their Tenets and yet go upon the Same Rule and make it out to us that tho' it be both theirs and yours yet still ' t is yours in particular or peculiarly yours as you are such Protestants 15. Your next Prevarication is much worse After you had shov'd Protestant Faith into Christian Faith you throw it a Barr and a half further off by virtue of an Id est Absolute Certainty of the Christian Faith i. e. say you of the Grounds on which we believe the Scripture to contain the Word of God or all things necessary to be believ'd by us in order to salvation This Id est like Pacolets wooden Horse has a Charm to transfer us from one Pole to the other in an instant By virtue of its all-powerful Magick Christian Faith is made to be the same with the Grounds on which we believe the Scripture to contain the Word of God so that according to you Faith is the same with your Grounds for Scripture's being your Ground that is Faith is made the same with the Grounds for your Ground of Faith. What a medley of Sense is this and how many folds have we here involving one another Christian Faith is Divine these Grounds and the Faith built on them is Human being the Testimony of Men Are these two the same Notion Had I a mind to be Quarrelsome how easily how justly too might I retort your former Calumny against Tradition and object that this way of yours resolves all into meer Human Faith meer Natural Reason that it makes God's Grace and Assistance of the Holy Ghost unnecessary to Faith and then ask Is this the Faith Christians are to be sav'd by And reckon up twenty other absurdities springing from this ill-grounded Position But I am now to trace your transferring Faculty In your First Letter p. 7. you speak onely of Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of your Faith viz. the Scripture but here the case is alter'd and Certainty of Scripture is turn'd into Certainty of the Grounds on which we believe the Scripture to contain the Word of God. These slippery doings and not any Reasons you bring make you Inconfutable for we must set upon the Proteus in all his shapes ere we can bind him The Question is not whether Scripture Contains the Word of God that is his Sense or our Faith but which we cannot mind you of too often for all will be too little to make you take notice of it how the Sense contain'd there can be got out thence or be signify'd to us with Absolute Certainty even in the very highest Points of Christian Faith and what Grounds you have to bring about this Effect For you can profess no Absolute Certainty of any one point till you have made it out with Absolute Certainty that the Sense you pretend contain'd in Scripture is it 's genuin Meaning This is your true task if you would prove the Absolute Certainty of your Protestant Faith or your Faith as depending on your Principles But of this we hear not a syllable 16. And I beseech you to what end is it to tell us you are speaking of your Rule or Ground of Faith if it carry you not thorow to any one particular no not those Points which are most Fundamental and so most necessary for the Salvation of Mankind Since notwithstanding you have your Rule you are still as far to seek as before in all a Rule should be good for Remember the Question and Mr. T 's expectation was about the Absolute Certainty of Protestant Faith by vertue of your Rule or Ground and therefore if your Rule does not reach to Absolute Certainty of the main Points of Faith at least you are still at a loss both for your Faith and for a Ground of your Faith. Yet this conscious of it's failure you seem unwilling to stand to by still sliding silently over it or slipping by it when it lies just in your way For You tell us pag. 20. that your Faith rests on the Word of God as its Absolute Ground of Certainty Which by the way is another little shuffle for you should have said absolutely-Certain Ground not Absolute Ground of Certainty But let that pass and let the horse-mill go for the mill-horse You proceed But the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrine depends on the Evidence that it is contain'd in Scripture You ought to have said if you would make your Faith so Certain as you
pretended We are absolutely Certain such and such particular Points are contain'd there otherwise your General Ground comes not up to the Question nor does your Faith any service at all since it leaves it still Vncertain of which more hereafter Especially since you pretended or rather declar'd openly p. 14. that you now held all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles Which Profession reaches to all the Points of Faith and not onely to your Ground of Faith. I must confess you render'd that Profession insignificant and cancell'd the obligation as soon as you had made it in the Explication of those words immediately following which makes those hearty expressions Absolutely Certain of all the same Doctrin amount to no more but that you resolve your Faith into Scripture We must I see deal with you as those who have a pretence in Court do with Great Courtiers who lose their repute with them as ill-bred and unmannerly if they will needs take them at their word and do not distinguish between what 's spoken and what 's meant Your Answer was very honest and direct We are absolutely Certain we now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles The Comment is this I fram'd my Answer on purpose to shew that our Faith is not to be resolv'd into what Christ taught any otherwise than as it is convey'd to us by the Writings of the Apostles Evangelists Whereas if there be so much as one word of Writing or Evangelists even hinted in your Answer it self unless the Word Taught meant Writ which cannot be because we never read that Christ writ any Books or the least Semblance of reason for making this Skewing Explication but to shuffle off your too large Concession I will confess my self too shallow to fathom the profound depth of your inscrutable sense Resolve then your Faith in God's Name into what you will so you but shew us an Absolutely Certain Connexion between the Points resolved and the Rule into which you profess to resolve it Otherwise 't is no Resolution of Faith if the continued Chain of Motives winding it up to the First Truth or God's infinite veracity hangs slack Such Incoherence serves not for Faith which must be indissolubly connected to the Formal Motive of all our Faith else the Resolution of it may be shatter'd and broke to pieces by the way ere we come there Which if it may then the Resolution is no Resolution for that speaks Connexion of the Motives and Faith thus resolv'd may perhaps all be False and so is no Faith. 'T is your work then to shew in particular when you come to it and at present in general that your Rule gives you Absolute Certainty of the Points of Faith more than it does the Socinian who have the same Rule and profess to follow it as much as you do for your heart and yet erre enormously Nay in effect they take the same Method too to interpret Scripture which you do for tho' you give good words to the consent of former ages yet your Grounds do not allow it Absolute Certainty in bringing down Doctrin or interpreting Scripture and less than such a Certainty and in such things signifies nothing in our case And 't is either by your Rule and Method you can arrive thus certainly at the Sense of Scripture or by nothing If you could once with Absolute Certainty convince the Socinians of Obstinacy against a Clear Truth by your Rule or Method or both together I mean if you could make it clear to them that your Rule of Faith cannot possibly bear any other Sense so that the indifferent part of the world judg'd them wilful adherers to a false Interpretation or that you could silence them and put them to open shame for adhering to it you would do somthing Otherwise your starting aside still from the Absolute Certainty of the Points even tho' p. 14. you pretended to be Absolutely Certain you hold them All and talking to us of nothing but a General Ground is meer shuffling and shews plainly you meant not really in that Answer of yours to Mr. G's first Question where you spoke of all the Doctrin which includes every Particular Point so that by All it seems you meant None 'T is very paradoxical to see you distinguish here p. 14 between the Doctrin taught by Christ and that which was taught by the Apostles The reason why you do it is to insinuate into our Readers that we derive the source of our Tradition from Christ's Teaching orally as the Iews affirm of Moses delivering an unwritten Law else to what purpose this Distinction The Tradition we lay claim to has no such obscure Original it takes it's â—ife from the whole Body of Primitive Christians in the Apostles days dispers't in Great multitudes over the World and settled in the Knowledge of his Faith by means of their Preaching So that Tradition starts into motion from a most Publick and notorious matter of Fact viz. That the Apostles taught the First Christians such a Faith. To what imaginable purpose then was this frivolous distinction brought in You knew this was our Tenet and we knew well your Rule was Scripture What needed then this shuffling Paraphrase By Tradition you know we mean a Testimony for Doctrin receiv'd If the source be weak or that the Body of the Witnessers of it's Delivery at first and successively afterwards was smal the Tradition is consequently weak in proportion if Great it was stronger still according as the multitude of the Attesters was more numerous and their Credibleness more unexceptionable Well but admit your Faith be not resolv'd into what Christ taught by his own mouth but what the Apostles taught us from him why must you necessarily resolve your Faith into their Writings only Did the Apostles when they went to convert the world go with Books in their hands or Words in their Mouths Or were those Words a jot less Sacred when it came from their Mouths than when they put them in a Book Or lastly does any Command from Christ appear to write the Book of Scripture or any Revelation before hand that it was to be a Rule of Faith to the future Church No such matter and the Accidental occasions of it's writing at first and it's Acceptation afterwards bar any such Pretences On the other side their Grand Commission was not Scribite but only Predicate Evangelium Yet you can slubber this over without taking notice of it and carry it as if the Apostles Teaching mean't Writing only and that they taught the World no more than they writ Sure you do not mean the Apostles took Texts out of their own Books and preacht Sermons upon then as you do now Why must it be quite forgotten then and buried in silence that they taught any thing by word of mouth or preacht the Gospel publickly Allow that to be equally Sacred as what is writ and to be embrac't if well
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
therefore whatever often happens through the Imperfection of Creatures such an Irrational Assent could never have been intended by God. Whence as it belongs to Infinite Goodness to give those who sincerely seek for Truth the Grace to embrace it so it belongs to infinite Wisdom to lay such means to arrive at Truth that is in our case such a Rule of Faith as both evince it 's Truth to those who are capable according to the most exact Methods of True Reason and withal perfectly secure those from Errour who follow that Rule let them be as Weak as they will. If then we are bound to embrace Christian Faith as a Truth and profess it to be so it must be indeed such and therefore the Grounds left us by God must be of that nature as to prove or conclude it to be such and if Dr. St. have no such Grounds that what he holds is really Christ's Doctrin he ought not to handle or preach Controversie since he must necessarily disgrace and weaken Christian Faith when he is to credit and establish it Nay he ought not to pretend he has that most firm and most strongly-supported Assent call'd Faith which depends necessarily on the Certainty that it was taught by Christ but candidly yield he has Opinion only in that Point not an Vnalterable Belief it is True but only a good Conceit or Hope that it is so or may be so Too weak a Prop to sustain it's Truth as it leans on Christ or his Apostles having taught it or to settle the Basis of all our Spiritual Life § 28. And now let 's apply this Discourse to his Ground or Rule by means of which he is to be thus assur'd or able to assure You of the Truth of those Controverted Points which you hear so warmly disputed in the world and which it so much imports you to be satisfy'd in 'T is Scripture's Letter in Texts that are thought to relate to those Points as understood or interpreted by Himself or any other Private Judgment What he has then to do is to make out with Absolute Certainty that this Method of arriving at the Knowledge of Christ's True Doctrin as to those Points cannot be Deceitful and Erroneous Otherwise 't is unavoidable his Faith and all Christian Faith no better grounded may be False and by consequence is not True. He will tell you Twenty fine Stories and give you many pretty words of it's being Sufficiently Certain Morally Certain that it has such Assurance as men accept for other matters c. But ask him smartly and closely if any of these Certainties or Assurances are Impossible to be False and he must not nor will deny it for should he say it he must pretend he could not be deceiv'd in his understanding those Texts right which he could not do without professing Infallibility in that particular Observe I beseech you where the stress of the whole Question lyes 'T is in this Whether this Ground or Method of his to be assur'd of Faith is able to prove it to have been truly and indeed taught by Christ so as it was not possible it should be otherwise By this Test if you examin the very good-Grounds for the Certainty of his Protestant Faith which he promises you here in his Preface you will find evidently he only gives you very good Words instead of very good Grounds and that whatever he produces whether he quotes or argues he will never vouch them to be so Certain but Deceit and Errour may possibly consist with them He will complain that 't is an unreasonable expectation because the nature of the things will not bear it And what 's this but to tell you in other terms that there neither is any Absolute Certainty of Faith nor can be any which bids fair for Atheism unless Interest satisfies the Will and by it the Reason By his speaking there of the main Points in Controversie between us I perceive he is running from the whole business in hand and seeking to shelter himself and hide his Head in a Wilderness But he shall not shift the Question thus and fall to ramble into endless Disputes Himself confest Second Letter p. 20. our Question was about the General Grounds of our Faith and not the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrin and I joyn'd issue with him upon the same To run to particular points while That 's a settling is to put the Conclusions before the Premises and to go about to ascertain things depending intirely on a Method or Rule without ascertaining that Method or Rule first is to begin at the wrong end and make the Cart draw the Horse § 29. I owe him yet an Answer to St. Austin He alledges that Father p. 16. whose Testimony says only That the Gospels are to be look't upon as Christ's own Hand-writing and that he directed the order and manner of the Evangelist's Writing which only signifies they were divinely inspir'd in both which none denies nor has This any Influence upon the Point in hand He could have quoted you other places out of Him if he had pleas'd which come up to it fully and I shall supply his backwardness with doing it my self Quaerendi dubitatio c. says that Learned and Holy Father The Doubt of Enquiry ought not to exceed the Bounds of Catholick Faith. And because many Hereticks use to draw the Exposition of the Divine Scriptures to their own Opinion which is against the Faith of the Catholick Disciplin therefore Ante tractationem hujus Libri Catholica Fides explicanda est Before the handling this Book the Catholick Faith is to be explained Where Dr. St's Sober Enquirer is curb'd and restrain'd in his licentious Search of his Faith in Scripture by the Catholick Faith had it seems some other way for were his Faith to be had meerly by searching Scripture for it with what sense ought he to be restrain'd while he was in the Way to Faith To restrain one who is in the right Way is to hinder him from going right or perhaps to put him out of his Way Again Tho' those Heretical Opinions were both against the true Sense of Scripture and against Tradition too yet had he held Scripture the Rule he should rather have said they were against the true signification of Scripture's Letter than against the Faith of the Catholick Discipline Besides if Catholick Faith was to be explain'd before they came to handle Scripture how was Scripture the Rule for all to come to Faith when as Faith was to be had nay well understood by the Explanation of it antecedently lest they might otherwise fall into Heresie And in another place speaking of a false Pointing of the Letter made by the Arians to abet their Heresie he confutes them thus Sed hoc But this is to be refuted by the Rule of Faith by which we are instructed before-hand in the Equality of the Trinity Had this Rule of Faith been held by him to
be the Letter of Scripture he would have had recourse to some exacter Copy correcting their faulty one and so have born up still to that Rule But 't is evident he does not thus He makes then the Sense of the Church or Tradition the Rule both to know our Faith and also to correct the faultiness of the Letter Whether this sutes better with the Drs. Principles or ours is left to your selves or any man of reason to judg and determine § 30. Thus comes off this famous Sermon which makes such a noise for a Confutation of the Traditionary Doctrin The Sum of it is 1. The Dr. takes no notice of the main Question betwixt us which is about the Absolute-Certainty that our Faith is Truly Christian or taught by Christ nor attempts to shew his is thus Certain but Preaches to you Stedfastness and a well-setled Resolution to continue in it yet avoids the giving you any Grounds to make you Stedfast and Well-setled in that resolution 2. He conceals every Advantage Christian Tradition has or is pretended to have that is he would perswade you to Hate it before you See it and to compare it to Scripture before you know what kind of thing it is which is yet worse he shews you another thing for It and through all his Discourse pretends 'tis It which is nothing at all to It but utterly unlike It viz. Particular Traditions both before and after that Vniversal Tradition only which we defend was setled 3. He fixes a false date upon the beginning of the Tradition we speak of that the vast source of it which with the Circumstances annext was able to continue the Current strong and the Derivation of Christ's Doctrin both Certain and Perpetual might not be reflected on To deform it the more he makes it meerly Verbal as if it were nothing but the telling some dry story by surpressing it's Practicalness in which consists it's chiefest Vertue 4. He hides from your consideration all the most Incomparable and most Powerful Motives which enforce its Continuance and oblige the Church never to forsake the first deliver'd Doctrin 5. He never regards even in those Particular Traditions whether they fail'd the Persons or the Persons fail'd Them but supposes still the Tradition was in all the fault without attempting to shew it 6. He would have you imagin the Church in the first Age consisting of Pastors and People lost all their Memory and Grace too assoon as ever the Apostles were dead lest it should be held Able and Willing to testify Christ's Doctrine to the Next Age which by Parity would Establish it a Rule for all succeeding Ages to the End of the World. 7. He mingles known Opinions and which he holds himself not to have been Universally deliver'd at first with Points which we All hold to have been first deliver'd Then as to the Matter of Object of Tradition which and only which we pretend it is to bring down with absolute Certainty and deliver Clearly viz. the Dogmatical or Controverted Articles of Christian Faith which are Practical he never mentions it at all with any distinction but tumbles and confounds it with all things imaginable for which it was never pretended and puts upon Tradition a hundred abus'd tasks as never thought of by us so improper oft times impossible in themselves As the deriving down the Ten Commandments Creeds Decrees of Councils set Forms of Words an Infinity of particular passages not at all Practical nay whole Epistles and Gospels Schemes of Doctrin taught by Heathen Philosophers Messages which use to be sent by long Letters Historical Narrations or Actions and in a word every thing he could invent but the right one viz. Those Controverted Points of Faith tho' it lay just before him the very nature of Controversy which we are about determining our Discourses to those Points and nothing else This is his General view of Scripture and Tradition as to the way of conveying down matters of Faith. He means a General view which misrepresents and blinds your sight of it in every Particular In a Word there is much of Reading Conduct and Wit in his Sermon but wholly misemploy'd to speak as handsomely as he could to no purpose and to miss the whole Point in Question with a great deal of Plausibility In which amongst his other Great Abilities justly acknowledg'd to be Excellent consists his most considerable Talent and Dexterity § 31. So he ends his Sermon with good Advice to you to follow Christ's Heavenly Doctrin in your Lives and Conversations Which as he worthily presses upon you so I shall heartily pray that God would vouchsafe you his Grace to follow it I am far from blaming His or any one's Preaching the wholsome Moral Doctrines of Christianity and laying it home to men's Consciences But I ought not if concern'd to suffer that when he pretends to speak to your Understandings and establish you in Faith he should bubble his Auditory with forty impertinent pretences Injurious to his candid Adversaries and to Truth as well as to your selves please and delude your Fancies with a great shew of his Reading and little conjectural Reflexions tack't prettily together and in the mean time send you away empty of knowing any Ground which may render you or any Absolutely Certain that what you hold is indeed Christ's Doctrin that is any Ground of perfect security that is cannot but be indeed his Doctrin without being which it ought not be held True. Whereas yet 't is only this Certainty which can give His or any other Sermon it 's full force and Energy Your Servant in Christ J. S. Advertisement The 2 d. 3 d. Catholick Letters are to be Sold by M. Turner at the Lamb in High-Holbourn THE FIFTH Catholick Letter IN REPLY TO Dr. Stillingfleet's Pretended ANSWER To About the Fortieth Part of I. S's Catholick Letters Addrest to all Impartial Readers By Iohn Sergeant Published with Allowance London Printed and sold by Matthew Turner at the Lamb in High-Holborn 1688. THE PREFACE Addrest to the most Partial of Dr. Stillingfleet's Friends Gentlemen WHen a Person is incomparably qualify'd above all others in any Particular men use to look upon him as a Pattern in that Kind I will not say Dr St. has manifested himself to be such an Exemplar in every respect that can be an Ingredient of an Ill Controvertist This is yet to be shewn and Pretence without Proof signifies nothing Only I may justly fear that while you are reading my Reply to his Answer as he calls it to my Catholick Letters you may be apt to judge that I am rather framing an Idea of what Human Weakness maintaining an insupportably-ill Cause may be obnoxious to than giving a Iust Character of his Performances and that 't is Absolutely Impossible that a Man of his Parts should be Guilty of such and so many Incredible Failings I acknowledge with all due Respect to him his Great Endowments and am heartily glad in
it as I would by a hirco-cervus a four-squar'd Triangle Green Scarlet or whatever such desperate words one may put together to compound strong Nonsense How should I mean any thing by a Compound of two such words which the Goodness of Rational Nature and the aversion which our understanding power has to Contradiction has forbid any man to use ever since the Creation Did the Dr. or any man living hear any Mortal man when he is about to express his Certainty of a thing say I am Fallibly Certain of it Yet how oft has he heard them say I am Infallibly Certain of such a thing whence were the word Infallibly a different Notion from Certain or Difference added to it as to its Genus it would nay must admit the Opposite Difference Fallibly as is done in all such cases which since it does not without straining nature and the Language of Mankind 't is not a different Notion but the same with True Certainty and therefore in proper Speech True Certainty and Infallibility are both one Yet after he has thus abus'd the Language of all Mankind he has the Confidence to tell me I make use of those words in an Improper and unusual Sense This farther appears by this that our Speculators use to add Moral or some other such Epithet to it which are of a diminishing signification when they would express it's deficiency from True Certainty This Logical Demonstration to prove Certainty and Infallibility to be the same was alledg'd in Faith Vindicated p. 37. But we must excuse such slight Talkers from even attempting to give an Answer becoming a Scholar to any such close Proofs tho' it has been prest upon him in Errour Non-plust p. 92. and upon Dr Tillotson in Reason against Raâ—â—â—ery from p. 64. to p. 67. He only tells us what he does own does not own and such sleeveless sayings that is he only says over again his own crude Tenets with the formality of a Distinction or two and places his main hopes to uphold his Credit not in the Strength of his Answers but in the Weakness or Partiality of his Readers The upshot is he owns clearly he has only Fallible Grounds for his Faith having been taught by Christ which is to assert and maintain for it is not to be suppos'd he will allow any others to have surer Grounds than his own that All Christian Faith may be False and the Grounds themselves in more Regards than one most perfect Nonsence 47. He proceeds next to give us his Notion of Absolute Certainty in these words When the Evidence is the highest which in point of Reason the thing is capable of then there is that which I call Absolute Certainty These words Which I call are very Emphatical and precisely True for no man living but himself and Dr. T. that I know of ever call'd it so For suppose the Evidence be but very slight and the Thing as propos'd to us or in our Circumstances can give us no more will this slight glimmering Evidence make us Absolutely Certain of it Again Does he mean in point of True Reason inform'd by the best Maxims to direct and establish it This is Conclusive Evidence or Demonstration and the Conclusion thus deduc't is Infallibly True because the Maxim which legitimates the Consequence is as all Logicians know Infallibly Certain being a Principle of our Understanding and Self-evident Is it this he means No He does not like Conclusive Evidence in the Grounds of his Faith by no means To come closer I ask him Does he mean that True Knowledge conformable to the Thing or object fixes him in that Certainty or in great part his own aiery Apprehension If such a Knowledge then since none can truly know what is not that Knowledge is as Impossible to be False or is as Infallibly True as 't is that the thing must be what it is And if no such Knowledge grounds his Certainty how is it an Absolute or Perfect one Can his apprehending it so make it so Can a man be Absolutely Certain of a Falshood because he apprehends that Falshood to be a Truth or that a thing is so when 't is not so If not then 't is only it 's being so which can be the Ground of Absolute Certainty and justify that Assent and then that Assent is Infallible for a thing is Infallibly what it is He 'l say he took it to be so and that 's enough But to omit that his taking a thing to be so neither makes nor proves it to be so I press farther When he took it to be so Did he take it right or did he mistake it If he took it right then again his Knowledge and Certainty grounded on that Knowledge are both Infallible for his Knowledge when he took it right could not but be conformable to the Thing and the Thing is Infallibly as it is If he took it wrong or mistook it and yet be Absolutely Certain of it then again there may be Absolute Certainty of a Falshood or that a thing is so which is not so which is a rare kind of Certainty indeed especially for the Ground of his Faith and Posterity no doubt will owe much to his Memory for the Invention 'T is left then that he must say he did not know whether he took it right or wrong but apprehended he took it right In which case to omit that this apprehending or thinking the Evidence so strong as to determin assent is the Second kind of Certainty he assigns here before he comes to Absolute Certainty I ask how he can possibly think himself Certain a thing is such when he sees he does not know whether he be mistaken in it or no And how a Judgment that a thing absolutely is and a Judgment that it may not be for any thing he knows can be consistent together in an Intellectual Nature without destroying the First Principle of our Understanding viz. That 't is not Possible the same thing should at once be and not be 48. I have not done with this new invented Absolute Certainty of his It must spring he says from the Highest Evidence which in point of Reason the thing is capable of Where every expression is Indeterminate and Ambiguous Suppose as I urg'd lately the thing be not capable of any Clear Evidence as himself supposes there is not for such or such a Doctrin to have been taught by Christ why must he needs Assent at all Why does he not Suspend God has endow'd us with a Faculty of doing this as a bridle to keep us from Precipitation and to preserve us from running into Errour why should we not use it but expose our selves to run headlong into Mistakes both prejudiciall to our Nature whose Perfection is Truth and pernicious in its Consequences to the Conduct of our Lives Again Certainty taken from the Thing as he says this is signifies a Determination of the Mind by means of the Object and is the
and pursu'd with so many forcible Arguments that there can be no plainer Confession that his Cause is lost than not to attempt to answer them especially since the hinge of the whole Controversy depends upon it It was his Concern too to avow or disavow his dear Friend Dr. Burnet's Position making his Sober Enquirer judge of Councils but he would not be so candid Why declines he the giving us satisfaction that he does indeed hold the Testimony for Scripture Absolutely Certain by making out from the Nature of the Things why it must be so See Reader how it was there demanded of him and urg'd upon him to do himself and his Faith that Honour and Credit Yet he is perfectly deaf to all sollicitations of that kind And the Reason is because should should he do this as he ought to do he must necessarily make the Church Infallible and rely upon her Infallibility for the Certainty of Scriptures Letter and should it come to be prov'd that 't is easier to transmit down the same Doctrin than an Exact Copy this would oblige his Sober Enquirer to be led by her in matters of Faith. A condescendence not to be submitted to by his Fanatick Friends both because their First Principle is to think themselves wiser than the Church as also because to prove this would make the Knowledge of Christ's Doctrin too strong by Proofs and Outward Means which their Gifted and Inspir'd Genius impossible ever to be prov'd but by doing Miracles cannot away with To proceed Why clears he not himself from being oblig'd by his Principles to own a Brotherhood with all Hereticks who profess to follow Scripture as much as he does by shewing some Absolutely Certain Means to distinguish his Faith from theirs Did not the doing this mainly concern his Credit when it was severely objected and shewn that he had given just occasion for this Suspition of all comprehending Principles Why no Account given of the Absolute Certainty of Particular Texts and the most significant Words in each of them as well as of the Canon or Number of Books without which let the Canon be as Certain as it will 't is impossible for him to know assuredly whether what he holds be True Faith or Heresy Why no Answer to my Objection that to be the Word of God is not sufficient to make Scripture a Rule unless it has withall Perspicuity or Clearness to give those who read it and rely on it Absolute Certainty of its true Sense or Faith in those high Mysteries and Spiritual Points controverted between the Church and her Deserters Why no Reply to my Confutation of his smartest or rather Only Argument to prove Scripture a Rule given by me particularly to every Branch of it Is not a business of such high Consequence worth his Defence his whole Cause as far as 't is manag'd by him standing or falling by his maintaining or deserting that main Proof for it Why does he give us no Grounds that elevate Faith as it depends on the Rule ascertaining us it came from Christ above Opinion whenas it was charg'd upon him that he had no such Grounds and he was loudly call'd upon to produce them but to aggravate the fault to call here p. 41. all the Points of Christian Faith there spoken of Particular Opinions Why takes he no notice of the several Senses of the word Rule and in which of those Senses it is taken properly and why it must necessarily be taken in such a Sense in our Controversy but instead of doing this run on wilfully mistaking it still Why not a word in Confutation of an Infallible Iudge as that Point is stated by me Why did he not accept my Challenge that he could not shew me any one Solid Proof in his whole Treatise that he could maintain since the doing this had been a great Blurr to me and a high Credit to himself nay the very offering at it might have kept our Readers in some Suspence whether he were perfectly baffled or no whenas his total declining it is a plain Confession he does not think fit to stand to any one Proof he has produc't Why no Reply to my Discourse demonstrating that a Rule must be the Immediate Light to know the Thing in order to which 't is to regulate us and therefore that however he pretends to Scripture yet his own Interpretation or the Means he uses to Interpret it is unavoidably his Rule As also that the Testimony of all Christian Churches did not recommend to him such a Rule of Faith and that a Testimony for the Letter confess'd by himself to be Fallible stood in great need of his Logick to make what 's built on it to be Absolutely Certain Why not a word to the Testimony of that Antient and Holy Father and most Solid Controvertist St. Athanasius which quite overthrows the whole Scheme of his Doctrin and makes all his Sober Enquirers Unbelievers or Infidels And why no Excuse for his not putting amongst his Helps the Iudgment of the present Church at least of the Church of England this being both an easier Help than 't is to use his other painfull Methods to understand Scripture right more agreeable to the Order of the world especially since he stands impeacht of destroying Church-Government as to any thing belonging to Faith Why does not he shew us how Mr T. could be a Sober Enquirer whom he defends for so suddenly settling his Enquiry and Resolving tho' he did not use those Means which the Dr himself affirm'd his Sober Enquirers were bound to use especially since this carriage of the Dr's shews him very willing to contradict at pleasure even his own Principles and to dispense with those Obligations he himself had impos'd when it suits with his Interest Whence every considering man must necessarily conclude he holds not heartily and steadily to any Principle at all Why should not his Sober Enquirers trust the Church rather than themselves and why no Answer to the Reasons why they should Why does not he confute my Discourse proving that a Judge proceeding upon an Inerrable Rule is Infallible and that 't is no prejudice to the Church that those whom she has cast out or are her Enemies deny her to be such Why answers he not my Particular Reasons against his kind of Judgment of Discretion or the Reasons given for ours but makes impertinent Discourses of his own at random without regarding either our Objections or our Proofs nay when he had occasion without acknowledging their Distinction but most unconscionably pretending them to be the same whereas their Difference and perfect Opposition to one another is laid out there very largely and particularly And now Gentlemen I request even those who are the most Partial of his Friends to count over the Pages cited in the Margent and if you find by an exact Review that I have neither misreckon'd