irregularly he hinders any Conclusion from following False because no two men can differ in a Sum unless they wrong or abuse the Rules of Computation Irregular because instead of the words who take that Way found in his Second Proposition and in our Discourse he coggs in the words make use of that way which are not so express in sence as the word Take is which imports following whither it leads or making a right use of it And it would have been too palpably absurd to say a man takes a way who leaves it as an Ill-reckoner must needs leave the true Rules of Arithmetick But those who both Take and Follow all along the Letter of Scripture interpreted by their private selves and this to their power and are skilfull in Languages in comparing places do yet go wrong therefore his Way is no Way and his Rule is no Rule Then follows the Triumph over my Inconsiderateness in not distinguishing between the Rule and its Application and I tell him the taking it following it or holding to it is the Applying it and all the Application it can need Nor shall all his starting holes and tricks ever be able to evade the force of this Argument 43. His Discourse of Moral Qualifications requisit to the Certainty of Faith as to know the Sense of the New Testament if apply'd to our present Question amounts to this that no man can see the force of a Natural Medium leading to Faith without Humility of Mind Purity of Heart Prayer to God sincere Endeavours to do God's Will c. So that for want of a good Argument he has left off Disputing and falls to Preaching tho' he has had but ill Success in his Guildhall Sermon 'T is granted all these are excellent means to purge the Will from By-affections and by doing so to leave the Understanding free to see the force of the Proof and thence inferr the Truth of what 's prov'd or shewn to our Reason But where 's this Proof where 's this Truth all the while Must we produce such invisible things for open Proofs If all these Moral Qualifications be requisit as he says to make men Certain of Christ's Doctrin he must prove that Himself and all his Sober Enquirers which are the Members of his private-Spirited Church have all these Qualifications e're we or any man living can be certain they have true Faith. Again how will he satisfy Doubters and convince acute Opposers and Adversaries what is the true Doctrin of Christ Will the alledging Invisible Qualifications do the work Moreover he is Certain of his Faith by his Rule and yet his Rule of Scripture ascertains none by his Doctrin but by vertue of these Moral Qualifications These then are either his Rule or the best part of it At least he maintains here they are requisit and that otherwise Scripture is no Rule He must then prove He has these Qualifications or he cannot shew he has any Rule or any Faith. In a word we are disputing as Controvertists and demand open intelligible Proofs and he sends us to Invisible holes which only God the searcher of Hearts can find out and is not this mighty Learned I wonder how he can pretend to Convert any man to Christ's true Doctrin by these Principles All he can do is to alledge and compare Texts to prove it certainly Christ's Doctrin I but Sir says the other how shall I be satisfy'd you have Humility of Mind Purity of Heart c. without which your self confess you cannot be certain of the true Sense of Scripture at all What Art the Doctor has to satisfy him in this hard Point I know not But setting the Doctor 's Faith aside what Provision has he made for the standing Visible Body of the Church to defend and maintain she has Christ's true Faith None in the world by his Principles unless she can prove she has all these Moral Qualifications So that all is left to each private man's breast and if he has but this good Conceit of himself that he is endow'd with all those excellent Virtues and fancies that he prays better than all his Neighbours let them be Socinians Quakers or what you will he is certain of his Faith meerly by vertue of this Self-conceit that he is such a Saint since by Dr. St's Principles without firm assurance that he is thus requisitly qualify'd he can never have any assurance at all of his Faith. Might he not as well have told us in one word that Himself and all his Friends are pure Saints and know themselves to be so and therefore they are Certain they have these rare Qualifications and by them Assurance of the Sense of Scripture or Christ's Doctrin but that all who do not think as they do want those Qualifications are of the Wicked and Children of Darkness and so can never have any Light to know whether they have Christ's true Doctrin or not This then is the rare Resolution of Dr. St's Faith. I expected he should produce clear Arguments as became a Controvertist and he alledges the most hidden Means in the world as becomes an Enthusiast 44. Yet the force of Truth is so great that it obliges him to confess that The Right Way will certainly bring men to their Iourneys End if they continue in it I subsume But the Letter of Scripture Interpretable by Private Judgments does not bring the Socinians to their End that is to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught tho' they continue in it whence I conclude that Scripture's Letter Interpretable by Private Judgments is not the Right Way to know surely what Christ his Apostles taught To escape this most evident Conclusion which utterly overthrows his whole Cause he starts aside with one If to the remote End Salvation whereas the End I spoke of in my Discourse which he is now answering was expressly to know assuredly Christ's Doctrin Then after a second If he tells us Scripture was not design'd as an Infallible Way to know the Truth on Falshood of particular Opinions by What have we to do with Opinions We speak of Points of Faith and instanc't expressly in the Blessed Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. Are these with him but Opinions Indeed I have reason to doubt that all Points of Faith are but Opinions with him nay he ought to doubt they are or may be worse than Opinions viz. Heretical Falshoods unless he thinks himself absolutely Certain of his Moral Qualifications for 't is those it seems must do the deed when all Arguments fail As for Infallibility there was no such word in my Discourse and he ought to answer my Argument in the words I put it and not to start into such Evasions and Logomachies Tho' the allowing of Natural Infallibility has been prov'd against him by Reason and Authority of those even of his own Church he never answers it but barely says over again there is no such thing as Infallibility in
Sights I long to see by what Differences or any thing else it can be made out That an erring Church can still plead Tradition and adhere to it Not but that for Pleading much may be there are such confident doings in the World. As certain as it is that the Religion in England now is not the same which it was before Henry the Eighth I think there is confidence enough in England to plead Tradition for it 'T is but finding some Expression in an ancient Writer not couch'd with Prophetical foresight enough to avoid being understood as some will desire it should and it will serve turn to pretend to Antiquity and bear the Name of Tradition So I suspect you take it your self when you say the Arians insisted on Tradition For sure you do not think in earnest that Doctrin contrary to Consubstantiality was taught by Christ and believ'd from Father to Son till the Council of Nice This or some such thing may perhaps have been pleaded but for adhering to Tradition Your Servant For pray did Christ teach any Error When a Father believ'd what Christ taught him and the Son what the Father believ'd did not the Son too believe what Christ taught Run it on to the last Son that shall be born in the World must not every one believe what Christ taught if every one believ'd what his Father believ'd And will you go about to persuade us that there actually is a company of Men in the World who adher'd to this Method all Sons believing always as their Fathers did whereof the First believ'd as Christ taught and who notwithstanding err'd in matters of Faith They would thank you for making this out who would be glad that Christ taught Error and were not God. But it is not plainer that Two and Three make Five than it is that this cannot be And yet you would top it upon us and bear us in hand it is not only true but apparent in the Greek Church and known to every body who knows any thing of it The comfort is there is nothing for all these Assertions but your Word in which where you stick not to pass it for an arrant Impossibility I for my part do not think there is Absolute Certainty 18. I see not what there remains more but to bear in mind where we are At the Conference instead of answering Mr. G's Argument you would needs make one of your own which was in short The Greek Church goes upon Tradition and errs therefore another Church may err which goes upon Tradition There was no need to trouble the Greek Church for the matter It had been altogether as methodical and as much to purpose to have instanc'd in the Latin Church it self and never gon further and shorter to have spar'd Instancing too and have said without more ado Mr. G 's Conclusion is not true For you do no more till you make it appear that the Church you pitch upon for an Instance do's indeed adhere to Tradition and err But because this had been too open and People would have sooner perceiv'd that it had been to say I know not how to answer Mr. G 's Argument but will notwithstanding stand to it that his Conclusion is false you thought the best way to divert the Reader 's attention from what 's before him was to travel into Greece and yet when you come there do no more than if you had stay'd at home For you barely say there is both Tradition and Error in the Greek Church and you might have said as much of the Latin or without mentioning either have said Tho' Mr. G. has prov'd a Traditionary Church cannot err I say it can and has All is but Saying till you come to Proving Only to make a formal shew with an Antecedent and a Conclusion you say it with the Ceremony of an Argument of which since Mr. G. deny'd the Antecedent he had no more to do till you prov'd it 19. So it stood at the Conference and so it stands still and for ought I see is like to stand For tho' you have writ two Letters since there appears no word of Proof in either or sign that you do so much as think on it You only say your Instance over again and would have the Face you set upon it and great Words you give it make it pass for plain and undeniable when all the while it is plainly impossible and actually deny'd Mr. G. I hope will bide by his Answer because it is a good one true in it self and direct to the Point For it denies just what you assum'd That the Greek Church stood upon Tradition and fell at the same time into Error And speaking as you do or should do of Error in matter of Faith Euclid never made any thing plainer than it is That where ever Error comes in Tradition goes out Of necessity therefore if the present Greek Church have adher'd to Tradition it has not err'd If it have err'd it has not adher'd to Tradition Which of the two is the Case neither concerns Mr. G. nor can he dispute it without following bad Example that is falling to Argue now it is his Part to Answer You would pass it upon us that the Greek Church has err'd without swerving from Tradition and you must either make it out or acknowledge you have made much ado about nothing For your Instance is no Instance till it appears to be true Till you do it there is no Work for Mr. G. 20 At the close p. 7. you desire Mr. G. to make good two things and tell us why you desire it and what will follow if he accept or decline your Motion I neither understand how your Proposals follow from your Reasons nor your Consequences from your Proposals But think it no more worth losing time upon them than you thought it worth boasting of the Victory The First is That we Protestants have no Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of our Faith viz. the Scripture altho' we have a larger and firmer Tradition for it viz. the Consent of all Christian Churches than you Catholics can have for the Points of Faith in difference between us 21. I can tell you a better Reason for this Proposal than any you give There was no avoiding to own Absolute Certainty to a Man who talk'd of quitting your Communion without it But you knew well enough that your Absolute Certainty would be thwittled into Sufficient Certainty and Sufficient Certainty into no Certainty at last and had your Wits about you when you thought of this Proposal For it is in effect to say This Certainty of Faith is a troublesom matter and not for my turn Let us go to something else leave Faith and pass to Scripture of which you Mr. G. shall prove we have no Absolute Certainty For if I should go about to prove we have I foresee that while I am seeking harbor in my larger and firmer Tradition I shall venture to split upon
possibly remain not the same Will it shew us that a Cause can be without its Effect or an Effect without its Cause Will it shew us that a thing can be and not be at once Unless it can do such Feats as these you may keep your Notwithstanding to your self for any Service it will do you here For all the Notwithstandings in the world cannot hinder a thing which is true from being true nor the Proof which proves it to be true from being a Proof Mr. G 's Proof shews that Tradition from Father to Son is an Infallible Conveyance of Faith as plainly as that Men are Men And would you persuade us with the Rhetorick of your Notwithstanding that we do not see what we see Tho' you had brought twenty of them instead of one we could see nothing by them but that you had a good Fancy for they shew us nothing of the Object nor offer at it You shew us not how the Operations of Human Nature should be suspended in our present Case nor any thing which should or could suspend them but would have us believe Men were prodigiously forgetful or malicious purely for the sake of an Imagination of yours I pray rub up afresh your old Logical Notions and reflect whether it were ever heard of in University Disputes that when an Argument is advanc'd the Defendant is allow'd to make Objections against it and instead of Answering bid the Arguer prove his Conclusions to be true Notwithstanding all his Objections Consider how perfectly this confounds the Offices of the Disputant and Defendent and makes all Regular Discourse impossible Consider how this new Method of yours destroys the very possibility of ever concluding any thing that is the very Faculty of Reasoning For Objections being generally multipliable without end if all of them must be Solv'd e're any Argument concludes nothing will be concluded nor any Conclusion admitted And so a long so Farewel to Rational Nature Consider that Truth is built on its own Intrinsecal Grounds and not on the Solving Objections For your own Credits sake then with Learned Men and Logicians do not seek to evade with Notwithstandings but Answer fairly and squarely to the Argument as it lies Consider that who has found the Cause has found the Effect Mr. G. has found us a Cause of Infallible Conveyance and therefore has shew'd us an Infallible Conveyance You pretend that tho' there was the Cause there was not the Effect and this 't is known beforehand cannot be and you knew it as well as any body But you knew likewise there was no saving your Stakes without playing a new Game and therefore give you your due did all that could be done in trying to divert our sight from a Matter plain before us and amuse us us with a Matter of Fact which you are sure will be obscure enough by that time it is handled long enough The Terms you put viz. Tradition Error and the Greek Church must needs bring into Dispute whether such and so many Quotations or some one or two Men disclaiming their Tenet to be a Novelty be a Proof of Tradition from Father to Son whether the Error be any Error and whether and for how much an Error in Faith and how much of it belongs to Divinity whether the Greek Church be ingag'd by a Citation from a Greek Author of two that be cited one against another which shall be preferr'd and thought to speak the sense of his Church and which is a Latiniz'd which a frank Grecian And who shall see through the Mists which these Disputes will raise More too will fall in in process of time There will be wrangling about the sense of Words the propriety of Phrases the preference of Readings and twenty such important quarrels which will tire out every body and satisfie no body In short you saw that if you could perswade People not to think the Church of Rome Infallible till all be said which will occur to be said of the Greek Church you are safe enough For Doomsday will come before that day Till then you may carry it with a shew of Erudition because there must be abundance of Greek cited And this is all which can come of your Instance and I wish it were not all you had in your Eye 31. In the mean time you have not answer'd Mr. G. because you have found no fault in any Proposition or in the Inference of his Argument and therefore it rests with you to answer it He has answer'd you because he has found this fault with your Instance which you make your Antecedent that it is not true and that the Greek Church did not at once err in Faith and adhere to Tradition and therefore it rests again with you to prove it and yet while you are Debtor both ways you call upon him to pay Ere we part Take this along with you that the Debt which you are precisely bound to satisfie first is to answer his Argument and till you do this you can claim no right to Object or Argue I am SIR Your humble Servant The Second Catholick Letter OR REFLECTIONS ON THE Reflecters Defence OF Dr. Stillingfleet's First Letter to Mr. G. Against the ANSWER To the Arguing Part of it Published with Allowance LONDON Printed and sold by Matthew Turner at the Lamb in High-Holbourn 1687. TO THE READER PErhaps it has scarce been seen hitherto that all our Polemical Contests were reduc'd within so narrow a compass My First Letter insisted chiefly on Two short Discourses Whereof the one undertook to shew the Nullity of the Rule of Faith claim'd by Dr. St. and his Protestants The other the Absolute Certainty of the Catholic Rule and the whole Controversie was in short about the Certainty or Uncertainty of Christian Faith. Both of those Discourses were presum'd by us to be Conclusive and so we offer'd a fair Advantage to our Adversary if he could shew clearly any of our Propositions was false or their Connexion slack Hence I had good hopes that Reply of mine would have brought our Controversie very near an end had Dr. St's Return been suitable to our Attempts Especially it had brought the Business to a Crisis had he been pleas'd to shew the Absolute Certainty of his Rule or of his Faith as grounded on that Rule which was justly expected But Error Nonplust has already convinc'd the World That the bringing any Dispute to Principles or Grounds agrees not with their Constitution who have none While our Expectations were thus rais'd no News could we hear of Dr. St. An Answer comes out from another hand not very obliging to him in my opinion whether he were or were not preacquainted with it For if he were and 't is hard to imagine that a Piece writ in his Defence had not both his Direction Inspection and Approbation People will suspect he foresaw what would come of it and was glad the Shame should fall on another and that he has but little
Copy nor that any Copy can be True unless conformable to the True Original And if there can be any failure in any of these nay if you have not Absolute Certainty of all these you cannot have by your Grounds any Absolute Certainty of your Faith For if the Letter be wrong all is wrong that is built on it and it may be wrong for ought you know notwithstanding the Testimony of all Christian Churches relying on this Way of attesting the Truth of the Letter For you can never shew that all those Churches consented to apply their utmost diligence to examine and attest all the several Translations made in their respective languages or witnest that they came from the true Original or took the most exquisit care that was possible to see that the Translaters and the Copiers did their duty Which had they held the Letter to be their onely Rule of Faith and consequently that All Faith that is the very Being of the present and future Church and their own Salvation too depended on the Scripture they were obliged in conscience and under the highest Sin above all things in the World to have done and this with the exactest care imaginable Your Grounds then notwithstanding all you have said or alledged hitherto to ensure the Letter make no Provision for the Absolute Certainty of the Written-Rule nor consequently of your Faith. 27. But what becomes then say you of the Vulgar Latin Translation I answer in our Grounds no harm at all For the Canon of the Books comes down by the Testimony of all Christian Churches that are truly Christian and the Doctrin of Christ transfus'd into the hearts of the succeeding Faithful ever since the beginning both taught them how and oblig'd them to correct the Copy in those particular Texts that concern'd Faith if any Errour through the carelesness unattentiveness or malice of the Translaters or Transcribers at any time had crept in By the same Means as you can now adays correct the Copy in those Texts that ought to express some Point of Morality in case it were corrupted and deviated from Christian Manners viz. by vertue of the Sense of that Practical Tenet you were imbu'd with formerly this even tho' you had no other Copy or Text to amend it by Insomuch that how good an opinion so ever you had of the Copy Translater Printer or Correcter of the Press yet for all that you would conclude they had err'd and the Letter was faulty rather than forgo the Doctrin so firmly rivetted in your heart by the constant Teaching and Practice of the Christian world As for other particular Texts of an Inferiour Concern they could be best corrected by multitudes of other ancient Copies the Churches Care still going along in which too the greatest care that was possible to rectify it's Errours was taken by the Council of Trent that so it might be as exact as Human Diligence could well render it A thing as far as my memory reaches never order'd or very much regarded by any Council formerly 28. But I foresee your method of confuting which is to muster up Extrinsecall objections not at all to the purpose will naturally lead you to discredit this way of correcting Scripture's Letter in passages belonging to Faith as singular or New This being the same your Friend G. B. objected to the Way of Tradition it self as may be seen above Sect. 10. Such piddling Exceptions drest up prettily in gay language go a great way and make a fine shew in your Controversies and which is a benefit of most advantage to you excuse you from bringing any Intrinsecal Arguments tho' these onely are such as conclude any thing and tho' you are bound by your precise Duty to produce such Wherefore to ward this blow I shall alledge the Judgment of that Learned and Excellent Personage Sir Thomas More our first Modern English Controvertist who writing not against you in defence of our Grounds but to another Catholick Divine expresses candidly his Sentiment in these words Ego certe hoc persuadeo mihi idque ut opinor vere quicquid ad fidem astruendam faciat non esse a quovis melius versum quam ab ipsis Apostolis perscriptum Ideoque fit ut quoties in Latinis codicibus occurrat quidquam quod aut contra Fidem aut mores facere videatur Scripturarum interpretes aut ex aliis alibi verbis quid illud sibi velit dubium expiscentur aut ad vivum Evangelium Fidei quod per universam Ecclesiam in corda Fidelium infusum est quod etiam priusquam scriberetur a quoquam Apostolis a Christo ab Apostolis Vniverso Mundo praedicatum est dubios ejusmodi sermones applicent atque ad inflexibilem veritatis Regulam examinent ad quam si non satis adaptare queant aut sese non intelligere aut mendosum esse codicem non dubitent This is my Iudgment and as I conceive a True one that whatever Text is useful to build Faith on was not better translated by any than it was writ by the Apostles themselves And therefore as oft as any thing occurs in the Latin-Books that seems to make against Faith or Good Manners the Interpreters of Scripture either gather from other Words in other places what that doubt should mean or they compare those doubtful sayings to the living Gospel of Faith which was infus'd into the Hearts of the Faithful throughout the Vniversal Church which before any man writ it was Preach't by Christ to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the whole World examine them by the inflexible Rule of Faith with which if they cannot make it square they conclude that either they do not understand it or the Book is faulty where he passes by the former way with a sleight word expiscentur fish out the sense but insists on the latter way of preserving the Copy sincere as Certain and Proper 29. I must not pretermit your Objection p. 19. that the Ancient Christian Church never knew any thing concerning this Method of resolving Faith into meer Oral Tradition I would desire you to add Practical to Oral at least to conceive it to be understood all the way that being our True and constantly-avow'd Tenet But did the Antient Church in reality never know any thing of this way T is wonderful you should not understand they meant the same as we do unless they speak the self-same Words and make the same Discourses we do now Did not they all hold that who taught any thing contrary to the Doctrin delivered down by the Church was a Heretick Did any of them say that the Churche's Tradition of a Doctrin as Christs was liable to Errour Did any of them hold that it was lawful for your Sober Enquirer to rely on his Private Interpretation of the Scripture and relinquish the sense of the Church which is the true Point Not one 'T is one thing to say they oft quoted Scripture
Heresies in the world do as much as this comes to and yet are no less Heresies than if they did none of this T is your Proving it to be your Ground and that an Absolutely Certain one too which we would be at but we justly complain you flinch from the onely thing in Dispute and perpetually balk us We tell you once more and we cannot repeat it too often there is a necessary Connexion between the Ground and the Building for 't is not a Building if it have no Ground nor the Ground of a Building if nothing be built on it You are then to shew us Absolute Certainty of this necessary Connexion between the Scripture and your Faith or you do nothing but talk at random But alas You have not the Confidence to make out this or produce your Reasons to conelude this Ground and this Building have such a necessary Relation and I must tell you plainly you can never do it For pray tell me May not the Socinians and indeed all Hereticks that ever arose in the Church say pretend and perhaps think the same that you do Nay do not they all alledge the same Do not they all profess to resolve theit Faith I mean their abominable Errours into the written Word Do not they pretend it for their Ground and that they build their prophane Tenets on it lastly avow as stoutly as you do for your heart that whatever is built on Gods Word is absolutely Certain Will you allow these Pleas Argumentative for them or that their wicked Errours are therefore true Faith and Absolutely Certain because they alledge all this And can you be so unreasonable as to expect we should pass that for a good Argument or a conclusive Reason to prove you have Absolute Certainty for your Faith which your self disallows when 't is alledg'd for them nay which you must disallow and declare against unless you will patronize all their Heresies Pray lay your hand on your Heart and consider I am sure 't is more your own Good than mine you should into what a Lamentable or rather Chimerical Condition God's Church is reduc't by your Resolution of your Faith here and the Account you give of it The Pillar and Ground of Truth is reduc't by you into a confused Chaos of incoherent Errours Christ's immaculate Spouse is associated with all the Adulterate Synagogues of Sathan lastly Faith as to it's Certainty is in no better a Condition than Heresy and Heresy is upon even Ground with Faith. I have a better opinion of the Church of England than to believe Her most learned and genuin Members will own such a Resolution of her Faith as will make the Socinians and all other Hereticks in the World their fellow-Christians and Brothers as they must be forced to do if they own no other Resolution of it than all those pestilent Sects unanimously profess I see Mr. G had good reason to ask you in his 5 th Question What Churches you accounted Christian Churches For I much fear by your Discourse and Principles you exclude None Nor ought you so they heartily hold the same Gound of Faith with you for then all their Vnchristian Tenets are to pass for Material Errours not Formal Heresies They hold all true Faith in the Purse still tho' they mistake the coyn and mettal and that 's enough in all conscience for such a Church as that you are about rearing or dawbing up You pass a complement indeed upon the four first General Councils and that you reject all such Doctrins as were condemn'd by them which use to be words of course in your Controversies as your humble servant and such like are in our common Conversation but when you are once got out of the circumstance of pretending to hold to some Antiquity that so you may set a better face on it when you oppose the Papists when that job is over they are but Fallible Congregations and so perhaps were deceiv'd in all they defin'd against the Arians Eutychians c. Especially if one of your sober Enquirers comes to fancy otherwise and no doubt there were many such even in those dayes And then comes the 21 st Article of Q. Elizabeth's Symbol and knocks them down all at once with a Declaration that their Decrees have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declar'd that they be taken out of Holy Scripture and so all is with a turn of ones hand brought back to the same Point again and farewell Councils Your self and any one of your sober Enquirers are at full liberty still to judge of them by your Scripture-Rule and the Resolution of your Faith is establish't by that Article at least as you make use of it to be the same with that which is made and profest by all the vile Hereticks in the world For as Dr. Burnet sayes very candidly in his Answer to the Method of oonverting Protestants p. 83. and no doubt upon your Principles If any man after his strictest Enquiries is still perswaded that a Council has decreed against the true meaning of the Scriptures in a point necessary to Salvation then he must prefer God to Man and follow the Sounder tho' it should prove to be the lesser party And if any Company or Synod of Protestants have decree'd any thing contrary to this in so far they have departed from the Protestant Principles Where we see he gives every sober Enquirer leave to judge of Councils even tho' General ones for he excepts None and himself shews them the way by Judging Censuring the Councils of his own Church 35. Another scruple yet remains incumbent on you to clear which is that by your putting it upon Mr. G. to prove you have not Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of your Faith and by your innate Antipathy against Infallibility 't is very dubious whether your self do indeed hold the Tradition of all Christian Churches Absolutely Certain even for the Scripture however to save your Credit you then pretended it fearing your denying it might disedify Mr. T. Since then you ly under a shrewd suspicion that you do not deal really with him and the rest of your Readers in this forc't Profession it would become you in your Reply both to shew why you allow that Testimony to be Absolutely Certain and yet are such an Enemy to Infallibility since common sense tells us no man can judge himself Absolutely Certain of a thing if he judges he may at the same time be deceiv'd in it and withal that you may give more satisfaction to your Readers herein than an empty and scarce credible acknowledgment of it when you were in untoward Circumstances pray go to work like a Schollar and demonstrate to us by way of solid Reason working upon the Nature of the Thing for no Argument meerly probable will suffice to prove a Testimony Absolutely Certain how and by what vertue this Tradition of all Christian Churches comes to be thus Absolutely Certain for the
Scripture than is the Letter which is Antecedent and presuppos'd to the Interpretation as it 's Matter or Object Nor had you your Faith tho' you had the Letter till you had interpreted it And besides the proper and Immediate Effect of Interpretation is to give the Sense of Words and 't is the Sense of Scripture which is your Faith and so your own Private Interpretation is unavoidably your Rule If then you will vouch as you do all over that the Universal Consent of all Christian Churches gave you your Rule it must attest your way of interpreting Scripture too by private judgments Nay it must moreover attest that way to be absolutely Certain otherwise you can never shew how your kind of Protestant Faith no better grounded can be absolutely Certain and this as to all the Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles for both which you very unadvisedly undertook when you were at a pinch hoping I suppose to shift it off again with one of your transferring Expedients or some squinting Id est To what purpose is it then to tell us here p. 31. how a man one of your Sober Enquirers I suppose is to behave himself where the Texts or places are doubtful For unless the Consent of all Christian Churches bring us down by their Universal Testimony that those methods are to be taken and that they are absolutely Certain Means for all that use them to interpret Scripture right or come at the true Sense of it you are still as incapable as ever of shewing us absolute Certainty for your Faith or that you have any Faith at all by those Means Nay I much mistake you if your Principles will allow these Means no not even the Testimony which brings down to us the Sense of the Primitive Church upon which you here pass a complement to be more than Fallible If you do you admit our Rule If you do not I would advise you to prepare your Reasons to convince the World how a Fallible Authority can prove that what is built on it is absolutely Certain However you set the best Colour upon these Fallible Means you can telling us your Sober Enquirer is to make use of the best helps the best and most reasonable means c. tho' they are such that in likelihood it will take up his whole life time ere he can use and peruse them all so as to compass sincerely this satisfaction nay 't is ten to one he will dy a Seeker and then he will have enquir'd very soberly to go to the next world to ask the way to heaven I wonder how many of the Church of England or even of Geneva made use of all these Means ere they finally pitch't upon their Faith I much doubt Vel duo vel nemo Few or none And we would know of you whether any of those means or all together are absolutely Certain If none you are still where you were If you say any or all you will fight against Experience for many who use all these Means do notwithstanding differ You would insinuate by the words doubtful places that the Points your Sober Enquirers doubt of are but unnecessary sleight or disputable but alas they are the highest Mysteries of our Christian Faith and if they must take such pains as to compare Scripture and Expositors and the Sense of the Primitive Church which will require perusing attentively a pretty Library ere they can accept these for Points of Faith what satisfaction is to be expected in all that Christ and his Apostles taught by your Rule which asks such laborious study to understand it's Sense in these or by your method which is both Endless when all is done Vncertain 43. Of how different a Judgment the Primitive Church was let a Chief Pillar of it St. Athanasius inform us Lib. de Synodis Arimini Seleuciae where he blames some Clergy-men of his time for going about enquiring what they were to believe in these words Si credidissent nunquam quasi Fidem non haberent de Fide quaesivissent Sese Infideles esse declaraverunt cum id quaerant quod non habent If they had believ'd they had never enquir'd as if they did want Faith. They have declar'd themselves to be Vnbelievers by their enquiring after what they have not So that it seems all your Sober Enquirers are according to this Fathers Judgment Infidels or Vnbelievers Observe here the vast distance between your Principles and those of this Holy Father and most learned Controvertist Nothing but seeking and enquiry with the Epithet of sober to grace it a little will serve your turn but he tells us on the quite contrary that if Wee seek or enquire we have no Faith at all Which in plain English signifies thus much you judge that to be the onely way to Faith which he judges a plain Argument of having none You are all for seeking for your Faith in Scripture He for taking what is already found to our hand some other Way w ch must be by Tradition One thing I should much wonder at did not I know your private-spirited Principles 't is this why amongst other means you assign for your sober Enquirer to make use of you do not put the Iudgment of the Present Church let it be your own if you please for one I should think the Faith of the Church had more weight in it than all the rest put together if you do indeed hold it a True Church and 't is far more easy to know its sense where it has thought fit to explicate it's self clearly The finding the sense of Commentatours and the Places compar'd and of Primitive Antiquity costs infinit trouble whereas there is no difficulty to know the sense of the Present Church speaking to you by Living Voice and consonant Practise I should think too 't is most agreeable to the Order of the World the Unity of the Church and the Maxims of Government if you will allow any such to a Church that People should follow the Doctrin of their Teachers be led by their Pastours and obey their Superiours rather than be left to their own private Fancies in matters of such Concern that if they clash with them in their Judgment it hazards to break all those sacred Orders by which the World subsists Let me ask you one thing ere we leave this Point Is your sober Enquirer Bound to use these means for his satisfaction in doubtful Points or not You say expresly here that he is bound to do this and so I suppose you will be disatisfi'd with him if he falls short of this Duty I ask next did Mr. T. use all these means in a doubtful Point to compass a rational satisfaction How should he when he was satisfi'd and confirm'd and resolv'd in so little time Yet for all your contrary Doctrin here you are well satisfi'd with him nay you undertake p. 13. to satisfy the World that Mr. T. had sufficient Grounds for what
in the way of our Controversy all Discourse ought to begin Originally and end Finally in an absolutely Certain Rule of Faith that is in such a Rule as influences our Tenets with the same Certainty We are sure we have such a Rule and so we are sure we have true Faith and we are sure you can have no Certainty that You have true Faith because true Faith requires Absolute Certainty and therefore an Infallible Rule which you renounce This is the main Point between us on which depends all the rest whether it relates to an Infallible Church or Infallible Iudge Look it then in the face spare it not but level your whole quiver of Reasons at this mark Unless you do this you do but trifle you beat the bush and scatter leaves but spring nothing While this Infallible Rule remains unconfuted you must confess there may and ought to be an Infallible Iudge and your Iudgment of Discretion is convinced to be a meer Libertinage forcibly granted to all for want of Principles in your selves to Ground them certainly in their Faith keep them steady in it and reduce them to it when they deviate 48. To come closer and take a more distinct view of this Iudgment of Discretion I will acquaint you how far and in what I allow it how far and in what I reject it I grant that every man is to judge for his own salvation and to endeavour by his Reason to find the Way to right Faith. I grant with you that all Mankind agrees in it and therefore wonder at your self-contradiction to make us disagree to it who certainly are some part of Mankind I grant that otherwise 't is to no purpose to go about to make Converts I add nor for you and me to write Controversies I grant that every man is to judge of the best way to Salvation and of all the Controversies between us and you and especially of the true Grounds of Faith and to be well satisfy'd who proceeds on a Certain Rule who not and that the contrary Tenet is as ridiculous as what 's most unless your putting upon us against your daily experience such a sottishness as to hold it I add that since every man is to judge of his Grounds therefore the Rule of Faith must be such as needs not much Learning and Reading but must ly level to every man's Natural Light of Understanding as the nature of Testifying Authority and it's Certainty does I will grant you moreover that to deprive Mankind of this Priviledge of judging thus is to debarr him of the Light and Use of his Reason when 't is most needful for him that is when it should direct him how to find out the way to his Eternal Happiness and avoid the paths that lead him to Eternal Misery But I utterly deny that therefore he ought to think it Discretion to hammer out his Faith by the dints of his private and unelevated Reason from Words that are of so deep and mysterious a sense and this after he has experienced that multitudes of other men as wise or wiser than himself and for ought he can discern very sincere too do their best to understand them right and yet as appears by their contradicting one another in matters of highest importance one of those Great and Learned Parties does erre most dangerously I deny that his Discretion can lead him to judge that God's Providence has left no absolutely Certain Way to Faith it being of so vast a Concern and highest necessity Or that it can command him to Assent firmly and unalterably to any Tenet as a Truth nay profess it to be such even with the laying down his Life to attest it and yet that notwithstanding it may be a Lye for any thing can be known by the Grounds he goes upon And therefore I deny that in case Faith depends on some Authority bringing it from Christ without Certainty of which none can be Certain 't is True at all that Authority should be Fallible in that affair and perhaps deceive him while he trusts it or relies on it Or in case it depends on some other Means viz. Scripture's Letter and his own Interpretation of it that Means should not certainly bring him to the End if he makes use of it to the best of his power I deny it to be Discretion to think himself capable to judge he has Absolute Certainty of the Intire Books of Scripture even to such particular Words or Verses he builds on but by our Tradition for Doctrine as likewise of their Translations and Transcriptions all along and of the Copies being taken at first from the true Original whence I deny he can with true reason judge his Faith True since a fault in any of these may make it False I deny that he can with any Discretion judge that the ways you prescribe p. 31. for your Sober Enquirer to understand the Letter of Scripture right and so come at true Faith viz. comparing Scripture and Expositours upon it help of spiritual Guides who confess they may all be deceiv d and so may mislead him and knowing the sense of the Primitive Church c. are the means left by God for Men to arrive at Faith and Salvation since to do this he sees so many volumns must be read over compar'd and well-weigh'd that in all likelihood a hundred parts of Mankind for one I may say a thousand would Dy e're they could make a certain choyce which side to take in dubious points and to add to his discomfort those Points which of all other are of highest concern as are the Trinity Christ's Godhead the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament the Efficacy of God's Grace and such like are the most dubious as being most controverted by the Pretenders to the Scripture-Rule I deny he can with any Discretion when he comes to receive satisfaction of the Absolute Certainty of his Faith suffer himself to be fobb'd off with telling him there is Absolute Certainty of such a Book which contains it when common Sense tells him he is as far as ever from having such a Certainty of his Faith unless he has the same Certainty he interprets that Book right and does not err perniciously by misunderstanding the sense of it in those important Articles Especially since your selves tho' it be against your own Interest are forc't to confess other Great and Learned Bodies had most grievously misunderstood its meaning who had both the same Letter and the same Means to look into it that he has all that your Grounds afford him I deny he can with the least Discretion Judge it possible that all Christian Fathers could forget to day what they held yesterday or that they should if they remember'd it knowingly resolve to damn themselves and Posterity by teaching them a wrong Faith or that they could conspire to do so if they would and consequently that he ought not if he acts discreetly judge that this
She is to Edify Her Children and in contests with Hereticks as to all those Points contain'd there and I think the only difficulty in that particular is By what means She came to be Absolutely-Certain of it's Sense Let him add then but one word more and say that by the Letter of Scripture She so judg'd of Faith that She could not be in an Errour or mistaken all the while and then Christian Faith is Absolutely-Certain and my greatest care is over And if he does not That what is the future Church after the Apostles Deaths the better for Scripture's being an Infallible Rule if She and Her Children partake not the Benefit of that Infallibility some way or other by being perfectly secur'd from Erring in Faith Is it not all one as to the intent of knowing assuredly we have the Faith taught by Christ whether we have an Infallible Rule or no if when we have done our best we may still stray from Her Faith Or why is not a Rule that is not Absolutely-Certain so I have Absolute Certainty I am directed by it as good for that purpose as an Absolutely-Certain Rule with no Absolute Certainty that I do indeed go according to it To speak to his proposition Whether the Church and the Faithful in Contests with Hereticks avail'd Her self of Scripture's Letter to gain Absolute-Certainty of it's Sense in those main Tenets or brought the Sense which She had another way along with her shall be decided if he pleases by St. Austin whom he cites here p. 16. § 18. He will prove Scripture a Rule from the general Reason of it's Writing and prove this general Reason from a Testimony of Irenaeus which speaks of the Gospel as abstracted from being Preach't and Written and who doubts but as such it is infallibly true He seems to build much upon the Words That it might be a Foundation and Pillar of our Faith. Be it what it will in it self the Point is How does it Build Faith in us By it 's meer Letter descanted upon by private Iudgments or interpreted by the Church The Later he denies the Former all our most earnest Pressing and Intreating could never bring him nor his Reflecter to go about to make out and he wayes it totally through this whole Sermon Let him then but shew that he has Absolute-Certainty of Scripture's Sense in those Tenets of Christian-Faith by any Method his Principles will allow him and his Sermon should have past for me without Controul That 's the main Point whereas all here is quite besides it As for those Words from S. Irenaeus he could have quoted the very same words in a manner from a better Author even the Holy Scripture calling the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth but that he lik't not the Application of them to the Church It seems he can neglect his Rule and make no more reckoning of it than he did of the Oral Tradition or Preaching of the Apostles when it stands in his way of comes cross to his purpose § 19. It has been manifested above that his Discourses from the writing of the Gospels and Epistles are all guilty of the same Fault and Antedate our Tradition and his Inferences thence as levell'd against our Tenet are weaker than Water He makes Tradition any thing what he pleases and will have it do every thing tho' it was never intended for it nor ever pretended by us it was able to do it One while it must bring down the Decrees of Councils Another while it must convey long Disputes about divers Points and the resolution of them and this Totidem Verbis otherwise the Apostles Sense might have been lost It must secure people from being remov'd from Christ's Gospel to another whereas no man ever held that the Galatians were remov'd from Christ's Gospel by following even the particular Tradition or Preaching of that Apostle nor that any particular Men nay Churches might not be remov'd from it even into Heathenism or Iudaism if they deserted it He expects too it should secure men from danger of being Deceiv'd whereas supposing them once well-Instructed in Faith and 't is suppos'd to our Tradition the Church was so 't is self-evident they can never be deceiv'd while they hold to that Certain Rule because that is to hold the same they were instructed in at first But if all were not well instructed at first as 't is impossible they should then they might be deceiv'd either by deserting Tradition or even by holding to such a Tradition if for want of perfect Instruction in that raw and unsettled state of Christianity that which they held at first was not perfectly Christ's Doctrine Nay he would have it keep even Hereticks from Defection Hypocrisie Lying and Deceiving which were a rare Tradition indeed to do such Kindnesses and work such good Effects upon those who had deserted it and would not make use of it at least he would have it keep People from Weakness and Folly which the Common Assistances of Nature and Grace will do after the Generality is well settled in that Doctrine For when all the Question is What the Apostles preach't 't is a Madness and Folly both to believe some few men before the Universal Testimony of the Christian Church But he will have Tradition still do all the Mischiefs imaginable and Writing do all the Good forgetting I suppose that there are some things in St. Paul's Writings which the Vnlearned and Vnstable wrest as they do also the other Scriptures to their own destruction All this while What is this to the Tradition we assert which begun afterwards § 20. From these impertinent Premises he infers as impertinent a Conclusion viz. That what was deliver'd in Scripture contains a compleat Rule of the true and genuin Faith as it was at first deliver'd to the Church Now that what 's signify'd by Scripture is the same the Apostles signify'd by their Preaching is plain Sense and never deny'd and so he needed not have made all this clutter to prove it But plain sense will do him no service whose best play 't is to blunder and confound every thing let us see then what it is that will. His first words What they have therein delivered can mean nothing but the Sense of Scripture for that is the thing signify'd or deliver'd by the Letter and both sides confess that the Sense of Scripture is Christ's Faith. If then we spell his Words together they plainly amount to this That Christ's Faith contains a compleat Rule of the true and genuin Faith as it was deliver'd at first to the Church that is Faith it self contains a compleat Rule to it's self Make sence of this who can The best I can make of it is That the Conclusion keeps decorum with the Premises and that he has mighty well imploy'd his Labour to keep such a huge Pother to infer such a worthy Point § 21. I have nothing
speak of the same Point and a Contradiction must be ad idem Secondly Our Divines bring Motives of Credibility to prove Christian Faith to be Divine and True such as are Miracles the Conversion of the World the Sufferings of the Martyrs c. Very good would Dr St. reply these might prove the Faith profest in those times to be True but you have alter'd that Faith since and therefore you are to prove that the Faith you profess now is the same which was of old So that out of the very nature of our circumstances This is the Only Point between us and the main business of our Controversy about the Rule of Faith or the Ground that can justify its Invariable Conveyance downwards for this being made out by us all the rest is admitted Thirdly Hence both the Protestants and We agree that That is to be called the Rule of Faith by which the knowledge of Christ's Doctrin is convey'd certainly down to us at the distance of so many Ages from the time of its first Delivery Does any of our School-Divines take the Words Rule of Faith in this Sense Not one They content themselves with what serves for their purpose and call that a Rule of Faith which barely contains Faith. Fourthly Our only Point being to know assuredly the former Faith by a Certain Conveyer how must this be made out to those who are enquiring what is Christ's True Doctrin Must we bid them rely on their Private Interpretations of Scripture No surely for this is the way Proper to all Hereticks Must we bring them the Publick Interpretation of it by the Church This might do the deed so we could manifest this by some Knowledges those Candidates are already possess'd of and did admit Must we then at the first dash alledge the Publick Interpretation of the Church Divinely assisted What effect can this have upon those who do not yet hold that Tenet and consequently how can this be a Proper Argument to convince them It remains then that we can only begin with their unelevated Reason by alledging the Church's Human-Authority or Tradition the most vast and best-qualify'd Testimony to convey down a notorious matter of Fact of Infinite Concern that ever was since the World was Created for a Certain Conveyer of Faith from the time that those Motives of Credibility proving the then Faith to be Divine were on foot And if so why not with the same labour and for the same Reasons to bring it down from the very Beginning of the Church And if we must alledge it are we not oblig'd as Disputants to bring such Arguments to prove that Authority Certain as do conclude that Point If they do not what are they good for in a Controversy or what signifies a Proof that Concludes nothing This is the Sum of my Procedure and my Reasons for it in short which are abundantly sufficient to shew to any man of Sense that while the Doctor objects our School-Divines to one in my Circumstances his hand is all the while in the wrong Box as will more at large be shewn hereafter He might have seen cited by me in my Clypeus Septemplex two Writers of great Eminency viz. Father Fisher the most Learned Controvertist of his Age here in England and a Modern Author Dominicus de Sancta Trinitate whose Book was Printed at Rome it self and appprov'd by the Magister Sacri Palatii who to omit divers others do abet each particular Branch of my Doctrin which renders insignificant all his pretence of my Singularity and my Opposition to the Catholick Controvertists But to leave off this necessary Digression and proceed As our Doctor has shuffled off the whole Question by taking the word Faith as treated of by us in a wrong Sense so he behaves himself as ill in every particular of the rest of his Title viz. in his discoursing of his pretended Certainty of Faith and of the Nature and the Grounds of it He cannot be won to give us any Account how his Grounds Influence the Points of Faith with the Absolute Certainty he pretended And as for the Certainty it self the only word of his Title that is left he never shews how any one Article even though it be most Fundamentall is absolutely secur'd from being False or Heretical by any Rule Ground or Way he assigns us Nor can I imagin any thing could tempt him to so strange Extravagances but the streight he was in being put to shew his Faith Absolutely Certain and his Despondency ever to perform an Vndertaking which he foresaw was by his shallow Principles impossible to be atchiev'd And hence he was necessitated to all these crafty Shifts and Wiles and all those Vnsound Methods which like so many complicated Diseases affect his languishing Discourse and dying Cause as shall be laid open in the Progress of this Discourse and particularly in the Concluding Section I shall only instance at present in two or three Material ones which like the Grain in wood run through his whole Work. For Example When any Question is propounded which grows too troublesome he never pursues that Game but flushes up another and flies at that 'till the true Point be out of sight Tell him our Point is whether the High Mysteries and other Spiritual Articles of Faith be Clear in Scripture he will never answer directly but runs to Points necessary to Salvation Ask him if the Tenet of Christ's Godhead be necessary to Salvation no direct Answer can we get to that neither tho' it be the very Point we instanc't in Press him that there are no Unnecessary Points and therefore that All are Necessary for the Generality of the Church he cries Alas for me but answers nothing Ask him what Points he accounts Necessary He is perfectly mute 'Till at length he shuffles about so that the true Question which is about a Rule of Faith comes to be chang'd into a Rule of Manners and those High Spiritual Points which are most properly Christian and could only be known to the World by Divine Revelation are thrown aside and Moral ones put in their place which were known to many even of the Heathen Writers And this is the best Sense I can pick out of a man who affects to wrap up those Tenets of his and their Consequences which he thinks would not be for his Credit to discover in Mysterious Reserves The like Shuffling he uses in the Notion of Certainty or any other that is of Concern in our present Dispute for he is a very Impartial man and treats them All alike Ask him then If Faith be Absolutely Certain by his Grounds He will not say it but more than once hints the contrary Are the Grounds of it at least Absolutely Certain tho' he makes them such ill-natur'd things that contrary to all other Grounds in the world they keep their Absolute Certainty to themselves and will let Faith have none of it Yes he 'll tell you they are provided
in it The Lady having a high opinion of Dr. St's parts judg'd it impossible a man of his Learning should not be able to give an Answer to a few Lines in so long a time not reflecting how connected Truth hampers an Adversary and is perfectly Unanswerable So she prest vehemently for a Second a Distinct Answer After some tedious expectation he sends another more insignificant if possible than the former Which seen and the Lady now satisfied that he upon whom she most rely'd had done his utmost she alter'd her Judgment upon no other inducement than the seeing plainly that his Principles resolv'd all Certainty of Faith finally into the Private Spirit The Drs Reflecter was set on like an unexperienc't Perdu Souldier to combat it with a distinct Answer but alas he was shown to falter or falsify in every particular This ill success made the Dr. grow wary in speaking to any particular part of it but thought it safest here to stand aloof and throw stones at distance instead of grappling with it neerer hand His answer is that it proceeds upon two False Suppositions and Overthrows the Possibility of any Rule of Faith. My first False Supposition is that there is no Certainty without Infallibility No True or Absolute Certainty good Dr. For as for your Morall Certainty it may be Fallible enough I must confess I hate such nonsense as to say I am perfectly Certain of a thing yet peradventure I am deciev'd The word Absolute signifies Perfect and Certainty if True is taken from the Natures of the Objects or Things without us and if they stand perfectly engag'd by a True Knowledge of them they would not be what they are if when we truly conceive them as they are our Conception or Iudgment of them can be False that is if it be not in that particular Infallible This is plain Sense and told him long ago It has been demonstrated also in Faith Vindicated that True Certainty Infallibility were all one What answers he Why he makes as if he had never known or heard of our Arguments for it but falls to talk of the Stoicks Marke Epicurus his fooleries He learnedly mistakes the Definition Man is a Rational Creature for a Demonstration and dislikes it at the same time Lastly he tells us many other things the Antients held or said which are nothing to me who judge I know what belongs to Certainty and resolving of Truths into their Principles as well as they did and do think them very weak to stand disputing with the perfect Scepticks or convincing them by Criterions because all Discourse supposes something Certain to build upon otherwise it might go on endlessly that is would be to no End and the Scepticks admitted no Certainty of any thing at all 40. His Application of those Preparatives is that we are to expect no Absolute Certainty in proving the present Faith to be Christ's Doctrin And so he hopes to save his own Credit for producing none let the Credit of Christian Faith and the repute of its being an Absolutely Certain Truth go where it will for him However to avoid the shame justly due to such a Position he must cast in some good words to fool his Readers and so he grants that they who use due Care and diligence may attain to a true Certainty and satisfaction of Mind as to the sence of Scripture But he never attempts to show that possibly they may not do so but may hap to fall into damnable Heresies as the Socinians do who for ought he or I know us'd as much Care and Diligence as he and his Party use Again what means Satisfaction of Mind Is Faith ever a jot more Certain or True because some may be Satisfy'd it is Are not the Socinians as well satisfy'd in mind that Christ is not God as the Dr. is that he is God Moreover if the Argument he brings to prove his Faith to be Christ's true Doctrin does not conclude 't is a thousand to one that Acute and Intelligent men will find the flaw in it And what can those men do in that case so they be true to their Reason the only Light they can yet guide themselves by Must they Assent that his Faith came from Christ when they see that notwithstanding all the Proof he brings for it it may not be Christ's and hazard to Embrace that Doctrin for his Faith which may for any thing they know have the Father of Lyes for its Author They must Suspend then in that case and justify themselves by alledging that the best Arguments the most Learned Christians bring to prove it conclude nothing Nay 't is to be fear'd they will disgrace the Faithfull as a company of Fops for believing upon weak Grounds and by showing them such lay a just Scandall upon the Christian Church for pretending to hold what Christ taught when as yet none in it are able to prove it was his Doctrin And how would they laugh Christians out of Countenance if proceeding on Dr St's short Grounds they should only show them a Well-Attested Book containing those Doctrines without ascertaining absolutely the true Sense of it when as only that Sense was the Doctrine of Faith and which is worse when they saw multitudes of numerous Sects at perpetuall and irreconcileable variance about that Sense The true Rule of Faith then must be such as sets Faith above any Peradventure of not being Christ's true Doctrin and so secure all who rely on it how weak soever from being deceiv'd or in an Error and withall it must be such as Intelligent men seeking for assurance of Christ's Faith may be satisfy'd it is able to conclude it to be such and the more Learned Faithfull Evince to Doubters and Convince Opposers that the Faith held now by themselves and the Church is the Self-same that Christ and his Apostles taught at First But Dr St. dares not affirm any of this of his Rule of Faith therefore his pretended Rule is none His Instance of True Certainty attainable without Infallibility in that point of Faith viz. That Iesus was the True Messias is partly answer'd in my Fourth Catholique Letter and his alledging it has one strange inadvertence in it which I wonder he was not aware of which is that the Proof of it depended on the Interpretation of Scripture He had it seems forgot that to manifest himself to be the true Messias foretold by the Prophets was the main Point of our Saviours Doctrin and that he did Miracles to attest that Doctrin and make himself known to be that Person which Miracles were Infallible Marks that that Doctrine of his in that point was True. And when the Dr. produces Miracles to abet his Private Interpretations of Scripture then he may have a fair pretence to lay aside the Publick Interpretation of the Church Again he is quite out as to the Subject of his discourse For tho' it was a Point of
that all the Main Points of Christian Doctrin may be false for any thing they know These and such like Discourses I hope would at first startle him and at length cure him if he were not too deeply tainted with Enthusiasm or a high opinion of his own Moral Qualifications and Divine Assistances For if he were he is got beyond the reach of Reason and Humane Discourse and is not to be helpt by any thing under a Miracle perhaps not by that neither 51. He seems to deny People the Liberty to interpret Scripture against the Teaching Church But his discourse sounds Hollow when he comes to show he does so Some sleight thing he says about the Sense of the Teaching Church in the best and purest Ages but not a word of what they owe to the present Church which is their Proper and Immediate Instructress and Governess by which discourse it should seem he holds the Church of England none of the best nor purest The main point is whether if after having consulted the Primitive Church and consider'd what Grounds she brought for her Doctrin and Decrees the Enquirer still likes his own Interpretation better he is in that case to submit his private Judgment to the Decrees of That or Any Church And how the Church is to look upon him in case his private Interpretation leads him into a flat Heresy These are the true Points and Tests of Dr. St's Principles and yet undiscover'd Consequences but these are slubber'd over or rather indeed never toucht Yet he complains of me for being Obscure when as 't is acknowledg'd he writes Clearly but 't is Clearly from the Point nor has any packing the Cards c. He says too that 't is aukward reasoning to say nothing but Infallibility will content him now Pray which is more aukward If the Judges acknowledge themselves Fallible in which case nothing can be said to be True that is held upon their Testimony then he allows them very much Authority but not upon other terms But he is high in choler against me for saying he has an aversion against the Churches intermeddling in matters of Faith and imputes it either to great Ignorance or a malicious Design to expose him to Church Governors But his comfort is he pities my Ignorance and despises my Malice This is Stately and Great I do assure him my only Design is to oppose such Principles as leave all to the Fanatick phrenzy of every private Interpreter and till he satisfies the World better that his Principles are not guilty of this Enormity I shall still oppose him let him huff never so high The Point is how does he clear himself Why he says he disputes not against Church-Authority in due proposing matters of Faith Certainly Church-Authority is mightily oblig'd to him A Genuin and Learned Son of the Church of England speaking of this very Doctrin of his tells him that Proposals of their own nature are so far from inferring an Authority to Command their reception that they rather imply a Power in those to whom they are propos'd at Discretion to Reiect them and so in the Issue gives the Authority to the People Which words contain the full sense of my Discourse here against the Dr and his beloved Sober Enquirer Why is he then so high against me for exposing him when those of the Church of England have already expos'd him more than I have done This is no great sign either of Ignorance or Malice when persons who are otherwise of different Judgments and Communions do center in the same opinion of his Doctrin as destructive of Church-Government But 't is yet more pleasant that he will not promise he will not dispute against Church-Authority even in this due proposing Matters of Faith but with a Proviso that every man is to judge for his own Salvation As much as to say If the Church will be so sawcy or so wicked as not to let my Sober Enquirers alone to interpret Scripture as they list or hold what seems to their Wise Worships to be the Sense of it which with him is judging for their own Salvation but will be censuring or Excommunicating them for Hereticks if they hap to err in Christ's Godhead for example or any other such Point then Church-Authority have at you for I tell you plainly if you do this I shall and will dispute against you It would be worth our knowing too what the pretty cautious words due proposing means There seems to lurk some hidden Mystery in that little monasyllable Due which may come to help the Sober Enquirers with an Evasion from submitting to Church-Authority or obeying it in case it misbehaves it self unduly or grows so malapert as to restrain them in their licentious Prerogative of interpreting Scripture as their Gifted Fancy inspires them It looks oddly and seems to have some ambidextrous meaning in it but we will hope the best till he comes to unfold it Now because Honourable Company is creditable to those who are highly obnoxious he names St. Chrysostom St. Austin St. Thomas of Aquin and Bellarmin as of his opnion but with the same sincerity as he pretended all Divines of both Churches and even my self to hold all Necessary Points may be found by every Sober Enquirer without the Churches Help as may be seen hereafter § 57. 'T is indeed the General Opinion of the Fathers that we are not always heard when we pray for Temporal Things or even Spiritual Goods for others but that our Request is always granted when we ask Spiritual Goods for our selves But then 't is ever understood with this restriction that we must not make our suit to have Knowledge or Virtue by Extraordinary ways and neglect the Ordinary Methods laid already by God's Providence to attain those good Gifts Our Question then being of understanding those difficult places of Scripture which contain the main Articles of our Christian Belief and whether they can better attain to the Sense of Scripture with unerring Certainty by their own Private Judgments without the Churches Help or by the Churches Means and Dr St's Principles asserting the former Method mine the Later I do affirm that none of those Authors hold with him but would condemn his Tenet for Heresy He Quotes none of the places except Bellarmin who speaks not of persons looking for Faith in Scripture's Letter as to those Points but of the Faithfull Praying for Wisdom to live well and he as the Dr relates it denies the Gift of Interpretation the Dr's way to come to Faith is to be had by Prayer which is our main Point However our Dr pretends himself wonderfully skillfull in our Authors because he can make a shew of Quoting them tho' it be quite from the purpose He should have kept an Eye to the State of the Question and brought his Citations home to it but this is not his way His main art through this whole Treatise is to keep that from the Readers
to direct passengers in their Way and leaves Men much at like Liberty to regard either More is justly and prudently requir'd viz. A Power to make her Declarations Law and this as to Matters of Faith not only in things belonging to Order and Decency otherwise the Later without the Former makes as he argues very well some kind of Fence about the Church against Schismaticks but lays her open to all manner of Hereticks 57. This just Censure of mine upon the Drs. Principles was such a Choak-Pear to him that 't is no wonder he keck't at it so vehemently The Great Credit he had got whether for defending Christian Faith or no the Reader is to judge made him scorn to bring it up again and retract it But he uses all the Arts imaginable to Palliate and Excuse it and those such wretched ones that 't is a shame to mention them and certainly never was so Heavy a Charge so Miserably refuted He says confidently this Doctrine of his is own'd by all Men of Understanding in both Churches Whereas if he can show me any one Catholick who maintains that he can have any Faith at all or ground such a Firm sacred Assent upon his own private Interpretation of Scripture without the Churches Help in those most sublime and necessary Articles which have been dubious and contested between the Church and any Heretick of which only we speak he will do more than Miracle But I am mightily mistaken he will name one and who should that be but I. S. himself What a boldness is this to make me his Patron to defend him in that very Position which I am in this very place Impugning Well but what says I. S. Why he says that every man is to judge for his own Salvation and of the best way to his Salvation and of all the Controversies between them and us and especially of the true Grounds of Faith and all this without the Churches Help Now I. S. says indeed that a man coming to Faith does by his Reason find out the True Rule and True Church that thus he Iudges for his own Salvation by using his Reason to find out a Rule Ground or Way to right Faith which is to bring him to Salvation that by his Rule thus found out he Judges of all our Controversies in judging that to be Christ's true Doctrin which that Rule recommends as such but is this to judge of Points of Faith without the Churches Help when that very Rule by which he judges of them is avow'd by him to be the Churches Testimony Above all does he not all along declare his abhorrence of finding out Faith in Scripture's Letter by private Judgments which is the Drs Position And must I. S. still be of the Drs Sentiment tho' he in all occasions contradicts it disputes against it and baffles it What will not this nonplust man say when he is put to his Shifts Any Common words tho' when apply'd to particulars they be directly contrary to him must be presum'd to be for him in despite of a long and constant Tenour of all circumstances and whole discourses to the contrary whoever peruses my Third Catholick Letter from p. 99. to the End will see that my way of Iudging for our Salvation is as opposite to his as one Pole is to another and he has the incredible Confidence to make them the Same At length he hopes to come off by alledging that he spoke it only by way of Supposition that If one may without the Churches Help find out the Churche's Authority in Scripture then why not all necessary Points of Faith And was this All he said Indeed he craftily introduc't his Position Conditionally but did he not after the words Then every such Person viz. any sober Enquirer may without the Churche's Help find out all necessary Points of Faith Espouse the Position it self which had been thus introduc't and this most Peremptorily by immediately subjoyning these words which is a Doctrin I am so far from being asham'd of that I think it most agreeable to the Goodness of God the Nature of the Christian Faith and the Vnanimous Consent of the Christian Church for many Ages And will he now tell us after all this Positive asserting it that it only proceeds upon a Supposition a why not a Parity of Reason He objects I answer it not Why was it an Argument or must I stand answering every voluntary saying of his which are infinit every Supposition and every why not If I must needs speak to it the Imparity of Reason consists in this that the Church being constituted by God to instrust the Faithfull in their Faith it was but fitting Scripture should be Clearer in those Texts that concern the Churches Governing them in Faith and their Obligation to hear her than in the particular Points which they were to be assur'd of by her Teaching Besides the Former Point viz. the following the Churche's Instructions and being govern'd by her in their Faith is a kind of Morall Point whereas the other Points were many of them Sublime Mysteries and therefore not so easily Intelligible without a Master And St. Austin had beforehand confuted his pretended Parity of Reason by telling him that Proinde quamvis hujus rei c. Wherefore tho' no Example of this thing were produc't out of the Canonicall Scriptures yet the Truth of the same Scriptures is held by us even in this Matter when we do what seems good to the Universall Church which the Authority of the same Scripture Commends And because the Holy Scripture cannot deceive us whoever fears to be deceiv'd by the Obscurity of this Question let him consult the same Church concerning it which Church the Holy Scripture demonstrates without any Ambiguity Where he clearly intimates the infallibility of the Church that 't is to be consulted in dubious Points and all Controverted Points of which we speak have been call'd into Doubt which makes its Help very Needfull and which I chiefly insist on that its Authority is Clearly and without any Ambiguity demonstrated in Scripture whereas yet in his Second Book de Doctrinâ Christianâ he acknowledges the Obscurity of Scripture in divers places Obscurè quaedam dicta densissimam caliginem obducunt Some things spoken obscurely involve us in thickest Darkness And if any be Obscure then surely those necessary and High Mysteries of our Faith which are of such a Deep Sense must be such when they come to be scann'd by Eyes as yet unenlighten'd with Faith as the same Father cited in my Fourth Catholick Letter has also told him 58. After this he sums up his Performances and tells us in short how he has err'd at large Next he gives us a lame excuse for his Indirect Answer to the Fourth Question propos'd at the Conference and in effect only commits over again the same Faults he was charg'd with a little more formally as his fashion is and
we meant by it First Letter p. 8. and Second Letter p. 52. yet 't is never acknowledg'd but he still runs his Division upon it as if it were some Ambiguous or Mysterious Word till he has put the whole Tenour of the Discourse into Confusion Once more I tell him and desire the Reader to witness it that he already knows what we distinctly mean by those words and if he will not acknowledge it and speak to the Sense we give it upon our assurance that we never took them nor ever will take them otherwise he speaks not to me nor gives a word of Answer but as baffled men use runs for shelter to meer Brabbles and Impertinencies 72. And Now that is after he had laid Contradictions for his Principles he comes to give a Clear and distinct Answer to our Demonstration of the Infallibility of Tradition And no doubt by Virtue of such Grounds he will do wonders Mr. G's discourse was distinguish't by me in my First Letter p. 8.9 into four parts or Propositions of which the First is that All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did Yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour Now he knows that by Tradition we mean an Immediate Delivery and this from day to day for it would not be Immediate if it were at all Interrupted and by Traditionary those who follow'd this Rule of Immediate Delivery and do Actually believe the say to day which they did yesterday and that if they do not this they desert this Tradition by Interrupting Immediate Delivery and so cease to be Traditionary Christians All this he already knows for it has been told him over and over Whence he cannot but know tho' he thinks not fit to Acknowledge it that the Proposition is Self-Evident and plainly amounts to this that They who believe still the same do still believe the Same and the word Traditionary was only made use of to express those Persons in one word because it had been tedious still to use so Many Could any man but this Gentleman undertake to combat a Proposition so formally which is in Sense Identicall and Self-Evident I took him to be one who would own his Humane Nature which obliges every man to assent to such Clearest Truths and so vainly hop't he had nothing to say to it But as he says very true I was mistaken for he has many things to say to lay open the Notorious Fallacy of it in every Clause How Every Clause Why there 's but one Clause in the Whole for the adjoyn'd words and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour are the most Essentiall part of it and distinguish Christian Tradition from that of Hereticall Traditions begun since Christ's time So that the Dr makes account that One signifies Many This is but an ill Beginning and I do assure the Reader all the rest is not a jot Wiser But now come the Notorious Fallacies Why did I not say that All Christians are Traditionary Or that All Christians have gone upon this Principle Because many are call'd Christians especially by him who have deserted this Principle and so have no Title to be call'd Traditionary But principally because if we speak of True Christians that was the thing to be Concluded for those men are not such who Disacknowledge a Way of knowing Christ's Doctrin which is prov'd to give them Absolute Certainty of it So that it is a Notorious Fallacy according to Dr St's new Logick not to make the Conclusion the very First Proposition of an Argument and the Fallacy lies in judging that the Last thing should not be the First Hitherto then this most Learned Logician has not taken one step without stumbling into a manifest Contradiction One Single Clause is Many Clauses Self-Evident Propositions are Notoriously Fallacious Words whose meaning have been particularly explain'd to him over and over and so can have but one Sense as we speak of them may have Many Senses Adhering to and following Tradition is not adhering to it and not following it and the Conclusion or End of an Argument is to be the Beginning of it or the Proof is to be the Thing Proved Nor is this any wonder for 't is but fit that Self-Evident Truths should only be oppos'd by Self-Evident Contradictions 73. After these Noble Performances he falls into his old track of Dividing and Subdividing he talks of Evidence from the Word of God from the Guides of the Church he runs to Infallibly holding to Tradition not spoke of Yet but following in the Argument he tells us they may go upon another Rule c. Anticipating thus all the following discourse and complaining all is not prov'd at once when as we are as yet but at the very first words of the Proof There is no End of the Faults and Failings of these Sinfull self-Evident Truths Falshoods and Contradictions are Saints to 'em It supposes falsly he says that the Change in Faith must be so sudden and Remarkable whereas it was Graduall and so to pitch upon such a Precise and Narrow Compass of time is very Unreasonable Lastly to Illustrate and compleat his Answer with an Instance he tells us that by the same Method one may demonstrate it to be Impossible that any Language should be Chang'd By which we may gather that Dr St's Incomparable Skill in Philosophy and deep Inspection into the Natures of Things makes account that Truths are of the same Nature with Quantitative Things or Bodies All Corporeall Motions amongst the rest Sounds or Speaking have a Thousand Indeterminate Degrees between any two determinate Points Does he think 't is so with Truths and Falshoods Or does he imagin the Thoughts of the Christian World could take a Walk of two or three Hundred years between Is and Is not Did he never hear that Truths consist in an Indivisible that he thus compares them to Quantitative or Divisible Natures and judges the Comparison so apposit Putting then once the true Notion of the Points in the Head and Heart of the Christian Church and if they were never there the Apostles lost their labour the least Change in it must change the Point Did he never reflect why a Tenet is Metaphorically call'd a Point And that 't is because a Point is Indivisible The putting in the Proposition to day and Yesterday is to express the Immediateness of Tradition Others amongst the rest the Council of Trent and many of the Fathers particularly St. Athanasius call it Delivering down by Hands and the hands of the Children must be Immediate to the hands of their Fathers else the one could not receive what the other Delivers Nor do I or any man living know how if the whole Church should be in an Errour but one day by deserting the Rule of Faith they should ever retrieve True Faith again having forsaken the only way to it Of such consequence it is that the Means of conveying down Christ's
into Certainty of the Grounds on which we believe Scripture to contain the word of God. Why not a word of Reply to my Discourses there and in many other places shewing that Scripture's Containing Faith is nothing at all to our purpose but the Getting out from Scripture it 's true Meaning or Sense this only being our Faith and that his Faith is still Vncertain unless there be Certainty that such and such Articles Are Contain'd there Which Point tho' it be of the Highest Consequence yet he never sets himself to Solve our Arguments against it in his whole pretended Answer but he runs on still in the same Errour as if nothing had been alledg'd to shew his Discourses insignificant and frivolous Why no Answer to my Discourse proving that a Rule or Ground is none if it carry not thorough to the particular Points especially to those which are most Fundamentall unless granting it in effect p. 36. and allowing no Absolute Certainty to any particular Point of Faith may be called an Answer Why no Excuse for his Skewing Comment upon his own Answer which spoke of Absolute Certainty of all Christ's Doctrin which consists of such and such particular Tenets to the Writings of the Apostles whereas there was not a word of Writing in Mr. G's Question or in his own Answer either Nor any notice taken of my Argument manifesting that a Resolution of Faith speaks Connexion of the Motives that are to prove it Christ's Doctrin to the Points of Faith laid home to him in a Close Discourse demonstrating the Necessity it should be such Why no Account of his distinguishing between Christ's Doctrin and that of the Apostles that so he might mis-represent Tradition and alter the Question from a Publick to a Private Delivery Why no Reason given of his not Resolving his Faith into the Apostles Preaching but only into their Writing I mean no Answer to my Reasons why he ought to have resolv'd it into the former at least Equally Why no Answer to my Reasons shewing from his ill-laid Principles that Perfect Contradictories Points of Faith and wicked Heresies opposit to them are both Equally Certain Why no Excuse for his Shuffling from the New Testament's Containing all the Divine Revelations to the Church'es making men fix by degrees upon the Certain Canon of it which is there shewn and indeed appears of it self to be a quite disparate business Why not the least Excuse for his most abominable four-fold Prevarication in answering to one single Question expos'd there at large and why no Defence or particular Explication of his beloved Sufficient Certainty nor any Application of it to the Nature Ends and Uses of a firm Faith that any Point is Christ's true Doctrin shewing that his feeble Motives are sufficient for those particular purposes Why to make his odd Similitude of Scripture's being a Purse apposit does he not shew us some Certain Way how the Gold and Silver Points of Faith as he calls them may be got out of it without danger of extracting thence the impure Dross of Errour and Heresy instead of True Faith Again to make it square why does he not rather make the Heads and Hearts of the First Faithfull the Purses since as was shewn him Faith is more properly Contain'd there than in a Book Or if he will needs make use of an Improper Container of Faith too why does not he put two Purses viz. the Souls of the Faithfull and the Scripture And why not a word of Reply to my Plain Reasons why he ought to have done both these Why no Answer to my Reasons proving that All the Points of Faith are Necessary for the Salvation of Mankind and for the Church otherwise than by rambling to Transubstantiation p. 84. and that he sees no Necessity of it Which makes his often-alledg'd Distinction of Necessary Unnecessary Points brought to avoid the Question perfectly frivolous and why runs he still on with the same Distinction in this pretended Answer without taking off the Exceptions against it by only crying Alas for him when I askt him If Christ taught any unnecessary Articles and by saying they are not equally Necessary p. 33. Why nothing to justify that his Assent of Faith may not be False and so no Faith Why no Reply to my Reasons that notwithstanding his pretended Grounds He has no Absolute Certainty that even the Letter of Scripture is Right whereas if it be not he can have no Certainty but all is Wrong that is grounded upon it since in that case he may embrace a Grand Heresy for True Faith Why no Answer to my plainest Argument shewing how Christ's Doctrin continu'd all along in the Breast of the Church is the best Means to correct the Letter in Texts that contain Faith Why no Reply to my many Reasons shewing that the Ancient Church allow'd our way of Tradition and disallow'd his of Scripture privately Interpreted Why does he not confute my Discourses manifesting that he can have no Absolute Certainty by his Principles of the Number of Books or of each Chapter Verse and Material Word in each Verse that concerns any Point of Faith without doing which he cannot pretend to have Certainty of the Letter nor consequently of any one of those Points Why no Reply to that Important Objection that if Scripture were the Rule of Faith the Primitive Church had for some time but half or three-quarters of their Faith or less and so by his Principles were but three-quarters or half Christians according as the several pieces came by degrees to be spread accepted or universally acknowledg'd nay perhaps no Faith at all as was there shewn and why did he instead of replying turn it off to the single Epistle to the Hebrews and to an Insignificant If Why when it was objected that divers of his Christian Churches doubted of divers Books of Scripture and some late Brethren of his of some others does he again turn it off as to the former to the Canon of Scripture made afterwards and to the later says nothing Why not a word to my Clearest Proof that our Tradition or Testimony for Doctrin is incomparably more large in its source which gives it its chief force than his is for Scripture's Letter Why does he not clear himself of his preferring his Sober Enquirer before the Church the unreasonableness of which was urg'd home against him nor justify his weak discourses in some sleigter passages laid open p. 64.65 Why not a syllable of Answer to that most highly-concerning Discourse and which if it stands in its full force overthrows all the whole Fabrick of his Doctrin viz. that a Rule or Ground are Relative Words and therefore Scriptures Letter cannot be an Absolute Certain Rule or Ground unless its Ascertaining virtue affects the Articles known by it This Point has been prest upon him so vigorously
admitted that the Certainty of Scripture is from Tradition there was no refusing to admit that Tradition causes Certainty and makes Faith as Certain as Scripture And then it would have prov'd something difficult to satisfie even a willing Man that the Faith is Certain which is opposit to a Faith come down by Tradition But it was seen whereto it would come and thought fit to break off in time and not let the Conference proceed too far In the mean time Absolute Certainty of Scripture was not the Point of the Conference nor is it the Point of Concern Besides that 't is agreed on all hands Men are Sav'd by Believing and Practising what Christ taught not barely by believing Scripture is Scripture And Salvation is the thing that imports us in these Disputes and 't were well that nothing else were minded by Disputers But it imported you it seems both to shift off Proving from your self and to stifle any further Talk of the Certainty of Protestant Faith and keep us from looking that way by fixing our Eyes on another Object And this is all you do but with so much Art that I verily think many a Reader is persuaded you are talking all the while to the purpose The truth is you have reason to carry it as you do for it is good to avoid undertaking what cannot be perform'd And you cannot and I believe know you cannot make out That Protestants are Absolutely Certain that they now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles as you affirm'd in your Answer to Mr. G's first Question And this I thought it imported to tell you plainly and publickly that it might be in your hands to pin the Controversie-basket and bring all Catholics to your Church where I will answer you will be sure to find us if you make us sure we shall find this Certainty there when we come 6. In the mean time why has not Mr. G. done already as much as should be done It is plain that where Churches differ in Faith Infallible Faith in one cannot stand with Certain Faith in the other Wherefore if Mr. G. have fix'd Infallibility in his own Church he has remov'd Certainty from all that differ from her Let us then take and sift Mr. G's Argument even as you put it who had not I suppose partiality enough for him to make it better than it was You put it thus p. 4 5. 7. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour and if they follow this Rule they can never err in Faith therefore are Infallible And you Mr. G. prov'd they could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice alter it And now That there may be no mistake let us take each Proposition by it self 8. The First is All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour You have nothing to say to this I hope For since Traditionary Christians are those who proceed upon Tradition and Tradition signifies Immediate Delivery it follows that unless they believe the same to day which they did yesterday and so upwards they cease to be Traditionary Christians by proceeding not upon an Immediate but an Interrupted Delivery or some other Principle And so there is no denying this Proposition but by affirming that Traditionary Christians are not Traditionary Christians 9. The second Proposition is this And if they follow this Rule they can never err in Faith. This is palpably self-evident For to follow this Rule is to believe still the same to day which they did yesterday And so if they did this from Christ's time and so forwards they must still continue to believe to the end of the World the self-same that Christ and his Apostles taught and therefore cannot err in Faith unless those Authors of our Faith did Which that they did not is not to be prov'd to Christians 10. There follows this Inference Therefore they are Infallible This is no less plainly self-evident For these words They can never err in Faith in the Antecedent and They are Infallible in the Consequent are most manifestly the self-same in sense and perfectly equivalent 11. The fourth and last which according to you aim'd to prove that they could not innovate is this They could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice alter it And this is no less unexceptionable than its Fellows For if they knew not they alter'd Faith when they alter'd it they had forgot what they believ'd the day before If they alter'd it wittingly excuse them from Malice who can who believing as all who proceed upon Tradition do that Tradition is the certain Means to convey the Doctrin of Christ would notwithstanding alter the Doctrin convey'd to them by Tradition Pray what ails this Argument and what wants it save bare Application to conclude what was intended as fully and as rigorously as you can desire And pray what need was there to apply it to the Roman Church and say she follow'd Tradition to you who deny it not either of the Roman or Greek Church As every thing is true and every thing clear who now besides your self would have thought of an evasion from it And yet you venture at one such as it is 12. You tell us then p. 5. That you thought the best way to shew the vanity of this rare Demonstration was to produce an Instance of such as follow'd Tradition and yet Mr. G. could not deny to have err'd and that was of the Greek Church c. You had e'en as good have said what Mr. G. says is true but yet he does not say true for all that For to pitch upon nothing for false is in Disputes to own that every thing is true The best way say you I should have thought it every jot as good a way to have said nothing when one has nothing to say But yet the World is oblig'd to you for letting them know what Scholars knew before that Protestants think it the best way to answer Catholic Arguments to give them no Answer at all For you are not to be told that this Instance of yours is not an Answer to Mr. G-'s Argument but a new Argument against him of your own which undoubtedly you might have produc'd as well as my Lord Falkland if you had been as my Lord Falkland was arguing But it is your turn now to answer And must you be minded of what every Smatterer in Logic knows that an Answerer is confin'd to his Concedo his Nego and Distinguo as the Propositions which he is to speak to are True False or Ambiguous He may deny the Inference too if he find more or other Terms in the Conclusion than in the Premises But these are his Bounds and Answering turns
Babbling when they are exceeded Must you be minded that the Business must be stopt before it come to the Conclusion and that otherwise there is no speaking against it For you know that if the Premisses be right and the Inference good the Conclusion must be as necessarily True as it is that the same thing cannot be and not be at once that is must be more certain than that England for Example shall not crumble into Atoms or be swallow'd up in the Sea to morrow For this and a thousand such things may happen to all material Nature that a Contradiction should prove True cannot And 't is perfect Contradiction that Terms which cohere in the Premises by being the same with a Third should not cohere with one another in the Conclusion Must you be minded that an Arguer is to prove his Conclusion and an Answerer to shew he does not by assigning where and how he fails Do you do any such matter Do you so much as go about it And would you have what you say pass for an Answer Pray consider the Case The Church of Rome is Infallible says Mr. G. She is not say you He brings his Argument and you your Instance against it What are People the wiser now and which shall they be for the Argument or the Instance They have reason to think well of the Argument because you have no fault to find with it and they may think as they please of the Instance You would not I suppose have them believe you both and think the Church of Rome for your sake Fallible and for his Infallible at once Pray what assistance do you afford them to determin either way And what do you more than e'en leave them to draw Cuts and venture their Souls as handy-dandy shall decide for you or Mr. G. 'T is true when Zeno would needs be paradoxing against the possibility of Motion his Vanity was not ill ridicul'd by the walking of Diogenes before him For 't was palpably and ridiculously vain to talk against Motion with a Tongue that must needs move to talk against it And there may be vanity too in our Case for ought I know But where shall it be lodg'd Why more with Mr. G's Argument than your Instance Why is it more vain to pretend to prove Infallibility upon which depend the Hopes which Millions and Millions have of a blessed Eternity and which is prov'd by Arguments to which you think it your best way not to attempt to Answer than it is to except against a Conclusion against the Premises whereof there lies no Exception That is to find fault with a Sum Total and find none in the particulars or the casting up For a Conclusion is a kind of Sum Total of the Premises But it is infinitely more vain to talk against one Infallibility unless you will set up another For if there be no Means by which Men may be secur'd that the ways they take to arrive at their greatest and only Good will not deceive them it cannot be expected they will take all the pains that are necessary to compass that Good which for ought they can tell they may not compass with all their pains 'T is a pleasant thing in you to talk of the vanity of Mr. G's Demonstration when by seeking to take Infallibility out of the World you are making the whole Creation vain For all Material Nature was made for Rational Nature and Rational Nature requires Rational Satisfaction in all its proceedings and most of all in the pursuit of Happiness And what Rational Satisfaction can there be if there may be Deceit in whatever can be propos'd for Satisfaction In short the Result of your Instance whatever was the Aim it is to amuse and confound People and hinder them perhaps from seeing what otherwise would be clear but it shews them nothing nor can for that Argument of yours is not at all of a shewing Nature 13. 'T is at best but an Argument as they call it ad hominem which you know are of the worst sort of Arguments They serve for nothing but to stop an Adversaries mouth or shame him if he cannot answer without contradicting himself but are of no use towards the Discovery of Truth For a thing is not the more or less True because such a Man's Tongue is ty'd up for speaking against it But is it so much as an Argument ad hominem As all the little force of the Topic consists in the Obligation which a Man may have to grant or deny what it supposes he does it affords no Argument at all against the Man who has no such Obligation And pray where does it appear that Mr. G. is oblig'd not to deny that the Greek Church has err'd in matters of Faith And how can you of all Men suppose he is You who in your Rational Account p. 32. quote these words from Peter Lombard The Difference between the Greeks and Latins is in Words and not in Sense Name Thomas à Iesu and Azorius and tell us of other Roman Catholic Authors of the same judgment whom I suppose you could name Pray how comes Mr. G. to lye under an Obligation from which Men of Reputation in his own Communion are exempt And what a wise Argument ad hominem have you made against him whom your self have furnish'd with an Argument ad hominem to confute it when he pleases In fine he goes to work like a Scholar puts his Premises and infers his Conclusion which you know cannot but be True if there be no Fault in his Premises And 't is for you to find one when you can You put nothing to shew how the Inference you make should be True but barely assume without proof that he cannot deny it p. 5. As if Truth depended on his Denying or Affirming and that what People say or think made things True or False And even for so much you are at his Courtesie If he be not the better Natur'd and will crossly affirm or deny in the wrong place you and your Argument are left in the lurch In a word one may see he aim'd at Truth who takes at least the way to it what you aim'd at you best know but no body shall ever discover what is or is not True by your Method 14. But that you may not complain your Cock is not suffer'd to fight let us see what your Instance will do You put it thus p. 5. The Greek Church went upon Tradition from Father to Son as much as ever the Roman did And I desir'd to know of Mr. G. whether the Greek Church notwithstanding did not err in matters of Faith And if it did then a Church holding to Tradition was not Infallible How If it did Why then it is apparent if it did not your Argument holds not And will you assume that the Greek Church errs who believe she does not Will you take a Premise to infer a Conclusion upon which the Salvation of People depends
which Premise your self in your own heart think is not true Can you deal thus with their Souls who pin them upon you perswade them of what you are not perswaded your self and offer them a Securiy for their Eternity in which your own judgment tells you there is a flaw For you have declar'd your self upon this Matter in your Rational Account and taken great pains to clear the Greek Church at least upon the Article of the Holy Ghost in which consists their main difference with the Latins and to which the other two you mention were added I suppose for fashion sake I know you there propose to free that Church from the charge of Heresie But pray what difference betwixt Heresie and Error in matter of Faith unless you will trifle about Obstinacy and such collateral considerations which neither concern us here nor were any part of your Defence there I see too that you word it here conditionally and with reference to Mr. G's Answer As if his Answer made or marr'd and the Greek Church did or did not err as he says I or No. Whatever Mr. G. may say or you have said unless the Greek Church actually does Err your Instance is no Instance of a Church that goes upon Tradition and Errs and your Inference that then a Church holding to Tradition was not Infallible is wondrous pertinently inferr'd from the Example of a Church that errs not Pray take it well that I intreat you by all the care you have of your own Soul and should have of others to manage Disputes about Faith a little otherwise and not propose Arguments in which you must needs think your self there is no force For there is plainly none in this if the Greek Church does not err and you at least think she does not I am sure 't is what I would not do my self for all the World. 15. But to proceed to Mr. G's Answer p. 5. It was say you that the Greek Church follow'd Tradition till the Arians left that Rule and took up a new one c. And why has he not answer'd well You assum'd that the Greek Church err'd while it went upon Tradition If you did not you said nothing for that a Church may follow Tradition at one time and leave it at another is no news 'T is the case of all erring Churches which ever follow'd Tradition at all Mr. G's Reply then that Tradition was follow'd till another Rule was taken up denies that Tradition and Error were found together as you contended in the Greek Church And pray what more direct or more full Answer can there be to an Argument than to deny the Premises As slightly as you would seem to think of him he understood disputing better than to start aside into an Exception against your Conclusion but answers fair and home by denying the Assumption from which you infer it which now he has done you know it rests with you to prove it and yet you never think on 't as far as I see but as if you had no more to do fall a complaining against Mr. G. for speaking of the Arians and not of the present Greek Church and against his Copy for leaving out the Inference which you drew In doing which if he did so he did you no small kindness there being no Premises to draw the Inference from as has been shewn above or if any such as put you to contradict your own Doctrin ere any thing could follow from them 16. As for the omission of the Inference I know not how it happen'd nor mean to meddle with matter of Fact. But I see they had reason who observ'd before me that 't is a thing of no manner of Consequence I verily think in your own Judgment Unless you think the Age we live in so dull that without much hammering it into their Heads it cannot be perceiv'd that if a Church has err'd which held to Tradition a Church may err which holds to Tradition Or unless you think it of mighty Consequence to have an Inference stand in the Relation which fell with the Premises at the Conference Mr. G. took them away by his denial and you must begin again and bring something from whence you may draw an Inference if you will needs have an Inference for an Inference cannot be drawn from nothing Pray divert us not perpetually from minding what we are about but remember the Question now is Whether the Greek Church held to Tradition and err'd at once and bethink your self if you please of a Medium which will infer that Point for you for Mr. G. you see denies it 17. From his mentioning the Arians you take occasi-to speak big and bear us in hand he was hard put to it and sought an occasion and affirm p. 6. you could get no Answer at all to the Case of the present Greek Church As if his Answer pincht on the Arians and were not as full to the present as past Greek Church It goes on this That those who err in Faith let them be who they will and the Error what it will and in what Time and Place you will all leave Tradition Whether the Case of the present Greek Church be the same with the Arians is matter of Fact with which Mr. G. did well not to meddle it is for you to make it out if you will make good your Argument Modern or Ancient Heresie is all one to his Answer which is applicable to all Heresie And you complain of the want of an Answer when you have one Pray if a Man should put an Objection to you about an Animal for Example and you answer it of all Animals would you think it just in him to quarrel with you for not mentioning the Rational or Irrational in particular And yet this is your Quarrel to Mr. G. All your magnificent Talk p. 6. of undeniably true granted by Mr. G. known to every one c. as apt as I see it is to make a Reader believe your Instance is notoriously true and against which Mr. G. has nothing to say cannot make me or any Man of Reason who examins the Point believe he has any Reason to say more till you do He has answer'd directly and positively deny'd that Error and Tradition can be found together in the Greek Church or any other modern or ancient There it sticks and you may drive it on farther it being your own Argument if you please Only when you tell us p. 6. that the present Greek Church in all its Differences with the Roman still pleaded Tradition and adher'd to it I wish you had told us whether you speak of Differences in matter of Faith or no. For Differences may be occasion'd by matters of Faith which are not Differences in Faith. If you do not you support your Instance very strongly and prove the consistence of Tradition with Error in Faith very Learnedly from Differences which belong not to Faith. If you do as Nature itches after strange
Iohn Biddle did against the Minister of his Parish and the whole Church of England to boot 'T is plain you ought to cherish and commend him for standing firm to his Rule But I am much afraid you would be out of humor with him and esteem your self affronted You may pretend what you please of high Expressions given by Antiquity of Scripture's incomparable Excellency and Sufficiency for the Ends it was intended for which we do not deny to it but I dare say even your self do's not think that either the Ancient Faithful or the Modern Reformers meant that any of the Ecclesia credens or Believing Church should have the liberty to Interpret Scripture against the Ecclesia docens or Teaching Church i. e. Pastors or Coyn a Faith out of it contrary to the present or former Congregation of which he was a Member 26. The sum is 'T is evident hence that Tradition of your Fathers and Teachers and not Scriptures Letter is indeed your Rule That by it you Interpret Scripture which then only is call'd your Rule and made use of as such when you are Disputing against us because having thus set it up to avoid and counterbalance the Authority of the former Church you left you make account your own private Interpretation of it may come to be thought Argumentative against the great Body of those Churches from whose Communion you departed and yet you judge no private Parishioner should claim the same Priviledge against you without affronting your great Learning and Pastoral Authority But I much wonder you should still venture to call Scripture's Letter a Rule of Faith having been beaten from that Tenet so pitifully in Error Nonplust from Pag. 59. to Pag. 72. where I believe you may observe divers Particulars requisit to be clear'd e're the Letter can be in all regards Absolutely Certain which the Consent of all Christian Churches will never reach to by their meer Authority unless you will allow the Sense of Christ's Doctrin descending by Tradition did preserve the Copy substantially right and intire 27. Your pretended Rule of Faith then being in reality the same that is challeng'd by all the Heretics in the World viz. Scripture's Letter Interpreted by your selves I will let you see in this following short Discourse how far it is from being Absolutely Certain I. God has left us some Way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught II. Therefore this Way must be such that they who take it shall arrive by it at the End it was intended for that is know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught III. Scripture's Letter Interpretable by Private Iudgments is not that Way for we experience Presbyterians and Socinians for example both take that Way yet differ in such high Fundamentals as the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. IV. Therefore Scripture's Letter Interpretable by Private Iudgments is not the Way left by God to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught or surely to arrive at right Faith. V. Therefore they who take only that Way cannot by it arrive surely at right Faith since 't is impossible to arrive at the End without the Means or Way that leads to it 28. I do not expect any Answer to this Discourse as short as it is and as plain and as nearly as it touches your Copyhold it may be serv'd as Mr. G's Argument is turn'd off so so with an Instance if there be one at hand or with what always is at hand an Irony or scornful Jest your readiest and in truth most useful Servants But you must be excus'd from finding any Proposition or Inference to deny or any thing save the Conclusion it self Which tho' it will not be fairly avoided I cannot hope should be fairly admitted unless I could hope that Men would be more in love with Truth than their Credit Till Truth be taken a little more to heart Catholic Arguments will and must always be faulty but they are the most unluckily and crosly faulty of any in the World faulty still in the wrong place When fault is found in other Arguments it is always found in the Premisses in these 't is found in the Conclusion In which notwithstanding all who know any thing of a Conclusion know there can be no fault if there be none in the Premisses Indeed they shew that to be true which Men cannot endure should be true and that is their great and unpardonable fault That you may not think I talk in the Air I declare openly that you cannot Answer this Discourse unless you will call some unconcerning Return an Answer and I engage my self to shew the Proposition true and the Inference good which you shall pitch upon to deny And the Distinction if you will make any not to purpose The truth is I engage for no great matter for I know beforehand you can no more Answer now than you could to Error Nonplust or can prove an Absolute Certainty in Protestant Faith. 29. To return now to Mr. G. the Second thing which you desire him to make good is That the Tradition from Father to Son is an infallible Conveyance of Matters of Faith notwithstanding the Greek Church is charged by him with Error which adher'd to Tradition That is you desire him to prove over again what you tell us your self he has prov'd once already For you tell us p. 5. he prov'd That they Traditionary Christians could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice alter it Pray when it is prov'd that the Conveyance of Faith by Tradition excludes the possibility of Change in Faith save by forgetfulness or malice is it not prov'd That where there could be neither forgetfulness nor malice there could be no change in Faith You do not I suppose desire he should prove that Men had always Memories or that Christians were never malicious enough to damn themselves and Posterity wittingly and yet it can stick no where else If it can said Mr. G. assign where Now you know very well that a Conveyance which makes it impossible that Faith should ever be chang'd is an Infallible Conveyance and the very thing is prov'd which you desire should be prov'd What reason has Mr. G. to prove it a second time And what reason have you to desire it If Proof would content you you have it already but a second cannot hope to content you better than the first unless it be worse 30. Yes but you would have him prove Notwithstanding the Greek Church c. p. 7. Notwithstanding Why do you think it is with Arguments as with Writs where the want of a Non obstante spoils all When a Truth is once prov'd is it not prov'd notwithstanding all Objections And will any Notwithstanding unprove it again Will your Notwithstanding shew us there was a time in which Men were not Men nor acted like Men Will it shew us that a thing which cannot possibly be chang'd may yet
to justifie themselves for not believing rashly or for fear of making them sure of their Salvation 4. I had alledg'd farther that till Protestants produce the Grounds which prove their Faith to be True it cannot with Reason be held Truth You put my Discourse first in my Words only leaving out those which did not please you and then disguise it in your own and laugh at it for being too plainly True For plain Truth it seems is a ridiculous thing with you and you are of opinion that the more plain it is that you ought to bring your Proofs the less you are oblig'd to bring them Thence you start aside to tell us that the vulgar Catholic has less certainty than the vulgar Protestant because the one has only the Word of his Priest the other has the Word of his Minister and the Word of God in Scripture besides Do you think Catholic Priests are at liberty to tell the vulgar what Faith they please as your Ministers may interpret Scripture as seems best to their Judgment of Discretion when you cannot but know they dare not teach them any Faith but what the Church holds nor does the Church hold any but upon Tradition Again You do well to say your People have it in Scripture or in a Book for they have it no where else And you know the vulgar Socinians and Presbyterians and all the rest have it as much there as your vulgar Protestants notwithstanding all you have said or can say and then I suppose you do not think they Truly have the Word of God on their side unless you think the Word of God says different things to different Hearers When you prove that you and your Ministers have any Certain means of making it out that the Sense which by their explaining and catechising they put upon the Written Characters is truly God's Meaning you will do something make many Converts and my self one among the rest Till then to possess your vulgar Protestants with a Conceit of having the Word of God is meerly to delude them Sure you wanted a Common-place to furnish out your Paragraph or else writ it in a Dream For to tell me that Truth can depend no more upon the Saying of a Romish Priest than of an English Minister when I tell you it depends not on any private man's Sayings is not a Reply of a man well awake In two words Bring you Proofs say I the Saying that is the No-proof of a Minister is as good as the No-proof of a Priest say you And the short and the long is No Proof I thank you 5. But two things say you follow from my Position which you fear I will not grant The First is That if we cannot with Reason hold a Truth till the Intrinsical Grounds of it be produc'd we cannot with reason hold any thing for a Truth namely because the Church of Rome hath determined it for her Determination is no Intrinsical Ground of the Truth but only an outward Testimony or Declaration of it and then what 's become either of her Infallibility or Authority to command our Faith As slips of honest Ignorance deserve compassion and instruction and I do not know this to be any more I will be so charitable as to set you right Authority amongst those who already admit it for True has Force to prove that to be Truth which depends on it and will conclude against those who allow its veracity if it be shewn to be engag'd against them But it has not this Effect upon Human Nature by its proper Power as 't is meer Authority but because Intrinsical Mediums justifie it to be worthy to be rely'd on Whence let that Authority come into dispute it will lose it's Credit unless it can be prov'd by such Mediums to deserve what it pretends to And hence you see we go about to demonstrate the Infallibility of the Church's Human Authority in deriving down Christian Faith. To clear this farther I advance this Fundamental Position viz. No Authority deserves any Assent farther than Reason gives it to deserve And therefore without abating any thing of our respect we may affirm that the Authority of the whole Catholick Church would be no greater than that of an old Woman or one of your sober Enquirers were there no more Reason to be given for believing the former than there is for believing the later And consonantly to this Doctrin we declare to you that When Dr. St. comes to argue either out of Authority of Writers or Instances depending on their Authority against Tradition he shall be prest to make out by Intrinsical Mediums they are Absolutely Certain or they shall deservedly be look'd upon and contemn'd as Inconclusive By this time I hope you see that All Truths are built on Intrinsical Mediums and that whereas you apprehended they would overthrow our Church's Testimony or Authority such Mediums in case we produce them are the best means to establish it and give it force upon our selves and others As also how it comes that the Church can oblige to Belief which is not by a dry commanding our Faith as you apprehend but by having its Human Authority so solidly grounded upon Reason that it self becomes a Motive able to beget according to the best Maxims of Rational Nature such an Assent in us to this matter of Fact that Christ and his Apostles taught such Doctrins But what a put off is this We say Truth is not therefore Truth because of mens bare Sayings or Authority and therefore demand your Proofs from Intrinsical Mediums for thither it must come e're it be known for Truth to make out what you pretend Your Answer in effect is You are afraid to do it lest you should destroy our Church's Infallibility and Authority How much is our Church in your Debt that the Care of Her makes you careless of those Souls in your own Church to whom you owe this satisfaction 6. The second thing you fear I will not grant is A Iudgment of Discretion to common People with which they may discern the Intrinsical Grounds of Truth You gave your self at first the Character of a scrupulous man and I see by this you have a mind to maintain it You know that those who write and print can have no design their Books should not be read and you know those that read will and must judge of what they do read and yet your scrupulosity can fear I will not allow the Common People to judge of the Intrinsical Grounds of Truth who take pains they may judge put it into their power to judge and out of my own and so cannot hinder them tho' I would Indeed I think it no great sign of a Judgment of Discretion to pretend to discern the Truth of Faith by Lights that do not shew it to be True and upon such a Judgment I wish and labour People should not venture their Souls But I disallow no other Iudgment of Discretion full
well knowing that the more Judgment a man has and the more he uses it the sooner and better he will discern that the Doctrin of Christ cannot be securely learnt from those of Your and Dr. St's Principles But Why all this Or How come I to stand in your way Do I hinder you from shewing Protestants that They are Certain of their Faith They allow a Judgment of Discretion if it stick there whether I do or no. But you cannot gratifie Catholics with Proof it seems because they are against Judgment of Discretion nor Protestants because they are for it that is in plain terms you will not prove the Certainty of your Faith at all You conclude very conformably that I have set us all on even Ground Yes most Mathematically even For I set Absolute Certainty on the one side and Vncertainty on the other and this in your Language is even Ground 7. Your next Paragraph says I fall upon the Certainty of Protestant Faith which I hope easily to overthrow The Reader cannot but apprehend now that I am making Arguments against it of which you know very well I did not think Where do I fall upon this Matter Why I said Suppose Mr. G. could not prove Protestants are certain are they therefore certain The meaning of which words is clearly this that the Certainty of Protestant Faith must depend on their own Proofs for it not on any Man 's being able or not able to prove the contrary which is what Dr. St. would have put upon us So that to avoid proving which was demanded you put upon me the direct contrary to what I affirm'd viz. That the Certainty of Protestant Faith does depend upon our not proving they have none whereas I contend it does not depend upon it What shifts are you put to that you may escape this dangerous business of proving your Faith Certain Well but did I say true or no You trouble not your Head with such impertinent thoughts but fall to prophesie what I imagin'd This say you he first imagins that all the certainty of our Faith is this That Papists cannot prove it to be uncertain and that then I make sport with my own Imagination Better and better Not to take notice of your shuffling in that Papists cannot prove Protestants are not Certain which I am very far from imagining because I said our not-proving the contrary is no Certainty to Protestants he will have me imagin it is their Certainty nay All their Certainty when he knows I am aware and confess they pretend to Scripture for it and p. 26. urg'd them to make out they had Absolute Certainty by It. The rest is to tell me I play and you will be serious And your way of being serious when you have chosen to fall upon this Question whether Protestants become Certain by our not proving them Uncertain is without saying a word to it to skip to another Paragraph of mine 8. Where I had said that Any man may find it confest to his hand by Protestants that they have no Absolute Certainty of their Faith For which I cited Dr. Tillotson And you tell me first that Dr. Tillotson is an excellent man and so he is for he excells even your self which requires a great Talent in your way of handling Controversie in all your Arts. Next to take your turn in imagining you imagin single Dr. Tillotson too many for all the Traditionary Catholicks to answer his Rule of Faith. And I imagin that Dr. Tillotson knows the contrary For I have been inform'd Dr. Tillotson had the offer of an Answer from a Traditionary Catholic long ago upon condition he would contribute his Credit to get it printed which he thought not sit to do Since I perceive you do not know an Answer when you see it unless the word Answer be in the Title-page I will not tell you it is answer'd already tho' I believe I can make it good But I will venture a fair Wager with you it will be answer'd in his own Formal way every jot as soon as Reason against Railery Lastly You deny that this Confession That Protestants have no Certainty no Absolute Certainty if it please you of their Faith is to be found in the pages cited or any other part of Dr. Tillotson's Book If you do not understand English I cannot help it but any one that does may find in the last of the pages cited As far as silence gives consent it is own'd by Dr. Tillotson himself For it was laid before him by Reason against Railery and with him it has lain these fifteen Years and yet you would perswade us you see it not nor I neither if I may be believ'd against my self 9. Your Rhetorick Sir is very great if it will do you this piece of Service but let us hear it however I had said to Dr. St. p. 23. You seem to grant you are thus Absolutely-Certain or Infallible by vertue of Tradition Upon which Theme you thus declame How confess we have no Certainty no Absolute Certainty I beseech you again and yet seem to grant we are Infallible and that too by Vertue of Tradition Some people had need of good Memories As if it were so strange a thing for Protestants to contradict one another or the same man himself or that there needed Memory to observe what passes every day By the favour of your Exclamations Dr. St. did say at the Conference that They are Absolutely Certain that they now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles by the Divine Revelations contained in the Writings of the New Testament and of those Revelations by the Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church And in his First Letter he did desire Mr. G. to prove that they have no Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of their Faith altho' they have a larger and firmer Tradition for it than we can have for the points of Faith in difference And Dr. Tillotson did say in his Rule of Faith p. 118. We are not infallibly certain that any Book speaking of Scripture is so ancient as it pretends to be or that it was written by him whose Name it bears or that this is the sence of such and such passages in it It is possible all this may be otherwise Now if one of those Writers do not seem to grant that they are Absolutely Certain or Infallible and that too by vertue of Tradition and the Other confess that they have no Absolute Certainty of their Faith English is no intelligible Language in England If you think this a Contradiction you may talk with your excellent men about it and let me alone till you can shew I talk against my self by relating barely what others say Must my Memory be blam'd when their Judgments are in fault For a Contradiction it is if Absolutely Certain and Infallible be the same which I both prov'd formerly and it will come
thing than the Credit of those two or three First Witnesses goes 'T is the First Source of a Testimony which gives the succeeding ones all their weight to prove the Thing that is witnest to be True 'T is that from which the Largeness and Firmness of a Testimony brought to evince the Truth of any thing is to be measured or calculated Since then the stream of Tradition for Doctrin had for its Source innumerable Multitudes of those Christians in the First Age in many places of the World who heard the Apostles preach it and saw them settle the Practice of it in the respective Churches but the Original Testifiers that such a Book was writ by such or such an Apostle or Evangelist were very few in comparison sometimes perhaps not past two or three It cannot with any shew of Sense be pretended that the Tradition for the several Books of Scripture is in any degree comparable in either regard to the Tradition for Doctrin Your next Answer is that This Vniversal Tradition is no more but Human Testimony and that can be no ground for Infallibility which excludes all possibility of Errour Pray why not If things were so order'd as indeed they are that the Testifiers could neither be deceiv'd in the Doctrin being bred and brought up to it nor conspire to deceive us in telling the World in any Age that the new Doctrin they had invented was immediately delivered then it was not possible any Errour could come in under the notion of a Doctrin delivered from the beginning But is not your Tradition for Scripture Human Testimony too And if that can be erroneous may not all Christian Faith by your Principles be perhaps a company of Lying Stories You must be forc'd by your own words here to confess it but I dare say your Parishioners should you openly avow it would hate you for the Blasphemy You would tell them I doubt not as you do us that Moral Certainty is enough to stand on such a Foundation that is such a Certainty as may deceive you and by a necessary consequence may haste to overturn the whole Fabrick of Christian Faith. In the mean time let 's see how manifestly you contradict Dr. St. when you should defend him He avow'd Absolute Certainty for the Book of Scripture and this upon the Foundation of Tradition and you tell us here Tradition can ground but Moral Certainty Now all the World till you writ counter distinguisht Absolute and Moral Certainty which you jumble in one But distinct they ever were are and shall be for the Word Moral signifies a Diminution or Imperfection of Certainty and Absolute plainly expresses the Perfection of it whence 't is Evident that either you contradict Dr. St. perhaps not without his private Order or he himself We shall have all words shortly lose their signification for no other reason but to give you room to shift this way and that when you are too close prest with Reason 35. Now since Dr. St. had granted that Tradition is Absolutely Certain for Scripture and I had prov'd that Absolute Certainty was the same with Infallibility what should hinder me from inferring that unless some special difficulty be found in other things that light into the same channel it must bring them down infallibly too Your Gifts of Interpretation expounds these Words of mine thus These other things are things unwritten in that Holy Book I do assure you Sir you are mightily mistaken I never told you yet that all Faith was not contain'd in Scripture explicitly or implicitly What I meant was that the whole Body of Christs Doctrin and not only that such a Book was Scripture nay the self-same Doctrin of Faith that is contain'd in Scripture comes down by Tradition or the Churche's Testimony But with this Difference as to the Manner of it among others that the Church that testifies it having the sense of it in her Breast can explain her meaning so as to put it out of all Question to Learners Doubters and Enquirers which the Scripture cannot Whence we need not fish for our Faith in the channel of Tyber as your great Wit tells us St. Peter's Ship the Church that caught so many Fishes at first the Body of Primitive Christians who were the first deliverers of Christ's Doctrin hath stor'd up provision enough for the succession of Faith to the Worlds end There we find it to our Hands 'T is your sober Enquirers who Fish for it among dead unsensed Characters and in the Lake of Geneva from whence to save the labour of going thither you and your Friends are deriving a great Channel to run into Thames over-swell it's Banks and drown all the Churches Lacus Lemanus is your Tyber Geneva your Rome and Iohn Calvin the Prime of your new Apostles your St. Peter 36. All this is but prelude But now comes Mr. G's Argument and therefore we are to expect now however you but trifled hitherto more pertinent close Discourse The first Proposition was this All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day they did yesterday so up to the time of our B. Saviour This you seem to deny in regard they may perhaps be so call'd from their adhereing to a Tradition which reaches not so high as our Saviours time but only pretends to it whither we only pretend to it or no will be seen hereafter when the Fourth Proposition comes to be examin'd In the mean time pray jumble not two Questions which are distinct and ought to be kept so The whole Business here is about the use or Sense of the word Traditionary how we both take it in our present Controversy Now that we both agree in the Notion of Tradition whence Traditionary is deriv'd is evident by this that we lay claim to such a Tradition as reaches to Christ and go about to prove it you deny our Claim and endeavour to disprove it But 't is evident you deny the same thing to us which we lay Claim to otherwise we should not talk of the same Thing and so should not understand one another nor could discourse together wherefore 't is manifest we both agree in the Notion or Meaning of that Word however we disagree in the Application of it to the Persons Nor do we pretend in the least what you would put upon us here to inferr hence that this body of Christians that now adheres to it did always so but only contend that if they did not ever adhere to it they must have deserted it and taken up another Rule and so cease to be true Claimers of a Tradition from Christ or Traditionary Christians Moreover we judge we have right to lay Claim to it till we be driven out of it by a former and better Title since we were in possession of this Rule at the time of the Reformation or held all our Faith upon that tenure 37. The second Proposition is this If they follow this Rule they can
could have remembred their Yesterday's Faith had not Scripture been writ Now pray Sir be serious and tell us Do you think there is any danger or even possibility of this among the very Protestants in England tho' they had never a Bible to read to morrow How many of them read not so much as a Chapter in three or four days how many not in a much longer time nay how few of them read all their Faith there in a Year or even in their whole Life and yet they retain the memory not only of their Yesterdays but last Years Faith What a weakness is this to suppose Miracles must be done for no other end but that you may answer our Argument The Reasons why Scripture was writ you might have read in St. Paul to Timothy where there is no such thing as to make men remember their Yesterdays Faith nor that Scripture is of Necessity at all but only that 't is Profitable for many Uses there enumerated Your Second Argument to confute our Demonstration is a Text 2 Pet. 1.15 by which you will convince us Mens memories are not alwaies so faithful You must mean to remember their Yesterdays Faith for this Degree of Memory only the Argument insists on But what says that B. Apostle I will endeavour that you may be able after my Decease to have these things alwaies in remembrance Now there is not so much as one Word in the whole Chapter concerning the remembring or forgetting their Faith much less the Faith they held Yesterday or leaving their Faith in Writing for that purpose but only Faith suppos'd of remembring his particular Exhortations to Good Life and by thus inculcating them to stir them up as 't is said v. 13. to Christian Virtue and leaving such things in Writing to that end Now such Spiritual and Moral Instructions are both easily Intelligible especially since he had taught the same to them formerly and Man 's Natural Corruption making even good men apt to slide back from the high degree of Perfection in which they had been educated no doubt a Letter left by that Holy Apostle now near his death as he there tells them would strike them more feelingly and excite them more effectually to pursue that Course of Holy Life in which he had instructed them What miserable Stuff is this Would not Faith have an excellent Basis did it depend on Scripture interpreted by your Private Judgments When this one Instance manifests you have the boldness to quote Scripture for any thing tho' never so disparate and unconcerning and then blasphemously nick-name it God's Word when 't is nothing at all to the purpose But I beseech you Sir let 's have the Return of one Scholar to another If our Argument lye too open or the Connexion in it be too slack speak to it as you ought but think not your Private Interpretations a competent Solution to Demonstrations If such wretched Answers may serve the turn the Schools and Universities may shut up Shop and Reasoning bid adieu to the World Every Fop will find a Text he can hook in nor will he fail of interpreting it blindly to his own purpose when he is gravell'd with an Argument and of calling it God's Word when he has done Who will not see you are sinking when you catch at such Straws and weak Twigs to keep you above Water 45. By this time the Reader will be satisfy'd that Notwithstanding all you have answer'd Men had Memory enough not to forget their Yesterdays Faith Next you go about to prove Christians may be malicious enough to alter it May not Christians say you p. 23. through malice and wickedness be as careless of preserving the Faith as in maintaining Holiness in themselves or their Posterity when they know that Sin is as damnable as Errour Be Judge your self Do not many of your Congregation and the like may be said of all Sects sin often and yet few or none of them desert their Faith once The reasons why the Parallel holds not are these 1. Sins are generally private at least Men do for the most part endeavour and hope to conceal their Faults for fear of shame and discredit But the Change of Faith must be profest and open otherwise it alters not the case and Posterity will still believe on according as things appear outwardly 2. Sinners are seldome Malicious to that degree as to resolve firmly to persist so to the end of their Lives but generally fall out of frailty and intend and hope to repent And so this very thing will oblige them still to hold to their former Faith which as Experience tells them furnishes Sinners with means of Repentance 3. Man's Nature being inclin'd to Truth scarce one man tells a Lye but hopes to cloak it But here when they deliver another Faith for the same that was held Yesterday every man must know his Neighbour to be an abominable shameless Lyar and the Concern being so Sacred must hold himself and all his fellow-Alterers the wickedst men living Unless it be said they went conscientiously upon some other ground than Tradition for to pretend to be sav'd by Tenets held upon no ground at all is absolutely impossible to consist with Rational Nature But 't is impossible they should take up another Ground Because if they could not innovate in Faith they could not innovate in that upon which they held all their Faith. Nor could they be certain but all their former Faith might be renounc'd if a new Rule of Faith were taken up To hear of which could not consist with the temper of Christians to bear a loss for all their Faith. Besides Men are more tenacious of their Principles especially if they have gain'd a vast Credit by their long Continuance than they are to relinquish all they have receiv'd upon those Principles Again Tradition is the Authority of the whole Ecclesia Docens the Chiefest part of I might say the Ecclesia Credens too witnessing the deliver'd Faith which is so vast a Body that it could never were there nothing but its own Interest permit it self to be thought to have attested a Lye hitherto Add That none could be competent Judges what was fit to be a Rule of Faith but They who were so concern'd both in Duty and Interest Tradition should not be set aside Which considerations clearly evince an Universal Change in the Rule of Faith and this over the whole Body of Believers is absolutely impracticable Lastly There must be some great time between their discarding Tradition and espousing a New Rule during which time we must imagin the whole Church except perhaps some few that discourse it first would be made up of Seekers some hovering one way some another in which case they would as yet have no Faith and consequently there could be no Church 'T is left then that if they could innovate in Faith they must pretend to Tradition still when they had evidently deserted it that is they must
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
till at last they were own'd and impos'd as necessary to be believ'd and practised Answ. If they belong'd to Faith they could not come in while the Rule of Tradition was adher'd to as has been prov'd and granted Tho' perhaps some Points involv'd in the main Body of Faith yet so particularly or universally known might on emergent occasions be singled out defin'd and more specially recommended than formerly without any Detriment to the Faith received but rather to the Advantage and farther Explication of it And as for unwarrantable Practices as they belong not to Faith so they do not concern our present business 6. What if Errour any of these Ways brought forth grew multiply'd spread obtain'd most power and drove out all that held the naked Truth out of all those Countries where it came Of which all Histories furnish us with Instances Answ. But does any History tell you this Errour spread over the whole Church without your supposing the Question that such or such a Tenet is an Errour which you pretend such which is above the Skill of Historians to decide and is only to be determin'd by examining First who have who have not a Certain Rule of Faith. Besides Errour in Faith never yet appeared even though abetted by Great men in the Church but it was oppos'd and Truth grew clearer by the Opposition made to it and tho' for a while it grew under the shadow of some Particular State yet no History ever recorded that all the States of Christendom ever joyn'd to protect it 48. Well but what are all these rambling Questions to our Argument which insists on the impossibility of Altering the yesterdays Faith but either out of want of Memory or out of Malice Apply them to this and they lose all their force how plausibly soever a witty man that talks at rovers supposes all to be Errour which the Revolting Party Held and never considers the Nature of Christian Mankind and their Circumstances may descant upon it For what Paradox is there tho' never so ridiculous that Wit discoursing thus wildly and at randome cannot make plausible Our General Objection then against your whole Paragraph is this that you never apply your several What ifs to our Argument Besides that you pretend in the beginning of it that you will shew other Reasons of such an Alteration which are neither Forgetfulness nor Malice and yet most of those you here assign are Defects of Goodness which implies some degree of Malice and some of them the highest Malice that can be 49. But say you we must seek out a new Medium to prove our Church Infallible for this already brought proves only she does not err so long as she holds to Tradition but still she may err if she leaves it wherefore we must prove she cannot leave Tradition or else She is not Infallible and so we are but where we were And do not you see this is already prov'd to your Hand For not to repeat the many Reasons produc't for this Point Sect. 45. Innovation and Tradition being formerly and diametrically opposite what proves she could not Innovate proves also that she could not leave Tradition for this were to Innovate And this our Argument you see has already prov'd nor is the force of that Proof weaken'd by any thing you have hitherto said I wonder you should dissemble a thing so obvious and run forwards upon that affected Inadvertence of yours as if it were a business unthought of by us before and requir'd a new Medium whereas it is the very thing our Argument chiefly aims at and for which we had of our own accord without any one's bidding made provision for before hand 50. Your next Sect. P. 25. would perswade us rather to prove our Church free from Errour which say you is a much easier task if she be so than to prove Her Self Infallible Very Good Your wise advice amounts to this that you would have us prove our Conclusion without beginning with our Premises or Principles If this be Yours and Dr. St's Logick 't is a very preposterous one and can only be made good by a Figure call'd Hysteron Proteron or Cart before Horse Though I must confess it keeps decorum and is perfectly of the same hue with all your Logick hitherto Please then to know that all our Faith may be Errour if the Testimony of the Church our Rule may be Erroneous and if it cannot nothing we hold of Faith can be so Again what mean you by our proving her free from Errour Your meaning is we should only prove she Embraces no Errour now but what Provision would this make for Her not falling perhaps into Errour to morrow We ought then to prove and so ought you too of your Rule that if we adhere to it it can at no time permit us to Err which could not be if at any time it might be deceiv'd it self or leave us deceiv'd while we follow it Besides if it were granted Fallible or Liable to Errour by what more evident Light or greater and clearer Testimony could we guide our selves to know when it did actually Err when not in deriving down Christs Doctrine Or by what more certain Way could we be directed to arrive at Christ's sence If there were any such It and not Tradition ought to be our Rule We return you then your Counsel back with many Thanks for it neither suits in any degree with Logick Common Sense our own or any other Principles But however it suites better with your convenience than these crabbed Demonstrations For you tell us One single Instance of her erring is enough to Answer all the Arguments can be brought for her Infallibility Sure you have a mind to convince all Schollars that read your Books you never heard of Logick in your Life Or else you would endeavour to baffle the whole Art of Discoursing because you foresee 't is like to baffle you An Instance may perhaps make an Objection against the Conclusion taking it single for a meer proposition and not as standing under Proof but Arguments are answer'd by finding defects in the Premises or the Consequence You might have seen to use your own words better Logick read to the D. of P. in my Pag. 10 and 11. Where 't is shewn you that if the Premises be right and the Inference good the Conclusion must be as necessarily True as that the same Thing cannot be and not be at once Yet you take no notice of it but still run on obstinately to confute all the Schools and Universities that ever Writ or Taught Logick from the beginning of the World to the Time of His and Your Writing The Truth is you are sick of the Argument and would shift it off on any Fashion Bring what Instances you please But first you are to Answer our Argument and next to see the Authority that qualifies your Instance for an Argument be above Morally Certain otherwise it will be
beyond the power of any Logick to make it conclude For the force of that Maxim on which the Conclusiveness of any Argument is built is far beyond any Moral Certainty Nor let Dr. St. think to stand arguing still ad hominem but let him be sure his Instance infers the Truth of his Conclusion when it comes to be put to the Test of a Syllogism This we will expect from him since it is the Right of the Respondent to deny any thing that is not driven up to Evidence and by that Test we will judge of your Instance and other Arguments if you have any that you will vouch to be Demonstrative that is Conclusive 51. You seem so kind as not to undertake to prove that an erring Church adheres to Tradition if it be True Apostolical Tradition and that it adheres to it wholly and solely I a little wonder at this for if you mean not by Tradition such a one as is built on Living voice and Practice you ran quite away from the Point If such a one you quit your own Rule by requiring men should adhere to the other wholly and Solely and admit that a Church adhering to such a Tradition is not an Erring Church I inferr Therefore till you answer our Argument which proves that our Tradition could not be interrupted by any Innovation you cannot with reason deny but ours is such You think Infallibility a kind of barr against our mutual Agreement as if there were any hopes or even possibility men's Minds should center unless it be in something that is Absolutely Certain or Evident Shew us something else endu'd with such an Evidence as is able to oblige Human Nature to an Universal Acceptation and Conviction and then blame us for maintaining Infallibility Till then pray excuse us for making such Provision for Faith as sets it beyond Possibility of Falsehood You drop some insignificant Exceptions after the Shower of your shrewd invisible Reasons As that our Argument must prove that no man that hath been taught the Faith can ever err from it and yet still withall confess that a Church following Tradition now may leave it afterwards This were an Incoherence with a witness But how do you shew our Argument must prove this absurd position Onely with saying it here over and over again without the least attempt to shew from our words or Doctrine this pretended necessity that we must both contradict our selves so grossely and besides go against our daily experience I do assure the Reader we have no where either such words or sense and that 't is meerly a false sham or some weak deduction of yours for want of some better thing to say Our Tenet is that tho' not one single man can erre while he adheres to our Rule yet even some particular Churches may leave off adhering to Tradition and so err in Faith. Onely we say that the main Body of the Church consisting of all particular Churches that compound Christianity being supported by Motives of adhering to the former Faith so Prevalent and Universal and apply'd to a very vast multitude of them cannot conspire to relinquish this Rule go against and disgrace their own Testimony nor consequently err in Faith. The word All indeed and They in each Proposition are distributive and appliable to each single man but do you find the least word in any of them that sayes that single men or great multitudes may not out of malice alter Faith Where find you that Or that they cannot desert the Rule and by Consequence their Faith. Pray be not so liberal of our Concessions without shewing somthing under our hands for it 52. But you sum up your Solution of our Demonstration with an admirable grace or rather you give us the very Quintessence of your Answer to it in these few words The Church of Rome says all have broke the Rule of Tradition but she onely and proves it by saying that she holds the same to day she did yesterday and so up to our B. Saviours time You proceed We call again for a Proof of this She tells us If she follow'd this Rule she could never err in Faith. But did she follow this Rule She says she did and if you will not believe her there 's an end How smart and victorious this looks But the best is 't is wholly built on some few of your own wilfull Falsifications Pray where did we ever bring these Words If she followed this Rule c. For a Proof that she holds the same to day which she did yesterday Or where did we prove we follow'd this Rule only with iffs But why are you so shy to quote the Pages or Paragraphs where we bring these absurd Proofs because you would be at Liberty to say any thing and yet not expose your Credit And 't is worth noting that you point out the Page in other occasions very diligently but when you have a mind to falsify 't is still supprest 'T is observable too that this insincerity of yours here is of such advantage to you that it gains the whole Cause For if we prove this main Point no better but with Iffs that our Argument has no force but by standing to your Kindness in Believing what Our Church says then there 's an End indeed for nothing can be more Evident than 't is that in that Supposition we are utterly routed our whole Cause quite defeated Now I would entreat the Reader for You are resolv'd neither to use your Eyes nor Honesty lest they should too openly accuse you that he will once more review our Argument as 't is put down by Dr. St. himself First Letter p. 4. and 5. and made good by me p. 8. and 9. and he will see clearly the first half of it was to prove that If they follow'd this Rule viz. of believing the same to day they did yesterday they could never err in Faith or were Infallible And the other part And they could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice alter it was brought to prove they did ever follow that Rule For since nothing but Innovation can break the Chain of Tradition whoever proves they could not innovate proves directly they could not recede from Tradition Nay 't was confest by Dr. St. himself when he was as yet in better circumstances First Letter p. 5. l. 4. that we prov'd our Church could not innovate by the Medium now mention'd Yet you have the Confidence to tell the Reader she only says she follows this Rule and if you will not believe her there 's an end Whereas you ought in candour to have said They prov'd she follow'd and could not but follow this Rule but I cannot answer their Argument and there 's an End. See what you have brought upon your self and how fatal it is to your pretended Answer that as you began your Reply to this 4th Proposition with a
differenced from both Romanists and other Hereticks and Sectaries viz. Scripture plainly delivering a Sense own'd and declar'd by the Primitive Church of Christ in the Three Creeds Four First General Councils and Harmony of the Fathers After which you add This I hope is plain dealing and no wriggling and here we take up our stand let him endeavour to draw us whither he can Never fear it Sir you are out of danger of being drawn any whither Ten thousand Cart-Ropes will not go round you and we must be at least Twenty Years in fastening them But let 's examin this your particular Rule 1. I ask whether since Differences use to be Essential these words own'd and declar'd by the Primitive Church c. which are found in the Difference of your Rule from that of others be at all Essential or not If not Essential since if you be Orthodox you ought to have a Rule essentially distinct from that of Hereticks and Sectaries what is this Essentially-different Rule of yours for 't is this we are enquiring after If you say 't is Essential then Scripture had not all the due power to regulate you as to your Faith without their additional Light And by consequence Scripture is not your Only and Intire Rule as you ever pretended hitherto since these are Part of it 2 When you say your Rule is Scripture plainly delivering a Sense c. I suppose you must mean such a particular Sense as is of Faith with you and can any more be requir'd to your particular Rule than Scripture plainly delivering your particular Faith Certainly you will not say it For there is the Divine Authority in the Scripture which is the Formal Motive of Divine Faith. There is Plainness which gives it a Directive Vertue and qualifies it for a Rule and the Clear Light of this plain Rule must shine bright upon the particular Tenets you hold for 't is to shine there and no where else Which once put what can all the other esteem'd by you but Human Authorities serve for Can they add weight to the Divine Authority or clear that to us which is already so plain by Scripture 3. Pray be candid and tell us After a thing is plain in Scripture are you to value a straw what either Primitive Church Creeds or Fathers say I dare say you will grant you are not Wherefore all these are utterly useless unless they be pretended to give you some light to interpret Scripture But this cannot be neither both because you tell us here plain Scripture is your Rule and it would not be plain but obscure if it needed an Explainer Besides you put this as a constitutive difference of your Rule and yet deny'd that any Interpretation of Scripture is such but Extrinsical to it 'T is then a great Mystery still how these Human Authorities affect your General Rule or influence your Faith already had by plain Scripture or to what end they serve but for a Show only 4. The Lutherans proceed upon all these as much as you and yet hold a Reall Presence of Christ's very Body in the Sacrament as much as we do So that this does not difference you in your Grounds or Rule from all other Sects for sure you will not deny that to be a Sect that holds an Errour which Dr. St. has taken such pains to prove is Idolatry My last question shall be Whether your sober Enquirers are not to come to their particular Faith by this their particular Rule of Faith And since 't is Evident they must we would know next how many of them are to arrive at any Faith at all For it will take up many Years to examin and compare all the Fathers and be sure of their Harmony with one another and with the Scripture too Nay the Duration of the World will be too short to compass that Satisfaction if we may believe the Bishop of Downs who assures us That out of the Fathers succeeding the Primitive Times both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring Sayings for themselves respectively Can any man living make Sense of such stuff or ever come at his Faith by such a Rule 57. For this last Reason chiefly I affirm'd That not one Protestant in a million follow'd Dr. St's Rule but honestly follow'd the Tradition of their own Church Pastours or Fathers that is believ'd as they had been educated To the first part of this Assertion you say little but that if there be any Fault 't is the Fault of the People only But if this peculiar Rule of yours which takes in the seeing your Sense of Scripture own'd and declar'd by the Primitive Church Four first General Councils and the Harmony of the Fathers be to be followed e're you can come at your Faith I doubt the Fault will prove to be in the Rule For very few Persons have Learning fewer Leisure enough and none of them security of having any Faith by this Method unless you could ensure their Salvation by inspiring those who are ignorant with competent Learning to understand all the Fathers and their Harmony and withal by letting them good long Leases of their Lives which I am of opinion you cannot The second part that they follow'd the Method of Tradition puts you in a marvelvellous jocund humour and as if you had forgot your way a thing not unusual with you you ask all amaz'd Where are we now In the Church of Rome e're we are aware of it We are all good Roman-Catholicks on a sudden we are become an Infallible Church c. and away you run with the Jest laughing and giggling as if you had found a Mare 's Nest. Surcease your fears good Sir you are not a jot the nearer being Catholicks for following your own Tradition It reaches no farther than Iohn Calvin Martin Luther or some such Reforming Heroe and there it ends and stops in a flat Novelty Whereas Catholicks abhor a Tradition that has any known Beginning or takes a Name from any Particular Author or has any Original but Christ his Apostles and the Church in the very first Age who were the Original Deliverers of it to the next and so to the succeeding ones Pray Sir what 's become of your Jest All I said was that You followed the Way of Tradition however misplac'd I prov'd it by Reasons and Instances you hint some omit others and pervert the rest You tell us 't is all Scriptural Tradition But we will trust our Eyes and Experience before your bare Word We see some taught before they can read we see them Catechiz'd in Churches and they repeat and believe what 's there told them tho' Scripture be not quoted for the distinct Passages We see them read the Scripture afterwards but we see withal not One in Thousands trusts his own Judgment of Discretion for the sense of it but without reluctancy or jealousie accepts that which his Pastours assign to it especially in Spiritual Points or Mysteries of
Faith about which we are chiefly discoursing But do not your self incline to admit as much as we can expect from a man that affects not too much candour that very thing you so laugh at here I affirm'd that Not one in a million thinks of relying on your Rule of Faith in order to make choice of their Faith c. This you answer with hems and hahs Tho' I fear yet I hope he is out in his Account I am apt to think they are more attentive Yet be it as he would have it c. Now since they must either have their Faith by Reliance on their Pastours and Preachers delivering it to them and educating them in it that is by some kind of Tradition or else by relying on Scripture and your self seems to doubt or rather in a manner grants it That they have it not the later way you must at least doubt that they have it by the Way of Tradition But your Fancy was so big with your empty Jest that you had forgot what you had allow'd but a little before 58. Thus Sir I have trac'd you punctually step by step not as is your constant use pickt out a few words scatter'd here and there which you thought you might most commodiously pervert wherefore I have reason to expect the same exact measure from you The Sum of your Answer is manifestly this Shuffles and wilful Mistakes without number Evasions endless Falsifications frequent Godly Talk frivolous Jests groundless and all these brought in still to stop Gaps when your Reason was Nonplust Be pleas'd to leave off your Affected Insincerities otherwise I must be forc't to Expose them yet farther than which there can be no Task more Ungrateful imposed upon Your Servant J. S. ERRATA Page 3. l. 28. Read both of uâ— p. 10. l. ult find it in p. 11. l. 11 notice there p. 21. l. 24. go forwards p. 22. l. 27. Secret. Again p. 23. l. 9. as I had not p. 32. l. 30. Is it a Way Ibid. l. 32. upon it p. 39. l. 7. Your Reason is because p. 44. l. 17. may hap p. 45. l. 5. Gift Ibid. l. 32. Prince of p. 46. l. 7. it Whether p. 48. l. 27. a most p. 53. l. 12. Adherers p. 57. l. 14. to be at a loss Ibid. l. ult discover'd it p. 60. l. 8. Speculaters p. 62. l. 9. Yet not so explicitly or p. 63. l. 28. formally and. p. 73. l. 13. other then THE THIRD Catholick Letter IN ANSVVER To the Arguing Part of Doctor Stillingfleet's SECOND LETTER To Mr. G. By I. S. Published with Allowance LONDON Printed and sold by Matthew Turner at the Lamb in High-Holbourn 1687. THE THIRD Catholick Letter c. SIR 1. I Come now to take a view of your Second Letter with my Eye as in the former fixt only upon what I think you mean for Argument Whether you give us just your First Words at the Conference or second Thoughts since whether no troublesome Part of Mr. G's Discourse be left out in short whatever belongs to matter of Fact shall be out of my prospect which shall be bounded by what you think fit to open to it You acquaint us here Pag. 7. that you put two Questions 1. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in the sense and meaning of Tradition 2. Is this Tradition a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture And you complain of Mr. G. that his Copy makes you ask a very wise Question viz. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in Tradition Why this Question should be ironically call'd a very wise one I cannot imagin I am sure it is very pertinent to the Intention of your Dispute and directly points at one of the Chief Subjects of the Conference But you shall have your Will tho' I beleive it will appear Mr. G's question made better Provision for your Credit in point of Wisdom than you have done for your self 2. For your Second was in truth a very needless Question because both your self and all your Auditours if they ever heard any thing of this kind of Controversy knew beforehand without needing to ask that the Tradition we lay claim to pretends to derive down the Intire Body of Christ's Doctrin and not only the Books of Scripture of which P. 9. you very learnedly seem to counterfeit your self ignorant And this is the first part of your distinguishing the plain Sense of this Word Tradition as held by Mr. G. By this Question you tell us p. 9. you intended to put a difference between the Tradition held by us Protestants and the Tradition disputed For the first meaning of the Word Tradition which you grant you put the Vniniversal Testimony of the Christian Church as to the Books of Scripture The second and deny'd meaning you contra distinguish from the former in these words But if by Tradition be understood either some necessary Articles of Faith not contain'd in Scripture or a Power in the Church to make unnecessary to become necessary this I deny'd c. Certainly Sir you have a Logick of your own so peculiarly fitted to your designes that no man living but your self ever us'd it I ever thought and apprehended I had all the World on my side for thinking so that all Differences or Distinctions were to be Opposites and to divide the Common Genus or the Notion that was to be distinguish't and therefore since the first sense of the Word Tradition was Tradition for Books of Scripture which is your Tenet I verily expected the opposit sense of it should have been Tradition for Doctrines which is Ours and that as the former was Tradition for Christ's Words so the latter should be Tradition for Christ's Sense But while I was vainly imagining the second sense of the Word would be Tradition for Faith instead of that I found nothing but such Articles and such a Power Did ever any mortal Man think or pretend that Tradition was an Article or a Power any more than that it was a Horse shoe Did your self when you granted the Latin and Greek Churches follow'd Tradition intend to signify that they follow'd Articles and Powers The summ then of your learned Distinction is in plain Terms this Tradition is two-fold One is a Tradition for Books the other is no Tradition at all but only Articles and Power Had it not been better then to have accepted of Mr. G's Civility and have answer'd to the purpose rather than out of a pique to his Copy and a desire to make it stand in need to be corrected thus to pervert common sense and out of a too zealous care not to forfeit your Wisdome to commit such an illogical Absurdity But Sense and Logick tho' they be plain and honest true Friends yet I must own that like the Queens Old Courtiers they may appear scandalous Companions to a man of your more polite and modish Education However I dare answer for you it was
not ignorance of their worth but an unlucky necessity which made you introduce in their room two New Questions to while away the time and escape the true one which you had no mind to meet close and grapple with Yet perhaps you may have better luck in your First Question let us see By your First Question then and your Explication of your Design of it immediately after 't is easy to discern that you again quite mistake the End and Use and consequently the Nature of Tradition which is a very inauspicious beginning and puts us out of hopes you should ever discourse pertinently of it since you go about to impugn you know not what For Tradition does not bring us down set Forms of Words onely as you imagin viz. as you instance P. 7. Christ was the Son of God under which you say well a Heretical Sense may ly But it derives down to us the very sense of those words and all the rest of Christ's Doctrine there being found in Tradition all the ways and means to signify and express the Determinate Meaning and Sense of Forefathers that can possibly be imagin'd For they not only deliver the Propositions of Faith in such or so many Words as you apprehend but they signify to their Children the very Tenets they have in their hearts in such expressions as best sutes with the occasion according as their different methods of explaining themselves may lead them You may upon reflexion observe it passes thus in your self when you instruct people in their Faith In which circumstance you do not ty your self up to rigorous Forms of Words made to your hands but take your liberty to deliver your self in any manner that you judge will make your meaning be best understood The same Method is taken by the Pastours of the Church and the Fathers of Families too according to their pitch and station They Catechize their Children they Preach upon the Texts proper to such Points they dilate themselves in their Discourse with a full design to make their Sense be perfectly comprehended they reply to the difficulties of those who are not yet perfectly instructed or well satisfied and accommodate themselves to all their Exigencies Lastly they lead their Christian Lives and breed up others to do the same by those Principles And Experience as well as Reason tells us that nothing gives the determinate sense of Words which express Tenets more distinctly than does perpetual Practice and Living conformably to what 's signified by those Words The want of which Requisits in the Letter of Scripture which can give no Answer to any difficulty nor vary any expression to make its Meaning more Intelligible nor live and by Example make the Reader live according to such a sense shews clearly that taking it alone and unassisted by the Churche's Tradition determining and ascertaining it's meaning in Dogmatical Points it cannot in any proper Speech be call'd a Rule of Faith. 3. If notwithstanding what has been said this Discourse should still seem to you more a Speculation than a Real Truth which yet I judge impossible pray reflect how your self would go about to instruct your own Children in your Faith and you will easily find by experience when 't is brought home to your own case how connatural this Way is to clear to them your sense in what you would have them Believe Do not your self use the same Method Do you only deliver to them certain Forms of Speech without endeavouring by all the possible means you can invent to imprint the true sense that I may use your own Instance of these Words Christ is the Son of GOD in their Souls and to make it still clearer to them as their budding capacities grow riper and riper Do you not experience they come by degrees to understand you too and that you have at length transfus'd into them the Sense of the Tenet you had in your own Breast Do not you practically instil into them that they ought to Pray to Christ and exercise their Faith Hope and Charity towards Him while they are Praying Do not you tell them they are to give Divine Reverence to Christ without stinting them or making them scruple lest they give too much or commit Idolatry by giving that to a Creature which is only due to the True GOD And does not this Practise beyond all possibility of mistake insinuate into them that he is equally to be Ador'd with God the Father or Coequal to him and so not a Creature but very God of very God I doubt not but you do all this at least I am sure if you do it not you do not your Duty Nor do I doubt but your Children come at length to understand you too and by understanding you become of the same Religion And can you imagine that Men were not Men in all Ages but in the blind times of Popery forsooth degenerated into Parrots and learn'd to prate set-Words without minding their Sense Or that Christians were not alwayes Christians and endeavour'd to imbue under-growing Posterity with the Meaning of the Tenets they profest and hop't to be Sav'd by their propagating them to those whom they were bound to see Instructed in Faith Or lastly can you conceive there can be any Means invented by Man's Wit to make known and propagate the Sense of Words that express Points of Faith which is not in the highest measure found in Tradition If you cannot as I am sure you cannot then you must withal either confess that Tradition brings down the Sense of Christ's Law and not the bare Words or Sounds only or you must advance this monstrous Paradox that there is no possible way in the whole World for Mankind to communicate their Thoughts and Meanings to one another in such Points the contrary to which you experience dayly in your self and others And were this so then to what end were Catechisms Sermons and Controversies about such subjects To what end all Instructions Conferences and Explications of them by the Pastours Again if you grant these as you must to be the best Expedients to transmit down the Sense of Christ's Words that is our Faith how can you hold Scripture's Letter the Rule of Faith which taken as counterdistinguish't to Tradition wants all those most effectual Means of discovering to us it's Meaning Certainly That must be the Rule of Faith that is best qualify'd to give us our Faith and that must be best qualify'd to give us our Faith which has the best Means to give us Christ's Sense and not that which wants all the best Means to produce such an Effect On the other side supposing Christ's Doctrine once settled in the Body of the Church how can you deny Tradition thus abundantly furnisht with the best Means imaginable to deliver down the first-taught Doctrine to be such a Rule seeing no more is requir'd to be a Rule of Faith but to be qualify'd with a Power to acquaint us who live at this
intrinsick and full Meaning In which case the Preacher sticks not to assure his Auditory that what he has Preach't to them all the while is Gods Word and to press them to regard it as such as far as his small Authority over them can reach And had he more in case he did verily judge his Explication of that Text was genuin and consequently Christ's true Sense he would questionless esteem himself bound to make use of that Authority to his utmost to edify them with the Explicit Belief of each Particular contain'd in so Excellent a Truth This being so why should not the same Priviledge be granted to the Church and her Pastours to explicate upon due occasion the Sense of Christ's Faith in many particular Propositions involv'd in the main Tenet even tho' we should suppose them to be not heard of perhaps not distinctly thought of before which is allow'd to every private man and any ordinary Preacher And if those Governours of the Church be by their Office Conservers of Christs Law and see that these Propositions newly singled out are included in any Point of Faith receiv'd upon their Rule why ought they not out of their Duty and Zeal to preserve Christ's Faith Intire both define these Points and also use their Authority to oblige the Faithful to accept them as such or if they disaccept them and express themselves against them to exclude them from their Communion 7. But still say you these particular Points came not down by Tradition nor were deliver'd as held yesterday and so upwards till Christ's Time for they were not held at all before they were defin'd or declar'd I distinguish These Propositions were held ever and descended ever as they were involv'd in the Intire Point in the bowels of which the Sense of those others were found But as singled out in such and such particularizing manners of Expression they were perhaps not held ever I say not held ever formerly at least not universally Which is the true reason why some Private Writers nay possibly some Great Men might out of a dutiful fear not to add to Faith have doubted of them or disaccepted them perhaps oppos'd them till the Collective Church or some Great Body of them who are able to look more intelligently into those Points declar'd and unfolded the Sense of the main Article in which they were hitherto enwrapt For besides that it is their peculiar Office and as it were Trade to look deeper into the Sense of the several Points of Faith then others do 't is very Rational to conceive that those Tenets were found more particularly explicated in some parts of the Body of the Church than in others which makes it difficult to affirm any particular Point defin'd since Christ's time was not in many places of the Church held ever tho' it was not in All nor made as yet any great Noise being as yet neither oppos'd which alarum'd the Church to reflect heedfully upon it nor so powerfully recommended which oblig'd the Faithful more briskly and manifestly to own it What difficulty or disagreeableness to the connatural course of things there is in all this I cannot imagin Nor I am confident your self unless your thoughts startling at the unwelcom Conclusion should recoil back to your former mistake that only Words came down by Tradition or that Christ's Sense was never in the Breast of the Diffusive Church his Spouse and the Pillar and Ground of Truth and in the Understandings of her Pastours which takes all Faith out of the world and destroys the very Essence of a Church Or lastly that many particular or rather partial Propositions are not included in the Total Sense of every main Tenet and disclos'd by a full explication of it whence it comes to be discover'd to be a Part of It that is in part It. 8. I am sorry you will needs give me occasion to interrupt such Discourses as tend to the clearing some Truth to defend Tradition against your reproachful mistakes with which in defiance to all Sense I had almost said against your own Conscience too you have loaded it But these are some of your Extrinsecal Arguments which for want of better jealousy of your cause and reputation prevails with you still to make use of and so you will triumph mightily if they be past over unconfuted You attempt p. 8. to play your Politick Game and to conquer us by dividing us in our Rule of Faith tho' it cost your Credit very dear to effect it To this end running on in your former mistake of the plain word Tradition and that it means Points and Articles you tell us sadly that this denying to the Church of Rome Power to explain Tradition takes off from its Power Authority That it resolves all into meer Humane Faith meer Natural Reason That the utmost it can amount to is resolving Faith into a Logical Demonstration Then follows the Holy Cant. And is this the Faith Christians are to be sav'd by what Grace of God what Assistance of the Holy Spirit are necessary to such a Faith as this But for this I refer you to the Haeresis Blacloana You should have added where Dr. Tillotson and my self have the honour to be brought in for writing so Catholickly Truly Sir you have given us a very pretty Period in which many of your modish qualifications vy for the precedency and 't is hard to determin which has most Title to it Nay p. 13. you tell Mr. G. that our Grounds overthrow the Church's Authority in matters of Faith and proceed upon Pelagian Principles Your Charge Sir is very grievous and heavy and therefore unless the Evidence you bring to prove it be answerable you will manifest your self to proceed upon a new Christian in truth an old Unchristian Principle but which suits it seems with your humour and is requisite to your Cause Calumniare fortiter I need not tell you whose it was 9. To stop your mouth therefore once for all concerning Haeresis Blacloana know that that Book tho' Printed in a Catholick Country could not be licenc't but came out surreptitiously without any Printers name at it or any other then a fictitious name of the Author Know that it was sent to Rome and was compar'd there with the Doctrin of Tradition which it impugn'd And yet it was not found that this Doctrine either overthrew the Churches Authority in matters of Faith nor that there was any Pelagianism in it Otherwise those Books which were accus'd of it and defended Tradition to the height had not escap't their Censure This shews how shallow this Exception of yours is and to what mean shifts you are reduc't since you can quote a squabbling Book of one Roman-Catholick against another about Tradition in stead of answering the Argument for it An ill-natur'd man might you know very well name Authors of another Communion not too well thought and spoken of by Eminent Persons of their own side and written
against too by others Yet I shall not be so like some I know to turn a Dispute into a Wrangle but shall apply my self to shew how far the Doctrine of Tradition is from deserving to be charg'd with such injurious reflexions 10. But before I go farther I must take notice of your quoting F. Warner here p. 8. and your appealing to him where you put Haeresis Blacloana in the Margent By which you seem to hint that he is the Author of that Book and an Adversary to the Doctrin of Tradition even so far as to judg it not sound in Faith for no less aversion could make you very much question whether F. W. would absolve any man who professed to embrace Catholick Faith on Mr. G's Grounds But as that very Reverend Person declares he never saw that Book till some of them were presented him bound so himself has forestal'd your little policies aiming to set us at variance in our Tenets in his Anti-Haman p. 203. We Catholicks have Faith because we believe firmly those Truths that God has reveal'd because he reveal'd them to the Church Which as a faithful Witness gives hitherto and will give to the end of the World Testimony to that Revelation And we cannot be Hereticks because we never take the liberty to chuse our selves or admit what others chuse but we take bona fide what is deliver'd us reveal'd by the greatest Authority imaginable on Earth which is that of the Catholick Church He proceeds Here then is the Tenure of our Faith. The Father sent his only begotten Son consubstantial to himself into the world and what he heard of his Father he made known to us Io. 15.11 The Father and Son sent the H. Ghost and hee did not speak of himself but what he heard that he spoke Io. 16.13 The Holy Ghost sent the Apostles and they declared unto us what they had seen and heard 1 Io. 1.3 The Apostles sent the Highest and Lowest Prelates in the Church and the Rule by which they fram'd their Decrees was Let nothing be alter'd in the Depositum Let no Innovation be admitted in what 's deliver'd Quod Traditum est non innovetur But he more expresly yet declares himself no Adversary to this way ibid. p. 267. Your Friend Mr. G. B. had call'd this way of proving Doctrines that They had them from their Fathers they from theirs a New method of proving Popish Doctrines and receives for Answer these words You discover your Ignorance in saying that Method was New or that Arnaud invented it Mr. Thomas White had it before Arnaud Mr. Fisher a Iesuite before T. W. Bellarmin before him St. Austin St. Stephen Pope Tertullian before them all Where you see he both allows this very Method we take as practis'd by Modern Controvertists of note nay by some of his own Order too whom he is far from disapproving and by Antient Fathers also whom he highly venerates Your petty Project thus defeated I shall endeavour to open your Eyes if they be not which God grant they be not wilfully shut 11. The Asserters of Tradition observing that the Adversaries they had to deal with admitted Christ's Doctrin to be Divine held it the most compendious way to put a speedier End to all Controversies which Experience taught them were otherwise liable to be spun out into a voluminous length and the most efficacious Method to conclude all the Heterodox of what denomination soever to prove That the Doctrin held now by the Catholick Church was Christ's or the self-same that was taught at first by Himself and his Apostles It was bootless for them to attempt to prove this by Texts of Scripture manag'd by their Private Wits For the Truth of our Faith depending on Christ's Teaching it if it were not Absolutely Certain Christ taught it it could not be evinc't with Absolute Certainty to be True. Now the same Experience inform'd them that no Interpretation of Scripture made by Private Judgments of themselves or others could arrive to such a pitch of Certainty and consequently would leave Faith under the scandalous ignominy of being possibly and perhaps actually false It was to as little purpose to alledge against such Adversaries the Divine Assistance to the Church or Christs Promise of Infallibility to it as you very weakly object to Mr. G. p. 16. as not once asserted by him For tho' this was believ'd by the Faithful yet it was disown'd by all those Heterodox and being it self a point of Faith it seem'd improper to be produc't for a Rule of Faith. Besides how should they prove this Divine Assistance If by Scripture interpreted by their Private Judgments these not being Absolutely Certain it would have weaken'd the Establishment of that Grand Article which to the Faithful was a kind of Principle to all the rest in regard that upon the Certainty of it the Security they had of all the other Articles was to depend If by the Divine Authority of the Church it self it was not so easie to defend that method not to run round in a Circle whereas all Regular Discourse ought to proceed straight forwards These Considerations oblig'd them to set themselves to make out by Natural Mediums that the Human Authority of such a Great Body as was that of the Church was Absolutely Certain or Infallible in conveying down many visible and notorious Matters of Fact and among the rest or rather far above the rest the Subject being Practical and of infinite Concern that such and such a Doctrin was first taught to the Age contiguous to the Apostles and continued ever since By this means they resolv'd the Doctrin of the present Church into that of Christ and his Authority and consequently these being suppos'd by both Parties to be Divine into the Divine Authority granted by all to be the Formal Motive of Divine Faith. 12. This is the true state of that Affair And now I beseech you Learned Sir Where 's the Polagianism Where is the least Ground or shadow of Ground for all these bugbear words and false accusations which to make them sink deeper into the Reader 's Belief and create a more perfect abhorrence of our Tenet come mask't here under an affected shew of Godliness All hold their Faith relies on the Divine or Christs Authority into which they finally resolve it and all Catholicks hold Grace necessary to believe the Mysteries of Divine Faith tho' all perhaps do not judge Grace needful to believe upon Human Authority this Matter of Fact viz. That Christ taught it Yet my self in Faith vindicated seeing that the admitting this Truth would oblige the Heterodox to relinquish their ill-chosen Tenets and return to the Church against which they had a strong aversion did there declare my particular Sentiment That God's Grace and some Assistance of the Holy Ghost was requir'd to make them willing to see the force even of this Natural Demonstration so much against their Humour and Interest Is it
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
attested and blame the Attestation and Tradition as it may be found to deserve but still when you would put your own Tenet as distinguish 't from ours be so kind as to put ours too and do not stand talking to us and fooling your Readers with the Rabbies pretended Tradition from Moses his mouth no more like ours than an Apple is like an Oyster Again this Resolution of your Faith gives every one Absolute Certainty of his Faith who believes he has Absolute Certainty of Scripture's letter and that it contains the Word of God. And yet Experience tells us that whole Bodys of Learned men believe all this and yet differ that is one side errs in the highest Mysteries of Christian Faith. Whence follows that both sides by this Doctrin are Absolutely Certain of their Faith one side for example is Absolutely Certain there is a Trinity and that Christ is God the other that there is no Trinity and that Christ is not God. This seems but a very odd account of the Certainty of Protestant Faith. 17. But you refine upon your self in your Answer to the 3 d Question p. 15. It was ask't there By what Certain Rule do you know that the New Testament which we now have does contain all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles This Question evidently aims at two things viz. First whether some Books writ by the Apostles were not lost as appears by those words which we now have For if they were then being penn'd by men divinely inspir'd they must necessarily contain some Divine Revelations in them too as well as did the other and then how does it appear there were not more or other Revelations contain'd in them than were contain'd in the books now extant The other is that you know well very many hold that diverse Divine Revelations were deliver'd down by Tradition and not all by Writing Let 's see now how your Answer sutes with this Question By the Vniversal Testimony say you of the Christian Church from the Apostles times downwards This Reply if pertinent to that Question must mean that this Vniversal Testimony ascertains us that the Scriptures we have now contains all the Divine Revelations But when you come to explain your self it comes to no more but that The Testimony of the Apostolical and the succeeding Churches did by degrees make men fix upon the Certain Canon of the New Testament What a flight have you taken on a sudden Where will you pitch when you light I am sure not on the place where you took wing and where you ought to have stay'd For What is their Testimony for the Books we now have to the Books which have or may have prerish't and to their containing some other Divine Revelations Or what is the fixing upon the Certain Canon of the Books to the difficulty whether some Divine Revelations did not descend by Tradition without Writing Do the Apostolical or succeeding Churches testify either of these Or do you so much as pretend they do Not a syllable of this do you say or take notice of and so not a syllable have you Answer'd to his Question Which was not about the Canon of Scripture or how you would resolve your Faith with which you keep such a pother over and over but whether the New Testament we have now contain'd all the Divine Revelations If you explicate Scripture no better for your Faith than you do your own words here you will questionless make a very extraordinary piece of work of it Your Answers come now and then pretty home the smartness of the Questions obliging you to it but your Explications of them immediately after seem purposely fram'd that we should not take you at your Word in your Answers 18. That Answer then prevaricating from the whole Question Mr. G. endeavour'd to press for a pertinent return to what was demanded and therefore puts his fourth Question thus Was that Vniversal Testimony an Infallible Rule to assure us certainly down to our time that the New Testament contain'd all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles Your Answer was The Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church concerning the Book of Scripture and the Doctrin contain'd therein is a sufficient Ground to make us certain of all matters necessary to our Salvation 19. Here are many things worth our Admiration In the First Letter p. 7. this Universal Testimony was onely to ascertain the Scripture In the Answer to the Third Question here 't is onely to assure us that the New Testament contains all the Divine Revelations But here it is to certify us of the Doctrine too contain'd in it which if you mean as your Words seem to sound is all we require in our Tradition-Rule There may be some other subtle meaning lying yet coucht in those Words which Time may discover tho' we cannot yet till he that made the Lock bring the Key Again 't is ask't if it be an Infallible Rule T is answered T is a sufficient Ground T is ask't whether this Testimony assures us certainly the New Testament contains all the Divine Revelations T is answer'd it makes us certain of all Matters necessary to our Salvation which is clearly intended for a diminishing expression and argues some fear of undertaking for All the Divine Revelations being contain'd there or All the Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles as was pretended p. 14. One would verily imagin by this unsutable Answer that Dr. St. and Mr. G. were playing at Cross-purposes the Answer is so wide from the Question at least that there is some indirect design lies lurking it being so opposite to the wayes of honest Nature When one asks a positive Question all Mankind expects a Positive Answer to the very words as they ly I or No Or if the words be ambiguous 't is the duty of the Answerer to desire to be satisfied of the meaning of the Asker if present ere he answers without which in that case 't is impossible to reply pertinently But it is not your temper nor interest to use such clear and open candour For you saw that great multitudes had the Letter thus secur'd to them yet had not Absolute Certainty that all the Divine Revelations are contain'd in it therefore by adding and the Doctrin contain'd therein you had some faint hopes you might be safe Again you saw well that should you grant Universal Testimony to be an Infallible Rule you would hazard to grant too much to Tradition and all the learned Jests you have broke upon us for asserting Infallibility would fly back upon your self therefore grant it you durst not Nor yet durst you deny it to be an Infallible Rule for then since one of the two it must forcibly be you must affirm it to be a Fallible Rule And then the common sence of all Mankind Mr. T. amongst the rest would be justly scandaliz'd at the non sense For an intellectual Ground that may perhaps let sink
into Falsity and overturn what 's Built on it deserves not the name of a Ground and a Rule which may perhaps mislead me when I follow it is in reality no Rule Besides should you declare 't is a Fallible Rule Men would wonder with what sense you could pretend that a Fallible Testimony nay which you confess to be such can make you Absolutely Certain of the thing it attests it being the same as to profess I grant they may all be deceiv'd in what they tell me yet I am absolutely Certain by their very Testimony that what they tell me is True. What could you do then in that perplexity being neither in condition to allow Infallibility nor avow Fallibility and standing gor'd with both the Horns of the Dilemma or Contradiction Why you were forc't to call in your constant and dear Friend sufficient Certainty to help you out at a dead plunge For this is able to do more than Miracle this can divide an Indivisible and put a middle betwixt two Contradictories by shewing the World a Certainty that is neither Infallible nor Fallible but between both or mixt of both we may imagin half the one half the other Lastly fearing that you would be driven at length as you must to bring your Rule home to particular Points and knowing tâ—e Socinians and other late-sprung Heretical Congregations whom you ought to acknowledge Christian Churches since they hold stiffly to that which you maintain here is the onely Rule of Christian Faith deny'd many of those which you hold Divine Revelations to be contain'd in Scripture nay on the contrary hold they are excluded thence and that the oppositâ— Tenets are contain'd there therefore you very prudently and warily chang'd All the Divine Revelations which were the words of the Question into all matters necessary for our Salvation Providing thus a security for their Souls at least tho' you could not for their Errours and a kind of Excuse for the Incertainty of your Rule which permitted the followers of it to run astray and withal a Retreat for your self In all which dexterous Alterations as this due commendation must be allow'd you to have acted very wisely and politickly so it must be absolutely deny'd you have given any Answer at all to the Question The Words which you would obtrude upon us for an Answer carry indeed a pretty shew and shift it off with much cunning but when we come to look into their sense with an Eye directed to the Question they squint aside to quite other matters and the whole Reply in a manner is made up of different Notions from what was ask't Nor can I liken the Replies you generally make to our Questions or the Explications you make of your own Answers to any thing better than to that mock Exposition of the First Verse in Genesis which Luther made for your Friend Zuinglius's Iinterpretation of Hoc est Corpus meum Deus God that is a Cuckow creavit created that is devoured Coelum Terram Heaven and Earth that is a Hedge Sparrow with bones and feathers and all 20. You put a pretty Similitude indeed to Illustrate your own Tenet but in reference to our main Question the Absolute Certainty of your kind of Protestant Faith by your Grounds 't is so far from running on four legs that it is in many regards lame on the right and indeed onely foot it ought to stand on and which is worse is perhaps against your self You resemble the Holy Scripture to a purse full of Gold and Silver left by a Father and entrusted to Executours who tell his Son this is all his Father left him and if they deal truly with him do certainly deliver all it contains This the Primitive Church Christ's Executours did by delivering us the Scripture and assuring us all Divine Truths which respect Mans Salvation were contain'd there in the Lump among which some were Gold Points some Sylver Points but having the Purse of Scripture we have the one as well as the other and consequently all matters necessary to our Salvation these being of greatest moment Thus stands the Similitude for run it cannot and the summ of it as far as I apprehend it amounts to this that because Scripture contains all and Protestants have Scripture therefore they have all A strange kind of Discourse As if because they have it in a Book therefore they have it in their Minds or Souls in which and no where else Faith is to reside And as if a Man were a jot the more learned for having purchast Aristotles Works and reading and not understanding them 21. I could except against divers particulars presum'd on in this Similitude as that you have any Absolute Certainty of your having the whole Scripture that was writ or that it contains all Divine Revelations or that you have the right Copy to every material particle in it that may signify Faith that is indeed right Scripture c. or the right Purse c. But I am more concern'd for some plausible Insinuations in this Similitude which may hazard to corrupt the Reader 's Judgment For however you decline and avoid it yet the generality of Readers whenever they hear any speech of the Certainty of the Grounds of their Faith they immediately apprehend they are to be Certain of the particular Points of their Faith by vertue of those Grounds And 't is a common Errour in many of an indifferent good Judgment I wish it did not sway with some who pass for great Schollars that when a thing easily sinks into their Apprehension they are apt to conceit it to be a Truth When therefore they hear of a Purse which is a thing very easy to open it being no more but pulling two strings which use to run very glib and that Scripture is in many regards here compar'd to a Purse they are presently inclin'd to fancy that Scripture's sense is as easy to be come at as 't is to take money out of a Purse 'T is but plucking those easily following strings and the deed is done But alas Here lies all the difficulty The Arians Novatians Socinians c. have all of them this Purse yet are never the richer but for want of skill to open it and get the Gold and Silver thence they go away empty or worse Now certainly those high points viz. A Trinity Christ's Divinity the Real Presence c. Should deserve to be reckon'd amongst the Golden Ones and therefore should be as most valuable so most easily attainable being of the highest import for the Church or the Body of Christianity Yet 't is granted the Socinians Err in the two first of those Points for all their acuteness and wit. I except next against the resembling the Contents of it to Gold and Silver which certainly enrich those who are Possessours of such a Purse whereas those Sects lay claim to that Purse too with equal Title yet coming to open it by their Interpretation they take the Dross
of Errour for the pure Gold of Truth and Soul-poysoning Heresies for means of Salvation Had I a mind to set up a similitude-mender and that you will needs have it a Purse I should beg your leave to put it thus Suppose that Purse's Mouth were tyed up with a knot of such a mysterious contrivance that none could open it I mean still as to the understanding the Mysteries of our Faith but those who knew the Mind of the Bequeather and that the Church to which it was left as a Legacy had knowledge of his Mind and so could open it while others tortur'd their Wits with little tricks and inventions turning and winding the ambiguous folds of it some one way some another and yet entangled their own thoughts more and more while they went about to unty the Knots that so perplex't them 22. This is the true case You make account containing does all the business whereas 't is nothing at all to our purpose which is in the final Intention of it about the Absolute Certainty of your Faith unless we have equal assurance that you can get out thence what 's contain'd there as you pretend to have that 't is contain'd Now it cannot be deny'd but the Primitive Church was imbu'd with Christ's sense by the Preaching of the Apostles and their immediate Successours and so had a sure and proper Way to interpret Scripture and while this sense was still deliver'd down they could not fail of an absolutely Certain Rule to understand it right But there steps up now one Heretick then another opposing himself to the sense of the Church and relying on the dextery of his own wit will needs find out contrivances how to open the Scripture's Meaning by wayes of his private Skill But falls into multitudes of Errours finding no way to unfold the deeply-mysterious Book having refus'd to make use of the right means viz. Christ's sense descending in the Church by Tradition Whence notwithstanding all his little Arts and boasting presumption like the Fox in the Fable Vas lambit Pultem non attingit 23. Mistake me not I do not mean Scriptures Letter is not clear in such passages as concern Common Morality or the Ten Commandments with the Sense of which every one is imbu'd by the Light of Nature Nor in matters of Fact such as were most of those Marks or Signs to know the Messias by foretold us by the Prophets our Saviour's doing such and such Miracles his going beyond Iordan c. Nor in Parables explain'd by himself and such like But in Dogmatical Points or Tenets which are Spiritual and oftentimes profound Mysteries and of these by the way I desire still to be understood when I speak of the Certainty of the Letter or Sense of Scripture for with other Passages I meddle not as the Tenet of a Trinity Christ's God-head the Real Presence of his Body in the Sacrament and such like which have a vast Influence upon Christian Life either immediately or else in a higher Nature being as it were Principles to many other Articles of Faith which depend on their Truth One would verily think I say that such as these should be some of your Golden Points or else there were none at all contain'd in your Purse Yet we experience That even in such as these your Rule is not intelligible enough to keep the Followers of it from erring So that let your Purse have never so Golden and Silver a lining you are never the richer unless you can come at it or can certainly distinguish the pure Gold of Truth from the impure Dross of Errour Your Similitude then comes not home to your purpose nor shews that you have therefore all your Faith or all Divine Revelations because you have a Book which you judge contains them Let 's see now if it does not make against you You put the Doctrin or Points of Faith to be the Gold and Silver contain'd in the Purse and consequently that must be the Purse into which that Doctrin of Faith was put by Christ our Saviour and this was evidently the Heads and Hearts of the Faithful For the Points of Faith being so many Divine Truths are onely contain'd in Men's Minds properly and Words being by their very Definition but Signes of what is in our Minds Truths are no more really in a Book than Wine is really in a Bush which signifies it Since then those Truths were onely in the Breast of Christ Originally and after him in that of the Apostles and their Thoughts could not be communicated nor consequently the Gold and Silver deliver'd to the Legatees otherwise than by signifying it which can onely be done by one of these ways by Living Voice and Practice or by Writing that is by Tradition or Scripture neither of these can with any Sense be liken'd to the Purse it self into which the money is to be put or answer comparatively to It but they are both of them Wayes Means or Methods of putting these heavenly Riches into it's Proper Purse the Souls of the Faithful Of these two Ways our Saviour chose the First which was Teaching his Doctrin orally for he writ nothing and by doing thus told us it was the better For it had been against his Infinit Wisdom to chuse the worser way for Himself to make use of and leave the better to his Servants Nor did his servants the Apostles affect the Way of Writing so as to use it onely but on the contrary they made use of this Oral Way of Preaching constantly and that of Writing for the most part at least if not altogether occasionally They converted the present Church by their Preaching they comforted the future Church by leaving many most edifying Words and Actions of our Blessed Saviour Written which being Particulars and not breaking out openly into Christian Practice might otherwise in likelihood at least to a great degree have been lost to succeeding generations besides the abetment their Writings give to Faith it self when certainly interpreted and rightly understood So that according to this discourse of yours we should either have never a Purse to put Points of Faith in for you take no notice of the Souls of the Faithful into which they are properly put and in which onely they are in reality contain'd Or if you will needs call that a Purse which contains them meerly as a Sign does the thing signify'd or as that which may signify to us our Faith you must put two Purses Tradition and Scripture And then the onely Question is out of which Purse we can with more Certainty get it That is whether a Living Container which can give us perfect light of it's Sense by all the best ways imaginable or the Dead Letter which as Experience demonstrates can neither clear it's Sense to Private Understandings nor if we doubt of it's Meaning and had a mind to ask it could either hear or reply much less pertinently and appositely speak to the Asker as oft as he
had occasion to press still for satisfaction Again the Written Instrument or Means of putting this heaven-stampt coyn in our Souls is an Ignoble Instrument in comparison being in reality as to it 's Material part or taken as abstracted from the Sacred Sense which is signify'd by it nothing but Ink thus figur'd on Paper Whereas the material part of the other is the most Noble that can be found under Heaven it self viz. the Church which all Christians must acknowledge to be the Spouse of Christ the Pillar and Ground of Truth and consisting of the Living Temples of the Holy Ghost That for whose edification the Scripture was writ and so holds proportion with it as the Means does with the End which is in a manner Infinit Nay That for which all the Material World was created and the Oeconomy of it still carry'd on from the first beginning of Time to it's last Period Lastly That for whose sake God himself was made Man and dy'd a most cruel Death on a Cross. So that 't is unconceivable that it can enter into the thoughts of any intelligent man who believes this to be the due Character of the Church there should be any competition betwixt the Letter of Scripture and it or that it can possibly be doubted to which of them all things consider'd we ought to attribute most in looking after Faith. But to return to your similitude The sum of it is this That the Gold and Silver you speak of being the Doctrin of Faith not the Scripture but the Heads and Hearts of the Faithful that is of the Church does really and indeed contain it and consequently this onely can with any propriety be compar'd to a Purse That both Tradition and Scripture are to be liken'd to the several Ways of putting the Heavenly Treasure of Faith into this Purse or Faith into the Souls of the Faithful Lastly that taking them as containing them as signes do the things signify'd it is not their containing this Treasure does us any good but the delivering it out to us no more than a man is better for having a Trunk full of Money so circumstanc't that he could never come at it and that between these two ways of coming at this Treasure or their delivering it out to us there is no comparison whether we regard the Intelligibleness or Providential Establishment of those respective Instruments in order to such an End. So that your similitude how prettily soever it look't at first hath one misfortune very common to such fine useless toys that is to be good for nothing for it neither comes up to the Question nor sutes with your own Tenet 24. But ere we part from this Point it were not amiss to examin a little that cautious expression of yours all things necessary for salvation into which you change that bold assertion that you are absolutely certain you now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles I ask you then what do you mean by those words necessary for Salvation which mince the matter so warily Do you think Christ taught any unnecessary Points or did a needless action Sure you will not say it And yet my self will grant too and agree with you that fewer Means than the Knowledge of all Christ taught may suffice for the Salvation of some particular persons What follows then but that since they are all necessary for some body and yet not all necessary for every particular person more of them are necessary for one man than for another and all of them necessary for the body of the Church whose Pastours are to instruct their Children in them and apply the Efficacy of them to their Souls as their capacities admit and exigencies require For tho' some few may be saved without the knowledge of such such Points slender Motives being enough for their circumstances yet multitudes of others may require incomparably more effectual Means to buoy them up from the World and raise them to heaven and so they would certainly miscarry for want of them Particularly the points now mention'd are of such a high and general Influence that without these the Devotion of a very great portion of the Church would be enfeebled many of the Souls that want them be lost eternally and others be but dim Stars in the Glorious Firmament of Heaven in comparison of what they might have been had their Minds been cultivated with such elevating considerations And can the Church which God has entrusted with those Souls think that 't is agreeable to his Will his Flock should either dy or fall short of the full growth they might have had in the plentiful Pastorage he had provided for them It rests then for you either to shew those Points not necessary for the Generality and that your Grounds are sufficient to give men both as able and as willing for ought appears to understand Scripture right as your self is Absolute Certainty of Them which is to confute Experience and dispute against your own Knowledge or else to confess ingenuously you have no Absolute Certainty of even the highest Fundamentals and most necessary Points for the Salvation of Mankind 25. Thus much to shew that your Rule gives you no Absolute Certainty of all such matters as are necessary for your Salvation with reference to the Points of Faith to certify which Experience assures us it does not reach Now should we speak of the Assent of Faith the Short Discourse p. 30 31. of my former Letter demonstrates clearly you can have no Absolute Certainty of any one and so cannot with reason affirm your Faith is True since wanting Absolute Certainty that Christ taught it it may be False The same point has been prest upon you in Faith vindicated Reason against Raillery Errour non-plust and diverse other Books yet tho' it was the most important objection that is or can be imagin'd as plucking up by the roots all your Faith and destroying it from it's very Foundation no return could ever yet be obtain'd nor candid Reason produc't but onely a put-off with sufficient Certainty and such dow-bak't words without being able or even endeavouring to shew that Grounds less than Absolutely Certain can possibly be thus sufficient for the Nature the Ends and Vses of Faith. But 't is high time to return to our Disputants 26. Against this pretended Answer of yours you introduce Mr. M. suggesting several things First As to difference of Translations To which you reply Doth Mr. M. think our Faith is to be resolv'd into the Original Texts What he thinks you know better than you would seem to do He cannot but think if he may believe you that you resolve your Faith into the Letter of Scripture He cannot but think that by these words you mean the Right Letter for otherwise it would not be Scripture Nor can he think or you either it can be the Right Letter unless it have a Right Translation and this from a True
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
acknowledg'd it was rather a very commendable cautiousness in the Latin Greek Church too not to admit into such a sacred Roll Books that were not yet clearly prov'd to be authentickly such than a blameable Lapse or so hainous a Crime that for committing it she must needs lose all her Title to Christ's promis'd Assistance 31. This gives me occasion to ask you what becomes of Your Rule and consequently of Your Faith all that while If the Letter of the Canonical Books that is of the whole Canon of the New Testament be your Rule and those Books were part of this Canon they must necessarily be part of your Rule too whence it follows that your Rule was not Intire but deficient for some hundreds of years till the whole Canon was Collected and Acknowledg'd I see you do but complement with the Primitive Church of the first 300 years and that you onely cry it up to avoid the unkindness which the succeeding Ages shew to your Cause for by your Doctrine you cannot but hold that the Ages which follow'd it are to be prefer'd Since These had your intire Rule the Others wanted some parts of it and sometimes held but three parts of it half of it or less and so by your Principles were but three quarters or half Christians according as the several pieces came by degrees to be acknowledg'd and universally accepted I doubt Mr. M's Discourse about the Number of Books more perplexes you than your are willing to make shew of For pray how many of these Books go to make up your Rule of Faith If any one or some few then you should not have stood upon the Canon we have now that is all the Apostolical Books or Scripture in general If all the Canonical Writings be your Rule then perhaps the Primitive Christians had but half their Faith or less it may be none at all because wanting yet those other Books they wanted necessary places to compare those Texts with they already had which is a great part of your Method to find out your Faith in Scripture Pray satisfy us about this exact Number of Books and how many will just serve the turn and make something cohere for I cannot for my heart as yet find any thing that does You talk to us of a Purse and say it must be full but when we come to look at it more narrowly it appears to have been for some time but half a Purse and wanted one side of it at least had a great Hole in it so that you put us into an apprehension that many of the Gold and Silver Points might have dropt out of it in the time of the Primitive Church by which Church notwithstanding and no other in our disputes about Faith you seem heartily willing to be judg'd But let us examin a little the Consent of all your Christian Churches for Scripture you make such brags of In the first place marches and leads the Van your Christian Church of the Noble Arch-Heretick Marciou who blotted out of the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews that to Titus and both those to Timothy who admitted onely St. Luke's Gospel to be Divine and rejected all the Epistles of St. Paul as an Apostate from the Law. In the next rank go abreast those three Famous Christian Churches of Ebion Valentinus and Cerinthus Of which the First admitted onely St. Matthews Gospel the second onely St. Iohn's and the third onely St. Mark 's After them come others mentioned by St. Hierom and Epiphanius who in a manner brought all into doubt especially if Faith depended in those days on the comparing of places for they held that diverse things both in the Old Testament and the New were not inspir'd by GOD but writ by a Human spirit I need not acquaint you that Luther Brentius Chemnitius did revive the old Doubts about the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse of later dayes Nor need it be recounted how many Orthodox Christian Churches did not accept diverse Books formerly And tho' afterwards as you say well they came by degrees to fix on the Certain Canon of the New Testament yet I am apt to judge that this was not perform'd by Immediate Testimony For the Witnesses were long ago dead and their Grand-Fathers too who could attest that such a Book was indeed to their knowledge written by such an Apostle or Evangelist It descended then by Oral Tradition in those respective Churches Whence as that Tradition was not so Practical so it was restrain'd to some few in each Church and was withal very narrow at first in comparison of our Tradition for Christ's Doctrin which was in a manner universally and publickly preach't and practis'd Now the strength of a Tradition and the largeness of it are to be taken from the largeness of the first Attestation and all that after-Ages can do when they attest such things is to witness that they received it from some others but so that the Tradition was still narrower as it came nearer the fountain which very much weakens it By what other Lights the Church guided her self in her accepting such and such Books for Canonical Scripture belongs to another place Your Tradition then was not Universal for Scripture in the first 300 years and its Original Attestation was weak in comparison of that which was for Doctrin 32. I have little to say to your Explicit or Implicit Points contain'd in Scripture For I see they are both equally to no purpose while but contain'd there till you bring us a Rule to interpret the Letter with Absolute Certainty If any ought to be explicitely there none can have so good a Title to it as those high and most Fundamental Articles spoken of so often yet we see there are no places producible for them but may have other senses given them and bear as experience shews us not yet ended and for ought we know endless Disputes among your sober Enquirers attending to your Rule Onely I a little wonder you should say 't is sufficient for your purpose that all Doctrin of Faith necessary to Salvation are contain'd in the Letter of Scripture either explicitly or implicitly If they be necessary to Salvation they must be necessary to be believ'd or known to be there for they must save men by believing them and acting according to that Belief or no way and if they be onely implicitly there they are as yet unknown or not believ'd So that according to you that is a Point necessary to Salvation which does not at all conduce to it But I wonder more at the happiness of your Sober Enquirer to whom you affirm and stand to it stoutly those Implicit Points will become Explicit without the help of the Church and yet you call it assuming in the Church of Rome to do the same or declare the Sense of such Articles Certainly this Sober Enquirer is your special Darling and Favourit He
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
already Ship-wrackt The Fourth By it we are to judge what we are bound to believe as Divine Revelations runs upon the same strain for you are to shew us how by it I am to judge my self bound to believe any thing at all as a Divine Revelation that is as taught by Christ with a Firm and Vnalterable Assent such as Faith is till I am Certain it is so by being ascertain'd he taught it This is the True This is the Main Point which you slide over still as smoothly as a non-plust Commentator does over hard Texts that puzzle him to explicate I say once more 't is the Main if not onely Point for till you have made out this you can never prove that Scripture taken alone is a Ground of Faith at all much less an Absolutely Certain Ground and least of all your Ground in particular And therefore you said very True when you lamented p. 28. you were in a hard case for tho' say you there is an Absolute Certainty and this Certainty lies in Vniversal Tradition and we can shew this Vniversal Tradition yet we cannot shew the Ground of our Certainty For you cannot shew Universal Tradition for every particular Text that concerns Faith without our Tradition Rule for Doctrin nor Absolute Certainty you have the true Sense tho' you had that Certainty for the Letter without which 't is not your Ground at all A Certainty there is but not by vertue of your Grounds and so 't is none of your Certainty nor your Ground neither Whereas then you confess here that if you cannot shew the true Ground of your Certainty you deserve to be either pity'd or begg'd you say very true for we do from our hearts pity you let who will take the tother part We pity you to see such excellent Wits who had they a good cause would be honourably victorious forc't by the Patronage of a bad one to employ their Talents in shifting about for by-paths to avoid meeting the Question in the face We pity you for your being necessitated to impose upon your well-meaning Readers with your specious pretences of Gods Word instead of shewing them with Absolute Certainty on your Grounds that you have the true Sense of it in any one passage relating to the controverted points without which you cannot with Honesty pretend it Gods Word as to those Points And if that kind of begging may do you any good we shall earnestly and heartily beg of God's Infinite Mercy to give you hearts to seek Truth and candidly acknowledge it when found 39. I had almost forgot your Id est which connects your Third and Last Proposition together must be the Rule of our Faith Id est say you by it we are to judge what we are bound to believe as Divine Revelations These Id est's which should be us'd to clear things are still so made use of that they are the main Engines to confound them Let your Id est then say what it please I must tell you plainly you quite mistake the meaning of the Word Rule It speaks Rectitude and that such an Evident one as preserves those who regulate themselves by it from obliquity or Deviation that is in our case from Errour You ought then to have said The Rule of our Faith Id est by which while we follow it we shall be absolutely secur'd from erring in Faith For the Primary Effect of a Rule is to give Faith that prerequisit Quality as elevates it to the Dignity of such a kind of Assent and raises it above that dwindling feeble alterable assent call'd Opinion But you will needs to avoid coming neer so dangerous a Rock take it for a kind of Quantitative Measure nor for a Qualifying Principle Whereas indeed 't is not the What or how much we are to believe which is now our Question but the That we ought to believe any thing at all or That you can by your Grounds have any Faith at all for want of this Absolute Certainty which you pretend to 'T is this I say which is the true Subject of our present Debate For tho' we both held the same Quantity or Number of Points to a tittle yet it might be Faith in one of us and but Opinion in the other nay perhaps Opinion in both if both of us wanted Certain Grounds to evince they were Christs Doctrin which is the Formal Motive of our Faith. It belongs then to a Rule to ascertain both the That we are to believe and the What but the former Office of it is Antecedent and Principal the later Collateral and Secondary Common Sense telling us that we ought first to determin whether there is any Faith at all e're we come to debate what Points are of Faith what not These Fast-and-Loose Doings make me when ever I meet with an Id est still expect it means aliud est and that like your other Explications of your self it is brought in to divert our Eyes to another Object instead of keeping them still fixt upon the same 40. Enough has been said I am sure too much ever to be Answer'd to prove that Scripture alone as interterpreted by any Private Mans Judgment wants the Chief Property of a Rule of Faith viz. such a Clearness as is able to give all sorts of People or the Generality of Christians be they never so Sober Enquirers Absolute Assurance of it's Sense even in the highest Mysteries of our Faith without needing the Church's Help Nor will You ever be able to produce the Consent of all Christian Churches affirming that it has this Property Wherefore when it is call'd a Rule by some of the Antients it must be taken as Mr. M. sayes with the Interpretation of the Church adjoyn'd which having the Living Sense of Christ's Law in her Heart can animate the Dead Letter and preserve it from Explications any way prejudicial to the Faith received And thus indeed it may be call'd a Rule of Faith because as 't is thus understood it cannot lead any into Errour but is of good use to abett Truth by it's Divine Authority In which sense Councils proceed upon it often and sometimes call it a Rule And I remember the Famous Launoy when we were Discoursing once about Tradition shew'd me a little Book of his in which he goes about to prove that Councils had frequently defin'd against Hereticks out of Scripture On which occasion I ask't him if he judg'd those Councils fram'd their Definitions by the sense they had of the Letter by their own human Skill or by the sense of the Church which they had by Tradition he answer'd undoubtedly by the later and that there would be no End of Disputing with Hereticks had they taken the former Way By which we may discern that still Tradition was in proper speech their Rule even when they alledg'd Scripture Other call Scripture sometimes a Rule because it contains Faith in which sense even some Catholicks call it a partial Rule
because Part of Christ's Doctrin is contain'd in it the other part descending by Tradition which acceptation of the Word Rule is yet less Proper because as has been prov'd it may be contain'd there and yet we be never the neerer knowing our Faith meerly by virtue of Scripture's containing it But no Catholick ever said that every sober Enquirer may find out all necessary Points of Faith in Scripture without the Churches Help A Doctrin which You declare p. 21. You are far from being asham'd of And yet let me tell You Sir You will never find this Position of yours as it lies without the Churches Help in the Universal Tradition of all Christian Churches and unless You find this You will never prove they held it a Rule in the genuin and proper signification in which we take that Word and tho' they shou'd call it a Rule in either of the former Senses lately mention'd they impugn not us at all who grant the same 41. You will needs run out of the way p. 30. to talk of a Iudge of Controversies but the best is You acknowledge you do go thus astray by acknowledging 't is another distinct Controversy and yet tho' you acknowledge this You still run on with it that is You still wander from the Point You triumph mightily p. 31. that it is impossible for us to bring such an unanimous Consent of all Christian Churches for our Infallible Iudge or our Infallibility as Protestants bring for their Rule As for the later where were your thoughts Sir while you thus bad adieu to the plainest Rules of Discourse Cannot we go about to demonstrate the Infallibility of a Human Testimony by Natural Mediums but instead of Answering it you must object against our Conclusion and bid us bring the Consent of all Churches to abett that which neither depends nor is pretended to depend on Authority but on meer Reason Cannot one say two and three make five but he must be presently bobb'd in the mouth that he cannot shew the Consent of all Christian Churches for it and that unless he does this let it be never so evident 't is not True T is very pleasant to reflect how brisk you are still with this Consent of all Churches I suppose because 't is a Topick very seldom heard of in your Controversies tho' as has been shewn over and over 't is not a jot to your purpose nor avails any thing to the evincing you have an Absolutely-Certain Ground of your Faith. And if we have an Infallible Rule or such a Rule as permits not those to be deceiv'd that follow it can there be any thing more Rational than to hold by consequence that there is an Infallible Iudge or that our Church can judge unerringly in matters belonging to Faith the word Iudge onely signifying that that Person or Persons are in Authority or are Authoritative Deciders to preserve the Integrity of Faith and the Peace of the Church So that supposing Church-Governours or Bishops and that those Sacred Concerns are to be provided for plain Reason demonstrates to us this too as well as the other without needing the Consent of all Christian Churches tho' you need not to be told this does not want neither unless you think that all the General Councils that defin'd against Hereticks imagin'd they might perhaps be in an Errour all the while and the Heretick whom they condemn'd in the right Your Appeal to all the Churches of the Christian World for your Rule has a plausible appearance but vanishes into air when one comes to grasp it How often must it be repeated that you have as yet produc't no Rule at all for your Faith For you have neither prov'd that Scripture's Letter as to every substantial word that concerns Faith is absolutely-Certain nor that it has in it the nature of a Rule nor that 't is your Rule more than 't is to all the Hereticks in the world nor that your Assent to any Point upon that Rule as made use of by you for want of Connexion between the Points to be believ'd and the Rule on which they are believ'd can have the nature of true Faith in it If talking big would do the deed you would indeed do wonders but let your Reasons be proportionable otherwise strong words and faint blows are but very ill-matcht Now I must declare plainly I cannot see the least semblance of so much as one solid Proof in this whole Treatise of yours If there be confute me by shewing it and maintaining it to be such You explain you own Tenet over and over till one is weary of readding it and half asham'd so often to answer it You talk much of God's Word that we are bound to believe it that it contains God's Will and all things necessary to Salvation and twenty such fine things which bear a Godly Sound and would do well in a Sermon where all goes down glib there being none to contradict you but are very dull and flat in Controversy On the contrary not one Argument have you even offer'd at to prove you have Absolute Certainty of the Rule or Ground of your Faith but have faln short in every one of those Considerations both as to the Notions of Certainty Ground Rule Faith and that 't is your Ground your Rule and your Faith. 42. A Rule to any thing if we take that word in a proper sense as we do in our modern Controversies is the Immediate Light to direct us in order to our knowing that thing For in case it be not Immediate but some other thing intervenes that is needful to direct us and by whose Rectitude we frame our thoughts as to that affair and that it renders the other capable to direct us that other becomes presently the Thing Ruled and not the Rule in regard it wanted the Rectitude of another thing to direct it that so it might be fit to direct us Wherefore the Interpretation of Scripture being more Immediate to the knowing the Sense of it's Words that is to the knowing our Faith than is the Letter for it is manifest that all who have the Letter have not right Faith unless they make a right Interpretation of it hence Mr. M. had reason to object that The Christian Church did not agree that every man is to interpret Scripture for himself or to build his Faith upon his own private Interpretation of it Nor ought you to be offended at his position in regard you told us before p. 7. 8. a Heretical Sense may ly under these General Words Christ is the Son of God and different Senses may be couch't under these Christ is really in the Eucharist and so even according to your self 't is the Interpretation or the assigning the Sense to those words which makes True Faith or Heresy Wherefore 't is plain that your own Interpretation of Scripture is in true speech your Rule for That is a more Immediate Direction to give you the Sense of
he then said which was that he was much more confirm'd in the Communion of our the Protestant Church and resolv'd to continue in it Pray Sir was he a sober Enquirer or no If he was did he in two hours time that Mr. G. and you were Disputing use the means you say your sober Enquirer is bound to make use of in doubtful cases as his was if he dealt sincerely with Mr. G. and did not play booty Did he in two or three hours time pray meditate compare Scripture and Expositours upon it use the help of spiritual Guides the sense of the Primitive Church which are but some of the Means you prescribe p. 31. He made prodigious hast if he did use those means How comes he then to be so satisfi'd nay so resolv'd without using those means and so worthy of your Patronage if he did not what you say here he was bound to do These are Mysteries which must be veil'd from the eyes of the Vulgar Prophane Nor is there any way to reconcile these Contradictions but to understand you with this Clavis that you say any thing that seems to serve your turn when you are disputing against us and disclaim it again when the circumstance is alter'd and that as you pretended that for your Rule of Faith which not one in a thousand follow so you pretend those methods must be taken to understand your Rule right to the end we may not be deceiv'd by it which neither are taken by any nay need not be taken at all tho' you told us here men were bound to take them the believing your word that your Answer was competent which was indeed none acquitted his Obligation and atton'd for his rashness This this alone was so meritorious that it was equivalent to Prayer Meditation comparing Scripture and Expositours upon it the help of spiritual Guides and the sense of the Primitive Church which you declare here such as he were bound to consult for their satisfaction in Faith. By which I guess your Test to distinguish a Sober from a Rash Enquirer is whether he will rely on your Word or Skill for his security of Heaven If he will he is of your sober sort without more ado and need not trouble himself with those painfull Methods If he will not he must go through them all or be Rash. The Truth is you play sure and may safely defy any man living ever to enquire himself soberly out of your Communion For whoever begins shall be sure to dy before he have enquir'd half way 44. At length to my great Comfort for 't is tedious to find no Reasons to speak to but still to be employ'd in confuting Mistakes I am come to the last Task that as far as I can discern will belong to my Province Towards the end of pag. 31. your Discourse ayms to establish your kind of Iudgment of Discretion which makes such a noise in your Books and of late rings out of the Pulpit too You make way to it thus If we have the Consent of all Christian Churches against the onely pretended Infallible Iudge we have their Consent likewise that every man is to judge for his own Salvation Your Argument such as it is stands thus By the Consent of all Christian Churches there is no Infallible Iudge therefore every man must judge for himself It seems then nothing will content you now but Infallibility and if that be not to be had every one may set up for himself in the Iudging Profession Why suppose the Governours of Our Church when you left Her or of your Own Church either were Fallible are you grown so nice on a sudden and your Conscience so tender in embracing any thing less than Infallibly-Certain for Faith that Fallibility will not serve your turn which hitherto you so contentedly hugg'd and ador'd and so wittily derided any Certainty above it Suppose they had but your Sufficient Certainty or great Likelyhoods fair Probabilities or such like for their Interpretations of Scripture must they therefore lose their Power of Iudging in that particular because they are Bishops Or forfeit the Dignity of Pastours and Leaders because they are not Infallible You have such an a king tooth at the Churches intermeddling in Faith-matters no not so much as to help her Children in the most necessary Points p. 21. so they be doubtful that neither profes't Infallibility nor acknowledg'd Fallibility will put you in good humour with Church-Governours but out they must and your sober Enquirer starts up in their stead For he must judge whether they tell him right or no when all 's done I suppose by the light Scripture gives him as he is to judge of the veracity of General Councils and so we are got into the giddy whirl-pool of a Circle He must learn the Sense of Scripture by them and yet trust himself interpreting Scripture not them for the Sense of it 'T is pitty but he had a blew Apron on and a Tub to hold forth in what heavenly light he had gain'd by interpreting Scripture after the Method you have shewn him T is true if there were no Absolute Certainty in the way to Faith and I believe you hold none in your Church every man must shift for himself as well as he may yet still even in that case he is bound to do that which shall appear best and come up as neer to Certainty as he can And can he in any reason think his own Enquiry will bring him to more Certainty than the Pastors of his Church who had been sober Enquirers too themselves and understood the Means you assign to make that Enquiry perhaps a thousand times better than himself If he thinks them better qualify'd than himself for interpreting Scripture he sins against the Light of Reason not to trust them rather than himself For they have in that Supposition more knowledge than he T is left then that he is to judge himself to be better qualify'd than his Church her Bishops and all his Pastors are for that work and upon this brisk self-conceit the Book of Scripture flies open on a sudden discloses it's Sense and discovers to him his Faith. Certainly such a man is likely to have a very Reverend esteem of his Church her Bishops and Pastors and yet your Principles would have all men such Indeed you would have your sober Enquirers pray and meditate But it should seem they are to pray amongst other things God would give them the Grace not to obey or believe their Pastors so much as themselves in necessary Points I hope you hold the Tenet of a Trinity Christ's God-head and such other Points such which otherwise their honest Natural Reason conscious to it self of it's own Ignorance will very much tempt them to do and to meditate on God's great Mercy in giving them greater Abilities and better Assistance than he does to his Church for they are very ungrateful if they forget so signal and extravagant
a Favour But let us see what is to be meant by an Infallible Iudge for you do not particularize your acception of those words nor let your Reader see what Judge how or for what reason we hold him Infallible 45. If you mean by Iudge an Authoritative Decider of Controversies about Faith as was said above and that which is what we hold his verdict is Infallible by proceeding upon an Infallible Rule you must either pretend the Christian Church never permitted Church-Governours to exercise their Authority in deciding matters of Faith or else that it never held they had an Infallible Rule to go by And I believe your utmost attempts will fall so far short of producing any such Consent of Universal Tradition for either that it will be directly against you in both and you must have a strange opinion of the Decrees of General Councils in such cases if you apprehend they held either of those self-condemning Tenets And yet I cannot tell but I have made my self too large a Promise concerning this Universal Consent of all Christian Churches being for us or not against us in this particular For I remember now that when you were to state the Notion of Tradition you took in the Consent of all former Hereticks to make your Tradition for Scripture larger and firmer than ours is against you and to make your Argument stronger by their concurrent Testimony and I see a glimmering light already which will grow very clear ere long you take in the same infamous Gang to bear witness against our Infallibility And what a case is the Catholick Church in then We can never expect those obstinate Revolters from that Church or those Churches which were then in Communion with Rome will ever acknowledge the Governours had a just Authority to declare against them as Hereticks for they were all of them to a man true-blew Sober Enquirers or that those Governours proceeded upon an Infallible Rule for this were to cut their own throats and acknowledge themselves Hereticks a mortification not to be submitted to by much contumacious spirits Now all these by your Principles are to be accounted Christian Churches and are call'd so very currently and very frequently by you p. 24. 25. 26. and in many other places without any distinction at all And so we are reduc'd to a very pretty condition according to the admirable mould in which you have new-cast the Church For unless all those Hereticks of old any Lutherans Calvinists and all the inferiour Subdivisions of Faith Reformers vouchsafe to give their concurrent Testimony to the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church which condemn'd them all and as appears by the Council of Trent throughout by the same Rule of Tradition she is to have no Infallibility at all allow'd her her old Rule too is condemn'd by them for a False Light because it condemn'd them and their New-Light nor consequently can she be an Infallible Iudge in Faith-Controversies This is a very hard Law Yet your severe Discourses allow us no better quarter You alledge that the Eastern Churches utterly deny the Roman Churche's Infalliblely tho' they be of very different denominations You mean I suppose amongst the rest the Nestorians Eutychians and such kind of good folks And can you without blushing avail your self of such concurrent Testimonies against the Body communicating with the Roman and her Infallible Rule whose Ancestors were condemn'd by that very Body to which the present Roman-Catholick Church uninterruptedly succeeds and were cast out of the Church for receding from the Christian Doctrine held even then upon that very Rule 46. But what have we to do with any of your pretended Christian Churches whether Eastern or not-Eastern Modern or Antient many or few Or what have you to do with them either if you would as becomes a Controvertist speak home to us You know already we place the Infallibility of our Church in delivering defining and Iudging of Faith-Controversies in the Absolutely Certain Rule of Tradition All therefore that have adher'd to Tradition as their Rule must allow to Her this Inerrableness while she adheres to it else they must condemn themselves And those pretended Churches which have deserted Tradition can never for many reasons be of any competent Authority against the Roman-Catholick For having no Certain Rule they can have no sure Ground of what they believe or alledge against her And besides being her Enemies and condemn'd by her and that by vertue of this very Rule they carp at common Equity tells every man 't is not a pin matter what such men say of that Rule or that Church either whether those men live East West North or South I perceive by your far-stretcht words here p. 31. All the Churches of the Christian World All the Eastern Churches tho' of very different denominations that you imagin the force of an Authority depends meerly on the Number of the Witnesses whereas we make account it depends much more on their Weight that is on their Knowledge and on their Sincerity or Indifferency of their Wills as to the Person or Affair concerning which they are to witness And Fallible Congregations which are both Out-casts and Enemies have for each of those regards no weight at all 47. You have another Fetch yet left to prejudice the Reader against our Tenet For you often make mention of our Infallibility the Roman or the Roman Churches Infallibility and as appears p. 15. and 16 of the Infallibility of the Particular Church of Rome whereas the Question and our true Tenet is of those many particular Churches communicating with the Roman so that you seem desirous to convince us you are resolv'd never to speak to any point sincerely or represent it ingenuously For this sleight tho' it seems trivial insinuates into your Readers that we hold the very Spot of Rome is the precise and adequate mold in which Infallibility is cast Please then to remember and pray let it be the last time we tell you of it that it is her following the self-evidently certain Rule of Tradition in which as a Controvertist I do in this Dispute place her Infallibility That being thus absolutely Certain of her Faith we can prove she is qualify'd to be an Infallible Iudge of Faith. That every Bishop is a Iudge of Faith-Controversies in proportion to his Sphere and the Highest Bishop above them all but still the last resort or Test of their final obliging to Belief for any one may oblige his Diocesans to Silence for Peace's sake is with reference to the Body of the Church and the Infallibility of the Church is refunded into the Certainty of her Rule and there it rests Hence conscious to your selves of the want of such an Infallible Rule you dare pretend to no Infallible Iudge but are forc't to leave every particular man to his private Iudgment of Discretion tho' you experience it shatters your Church no better principled into thousands of Sects In a word
Rule of Tradition is an absolutely or infallibly-Certain Conveyer of Christ's Faith down to Our Dayes Whence I deny that he can with the least grain of Discretion refuse to communicate with those who proceed on such an evidently Certain Rule and are found in Possession of their Faith upon that secure Tenure and adhere to those others who declare against any Infallible Rule that is who confess the means they have to know any one particular Point of Faith or which is all one any Faith at all is Fallible that their Guides may perhaps all mislead them and their Rule permit the Followers of it to Err. You see now how we allow them the Use of their Reason and Judgment of Discretion till it brings them to find a Certain Authority and when they have once found That the same Iudgment of Discretion which shew'd them that Authority was Absolutely Certain obliges them to trust it when it tells them what is Christ's Faith without using their private Judgment any longer about the particular Points themselves thus ascertain'd to them but submitting to It. In doing which yet they do not at all relinquish their Reason but follow and exercise it For nothing is more Rational than to submit to an Authority which my Reason has told me is Absolutely Certain in things which the same Reason assures me can no other wayes be known certainly but by that Authority 49. Now let us consider the Iudgment of Discretion as understood by you of which your sober Enquirer makes use to find out his Faith. 'T is onely employ'd about searching out the sense of Scripture's Letter by Fallible means which he can never hope will preserve him Certainly from Errour let him do his very best since he is told even by your selves that Great Bodies of very Learned Men and acute Scripturists do follow the same Rule and yet erre in the highest Articles of our Belief nay he sees himself by daily experience how many Sects follow that for their Rule yet vastly differ Whence instead of judging discreetly he commits the most absurd Indiscretion in the world to hazard his salvation upon his own Interpretation of Scripture when at the same time he is told by those very Men who propose to him this Rule that there is no Absolute security neither by his own Industry nor his Churche's veracity from erring in that Interpretation And not onely this but he sees or may see if he will soberly enquire what Certain Grounds are propos'd by others and yet suffers his Reason and the Truth to be run down with the noisy hubbubs against Popery and either out of a blameable Weakness or perhaps out of an inexcusable obstinacy rejects those Grounds or disregards the looking into them I say again Inexcusable For the very Nature of Faith tells him that 't is an Vnalterable Assent and that it cannot possibly be a Ly whence common sense will tell him 't is not to be hoped for amongst those who confess that all the Knowledge they have of each particular Point of Faith that is of any Faith is Fallible and onely likely to be had amongst those who own and maintain their Grounds cannot deceive them so that such a man if he ever came to a due Reflexion upon what most concerns him sins against the Light of Reason in many regards and what you call Iudgment of Discretion is convinc't to be the most Vnjudicious Indiscretion imaginable And your sober Enquirer who builds all his hopes of salvation upon such a Iudgment proves himself the weight of the Concern being duly consider'd to be the most rash and hair-brain'd Opiniastre and the most credulously blind that ever submitted and prostituted his Rational Faculty with which God has endow'd him and will require a strict account of him how he has us'd it to a most Groundless and Improbable Conjecture Disregarding all Authority out of his presumption on his own Skill or that he is more in GOD's Favour than the whole Church and I much fear out of a spiritual Pride and self-conceit that he can find out all necessary Faith well enough of himself without being beholding to any Church at all or as you instruct him here p. 21. and declare openly and avowedly you are not asham'd of it without the Churches Help Which is the very First Principle nay the Quintessence of all Heresy Fanaticism in the Egg perfect Enthusiasm when hatch't and downright Atheism when fledge FINIS THE FOURTH Catholick Letter IN ANSWER TO Dr. Stillingfleet's SERMON Preach't at GUILD-HALL November 27 th 1687. Entituled Scripture Tradition Compared Addrest to His AUDITORY By Iohn Sergeant Published with Allowance London Printed and sold by Matthew Turner at the Lamb in High-Holbourn 1688. TO THE READER PErhaps the smart Expressions and plausible Methods that Dr. St. so affects in his late Discourse concerning the Nature and Grounds of the Certainty of Faith in which he pretends to Answer the Catholick Letters may have rais'd Expectation in many indifferent men and Triumph in some of his Partial Admirers wherefore to stay the Appetites of the former and give some check to the over-weening of the later I thought it fitting to say somthing here by way of Preface to give our Readers a short Account of his main Performances in that Discourse till I come to publish a Compleat Answer to the whole What I affirm of it and undertake to make good is 1. That he so strangely prevaricates from the whole business we are about that he even forgets we are Writing Controversy and would turn the Polemical Contest in which we are engag'd into a Dispute of School-Divinity bearing the Reader in hand That we are Treating of Faith as formally Divine and of all the Intrinsical Requisites to it as it is such tho' none of them be Controverted between us and some of them are perhaps onely Knowable by GOD himself The meanest Reflecter may discern how impossible 't is for the Dr My self or any man living to put such Particulars as these into our Proofs or Arguments and how unpardonable an Absurdity 't is to alledge them in our Circumstances The very nature I say of Controversy obliges and restrains us both to speak of Faith precisely according to what is Controverted between the Contending Parties and the nature of our present Contest which is about an Absolutely-Certain Rule to know this matter of Fact that Christ and his Apostles did Teach the Doctrines we Profess determines us both to speak of Divine Faith precisely as it stands under such a Rule recommending our Faith to us as deliver'd by Christ and proving it to be his genuin Doctrin 2. That whatever the Big Letters in his Title pretend he neither shews from the Nature of Faith as it lies under our Consideration that it does not need the Perfect Certainty we require nor that the Certainty he assignes to make us adhere to it as True is not Perfect Uncertainty since he does not bottom it on the
very Principles oblige me to declare that what I attribute to them is First That they have All those Excellencies which Dr. St. yields them and one more which he does not of which hereafter Secondly That they are Profitable to all the Ends St. Paul writing to Timothy ascribes to them and that in such a high measure that I do from my heart grant them to be so great an Instrument of our Salvation that the Church had been at an incredible loss without them that not near half the number of Christian Souls would have been sav'd had it not pleas'd God to leave to the Church such a Powerful Means to instruct them in a virtuous life and raise them up to it Thirdly That when they are animated with the Sense of the Divinely-Inspired Writers by a Certain Interpretation they are very useful to confute Hereticks and that Thus Interpreted they are with much profit made use of to that end by Fathers and Councils Fourthly That tho' they were written on several occasions it was not without the Design of God's good Providence which orders all our Actions to the bringing about his Best Ends however they be occasional to us much more an Affair so mainly important to the Churches improvement Fifthly That there was also a peculiar Providence in preserving the Letter from any material Corruption and that the Second Causes by which this Providence exerted it self was the most obligatory Care of the Church to whom those Sacred Oracles were committed and the Knowledge she ever had of Christ's Doctrin 6 thly That the Sense of Scripture is so sublime in Spiritual Points and high Mysteries of Faith which are above Nature and could only be known to the World by Divine Revelation that no men by their Private Judgments much less all sorts of men coming to Faith and therefore unelevated and unenlighten'd by It can arrive at the knowledge of it's Sense by the Letter in those difficult Texts with such an unerring Certainty as is requisit for that most Firm Rational and Unalterable Assent call'd Faith and therefore that in These they need the Help of the Church Whereas in other passages that are Historical Moral c. where the subject matter is more obvious to ordinary Reason they are either clear of themselves or may be clear'd as much as is necessary by the Learning of the more Knowing Faithful For the same reason I hold that Scripture thus privately interpreted is not convictive of Hereticks who have imbib'd a contrary sentiment to that of the Divine Enditer because those men admit no Certain Interpreter of those difficult places And this want of Clearness in such Texts I do not take to be a Privative Imperfection but on the contrary to argue a very high Perfection in Scripture viz. as Vincentius Lirinensis has told us 1200 years ago Commonitor cap. 2. It 's Deep Sense Whence 't is rather to be call'd properly a Disproportion of that Sense to the low Conceptions of Private Iudgments looking after Faith or an Obscurity relatively to such Persons than an Absolute one since the Faithful who are instructed in that Sense are both capable to understand it right and moreover to discover still more and more Excellent Truths in it 7 thly That for this reason I cannot hold the Letter of Scripture privately interpreted the Rule of Faith or a Means for people of every capacity looking after Faith to know the Sense of it in those Dogmatical Articles with such a Certainty as was shewn above to be Necessary for a Ground of Faith nor can I allow that the Truth of Christian Faith ought to be built upon such a Sandy Foundation as are those Private Interpretations And therefore that there needs some other Rule to Ascertain people of all sorts what is Christ's true Doctrin in those points Moreover I make account the Experience of all Ages since Christ's time abets my Position Every Heretick and all his Followers relying on his private Interpretations of Scripture for his wicked Blasphemies as the Socinians do now who are as far as we can discern sincere and exact Followers of that Rule or Vsers of that Means and yet fall short of Christ's genuin Doctrine denying his Godhead and the Mystery of the B. Trinity A plain Argument that That cannot be the way to Truth which such vast multitudes have follow'd and yet have been led into Errour unless we knew them all to be wilfully sincere or strangely negligent which we can neither know nor have reason to think And as experience has shewn this to every mans eye so neither is it my sentiment onely The same Lirinensis telling us That by reason of the Scripture's Depth as many Opinions as there are Men seem possible to be drawn thence Where he ascribes the obscurity of the Letter not meerly to the fault of the Persons nor the hardness of the Words in which the Sense is deliver'd but to the Profoundness of the Sense it self Reason and Experience both informing us that where the matter is above the Readers capacity tho' the Words be never so plain yet the Doctrine is not easily comprehended without some who is already skill'd in that Sense § 5. As for Tradition The very sound of the Word may perhaps give you some prejudice against it because our Saviour reprehended the Jews for some unwarrantable Traditions of theirs This obliges me to give you a true Character of our Tenet concerning It and to make known to you particularly what Tradition means as we understand it in our Controversies which Dr. St. tho' he knows it will never do but on the contrary as shall be seen misrepresents it all along very disingenuously in every particular What we hold of it then is First That the Apostles by their Preaching during the whole time of their lives settled the self-same Christian Doctrin in the minds of the Generality of the Faithful dispersed in several Countries and not only at large and particularly explicated it and fixt it by their heavenly Preaching but riveted it as we may say by Miracles founded Churches and constituted Disciplin by means of which and their own Example they establish't them in the Practice of that Doctrin Lastly They recommended the continuing it as the means of Salvation and consequently that the swerving from it themselves or neglecting to educate their Children in it was the assured way to Eternal misery to them and their Posterity 2 dly That this vast multitude unanimously settled in the same Faith is that which we make the First Source of Tradition which had no more to do but to attest to the next Age what the First had receiv'd and practis'd nor could they forget a Doctrin which was so recommended and according to which they had led their Christian lives so long Nor could true Faith the Parent of all other Virtues which was in their hearts no nor even the Natural love to themselves and their Children permit them all to be
so Wicked as to decline from it voluntarily or neglect to educate the others in it however it was to be expected there would be now and then a failure in some Particulars deserting the former Doctrin and drawing Proselytes after them 3 dly That the same reason holds for the Continuate Delivery of the same Doctrin by the Second Age to the Third and so still forwards the most powerful Motives God himself could propose being laid to oblige Christians not to deviate from it in the least or be careless to recommend it And those Motives too a thousand times more lively imprinted and apprehended by the heaven-instructed Faithful than they were by any in the former Ages of the World before Christ. 4thly That by Tradition then is meant The Testimony of the whole foregoing Age of Christians to the next Age of what had been deliver'd and explain'd to them by their Living Voice and Practice Or taking Tradition as it ought to be for Oral and Practical both 'T is A Continu'd Education of undergrowing Posterity in the Principles and Practice of their Immediate Predecessours 5 thly That hence 't is Evident beyond needing Proof that this Rule cannot on it's part deceive us For putting that it was still follow'd or that Posterity still believ d and practis'd as their Immediate Fore-Fathers did who at first believ'd and practis'd as the Apostles had instructed them 't is manifest the Last Age of the World must have the same Faith that the First Age of Christianity had Whence follows evidently that no Errour could possibly come in at any time unless this Rule of Tradition had been deserted 6 thly That Tradition thus understood and we never understood it otherwise being the Living Voice and Practice of the Church in the immediate Age before is applicable to all even of the lowest Capacity as we experience to some degree in the instructions by Pastours even now adays And since it delivers it's Sense which in those that have follow'd that Rule has been even now shewn to be Christ's Doctrin by Preaching Catechizing Explaining daily Practising and all the ways imaginable to make it understood 't is also an Absolutely-Clear Conveyer of Christ's Doctrin downwards Add that should it's sense be at any time misapprehended the Church and her Pastours can explain their own meaning pertinently to the Askers Doubter's or Mistaker's Exigencies which a Letter in a Book cannot 7 thly That the Chief Care of the Church was to inculcate to the Faithful and preserve inviolate the Chief Points of the Christian Faith and therefore that Tradition did most particularly exert it's self in Teaching and Transmitting Those 8 thly 'T is not to be deny'd but Scriptural Tradition went along with this other we have explain'd For the Church having the same sense in her breast which the First Writers had were consequently the best Interpreters of it which was one Reason why the Fathers and Councils often made use of it to confute Hereticks and comfort the Faithful by it's concurrence But when they were to convert any to Faith it was never heard they took such a Method as to put the Bible in his hand and bid him look for his Faith there telling him 't was Plain even in the highest points that were dubious or Controverted to every capacity 9 thly That hence Scripture without the Churches help was never held by them Anciently nor can with reason be held by us now to be the Rule of Faith in the sense we use that word that is to be a Means or Way for All who are coming to Faith to arrive unerringly at it Lastly we hold that the Sense of Scripture's Letter in those sublime Points surpasses the apprehensions of private men coming to Faith and so the Letter alone cannot be an assured Ground to build the Truth of Christian Faith upon whence follows that Tradition which is Plain and Easy and only It can be in Proper Speech the Rule of Faith. § 6. This then is the true State of the Question between us This is our true Tenet both concerning Scripture and Tradition and what are the Points to be ascertain'd by them Now let us see how the Sermon represents us and whether your admired Preacher does so much as touch any one of these particulars § 7. In the first place you may please to take notice that he never lets you know or so much as suspect that the main Contest between him and me is about the Absolute Certainty or Uncertainty of Christian Faith His wicked Doctrin in that Point oblig'd me to write a whole Treatise formerly in Vindication of Christianity from such an Intolerable Scandal which I apply'd in the cloze of it against himself and Dr. Tillotson Had he let you know this he prudently foresaw your Zeal for Christianity your best Concern would have given you a just prejudice against his Sermon and the Preacher too and the very Conceit all Christians have of the Truth of their Faith would have made you abhor a Discourse out of a Pulpit maintaining it might possibly be a Ly. As for particulars § 8. First he talks of a Stedfastness and a firm and well-settled resolution to adhere to that Faith which Christ himself deliver'd But ought you not to be assur'd first that he did indeed deliver it Or are you to adhere to it as his whether you are certain 't is his or no Or is a resolution to hold stedfastly to what you judge is the Faith of Christ well-settled if that Faith of yours the Basis of your Spiritual Building and Ground of that Resolution be not well-settled it self but may sink into False-hood This is the true Point you are to look after and till you have perfect satisfaction from him in this wisely to consider that Pious Talk without Solid Grounds to support their Truth is but painting the out-side of a Sepulcher The tinkling cymball of a little Rhetorick and shews of much Reading may go far with persons whom such flourishes can prevail upon to forgo their Reason but he had but a very small respect for you if he hop't you were so easy to be play'd upon with the wind of a little articulate ayr § 9. It was very possible he says for them to have mistaken or misremember'd what was at first deliver'd Whom does he mean by Them What by First Delivery Does he mean the Vniversality of Christians in the First Age or any succeeding one Or that those Great Bodies settled in their Faith form'd into Church-Government and kept up to their Christian Duties by Disciplin could thus mistake or misremember the former Teaching and Practice which was a plain matter of Fact This is the only Tradition we ever spoke of or went about to defend None doubts but that when some single Apostle was Preaching in some places at first the Thoughts of the Hearers were as yet raw and the things that were told them were so strange that they did not
immediately sink deep into the Conceptions of the Generality But it was otherwise when in tract of time that Doctrin was farther spread more often inculcated and more clearly explain'd and well-instructed Pastours constituted to Teach it more expressly and put them forwards to practise it He mistake◠then and misrepresents the whole nature of Our Tradition and by antedating it sights against it before it could have a Being And as this Errour runs through all his Discourses and weak Inferences out of Scripture so the laying it open once for all is a full confutation of them all at once Add that he never consider'd whether when those several Churches Err'd or were in hazard to Err they did so by following even that particular Tradition or Preaching of such or such an Apostle or whether they came to err by deserting it If the Later the Tradition was not faulty but They who Deserted it Yet how different soever these two Points are the one making for that particular Tradition the other against it he never thinks of distinguishing them or letting the Reader know when the Tradition was in fault and when the Persons but runs on in common words as if he had no Design or determinate prospect whither he was going I am sure it is not at all towards the true Question nor against Us. § 10. But tho' all his Reflexions from the several pieces of Scripture are quite besides the purpose yet his Candid and Solid way of managing his own Mistakes and how he wire-draws every thing to make it seem fit deserves our particular observation He tells us speaking of the Church of Corinth that They which signifies the whole Church had like to have lost All their Faith whereas the Text only sayes Some among you And is it such a wonder that some among many should hap to be imperfectly instructed fantastical or refractory to their Teachers But his Partiality is most remarkable When he was forc't to be beholding to the Churches Testimony of Doctrine which is our Tradition to abet the Scripture he could tell us then This is very different from the Case of particular Persons in some Churches who might mistake or forget what was taught but sayes he the Churches themselves could not agree to approve on Errour in the Gospel contrary to the Faith deliver'd to them So that there it was a very different Case but here it seems the Case is not different at all but the very same For Some among You are enlarg'd to signify that Church it self and whereas the only Point those Some deny'd was The Resurrection of the Dead to let you see how utterly insignificant a thing Tradition is that can do no good at all he extends it to signify All their Faith hoping I suppose any thing would pass upon you so 't were spoke out of a Pulpit 'T is told you there All 's Gods Word and he presumes you will be so Civil to God Almighty and so Kind to himself as to accept it for Such and swallow it for Pure Truth § 11. I am oblig'd to him for allowing That the Testimony of every Christian Church did shew the Concurrence of all the Apostles as to the Doctrine contain'd in the several Gospels For then I hope they may be able to shew to the next Age and so forwards the concurrent Doctrine of the First which establishes the Original of our Tradition to be Absolutely Certain He discourses well p. 11. and he ends better That the Memory of the Apostles Doctrin was so fresh in their Minds that it was in effect the Consent of all the Apostles who had taught them And yet better That the concurrent Testimony of all the Apostolical Churches could not let them agree to approve an Errour in the Gospels contrary to the Faith deliver'd to them This is very extraordinary kind and no less solid For 1. these Words could not agree to approve a contrary Doctrine makes their Testimony Infallible 2. This discourse makes the acceptation of the Truth of the Gospels that is of their Sense depend on Vnwritten Tradition 3. We cannot doubt but that Doctrine was Full as fresh in their Memories when they were grown Older and were to transmit it to the next Age after the Apostles decease as it was before unless they lost the Memory of it by discoursing of it more while they taught it to others by Practising it longer themselves 4. As little can it be doubted but the Doctrine and Practise of the First Age was as Fresh in the minds of the Second Age since they Led their Christian Lives by it for it was Equally Intelligible and of Equal Concern still to them to Learn and Teach it as it was to the First Lastly That this being so the Testimony of that Body even now adays that adheres to Tradition is in effect the Consent of all the Apostles that taught it at First Observe Gentlemen that this is the only time Dr. St. has so much as touch 't upon Our Tradition and that he is so far from impugning or confuting it that he in some part directly in others by necessary Consequence acknowledges it's force and strongly abets it But it was not out of good will he was intent in that place upon making good the Truth of the Gospels and assoon as he has made use of it to serve a present turn he immediately discards it as good for little or nothing or nothing to the particular purpose he had lately allow'd the Testifying Christs Doctrine § 12. For the very next page he reckons up three things for which The common Tradition of the Apostolical Churches were useful after the Decease of the Apostles But not a word of their Vsefulness to Testify to others what they had learnt from those Masters of Christianity No sooner were the Apostles dead and that first Age had by their concurrent Testimony of the Doctrine they had receiv'd from them given credit to the Truth of the Written Gospels but immediately the whole Christian World had lost their Memory of that Doctrine on a sudden and the Grace to preserve and propagate it One would think by this wild Discourse of his that both Common Natural parts and all degrees of Ordinary Honesty had been preserv'd to them miraculously thitherto meerly to recommend the Truth of the Gospels and that assoon as that was done and the Apostles were dead the Author of Nature and Grace suspended or rather subtracted for ever all his Influence left them a Tabula rasa without either Memory or Goodness to learn their Faith a new out of Scripture § 13. And hence it is that he rallies upon Universal Testimony or Tradition as if it were some sleight story of a few Tatling Gossips or of those who heard what some say that others told them who had it from such c. Whereas had he said as he ought to have said What the whole First Age of Christians witnest
to do with his Objecting some of our Writers but shall come to his Second Reason drawn from the notorious Vncertainty of meer Tradition and that never was any trial made of it but it fail'd even when it had the greatest Advantages Expect Gentlemen by those high and mighty Words he will bring most Convincing Arguments to prove that the Universal Testimony of the Church in delivering down those high Points of Faith is notoriously Vncertain and fail'd in every Age nay the very First for then it had the Greatest Advantages the Christians having then fresh Memories and being then Infallible since they could not agree to approve false Doctrin as himself told us p. 11 12. For my part I am of his mind and never knew any other Tradition have Advantages comparable to what Christian Tradition had for transmitting the Doctrine of Faith and if he lets you know what those Advantages of Christian Tradition were and shews them unable to oblige the Church to convey Christ's Doctrin down he will gain his Point But if he prevaricates from this necessary Duty he abuses you with fine Luke-warm Words to no purpose I do assure you before hand tho' he talks here of Advantages he has not in his whole Sermon mention'd much less ingenuously inform'd you of any one Advantage Christian Tradition has but industriously conceal'd every particular that gives it force Yet who sees not that without doing this 't is impossible to impugn it or deal fairly with his Auditory for how should you judge of the Comparison without a clear sight of the things Compar'd § 22. He did very prudently not to insist on the falling of Tradition in the Law of Nature For 1. He must have shewn It fail'd them and not They fail'd It by deserting it which could only be done by proving that had they continu'd to follow it they could have stray'd into Polytheism which he can never do it being evidently Impossible 2. That to make good the Parallel he must have prov'd it had as Ample an Original which gives a vast force to Testifying Authority as Christian Tradition had which is equally impossible for it had for its Source but one single man Adam 3. That there were not more powerful Motives nor greater Assistances of Grace to continue the Christian Doctrine under the Law of Grace than there were under that most imperfect Law of Nature nor more exact Discipline in the Church of Christ than there was in that loose State which had been hard Points and altogether impossible even to attempt with any shew of Reason He did very wisely too to Wave the Opinion of the Millenaries the time of Easter and the Communicating of Infants For he both knows that every Apostolical Tradition had this last been suppos'd such is not necessarily an Article of Faith as also that none of these nor yet their contrary was a Point of Christian Doctrine Preach't and Settled unanimously over the World by the Apostles He made account he had a better game to play by shewing how Tradition fail'd in delivering down the Apostles Creed But he might had he pleas'd as well have left out That as the Others for none of the Explainers of Tradition ever held or said it was to bring down Set Form of Words which requir'd application of Memory and Repetition of them in Order but only the Sense of the First Age which was Christ's true Faith instill'd after a connatural way by Education and apt to be exprest in different Words according to different Circumces § 23. Were it granted him That things Written supposing the Letter could be prov'd to be still continu'd Absolutely Certain had the Advantage as to the Certainty of Conveyance above things meerly committed to Memory and Tradition yet he is where he was The Point between us still sticks that is Whether meer Words expressing in short such sublime spiritual Tenets as are most of the chief Articles of Christian Religion are so Clear to private Judgments nay to All even the Vulgar that are looking for Faith that they can have that perfect Assurance of their true Sense as to build that Never-to-be-Alter'd Assent call'd Faith upon their understanding them This is the summ of our difficulty this is what we most insist upon and are perpetually pressing him to shew the security of the Method he takes to give us this Certainty I do not mean the Certainty of the Letter about which he keeps such ado but of the sense of it in such Points if he thinks any one of them so necessary that the Generality cannot be sav'd without the knowledge of it This is it which most imports you to know if you value the having such Grounds for your Faith as ought in true reason to perswade you 't is true that it was Taught by Christ or that you are not perhaps dociend and in an Errour all this while But not one word of this in the whole Sermon He argues from God's making choice of Writing when he deliver'd the Ten Commandments What means he or how can he apply this to our Question Are the Ten Commandments which are plain honest Nature of as Deep and Mysterious a Sense as the high Points we speak of Are they so hard to be understood that Writing is not a clear Conveyer of God's Sense in such Matters Does he hear a great part of the World at variance about the Meaning of the Ten Commandments as multitudes of Hereticks have been Wrangling with the Church ever since Christ's time about the Sense of Scripture in those Dogmatical Points Were the Texts which contain those Points as plain to all Mankind as the Ten Commandments are or as are generally the Historical and Moral parts of Scripture I should frankly declare that Scripture might in that Supposition be a Rule of Faith as to the Points contained in it and that there would be no need of the Church for our simply believing but only to confirm our Faith explain it more throughly when any part of it imply'd in some main Point is deny'd apply it to our Consciences by her Preaching and keep us up to the Doctrin it delivers by her Government and Discipline So that our Controversy-Preacher who has never hit the Point hitherto doubly misses it here in his representing Tradition as held by us needful to supply the defect of Clearness in Moral passages that are plain enough of themselves and that 't is to bring down Set-Forms of Words which is not its business whatever it be those Words express And this shews his Mistake in his Second Proof viz. the restoring the Knowledge of the Law Written by a Written Book which was a Way most Proper for that End. Whence for the same Reason if there were any deviation from the Christian Doctrin which as contradistinguish't to that other was writ in the Living Tables of the Hearts of the Faithful the best Way of preserving or restoring That was by
the Sence writ in the Heart of the Church at first by the Preaching of the Apostles and continu'd ever since in the manner we have describ'd and prov'd § 24. But The Dr. is got into a Track of mistaking and he cannot get out of it He brings for his Third Argument our B. Saviour's advice to the Iews to search the Scriptures The business was to know whether he was the true Messias and the Prophecies relating to the Messias were Matters of Fact or else Moral and therefore proportion'd to the Understanding of the Searchers and plain enough so they apply'd but Industry Diligence to find them out Are your Mysteries of Christian Faith such Or Must weak unelevated Understandings therefore presume to penetrate the Meaning of the Scripture in Texts of so deep a Sense as those Mysteries are because the Jews were exhorted to do it in a matter within the Sphere of their Capacity Again The Tradition of the Iews was very strong that a Messias should come but that This was the Person there was no Tradition at all This was therefore either to be made known by his Miracles done to attest it or to be found out by the applying of diverse particulars to Him and by seeing they all concurr'd in him And did ever any of us pretend that Tradition was to bring down such particulars If he says we did he must shew where If he confesses we did not he must confess withal his Text and Discourse here is nothing to the purpose He turns it off from the Admonition of searching the Scriptures to know the true Messias to the knowing whether he were a Temporal Prince whereas the Tradition of his Kingdom 's being purely Spiritual was neither Vniversally held taught nor deliver'd at first by the First Founders of that Law nor settled in the hearts of the Synagogue or the Universality of the Jews in the beginning as Christ's Doctrin was by the unanimous Preaching of the Apostles in the hearts of such a numerous Multitude as was the Christian Church of the First Age. Which being evidently so What reason was there our Saviour should refer them to such a slight or rather no-Tradition and not to the Written Prophecies in which he was foretold Or What consequence can be drawn hence to the prejudice of Christian Tradition which and which only we defend and which as was fitting is so strongly supported that it is impossible to find a Parallel to equal or come nigh it And unless this be done all his Arguments against it stand thus A Lesser Force cannot do an Effect therefore a Greater cannot An odd piece of Logick but suitable to all the rest § 25. His Fourth Reason represents Tradition to be meerly Verbal and not Practical That it alone is to bring down particular Matters of Fact or Historical passages nay the Speculative Whimsies of the old Heathen Phylosophers None of which was ever pretended and so all his Discourse runs upon his old and oft-repeated Errour in the true meaning of Tradition § 26. The Reasons he gives for the Certainty of the Books of Scripture we allow to a Tittle and we add to them One over and above which is better than them all viz. the Obligation and Care of the Church which as She ever held the Scriptures to contain the same Doctrin which was preach't to Her at first by Christ's Order and that it was a most incomparable Instrument for the Edification of her Children the Abetment of Faith the Salvation of Mankind nay an Instruction to Her Self too in thousands of most excellent most useful and most enlightning passages so She could not but look upon Her Self as most highly oblig'd to preserve the Letter from any material Alteration and yet more particularly in case any Hereticks went about to corrupt it in any Texts nay Coma's or Pointings that concerned the main Articles of Christianity which they sometimes attempted the Doctrin of Christ in her Breast could easily direct them to set the Text right again and that with Absolute Certainty Nor does any say or so much as suppose any Book of Scripture is indeed lost as he hints p. 29. only upon his saying That the Scripture we have now contains all the Divine Revelations I us'd the right of a Disputant and put him to make good what he says and to prove he has the Absolute Certainty he pretended to that no Book was lost without which he could have no such Certainty those pieces of Scripture we have now did contain All the Divine Revelations which by his Grounds denying any Certainty but what might admit of Deceit I was sure he was not able to perform § 27. Nor do I at all doubt of the Influence of Divine Grace or of the Internal Satisfaction which good Souls who are already Faithful or as St. Thomas of Aquin cited by him expresses himself Have the Habit of Faith by which they have a right Iudgment of those things which are agreeable to that vertue receive concerning Scripture and Christ's Doctrin or that they confirm men more than Demonstration does Arguments have the Nature of Preliminaries to Faith or Searches after it but the Inward Satisfaction that that Heavenly Doctrin rectifies and purifies the Soul and levels it directly towards the Attainment of it's last Blissful End has the nature of a kind of Experience and as it were Possession and Enjoyment of what Humane Arguments previous to Faith had been looking after and contending for I suppose Gentlemen the Dr. brought in this Discourse to prepare your Minds by a shew of Piety to rest appay'd with any slight Reason that falls short of concluding and breed in you a prejudice against the necessity of his producing any such Arguments as place Christian Faith above Possibility of Falshood But he is as much out of the Way here as he was in all the rest For notwithstanding God's Grace and this Internal Satisfaction which is Proper to good Souls who are Believers already the Church and her Pastours must be furnish'd with solid and unanswerable Reasons to satisfie perfectly those both of the lowest and most acute capacity who are looking after Faith that the Doctrin She professes was taught by Christ and to evince and defend its Truth in that particular against the most subtile Adversaries which cannot be done unless the Reasons which we as Controvertists bring set it above possibility of Falshood that Christ taught it We cannot put God's Grace and our Internal Satisfaction into Syllogisms when we are disputing Nor does God intend by His Grace to prejudice the true Nature Himself has given us which is Reason but to perfect and elevate it 'T is against Reason that in Preliminaries to Faith which are the Objects of Natural Reason those who are capable to penetrate the force of reasons should assent beyond the Motive for as far as it is beyond the Motive 't is without any Motive that is without any Reason and
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
Indirect Tricks and Stratagems to avoid the force of Truth and which of us candidly pursues it and let them after a mutuall protestation upon their Honours that they will pass an Impartial Verdict give under their Hands the particulars in which each of us have notoriously fail'd or falter'd I mean that such Faults whether of Commission or Omission should be noted as may appear to be wilfully disingenuous or affectedly Insincere and not meerly Humane Oversights This fair and Equal Offer Gentlemen will exceedingly conduce to your and all our Readers Satisfaction and Dr St's accepting it is the only way to do right to his Credit which stands impeacht of using such unworthy Methods And your pressing him to it will be both a Iustification of your Friendship and Esteem for him and be also received as a very great favour by Your Friend and Servant in Christ J. S. ERRATA PAge 8. r. unconsonantly P. 23. l. 15. nor did p. 28. l. 2. of the Approvers p. 36. l. 34. can be competent p. 64. l. 22. thence embrace p. 68. l. 21. Câ—rinthians p. 70. l. 27. disparate p. 101. l. 33. may as much p. 102. l. 1. them not to p. 106. l. 29.30 is got p. 108. l. 1. not at all p. 112. l. 1. so plain and easy p. 115. l. 13. recurr to Ibid l. ult Censures p. 127. l. 3â— any Decree p. 12â— l. 13.14 may seem p. 140. l. 2. following it then p. 150. l. 18. Argument good p. 152. l. 23. stand yet in p. 156. l. 19. shewing it p. 166. l. 7. of my words p. 169. in the Margent See above p. 126. Introduction 1. IN his Preamble Dr. St. according to his usual way of confuting quarrels every word he meets with and gives every circumstance an invidious turn This looks brisk but how weak and flat he is in his Arguments shall be seen hereafter In the mean time the dimmest Eye may discern how Impertinent this is to our Dispute and to the Certainty of his Grounds of Faith nay to his own Title-page I am sorry to see him so much out of humour as to run against and strike at every thing near him tho' it lay not in his way But sinking men when their case is desperate must catch at straws having no firmer support at hand to keep them from drowning First He wonders why Mr. G. did not defend his own cause himself He was at that very time call'd upon to attend his Majesties Service and it was a Duty owing to Truth and our Sovereign as well as Charity and Friendship to him that some body should step in to supply for him 2 ly Why must J. S. be the man Because it was desir'd of him and he was besides prest to it by many Judicious Persons as one who had in their Opinion and by the Dr's own tacit Confession by his silence for 15 years unanswerably overthrown his Principles in Error Non-plust and besides he was injur'd provok'd and in a manner Challeng'd by him in his Second Letter by his quoting and abetting Haeresis Blacloana which was writ designedly against Him and by pretending the way of Controversy he follow'd was Pelagainism Now it belong'd properly to I. S. to clear this by his own Pen and whatever the Dr's Intention was I am to thank him he has put a force upon me to Vindicate my self in English which I have done in two Latin Treatises above ten years ago to the Satisfaction of my Judges and Superiors and the farther Illustration and Abetment of what I had written in my former Books 3 ly He quarrels the Titles of my Catholick Letters and that no one Church of the Christian World ever own'd it And does he in his great Learning think the Church is to Own or prescribe every one their particular Methods of handling Controversy All she is to do is to deliver to us Christ's Doctrine and then leave it to the Learning of her Controvertists to take such Methods to defend it as best sutes with their Circumstances and the Exigencies of the Persons they are to treat with Are all the Principles Dr. St. laid Is all his Discourse at the Conference with Mr. G Is his avow'd Position that every Sober Enquirer may without the Churches help find out all necessary Points of Faith own'd by any one Catholick Church I know not what that Great Conventicle of Geneva may do or what the new one that is now erecting here by the Triumvirate of the Church of England's Reformers mentioned in the scurrilous Reply to the Bishop of Oxford may do in time when they haue brought about their Projects but I am confident he shall never find any one Catholick Church that ever own'd diverse of his Principles and that Position 4 ly But why did I not call those Letters Roman-Catholick but Catholick He tells the Reader with much assuredness I durst not do so because I had not forgotten how hardly I had lately escaped Censure at Rome Now another man whose Reason was free and undisturb'd would think I should rather have done this in Gratitude to their allowing and accepting my Defence upon such honourable terms as a kind Admonition that mindfull of the Apostles words I am a Debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians both to the Wise and to the Unwise I would explain my self as to some passages which were somewhat obscure from the ambiguity of a word My true reason if he will needs have it was because Dr. St's private-spirited Rule was Common to all Hereticks and the Rule I defended was quite opposite to it and therefore Catholick and this even in the sense of many Eminent Protestants who pretend to Universal Tradition as the Rule to ascertain their Interpretations of Scripture to whom the name of Roman is not so agreeable 2. The Dr. will still be leaving the road-way of the Question tho' which I am sorry to see he runs himself into the Bryars most wofully So he tells the Reader I ought to have let him alone and not have writ against him because I have done next to nothing for my self and seem to have forgotten the Answer to my Sure-footing meaning Dr. Tillotson's Rule of Faith. Yes quite forgotten it without doubt About two Months after that Answer came out I publish'd my Letter of Thanks In which I laid open how he had mistaken still the main point in Controversy how he had willfully perverted my Sense all along and falsify'd my Words in many places nay inserted some of his own and then impugn'd what himself had disingenuously added I defended my Testimonies and reply'd to the most concerning passages Then observing that his whole Answer proceeded on a False Ground viz. That there was no Rule of Faith but what left it under the Scandalous ignominy of being perhaps False that is indeed no Rule at all therefore to stubb-up his shallow-rooted work from its Foundations I writ
Controversy and consequently treating of Faith precisely as 't is Controverted and there are but Two Points that can be controverted in relation to the Evincing or Defending the Truth of Christian Faith The one that what Christ taught was Divine the other that Christ taught what we now believe the Former of which being granted by all the Deserters of the Church and therefore cannot possibly need to be Prov'd by Me or any in my Circumstances it follows evidently that the later Point is only that which can be debated between me and my Adversaries that is we are only to treat of Faith as it stands under that Abstraction or Consideration that is as it stands under some certain Rule securing us that it was taught by Christ It being agreed on all hands that if he taught it it Is Divine 4. That tho' this and no other can with any sense be our Task yet 't is tedious to stand repeating at every turn this Abstracted Acception of Faith as 't is found or treated in our Controversies or reiterating still this reduplication as taught by Christ but 't is enough to have exprest it at first in Prefaces and the State of the Question and afterwards upon occasion in many signal passages which I did very punctually as appears by my Defences where I instanc't in Sixty three several places I might say I did it in whole Books where I spoke in short as is seen in my Method in which very small Treatise 't is inculcated above twenty times Whence where-ever I use the single word Faith it must necessarily mean Faith as Controverted or according to what is Controverted between us Such a sollicitous Repetition would argue a distrust in me that my Readers wanted Common Sense who could not reflect on what was in hand or keep a heedfull eye upon what was at first and once for all declar'd and signally exprest in those remarkable places Lastly That my treating of what Motives or Rule Christian Faith must have in it self or in its own nature to make good its Truth which is Essential to it as I did particularly in Faith Vindicated does not exceed the bounds of Controversy or treat of Faith as 't is a Theological Virtue or in any Consideration relating to it as such for I still express my self over and over in the Introduction to speak of its Rule or of Faith as proveable by its Rule and tho' I do not there apply it against any Adversary yet in the Inferences at the End I do this against Dr. Tillotson and Himself without any Reply for these Fifteen years Nor have they any Possible way to come off but either by answering Faith Vindicated and shewing there needs no Absolutely Certain Rule to secure us of our having Christian Faith or by shewing that they have some Rule Absolutely securing those from Error who rely on it The same Introduction and the same Answer serves to show how Moral Certainty of the Infallibility of this Rule is and how it is not sufficient For I declare my self there to speak of the Nature of those Motives or Rule in themselves and as laid in Second Causes by Gods Providence to light Mankind in their way to Faith to which the dimness of Eye-sight neglect to look at all or looking the wrong way even in many particular men is Extrinsical and Contingent Moral Evidence then of the Rule of Faith's Certainty nay even less may serve many particular men for they are still secur'd from Errour by adhering to what such a Rule delivers tho' they penetrate not the Grounds of its Certainty with which it well consists that that Rule as laid by God to light or satisfy all Mankind who are in their way to Faith must be in it self more than Morally Certain or must be impossible to be False otherwise it could not perfectly satisfy acute Schollars that what it abets is True nor enable Pastors and Learned men to defend the Truth of Faith as far as it depends on that Rule nor Secure any man Learned or Unlearned from Erring in Faith whereas by being thus Absolutely Certain it secures every man tho' never so weak from Errour while he follows it and preserves inviolable the Truth of Faith it self 7. This last Note fully answers his first pretended Contradiction that my Chief End in that Treatise viz. Faith Vindicated was to settle Christian Faith and yet that I speak not of Faith in it self but as it it controverted For I no where meddle with Faith in it self or as it is a Theological Virtue as School-Divines do but meerly in order to my Opposers With which may well consist that I may write a Book to settle Christian Faith by shewing it must have a Certain Rule before I apply it against my Adversaries by shewing they have no such Rule and so no Certainty of their Faith as I did against Himself and Dr. T. at the End of that Book and do peremptorily Challenge them to clear themselves of those Inferences and prove themselves to be Holders of Christs Doctrine or Christians An Instance will shew how weak this Cavil is A Scrivener makes a Pen and his Primary Intention considering him as he is doing that Action is that the Pen should be a good one and his writing taking him precisely as a Pen-maker was Secondary and Occasional And yet writing was for all that his Primary Intention as he was a Scrivener Thus it past with me My Main Primary and if he will precise End in that Treatise was to settle Christian Faith by demonstrating it was to have a sure Foundation and in this was terminated the particular design of that Book Now the doing this was apt to exclude all pretenders to Christianity who had no such Grounds but I did not this till I had ended the Treatise nor stood applying my Discourses or striking my Opposer just then with the Weapon I was but a making Which yet hinders not but the Primary End of writing that whole Treatise was in Order to my Opposers tho' a little more remotely and this is so Evident by my Inferences at the End that none but a Caviller enrag'd that he could not answer them would have made such an Objection 8. Hence his Second which Equivocates in the word Objects is frivolous For I no where treat of the Objects or Mysteries of Faith in themselves or say the Connexion of their Terms must be Evident but only that the Certainty of the Humane Authority of the Church which I make our Rule to know they were taught by Christ must be prov'd from the Objects or things without us viz. the Nature of Mankind and the Nature of the Motives laid to perpetuate Christs Doctrine And I wonder at his Insincerity to alledge this when I had particularly forestall'd it in my Introduction p. 18. and declar'd there once for all that in the following Treatise I only spoke of the Motives to light Mankind in their way to
Faith Does he think the Mysteries of Faith are the Way to Faith Or can he pretend that the State of the Question exprest so carefully before-hand in a Preface to signify my meaning throughout the whole Treatise following is totally to be set aside and neglected and that only single words pickt out where for brevity's sake I did not constantly repeat it are to give my true Sense What impertinent Brabbling is this Again p. 16.17 I no less punctually declare that I only treat of the Objects or Points of Faith as their Truth depends on those Motives or Rule of Faith. Yet all will not do to a man bent upon Cavill 9. My last Note towards the End let 's him see clearly when to whom and how Infallible Assent is requisite and not requisite And I had forestall'd this too before in an Elaborate Discourse from p. 131. to p. 158. in Error Nonplust where I shew'd that since Faith must be True and not possible to be a Lye therefore all who have true Faith must be out of capacity of being in an Error or must be in some manner Infallible That it was enough simply to have Faith that they be Materially Infallible or not capable of being in an Error by relying on a Ground that cannot deceive them such as is the Testimony of Gods Church tho' they see not how it must be so Nay that this is absolutely sufficient for All who are coming to Faith provided they do not happen to doubt that their Reasons for the Churches Infallibility are Inconclusive and so be apt to remain unsatisfy'd or are not bound to maintain the Truth of Faith against Opposers in which case they are to be able to see and prove the Conclusiveness of their Grounds from some Certain Principle which I call there to be Formally Infallible This and much more is laid out there at large which prevents most of his Objections here But no notice takes the good Dr. of it It was it seems too great a Mortification to him to peruse a Book which he was highly Concern'd to answer and knew he could not 10. His Fourth Contradiction is solv'd in three lines I treated of the Humane Authority of the Church the Rule of Faith which was Extrinsical to Faith as 't is a Theological Virtue or Divine Yet it being an Extrinsical Argument as all Testimony is I therefore went about to prove it's force from Intrinsical Mediums fetcht from the Natures of the Things viz. Man's Nature and the Nature of the Motives Nor can the Certainty of Witnessing Authority be prov'd otherwise 11. His Fifth is clear'd by my first four Notes which shew that I spoke of Faith which was by the Confession of both Parties Divine and Supernatural and for that reason called so by me but did not treat of it as thus qualified or go about to prove it Divine but prov'd it's Truth meerly as it depended on Humane Faith previous to it and so did only formally treat of that Humane Faith it self on which the Knowledge of Divine Faith leans and by which those coming to Divine Faith are rais'd up to it Yet what hideous Outcries the Dr. makes here that by my Doctrine we are to seek for the Certainty of Faith formally Divine That I make Divine and Supernatural Faith derive it's Certainty from Natural Infallibility c. Tho' he knows as well as that he lives that we make Faith as Formally Divine derive it's Certainty from the Divine Authority testify'd to us by Miracles That this Establishment of Divine Faith by Supernatural means is presuppos'd to our Question and granted by both sides and that our only Point is how we may know certainly what was this Divine Faith thus ascertain'd at first Whoever reads Third Catholick Letter p. 23.24 will admire with what face he could object these falshoods or counterfeit an Ignorance of what has been so often and so clearly told him and which he had seen so particularly answer'd in my Defences But this is his usual Sincerity 'T is pretty to observe into what a monstrous piece of Nonsense our Dr. has fall'n here and how because I argue from Supernatural Faith he thinks I am arguing for it or proving it Whereas common sense tells every man who has not laid it aside that he who argues from another thing supposes that other thing and so cannot possibly while he does so go about to prove it or treat of it But it seems For and From are the same with his great Reason and not possible to be distinguisht He might have seen other Arguments drawn from the Supernaturality of Faith to prove that the Rule which is to light intelligent men who are Unbelievers to Faith must be more then Morally Certain But he thought best to chuse the worst and while he objected that too mistook From for For that is the Premisses for the Conclusion and the Cart for the Horse 12. His Sixth Exception if pertinent amounts to this I.S. did not prove any point Divine and Supernatural therefore Dr. St. needs prove no point of Faith he holds to be truly deriv'd from Christ A fair riddance of his whole Task For the rest We do not desire him to prove by his Rule one determinate point more than another only since he talks of his Grounds which cannot be such unless they derive their solid Virtue of supporting to what 's built on them we instance now and then in some main and most necessary Articles of which if he can give us no account how they come to be absolutely ascertain'd by his Ground or Rule he can give it of none Each Point of Faith is of a determinate sense We shew that Tradition gives and ascertains to us this determinate sense and we shew why it must do so and how it does so this with Absolute Certainty Let him shew his Rule has the power to do this then pretend we are on equal Ground But alas He must not say this who is all for Moral Certainty and fancies nothing above it For he cannot say by such Grounds any Point is or is True while it may be False that they were taught by Christ and if he says they are or were taught by Christ while they may not be so he in plain terms affirms the same thing may at once be and not be For thither the Doctrine of Faith's possible falshood must be reduc't at last and the Greatest of Contradictions will be found to be his First Principle 13. His 7th Exception is answer'd in my last Note which shews that the Ground upon which the Truth of Faith depends must be more than Morally Certain tho' every Believer needs not penetrate the force of those Grounds or have even so much as Moral Certainty of their Conclusiveness But what means he when he Objects my saying that True Faith by reason of its Immoveable Grounds can bear an asserting the Impossibility of it's Falshood Can
this man do himself a greater prejudice than by thus confessing that he holds not Christian Faith absolutely speaking True Or can he lay a greater scandal on Christian Faith it self than to quarrel at a Position that can give him no displeasure but by asserting it's perfect Truth If this do not like his new-fashion'd Christian Principles I suppose he will own the contrary Position and affirm that True Faith by reason of it's Moveable or Uncertain Grounds Cannot bear an asserting the Absolute Impossibility of it's Falshood And this is in plain terms to assert that absolutely speaking True Faith may all be False which is both Unchristian and strong Nonsense to boot He should have Preach't this to his Auditory at Guildhall and then he should have seen how every honest Hearer would have abhorr'd his Doctrine have lookt upon Him as scarce half a Christian and on such a Faith as absurd praeternatural and Irrational as well as I did 14. These are the greatest Contradictions the Dr. could pick even out of an Adversaries Book concerning which he keeps such a mighty noise blusters and triumphs He tells the Reader I affirm that Moral Certainty destroys the Essence of Faith. And I affirm it does taking Faith without some absolutely certain Principle as Demonstration is to ground it on For Faith is essentially True and it cannot be True to those who see that notwithstanding it's Grounds which are to prove it Christ's Doctrine it may yet be none of his Doctrine Again he says I make Moral Certainty Sufficient and Insufficient for Faith. Distinguish good Doctor 'T is not Sufficient for the Ground of Faith as we treat of it for if there may be Deceit in that Ground the Truth of Faith as to us sinks And yet Moral Certainty and even less of the force of that Ground is Sufficient to many nay All so they adhere to a Ground that is really Infallible and Salvation is attainable by those Persons Oh but Salvation is to be had by such a Faith no better grounded and that 's the main business What If for want of a firm Ground Faith hap to be False Who ever said it or that in case any Point embrac't upon such a Ground happen to be Vntrue it could be a Point of Faith or that any man could be sav'd by vertue of a Heretical Tenet or a pernicious Falshood Yet for want of Dr. St's understanding plain sense and his applying my words to a wrong subject I must forfeit my Sincerity and Moral Honesty whereas himself forfeits both by confounding every thing which I had so carefully distinguisht There is not a tittle objected by himself or Lominus but I distinctly and clearly answer'd in my Clypeus Septemplex and Vindiciae to the satisfaction of all my Superiours and Judges Yet this man of Moral Honesty has the Ingenuity to object them afresh without taking notice of my Answers or letting the Reader so much as know any such Satisfactory Answers or any answer at all had been already given 14. As for the three Propositions pickt out of my Books apart from the Context and which as taken in the precise words in which they were exhibited were censur'd I desire the Reader to reflect that these words There is no God tho' found in the Holy Scripture it self yet as separated from the words adjoyning and exprest in those precise terms are perfect Atheism and deserve the highest Censure and yet the same words as they lie in the Sacred Book it self with these foregoing words The Fool hath said in his heart joyn'd with them the direct contrary is signify'd by that place This was my very case The words or passages taken alone without the Prefaces declaring the sole Intent of the Author without the State of the Question and other Paragraphs or words in the same Paragraph giving light by the Tenour of the Discourse to my true meaning bore a shew as if I had affirm'd that it was requisite to Faith to demonstrate the Mysteries of Faith and among them the Supernatural Infallibility of the Church which is a Point of Faith. Especially since there was inserted by the Exhibiter a Parenthesis in the middle of the second Proposition he speaks of Propositions of Faith whereas there was not a word of any such thing but about fifteen times the contrary in the self-same Paragraph viz. That I spoke of Motives Premisses and Grounds of Faith. Now the Censurers knew not that those Propositions were in any Book or had any Antecedents or Consequents as they publickly declar'd and I have it under their hands and consequently Censur'd them as my self should have done had I been in their Circumstances and circumvented as they were As soon as I saw the Censure I offer'd voluntarily to Subscribe to it knowing that those Propositions thus singled out were no more my Doctrine than There is no God was the Sense of the Sacred Writer nay quite contrary to it The Censurers declar'd they were surpriz'd and complain'd they were by indirect wiles impos'd upon So at the Arch-Bishop of Paris his Command I writ my Vindiciae to manifest the true Sense of those passages as they lay in my Books which I shew'd very clearly and particularly to be that I only spoke of Faith as standing under a Rule ascertaining it's Descent from Christ. My Books being in English it was order'd that some Persons of great Learning and Repute who understood English should examine and testify whether taking those Propositions as they lay in my Books the Orthodox Sense I assign'd to them were indeed my genuine meaning in those places My Adversary too allow'd of them to attest it for indeed their known Probity and Learning was such that it was impossible to except against them and that Venerable and Pious Personage Abbot Montagu to whom they were known it being requir'd gave Testimony to both those Qualifications in them They all unanimously attested by their Subscriptions that the Orthodox Sense I assign'd was indeed the true meaning of those Places and that the Sense condemn'd was not in those Books but the direct contrary whence follows that when I Subscrib'd the Censure I subscrib'd only to what had ever been my own Doctrine Those Reverend and Judicious Persons were Mr Francis Gage Dr. of Sorbon Mr Thomas Godden Dr. of Divinity Mr Robert Barclay Principal of the Scotch Colledge in Paris Mr Bonaventure Giffard and Mr Iohn Betham then Batchelours of Divinity in Sorbon both of them since Doctors of the same Faculty and the former of them now Bishop of Madaura Mr Edward Cary Mr Edward Lutton and Mr G. K. The Arch-Bishop of Paris being perfectly satisfy'd hoping it might end future Disputes desired me to Subscribe to the Censure I refus'd at first alledging that such a Subscription might be improv'd into a pretence that I had retracted He replied Uteris itaque quâ Subscriptionis formulâ tibi placuerit
Make use therefore of what form of Subscription you please I replied Then I will declare that I do Subscribe not retracting my Doctrine but persisting in it which he allow'd and I did it in the self-same terms adding that I persisted in it as being free from Censure and approv'd by very Eminent Personages Which done the Censurers were order'd nay commanded to make me Satisfaction by an Instrument Sign'd by them both declaring that no Proposition in any Book of mine was toucht by their Censure Could there be a greater and more Authentick Clearing my Books and Doctrine from being Censur'd than that was or might not Dr St. by parity of reason as well have pretended that the Scripture teaches Atheism or that King David deserv'd to be Censur'd for saying There is no God as that any Proposition as found in my Books was there Censur'd or Declar'd Heretical 15. And now to lay open some of the Doctor 's Falshoods upon this occasion They are these 1. That the main Design of my Catholick Letters are there declar'd to be no Catholick Doctrine Well bowl'd Doctor Have I a word there pretending to shew the Mysteries of Faith or the Authority of the Church that is believ'd by Faith that is it's Supernatural Infallibility by Assistance of the Holy Ghost to be Demonstrable Is it not shewn you in most express words Third Cath. Letter p. 22.23 and in many other places that we speak only of the Humane Authority of the Church which is to be prov'd by Natural Mediums and not of the other which is believ'd by the Faithfull This then is a meer forg'd pretence against your own Conscience and perfect Knowledge 2. That I was Censur'd and retracted whereas 't is manifest not any thing as it lay in my Books that is indeed nothing of mine was Censur'd nor did I subscribe otherwise than as not Retracting my Doctrine but persisting in it as being free from Censure This the Arch-Bishop of Paris allow'd and the Censurers themselves judged to be Iust and True and upon those terms acquitted me and made me Satisfaction 3. He says that if this the Sense Condemn'd be not Catholick Doctrine he is Infallibly Certain my Letters are far from being Catholick in their Sense Now not one word is there in those Letters which is the Sense Condemn'd as I shew'd lately however I am glad he who has still been so high against all Infallibility in his Writings and deny'd it to the Catholick or any Church owns it at least in Himself I see now what Grounds he went upon when he would not make a Candid Retractation of his Irenicum Certainly this man would persuade us to take his word for our Rule of Faith. But the ill luck is his Infallibility is evidently prov'd already to be willfull Forgery against plain and Authentick matter of Fact. He say the A. B. of D. averrs many fine things already answer'd and that my Plea was ridiculous Which is false for any thing he or I know For that Illustrious Personage deny'd that Book of Lominus to be his or did any man own it but it came out surreptitiously without the Approbation of any man under an unknown name nay without so much as the Printers name to it which was punishable by the Laws there Whence we may judge of our Drs. sincerity In his Second Letter to Mr. G. p. 8. by putting Heresis Blacloana in the Margent over against his Appeal to F. W. He hinted that that Venerable Person was Author of that Book Beat off from that False and Ungrounded pretence he has found us another Author for it and I expect in his next piece we shall have a Third or Fourth according as his fancy so heated now that it has shaken off all regard to Civility shall prompt him Again he shews us how wonderfully ingenuous he is by his quoting against me the railing Book of an unknown Adversary which had besides all the Marks of a Libel in it and over-flipping the Attestation of Eight Worthy Divines of great repute who openly and owning their names did witness that those places in my Books did not bear the Sense in which those words pick't out thence were censur'd Add that Dr. St. knew all these particulars were clear'd satisfactorily since it appears by his quoting them he had read my Defences in which they are printed at large Which Common Sense may assure him I durst not have done in the Life-time of all the Persons mention'd and concern'd without quite losing my Cause Nay I should have expos'd my self to new Accusations as a Falsifier had I not dealt sincerely to a tittle and preserv'd all the Authentick Originals in my own hands for the Justification of my Defences which I yet have I charge the Dr. then to have publisht against me Willfull and Notorious Falshoods which he had reason to know to be such Yet we are still to think he did all this out of his pure Love to Moral Honesty of which he makes such a Saintly Profession I Challenge him moreover to shew me any one Catholique Writer of any Eminency I do profess I do not know so much as one of any degree whatever whoever Censur'd this Position that the Infallibility of the Churches Humane Authority antecedent to Faith and deriving down Christ's Doctrine might be demonstrated which is all I require in my Catholick Letters Whereas the Right Reverend F. W. has named him divers both Ancient and Modern who follow that Method in general and I have quoted divers Eminent Controvertists as occasion serv'd and particularly insisted on two beyond all Exception F. Fisher here in England and Dominicus de Sta Trinitate who writ and printed his Book at Rome and had it approv'd by the Magister Sacri Palatii who take the same way I do almost to a tittle I may add to the Drs. greater confusion the Authority of the Arch-Bishop of D. himself and of all those Eminent Persons who have approv'd my Doctrine as shall be seen hereafter 16. Not a man then has Dr St. on his side but one unknown and altogether unapprov'd Author Lominus and a bitter Adversary to me besides out of whose Falshoods interlarded with his own and by his Concealing my Replyes to all he objects and those such as fully satisfy'd my Judges and Superiours he makes a shift to patch up his Calumnies We will see next whether to his further shame my Books or Doctrin have not had Testimonials of greater weight to approve and authenticate them than that of Lominus was to Condemn them 17. In the first place that Blessed and Glorious Martyr the Illustrious and Eminently Learned Oliver Plunket Arch-Bishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland assoon as he heard my Books were oppos'd out of his meer Justice love of Truth and the Esteem he had of my Doctrin unsought to nay unthought of sent me out of Ireland an Approbation of it writ
with his own hand and Seal'd with his Archiepiscopall Seal in these words Infrascripti testamur c. Wee underwritten do attest that we have read thorough diligently and accurately and that with both Profit and Pleasure three Books writ in the English Dialect Publish'd by that Learned Person Mr. Iohn Sergeant whose Titles and Arguments are these Surefooting in Christianity Faith vindicated and Reason against Raillery In which I have not only found nothing against the Integrity of the True Faith and of good manners but moreover Clear and Solid Principles which admirably conspire to the Estabishing and confirming the Catholick Doctrin For both by Reasons and Authorities they excellently impugn the Protestants affirming the Holy Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and vigorously maintain that the genuin Doctrin of Christ and his Apostles has descended by the force of Tradition from Century to Century nay from year to year incorruptedly to our time and still remains inviolably in the Orthodox Church In Testimony whereof we have Subscrib'd and have caus'd our portatil Seal to be assixt this 15 th of March 1674. at Armagh Oliversus Armachanus totius Hiberniae Primas Can any man imagin that this Grave and Learned Personage who had for twelve years profest Divinity in the Sacra Congregatio at Rome and had been advanc'd by them to this high Dignity would have hazarded his Credit there in approving so highly the Writings of one who was a Stranger to him and no ways capable to oblige him had he not been perfectly assur'd there was nothing Censurable in them Yet this tho' known to our ingenuous Dr. is nothing with him He crys still Lominus for my money let him be what he will and assures the Reader upon his Morall Honesty he is Infallibly Certain my Doctrin in my Letters is not Catholik 18. The next in Dignity is that Illustrious and Right Reverend Personage Mr. Peter Talbot Arch Bishop of Dublin who dy'd a Confessor of the Catholik Faith in Dublin Castle in the time of that truly Hellish tho' not Popish Plot. This Eminent Person more than once has approv'd and highly commended my Doctrin The Author of Surefooting says he has with great zeal writ divers Treatises of this matter viz. the force of Tradition and has overwhelm'd those who defend only Morall Certainty in Faith with so great Confusion that they can no way clear themselves from the blemish of Atheism to which their Principles and meer Probability of Faith lead of which crime the foresaid Author proves them Guilty beyond all possibility of Reply And a little after he acknowledges that the Rule of Faith viz. in our Controversies is the Humane Authority of the Church and that it must be an Infallible Directress otherwise it might lead us out of the way Unfortunate Dr. St. to quote an Authority against me which so highly approves my Doctrine and condemns his as leading to Atheism The Reader may hence discern how likely 't is the Archbishop of Dublin should be the Author of Lominus his Book where he and Dr. Tillotson are praised for Writing so Catholickly against mee whereas that Right Reverend Prelate so highly extolls my Books as writing so unanswerably against Them. Lastly in his Appendix to that Book of his cited above he has this solid Discourse Altho' Tradition does not demonstrate or conclude evidently the Divinity of Christ nor consequently can demonstrate or conclude evidently that the Revelation of our Faith was Divine yet 't is a Conclusive Argument ad hominem against Protestants and all those who acknowledge the Divinity of Christ that God reveal'd all the Articles which the Roman Catholick Church professes in regard they acknowledge Christ to be God. And thus the Author of Sure-footing Faith Vindicated c. argues invincibly against his Adversaries for the Conclusive Evidence by the force of Tradition that God reveal'd all the Articles of the Roman Catholick Faith out of the Supposition that Christ is God. Note that this Appendix was write purposely to clear me after the Conference in Abbot Montague's Chamber where tho' I would not then answer to propositions taken out of books when no Books were there to clear them by the Context Yet after I had the Objections in writing I did answer them and this to the Satisfaction of the Arch-Bishop himself and of Dr. Gough who was present and prejudic'd formerly against my Writings 19. I had compriz'd the Sum of my Doctrine into a short Treatise Entituled A Method to arrive at Satisfaction in Religion which when I was at Paris I translated into Latin and shew'd it to that Excellent Prelate the Bishop of Condom my singular Friend and Patron desiring his Judgment of it He read it and at my request made his Exceptions which being clear'd by me he askt me why I did not Print it I reply'd I would so his Grandeur would please to give me leave to Dedicate it to himself Which obtain'd it was propos'd to the Sorbon for their Approbation of it the former of them Monsieur Pirot testifying it contain'd nothing against Faith or good manners the later of them Dr Gage added that the most certain Rule of Faith was in that Treatise exactly settled and invincibly defended But still obscure Lominus is worth twenty Sorbons in Dr. St's Learned Judgment Tho' 't is here to be observed that the Bishop of Condoms Approbation was antecedent to theirs not only as allowing and owning the Book but as inviting me to Print it 20. I alledge in the Fourth place the Testimony of my Superiour here in England Mr. Humphry Ellice an Ancient Dr. and Professor of Divinity and late Dean of our Catholick Chapter whose Sanctity of Life and solid Judgment gave him a high Esteem with all that knew him This Grave and Venerable Person besides the Ordinary and Customary Approbation of my Books added that They do clearly demonstrate out of the very nature of Ecclesiastical Tradition that the Doctrin delivered by Christ and his Apostles was inviolably eonserv'd in the Roman-Catholick and Apostolick Church even to this Age in which we now live and by Irrefragable force of Reason did evidently convince the Grounds of the Hereticks meaning Dr. St. and Dr. Till against whom I had writ to be meer Tricks and vain Fallacies But still Lominus that is the Lord knows who is Dr. St's only Saint and Infallible Oracle 21. It were not amiss to add next the Testimony or rather Judgment of that deservedly Esteemed and Learned man Mr. R. H. Author of The Guide of Controversy This Excellent Writer though he inclines rather to the School-opinion of the sufficiency of Moral Certainty yet like a truly ingenuous and Charitable man preferring the Common Good of Christianity before his own private Sentiment after having discourst according to his own Grounds he in allusion to my way of proceeding subjoyns these words But then if any after all this can make good any farther
reason to reflect on the Dean when he speaks of Church Authority takes away with one hand what he gives with the other That the Authority of meerly proposing matters of Faith and directing men in Religion is no Authority at all nay that they rather imply a Power in those to whom they are propos'd at Discretion to reject them and that it makes the Church'es Authority precarious and lays her open to all manner of Hereticks This is what I ever judg'd lay at the bottom of his heart that in things belonging to Faith he sets the judgement of every one of his Sober Enquirers above the Church'es Which made me reflect so severely upon it in my Errour Nonplust and in divers other places of my Third Catholick Letter But of late the juncture as he hopes being more favourable he is gone beyond his former self for in his Second Letter to Mr. G. he confidently affirms that every Sober Enquirer may without the Church'es Heâ—p find out all necessary Points of Faith in Scripture Now Proposing and Directing are some kind of Help but here they are both deny'd it seems and all Help from the Church as to the matter of saving Faith is deny'd This then seems to be the Antecedent Belief the Dr. sets up and thence inferrs That a man may be in a State of Salvation in his single and private Capacity apart and out of all Church Society and Ecclesiastical Communion tho' he live where it is to be had which says the Answerer utterly overthrows all Church Government This ought to give every honest man who loves Order and Government of what Judgment soever he be such grounded Jealousies that he is setting up a Babel of No-Church-men against Christ's Church that no satisfaction competent unless the several Propositions be extracted out of his Books and either formally and expressly retracted or else that he shew that as they ly in his Books they bear not that wicked Sense they seem to do neither of which has been done Nay lest he should deal slipperily by Common and palliating words at which he is very expert it will be farther requisit that he be oblig'd to write against those ill Tenets himself and offer convincing reasons to prove them False that so men may see it comes from his heart And this done and the Interest of Truth once in demnify'd he is one of the worst Christians who refuses to honour him far more than if he had never lapst Si non errasset fecerat ille minus 27. What concerns Me particularly is to note hence the prodigious Imprudence of Dr. St. in objecting against me Self contradictions which have long ago been clear'd and the Dissatisfaction of two or three Roman-Catholicks for I know of no more who became well satisfy'd when they had read my Books and compar'd them with my Explication and when as He knew my self after a severe Trial was clear'd by my Judges which he will never be and during the time of it when it was most dangerous for any to stand up for me my Books and Doctrin were most authentickly approv'd nay highly commended by most Eminent Authority What a madness was it for him to object falsly and against evident matter of Fact that I retracted Whenas all the while he knew himself had had the misfortune to have writ such unsound Doctrin that his Vindicator is forc't to confess it as his best Plea that He has retracted it and yet tho' as 't is said he has done it on his fashion he is still apprehended to be so hollow that he cannot yet gain the Belief to have done any more than palliate his gross Errours to be inconsistent with himself and to take away from the Church with one hand what he gives it with the other Of these things he never yet clear'd himself nor can but is still accus'd of harbouring the same Errours in his breast nay to grow still worse and worse Which I was so far from desiring to lay open that I civilly insinuated it afar off in my Third Catholick Letter p. 20. without so much as naming his Person that I might keep him from such Impertinent and Extrinsical Topicks which the Reader may observe do for want of better make up three quarters of his Controversial Writings SECT II. How Dr. St. settles the true State of the Controversy 28. I Have been longer about this First Section than seem'd needfull But the Influence it has upon our future Dispute will recompence my trouble and excuse my Prolixity The Second thing his Method leads him to for hitherto it has led him quite out of the way is to state the Controversy And to this end he acquaints us with the Occasion of the Conference which was that Mr. G. affirm'd in some company that no Protestant could shew any Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith and that Mr. T. had promis'd him that if Dr. St. were not able to manifest the contrary he would forsake his Communion Will the Dr hold to these words 'T is plain here that Mr G. demanded he should shew Grounds to ascertain his Faith absolutely Mr. T. expected he should manifest they had such Grounds as did ascertain their Faith and if he could not was to leave his Communion Lastly that Dr. St. by accepting the Challenge became engag'd to satisfy Mr T 's expectation and to manifest the contrary to what Mr G. had asserted that is to manifest he had Grounds of Absolute Certainty for his Faith or which comes to the same for Christian Faith upon his Grounds being taught by Christ. And how did the Dr. acquit himself and perform this Why he assign'd Scripture for the Ground or Rule of his Faith and Universal Tradition for the Proof of the Books of Scripture All the company knew this before For both sides knew held and granted already that the Book of Scripture was prov'd by Universal Tradition and every one knew too that Dr St. would assign It for the Ground or Rule of his Faith. Wherefore unless all the company were out of their Wits surely something more was expected and what could that be but that he should manifest his Faith was absolutely Certain by relying on that Rule or that the Rule he assign'd gave him and his Absolute Certainty of their Faith or of those Tenets which they held upon it For it being agreed on both sides that the Sense of the Scripture was in it self True Faith Gods Word and as such to be embrac't the only Question was of the sense of Scripture as to us or as to our knowledge of it And of This the Dr was to shew and manifest he had Absolute Certainty by any way his Grounds afforded him otherwise he might fall short or be wrong in the knowing Scriptures Sense that is in his Faith tho' the Letter were never so Certain Again by his counterposing to those words of his than you can have for the points in difference
retract them Nor shall he name any one Learned and Orthodox man of our Church who says my Explication is not Genuin and Sincere whereas I have nam'd him many Eminent in both those Qualities who have attested under their hands they are such He ends with bidding the Reader judge what I. S. has gotten by the Confession of Parties As much as in Modesty he could have wisht as appears by the Approbations of his Books and Success in his Suit. What Dr. St. has got by the Confession of his Party may be seen by an Eminent man not writing in hugger-mugger and Disguise but owning his Name viz. that he is accus'd of having Mountebankt and Quackt for full five and twenty years And these wretched shifts he has thought fit to use here to avoid the Point le ts us see he has not left it yet Nor am I to expect he should easily quit such an Inveterate Habit grown into a kind of Nature by a five and twenty years Custom and Practice 31. Now comes the State of the Question as his Second Letter has craftily put it tho' I conceive it was best Stated by shewing the Occasion and sole End of the Conference to which I will hold nor will I be beat off from it by any Excursions either then or since There was a Question then put to Dr. St. in these words Whether you are absolutely Certain that you hold now the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught his Apostles I thought I did well in putting him to answer directly that He was He says by my favour he us'd other words And what were those Why instead of the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught to his Apostles he answer'd All the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles There 's a Cloud in this carriage of his it being against the Clear way of honest Nature Was the Position as it lay in the terms of the Proposer true and so to be granted Why did he not grant it then Was it False why did he not deny it Was it Ambiguous why did he not the Proposer being present desire him to explain it No neither None of these plain and common Methods would please him What then He would needs change the words of the Question in his Answer And by what Rule Was his Answer the same in Sense with the Question If not his Answer was no Answer to that Question but the saying another thing on his own head If it was the same Sense why did he not speak to it directly in the Proposers words The reason he gives is because he 's afraid of Orall Tradition lest it should vary the Sense Whose Sense The Proposer's His Sense was fixt in determinate words and if it were not known the Doctor might have known it if he had pleas'd He means then his own Sense What must he put what Sense he thinks fit to the Question This is a quaint way of Answering And why should not the Proposer fear as himself did here lest by changing his words as he did enormously he should change his Sense too But this Orall Tradition like a Spright so haunts his Fancy that all along as shall be seen he either starts perpetually into Excursions and counterfeit Mirth or stumbles into downright Nonsense And this I believe verily is the General reason of all his failings But we are now to seek out his particular reason of changing the words here The last words that differ in the Question and Answer can break no squares for Christ and his Apostles agreed well enough and that Heavenly Master of theirs taught them All Faith either by Himself or the Holy Ghost sent in his name The danger then must be in these words the same Tenets in Faith which he changes for his security into the same Doctrin Because the word Doctrin signifies all in the lump as he expresses it to shew which he hop't it might be sufficient to shew the Book of Scripture whereas the Plural word Tenets might come to oblige him to shew how he has Absolute Certainty of each or any Point in particular to which he has a great Antipathy And accordingly when he came to perform this he chang'd again the Absolute Certainty of Faith into Absolute Certainty of Scripture I answer'd They held more to be of Faith than that the Book so call'd is Scripture He first trifles that we mean more than is contain'd in Scripture contrary to our express words where there 's not a Syllable of containing or not-containing all Faith. However if I mean his assent to Points of Faith contain'd in Scripture he promises a full Answer afterwards which we impatiently long to see Only we intreat him because 't is a far off he would not lose Absolute Certainty by the way nor fool our expectations when we come at it by letting the full Answer promist us vanish away into a flat denial he has any such Certainty of those Points at all 32. I argu'd ad hominem that since he confesses Tradition causes Certainty it makes Faith as Certain as Scripture He seems to confess it but denies we have such an Universal Tradition for our Tridentin Faith. As if the Faith come down by Tradition were not the same before and since that Council or that the Tradition we build on did not consist of such a vast Body of Attesters as were able to evince the truth of a plain matter of Fact unless those who had renounc't Tradition did club to it's Certainty But is it not pretty to observe that he pretends not to hold Faith to be Certain by our Tradition because 't is not Universal and yet at the same time disputes against Tradition's being a Certain Deriver of Christ's Faith even tho' it were Universal For his Principles allow no more hand in our Faith to Universal Tradition but only to bring down the Book of Scripture and then make that Book the only Ascertainer of our Faith. He threatens to shew the Tridentin Council had not Universal Tradition for it's Decrees and to give us a taste before-hand of that Treatise he adds Let the matter of Tradition it self as a Rule of Faith be one of those Points Well shot Doctor The Points he speaks of here are exprest to be Points of Faith and the Tradition we defend in our Controversy at present is the Human Authority of the Church which we make to be the Rule to those coming to Faith and so it is Antecedent to Faith and the Object of pure Natural Reason And does he in his Great Learning think This is a Point of Faith Or is it not possible to keep this roving Pen of his to any thing But he designs to prove this mighty Advantage of his Cause and that no Catholick Tradition can be produc't against his Church in any one Point of the Additional Creed of Pius IV. Suppose it could not has he therefore
one to all Hereticks he is still deaf on that ear Lastly since Faith is Truth instead of a Rule containing All he should have assign'd a Rule ascertaining it All to be True and that none of the Tenets he holds to be in Scripture are Hereticall But he thanks you he 'll not burn his fingers with handling such hot Points He alledges that the Mosaicall and Mahometan Laws are resolv'd into the Book of Moses and the Alcoran But apply this to our Point 't is as wide from the purpose as what 's most Had there been such High and most Important Misteries contain'd in those Laws as there are in the Christian Doctrin deliver'd down and profest openly by those Bodies from which multitudes had taken the Liberty to recede by reason of the Obscurity of the Letter of those very Laws in that case there ought to have been some other Rule to secure them from mistaking that Letter and able to give them its true Sense and therefore the Certainty of that Sense being their respective Faiths would necessarily have been resolv'd into such a Rule in regard the Letter alone could not give and ascertain it And 't is to be remark't that all Dr St's Instances Parallells and Similitudes which show prettily and look fine and glossy when they come to be apply'd to the true Point do still miss of being sutable in those very particulars which are only to the purpose 35. And now we are come to the long expected performance of showing his Faith Absolutely Certain to which he promis'd a full Answer formerly He begins with telling us that The case is not the same as to Particular Points of Faith with that of the Generall Grounds of the Certainty of Faith. And what 's this to say but that since the General Grounds are held by him to be Absolutely Certain and so cannot be False the Particular Points of Faith viz. the Trinity Christ's Godhead c. are not in the same but a worse case and so may be False A fair or rather a very foul Concession Yet he not only says it but will prove it too from a Jew 's having Absolute Certainty of all contain'd in the Books of Moses and yet not having it as to such a particular point viz. the Resurrection I would gladly know if that point be contain'd in those Books And if it be how he can be absolutely Certain of All that is of every Point contain'd there and yet not be thus certain of That Point tho' contain'd there I ever thought that Omnis and Aliquis non had been Contradictories and had all the Logicians in the world on my side in thinking so and if the Dr. have not invented a new Scheme of Logick of his own fitted purposely to maintain Nonsence and can with his great Authority make that Logick good in despite of the whole World he speaks Flat downright Contradiction Perhaps he may mean his Jew or some other man who is not a Jew may have Absolute Certainty that those Books containing all his Faith were writ by men divinely inspir'd And this he may have by the Testimony for these Books tho' he can neither read nor understand nor ever heard read any one word in them And has not this Man an incomparable Certainty of his Faith that knows no Faith at all Is not this to make a man Absolutely Certain of he knows not what Yet this it seems is all the Resolution of Dr. St's Faith. But this is not the worst for not-knowing the Contents of a Book is a kind of Innocence in comparison of holding many wicked Heresies by Misunderstanding it Which tho' he should do as do it he may for the Drs. Principles give him no security from doing it his very Heresies tho' they be all the whole rabble of them that have pester'd the Church since Christ's time are resolved into the Self-same Grounds as the Drs Faith is For all those Hereticks believ'd the Scripture to be the Word of God and believ'd all that the Scripture contain'd to be of Faith whence they had all Faith in the lump as he expresses it and so had good Title to be parts of Dr St's motley all Comprehending Church If he denies it let him show a sollâ—â— reason by his Principles why they should not no shadow of which I could ever discern in him yet 36. He slides from this point which he had no mind to come near could he have avoided it to divers sorts of particular Points meerly that he might have a show of saying something For he knows well and it has been told him above twenty times we only speak of such Dogmatical Tenets as have been controverted between the Church and her Deserters and not to name All we use to instance in two Chief ones The Holy Trinity and the Divinity of our Saviour But here our rambling disputant is taking another vagary quite out of the road of the Question Lominus has set him so agog that he has quite forgot the thing we are about nay even that we are writing Controversy He is turn'd School-Divine on a sudden tho' he is so utterly Ignorant of it that he cannot distinguish between Controversy and It. He will needs fall to treat of Faith as 't is a Theological Virtue and not only so but moreover that he may show us how manifoldly he can mistake in one Single Point of that Virtue as 't is in the hearts of those who are truly Faithfull already and have besides well cultivated their Souls by the Practice of Christ's Law. Whenas all this while he knows we in our Controversy are only treating of Faith as 't is provable to those who are looking after Faith that 't is Christ's Doctrine taught at first Tell him of this five hundred times and make it out never so clearly he runs counter still and takes no notice of it He was to write a Book and without mistaking willfully all along he saw he could not do it in any degree plausibly After many fruitless attempts to hold him to the true State of our Controversy which is about the Rule or Ground of Faith as to our knowledge it occurr'd to me that nothing could fetter him to it more fast than to mind him how his Friend Dr. Tillotson whose Book he approves does himself State it * When wâ— enquire says he What is the Rule of Christian Faith the meaning of that Enquiry is By what Way and Means the Knowledge of Christ's Doctrin is convey'd certainly down to us who live at the distance of so many Ages from the time of it's first Delivery I intreat him then for Dr. T 's sake to remember that our Controversy presupposes Faith as 't is Divine and treats of it only as 't is Derivable down to us at this distance and therefore since the Knowledge of the Certain Means to do this is in our Controversy antecedent to the Knowledge of Christ's Doctrin or Faith it must be
Genuin Effect of some kind of Evidence and therefore Absolute or Perfect Certainty ought to be the Effect of Perfect Evidence nor is any Evidence a Perfect one unless it Concludes Now he does not like Conclusive Evidence and so he ought to renounce Absolute Certainty 'T is as difficult to guess what he means here by those words in point of Reason True Reason knows no Methods but this to Assent if the Thing be Clear and to Suspend if it be Not and to conclude or argue being the proper Act of Reason straining after Truth what 's not concluded is not Clear and therefore not to be accepted for an Absolute Truth or Assented to as such The summ then to come close to our present Question is that Absolute Certainty of such a Doctrine's having been taught by Christ must either be built on True Evidence of the Grounds for it and then it cannot consist with Deception and so is Infallible Or it is not and then indeed it may sometimes come to Iustify a great Propension Hope or Deeming that 't is so Or if I conceive it to be of small concern an unexamining letting it pass for such but it can never Iustify an Absolute Assent See more of this Subject and a perfect Confutation of this wild Assertion in Errour-Nonplust and Reason against Raillery After many rambling sayings of his own he falls to speak of putting an End to Controversies especially about Certainty and Fatality What we have to do with Fatality I know not but I believe he heartily wishes an end of This Fatall Controversy concerning Certainty for he is in a miserable ross about it being driven now to declare whether he will deny First Principles or renounce his Vnprincipled Doctrin The best way I can invent to end all Controversies is this that since Controvertists are Disputants and are to produce their Arguments which are good for nothing nor can ever End Controversies unless they Conclude those who renounce Conclusive Evidence and instead of it bring Invisible Motives Qualifications may be expos'd and turn'd out of the Lists as being even by their own Confession Insignificant Talkers and Endless Brabblers His wrangle about Light and Darkness Christ and Belial is spoke to in my Second Catholique Letter Let him shew that his Rule Scripture interpreted by Private Judgments does not Patronize Heresy as well as Faith which he will never do and we will be content to acquit him from that horrid Blasphemy of making Light and Darkness very consistent and Christ the Author of our Holy Faith and Belial the Father of Heresy and Lies very good Friends of which wicked Doctrin 'till he does this he stands Indicted 49. I alledg'd that Scripture being the Common Rule to him and all Hereticks the particular or distinguishing Rule must be their own Private Iudgments interpreting Scripture Does he deny this or shew my Discourse faulty by assigning any other that particularizes or distinguishes them No neither What does he then Why he sends me to the old Philosophers to learn Logick And I tell him with many thanks I know none except Aristotle a competent Master for Me. Next he makes Sense to be a Rule of Iudging that is an Intellectual Rule which I deny For the Rule to any thing is the Immediate Light to judge of any thing and multitudes of intervening Knowledges are requisit to inform us when the advertisements of our Senses are right as is evident in the fallaciousness of Sense in a Stick seeming crooked in water the bigness of things seen at distance and innumerable other particulars But I ought to distinguish between the Rule of Iudgment and the Iudgment made according to that Rule And so I do if that be all For the Rule is the Informer my Iudgment the thing inform'd But yet if my Judgment follow the Information and still go wrong my Informer was no good Informer The Evidence of this and the propension of uncorrupted Nature to believe Pastours Fathers and Teachers and those who were wiser than themselves in things they were Ignorant of did I told him make the Generality of those out of the Church follow the Way of Tradition of their own Church and not regulate themselves in the choice of their Tenets by their private Judgment of Discretion working upon Scripture's Letter as is evident in whole Nations as Denmark meeting in one particular Belief and whole Sects agreeing in the very Judgment of their respective Leaders whence the Sense they make of Scripture as themselves understand it is not their Rule First he quotes a Decree of the Church of England that nothing is to be requir'd of any man to be believ'd as Faith but what 's read in Scripture or may be prov'd by it But this makes against himself unless he thinks the Generality that is the Layity of that Church esteem themselves more able to judge of the Sense of what 's read in Scripture or to prove all the highest Points of Faith by it than their Pastours and Church-Governours are for otherwise Nature will and ought to incline them to believe their Judgment rather than their own in that affair which is to follow the Way of Tradition Indeed I must confess that by the Doctor 's Principles every one of his Sober Enquirers ought to preferr his own Judgment of Discretion above the Church'es but what He says is one thing what the Dictates of honest Nature teaches Mankind is another 'T is confest the Layity of each Congregation judges the Sentiments of their Leaders to be agreeable to Scripture but I affirm withall that not one in ten thousand when he comes at age lays aside Prejudice and setts himself to consider anew by his scanning the Letter whether his Leaders told him right or presumes of the competency of his own knowledge to judge or determin whether They understood Scripture in the right Sense or no. He talks to us indeed of Helps and how they call in the old Interpreters of the Church and desire them to use their own Reason c. But every man sees that Few or None stand Indifferent 'till they have us'd all these Helps but undoubtingly accept that very Faith in which they were educated And so they continue 'till the discoursing or reading those of a contrary Opinion unsettles them and put them into Doubts Besides if those Helps he talks of are not secure from erring themselves as to what they help others in they may help them to Misunderstand the Sense of Scripture in the Highest Points of Faith and so help them to be Hereticks And yet these are all the best Helps his Principles can Help them to For he assures us and maintains stoutly by affirming them all to be Fallible in what they are to help us that all his Helps may be deceiv'd in that very thing in which they are to help others They may indeed according to him give a strong guess at what is Christ's Doctrin
but that 's all for he allows none to be Absolutely Certain of the Sense of Scripture but only of the Letter He proceeds after a strange rate and talks of Opinions doubtfull and Obscure places but avoids still to come up to those High Points of Faith particularly those of a Trinity and Christ's Godhead in which he knows I instanc't Then he blames my Logick for not distinguishing between the Rule of Faith and the Help to understand it And my Logick remembers its respects to his no Logick and sends him back word that since an Intellectual Rule to such a thing is an Immediate Light or Means to know that thing as his Friend Dr. T. has told him Rule of Faith p. 40. and is purposely fram'd to give us that Knowledge nay Essentially Ordain'd to that End 't is a Contradiction to say it needs another thing to lend it Clearness in order to give us Christ's Sense for then this other thing would be clearer than It as to that particular Effect and so This not the Other would be the true Rule of Faith. Yet he will needs prove this Contradiction True and that it may be a Rule and yet not have Power to regulate without the help of another And by what Argument will he prove it Oh he can prove things by better means than Arguments He has an Instance still at hand either when he is prest too close with anothers Arguments or wants one of his own These Instances are good Serviceable drudges and are ever ready to do all his Jobbs and yet I doubt his Instance brought to prove a Contradiction must it self be of the same Chimericall Family Let 's see 't is this that a Nurse teaches Children to Spell and read the New Testament so by degrees to understand Christ's Doctrin and yet the Faith of those persons is not resolv'd into this Help of the Nurse's Teaching but into the New Testament it self as the Ground of their Faith. I must confess I extreamly admire at this Drs Confidence and no less at his Imprudence that he does not rather not write at all then perpetually put such shams as these upon his Reader Are we speaking of all remote helps whatsoever or are we speaking only of a Help for the Rule to do its Proper Effect which is to give us Christ's Sense or our Faith God and Nature has helpt us with a Rational Being Eyes and Brains Conversation or Masters have helpt us with skill in the Language in which the Letter of Scripture is deliver'd and Tradition has helpt us with the Right Books and Copy of Scripture Do any of these concern our present enquiry Are not these all presuppos'd to his Rule The only Question is what help is necessary to give his Rule the rest being all presuppos'd the Power to regulate us in knowing the Sense of that Book or our Faith as to those Spiritual and most Important Articles To do this being the Proper Effect of his Rule and a Thing not being what it should be or is pretended to be unless it have a power in its self to do its Proper Effect since it 's Essence was ordain'd for it hence I affirm it must need no help to do this but must have it of it self and therefore if Scripture's Letters have not of it self Clearness enough to give those who are coming to Faith the requisite Certainty or knowledge of what 's its true Sense in those Dogmaticall Points 't is no Rule of Faith. This is the only Point and therefore must only be omitted what 's this to a Nurse's Teaching to read Or what 's her Teaching to the Immediate and Certain Light to know Christs Sense in those Main Articles His Friend Dr. T. goes by chance a little more consonantly and confesses the substance of this discourse of mine by allowing that the Letter of Scripture must be Sufficiently Plain even in those High Points I mention Rule of Faith p. 86.87 But it seems that upon second thoughts fearing to be pinch't hard upon that point they have since that time chang'd their measures 50. Put case then one of Dr. St's Flock should say to him Doctor this very Rule you bid me follow to my best Iudgment tells me you have err'd in holding the true Godhead of Christ nay suppose he should say the same to the whole Church of England what could He or that Church either say to such a man according to his Principles They can only propose and direct and that 's the utmost they ought to do and if he likes not their Proposal Direction they ought to let him alone nay commend him for sticking so close to his Rule as he understands it without fearing the face of Man. For 't is the greatest Injustice and Tyranny in the world to punish a man Temporally or which is worse by Ecclesiastical Censures for following sincerely this Rule of Faith. Besides who can tell but this man is better stock't with Dr. St's Morall Qualifications and Inward Light than his Judges and Pastours are And then to vex such a Saint is to fight against God And therefore the Scabb'd Sheep must be let alone to run astray or infect the Flock let the Church her Government go where they will. Now who sees not that these Principles must shatter the Church in pieces fill her with a multitude of Bedlam Sects and utterly overthrow Church-Government But what would I. S. do with such a man Why first I would endeavour to dispossess him of that Luciferian Spirit of Pride which such wicked Principles have tainted him with and win him to a rational Humility by representing how all Mankind in their several affairs seek out one more skill'd than themselves and use their best reason in pitching upon him and then trusting him in things themselves are Ignorant in I would shew him how the Order of the World the Commands of God and his known Duty do all oblige him to believe the Church in such matters rather than his own Private Interpretations I would endeavour to shew him that the Preservation of these necessary Orders engages God's Providence to assist his Church and keep her from Erring in Faith rather then private Men. I would show him that since the only thing he doubts of is to know what Christ taught that God has left some Way to make us sure of his true Doctrin he must first find out such a Way that if men follow'd it would secure them from Errour in that particular Nor would it be hard to demonstrate to him that Tradition is such a way and that Scripture's Letter interpretable by private Judgment is not that way I would shew him how impossible 't is the Body of the Church should have unanimously deserted that Way And amongst other things I would inform him how weakly Dr St. had defended his Own Rule and impugn'd ours and lastly how he and others who follow'd another way have been forc't to grant
from erring in Faith while they rely on it which his Rule does not He puts Questions and gives Answers here very kindly for his own behoof and from such sleight Grounds concludes he may have True Faith and be sav'd without finding out this Certain Authority The later I leave to God's Mercy which may I hope give him the Grace to repent his impugning known Truths which with him I fear is too frequent but he makes himself too Liberall a promise of True Faith without it However he expresses it modestly and only says he may have it that is he may hap to hold right in Some points of Faith by his private Interpretation of Scripture without Tradition of the Church and he may hap to hold Twenty Heresies His fifth Head is ridiculous for 't is a pure Folly to talk of believing the Scripture without knowing certainly what the Scripture says Let him secure this and none will refuse to yield a perfect and stedfast belief to what Christ has taught us by it Our knowing the Sense of it in passages containing dogmatical Tenets of Faith is the only Point between us In assigning some Certain Means to do this he is dull and flat or else perfectly Silent but mighty brisk in what 's nothing to our purpose His Sixth is frivolous and answer'd with a bare denying that we hold that Tradition is only to lead us into the Certain Sense of Scripture And this he knew before as he did five hundred things he pretends here unknown to him And this was but fitting For had he own'd he knew them and the reason brought for them he had stood engag'd to Answer them But by seeming still not to know them he puts us to say our Tenets and bring our Proofs over and over again in the mean he reaps the advantage of gaining time and coming off dextrously at present His Seventh is the same with the Second and spoken to already His citing Scripture Texts has the same fault with better half this whole Book viz. Something is said in common never apply'd to the point in hand or brought close to it but left in that Raw Condition to make the Reader think there is Something in it tho' he knows not well what Our point is that our Judgment of Discretion is not to be Employ'd about scanning the Mysteries of Faith by our Natural Reason after we have found a Certain Authority proving them to be Christ's Doctrin or interpreting such Texts of Scripture by our Private Judgments to gain Assurance what is to be held of Faith. The first Text I speak as to Wise Men judge ye what I say may for any thing he has shown relate to Manners or to the avoiding Idolatry spoken of the verse before which is known by the Light of Nature or to something relating to or consequent from a Point of Faith already known as is intimated in the following verses Of all these they may judge but None of these comes near our business as appears by the State of the Question The Second Text is Prove all Things And does he think this can mean they should consult their natural Reason how it lik't the Misteries or rather in case that Text had indeed related to them does it not signify that they should consider well of the Grounds why they Embrac't them The Third is Try the Spirits whether they are of God. And this is spoken in order to the Antient Hereticks whose Spirits they were to Try by examining whether they deviated from the Doctrin preacht by the Apostles or by looking what Grounds or Motives they produc't to prove their new Doctrin to be Christ's The Judgment of Discretion in this Last case we allow and the two Former are both of them wide of our business unless the Second were meant of examining things by the Grounds for them It were good to dive into the Drs thoughts and get light what it is he would here be at The Apostles says he allow'd them to make use of their Understandings tho' themselves the Proposers were Infallible What mean these dry Common words Does he mean they were to Vnderstand what it was the Apostles taught This is the Duty of every Hearer Catholick and Protestant and the very End of all Teaching and Preaching and so it does not reach the peculiarity of his Iudgment of Discretion Does he mean they were to examin whether the Apostles were Divinely-inspir'd or not This was very laudable in them for this is to use their Reason e're they allow their Authority and is the very Judgment of Discretion we recommend but he is here impugning our Judgment of Discretion and so cannot mean thus He is then contending for a Judgment of Discretion which shall scan the Verity of the Points of Faith themselves or the Matters propos'd even by a Certain Authority by his Naturall Reason I am loath to fix a censure upon Common words but I must tell him that if he means so and that tho' we receive the Tenets of a Trinity and Christ's Godhead for example upon a Certain Authority we are still to suspend our Assent till our Great Judgment of Discretion shall consider well of the Matters propos'd and reject them if such uncouth Articles seem disagreable to Natural Reason his usefull Servant not yet discarded If this be his Tenet as it seems to be then I must tell him his Principles are perfectly Socinian Whether he follows those Principles in his particular Tenets I am not to judge but such Edging and Leaning towards those Principles do I conceive oblige him to satisfy the World he is not that way Affected 55. But what if men differ about this Certain Authority wherein it lies and how far it extends I answer the Authority our Question proceeds on is the Humane Authority of the Church deriving down Christ's Faith Nor do I know any Catholick who ever impugned that but one unknown Nameless Author Lominus whom here out of his constant love to sincerity he is pleas'd to call Others But in case any should differ about it it being a thing Previous to Faith and therefore subject to our Natural Reason all I can say is the better reason must carry it He knows well how many most Eminent Catholick Writers have approv'd and follow'd in their Writings the same way of Controversy I take But he is not now in such good circumstances as candidly to acknowledge any thing He is put to his shifts and counterfeit Ignorance does him as much service as any of the rest But how proves he that when we have found a Certain Authority we must not follow it and rely on it Plain sense tells us we may and ought Why he says 't is putting out our Eyes throwing our selves headlong from a Precipice and there 's an End of Controversies Is not this mighty Learned Another man would think that a Certain Authority were the only way to preserve us from all these Inconveniences and
keep us from erring especially in matters only Knowable by Authority But our Dr has a Judgment or Discretion of another mold than Reason has fram'd for him In the mean time what Answer gives he to my Reason for the contrary position and that the relying on a Certain Authority is to keep our Eyes in our Head still In doing this we do not at all relinquish our Reason but follow and exercise it For nothing is more Rational than to submit to an Authority which my Reason has told me is Abso lutely Certain in things which the same Reason assures me can no other ways be known Certainly but by that Authority This seems plain sense and comprizes the whole Point and for that very reason he thought it not safe to meddle with it but instead of doing so to amuse the Reader with Seven impertinent Discourses of his own and thus it is he Answers my Catholick Letters 56. Hitherto he contented himself to impugn me with False Suggestions nimble Avoidances pretended Ignorance of our known and oft-repeated Tenet and with merry Conceits but now he thunders out his dreadfull Indignation against me with Angry Viper Venemous Froth Spleen Gall c. By which he gives us to understand that the place I prest upon was very raw and sore At the end of my Discourse I repeated his avow'd Position that Every Sober Enquirer may without the Churches Help find out all necessary Points of Faith in Scripture This being a Paradox so pestilential in its self and so Pernicious to Church-Government and to all the Dearest and most Sacred Concerns of Christianity I could do no less out my Zeal for those Best Goods than brand it with these just Censures viz. that it was the very First Principle nay the Quintessence of all Heresy Fanaticism in the Egg perfect Enthusiasm when hatcht and downright Atheism when fledg'd This I said and thus I justify my Charge To make private men competent Interpreters of Scripture as to all necessary Points of Christian Faith without the Churches Help and yet not to furnish them with any Certain Means of not erring or mistaking its Sense is the very First Principle of all Heresy For Non enim natae sunt Haereses nisi dum Scripturae bonae intelliguntur non bene No Heresy has any other source but when the Scriptures good in themselves are understood in an ill Sense Next let this wild licentious Principle that they need not the Churches Help to find out all Necessary Points in Scripture settle in the Heads of the Mobile 't is perfectly consequent that they must judge that whatever the Church holds contrary to what they conceive is the sense of Scripture is either False or Unnecessary and in case the Church judges that what They hold is a Grand Heresy and therefore that the contrary Tenet is a Necessary Point and therefore subjects them to Her Censures they must hate the Churches Government as the worst of Tyrannies that would oblige them to forgo their Rule renounce their Faith and obey Man rather than God. In a word this Principle naturally leads them to contemn the Church and her Pastours as neither able to help them in their Way to Faith nor to Govern them in it Unless the Dr means by Governing that the Church-Officers are to see that each of them follows their own Fancies and decline not from such Tenets let them be never so Heretical as their wise Judgment of Discretion has thought fit to embrace which is Fanaticism in the height Again the Conceit of this self-sufficiency codling as I may say in the hot Brains of many of those Fanaticks enfranchized thus blessedly from the Churches Government Dr St. still assuring them they cannot miss of knowing Gods Will in such Points so they but pray for Wisdom and Common Sense telling them they are no Scholars nor have this Knowledge by Humane Means it follows necessarily that they must think their Prayer is heard and that they have it by Divine Inspiration Whence they will imagin the Holy Ghost buzzes Truths in their Ears like a Bee in a Box which is perfect Enthusiasm And. it will come pat to their purpose and help forward very well that Dr St. when he stood engag'd to shew or produce his Proofs that his Faithfull have Absolute Certainty of their Faith that is of the true Sense of Scripture confesses plainly no such Proofs are producible and recurrs to Moral Qualifications and many other Invisible Requisites to give men assurance of it which are impossible to be known by Human Reason being only Knowable by God Himself Whence Nature obliging all men to guide themselves by some sure Light in things of Infinite Concern and all Motives that should appear outwardly to Reason being according to him Cloudy and Dark it directs them necessarily to seek for this sure Light within and so become Enthusiasts In the mean time not to speak of Atheists who are By-standers and confirm'd in their Atheism by seeing such Bedlam-doings amongst Professors of Christianity imbu'd with no better Principles than what he gives them the more refin'd ingenious sort of Mankind who are too wise to be led in the dark strain their best endeavours to search after solid Grounds by which they may be perfectly assur'd of Christs Faith or the sense of Scripture in such Points find that none such could be brought by the famous Dr St. but that when he was most highly engag'd to produce his Proofs for that most important Point he recurrs still to holes as dark as the private Spirit What can they do other were there no better Grounds than his producible but conclude that there is No Certainty of Christian Faith at all and that the Greatest Professors and Writers do by their Carriage confess as much and thence come to apprehend that Religion is a meer Cheat to keep up the Interest and Ambition of those who look for rich Livings and affect to have many Followers which will bring them to a Mepris of Religion it self and so dwindle into Atheism This is the Natural Progress of Dr St's Principles From which ill Consequences he shall never clear himself till he shews us the Light and Method giving him and his No Church men Certainty of the Sense of Scripture and this such an Absolute one as can in True Reason beget and justify a most Firm and Vnalterable Assent that the Tenets they hold are indeed Christs True Doctrin and till he restores to the Church and her Government that necessary Authority of which his ill-contriv'd Principles have robb'd her Let him not think to acquit himself by telling us here of his allowing the Church a Power of Proposing and directing in Faith. A Learned Son of the Church of England has told him A Private Person may do the Former and that the Later is such a Liberall Grant as was given to the Statues of Mercury which of old were set up
themselves by it from Oliquity or Deviation that is in our case from Error After the Dr. had play'd the Droll a while upon particular words taken asunder from their fellows as is his usuall manner he grants There wants but one word to make it past Dispute viz. who effectually regulate themselves by it Now the word Regulate has clearly an Active Signification whence it being impossible an Action should be without an Effect it follows that Efficiency or Effectuallness is involv'd in it's Notion So that to do a thing Effectually does not signify any better degree of doing a Thing but only to do it really and indeed He pretends Regulating is an Ambiguous word and therefore he assigns it a double Signification One of them is what a Man doth in Conformity to his Rule And Common sense tells us that as far as a man acts Unconformably to his Rule he is not Regulated by that Rule whence to act conformably to a Rule is the self same as to be Regulated by the Rule to which he is to conform This then is one Signification of Regulating and 't is a right one for to regulate one's self by a Rule is nothing else but to Act conformably to it Le ts see the other sense of the word Regulating 'T is this To Profess Declare and Own to conform to a Rule but not conform to it that is not follow that Rule or Regulate themselves by it Now only to Profess declare and own to conform to a Rule and not conform is not to-follow it or Regulate themselves by it So that our Learned Dr. has given us here Two sorts of Regulating One which is Regulating the other which is not Regulating Let us put an Instance The Rule of Justice is to pay every man his own Now comes an unconscionable Debtor and maintains he has followed that Rule or Regulated himself by it in some Sense because he has profess'd declar'd and own'd he has follow'd that Rule tho' he has not Effectually and Indeed done so Is not this a special way of Regulating himself by the Rule of Justice and a most Cheap way for a Man to pay debts without disbursing a farthing Yet he may justify himself by Dr. St's Distinction and maintain that he has paid them Professingly owningly and declaringly tho' not Effectually Yet the Dr. is mighty fond of this choice Distinction and says All Mr S's Subtlety vanishes into nothing by plain and so easy a Distinction Notwithstanding as Nonsensicall as it is he will bring two Instances to make it good viz. That there is one sort of Regulating which is Not-Regulating The one is of a Ciceronian who Declares he orders his Speech by his Manner and yet for want of Sufficient skill and Care may use Phrases which are not Cicero's Now 't is plain that to Regulate himself by Cicero is to use his Phrases and can he then regulate himself by Cicero when he does not use his Phrases Can he be truly said to Regulate himself by him when he does not use his manner of speaking meerly because he Professes and Declares he does it Or can he be said to regulate himself by a Rule in that very thing in which he Deserts that Rule and regulates himself by some other Author or his own Fancy Did ever Common Sense go so to wrack If he says he intended to follow Cicero but mistook I understand him but intending to do a thing is not doing it intending to get Riches is not to get Riches otherwise none need be poor His Second Instance is that some may Profess that Christ's Commands are their Rule and yet through their own Fault may deviate from them or Sin. But can Sinners with any sense be said to regulate themselves by Christ's Commands when they Sin meerly because they profess to follow his Rule of Life Or can any man of a settled Brain Dr St. still excepted pretend a Sinner can be said to be regulated by that Holy Rule and deviate from it or Desert it at the same time So that his Instances as well as his Distinctions are pure Folly and Contradiction These Performances we must think qualify him to laugh at my Admirable Logick for not allowing his palpable Nonsence whereas himself is still caught stumbling in the plainest paths of that Common Road to True Learning I could wish some of Dr St's Friends would advise him soberly to fall to Quoting and Gleaning Notes then stitching them handsomly and Methodically together where he is in his own Element for in that Wilderness of words he may take his full vagary and scribble to the World's End without much danger of meeting with Conclusive Evidence which he so dreads and hates but certainly his Talent lies not in this crabbed way of close Reason The rest of his Discourse here is imposing upon me that I make men incapable of deserting the Rules of Christian Faith and Virtue tho' he knows in his Conscience I have told him the express contrary above twenty times All I pretend to in my Discourse from the Nature of a Rule is that If follow'd it will secure the Followers of it from Errour But I no where ever said but All Free Agents or all Mankind may desert those Rules and by deserting them fall into Errour and Sin too unless supported by God's Grace He asks if it be possible for men to misunderstand a Certain Rule and I tell him it is in case it be not Clear as well as Certain And I have already shewn him that the Living Voice and Practise of the Church our Rule has so many ways of delivering clearly her own Sense or Christ's Doctrin that the Generality cannot fail of understanding it right however divers Souls to whom this Rule is not so well apply'd remaining less cultivated by their own Carelesness or the Negligence of Pastours may hap to misunderstand some Points Nor can they run into Errour so as to fix in it while they think to follow the Rule For knowing they are to receive their Faith from the Church they take not upon themselves to judge of Faith as his Sober Enquirers do whom he allows to judge of Scriptures Sense without any Certain Teacher to preserve them from Errour and Heresy whence such men became fixt and unretractable by fancying they have Gods Word on their side while the others continue docil and capable of the Churches Instruction upon any occasion And when it comes to be discover'd as in likelihood it will be by their expressions that they have any Misconceit concerning Faith it obliges them to seek to be better inform'd by the Church their Mistress whom they are willing to hear and believe and the Church too becomes oblig'd to rectify their Mistakes and instruct their Ignorance 62. I have spoken formerly of his Necessary Points Only I am to observe here that he avoids very carefully with If 's the telling us whether any of
the highest Mysteries of our Faith be necessary for Salvation But must we still be put off with that frigid Evasion that such sublime Points are as intelligible now at this distance from the time of the Apostles tho' only couch't in a few words in a Book as they were when spoke by those Living Teachers who doubtless not only deliver'd their Sense in a few set words but such Points needing it explain'd it and dilated upon it to settle it better and sink an express conceit of it deeper into the minds of their Auditors Can it be imagin'd but that many of the People and the Pastours especially put their doubts and askt them Questions concerning the Points of Faith they had Preacht and receiv'd pertinent Answers none of which a Book could do How ridiculous a pretence then is this Yet this is his best shift For unless the Book have This or an Equivalent Virtue to make Clear its Sense it cannot have the Plainness or Clearness requisit to a Rule of Faith. He contends that if those Points be necessary to Salvation they must be so Plain that we may be Certain of our Duty to believe them Which retorts his Discourse upon himself for if those two sublime Articles there spoken of be Necessary for the Salvation of the Generality which cannot be deny'd without accusing the Primitive Church of Tyranny for casting those out of the Church who deny'd them then they must be Certain one way or other that 't is their Duty to believe them and since he does not think fit to say this Duty can be Certainly shewn them by the Letter of Scripture it follows that this Duty to believe them must be made Certain by the Testimony of the Church delivering them 'T is easy to be seen the whole force of his Discourse here is built on his begging the Question that Scriptures Letter as understood by Private Judgments is the Rule of Faith and that it is plain in all Necessary Points Which he ought not to do without shewing us first which Points are Necessary at least those of the Trinity and Godhead of Christ if he think them so and then proving his Rule is Plain in all such Points and not still to suppose presume upon and occurr to that which is yet under Dispute Vngranted and Unprov'd Let me then mind him of one piece of Logick which tho' it be not Admirable yet 't is Solid and never regarded by him 'T is this that no Argument has any force upon another but either by its being so Evident that he must forfeit his Reason to deny it or Granted by his Adversary so that he must either Argue from something Clear of it self or made Clear by Proof or else argue Ex concessis from the Party 's own Concession By which Rule if all the Reasons he brings here were examin'd it will manifestly appear he has not spoken one word of True Reason against me in his whole Answer I do here Challenge him to shew me so much as any One Argument of his that has either of these Qualifications and to encourage him to such a performance if he can shew me any One such I promise him to pass all the rest for valid and good I end with desiring the considering Reader to reflect on the Drs Discourse here p 82. and upon an exact review of it to determine whether Principles are not deeply laid here to make the Socinians and many other known Hereticks Members of his Church and to free them from Church Censurers For if they find not in Scripture that the Apostles Preacht the Trinity and Godhead of Christ in clear and Express terms and with this Connotate as necessary to Salvation they cannot be Certain of their Duty to believe them the Consequences of which I need not dilate on His own Church is more concern'd to look to his Tenets than I am 63. He triumphs much that I grant Some may be sav'd without the Knowledge of all Christ Taught He means those Spiritual Points so often mention'd But if he knew how little advantage he gains by it he would not think it worth his taking notice of What may be done in an abstracted case is one thing what if they live in a Church and hold Heresies contrary to Christ's and the Church's Doctrin is Another Some Catholick Divines treating of Faith do mantain that to hold There is a God and that He is a Rewarder and Punisher is Simply enough for Salvation if they live up to those Tenets whence they conceive hopes that Nebuchadnezzar was sav'd tho' he was no Iew. But what 's this to our case Christ has left us a Body of Doctrin and since he did nothing Unnecessary for the Salvation of Mankind this being the End of his Coming and Preaching each Point conduced to that End either immediately or by Consequence whence by the way 't is a Folly to expect the Apostles Taught such Points as necessary to Salvation others as not necessary since no Point was Vnnecessary for the Salvation of Mankind except when they said for Distinction Dico ego non Christus or us'd some Equivalent expression But to return God has also settled a Church to conserve that Doctrin of Christ Intire Whence if any falls into Heresies contrary to that Doctrin by Misunderstanding Scripture's Letter in such passages 't is her Duty to cast them out of the Church and deliver them over to Satan for their contumacious Pride in preferring their own Private Judgments before the Judgment of their Pastours and the Church whom God appointed to Teach Them. Whence I do assure him I do not hold that any one such Privative Unbeliever will ever be sav'd tho' he holds some Points which of their own Nature might suffice for Salvation For such a man believes nothing at all but upon his own Self conceit and the very Ground of his Faith let him prate of Scripture as much as he will is Spiritual Pride which Vice alone is enough to damn him even tho' he held all those Points of Christ's Faith to a Tittle Hence follows that either the Primitive Church as hinted above was very uncharitable in Excommunicating those who dissented from those High Articles Or else the Rule of Faith must be so Plain and Clear that it must preserve those from Heresy who follow it and render them Inexcusable who by deserting it do fall into the opposit Heresies And therefore that we may bring our Discourse back to the Question he must either prove his Rule of Faith thus Qualify'd or 'T is no Rule What follows to p. 85. is meer Drollery which gives all the seeming Strength to his Weak reasoning Only he has a fling at Transubstantiation which is a Topick of course in his Controversy He thinks 't is Unnecessary to the Church but the Church it seems thought it necessary to define it in her Circumstances and I humbly conceive the necessary occasion of defining it was because such as He
Equivocated in the Tenet of the Reall Presence and according to the Drs late Distinction making Not-Regulating to be one sort of Regulating would needs have the word Reall to mean Not-Reall whence it was judg'd expedient to put it past quibble by such a rigorously-express Definition And I much fear this vexes the Drs Sacramentarian Spirit far more then Transubstantiation it self I omit that he has forgot here the Common distinction of what Points are necessary Necessitate Medij and what Necessitate Praecepti I suppose because this Later did not sute with his Levelling Principles which set the Church and his Rabble on even Ground as to Matters of Faith. 64. I alledg'd that those Articles of the Trinity and Christ's Godhead were Fundamentall Points and therefore if his Rule could not Absolutely Ascertain People of all sorts coming to Faith of those Articles it could assure them of None and so is no Rule of Faith. He runs quite away from the Points and thinks he has done enough to say It is Absolutely Certain that God has reveal'd the Fundamentalls of our Faith. But the Question sticks still Are you Absolutely Certain by your Rule that the Trinity and Christ's Godhead are Christ's Doctrin or signify'd with Absolute Certainty by Scripture's Letter To this he says nothing but shifts it off most Shamelessly to another thing Let him set himself to do this which is his Task and we will undertake to examin the Nature of his Medium and show it Inconclusive I alledg'd that there is Experience by the Socinians taking the same way that his Medium or way to be Certain of this is not Certain He again turns off Experience that the way he takes is not Certain to Experience of his Inward Certainty or his Inward Persuasion And asks briskly whether he or I know best A pleasant Gentleman Why does he not confute all my Book by that Method Does he think 't is enough to show he is Absolutely Certain of the Sense of Scripture as to those Points with barely saying he knows he is thus Certain of it better than I What wretched Shifts are these In pursuance of this new Method of Proving and Confuting He asks again How comes Mr. S. to know we are not Certain when we say we are Because when you are most highly Concern'd and stood Engag'd by promise to show this Absolute Certainty and are Prest to it Vehemently and upon the brink of losing your Credit for not doing it you still decline the showing you have any such Certainty for the Sense of Scripture as to those Points Still he asks Are not we Certain because some that is the Socinians are not Certain No Sir not barely for that reason but because the Socinians proceeding upon the Same Rule are so far from being Certain of the Sense of Scripture as to those Points that they esteem themselves Certain by the same Scripture of Hereticall Tenets Point-blank Opposit to those Points Common Reason assures us no End can be compass'd without a Means and therefore you can never show us You are Certain till you show us you follow a better Way rely on a firmer Ground and Guide your selves by a Clearer Light to make you Certain of Scriptures Sense in those passages than They do which you can never show and as appears by your wriggling from that Point by the most untoward Shifts imaginable dare not Attempt But some are uncertain of Orall Tradition nay Censure it I do not know one man but holds and reverences it It lies upon his Credit to name those who Censure it For Lominus is a Chimaerical name and signifies no body that he knows But suppose Some did yet it being an object of Naturall Reason they and I in that case could not proceed on the Same Grounds or Reasons as his Protestants and the Socinians do upon the Same Rule of Faith. 65. I alledg'd that by his Principles he could be no more Certain of his Rule then he is of the Truth of the Letter of Scripture in regard the Truth of the Sense of Scripture depends on the Trueness of the Letter Does he deny this Or does he show that without the Care of the Church preserving the Letter Right all along he can have any Such Certainty of the Letter He not so much as Attempts either I alledg'd farther that he cannot be thus Certain of the Right Letter without having the same Certainty of the Right Translation or the True Copy nor that any Copy is True unless it be taken from the First Originall Does he deny this Or does he show that all these may not fail if the Churches's Care be set aside No neither What Shift has he then Why he says 1. That some of us are Concern'd to Answer this as well as He. Not at all for those who say that Part of Faith is Contain'd in Scripture do not for all that say that their Faith is built on Scripture's Letter interpreted by any but the Church nor do they say but the Church without Scripture could have ascertain'd them of their Faith. 2. He says This strikes at the Authentickness of the Vulgar Translation Not at all For we have other Grounds to go upon which they have Not. 3. He skips after bringing some words of mine for what they were never intended from the Translation to the Canon of Scripture which are a Mile wide from one another that so he may however he speeds in all the rest at least talk plausibly of the Concurrent Testimony for the Canon In order to which he stands up a Patron for those Christian Churches of his who thus concurr'd and will not condemn them as not truly Christian till their Cause be better heard and examin'd Yet 't is Evident from his Second Letter to Mr. G. p. 25. that some of those Churches were Arians Nestorians and Eutychians condemn'd for Hereticks by most Antient General Councils which he blames it seems for declaring so rashly against them and reprieves his Friends from their Censures till a fairer Hearing It had been happy for them had Dr. St. presided in those Councils for he would doubtless have dealt with them very kindly and have clapt them head and tail together with good Catholicks into one Latitudinarian Bill of Comprehension 5. I alledg'd that the same Sense in the heart of the Church enabled and oblig'd Her to correct the Copy when faulty in Texts containing Points of Faith which instead of shewing it Incompetent or Disagreeable to the Nature of things he confutes most Learnedly by pretending that Atheists and Unbelievers would be scandaliz'd at it Whereas they would be much more scandaliz'd to see no Certain Means assign'd to preserve the Letter right from the beginning the very first Originals being lost and all left the Churches Care set apart to so many contingences of Translating and Transcribing 6. We must prove it first to be impossible for the Sense of the Church to vary in any two
Ages As if this had not been prov'd already and never yet answer'd but by Shuffles and Evasions 7. He frames a Plea for the Arians against the Nicene Councill from my Principles but very untowardly for the Arians allow'd the Copies and quoted Scripture as fast as Catholicks did and yet Err'd most abominably which makes against himself Lastly he tells us that 't is a pernicious Principle a miserable Account c. At which I wonder not For every thing is miserable and pernicious with him that makes the Church good for any thing Yet he could grant the Churches Testimony was needfull at first to abett the Truth of the Gospells and she enjoy'd that Priviledge in St. Austins time and I wonder how she came to lose her Title to God's Gracious Providence and Assistance or how she came to be disabled in the following ages to preserve the Letter uncorrupted in those Texts that contain'd known Points of Faith. It seems Translaters and Transcribers for the most part Mercenary are Sacred with him and admirable Preservers of the Letter but alas the Miserable Church is good for nothing I have already told him why I hold Scriptures Letter no Rule how 't is sometimes call'd a Rule in an improper Sense and why that Sense is improper and his Friend Dr. Tillotson has told him what a Rule of Faith means in our Controversies but he never heeds either but runs on here with frivolous descants upon an ambiguous word and will needs take Rule in a Sense never meant nor possible to be meant in our circumstances He 's not satisfy'd with the Care of the Council of Trent in correcting the Copy But let him remember I spoke there of Texts of Inferiour Concern not of those that concern'd Faith. And why is he not satisfy'd Did she not do her best in the present Circumstances How will he prove it Because Clemens the 8 th recall'd and corrected the Bibles put out by Sixtus the 5 th for an exact Edition But if both did their best according to the Observations were made in their time and the Light they had then neither of them were to blame But all this Humane Diligence amounts not to Absolute Certainty as I. S. requires of us And is it not more reason I should require it of him than he of me since he makes it Scriptures Letter the Proper Rule of Faith which he knows I do not and yet which is pleasant he calls upon me aloud to declare as much and then he knows how to answer And now I know the true Reason why he has answer'd nothing hitherto viz. because I had not declar'd what I had own'd in all my Books near a thousand times over But we have lost our point by answering a multitude of Impertinent Cavills 'T is this The Sense of Scripture cannot be Absolutely Certain unless there be Absolute Certainty the Letter is right Nor can there be Absolute Certainty the Letter is right even in Texts relating to Faith by his Principles which deny this was perform'd by the Churches Knowledge of the Points of Faith but by making out with Absolute Certainty how the Letter was by some other Means secur'd from being wrong This he never attempts even in this very occasion when it lay upon him to do it and therefore for all his empty flourishes he has said just nothing Nor has shewn or defended that even the Ground of his Faith Scriptures Letter is Absolutely Certain Besides his Discourse still beats upon this mistake that We do not hold the Letter Absolutely Certain in such concerning Texts whereas we only say He cannot prove it to be such by his Principles and he makes our words good with not performing it or so much as attempting it Only he tells us for our comfort that as to Books Copies and Translations he has as high a Certainty as the thing is capable of and then 't is Madness to expect and require more So that tho' it happen that the Certainty be but a very sleight one his kind of Faithfull and Converts may take their choice whether they will be Fools if they will believe it or Madmen if they will not He tells us indeed faintly the Faith previous to Divine Faith may have Absolute Certainty but if it only may have it it may not have it In the mean time what is all this voluntary Saying to his Proving that he has really and indeed Absolute Certainty of those Books Copies and Translations 'T is his Proofs we lookt for and not bare Narrations of his own weak Tenets with which he thus puts us off continually 66. But how strangely Insincere if any such carriage could after so frequent use of it be strange in him is the Dr to pretend we hold it is in any Churches Power to correct Original Texts because they contradict the Sense of the present Church These words he puts into Italick Letter as if they were mine but he cites no place and I do assure the Reader I have neither such Words nor Sense The first Originals are not extant so cannot be corrected those call'd Originals which are already acknowledg'd ought as little to be corrected as the other in Texts belonging to Faith. All the Power we give the Church is to correct succeeding Copies upon occasion in Texts relating to the Articles of our Faith when they deviate from the Faith of the Church or which is the same from former Copies allow'd by her universally 67. I desir'd the Dr to satisfy us concerning the Number of Books requisit to a Rule of Faith and how many will just serve the turn as also whether some Book for any thing his Principles can assure us were not lost This lay upon him to prove and this with Absolute Certainty if he would have Scripture an Intire Rule of his Faith How proves he it Why he makes me mightily concern'd to lessen the Authority of the New Testament and that I charge the Christian Church with a Gross Neglect For all this Noise he knows well enough that I agree with him that 't is not in the least probable the Churches should suffer any such Book disperst among them to be last nor do I so much as suppose they did What I say is that he who holds all Humane Authority Fallible can never prove it True they deliver'd down All unless he can convince the World that a Fallible Medium can prove a thing True which he cannot do without proving that What may be False is True. Nor can he do This without proving the same thing may be and not be at once I wish then he would set himself to work and prove this abominable First Principle to be False For otherwise This alone will confute all the substantial parts of his Book and convince every man of Common Sense that his Grounds confest by himself to be Fallible can never make out that 't is True that he has either Right
Letter or Right Sense of Scripture or that no Book is lost c. and so there 's an End of his Problematical Faith. I must confess that to prove First Principles False is something difficult but I have reduc't the business to as narrow a compass as I can that he may make short work of it He recurrs at present for want of some Clear Proof to Gods Providence concern'd in preserving Books written by Divine Inspiration Of which none doubts But why should not God's Providence be as much concern'd in preserving his Church from Erring in Faith that so both all those Books their Letters and Sense might be kept right as far as was Necessary Or why was God's Providence the Less for making the Churches Care and Help the Means to preserve both the Books and Letter of Scripture from suffering detriment Lastly why must his Providence be confin'd to only Translaters and Transcribers 68. Dr St. in his second Letter to Mr. G. p. 32. made the Canon of the New Testament the Rule of his Faith. To show the Inconsistency of his Tenets and utterly overthrow his Pretence of that Rule I alledg'd that If the whole Canon be his Rule then his Rule was deficient for some hundreds of years till the whole Canon was Collected and Acknowledg'd I prest farther that since it must take up some time e're those severall Books were Spread and accepted sometimes the Primitive Church had according to his Principles but Three quarters of their Faith Half of their Faith or less and so were but Three-quarters or Half-Christians according as the several pieces came by degrees to be Vniversally accepted For no man of Sense can doubt but that it cost some time e're the Churches so diffus'd heard of all those Books and much more e're they could be perfectly satisfy'd of the Universal Testimony of the Church Ascertaining them to have been writ by men Divinely inspir'd in regard it was of most Dangerous Consequence to accept that for Gods Word which was not beyond all doubt such So that we may with reason imagin that some Churches had at first but Two or Three Books of Scripture others but Four or Five that were well attested or could be rely'd on in such a High Concern Add that there were divers false Gospells and Spacious Books given out under the names of having the Apostles or Apostolical Men for their Authors which must have redoubled their care and made them backward to receive any that were not Authentick which would take up still more time to examin thoroughly To press my Argument still more home I urg'd that perhaps according to him they had no Faith at all during that long Interval because wanting other Books or sufficient warrant to rely on them they by consequence wanted a Multitude of other Texts with which they might Compare those they already had which is one part of his Method to find true Faith in Scripture To show more the Inconsonancy of his Doctrine I noted that notwithstanding all this he declar'd that he lookt upon the Primitive Church tho' so ill furnish't with his Rule as on the Best Arbitrator between us in all our Controversies about the Sense of the doubtfull that is Controverted places of Scripture Now one would verily think this pressing Discourse following the Point in Question so Close and pursuing it so Home were exceedingly worth his while to Answer if he could since it toucht his Rule and his Cause to the quick Now le ts see what he says in their Defence The Substance of his Answer for all the rest is impertinent is a most doughty and most weighty word If If God says he hath so Abundantly provided for his Church that there may be a full Revelation of all Points of Faith in the rest then the disputing the Authority of such an Epistle meaning that to the Hebrews doth not derogate from the Compleatness of the Rule of Faith. What 's become of his Sincerity and Morall Honesty which he so profest to Love Did I speak of the Epistle to the Hebrews Did not I not only speak of but most Expressly discourse all along of those many or most Books of Scripture not Universally known and accepted at the very first but by degrees spreading and gaining in Process of Time the Credit of being Authentick Does not my Discourse that by his Principles The Primitive Church had but Three quarters of her Faith half her Faith or less barr this Shamming Pretence that I speak only of that Epistle Or does he think I meant that that single Epistle was half or three quarters of the Canon of Scripture And now Reader I beg thy leave to insist here upon this Prevarication as an instance of one great Part of his Method in Confuting He picks out a word or two which may best serve him to slip away from the Point and turn it to quite another business but leaves the whole Stress and full import of the Argument Unanswer'd It were tedious still to reflect how oft he has done thus in this pretended Reply to my Catholique Letters But whoever compares his severall Answers to the respective places he pretends to speak to will see how dull and insignificant they are tho' if he be read alone especially with an Implicit Belief of his dealing fairly they look very jolly and brisk However to divert the Readers Eye he is even with me in another Point I said the accepting or not accepting Books whether in the Latin or Greek Churches was an Act of Prudence Antecedent to the Iudgment or Determination of any Church and so could not make or marr the Latin Churche's Infallibility in her Iudgment or Decrees He falls into a gross mistake of the word Antecedent and erects a Trophy of Victory upon his own Errour To clear which 't is to be observed that our Divines admit Prudentiall Considerations in any Church even tho' held Infallible Previous to her Decrees yet do not hold that Church is Infallible in those Acts of Prudence which are thus Antecedent Now tho' the whole Series of my Discourse there shows clearly that I spoke of an Antecedency in the Course of Humane Actions or of a Prudentiall Deliberation Antecedent to an Absolute Decision he turns it to an Antecedency in Chronology or of more Antient Writers and when he has apply'd that word to a wrong matter he has the Vanity to insult But he says I say not a Syllable to his proving hence the Roman Church was not then believ'd Infallible Surely he never consider'd what he pretends to Answer for by saying it was not only an Act of Prudence Antecedent to any Degree I show there was no occasion to show what was then believ'd of her Infallibility or not believ'd Again since the Certainty of that Epistles being writ by St. Paul depended on Testimony other Churches might perhaps know that better for some time than She. But the worst is he was preparing
be Answering for all that 'T is his Interest to do it solidly for he has all the World who in their Disputes follow the contrary Method to confute His main reason to prove that Arguing is a good way to Answer is because the Argument attempts to prove a thing Impossible and that 't is contrary to Sense and Experience to say the Latin and Greek Churches do not differ in what they receive upon Tradition and so the same Answer that Diogenes gave to Zeno's Argument against Motion by Walking will serve the turn Let 's examin this parallel in which consists the substance of his Defence of his bad Logick Does all the World see that the Generality of the Greek Church proceed upon Tradition in what they differ from the Latin as certainly and evidently as they see there is Motion Have not I produc't in my First Catholick Letter p. 35. reasons enow to shew him how disputable this point is none of which he so much as mentions Did not I there p. 13. quote him out of his own book Peter Lombard saying that the Difference between the Greeks and Latins is in Words and not in Sense Nay Thomas a Iesu Azorius c. who were of the same Judgment And could not these Learned men see a thing manifest to Sense and Experience Our point then is nothing like that of denying Motion nor is it contrary to Sense and Experience but such as bears a Dispute amongst intelligent Men and Great Schollars and therefore even by the Drs own Discourse an Argument or Instance brought against the Conclusion was no Answer to the Premises of the Argument brought by Mr. G. and so all the Division he runs upon it here is perfectly frivolous Nor was Mr G. oblig'd either to grant or deny the Greek Church had Err'd but was to insist on an Answer to his Argument because the Dr had playd foul play in attacking his Conclusion when he was to answer his Proof which if admitted no Discourse could possibly proceed For let us suppose Dr. St. had been to argue and had brought this Instance of the Greek Church would he have thought it fair that Mr G. when he was to answer it should have brought the Argument he made use of in the Conference and have bid him prove that two Churches following Tradition differ'd in Faith notwithstanding his Demonstration that they could not Or would it be held a competent Answer to his late Book against the Council of Trent to bid him prove it had not follow'd Tradition notwithstanding all that a multitude of Learned Catholick Authors had writ to the contrary I took heart then indeed as he says seeing the Dr so Nonplust but 't is his own fiction that I resolv'd to grapple with his Instance it being impertinent to do it in those circumstances and so he may thank himself if he were disappointed I was ty'd to the known Laws of Dispute and not bound to dance after his Pipe when he strays from all the Clearest Methods of Reasoning I objected that himself had defended the Greek Church from Erring in his Rational Account which spoils his own Instance of a Church going upon Tradition and Erring He calls this Trifling and says the Dispute was about Mr G 's Argument Yes but these words were not brought to abet his Agreement but expressly to shew the Drs Inconsonancy to himself and his Unconscienciousness in arguing from the Greek Churches Erring whereas it was his Opinion it did not Err. And tho' Mr G's Answer may be pretended not to be so pat to the particular Demand yet it was apposit to the main Point that no Church did at once adhere to Tradition and Err at the same time For which I gave my reason because if each Successive Generation follow'd their Fathers Tradition from the beginning the last Son must believe as the first did This was too hot to handle and so 't is answer'd with Good Night to the Greek Church which is Learned beyond expression Lastly upon my saying He might as well have instanc't in the Latin Church it self without running so far as Greece he takes hence an occasion to accept of the Challenge tho' it did not look like one being only spoke occasionally and threatens us not with a bare instance but a whole Book against us He may use his pleasure tho' I must tell him it looks but cowardly to threaten when he 's running away from his business undertaken and not yet perform'd and leaving the Absolute Certainty of his poor destitute Faith in the suds One would think it had been the more Compendious Way to overthrow our Cause to answer five or six lines if he could have done it But he had a mind to be at another Work more suitable to his Quoting Genius and hop'd to draw us after him from a Conclusive and short way of Discoursing to an Endless one of answering every frivolous misunderstood or misapply'd Citation 71. But now he will shew us how 't is Possible to adhere to Tradition yet err A hard Task if apply'd to our business For since to adhere to Tradition is still to believe what was deliver'd to shew that those who adhere to Tradition do err is to shew that they who still believ'd the same Christ taught did not believe the same Christ taught A Point so Evident that his Reflecter could not but grant it Yet let the Dr alone I dare hold a good wager on his side that he can by his confuting Method his Logick prove direct Contradictions to be True without any difficulty or as he calls it here with an Easy Distinction He begins with two Senses of Adhering to Tradition One of adhering to it as the Rule and Means of conveying matters of Faith. The other for adhering to the very Doctrin taught at first and truely convey'd down since by Tradition That is there are two sorts of Tradition or Delivery One is Tradition the Other is not Tradition or Delivery but the Points deliver'd Parallel to this is his Distinction of Traditionary Christians To what purpose is it to talk Sense to a man who is resolv'd to run still so wildly into Nonsense Do but see good Reader with what care I had forestall'd this very Absurd Distinction in my Third Catholick Letter p. 4.5.9.12 and shew'd how he had deform'd Tradition into all the untoward Senses man's wit could invent by making it now signify Articles now Power now Points deliver'd yet to convince the World that he cannot or rather must not speak Sense he 's at the same work again as briskly as ever And good reason Contradictions are better Friends to him than Principles for nothing more confounds the Reader which is all he looks after and to confound him with a shew of Distinguishing which Nature intended for a way to clear things does it with a better grace The same work he makes with the word Traditionary and tho' he were told what
Faith be Immediate even from day to day And thus Dr St. has begun to answer Mr G's Demonstration by keeping such a huge pother about a Proposition Evident by its own Light and pretending more faults in it than even a wise man could have shown in the Arrantest Falshood But he has not done with it yet the most Essentiall part of it remains yet behind And so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour Now the Proposition speaks of Believing the same all that while and he confutes it with talking of Claiming and Pretending to follow it Whence since to believe the same that was deliver'd is Actually following Tradition his distinguishing Talent has afforded us two sorts of following Tradition One which is really and indeed following it the other is only pretending to follow it and not doing so that is there is one sort of believing the same or of following Tradition which is not-following of it which is still of the same Learned Strain 74. The Second Proposition is And if they follow this Rule they can never Err in Faith what says he to this If they follow this Rule that is believe the same from Christ's time that was taught at first do not they believe the same Christ Taught One would verily think that this is as Evident as 't is that to believe the same is to believe the same True 't is so and therefore 't is with him Self-Evidently a meer Fallacy Certainly never was any Mortall Man such an Enemy to Common Sense But 't is his constant humour to talk big when he 's at a perfect Nonplus Well but how proves he 't is a meer Fallacy Why 1. He grants that those who believe Christ's Doctrin cannot Err. And is not this a rare Answer We both grant that Christ's Doctrine is True and consequently that who hold it cannot Err All this is Presuppos'd to our Question and so is no part of it But our Point is how we shall know assuredly what is Christs Doctrin Or by what Means shall we come at it 2. He says They might mistake in this Rule It has been shown him Third Cath. Letter p. 6 7.8.9 and in many other places upon occasion that they could not mistake in this Rule he never takes notice of it in his whole Answer and yet has the Confidence to object it afresh 3. He says They might follow another Rule This too has been prov'd against him nay 't is here prov'd in the Fourth Proposition of this very Argument for by proving they could not innovate in Faith 't is prov'd they that is the Body or Vniversality could not desert Tradition But what a shift is the Dr put to Do we contend here they could follow no other All the Proposition pretends to is that If they follow this Rule they cannot err in Faith. What says he to this Can they or can they not If they cannot then the Rule is a good Rule which is all we labour to prove here the rest is prov'd in the Fourth Proposition And if they can err tho' following it then since to follow it is still to believe the same the Dr must say that the same Faith tho' still convey'd down the same is not the same it self was at first which is a direct Contradiction Not one single word of Answer then to the Proposition has he given us only he affirms stoutly 't is Fallacious a very Cheap Answer to any Argument that is too crabbed and difficult but he cannot for his heart tell where the Fallacy lies The Conclusion is naught that he 's resolv'd on but he has nothing that is pertinent to say to the Premisses or Proof Yet something he must say for a shew and so he will shew some other ways that Errours might come in And perhaps I can shew him twenty more but still what 's this to the Point Can Errours in Faith come in while men follow this Rule of Tradition that is while they continue to believe the same that was still taught immediately before and this ever since Christs time This is our only business 75. Since I must now run out of the way after our Straggling Disputant I desire first the Reader would remark that the Proposition he is now answering is this If they follow this Rule viz. Tradition they can never err in Faith as also that by Tradition is meant the Publick Testimony of the Church of what was deliver'd as Christs Doctrine His first particular way of introducing Errours is by the Authority of False Teachers But was Tradition follow'd while they follow'd their Authority If it was then the Christian Church was a False Teacher and her Publick Testimony attested false Doctrin to be Christs which if he holds let him speak out and see how all Christians will detest him If Tradition was not follow'd but deserted when men were led by False Teachers what 's this to us or whom does it oppose For 't is plainly to abet Tradition to say that none could follow False Teachers but they must at the same time desert It. 'T is hard to conjecture then what he meant by alledging de Molinos unless it were to make his Friend Dr Burnets Book concerning Molinos sell. 'T is no news that False Teachers may introduce Errours and that that man pretended the Publick Testimony of the Church or that his whimsies were Christ's Doctrin deliver'd down from the beginning is both unheard of and Incredible His Second way of introducing Errours is by Enthusiasm Very well Did the Testimony of the Christian Church tell them that Enthusiasm was Christ's Doctrin If he says it did he makes the whole Christian Church in some Age to have been a pack of hare-brain'd Enthusiasts If it did not then 't is an honour to Tradition that they deserted it when they fell into that Spiritual Madness His Third way is by a pretence to a more secret Tradition But was this pretence to a Secret Tradition a pretending to follow the Publick Tradition of the Church If it was not it opposes not our Tradition but credits it And if he says it was then he makes what 's Secret to be Publick which is a Contradiction and the very alledging this makes him in some manner Guilty of that old Failing of his His Fourth is Differences among Church-Guides about the Sense of Scripture and Tradition I have already shewn him that it was impossible the Generality especially of Pastours should not know the Sense of Tradition and as for some Church Guides differing about the Sense of Scripture it was equally impossible they should Err in Faith as long as they interpreted Scripture by the Rule of the Church's Tradition and when they once left that Rule instead of being any longer Church-Guides they became generally if they were any thing Eminent Ringleaders of Heretical Sects which gives a high repute to our Tradition even by their erring when they deserted it His Fifth
way how Errour might come in is too great a Veneration to some particular Teachers which made their Disciples despise Tradition in comparison of their Notions And were those men Followers of Tradition who despis'd it His 6th is By Compliance with some Gentil Superstitions c. But did Tradition or the Church's Testimony deliver down to them these Heathenish Superstitions for Christs Doctrin Or rather would it not have preserv'd men from them had nothing else been attended to but that Rule His 7th and last is by Implicit Faith that is that when a man had found a Faithfull Guide to direct him he should submit himself to be Guided by him in things in which he could not guide himself A very dangerous case indeed But the Antidote to this malicious suggestion is that the same Church that they believ'd condemn'd all New Revelations and adher'd only to what was deliver'd He could have added an Eighth way how Errours in Faith come in had he pleas'd and That too such a one as had done a thousand times greater mischief than all the rest put together viz. Private Interpretations of Scripture which every man knows has been the source of all the Heresies since Christ's time But this being the sole Ground of his Faith it was not his Interest to let his Readers know it had been the Ground of all Heresy 76. But what 's all this to the Point Or how is the Demonstration lost if many men err'd upon divers other accounts so none err'd while they follow'd Tradition Unless he proves this he establishes our Demonstrations by his shewing how multitudes err'd who were led by other Motives and by his not being able to produce so much as one Instance of any that err'd by adhering to It. What Noise and Triumph should we have had could he have alledg'd so many Hereticks sprung up by grounding their opinions on mistaken Tradition as 't is known have arisen by grounding their wicked Tenets on misunderstood Scripture But alas tho' that were exceedingly to his purpose not one such Instance could he bring He talks a little faintly of the Arians Pelagians Nestorians c. not disowning Tradition But does he hope to perswade any man of Sense those Upstarts durst ever go about to put out the eyes of the World by pretending their Heresies were deliver'd down as Christs Doctrin by the Publick Testimony of the Church in their days or out-face the present Church that she her self had taught them what she knew themselves had newly invented Or would she have condemn'd them had they spoke her thoughts or follow'd her Doctrin With what Sense can any of this be imagin'd The Tradition then which they went upon was Citations of some former Authors which they misunderstood the very Method Dr St. and his fellow-Quoters take now a-days or else the Judgment of a few Foregoers of whom some might speak ambiguously others perhaps hanker'd after their Heresy 'T is very hard to guess what Dr St. would be at in alledging so many ways how Errour might be introduc't That it might come in and by Various ways no man doubts That it came in meerly by following Tradition or the Churches Testimony he says not That particular Multitudes might be seduc't by deserting Tradition is equally granted and needs no Proof And that it came in tho' Men Adher'd to Tradition which was the true Point he goes not about to prove nor seems so much as to think of Besides most of the Ways he assigns if not all are so many Desertions of Tradition which highly conduces to Strengthen our Argument while he impugns it Yet surely that could not be his Intention neither I cannot imagin then what all these seven Formall Heads are brought for but to make a Show of none knows what Sometimes I incline to think he is combating the Fourth Proposition proving the Body of Traditionary Christians could not innovate in Faith but either through forgetfulness or Malice And yet I cannot fix upon this neither both because he names not these two defects before he shows us his other ways of Erring as also because we are not come as yet to the Fourth Proposition where all the Stress lay but have spent all our time in confuting the First and Second which were Self-Evident But if that be his meaning as he intimates p. 112. to escape replying to the Fourth Proposition then let him know that whatever his unsound Principles say whoever deserts the Testimony of God's Church whether by the Authority or rather No-Authority of False Teachers or by Enthusiasm the root of which is Spirituall Pride or by following Secret Traditions against the Publick Authority of the Church or by adhering to a Sense of Scripture contrary to what Tradition allows or by too great a Veneration to some particular Teachers or by Compliance with Heathenish Superstitions or by whatever other Motive is Guilty before God of a Heinous Sin and it must spring from some degree of Malicious or Bad disposition in his heart For he cannot but See that himself or his Leader breaks the Order of the World by disobeying rising against and preferring himself before those whom God had set over him to feed direct instruct and Govern him Of which Order and of the Goods coming by it and the Mischiefs which attend the Violating it none of Common Sense whom some by-affection has not blinded can possibly be Ignorant 77. He concludes with these words If then Errours might come into the Church all these Ways What a vain thing it is to pretend that Orall Tradition will keep from any possibility of Errour Ah Dr. Dr Where 's your Love of Moral Honesty Where 's your Sincerity Where your Conscience Did ever any man pretend that Tradition will keep men from any Possibility of Errour whether they follow it or no Were not our most express words put down by your self p. 108. l. 27.28 If they follow this Rule they can never Err in Faith. And must those most important words be still Omitted and no notice taken of them but only in an absurd Distinction making Adhering to Tradition or Following it to be Not-Following it Is this Solid Answering or plain Prevaricating Again what Nonsense does he make us speak by omitting these words Is it not a Madness to say a Rule will direct them Right that do not Follow it That a Means will bring a man to his End who does not use it That a Way will keep a man from Straying in his Journey who does not walk in it Yet all these Contradictions we must be Guilty of by his leaving out the words If follow'd 'T is pretty too upon review of his words to reflect on his Craft 'T is vain to pretend that Orall Tradition will keep whom was it pretended to keep from any Possibility of Errour He should have added the followers of it but because he had Slipt this all along he leaves the Sense Imperfect and the word keep
must want the Accusative Case after it due to its Transitive Sense by the Laws of Grammar meerly to avoid his putting the Right one because it would have been unsutable to all his foregoing Discourses which never toucht it But since he speaks still what Causes of Errour he has shown tho' I have already manifested that all those Causes were accompany'd with Malice in the First Deserters of Tradition yet to enforce our Demonstration the more I discourse thus If Tradition could be deserted or Innovation in Faith made by the Generality of Christians for none ever said or doubted but Many Particulars might do so it must either proceed from some Defect in their Vnderstandings or in their Wills. A defect in the Will is call'd Badness or Malice whence if they willfully Innovated it must spring from some degree of Malice If in their Understanding then it must either be in that Power as Apprehending or Knowing Christ's Doctrin or as Retaining it It could not be in the Former for none doubts but the body of the Church particularly the Teachers who were to instruct the Rest did very well Comprehend Christ's Doctrin in the Beginning and the many Clear ways Tradition comprizes to deliver it down renders Faith Intelligible still to each succeeding Age. Wherefore since the Defect cannot be in their Understanding or their having Christ's Doctrin in their Hearts it must be if any where in that knowing Power as 't is Retentive that is in their Memory But it was absolutely impossible the Generality of the Church should be so weak as to forget in any little determinate part of Time by which Immediate steps Tradition proceeds what was Taught and Practis'd a little before or Considering the Motives to keep them firm to it so Wicked as to conspire to Alter it purposely Therefore whatever Contingency there must be in some Particulars it could not be that the Generality of the Church should have alter'd it or consequently Err'd in Faith. Wherefore this Conclusion stands yet Firm the Premisses remaining yet Untoucht Since he neither shows nor can show more Faculties in Mankind engag'd in the Perpetuating the Former Faith than these Two. Add that he does not even Attempt to show that the Causes he produces can have the Power to prevail or carry it against the force of Tradition and unless he does this all he alledges signifies nothing But his Especiall Reason why he gives no other Answer he should have said none at all to our Fourth Proposition is because he intends to shew in a particular Discourse how the Errours and Corruptions he Charges on the Church of Rome did come into it That is we cannot have an Answer to Two lines but by perusing a Large Book I would desire him to resume the Force of all his little Testimonies and Conjecturall Descants upon them with which that book abounds and to be sure they Conclude the Point which he shall never do And unless he does this he only shows he has taken a great deal of pains to no kind of purpose since he leaves a presum'd Demonstration in its full force without bringing so much as a pretended Conclusive Proof against it Indeed it is a great shame for him to pretend it for 't is to profess publickly to the world that he can produce Better Arguments against the Papists then he can for his own Faith and that he cannot Answer the Argument or say any thing to the Premisses yet he will revenge himself upon the naughty Conclusion when he catches it alone and unback't with any Proof for it 78. Next he will prove that our way of resolving Faith into Christ's and his Apostles Teaching by the Infallibility of the Church's Human Authority or Tradition is Pelagianism But never was such a Malicious and Silly Charge so impotently defended We were told says he that Divine Faith must have Infallible Grounds and when we come to examin them we find nothing but what is Naturall Here again our whole Controversy is lost and a new State of the Question is obtruded Faith as 't is formally Divine has for its Grounds the Divine Authority But are we in our Controversy Examining it as 't is Formally Divine Do either of us alledge Miracles or any Arguments that Proves it to be such Is it not Confest and Suppos'd by both Parties that the Faith Taught at first was Divine and are we to Examin what 's Confest and Granted Or that Supposition being agreed to have we any more to do but to prove what was the Doctrin taught at first by Assigning a Certain Method of Conveying it down to us He proceeds And now to avoid the Charge of Pelagianism this Divine Faith is declar'd to be meer Human Faith. Alas for him Does not Divine Faith stand yet on it's own bottom the Divine Authority because Human Authority gives those who yet know it not Assurance of its Derivation to us The Immediate effect then of our Tradition is Human Faith the Remote effect is to give us knowledge of a Doctrin of Faith which is Divine not prov'd to be such by Tradition but acknowledg'd to be so by our Mutuall Concession But how shamelesly insincere the Dr is to object that I Chang'd this purposely to avoid the Charge of Pelagianism whenas he knows I had told himself the same in Errour Nonplust some years before any Contest arose about my Writings Does he not cite my words here that this Human Faith had by Tradition leads us to what 's Divine Human Faith is the Way or Means to know Divine Faith And cannot we obtain the favour of him to intermit a while his constant Nonsence and allow the Means to be distinguisht from the End He goes on And so Human Faith must have Infallible Grounds but Divine Faith must shift for it Self Can any thing be more Trifling What Shifts is Faith put to for Grounds taken as 't is formally Divine in a Controversy which supposes it such in which case no Proof nor Grounds for it need be produc't Do those that holds the Infallibility of the Churches Humane Authority deriving it down to us deny but the Verity of the Mysteries thus deriv'd as in themselves depend on Divine Revelation as on their Formall Motives Do not these two consist well together May not Faith depend on the Divine Authority in it self and as it was made known at first and yet not be known to us who live now but by Humane Authority Can he be Certain of Christian Faith by his own Grounds but by the Book of Scripture and yet does not himself say that the Certainty he has of that Book depends on Tradition or Humane Authority and consequently that Humane Faith is the way to know Divine Faith What Quacking then and Mountebanking is this to make me a Pelagian for doing the same himself does and publickly avows omitting in the mean time my Answers which at large clear'd before-hand all that he has here so
weakly and insincerely objected Lastly he tells us that if Divine Faith fixes not on the Infallibility of Tradition then we may have Divine Faith without it Yes by his Enthusiastick Principles but not by Connatural ways since himself must acknowledge that neither the Letter nor Sense of Scripture is Absolutely Certain without it 79. It would be very pleasant to see how this Gallant Caviller would prove St. Paul a Pelagian Heretick That Blessed Apostle affirm'd that Fides per auditum Faith comes to our knowledge by Hearing For the Certainty of the Primitive Faith was resolv'd into the Certainty of the Senses as the Means to come to the first knowledge of the Doctrin and of That Sense more particularly because Preaching was the Way of instilling Faith then Now comes Dr St. and having pray'd I suppose for Wisdom before-hand tells that Holy Apostle that Divine Faith must have Infallible Grounds but that the Certainty of the Senses is meerly Natural That he runs from Divine Motives to Humane ones He asks him smartly what Infallible Ground is there for this Divine Faith and where it fixes If not on the Certainty of the Senses then we may have Divine Faith without them If it does fix on their Certainty then Divine Faith is to be resolv'd into Naturall Means And what is this but Pelagianism Thus the stupendiously Learned and more then supernaturally Enlighten'd Dean of St. Pauls has clearly prov'd St. Paul himself an arrant Pelagian But if St. Paul should answer as I do that he spoke not of Divine Faith or the Doctrin of it as in it self or as 't is formally supernatural but only of Divine Faith as standing under Natural Means for us to come to know it then it would follow that it would require higher Grounds to be resolv'd into as 't is Divine yet for all that that he could have no Faith at all nor certainty of it unless by Miracle but by virtue of these Natural Means to give him knowledge of it But our Verball Controvertist never reflects that there may be divers Resolutions made of Faith as 't is controverted according to the nature or exigency of the Dispute Against a Deist that holds it not Divine it is to be resolv'd into the Divine Authority and this must be shewn to be engag'd for it by those Motives of Credibility which prove it to be such But this is quite besides our present Dispute since both parties grant it and consequently all his Discourse here is quite besides the purpose 80. I doubt not but the Dr would have had another fling at St. Paul for Pelagianism in case he would not allow that a Pious Disposition of the Will did make the verdict of the Sense of Hearing Certain and piece out the Deafishness of the Auditours when that Sense had some Imperfection as he does here by making me a Pelagian for saying the Will 's Assistance cannot make an Argument if it be defective Especially should we both say that Dr St's Moral Qualifications Purity of Heart Humility of Mind and Prayer for Wisdom would not make a deaf Ear hear well or a bad Argument conclude For both our cases are perfectly Parallel since we both speak of the Way to come at the Knowledge of Divine Faith. But his Logick I see would have his Readers when an Argument drawn from meer Nature is propos'd which is short of Concluding let it be in Physicks Metaphysicks or what he will for it alters not our case shake their heads very piously and answer Truly Sir tho' I see your Reason does not conclude or satisfy my Understanding that the thing you would prove is True yet out of a Pious Inclination to the Cause I will call in my Wills Assistance and out of pure Goodness think it does conclude and that the Thing is for all that really True. I would wish him by all means to maintain still that 't is Pelagianism to deny that the Inconclusiveness of an Argument is supply'd by the kind-heartedness of the Will. Nothing in the World but this can justify all his Insignificant Proofs make them pass for valid good ones 'T is ridiculous he says to alledge that I resolve all into Christ's and the Apostles Teaching Why Is it not agreed on between us that Christ is God and his Doctrine Divine And is not this to bring us to Divine Faith if we prove it to be His Doctrine Or is it not enough for our purpose when 't is confess'd on both sides that Christ's Doctrine is Divine Why is it then ridiculous to profess we do this Because Caelestius Pelagius did the very same And so I must be a Pelagian still that 's resolv'd on Those Hereticks did indeed pretend their Heresies were Christ's Doctrin But this is no particularity in Them for every Heretick since Christ's time did the same else they had not been Hereticks but Pagans Iews Turks or Deists But we go no further upon this Principle than they did Why Did they ever alledge that the Tradition or Immediate Testimony of the Body of the Church deliver'd down their Doctrin for Christ's Or durst they disgrace themselves by going about to avail themselves of such an open and Notorious Lye This he should have prov'd solidly and clearly But instead of proving it he barely says it and who will at this time of day believe his word And yet if he does not this every sincere Reader must see that he has sacrific'd his sincerity to his spite against Catholicks and judges Slander and Calumny no Sin. Observe here by the way his consistency with himself In his Second Letter to Mr G. p. 9. he affirm'd that we resolv'd All into meer Humane Faith and here he confesses we resolve all into Christ's and his Apostles Teaching Had not I then good reason to ask him if Christ was a meer Man it falling in so Naturally Yet he is mighty angry at those words and says he gave no occasion for them and imputes it to Malice I do assure him that I us'd those words to shew that by resolving All into Christ's Teaching I resolv'd Faith finally into what is confessedly Divine Why he should take it so to heart or apply it to himself when it was not in the least intended his conscience best knows However it puts him to make a Profession of his Faith in that point which I heartily pray may be sincere 82. The last point which he thinks fit to take notice of omitting by his favour many which were more concerning is that the Council of Trent disowns a power of making Implicit Articles of Faith contain'd in Scripture to become Explicit by its Explaining the Sense of them He proves this Because the Church of Rome doth not pretend to make New Articles of Faith whereas to make Implicit Doctrines to become Explicit is really so to do This a little varies from what he said in his Second Letter nor can I find a
word of making New Articles of Faith pretended there and I am sure there are none such in that place Yet still he would put it upon the Council to introduce some Articles by new Explications of Scripture but he only says it not proves it and so till Proof comes let it rest upon his bare Word which signifies little Other Answers I have given to this Point Third Cath. Letter p. 64.65 which since he has taken no notice of I shall presume they stand good in their full force 83. He concludes with these words 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 publish't Now who sees not that since a Demonstration for the Infallibility of Tradition is the most Effectual and most Compendious Proof that is Imaginable and unless it be answer'd most necessarily concludes the Descent of that Faith from Christ which is held upon it and that the Evidence of such a Proof consisting in the Necessary Connexion of the Terms which are us'd in it has the Self-same force whether the Council of Trent or any Council had ever been held or not who sees not I say that this is a meer plausible Shift to avoid the shock of our Arguments and to run the Field by the still-necessary and Still Friendly Assistance of his former bad Logick viz. of Arguing against the Conclusion instead of Answering the Premisses And therefore that his proper Conclusion had he spoken out Candidly should have been this But because I was neither able to shew the Absolute Certainty of Christian Faith by my Principles nor to make out that the Rule I have Assign'd does influence any Point of Faith so as to prove it to be Absolutely Certain that 't is Christs Doctrin nor yet able to Answer their close Arguments against the Absolute Certainty of Mine or for the Absolute Certainty of the Catholique Faith therefore to come off handsomely before I utterly lose my Credit I think it the safest and wisest Expedient to let the Premisses alone or pass over them with some sleight touches and to Combat the Conclusion by Quoting of Authors and tacking the Two disperate Matters together as well as I can so to make a kind of Transition from the One to the Other I will set my self to write against the Council of Trent A business which will take mightily in this Iuncture Nor will many Readers much concern themselves in case they should observe it how I have dropt the Question or shrunk away from my Adversary And so a good Journey to the Drs Rambling Pen till I meet him next in the Field where we fought Last Whither in the behalf of Christian Faith whose Certainty he has here Vndermin'd I do recall and Challenge him The Concluding SECTION 84 HItherto of Doctor St's Sins of Commission viz. of his Groundless and Impertinent Calumnies his manifest Falshoods against his own Knowledge his constant prevarication from the Question in every respect and this quite thorough his whole Answer his bad Logick laid open in many Instances his Shifts and Evasions his Paralogisms Cavils and Contradictions Now follow his Sins of Omission By which I do not mean his Failing to give a good Answer to those Arguments he thought fit to take notice of for this as has been shewn in every Particular would spread one Universal Blot over his whole Book but his not so much as Attempting to give the Reasons I alledg'd to prove them or other particular Omissions charg'd upon him any Answer at all or taking the least notice of them 85. To begin with my First Catholick Letter or the Answer to Dr. St's First Letter to Mr. G. Why might we not know the particular Reason how Mr. T came to be satisfy'd this being of such special Concern and laying so precise an Obligation upon us to clear that Point but changing his making a Secret of Mr. T 's convincing Reason which was requir'd of him p. 3.4 into his making a Secret of the Ground of his Certainty p. 16. Why did he turn it off to Mr. G. to shew that the Doctor 's Protestants have not Absolute Certainty of their Faith when as he had taken it upon himself to shew they had but instead of giving a Reason for that carriage of his to deny his own express words First Letter p. 7. which put the Proof upon Mr. G. and then to turn Absolute Certainty of his Protestant Faith which consists of a determinate Number of Points into Certainty of Scripture which perhaps may not signify so much as one Point of Faith unless he shew Absolute Certainty that the Letter of it is rightly understood in those Texts that contain those Points which he is so far from shewing that he not so much as goes about it Why no Reply to our Proof that Mr. G. has by doing his own work at the same time perform'd what the Doctor would needs have put him upon viz. prov'd that Doctor St's Church has no Certainty of its Faith Why conceal'd he the true Meaning of the word Traditionary given by us but took it purposely in another Sense and then rally'd upon it Why no notice taken of our Explication of those words If they follow'd this Rule declar'd by us to mean the Believing still the same which had forestall'd his ill-grounded Descant upon them p. 108.109 and why no regard to that most Important Conditional Proposition but starting aside to ways how Errours might come in by not following it which instead of Answering asserts and makes good our Tenet Why no Reply to our several Reasons brought against his intollerably bad Logick shewing at large from many heads the absurdity of it and that the Subject of our Argument as impugn'd by his Instance was not at all like Zeno's denying of Motion which Reasons had prevented and utterly defeated his pittifull Defence of it here Why nothing to the unavoidable force of our Argument manifesting it to be Self-evident that Tradition is a Certain Rule Why does he not justify his palpable Prevarication from the whole Question laid out at large prov'd against him p. 21.22 Why not a word of Answer to my Discourse shewing Absolute Certainty Infallibility to be the same Why does he no where distinguish himself his Protestants from all sorts of Hereticks owning the same Common Rule by shewing us by what Particular Means he is more Certain of the True Sense of Scripture then they were and thence differenc't from them by his having some particular Rule or Way to arrive at True Faith which they had not This being a Point of the Highest Importance in our Controversy and most Earnestly prest upon him over and over And
his 12th Page he will needs repeat our Tenet or as he with much Formality is pleas'd to call it the Lesson I have taught him which put into distinct Sentences he makes to be this 1. Your Churches Authority is Human Authority Answ. Our Church'es Authority is also Divine and as such 't is the Rule of Faith to those who are already Faithfull But in our Controversy which is about the Way for men to come to Faith 't is not proper to alledge any other than her Natural or Humane Authority consisting of a vast Body of Men both able and oblig'd to testify such open matters of Fact as is the Delivery of a Doctrin so Qualify'd by those that educated us And the Reason is because 'till men come at Christ's Faith they can only guide themselves by their Reason whence the Credibility of that Authority must be provable by Reason against those who shall deny it 2. He says It has force to prove the Truths which depend upon it Yes it has force to prove to us this matter of Fact that those Truths descended from Christ but not the Intrinsical Truth of any one Article in it self To do this is the work of Divine Revelation not of Humane Authority 3. It has this force and concludes against such as own its Veracity but it deserves no Assent further than Reason gives it to deserve Well then since we bid him guide himself by his Reason e're he admits it will he at least admit it and yield assent to it when Reason shews him it deserves it This is all we desire of him and 't is a very reasonable request in us for it only desires he would not renounce his Reason and forfeit his Manhood Now come his Conclusions from mistaken Premisses Hence I conclude Seeing We admit not your Church'es Authority nor own its Veracity it proves nothing to us nor concludes any thing against us From what Antecedent is this Conclusion drawn Did we ever press him to admit it blindly the Point is will he renounce his Reason when it tells him this Authority ought to be believ'd This is our Tenet and should have been taken in e're he had inferr'd any thing at all but then it would have marr'd his Conclusion and his admirable Method of taking every Discourse of mine to pieces and never putting it together again and so it was thought expedient to neglect it His next Conclusion is Seeing Articles of Faith depend not on Humane Authority your Church'es Authority can have no effect on Humane Nature to oblige to a Belief of them Where we have near as many Faults as Words For First Articles of Faith in themselves or as to their Intrinsicall Verity depend only on the Divine Authority as their Formall Motive but as to us or as to our knowledge of those Articles Now which were taught by Christ long since which is our only business a successive Human Authority the most strongly supported of any that ever was in the World to convey down a matter of Fact of Infinit Concern is the properest way to Attest them whence all those Articles in that regard do depend on that Human Authority after the same manner as even himself also holds the Book of Scripture does Secondly What an Incredible Folly is it not to distinguish between those Articles which were Taught at First and so are Divine as in Themselves and the same Articles as Knowable by us Now to have been Taught Long ago nor to reflect that our Controversy only treats of them under this latter Consideration Nor to know that as thus Consider'd All Articles of Faith not only May but Must necessarily depend on Human or Naturall Means since without Such they cannot be introduc't into our understandings connaturally nor by any way but by Immediate Inspiration which is perfect Enthusiasm Nor Lastly not to advert that even the Divinity of Faith depends in some sort on Naturall Means St. Paul tells us Faith comes by Hearing and if so then Faith depended on Hearing as to its coming to be Known by us Nay as Christian Faith was Formally from God it depended thus on Miracles which could not be known to be such but by their being above the Course of Nature nor could they be known to be above the Course of Nature unless the course of Nature it self had been fore-known the Knowledge of which is only Naturall or Human. Thirdly His following words in this Ridiculous Conclusion shew him utterly ignorant of our whole Question otherwise he could not with any degree of sincerity have put it upon us that we hold the Human Authority of our Church obliges to a Belief of the Articles themselves whereas what we hold is that it only obliges us to Assent they came from Christ or were inerrably deliver'd down by the Churche's Testimony Fourthly By leaving out all mention of what 's most particularly our Tenet in this Point he puts it upon us to hold that Human Authority has effect upon Human Nature of it self whereas we never presum'd or affirm'd it either had or ought to have any but by Vertue of the Reasons which vouch't for its Veracity nay I both Affirm'd and Prov'd the direct Contrary His Third Conclusion is Seeing all its Credit depends on its Intrinsicall Reasons produc't till they be produc't we are not bound to give any Credit to it No nor bound to mind them much it seems nor Answer them fully when produc't as appears by his omitting the most forcible Reasons for the Certainty of Tradition's Continuance as was Lately shown But why is this made a distinct Conclusion or disjoynted from the rest whereas it was the most necessary and Essentiall part of our true Tenet Because the Method he so Religiously observ'd throughout his Dialogue-Answer which is to shatter asunder the intire Sense of every passage would not allow it His Fourth Conclusion is When these Reasons shall be produc't its Testimony has but the Nature of an Externall Motive not of an Intrinsicall Ground Answ. Intrinsicall Ground To what To Christian Faith as 't is Divine 'T was never pretended nor can it belong in any regard to our Question since 't is not disputed between us but Acknowledg'd by us both that Christ's Doctrin is Such Means he then 't is not a Proper Medium to prove Christ's Faith deriv'd to us who live now How can he even pretend to shew that so vast a Testimony is not proper to Attest a Notorious Matter of Fact viz. what Doctrin was Deliver'd immediately before and this throughout every Age Year or Day Again what means he when he says Testimony is not an Intrinsicall Ground What man in his senses ever said or thought it We spoke indeed of Intrinsicall Grounds to prove the Credibleness of that Testimony but not a word have we even hinting that Testimony it self is an Intrinsical Ground to any thing If he will needs be talking Nonsense let him take it to himself and not put it upon me
Lastly why is not an Extrinsicall Ground or Testimony prov'd to be such by Intrinsicall Reasons sufficient in our case This should have been shewn but for this very reason 't is not so much as taken notice of either by him or his Master In a word he uses some of our words taken asunder from the Context of our intire Sense then blends them confusedly together on any fashion without any kind of order or respect to the true Question he gives us Relative words without telling us what they relate to he puts upon us Tenets we never advanc't or held but the direct Contrary And the witty Gentleman would still persuade his Reader he is Repeating his Lesson I have Taught him when as all the while he deserves more then a Ferula for his rehearsing it wrong or rather saying it Backwards Then follows his Grand Conclusion as the Flower of all the foregoing ones which we may be sure hits the Point Exactly And therefore says he either your Position overthrows your Churche's Authority or It your Position Most Excellent My Position is about Tradition which is the Self-same thing with the Churche's Authority and this precious Scribbler will needs have the same thing to destroy it self A fit Upshot for a Discourse without sence 89. We see by this one Instance there is scarce one Line nor many Significant Words in this half-page of his but runs upon Enormous Mistakes And does he think I have nothing else to do but to stand Rectifying still what he all along takes such Care and Pains to put into Disorder Especially since those few things that are pertinent are abundantly spoke to in my Third Catholick Letter and this present Reply I must intreat the Dr to excuse me if I have no mind to break his Young Controvertists and teach them how to Manage Mr G. did him I hope no disparagement in making me his Substitute but 't is not so gentile in him to set such a Fresh Man upon my back I 'le have nothing to do with his little Iourney-Men or Apprentices till the World be satisfy'd that their Master himself is a better Artist And if it shall appear that even the Learned Dr St. is able to make nothing of so bad a Cause 't is neither Discreditable to me nor any Disadvantage to the Truth I am defending if I neglect such a Sixth-rate Writer who confesses himself unworthy to carry his Books after him 90. The Omissions in answering my Second Catholick Letter are as many as that Letter it self contains since his untoward Method renders all his Talk Twitching and Girding at little sayings of mine utterly insignificant Whence that whole Treatise as 't is in it self stands yet Intire unless the Dr can shew by his new Logick that to mince half a Book into Fragments is to Answer the Whole 91. Thus the Dr has trickt off the answering my Second Cath. Letter But his Omissions in Answering the Third are both numerous and most highly Important and he is to render an Account of all this long Roll of his Neglects Why did he not clear himself of his altering there the Notion of Tradition into Articles and Powers of doing this or that shewn at large p. 4.5 Why answers he not the several Reasons proving against him that Tradition brings down the Sense of Christ's Doctrin and not only Common Words in the Clear Delivery of which Sense consists one of the main Properties of a Rule viz. its Plainness to People of all sorts who are to be regulated by it And why instead of performing this necessary Duty does he p. 43. after having vapour'd that 'T is bravely said if it could be made out does he not so much as mention the Reasons by which it was made out but ramble into such Nonsense p. 43. that He and his Party who are Deserters of Tradition cannot mistake it that Tradition or the Church'es Human Testimony being the Rule of Faith is a part of Christ's Doctrin c. Why no Excuse for his deforming the meaning of that plain word Tradition into many unsutable Significations and putting it in all shapes but its own Why no Defence of his most ridiculous Drollery in paralleling Tradition or the Testimony of God's Church to the Relation of two or three partial Witnesses of his own side in favour of their fellows Or for his Inconsonancy to himself his Insincerity in thus perverting it still when he was to impugn it whenas he took it very right when it made for himself Why not a word to my Clearest Demonstration that 't is impossible but Tradition must bring down a Determinate Sense of the Tenets it delivers which he answers not at all but only brings against Conclusion an Instance of the Corinthians and Arlemonites p. 45.46 which as far as it pretends they pleaded Tradition for their Heresy taking Tradition as we do for the Immediate Testimony of the Church is both False and Senseless Why no Answer at all to that most Concerning Point prov'd against him that the Church has Power to declare diverse Propositions to be of Faith not held distinctly before without any prejudice at all to Tradition And why no notice taken of my most Evident Proof that we make Christian Faith as 't is Formally Divine rely on the Divine Authority notwithstanding our Tenet that the Church'es Humane Authority is the Means to bring us to the knowledge of Christ's Doctrin and that the asserting this Later is not to overthrow the Church'es Authority in matters of Faith as he objected As also that the Venerable F. W. was not an Adversary to our way and that Lominus his Book the Dr rely'd on was no Argument that my Doctrin was faulty even in the opinion of my Judges Why gave he no reply to any of these but still run on with his former Calumnies as if nothing had been produc't to shew his manifest and Wilfull Mistakes Why no Answer to my Reasons proving at large the impotency of his malice in charging Pelagianism more than to repeat a few of words for a shew that this Humane Authority leads us to what 's Divine and there stopping whereas the very next words Yet not by its own force but by vertue of the Supposition agreed upon that Christ's Doctrin is such had spoil'd all his pretence Why no notice taken of my Citation out of Errour Nonplust writ against himself fifteen years ago which forestall'd all his rambling Mistakes and by consequence shew'd him strangely Insincere in dissembling his knowledge of my Tenet so expressly declar'd 92. Why no Plea alledg'd to justify his shuffle from the Grounds of his Protestant Faith in particular to the Grounds of Christian Faith in Common nor to excuse his next Shuffle and Nonsense to boot in making Faith by vertue of an id est to signify the Grounds for his Ground of Faith and turning Certainty of Scripture into a long ramble viz.
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
prov'd he has Absolute Certainty of the Faith he holds in case we could not prove some other Points which we hold Yet he has undertaken at all adventures this Great Design and will suddenly publish the First Part and if God gives him Life and Health he should have said Principles too he hopes to go thorough the rest As much as to say he designs to leave the Certainty of his Faith in the lurch to tell the World publickly he has done so and if God gives him Life and Health will continue to run away from that troublesome Point as far as ever he can He should first have answer'd Error Nonplust and clear'd himself from being a Man of no Principles before he can be fit to impugn others unless he thinks a man may dispute without Principles as I verily believe he does for his odd Methods of Reasoning and Answering need none 33. But tho' he has the ill luck to want Principles he is for all that a good man and desires no more to end our Controversies but to make Salvation our End and the Scripture our Rule But if there be no Means to come at the Sense of Scripture in those most important Articles with Absolute Certainty many may come as Millions have done to Misunderstand such places and thence to embrace a Grand Heresy instead of the Chief Points of True Faith and does he think Heretical Tenets in such concerning Points is saving Faith. Let him shew that his Principles lay such Grounds as absolutely secure the Truth of Faith e're he talks such Pious or rather Pernicious Nonsense of a Saving Faith. For should it hap to be False as by his Grounds it may 't is neither Faith nor the means to Salvation He pretends I exclude all from Salvation who do not penetrate Intrinsical Grounds But 't is a flam of his own coyning Errour Nonplust has long ago told him over and over that 't is enough they adhere to a Rule that is settled on Solid or Intrinsical Grounds and so cannot deceive them tho' they do not at all penetrate or as he calls it dig into the Intrinsical Grounds why that Authority or Rule is Inerrable Let the Truth of Faith be secured and they have what 's simply requisit to Salvation unless they be such persons as speculate or doubt or are to defend the Truth of Faith against Hereticks and thence come to need a deeper Inspection and Knowledge of the Reasons which conclude their Rule does absolutely secure the Reliers on it from Error Caeteram quippe turbam as St. Austin says Contra Ep. Fund non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit For as for the others which are the vulgar they are render'd absolutely secure or out of danger of Erring not by the Sagacity of Understanding but by the simplicity of Believing 34. I know not certainly what past at the Conference about which he still keeps such a do 'T is high time to leave it off and follow our Point Things should have been better manag'd to give us a clearer light for want of which we are forc't to trust the Dr himself tho' a party and accept what he represents in his Second Letter to Mr G. Only I see it was confest on all hands that the sole End of it was that Dr. St. should manifest he had Grounds of Absolute Certainty for his Faith and to that I will stick and Level my Discourses accordingly The Dr is at his old shuffle again of Scripture's Letter being certain and containing all neither of which are to any purpose since neither of these reach his Faith which is an Assent to determinate Points I alledg'd that the Certainty of Scripture was not the Point for which the Conference was He asks how I know it By the very words that express it put down here and acknowledg'd by himself p. 15. But Mr G. knew it not That 's more than I know or the Dr. either It appears not what use he would have made of it after he had propos'd some Questions to gain light what the Drs. Principles were for the Dr. himself confesses Mr T. cut off his Discourse by declaring himself satisfied and asking Questions of his own But Mr. G. lost the Point by asking Questions about the Rule Not so neither For he was well acquainted with Common Sense which told him the word Rule is a Relative word and so is to regulate us about the particular Points of Faith which it relates to and that unless it does this 't is good for nothing being meerly ordain'd for that End which Dr. St. either knows not or will not seem to know lest he should come to be engag'd to shew how his pretended Rule influences any one Point with Absolute Certainty and yet if it does not this 't is no Ground for the Absolute Certainty of his Tenets or Faith. He says that by the Scripture they are to judge what they are to believe what not By which we are to understand that he has shuffled away from shewing his Rule to be a Qualifying Principle which is to give his Faith Absolute Certainty to the making it a Quantitative Measure shewing what 's Faith what not or how much is of Faith. It seems Quantity and Quality is all one with him and he would be Measuring his Faith before he knows he has Any As for his Containing Faith so often shown to be an insignificant pretence let him know that between his having the Letter of Scripture Containing all and the Doctrinal Points which is truly his Faith there intervenes a Quality in the Rule called Clearness or Plainness and such a one as is able to secure the Reliers on it that what they receive upon that Rule is not an Errour or a Heresy which is against Faith. 'T is this he is to make out and prove that this Clearness is found in his Rule apply'd to all sincere seekers after Faith and till he does this 't is a phrenzy to maintain those men can have Absolute Certainty of Faith by means of Scripture's Letter Yet hold him close to this plain Point and he 'l complain he 's trammell'd he should say gravell'd But he says he must not come near any one Point of his Faith because being to shew he held All the same Doctrin c. the word All made it necessary to assign a Rule in which All is contain'd Now I verily thought that All signify'd Every one but his Discourse makes it signify No one Again how shall we know he holds the Same Doctrin as he in his Answer pretended he did without particularizing the Points held By this Discourse the Arians and most of the Hereticks since Christs time held the Same Doctrin he taught for they all held the Scripture's Letter to be Certain and that it contain'd their Faith yet tell him this a hundred times over and demand how this is a particular Rule for his Protestants which is a Common
Faith in the Jewish Law that a Messias was to come yet that this very Person Iesus Christ was to be that Messias was no Point of Faith among them and God's Providence we see took a far better way to make it out than Private Interpretations of the Scripture unless he thinks Miracles no more Effectual nor more Certain than private Interpretations are What insignificant nothings this Man brings for his choice Arguments and what pains he takes in the worst cause in the world viz. To maintain that Christian Faith needs not to be Absolutely Certain And this for no other reason for 't is every Christian's Interest it should be so but because his bad Principles can afford him no Argument to prove it to be such 41. His Pretence of my Second False Supposition viz. that a Rule of Faith according to me must be a Mechanical Rule and not a Rational is weak beyond expression Every Schollar knows his Friend Dr. T. particularly who took the same way and us'd the same expressions Rule of Faith. p. 4. that Metaphors are translated from Materiall to Intellectual things in regard we have no Genuin Conceptions of these Later and indeed most of the Language of Christianity is made up of such expressions whence we can argue by Analogy from the one to the other The word Rule is one of those Metaphoricall words and hence we say that as a Material Rule is that by which if we draw our Pen it directs us to make a Right Line so the Rule of Faith being intended by God to direct us to Truth will lead those Right who follow it and regulate themselves by it Does not this Metaphor look a little more Proper and the Discourse upon it hang better together than his likening Scripture to a Purse yet he utterly dislikes it and tells the Reader I falsly suppose the Rule of Faith must be a Mechanicall or Carpenters Rule with all its Dimensions fixt and denies that himself supposes it to be such a Materiall or Mechanicall Rule Nor any man sure that were not stark Mad. Again do we here meddle with its Dimensions or how much is of Faith as he did when he spoke of his Rule The Straightness of the draught preserving us from the Obliquity of Errour is the only point we aim at Next he denies there is any such Intellectuall Rule because there may be Mistakes in the Vnderstanding and Applying it and therefore Care and Diligence and Impartiality are requir'd else men may miss How Miss tho' they follow it Then it self was not Straight and so no Rule For the very notion of a Rule is to be a Thing that has a Power to regulate or direct us right or keep the Understanding that follows it from missing and to follow it is all the Application it can need to do its Effect Whence all the Care and Diligence and Impartiality he speaks of must be employ'd in seeing they do indeed follow it for none of these can help or hinder the Rule in its Power of directing since it had this of it Self independently of the Persons But his Rule tho' all these as far as we Mortalls can discern be us'd by the Socinians in the following it still suffers those Carefull and Diligent and Impartiall followers of it to err in Faith Therefore 't is no Rule of Faith. But 't is mighty pretty to observe that when he is pincht with plain Sense he ever and anon runs to the old Philosophers who he says would have laugh'd at me for applying a Materiall Rule to Intellectuall things Sure he 's not well awake I draw a Metaphor indeed from a Materiall Rule to an Intellectuall one and then apply that Intellectual Rule to Intellectuall things but I know none so mad as to apply a Materiall Rule to Intellectuall things unless he thinks I am measuring Faith by a Taylors Yard or finding out the right Sense of Scripture by a Ruler and a Ruling pen. 42. But why Presbyterians and Socinians This insinuation says he has as much folly as Malice in it and makes as tho' Wee of the Church of England were Socinians in those points viz. The Trinity and Godhead of Christ. God forbid I should be so injurious to them I do assure him and them faithfully I intended it as a piece of Justice to them and put in Presbyterians instead of Protestants because I had reason to hope those private-spirited Principles were none of theirs and that divers of their Eminent Writers had own'd the Universall Tradition and Practice of the Church for their Rule of interpreting Scripture And I have some Ground to think they might in time have profest it publickly had not Dr. St's Irenicum-Doctrines fill'd that Church with men of no steady Principles and made luke warm Persons flock into it corrupting it's Body by which means there have been in the Church of England so few Church-of-England Men. But why so Cholerick Why such wincing and kicking I do assure him I did not think I had in the least toucht him If he be so over-apprehensive and angry withal I fear he has done himself more wrong in taking it to himself than I ever intended him Again what means he by Wee of the Church of England I am told by a hearty Member of it and one who owns his Name too how true it is let the Dr's Conscience look to it that he is contented to sit and sing in the bearing Branches of that Church so long as he fills his Pockets but when the gathering time is over it is to be cut down as that which cumbereth the Ground By which he sees that he must either clear himself by a candid and full Retractation of his ill Principles or he will have no Title to the word Wee But we are come forwards to his farther Defence of his Rule or rather to his overthrowing the Absolute Certainty of Christian Faith in order to which he asks How can Reason be Certain in any thing if men following their Reason can mistake Very easily Because Reason is a Faculty or a Power apt to be actuated by True or False Principles and accordingly 't is Determinable to Truth or Falshood But if Reason follow any Maxim taking it to be a Principle to such a thing and yet errs in that thing then that pretended Principle is no true Principle Yet says he Men following the Rules of Arithmetick may mistake in casting up a Summ. And can he seriously think that a man who casts it up False does not decline while he thus mistakes from Arithmetical Rules May he not with as good Sense say that Two and Three do not make Five for all Rules of Computation hang together by the same necessity In a word his Instance falters in the Third Proposition viz. That Two who have made use of the same way differ at least a hundred in casting up the Sum. Which is False and by altering the Terms