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
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
your Infallibility to contradict my 15 th Principle for the Faith of Protestants and full at unawares into the Snares laid for me in Error Nonplust from p. 90 to p. 96 which I have no mind to come near But whatever Reasons you had to make this Proposal I see none that Mr. G. has to accept it Do you prove if you please that you have Absolute Certainty you who bear those in hand who consult you that you have and Absolute Certainty too of that of which you profess'd your self absolutely Certain viz. That you now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles which by your own confession there is the true Point For you know very well one is not certain of his Faith by being certain of Scripture Your self take all who dissent from yours to have not only an Vncertain but a Wrong Faith else why do you dissent from them And yet they have all as much Certainty of Scripture as you The truth is if you were prest to make out your Absolute Certainty even of Scripture in your way you would perhaps find a hard Task of it for all your Appeal to Tradition But it was not the Point for which the Conference was nor ought it be the Point here neither ought Mr. G. to meddle with it and you trust much to his good Nature to propose it For besides that all the thanks he would have for his pains would be to have the Arguments against your Certainty turn'd against the Certainty of Scripture one day as if he did not believe Scripture Certain You would have him undertake a matter in which he has no concern to save you from an Undertaking in which you are deeply concern'd but with which you know not how to go thorow which is a very reasonable Request In a word it is for you either to make manifest now what you should have made manifest at the Conference viz. That Protestants have Absolute Certainty not only of the Scripture which they call their Rule but of the Faith which they pretend to have from that Rule or else to suffer another thing to be manifest viz. That I said true when I said you cannot do it and thither I am sure it will come 22. However I am glad to hear any Talk from you of Absolute Certainty even tho' it be but Talk 'T is a great Stranger as coming from your Quarters and has a friendly and an accommodating look and therefore for both regards deserves a hearty welcome For this very Profession makes a fair approach towards the Doctrin of Infallibility or rather 't is the self-same with it it being against Common Sense to say you judge your self Absolutely Certain of any thing if at the same time you judge you may be deceiv'd in thus judging But I accept the Omen that you seem to grant you are thus Absolutely Certain or Infallible by virtue of Tradition for this makes Tradition to be an Infallible Ascertainer in some things at least and so unless some special difficulty be found in other things that light into the same Channel it must needs bring them down infallibly too Now I cannot for my heart discern what great difficulty there can be 'to remember all along the yesterdays Faith or to be willing to be guided and instructed by their yesterdays Fathers Teachers and Pastors especially the sense of the Points to omit many other means being determin'd by open and daily Practice Yet I a little fear all this your seeming kindness for Tradition is only for your own Interest and that because you were necessitated to make use of it to abet Scripture's Letter you allow it in that regard these high Complements but in other things particularly in conveying down a Body of Christian Faith which is incomparably more easie it will presently become useless and good for nothing In the former exigency you esteem it A worthy Rule but in the later duty A Rule worthy 23. Now to let the Reader plainly see that it was meer Force and not Inclination which oblig'd you to grant an Absolute Certainty in Tradition conveying down Scriptures Letter we will examin what you allow'd it when you laid your Principles and so spoke your own free thoughts unconstrain'd by any Adversary Your fifteenth Principle is put down p. 90. in Error Nonplust and that part of it that concerns this present Point is thus reflected upon by your Adversary p. 92 93. Again tho all this were true and that the Scriptures were own'd as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly reveal'd that no sober Enquirer can miss of what 's necessary to Salvation and that therefore there needed no Church to explain them Yet 't is a strange Consequence that therefore there can be no necessity of any Infallible Society of Men to Attest them or to witness that the Letter of Scripture is right This is so far from following out of the former part of Dr. St's Discourse that the contrary ought to follow or from prejudicing his own pretence that it conduces exceedingly to it For certainly his Sober Enquirer would less be in doubt to miss of what 's necessary to Salvation in case the Letter on which all depends be well attested than if it be not and most certainly an Infallible Society of Men can better attest that Letter than a Fallible one and those Writings can with better shew of Reason be own'd to contain in them the Will of God if their Letter be attested beyond possibility of being wrong than if left in a possibility of being such for if the Letter be wrong All is wrong in this case As manifest then as 't is that to be Absolutely Certain of any thing is not to be Fallibly Certain of it that is as manifest as 't is that to be Absolutely Certain of a thing is to be Infallibly Certain of it so manifest it is that you there contradict your self here and that however you may endeavour to come off you allow not heartily nor without some regret and reluctancy an Absolute Certainty to Tradition even in Attesting Scripture's Letter 24. In these words of yours p. 7 As to the Rule of our Faith give me leave to reflect on the word OVR and thence to ask you who are YOV A Question which I ask not of your Name or Sirname but of your Judgment as you call it of Discretion Are you a Socinian an Arian a Sabellian an Eutychian c. or what are you Are you a whole or a half or a Quarter-nine-and-thirty-Article Man Do you take them for Snares or Fences and when for the one and when for the other and wherefore These words The Rule of OVR Faith make you all these at once for all these profess unanimously Scripture's Letter is their Rule of Faith. Mr. G. when he came to your House imagin'd he was to treat with a Protestant or something like it and to have learn'd from you what
Absolute Certainty you would assign for your that is Protestant Faith and you give him only a Generical Latitudinarian Rule common to all the Heresies in the World. The Project of the Comprehension-Bill was a trifle to this It brings into one Fold all the most enormous Straglers that have been since Christ's time nay Wolves and Sheep and all It blends into one Mass the most heterogeneous and hitherto irreconcilable Sects Nay it miraculously makes Light and Darkness very consistent and Christ and Belial very good Friends For your own Credit sake then distinguish your kind of Protestants if you be indeed one of that Church from that infamous Rabble of stigmatiz'd Hereticks and let us know what is the Proper Difference that restrains that Notion of a Common Rule to your particular as such a kind of Protestant and shew us that specifical Rule to be Absolutely Certain I say such a kind for even the word Protestant too is a Subaltern Genus and has divers Species and 't is doubted by many who are no Papists under which Species you are to be rankt But why should I vex you with putting you upon manifest Impossibilities For the Letter being the common Rule to them all and as daily experience shews us variously explicable that which particularizes it to belong specially to this or that Sect as its proper Rule can be only this According as my self and those of my Iudgment understand or interpret it The Difference then constituting your Protestant Rule as distinguisht from that of those most abominable Heresies can only be as my own Iudgment or others of my side thus or thus interpret Scripture's Letter and wriggle which way you please there it will and must end at last Go to work then distinguish your self by your Ground of Faith and then make out this your proper Rule to be Absolutely Certain or Infallible and then who will not laugh at you for attempting it and assuming that to your self which you deny to God's Church and preferring your self as to the Gift of Understanding Scripture right before the whole body of those many and Learned Churches in Communion with Rome Nay and before the Socinians too without so much as pretending to make out to the World that you have better Means either Natural or Supernatural to interpret those Sacred Oracles than had the others 25. My last Exception is that you pretend the Letter of Scripture is a Rule of Faith for your People which not one in a Million even of your own Protestants relies on or ever thinks of relying on in order to make choice of their Faith or determining what to hold This pretence of yours looks so like a meer Jest that I cannot perswade my self you are in earnest when you advance such a Paradox For 't is manifest that while your Protestants are under Age and not yet at years of Discretion to judge they simply believe their Fathers and Teachers that is they follow the way of Tradition however misplac'd And when they come to Maturity pray tell us truly how many of your Sober Enquirers have you met with in your life who endeavour to abstract from all the prejudices they have imbib'd in their Minority and reducing their inclin'd thoughts to an equal Balance of Indifferency do with a wise Jealousie lest this Popish way of believing immediate Fathers and Pastors should delude them as it has done the whole World formerly resolve to examin the Book of Scripture it self read it attentively pray daily and fervently that God's Spirit would discover to them whether what they have learn'd hither to be true or no and what is and in a word use all the Fallible means for you allow them no other which your Sober Enquirers are to make use of to find out their Faith I doubt if you would please to answer sincerely you would seriously confess you scarce ever met with such a one in your life that is never met with any one who rely'd upon Scripture's Letter practically for his Rule of Faith whatever you may have taught them to talk by rote Can any Man of Reason imagin that all the Reformed in Denmark or Sueden to omit others did light to be so unanimously of one Religion meerly by means of reading your letter-Letter-Rule and your Sober Enquiry Or can any be so blind as not to see that 't is the following the natural way of Tradition or Childrens believing Fathers that is indeed of Education that such multitudes in several places continue still of the same perswasion and that you consequently owe to this way which you so decry in Catholics that any considerable number of you do voluntarily hang together at all And that those Principles of yours which you take up for a shew when you write against Catholics would if put in practice in a short time crumble to Atoms all the Churches in the World Perhaps indeed when your Protestants come at Age they may receive some Confirmation from their Fathers and Preachers quoting Scripture-places against what Catholics hold or what they shall please to say they hold and by the same means come to believe a Trinity the Godhead of Christ Christ's Body being absent in the Sacrament and such like but do the Hearers and Learners make it their business to use all careful disquisition for a slubbering superficial diligence will not serve the turn in matters of such high Concern whether the Catholics and those great Scripturists who deny those other Points do not give more congruous explications of those places than their own Preachers do unless they do this or something equivalent 't is manifest the Letter of Scripture is not their Rule but honest Tradition And that they do no such thing is hence very apparent that they rest easily satisfi'd and well appaid with their Parson's interpretation of Scripture they presently accept it for right and good and readily swallow that sense which some Learned Men of their own Judgment assign it without thinking themselves oblig'd to observe your Method of Sober Enquiry You may rail against the Council of Trent as you will for forbidding any to interpret Scripture against the Sense which the Church holds but 't is no more than what your Hearers perpetually practise and the Preachers too for all their fair words expect from them And I much doubt even your self tho' your Principles are the most pernicious for taking matters out of the Churche's and putting them into private Hands of any Protestant I ever yet read would not take it very well if some Parishioner of yours presuming upon his Prayers for Direction c. should tell you that you err'd in Interpreting Scripture and that the Sense he gave it was sound and right Faith yours wrong and Heretical and I would be glad to know what you would say to him according to your Principles if he should hap to stand out against you that he understands Scripture to be plainly against a Trinity and Christ's Divinity as
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
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
to own one or the other if you be Certain at all for there can be no Third or Middle sort of Certainty which is neither Fallible or Infallible Pray speak to this Point and let 's have a little Reason from you at least and not perpetual Rambling and Shuffling How can you justifie your selves that you are not Deserters of Human Nature by affirming or at least supposing there is no Infallibility that is True Certainty to be found amongst Men Betrayers of Christian Faith while you leave it all capable to be a Lye nay maintain the full Sense of that wicked Position All Christian Faith is possible to be False in Discourses directly fram'd for that set-purpose Blasphemers of God's Providence in declaring and asserting that he has left less Certain Grounds for Faith and consequently for the Salvation of Mankind for which the World was created and God himself dy'd than he has for other things of a trifling importance Will it expiate for those Crimes to talk cantingly here of an Infallible and Living God and his giving us His Word by Men endu'd with an Infallible Spirit Sayings fit to take the good Women that are much pleas'd with Godly Talk in a Sermon but frivolous in our Controversie Who ever question'd that God was Living or Infallible or that he has left us an Infallible Word The only question is whether you can settle for others or have your self any Absolutely-Certain way to know the sence of that Word which this Infallible God has left us You tell us indeed 't is plainly written but that 's the Question still and the Point we deny and for which we are continually demanding your Proof and such a one as may confute our daily Experience assuring us that 't is not plain to Private Iudgments Yet this only important Point you only name then slide over it and retreat to your old refuge that weak insignificant pretence of Sufficient Certainty by which I suppose you mean a Certainty that is neither Infallible nor Fallible and tell your People if they will take your word against their own experience the Plainness of it for 't is that must give them this Security secures them from being dangerously deceiv'd then as 't is but fitting follow again of course in things necessary to Salvation and using the Proper helps which as we shall see anon will cost one's life to peruse and this you tell us encourages them to take pains to be well assur'd of the Truth Fine words I must confess if they had any Sense Is it such a rare Encouragement to take pains to be well assur'd their Faith is True when you tell them that after all their pains they can never be satisfied but it may be False that is they can never be satisfy'd that it is True But when all 's done and the Certainty of your Grounds fail you your last refuge is that the same Infallible God who has given the Means has assur'd his Blessing to them that diligently use them But this begs the Question For if the Rule you follow be not the Means ordain'd by God to arrive at Faith you have neither the right Means nor can you be assur'd of any Blessing by using them unless you can prove God has promis'd his Assistance to those that use not the Means he appointed or will certainly direct those to the right Place who take the wrong Way to it Next you fall into a Wonderment to hear me talk of mens being discourag'd for want of an Infallible Guide And I wonder you should hear me talk what I never spoke Not one Syllable was there of a Guide All my Discourse was about an Infallible Rule But the Truth is you are sick of any Discourse that sifts the Uncertainty of your Rule and therefore car'd not what new pretence you started nor whether it were a False or True one so you could but get the Dispute transferr'd to another subject Yet upon this false pretence you run on with your Raillery to the end of the Section 34. But at last you have found Infallibility in Tradition after you have been sent from place to place to seek it Pray Sir who sent you We with whom you are discoursing never directed you to any other but to that of Tradition and you know well and every Reader sees we are treating of no Infallibility but only that Yet you triumph mightily you have found a thing which was proffer'd to you unsought and found it at last which was both propos'd to you and urg'd upon you at first What an everlasting Trifler are you to confess to your Reader you have been running after Butterflies all this while and could not once turn your Eye to the Question which was just before you nay prest upon you Well but what are my words The Certainty of Scripture is from Tradition Do you deny this No you positively assert it First Letter p. 7. Let 's proceed Therefore there is no refusing to admit that Tradition causes Certainty Do you deny this How can you without destroying the Certainty of your own Rule Scripture which depends upon it and withal contradicting your self I added And makes Faith as Certain as Scripture Can you deny this That is will you affirm the same Virtue does not work the same Effect if the matter be capable Let 's see now how you answer Yet it may be this Certainty comes not up to Infallibility Yes it does for the Certainty here spoken of was Absolute Certainty as was twice insisted on immediately before from your own words p. 6. and I prov'd it was the same with Infallibility which you have never disprov'd and so unless you give a better Answer your own Acknowledgment that Tradition causes Absolute Certainty forces you to grant we are Infallibly Certain of our Faith. But say you The Tradition for Scripture was more Vniversal Suppose it so was not Tradition for Doctrin large enough to cause Absolute Certainty Or are not ten millions of Attesters as able to cause Absolute Certainty as Twenty Pray consider a little the Vertue of Witnessing Authority and the force it has upon Human Nature When the Number comes to that pitch that it is seen to be impossible they should all be deceiv'd in the thing they unanimously attest or conspire to deceive us their Testimony has its full Effect upon us and begets in us that firm and unalterable Assent we call Absolute Certainty and the Addition of myriads more adds nothing to the substance of that Assent since it was wrought without it But the main is you quite misunderstand the nature of a long Successive Testimony Let ten thousand men witness what two or three who were the Original Attestors of a thing said at first and twenty thousand more witness in the next Age what those ten thousand told them and so forwards yet taking them precisely as Witnesses they amount to no more in order to prove the Truth of that
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
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
pretended We are absolutely Certain such and such particular Points are contain'd there otherwise your General Ground comes not up to the Question nor does your Faith any service at all since it leaves it still Vncertain of which more hereafter Especially since you pretended or rather declar'd openly p. 14. that you now held all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles Which Profession reaches to all the Points of Faith and not onely to your Ground of Faith. I must confess you render'd that Profession insignificant and cancell'd the obligation as soon as you had made it in the Explication of those words immediately following which makes those hearty expressions Absolutely Certain of all the same Doctrin amount to no more but that you resolve your Faith into Scripture We must I see deal with you as those who have a pretence in Court do with Great Courtiers who lose their repute with them as ill-bred and unmannerly if they will needs take them at their word and do not distinguish between what 's spoken and what 's meant Your Answer was very honest and direct We are absolutely Certain we now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles The Comment is this I fram'd my Answer on purpose to shew that our Faith is not to be resolv'd into what Christ taught any otherwise than as it is convey'd to us by the Writings of the Apostles Evangelists Whereas if there be so much as one word of Writing or Evangelists even hinted in your Answer it self unless the Word Taught meant Writ which cannot be because we never read that Christ writ any Books or the least Semblance of reason for making this Skewing Explication but to shuffle off your too large Concession I will confess my self too shallow to fathom the profound depth of your inscrutable sense Resolve then your Faith in God's Name into what you will so you but shew us an Absolutely Certain Connexion between the Points resolved and the Rule into which you profess to resolve it Otherwise 't is no Resolution of Faith if the continued Chain of Motives winding it up to the First Truth or God's infinite veracity hangs slack Such Incoherence serves not for Faith which must be indissolubly connected to the Formal Motive of all our Faith else the Resolution of it may be shatter'd and broke to pieces by the way ere we come there Which if it may then the Resolution is no Resolution for that speaks Connexion of the Motives and Faith thus resolv'd may perhaps all be False and so is no Faith. 'T is your work then to shew in particular when you come to it and at present in general that your Rule gives you Absolute Certainty of the Points of Faith more than it does the Socinian who have the same Rule and profess to follow it as much as you do for your heart and yet erre enormously Nay in effect they take the same Method too to interpret Scripture which you do for tho' you give good words to the consent of former ages yet your Grounds do not allow it Absolute Certainty in bringing down Doctrin or interpreting Scripture and less than such a Certainty and in such things signifies nothing in our case And 't is either by your Rule and Method you can arrive thus certainly at the Sense of Scripture or by nothing If you could once with Absolute Certainty convince the Socinians of Obstinacy against a Clear Truth by your Rule or Method or both together I mean if you could make it clear to them that your Rule of Faith cannot possibly bear any other Sense so that the indifferent part of the world judg'd them wilful adherers to a false Interpretation or that you could silence them and put them to open shame for adhering to it you would do somthing Otherwise your starting aside still from the Absolute Certainty of the Points even tho' p. 14. you pretended to be Absolutely Certain you hold them All and talking to us of nothing but a General Ground is meer shuffling and shews plainly you meant not really in that Answer of yours to Mr. G's first Question where you spoke of all the Doctrin which includes every Particular Point so that by All it seems you meant None 'T is very paradoxical to see you distinguish here p. 14 between the Doctrin taught by Christ and that which was taught by the Apostles The reason why you do it is to insinuate into our Readers that we derive the source of our Tradition from Christ's Teaching orally as the Iews affirm of Moses delivering an unwritten Law else to what purpose this Distinction The Tradition we lay claim to has no such obscure Original it takes it's â—ife from the whole Body of Primitive Christians in the Apostles days dispers't in Great multitudes over the World and settled in the Knowledge of his Faith by means of their Preaching So that Tradition starts into motion from a most Publick and notorious matter of Fact viz. That the Apostles taught the First Christians such a Faith. To what imaginable purpose then was this frivolous distinction brought in You knew this was our Tenet and we knew well your Rule was Scripture What needed then this shuffling Paraphrase By Tradition you know we mean a Testimony for Doctrin receiv'd If the source be weak or that the Body of the Witnessers of it's Delivery at first and successively afterwards was smal the Tradition is consequently weak in proportion if Great it was stronger still according as the multitude of the Attesters was more numerous and their Credibleness more unexceptionable Well but admit your Faith be not resolv'd into what Christ taught by his own mouth but what the Apostles taught us from him why must you necessarily resolve your Faith into their Writings only Did the Apostles when they went to convert the world go with Books in their hands or Words in their Mouths Or were those Words a jot less Sacred when it came from their Mouths than when they put them in a Book Or lastly does any Command from Christ appear to write the Book of Scripture or any Revelation before hand that it was to be a Rule of Faith to the future Church No such matter and the Accidental occasions of it's writing at first and it's Acceptation afterwards bar any such Pretences On the other side their Grand Commission was not Scribite but only Predicate Evangelium Yet you can slubber this over without taking notice of it and carry it as if the Apostles Teaching mean't Writing only and that they taught the World no more than they writ Sure you do not mean the Apostles took Texts out of their own Books and preacht Sermons upon then as you do now Why must it be quite forgotten then and buried in silence that they taught any thing by word of mouth or preacht the Gospel publickly Allow that to be equally Sacred as what is writ and to be embrac't if well
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
that Decree Sess. 4. was to repress the insolency of Hereticks wresting the Scripture to their own private sentiments contrary to the Sense of the Church or the unanimous Consent of the Fathers And how this is directly contrary to this power of obliging to believe somthing as in Scripture explicitly now which was not so known before is unconceivable unless you will prove that that Explicit Sense is directly contrary to the unanimous Consent of the Fathers or the Church which you will never do But t is a trivial Exploit to make Mr. M. clash with Mr. G. or the Church of Rome with the Council of Trent you can make that very Church clash with her self Suis et ipsa Roma and that openly and professedly too Nay which is most wonderful fall out with her self about her own Prerogatives For you tell us p. 23. that tho' it has assum'd this Power now spoken of yet it still disown'd it Now to assume a Power is to challenge it and to disown it is to renounce it which hang together much alter the rate of all your Discourse hitherto This Church of Rome is a most monstrous kind of Creature It goes backwards and forwards blows and sups declares for and against and all at once but we must imagin her to be such onely as she stands pourtray'd in Dr. St's Fancy 34. Your main Stratagem to elude all this discourse remains yet to be more fully detected tho' it has been occasionally toucht at diverse times formerly T is this that you are now upon the General Ground of Faith and not the particular Acts of it or the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrine And you seem to have reason for it too because the main point in Dispute was whether Protestants could shew any Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith. And this you think justifies you for hovering in the ayr and onely talking of your scripture-Scripture-Rule in common without lighting on or applying it to any one particular point contain'd in that Rule But this will avail you nothing For first Neither does our Discourse pinch upon any one particular Point but upon the Uncertainty of your Faith in general or on all your Points of Faith at once as built on your Ground So that 't is the pretended Ground of your Faith we are disputing against all the while and not any one particular Tenet We bring indeed Instances now and then of some particular Articles but 't is to shew that if your Ground has not power to ascertain absolutely those most Fundamental Points it has power to ascertain none and so is no Ground of Faith at all Secondly A pretended Ground cannot be known or acknowledg'd to be a real and firm Ground till we see it grounds somthing It 's Notion plainly imports a Relation to the Superstructure and you may as well prove a man a Father without proving he has a Child as prove any thing to be a Ground without proving such and such Points to be grounded on it and this in our case with Absolute Certainty Pray take that along with you still otherwise you turn your back to the Question and run away from it in the open Field T is tedious and mortifying beyond measure to hear you still talking and pretending you have an Absolutely Certain Ground for Faith and yet never see you so much as once endeavouring to shew how it 's Ascertaining Virtue affects the Articles you build upon it and that this particular Sense of Scripture in each respective Point has such a close and necessary Connexion with the Letter on which 't is built as to give Absolute Certainty of it to all that are competent Judges of the Sense of Words Which the Experience of all Ages since Christ confutes and our own Eyes Witness to be false in the Socinians and others Thirdly Your self confest once upon a time that you are absolutely Certain you now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles Now this candid expression would make any honest well-meaning man verily believe that you meant you had been absolutely Certain of every particular Christian Doctrin by vertue of your Ground or Rule But your incomparable dexterity quite and clean over-reach't us For when you came to explain your self there it amounted to no more but that your Faith was resolv'd into Scripture that is that you pretended to Scripture which contains all or as you told us p. 17. that you were absolutely certain you hold all because you hold all not in your Soul or Mind where Points of Faith are to be held but in a kind of Purse as it were as one is said when he holds a Book in his hand to hold all that is in it being possest of which tho' you cannot come at it's sense which is little better than if it were lock't up in a Trunk you are in possession of all Christian Faith notwithstanding and hold very firmly in that Sense all that was taught by Christ and his Apostles Fourthly Hence you have not perform'd what you undertook viz. to shew that Protestants had any Absolutely Certain Ground of their Faith. For 't is not enough to point out a Book and cry out aloud T is your Ground but you must shew that 't is indeed such a Ground Now a Ground or Rule bears in it's notion Evidence to those who are to use it and to know other things by it's Direction Nay more Clear Evidence For as all Certainty must have some kind of Evidence to create it in us so this Effect of Absolute Certainty can have no less than Clear Evidence for it's Cause But you may as easily prove Mankind has no Eyes to see with as go about to shew that the Letter of Scripture is thus clear in order to the discovery of right Faith even in the highest and most concerning Points of our Christian Belief Fifthly T is pleasant to observe what a rare Resolution of your Faith you give us p. 24. Our Faith say you is resolv'd into the Scripture as the Word of God and whatever is built on the Word of God is absolutely Certain You must indeed having deserted the Tradition of the Church either pretend to Scripture or nothing unless you will confess your selves to be pure Phanaticks or Pagans and it looks mighty plausibly to say that whatever is built on the Word of God is absolutely Certain for 't is a great Truth But the only Point is still Are you absolutely-certain by your Grounds that your Faith is indeed built on the Word of God You say indeed Scripture is your Ground you pretend to it as your Ground perhaps you think it so too and 't is not about your saying pretending or thinking it to be such that we dispute with you for we should not scruple to grant you all this without any Dispute at all But does your saying pretending or thinking Prove it to be so really and indeed All
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-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
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
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
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
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
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
therefore whatever often happens through the Imperfection of Creatures such an Irrational Assent could never have been intended by God. Whence as it belongs to Infinite Goodness to give those who sincerely seek for Truth the Grace to embrace it so it belongs to infinite Wisdom to lay such means to arrive at Truth that is in our case such a Rule of Faith as both evince it 's Truth to those who are capable according to the most exact Methods of True Reason and withal perfectly secure those from Errour who follow that Rule let them be as Weak as they will. If then we are bound to embrace Christian Faith as a Truth and profess it to be so it must be indeed such and therefore the Grounds left us by God must be of that nature as to prove or conclude it to be such and if Dr. St. have no such Grounds that what he holds is really Christ's Doctrin he ought not to handle or preach Controversie since he must necessarily disgrace and weaken Christian Faith when he is to credit and establish it Nay he ought not to pretend he has that most firm and most strongly-supported Assent call'd Faith which depends necessarily on the Certainty that it was taught by Christ but candidly yield he has Opinion only in that Point not an Vnalterable Belief it is True but only a good Conceit or Hope that it is so or may be so Too weak a Prop to sustain it's Truth as it leans on Christ or his Apostles having taught it or to settle the Basis of all our Spiritual Life § 28. And now let 's apply this Discourse to his Ground or Rule by means of which he is to be thus assur'd or able to assure You of the Truth of those Controverted Points which you hear so warmly disputed in the world and which it so much imports you to be satisfy'd in 'T is Scripture's Letter in Texts that are thought to relate to those Points as understood or interpreted by Himself or any other Private Judgment What he has then to do is to make out with Absolute Certainty that this Method of arriving at the Knowledge of Christ's True Doctrin as to those Points cannot be Deceitful and Erroneous Otherwise 't is unavoidable his Faith and all Christian Faith no better grounded may be False and by consequence is not True. He will tell you Twenty fine Stories and give you many pretty words of it's being Sufficiently Certain Morally Certain that it has such Assurance as men accept for other matters c. But ask him smartly and closely if any of these Certainties or Assurances are Impossible to be False and he must not nor will deny it for should he say it he must pretend he could not be deceiv'd in his understanding those Texts right which he could not do without professing Infallibility in that particular Observe I beseech you where the stress of the whole Question lyes 'T is in this Whether this Ground or Method of his to be assur'd of Faith is able to prove it to have been truly and indeed taught by Christ so as it was not possible it should be otherwise By this Test if you examin the very good-Grounds for the Certainty of his Protestant Faith which he promises you here in his Preface you will find evidently he only gives you very good Words instead of very good Grounds and that whatever he produces whether he quotes or argues he will never vouch them to be so Certain but Deceit and Errour may possibly consist with them He will complain that 't is an unreasonable expectation because the nature of the things will not bear it And what 's this but to tell you in other terms that there neither is any Absolute Certainty of Faith nor can be any which bids fair for Atheism unless Interest satisfies the Will and by it the Reason By his speaking there of the main Points in Controversie between us I perceive he is running from the whole business in hand and seeking to shelter himself and hide his Head in a Wilderness But he shall not shift the Question thus and fall to ramble into endless Disputes Himself confest Second Letter p. 20. our Question was about the General Grounds of our Faith and not the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrin and I joyn'd issue with him upon the same To run to particular points while That 's a settling is to put the Conclusions before the Premises and to go about to ascertain things depending intirely on a Method or Rule without ascertaining that Method or Rule first is to begin at the wrong end and make the Cart draw the Horse § 29. I owe him yet an Answer to St. Austin He alledges that Father p. 16. whose Testimony says only That the Gospels are to be look't upon as Christ's own Hand-writing and that he directed the order and manner of the Evangelist's Writing which only signifies they were divinely inspir'd in both which none denies nor has This any Influence upon the Point in hand He could have quoted you other places out of Him if he had pleas'd which come up to it fully and I shall supply his backwardness with doing it my self Quaerendi dubitatio c. says that Learned and Holy Father The Doubt of Enquiry ought not to exceed the Bounds of Catholick Faith. And because many Hereticks use to draw the Exposition of the Divine Scriptures to their own Opinion which is against the Faith of the Catholick Disciplin therefore Ante tractationem hujus Libri Catholica Fides explicanda est Before the handling this Book the Catholick Faith is to be explained Where Dr. St's Sober Enquirer is curb'd and restrain'd in his licentious Search of his Faith in Scripture by the Catholick Faith had it seems some other way for were his Faith to be had meerly by searching Scripture for it with what sense ought he to be restrain'd while he was in the Way to Faith To restrain one who is in the right Way is to hinder him from going right or perhaps to put him out of his Way Again Tho' those Heretical Opinions were both against the true Sense of Scripture and against Tradition too yet had he held Scripture the Rule he should rather have said they were against the true signification of Scripture's Letter than against the Faith of the Catholick Discipline Besides if Catholick Faith was to be explain'd before they came to handle Scripture how was Scripture the Rule for all to come to Faith when as Faith was to be had nay well understood by the Explanation of it antecedently lest they might otherwise fall into Heresie And in another place speaking of a false Pointing of the Letter made by the Arians to abet their Heresie he confutes them thus Sed hoc But this is to be refuted by the Rule of Faith by which we are instructed before-hand in the Equality of the Trinity Had this Rule of Faith been held by him to
be the Letter of Scripture he would have had recourse to some exacter Copy correcting their faulty one and so have born up still to that Rule But 't is evident he does not thus He makes then the Sense of the Church or Tradition the Rule both to know our Faith and also to correct the faultiness of the Letter Whether this sutes better with the Drs. Principles or ours is left to your selves or any man of reason to judg and determine § 30. Thus comes off this famous Sermon which makes such a noise for a Confutation of the Traditionary Doctrin The Sum of it is 1. The Dr. takes no notice of the main Question betwixt us which is about the Absolute-Certainty that our Faith is Truly Christian or taught by Christ nor attempts to shew his is thus Certain but Preaches to you Stedfastness and a well-setled Resolution to continue in it yet avoids the giving you any Grounds to make you Stedfast and Well-setled in that resolution 2. He conceals every Advantage Christian Tradition has or is pretended to have that is he would perswade you to Hate it before you See it and to compare it to Scripture before you know what kind of thing it is which is yet worse he shews you another thing for It and through all his Discourse pretends 'tis It which is nothing at all to It but utterly unlike It viz. Particular Traditions both before and after that Vniversal Tradition only which we defend was setled 3. He fixes a false date upon the beginning of the Tradition we speak of that the vast source of it which with the Circumstances annext was able to continue the Current strong and the Derivation of Christ's Doctrin both Certain and Perpetual might not be reflected on To deform it the more he makes it meerly Verbal as if it were nothing but the telling some dry story by surpressing it's Practicalness in which consists it's chiefest Vertue 4. He hides from your consideration all the most Incomparable and most Powerful Motives which enforce its Continuance and oblige the Church never to forsake the first deliver'd Doctrin 5. He never regards even in those Particular Traditions whether they fail'd the Persons or the Persons fail'd Them but supposes still the Tradition was in all the fault without attempting to shew it 6. He would have you imagin the Church in the first Age consisting of Pastors and People lost all their Memory and Grace too assoon as ever the Apostles were dead lest it should be held Able and Willing to testify Christ's Doctrine to the Next Age which by Parity would Establish it a Rule for all succeeding Ages to the End of the World. 7. He mingles known Opinions and which he holds himself not to have been Universally deliver'd at first with Points which we All hold to have been first deliver'd Then as to the Matter of Object of Tradition which and only which we pretend it is to bring down with absolute Certainty and deliver Clearly viz. the Dogmatical or Controverted Articles of Christian Faith which are Practical he never mentions it at all with any distinction but tumbles and confounds it with all things imaginable for which it was never pretended and puts upon Tradition a hundred abus'd tasks as never thought of by us so improper oft times impossible in themselves As the deriving down the Ten Commandments Creeds Decrees of Councils set Forms of Words an Infinity of particular passages not at all Practical nay whole Epistles and Gospels Schemes of Doctrin taught by Heathen Philosophers Messages which use to be sent by long Letters Historical Narrations or Actions and in a word every thing he could invent but the right one viz. Those Controverted Points of Faith tho' it lay just before him the very nature of Controversy which we are about determining our Discourses to those Points and nothing else This is his General view of Scripture and Tradition as to the way of conveying down matters of Faith. He means a General view which misrepresents and blinds your sight of it in every Particular In a Word there is much of Reading Conduct and Wit in his Sermon but wholly misemploy'd to speak as handsomely as he could to no purpose and to miss the whole Point in Question with a great deal of Plausibility In which amongst his other Great Abilities justly acknowledg'd to be Excellent consists his most considerable Talent and Dexterity § 31. So he ends his Sermon with good Advice to you to follow Christ's Heavenly Doctrin in your Lives and Conversations Which as he worthily presses upon you so I shall heartily pray that God would vouchsafe you his Grace to follow it I am far from blaming His or any one's Preaching the wholsome Moral Doctrines of Christianity and laying it home to men's Consciences But I ought not if concern'd to suffer that when he pretends to speak to your Understandings and establish you in Faith he should bubble his Auditory with forty impertinent pretences Injurious to his candid Adversaries and to Truth as well as to your selves please and delude your Fancies with a great shew of his Reading and little conjectural Reflexions tack't prettily together and in the mean time send you away empty of knowing any Ground which may render you or any Absolutely Certain that what you hold is indeed Christ's Doctrin that is any Ground of perfect security that is cannot but be indeed his Doctrin without being which it ought not be held True. Whereas yet 't is only this Certainty which can give His or any other Sermon it 's full force and Energy Your Servant in Christ J. S. Advertisement The 2 d. 3 d. Catholick Letters are to be Sold by M. Turner at the Lamb in High-Holbourn THE FIFTH Catholick Letter IN REPLY TO Dr. Stillingfleet's Pretended ANSWER To About the Fortieth Part of I. S's Catholick Letters Addrest to all Impartial Readers By Iohn Sergeant Published with Allowance London Printed and sold by Matthew Turner at the Lamb in High-Holborn 1688. THE PREFACE Addrest to the most Partial of Dr. Stillingfleet's Friends Gentlemen WHen a Person is incomparably qualify'd above all others in any Particular men use to look upon him as a Pattern in that Kind I will not say Dr St. has manifested himself to be such an Exemplar in every respect that can be an Ingredient of an Ill Controvertist This is yet to be shewn and Pretence without Proof signifies nothing Only I may justly fear that while you are reading my Reply to his Answer as he calls it to my Catholick Letters you may be apt to judge that I am rather framing an Idea of what Human Weakness maintaining an insupportably-ill Cause may be obnoxious to than giving a Iust Character of his Performances and that 't is Absolutely Impossible that a Man of his Parts should be Guilty of such and so many Incredible Failings I acknowledge with all due Respect to him his Great Endowments and am heartily glad in
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
between us 't is manifest the contest was whether he had Absolute Certainty of those Points he held upon his Rule What says the Dr now to this plain state of the Controversy 29. First he changes the Ground of Absolute Certainty for his Faith into proving the Absolute Certainty of the Ground or Rule of his Faith which transposes the Terms of the Question and alters the whole business For Absolute Certainty for Faith engages him to shew the Doctrin or Tenets of Faith to be thus Certain whereas Absolute Certainty of the Rule of our Faith makes Absolute Certainty affect the Rule but leaves all Faith Uncertain unless the pretended Rule proves a good one and renders the Doctrin of Christian Faith consisting of many particular Points thus Absolutely Certain which himself will tell us afterwards he will not stand to Next he Equivocates in the word Scripture which may either mean the Letter or the Sense of it Now the Sense of it being Faith 't is That only could be meant by Mr. G. and of which it was affirmed he could not shew Grounds absolutely ascertaining it The Sense I say of Scripture could only be question'd since the Letter was agreed to Wherefore to alledge Tradition for his Proof of what his Grounds will not allow to it viz. to bring down the Sense of Scripture or Faith and turn it off to the shewing Certainty of the Letter which was out of Question is a most palpable prevarication 3. He quite forgets to shew that any Point of his Faith or all of it speaking of the Controverted or Dogmatical Points as we do may not be False notwithstanding his Proof for the Certainty of its Letter which if it be 't is not Faith unless he will say the Points of his Faith may be so many Untruths 4. It has been prest upon him over and over in my Catholick Letters to shew how his Rule influences his Assent of Faith with Absolute Certainty It has been inculcated to him how both Rule and Ground are Relative words and therefore that he could not pretend they were to him Absolutely Certain Grounds for his Faith unless he shew'd how they made him Absolutely Certain of that Faith of his which was the Correlate Which tho' the most material Point and most strongly prest upon him he takes no notice of in his whole Reply and it shall be seen that when he comes to touch upon that Point after his fashion hereafter he is forc't to confess they are no Absolutely Certain Ground or Rule to him at all Lastly that when Faith being Truth the Question was whether he had any such Ground as could conclude it True that Christ had taught his Faith and consequently whether he has any Faith at all he slips over That and rambles into a Discourse about more or less Faith in Scripture instead of shewing he had any Other shifts he has but these are his master-pieces So that his whole performance as to the Conference amounted to no more than to take up the Bible in his hand and cry aloud Look ye Gentlemen here is my Ground or Rule of Faith and your selves must confess 't is Absolutely Certain and therefore you cannot deny but I have shewn you the Ground of Absolute Certainty for my Faith. But if it should be reply'd Sr an Arian or Socinian might do the same and yet no by-stander be the wiser for it or more able to discern which of you has Christs true Faith which not in regard that must be decided by shewing who has an Absolutely Certain Means to know the true Sense of the Letter the Drs insignificant Principles carry no farther but as we shall see anon to confess plainly neither of them have any such Means of Absolute Certainty at all And that he cannot manifest what was expected of him and he stood engag'd to manifest 30. The case then between us being such plain sense what says the Learned Dr to it Why besides his rare evasions lately mention'd he tells the Reader vapouringly his way of reasoning was too hot for Mr. G. which I have shewn to be frigid Nonsense He complains that our obliging him to prove or shew clearly what belong'd to him for no body held him to Mood and Figure is like the Trammelling a Horse That we insinuate Mr. G. is Non suited which is far from True. He is peevishly angry at the Metaphor of Playing at Cards and persecutes it without Mercy which is a scurvy sign that however he pretended to a Purse full of Gold and Silver he is a Loser and that he will be put to borrow some Citations out of Authors to combat the Council of Trent hoping to recover by that means some of the Credit he has lost by the Nonplusage of his Reason He pretends he gives us good security that is for the Letter of Scripture which was not the End of the Conference nor is our Question but not the least security for its Sense or Faith which was He talks of Declamations and the Schools in the Savoy and glances at my pretending to Intrinsical Grounds which is to maintain that Humane Authority which is the only thing I was to prove is to be believed blindly whether a man sees any Reason why he ought to believe it or no. He talks too of the Cardinals in the Inquisition who tho' my Just Judges were my very good Friends He says my Grounds had sav'd the Martyrs Lives and he makes a rare Plea for them out of my Principles Forgetting good man that we are writing Controversy to satisfy men who are in their way to Faith whereas those Blessed Martyrs were not only already Faithfull but moreover liv'd up to Christ's Doctrin and so had Inward Experience in their Consciences of it's Sanctity and Truth He imagins the Iews who saw our Saviour's Miracles had no Intrinsick Grounds Whereas True Miracles being evidently above Nature are known to be such by comparing them with the Course of Natural Causes known by a kind of Practical Evidence or Experience And must I be forc't to render him so Weak as to instruct his Ignorance that the Knowledge of things in Nature is an Intrinsick Ground and not Extrinsical as Testimony is He sticks close to his Friend Lominus right or wrong in despite of all the Evident and Authentick Testimonies to the contrary whom before for want of others to second him he split into Two and now multiplies into the Lord knows how many To gratifie his Friend Dr. Tillotson and excuse his and his own silence he says I have retracted the main Principles in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery which in plain terms is an Vnexcusable Falshood To explicate two or three words and shew by Prefaces States of the Question and many Signal passages they were Misunderstood and apply'd to wrong Subjects as I did to the satisfaction of my Judges and even of prejudic't persons signifies plainly not-to
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
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
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
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
A LETTER To the D. of P. IN ANSWER TO THE Arguing Part OF HIS FIRST LETTER To Mr. G. Published with Allowance LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel 1687. A LETTER To the D. of P. In Answer to the Arguing Part of his First Letter 1. THAT you may not take it unkindly the Arguing Part of your Letter to Mr. G. should pass unregarded I have been prevail'd upon to accept of his Commission to hold his Cards while he is not in Circumstances to play out his Game himself But can assure you beforehand since Matter of Fact is clearing by other Hands more proper I mean to confine my self to Matter of Right and so shall give you the least and most excusable trouble that can be a short one 2. Your Letter tells us that the Conference was for the sake of a Gentleman who I heard desir'd to be satisfi'd that Protestants are absolutely certain of what they believe and made account you could satisfie him and profess'd if you could not he would quit your Communion And you take care to inform us p. 2. that he was satisfi'd and declar'd immediately after the Conference that he was much more confirm'd in the Communion of your Church by it and resolv'd to continue in it But could you not have afforded to inform us likewise by what he was satisfi'd For there is many a Man who would be as glad and is as much concern'd to be satisfi'd in that Point as that Gentleman and he would not have been a jot the less confirm'd or the less resolv'd if his Neighbor had been confirm'd and resolv'd with him I cannot for my life imagin why you should make a Secret of a thing which besides your own and your Churches Honor concerns the Salvation of thousands and thousands to know 3. Your Letter I perceive would shift it off to Mr. G. whom you desire p. 7. to prove that Protestants have no Absolute Certainty c. Of this Proposal there will be occasion to say more by and by At the present I pray you consider how you deal with those Souls who rely on you If you should move them to trust their Estates with a Man of your naming of whom you would give no other satisfaction that he were able to manage them and faithful and responsible but only to bid those who doubted prove the contrary I fancy there would need all the Credit you have to hinder the Motion from appearing very strange And yet you have the confidence to make them one as much stranger as their Souls are more worth than their Mony For you would have them hazard their Souls where they are not safe for any care you take to satisfie them that they are Why suppose Mr. G. could not prove that Protestants are not Certain are they therefore Certain Has Peter Twenty pounds in his Purse because Paul cannot prove he has not Or ever the more Title to an Estate because an Adversary may have the ill luck to be Non-suited Must not every body speak for himself one day and bring in his own Account which will pass or not pass as it is or is not faulty in it self whether any fault have been found in it before or no And will not the Happiness or Misery of their Souls for ever depend on that Account Can you suffer them to run that terrible hazard without making them able to justifie their Accounts themselves and furnishing them with assurance that they can and with no more to say but that they hop'd Dr. St. would make his Party good with Mr. G. That things so precious to God as Souls should be of no more value with those who set up for Ministers of the Gospel That their great and only care as far as I see should be to make a shew and pass for some body here let every one take his chance hereafter Besides Truth is therefore Truth because 't is built on Intrinsecal Grounds which prove it to be such and not on private Mens Abilities or their saying this or that wherefore till those Grounds be produc'd it cannot be with reason held Truth And Dr. St. is more particularly oblig'd to make good he has such Grounds having had such ill fortune formerly with the Principles to which he undertook to reduce Protestant Faith as appears by the Account given of them in Error Non-plust 4. But leaving these Matters to be Answer'd where we must all answer why we have believ'd so and so pray let us have fair play in the mean time Let every one bear his own Burthen and you not think to discharge your self by throwing your Load on another Man's Shoulders You affirm there is Absolute Certainty on the Protestants side and 't is for him to prove it who affirms it If you do it but half so well as Mr. G. can and has the Infallibility which he asserts you will earn Thanks from one side and Admiration from the other But it is for you to do it To trick off proving the contrary upon your Adversary is to own that Proving is a thing which agrees not with your Constitution and in which your Heart misgives you 5. Yet even so you were uneasie still and would not venture what Mr. G. could do as slightly as you think or would have others think of him You know well enough that to prove Protestants have no Absolute Certainty of their Faith is no hard Task even for a weak Man You know any Man may find it confess'd to his hand by Protestants And therefore you had reason to bethink your self of an Expedient to trick it off again from that Point and put Mr. G. to prove That Protestants have no Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of their Faith viz. the Scripture The Merits of this Cause too I think will return hereafter more fitly in this place I mind only the Art. Pray was not the very First Question at the Conference Whether Protestants are absolutely Certain that they hold now the same Tenets in Faith and All that our Saviour taught to his Apostles And your Answer that They are Did our Saviour teach and do Protestants believe no more than that the Book so call'd is Scripture Is Certainty of this more and Certainty of this Book all one And was not the Question plainly of the Certainty of this and of All this more Here is then an Enquiry after one thing plainly turn'd off to another Yes but this was one of the two things which the whole Conference depended upon As if the whole Conference did not depend on that thing which was to be made manifest by the Conference viz. the Absolute Certainty of Protestant Faith. Mr. G. indeed did himself ask some Questions about your Certainty of your Rule Questions whose course it was wisely done to cut off before they had question'd away your Certainty of Faith. For after they had caus'd it to be
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
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
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
most wicked Falsification so you close it up here with a double one and those too of so large a size that were they True they had carry'd all before them Your intermediate Endeavours are many of them of the same kind the rest Mistakes and generally wilful ones which I thought at first to have reckon'd up but they thicken'd so upon me that I saw it would be tedious to count them and so gave it over But your excuse for this insincere Carriage is That you do no more than all Writers use to do who have had the bad luck to defend an ill Cause and come to be prest with Close Truth All they can do when they are not able to give a good acount of themselves is to bend all their study and seek about for shifts how they may give no account And the D. of P. and you are of this prudent Generation I say once again 'T is your Chief Study how to shift and long Study of any thing with frequent practice makes a man Excellent at it every man loves most to do that he is Excellent at and so we are to expect it To convince the Reader whether I wrong you or no Put you your Arguments for the Absolute Certainty of your Rule in conveying to us Christ's Sense and for your following it as close and home as you can possibly and see whether I do not answer it directly fairly squarely without any of these shifting Excursions or Falsifications And let our different Carriage be the Test to distinguish the candid Asserters of Truth from the Insincere Abetters of Errour 53. After I had shew'd that Scripture privately interpreted could not be a Rule of Faith the nature and method of our Dispute led me into an Enquiry what was in reality your Rule as you are such a kind of Protestant and to this End I discours't thus That Scripture was a Generical Rule common to you and all Heresies in the world and That your Specifical Rule must be as my self and those of my Iudgment understand or interpret it And can there be any thing more Evident Do not they all strive to lay claim to the Letter of Scripture for their Rule as well as you Do not they all as much as you rely upon it and avail themselves by quoting it still and endeavouring to shew it favourable to their respective Tenets Plain Experience informs us and every one they all do this and that too with an ardour and earnestness equal to yours as far as we can discern In this then you all agree and therefore 't is beyond all dispute Scripture is your Common or Generical Rule if we may believe your Carriage and Profession Now let 's see what 't is you disagree in And 't is manifest you disagree in the Sense of Scripture otherwise the Sense of Scripture being God's Sense or your Faith you would be of the same Faith which cannot be pretended since you contradict them and they You in matters belonging to Faith and What 's the Way to arrive at the Sense of Scripture Certainly the Interpreting it for Interpretation signifies in proper speech the Giving or Assigning to Words their sense and do not you accept that Sense of Scripture for your Faith which your Private Judgment interpreting it conceives to be truly its meaning and they in like manner as they apprehend it ought to be interpreted Is it not for this very end you so cry up your Judgment of Discretion and that you are not to submit to the Decrees of Councils or Consent of Fathers farther than you conceive them agreeable to the Word of God Does not Dr. St. profess openly that his sober Enquirer may understand the Explicit Sense of Implicit Points that are Doubtful such as all main Points of Faith are without the Church's help Second Letter p. 21. that is without any Publick Interpreter And Will you after this deny that Scripture is your General Rule in which you agree with all Hereticks and your specifical peculiar or proper Rule in which you differ from them and they from one another is Scripture as Interpreted by your selves The thing is plain let 's see what you say to it You with a very dexterous artifice grant and not grant it as we shall see anon and tell us 1. That Scripture is and ought to be common to all Hereticks tho' they miserably abuse it Pray Sir use my words I said a Common Rule to them and you and Can that be truly a Rule which they direct themselves by and yet warp into Errour You tell us indeed they miserably abuse it and the Socinians will say the same of you while you pretend to prove thence Christ is God. And how shall this Quarrel be decided For 't is hitherto a drawn Match between you while you fight with that ambidextrous Weapon Scripture's Letter interpretable by Private Iudgments The Point still sticks How can an indifferent man seeking for Faith by your Rule be satisfy'd They abuse it more than You Must not you be oblig'd to shew him some clearer Light than They have and that this Light justifies you for judging thus harshly of them that they are such miserable Abusers of Scripture And if you do not must he not in true reason judge 't is pretended by you gratis as also that you are highly uncharitable to charge them downright with so hainous a Crime 'T is that farther degree of Light in You that must justifie you for these pretences which we would gladly see for whatever it is 't is That which distinguishes you from them and sets you up to be Right Vsers of Scripture that is it gives you the Right Sense of it or your Faith and so it must difference you Essentially from them in your Grounds or Rule 'T is this Light I say we would be at Why is it so shy to shew its Face 2. Tho' 't is hard to conceive how they can be said to abuse Scripture who follow it to their Power yet since you will have it allow'd you gratis Does not their pretended miserable Abuse of Scripture consist in misinterpreting it Certainly you must say it does And if so then your right Interpretation of it or your taking it in a right sense is that in which your right Vse of it consists wherefore your own Interpretation of it is beyond all Evasion that which differences you from them and so 't is your peculiar or specifical Rule of Faith. 3. Do those Hereticks who thus miserably abuse it do this out of Wilfulness that is do they indeed understand it right but pretend they do not or do they use their endeavour to understand it and yet hap to abuse it by misunderstanding it If the former then again you must tell us gratis and ought to make it out to an Indifferent man seeking for Faith that the Socinians and all the erring Sects are the most wickedly insincere and the most blasphemous men in the World nay
the greatest Hypocrites to boot to know certainly by Scripture that Christ is God and yet knowingly impugn his Divinity voluntarily abuse Scripture they seem so highly to venerate and pretend Conscience all the while And yet none but you have such horrid apprehensions of them and as for my self seeing how they decline no Adversary at the alledging and comparing Places how sedulously they make Scripture their Study and in all appearance adhere to the Letter I verily believe they follow it to their power but fall into Errour through their misfortune of espousing a wrong Rule And if you still say they are thus voluntarily insincere I desire to know of you by what outward signs can an indifferent man judge You and your Party are not as Insincere as They or perhaps more Acquaint us I say for what other Reason you say this but because they frame another Sense of Scripture than you do that is interpret it differently from You If you can give no other than your own Interpretation is the only Light you have to judge them Hereticks or to determine what 's Heresie and by consequence to judge what 's True Faith and so 't is unavoidably your Rule of Faith of which more by and by But if you say they follow it to their power and yet err in Faith then the fault not being in Them for not following their Rule their fault must be as it is yours their adhering to a Rule which secures not men tho' doing their best to understand it from falling into Heresie that is it consists in their pitching upon that for their Rule which is indeed no Rule at all 54. Your Rule then equally patronizing true Faith and Heresie I had reason to affirm that it inferr'd those blasphemous Propositions as to make Light and Darkness very consistent and Christ and Belial very good Friends Now this being my Charge it was manifestly your Duty to shew it does not patronize true Faith and Heresie and by doing so induce those horrid blasphemies and to make out that only true Faith can be grounded on Scripture privately interpreted and therefore that I had impeach'd it wrongfully But this was too hard a Point to meddle with Instead of doing this and clearing your self from Blasphemy which was directly incumbent on you you tell the Reader with a great garb of Gravity that I speak Blasphemy my self Blasphemy against God and his Holy Word when I only mention it while I am charging you with it And hereupon like a right Good man you fall to talk Godly and out of your pure Charity will needs bestow upon me the Benediction of your hearty Prayer that God would give me Repentance unto Life Indeed had I said that Christ and Belial could ever be reconcil'd or advanc'd any Position that imply'd it as yours does I confess I must have been Guilty of a horrid Blasphemy But not knowing how to clear your self for owning no Rule but such a one as equally patronizes Truth and Falshood and therefore by a necessary consequence infers those Blasphemies you very demurely put on a Godly Countenance and betake your self very charitably to your hearty Prayers As much as to say In good Truth Sir I cannot answer you nor shew I have any Rule but what serves for Errour as well as Truth but yet if that may excuse me I will be content in lieu of it to pray for you with all my Heart Is not this pleasant 55. Thus much for your Rule as 't is common to You and all Hereticks What 's your particular Rule Here 1. You take it ill that we will needs know what 's your Rule better than your selves do And we take it as ill of You that you would have us believe you before our own Evident Reason We know you cannot defend such an insignificant Rule as your own Interpretations and therefore are forc'd to disown it when we press you to give a good account of it with which may very well consist that you proceed upon it when the danger is remote 2. You assure us Plain Scripture is your Rule that is as appears by your Discourse here your Rule as you are such a kind of Protestant Pray will you explain and unriddle to us this most obscure word Plain in what kind of Points to whom and by what kind of Light is Scripture taken as your Rule Plain And let 's have something more than a blind Word to work on Experience tells us Scripture is not plain even in the highest Points of Faith since so many follow it and yet go astray Again if it be so plain all your useful Helps are needless and Lastly Scripture conceiv'd by you to be plain which is your particular Rule can never be made out to be Absolutely Certain for the Socinians too proceed upon Scripture Plain to them as their Rule and yet err which evinces 't is not so plain as to convince and certainly enlighten Human Reason attending to it An evident Argument that both the one and the other do but fancy it plain but that in reality 't is Plain to neither 3. You declare that the Interpretation of it by any Sect of people Romanists or others is Extrinsical to it and no constitutive difference of it That the Interpretation of Romanists is not the particular Rule of Your Protestants all the World knew before which makes it frivolous to tell us so here Nor do we challenge you or pretend that the Interpretation of any other Sect is your Rule for we told you that the Interpretation of each Sect respectively was its particular Rule 'T is Your own Interpretation we said was your Rule instead of granting or denying which you shuffle about and talk of the Interpretation of Romanists and other Sects But if which is strangely exprest in other Sects you include your own too 't is all one to my Discourse For whether you regard the Interpretation of your own Sect or make account that as each individual Angel is a distinct Species so each individual Interpreter among you is a distinct Sect still Scripture as interpretable by your selves is your particular Rule and not Extrinsical to it For let me ask you once more Is not the Sense of Scripture your Faith and Is not that Essentially your Particular Rule of Faith that gives you your Particular Faith and Must I mind you again that it is the very Essence as I may say or nature of Interpretation to give you the Sense of the Words of Scripture which in our case is your Faith. Wriggle then still which way you please you can never avoid but your own Interpretation of Scripture is your Particular Rule taking you either for a whole Sect an Individual or Both. 56. At length as a man in danger when he is follow'd close at the Heels and ready to be caught takes a desperate leap tho' he hazards himself a mischief you venture boldly to declare what is your particular Rule as
distance with the true Sense of what was deliver'd by the Founders of the Church in the beginning without danger of losing it by the way which cannot be imagin'd as long as Tradition is held to the same believ'd to day which was held yesterday or that the immediately succeeding Fathers still deliver'd the same Doctrin To do which there wanted no Power as has been lately shewn to the full nor Will to use that Power being oblig'd to it by the greatest Penalties GOD himself could inflict the Damning Themselves and their Posterity 4. But say you pag. 8. If the Church may explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as to oblige men to believe that by Virtue of such Explication which they were not oblig'd to before then 't is impossible the Infallibility of Tradition should ly in a constant Tradition from Father to Son for they have no Power to oblige to any more than they received How Plausibly and smoothly this Discourse runs and how shrewdly it seems to conclude Would any well-meaning Reader imagin that it were perfect Non-sense all the while and wholly built on your own Liberality giving us another sort of Tradition which is no Tradition This malignant word Tradition must not be taken in its right sense that 's resolv'd for then it would grow too troublesom but take it in any other sense that is mistake it and then have at it For when you speak of explaining the sense and meaning of Tradition you do not take Tradition as you know well we do and as the word plainly imports for the Delivery of Doctrin but for Doctrins Delivered and so again we have once more lost the Question For what can these words mean If the Church may explain the sense and meaning of Tradition that is of the Method of conveying down Christs Doctrin The Method of Delivery is the very Signification of that Doctrin from Age to Age and how can one Explain the Sense and meaning of a signification of Christ's sense when it 's self is that very Explication of it This gives me occasion to reflect how oddly you have hamper'd our Tradition hitherto instead of handling it P. 9. You seem to doubt by your If no more were meant c. Whether it does not mean Tradition for the Books of Scripture and this you knew well enough before was none of our Tradition in dispute here which as may be seen by Mr. G's Demonstration put down by your self First Letter p. 4. and 5. is confest to be Tradition for matters of Faith or Doctrin Now in this new sense you give us there of Tradition you kindly grant it for 't is your own not that which we here mean by that word Next comes another If and makes it seem to signify Articles and Power And this is no Tradition at all neither ours nor yours nor any body's For neither those Articles nor that Power you speak of p. 10. are or can be the Delivery of Christ's Doctrin from day to day for that speaks such a Method of bringing down things not the things brought down And this you very gravely deny And so you may with my good leave either deny or expunge or condemn it to what doom you please for certainly it comes with a felonious Intention to draw the Reader out of his Road into a Labyrinth of Non-sense and then robb him of his Reason Again p. 7. you make it a Delivery of bare Words at best with a general impossible sense and perhaps a Heretical one too into the bargain whereas you cannot but know Tradition as We mean it is a Delivery of the sense of Christian Tenets and this a particular sense too and such a one as cannot possibly be Heretical while this Rule is adher'd to unless the First-Taught Faith were Heretical which is Blasphemy to imagin And here again p. 8. you make Tradition or Delivery to mean the Point delivered and would have us give you the signification and Explication of That which is it's self the signification and Explication of Christ's Faith and this too the very best that can be imagin'd Is it possible to deform Tradition more untowardly or wrest it into more misconstructions than has been done already After a serious manner certainly 't is impossible But Drollery is now to act its part And to cheer your spirits which droop't under the difficulty of answering the Argument for Tradition you put your self in masquerade and would make the Relation of perhaps two or three it may be partial Friends of yours concerning Mr. G's Discourse about You a perfect parallel to our Rule of Faith and that if they can mistake or misrepresent down goes Tradition Which amounts to this that sooner may all the Christian Fathers in any Age consisting of many millions and those disperst in far-distant Parts of the World be mistaken in their Faith which it imported them no less than their Salvation to know sooner may all of them conspire to deliver to their Children another Doctrin than that which they held the way to Heaven than that a very few of your own Party should to gratify you tell you a false Story or Aggravate tho' all of them were besides profest Adversaries to the Person against whom they witnest and indeed Witnesses in their Own Common Cause I beseech you Sir tho' you be never so much to seek for a solid Answer yet speak at least plausible things and do not thus expose your Credit while you affect to play the Wit. Poor Tradition what has it done to be thus misrepresented Did it deserve no better for bringing down the Book of Scripture but to be expos'd in so many aukward Vizards when it was to come upon the Stage and not once suffer'd to shew it's true face but still travestee'd into another Form and put in all shapes but its own This Carriage of yours is enough to make the Reader think you apprehend it to be some terrible Gorgons Head or some Basilisk and that the very sight of it unless it came thus muffled up would undo you At least he will suspect from such an untoward broken Scene that the Dramma is not like to be regular Indeed you shift too often and to catch and confute you I must travel thro' the whole Compass for no sooner can a man steer one way but your Discourse like the Wind whips straight into another quarter and about we must tack or we must not make forwards at all But I will insist no more at present on this dexterity of yours you will afford your Friends many fresh Instances of it through the whole course of this Letter hereafter Onely I must note your forgetfulness or what else may I call it For you took the Notion of Tradition very right First Letter p. 7. where you alledg'd you had a larger and firmer Tradition for Scripture than we had for us You did not there take Tradition of that Book for the Book delivered
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
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
is in a manner made up of such study'd Insincerities 14 You give us another Instance of this Indisposition of your Will p. 13. where you tell us Mr. M. says that the first thing which was propos'd and indeed the onely subject Mr. G. had any purpose to discourse on was whether Protestants had a Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith or not This you do not deny but turn it off to a quite different business and then slide from that to another till you had wheel'd about the Question from what was intended to the Point you thought best serv'd your turn to shuffle in Here say you the Faith spoken of is that Faith whereby we are Christians How Are Protestants and Christians then Convertible Terms or Synonyma's Are there not many sorts of Christians which are not Protestants And is it not plain and not contradicted by your self that it was demanded whether your Protestants had a Ground of Absolute Certainty for their that is Protestant Faith Does not the word their signify theirs as distinct from all other sorts of Christians And is it come now to signify theirs simply as Christians or as conjoyn'd with all the rest This is too open dodging to pass upon the Reader 'T is granted you hold many of the same Christian Points which Catholicks do but 't is deny'd you can as you are Protestants I mean still such Protestants as are of your Principles hold them to be Absolutely Certain or hold them upon such Grounds as are able to support that Firm and Unalterable Assent call'd Faith The Grounds proper to your Protestants being as was shewn in my Former Letter Sect. 24. to hold them upon the Letter interpreted by your selves Of which Letter by virtue of your Principles you can have no Absolute Certainty as shall be shewn hereafter and of that Letter Interpreted by your private Iudgments much less In a word either you speak of Points held by Protestants which you pretend to be all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles and then you are distinguisht not onely from those Christians call'd Catholicks but from Socinians Lutherans and to omit others Calvinists too if you be one of those that hold Episcopacy to be of Divine Right Or else you mean the Assent given to those Points of Protestant Faith on their pretended Rule and then you must shew your Assent is more Absolutely Certain than that of the three last and divers others who Dissent from you in their Tenets and yet go upon the Same Rule and make it out to us that tho' it be both theirs and yours yet still ' t is yours in particular or peculiarly yours as you are such Protestants 15. Your next Prevarication is much worse After you had shov'd Protestant Faith into Christian Faith you throw it a Barr and a half further off by virtue of an Id est Absolute Certainty of the Christian Faith i. e. say you of the Grounds on which we believe the Scripture to contain the Word of God or all things necessary to be believ'd by us in order to salvation This Id est like Pacolets wooden Horse has a Charm to transfer us from one Pole to the other in an instant By virtue of its all-powerful Magick Christian Faith is made to be the same with the Grounds on which we believe the Scripture to contain the Word of God so that according to you Faith is the same with your Grounds for Scripture's being your Ground that is Faith is made the same with the Grounds for your Ground of Faith. What a medley of Sense is this and how many folds have we here involving one another Christian Faith is Divine these Grounds and the Faith built on them is Human being the Testimony of Men Are these two the same Notion Had I a mind to be Quarrelsome how easily how justly too might I retort your former Calumny against Tradition and object that this way of yours resolves all into meer Human Faith meer Natural Reason that it makes God's Grace and Assistance of the Holy Ghost unnecessary to Faith and then ask Is this the Faith Christians are to be sav'd by And reckon up twenty other absurdities springing from this ill-grounded Position But I am now to trace your transferring Faculty In your First Letter p. 7. you speak onely of Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of your Faith viz. the Scripture but here the case is alter'd and Certainty of Scripture is turn'd into Certainty of the Grounds on which we believe the Scripture to contain the Word of God. These slippery doings and not any Reasons you bring make you Inconfutable for we must set upon the Proteus in all his shapes ere we can bind him The Question is not whether Scripture Contains the Word of God that is his Sense or our Faith but which we cannot mind you of too often for all will be too little to make you take notice of it how the Sense contain'd there can be got out thence or be signify'd to us with Absolute Certainty even in the very highest Points of Christian Faith and what Grounds you have to bring about this Effect For you can profess no Absolute Certainty of any one point till you have made it out with Absolute Certainty that the Sense you pretend contain'd in Scripture is it 's genuin Meaning This is your true task if you would prove the Absolute Certainty of your Protestant Faith or your Faith as depending on your Principles But of this we hear not a syllable 16. And I beseech you to what end is it to tell us you are speaking of your Rule or Ground of Faith if it carry you not thorow to any one particular no not those Points which are most Fundamental and so most necessary for the Salvation of Mankind Since notwithstanding you have your Rule you are still as far to seek as before in all a Rule should be good for Remember the Question and Mr. T 's expectation was about the Absolute Certainty of Protestant Faith by vertue of your Rule or Ground and therefore if your Rule does not reach to Absolute Certainty of the main Points of Faith at least you are still at a loss both for your Faith and for a Ground of your Faith. Yet this conscious of it's failure you seem unwilling to stand to by still sliding silently over it or slipping by it when it lies just in your way For You tell us pag. 20. that your Faith rests on the Word of God as its Absolute Ground of Certainty Which by the way is another little shuffle for you should have said absolutely-Certain Ground not Absolute Ground of Certainty But let that pass and let the horse-mill go for the mill-horse You proceed But the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrine depends on the Evidence that it is contain'd in Scripture You ought to have said if you would make your Faith so Certain as you
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
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
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
Absolutely Certain if you be not equally Certain of the later Surely none at all For 't is not the whole Book in the lump that can be produc't to prove Faith or confute Heresy but particular Texts and if These and the mainly significant Words in them be not Absolutely Certain what becomes of the Absolute Certainty of your Rule or your Faith Nay I am not fully satisfied that their concurrent Testimony does strengthen the Certainty of even so much as the Books For I observe that our Judges suspect the Testimony of honest men and misdoubt the justness of the Cause if known Knights of the Post are call'd in to corroborate their Evidence But you have prudent Maxims of your own which are beyond the reach of Lawyers 37. You endeavour to come a little closer to the Point p. 29. and set your self to prove that Scripture is your Rule of Faith ay that it is In order to which You advance this Proposition that Certainly all that believe it to be the Word of GOD must take it for a Rule of Faith. These two confident Words Certainly and Must are very efficacious to perswade those who will take it upon your Word nay they are so magisterial that they impose a kind of necessity upon them of believing all is as you say or else of denying your Authority which would break Friendship But if they will not but happen to be so uncivil as to require Proofs for it they quite lose their force and which is worse such positive Assertions make People expect very strong Arguments to Answer and make good such confident Affirmations else it hazards Credit to pretend Great Things and bring little or no Proof How you will justify those big Words we shall see shortly In the mean time let us ask you how you come to be thus Certain of it Is there no more requisit to a Rule but to be the Word of God Or did you never read in Errour non-plust long ago p. 73 74 75. the Answer now given You to this Pretence in the Confutation of your 12 th Principle in which You endeavour to establish Scripture to be a Rule Or can You so much forget your self and your duty to reply to it as to discourse still thus crudely with the same confidence as if You had never read or heard of such a Book or any thing alledg'd there to the contrary If we must needs mind You of it so often take these few words along with you now at least and till you have reply'd to them and others such which are there alledg'd I beseech you let us be tir'd no more with such Talk as serves onely to amuse but can never edify or convince To be writ by men divinely inspir'd to be Divine Infallible and the Word of God signifies no more but that they the Scriptures are perfectly Holy and True in themselves and beneficial to Mankind in some way or other and this is the farthest these Words will carry But that they are of themselves of sufficient Clearness to give sincerely endeavouring Persons such security of their Faith while they rely on them as cannot consist with Errour which is requisit to the Rule of Faith these Words signifâ—y not They may be most Holy they may be most True in themselves they may be exceedingly Useful or Beneficial to Mankind and yet not endow'd with this Property which yet the Rule of Faith must have And pag. 75. What then Dr. St. is to do is to produce conclusive Reasons to evince that the Letter of Scripture has such a Perspicuity and other Perfections belonging to such a Rule as must Ground that most Firm and Unalterable and if rightly Grounded Inerrable Assent call'd Christian Faith. We see here the Question rightly stated and the Point that sticks now let 's see whether your Proof does so much as touch it or in the least mention it 38. The Argument you make choice of I suppose it is your best the matter in hand being of highest consequence to prove that all who believe Scripture to be the Word of God must take it for a Rule of Faith is this For since the reason of our believing is because God has reveal'd whatever God has reveal'd must be believ'd and a Book containing in it such Divine Revelations must be the Rule of our Faith. i. e. by it we are to judge what we are bound to believe as Divine Revelations What a wild medly is here instead of a Reason Here are four Propositions involv'd The First is this the reason of our believing is because God has reveal'd and this is granted onely you may note that we are equally bound to believe what God has reveal'd by the Church's Testimony as by Writing if it be equally clear it was thus reveal'd nay more by the former than by the later in case that way of ascertaining the Divine Revelation be more clear than this nor does your First Proposition deny this but rather asserts it The Second This whatever God has reveal'd must be believ'd And this is pretended for an Inference but alas 't is nothing less For how does it follow that because the reason of our believing is God's Revealing therefore we are bound to believe what God has reveal'd whether we know it or no All then that can be said of it is that 't is pious Non-sense unless you add to it that we have also Certain Grounds God has indeed reveal'd it For otherwise besides the danger of erring our selves in matters of the highest moment and this unalterably too in regard we entertain that Errour as recommended by the Divine Revelation we shall moreover hazard to entitle God's Infinit veracity to a Falsehood and make Truth it self the Authour of Lies The Third that a Book containing in it such Revelations must be the Rule of our Faith is absolutely deny'd For a Book may contain in it Divine Revelations and I may not know certainly it does contain them Or I may know certainly by very good Testimony it does contain them yet not know certainly it does contain them all Or I may know it does contain them all yet perhaps not be able to know any one of those Divine Revelations in particular which are contain'd there for example if it be in a language I understand not Or tho' I do understand the language yet by reason of it's mysterious Sublimity and deep Sense and thence Obscurity and Ambiguity in many passages relating to spiritual matters and the Chief Articles of our Christian Profession I cannot be assur'd with Absolute Certainty which is the right Sense of it and therefore considering me as in the way to Faith that my Assent depends necessarily on the Truth of some Preliminary which is the object of pure Reason I might not nay cannot with any true Reason firmly assent to what I see may be an Errour nor hazard my salvation upon an Vncertain Ground and on which I know great multitudes have
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
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
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
Truth 's behalf I am engag'd with an Adversary to whom no Personal Insufficiency can be objected Nothing could make the Victory come more Clear to the Cause I am defending and the more Dr St. is rais'd above the Common Levell of Writers the more Evidently it will appear that nothing but the pure force of Truth could drive a man of his Abilities to such unparallel'd Shifts and Subterfuges to palliate that Errour the Patronage of which he had so unfortunately espous'd Nor is it to be wonder'd at that even the best Wit in the World should be baffled while it maintains such a Cause For were it some Errour of an ordinary size that he defended or were the Truth which he opposes of a trivial Importance Rhetorick and misus'd Wit might perhaps bear it down and gain a seeming Victory over it but when the sole Point is whether even what we all hold to have been the Faith taught by Christ may for ought any man living knows be perhaps none of his and so a Falshood and a Lying Story 't is not to be imagin'd that any Tricks of Human Skill can prevail against a Point of that Sacred Concern It belongs to the Wisdom of our Good God to settle those things most firmly which are of the greatest Weight and therefore the Certainty we are to have that Christ was indeed the Author of the Faith we profess being such an Incomparable Good and the Basis of all our Spiritual Building must be by far more unremovably establisht and more surely plac't above a tottering Contingency than the strongest Pillars of this Material World whence all Attempts to undermine and weaken this Certainty which as shall be seen is the Chief Endeavour of Dr St. must be proportionably Weak and Ruinous To give you a Map of his main Performances taken from his Book in short and prov'd upon him in this Reply First Whereas 't is the Principal Duty of a Controvertist especially writing about the Grounds of Faith to justify that is to prove Faith to be True the Dr is so far from doing or allowing this good Office to be done to Faith that he maintains the direct contrary Nay he will not grant so much honour to any Particular Point of Faith and our Whole Faith is made up of such Particulars as to let it enjoy even his own kind of Absolute Certainty tho' that falls short of proving any thing to be above possibility of Falshood or which is the same True but says over and over in perfectly equivalent terms that the Sense which himself or any man or Church either has of Scripture in particular Points may not be the True Sense of it that is may not be Christ's Doctrin which if it be not it may not be True And is it possible that what may not be True can at the same time be True that is Is it possible that Truth may not be its self Secondly We are writing Controversy and consequently treating of Faith precisely according to a particular consideration belonging to it which is by what way 't is with Absolute Certainty derivable from Christ. This has been repeated and Eccho'd to him over and over even to Surfeit This was the Scope and Occasion of the Conference This is exprest in my Short Discourse against his way of having Certainty of Christ's Doctrin and clearly aim'd at in Mr G's Demonstration Nay this has been told him fifteen years ago in Errour Non-plust p. 44. Where I in these plainest words thus Stated the Question It being then agreed amongst us all that what Christ and his Apostles taught is God's Word or his Will and the Means to Salvation all that is to be done by us as to matters of Faith is to know with Absolute Certainty what was the first-taught Doctrin or Christ's Sense and whatever can thus assure us of That is deservedly call'd The Rule of Faith. Yet tho' we should trumpet this into his Ears every moment he is still Deaf and never takes notice of it or regards it in his whole Reply Nay he diverts from it with all the hast he can make when our express words force him to it To do this with the greater Formality and Solemnity he Entitles his Book A Discourse concerning the Nature and Grounds of the Certainty of Faith. Which Expression is so Large that it leaves it Indifferent for him under that Head either to treat of Faith as 't is in its self viz. as 't is Divine or of Faith as 't is Controverted between us that is of our Faith as 't is Ascertainable to us to be Christ's true Doctrin And that we may see this was done by Design when he comes to determine the Sense of those Equivocal Words he pitches upon that Meaning of them which is quite beside our purpose and nothing at all to our Question viz. upon Christ's Faith as 't is Divine which is not disputed but agreed to be such and this whether the Faith comes to our knowledge by Tradition attesting it or by an Absolutely Certain Interpretation of Scripture and the sole Question is whether the Tradition of the Church or the Letter of Scripture interpreted by any Way his Principles afford us be the more Certain and more Clear Way to give us Christ's Sense or which is the same our Faith. How untoward a Procedure is it then to stand quoting our School-Divines against me whenas the Objects of Controversy and of School-Divinity are so vastly different the one treating of Faith as made known to the World at first by Divine-Revelation the other of the Way to know now what was at first Divinely reveal'd by Human Motives inducing men to the Acceptation of it of for the same Doctrin Hence also when he was to bring Arguments which should evince by his Principles that the Faith held now is the same that was reveal'd at first to avoid that impossible task he falls unseasonably to alledge God's Grace and Invisible Moral Qualifications Which tho' absolutely requisit in many regards to Faith as 't is formally Divine yet are they most improper to be alledg'd in Controversy against an Adversary for a Proof that what he holds is the first-taught Doctrine since only God himself can know whether the Alledger or any man else has those Supernatural Means or no. To put a stop once for all to this impertinent Topick and to shew how he trifles while he quotes our School-Divines I alledge First that the plain state of the Question lately given which runs through our whole Controversy has forestall'd all he can object from them unless he can shew that they stated the Question and treated of Faith under the same Consideration as we do in our Controversy which I am Certain he cannot instance in so much as any one of them And in case they do not state it after the same manner we do in our Controversy with what sense can it be pretended that I contradict Them or They Me whenas we do not
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
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
manag'd by Maxims of pure Reason 37. This Point then settled let us trace our Prevaricatour in his wandrings He tells us very gravely God is not wanting by his Grace to make necessary Points known to men of honest and sincere Minds What we demand of him is some Natural Medium or Argument within our ken concluding that what 's held by him now is Christ's Doctrin He confesses he has none for he mocks at Conclusive Evidence but pretends God's Grace will do it for him We tell him that without such Conclusive Reasons to prove our present Faith to have been taught by Christ we cannot maintain or make out that our Faith is True. And he tells us God is not wanting by his Grace to make necessary Points known to Men of honest and sincere minds And what man living has the Courage to assault an Adversary that comes Arm'd with such a Supernatural Logick Now all this were it levell'd right as 't is not is meer Petitio Principii and begging the Question for it supposes Scripture's Letter Interpretable by Private Judgments is the Rule which he was here to prove and to shew us how it preserves those who rely on it from Errour For otherwise if it be not the Rule did God ever promise his Grace to those who leave a Clear and Conclusive way to follow an Obscure and Inconclusive one Did God's Grace ever make a Conclusion follow which did not follow or make the Terms cohere which were Incoherent Or keep those from Errour who took a Way that for any thing he has prov'd to the contrary facilitated men to fall into it Certainly never was God's Grace so abus'd to a wrong end or call'd in at a dead lift like some Deus ◠machind to save his Credit for bringing never an Argument that is worth a Rush. Yet 't is pleasant to see what a clutter he keeps about the Donum Intellectûs and Lumen Fidei both which presuppose Faith and the Way to it whereas all his work was to prove the Certainty of this Later In this lamentable condition he has left his Rule recurring to Invisible Gifts the true blew Fanatick Method instead of producing open Arguments to prove it has any power to regulate men in their way to Faith. Proceeding upon this gross and wilfull shuffle he makes a fine flourish of our School-Divines who have not one single word of the way and Means by which the knowledge of Christ's Doctrin is convey'd down to us which is our present Point as his Friend Dr. T. has told him And then he concludes like a Triumphant Heroe that I am a Stranger to the Doctrin of our own Church or an obstinate Opposer of it Alas for him He obstinately opposes while he cites them the known State of the Question and is such a Stranger to School-Divinity that he cannot distinguish betwixt That and Controversy and when he is taken tardy thus miserably he thinks to salve all with Swaggering and Vapouring 38. At length he sums up his Performances with impertinent distinctions of all the things he is Certain of As 1. That he is Absolutely Certain that whatever God reveals is True. Who denies it or what 's the Certainty of God's revealing to the Certainty of his believing right unless he be absolutely Certain that the particular Points he holds were indeed reveal'd by God or to speak more pertinently to our purpose were taught by Christ and his Apostles 2. He is Absolutely Certain of his Rule and it 's containing all necessary Points And what 's he the better for Certainty of This if still he remains uncertain of all the particular Articles he is to believe by it 3. That God's Grace is requisit to Faith formally Divine which is granted but what 's this to the proving it by a Natural Medium to have come from Christ as he must do to those who are in the Way to Faith Conclusive Evidence must be produc't for this or the Proof must fall short of concluding whether we have Grace or no and so leave it Unprov'd and Uncertain 4. He says Particular Points of Faith are more or less Certain according to the Evidence of their Deduction from Scripture as the Rule of Faith. This only seems to touch the Point in hand and it touches it very gingerly Let him speak out and tell us whether he is Absolutely Certain of all particulars of his Faith nay even of a Trinity and Christ's Godhead by his Rule or whether any man living is absolutely Certain of them by his Principles If not then all Faith may be a Lying Story for any thing he or any man else can tell And that this is his true Tenet is evident by his omitting here when he comes to speak of Particular Points the words Absolutely Certain which he put to the two first parts of his Division Nor do I like his expression of more or less Certain for since any Quality is more or less such by having less or more of the Opposit Quality mixt with it it follows that this his more or less Certain must mean less or more Uncertain strange Language for a Christian to use when he is speaking of All the Particular Articles of his Faith and what Certainty is to be allow'd for them And yet he calls this the setting this Controversy about the Certainty of Faith in it's true light A pleasanter Jest than which was never spoke were not the thing in it self so pernicious SECT III. How Dr. St. Answers Our Reasons produc't against his Grounds of Certainty for his Faith. 39. HE proceeds next to answer my short Discourse demonstrating that He and those of His Principles could not be Sure they had right Faith. I presum'd he could not do it he says he has Let 's see which of us is disappointed It consists of five plain Propositions 1. God has left us some Way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught 2. 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 3. 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 Godhead of Christ. 4. 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. 5. 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 The Reader may know that this very Discourse in substance was propos'd to him many years ago by a Worthy Lady of whose sincerity I believe himself does not doubt He made a rambling Discourse of his own against it unappliable to any Proposition
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
to Heaven and consequently whether it may not be open'd and understood by all Persons in Matters that are necessary for their Salvation What a rambling what a clutter of Questions is here when he knows and it has been repeated near a hundred a times over that our only Question is whether the Letter of Scripture be intelligible by all sorts coming to Faith in those Revealed Articles which are properly Christian with such a Certainty as is fit to build Faith upon But this is one main part of his Confuting Talent to throw in twenty Questions so none of them be the right one However tho' he 'll not keep the Way he 'll triumph unless we follow him out of the Way To his Questions then I answer 1. That none but Madmen ever thought or said that the Church was to interpret it as obscure to the People in All Points For ordinary Moral passages such as the Ten Commandments are plain enough of themselves Why did he not Instance in the Trinity the Godhead of Christ and such like which and only which we say are Obscure Because that had been to speak to our purpose and he thought it safer for him to suggest other matters which were not all to purpose 2. They were intended for the General Good of the Church to direct them in their Lives and so in their Way to Heaven and to that end are freely read by all that can understand Latin and might likely have continued permitted to all even of the most vulgar capacities had not men of his Principles made them think themselves when they had got a Bible in their hands wiser than the whole Church Whence they came to wrest them to their own Destruction and therefore it being now not for the General Good of such proud Fools the Church took care they should not be promiscuously allow'd to all tho' indulg'd to many even in the Vulgar Tongue and explain'd and preach't to All by their Pastours Lastly None knows distinctly what he means by Matters necessary to Salvation He should mean such as those sublime Points so often repeated but then he must make out such passages can be understood by all Persons looking after Faith with unerring Certainty to secure their Faith from being so many Falshoods or Heresies But he was not able to do this tho' he pretended the Rule for all persons must be plain and Easy As far as I can guess by a man's words whose whole Discourse is made up of Reserves he mistakes the Rule of Manners for the Rule of Faith and thus meant 't is indeed plain and Easy but as 't is such 't is nothing to the Question in debate which is of Christian Faith so 't is nothing to our purpose I but Bellarmin says Scripture is a Rule and that a Certain and Infallible one But when it comes to the proof he speaks only of the Old Testament and this as to the Law Testimonies or Commandments which are easily intelligible as being either Levitical Ordinances or Moral Precepts I but Christ proves his Doctrin by the Scripture and confutes the Sadduces from them Well give us such an Interpreter of Scripture as Christ was and we shall not doubt but they will prove his Doctrin and confute all the Hereticks in the World. His referring the Pharisees to Scripture was ad hominem for they allow'd the Scriptures yet would not believe his Miracles Tho' sure Dr St. will not say but Christs Miracles were in their own Nature more convincing Arguments than Interpretations of Scripture made or allow'd by the Pharisees But what 's all this to our purposes I gave three senses of the word Rule in my Third Catholick Letter and shew'd him in which of those Senses it was and could only be call'd a Rule in our circumstances But I might as well have spoke to a deaf man He must either counterfeit he never heard of it or he saw he must be baffled Common Words are his constant refuge and to speak distinctly exposes him to be Nonplust His Friend Dr Tillotson maintains that a Rule of Faith is the next and immediate Means whereby the Knowledge of Christ's Doctrin is convey'd to us Does he pretend that Learned Cardinal holds Scriptures Letter to be such a Rule for all People coming to Christian Faith to know certainly its sense in these High Mysteries without the Churches Interpretation The Dr knows he abhorrs the Tenet as the source of all Heresy Yet he quotes him on to say that Nihil est notius Nihil est Certius nothing is more known nothing more Certain than the Scripture and immediately applies it against me for saying that the Sense of it as to the Understanding the Mysteries of our Faith was not easy to be got out of the Letter But where 's his Sincerity Not a syllable has Bellarmin of Scriptures being so known as to its Sense nor any thing that looks that way He speaks only of the Canon or Books being most known by the Consent of all Nations who for so many Ages acknowledg'd its highest Authority and that it is most Certain and True in its self as not containing Humane Inventions but Divine Oracles So that our Learned Dr is exceedingly brisk when he gets the Sound of any word on his side no matter whether the sense be for him or against him If he can but gull his Reader dextrously his work is done For a Transition to treat of a Rule he tells the Reader that I have spent Twenty Years hard Labour about it I have indeed Employ'd some years and much pains in writing severall Treatises to settle Christian Faith as to our knowledge of it on a Sure Basis which he and his Co-Partners are still Vndermining and I glory in the Performance In return I will not tell the Dr that Mr Lowth says he spent a longer time that is full Five and Twenty years in a worse Employment I shall only say that I have through God's Blessing in less then two Months time writ a little Treatise against his Principles called Errour Nonplust which he has been fifteen years in answering and all his Quirks will never enable him to give it even a plausible Reply in fifteen more 61. And now we are come to scan the Nature of a Rule Which being a Point to be manag'd meerly by Reason the Reader must expect that one of us must necessarily speak perfect Nonsense For however both sides may talk prettily plausibly when the bus'ness is handled in a Wordish way of Glossing Citations such knacks of Superficial knowledge where the waxen ambiguous expressions may be made pliable to the Writers Fancy yet the Natures of Things will not brook they should be Injur'd but will Revenge themselves upon him that wrongs them by exposing him to the shame of speaking perfect Contradictions I alledg'd that the word Rule speaks Rectitude and that such an Evident one as preserves those who regulate
the highest Mysteries of our Faith be necessary for Salvation But must we still be put off with that frigid Evasion that such sublime Points are as intelligible now at this distance from the time of the Apostles tho' only couch't in a few words in a Book as they were when spoke by those Living Teachers who doubtless not only deliver'd their Sense in a few set words but such Points needing it explain'd it and dilated upon it to settle it better and sink an express conceit of it deeper into the minds of their Auditors Can it be imagin'd but that many of the People and the Pastours especially put their doubts and askt them Questions concerning the Points of Faith they had Preacht and receiv'd pertinent Answers none of which a Book could do How ridiculous a pretence then is this Yet this is his best shift For unless the Book have This or an Equivalent Virtue to make Clear its Sense it cannot have the Plainness or Clearness requisit to a Rule of Faith. He contends that if those Points be necessary to Salvation they must be so Plain that we may be Certain of our Duty to believe them Which retorts his Discourse upon himself for if those two sublime Articles there spoken of be Necessary for the Salvation of the Generality which cannot be deny'd without accusing the Primitive Church of Tyranny for casting those out of the Church who deny'd them then they must be Certain one way or other that 't is their Duty to believe them and since he does not think fit to say this Duty can be Certainly shewn them by the Letter of Scripture it follows that this Duty to believe them must be made Certain by the Testimony of the Church delivering them 'T is easy to be seen the whole force of his Discourse here is built on his begging the Question that Scriptures Letter as understood by Private Judgments is the Rule of Faith and that it is plain in all Necessary Points Which he ought not to do without shewing us first which Points are Necessary at least those of the Trinity and Godhead of Christ if he think them so and then proving his Rule is Plain in all such Points and not still to suppose presume upon and occurr to that which is yet under Dispute Vngranted and Unprov'd Let me then mind him of one piece of Logick which tho' it be not Admirable yet 't is Solid and never regarded by him 'T is this that no Argument has any force upon another but either by its being so Evident that he must forfeit his Reason to deny it or Granted by his Adversary so that he must either Argue from something Clear of it self or made Clear by Proof or else argue Ex concessis from the Party 's own Concession By which Rule if all the Reasons he brings here were examin'd it will manifestly appear he has not spoken one word of True Reason against me in his whole Answer I do here Challenge him to shew me so much as any One Argument of his that has either of these Qualifications and to encourage him to such a performance if he can shew me any One such I promise him to pass all the rest for valid and good I end with desiring the considering Reader to reflect on the Drs Discourse here p 82. and upon an exact review of it to determine whether Principles are not deeply laid here to make the Socinians and many other known Hereticks Members of his Church and to free them from Church Censurers For if they find not in Scripture that the Apostles Preacht the Trinity and Godhead of Christ in clear and Express terms and with this Connotate as necessary to Salvation they cannot be Certain of their Duty to believe them the Consequences of which I need not dilate on His own Church is more concern'd to look to his Tenets than I am 63. He triumphs much that I grant Some may be sav'd without the Knowledge of all Christ Taught He means those Spiritual Points so often mention'd But if he knew how little advantage he gains by it he would not think it worth his taking notice of What may be done in an abstracted case is one thing what if they live in a Church and hold Heresies contrary to Christ's and the Church's Doctrin is Another Some Catholick Divines treating of Faith do mantain that to hold There is a God and that He is a Rewarder and Punisher is Simply enough for Salvation if they live up to those Tenets whence they conceive hopes that Nebuchadnezzar was sav'd tho' he was no Iew. But what 's this to our case Christ has left us a Body of Doctrin and since he did nothing Unnecessary for the Salvation of Mankind this being the End of his Coming and Preaching each Point conduced to that End either immediately or by Consequence whence by the way 't is a Folly to expect the Apostles Taught such Points as necessary to Salvation others as not necessary since no Point was Vnnecessary for the Salvation of Mankind except when they said for Distinction Dico ego non Christus or us'd some Equivalent expression But to return God has also settled a Church to conserve that Doctrin of Christ Intire Whence if any falls into Heresies contrary to that Doctrin by Misunderstanding Scripture's Letter in such passages 't is her Duty to cast them out of the Church and deliver them over to Satan for their contumacious Pride in preferring their own Private Judgments before the Judgment of their Pastours and the Church whom God appointed to Teach Them. Whence I do assure him I do not hold that any one such Privative Unbeliever will ever be sav'd tho' he holds some Points which of their own Nature might suffice for Salvation For such a man believes nothing at all but upon his own Self conceit and the very Ground of his Faith let him prate of Scripture as much as he will is Spiritual Pride which Vice alone is enough to damn him even tho' he held all those Points of Christ's Faith to a Tittle Hence follows that either the Primitive Church as hinted above was very uncharitable in Excommunicating those who dissented from those High Articles Or else the Rule of Faith must be so Plain and Clear that it must preserve those from Heresy who follow it and render them Inexcusable who by deserting it do fall into the opposit Heresies And therefore that we may bring our Discourse back to the Question he must either prove his Rule of Faith thus Qualify'd or 'T is no Rule What follows to p. 85. is meer Drollery which gives all the seeming Strength to his Weak reasoning Only he has a fling at Transubstantiation which is a Topick of course in his Controversy He thinks 't is Unnecessary to the Church but the Church it seems thought it necessary to define it in her Circumstances and I humbly conceive the necessary occasion of defining it was because such as He
Ages As if this had not been prov'd already and never yet answer'd but by Shuffles and Evasions 7. He frames a Plea for the Arians against the Nicene Councill from my Principles but very untowardly for the Arians allow'd the Copies and quoted Scripture as fast as Catholicks did and yet Err'd most abominably which makes against himself Lastly he tells us that 't is a pernicious Principle a miserable Account c. At which I wonder not For every thing is miserable and pernicious with him that makes the Church good for any thing Yet he could grant the Churches Testimony was needfull at first to abett the Truth of the Gospells and she enjoy'd that Priviledge in St. Austins time and I wonder how she came to lose her Title to God's Gracious Providence and Assistance or how she came to be disabled in the following ages to preserve the Letter uncorrupted in those Texts that contain'd known Points of Faith. It seems Translaters and Transcribers for the most part Mercenary are Sacred with him and admirable Preservers of the Letter but alas the Miserable Church is good for nothing I have already told him why I hold Scriptures Letter no Rule how 't is sometimes call'd a Rule in an improper Sense and why that Sense is improper and his Friend Dr. Tillotson has told him what a Rule of Faith means in our Controversies but he never heeds either but runs on here with frivolous descants upon an ambiguous word and will needs take Rule in a Sense never meant nor possible to be meant in our circumstances He 's not satisfy'd with the Care of the Council of Trent in correcting the Copy But let him remember I spoke there of Texts of Inferiour Concern not of those that concern'd Faith. And why is he not satisfy'd Did she not do her best in the present Circumstances How will he prove it Because Clemens the 8 th recall'd and corrected the Bibles put out by Sixtus the 5 th for an exact Edition But if both did their best according to the Observations were made in their time and the Light they had then neither of them were to blame But all this Humane Diligence amounts not to Absolute Certainty as I. S. requires of us And is it not more reason I should require it of him than he of me since he makes it Scriptures Letter the Proper Rule of Faith which he knows I do not and yet which is pleasant he calls upon me aloud to declare as much and then he knows how to answer And now I know the true Reason why he has answer'd nothing hitherto viz. because I had not declar'd what I had own'd in all my Books near a thousand times over But we have lost our point by answering a multitude of Impertinent Cavills 'T is this The Sense of Scripture cannot be Absolutely Certain unless there be Absolute Certainty the Letter is right Nor can there be Absolute Certainty the Letter is right even in Texts relating to Faith by his Principles which deny this was perform'd by the Churches Knowledge of the Points of Faith but by making out with Absolute Certainty how the Letter was by some other Means secur'd from being wrong This he never attempts even in this very occasion when it lay upon him to do it and therefore for all his empty flourishes he has said just nothing Nor has shewn or defended that even the Ground of his Faith Scriptures Letter is Absolutely Certain Besides his Discourse still beats upon this mistake that We do not hold the Letter Absolutely Certain in such concerning Texts whereas we only say He cannot prove it to be such by his Principles and he makes our words good with not performing it or so much as attempting it Only he tells us for our comfort that as to Books Copies and Translations he has as high a Certainty as the thing is capable of and then 't is Madness to expect and require more So that tho' it happen that the Certainty be but a very sleight one his kind of Faithfull and Converts may take their choice whether they will be Fools if they will believe it or Madmen if they will not He tells us indeed faintly the Faith previous to Divine Faith may have Absolute Certainty but if it only may have it it may not have it In the mean time what is all this voluntary Saying to his Proving that he has really and indeed Absolute Certainty of those Books Copies and Translations 'T is his Proofs we lookt for and not bare Narrations of his own weak Tenets with which he thus puts us off continually 66. But how strangely Insincere if any such carriage could after so frequent use of it be strange in him is the Dr to pretend we hold it is in any Churches Power to correct Original Texts because they contradict the Sense of the present Church These words he puts into Italick Letter as if they were mine but he cites no place and I do assure the Reader I have neither such Words nor Sense The first Originals are not extant so cannot be corrected those call'd Originals which are already acknowledg'd ought as little to be corrected as the other in Texts belonging to Faith. All the Power we give the Church is to correct succeeding Copies upon occasion in Texts relating to the Articles of our Faith when they deviate from the Faith of the Church or which is the same from former Copies allow'd by her universally 67. I desir'd the Dr to satisfy us concerning the Number of Books requisit to a Rule of Faith and how many will just serve the turn as also whether some Book for any thing his Principles can assure us were not lost This lay upon him to prove and this with Absolute Certainty if he would have Scripture an Intire Rule of his Faith How proves he it Why he makes me mightily concern'd to lessen the Authority of the New Testament and that I charge the Christian Church with a Gross Neglect For all this Noise he knows well enough that I agree with him that 't is not in the least probable the Churches should suffer any such Book disperst among them to be last nor do I so much as suppose they did What I say is that he who holds all Humane Authority Fallible can never prove it True they deliver'd down All unless he can convince the World that a Fallible Medium can prove a thing True which he cannot do without proving that What may be False is True. Nor can he do This without proving the same thing may be and not be at once I wish then he would set himself to work and prove this abominable First Principle to be False For otherwise This alone will confute all the substantial parts of his Book and convince every man of Common Sense that his Grounds confest by himself to be Fallible can never make out that 't is True that he has either Right
for New Questions to avoid the danger in keeping to the True one For he knew the Infallibility of the Church we are here defending is that of Tradition in delivering down the Doctrin of Christ and he does not sure judge it a Point of Christ's Doctrin that the Epistle to the Hebrews was writ by S. Paul. Add that when the Church of Rome did Decree any thing at all in that matter it was for the Reception of that Epistle in doing which he will not I hope say she Err'd So that our great Dr is out in every particular in which he shows such Confidence or rather he is to talk very Confidently whenever he is out that he may not seem not to be out 69. He puts my Objection against his Universall Consent of the Testimonies of Marcion Ebion Valentinus and Cerinthus who as he makes me say rejected the Canon of the New Testament and then asks Could any man but J. S. make such an Objection as this And I may I hope ask another Question Could any Man but Dr St. put such a Gull upon his Adversary and the Reader too Now if I us'd such words as who rejected the Canon of the New Testament I spoke Nonsense for those Hereticks were dead long before that Canon was settled But if I did not then he has abus'd me and our Readers too and done no great right to himself Let Eye-sight decide it In my Third Catholick Letter p. 59. the place he cites line 11.12 my express words are The Consent of all your Christian Churches for Scripture and he instead of Scripture puts down as my words The Canon of the New Testament I can compassionate Humane Oversight for it may hap possibly tho' it can never knowingly to be my own Case and not too severely impute a mistake in altering my Words and by them my Sense Yet I must needs say that to put those wrong words in the Italick Letter to breed a more perfect Conceit they were mine and quote the very page in the Margent where no such words were found to make me speak Nonsense looks a little Scurvily especially because when men have their Eyes upon the very Page as he had they have an easy and obvious direction to the words too But why do I make such a Spitefull Reflexion on him as to call them His Christian Churches Because he would needs allow other Sects as perfectly Hereticall as they were to be Christian Churches tho' he was put upon it to give them a distinct Character and here again he grants them to be parts of the Christian Church tho' they be cut off by Lawfull Authority from the body of Christianity Next that I may speak my conscience because I fear by many passages in his Books by his ill-laid Principles and the very grain of his Doctrin and discourses he judges all to be good Christians who profess to ground their Faith on Scripture let them hold as many Heresies as they will. And lastly for his fierce anger here against me for calling those Hereticks viz. The Arians Nestorians c. which have been Condemn'd by Generall Councils for I concern not my self with his Greeks or Abyssins or any others Excrementitious Outcasts and that I sling such dirt in the face of so many Christian Churches And is not this to cry Hail fellow well met But my Cause he says is desperate because I call such men Knights of the Post. Yet he knows the Fathers oft complain of Hereticks for corrupting the Scripture and the Testimony of the Churches Truly Christian was Absolutely Certain without calling in so needlessly Blasted Witnesses Moreover I told him that the Universall Testimony he produc't did attest the Books but it must attest the Chapter and Uerse too to be Right nay each Significant Word in the Verse otherwise the Scripture could not assure him Absolutely of his Faith. Can he deny this If the Chapter or Verse he cites be not True Scripture or if any materiall Word in the Verse be alter'd can he securely build his Faith on it What says he to this Does he deny it or show that His Grounds reach home to prove these particular Texts or Words to be right by Universall Testimony or any other Medium Neither of them is his Concern What does he then Why he complains how hardly we are satisfy'd about the Certainty of Scripture and that we are Incurable Scepticks Sure he dreams We are Satisfy'd well enough but his Vexation is that we are not satisfy'd of it by his Principles and how should we if when it was his Cue to satisfy us he will never be brought to go seriously about it And why must we be Scepticks when as we both hold the Rectitude of the Letter our selves in Texts relating to Faith and Assign a way to secure it Absolutely which he cannot Must all Men necessarily be Scepticks who allow not his No-way of doing this tho' they propose and Maintain a certain way that can do it This is a strange way of Confuting He says There are different Copies in all Parts to examin and Compare 'T is these very Copies that are in Question whether they give Absolute Certainty of every Verse or materiall Word in the Letter of Scripture and we expected he should have shown how they did so and not barely name them and say there are such things But the main Point is Must those who are looking for Faith run to all parts of the World and examin and Compare all the Copies e're they embrace any Faith This looks like a Jest Yet 't is a sad tho' a mad Truth by his Principles For without knowing this Scripture cannot be their Rule and hee 'll allow no way to come to Faith but by Scripture So that for any Assurance he can give them even of his Necessary Points they must e'n be content to stay at home and live and dye without any Faith at all He ends And Thus I have answer'd all the Objections I have Met with in J. S. against our Rule of Faith. Here are two Emphaticall words Thus and Met of which the word Thus has such a pregnant Signification and teems with so many indirect wiles and Stratagems that it would be an ingratefull task to recount them and the word Met is as Significant as the other For how should he Meet those that lay in the way while he perpetually runs out of the Way SECT IV. How solidly Dr. St. Answers our Arguments for the Infallibility of Tradition 70. BUt now he exerts his Reasoning Faculty which he does seldom will answer Mr G's Argument for the Infallibility of Oral and Practical Tradition With what success we shall see anon But first he will clear his bad Logick for letting the Argument stand yet in its full force and falling very manfully to Combat the Conclusion and tho' Common Sense tells every man this is not to Answer but to Argue yet he will have Arguing to
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
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
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
into play again e're long However I only said they seem'd to grant c. For the Tenet of Faiths Vncertainty if I may speak what I think is hearty in them it 's Absolute Certainty is but seeming and surely 't is lawful to say he seems to hold it who in print avows it whether he do indeed hold it or no. 10. From hence you pass to a company of Traditionary Gentlemen with whom if you have business I have none and think yours cannot be very great since you take this time to dispatch it You may dispatch with me if you please first and say what you will to them afterwards Dr. Tillotson you say in his Rule of Faith p. 120. c. said great matters of them and if I find them wrong'd I have the liberty to vindicate them I know you would invent twenty impertinent Tasks for me so I would but forget the point in hand and excuse you from proving But how careless are you of what you say One of those Authors was occasionally vindicated in the Letter of Thanks and the notorious Abuse of him made good against that Dr's Excuse in Reason against Railery p. 227. to p. 234. And were it seasonable perhaps we should find the others abus'd too or wilfully misunderstood But What is this to our present business At last you conclude with a seasonable Warning as you call it That if any Protestant shall begin to plead Infallibility by Vertue of Tradition it will behove Catholicks in time to seek cut a new one Why so I beseech you This is as much as to say that as soon as Protestants take a fancy to any thing that belongs to Catholicks it is their own and Catholicks must presently yield it up Your reason is because When both Parties pretend alike to Infallibility and Tradition neither of these can be any longer a fit Medium to prove which is in the Right What will be when both pretend alike we shall see when the Time comes But Why must they or how can they pretend alike Can Tradition infallibly deliver contrary things Why should Tradition be a Medium less fit to determine between Catholick and Protestant which of them has right to Infallibility when both pretend to it by Tradition than a Deed to determine between Peter and Paul which has right to the Estate which both claim by the same Deed Do their contrary Pretences hinder it from being seen whether the Deed be for Peter or Paul or Tradition for Catholicks or Protestants Or do you think a Protestant to get Tradition on his side has no more to do but to pretend to it At this rate Scripture cannot be a fit Medium for you because all Hereticks pretend to it and alike too But it seems that with you when two pretend One with Right the Other without it they both pretend alike or with equal Title Of which it was indeed seasonable to warn us for neither we nor any man well in his wits would have hit on it of our selves Thus much in return to your present Excursion But what 's become of your Proof all this while Instead of bringing that you tell me I fall upon Protestant Certainty of which there was not the least shew that I speak against my self that Dr. Tillotson is an Excellent man that he did not confess c. Out of which rambling Talk we are to conclude That your Protestant Proof needs not appear but to make us amends for this constant Neglect you will needs give us a seasonable Warning and that 's worth all the Proof in the World. 11. Yet we shall have this Proof I hope in the next Paragraph For you give me notice then When your Certainty Absolute Certainty I pray you again for Dr. Stillingfleet's sake is once prov'd no more is needful to confute our Infallibility and that you are not afraid to undertake making it good even All that I here call upon you to prove And you do not raise our Expectations sure only to defeat them Yet it bodes ill that you would have the word Absolutely left out a while A motion which would make a jealous man suspect you had a design to palm a Certainty upon us which will prove no-Certainty But you are Absolute Master of your own Proofs and may put in and put out what you please I for my part cannot consent to leave that word out because it is not fair to alter a word of Dr. St's nor possible tho' it were fair For you and I cannot make him not have said what he has said and tho' we should agree to suppress that Word amongst our selves it will still be found in his Two Letters do what we can But now we are thus far onward 't is pity to break for a single Word and to give you your due you begin to deal here very fair with us We manifest say you Very well Now the Business is on the Hinges again and here is not only Proof but Manifest Proof coming But what is it which you manifest Why the Certainty you have of Scripture and that after the same manner as we do our Rule or Scripture I know not which you mean. But I see you need a good Memory too as well as your Neighbours For you do not remember that Absolute Certainty of Scripture is not the Point to be prov'd tho' I told you so in the very page you cite I wav'd that point not to be more severe than needs and put Protestants upon a Task which I told them withal They would find a hard one but from which while we both agree that Scripture is Certain I was willing to excuse them Again You forget that just before you wonder'd at me for saying You seem to grant you are thus Absolutely Certain or Infallible by vertue of Tradition and now you say you manifest your Certainty in the same manner as we do and sure you do not forget that Our manner of manifesting is by Tradition But to lose no more time about that which is not the point pray How do you prove that which is 12. Why you think you do sufficiently prove the Certainty of every Article of your Faith when you shew it to be solidly grounded on God's Word and this being shewn wonderful things will follow In the mean time you speak Oracle and have all the reason in the world to think that you prove sufficiently when you solidly shew Neither did you need to mince it with sufficiently for 't is very Absolutely Certain you do prove when you solidly shew or prove and this you might have said with less Ceremony if you had been pleas'd For we can see well enough that when there is Proof there is Proof tho' our Expectation had not been screw'd up with your professions of Courage to undertake or Shews to perform This is just to invite your Company say Grace to them tell them you think you treat them sufficiently when you
Rule and he cannot chuse but come to London who goes on the Right Way thither If either could miss provided they draw by the Rule and travel on in the Road the Rule of the One is not straight nor the Way of the other Right And so I make account that the Way to know the Faith of Christ is not a Right Way if those who take it can fail to know their Faith and therefore not the Way left by God. You barely say we may know with which it consists we may not know and so you make us a Way in which they who travel may be always out of the Way which is well enough for a Way of your making but it is certainly no Way of God's making for it is plainly no Way But leaving this little tryal of your skill that which you say to my Proposition unfalsifyed if you say any thing is that 't is indeed a little too visibly but yet true and so we may go on 18. You Preface to the Third Proposition with asking who I dispute against and why if I would be thought to dispute against you I do not use such and such Terms Two very pleasant Questions Your own and my Title Page tell as many as see them that I am disputing against D. of Paul's and yet you stand enquiring after the secret again to ask why I do not use Terms to your mind is to ask why the Defendant does not go to the Plaintiff to draw his Answer You shall excuse me from being beholding to you if you please till you have a better knack at making Arguments for your self you shall make none for me by my consent But where lyes the Quarrel You do not sure expect I should write to your liking and if you think I speak not against you and your party you need not trouble your self with what I say What does not touch you cannot hurt you so you may say concedo totum and rest secure by being unconcern'd Yet you speak at last and not till then to purpose when you bear the Reader in hand I pack the Cards and you will play fair 't is that must carry the Cause or nothing To get the Readers Affection on his side much imports him who has nothing but such little Rhetorical tricks to trust to 19. But as if I had not the gift of Prophesy to foresee with what a kind of Man I should have to do I happen'd to propose first what I intended to prove before I went about to prove it which I thought was the clearest way You at a venture take what comes first and tho' you saw it was my Conclusion which I inferr'd from the following Proposition will needs speak to it before you speak to the Premises This has so blunder'd all things that the Reader will not easily perceive what we are doing I shall thefore as you should have done mind only the Proof here and reserve the Inference till we come to the place where I made it I put then to be prov'd that Scripture's Letter interpretable by private Iudgements is not that Way viz. the Way left by God and for my proof that we experience Presbyterians and Socinians for example both take that Way of private Interpretation viz. and yet differ in such high Fundamentals as the Trinity and Godhead of Christ. 20. You before you answer would have it thought you might ridicule me in my own Language Never spare me good Sir nor balk your mirth for me if I give a just Occasion But where lies the Jest Why I quarrell'd with Dr. St. for bringing an instance and now bring one my self If this be all I shall be tempted to be merry in my turn I told Dr. St. he might undoubtedly have produc't his Instance if he had been arguing but minded him that his turn was then to Answer and that his Instance was not an Answer but a new Argument And yet this is not plain enough for you to see that I faulted not the Instance but the unseasonable Argument as I should any other in such circumstances and you would have it ridiculous in me who am arguing to do what I only excepted against because he was not arguing and freely acknowledg'd he might do if he had been to argue Sure you were in a pleasant humour when you thought of turning me into ridicule because your self understood not where the stress lay tho' it were never so plainly told you But to let this pass as you say with your causelesly gleeking Reflections upon Scripture and Tradition what say you to the Proof I bring 21. Why the force of my Argument say you is this If any men can be found who wrest or misinterpret Scripture then can it not be the Way to know what Christ and his Apostles taught One thing after another if it please you Talk of the force of my Argument as much as you will but e're you leave the Proposition before you of the Presbyterians and Socinians 't is but fair to grant or deny it I must intreat you too to leave translating my Arguments They are New yet and need no mending when they do I will be better satisfied of your Skill in the Trade before I become your Customer By your next words rallying against the Validity of the Consequence I guess you grant the Antecedent and so that care being over we have nothing but the Consequence to mind The Dispute would fall in more properly under the next Proposition which infers the Consequent but now I am here I will hear what you say before I pass farther You say then That indeed this Argument proves nothing but that I have no good opinion of the Scripture Will this venomous Cant never be left I think the Scripture too good and too sacred to be abus'd by wrong Interpretations and labour to preserve it from them You labour to keep it expos'd to that Abuse Pray which of us two have a better Opinion and more Reverence for the Scripture You proceed Must a Rule be no good Rule because some who use it misunderstand it and abuse it What may you mean by this I take my Ruler and draw a Line by it Does the Straightness or Crookedness of this Line depend upon my Vnderstanding What is 't then you call Misunderstanding a Rule If you make the Letter of Scripture the Rule and so private Interpreting the Vsing it or drawing the Line and the Sense the Line drawn unriddle to us if you can how the Sense drawn from the Letter can any more fail to be True than the Line drawn by the Rule to be straight and which way that Sense can be misunderstood and how the Rule can be a good Rule if it be us'd and the Sense to which it is a Rule be misunderstood Or do you mean perhaps that 't is with the Scripture as with a Grammar-Rule where he who understands not what 't is for a Nominative Case and a Verb to agree
Iudgments and ask if the Letter be a Way to Them and you reply it is not a way to the Incompetent And so you who good squeamish Gentleman fall into a Scruple at the very name of Cards can play at Cross-purposes all along very freely even when Souls are at Stake I desire you to remember that I speak of a Way which they who take shall and that surely arrive at Christ's Faith. You talk of a way by which men so and so qualify'd may arrive at it As if may be were any thing to shall and must be or the qualifications of Travellers any thing to the way I foretold I should have nothing but an unconcerning Return for an Answer And you have made me tho' against my will prophesie not bating so much of my Prediction as the scornful Iest. For there is the Mountain and the Mouse and Reading a Lecture in Logick to verifie it 30. You conclude with an Argument against my Conclusion You I say who are Answering and have nothing to do with Arguing But what would we have Men who are uneasie will alwaies be shifting places All our earnest Sollicitations could not wring one Argument out of you when it was your turn to prove and now 't is your turn to Answer you thrust your Arguments upon us unbidden Nor is there any keeping you from falling into the same Fault with your Suppositions that Dr. St. did with his Instance You suppose then 1. That the Scripture is God's Word And so do I too provided you mean the true Sense of it For a false Sense whatever you think is in my Judgment not God's Word 2. That it was written to be understood Undoubtedly but not by every one barely by means of the Letter All Books are written to be understood Grammar for Children to understand Construction Mathematical Books for those who will understand Mathematicks and yet those Books without Masters will make but few Grammarians or Mathematicians 3. That it is written for the Instruction of Private Men. Yes but not for the only or sufficient means of their Instruction barely by the Letter 4. That they are concern'd to understand it Yes again and as much concern'd not to misunderstand it 5. That they may believe and live as it directs They not onely may but ought But pray remember that It directs no believing or living according to a false sense 6. That they have means left them of God for the Vnderstanding of it so far as it is of necessary concernment to them Yes and that Absolutely Certain Means the publick Interpretation of the Church or Tradition 7. And that using those Means as they ought they may understand it Never mince it with may they shall and certainly shall understand it who use those means From all you conclude at last And thus it is to them the way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught as necessary to their salvation How The way to those who use those Means Why this is just as I say But what becomes of those who use not those Means 'T was ill forgot when your Hand was in at supposing not to suppose in amongst the rest that Private Interpretation is the Means lest by God for understanding Scripture For if publick Interpretation be those Means as it needs must since I have prov'd that Private is not the Scripture plainly is no Way to those who only rely on the Private Means to understand it And your Protestants are much beholding to your Argument which shews that Scripture interpreted as they interpret it by private Iudgment is no Way to them And I were very unreasonable if I should take offence at your Challenge which bids me shew when I can that your suppositions are Vnreasonable or False Not I believe me For I should be very cross-natur'd to fall out with a man who takes my part 31. Thus you have try'd as you call it to answer my Argument and have succeeded even in your own Judgment I guess very sorrily For had you been Confident of your performance against it as it is you would never have thought of changing it as you do here p. 17. Men who have put by a Thrust are not sollicitous to instruct their Adversary how he should have Thrust And yet you will needs be teaching me how I should have done to have made sure work that is to have been sure to hit your Buckler I mean not to lose time on your Argument It were ridiculous for me to amuse my self with what never was nor will be said by any but your self No body else would have left out the principal Consideration using the Rule and so coming to Right Faith by using it As if a Rule would make a Line of it self tho' no body draw by it And a Way bring to the Journeys End even those who travel not in it In a word your Argument has all the faults of your Answer in short and onely shews you can speak from the purpose more solemnly and methodically by way of Syllogism 32. After you had thus nobly acquitted your self in answering my short Discourse you proceed in the same Method to answer Mr. G's Argument for the Infallibility of the Catholick Church Which e're I come to examin I must first say something to your Preliminaries 33. You doubt whether I think it needs any Proof that the Church of Rome is Infallible To those who reflect on the force of a vast Human Testimony attesting notorious matter of Fact and what Assent it claims from Human Nature in parallel occasions I do indeed judge it does not so much need Proof as Reflection But why should I think it needs no Proof against You who we see plainly have interpreted your selves out of your Natural Sentiments Your reason Sir because I say 'T is in vain to talk against one Infallibility without setting up another Now it has been demonstrated to you and never yet answered That Infallibility and Certainty are the same and Nature tells us that All Discourse supposes something Certain otherwise it may run on endlesly and so nothing can ever come to be concluded How is it possible then to discourse against Infallibility or any thing else without setting up and proceeding upon something that is Certain or Infallibly true By your constant jesting whenever Infallibility comes in the way you discover your anger against it because you know you can produce nothing that is truly Certain to ground your Faith. Notwithstanding the vulgar use to say commonly I am infallibly Certain of such a thing yet none laughs at them or thinks them extravagant And must we be afraid to use the same Language in our Controversie because your Ears are so tender or rather your Grounds so soft they cannot bear it If you will needs declare against Infallible Certainty be but so candid as to say still you are Fallibly Certain and see how your Readers will smile at your Folly And yet you ought
never err in Faith. Whence follows the Third And therefore they are Infallible Your Answer Sir to this Can they adhere still to what was deliver'd and yet err in Faith if what was still deliver'd was Christ's Doctrin Your Answer is His Friend tells us this is palpably self-evident And does not his Adversary confess it too Do not your self acknowledge it in your 21 st and 22 d. Pages and say you must lay by your Reason turn Romanist and renounce your Private Iudgment if you did not grant it And can the Reader so well acquainted with your shuffles judge it less than palpably self-evident which your humour so restiff to grant any thing tho' never so clearly prov'd is forc't to yield to Lastly does his Friend only tell you 't is self-evident Does not he prove it to be as Evident as 't is that the same is the same with it self And is not such a thing Evident by its own light or out of the very Terms that is self-evident Pray Sir when I prove any thing let the Reader know I did so and do not thus constantly pretend still that I only said so or told you so A pretty Stratagem to avoid speaking to my Proofs but how honest let the Reader judge 38. But say you unless this Tradition be longer than it is yet prov'd to be they may follow it and err all along in following it No doubt of it if it fall short of reaching up to Christs we may follow it and Err by following it as all Hereticks do in following their novel Traditions That yet is a very pretty Word for it puts the Reader into a conceit that we have produc't nothing from the beginning of the World to the very time of your Writing to prove our Tradition reaches to our Saviours dayes and yet if we challenge you that we have prov'd it in the very next words of our Argument you can make your escape by saying that you are not yet come to speak to that point and that you meant no more Who would think there should be such Vertue in a petty Monosyllable as at once to disgrace us and save you harmless The second Answer to this Point is Let it the Tradition spoken of be never so long yet if they follow it not they may err Very good The Arguers Words are If they follow this Rule they cannot err in Faith which implies that if they do not they may err and you say the self-same over again with an ayr of Opposition and there 's an Answer for us now As if to conform to your Adversaries Words were to confute him any thing will serve rather than say nothing 39. The fourth Proposition brought to prove that this Tradition we lay Claim to does indeed reach to Christ and his Apostles 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 here lies the main Stress of the Controversy between us for you have granted here Page 21.22 that were this Rule follow'd they must still enjoy the same Faith Christ and his Apostles taught and this Discourse is brought to shew they did follow it We are to expect then that your choicest Engines must be set on work to baffle a Proof which if it holds brings such dangerous consequences after it and indeed concludes the whole Controversy Your first Attempt is in plain terms most Evident a most Unconscionable Falsification After you had P. 21. recited this fourth Proposition you immediately add Our Author undertakes to make this out more clearly therefore we will hear what he saith for our better Information P. 18. He asks did Christ teach any Errours and so you go on reciting that whole Argument which proves that if the first Fathers believ'd what Christ taught and the succeeding Sons all along believ'd what their Fathers did the last-born Son in the World believ'd the same that Christ taught Pray Sir play fair above-board You have directly falsify'd that whole Discourse by pretending here that the words you cite were to make out that Fourth Proposition clearly viz. That we could not innovate in Faith c. whereas the truth of that Fourth Proposition was made out by me nine pages before viz. p. 9. and the Discourse you mention here as intended to make it out is found p. 18 19. and levell'd at a quite different business viz. that a Church could not adhere to Tradition and at the same time erre as you pretended we must grant of the Greek Church Clear your Credit when you can I charge it upon you as a voluntary Insincerity but you shall never clear it unless by putting out your Reader 's eyes or perswading him not to use them So that it seems let us bring what Arguments we will you need do no more when they are too hard to answer but apply them to a wrong Point they were never mean't to prove and then 't is easy to shew manifestly they are frivolous and good for nothing In the mean time who sees not that your Cause as well as your Credit is run a ground and like to split when you are put to such shifts I wonder how this gross Fault could escape Dr. St's acute sight if he perus'd and review'd your Reflexions 40. Your Second Answer or rather Cavill is that you could make as fine sport with the word Notwithstanding as I did but that it seems it spoils your Gravity Yet you can dispence with that Formal humour very easily as oft as a hard Point presses you especially when you are put to Proving nor are we now to learn that you can laugh at a feather when you have nothing of more weight to say But where lies the Jest I never excepted against the Word but the misapplying it by Dr. St. Who when he was at a loss to give an Answer to Mr. G's Demonstration very learnedly and advisedly thought it best to deny the Conclusion Object an Argument of his own against it and then bid the Opponent prove his Thesis which he had prov'd already notwithstanding his Argument When you find me thus untowardly making use of That or any other Word you are at liberty to except against me In the mean time put this in the number of your Reflections that when a man pretends to make sport when there is no occasion he but discovers his own Folly. But the Point is Can you make good his Logick in this irregular Proceeding This is what we expected from a writer that undertakes to defend him But the Task is so insuperable that neither your wonderful Learning nor Dr. St. himself nor all the World to help him can ever be able to do it unless he can make the Schools renounce all Rules of Art and Mankind their Reason But what were my words that were so mirthful Why I deny'd that a Body of men could adhere to Tradition and notwithstanding erre Is here any occasion of
fine sport Or cannot I use a plain word in the Context of my Discourse falling in naturally because he had misus'd it unskillfully and inartificially I see by this sliding over it so gentilely this is all the Answer I am to expect to my 10 11 12 13 33 d. and 34 th pages where such Errours against all Methods of Dispute are charg'd upon the Dr. as would banckrupt any mans Credit who had not a large stock of it laid in beforehand And all the favour his best Friends can do him to excuse his Person is to refund it upon his Cause 41. But tho' it was granted that Discourse of mine cited by you pag. 21. was so evident that it was both Vnreasonable and absurd to deny it yet it must not scape without some animadversion A Fault there must be in it that 's decree'd and what should that Fault be but that good one of being too Evident And this as was shewn formerly is one of the new tricks taken up to evade Answering When our Arguments are too clear to be baffled by any even plausible Reason being next to self-evident or easily reducible to it to save us the labour you reduce it thither your self but first vilely deform'd that it may become a fit Subject for your Jesting way of Confuting We will grant him say you it is impossible to prove that men have err'd notwithstanding they never err'd Very excellent But do you not grant much more viz. that It is impossible they should adhere to our Rule and yet erre You do and in doing so you grant the whole substance of my Discourse And so let them laugh that win I am sure you have lost by this forc't Confession that Tradiction is a certain Rule and that I have prov'd it evidently Which no man will grant of your Rule that is in his wits nor can the wit of all the men in the World ever prove it to be such as you have yielded ours to be 42. The same disingenuity often repeated gives all the force to your next Sect. For 1. You pretend we but suppose it hitherto that these Traditionary Christians adhere undecliningly to a Tradition descending really and invariably from Christ and his Apostles c. How only suppos'd hitherto Was it not prov'd and not barely suppos'd in the Fourth Proposition and made good by me p. 9. If you will not come up to it but stand hovering fencing jesting falsifying and capering about by the way must we be blam'd as barely supposing it hitherto 2. You falsify our words For who ever said a Supposition is Self-evident which every one sees while 't is barely a Supposition is not Evident at all Why quote you not the page where we say this Because you would not be caught 3. You falsify again without care of credit or regard to your Reader in affirming that from this self-evident Supposition I necessarily conclude thus suppose Traditionary Christians neither did nor could erre it is certain they neither did nor could erre But why again no place quoted Because you had again falsify'd it and durst not hazard discovery 43. I perceive your play here p. 22. is to disjoint our Discourse and jumble all the pieces of it confusedly together and so it must be my Work to rectify what you had so industriously unravell'd Since then Mr. G. had made use of these words Traditionary Christians their Sense was first to be explain'd and therefore I declar'd that the meaning of them was such Christians as proceeded upon an Immediate Delivery not only at present or since the Council of Trent or some hundreds of years before as you put upon us p. 20. but upwards till Christ's time and all the advantage I gain'd thence was that in case they did not adhere to it all along it would follow that the pretended Traditionary Christians our selves were not really such and so the Subject of our Dispute would be lost and we should receive a perfect foil Could any thing be clearer or more candid Yet how many shuffles and baffling Jests you have been pleas'd to bestow on us instead of admitting so clear a Proposition to how many wrong ends you have apply'd it never thought on by us we have already seen For the Truth is you are so horribly afraid of any connected Discourse that you dare not so much as suffer it to peep out but it alarums your Jealousie no not the very signification of the single words to be distinctly known or the most Evident Proposition tho' it be Indifferent to either Cause to be admitted Now let 's see what you say to it you make it amount to this Suppose Traditionary Christians neither did nor could err it is Certain they neither did nor could err Which you call my necessary Conclusion from my self-evident Supposition You improve mightily Sir in your Talent of Insincerity Our entire Discourse runs thus if we must needs put it into Form for you Those who adhere to Tradition all along from the beginning neither did nor could err in Faith otherwise they would not be Adherents to Tradition or Traditionary Christians But this Body of Christians call'd The Roman Catholick Church does now and did from time to time adhere to Tradition Therefore this Body of Christians call'd The Roman Catholick Church neither did or could err in Faith. This is Mr. G's Argument The Major is granted by your self The Proof of the Minor is contain'd in Mr. G's Fourth Proposition which I have shown to be valid in my First Letter p. 9. and the Discussion of it is now under hand The Conclusion is in greatest danger lest you should according to the new True-Protestant Logick deny it again and bring some Instance against it otherwise since it follows evidently it will shift well enough for it self This I say is our intire Discourse all the rest is your flashy Drollery your ever faithful Friend when you are perplext how to Answer 44. The Argument then for the Perpetuity of our Tradition from Christ's time runs thus They could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice alter it To enforce this Argument I discours'd thus You do not I suppose desire we should prove that men had alwaies Memories or that Christians were never malicious enough to damn themselves and their Posterities wittingly and yet it can stick no where else Yet you are such a bold Undertaker that you will needs prove they may be both thus Forgetful and thus Malicious A hard Task one would think especially since the Argument proceeds upon Forgetting and Altering what they Remembred and Held Yesterday Your First Reason to prove they might be thus Forgetful is because Otherwise it is hard to say why the Pen-men of the Scripture should have been at the needless pains to write it Let 's apply this to the Argument and your Discourse is this 'T is hard to say that Christians
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
Letter of the Scripture as you see we endeavour to demonstrate the Absolute Cettainty of our Tradition for Doctrin There cannot be a worthier Point to exert your self in nor a greater service done to your Rule nor a better way to clear your self to the incredulous part of the World than to perform this for one knows not whence meer Words and outward Professions may proceed but solid and convincing Reasons can come onely from a Heart possest wiih the Truth of what is Profest Go to work then and bless us with the sight of this truly Learned and Iudicious Performance And while your hand is in please to shew us too that the Absolute Certainty of this Universal Testimony reaches to prove your Rule Intire that is reaches to prove no part of the Written Word was lost nay that it reaches to the particular Verses and the most substantial Words in those Verses as well as to the main Books and lastly to Translations also and Transcriptions as you ought to do in case they be as indeed they are of equal Concern in our circumstances as the Books themselves Or if you deny they are equally important and maintain that this Absolute Certainty may be had of your Rule without the same Certainty for these then please to give us your Reasons for it and shew how Faith can be Absolutely Certain tho' the Letter on which it depends may perhaps have been maim'd or corrupted by any of these miscarriages Or if you think fit to say you have Absolute Certainty of your Faith tho' you have not Absolute Certainty for it's Rule then confess candidly and ingenuously your Faith is Absolutely-speaking Vncertain and to make good that rare Christian Tenet fall to work and confute utterly that Positive Book Faith Vindicated which undertakes to produce a multitude of Demonstrations to prove that Faith cannot possibly be false and withal please to inform us to what end you maintain your Rule of Faith to be Absolutely Certain if it do not make your Faith thus Certain too or what that Certainty serves for Any thing would content us so you would once leave fluttering and hovering in common Words Either tell us plainly all Faith is Uncertain or come at length to some firm bottom on which we may with Absolute Certainty ground the Truth of it and raise it above some plausible Likelihood But we remonstrate against your putting us off with the Old Sham Sufficient Certainty unless you particularize to us what kind of Certainty you hold and make out 't is sufficient for the Nature the Ends and Vses of Faith and the Obligations issuing from it and incumbent on the Prosessours of it If you refuse to condescend to these fair Proposals all the World must think you onely temporiz'd with Mr. T. and the occasion and that you have not that Zeal for your Rule of Faith whose grand Interest 't is these things should be made out as you pretend Once more I tell you that if all this will not move you to this every way necessary undertaking I must then plainly challenge you that it is your necessary and precise Duty in this very circumstance as you are a Controvertist and as I am concern'd with you under that notion I must demand it of you 36. I know not well whether it be worth the while to justify Mr. M. for calling your Answer to Mr. G's 5 th Question Trifling or whether it be necessary after so ample a Discovery that all the rest of them taking them in the sense you explicated them deserv'd no better Character You were ask't onely the meaning of your Words Christian Church but you had a mind to be liberal and give more than was ask't the meaning of Vniversal Testimony too and to tell us that by Vniversal Testimony you mean Vniversal Consent That is to say by Vniversal Testimony you mean Vniversal Testimony For all agree or consent in the Testimony if it be Vniversal Then to the precise Question you Answer that by the Christian Church you mean all Christian Churches which is to say that by the Christian Church you mean the Christian Church for All the Parts make the Whole so that instead of an Explication you give us the same thing over again and almost in the same Words And pray who 's the wiser for such an Answer Yet tho' it be impertinent and nothing to the purpose 't is at least True and Evident by its self without needing to make it a Question If you would please to afford us such Evidences when 't is to purpose you would highly oblige us Certainly a Considering Reader cannot but think you are very unhappy in explicating your self for either your Explications run quite away from your Answer which you are to explicate and are a mile wide of them or they come too close to them and are the self-same said over again and almost in the same Words But can any one think so excellent a Wit as Yours is justly reputed should expose himself so manifestly without some latent Design T is incredible Let us take a view then of Mr. G's 5 th Question Being the Words Christian Church may be taken in several Latitudes by Persons of different Religions I desire to know what that Christian Church is c. Here we see plainly that the main of the Question was what Churches were accounted by You Christian or how that Word Christian was to be explicated and You give him for explication the self-same word again and in effect tell him that by Christian is meant Christian and that 's all he can get from You. And You did prudently for had You come to distinguish which Congregation was Christian which not You must have secluded all Hereticks which your Principles could not do for your Ground of Faith here is most manifestly Common to all of them and so You would have lain open to the Disrepute of having and professing a Brotherhead with all those Excrementitious Out-casts and your pretended Rule notwithstanding it s other many Divine Excellencies had appear'd to be utterly unqualifi'd with Clearness and Firmness enough to be call'd a Rule or Ground To avoid this and in Consonancy to your Principles You take all their Testimonies in for Scripture and pretend it strengthens it So it may perhaps as to the Books But You know how the Church complain'd of the Hereticks for corrupting the Letter of Scripture to make it Favourable for them and therefore for any thing You know they cry'd up the Books because they had fitted them for their own purpose Whence tho' the Testimony for the Books should be stronger by their concurrence yet the Credit of the Letter in the respective places that oppose those Hereticks is weaker for their allowing them because they admitted them as consistent with their Tenets otherwise they would have rejected them as they did others upon that score And what advantage can you gain by the former towards the proving your Ground of Faith
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
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-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
firm Ground of the things themselves without us in which Creative Wisdome has imprinted all Truths but on our own aiery Apprehensions or undoubting Perswasions which must necessarily be Unsteady when the Knowledge of those Things does not Fix them Particularly which more closely touches our present Controversy the Certainty he substitutes to that advanc't by us which excludes Deception is impossible to be manifested by Outward Arguments to others being only his own Interiour Satisfaction or Opinion which as it is Invisible so it may in Disputes be with just reason Rejected by any man at his pleasure Lastly Whereas he pretends to lay Grounds for the Absolute Câ—â—tainty of Faith he shall never be able to shew he has laid any one Ground thus Certain which is what he pretended worthy the Name of a Ground for the only Point in debate viz. That Christ and his Apostles taught thus or thus but instead thereof such feeble Foundations as leave Christian Faith whose Truth depends necessarily upon the Truth of Christ's Teaching It in the opprobrious and scandalous condition of being possibly or perhaps False In a word he was to shew the Absolute Certainty of his Grounds of Faith and he so handles the matter that one would think instead of shewing them he were shewing there was no such Certainty Requisit and so none needs to be shewn The rest of his Answer consists generally of impertinent Excursions disingenuous Cavils witty Avoidances of any Rub that should hinder his Discourse from sliding on smoothly His mistakes whether Sincere or Affected the Reader is to judge are numberless his scornful jests frequent and either meer Trifles or built upon Chimaeraes of his own Invention All which deliver'd in Poignant and Smart Language give a pretty tang of Gayity and Briskness to his Discourses and counterfeit a kind of liveliness of Reason when as I dare avouch and shall make it good he has not one Single Argument that is Pertinent and Sincere in the whole Course of his Answer I pass by his Omissions which are both very many and most important as likewise how he does not take his Adversaries Discourse End-wayes as I did His nor gives the due force to his Arguments but Skips up and down here and there Skimming off the Superficial part of them by Playing upon his Words without regarding the full Sense that so he might make a more plausible mock-shew of an Answer Lastly his Evasions as is the natural Progress of Non-plust Errour are still worse and worse and are Confuted by being Detected 'T is easy to discern by his Expressions he is much Piqu'd and out of Humour nor can I blame him for 't is too severe a Tryal of Patience for a Man of his great Abilities and Authority to be so closely prest to shew his Grounds why he Holds it True or which is the same Impossible to be False That the Faith he pretends to was indeed Christs Doctrine and to find himself utterly unfurnish't with any means to perform it But I have reason to hope there will need no more to let the Reader see that all that Glisters in the Drs. Writtings is not Gold but his carriage in this Sermon of his which I now come to examine and to make him judge that if he hath dealt so delusively with his Auditors when he spoke out of the Pulpit in God's Name he will scarce behave himself more sincerely towards me when he speaks in his own THE FOURTH Catholick Letter Gentlemen § 1. WHen Controversies are Preach't out of Pulpits every Well-meaning Hearer is apt to conceit that what sounds thence is to be receiv'd as a Voice from Heaven Too great a Disadvantage to be admitted by a Person concern'd who judges he is able to shew 't is but a false Eccho especially when he sees this forestalling the World by a Sermon is a meer preparation to turn the Question quite off the Hinges and withal as the Preface intimates to bring it from the handling one single Point which bears all the rest along with it to the debating of many none of which can be decided till That be first clear'd Hence I esteem'd it not only a Justice to my self but a Christian Duty to others to Address my Defence to You his Auditory who I fear were led into Errours by many particulars in that Sermon relating to our Controversy I have reason to hope this Discourse will keep your Thoughts Impartial which done I will desire no other Umpire of our Contest at present but your selves § 2. It being the Chief and most Precise Duty of a Controvertist to secure the Truth of Christian Faith and this not being possible to be done without proving it True That Christ or his Apostles taught it hence it has ever been my Endeavour to establish that Fundamental Verity in the first place by settling some Method that might secure it with a perfect or Absolute Certainty Nature tells us an End cannot be compassed without a a Means enabling us to attain it whence the first thing to be examin'd is what that Means is that is to give us this Certainty Your common Reason assures you that what 's True cannot possibly be False and the common Sentiment of all Christians and the very Notion of Faith it self has I doubt not imbu'd you with this apprehension that your Faith cannot but be True nor does any thing sound more harsh to a Christian Ear than to affirm that All Christian Faith may perhaps be but a Lying Story which yet 't is unavoidable it may be if it may not be True that 't is Christ's Doctrine § 3. You will wonder perhaps when I acquaint you this is my greatest quarrel with Dr. St. and others of his Principles that they make all Christian Faith possible to be False Dr. Tillotson with whom he agrees and whose Rule of Faith he approves maintains there that there is no Absolute Security to be had from our being Deciev'd in judging we have the right Letter or right Sense of the Holy Scripture or that they were Writ by those Divinely-inspired Persons but that notwithstanding all the certainty we can have of those particulars It is possible all this may be otherwise This I say as appears by my Preface to the Second Catholick Letter and by my Discourses quite through all the Three is our Grand Contest under which all our other differences subsume But this Dr. St. was so prudent as to conceal from you lest it should shock all his well-meaning Hearers and I do assure you and shall shew it that in those matters which he thought it expedient to let you know he so misrepresents every thing that he has both deluded You injur'd the Truth and quite dropt the Question Whether he is to make satisfaction to Truth and to You or I to Him is to be determin'd by the Evidence I bring to make good my Charge To State the Question then § 4. As to the Holy Scriptures my
to the next Age that They had heard seen and practic 't and the whole next Age to the Third and so forwards with an Obligation still to transmit it Equal to that the First Age had to believe it there had been no place left for his ridiculous Raillery But his constant Method is this he endeavours to put you out of conceit with Tradition by concealing every thing that might give you a true Conceit what Tradition is and what we mean by it § 14. The Argument or Instance he brings to prove that the Authority of Tradition was mightily sunk in the Second Century is if possible ten thousand times worse One would verily think from those big words he would prove that All the Christians of the First Age had conspir'd to tell a Ly to the Second concerning Christ's Doctrin But this mountainous Expectation came off with a poor little mouse the relation of one single man Papias of what an Apostle had told him which he being a good honest Soul gain'd credit with diverse Tho' as for his wit Dr. St's Author Eusebius tells us he was a man of a mean capacity and scarce understood the meaning of what was spoken I wonder the Dr. blush't not to put such a Slur upon his Auditory as to compare the Publick Authority of the whole Christian World and the Universal Testimony of God's Church to the private story of one weak man or to pretend hence that if he were mistaken the Authority of Tradition mightily sinks and fails whereas 't is only his own Credit that falls into that disaster by making such a senseless Argument Yet this is the best and as far as I can find the only one he has brought to prove directly the First Age of Christians had bely'd Christ's Doctrin to the Second and that because one man of a mean Capacity mistook we may stand in doubt of our Assurance whether all the Learneder Faithfull nay all the Pastours and Bishops in the Church had Capacity enough to know an open matter of Fact viz. what had been taught and practis'd publickly every day by a World of Fore-fathers or the Integrity not to deceive us § 15. Of the same stamp is his alledging that St. Luke's reason why he writ his Gospel was to give Theophilus Certainty of those things wherein he had been instructed The Subject of our Enquiry is about the High Points of Christian Belief Does the Dr. think then that Theophilus was not a Christian or had no Certain Knowledg of his Faith ere St. Luke writ Or that the Apostles did not instruct people in those Main Articles Or that St. Luke's Writing those Points in short for those Points we speak of take up a very inconsiderable part of his Gospel could make him know it better and with more Certainty than their Preaching it at large With what Sense can any of this be pretended The Apostles did Miracles to attest their Doctrin Did St. Luke do any to attest the True Sense of all he writ in those Points Again what did his Gospel contain Only those Dogmatical Points controverted from time to time between the Sons of the Church and her Deserters of which and none but which we speak Alas these are the least part of his Gospel and make but a small appearance in it He relates our Saviour's Genealogy Temptation Fasting Miracles Parables his sending his Apostles and Disciples his Exhortations to Repentance and good Life the Manner of his Entring into Ierusalem his Instituting the Last Supper the particulars of his being apprehended accus'd condemn'd and Crucify'd Lastly his Burial Resurrection Apparitions and Ascension These are laid out in that Gospel at large together with many excellent sayings of our Blessed Saviour related verbatim And These as they were never pretended by us to be the Object of Tradition so tho' spoken of frequently and perhaps variously amongst Christians were Impossible ever to be perfectly remember'd by the Generality unless put in a Book and therefore St. Luke gives Theophilus and others the Certain and particular knowledge of all these Passages by Writing And Dr. St. confesses the same p. 17. and that his aym and Intention was to give an Account of the Life and Actions of Christ but not a word that his Writing was to give Theophilus Certainty or a Clearer Knowledge of those Main Articles to ascertain which Tradition is pretended by us to be the most proper Means § 16. Now let 's see how many notorious prevarications and faults he has fallen into in this one Instance 1. Our whole Controversy is about the Certainty of those sublime Points of Christian Faith which he conceals and confounds them with a multitude of particular Passages 2. He intimates our Tradition is to ascertain all that 's contain'd in St. Luke's Gospel Whereas he knows well we rely upon no Tradition but what 's in some degree Practical which those Particulars are not unless it be those of which we keep Anniversary Solemnities 3. He is so angry at Tradition that he pretends the very Oral Tradition or Preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles needed something to strengthen and confirm it Lastly he makes our Tradition to begin with the first Preaching of the Apostles whereas it dates it 's Original from the first Age of Christianity already perfectly instructed by them during all their Lives and settled into Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline at their Decease § 17. He seems at length to come neerer the Point and affirms That the Writings of the Apostles when Matters of Doctrin came to be contested were the Infallible Rule whereby they were to judge which was the true and genuin Doctrin of Christ and which is yet better that They were intended by the Holy Ghost to be a standing Rule whereby the Church was to judge which was the true and genuin Doctrine of Christ. I am glad with all my heart to hear him speak of the Church being a Judge of Controversies or that he allows Her any hand in ascertaining and proposing Faith. I ever understood him hitherto That every sober Enquirer was to judge of the sense of Scripture for himself That it was plain to him even in the highest Points and that if in any contested or dubious Articles the Letter of Scripture did not declare it explicitly his sober Enquirer could by parity of Reason render any Implicit Point Explicit without the Church's Help tho' this was the most difficult Task as to the penetrating the Sense of Scripture that is possible and far beyond the understanding what 's there Explicitly He told us too in his second Letter p. 31 32. that because there is no Infallible Iudge every man is to Iudge for himself and this by Scripture his Rule But here the case is alter'd and the Church is to judge of Christ's Doctrin by Scripture I can allow honest Retractions without upbraiding them and am contented that the Church should judge by Scripture both when
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
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
another Treatise Faith Uindicated in which I demonstrated from many Heads that the Motives as laid in Second Causes by Gods Providence to light Mankind in their way to Faith or the Rule of Faith and consequently Faith it self in what it depends on that Rule that is as to us must be Impossible to be false and apply'd it home against Dr St. and Dr. Tillotson at the End of that Treatise and thence shew'd that his Book could have no just claim to any farther Answer and that the branches must necessarily be held Wither'd and Sapless when the Root was once shown to be rotten Nor content with this I follow'd on my blow and penn'd a short discourse entitled The Method to arrive at Satisfaction in Religion comprizing in short the strength of Sure footing and reduc't each branch of it to Self-Evident Propositions which force Humane Nature to assent to their Verity Farther it was not possible to go Yet all this my candid Adversaries who must not acknowledge it for fear of giving under their hands they owe a Debt they can never pay slubber over with assuring their Readers I have done next to nothing in my own Defence It seems that to talk triflingly is with them to do All and Principles and clearest Evidences are either Nothing at all or next to it 3. What Reply made Dr. Tillotson Why he had a mind to print his Sermons and knowing his Auditory were his best-inclin'd Friends in a Preface forsooth to them he gives a slight touch at each of those Treatises He endeavours to clear himself of Two of his many Insincerities and oh wonderfull with about a dozen Iests quite confutes Three Books I would not let him rest so nor enjoy even this empty vapour but gave a full and distinct Reply to his Preface in Reason against Raillery I instructed his shallow Logick utterly unacquainted with the First Principles of our Vnderstanding with which Nature imbues even the rudest I prov'd against him evidently those few of his many faults of which he had labour'd to purge himself I laid open the Folly and Weakness of his First Principle and accus'd him severely of making both Christian Faith and the Tenet of a Deity uncertain and this by vertue of that very First Principle of his And out of my zeal for such dear concerns I charg'd home upon him those two shamefull Tenets by many Arguments Since which time he has not reply'd a word but has sate very contentedly under that heaviest Scandal full fifteen Years and now he stands indebted to me for an Answer to all those Treatises And I have been so civil a Creditor as not once to call upon him severely for such considerable Arrears till Dr. St. would needs have me to be his Debtor and so oblig'd me to make up the Accounts between us Now to have done all this is if a man of Dr. St's Sincerity may be trusted to do next to nothing and not to have defended my self 4. But since he will have it so let 's see what Dr. St. himself who objects this has done to defend Himself He undertook to write Principles for his Protestant Religion I shew'd in Errour Nonplust he had not laid one for that particular end I manifested that he was guilty of the most weak piece of Illogical procedure that ever mortal man stumbled upon by making almost all his Conclusions to be Self-Evident and beyond needing any Proof and his Principles which should prove them and so ought to be clearer than they Obscure or False I shew'd the Grounds of his Discourse to be plain Contradictions and some of his pretended Principles to lead directly to Phanaticism And yet he has quietly endur'd his Doctrine concerning the Grounds of his Faith to be stigmatiz'd for Erroneous and himself declar'd Nonplust nay he has had the phlegm to see himself expos'd in Capital Letters in the Title-Page of that Book for a Man of No Principles and yet has born it with Invincible and Heroical Patience full fifteen Years Which yet I had not so particularly insisted on at this time had he not so utterly forgot himself as to charge me to have done next to nothing in my own defence when I had so manifestly baffled and put to silence those who have most reason to pardon my glorying Dr. Tillotson and Himself He 'll pretend I owe him an Answer to an Appendix of his the main of which is answer'd in Faith Vindicated where its Grounds are subverted and if any thing besides the Raillery remains unspoken to in Error Nonplust when he pays me my Hundred Pound I will reckon with him for his Brass Shilling So much difference in just value Principles ought to have above a loose Discourse made up of meer misrepresentations and Drollery In the mean time it were not amiss to give the Reader an Instance how he quite misses the bus'ness we are about in that Appendix which I conceive is the most solid way of confuting the whole If Mr. S. says he would have undertaken to have told us who they were that first peopled America and from what place they came by the Tradition of the present Inhabitants and what famous actions had been done there in former Ages we might have thought indeed that sole Tradition had been a very safe way to convey matters of Fact from one Age to another By which we see he both forgets that the Tradition we speak of is Practical and waves all the Obligations and Motives to continue the memory of Christs Doctrine which are the greatest God himself could impose or Man's nature is capable of He should have shewn us that those Inhabitants of America had some Constant and Obligatory Practices and Solemnities Commemorating their coming from another Nation or their former Great Actions of the same kind the Children of Israel had of their deliverance out of Egypt and then he might draw thence some show of an Objection And yet even then it would fall short of a Parallel to the force of Christian Tradition unless the Matters to be convey'd were of Equal Concern and the Obligations to propagate them Equally forcible and binding I shall propose to him an Instance of the force of Our Tradition and than ask his judgment of it Suppose the Anniversary of the Powder-Plot should be kept on foot by Ringing of Bells Bonefires Squibbs and spitefull Preaching against All Catholicks indifferently and their very Religion it self as guilty of that Villanous Treason I would know of him whether the Memory of it tho' kept alive by this Practical Solemnity but once a year would not be perpetuated for thousands of Generations or how it should ever be forgot If as I am sure he must he grants it he must grant withall that the Tradition of Christ's Doctrine which had a source incomparably larger and was of the highest Concern to every particular Person not to desert it but to hold to it practice live according
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
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
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
sight talk in Common name great Authors for his Vouchers but never shew how they savour him by applying them And then he 's safe by virtue of a great noise fine Raree shows He ends with railing at the rate of a man at his Wits End I desire him to pacify his spleen for no man that knows me and my circumstances does or can think I write to raise my self or to be caressed as he phrases it by any man. I will never court any man's favour or fear his frowns when I am defending Truth 53. But the Scene is chang'd all of a sudden I am almost asham'd to reflect as it deserves on what follows in his two next Paragraphs 'T is so purely A-la-Mode of Merry Andrew Never did Grave Man make such a Fop of himself But his Reason was Nonplust and his Fancy was over-heated and this must plead his excuse for what could he do better in such ill circumstances To set right what his Raillery has so ravell'd I declar'd my Tenet was that every man is to use his Iudgment of Discretion or his Reason in finding out a Rule which could ascertain him of all the several Points taught by Christ Since the Rule of Faith being antecedent to Faith must consequently be the Object of pure Reason That by this Rule he was to judge for his Salvation and of all Controverted Points For if this Rule gave him Absolute Assurance that all those determinate Points were indeed taught by Christ then since he acknowledg'd Christ's Doctrin to be from God they were to be held by him to be Divine and True If it give him no such assurance of this being in it self Fallible then they are not to be held Divine nor True nor Faith nor the way to Salvation since in that case they might perhaps be Diabolical False Heresy and the way to Damnation Now no such Rule does he assign us but leaves it to the Iudgment of his sober Enquirers to find out those determinate Points in Scripture's Letter which in those Articles of so profound a sense is obscure to them Our Judgment of Discretion is to find out a Certain Light to walk by in those sublime passages in which the Light of our own Reason is very dim His is to do as well as he can in penetrating the Sense of the Scripture in such high passages tho' he sees he may fall into Error every step That is his way is indeed to be a Rule to our selves and scorn to be led by the Church tho' there be all the Reason in the world to think Her wiser than our selves in that affair What says the pleasant Dr to this Or how does he make good his judgment of Discretion or overthrow ours why First he laughs heartily over and over that I come closer to take a view of his Judgment of Discretion after 99. pages As if my whole Book had been to treat meerly concerning that one point and I had never handled it till now whereas his Conscience knows but that necessity has forc't him to bid it Farewell and every Reader sees that above forty other Points were to be handled as they lay in my way and that this concerning the Iudgment of Discretion was the very last I was to speak to What pityfull Trifling is this Then comes in the Game at Cards blew apron and Tub over and over That I yield to his Sober Enquirer what he aim'd at that I make the Fanaticks Catholiques and his Sober Enquirer a Iudge of Controversies and would have him judge without his Rule Which is a continu'd Series of willfull and ridiculous Forgeries For I allow him to judge of never a Point of Faith but by his Rule and affirm that he is to find out his Rule by his Reason or Judgment of Discretion But this clear Method he casts a Mist over all the way and finding that Seriousness would gravell him he has recourse to his beloved and still-assisting Friend Drollery Next he asks what if the matter propos'd by this Certain Authority which I have found out by my Reason be very much against Reason And I ask whether the Matter under Consideration be the Object of Naturall Reason or no If it be not then Reason is to concern it self in judging of the Humane Authority of the Church attesting it to be Christ's Doctrin which is Subject to Reason and not with the Other which is confessedly above Reason He knows I still speak of the High Mysteries and Articles of our Christian Belief which are Supernaturally reveal'd or taught by Christ and his Apostles and will he have the profound Judgment of discretion of his Sober Enquirers scan them by their Reason This savors too strong of the Socinian Yet he sticks not to say the same that is Natural Reason helps men to Iudge of the Matters propos'd by this Certain Authority It makes yet worse for his Credit that whereas I instance all along in the Tenets of the Blessed Trinity and the Godhead of Christ he stills recurrs to Points necessary to Salvation by counterposing which he seems to think those Mysteries not necessary to Salvation But who set the bounds of Reason why God and Nature by alotting Reason for its Sphere Naturall Objects and by so doing precluding her from attempting to sound the Profound Depth of Supernatural ones by her Shallow Line He is angry that as soon as this Certain Authority is discover'd we then cry Good night Reason I have no more use of you This savours yet more strongly then the former Would he have us after this Certain Authority has assur'd us 't is Christ's Doctrin still to suspend our Belief till we have examin'd the Mysteries themselves by our naturall Reason I am loath to name what this signifies I omit to insist on his bad Logick shall I say or want of Common Sense who tho' a Certain Authority were suppos'd yet discourses all along as if the things it proposes may still be false or need the Examination of Reason whether they be false or no. But this argues he has not once in his thoughts the Notion of True Certainty but means some Mock-Certainty or Probability by that word otherwise 't was impossible such a Fancy should have a seat in his Mind For the most obvious and Common Light of Reason tells him that what 's Truly Certain as what 's built on a Certain Authority is cannot be False nor can need any further Scrutiny whether it be or no. 54. Next he asks Are all People Capable of this Certain Reason They are or may be made so according to their pitch so Tradition be rightly represented and not Perverted as it was by him throughout his Sermon For nothing is more sutable to the Capacity of every one then is the Force of a vast Witnessing Authority And tho' they were not yet being in it self Certain it preserves even those who are uncapable of seeing the reason for its Certainty
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
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
Minds of Intellectuall Beings whereas it was only in Words Written as in a Sign that is no more properly than Wine was in a Bush and that therefore the former had incomparably Better Title to be the Purse if no Metaphor else would serve his turn but such an odd one at least it ought not to have been quite set aside But the Dr. without troubling himself much to mind what any body says but himself by which Method of Answering he has left above forty parts for one of my several Discourses unanswer'd will needs have Scripture to be the only Purse Containing Faith shall be enough for His purpose Ay that it shall tho' it be to No purpose And so he tells us that If all the Doctrin of Christ be there we must be Certain we have all if we have the Scripture that contains all And I tell him what common Sense tells all Mankind that a man may have all Aristotles works which contain all his Doctrin and yet not know or have one Tittle of his Doctrin Nor by consequence has the Dr. one jot of Christ's Doctrin by having meerly the Book that contains it Shall we never have done with this ridiculous and palpable Nonsense How often has it been prov'd against him in my Catholick Letters that the having a Book which contains All Faith as in a Sign for words are no more argues not his having any Faith at all unless he knows the Signification of that Sign Let 's examin then the meaning of the word have A Trunk has the Book of Scripture when that Book is laid up in it and that Book contains all Faith and so that Trunk may by his Logick have all Faith. Dr. St has the same Book and by having it has according to him all Faith too I ask Has he all Faith by having the Book any other way then the senseless Trunk has it If he Has then he has it in his Intellectuall Faculty as a Knowing Creature should have it and if so he knows it that is he knows the Sense of it as to determinate Points in it for All Christ's Faith consists of those determinate Points But he still waves his having Knowledge of determinate Points and talks still of Faith only as contain'd in Scripture in the lump and 't is in the lump in the Book too lying in the Trunk whence abstracting from his Knowledge of the particulars of Faith the wooden Trunk has all Faith as much as He. He 'l say he believes implicitly all that 's contain'd in Scripture whether he knows the Particular Points or no But is not this to profess he believes he knows not what Or is Implicit Belief of all in the Book Saving Faith when 't is the vertue of the Particular Points apply'd to the Soul 's Knowing Power and thence affecting and moving her which is the Means of Salvation He tells us indeed for he must still cast in some good words that he pretends not 't is enough for Persons to say their Faith is in such a Book but Now did I verily think that the Adversative Particular But would have been follow'd with they must be sure 't is in it But this would have made too good Sense and have been too much to the Point His but only brings in a few of his Customary lukewarm Words which are to no purpose viz. that they ought to read and search and actually believe whatever they find in that Book He means whatever they fancy they have found in it for he gives neither his Reader nor them any Security but that after their Reading and Searching they may still believe wrong He skips over that Consideration as not worthy or else as too hard to be made out and runs to talk of things Necessary and not Necessary I wish he would once in his life speak out and tell us how many Points are Necessary for the Generality of the Faithfull and whether God's dying for their Sins be one and then satisfy the World that the Socinians who deny that Point do not read search and actually believe what their Judgment of Discretion tells them is the Sense of Scripture and yet notwithstanding all this do actually believe a most damnable Heresy But still he says if a man reads and considers Scripture as he ought and pray for Wisdom he shall not miss of knowing all things necessary for his Salvation So that unless we know that he and his Party do pray for Wisdom and not pray amiss and consider Scripture as they ought none can be Certain by his own Grounds that He and his good Folks have any Faith at all or that their Rule directs them right He would make a rare Converter of Unbelievers to Christ's Doctrin who instead of bringing any Argument to prove that what his Church believes is truly such tells them very sadly and soberly He has right Knowledge of it and is sure of it because he has consider'd Scripture as he ought and begg'd Wisdom of God. But if this sincere Seeker hap to reflect that these pretences are things he can never come to know and that Socinians and all other Sects equally profess to consider Scripture as they ought and to pray for Wisdom too and yet all contradict one another he must if he have Wit in him and light upon no better Controvertists think Christians a company of Fops who can shew him no assured Ground of Faith but such a blind one as 't is impossible for him to see and would have him believe that That is a Certain Means for him to arrive at Christ's Faith which every side as far as he can discern do equally make use of and yet are in perpetual variance and Contention with one another about it So that our Doctor got deep into his old Fanaticism again and which is yet something worse would have pure Nonsense pass for a Principle to secure men of the Truth of the Points of Faith we believe and be taken for a good Argument in Controversy Certainly never was weaker Writer or else a Weaker Cause 60. I am glad he confesses that a Rule of Faith must be Plain and Easy and that otherwise it could not be a Rule of Faith for all Persons Let him then apply this to the Dogmatical Points which are only in Question and shew it thus Easy to all Persons in those Texts that contain those Articles and his Work is at an End. But alas that Work tho' 't is his only Task is not yet begun nor for any thing appears ever Will. For 't is a desperate Undertaking to go about to confute daily experience What new Stratagem must be invented then to avoid it Why he must slip the true Point again and alter it to an Enquiry Whether the Scriptures were left only to the Church to interpret it to the People in all Points or whether it were intended for the General Good of the Church so as to direct themselves in their Way
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
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
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
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
yet for all his flourishes about Criterions he has said nothing to those Reasons only he has made a sleight Discourse of his own p. 53.54 but never shew'd any particular Means securing his Party from Erring more than the vilest Hereticks us'd Why little or no regard to my Reasons shewing that Scripture Interpretable by their private Judgment of Discretion is not the Rule which the Generality of Protestants rely on which if true utterly overthrows his whole Pretence to That for his Rule He blunders indeed about it in clear words and tells his own Tale very prettily but he has not answer'd my Reasons as the Reader may discern who is pleas'd to compare them with his Reply Lastly why no Answer to each particular Proposition of my Short Discourse or shewn it inconnected demonstrating that none who follow'd his Rule can have Assurance that what they believe is Christ's Doctrin But instead of this Duty bringing pretended False Suppositions against the Whole which suppos'd nothing but that we could have no more Reason to judge the Socinians Insincere or Careless or less Skilfull in the Sense of words than we have to think He is 86. These are his Omissions in Answering my First Catholick Letter As for my Second since his Title pretends an Answer to them All in Generall and he referrs us to another able to speak for himself meaning his Reflecter we are to imagin he makes account he has Answer'd them All by Himself or by his Proxy But good God! what an Answer has that weak man given us His Discourse is a Chain of Sand. 'T is a mess of Controversy dish't up in Sippets a meer Hash of Repartees or reason torn into Raggs A Discourse as every man knows has it's true Force by the Constant Tenour of it and this Tenour is shatter'd all to pieces by a new invented Method of short Dialogues where he makes me at his pleasure say as little at a time as he lists and he plays upon it as much as he pleases I must break-off just where he thinks fitting and he Enlarge against an imperfect Discourse unassisted by it's Comparts as long as he Judges convenient Now he 's at the beginning of my Book and immediately at the Middle or End of it gathering thrums-ends of little Sentences which he patches together so aukwardly that they have no Connexion at all but what his unskillfull or Partiall hand bestows upon them If we expect Reason from him he tells us he never undertook to Prove but to Reflect A very pretty come off I wonder what Answer is proper to a man who proves nothing nay not so much as Vndertook it Thus much for his Method But the Tricks and Shifts in managing it are Innumerable 'T is almost as easy to determin how many words may be made of the four and Twenty Letters as to trace all the Anagrams he makes of my Sense by weaving it in his loom to sute his own Fancy or Interest When our Question is only about a Certain Rule of Faith he alters it when he lists to a Certain Rule of Life p. 33. as if we pretended Scripture not Clear in Morall Points by which means he turns the whole Question to a quite different Subject His Contradictions are frequent for he never speaks of the Nature of any thing that concerns our Dispute but he constantly falls into that irrecoverable lapse As he turn'd the precise Duty of proving into the Needless Impertinency of Reflecting so tell him of Falsifications he tells you p. 52. he meant them for Ironies And indeed his whole Reflexionary if I may call it so is nothing but a continu'd Irony it being very hard to know when he 's in Jest when in Earnest Only he garnishes his Scorn with demure pretences of Charity and Civility that so he may affront his Adversary with a more plausible Garb of Affected Gravity and Godliness 87. As for the strength of his Reasons since one Instance is held by Dr St. and him a Competent Answer to a pretended Demonstration I hope one pregnant Instance how he quite misses the whole matter in hand may be allow'd sufficient to render insignificant his Hopping and Skipping Dialogues by shewing plainly that his ill-levell'd Reflexions hit not me but Squint aside to other Subjects E're I come to my Instance I desire the Reader to bear in Remembrance for I cannot repeat it too often because my Adversary is resolv'd never to take notice of it that Our Controversy Supposes as agreed to by both Parties that Christ's Doctrin is Divine and that our Whole Question is about the Means to bring down to us those Sublime Spiritual Articles of Christian Faith with such a Certainty and Clearness as may oblige us to assent firmly and unalterably that what we hold concerning them now at present is the self-same that was taught by him and his Apostles and consequently is Divine and True. Next we affirm that the Letter of Scripture not being Clear to people of all sorts looking after Christ's True Doctrin in those Texts which relate to such High Points the best way to satisfy such men that those Articles came down invariably from Christ is the Humane Authority of the Christian Church And Lastly that the Credibleness of this Authority is prov'd by Intrinsical Mediums taken from the Natures of Things lying levell to our Reason which contribute to support it from being liable to be deceiv'd or to deceive us in that affair viz. from the Nature of Man who being a Rational Creature cannot possibly act without a Motive or a Reason and is withall endow'd with such and such Faculties belonging to such a Nature As also from the Practical Nature Highest Import of the Doctrin to be deliver'd and the Nature of those most powerfull Motives obliging the Generality to whom they are apply'd to transmit down faithfully a Doctrin held Divine and Lastly from the Nature of divers Circumstances of the Universe All which are laid out in my Second Cath. Letter p. 57.58.59.60 To which nothing but a very sleight return with many Omissions has been given us by Him and nothing at all by Dr St. tho' these as the Reader may see if he pleases to review them be the most forcible part of that Treatise to prove the uninterrupted Perpetuity of Tradition hitherto on which the Resolution of our Grand Question mainly depends 'T is enough it seems for such a trifling Reflecter at the end of his Pamphlet to call the passages he has omitted amongst which are the Natures of those things Hedges and Puddles and close Reasons drawn from them frisking Fancies and that 's all can justly be expected from one who seems to be a sworn Schollar to the Great Professor of Learned Jests and Ingenious Prevarications 88. These particulars concerning our Tenet known to all that have read our Controversy being reflected on let 's see how this Gentleman represents it and how profoundly he discourses against us In
his 12th Page he will needs repeat our Tenet or as he with much Formality is pleas'd to call it the Lesson I have taught him which put into distinct Sentences he makes to be this 1. Your Churches Authority is Human Authority Answ. Our Church'es Authority is also Divine and as such 't is the Rule of Faith to those who are already Faithfull But in our Controversy which is about the Way for men to come to Faith 't is not proper to alledge any other than her Natural or Humane Authority consisting of a vast Body of Men both able and oblig'd to testify such open matters of Fact as is the Delivery of a Doctrin so Qualify'd by those that educated us And the Reason is because 'till men come at Christ's Faith they can only guide themselves by their Reason whence the Credibility of that Authority must be provable by Reason against those who shall deny it 2. He says It has force to prove the Truths which depend upon it Yes it has force to prove to us this matter of Fact that those Truths descended from Christ but not the Intrinsical Truth of any one Article in it self To do this is the work of Divine Revelation not of Humane Authority 3. It has this force and concludes against such as own its Veracity but it deserves no Assent further than Reason gives it to deserve Well then since we bid him guide himself by his Reason e're he admits it will he at least admit it and yield assent to it when Reason shews him it deserves it This is all we desire of him and 't is a very reasonable request in us for it only desires he would not renounce his Reason and forfeit his Manhood Now come his Conclusions from mistaken Premisses Hence I conclude Seeing We admit not your Church'es Authority nor own its Veracity it proves nothing to us nor concludes any thing against us From what Antecedent is this Conclusion drawn Did we ever press him to admit it blindly the Point is will he renounce his Reason when it tells him this Authority ought to be believ'd This is our Tenet and should have been taken in e're he had inferr'd any thing at all but then it would have marr'd his Conclusion and his admirable Method of taking every Discourse of mine to pieces and never putting it together again and so it was thought expedient to neglect it His next Conclusion is Seeing Articles of Faith depend not on Humane Authority your Church'es Authority can have no effect on Humane Nature to oblige to a Belief of them Where we have near as many Faults as Words For First Articles of Faith in themselves or as to their Intrinsicall Verity depend only on the Divine Authority as their Formall Motive but as to us or as to our knowledge of those Articles Now which were taught by Christ long since which is our only business a successive Human Authority the most strongly supported of any that ever was in the World to convey down a matter of Fact of Infinit Concern is the properest way to Attest them whence all those Articles in that regard do depend on that Human Authority after the same manner as even himself also holds the Book of Scripture does Secondly What an Incredible Folly is it not to distinguish between those Articles which were Taught at First and so are Divine as in Themselves and the same Articles as Knowable by us Now to have been Taught Long ago nor to reflect that our Controversy only treats of them under this latter Consideration Nor to know that as thus Consider'd All Articles of Faith not only May but Must necessarily depend on Human or Naturall Means since without Such they cannot be introduc't into our understandings connaturally nor by any way but by Immediate Inspiration which is perfect Enthusiasm Nor Lastly not to advert that even the Divinity of Faith depends in some sort on Naturall Means St. Paul tells us Faith comes by Hearing and if so then Faith depended on Hearing as to its coming to be Known by us Nay as Christian Faith was Formally from God it depended thus on Miracles which could not be known to be such but by their being above the Course of Nature nor could they be known to be above the Course of Nature unless the course of Nature it self had been fore-known the Knowledge of which is only Naturall or Human. Thirdly His following words in this Ridiculous Conclusion shew him utterly ignorant of our whole Question otherwise he could not with any degree of sincerity have put it upon us that we hold the Human Authority of our Church obliges to a Belief of the Articles themselves whereas what we hold is that it only obliges us to Assent they came from Christ or were inerrably deliver'd down by the Churche's Testimony Fourthly By leaving out all mention of what 's most particularly our Tenet in this Point he puts it upon us to hold that Human Authority has effect upon Human Nature of it self whereas we never presum'd or affirm'd it either had or ought to have any but by Vertue of the Reasons which vouch't for its Veracity nay I both Affirm'd and Prov'd the direct Contrary His Third Conclusion is Seeing all its Credit depends on its Intrinsicall Reasons produc't till they be produc't we are not bound to give any Credit to it No nor bound to mind them much it seems nor Answer them fully when produc't as appears by his omitting the most forcible Reasons for the Certainty of Tradition's Continuance as was Lately shown But why is this made a distinct Conclusion or disjoynted from the rest whereas it was the most necessary and Essentiall part of our true Tenet Because the Method he so Religiously observ'd throughout his Dialogue-Answer which is to shatter asunder the intire Sense of every passage would not allow it His Fourth Conclusion is When these Reasons shall be produc't its Testimony has but the Nature of an Externall Motive not of an Intrinsicall Ground Answ. Intrinsicall Ground To what To Christian Faith as 't is Divine 'T was never pretended nor can it belong in any regard to our Question since 't is not disputed between us but Acknowledg'd by us both that Christ's Doctrin is Such Means he then 't is not a Proper Medium to prove Christ's Faith deriv'd to us who live now How can he even pretend to shew that so vast a Testimony is not proper to Attest a Notorious Matter of Fact viz. what Doctrin was Deliver'd immediately before and this throughout every Age Year or Day Again what means he when he says Testimony is not an Intrinsicall Ground What man in his senses ever said or thought it We spoke indeed of Intrinsicall Grounds to prove the Credibleness of that Testimony but not a word have we even hinting that Testimony it self is an Intrinsical Ground to any thing If he will needs be talking Nonsense let him take it to himself and not put it upon me
them nor misrepresented his Answers be pleas'd to frame thence an Impartial Judgment of his prodigious Confidence in pretending in his Title that this every-way-Defective Treatise is In Answer to my Catholick Letters whereas he has given no Answer at all to speak with the least to the Fortieth Part of them and as for that small inconsiderable pittance he has attempted to reply to it has been shewn you by detail with what incredible Weakness or worse he has perform'd it I intreat you also to reflect that the passages he has left unanswer'd are not Trivial or Sleight ones but all of them Pertinent almost all of them Substantial and by far the greater part of vast Import as coming up close to our main Point the Absolute Certainty of Christian Faith that is as to its having been taught by Christ by our respective Principles So that in case They and the Reasons for them be left standing in their full force as they yet stand his whole Cause is utterly lost and himself convinc'd not only to be no Good Defender of Christian Faith but withall no Steady Holder that his Faith is truly Christian or derived from Christ Or if he holds it to be such at all it must be by Enthusiasm or Fanatick Inspiration not upon truly Rational or which is the same Conclusive Grounds He will say perhaps he has touch't upon some of those Particulars nay now and then made long Discourses against diverse of my Positions But all this he might have done tho' he had had never an Adversary To Answer is to Solve the Arguments of another not to find fault with his Conclusions and make Discourses on his own head a Method which any Judicious Reader may observe runs thorough his whole Book Whence I am not ty'd to Reply to such Impertinent and Irregular Prevarications but only to defend and stand by my Reasons and 't is a Courteous Condescendence not a Right due to his Carriage that I have reply'd to them at all since my Arguments according to the Laws of Disputation must be granted to stand firm 'till they be overthrown Yet notwithstanding I was not oblig'd to humour his Illogical Proceedings I do not know of any thing that is Pertinent and of Moment that I have over-past and I could have spoke it with more assuredness had he quoted the Pages in my Letters all along as I did in him especially when I cited him but he would not expose himself to that disadvantage lest the Reader should by that means be directed still to my Discourses themselves and comparing them with what he had said to them see how Frigid Indirect or utterly Insignificant his pretended Answers were Tho' I say I know of no such passage omitted but what has been already reply'd to and forestall'd in my former Letters or in Errour Nonplust yet in case he still contends I have let him single out those which he judges the strongest or any page in this Answer of his own which concerns the Certainty of Faith as we treat of it that is of Christ's Doctrin as 't is Knowable by us at this distance from his time and I do promise him a very punctual Reply to each particular Passage one by one He would much oblige our Readers and mee too if instead of Answering he will needs fall to Arguing he would please to pick out what 's most Pertinent and Weighty and let each single Point be debated apart This would give a far Clearer Light to our Readers And for their sakes if he will not do this himself I shall as my leisure serves do it for him In the mean time I am to demand of him publickly as my Right both a punctual Reply to the long Roll of these his important Omissions and also a Defence of his Trifling Performances And in case he denies to give me and the World that Satisfaction since none who knows him can think he wants Wit and Parts to do it if feisible it must necessarily be concluded his Cause wants Truth Your Well wishing Friend and Servant in Christ J. S. FINIS ADVERTISEMENT The Five Catholick Letters are to be sold at Mr Matthew Turners Bookseller at the Lamb in High-Holborn Dr. Tillotson 's Rule of Faith p. 117 118. Pag. 7. Dr. St's Second Letter p. 14. There can be no necessity suppos'd of any Infallible Society of Men either to attest or explain these Writings among Christians Dr. St. Principle 15. Dr. St's Copy * Second Letter P. 14. * P. 2. * Dr. St 's first Letter p. 7. second p. 14. P. 3. P. 4. * P. 5. Ibid. P. 5. * P. 6. P. 6. P. 6. P. 7. See Reason against Railery p. 97. to p. 114. Ibid. My First Letter p. 23. Dr. St's second Letter p. 14. Ibid. p. 15. Dr. St's First Letter p. 7. P. 7. Ibid. P. 8. Ibid. P. 9. P. 9 Dr. St's second Letter p. 14. P. 11. Ibid. * See my first Letter P. 30. * P. 12. P. 13. My First Letter p. 10. P. 15. P. 15. Ibid. P. 16. P. 13. Ibid. P. 14. * My First Letter P. 31. * P. 12. P. 17. * Faith Vindicated P. 37 38. P. 18. P. 18. * My First Letter P. 7. * P. 23. * P. 19. P. 19. * First Letter P. 7. My First Letter P. 21. P. 21. P. 21. P. 21. * P. 22. * My First Letter p. 8. * P. 22. * P. 21 22. * My First Letter P. 32. P. 23. 2 Tim. c. 3.16 17. P. 23. P. 24. * P. 23.24 P. 23. P. 25. P. 25. Ibid. * P. 26. P. 27. P. 27. * See above Sect. 39. P. 28. Ibid. P. 28. P. 28. * Dissuasive from Popery p 7. P. 29. * First Letter p. 27. l. 3 4. P. 29. * Ibid. Dr. St's First Letter P. 5. P. 7. * P. 9. * Ibid. * P. 10. * See Sect. 2 3. p. 9. See Haeresis Blacloana p. 13. * P. 154. Error Non-plust P. 121. Ibid. p. 14. Dr. St. Second Letter p. 14. * Ibid. p. 17. P. 17 r 8. * See above Sect. 2. 3. P. 18. Ibid. Epist· ad Martinum Dorpium p. 31. Dr. St's first Letter p. 7. (a) Epiphan haer 24. n. 9. (b) Iren. lib. 3. (c) Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. (d) Iren. lib. 2. cap. 26. Hier. ad Paul at Eustoch in Proem Ep. ad Philom Epip haer 76. P. 15. P. 20. Ibid. Ibid. p. 20. p. 24. P. 14. Error Non-plust P. 74. * Dr. St. second Letter p. 29. * See Sect. 23 * p. 3. * See the Anwer to Dr. St 's First Letter Sect. 12.18 30. See Mr. Kidder's famous Sermon Preach'd at St. Paul's Cross Feb. 23. 1686. * Dr. St's First Letter p. 7. * Dr. St. second Letter p. 25. * See First 〈◊〉 p. 18. * Se Faith vind p. 132 133 134 135. * Rule of Faith. p. 118. §. 2. * Ibid. * Dr. St's Second Letter p. 21. * Faith vindicated from possibility of Falsehood P. 1. P. 4. P. 5. p.
11. p. 10 11. * P. 11. P. 12. P. 13. P. 14. P. 14. pag. 15. pag. 14. * Dr. St's Answer to the Catholic Letters p. 71 * Dr. St's Second Letter p. 21. See p. 15. p. 16 17. c. * p. 19. * ibid. * p. 20. * p. 21. * See above §. 5. Note 5. * Ibid. * 2 Pet. 3.16 * P. 22. * P. 23. Ibid. ibid. * P. 23.24 * See my third Catholick Letter §. 2 3. * P. 26. * P. 16. * P. 27. Ibid. p. 28. * See Third Catholic Letter p. 36. P. 30. * See Errour Non-plust p. 134 135. * Lib. 1. Gen. ad Lit. Imperfect cap. 1. * De Doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 1. * Dr Tillotson's Rule of Faith. p. 6.7 P. 212. P. 1. * Clypeus Septemplex Vindiciae P. 2. * See Error Non-plust * Dr. Burnet Dr. Tillotson and Dr. Stillingfleet Rom. 2.14 * Aliquantulum obscura * Ob â—quivationem utriufque Evidentiae P. 3. * Introduction to Faith Vindication * Faith Vindicated P. 167 to the End. * From pa. 212. to the End. * Error Non-plust p. 236. * Ibid. p. 123.124 * App. to the Rule of Faith. p. 82. * Clypeus Septemplex Vindiciae * See Clypeus Septemplex from p. 151. to 194. * Declaration p. 43. * Faith Vindicated Introduction p. 18. P. 7. P. 8. * Introduction to Faith Vindicated p. 16.17 P. 9. * Error Non-plust p. 148. P. 10. P. 11. * Faith Vindicated Object 6. p. 149. P. 12. P. 13. P. 14.15 * See §. 9. * See Error Non-plust p. 148. * See my Declaration and Vindiciae Vindiciae J. S. p. 23.24 * Querimonia J. S. p. 70. and 75. Ibid. p. 67. * See Vindiciae J. S. p. 4.5.6.7 * Querim p. 74. * App. seu Quer. p. 76.77 Ibid. p. 62. Ibid. p. 57.58 Ibid. p. 65. * App. seu Quer. p. 65. Ibid. p. 77. Ibid. Ibid. p. 69. P. 76. * Third Catho Letter p. 23. l. 11.12 Ibid. p. 22. L. 32.33 P. 5. P. 14. * See Third Cath. Letter p. 21.22 * Declaratio Sergeantii p. 40. * App. p. 209. ad p. 246. * Declaratio Sergeantis p. 55. * A Sovereign Remedy against Heresy and Atheism p. 28. See my Declara p 95. Ibid. p. 29.30 * Haeres Blacloana p. * Declaration p. 99. * Querim p. 81. Declaratio p. 70. * Declaratio p. 69.70 * Answer to a Letter against Mr. Lowth in Defence of Dr. St. p. 8. Ibid. p. 7. * See Answer to M. Lowth's 〈◊〉 p 22. * Answer to a Letter against Mr. L. p. 8. Ibid p. 8. Ibid. p. 34. Ibid. p. 27. Ibid. Answer to Mr. Lowth P. 17. * Postscript to an Answer to a Letter against Mr Lowth P. 14. P. 4. P. 15. P. 13. P. 11. P. 23.24 P. 123.124 P. 21. * See the Answer to a Letter written against Mr. Lowth p. 23. Answer to a Let. against Mr Lowth p. 13.23.14 P. 15. P. 15. l. 32. ult p. 16. l. 1.2 * First Cath. Letter p. 22. Third Cath. Letter p. 66.67.68.69 P. 16. P. 17. Ibid. Ibid. P. 18. Ibid. p. 18.19 P. 19. P. 20. Ibid. * Answer to Mr. Lowth P. 17. P. 21. P. 21. * Second Letter to Mr. G. p. 17. P 21. P. 23. P. 24. P. 143.144 P. 25. P. 22. P. 26. P. 26. P. 27. P. 27. * Rule of Faith. p. 6. P. 28. P. 28. * Rule of Faith. p. 6. P. 33. P. 33. l. 12. 16. Ibid. P. 16.17 c. P. 34. P. 36.37 P. 35. P. 36. P. 36. P. 36. Fourth Cath. Letter p. 25.26 P. 37. P. 37. P. 38. P. 38. P. 37. P. 38. * Answer to a Letter against Mr. Lowth p. 6. * Answer to Mr. Lowth's Letter to Dr. St. p. 13. P. 39. Ibid. P. 40. P. 14. Ibid. l. 20.21 P. 42. * Third Cath. Letter p. 6.7.8 * Third Cath. Letter from p. 6 to p. 12. P. 46. Ibid. P. 47. P. 48. P. 49. Ibid. P. 49.50 * from p. 64. to p. 165. and fr. p. 173. to p. 180. * Discourse Fifth P. 53. P. 51. P. 73.74 P. 53. P. 53.54 P. 55.56 P. 55. P. 55.56 P. 37. Ibid. * see it confest by the Reflecter p. 21. P. 58. P. 60. * Answer to a Letter against Mr. L. p. 23. P. 60. l. 25. P. 61. P. 61. P. 62. P. 62. P. 64. l. 3 4 P. 64. Ibid. P. 65. P. 66. P. 67. P. 65. P. 65. Ibid. * Third Catho Letter p. 102. * From p. 60. to p. 69. P. 69. * Dr St's Second Letter to Mr G. p. 21. * Third Catho Letter p. 104. * Augustin Tract 18. in Joan. * Answer to a Letter against Mr. L. p. 23.24 Ibid. P. 70. P. 71. * Dr St's Second Letter to Mr. G. P. 21. * Aug. lib. 1. contra Cres. con cap. 33. P. 31.32 P. 73.74 Rule of 〈◊〉 p. 86.7 P. â—5 * Third Cath. Letter from p. 41. to p. 48. P. 76. P. 76. P. 77. P. 78. P. 82.83 * Rule of Faith. p. 40. P 78. * Third Cath. Letter p. 43.44.45 * Bellarm. de verbo Dei. Lib. 1.2 * Answer to Mr Lowth's Letter p. 17. * Third Cath. Letter p. 81. P. 79. * P 79. l. 25. p. 80. l. 20. * P. 79. l. 27. * P. 80. l. 22. P. 80. l. 28. Ibid. P. 81. * Third Cath. Letter p. 6.7.8 P. 81. P. 82. P. 83. P. 85. Ibid. P. 86. P. 86. l. 26.27.28 P. 87 P. 88. * Dr St's Sermon at Guild-Hall p. 11.12 * Aug. in Epist. Fund * Third Cath. Letter p. 82.83 â—4 * Rule of Faith. p. 6. p. 40. P. 88. P. 91. P. 92.93 P. 93. * First Cath. Letter p. 58.59 * Second Letter to Mr G. p. 31. P. 95. Third Cath. Letter p. 57. P. 96. P. 97. * Dr St's Second Letter to Mr G. p. 24.25 P. 98. P. 102. P. 99. P. 100. P. 101. P. 102. P. 103. P. 104. P. 104. P. 105. P. 105. P. 106. P. 106.107 P. 107. P. 108. P. 108. P. 109. P. 109. P. 109. Ibid. P. 110. P. 111. * Third Cath. Letter p. 6.7.8.15 P. 112. P. 11â— P. 112. * See above §. 72. 74. * Third Cath. Letter p. 6.7.8 P. 112.113 P. 113. * Third Cath. Letter from p. 18 to p. 28. P. 114. P. 114. Ibid. Ibid P. 115. * Dr St's Second Letter to Mr G. p. 23. First Catho Letter p. 4. P. 4.5 P. 6.7 P. 8. Ibid. P. 8.9 P. 10.11.12.13.14 15. p. 33.34.35 P. 18. P. 21.22 P. 23. P. 25.26 P. 26.27.28.29 P. 30.31 P. P. 2. * Third Cath. Letter from p. 4.5 P. 5.6.7.8.9 P. 11.12 P. 12. P. 13.14.15 P. 16.17.18 P. 19.20.21 P. 22.23.24.25 26.27 * See Third Cath. Letter p. 24. P. 26. P. 28. P. 30.31 P. 32. P. 32.33 P. 33.34 P. 34.35 P. 35. P. 36.37 P. 37.38.39.40 P. 42.43.44.45 P. 45.46.47 P. 48.49 P. 49. P. 51.52.53 P. 53.54.55.56 P. 56. P. 57. P. 58.59 * See above §. P. 59. P. 60. P. 61.62.23.64.65 P. 66.67.68.69.70.71 P. 71.72.73.74 P. 75. P. 76. P. 77. P. 78.79.80 P. 81.82 P. 82.83 P. 84.85 P. 85. P. 86.87.88 P. 89.90 P. 90.91 P. 93.94 P. 95.96.97.98 P. 99.100.101.102.103 P. 70.