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
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-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
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
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
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
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
that by Absolute Certainty you will mean such a Certainty as will permit those Grounds may be False and Faith built upon them much more for we are to know 't is a Maxim with him that the Absolute Certainty he allows his Grounds is possible to be False and he allows a less degree of Certainty to Particular Points than to his Grounds so that Faith may much more easily be False then his Grounds may though they may be False too And all this out of an Antipathy I suppose to Infallibility because the abominable Papists own it as if Mankind did not use to say they are Infallibly Certain of some things before the Papists were born What then is this Absolute Certainty Is it meerly built on his Apprehension or Thinking it so No but upon such an Evidence as the Thing is capable of Very good Is any thing in the world capable to be known 'T is a strange Paradox to deny it and yet if he grants it he cannot escape meeting with this bug-bear Infallibility For if the Knowledge as it is be as the Thing is and the Thing be Infallibly as it self is the Knowledge is Infallibly as the Thing is Here Gentlemen you may expect he will turn it off with some scornfull Irony for he never in his life answer'd any such pressing Reason any other way But the Argument will not be laught out of Countenance and therefore if Infallibility must be allow'd he is to shew us what harm would come to Faith if the Previous Grounds of it as to our Knowledge were thus Certain None at all But then alas his Credit and his Cause will go to wrack for no shew or shadow of any such Argument can his superficial Principles allow us and therefore no Absolute Certainty will he yield to the Grounds to know Christ's Faith but such a one as permits all Mankind may be deceiv'd in them and much more in knowing what is his Doctrin it self after we have those Grounds For Absolute Certainty shall not mean Infallibility let us say and prove what we will. However I 'le venture to ask him once more Since as he says the Thing notwithstanding the Absolute Certainty we have of its being True may yet be False let us suppose as 't is not impossible there being some degree of Contingency in it that it happens to be False Can he in that Case have Absolute Certainty that a Falshood is True Here it goes hard with him nor can all his old Heathen Philosophers he so oft recurrs to in the least help him out He has but one Refuge that I know of to sly to and that is to use some trick to shuffle away from Absolute Certainty and say that he meant by it Sufficient Certainty and That he 'l stick to when all his new notions fail him For Absolute Certainty he was unluckily forc't upon by Mr G. tho' he had no acquaintance with it or friendship for it but his Inclination and Heart was for Sufficient Certainty And good reason for in the Sanctuary of that Common Word he 's as safe as in an Enchanted Castle Those scurvy Particularizing Expressions are Tell-tales and by their Lavishness are apt to discover Sense or Nonsense but This keeps aloof and by signifying nothing at all determinately is past the reach of any Confute But if you tell him 't is a Relative word and put him upon proving that his possibly-False Certainty is Sufficient to conclude it to be True that any Point of his Faith is the same that our Divine Master taught the World he 'l no more hear or mind you than he did me when I alledg'd that a Rule and Ground were Relative words too and therefore must communicate their Certainty to all the Particular Points they relate to And if you continue to press him hard with such Cramp-questions he 'l tell you he 's not at leasure having his foot in the stirrup to take a long Iourney as far as Trent So being Bankrupt of Reason he withdraws his Effects thence to Trade more fortunately as he hopes in Citations and finding himself beaten at Tradition he gets Letters of Reprizall from his new Logick to revenge himself on us in combating the Tridentin Council To which he will receive an Answer when he first shews us that he stood firm in his own Principles at home ere he took such a leap beyond Sea and Satisfies the World how it is possible that a man who confesses he has no Absolute Certainty of Christian Faith can be sufficiently qualify'd either to prove any Tenet of his own or disprove any Tenet of others to be truly Christian. In a word his chief Art is to Cloak his Arts and he is a great Master at it His Aim is to make his Discourses run plausibly whatever it costs his Credit which he hopes is so great now with the Inferiour Clergy that let him be as Prodigall of it as he will it can never be exhausted The telling of his tale smoothly will take much with those Readers who dwell in the middle story But strip his Discourse of all those needfull Ornaments and Assistances and 't is plain impertinent Nonsense in cuerpo For not any thing like a solid Ground is found in his whole Book The Manufacture and Contrivance of it is all in all It may perhaps be thought by some that I am too downright with him in divers of my Expressions but I desire them to consider that I do not use him half so rudely as some of the Church of England have done and besides that in doing that little I did I do but write after his own Copy and fall very short too of imitating him as appears by his Angry Viper venomous froth Gall Spleen Folly Malice c. His Faults are Great and Many and must I not Name them when I am oblig'd to lay them open If I must the very Names we give to Great Faults will be Harsh words let me do what I can Yet I have moderated them as much as the sense of what I ow'd to Christian Faith would give me leave Besides as my Genius leads me to carry it friendly with unpretended Honesty tho' Erring so it inclines me to show less respect to a man who as I see plainly by a constant Experience has none at all for Truth but practices and pursues all over Study'd Insincerity I have one Request or rather a fair Offer to make the Dr. which is that since it is so mortifying to a man who as appears by all his former Writings aims to reduce Truth to Evidence and Principles to be still task't in laying open such multitudes of his Shifts and Prevarications For I do think in my Conscience I have not either in this Preface or my following Book even hinted a quarter of them he would condescend that we may each of us chuse two worthy Gentlemen who leaving out the Question of Right may examin only matter of Fact viz. which of us uses
this man do himself a greater prejudice than by thus confessing that he holds not Christian Faith absolutely speaking True Or can he lay a greater scandal on Christian Faith it self than to quarrel at a Position that can give him no displeasure but by asserting it's perfect Truth If this do not like his new-fashion'd Christian Principles I suppose he will own the contrary Position and affirm that True Faith by reason of it's Moveable or Uncertain Grounds Cannot bear an asserting the Absolute Impossibility of it's Falshood And this is in plain terms to assert that absolutely speaking True Faith may all be False which is both Unchristian and strong Nonsense to boot He should have Preach't this to his Auditory at Guildhall and then he should have seen how every honest Hearer would have abhorr'd his Doctrine have lookt upon Him as scarce half a Christian and on such a Faith as absurd praeternatural and Irrational as well as I did 14. These are the greatest Contradictions the Dr. could pick even out of an Adversaries Book concerning which he keeps such a mighty noise blusters and triumphs He tells the Reader I affirm that Moral Certainty destroys the Essence of Faith. And I affirm it does taking Faith without some absolutely certain Principle as Demonstration is to ground it on For Faith is essentially True and it cannot be True to those who see that notwithstanding it's Grounds which are to prove it Christ's Doctrine it may yet be none of his Doctrine Again he says I make Moral Certainty Sufficient and Insufficient for Faith. Distinguish good Doctor 'T is not Sufficient for the Ground of Faith as we treat of it for if there may be Deceit in that Ground the Truth of Faith as to us sinks And yet Moral Certainty and even less of the force of that Ground is Sufficient to many nay All so they adhere to a Ground that is really Infallible and Salvation is attainable by those Persons Oh but Salvation is to be had by such a Faith no better grounded and that 's the main business What If for want of a firm Ground Faith hap to be False Who ever said it or that in case any Point embrac't upon such a Ground happen to be Vntrue it could be a Point of Faith or that any man could be sav'd by vertue of a Heretical Tenet or a pernicious Falshood Yet for want of Dr. St's understanding plain sense and his applying my words to a wrong subject I must forfeit my Sincerity and Moral Honesty whereas himself forfeits both by confounding every thing which I had so carefully distinguisht There is not a tittle objected by himself or Lominus but I distinctly and clearly answer'd in my Clypeus Septemplex and Vindiciae to the satisfaction of all my Superiours and Judges Yet this man of Moral Honesty has the Ingenuity to object them afresh without taking notice of my Answers or letting the Reader so much as know any such Satisfactory Answers or any answer at all had been already given 14. As for the three Propositions pickt out of my Books apart from the Context and which as taken in the precise words in which they were exhibited were censur'd I desire the Reader to reflect that these words There is no God tho' found in the Holy Scripture it self yet as separated from the words adjoyning and exprest in those precise terms are perfect Atheism and deserve the highest Censure and yet the same words as they lie in the Sacred Book it self with these foregoing words The Fool hath said in his heart joyn'd with them the direct contrary is signify'd by that place This was my very case The words or passages taken alone without the Prefaces declaring the sole Intent of the Author without the State of the Question and other Paragraphs or words in the same Paragraph giving light by the Tenour of the Discourse to my true meaning bore a shew as if I had affirm'd that it was requisite to Faith to demonstrate the Mysteries of Faith and among them the Supernatural Infallibility of the Church which is a Point of Faith. Especially since there was inserted by the Exhibiter a Parenthesis in the middle of the second Proposition he speaks of Propositions of Faith whereas there was not a word of any such thing but about fifteen times the contrary in the self-same Paragraph viz. That I spoke of Motives Premisses and Grounds of Faith. Now the Censurers knew not that those Propositions were in any Book or had any Antecedents or Consequents as they publickly declar'd and I have it under their hands and consequently Censur'd them as my self should have done had I been in their Circumstances and circumvented as they were As soon as I saw the Censure I offer'd voluntarily to Subscribe to it knowing that those Propositions thus singled out were no more my Doctrine than There is no God was the Sense of the Sacred Writer nay quite contrary to it The Censurers declar'd they were surpriz'd and complain'd they were by indirect wiles impos'd upon So at the Arch-Bishop of Paris his Command I writ my Vindiciae to manifest the true Sense of those passages as they lay in my Books which I shew'd very clearly and particularly to be that I only spoke of Faith as standing under a Rule ascertaining it's Descent from Christ. My Books being in English it was order'd that some Persons of great Learning and Repute who understood English should examine and testify whether taking those Propositions as they lay in my Books the Orthodox Sense I assign'd to them were indeed my genuine meaning in those places My Adversary too allow'd of them to attest it for indeed their known Probity and Learning was such that it was impossible to except against them and that Venerable and Pious Personage Abbot Montagu to whom they were known it being requir'd gave Testimony to both those Qualifications in them They all unanimously attested by their Subscriptions that the Orthodox Sense I assign'd was indeed the true meaning of those Places and that the Sense condemn'd was not in those Books but the direct contrary whence follows that when I Subscrib'd the Censure I subscrib'd only to what had ever been my own Doctrine Those Reverend and Judicious Persons were Mr Francis Gage Dr. of Sorbon Mr Thomas Godden Dr. of Divinity Mr Robert Barclay Principal of the Scotch Colledge in Paris Mr Bonaventure Giffard and Mr Iohn Betham then Batchelours of Divinity in Sorbon both of them since Doctors of the same Faculty and the former of them now Bishop of Madaura Mr Edward Cary Mr Edward Lutton and Mr G. K. The Arch-Bishop of Paris being perfectly satisfy'd hoping it might end future Disputes desired me to Subscribe to the Censure I refus'd at first alledging that such a Subscription might be improv'd into a pretence that I had retracted He replied Uteris itaque quâ Subscriptionis formulâ tibi placuerit
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.
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
against too by others Yet I shall not be so like some I know to turn a Dispute into a Wrangle but shall apply my self to shew how far the Doctrine of Tradition is from deserving to be charg'd with such injurious reflexions 10. But before I go farther I must take notice of your quoting F. Warner here p. 8. and your appealing to him where you put Haeresis Blacloana in the Margent By which you seem to hint that he is the Author of that Book and an Adversary to the Doctrin of Tradition even so far as to judg it not sound in Faith for no less aversion could make you very much question whether F. W. would absolve any man who professed to embrace Catholick Faith on Mr. G's Grounds But as that very Reverend Person declares he never saw that Book till some of them were presented him bound so himself has forestal'd your little policies aiming to set us at variance in our Tenets in his Anti-Haman p. 203. We Catholicks have Faith because we believe firmly those Truths that God has reveal'd because he reveal'd them to the Church Which as a faithful Witness gives hitherto and will give to the end of the World Testimony to that Revelation And we cannot be Hereticks because we never take the liberty to chuse our selves or admit what others chuse but we take bona fide what is deliver'd us reveal'd by the greatest Authority imaginable on Earth which is that of the Catholick Church He proceeds Here then is the Tenure of our Faith. The Father sent his only begotten Son consubstantial to himself into the world and what he heard of his Father he made known to us Io. 15.11 The Father and Son sent the H. Ghost and hee did not speak of himself but what he heard that he spoke Io. 16.13 The Holy Ghost sent the Apostles and they declared unto us what they had seen and heard 1 Io. 1.3 The Apostles sent the Highest and Lowest Prelates in the Church and the Rule by which they fram'd their Decrees was Let nothing be alter'd in the Depositum Let no Innovation be admitted in what 's deliver'd Quod Traditum est non innovetur But he more expresly yet declares himself no Adversary to this way ibid. p. 267. Your Friend Mr. G. B. had call'd this way of proving Doctrines that They had them from their Fathers they from theirs a New method of proving Popish Doctrines and receives for Answer these words You discover your Ignorance in saying that Method was New or that Arnaud invented it Mr. Thomas White had it before Arnaud Mr. Fisher a Iesuite before T. W. Bellarmin before him St. Austin St. Stephen Pope Tertullian before them all Where you see he both allows this very Method we take as practis'd by Modern Controvertists of note nay by some of his own Order too whom he is far from disapproving and by Antient Fathers also whom he highly venerates Your petty Project thus defeated I shall endeavour to open your Eyes if they be not which God grant they be not wilfully shut 11. The Asserters of Tradition observing that the Adversaries they had to deal with admitted Christ's Doctrin to be Divine held it the most compendious way to put a speedier End to all Controversies which Experience taught them were otherwise liable to be spun out into a voluminous length and the most efficacious Method to conclude all the Heterodox of what denomination soever to prove That the Doctrin held now by the Catholick Church was Christ's or the self-same that was taught at first by Himself and his Apostles It was bootless for them to attempt to prove this by Texts of Scripture manag'd by their Private Wits For the Truth of our Faith depending on Christ's Teaching it if it were not Absolutely Certain Christ taught it it could not be evinc't with Absolute Certainty to be True. Now the same Experience inform'd them that no Interpretation of Scripture made by Private Judgments of themselves or others could arrive to such a pitch of Certainty and consequently would leave Faith under the scandalous ignominy of being possibly and perhaps actually false It was to as little purpose to alledge against such Adversaries the Divine Assistance to the Church or Christs Promise of Infallibility to it as you very weakly object to Mr. G. p. 16. as not once asserted by him For tho' this was believ'd by the Faithful yet it was disown'd by all those Heterodox and being it self a point of Faith it seem'd improper to be produc't for a Rule of Faith. Besides how should they prove this Divine Assistance If by Scripture interpreted by their Private Judgments these not being Absolutely Certain it would have weaken'd the Establishment of that Grand Article which to the Faithful was a kind of Principle to all the rest in regard that upon the Certainty of it the Security they had of all the other Articles was to depend If by the Divine Authority of the Church it self it was not so easie to defend that method not to run round in a Circle whereas all Regular Discourse ought to proceed straight forwards These Considerations oblig'd them to set themselves to make out by Natural Mediums that the Human Authority of such a Great Body as was that of the Church was Absolutely Certain or Infallible in conveying down many visible and notorious Matters of Fact and among the rest or rather far above the rest the Subject being Practical and of infinite Concern that such and such a Doctrin was first taught to the Age contiguous to the Apostles and continued ever since By this means they resolv'd the Doctrin of the present Church into that of Christ and his Authority and consequently these being suppos'd by both Parties to be Divine into the Divine Authority granted by all to be the Formal Motive of Divine Faith. 12. This is the true state of that Affair And now I beseech you Learned Sir Where 's the Polagianism Where is the least Ground or shadow of Ground for all these bugbear words and false accusations which to make them sink deeper into the Reader 's Belief and create a more perfect abhorrence of our Tenet come mask't here under an affected shew of Godliness All hold their Faith relies on the Divine or Christs Authority into which they finally resolve it and all Catholicks hold Grace necessary to believe the Mysteries of Divine Faith tho' all perhaps do not judge Grace needful to believe upon Human Authority this Matter of Fact viz. That Christ taught it Yet my self in Faith vindicated seeing that the admitting this Truth would oblige the Heterodox to relinquish their ill-chosen Tenets and return to the Church against which they had a strong aversion did there declare my particular Sentiment That God's Grace and some Assistance of the Holy Ghost was requir'd to make them willing to see the force even of this Natural Demonstration so much against their Humour and Interest Is it
attested and blame the Attestation and Tradition as it may be found to deserve but still when you would put your own Tenet as distinguish 't from ours be so kind as to put ours too and do not stand talking to us and fooling your Readers with the Rabbies pretended Tradition from Moses his mouth no more like ours than an Apple is like an Oyster Again this Resolution of your Faith gives every one Absolute Certainty of his Faith who believes he has Absolute Certainty of Scripture's letter and that it contains the Word of God. And yet Experience tells us that whole Bodys of Learned men believe all this and yet differ that is one side errs in the highest Mysteries of Christian Faith. Whence follows that both sides by this Doctrin are Absolutely Certain of their Faith one side for example is Absolutely Certain there is a Trinity and that Christ is God the other that there is no Trinity and that Christ is not God. This seems but a very odd account of the Certainty of Protestant Faith. 17. But you refine upon your self in your Answer to the 3 d Question p. 15. It was ask't there By what Certain Rule do you know that the New Testament which we now have does contain all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles This Question evidently aims at two things viz. First whether some Books writ by the Apostles were not lost as appears by those words which we now have For if they were then being penn'd by men divinely inspir'd they must necessarily contain some Divine Revelations in them too as well as did the other and then how does it appear there were not more or other Revelations contain'd in them than were contain'd in the books now extant The other is that you know well very many hold that diverse Divine Revelations were deliver'd down by Tradition and not all by Writing Let 's see now how your Answer sutes with this Question By the Vniversal Testimony say you of the Christian Church from the Apostles times downwards This Reply if pertinent to that Question must mean that this Vniversal Testimony ascertains us that the Scriptures we have now contains all the Divine Revelations But when you come to explain your self it comes to no more but that The Testimony of the Apostolical and the succeeding Churches did by degrees make men fix upon the Certain Canon of the New Testament What a flight have you taken on a sudden Where will you pitch when you light I am sure not on the place where you took wing and where you ought to have stay'd For What is their Testimony for the Books we now have to the Books which have or may have prerish't and to their containing some other Divine Revelations Or what is the fixing upon the Certain Canon of the Books to the difficulty whether some Divine Revelations did not descend by Tradition without Writing Do the Apostolical or succeeding Churches testify either of these Or do you so much as pretend they do Not a syllable of this do you say or take notice of and so not a syllable have you Answer'd to his Question Which was not about the Canon of Scripture or how you would resolve your Faith with which you keep such a pother over and over but whether the New Testament we have now contain'd all the Divine Revelations If you explicate Scripture no better for your Faith than you do your own words here you will questionless make a very extraordinary piece of work of it Your Answers come now and then pretty home the smartness of the Questions obliging you to it but your Explications of them immediately after seem purposely fram'd that we should not take you at your Word in your Answers 18. That Answer then prevaricating from the whole Question Mr. G. endeavour'd to press for a pertinent return to what was demanded and therefore puts his fourth Question thus Was that Vniversal Testimony an Infallible Rule to assure us certainly down to our time that the New Testament contain'd all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles Your Answer was The Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church concerning the Book of Scripture and the Doctrin contain'd therein is a sufficient Ground to make us certain of all matters necessary to our Salvation 19. Here are many things worth our Admiration In the First Letter p. 7. this Universal Testimony was onely to ascertain the Scripture In the Answer to the Third Question here 't is onely to assure us that the New Testament contains all the Divine Revelations But here it is to certify us of the Doctrine too contain'd in it which if you mean as your Words seem to sound is all we require in our Tradition-Rule There may be some other subtle meaning lying yet coucht in those Words which Time may discover tho' we cannot yet till he that made the Lock bring the Key Again 't is ask't if it be an Infallible Rule T is answered T is a sufficient Ground T is ask't whether this Testimony assures us certainly the New Testament contains all the Divine Revelations T is answer'd it makes us certain of all Matters necessary to our Salvation which is clearly intended for a diminishing expression and argues some fear of undertaking for All the Divine Revelations being contain'd there or All the Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles as was pretended p. 14. One would verily imagin by this unsutable Answer that Dr. St. and Mr. G. were playing at Cross-purposes the Answer is so wide from the Question at least that there is some indirect design lies lurking it being so opposite to the wayes of honest Nature When one asks a positive Question all Mankind expects a Positive Answer to the very words as they ly I or No Or if the words be ambiguous 't is the duty of the Answerer to desire to be satisfied of the meaning of the Asker if present ere he answers without which in that case 't is impossible to reply pertinently But it is not your temper nor interest to use such clear and open candour For you saw that great multitudes had the Letter thus secur'd to them yet had not Absolute Certainty that all the Divine Revelations are contain'd in it therefore by adding and the Doctrin contain'd therein you had some faint hopes you might be safe Again you saw well that should you grant Universal Testimony to be an Infallible Rule you would hazard to grant too much to Tradition and all the learned Jests you have broke upon us for asserting Infallibility would fly back upon your self therefore grant it you durst not Nor yet durst you deny it to be an Infallible Rule for then since one of the two it must forcibly be you must affirm it to be a Fallible Rule And then the common sence of all Mankind Mr. T. amongst the rest would be justly scandaliz'd at the non sense For an intellectual Ground that may perhaps let sink
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
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
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
to it Daily propagate it to others must be in a manner infinitely stronger For sure he will not say that the Hatred against the Papists which I fear is the main Motive to continue the other is a more powerfull Cause to effect this than all the Motives laid by God and the Care of the Salvation of themselves and their Posterity was for the Body of the Church to perpetuate a Doctrine that came from Heaven In a word this one Instance is enough to shew evidently that he either grossly mistakes or wilfully perverts in that Appendix the whole Subject about which we are there discoursing And is such a slight piece or such a man worth answering were it not for the Repute he has got not for writing for the Church of England but for his Hatred and Scribbling against the Papists Since this one Errour is so Fundamentall that it must needs influence all that Discourse of his as far as 't is Serious or pretends to Solidity and so leaves nothing to be replied to but wilely Shuffles and aiery Trifles which are Frivolous in themselves and in his Writings Endless SECT I. The Author of the Catholique Letters clear'd from Dr. St.'s borrow'd Calumnies 5. HAving behav'd himself thus unfortunately to himself and his Friends ever since he came upon the Stage Dr. St. comes to settle his Method which he says he thinks is most Natural and Effectual to proceed in in handling the main Subject of our Debate about the Nature and Grounds of the Certainty of Faith. It consists of Four Heads and I shall follow my Leader he being such a Master of Method and take them as they lie The First is To shew how unfit J. S. is of all men to undertake this Cause who contradicts himself as occasion serves Certainly this man has a Method as well as a Logick peculiar to himself Does it follow so Naturally that Faith needs no Higher Grounds of Certainty because J. S. writes unconstantly Or does he prove so Effectually he has shewn his Grounds do allow Faith as 't is controverted between us the Certainty due to it's Nature because I write weakly But the truth is his Method is to avoid all Method and to wriggle in twenty Impertinent and Invidious things to make a shew of having said a great deal tho' to no purpose and to raise as much Dust as he can that he may run away from the business we are about and hide himself in the Mist. But is he sure that I. S. contradicts himself Impartial men will doubt it when they shall know that both those few pretended contradictions he has borrow'd out of Lominus and many more were objected and earnestly press'd against me in a far-distant Tribunal where my self was unknown and had few or rather no Friends but what my Cause Defences gave me That they were discust by those strictest Judges and compar'd with my Answers and yet not so much as the least check given me or any Correction of my Books even in the least tittle was order'd though this be a thing not unusual in such cases That the business already transiit in rem judicatam and that the Satisfaction I gave then to Superiours who could have no imaginable reason to be favourable to me to the prejudice of Catholick Doctrine is an abundant clearing of the Soundness of my Writings and the Sincerity of my Defences It would I say be enough to do this and then leave the Doctor 's malice to the Censure of all Ingenuous Persons for objecting anew things of which I was about Eleven years ago so authentiquely acquitted But alas his Method which oblig'd him to speak to the true Point as little as he could for shame and to fill up an empty figure of an Answer with as many Impertinencies as he could well hook in led him so directly to it that he could not for his heart avoid it Should he object Murther or any other heinous Crime to a pretended Malefactor already clear'd of it by his Proper Judges and the Court every honest man would admire at his folly but all 's meritorious with his Party against the Papists Tho' I say this be sufficient for my Vindication yet because those Defences of mine were in Latin and the clearing this Point conduces very much to the shortening and illustrating my future Answer I shall repeat here some few particulars of many which are found there at large And First I shall put some notes to give a clear Light of this business Next I shall show his Shallowness and Insincerity in what he objects Thirdly I will put down the most Authentick Approbations of my Books by the Testimony of Learned Men of all sorts and beyond all Exception and then reflect on his Imprudence in making such an objection 6. For the First I lay these Notes 1. That School-Divines discourse of Faith under another Notion or Consideration than Controvertists do The former treat of it as 't is a Theological Virtue and the Material Objects of it as reveal'd by a Testimony formally Divine And they prove it to be such by alledging the Miracles done to attest it the wonderfull Conversion of the World by it and the admirable Effects issuing from it as the Sanctity of it's Professors that live up to it the Heroick Sufferings of Martyrs c. And because 't is a Supernatural Virtue and so depends on God's Supernatural Influence as much as Natural Effects do on His Power as Author of Nature hence they consider it as introduc't by Supernatural Dispositions inclining men to it and God's Heavenly Grace making them embrace it and adhere to it constantly On the other side Controvertists particularly We in our Modern Controversies being to argue against those who admit whatever was taught by Christ to be Divine cannot possibly have the least occasion to treat of it as 't is such or use any of the former Arguments that are apt to prove it such but accommodate our Discourses precisely to make out what those men deny that is the Grounds by which we come to know assuredly that these or those Points were taught by Christ. Much less do we consider Faith as it depends on the Workings of God's Holy Spirit illuminating Interiourly the Souls of the Faithfull and fixing them in their Faith these being Invisible and so Impossible to be brought into Arguments or produc't against an Adversary in our Controversial Disputes 2. That 't is evident that in all my Books I am writing Controversies and consequently writing of Faith precisely as 't is controverted between me and my Opposers Which manifestly evinces that I treat of it under none of those Considerations School-Divines do in regard none of my Adversaries at least professedly deny it to be Divine or that God's Grace is requisite to it Nor can any man shew so much as One Argument in all my Books that looks that way 3. That since 't is manifest beyond all Cavill that we are writing
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
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
it as I would by a hirco-cervus a four-squar'd Triangle Green Scarlet or whatever such desperate words one may put together to compound strong Nonsense How should I mean any thing by a Compound of two such words which the Goodness of Rational Nature and the aversion which our understanding power has to Contradiction has forbid any man to use ever since the Creation Did the Dr. or any man living hear any Mortal man when he is about to express his Certainty of a thing say I am Fallibly Certain of it Yet how oft has he heard them say I am Infallibly Certain of such a thing whence were the word Infallibly a different Notion from Certain or Difference added to it as to its Genus it would nay must admit the Opposite Difference Fallibly as is done in all such cases which since it does not without straining nature and the Language of Mankind 't is not a different Notion but the same with True Certainty and therefore in proper Speech True Certainty and Infallibility are both one Yet after he has thus abus'd the Language of all Mankind he has the Confidence to tell me I make use of those words in an Improper and unusual Sense This farther appears by this that our Speculators use to add Moral or some other such Epithet to it which are of a diminishing signification when they would express it's deficiency from True Certainty This Logical Demonstration to prove Certainty and Infallibility to be the same was alledg'd in Faith Vindicated p. 37. But we must excuse such slight Talkers from even attempting to give an Answer becoming a Scholar to any such close Proofs tho' it has been prest upon him in Errour Non-plust p. 92. and upon Dr Tillotson in Reason against Raâ—â—â—ery from p. 64. to p. 67. He only tells us what he does own does not own and such sleeveless sayings that is he only says over again his own crude Tenets with the formality of a Distinction or two and places his main hopes to uphold his Credit not in the Strength of his Answers but in the Weakness or Partiality of his Readers The upshot is he owns clearly he has only Fallible Grounds for his Faith having been taught by Christ which is to assert and maintain for it is not to be suppos'd he will allow any others to have surer Grounds than his own that All Christian Faith may be False and the Grounds themselves in more Regards than one most perfect Nonsence 47. He proceeds next to give us his Notion of Absolute Certainty in these words When the Evidence is the highest which in point of Reason the thing is capable of then there is that which I call Absolute Certainty These words Which I call are very Emphatical and precisely True for no man living but himself and Dr. T. that I know of ever call'd it so For suppose the Evidence be but very slight and the Thing as propos'd to us or in our Circumstances can give us no more will this slight glimmering Evidence make us Absolutely Certain of it Again Does he mean in point of True Reason inform'd by the best Maxims to direct and establish it This is Conclusive Evidence or Demonstration and the Conclusion thus deduc't is Infallibly True because the Maxim which legitimates the Consequence is as all Logicians know Infallibly Certain being a Principle of our Understanding and Self-evident Is it this he means No He does not like Conclusive Evidence in the Grounds of his Faith by no means To come closer I ask him Does he mean that True Knowledge conformable to the Thing or object fixes him in that Certainty or in great part his own aiery Apprehension If such a Knowledge then since none can truly know what is not that Knowledge is as Impossible to be False or is as Infallibly True as 't is that the thing must be what it is And if no such Knowledge grounds his Certainty how is it an Absolute or Perfect one Can his apprehending it so make it so Can a man be Absolutely Certain of a Falshood because he apprehends that Falshood to be a Truth or that a thing is so when 't is not so If not then 't is only it 's being so which can be the Ground of Absolute Certainty and justify that Assent and then that Assent is Infallible for a thing is Infallibly what it is He 'l say he took it to be so and that 's enough But to omit that his taking a thing to be so neither makes nor proves it to be so I press farther When he took it to be so Did he take it right or did he mistake it If he took it right then again his Knowledge and Certainty grounded on that Knowledge are both Infallible for his Knowledge when he took it right could not but be conformable to the Thing and the Thing is Infallibly as it is If he took it wrong or mistook it and yet be Absolutely Certain of it then again there may be Absolute Certainty of a Falshood or that a thing is so which is not so which is a rare kind of Certainty indeed especially for the Ground of his Faith and Posterity no doubt will owe much to his Memory for the Invention 'T is left then that he must say he did not know whether he took it right or wrong but apprehended he took it right In which case to omit that this apprehending or thinking the Evidence so strong as to determin assent is the Second kind of Certainty he assigns here before he comes to Absolute Certainty I ask how he can possibly think himself Certain a thing is such when he sees he does not know whether he be mistaken in it or no And how a Judgment that a thing absolutely is and a Judgment that it may not be for any thing he knows can be consistent together in an Intellectual Nature without destroying the First Principle of our Understanding viz. That 't is not Possible the same thing should at once be and not be 48. I have not done with this new invented Absolute Certainty of his It must spring he says from the Highest Evidence which in point of Reason the thing is capable of Where every expression is Indeterminate and Ambiguous Suppose as I urg'd lately the thing be not capable of any Clear Evidence as himself supposes there is not for such or such a Doctrin to have been taught by Christ why must he needs Assent at all Why does he not Suspend God has endow'd us with a Faculty of doing this as a bridle to keep us from Precipitation and to preserve us from running into Errour why should we not use it but expose our selves to run headlong into Mistakes both prejudiciall to our Nature whose Perfection is Truth and pernicious in its Consequences to the Conduct of our Lives Again Certainty taken from the Thing as he says this is signifies a Determination of the Mind by means of the Object and is the
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
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
then calls it an easy Answer and if it be an answer at all I must confess 't is an easy one for any man may with ease answer a thousand Objections in a trice at that rate nothing is easier than to omit all that is objected But I dare undertake that whoever reads my Third Catholick Letter p. 37.38.39.40 where four several prevarications were charg'd upon him in giving one single Answer to Mr. G's Question will judge it so far from easy that 't is Impossible for him to answer even with any degree of plausibility But with this sleightness he slips over most of my Objections in my Letters and supplies the defect with confident Talk or a Scornfull Iest. But because his main shuffle is his altering those words of the Question All the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles into All matters necessary to Salvation and this is his constant evasion we will examin it more particularly in order to the sole End of the Conference to which all the particular Questions were to be directed viz. his showing Grounds of Asbolute Certainty for his Faith. 1. I ask with the good leave of his Jest Does he think Christ and his Apostles taught any unnecessary Points If not why did he use such cautious diminishing expressions and instead of All their Doctrin put All matters necessary to our Salvation 2. Christians are wrought up to the Love of Heaven the Immediate Disposition to it by Motives and Some may need more than Others nay the variety of Peoples Tempers and Circumstances is so Infinite that scarce two persons will precisely need the same He is to acquaint us then how he knows or how he can make out that every man shall by reading the Scripture be sure to find his own Quota of Motives adjusted and serving for his particular Exigencies 3. Is he Sure they cannot err as to what 's necessary to their Salvation If provided they do their best they cannot then every man is so far Infallible which the Doctor has deny'd hitherto to all Mankind but to himself If they can err in matters necessary to Salvation then doubtless many will err and how can errour Save them 4. Tho' all cannot err in all Moral Points yet can he shew us any thing securing them from Erring in all those Articles of Faith held by the Church and renounc't by her Heretical Dissenters ever since Christ's time If he cannot and he declines shewing us they can nay he by his Doctrin confesses they may then they may be Sav'd tho' holding all the Heresies that ever were in which case I doubt he will scarce find them competent Assurance of their Salvation Again how knows he but the mixture of many of those gross Errours may not as much deprave their Souls as their understanding plainer places will edify them especially if the Church interposes and Excommunicates them for Hereticks For his Grounds forbid them to meddle with those high Points but leave the whole Scripture to their scanning and his approved Friend Dr. T. says they are Plain and so are subject to their profound Judgment of Discretion 5. He must tell us how must Church-Disciplin be exerciz'd upon such a Miscellany of Heterogeneous Members of which many obstinately deny what others pertinaciously affirm 6. Is the holding the Godhead of Christ and that God dy'd to save and redeem Mankind a Matter Necessary to Salvation Or is it enough to hold it was only a Man to whom they owe that highest Obligation to Love him Let him speak to this at least For I am not to expect but his aiery wordish Divinity makes him look upon the Mystery of the most Blessed Trinity as on a kind of dry Speculation Tho' were it seasonable to dilate on that Article I could shew him that besides it's exceeding Usefulness to the sublime Contemplatives the most Sacred and most Influential Points of Christian Faith and the main Body of Christian Language and the Truth of it depend on it's Verity Lastly Who told him that all sorts of People who are yet Unbelievers and looking after Christ's true Doctrin shall by reading Scripture come to all-saving Faith Has he it by Divine Revelation or by Reason Or will he recurr to Divine Assistances to keep Particular Persons from Errour and yet deny them to the Church If so how proves he This at least I wish he would speak out fairly and candidly to these Points and make something cohere For I profess with all sincerity I cannot for my heart make any Idea or Sense of this Motly Church which his Principles would patch up The several Members of it hang more loosely together than if they were ty'd to one another with Points Nay they agree worse than Fire and Water and all the several Contrarieties in in Nature for they are distanced by direct Contradiction of one to the other Whence they are utterly incapable of any kind of Coalition there being no imaginable means left to refract the irreconcileably-opposit Qualities of his Affirmative and Negative Faithfull or reduce so many Independent private-spirited Members into one Compound He is to shew us then how the parts of this Rope of Sand as it may more fitly be called must hang together I much fear it will be Invisibly by vertue of their being of the Elect and at the same rate as the Terms coher'd in the Invisible Proofs he alledg'd to shew us he and his Followers had Christ's true Doctrin 59. We shall never have done with this Purse of his He is so fond of the pretty Similitude that he puts it here over again at large and spends incomparably more time and pains in defending it than he does in making out the Absolute Certainty of his Faith tho' he both stood engag'd to do it and any good Christian too would think it were far more worth his while Had he done this the rest might have been more fairly compounded and his Purse have remain'd unransack't However he thinks it sutes well with the Conceit he had of Scripture but I am sure it sutes not at all with our purpose his shewing the Absolute Certainty of his Faith. Hence I told him that Scripture's containing Faith was impertinent to the whole drift of the Conference That the only business was how to get the Gold and Silver of Faith out thence with Absolute Certainty and how to secure those that aim'd to enrich themselves by it that instead of extracting the Pure Gold of Truth by understanding right those high and most Inestimable Articles the ransackers of it did not draw out thence the Impure Dross of Errour and Heresy Lastly that he ought to have put two Purses One the Heads and Hearts of the Faithfull into which the Apostles put this Heavenly Treasure of Faith by their Preaching the Other the Book of Scripture into which they put it by Writing and that Faith was properly in the Former only in regard Truth is no where Formally but in the