True and hee expresses himself to do it lest Adversaries from his being wholly silent should take occasion to bee more impudent That is the reason of the thing requir'd it not but the unresaonableness of the Carping humour of Adversaries You alledge his words That Faith which was profest by the Fathers in the Nicene Council according to the Scriptures 315. l. 3. 4. c. is to mee sufficient c. Whence your discourse makes his opinion to bee that Scripture is the sufficient Rule of Faith Lord Sir where are your thoughts wandring or what 's the Nominative Case in that clause is to mee sufficient to the word is Is it not that Faith to wit the Nicene which you mistake for the Rule of Faith and joyn the Epithet sufficient to Rule of Faith which in the Testimony is joyned to Faith Your conceit that it seems hence the Scripture was to him the Rule to judge the Creeds of Generall Councills is a very weak one hee told you before his Faith came to him by Tradition of Ancestours all that is here intimated is that hee judg'd the Nicene Creed to be according to the Scriptures and what Catholik judges not so of that and the Council of Trent too and yet holds not Scripture which is to bee interpreted by the Church the Rule and Standard to judge the Church by To use your own words p. 332. You use a wretched importunity to perswade Testimonies to bee pertinent yet all will not do and your too violent straining them makes them the more confess their naturall reluctancy But now comes the Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus charg'd to be taken not by mee but by the Authour I borrowed it of out of the middle of a long Sentence and both before it and after it Scripture nam'd so as to make it quite opposit to our Tenet I have already given account of my action and my Adversary now become my Judge charges it not wholly upon mee Alas I am not able to read the Testimonies in the books and understand them there 't is such a peece of mastery and therefore am fain to take them upon trust from others that can read them there But my Seducer how hee will acquit himself of so foul an Imputation is left to any Ingenuous Papist to judge c Sir let mee tell you you should consider circumstances ere you come to lay on such heavy charges I beseech you was the book in which this Seducer forsooth us'd this Testimony writ against Protestants who hold Scripture the Rule of Faith or against some Catholik Divines holding the Opinion of Personall Infallibility Clearly against the later This being so what was hee concern'd to transcribe the whole large Testimony no wrong being done to them either position of Ecclesiasticall Tradition which hee cites or of Scripture which hee cites not equally making against that Tenet or rather that passage of Ecclesiasticall Tradition being far more efficacious upon them than that which concern'd Scripture which they account not obligatory unless interpreted by the Church By this time the Reader will discern there was a great deal of rashness in the Accuser but no Insincerity at all in the Alledger Nor is there the least danger of the Testimonies following upbraiding them who patch together abundance of false words and fictions that they may seem rationally not to admit the Scriptures For what is this to us whose endeavours are to lay 〈◊〉 beginning from First Principles why wee and every man may and ought rationally admit the Scriptures and neither make our Faith ridiculous by admitting into it what 's uncertain nor leaving any excuse to Atheisticall Impiety in not admitting what 's Certain This is the summe of my aim and endeavours though nothing will content you but that wee admit the Letter to bee plain to all and by consequence to you and then your Fancy is to bee accepted for God's Word and your pride of understanding will bee well at ease You pass over nine of my Testimonies two from St. Basil and three from St. Austin alledg'd by mee Sure-footing p. 135 136 137. one from Ireneus and two from Tertullian and another from St. Peter Chrysologus Sure-footing p. 138 139. sleighting them as but a few whereas speaking of Testimonies from the Fathers as you do here you had answer'd but eight in all which you seem by your words to judge such a great multitude in comparison of 9 and those 9 or those few which remain as you call them so inconsiderable for their number in respect of the other numerous or innumera le 8 that the paucity of their number made them less deserve speaking to Yet a careless generall kind of Answer you give such as it is p. 318. telling the Reader that there is nothing of Argument in those few which remain but from the ambiguity of this word Tradition which wee will needs take for unwritten Tradition You add p. 318. that you need not show this of every one of them in particular for whosoever shall read them with this Key will find that they are of no force to conclude what hee drives at I was going Sir to use your own words and to ask with what face you could pretend this Let 's bring the book I 'le undertake it shall not blush to tell you how careless you are of what you say I omit that the word Tradition doth by Ecclesiasticall use signifie in the first place unwritten Tradition Moreover that wee may let Mercy triumph over Justice wee will pardon the first Testimony found p. 135. though St. Basil by counterposing Tradition of Faith to the conceits of the Heretick Eunomius seems to mean by Tradition Sense receiv'd from Fathers attesting this being the most opposit to Conceits or new-invented Fancies that can bee for even an Interpretation of Scripture may bee a Conceit or Fancy newly invented whereas what 's barely deliver'd cannot bee such The 2d is the same St. Basil's p. 136. Let Tradition bridle thee Our Lord taught thus the Apostles preach't it the Fathers conserv'd it our Ancestours confirm'd it bee content to say as thou art taught Is not here enough to signifie unwritten Tradition Did Christ teach it by reading it in a written Book or the Apostles preach it by book or is the perpetuating it by Fathers and Ancestours the keeping it by way of writing The third is St. Austin's p. 136. I will rather beleeve those things which are Celebrated now by the Consent of Learned and unlearned and are confirm'd throughout all Nations by most grave Authority Is universall consent and most grave Authority of all nations the book of Scripture or written Tradition or rather is it not most Evidently unwritten universall Tradition or Sense in the hearts of all Beleevers learned and unlearned or the Church Essentiall The 4th is from the same St. Austin 'T is manifest that the Authority of the Catholik Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance Do these words Authority of the Catholick Church mean the Book of Scriptures Or
or driving them home to any point my very sorting them under these Heads sounds a greater particularity in my Exceptions and Answer than you show'd any in alledging them Next you had refus'd to do mee the reason I begg'd in my Letter to my Answerer § 8. in vouching you Testimonies to bee Conclusive or Satisfactory which unless you did I had already told you there it was my resolution to give them no other Answer And I shall candidly make known my Intention why I do so and shall ever do so till you come to some good point in that particular I had observ'd what multitudes of voluminous Books had and might bee writ in the way of Citation without any possibility of satisfying that is to the extream loss of time and prejudice to rational souls while any Citation however qualify'd was admitted and no Principles laid to sort them and show which were Conclusive wherefore I judg'd it the best way to drive you from that insignificant and endless way of writing to tell in short my exceptions against each Testimony and to force you to vouch them Conclusive And I pray why should I or any be put to show each of those Citations to our excessive pains inefficacious whereas your self who is the Alledger will not take pains to show any one of them to bee efficacious But your way here is the weakest in that kind I ever read or heard of You huddle together a clutter of Citations never apply them particularly as I constantly did mine Overleap all considerations of their qualifications nakedly set them down as you say p. 332 and then tell us they are enough to satisfie any unpassionate Reader that dare trust himself with the use of his own Eyes and Reason Which is plausible indeed to flatter fools that are passionately self-conceited otherwise I conceive an unpassionate Reader will require much more if he ever knew what Controversy meant Hee would know the variety of Circumstances Antecedents Consequents c. Besides speaking Equivocally or Rhetorically not distinctly and literally may alter every Testimony there Above all hee would consider whether they were expressive onely of some persons Opinions and not rather of the solid and constant sense of the faithful in that Age vvithout which they want the nature of Testimonies Is it clear to every man's Eyes and Reason none of these or other faults render all yours Inefficacious Is it clear that when they say Scripture is plain they mean plain to all even Heathens that never heard of Faith such must bee the Plainness of the Rule of Faith or onely to those who have learn't Christian Doctrin already by the Church that is who bring their Rule with them I am sure St. Austin de Doctrinâ Christianâ your best Testimony speaks of such Readers as are timentes Deum ac pietate mansueti those which fear God and are meek with piety that is those which are not onely Faithful or Christians already but pious and good Christians which makes it nothing to your purpose Again some one passage may bee so plain as a learned man may in the opinion of learned men plainly confound an Adversary but will it bee clear and plain in all necessary points to the vulgar who hear a great many hard words brought on both sides and have no skill to judge who has the better in such contests yet the Rule of Faith must bee plain even to the vulgar and able to give them Satisfaction Again when the Fathers provoke to the Scripture is it not against those who deny the Church but accept the Scripture and so the necessity of disputing out of some commonly-acknowledg'd Principle may bee the onely reason they take that method 'T is evidently so in that you quote from St. Austin against Maximinus p. 329. and against the Donatists who deny'd the Judgment of the Catholik Church quae ubique terrarum diffunditur and so hee was to prove his point ubi sit Ecclesia out of Scripture or no way Again is it clear out of the Citations nakedly set down what went before and after Is it clear for example that when they speak highly of Scripture they mean not Scripture unsenc't but onely taken as Significative of God's sence as it must to bee the Rule of Faith or if of Scripture senc't they mean not senc't by the Church but by the human skill of private persons which is the true point between us St. Austin without doubt makes the Church the Interpreter of Scripture as is clearly seen by his Discourse at the end of his 17. Chap. Of the Profit of Beleeving which spoils your pretence to his Authority Nay do not they often mean by Scripture the very Sence of it that is Christs Doctrine or the Gospel As oft as you hear them speak of the Things that are written or call them Principles or The Rule of Truth and Opinions or speak of conforming other Doctrines to them and such like so oft they speak of the Doctrin it self contain'd in Scripture or the Truths found there Such is that of Clemens cited by you p. 316. 317. which speaks meerly of the Sence of it or the Truths in it which hee makes deservedly the Rule to other Truths and hence now hee names Scripture then the Tradition of the Church then Scripture again it being indifferent to his purpose the same Sense which hee onely intends being included in both Such is also evidently your best Testimony to wit that of Irenaeus which speaks of the Gospell it self preach't and writ that is clearly of the Sence indifferent to either way of Expression But what is this or indeed all that is said there to the Letter of Scripture taken as Significative of God's Sense that is not for that Sense nor as including it but as the Means and Way to it as it must bee taken when 't is meant for a Rule of Faith and the plainness and Certainty of that Way to all that are yet to come to Faith taking that Letter as interpretable by private Skill and Maxims of Language-learning which is the true point between you and us Bring Testimonies for this and you will do wonders To use your own words p. 318. I need not shew what I have discours't here of every of his Testimonies in particular for whosoever shall read them with this Key will find they are of no force to conclude what hee drives or ought to drive at I am loath to suggest any Jealousie of your Insincerity in all these Citations though you have seldome fail'd in that point Present my service to your Friend Mr. Stillingfleet and assure him hee shall not bee neglected though there were no other reason but your high commendations of him Your humble Servant J. S. A Postscript to the Reader READER THough I write to Mr. T. yet I publish to thee and so have a Title to salute thee with a line or two Tell mee then dost not find thy Expectation deluded which Sure-footing
can I desire more then this Father offers mee in express terms or a greater Testimony that you are to seek for an Answer to it then the strange Evasion you substitute instead of a reply Especially if wee take the Testimony immediatly following which from the best establisht Seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthen'd by the Series of Bishops succeeding them and by the Assertion of so many nations Is here the word Tradition pretended Indifferent and apt to bee taken ambiguously and not rather Assertions of so many nations or Consent of nations and Authority of the Catholik Church of force to cause Faith and Assu rance which to demonstrate is the whole Endeavour of Sure-fooring The 5th is the same Fathers cited p. 137. The Faithfull do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church Is the word Church the same with the word Tradition or in danger of being ambiguous or as you say of the word Tradition p. 318. commonly us'd by the Fathers to signify to us the Scriptures The 6th is of St. Irenaeus All those who will hear Truth may at present perfectly discern in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles manifest in the whole world What means the world at present but that the Tradition of the Apostles is yet vigorous and fresh in the Church which remark had very unfitly suted with Scriptures The 7th and 8th are Tertullians Both say the same Sence that what is establisht as Sacred or profest at this present day in the Churches of the Apostles is manifestly deliver'd by the Apostles or a Tradition of the Apostles which is incompetent to Scripture it not being a Tradition or point delivered but the Delivery The last is of Chrysologus which has indeed the word Tradition but by the additionall words of the Fathers not left ambiguous but determin'd to unwritten Tradition For the Fathers according to you are not to give or diliver down the Sence of Scriptures it being plain of it self This Sir is the upshot of your skill in Notebook-learning the three first Testimonies from Scripture you answerd not mistaking quite what they were brought for the 4th you omitted You have given pittiful answers to eight from the Fathers and shufled off nine more without answer pleading you had given us a Key to open them which was never made for those locks By which I see you reserve your greatest Kindnesses like a right friendly man till the last You will not have the Councill of Trent make Tradition the onely Rule of Faith you had oblig'd mee had you answer'd my reason for it in my 4th note p. 145. 146. But this is not your way you still slip over my reasons all along as if none had been brought and then say some sleight thing or other to the Conclusion as if it had never been inferrd by mee but meerly gratis and rawly affirm'd I have explicated our Divines that seem to differ from mee herein Sure footing p. 187. 188. and the Council it self takes my part in it by defining and practising the taking the Sence of Scripture from that quod tenuit tenet Sanct a Mater Ecclesia which in this antecedency to Scriptures Sence can no where bee had but from Tradition You cavill at mee for not putting down the words in which that Councill declares it self to honour the Holy Scripture and Tradition with equall pious affection and reverence Why should I you see I was very short in all my allegations thence and rather touch't at them for Catholicks to read them more at large than transcrib'd them fully But how groundless your Cavill is may bee understood hence that I took notice of a far more dangerous point to wit it's putting the Holy Scriptures constantly before Tradition and show'd good reason why But you approve not even of any honour done to the Scriptures upon those Terms and your interest makes you wish that rather it's Letter and Sence both should remain uncertain than it should owe any thing to the Catholick Church You ask how an Apostle and Evangelist should bee more present by the Scripture ascertain'd as to words and Sence then by or all Tradition I answer because that Book is in that case Evident to bee peculiarly and adequately his whereas Orall Tradition was common to all and 't is doubtable what hand some of those Apostles or Evangelists might have had in the source of that which was lineally deriv'd to us Sir I wonder how you hit so right once as not to answer likewise the Testimony I brought p. 152. of the Catholick Clergy's adhering to Tradition in the â—ick of the breach you might as well have spoke to that as to the Council of Trent divers others But I perceive it had some peculiar difficulty as had divers of the neglected nine else your Genius leads you naturally to flie at any thing that has but the semblance or even name of a Testimony whereas unactive I stoop at no such game till I see certainly 't is worth my pains and I fear yours will scarce prove so THey come in play p. 320. And because they are huddled together here something confusedly it were not amiss to sort them under Dr. Pierce's Heads found Sure-footing p. 170. To the first Head which comprises those which are onely brought to vapour with belongs that of St. Hierom. p. 323. To the second Head which consists of those which are raw unapply'd and onely say something in common which never comes home to the point belong all those of Eusebius That of St. Chrysostome and St. Austin's p. 324. of Iustin and Theodoret p. 325. That of Hilary p. 327. of St. Basil. p. 328. of Chrysostom p. 328. and 329. and those of St. Austin in the same place Of Theoph. Alexandr p. 330. Theodoret p. 330. 331. The 2d and 3d. from Gerson p. 331. To the 4th that of St. Austin p. 325. To the 7th Head which comprises those which are false and signifie not the thing they are quoted for appertain that of Ireneus p. 326. of St. Austin St. Hierome and the 2d of Theoph. Alexandrinus p. 330. To the 8th consisting of those which labour of obscurity by an evidently ambiguous word that of Optatus p. 327. The first from Gerson p. 331. and that from Lyra p. 332. St. Cyprian's Testimony was writ by him to defend an Errour which both wee and the Protestants hold for such and therefore no wonder if as Bellarmin sayes more errantium ratiocinaretur hee discoursed after the rate of those that err that is assumes false Grounds to build his errour on Whence the inferring an acknowledg'd false Conclusion from it is an argument rather his Principle was not sound I know Sir you will fume at this usage of your Testimonies but with what reason For first you putting them down rawly without particularizing their force or import
Faith being confessedly the means to arrive at the Points of Faith and the Sence or meaning of Scripture being the Points of Faith it follows unavoidably that the Protestants must say if they will speak sence that the Rule of Faith must bee the means to bring them to the Sence or meaning of Scripture for which according to them the Letter of Scripture as significative being sufficient 't is consequent they can onely mean by Rule of Faith the Letter of Scripture as significative of God's Sence or Points Faith I beseech you Sir what say you to this Discourse Do you answer it or show that if you take Scripture in any other Sence for Rule of Faith than as thus consider'd you do not confound the Rule of Faith with the Points of Faith Not a jot Nor is it your fashion to speak to my Reasons or Consequences Thus you answer'd my First Discourse the most solid and most Fundamentall part of my Book Deforming the plain sayings I built on for Definitions denying my conclusions in a following Section and saying something against them but not a word I can find any where against the Proofs which inferr'd them deduc't at large there for 14. § § together that is from § 2. to the end Your way of answering is generally when you are gravell'd with the Reason to bring some ridiculous Parallell then laugh heartily and mock at that and so discountenance the other But here to do you right you bring two very good ones but the comfort is you understood them not to bee such else wee should not have had them which you put a little oddly and then triumph and think your self victorious Pray Sir lend me your Parallells a while to manage The first of them is found p. 62. concerning which I thus discourse Taking the Statute-book for the means to convey to us the Sence of that Book or the Laws I must still say you cannot mean by Statute-book the Sence of that Book or the Laws that is that Book as conjoyn'd with it's Sence for so it would signify that the same Thing is a means to it self that is is before and after it self you must onely mean then by Statute-book thus consider'd the Letter of that book as yet unsenc't or contradistinguisht from the same book as conjoyn'd with its sence that is the Letter of that Book as Significative Thus I conceive it perfectly parallell to mine and withall very rationall But you make it amount to this p. 62. l. 13. That a Book cannot convey to a man the Knowledge of any matter because if it did it would convey to him the Thing to bee known The later part of which is true though I percieve you know it not for these words Knowledge of a matter involves in their signification the thing Known as if you reflect on your own words Matter and Thing you will quickly discover But the Sophistry lies in this that when you say a Book cannot convey c. you equivocate in the word Book which I contend must either be taken for the Letter of it in conjunction with the Sence which is the thing known and then it cannot thus accepted bee a means of arriving at the Knowledge of the Thing or the Thing as known for then it would signify as much as if one should say the Letter with the thing known is the means of arriving at the thing known or else it must bee taken for the Letter as Significative onely or without the Sence and so it may bee conceiv'd a way of arriving at that Sence 't is judg'd apt to signify But Sir your contending here against a thing so Evident has a great deal of reason for it you would have the outward Letter of Scripture confounded with the Sense of it that those who hear you quote the Letter may thee fool'd to imagine you have still the Sense aoo whereas should these bee known to bear distinction it would bee very obvious to question whether you speak any thing of God's Word or no how much soever you have the outward Letter in your mouth and pen Which reflexion alone if it were considerately weigh'd would spoil all your writing and preaching too For thus go your First Principles The outward Letter lying in a book must first bee call'd God's Word and held so plain that it cannot bee misunderstood and then the Sence you give it must needs bee held God's Sence which politick Principles lay'd I see not what you are inferiour to those whom the Holy Ghost inspir'd and your sayings are to have the same force if the plot take as the words of a Prophet or Evangelist And who would not bee angry fume and take on against a Discourse which is likely to devest you of so considerable and beneficiall a Prerogative Your second Parallell applies my Distinction concerning Scripture to Orall Tradition for you have a speciall Faculty of your own in making men contradict themselves thus you us'd a whole cluster of our Authours p. 119 120. and as for poor mee if you take mee underhand I can scarce speak a word consonantly Now Sir wee are thus far agreed and better Friends than you took us to bee that I allow your Parallell to a tittle and stick not at all to grant what you would force upon mee p. 63. that When I say Orall Tradition is the Rule of Faith I can onely mean by Orall Tradition the Living Voice and Practice of the Church as apt to signify the Sence of Forefathers and not the Sence or those Points of Faith which they are apt to signify Also that those Words and Practices taken formally as the means to know Points of Faith are contradistinguish't from that Sence or those Points and oppos'd to it relatively as a means is oppos'd to an End and therefore taken as consider'd in this abstraction and contradistinction as a Means to cause their actuall Sence in us I say those Words and Practises are without Sence in the same manner as a Means taken formally for such is without the End and excludes it from it's notion All this I voluntarily grant and least you should conceit your strong Reason has brought mee to it I let you know I ever took them so formerly See Sure-footing p. 41. 2d Edition which I still intend to quote By Orall or Practicall Tradition wee mean a delivery down from hand to hand by Words and a constant course of frequent and visible Actions conformable to those Words of the Sence and Faith of Forefathers Where you see I make Sence or Faith the thing deliver'd and Words and Actions the Way of delivering which therefore must needs exclude one another formally Yet you think you have gotten a notable advantage against mee by this Parallell Discourse telling your Reader p. 63. When hee hath answer'd this Argument hee will have answer'd his own A shrewd Opponent who confutes mee by putting mee to answer an Argument thinking it would puzzle me grievously which is
manner is compounded of putting tricks upon your Adversaries that is putting their sayings upon such accounts they never intended then impugning your own fictions 'T is not on the impossibility of any going out of us nor meerly because whenany one is out of our Church hee is not in it wee ground the Necessity of our Churches Unity but in this that her nature and Constitution is so fram'd that shee can admit no division in her Bowells but keeps her self distinguisht from Aliens If any one recede from Faith it must bee by not hearing the present Churches living voice teaching him points which the Knowledge Practice and Expressions of the Teachers determins and make Evident what they are whence his disbeleef if exprest is an Evident matter of Fact which is most apt to make a plain distinction between the disbeleever and the Beleevers and an Evidence beyond Cavill for the Church Governours to proceed upon This done as likewise in the case of high disobedience against Church-Laws or Governours shee Excommunicates that is solemnly separates the Schismaticall Offender from the Obedient Faithfull Hence those Faithfull look upon him as a Rebell or Outlaw or as our Saviour expresses as a Heathen or Publican no Church-officer admits him to Sacraments but upon his pennance and Satisfaction nor any Son of the Church will communicate with him in Sacred duties Pray you Sir is this the Temper of your Church of England Your Rule is the Letter of Scripture as conceiv'd significative of Gods word and this to private understandings Again you say all necessary points of Faith are plain in it nay that nothing is fundamentally necessary but what is plain there Hence all that hold the Letter to bee plainly Expressive of Gods Sence and intend to hold to what they conceive plain there whether Socinians Anabaptists Independents or whatever other faction all hold to your Rule of Faith and so are all Protestants For if you would ty any of these to any determinable points you force them from the Rule of Faith Scripture as seeming plain to them and would instead thereof bring them to a reliance on your Judgement And if you would punish them for not doing it you cannot evidence their Fault by way of matter of Fact that so you may proceed upon it for as long as they profess their intention to hold to what seems plain to them in Scripture and that your Text seems less plain to them there than their own you ought not to proceed against them Ecclesiastically without disannulling your avowed Rule of Faith And your carriage executes accordingly neither using Church-discipline against them for Tenets nor yet for denying or disobeying your Goverment Episcopacy though held by you divinely instituted When did you put any distinction by any solemn Ecclesiastical declaration between an Anabaptist Presbyterian Socinian c. and your selves When did you excommunicate them warn the purer Protestants by any Publick Ecclesiasticall Act not to joyn with them in Sacred Offices but to look upon them as Aliens Might not any of them come to receive the Communion if hee would or has any discipline past upon him to debar him from being admitted None that wee see Your Party then in indeed no Ecclesiasticall body cohering by Unity of Tenets or Government but a Medly rather consisting of men of any tenet almost and so bears division disunion and Schism that is the Formal cause of non-Entity of a Church in it's very Bowells These two flams of yours are Sir the Favours you have done my Friends and I can onely tell you in a country complement I thank you as much for them as if you had done them to my self Seeing your Reason begin to play it's part bravely in the following part of your Book I thought I had done my duty of Thanking but I percieve one main Engin your Reason made use of was to make mee perpetually contradict my self And this you perform'd by singling a few words out of my Book from their fellows introducing them in other circumstances and so almost in every Citation falsifying my Intentions and this purposely as will bee seen by this that you practis'd designe and Artifice in bringing it about This obliges mee in stead of making an End to return back and to show how sincerly you have us'd mee in almost all your Citations I omit your false pretence that I mean't to define contrary to my express words You tell your Reader p. 11. That if any presume to say this Book Scripture depends not on Tradition for it's Sence then the most scurrilous language is not bad enough then are those Sacred writings but Ink variously figur'd in a Book quoting for those words App. 4th p. 319. But if wee look there not a word is there found of it's depending or not depending on Tradition for it's Sence nor of making that the Cause why I us'd those words you object cite for it but onely that whereas my Lord of Downs sayes his Faith has for its object the Scriptures I tell him that since he means not by the word Scripture any determinate Sence which is the formall parts of words hee must mean the Characters or Ink thus figur'd in a Book as is evident there being nothing imaginable in them besides the matter and the form which every Schollar knows compound the thing This being then the plain tenour of my discourse there and not the least word of Tradition sencing Scripture Whatever the Truth of the Thing is 't is evident you have abus'd my words as found in the place you cite My Citation p. 12. which abstracts from what security wee can have of those parts of Scripture which concern not Faith you will needs restrain to signifie no security at all either of Letter or Sence which is neither found in my words nor meaning How you have abus'd my words to avoid Calumny with the Vulgar cited by you p. 13. as also the former of those cited p. 14. I have already shown § 9 and 10. P. 17. You quote my words 'T is certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ whence you infer they writ the same Doctrine they taught Which your introducing Discourse would make to signifie an Equality of Extent in Writing and Tradition by saying I grant this Doctrine which signifies there the First deliver'd Doctrine was afterwards by the Apostles committed to writing Whereas whoever reads my 29th Cor. will see I can onely mean by the word same Doctrine a not-different Doctrine Whatever the truth of the point is this shows you have an habituall imperfection not to let the words you cite signifie as the Authour evidently meant them but you must bee scruing them to serve your own turn You quote mee p. 36. to say that Primitive Antiquity learn'd their Faith by another method a long time before many of those Books were universally spread amongst the Vulgar The summe of your Answer is that when the Apostles who did miracles
the reason of your mistaking mee here and in some other passages was this I minded not Rhetorick at all but onely Sense you as became a solid Confuter minded not the Sence at all but onely the Rhetorick which by mee was never aim'd at either there or in any other part of my Book If what I write bee Truth and my Expression Intelligible I have my End and can without Envy permit you to dress up your own Falshoods in the gingle of periods and empty flourishes The second place brought to make mee liberally acknowledge that it follows from my Principles no man can possibly relinquish Tradition is found in you p. 165 and 166. and thus Since no man can hold contrary to his knowledge nor doubt of what hee holds nor change or innovate without knowing hee doth so it is a manifest Impossibility a whole Age should fall into an absurdity so inconsistent with the nature of one single man Is here any liberall acknowledgment that no man can desert Tradition Or is there a word here to that purpose but onely that no man can doubt of or hold the contrary to what hee knows nor go about so visible an action as innovating without knowing hee does so with which yet may well consist that not onely one single man but all mankind may for any thing is there said knowingly and wilfully desert Tradition and turn Apostates I wonder learned Sir what you are akin to that Philosopher who maintain'd Snow was black you have so admirable a faculty of identifying the most disparate nay contrary notions and by a knack of placing things in false lights make even Propositions which signifie the self-same become perfect Contradictions The third place of mine which you say must make mee liberally acknowledge it a genuine consequence from my Principles that 't is impossible one single man should relinquish Tradition is cited by you p. 166. from Sure-footing p. 87. That it is perhaps impossible for one single man to attempt to deceive posterity to which you add in another Letter by renouncing Tradition It had been better in such nice points to put down my own words especially when you put them in a different Letter Mine are 'T is perhaps impossible that they should mislead posterity in what themselves conceit to bee true which is different from the Words and Sense you represent for mine for many weak persons by Sophistry or fine words pretended from Scripture and baptiz'd God's Word may bee inveigled to conceit that Tradition is false in which case should they renounce Tradition yet they would not therefore mislead posterity from what they conceit true which is all I there say or undertake for But the main is you represent mee to say 't is perhaps impossible in one single man which reaches any man whether good or bad whereas my discourse there proceeds upon good and holy men onely It begins thus p. 89. For supposing Sanctity in the Church that is that multitudes in it make heaven their first love had those Fathers that is those Holy men misled Posterity c. and then follow some of the words you cite I mean all of them that are mine This being so bee Judge your self Sir whether bating you the perhaps and speaking absolutely it bee not impossible for one good and holy man to mislead posterity in what he conceits to be true and whether it may not consist well enough with this branch of my discourse that great multitudes may turn bad that is chuse some false good for their last end and then out of affection to that disregard what 's true what 's false and mislead their children contrary to their own knowledge You say p. 171. that the onely thing I offer in that discourse to prevent this Objection is this Sure-footing p. 65. 'T is not to bee expected but some contingencies should have place where a whole Species in a manner is to bee wrought upon c. And had there been no more mee thinks it might have made you wary to challenge mee with the direct contrary had you not resolv'd to lay the necessity of my contradicting my self in every passage for one of your first Principles to confute mee with But I offer'd far more and more obvious preventions than that See the immediate Conclusion from my Grounds put down by your self p. 162. which one would think should inform you best what is the most genuine consequence from the same Principles This put it follows as certainly that a GREAT NUMBER OR BODY of the first Beleevers and after-faithful in each Age would continue to hold themselves and teach their children as themselves had been taught that is would follow and stick to Tradition c. Does a great number or Body signifie all not one excepted which you falsly put upon mee How disingenuous a proceeding is this to perswade your Reader those are not my Consequences from my Principles which I make my self but those which you make for mee and how do you make them by perverting constantly my words and sense Again you know I had writ a discourse declaring how Heresies came to bee introduc't and therefore one would think any sober Confuter that were not bent upon Cavill ere hee had challeng'd mee to hold that no one man could possibly turn Heretick that is that no Heresie could possibly come in should have look't first in that place to see how and by what means I made Heresies actually come in But you were resolv'd before-hand what to do that is to make mee speak contradictions and so it was not your Interest to see it or take notice of it Otherwise there you had seen mee prevent all the imputations which you by virtue of your forg'd monosyllable All had put upon mee See Sure-footing p. 66. We will reflect how an Heresie is first bred Wee must look then on Christs Church not onely as on a Congregation having in their hearts those most powerful motives able of their own Nature to carry each single heart possest by them but as on the perfectest form of a Common-wealth having within her self Government and Officers to take care all those Motives bee ACTUALLY APPLY'D AS MUCH AS MAY BEE to the subject Laity and that all the sons of the Church c. notwithstanding it happens sometimes that because 't is impossible the perfection of discipline should extend it self in so vast a multitude to every particular some one or few persons by neglect of applying Christian motives to their souls fall into extravagancies c. and if Governours bee not vigilant and prudent draw other curious or passionate men into the same faction with themselves which words would have clearly shown you that for want of due application which was one of the requisites my demonstrations went upon the Cause fell short of producing its effect of adhering to Tradition And this you might have seen neerer hand namely in the foregoing Discourse the very same which pretended to demonstrate
where speaking of the Application of the Cause to the Patient p. 63. 64. 65. I end thus In a word Christianity urg'd to execution gives its followers a new Life and a new Nature than which a neerer Application cannot bee imagin'd So that you see I make account it's Application depends upon it's being urg'd to Execution and what is it that urges things to Execution but Government and Disciplin I wish Sir when you are to confute a rational Discourse you would not stand running after Butter-flies and catching by the way childishly at this little word and the other little word to play upon them jestingly but have patience to read it thorough and take the whole substance of it into your head and so endeavour to speak to it solidly This is the way to benefit your Readers to whom you owe this duty nay a far better to credit your self with understanding men than all those petty tricks of impertinent Wit and ironical Expressions which you so passionately dote upon I am heartily weary of so illiberal a task as to spend ink and paper much less time in discovering mens defects and I assure you Sir I am very sorry your carriage made it necessary whereupon though I see much rubbish of this nature behind and have overslipt too very much yet I should have ended did not I find my self highly concern'd to defend one Assertion of mine than which you who use no hot phrases but are all Civility and Sweetness say p. 173. nothing can be more impudent I humbly thank you Sir This most impudent position is this that Sure-footing p. 65. being to meet with the Objection that there have been many Hereticks or deserters of Tradition I say If wee look into Histories for experience of what has past in the world since the first Planting of Christianity wee shall find far more particulars fail in propagating their kind than their faith Now Sir if this bee prov'd not at all impudent which you judge most impudent I hope the rest which you judge less impudent may easily pass for blameless Let 's to work then and because 't is your business as well as mine I beseech you lend mee your thoughts to go along with mine from one end of the 7th discourse in Sure-footing to the other Company may do much in making them attentive otherwise I see plainly they will stand loitering and gazing by the way at this odd word or the inelegancy of that phrase or noting some passages that may bee prettily mistaken and make excellent good sport by which means You who as you say p. 292. are apt to unbend your brains without bidding will hardly ever bee drawn to go forwards with a deliberate pace half the way In the said discourse then p. 65. you see I design to clear an objection of my own which I conceiv'd obvious namely that there have been actually many Hereticks or deserters of Tradition I make my way to it p. 66. by asserting that the way of Tradition is as efficaciously establisht in the very grain of mans nature as what seems most naturall the propagation of their kind Hence I come at last to that most impudent assertion that more have faild in propagating their kind than their Faith Proceeding to proove it I show p. 66. how Heresy or a failing to propagate Faith happens and I allow p. 68. that it must bee perform'd by deserting Tradition and chusing at least for a show another Rule that so they may have occasion to break from the former Church But I affirm withall p. 65. § 3. that assoon as the breach is sufficienly made and the novellists begin to bee shap't into a body whatever for a show they still would seem to keep to yet that they presently desert the new Rule they had taken up and the naturall way of Tradition again recovers it self that the Reformers themselves make use of it to keep their company together that Children are taught they are to beleeve their Pastors and Fathers even in interpreting Scripture that the first Reformers punish them if they break from their body and hold not to the Sence of Scripture they give them And hence I conclude p. 74. that the number of the Actuall deserters of the naturall way of Tradition have been but few to wit the First Revolters that the descendents of these Revolters follow'd the way of Tradition however misplac't then I added some considerations for Grounds to ballance the number of Failers in propagation with the number of those who faild in Tradition and as reasons why I concluded this number less but you never use to speak to my reasons onely you mistake my discourse and my conclusion to mean not onely the First breakers but their descendents too which I make account return naturally to the Traditionary way then you denie and impugn like a learned logician the Conclusion it self amplify strangely upon your own mistake of it instancing in all the Countries almost East West North and South triumph mightily and would have mee show you a whole nation that refus'd to marry As if my Conclusion could not bee true unless such a rare sight were show'd you all at a clap E're I come closer to the proof of my Assertion I foresee I am to make good first that even the deserters of Tradition when they think themselves sufficiently enfranchiz'd from the disciplin of the former Church and that their followers settle into a kind of Body under them bring in again the way of Tradition or rather indeed permit nature to work both in the new brood that grow up under those Fathers who had lately deserted Tradition and in those deserters themselves nothing being more naturall than both for the Fathers Elders or Governours to desire and even expect the children Posterity and Subjects should follow their judgments and not to make themselves wiser than their betters nor for the descendents and young ones credulously to beleeve those whom they look't upon ever with an awe and respect and to permit their lives to bee fram'd by their conduct I affirm then that even in all those Sects that have faln from the Catholick Church whether Protestants Lutherans Presbyterians or whatever else they bee that pretend to hold to Scripture the Generality if not all are continu'd to the former body or immediately foregoing Generation by Tradition and not by virtue of Scripture Evidence uniting their understandings For what a wild conceit it is to imagin that the Children throughout a whole Kingdom of Lutherans for example should still light to interpret Scripture just as did their Forefather Lutherans and thence unanimously hold to the Lutheran Profession And the same in Protestants Presbyterians Arians Pelagians And the like may bee said in some sort even of Turks and Heathens that 't is not the virtue of any motive that they go upon which keeps up a Succession of men of the same Tenet but the naturall force of Education at first and Custome
to bee briefer in which I thank you you have helpt mee much by your manner of handling them I will pass by divers of your little quirks upon my whether real or pretended mistakes in things unconcerning and onely touch upon what is more pertinent And first I am sorry I must begin with the old complaint that you mistake quite whether purposely or no let others judge what was my intent in producing those Testimonies Can you really and in your heart think they were intended against the Protestants that you set your selves so formally to answer them or can you judge mee so weak a Disputant as to quote against you the 2d Council of Nice or the Council of Trent so elaborately whereas I know you would laugh at their Authority as heartily as you did at my First Principles Sure if I meant it I am the First Catholick Controvertist that ever fell into such an errour My intent manifest in the Title and the whole course of my writing there was this that having deduc't many particulars concerning the Rule of Faith which manner of Explication might seem new to Catholik Controvertists I would endeavour to show to them rather than to you that both others of old and the Catholik Church at present favourd my Explication This was my main scope however as divers Testimonies gave mee occasion I apply'd them by the way against Protestants Your second mistake is found p. 304. where you accuse mee to have committed as shamefull a circle c. and why because according to mee Scripture depends upon Tradition for it's Sense and yet I bring Scripture for Tradition Sir my Tenet is that nothing can sence Scripture with the Certainty requisit to build Faith upon but Tradition which yet well consists with this that both you and I may use our private wits to discourse topically what sence the words seem most favourably to bear And you may see I could mean no more by the many deductions I make thence alluding to my Tenet which yet I am far from your humour of thinking all to bee pure God's Word or Faith nor yet Demonstration as you put it upon mee in other Testimonies p. 308. Though I make account I use never a Citation thence but to my judgment I durst venture to defend in the way of human skill proceeding on such Maxims as are us'd in word-skirmishes to sound far more favourably for mee than for you But let 's see what work you make with my Authorities After you have unworthily abus'd Rushworth in alledging him rawly to say Scripture is no more fit to convince than a Beetle is to cut withall whereas his Discourse runs thus that as hee who maintains a Beetle can cut must cut with it but cannot in reason oblige others to do so so they who hold Scripture is the true Iudge of Controversies and fit and able to decide all quarrells and dissentions against the Christian Faith bind themselves c. After this prank I say of the old stamp you put down p. 303. three of my Testimonies from Scripture and immediately give a very full and ample Answer to them all in these words From which Texts if Mr. S. can prove Tradition to bee the onely Rule of Faith any more than the Philosopher Stone or the Longitude may bee prov'd from the 1 Cap. of Genesis I am content they should pass for valid Testimonies To which my parallell Answer is this From which Reply and our constant experience of the like formerly if it bee not evident that Mr. T. will never with his good will deal sincerely with his Adversary but in stead of confuting him impose on him still a False meaning and impugn that in stead of him I will yeeld all his frothy Book to be solid Reason I beseech you Sir where do you find mee say or make show of producing those Testimonies to prove Tradition the onely Rule of Faith For Truth 's sake use your Eyes and read Do not I express my self Sure-footing p. 126. to produce the first Citation to show how Scripture seconds or abets my foregoing Discourse meerly as to the Self-evidence of the Rule of Faith Does not the second contend for the Orality of the Rule of Faith it 's Uninterruptedness and perpetuall Assistance of God's Spirit and the third of imprinting it by the way of living Sense in men's hearts And though I say those places speak not of Books but deliver themselves in words not competent to another Rule yet I contend not they exclude another Rule or say there is but one Rule and no more There was indeed p. 12. another Testimony from St. Paul contradistinguishing the Law of Grace from Moses his Law which sounded exclusively but you were pleas'd to omit it and so I shall let it stand where it did You advance to my Testimonies from Fathers and Councils and never was young gentleman so fond and glad that hee had found a hare sitting as you are to have discovered whence I had those Citations Presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all is mirth and triumph and Jubilee You are a Seer Sir and will find out the Truth by Revelation and so I had as good ingenuously confess it 'T was thus then When my book was nere printed some Friends who had read my discourses dealt with mee to add some Authorities alledging that in regard I follow'd a way of Explication which was unusuall it would give it a greater currency to show it consonant though not in the whole Body of it yet in the most concerning particulars to the Sentiments both of the former and present Church I foresaw the disadvantage my little time would necessarily cause me yet willing to defer to the Judgment of my Betters I resolv'd it Casting about in what Common-place-book I might best look for I had not time to rummage Libraries nor am I so rich as to have a plentifull one of my own it came into my mind there were diverse of that nature in that book where you made so fortunate a Set and caught such a covy of Citations in one net together I ask't first the Authour's leave who answer'd that when a Book was once made publick it was any one 's that would use it nor knew I till you came to teach mee more manners I ow'd any account to any man else neither do I think your self in your Sermons stand quoting all the Common-place-books or private Authours where you meet a Testimony or Sentence transcrib'd you make use of Hereupon I took the book with mee to a Friend's Chamber near the Press where Proofs already expected my correcting hand and there having no other book by mee fell to work This hast made mee examin nothing being very secure of the perfect sincerity of the Authour I rely'd on but put them down in his words and order This Sir is candidly the true History of that affair which will spoil much of your discourteous vapour showing a great deal of empty vanity in
you to magnifie so highly such petty trifles and so totally unconcerning the main of the business You laugh p. 305. that I who confest my self a bad Transcriber transcrib'd him how childish a Cavill is this As if every one who is to bring Testimonies whether hee like his task or no must not transcribe them from some place or other yet you tell mee ironically you will do mee the right to assure the Reader that I do it very punctually and exactly I wish to requite you Sir I could assure the Reader you had as punctually and exactly transcrib'd mee you had sav'd a great deal of precious credit by it and I a great deal of precious time and ungratefull pains in laying open your Insincerity But to our Testimonies The first is from the Synod of Lateran The force of which you say p. 306. lies in the word deliver'd which is indifferently us'd for conveyance by writings or word of mouth But Sir there are also in that Testimony the words preaching and teaching and I do not beleeve it is so Indifferent to you whether you preach by word of mouth or no that you should say the word Preaching sounds not conveyance of a thing orally The next Testimony has the same Exception and the same Answer But you say this Council particularly this part of the Epistle were excepted against by some What matter 's it so they did not except against it for this passage or this Doctrin which may serve for Answer also to the mistaking Exceptions against the 7th Generall Councill which follows next Thus Origen and Tertullian are both excepted against yet are both commonly alledg'd and allow'd where the Reasons of those Exceptions have no place Next follow your Answers to the Fathers I alledg'd But first p. 310. you must mistake Rushworth next mee For Rushworth speaks not I mean in the first Citation of Delivery but of a point delivered nor do I here intend to convince thence the Certainty of Delivery or Tradition which you proceed upon for making Fathers parts of Tradition it would make the same thing prove it self Understand then rightly Sir what I am about and then I shall accept your impugning it for a favour The Truth of the thing is one thing and the Iudgment of a person concerning it is another And 't is not to evince the Truth of the point I produce these Testimonies for in the order of Discoursing the Knowledge of Traditions or First Authority's Certainty antecedes and gives strength to all the other inferiour and dependent ones What I only aim at then is only to show that thus they judg'd not to convince the Truth of the Thing from their Judgment and thence to show my self not to be singular in thus judging Whence also 't is that I entitled this part Consent of Authority c. Retract then I beseech you Sir any such thoughts or expressions as that I would hence convince Tradition to be the whole Truth of Faith demonstrate prove it For I intend to prove no more by the rest then by those from the Council of Trent which onely aim to show that so and so that Council said and held The First Testimony of a Father is Pope Celestines the force of which you think quite spoild p. 310. by Binnius his other Reading of such a word And why I pray unless he could make it out his reading were true the other false which I see not attempted But you let it pass and answer that retain'd by Succession from the Apostles till this very time may mean by Scripture as well as by Orall Tradition I conceive not and I give you my reason because who make Scripture their Rule are unconcern'd whether their Faith was retaind to this very time from the Apostles by Succession or no For though all the world apostatiz'd and so interrupted that Succession yet as long as they have the Letter of Scripture it being plain to all their Faith is retain'd still What you quote this Father afterwards to say of Scripture wee heartily say Amen to so you mean by Scriptures that Book sen'ct by its proper Interpreter as to points of Faith the Church And you are to show he meant otherwise You choke with an c. better half of Irenaeus his Testimony p. 311. which spoils your answer to the first for it speaks of his present dayes when the Scripture was not onely left by the Apostles but spread and to bee had and yet that many nations of those Barbarians who beleeve in Christ had even then salvation writ in their hearts without Characters and Ink diligently keeping the ancient Tradition The Substance of your Answer to Origen 312. is onely this that unless I mean by Churches Tradition preserv'd by order of Succession mysticall interpretations of Scripture so deliver'd down you assure mee Origen is not for my turn And I assure you Sir 't is so learned an Answer that I dare not oppose it Tertullian is next to whom by offering to wave him you show your self 312. little a Friend and no kindness is lost for hee is as little a Friend to you driving such as you in his Prescriptions from any Title to dispute out of or even handle Scripture yet you say he saies no more but beleeve what is Traditum deliverd though as alledg'd by mee Sure-footing p. 133. hee sayes much more in a large intire Testimony which you not so much as mention You tell mee also hee meant deliver'd by the Scriptures but you strain hard to make it come in And Tertullian is the unlikeliest man in the world to provoke to the Scriptures who tells us de praescrip c. 16. Nihil proficit congressus Scripturarum nisi plane ut aut Stomachi quis ineat eversionem aut cerebri Scripture-disputes avail nothing but meerly either to make ones Stomack or his head turn But alas Sir how are you gravell'd with the two First Testimonies from Athanasius and how slightly you pass them over p. 313. The Protestants first maxim is Beleeve no men nor Ancestors nor Church but search the Scriptures that is seek for your Faith there Against which way his whole discourse is bent as may bee seen surefoot p. 133. 134. Is Faiths coming down by Ancestours the same as coming down by a book or doe not the words from Christ by Fathers mean by words expressing the Sense in their hearts but by a book not to bee Senc't by them but plain of it self The third Testimony expresly saies 'T is to bee answer'd to those things which alone of it self suffices that those are not of the Orthodox Church and that our Ancestors never held so You tell mee it is a gross errour that hee thought this alone or without Scripture might bee sufficient I wonder what mean the words which alone of it self suffices if they bee not exclusive of any thing else as necessary words have lost their signification and I my reason I but hee quotes Scripture for it afterwards