the Peace and Union that is unto the Soveraign ends of Christian Government and is it not unreasonable that Men should be excluded by the Church from her Communion for what is very well consistent with our communion with the God of Heaven our union to the Churches Head yea for what is neither necessary to the Churches being peace or unity nor can be prejudicial to them whilest reserved to our selves Besides the conditions of Church communion must bottom upon what is clear and evident for else the Union of the Church and our duty to preserve it must both rest on what 's uncertain and obscure a thing repugnant both to the Wisdom and Goodness of the Churches Head now that in matters remote from the foundation we have mostly no such evidence is but too visible in the Disputes and Contests which are on both sides managed by many Learned and impartial Men. To conclude Let any Man consider the variety of Gifts Affections Prejudices and infinite other Circumstances that are incident to humane Nature and then tell me whether it be not irrational to hope That all the Members of a Church in matters of this nature should conspire and knit into one Faith and Judgement and must it not be more unreasonable to make this Union the condition of communion with the Church If therefore in these matters our Church contents her self with this submission and doth not binde us to declare our inward assent she acts both prudently and safely and as becometh an indulgent Mother Prop 6. The Church hath power to silence such Disputes as tend immediately to break her peace and unity This is so proper a result of civil Union as that without it all Government must shatter into Sects and Factions and therefore most of all may be expected in that Platform which our Savior laid and must be granted by all those who dare not think our Lord defective in his Designs and Contrivances for his Churches Peace and Unity In a word Each Church is bound to look to her own Peace and therefore is impowred to prevent what violates it Prop 7. All Men are bound whatever their private Sentiments may be to submit externally to the sentence of the Church in matters which entrench not on the Fundamentals of their Faith because the teaching of such Doctrines must be of lesser moment then the preservation of the Churches peace for should such Doctrines wholly perish from the Church her Peace Unity and Being might be sufficiently preserved notwithstanding whereas this cannot reasonably be hoped for under an eager violent abetment of them in despite of all Authority and certainly if Church-Governors stand bound unto the preservation of the Churches Peace and Unity they must be bound in many instances to still our mutual Contests and require the submission now intended and then the governed must be obliged to perform it Prop 8. No Church can justly require assent unto her Proposals or account of her infallibility for were this Priviledge vouchsafed to the Church is it not wonderful that a Doctrine so necessary to the attainment of salvation should either be conceased from the four Evangelifts or by them if not concealed yet so obscurely delivered to the Church Can we suppose these wise and holy Men and especially that good spirit which assisted them either so envious as wilfully to deprive the Church of such an happiness for whose prosperity they suffered so much and which they almost Christned with their Blood or so forgetful of the Work they took in hand viz. the writing of the Gospel of Christ as to neglect the clear rehersal of that Doctrine without which if the Papist may be credited all others are not creditable 't is evident they speak perspicuously of many things of small importance in comparison of this and is it possible they should conspire to the deepest silence or obscurity in this most necessary thing this fundamental of all that is so Is it imaginable that S. Luke intending purposely to satisfie Theophilus in these things wherein he had been Catechised and which most surely were believed amongst Christians should neglect this great Foundation of them all without which Faith must necessarily suffer Shipwrack and all his labor be in vain That the beloved Apostle having writ so many signs that we might believe that Jesus is the Son of God should neglect that without which nothing that he said could be available to produce Faith in us or secure us from mistaking in it It is possible that our Saviour who foresaw whatever might disturb his Church yea had experience of Mens unwillingness to submit to others and readiness to advance themselves in his own Disciples should yet deliver this Doctrine if at all delivered so obscurely that now it is become the greatest Controversie whether he intended any thing of this nature and the testimonies of Scripture so strangely baffled that Papists dare not go about to vindicate them from our Exceptions That he should constitute that to be the onely means of deciding Controversies which he foresaw would be so determinable without the certain knowledge of some hundreds of Particulars in which whole thousands of Men excellent for Parts and Piety do clash perpetually That under the Old Testament the Judge of matters between blood and blood plea and plea and such Political Transactions should be so punctually set down And in the New Testament this Judge of Faith and the eternal Concernments of our Souls should be passed over in silence or delivered in such terms as are equally adapted to all pretenders to be the Church and altogether unserviceable when 't is doubtful Is it not strange that so great a part of the New Testament should be employed about Antichrist and all the methods he should use to draw Men from the Faith and yet just nothing be delivered of that Guide to which all faithful Christians were to have recourse against him That the Spirit should speak expresly of some great departure from the Faith in these latter times and not admonish us of the sure and onely means to secure our falling That St. Paul amongst all his vehement Exhortations unto Unity all his endeavors against Schism in the Corinthians and elsewhere should not once deliver this unto them as a means infallibly to preserve them from it but spend his time in other matters which without this are not at all available to our souls welfare That having assembled the Elders of Ephesus and told them That after his departure grievous Wolves should enter in among them he should not once direct hem to the onely means for preservation That the Apostles in the compiling of the Creed should give no intimation of that without which nothing can hang firm That Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprians and others purposely delivering the Fundamentals of their Faith should be deficient in the like kinde That never any of the Primitive Fathers in their Comments on this Symbol should inform us of this one thing necessary
conclude our union with Socinus because we both acknowledge the same Rule of Faith Prop. 3. That the Churches voice or practical Tradition is not necessary to acquaint us with the sence of Scripture as my Friend would have it for if so 1. Scripture must be in vain delivered to us for where I have the suffrage of infallible Tradition I cannot want it where I want that I cannot have it 2. In vain are all the Comments of the Church of Rome for where Tradition is silent they want a certain Rule to go by and therefore must be silent to or speak at all adventures and where she speaks her evidence is such as rendreth all their pains superfluous 3. All Arguments from Scripture must be vain whether intended to convince the Heretick or your brother Catholick if you contend against your Brother Heretick from Scripture he presently demands whence have you your assurance of that sence of Scripture which you plead for if you reply from the tradition of your Church he laughs to hear you beg the Question if from any other Medium he presently returns upon you is it certain yea or no If not then may it haply deceive him if so then do you act the Protestant and own some other certain Guide unto the sence of Scripture then that of practical Tradition 't is vain also to dispute from Scripture with your Brother Chatholick for if you have no practical Tradition to assure you of the sence of Scripture you have no Medium to convince him by if you have practical Tradition 't is self-evident and consequently cannot be matter of dispute or question'd by your Brother Traditors whilest such whence it must necessarily follow that all the School Disputes all endeavours of your brother Catholick to decide a controversy from Scripture must be in vain all their arguments from Scripture precarious and all their pretensions to Tradition in these matters wilful cheats if this be not sufficient let me farther ask whether all moral duties comprised in Scripture may be interpreted by Tradition if not whether they be not useless to us if so whether the Jesuits and Italian Papists hold no Doctrines inconsistent with them or whether that can be esteemed the Tradition of the Church which is supposed by so great and powerful Members of it Whether these were the only means and measures of interpretation to the Jewish Church if not how came they to be needful to the Christian whose Rule is much the clearer and whose assistance from that Spirit which leadeth unto truth far greater If so then let us brand our Saviour for a Malefactor and pronounce with them that by their Law he ought to dye let us reject his Kingdom as being wholy Spiritual and therefore opposite to what Tradition taught them to expect let us reject his Law as cancelling and dissolving that of Moses which they pronounced eternal yea lastly let us impeach the Arguments of Christ and his Apostles as not only wanting this Authentick medium to arrive at the sence of Scripture but being manifestly repugnant thereunto or at least admire at the stupidity of the Scribes and Pharisees who albeit they sate in Moses Chair should neither plead this in their own behalf nor accuse our Saviour or his Apostles for their pragmatical opposition to it but this argument is so copious and the dream so entirely Beamenistical that I shall not upbraid the Readers understanding by its farther refutation Prop. 4. Tradition is not the only Rule of Faith for if so the Church must lye exposed to the greatest perils and want a rule of Faith in matters of the highest moment For if Tradition be the sole Rule of Faith First certain it is that where we want Tradition we must want the Rule of Faith and consequently must waver and be undetermined in all these instances and cases in which Tradition proves silent 2. 'T is manifest that what is eagerly maintained and practised by many thousand Romish Proselites asserted by whole Sects and Orders of their Gravest men what passeth daily uncontrouled both from Press and Pulpit as having nothing contrary to the Churches Doctrine and the Rule of Faith nay is acknowledged to be such by those who violently oppose it what lastly doth not render the Abettors of it how numerous soever guilty of an Heresie nor subject them to the censure of the Church cannot interfere with the Tradition of the Church or be condemned by it or if so Tradition cannot be self-evident as my Friend would have it Thirdly evident it is that many positions of this nature are stifly canvased in the Schools many such practises used in the Church of Rome which if espoused and practised must expose the Soul to the greatest peril in matters of the highest moment For instance 1. Therefore they lye open to the peril of a defective or excessive Rule of Faith for what assurance can they have whether the definition of the Pope alone or in conjunction with his Cardinals be the infallible guide of Faith or whether this be the peculiar business of a Council and whether this infallibility respect substantials only or circumstances Faith or Fact the conclusion only or the premises whether it rest upon the due proceedings of the Council the Confirmation of the Pope the consequent approbation of the Church or be wholly independant on them whether the Tradition of the present Church be indeed a Rule or only such Traditions which can extrinsically be proved Apostolicall whether this Tradition be a total or a partial Rule and what are the infallible Criterions of it these things are hotly contested in the Church of Rome and therefore cannot be defined by her Tradition what remains then but that each soul lye open to the peril of a false defective or excessive yea contradictory Rule of Faith 2. They lie exposed to the peril either of Superstition and Idolatry on the one hand or Sacriledge on the other for to omit their infinite divisions about the Worship due to Saints Angels and the Blessed Virgin the Veneration due to Reliques the sacrament and its appendages and touch only upon that of Images they are altogether uncertain whether they ought to pay their homage to the image or before it only which is asserted by some few though censured by their expurgatory Indexes whether this Homage must be dulia or latria and if so whether absolute and simple or only Analogically so called whether all or any part of this pretended worship be due unto the image absolutely considered or only relatively as it refers to that of which t is an Image in these matters to be deficient is presently to be Sacrilegious by robbing the Image of that honour which is due unto it to exceed is to be guilty of Superstition or Idolary by giving it that Homage which belongs not to it and how to fleer my course so as not dash on either of these rocks Tradition cannot possibly assist me 3. They must be
assisted the Apostles and first Promoters of Christianity in delivering to us a false Scripture and false Traditions And certain Secondly it is we have no evidence of these things but that of Reason and consequently that the whole certainty of Faith depends upon it and this is freely acknowledged by Mr. Serjeant in his fourth Section where he tells us That our assent unto Authority is at last resolved into Reason and clearly follows from his grand Assertion p. 181. That no Authority viz. whether of Church Scripture or Tradition deserves assent farther then true reason gives it to deserve and consequently it must be beholding to true reason for the assent we yield unto it And yet I am confidently rebuked for saying That if S.C. believes his church infallible because his reason judgeth it to be so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility p. 96. as if her infallibility could be believ'd on this very account deserve assent upon no other and the rationalness of assenting to it could be resolved into reason and she not be beholding to the confessed yea the only cause of this assent for the belief of that infallibility which is the effect thereof and all this forsooth Because I therefore come to have that Judgment of her infallibility because she as an object wrought upon my apprehension and imprinted a conceit of her there as she was in her self and so obliged my Reason to conclude and my judgement to hold her such as she is pag. 182. A very deep discourse and able to evince that no man is beholding to his Reason for any thing he assents unto but contrarily his Reason is beholding to the Object for causing that assent Seing that object works upon his apprehension and imprints a conceit of it self there as in it self and so obligeth our Reason to conclude and our Judgment to hold it such as it is but Sir is your assent rational or not If not 't is Bruitish and Absurd it may he false nor have you any reason to believe it true If so then must you be beholding to your Reason for it Coroll Hence I infer That Reason cannot be rejected as unsure and unsufficient to ground an Article of Faith upon for the certainty of our whole Faith depending upon that of Reason it must fall together with it So that to quarel with the use of Reason upon that account as Papists usually do is in effect to quarrel with Religion and Christianity Prop. 3. The certainty of Faith cannot be greater then that of Science or Mathematical Demonstration for that supposing only as the fundation of all certitude that my faculties are true and not supernaturally enclined to falsehood is absolutely certain and such as takes away all matter of a doubt for who can question the truth of these assertions that nothing can produce it self and that from equals if you take only equals the remainder will be equal both which are conclusions arising with the clearest evidence from that first principle of Science 't is impossible for the same thing at once to be and not be Now seeing certainty consists in the removal of what is or might be matter of a doubt for whilest this matter of doubt remains we are not and when 't is once removed eo ipso we arrive at real certainty and seeing nothing can take off more then all no certainty can be greater then that which cuts of all matter of a doubt Nay secondly I ask whether this principle viz. it is impossible for the same thing at once to be and not be can possibly be doubted whether some Conclusions Scientifical be not immediately and unavoidably derivative from it for since all Truths are ultimately resolved into it some most immediately conclude from it and whether hence it will not follow That Scientifical Conclusions may remove all possibility of doubting Thirdly all Articles of Faith are ultimately founded upon Reason by Prop. 2d And so our assent unto them must terminate thereupon no reason can be of greater certainty then a Scientifical Conclusion as being wholy derived from and resoluble into that first Principle of Science impossibile est idem esse non esse Fourthly That any Article of Faith is true or not true is a Scientifical Conclusion from that of Logick one part of contradictories must needs be true nor can the truth of any article be greater then the truth of this since 't is impossible to be true but eo ipso it must be true or not true When therefore you pretend p. 181. to cleave more heartily and firmly to a point of Faith then to any conclusion of Science whatsoever your adherence must outgoe your Reason for what if Faith depend upon divine veracity and that be closely applyed by the Church unto you Seeing it depends also on your assurance of these two Assertions 1. That the Divine power could not be engaged to deceive the Church or attest a falsehood Which you owe to Reason And Secondly That the divine veracity is engaged for that which you esteem an Article of Faith which you must owe unto the Eyes and Eares and the Fidelity of other men since then each Article of Faith attested by Divine Veracity is nevertheless known to be so partly by reason which cannot rise beyond a Demonstration partly by the evidence of sence and the fidelity of other men which is not capable of demonstration it is not possible that your assent which bottoms on them should exceed its certainty But secondly I affirm that all our certitude of Faith is less then that of Science for notwithstanding all your motives unto Faith are there not many real Atheists and secret rejecters of Christianity Many that are still enquirers many that labour under continual doubts and scruples and have Faith only as a grain of Musterdseed Yea may we not all cry out with the Disciples Lord increase our Faith Produce your motives manage them with your utmost care and you will find the Sceptick will still make exceptions put in his scruples and ask might it not be otherwise Whereas Science compels assent puts the intellect beyond a feare and will not suffer us to scruple or demur upon her Theorems or labour under the least uncertainty Whether one part of contradictories be true or the three Angles of a Triangle be equal to two right ones Sith then 't is nothing but the clearness of the truth which expels fears and doubts and 't is the want of such convictive evidence which is the cause of their continuance that certitude must needs be greatest which is most effectual to this end but 't is superfluous to insist farther upon that which is so admirably confirmed by Mr Chillingworth p. 291. Ed. ult Yea thirdly I affirm that the certainty of Faith is not so great as that of sence for all its certainty depends on our assurance that the deliverers of it were infallibly assisted by
the Divine Wisdome in that delivery and is not this attested by the Miracles they wrought the Prophecies they delivered the Doctrine they taught And that by sence Should any of them be questioned must we not recur unto the senses of the Primitive Christians to confirm them And must they not then be the ultimate Foundation of our Faith and your tradition must we not be surer of the proof then the thing proved And consequently of the evidence of sence then that of Faith which deriveth from it If not why secondly doth our Lord pronounce them rather blessed who believe and have not seen then Thomas who first Saw and Felt and then Believed Is it not because they do it upon lesser though sufficient evidence And so their Faith is more illustrious and prayse worthy 'T would be more Generous and Noble to die in the defence of him whom we did only probably believe to be our Prince or Parent then to do it only upon iufallible assurance of his being such because an evidence of greater love even so is it more virtuous and prayse worthy to venture all upon an highly probable hopes of the truth of Christianity it being such a pregnant indication of our true love to Pietie and Vertue that even a probable assurance of it can prevail against all worldly temptations to the contrary Yea this it is which rendreth Faith rewardable that 't is an act of the believers choise and not irrefragably induced however it be abundantly confirmed with arguments extreamly probable and such as render it perversness and obstinacy to resist Thirdly should it be otherwise how cometh it to pass that men are equally assured of what equally they see but have not the like fulness of perswasion in what they believe That being once assured of the objects of sence they can admit of no greater certainty whereas after all our boasts af a plerophory of Faith we have still need to strive and labour to increase it Since then the certainty of Faith is proved inferiour to that of Sense and Science to pretend infallibility which is the highest certainty is to pretend such evidence as is not competible to Faith But that the Folly of this pretence may appeare more signally I shall farther manifest 1. That Humane nature is not capable of infallible assurance in matters of Faith Secondly that to require such assurance unto Faith is contrary to Scripture Thirdly That our Saviour required Faith upon lower motives Fourthly That the Romanists can have no such assurance Fifthly That it is no prejudice to the certainty or reasonableness of Faith that it is built upon foundations not absolutely infallible And Lastly Answer Mr Serjeants Exceptions to the contrary And 1. If Humane Nature abstracted from Divinity be capable of this assurance its certainty must be equal to that of Vision of Angels of Christs Humanity yea of God himself for even their assurance cannot reach beyond infallibility And secondly Reason must give as great assurance of a thing revealed to others 1600. years agon and in it self inevident as it is possible for present sence or revelation to afford all which are monstrous absurdities Secondly each Text of Scripture which mentions any that were weak or strong in Faith any that were of little or of great Faith any that were rich that did abound encrease or grow in Faith any that were grounded established rooted and consirmed in Faith that speakes of having Faith as a grain of musterd-seed and of having all Faith is a demonstrative refutation of this pretence it being certain that infallibility admits of no degrees Such secondly must be every Prayer which the Apostles made to encrease their own and others Faith or in the language of the Catholick to advance it some degrees above infallibility Such thirdly are all those places which tell of Hereticks who overthrew the Faith of some of others that were unstable and wavering in the Faith And lastly Prophecy that men should Erre and be seduced from the Faith or depart from it giving heed to seducing spirits it being as impossible for such who are infallibly assured or guided by what is self-evident even to the un-reflecting person to Waver Erre or be Seduced as to Doubt and Disbelieve that twice 2 is 4 or that if you take equally from equals they will still be equal Thirdly Our Blessed Saviour required this assent from his Disciples without Infallible assurance for doth he not call them Fools and slow of heart Luke 24.26 for not believing all the Prophets had delivered touching his Resurrection and Ascention into Glory Had they infallible assurance that these Prophecyes concerned him yea or no If not then did he look upon them as Fools and slow of heart for not believing upon motives confessedly fallible if their assurance might have been infallible then either as bottomed upon Reason infallibly concluding his Ascention and Resurection from the Prophets or secondly upon Tradition and the Churches living voice if the first why may not we also who have greater assistence of the Spirit of Wisdome be able from the same Principle of Reason working on our Rule of Faith to conclude infallibly the Fundamentals of Christianity For is it not unreasonable to assert that the Resurrection and Ascention of our Lord is more clearly revealed in those places of the Old Testament which are few obscure by reason of the Language more ambiguous then the New and lastly acknowledged by the greatest part of learned Men to refer primarily to other things or persons then the Articles of our Creed are in those numerous and admirably prespicuous places of the New Testament which give in Testimony thereunto Must they be looked upon as Fools for not infallibly concluding the Ascention of our Lord from the obscure items of the Prophets by the help of Reason And must we be damned for holding Reason sufficient from Scripture to conclude our Creed Nay secondly is not this to admit Reason as a competent yea infallible judge of the Sense of Scripture and consequently to approve of in the Jew what you condemn and rail at in the Christian If secondly you flye unto Tradition It is not ridiculous to assert that the Jewish Church should not only Crucifie this Jesus and endeavour with their utmost powerto prevent the Fame of his Resurrection albeit she had infallible assurance of it But that she should at the same time interpret Scripture so as infallibly to attest it and be condemned from her own mouth Nay had they not a contrary Tradition viz. That the Kingdome of their Messias should be Glorious upon Earth sufficient to confront all evidence Tradition could afford them in this case and void her Testimony because repugnant to it self Secondly I desire to know whether that voice from Heaven which testifyed that Jesus was the true Messiah and the Son of God did not oblige the hearers to believe it And to what other end it was sent Whether our Saviour doth not plead
it as his Fathers testimony of him which sure must be sufficient ground of Faith whether Saint Peter doth not hence endeavour to make good this truth 2 Pet. 1.17 18 19. And therefore whether his argument doth not oblige us to believe it And yet whether he doth not peremptorily say that 't was confirmed by a more sure word of Prophecy And whether hence it doth not follow that this voice from Heaven was not an evidence most sure and therefore not infallible however it were such as did require belief from us as well as them that heard it Go now and tell your God and Saviour what you have told our Church That they are guilty of most Absurd Ridiculous Irrational Self-condemned Damnable Diabolical Tyranny and such as Humane Nature can scarce own for requiring any mans assent to any Point or Proposition whatsoever as evident in Scripture without infallible certainty pag. 196 198. Fourthly The Evidence which Papists have or can have of any matter of Faith is not infallible for had they infallible Evidence to produce is it not matter of amazement that so many millions of persons endowed with Intellects as piercing and accomplished with all abilities which their Adversaries can boast of yea who many of them have all temporal Motives to encline them to believe and all the Miseries that Papal Tyranny can inflict to awaken them into a serious consideration nay who are Men seriously industrious after their salvation and such as know that they must perish everlastingly if this indeed be the true and onely rule of Faith which they reject I say Is it not matter of amazement that such persons from generation to generation should unanimously reject what offers it self with infallible evidence and assurance even to the most rude illiterate and unreflecting person Sure footing p. 5. s 10. that is but capable of Christianity and not onely so but that they should dispute and write Books against it albeit they could never go about to do so but they must necessarily be convinced infallibly even as unreflecting Layicks are supposed to be of the truth of what they thus oppose which is indeed to say we were are and whilest Protestants must be as bad and obstinate as the very Devil This alone is abundantly sufficient to arm the soul against all temptations unto Popery Again the infallibility of your Tradition is bottomed partly upon this foundation That your Church thinks her self obliged to deliver nothing but what and so far as she received it from the former Age and Church But what assurance of this at present are there not of your own Party who roundly tell us That what (a) Maldonate in Joh. 6. v. 53. Binius Concil Tom 1. p. 624. Petavius de la penit publ l. 1. c. 7. s. 6. p. 97. flourished in the Church for many hundred of Years is now condemned by her That there was a time when the Trent desinitions were not (b) Roffensis in confut Lutheri p. 496. Biel in Lect 57. super Canonem missae Durand opusc 15. c. 1. Scotus apud Bellar de Euchar l. 3. c. 23. de fide yea when the (c) Vid Potters Answer to charity mistaken pag. 73 74. contrary was delivered by the Church That there was time when Fathers (d) Non mirum est si isti nonnulli etiam alii patres re nondum eo tempore satis illuftrata in eam Haresin incidissent Petro Soave Hist Concil Trident l. 7. p. 575. Petavius in Epiphanium p. 285. did and might teach contrary to what she now delivers because the Church had not declared her minde And is not this to give liberty before the definition of a Councel to deliver to Posterity even from the first Age to that very moment what is flatly contradictory to the Churches voice and to unravel the whole thread you have so finely spun (e) Bellar l. 4. de Pontif Rom c. 14. Sec. Res imprimis Are there not those who positively assert the definition of your Church makes that to be esteemed a matter of Faith which before was not necessarily to be deemed such who lastly say To definition of your Church is that which makes a fundamental how many hundred times have all or most of these things been Printed Preached Licensed in your Church and yet there is not one of them but bids defiance to your Assertion But secondly your infallibility is bottomed upon this That 't is impossible for your Church to be deceived in judging what 's Tradition Now first Is it not as certain as the truth of Christianity can make it that the whole Nation of the Jews did erre and that most dangerously pretending a Tradition of that nature which rendred them uncapable of embracing the Messiah Now what was the sad fate of these Traditionary Catholicks scattered not onely over Jury but through all the World why may it not be Romes When Arianism prevailed so much upon the World as to fright the Orthodox Professors into Dens and Caves when it had defiled almost all the World and all except a very few obeyed it Was it impossible in that juncture of Affairs they should pretend Tradition for their Faith doth not your (f) Answ to Du Plessis l. 2. c. 7. Cardinal Perroon and their own Epistle shew they did (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist Pseudosynodi Aucyrans apud Epiph p. 847. Our Faith say they is kept as a Patrimony handed down from the Apostles times by their immediate Successors even to the days of our Father And must that be impossible to the done by the Church of Rome which we see done in so great an instance How oft did East and West plead contrary Traditions and impeach each other for walking (h) Synod Const in Trullo Can 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the beginning of the fatal breach between them either the Plea or Tradition was deserted or falsly pretended by one party and what impossiblity can there be that what happened to the one should be found incident to the other And to adde no more Is it not (i) Frequenter contingit unum Theologum constantissimè asserere se habere Theologicam demonstrationem de aliquo dogmate illud deducere per evidentem consequentiam ex sacris literis traditionibus patrum alium vero per oppositum certissimè affirmare se habere demonstrationem Theologieam quod illud sit baresis Nec solum hoc contingit inter duos fingulares Theologos sed inter unam Scholam cum alterâ Gonzales in 1 disp 2 2. N. 34. ordinary in the Schools to hear contrary Sects and Parties pretending to the Tradition of the Church of God with equal confidence Should now the prevailing Party of a General Councel be made up of either of these Sects Were it impossible for them to define and deliver for Tradition to Posterity what they according to their Private but misguided Judgement esteemed to be such Must it
irreligion or any contrary Religion can pretend to and consequently I stand bound in Prudence to embrace it Obj But what is fallible may be false and if so you have no certainty that it will be true Answ What is fallible not because equally poysed betwixt truth and falshood but onely because not demonstrable by Mathematical mediums or because the contrary doth not imply a contradiction may yet be of sufficient certainty to produce assurance The judgement of sense cannot be proved infallible to the Sceptick he will argue from experience That it may once or twice deceive you and thence that 't is not absolutely impossible that it should frequently do so that it may deceive you for a minute and then ask what infallible assurance you can have that it cannot do so for five ten twenty minutes If you reply Your senses are infallible but with such limitations as having a due medium Organ distance and the like he will call for your infallible assurance that neither God nor the devil do at any time infect the Medium dis-tort the Eye alter the Species and the like Now tell me notwithstanding this denyal of the infallibility of Sense Whether we have any just temptation to question what we daily see and hear Whether he that walls in London streets may not be certain that he sees a Man or Woman and yet less reason had the Primitive Christians to distrust those Miracles which for some Hundreds of Years employed not onely their own Senses but the Eyes and Ears of all the World Again The testimony of ten yea of an hundred Men is fallible as we have seen already and hence 't is evident That the testimony of Two hundred yea a Thousand may be so for seeing all you adde is fallible their Testification most be so Tell me now Whether I have reason to distrust the Existence of such a Man as Alexander Mahomet or that the Alcoran was published by him if not What reason can I have to doubt of what 's delivered to me with greater evidence of general Tradition touching Scripture Christianity you see now what little ground of fear our Doctrine gives you that it might happen to be otherwise p. 196. because we dare not pretend infallibility even as little as you have to fear the constant Testimony of sense or your own sure footing And when you adde That 't is a damnable and diabolical Tyranny to oblige men to the hazards of falshoods in the matters of Faith and in the mean time profess our selves ignorant whether they be false or no. Answ True And 't is as great a falshood that we do so No Sir in matters Fundamental we profess as much assurance as Scripture and Tradition can afford in matters which admit not of the greatest Evidence we oblige not unto Faith but to Submission and Obedience and in neither do we profess what you so dis-ingeniously impose upon us That we are ignorant whether they be false or no. CAP. II. Of the Guide of Faith THat Reason still must be my guide after it hath brought me to my Rule of Faith Prop. 1. and were it otherwise since we have no express from the old Testament that Jesus of Nazareth or the Son of Joseph was to be the Saviour of the world why are we sent to Scripture to be convince of it Why is this word of Prophecy esteemed a surer evidence thereof then a voice from Heaven John 5.39 2 Pet. 1.17 Matt. 22.29 Luk. 24.25 Why doth our Saviour quarrel with the Jew for not concluding that from Scripture which was not to be found expressly there Or rebuke the slowness of his own Disciples to believe all the Prophets had delivered touching his Death his Resurrection and Ascention into Glory When visibly they could not do it without comparing circumstances and using a long train of inferences Why lastly are the Beraeans so much commended for their search of Scripture Judgement of Pauls Doctrine thence seeing his business was to prove that Christ must needs have suffered be raised from the dead that Jesus was the Christ Act. 17.3.11 should this way be rejected as fallacious and unsufficient to establish faith In vain must be Apollos wisdome endeavouring hence to convince the Jew that Jesus was the Christ Act. 18.22 And 't was their weakness to be over-powred by it whilst he produced no express from Scripture in vain did Peter attempt to prove the Resurrection of our Lord from that of David Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell Act. 2.27 and S. Paul to convince the Jew by Reasoning from Scripture Act 17.2 In vain did he compose his whole Epistle to the Hebrews so full of Rational deductions thence in a word to infer the unlawfulness of Divorce for any cause from that of Genesis They twain shall be one flesh of Corban from that of Moses Honor thy Father and thy Mother to infer the Lawfulness of plucking ears of corn upon the Saboth from Davids eating the Shew bread And lastly to conclude the Resurrection from that of Moses I am the God of Abraham must be according to the contrary Assertion to argue upon Grounds fallacious and to interpret Scripture against or else besides the tenour of the Churches voice Secondly If Reason may not be my Guide in these conclusions as well as others then 1. must not all Arguments produced by the Romanist against our Church or upon any other subject be pronounced null when bottomed only on the inferences of Humane Reason from the Rule of Faith and must not Vanity be writ upon the labours of their greatest Champions Must it not follow that no promise of the Scripture can administer comfort no threatning terror to the Soul that is not either expressly contained in it or otherwise ascertained and expounded to us from the Tradition of the Church And must not then the greatest part of Scripture-threatnings prove bruta fulina and its Promises be as unsignificative And thirdly might not Jew and Gentile Sadducy and Pharisy have still excepted against Christ his Apostles whose infallibility they little dreamt of for making faith depend on the fallacious deductions of their Reasons for moulding Scripture according to their Daedalean Phancies in opposition to the Churches living voice Had Mr S. been a Traditionary Catholick or which is much the same a Pharisee in those days he would have doubly schoold them 1. For chusing a wrong rule of Faith viz. Scripture so to avoid the Church and next for glossing it as seems best unto their Reasons and that in opposition to the Church who by her practical tradition must interpret Sure footing p. 193. Prop. 2. That to assert Reason as my Guide in matters of Faith is not to resolve Faith into humane Reason for Faith is properly resolved into its Principal efficient or formal object which is not Reason but to the Protestant Divine Veracity to the Catholick the Churches voice for aske the Protestant why he
believes such Articles or asserts their truth he presently replyes because revealed in Scripture by that God who cannot lye whereas the Catholick must Answer because revealed by that Tradition or that Churches voice which is infallible to assure me of the Churches voice is the business of my Eyes and eares to ascertain me of the infallibility of that voice is the work of Reason Is now the faith of Catholicks resolved into their eyes or ears Is it resolved into the use of Reason and not into the Churches voice If not why must this be objected to the Protestant because his Reason doth assist him to evince his Scripture to be the product of Divine Veracity If then you take this prayse in its largest sense as it imports the enquiry into all its causes in their several kinds both Catholicks and Protestants do resolve their faith into humane Reason as giving them assurance of the infallibility both of Scripture and Tradition if in its proper notion as it it implyes the principal efficient cause of Faith 't is evident that neither of them do it Nevertheless I freely grant that all the certainty of our Faith in things not punctually expressed in Scripture depends upon the certainty of our Reason working upon the never sayling Rules of Logick which as it is no disparagement to the certainty of Faith so is it a thing common unto us with Catholicks who must acknowledge with my good Friend That many things have been delivered by the Church which were not formally contained in her tradition or the Rule of Faith but only thence concluded by the help of Reason Sure Footing P. 206. Prop. 3. The Fundamentals of Christianity i. e. all doctrines necessary to the Salvation of each person delivered in the Rule of Faith must be both evident and obvious to the eye of Reason for seing the proper end of a Rule is to regulate and direct and nothing unevident and obscure whilst such can do that office unto those to whom it is so for this were to require the intellect to be regulated by what it cannot know to be a rule what ever is the the Rule of Faith and so of Fundamentals must evidently declare them to such persons to whom it is a rule and is it not monstrous to imagine that God should have suspended our Salvation and Christ the very being of his Church on what 's obscure and void of evidence And secondly seeing what is not obvious cannot be evident to such persons as are unable to search into the depths of Reason and see into the coherence of a continued train of consequences that this Rule may be evident to such it must be obvious Obvious I say in delivering the affirmative heads of Christian Faith not in affording means to extricate the understanding from all the Sophistry of a Learned Adversary which to require from the Rule of Faith especially as applyed to the illiterate person and his certainty thereof is as absurd and monstrous as to require in order to his certainty that he sees walks or hears that he should have ability to Answer all the quirks of Zeno and demurs of a Gascendus to the contrary As therefore in these matters the clear and immediate evidence of sense is a sufficient preservative to the rudest person from all the Sophisms of Zeno and his Academy even so the full and pregnant evidence of Fundamentals especially if joynd with that internal evidence of the Holy Spirit which is promised by our Saviour to all those that do his will is sufficient settlement unto the meanest person capable of Religion against all the Fallacies of a subtle Heretick Coroll Hence I conceive it Sophistically objected by my Friend That we prove and defend our Faith by skils and languages history and humane learning and so make them our Rule of Faith For we aver the Fundamentals of our Faith are so perspicuously revealed in Scripture as to need no farther skill to apprehend them then what is necessary to understand that language in which our Rule of Faith is writ yea what is equally necessary to understand the Churches voice which constantly is delivered by her representatives in Greek or Latine and therefore the preceding skils are not of absolute necessity to Faith in General but only to some portions of it of which we may be ignorant without considerable prejudice to our eternal welfare of which nature is the legitimacy of Baptism conferr'd by Hereticks the Millenium c. and if we use such mediums in matters of the highest nature we do it still ex abundanti either to conclude the same things from obscurer places which are perspicuously revealed elsewhere or to obviate the evasions and confute the cavils of the Hereticks all which the Catholick doth and must do both when engaged with him and us Thus when again he tels us That our Rule is deal Characters waxen-natured and plyable to the Dedalean Phancy of the ingenious moulders of new opinions P. 194. Ans 'T is true some passages there are in it which are may be wrested to such evil purposes but still the Fundamentals of our Faith are such as are by no means plyable to any other sence Prop. 4. Reason in judging of the sence of Scripture is regulated partly by principles of Faith partly by Tradition partly by Catholick maxims of her own 1. By Principles of Faith for Scripture is to be interpreted secundum analogiam Fidei that is say we particular Texts of Scripture when dubious are so to be interpreted as not to contradict the Fundamentals of Faith or any doctrine which evidently and fully stands asserted in the Word of God and 2ly since Scripture cannot contradict it self When any Paragraph of Scripture absolutely considered is ambiguous that sence must necessarily obtain which is repugnant to no other paragraph against what may be so and thus may Scripture regulate me in the sence of Scripture and what I know of it lead me to the sense of what I do not Secondly By tradition for since tradition is necessary to assure us that there were once such men as the Apostles who delivered that Christianity and these Scriptures to us which we now embrace to question the sufficiency of the like tradition to assure me of the sence of Scripture is virtually to call in question the motives which induce us to believe it such this then would be an excellent help unto the sence of Scripture only the mischief is that where it can be had we do not want it and where we want it 't is but too visible it cannot be had Note only that I speak here of a like tradition to which two things are requisite First That it be as general as that of Scripture And Secondly That it be such as evidenceth it self by Reason to have been no forgery as here it doth it being morally impossible that the whole Church in the delivery of Scripture to us should deceive or be deceived For the
perfection and remove the contrary he being therefore incomprehensible because infinite in perfection whence albeit I do not comprehend his nature yet can I rationally conclude him not corporeal because that necessarily subjects him to varietie of imperfections 6. This doth not prejudice the use of Reason in other matters any more then the Asymptoticks of the Mathematicks the cruces logicorum the Insolubilia of other sciences do prejudice our getting knowledge in these matters by the use of Reason Corol. Hence evident it is That Scripture must not alwaies be interpreted according to the Letter or Grammatical importance of the words because that often is contradictory both to reason tradition and the Analogie of Faith this cannot be disputed by any person who is not professedly industrious to render Scripture odious and ridiculous there being nothing more abhorrent from humane nature then some Scriptures are in their Grammaticall importance but you object Ob. If Reason must guide you sometimes so as to denie the clear letter of Scripture or to deny the Spouse of Christ is properly whatever she is stiled in the Canticles by what principles must Reason be regulated in this enquiry Whether God hath hands and feet c. pag. 193. Ans 1. By Principles of Faith or those perspicuous Scriptures which dogmatically aver that he is a Spirit invisible and without all shape lastly attribute unto him many things repugnant to a body this you see is done antecedently to the known sence of some Scriptures though not of all And 2. by Reason assuring me that corporeity is incompatible with that power which is every where infinite That it is an imperfection and so not incident to this all-perfect Being that it interferes with his simplicity and independance degrades him beneath the ranke of Angels and humane Souls which Scriptures represent as incorporeal that to ascribe such Phrases properly unto him must represent him the worst of Monsters as having wings and seaven eyes and putting on more shapes then ever Proteus did and render his reproofs of Heathen Images irrational and absurd Ob. But is not this to flie back for refuge to the old rule Humane Reason which you seemingly renounced when you had found your new Rule of Faith Ans It s power to pass judgement of the truth of what is revealed in Scripture I did and do renounce its assistance in finding out the sence of Scripture I cannot renounce without the sorfeiture of Reason Corol. 2. Hence it must follow that to be expresly contained in Scripture is not to be the mind of God contained in Scripture for that God is a Shepheard and a Roaring Lyon a Lanthorn and a wall of fire that he begat Israel and doth continue to beget Believers That the Messiah is a Lamb a Lyon and a Stag a Worm Plant Fagle Root and Cedar this and much more is expressly told us from Scriptures letter but to infer hence that Reason guided by Scripture cannot otherwise interpret them but it must Violently wrest the Scripture and be so absolutely the Rule of Faith as to controle and baffle Scripture though clearly revealing p. 192. is to make Christ the worst of Monsters to out do all the Fables of the Poets and represent the God of Heaven more ridiculous then an Heathen Jupiter Secondly I defire to know whether the Church of Rome doth own and sence these places according to the letter or contradict and wrest baffle and controul the clearest revelations of the word of God by doing otherwise Qu. But if to be in express terms in Scripture be not to be clearly revealed there what is it to be thus revealed Ans T is manifestly to be the mind of God contained in Scripture Which being so if you continue to imagine that every thing contained in Scriptures letters is clearly manifested to be the mind of God in Scripture then must you either contradict what is clearly manifested so to be or cut off hands and feet and pluck out eyes that you may be Christs Disciple if you enquire farther amidst all the varietie of Tropes and Figurative Expressions used in Scripture how any thing can be manifested to be the mind of God revealed I Answer by the very same means and circumstances by which we know the mind of one another notwihstanding all the variety of Tropes and Figures which we use in ordinary Discourse or Writing how often doth the Divine the Poet the Historian and especially the Orator flourish in all the arts of Rhetorick and Grace his subject with the chiosest flowers of Eloquence and yet presents it in a dress as clear as it is pleasant and were not men wilfully perverse they would have less reason to complain of the obscurity of the Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation upon this account When therefore you thus Argue That God hath Hands Feet Nostrils is plainly writ in your Rule of Faith p. 121. and therefore is revealed in it the inference must be weak the Foundations of it are already overturned And yet however you suppose it all along I peremptorily deny that it is possitively asserted in any Scripture that God hath Hands Feet Nostrils True we are told the Heavens are the Workmanship of his hands c. But to infer it from such places would force you to acknowledge that the Word of God is Milk and that Milk is Rational because Saint Paul hath stiled it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here therefore is no need to captivate my Reason much less to Answer as you would have me That the contrary is plain in Scripture too pag. 191. and so that Scripture holds forth plainly contradictions this Answer so dishonourable to God and Scripture so repugnant unto Faith Reason and Tradition I permit to be your own CHAP. III. Of the Rule of Faith Prop 1. SEeing Divine Faith in the proper import of the words is an assent to Divine Authority revealed whatever I assent to as an Article of Faith I must assent to as being the revealed will of God whence evident it is That the mind or will of God revealed and nothing else must be my Rule of Faith Again What is the proper office of a Rule but to examine what is to be ruled by it Must we not pass a Judgement on our Weights and Measures by bringing them to the Rule and Standard In like manner Do we not examine each Theological conclusion by this Enquiry Whether it be the minde of God revealed or not and from the Answer made unto it pass Judgement on the thing in Question This therefore is the Rule of every Theological conclusion And so of Faith Corol. 1. Hence it will follow That not Tradition but the minde of God revealed in Scripture or Tradition is the Rule of Faith And indeed Tradition where it as certain as Mr. S. supposeth it would be the formal Object but not the Rule of Faith which two things are miserably confounded through the whole Series of my Friends Discourse
very Argument against your Church I wonder how you would avoid the blow Secondly Your next Assault runs thus Do not these Skills clear the letter of Scripture that is make known Gods sence to you if so since their immediate effect is to clear it 't is impossible to deny but they are at least part of the Revelation as if it were impossible to deny the Comment to be a part of that Text it cleareth for revealing is clearing and Gods sense was not clearly revealed but by these means that is by humane Maxims and so they are at least the more formal part of your Rule of Faith Answ I remember when I learn'd my Grammer that I had a Construing Book the immediate effect of which was to clear to me the sence of my Rules cōtain'd in Propria quae maribus Quae Genus c. but never was I so happy as to know that my Construing book was part of them or to which special Rule it did belong I knew indeed that revealing was clearing and that the sence of these special Rules was not clearly revealed to me but by means of my Construing Book but was not so inured to Science and versed in true Logick as to be able to infer thence That it was at least the most formal part of the Rules forementioned but must thank my Friend for his Instruction in so deep a Mystery and confess I owe that Light I have received in this Point to his noon-day Sun of self-evidence For a close you ask Might I not have mistaken the true sense of Scripture without these humane Maxims if so then they not Scriptures-letter are my Rule of Faith p. 191. Answ And must that necessarily be my Rule of Faith without which I might possibly have mistaken any portion of it then good Eyes and Ears and diligence in using of them good Dispositions Judgement Instruction c. must be my Rule of Faith for without these 't is very probable I may be frequently mistaken in the sense thereof Prop. 2. That notwithstanding any thing M. S. hath pleaded to the contrary Scripture may be a Rule of Faith for to object That Christian Religion had descended many steps ere the Scriptures parts were much scattered much less the whole collected is effect to argue thus Scripture was not a Rule to those that wanted and therefore cannot be such unto those that have it 't was not the onely Rule to those who were assisted by the infallible guidance of the Authors and Propounders of it graced with the extraordinary assistance of the same Spirit who drank even from the Fountain and Spring-head of Tradition and therefore it cannot be so to us who are removed from it 16 Centuries and destitute of all those Priviledges and Advantages which they enjoyed And yet remarkable it is That amidst all these Enjoyments the new-born Christian is sent unto his Scripture Rule his word of Prophesie bid to give heed unto it as a thing more certain then a voice from Heaven writ designedly for his instruction able to make his wise unto salvation perfect both in Faith and Manners and make him throughly furnished unto all good Works and after all the Apostles are inspired to indite and to deliver the New Testament unto them to be the pillar and the ground of Faith and can it be imagined that Scriptures so comparatively obscure so purposely designed for and accommodated to the Jewish Paedagogy should be thus commended and enjoyned by the Spirit of God as a Rule unto the Christian when graced with all the helps fore-mentioned and yet that Scripture which was indited by the same unerring Spirit in a more familiar way with great plainness of speech 2 Cor. 3.12 13. and not obscured by a vail as was that of Moses which is exceedingly more full of moral Precepts and Rules of Faith and Manners of gracious Promises to comfort and Exhortations to perswade to Patience and every other Vertue which lastly was Indited not in a Tongue peculiar to the Land of Jury but such as was most generally spoken throwout all the World should never be intended as a Rule unto them when destitute of those assistances Obj 2. 'T is objected secondly That that can never be a Rule which many follow and yet their thoughts straggle into many several Judgements in Points of so great moment as the Trinity ibid. Answ If you imagine that these straglers do indeed keep close unto the minde of God revealed in Scripture you blaspheme the Holy Ghost and make the Word of God the very sourse of Heresie if you affirm that cannot be a Rule which such pretend to follow you in effect assert the Law of Nature and right Reason could not be the Gentiles rule and that he had no Pharaoh's to guide him to the knowledge of the Being and Attributes of God because they generally took up with such uncouth notions and gross absurdities in matters which are evident from the light of Reason That neither Scripture nor Tradition could be a Rule unto the Jew who branched into such Sects as either did evacuate the Law of God by their Traditions or denyed the Resurrection That Tradition is no Rule of Faith or otherwise That no pretender to it was ever guilty of an Heresie And lastly That the denyal of Tradition must be the onely Heresie all which are monstrous Absurdities and yet the natural Results of your Assertion To conclude this Section I must crave leave to minde my Friend of an early brood of Carpocratian Hereticks who being confounded by the Scriptures to be revenged of them gave it out Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertantur ipsarum Scripturarum quasi non rectè habeant neque sint ex authoritate dy quia varie sunt dictae quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt traditionem non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem Iren. lib. 3. cap. 2. 1. That they were not as they should be viz. the Original copies being not preserved entire Disc 2. S. 5. 7. had not authority sufficient there being no means to convince the Sceptick the acute Adversary yea the rational doubter of their trath no certainty of Scripture in it self and no ascertableness of it unto as Disc 4. S. 1. c. And 3 That they were spoken variously or so as to admit of diverse sences Disc 2. S. 6.8 And lastly That in them the truth could not be found by such a were ignorant of Tradition it being not delivered by writing but by oral Tradition Good Sir I do not in the least suspect that you have Carpocratians Manuscript or that this passage of the Father did supply you with the heads of your Discourse however it will let you see that he adheres firm to your Rule p. 589. If then your inference stand good the Carpocratian must be owned for your Brother Catholick if bad then blush hereafter to
otherwise men must renounce their reason reject the guidance of their conscience and so of Gods Vicegerent act in the concernments of their eternal souls at all adventures who shall pass judgement on the final and irrefragable judge thus Fiat lux Ep. 2. p. 198. Ans The Conscience being subject unto none but God who only knows the secrets of it he only can pass judgement of its actions and pretences and he assuredly will convince the Shismatick and Heretick t was not their Reason but their lusts that did betray them to such errors but the results of such a Judgement which interfere with the received doctrine or customes of the Church must so far be condemned and censured by the Superiors of the Church as they do interrupt the Peace and Unity thereof The Jews were bound to hearken to the Scribes and Pharisees the Sanhedrim and High-Priest and they had power to chastise their disobedience in lawful matters and yet I hope with that discretion which was requisite to preferve them from condemning our Messias for a cheat or for embracing those Traditions which did evacuate the Law of God for otherwise our Saviour was very much to blame when he so often taught the contrary and put in so many caveats against the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees Thus Rulers are appointed for a terror unto evil doers and an encouragement unto the Good and consequently must have surficient means to be instructed in that Good or evil which they are to reward or punish and power so to do and yet inferiors are forbid to yeild obedience to their unlawful precepts and in such cases are to prefer obedience to the Laws of God which must suppose a judgement of discretion in them to discern what precepts are unlawful and when they intersere with the unerring rule of Scripture so well consistent is the judgement of discretion we allow to private persons both with the power of Superiors and Peace and Unity of the Church Ob. But I denyed them to be judges of Faith Now to be clearly revealed or evident in Scripture and to be of Faith is all one so that they must not be judges of what is evident in Scripture least by necessary consequence they become judges of Faith too p. 195. Ans This Argument supposeth that to be judge of Faith and to be judge of what is Faith are terms equivalent which is a great mistake to judge what is Faith and what is evidently revealed in Scripture is the business of each Catechist and Preacher who declares the Articles of Faith of each believer who assents unto them because his judgement tels him they are such and therefore signally the work of them with whom this Faith is visibly intrusted but to be judge of Faith or to be that person or cōmunity whose judgment in such matters must be infallibly received without farther scrutiny is a prerogative as clearly incompetent to any person or community as it is vehemently pretended to 't was Sir upon this slender Cobweb your doughty inference did hang. Ob. 2. You refuse to admit them as Guides of their Faith which signifies they may have power to require our assents in matters in which they have no power to guide us i. e. they may have power to require us to go wrong for any thing we or they know p. 195. Ans Let me again inform you that to guid others in their faith or to it and to be guide of Faith are things extreamly differring whoever doth instruct his Brother in any matter of Faith or reclaim him from his Error becomes a charitative Guide unto Faith whoever by the Church is authorized so to do becomes an Authoritative Guide unto Faith but to be guide of Faith especially in that sence in which this phrase is taken in our present Controversie is to be such a one whose judgement must determine for us what is Faith what not and thus our Reason onely is our Guide in matters dubious Ob 3. But what can be replyed to a Socinian answering when his assent to the Trinity is required That he humbly submitted to Scrip. that he used al means he could but discovered it not so evident there as you conceive it Answ The very same you would return unto your Brother Carpocratian pretending as humble a submission to your Rule of Faith and yet concluding thence for Heresie or to the Protestant asserting Tradition where it may be had to be as Authentick as the written Word and yet protesting That after all means used he could never finde therein one footstep of the Romish Faith or lastly to the Arrian of old or new Photinian who both laid claim to the Tradition of the three first Centuries In a word the onely answer you can make to such Enquiries must be this That your appeal unto Tradition is both true and just so was not that of the Photmian or Carpocratian Heretick And surely then the like return of Protestants to the Socinian Quaker Independant when pretending the same reason for their separation from the Church of England which we do from that of Rome if founded upon real Truth must vindicate our Church from all your clamors Object But upon the same right and title that we separated from Rome did Independants Quakers c. depart from us for since they do it upon their own discretion and so upon our Principle to deny it to be done by them so justly or so truly is to do wickedly and talk fondly Fiat Lux Ep 2. p. 198 199. or which is trantamount to do and talk after the manner of fiat lux Answ As if not onely the Carpocration but the Jew and Heathen should be thought to act as justly and as truly as the best of Catholicks because as vehement Alsertors of the Traditions of their Fathers and all the Actions and Sentiments of Mankinde should carry equal Truth and Justice in them as being equally the products of what they looked on as reason and discretion Thus Saul the Persecutor must act as justly as Paul the Doctor of the Gentiles because according to his Conscience and the Catholick when Preaching to convert and practising to destroy his Prince must do both with equal Justice provided that his good intentions to propagate the Roman Faith be alike in both Prop 5. In matters which belong not to the Foundations of our Faith to be content with such submission as is consistent with a liberty of opinion and binds us onely to reserve our Judgements to our selves in what they differ from the professed Doctrine of the Church we live in seems most serviceable to the ends of Peace and Unity to the ends of Peace because it lesseneth the Objects and so withdraws the fewel of Contention of Unity because it much enlargeth the conditions of it and rendreth them such as may more easily be submitted to Coroll Hence 't is apparently most safe and prudent to be content with this submission as being most conducive to