if it may be proved onely that the Church of Rome doth not err I think we are obliged to Communicate with her And therefore it were enough for her to prove her self free from Error which is a much easier task if she be so then to prove her self Infallible To prove the former is enough and in vain she attempts to prove the later till the former be proved Why then labours she to no purpose For as light as this Author makes of Instances yet all the World knows that a single Instance in one Error is enough to answer all the Arguments can be brought for her Infallibility seeing it must needs be false to say she cannot err who in any one thing doth err And truly I think her very claim to Infallibility is enough to prove that she doth err and therefore is not Infallible That an erring Church may plead Tradition himself does not greatly deny which is one thing that he longs to hear made out And he needs not go to the Greek Church his own will abundantly shew it him But That an erring Church adheres to Tradition if he means true Apostolical Tradition and adhering to it wholly and onely I know no man that will undertake to make it out to save his longing Let him shew us the Church that holds to this Tradition and we will not onely grant she errs not but will also be of her Communion though we will not grant her to be Infallible and so an happy end will be put to all our Disputes at once I confess it seems very odd to me that men should call us Hereticks and condemn us for erring in Faith and at the same time prove the Articles of their own Faith by the Infallibility of their Church and ground that Infallibility on Tradition and prove that Tradition to be an Infallible conveyance by an Argument which if it proves any thing to the purpose must prove that no man that hath been taught the Faith can ever err from it and yet still withal confess that a Church following Tradition now may leave it afterwards If a man may leave the Rule and by leaving it err in Faith then his holding to it formerly did not secure him from all error in Faith. And if a man cannot err from what he hath been taught then can no man that hath been taught the Faith be an Heretick In short Christ and his Apostles taught one and the same Doctrine Innovations 't is certain and Alterations have been made in this Doctrine it 's no matter whether it was through Forgetfulness or Malice or some other motive such things undeniably there are amongst Christians and therefore some have been taught otherwise than at first men were taught so that without all dispute the Rule of Tradition is somewhere broken The Church of Rome saith all have broke it but she only but how proves she this She says she holds the same to day which she did yesterday and so up to our Blessed Saviour's time We call again for a proof of this She tells us if she follow'd this Rule she could never err in Faith. But did she follow this Rule She says she did and if you will not believe her there 's an end And here I might end your trouble but that I have spied a few gleanings yet behind which may possibly be worth gathering up He tells page 25. We give only a General Latitudinarian Rule common to all the Heresies in the World You know Sir that the Holy Scripture is our Rule and this is indeed the General Rule given by God to us all and in this sense Latitudinarian too that it contains all things necessary to Salvation and common to Hereticks it is and ought to be thô they miserably abuse it and thô I could tell him too of Hereticks that trusted more to his Rule than to ours He therefore must pardon us if we cannot give him a better Rule than God hath given us neither can think fit to throw it away because some men will abuse it Yea but it makes light and darkness very consistent and Christ and Belial very good friends Ibid. I hope you read not this without a more than ordinary concernment for the man who ever he is that hath so little reverence for God and his holy Word for he cannot but know that the Holy Scripture only is our Rule against which he ventures to utter so much Blasphemy All the return I shall make for this is my hearty prayer That God may give him Repentance unto life In his 26 page we are told That the Difference constituting our Protestant Rule as distinguished from that of those most abominable Hereticks can only be As my own Judgment or others of my side thus or thus interpret Scripture's Letter and wriggle saith he which way you please there it will and must end at last Who can expect less but that where men pretend to Infallibility they should also pretend to know what is our Rule better then we our selves poor fallible Creatures do To what purpose should we tell them again and again what is our Rule when they are resolved beforehand not to believe that we know what it is If this conceited Sir would give us leave to know our own minds I would tell him once more That Plain Scripture is our Rule and that the Interpretation of it by any Sect of people Romanists or others is extrinsecal to it and no constitutive difference of it In general 't is the Word of God in contradistinction to the Roman Rule of Scripture and Traditions 't is the Written Word or Scripture only and as differenced from both Romanists and other Hereticks and Sectaries it is Scripture plainly delivering a sense own'd and declared by the Primitive Church of Christ in the Three Creeds Four first General Councils and Harmony of the Fathers This I hope is plain dealing and no Wriggling and here we take up our stand let him endeavour to draw us whither he can After he has been quarrelling with our Rule and with us for not giving a more distinct Rule he next complains of us for not following our Rule Not one of a Million even of your own Protestants saith he relies on or ever thinks of relying on your Rule of Faith in order to make choice of their Faith or determining what to hold Ibid. Thô I fear many of them are too negligent yet I hope he is out in his account or else I know he is uncharitable in thus judging without taking an account of them I am apt to think they are more attentive to their Rule than he imagines or else they would be a little more indifferent which Religion prevails than most of them yet seem to be Yet be it as he would have it 't is the fault of the people onely neither of our Religion nor our Rule And he knows well enough how easie it is for us too to spie such faults abroad After much talk to the same I mean to no purpose he asks page 27. How few use all the Fallible means for you allow them no other which they are to make use of to find out their Faith Again I answer too few but yet many more than he could wish did make use of them And how Fallible soever these means be they are as Infallible as any afforded the people in his Church and as much more certain as the Word of God is more certain than that of a Priest. But now comes the great Secret of all which was never discover'd till now Not the Letter of Scripture but honest Tradition is our Rule page 28. Nay and this is evident too though we could none of us see it all this while what bad eyes have Protestants That the Tradition of our Fathers and Teachers and not Scripture's Letter is indeed our Rule page 29. Where are we now In the Church of Rome e're we were aware of it We are all good Roman Catholicks on a sudden we are become an Infallible Church and did not know it What Vertue is there in these fine Letters and how insensibly do they work upon us Fear not Sir he has proved it I 'le warrant you and that unanswerably as he does all things Children simply believe their Fathers and Teachers page 27. Therefore their Rule is Tradition This is true only we must remember 't is a Tradition of Scripture only Next all hearers do not inquire whether others give not more congruous explications of Scripture then their own preachers do Therefore they follow Tradition They do indeed follow what the preacher has deliver'd to them from the Scripture and what he has made them see plainly there they think it needless to run as far as Rome to see more clearly by unwritten Tradition Lastly The Reformers meant not that the believing Church should have the Liberty to Interpret Scripture against the teaching Church or Pastors or coin a Faith out of it contrary to the present or former Congregation of which he was a Member page 29. Therefore again they follow Tradition They do indeed Apostolical and Scriptural Tradition And herein both Pastors and People are well agreed that they are neither for Coining faith and therefore will neither of them give leave to the other so to do They have a good old Faith delivered to them both by Scripture and the Primitive Church and to this they are resolved to stand Thus Sir having given you my thoughts of this ingenious Letter I leave you to think what you can of it better desiring you only to think no worse of your own Religion for it till you hear more from Your very faithful Friend and Servant FINIS
far as it is the same with ours as indeed it is in all our necessary Articles ours being no other but those in the Creeds which are as well theirs as ours Thus far then we have often proved the certainty of our Faith and if he require it will be ready to do it again But this he knows well enough and therefore would set us a harder task but it is by all Laws of Disputation in our choice whether we will accept of it or no. Two things more he will have us prove First That we are Absolutely certain of all this And Secondly Not only this but of all that more which our Saviour taught his Apostles But that we are not obliged to prove either of these things we are at least as sure as he is that we cannot and that I will confess to him is sure enough taking his words in his own sense For first he tells us Pag. 23. The profession of Absolute certainty makes a fair approach towards the Doctrine of Infallibility or rather 't is the self same with it And again in the same Page he makes Absolutely certain and Infallible all one thing When therefore he can meet with Protestants that Profess themselves absolutely certain in his sense that is Infallible 't is fit he should call upon them as we do on Roman Catholicks to prove all is their due which they as absurdly as presumptuously arrogate to themselves But whilst he has to do with Protestants of the Church of England who are of a modester disposition let him not put them to the Blush for him by telling them 't is their duty to prove themselves to be as much wiser than they know themselves to be as the Church of Rome thinks her self wiser than all other Churches And truly the next part of his demand is as unreasonable as this to bid us prove that we are absolutely certain of All that Christ taught his Apostles We are certain as was said of that which Christ and his Apostles have taught us in the Holy Scripture writ on purpose to inform us of what they taught and this we have reason to think enough and all that we are bound to be certain of because we cannot imagine if they writ not all that we are bound to know and believe why they were at the pains to write so much for if it be as these men tell us that to believe but a part is as damnable as to believe nothing they had as good have writ nothing as not the whole that we must believe A few lines more might have instructed us in that all more which 't is said we should certainly believe or a few words might have directed us to the Infallible Church to learn it Were those good men so scanted of time or sparing of pains that they could not afford us this all more especially whilst they spend so much of both in writing largely things supposed by all not Absolutely necessary And did the Primitive Church also grudge her Children the full knowledge of this all that Christ and his Apostles taught as the necessary Faith of Christians We do not find in any of the ancient Creeds one branch of this all more which the Trent Council so lately taught and commanded by vertue of Tradition To say no more we have certainty of all that is taught us in Scripture and we know of no more that Christ and his Apostles taught us The Papists say there is more and we are bound to believe it cannot now this Gentleman see by his own Rules of Disputation that he and his Brethren ought to bear their own burden the proof of all this more that he would have us say we are certain of You see I hope by this time that we decline no proof that is incumbent upon us We prove the Scripture to be the Word of God we prove every Article of our Faith by the Scripture and thus we prove we have sufficient certainty of our whole Faith. Our Rule being certain the Faith which agrees with it is certain too If there be any thing more that it is supposed Christ taught and Christians must believe he that affirms it is obliged to prove it or no longer to quarrel with those who know nothing of it Well I perceive this Author has a mind to shew what he can do to prove we have no certainty of our Faith in kindness to us I suppose that he may ease us of the mpossible task as he accunts it of proving that we have And he has done it unanswerably it we will believe him I declare openly saith he that you cannot answer this Discourse However we will try and we have some reason for it seeing he tells us it nearly toucheth our Copyhold which he may well believe we have no mind to part with We have it thus Pag. 30 31. I. God hath left us some Way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught This is a certain truth what is then the inference from it II. Therefore this Way must be such that they who take it shall arrive by it at the end it was intended for that is to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught Alas what dallying is here Who is the wiser for this inference Or who knows one jot the more by it than he did by the Antecedent If God hath left us a Way to know then by that Way we may know If such be his Inferences that he here engageth to make good he needs not fear to make good his engagement tho' his Inference be good for nothing But his next may be better Let us hear it III. Scripture's Letter interpretable by Private Iudgments is not that Way Who doth the man here dispute against Our Doctrine is that The Scripture only is the Rule of Faith or The Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvatiâ—n I suppose it is against us that he would be thought to dispute in this unanswerable Discourse and why doth he not in terms contradict our Doctrine saying The Scripture only is not the Rule of Faith or the Scripture contains not all things necessary to Salvation If because he had in his Proposition used Way for Rule which is very indifferent to us he ought in his Assumption also to use the same word yet why saith he not Scripture only but Scripture's Letter And why more yet Scripture's Letter interpreted by private Iudgments All this packing of the Cards is not for nothing However let us deal fairly and above-board If then by Scripture's Letter he mean as some of his Friends do unsensed Characters I confess Scripture's Letter cannot be the Rule or Way to know But such insignificant things we are unacquainted with in the Holy Scripture which we own if there be any such in his it will lose nothing by throwing them out Yet if he can think it reasonable to allow as much to the Scripture which is a Letter from the infallible God to Men as he expects
we should allow to this Letter of his that it contains good Sense expressed in words significant and intelligible we deny his Assumption that Scripture's Letter is not this way Again if by these words interpretable by private Iudgments he mean the Scripture any way interpretable as any private man may possibly wrest the words to make them comply with his own Sentiments or through ignorance and laziness and neglect of such helps and means as are fit to be used may misunderstand them he must have as wide a Conscience and as little Modesty as the impudent and wicked Author of Pax Vobis who has the face to fasten such a meaning to the 6th of our 39. Articles which hath no respect at all to the Interpretation of Scripture but only to the Sufficiency and Canon thereof But if his meaning be that Scripture as it may be understood by a private Man of a competent Iudgment using such helps as are proper is not the way we again deny his Assumption For we suppose these things That the Scripture is Gods Word That it was written to be understood That it was written for the Instruction of private men That they are concerned to understand it That they may believe and live as it directs That they have means left them of God for the understanding of it so far as it is of necessary concernment to them And that using these means as they ought they may understand it and thus it is to them the way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught as necessary to their Salvation And now let him shew when he can that these Suppositions are unreasonable or false But he offers at a Proof of what he saith For saith he we experience Presbyterians and Socinians for Example both take that way and yet differ in such high Fundamentals as the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. I might here talk with him in his own ridiculing Language Page II. We bring our Argument and he his Instance against it What are People the wiser now And which shall they be for the Argument or the Instance For if an Instance such as this in Presbyterians and Socinians is enough to stand in Bar against any Argument proving the Holy Scripture to be the Way to know what Christ and his Apostles taught what Reason can he give us why the like Instance should not be as good against an Argument for Tradition's being the Way Tradition it seems is so precious a thing with these men that Experience is nothing in comparison of any Argument that they have advanced to defend it but the Scripture is a thing of so little worth seeing it favours them so little that Experience or any thing else is thought enough to shew the Folly of trusting to it But to let this pass the force of his Argument is this If any Men can be found who wrest or misinterpret Scripture then can it not be the Way to know what Christ and his Apostles taught Now to find men wresting the Scripture he needed not have sought amongst Presbyterians and Socinians he might have met with Instances enow amongst Popes and Councils But for the validity of the Consequence he must yet seek a little farther or get a Decree of some new Council to make it good tho this will not do his Work neither for 't is granted us that the same Infallible Authority which by a bare Declaration can make an Article of Faith may be mistaken in the Arguments it useth to prove it so And indeed this Argument proves nothing but that he has no good Opinion of the Scripture For must a Rule be no good Rule because some who use it misunderstand it and abuse it Must a Way be a wrong Way because some that take it will not keep it In short till it be proved that God hath left such a Way or Rule as no man can possibly err out of it mistake it or abuse it and that it is not enough that he hath left us such a Way or Rule as men may understand and observe if they be not wanting to themselves it will not follow that the Scripture's Letter in the Sense we have own'd it is not the Way tho not only Presbyterians and Socinians but the greater number of Mankind should own it and yet differ about fundamental Points contained in it no more than it follows that because we see men misinterpret and break good Laws daily therefore those Laws are unintelligible or cannot be kept and must be thought insufficient to shew them what the Lawgiver expects from them Yet if this Instance in Presbyterians and Socinians be not a sufficient Proof that Scripture is not the way left us by God to know the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles you must expect no other in this unanswerable discourse for all that follows is but two Therefores and one Conclusion twice repeated as you here see IV. Therefore Scripture's Letter interpretable by private Iudgments is not the way left by God to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught or surely to arrive at right Faith. And again V. Therefore they who take only that way cannot by it arrive surely at right Faith since 't is impossible to arrive at the end without the means or way that leads to it And so you have an unanswerable Discourse Is this the Thing the Mountain has at last brought forth to send us home a Laughing Is this the Man that undertakes to read Logick to the D. of P. What trifling is this in him who pretends to so much care of Souls Thus he should have argued to have made sure work God hath left us some Rule which no man can possibly misunderstand or abuse But Scripture Letter is not such a Rule as no man can possibly misunderstand or abuse Therefore The Scriptures Letter is not the Rule which God hath left us Had we now denied the Minor in this Syllogism then his instance of Presbyterians and Socinians would have done him good Service But if we had chanced to have denied the Major as in all likelyhood we should have done he had been at an utter loss as we shall clearly see now we come to consider how he handles his own Rule viz. Tradition The next Question is How it may appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible To prove she is he will grant us to be his part if he think it need any proof as I question whether he doth or no. For page 12 he tells us It is vain to talk against one Infallibility unless we will set up another An Infallibility he supposeth there must be among men and then the old Argument must take place that seeing no other pretends to it but the Roman Catholicks it must be among them we must therefore either prove it to be with us or in vain shall we deny it to be with them whether they prove it or no for some where it must be But now suppose we deny