be rendred interpretable that way Whence there are almost as many minds as men about the time when any change was made nay some of their best Champions Dr Whitaker and Mr Powel profess the time of the Romish Churches change cannot easily be told and that they cannot tell by whom or at what time the Enemy did sow the Papists Doctrin This I say being so 't is most Evident they decline the pretence of any Tradition against ours and the very way of deriving down orally and practically Sence writ in mens Hearts by matter of Fact working on their Senses and instead of that recurr to pittiful shreds and fragments oâ— words utterly unauthoriz'd if the Tradition for that Books Goodness can fail And if Catholick Tradition which in its source was so largely extended visible and practicable by all can faulter ten thousand times more easily may the Tradition for any particular Book which in comparison of the other can be but of a very obscure Original fail and deceive us Now that no Tradition is alledgeable against us by Protestants appears hence that their immediate Forefathers little more than an 100. Years ago being Catholicks that is holders of their Faith no Novelty but uninterruptedly descended could never conspire to deliver to them any such sence that the Roman Church had alter'd her Faith since they had the contrary sence writ in the Tables of their hearts Nor can they have recourse to the Greek Church for a Tradition opposit to ours for any points of Faith in which they differ from us for they will find none such Nor is the Greek Church Progenitours to them here in England nor by consequence can they derive traditionarily from them 18. No solid Argument from Reason or intrinsecal Principles is producible against Christian Tradition For since Arguments if solid are taken from Things or Nature and the Certainty of Christian Tradition is built on the best Nature that is Man 's not according to what is alterable in it but what is abstracting from disease absolutely unalterable that is on Knowledge imprinted by natural Sensations and this Knowledge strengthen'd and made most lively by the oft-repeatedness of those Sensations and the import of the Things known Also since most efficacious Causes actually appli'd that is impossible not to do the Effect and Effects impossible to be without such a Cause's Existence are engag'd for the ever-continuance or Uninterruptedness of Tradition as hath been shown Disc. 6. 8. and the force of those preserving Causes strengthen'd by the most powerful assistances of the Holy Ghost Disc. 9. or by best Graces superadded to best Nature 'T is impossible any solid Argument from Reason should be brought against Tradition 19. The arguing by way of some few Instances as the manner is can have no force against Tradition's Certainty and Indefectiveness For seeing a pretended Instance of Tradition's failing is a particular action presumed to be long ago past and particulars out of the very nature of being particulars are surrounded by a thousand individuating circumstances or rather constituted by them that is are plac't in the proper sphere of Contingency and that particular Action is put to be long ago past and â—o affects not our Senses by Experience in which is founded the force of Instances in regard Experimental Knowledge is a necessary Effect of the Things being such as it is known Nor have we or can we have without Tradition any certain knowledge Coroll 16. that the Points of Faith pretended to have miscarried or to have been alter'd then or else the manner of expressing them were not mistaken then or misrepresented to us now nor that Interest for example of one party passion between both ambiguity of words slightness or confusedness of report grounding the Historians narration rashness of belief in him corruption of his Books since they were writ and innumerable other chances apt to occasion mistake did not intervene any of which would render the Instance uncertain and the Argument from it Inconclusive Again seeing we can have certainty of our own meaning of our words when we demonstrate and also of our consequence it follows that the way for a solid man to answer Traditions pretended demonstrableness must be to show the incoherence of the Terms and not to bring some old story against it which were to produce Uncertainty known to be such against pretended Certainty and not yet known to be other than such nay whos 's Evidence we cannot in reason deny till we can solve the connexion of Terms drawn from intrinsecal Mediums on which 't is built 20. The denying Tradition is a proper and necessary disposition to Fanatickness For since no Argument taken from any dead or written Testimony Coroll 12. 14. 16. nor living Testimony of Tradition Coroll 13. 17. nor from any thing in Nature Coroll 18. that is from any thing without us which is a second Cause is valid against Tradition It follows that Tradition cannot be denied but by pretending some Light or Knowledge within us deriv'd from the immediate Influence of the First Cause To which pretence helps its difficulty to be confuted in regard 't is easie to stand stiff in this Tenet that they see clearly such Truths by an inward Light and that therefore it were a madness to go about to confute their own manifest Experience whereas were Arguments produc-t openly they and their confutations might be publisht together and the Truth would lie expos'd to the scanning and decision of the Indifferent part of the world and be clear'd by a few Replies if a right method of discourse be taken Wherefore since Nature will easily teach the obstinate deniers of any Principle to avail themselves by the best plea they can to escape confuting 't is manifest that Nature will connaturally carry the deniers of Tradition to Fanatick Pranciples and that men are so long and no longer preserv'd from Fanatickness than they follow Tradition or the openly declar'd Sence of Forefathers either in our Church or some other Congregation Again Tradition being the way of coming to Faith by the open use of our Senses the denying it must drive the deniers to deny that way and to recurr to Knowledge had some other way Not to Knowledge acquir'd by human skill the Knowledge of such high mysteries being confessedly more than human therefore to infus'd Knowledge and this not infus'd by ordinary wayes as preaching teaching of Forefathers and such like as we experience such Knowledges to be infus'd into us for this again falls into the way of Tradition therefore they can onely have refuge to inward Light or Knowledge infus'd extraordinarily or without connatural means to make which the common road of receiving Heaven's Influences is the very definition of Fanatickness 21. Fanatick Principles can have no force against Tradition though unconfutable but by it For since they pretend for their ground a Light within imprinted on such a manner as manifests God the Authour that is an Effect
Part 1. Cap. 6. and The. Protestants Way of resolving Faith Cap. 7. I had quite lost Mr. Stillingfleet and instead of him had found a Dr. Hammond Dr. Pierce or a Dissuader who talk not out of Nature or Things but Words Imagination I plainly discover'd there was not one proposition in those two Discourses which could be a solid Ground for a rational understanding that would be true to it self to settle and rely on and was desirous to show it had it not been uncivil to put my sickle into another man's harvest and crop the victory due to another's Learning and Industry Victory I say For he that defends his Cause no better in effect yields it lost Yet I beg leave of the judicious Authour of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis to maintain one Breach where I find my self more directly assaulted Oral Tradition being the Post I have taken upon me to explicate further defend because I conceive it the solid Ground on which the Church or all Catholicks both Learned and Unlearned rely as Faithful however some School-men abounding in their own Sence ground also their Explication of the Churches Infallibility on somthing besides 2. Mr Stillingfleet then Part 3. Chap. 5. § 4 5. sets himself to oppose Oral Tradition whose Infallibility he opposes to Doctrinal Infallibility in Pope or Councils Where if by Doctrinal Infallibility he means that which they have as Doctors or Schollers he may reflect that no Catholick makes such an Infallibility proper to the Church or Church-Governours as such however it may be somtimes necessary to proceed upon it in some signal occasions Now take away this Infallibility there is none left but the Infallibility of Tradition perform'd by Testifying It being Evident that we have but two wayes of ordinary Knowledge by Acts of our Soul or Operations on our Body that is by Reason and Experience the former of which belongs to Speculaters or Doctors the second to Deliverers of what was receiv'd or to Testifiers Whence M. Stillingfleet may see he stumbles at the very threshold by counterposing Doctrinal Infallibility to Traditionary since that which we call Ecclesia docens professes constantly to ground her self on Tradition witness the Council of Trent in every Session where she defines Faith 3. No wonder then if grounding on this mistake Mr Stillingfleet declares himself unsatisfi'd He asks therefore whether he is bound to believe what the present Church delivers to be Infallible I understand him not Had he instead of the word Infallible put receiv'd as deliver'd ever or Infallibly true I had for Fallibility and Infallibility belong to the Knowing Power or the Persons that have it not to the Object The Object being neither deceiv'd nor not deceiv'd but we Well but suppose he means by it deliver'd ever or which is equivalent certainly true for what came from Christ must be so In that case we answer Affirmatively He asks again on what account is he bound to believe it And he makes our Answer to be Because the present Church cannot be deceiv'd in what the Church of the former Age believ'd nor That in the precedent and so up till Christ. This is indeed part of our Answer The other part is that the Church in no Age could conspire against her Knowledge to deceive that Age immediately following in matter of Fact evident in a manner to the whole World Upon this he falls into two new Demands which take up this whole paragraph 4. The first is how we can assure him the present Church obliges him to believe nothing but onely what and so far as it receiv'd from the former Church I answer by her manifest Practice never refusing Communion to any man that could approve himself to believe all the former Age did I could here distinguish the word Believe but I refer it till I come to speak of de fide He proceeds What Evidence can you bring to convince me both that the Church alwayes observ'd this Rule and could never be deceiv'd in it For the later I hope I need bring no greater Evidence than this that men in all Ages had Eyes Ears and other Senses also common Reason and as much memory as to remember their own names and frequently-inculcated Actions If you disprove this I doubt we have lost mankind the subject we are speaking of And till you disprove it neither I nor any man in his wits can doubt that this Rule depending on Testifying that is Sence or Experience can possibly permit men to be deceivable The former part I shall speak to when I come to show the Obligation not to vary from Faith His Scruple springs hence that he sees the Roman Church asserts things to be de fide in one age which were not in another c. that this is the common Doctrin and the deniers ill-look't on I beg leave to distinguish the words de fide which may either mean Christian Faith or Points of Faith taught by Christ and then you see 't is nonsence to say they can be in one Age and not in another for what Christ has taught he has taught and the preteritness of the Thing has so fixt its Existence to its proper time that 't is not now obnoxious to variation Quod factum est infectum fieri non potest Or de fide may mean obligatory to be believ'd In this later sence none I think denies things may be de fide in one Age and not in another in the former sence none holds it What 's now become of your difficulty I believe you are in some wonderment and think I elude it rather then answer it I shall endeavour to unperplex you 5. Christianity ayms not to make us Beasts but more perfectly Men and the perfection of our Manhood consists in using our Reasons Since then natural Consequences are apt to spring from natural Principles by the operation of Reason and we cannot but think that the Consequences apt to flow from Supernatural Principles or Points of Faith deliver'd down from Christ onely which are de fide in the former Sence are of incomparably greater Excellency than Natural Truths it follows that Christianity or Christian Faith is so far from hindring the Faithful from deducing out of them that both out of their nature as Supream Truths or Principles and out of their high Excellency they invite and prompt most strongly to it Now these Points deduct out of Principles of Faith are of two sorts The former those which need no more but Common Sence or the ordinary natural Light of Reason to discover their arising thence nor any piece of Skill or Science to infer them but are seen by the bare Principle of Faith or rather in it being indeed but a Branch or Part of that Principle The later are those which need besides the Maxims of some Science got by Speculation to infer them An Example of the former sort is that against the Monothelites of Christ's having an Human Will for common Experience tells
form of words This is the Faith of Blessed Peter this is the Faith of the Fathers this is the Faith of the Orthodox From which Testimonies note we 17. First That the Council in every Session not one excepted where Points of Faith are handled constantly professes to follow TRADITION Secondly It layes claim perpetually to Vninterruptedness of this Tradition as appears by the words ever alwayes from the Apostles times from the beginning from the Apostles have come down by hands to us The Church hath alwayes understood held openly profest taught hath ever kept and will ever keep perpetually commended by our Fathers hath learned by Tradition received down by hand hath ever observed and such like Plainly showing that this Persuasion of our Faith's descent uninterruptedly is deeply and unanimously rooted in the heart of the whole Catholick Church Which strengthens our Doctrin Disc. 8. § 2. and 3. 3ly It makes the Suggestion of the Holy Ghost or Sanctity in the hearts of the Faithful efficacious to perpetuate the delivery of received Doctrin See Sess. 6. Decreto de Iustificatione Sess. 13. de SS Euchar. Sacramento and many other places The very point I went about to explicate in my 9. Discourse 4ly 'T is observable that though it mentions the Holy Scriptures also with Tradition yet this is both very rarely and when it does so It onely expresses that Faith is contain'd in them but when it brings Places of Scripture to ground Definitions upon It perpetually professes to Interpret them by Tradition Which is most Evident both by its decreeing this in common Sess. 4. That none dare to interpret Holy Scriptures against the Sence which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and does hold meaning that Sence in the Hearts of the Faithful is the Rule to interpret Scripture by see Corol. 30. As also by several Instances Sess. 5. § 4. Sess. 14. Can. 3. Sess. 22. cap. 1. and to omit others in that most remarkable plaâ—e Sess. 14. In which after the Text of S. Iamesâ—lledg'd â—lledg'd for Extream Unction the Council subjoins In which words as the Church hath learn'd by Apostolical Tradition received down by hands be teaches c. Where Tradition is most evidently made the Rule which instructs and guides the Church in interpreting Scripture And 't is observable that the Council no where grounds any definition on Scripture but at the same time she grounds her Interpretation of Scripture on Tradition which devolves into this that the Council makes Tradition her onely Rule to know Certainly Christ's Sence or Points of Faith that is in proper speaking the onely Rule of Faith 18. But why then is the Holy Scripture made use of at all by the Council and that so solemnly nay and which is to be noted constantly put before Tradition To satisfy fully this difficulty 't is not the proper season at present yet being a good point and worth clearing I will not totally neglect it We may observe then that when we read any Book writ by an Authour we much esteem but yet such a Book as requires studying Aristotle's for Example or some other such whom we hold Scientifical we sometimes hope well as it were when we apply our own Industry to find out his meaning and have a kind of respect for what we conceive to be his Sence yet his Authority takes not full hold of our Understanding by reason the way we take is not evidently convictive that this is his Certain Sence But if the Point he writes on be first clear'd to us through a Scientifical discourse by word of mouth made by some Interpreter vers'd in his Doctrin and perfectly acquainted with his meaning we have as it were new Eyes given us to look deeply and thoroughly into his Sence and by this Security of arriving at it his Authority in case we highly esteem'd it has now its full force upon us to strengthen our Assent according to the degree of power it had upon our Understanding Now what a well-skill'd and insighted Interpreter or scientifical Explicater of the point is to such an Author the same is Tradition to Scripture For This bringing down Certainly Christ's Sence in every Point of Faith It easily and securely guides us to the true meaning of Scripture in those passages which concern such a point whereas the wordish way of Grammar and Criticism being evident by Principles to be ambiguous and by Experience to lead men into different Sences it can never satisfy us thoroughly that the Sence we arrive at by this method is infallibly the true one or Christs and so never engages certainly the Authority of GOD'S WORD And hence it is that Scripture thus interpreted is of sleight force and at best good onely for Ecclesiastical Rhetorick or Sermons where the concern is not much if the Preacher misses in this particular passage so the Substance of the Point he preaches on or his Text be truly Christ's doctrin nor is Scripture thus interpreted even a competent proof in the Science of School-Divinity as being Uncertain and so unapt to beget Science whence Intelligent Divines quoting and building on Scripture are to be suppos'd to judge the Sence they build on to be the Churches and so they are presum'd to go to work as Faithful or parts of Ecclesia docens or else they lay true Science first which is ever agreeable to Faith and so when any Text concerns a demonstrated point they know by Science what the true Sence of that Point must be Much less is Scripture wordishly interpreted apt to build Faith on the unwaveringness of which kind of Assent must be grounded and secure in the Principles which beget it and not meerly actually such as it were by accident whereas Interpretations thus made Faith's Principles in this case are liable to possible if not probable mistake This will be clearer by a parallel made by a learned Authour worth inserting because it strengthens our Discourse by a new Consideration Let a Critick and a skill'd Carpenter read Vitruvius his Book of Architecture the Critick has but a dim dry and uncertain conceit of what he reads as to the truth of the thing but the Carpenter or Architect by reason of some Principles and Practice he has already of those matters understands him more thoroughly and makes lively and firm conceits of the truth and excellency of what he writes Such is the Practical way of knowing Christs Sence or Tradition to the interpreting Scripture usâ—d by the Catholick Church in comparison of the Critical Method affected by others In a word Tradition gives us Christs Sence that is the Life of the Letter ascertaind to our hands which therefore must needs move the Letter its Body naturally The other way takes the dead Letter and endeavours to move it Artificially to counterfeit that Life which it truly wants 19. To apply this Discourse to our matter in hand Tradition securing to us the Scripture's Letter truly significative of Christ's Sence and also the
SURE-FOOTING In Christianity Or Rational Discourses On The Rule of FAITH With Short Animadversions on Dr Pierce's Sermon Also on some passages in Mr Whitby and M Stillingfleet which concern That RULE Ecce nos ex Patribus ad Patres per manus traditam fuisse hanc sententiam demonstravimus Athanasius By I. S. LONDON Printed in the Year 1665. To the QUEEN Madam THough the Faith I write for be far more firmly establish't then Heaven and Earth themselves as the Worlds great Master has by his own word assur'd us and so needs no Support but its own Invincible Strength Yet I am told by my reason that nothing so clears and recommends Religion to the Generality as the vertuous Life and eminent Devotion of Them that profess it But where shall I seek those happiest Effects and noblest Arguments of Truth If I consider them in their abstracted Idea's they are Invisible as Angels too subtle and delicate for vulgar eyes Where then may I hope to meet those excellent Forms vested with Bodies if I consult the common Judgment I expect to be sent to some Hermit's Cell or the private Oratory of some holy Votaress where I may find them indeed embody'd but withal half-bury'd Incomparable Lights but shut up in a kind of dark Lanthorn where they burn safely I confess but shine to few while Those I seek must be high and conspicuous to send forth their Beams and Influences over all the VVorld and in that regard Courts are the properest Firmament for such Illustrious Stars and Courts are easily seen but where 's the Star In this perplexity Madam it pleas'd the Goodness of Heaven to relieve me for as the mention of Courts brought immediately into my memory the happiness our Nation is blest with by Your Majesty's Residence among us so the Contemplation of Your Exemplar Life fill'd my soul with joy to have found at last those sublime and heroick Virtues whose perfect Conformity to the Rules of Catholick Religion is alone capable to convince the Certainty of its Truth Such an unwearied Constancy in Devotion such a degree of Fervor in that Constancy cannot possibly proceed from a luke-warm Probability in Faith such frequent Retirements to intimate Conversations with Heaven such Mortifications and contempt of Court-Entertainments and which is yet harder such Innocence and Purity amidst the necessary Admittances of them as they all conspire to speak Your Soul Angelical so they clearly prove the vigorous Activity of the Faith that breeds them far beyond the drowsy Indifferency of a probable Opinion Thus Madam while Schollars but discourse YOV live Demonstrations Permit me then to use not Your bare Name but Your Vertues as a Patronage to my Endeavours since the Motive of this my Dedicatory meant These for its Substance and Your Temporal Supremeness onely for a Circumstance Others Complement while they dedicate I Argue all the while nor intend I this for a farther Display of Your Excellent Vertues which already are sufficiently manifest to all the VVorld but to breed a more serious reflexion on Them in the minds of those against whom I write and other well-meaning but mis-led persons This advantage Your Majesty and the Practical Provers of Catholick Faith have above us Speculaters that Your whole Life is a Continual Argument for It while we are bound to expect Seasons and wait Opportunities Nor should I at this time have offer'd to appear had not the Multitude of Books lately Printed against Catholick Religion made it my plain and necessary Duty with all my little power to defend It VVhat I have endeavour'd I most humbly lay at Your Majesties feet and remain MADAM Your Majesties most dutiful Subject and most obedient Servant I. S. PREFACE To the Intelligent READER 1. He is little acquainted with the paths which lead to Science who knows not that the settling the First Principle in any Affair is of mainest Import towards Satisfaction in that particular because if such a Principle be not first settled the whole Discourse as relying on that Principle for its Certainty must needs waver and stagger Reflecting on this plainest Truth and withal on the manner how very many I wish I might not say most Controversies are manag'd that is by debating much about diverse Conclusions but very little about the first Principle in Controversie I cannot wonder if Disputes come slowly to an End when few of them were ever rightly begun Another mischief and even despair of entire Satisfaction springs from hence that seeing all Dispute Supposes an Agreement between the Disputers in some acknowledg'd Principle I much fear while things are carry'd on this fashion this Requisit is wanting to the Catholick and Protestant Controvertists For neither doth the Protestant from his heart hold witness the Books of their most extold Champions and even the 39. Articles to the contrary the Testimonies of Fathers and Councils Certain and Convictive nor even Scripture alwayes as to its Letter and the Sence they give it for they pretend Infallible Certainty of none of these much less does the Catholick agree that private Interpretations of Scripture or Citations from Fathers not speaking as Witnesses of the Churches Belief are of sufficient Authority to settle the True or overthrow a False or pretended Faith Yet notwithstanding all this each Antagonist permits the other to frame his Discourses upon these Grounds as if he held the Method were good and allowable which not being heartily granted by either what satisfaction can we expect but endless and fruitless contests for want of Agreement in some acknowledg'd Principle while this Method is follow'd Nay more were it suppos'd that both sides had agreed not to reject in their Disputes such a Principle yet still however one side might happen to foil the other so far as to make him contradict himself yet never so as to convince his Tenet of falshood unless the process were grounded upon some First that is Self-evident Principle by virtue of whose undoubtable Certainty the Discourse built on it might gain an establishment Whence also the result of this way of Discourse can be onely the Credit or Discredit of the Authours and touches not at all the Thing Which without some Evident Principle to establish or overthrow it hovers in its pure neutral condition of being as to Assent or Dissent just a bare saying and no more 2. The reason why the First Principle of Controversie is not more lookt into and clear'd appears to me evidently this that our modern Dissenters from the Church and her Faith seeing which is common to Them with all other maintainers of Errours that to begin with First or self-Evident Principles is the direct road to Science and therefore absolutely destructive of their Interest avoid as much as in them lies the laying any such Principles and instead of this apply their whole endeavours to aiery Descants upon Words by such means and Arts as are never likely to give them any determinate Sence by which craft the way
of Science being to proceed from one piece of Sence to another they carry the war out of the bounds of Science where solid ground is to be found to fix ones fool upon so to overthrow or be overthrown and transfer it to a kind of Spatium Imaginarium of Fancy and unsignifying Sounds the proper sphere for Chimerical Discoursers to buz confusedly and make a noise in Where the Catholick must either let them alone and then they cry Victory or follow them thither and so hazard to prejudice his own cause by seeming to allow their method of discoursing Whereas indeed the Catholick is forc't by their Importunity exciting his Charity towards the unskilfull to show how weakly they discourse in their own shallow way 3. How little faulty the Catholick is in this will be quickly manifest if we consider that â—tis against his Principles and Involuntary in him to take this Method for he builds not upon those aiery Skirmishes for his Faith nor consequently esteems he it conquerable by such attempts he received his Faith from the present Church witnessing it's delivery from the former Age to this anchorage he sticks he stands on immemorial Possession nor doubts he that Christ ' s Doctrin is his true and proper inheritance while brought down by the testimony of so many Christian Nations As long as this foundation stands firm quirks hurt not him Shake this that is show the Church Essential is Mistress of falshood and he must doubt all his Faith but yet cannot hold the Protestants for he must hold nothing No Book can secure him when that Principle which onely can secure to us Books written long ago is insecure it self Now on the contrary the Protestant builds his Faith by thus hammering it out of unsenc't Characters and is quite overthrown would his will give his reason leave to follow his principles if another more dexterously fit the words to a sence inconsistent with his And his hopes of standing are not built as are the Catholicks on the self evidence of ony Thing or Principle but indeed on the Inevidence or Ambiguity of Words and his Way to manage them which is to let no Living Authority sence thew and so they will more easily change their shape as the ingenious contrivances of Fancy molds them and then if the discourse seem but a little plausible Education and Interest make the Vnderstanding content with very easiy satisfaction 4. I am far from blaming the Catholicks prudence for engaging on this manner I rather admire their Charity towards their weaker Brethren that at the expence of so much patience and pains such excellent Wits will condescend to so laborious a talk less sutable both to their own Genius as Catholick and to the nature of their Cause How easily might they rest secure upon Immovable Possession and demand Evidence and Demonstration from the Protestant who denies his right to Christs Doctrin How easily might he show their reasons inconclusive which method was observ'd by a late Learned Writer Mr. J. S. against that Pulpit-vapour of Dr. Pierce especially by discovering the unsatisfactoriness of the Method they take How most easily that they have never a Principle or self evident Ground to begin with That till they settle such a First Principle all their Discourse is frivolous That their rejecting the Churches Living Voice or Tradition brings all into doubt both Sayings of Fathers and Texts of Scripture And hence not to allow them the favour of disputing ad hominem from Scripture or Fathers by granting them any thing Certain but putting them to prove all For since they are to object and bring Evident Reason for changing it lies on them to make their reasons Evident nor has any Disputant right to have any thing allow'd him Certain who renounces that Principle which if renounctâ— all is Vncertain And lastly that he who denies the First Principle in any Science deserves not â—ay cannot in reason abstracted from circumstances be discourst with at all in that Science nor They in Controversy This will force them to lay some First or self-evident Principle which cannot fail to produce these two Advantages One to the World that it shall get into a method of concluding something with evidence The other to Catholick Religion For â—twill be found Impossible their Reason strain'd to its utmost can invent any other in this matter but that of Tradition 5. This will clearly shorten our debates and save the laborious transcribing and Printing Volumes of Testimonies by bringing Conrroversy to the way of Reason for the Certainty of First Authority must needs be manifested by pure Reason But who am I that I should attempt such a change in the method of Controversy or think my self a fit proposer or presser of it Far be it from me Yet if I mistake not Nature her self whom I second in this design is about doing that work For I hear Catholick Writers complain of the Protestant and justly too that he puts him to answer what hâ—â— been an hundred times said before and I am inform'd an Eminent Protestant now writing in behalf of Dr Pierce makes the same counter-complaint of the Catholick and the Dissuader begins his book with the same resentment Besides I am sure the Best Wits of our Nation are weary of this Method seeing t is no more but reciprocating a Saw or transcribing and re-printing what has been done before onely in another Frame or if any new production be made generally t is nothing but some note collected from some Historical book unobserved by others which what satisfactory Evidence t is like to bring with it is easy to be ghest 6. Now all this happens through not first settling and agreeing in some First Principle Not onely for the reasons given in the beginning of this Preface but also because as will be shown hereafter without thiâ— the validity of any Testimony from Father or Council cannot be weigh'd understood or prest with force upon the Adversary For if These be but parts of the Living Voice of the Church Essentiall of their time that is of Christian Tradition it will follow that till the force of Tradition be evidenc't Theirs will not be clearly known Again Tradition once evidenc't wil give principles to distinguish those Citations by and to secure as far as is needful and interpret Scriptures Letter Whence clear Victory will accrue to Truth and full Satisfaction to her ingenuous Seekers Not that I at all doubt but that many things in Catholick Writers of the Testimonial strain carry 4 strong force of Conviction with them but I see thâ—â—â— while the solid Testimonies are not distinguisht and solely insisted on but run mixt with others of less force by such a mixture they weaken their own I see also that they want their effect upon the Protestant by reason he is not first prest to admit that Evident Principle on which their strength is built and which once settled they are irresistable 7. The settling then the
blaz'd up and down to the commendation of themselves and perversion of others But a company which makes such a bustle cannot long want a Name Wherefore the Traditionary Christian having ever enjoyd the Appellation of Catholick and it being impossible their Adversaries should by any design or craft after the common Language of Mankind hopeless to attain the name of Catholick they are forced to content themselves though unwilling with some other new one which Nature working upon their own comportment determines to be either from their Authour as Lutherans Zuingliaus or their new Tenet as Tritheits Sacramentarians or some combination amongst themselves as Protestants or lastly some particular carriage as Quakers Dippers c. 3. These first Adherents to the upstart Novellist being clung into a Body after a while young understandings ripening to a capacity of Faith things are presently alterd The pretended Rule of Scripture's Letter's self-sufficiency is immediately thrown by as useless any farther Design hath got its end already and the natural way of of Tradition begins to take place again and recover its self nay the Reformers themselves are forc't to crave help of it to keep their company together Children are taught that they are to believe their Pastours and Fathers and though they are permitted to read the Scripture when they come at age yet they are told they are to guide themselves by the sence their Pastours and Fathers give it which is that they ought to guide themselves by the Faith of their Parents and Teachers in interpreting Scripture the very way Catholicks ever took in that particular And if any company of men though now mature to judge presume to follow their own Judgement in interpreting it and differ from those first Reformers these if they get the power in their hands will presently fall to oblige them by force to act that is if they would have them do it conscientiously which else were to force them to sin to hold as they do and persecute or punish them if they do not whereas they guide themselves to their best capacity by the Scripture's Letter which is the very Rule of Faith their Persecutors taught them and made use of themselves when they broke from the Church Which evidently shows that a new Rule is introduc't and that it is not indeed the Letter of God's word which is now thought fit to guide the Readers of it to Faith but those men's Interpretations of it So that the breaking from Tradition and consequently the Church casts them most inevitably upon these self-contradictions First to reform npon pretence of the Scripture's Letter being the Rule of Faith yet afterwards in practice to desert that Rule in their carriage towards others Secondly to disallow to others those Grounds themselves proceed upon Thirdly to pretend first the Scripture's Letter clear of it self without needing the Church to interpret it so to avoid condemnation from the former Church yet afterwards to judge the Followers of it to their best power to go wrong that is to confess it obscure and to need their new Churches Interpretation 4ly To persecute others for taking that way which they held at least pretended meritorious in themselves 5ly To oblige others to relinquish the sole guidance of the Scriptures Letter and to rule themselves by their Tradition and yet at the same time when they write and dispute against Catholicks to impugn Tradition or the doctrin of Forefathers as unfitting to sence it and abet onely the self-sufficiency of Scriptures Letter And lastly to impute that carriage to our Church as a fault which themselves practice upon their own Subjects And which is most material our Church punishes none but such as desert the Rule she recommends whereas they punish those under them for following too close that Rule which themselves recommended and applauded as the whole and sole Bafis of their Reformation 4. Now what can follow hence but that their Ecclesiastical Subjects whom Common Sence cannot but make exceeding sensible of such their unreasonable carriage in persecuting them purely for following God's word or the Scripture's Letter to their best power which themselves had taught them might securely nay ought in conscience be follow'd let the Consent of Forefathers and the present Church made up of meeâ— men say what they would what follow 's I say but that exasperated beyond patience by this procedure which they will be apt to conceive to be a most senceless and self-condemning tyranny over their Consciences they will unless Governours be vigilant strive to wreak their malice against their Persecutors and if they be numerous and powerful endeavour to involve whole Nations in war and blood which God of his mercy avert from our distracted Country Of so main consequence it is both for Church and State that men's Minds be right set in the Fundamental Grounds of Christianity and that the Principle they build Religion on be Evident that is apt to unite their Understaâ—dings and by it their Affections not uncertain and vertible which must needs lead if pursu'd by an earnest zeal to nothing but diversities in Opinions about Faith thence to dissensions and Feuds in the Will which upon any great pressure will be apt to break forth into actions of highest enmity and by the irreconcileableness of such Interests neither side being able to yeeld to the other in what each of rhem holds Sacred Religious and Conscientious endless and fiercest bickerings are apt to succeed even to utter desolation as frequent Histories too lamentably record Not that I intend the Justification of those revolting Sects who having no certain Grounds of Controversy are both self-condemn'd by the common Light of Reason for disobeying a Certain and Known Legal Authority which God's Law and plain Reason commands them to submit to to maintain an Uncertainty that is for any thing they know an Error and were it a known Truth they held would be no less condemn'd by the Law of God and common Reason nay out the nature of Religion it self for making Rebellion and an unimpower'd Sword the Defence of Truth which stands firm on a surer Basis. I onely mind prudent Considerers on the by how much it conduces to State-Unity and Peace that the Principle of conveying Faith to us be built on Sensible Evidence acknowledgable by all Mankind when rightly understood and not left to giddy Interpretations of Private Fancies which are apt to run so eccentrically to one another that we can never expect they shall have any common point where to fix and unite men's Minds and Afflections 5. The usefulness of this Parergon serves to elucidate as it were ptactically and experimentally the Certainty of Tradition The particular use we make of it in this present Discourse whence we digrest into it is to conclude as well as we can of things at a common view which yet is no less certain that the number of the actual Deserters of the natural way of Tradition have been but few to wit the
none of the pretended Rules of Faith all of them building on Scripture's Letter are Certain Disc. 2. 3 4. without Tradition it follows that no other company have any Principle of Distinction from others that is either of Constitution or self-preservation under the notion of Church but that which adheres to Tradition All the loud out-cry then made commonly against that Body which adheres to Tradition callâ—d Roman-Catholick for accounting it self onely the Vniversal Church and excluding all others is but empty noise and her claim rational and well-grounded till it be shown by evident Discourse that the other Pretenders have some other more Evident and Certain Rule to know who are of the Church who not than this of Tradition now produc't and explicated upon which she proceeds and by which she consists 12. There is no arguing against Tradition out of Scripture For since as we have prov'd Disc. 4. there can be no absolute Certainty of Scripture's Letter without Tradition this must first be suppos'd Certain ere the Scripture's Letter can be rationally held such and consequently ought in reason to be held Vncertain while Tradition is thought â—it to be argu'd against that is while it's Certainty is doubted of Wherefore since none can argue solidly upon uncertain Grounds none ought to argue against Tradition out of the Letter of Scripture 13. None can in reason oppose the Authority of the Church or any Church against Tradition First because in reality Tradition rightly understood is the same thing materially with the living Voicâ— and Practice of the whole Church Essential consisting of Pastors and Layity which is so ample that it includes all imaginable Authority which can be conceiv'd to be in a Church Secondly because in the way of generating Faith Tradition formally taken is antecedent to Disc. 2. § 11. and so in the way of Discourse working by formal and abstracted notions its notion must be presuppos'd and its Certainty establish't before the notion and Certainty of Faith consequently of Faithful and consequently of Church which must necessarily be a congregation of Faithful Whence they would argue very preposterously who should go about to oppose Church against Tradition this being the same as to think to establish the House by overthrowing the Foundation 14. None can in reason oppose the Authority of Fathers or Councils against Tradition This is evident by the former Corol. 13. in regard neither of these have any Authority but as Representatives of the Church or Eminent Members of the Church Nor can any determin certainly what is a Father or Council Disc. 2. § 11. till the notion of Church that is of Faithful that is of Faith that is of Rule of Faith that is of Tradition be certainly establish't 15. No Disacknowledgers of Tradition are in Due of reason but in Courtesy onely to be allow'd to argue out of Scripture's Letter Father or Council For since wanting Tradition they have Certainty of none of those as was prov'd Disc. 2. § 11. 't is manifest that disacknowledging Tradition while they alledge and talk of these they alledge and talk of things themselves do not know to be Certain Wherefore 't is too great a Condescendence and courtesy in Catholiks to let them run forwards descanting with wordish Discourses on those Testimonies after their raw manner since they might justly take their advantage against them and show they have no right to make use of Principles which their own Grounds can never make good to them as was Tertullian's smart and solid way de Praescr Haeret. c. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. denying them the use of Scripture who deny'd the Church which would save many an aiery confus'd discourse about words unapt to evidence any thing satisfactorily Nor can the right of an Opponent to argue ad hominem licence them to claim this favour from our Controvertists in regard we never held that Scriptures Letter hammer'd upon by Criticisms and such pretty knacks of human Learning was the Ground of our Faith nor the way to establish it but onely as interpreted by the Language and Practice of the Church nor consequently can we hold it capable to be prejudic't by such endeavours of private Wits Though then we should allow them a Copy of the Letter and consequently so far a liberty to argue ad hominem against us yet we never allow'd their method of arguing from it as efficacious either to build or evert Faiâ—h but our learned Controvertists ever held direct contrary Whence in case they clamour that in not following their wild method we desert Scripture to avoid which calumny with the vulgar I conceive one reason our Controvertists generally were so civil to them as to cope with them in their fleight way the unreasonableness of the Calumny is to be made appear which is quicklier done not their unreasonable expectation to be satisfy'd 16. No Authority from any History or Testimonial Writing is valid against the force of Tradition For since Falshood is as easy to be writ or printed as Truth 't is evident those Books can give no Testimony to themselves that what they express is certainly true and if we say they are abetted by the Testimony of other Books the same question recurrs concerning them in what Age soever they were writ It remains then that 't is onely the Acceptation of Men or Sence writ in their Hearts and so convey'd down from Father to Son that these Books are true Histories and not Fables which gives them any Authority But this has plainly the nature of Tradition They have therefore no Authority but by force of Tradition Therefore they can have no possible force against Tradition since if Tradition or the conveying down from hand to hand sence writ thus universally in men's hearts can deceive us no such Books can have any Authority at all Wherefore not the Books but the Sence writ in men's hearts of the Goodness and skill of the Authours of those Books upon which qualifications the Truth of each passage contain'd in those Books is built is to be alledg'd against Christian Tradition since 't is that Sence which authorizes those Books and gives Credibility to those passages and so is stronger than any dead Testimony from the Books themselves Which devolves into this that onely some great Tradition or living Testimony for things past can in point of Authority be pretended an equal match to Christian Tradition or competent to be alledgâ—d against it 17. No Tradition is alledg'd or alledgeable in reason against Christian Tradition That none is alledgâ—d is Evident from matter of Fact For the Adversaries of Catholick Tradition never pretend the Consent or constant Sence of great multitudes deriv'd from age to age by living voice that at such a time former Tradition was relinquish't new Faith introduc't or the old Faith chang'd or abolisht but onely odd ends or scraps of Histories or other dead Testimonies according as they light on some passage which seems favourable to them or may
Fathers Testimonies leave little in him to be reply'd to and my Discourses have left nothing at all Amongst late Adversaries then Dr Dentons folly seem'd so ultra crepidam that it was not worth a serious thought and 't is wholly answer'd by declaring that he begins and grounds his whole Book on so knavish a Calumny that could the Universality of Catholicks have the same Law against him that a private Protestant though the meanest in the Kingdome might freely have he would lose his Ears for Libelling The Dissuader for his plausibleness not for his strength of sence seem'd to require a larger Answer than was sutable to the design of an Appendix Dr Pierce was of highest vogue and short but he was already so doubly overthrown by two Learned Opposers that it seemâ—d unhandsome and ignoble to strike a man when he was down his Circumstances making him rather an Object of Pity than Victory Yet his Pulpit-alarum to excite all England to persecute Catholicks was so full of malice and so monstrously cry'd up that I judg'd it above all others deserving to be made an Example of ungrounded Talk Though I shall do it with that compassion as not so much to confute him as by laying a few Notes as Admonitions to him to open his Understanding and enable him to look into the force of his own Citations and so to guide himself better the next time he goes about to quote Authors a point I doubt he as yet never thinks on They may also give his Defender now as I hear writing some light to strengthen his Testimonies against us I am sure they will tend to clear Truth not to blunder it and so all ingenuous seekers of satisfaction will thank me for them To begin then 2. The whole scope of his Sermon exprest in the Title of it The Primitive Rule of Reformation causes my first Admonition For since we both agree that the Primitive Faith is to be held to and only differ about the Certain means to come to know what that Faith was we holding to Tradition and to Fathers and Councils which are taken properly parts of Tradition as Certain means to know that Faith The Protestants to private Interpretations of Scripture and to Citations quoted on any fashion The way to confute us Catholicks is to demonstrate the Certainty of the way they take to prove their Faith the same with the Primitive otherwise let them talk and write as long as they will they are never the neerer their Conclusion Now if plain Experience tells us the Smâ—ctymnuans too preacht and writ against Episcopacy by quoting Fathers and Scripture let Dr Pierce show us what his way of Talking has above theirs which gives it a virtue of ascertaining or perfectly settling the understanding or confess theirs and so his too is fallible and frivolous To demonstrate then against us and so confute us he ought rather have insisted on a derivative Rule or a Rule able to derive down to them Christ's Faith with Certainty so to make out their present knowledge which alone can justifie their present or late Action of Reforming and not run afar off to a Primitive Rule or Faith which is nothing to the Protestants unless they can prove Certainly they follow it When D. Pierce makes a Sermon at Court upon the Certainty of such a Rule we will all become Auditours so he will promise to begin with first Principles and bring Evidence of what he sayes Till then let him take heed of bragging in print of Demonstrations until he knows what the word means that is till he reflects how a Demonstration is a Proof which obliges the Uuderstaâ—ding and considers or studies wherein the virtue by which it performs this consists Such bold and careless talk has cost his Credit dear already and when it comes to be scann'd by Principles and Science will leave it quite bankrupt 3. We have seen the End and Scope of D. Pierce's Performance which is to over-leap all that concern'd him to prove if he would conclude with Certainty against us Now the usefullest part of his whole performance as he sayes in his Dedication are his Citations as being the Evideâ—ce and Warrant of all the rest which therefore if any thing deserve to be consider'd Their faults distinguish them into so many forts Of the first sort are those which are impertinent to our or indeed to any purpose but to make a noise or vaporing show Of the second those which are raw or unapply'd and onely say somthing in common which never comes home to the point Of the third those which are levell'd blindly at none knows what or at a question unstated and so are shot at rovers Of the fourth Those which impugn a Word for a Thing or some Circumstance or Manner for the Substance Of the fifth Negative Testimonies Of the sixth A private Authours saying against the torrent of a contrary consent which of it self is liable to innumerable contingencies of passion mistake or ignorance but thus compar'd signifies less than nothing The like is to quote a Schoolman or two for a point which others freely contradict Of the seventh those which are false and signifie not the thing they are expresly quoted for Of the eighth those which labour of obscurity by an evidently ambiguous word Of the ninth Sayings of those on his own side Of the tenth a few fragments of Scripture senc't by Fancy 4. I intend not to muster up one by one all his Citations and then rank them under their respective Heads the brevity of an Appendix not permitting it But I make this fair proffer to his Vindicater or himself that if they please to pitch upon any Testimonie of his which falls not under some one perhaps many of these Faulty Common-places I will yeild them all valid and conclusive and make him publick satisfaction for the Injurie Having thus given my bond for the Truth y charge and under so great a penaltie upon failure of being so I have Title to free licence to suppose my charge good which will also appear shortly in common by my § 9. and accordingly to apply my reason to consider his Citations I discourse then thus and Note 6. First That Citations are of two sorts the one alledges the Testifiers Knowledge by Eye-sight or Infallible Sense the other his Judgment or Opinion Now this later in regard mens Judgments or Opinions depend on Reasons is not properly that Authours Testimonie nor he a Witness who ought to proceed upon Evidence had by Senses but a Schollar or Relier on his Reasons and so his expressing himself in the words found in such a Citation has no Authority further than his Reason gives him which Reason therefore and not his Saying ought to be alledg'd in regard it was meerly by vertue of his Reason he knew this and so the whole vertue of his Authority which follows and goes paralel to Knowledge consists in that Reason None therefore are properly Testimonies but those
Again for God's love who ever deny'd they ought to have reason to believe the Churches Authority Is any thing more frequent in our Controvertists and Divines treating of the Ground of Faith than large Discourses concerning Motives of Credibility 9. Thirdly he saies that disputing with Romanists whether Scripture be the sole Rule he means t is so limitedly that is between Christians who have already acknowledged Scripture a Rule of Faith By which I see Mr Whitby guides him self by sounds though he must need know if he knows any thing of Catholick Tenâ—â—â— our sence is quite different I beseech you Sir deal fairly with us Is not that speaking formally and properly the Rule of Faith which gives us Christs sence and does not that give us the Sence of Scripture which regulates us in the Interpretation of it Did ever Catholick then hold that Scripture interpreted on any fashion much less on your fashion by private Judgments or reasons regulated by Grammatical skill Criticisms and such like verbal knowledges is a Rule of Faith nay do not we constantly abhor this way as the Source of Heresy Take us right then we hold not Scripture's Letter alone a Rule but Scripture interpreted by the Church that is indeed the Church formally speaking and so you see you mistake our Principle Yet upon our joint-agreement in this your Discourse against us proceeds Retrive it then you see your Errour Again you tell us Scripture is your new Rule but forget quite in your discourse to tell us that your Reason assures you Scripture is to be the onely Rule or why it should be so since besides what I have demonstrated to the Contrary in my former Discourses 't is evident Christian Religion had descended many steps ere the Scripture's parts were much scatter'd much less the Whole collected and no less clear that that can never be a Rule or Way to Faith which many follow yet their thoughts straggle into many several Judgments not in indifferent points but in that of the Trinity amongst the rest as your self profess of the Socinian that he rejects not the Trinity in the first place because it seems a contradiction but because 't is not clearly discover'd in Scripture by which you see he adheres firm to your Rule and so ought to be acknowledg'd one of your Church since though he hap to differ in some points yet he holds fast the Rule common to both which is the substantiallest Principle of a Church as such being the Ground of all Faith And indeed your Kindness to him here and your tender care not to displease him shows you have a true brotherly affection for him Though I fear he he will con you small thanks for making his Principle run thus That which is not clearly revealâ—d in Scripture and is coniradictory ti reason is not to be believ'd which seems to imply that were it clear in Scripture yet contradictory to Reason then he would notwithstanding belive it An over-strain of Piety no Socinian was ever guilty of and I can assure you no learned Catholick Divine I ever heard of ever made such an Act of Faith But 't is another case if it onely seems contradictory and is not judg'd by him to be evidently such for then there is room left in his mind for the contrary Assent of Faith to settle there 10. You say you prescribe not the doctrin imputed to the Socinians because it makes Reason the Iudge of Faith but the Rule of Faith Pray take pains to consider what you say He that judges must have some Principles in his head by which he is regulated in making such a Judgment those Principles then must be his Rule in that Action and if that Judgment be an adhesion to a point of Faith those Principles are his RULE OF FAITH Examin now well your own thoughts whether your Principles by which you find out certainly by interpreting Scripture this is God's sence or a point of Faith be not Maxims of your human Reason I am sure in disputes against us you prove and defend your Faith by such skills as Languages History and other Knowledges got by Human Learning and consequently hold It your selves upon the tenour of those skills which therefore are your Rule of Faith and not upon the bare Letter You I know will deny it But I beg your second thoughts to reflect that a Rule to such an Effect is the immediate Knowledge to the Power as conversant about that Effect and that if another intervene it regulates the former which thereupon becomes the thing ruled not the Rule Do then 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 for revealing is clearing and God's Sence was not clearly revealed but by those means that is by human maxims and so they are at least the more formal part of your Rule of Faith Again I ask might you not have mistaken the true Sence without those Human Maxims If so then They and not Scripture's Letter were your Rule If not then onely common Sence is requisit to understand clearly what 's reveal'd in Scripture and then either your Brother Socinian or you want Common Sence which I think you 'l scarce say 11. But will you see you still hold Reason your Rule notwithstanding you cry up the Written word Find you not there expresly that God has hands feet nostrils and passions like ours and this in clear terms Why is it not then a point of Faith You will not answer sure it is against Maxims of Reason you renounc't them formerly p. 94. when you had found out your new Rule and onely allow'd your Reason power to judge if a point were sufficientlie reveal'd that it is most rational to 〈◊〉 it self though it seem to contradict or thwâ—â—â— Reason Now this is sufficiently reveal'd being plainly writ in your Rule of Faith and the direct Letter of Scripture why will you not then captivate your Reason and believe it I see you do but complement with God's incomprehensible Knowledge in speaking so highly of it and so humbly of your own shallow Intellâ—ct Will you deny a point of Faith so plainly reveald for your own capricho or conceit Perhaps you 'l say 't is not clearly reveal'd because the contrary is plain in Scripture too I ask is it as plain if not it cannot overthrow the title of This to be a point of Faith If as plain why should you not believe both Be valiant Sir and believe a contradiction it being clearly reveal'd Perhaps it seems but such and then your own profession p. 94. obliges you to admit it You that can acknowledge an Infinit extension of space when you say all the world besides does so too sure you thought all the World was in your Fancy may also hold Materia ab aeterno and that it is onely a part