your Infallibility to contradict my 15 th Principle for the Faith of Protestants and full at unawares into the Snares laid for me in Error Nonplust from p. 90 to p. 96 which I have no mind to come near But whatever Reasons you had to make this Proposal I see none that Mr. G. has to accept it Do you prove if you please that you have Absolute Certainty you who bear those in hand who consult you that you have and Absolute Certainty too of that of which you profess'd your self absolutely Certain viz. That you now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles which by your own confession there is the true Point For you know very well one is not certain of his Faith by being certain of Scripture Your self take all who dissent from yours to have not only an Vncertain but a Wrong Faith else why do you dissent from them And yet they have all as much Certainty of Scripture as you The truth is if you were prest to make out your Absolute Certainty even of Scripture in your way you would perhaps find a hard Task of it for all your Appeal to Tradition But it was not the Point for which the Conference was nor ought it be the Point here neither ought Mr. G. to meddle with it and you trust much to his good Nature to propose it For besides that all the thanks he would have for his pains would be to have the Arguments against your Certainty turn'd against the Certainty of Scripture one day as if he did not believe Scripture Certain You would have him undertake a matter in which he has no concern to save you from an Undertaking in which you are deeply concern'd but with which you know not how to go thorow which is a very reasonable Request In a word it is for you either to make manifest now what you should have made manifest at the Conference viz. That Protestants have Absolute Certainty not only of the Scripture which they call their Rule but of the Faith which they pretend to have from that Rule or else to suffer another thing to be manifest viz. That I said true when I said you cannot do it and thither I am sure it will come 22. However I am glad to hear any Talk from you of Absolute Certainty even tho' it be but Talk 'T is a great Stranger as coming from your Quarters and has a friendly and an accommodating look and therefore for both regards deserves a hearty welcome For this very Profession makes a fair approach towards the Doctrin of Infallibility or rather 't is the self-same with it it being against Common Sense to say you judge your self Absolutely Certain of any thing if at the same time you judge you may be deceiv'd in thus judging But I accept the Omen that you seem to grant you are thus Absolutely Certain or Infallible by virtue of Tradition for this makes Tradition to be an Infallible Ascertainer in some things at least and so unless some special difficulty be found in other things that light into the same Channel it must needs bring them down infallibly too Now I cannot for my heart discern what great difficulty there can be 'to remember all along the yesterdays Faith or to be willing to be guided and instructed by their yesterdays Fathers Teachers and Pastors especially the sense of the Points to omit many other means being determin'd by open and daily Practice Yet I a little fear all this your seeming kindness for Tradition is only for your own Interest and that because you were necessitated to make use of it to abet Scripture's Letter you allow it in that regard these high Complements but in other things particularly in conveying down a Body of Christian Faith which is incomparably more easie it will presently become useless and good for nothing In the former exigency you esteem it A worthy Rule but in the later duty A Rule worthy 23. Now to let the Reader plainly see that it was meer Force and not Inclination which oblig'd you to grant an Absolute Certainty in Tradition conveying down Scriptures Letter we will examin what you allow'd it when you laid your Principles and so spoke your own free thoughts unconstrain'd by any Adversary Your fifteenth Principle is put down p. 90. in Error Nonplust and that part of it that concerns this present Point is thus reflected upon by your Adversary p. 92 93. Again tho all this were true and that the Scriptures were own'd as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly reveal'd that no sober Enquirer can miss of what 's necessary to Salvation and that therefore there needed no Church to explain them Yet 't is a strange Consequence that therefore there can be no necessity of any Infallible Society of Men to Attest them or to witness that the Letter of Scripture is right This is so far from following out of the former part of Dr. St's Discourse that the contrary ought to follow or from prejudicing his own pretence that it conduces exceedingly to it For certainly his Sober Enquirer would less be in doubt to miss of what 's necessary to Salvation in case the Letter on which all depends be well attested than if it be not and most certainly an Infallible Society of Men can better attest that Letter than a Fallible one and those Writings can with better shew of Reason be own'd to contain in them the Will of God if their Letter be attested beyond possibility of being wrong than if left in a possibility of being such for if the Letter be wrong All is wrong in this case As manifest then as 't is that to be Absolutely Certain of any thing is not to be Fallibly Certain of it that is as manifest as 't is that to be Absolutely Certain of a thing is to be Infallibly Certain of it so manifest it is that you there contradict your self here and that however you may endeavour to come off you allow not heartily nor without some regret and reluctancy an Absolute Certainty to Tradition even in Attesting Scripture's Letter 24. In these words of yours p. 7 As to the Rule of our Faith give me leave to reflect on the word OVR and thence to ask you who are YOV A Question which I ask not of your Name or Sirname but of your Judgment as you call it of Discretion Are you a Socinian an Arian a Sabellian an Eutychian c. or what are you Are you a whole or a half or a Quarter-nine-and-thirty-Article Man Do you take them for Snares or Fences and when for the one and when for the other and wherefore These words The Rule of OVR Faith make you all these at once for all these profess unanimously Scripture's Letter is their Rule of Faith. Mr. G. when he came to your House imagin'd he was to treat with a Protestant or something like it and to have learn'd from you what
Iohn Biddle did against the Minister of his Parish and the whole Church of England to boot 'T is plain you ought to cherish and commend him for standing firm to his Rule But I am much afraid you would be out of humor with him and esteem your self affronted You may pretend what you please of high Expressions given by Antiquity of Scripture's incomparable Excellency and Sufficiency for the Ends it was intended for which we do not deny to it but I dare say even your self do's not think that either the Ancient Faithful or the Modern Reformers meant that any of the Ecclesia credens or Believing Church should have the liberty to Interpret Scripture against the Ecclesia docens or Teaching Church i. e. Pastors or Coyn a Faith out of it contrary to the present or former Congregation of which he was a Member 26. The sum is 'T is evident hence that Tradition of your Fathers and Teachers and not Scriptures Letter is indeed your Rule That by it you Interpret Scripture which then only is call'd your Rule and made use of as such when you are Disputing against us because having thus set it up to avoid and counterbalance the Authority of the former Church you left you make account your own private Interpretation of it may come to be thought Argumentative against the great Body of those Churches from whose Communion you departed and yet you judge no private Parishioner should claim the same Priviledge against you without affronting your great Learning and Pastoral Authority But I much wonder you should still venture to call Scripture's Letter a Rule of Faith having been beaten from that Tenet so pitifully in Error Nonplust from Pag. 59. to Pag. 72. where I believe you may observe divers Particulars requisit to be clear'd e're the Letter can be in all regards Absolutely Certain which the Consent of all Christian Churches will never reach to by their meer Authority unless you will allow the Sense of Christ's Doctrin descending by Tradition did preserve the Copy substantially right and intire 27. Your pretended Rule of Faith then being in reality the same that is challeng'd by all the Heretics in the World viz. Scripture's Letter Interpreted by your selves I will let you see in this following short Discourse how far it is from being Absolutely Certain I. God has left us some Way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught 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 know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught III. Scripture's Letter Interpretable by Private Iudgments is not that Way for we experience Presbyterians and Socinians for example both take that Way yet differ in such high Fundamentals as the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. 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. 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 28. I do not expect any Answer to this Discourse as short as it is and as plain and as nearly as it touches your Copyhold it may be serv'd as Mr. G's Argument is turn'd off so so with an Instance if there be one at hand or with what always is at hand an Irony or scornful Jest your readiest and in truth most useful Servants But you must be excus'd from finding any Proposition or Inference to deny or any thing save the Conclusion it self Which tho' it will not be fairly avoided I cannot hope should be fairly admitted unless I could hope that Men would be more in love with Truth than their Credit Till Truth be taken a little more to heart Catholic Arguments will and must always be faulty but they are the most unluckily and crosly faulty of any in the World faulty still in the wrong place When fault is found in other Arguments it is always found in the Premisses in these 't is found in the Conclusion In which notwithstanding all who know any thing of a Conclusion know there can be no fault if there be none in the Premisses Indeed they shew that to be true which Men cannot endure should be true and that is their great and unpardonable fault That you may not think I talk in the Air I declare openly that you cannot Answer this Discourse unless you will call some unconcerning Return an Answer and I engage my self to shew the Proposition true and the Inference good which you shall pitch upon to deny And the Distinction if you will make any not to purpose The truth is I engage for no great matter for I know beforehand you can no more Answer now than you could to Error Nonplust or can prove an Absolute Certainty in Protestant Faith. 29. To return now to Mr. G. the Second thing which you desire him to make good is That the Tradition from Father to Son is an infallible Conveyance of Matters of Faith notwithstanding the Greek Church is charged by him with Error which adher'd to Tradition That is you desire him to prove over again what you tell us your self he has prov'd once already For you tell us p. 5. he prov'd That they Traditionary Christians could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice alter it Pray when it is prov'd that the Conveyance of Faith by Tradition excludes the possibility of Change in Faith save by forgetfulness or malice is it not prov'd That where there could be neither forgetfulness nor malice there could be no change in Faith You do not I suppose desire he should prove that Men had always Memories or that Christians were never malicious enough to damn themselves and Posterity wittingly and yet it can stick no where else If it can said Mr. G. assign where Now you know very well that a Conveyance which makes it impossible that Faith should ever be chang'd is an Infallible Conveyance and the very thing is prov'd which you desire should be prov'd What reason has Mr. G. to prove it a second time And what reason have you to desire it If Proof would content you you have it already but a second cannot hope to content you better than the first unless it be worse 30. Yes but you would have him prove Notwithstanding the Greek Church c. p. 7. Notwithstanding Why do you think it is with Arguments as with Writs where the want of a Non obstante spoils all When a Truth is once prov'd is it not prov'd notwithstanding all Objections And will any Notwithstanding unprove it again Will your Notwithstanding shew us there was a time in which Men were not Men nor acted like Men Will it shew us that a thing which cannot possibly be chang'd may yet
thing than the Credit of those two or three First Witnesses goes 'T is the First Source of a Testimony which gives the succeeding ones all their weight to prove the Thing that is witnest to be True 'T is that from which the Largeness and Firmness of a Testimony brought to evince the Truth of any thing is to be measured or calculated Since then the stream of Tradition for Doctrin had for its Source innumerable Multitudes of those Christians in the First Age in many places of the World who heard the Apostles preach it and saw them settle the Practice of it in the respective Churches but the Original Testifiers that such a Book was writ by such or such an Apostle or Evangelist were very few in comparison sometimes perhaps not past two or three It cannot with any shew of Sense be pretended that the Tradition for the several Books of Scripture is in any degree comparable in either regard to the Tradition for Doctrin Your next Answer is that This Vniversal Tradition is no more but Human Testimony and that can be no ground for Infallibility which excludes all possibility of Errour Pray why not If things were so order'd as indeed they are that the Testifiers could neither be deceiv'd in the Doctrin being bred and brought up to it nor conspire to deceive us in telling the World in any Age that the new Doctrin they had invented was immediately delivered then it was not possible any Errour could come in under the notion of a Doctrin delivered from the beginning But is not your Tradition for Scripture Human Testimony too And if that can be erroneous may not all Christian Faith by your Principles be perhaps a company of Lying Stories You must be forc'd by your own words here to confess it but I dare say your Parishioners should you openly avow it would hate you for the Blasphemy You would tell them I doubt not as you do us that Moral Certainty is enough to stand on such a Foundation that is such a Certainty as may deceive you and by a necessary consequence may haste to overturn the whole Fabrick of Christian Faith. In the mean time let 's see how manifestly you contradict Dr. St. when you should defend him He avow'd Absolute Certainty for the Book of Scripture and this upon the Foundation of Tradition and you tell us here Tradition can ground but Moral Certainty Now all the World till you writ counter distinguisht Absolute and Moral Certainty which you jumble in one But distinct they ever were are and shall be for the Word Moral signifies a Diminution or Imperfection of Certainty and Absolute plainly expresses the Perfection of it whence 't is Evident that either you contradict Dr. St. perhaps not without his private Order or he himself We shall have all words shortly lose their signification for no other reason but to give you room to shift this way and that when you are too close prest with Reason 35. Now since Dr. St. had granted that Tradition is Absolutely Certain for Scripture and I had prov'd that Absolute Certainty was the same with Infallibility what should hinder me from inferring that unless some special difficulty be found in other things that light into the same channel it must bring them down infallibly too Your Gifts of Interpretation expounds these Words of mine thus These other things are things unwritten in that Holy Book I do assure you Sir you are mightily mistaken I never told you yet that all Faith was not contain'd in Scripture explicitly or implicitly What I meant was that the whole Body of Christs Doctrin and not only that such a Book was Scripture nay the self-same Doctrin of Faith that is contain'd in Scripture comes down by Tradition or the Churche's Testimony But with this Difference as to the Manner of it among others that the Church that testifies it having the sense of it in her Breast can explain her meaning so as to put it out of all Question to Learners Doubters and Enquirers which the Scripture cannot Whence we need not fish for our Faith in the channel of Tyber as your great Wit tells us St. Peter's Ship the Church that caught so many Fishes at first the Body of Primitive Christians who were the first deliverers of Christ's Doctrin hath stor'd up provision enough for the succession of Faith to the Worlds end There we find it to our Hands 'T is your sober Enquirers who Fish for it among dead unsensed Characters and in the Lake of Geneva from whence to save the labour of going thither you and your Friends are deriving a great Channel to run into Thames over-swell it's Banks and drown all the Churches Lacus Lemanus is your Tyber Geneva your Rome and Iohn Calvin the Prime of your new Apostles your St. Peter 36. All this is but prelude But now comes Mr. G's Argument and therefore we are to expect now however you but trifled hitherto more pertinent close Discourse The first Proposition was this All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day they did yesterday so up to the time of our B. Saviour This you seem to deny in regard they may perhaps be so call'd from their adhereing to a Tradition which reaches not so high as our Saviours time but only pretends to it whither we only pretend to it or no will be seen hereafter when the Fourth Proposition comes to be examin'd In the mean time pray jumble not two Questions which are distinct and ought to be kept so The whole Business here is about the use or Sense of the word Traditionary how we both take it in our present Controversy Now that we both agree in the Notion of Tradition whence Traditionary is deriv'd is evident by this that we lay claim to such a Tradition as reaches to Christ and go about to prove it you deny our Claim and endeavour to disprove it But 't is evident you deny the same thing to us which we lay Claim to otherwise we should not talk of the same Thing and so should not understand one another nor could discourse together wherefore 't is manifest we both agree in the Notion or Meaning of that Word however we disagree in the Application of it to the Persons Nor do we pretend in the least what you would put upon us here to inferr hence that this body of Christians that now adheres to it did always so but only contend that if they did not ever adhere to it they must have deserted it and taken up another Rule and so cease to be true Claimers of a Tradition from Christ or Traditionary Christians Moreover we judge we have right to lay Claim to it till we be driven out of it by a former and better Title since we were in possession of this Rule at the time of the Reformation or held all our Faith upon that tenure 37. The second Proposition is this If they follow this Rule they can
Faith about which we are chiefly discoursing But do not your self incline to admit as much as we can expect from a man that affects not too much candour that very thing you so laugh at here I affirm'd that Not one in a million thinks of relying on your Rule of Faith in order to make choice of their Faith c. This you answer with hems and hahs Tho' I fear yet I hope he is out in his Account I am apt to think they are more attentive Yet be it as he would have it c. Now since they must either have their Faith by Reliance on their Pastours and Preachers delivering it to them and educating them in it that is by some kind of Tradition or else by relying on Scripture and your self seems to doubt or rather in a manner grants it That they have it not the later way you must at least doubt that they have it by the Way of Tradition But your Fancy was so big with your empty Jest that you had forgot what you had allow'd but a little before 58. Thus Sir I have trac'd you punctually step by step not as is your constant use pickt out a few words scatter'd here and there which you thought you might most commodiously pervert wherefore I have reason to expect the same exact measure from you The Sum of your Answer is manifestly this Shuffles and wilful Mistakes without number Evasions endless Falsifications frequent Godly Talk frivolous Jests groundless and all these brought in still to stop Gaps when your Reason was Nonplust Be pleas'd to leave off your Affected Insincerities otherwise I must be forc't to Expose them yet farther than which there can be no Task more Ungrateful imposed upon Your Servant J. S. ERRATA Page 3. l. 28. Read both of uâ— p. 10. l. ult find it in p. 11. l. 11 notice there p. 21. l. 24. go forwards p. 22. l. 27. Secret. Again p. 23. l. 9. as I had not p. 32. l. 30. Is it a Way Ibid. l. 32. upon it p. 39. l. 7. Your Reason is because p. 44. l. 17. may hap p. 45. l. 5. Gift Ibid. l. 32. Prince of p. 46. l. 7. it Whether p. 48. l. 27. a most p. 53. l. 12. Adherers p. 57. l. 14. to be at a loss Ibid. l. ult discover'd it p. 60. l. 8. Speculaters p. 62. l. 9. Yet not so explicitly or p. 63. l. 28. formally and. p. 73. l. 13. other then THE THIRD Catholick Letter IN ANSVVER To the Arguing Part of Doctor Stillingfleet's SECOND LETTER To Mr. G. By I. S. Published with Allowance LONDON Printed and sold by Matthew Turner at the Lamb in High-Holbourn 1687. THE THIRD Catholick Letter c. SIR 1. I Come now to take a view of your Second Letter with my Eye as in the former fixt only upon what I think you mean for Argument Whether you give us just your First Words at the Conference or second Thoughts since whether no troublesome Part of Mr. G's Discourse be left out in short whatever belongs to matter of Fact shall be out of my prospect which shall be bounded by what you think fit to open to it You acquaint us here Pag. 7. that you put two Questions 1. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in the sense and meaning of Tradition 2. Is this Tradition a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture And you complain of Mr. G. that his Copy makes you ask a very wise Question viz. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in Tradition Why this Question should be ironically call'd a very wise one I cannot imagin I am sure it is very pertinent to the Intention of your Dispute and directly points at one of the Chief Subjects of the Conference But you shall have your Will tho' I beleive it will appear Mr. G's question made better Provision for your Credit in point of Wisdom than you have done for your self 2. For your Second was in truth a very needless Question because both your self and all your Auditours if they ever heard any thing of this kind of Controversy knew beforehand without needing to ask that the Tradition we lay claim to pretends to derive down the Intire Body of Christ's Doctrin and not only the Books of Scripture of which P. 9. you very learnedly seem to counterfeit your self ignorant And this is the first part of your distinguishing the plain Sense of this Word Tradition as held by Mr. G. By this Question you tell us p. 9. you intended to put a difference between the Tradition held by us Protestants and the Tradition disputed For the first meaning of the Word Tradition which you grant you put the Vniniversal Testimony of the Christian Church as to the Books of Scripture The second and deny'd meaning you contra distinguish from the former in these words But if by Tradition be understood either some necessary Articles of Faith not contain'd in Scripture or a Power in the Church to make unnecessary to become necessary this I deny'd c. Certainly Sir you have a Logick of your own so peculiarly fitted to your designes that no man living but your self ever us'd it I ever thought and apprehended I had all the World on my side for thinking so that all Differences or Distinctions were to be Opposites and to divide the Common Genus or the Notion that was to be distinguish't and therefore since the first sense of the Word Tradition was Tradition for Books of Scripture which is your Tenet I verily expected the opposit sense of it should have been Tradition for Doctrines which is Ours and that as the former was Tradition for Christ's Words so the latter should be Tradition for Christ's Sense But while I was vainly imagining the second sense of the Word would be Tradition for Faith instead of that I found nothing but such Articles and such a Power Did ever any mortal Man think or pretend that Tradition was an Article or a Power any more than that it was a Horse shoe Did your self when you granted the Latin and Greek Churches follow'd Tradition intend to signify that they follow'd Articles and Powers The summ then of your learned Distinction is in plain Terms this Tradition is two-fold One is a Tradition for Books the other is no Tradition at all but only Articles and Power Had it not been better then to have accepted of Mr. G's Civility and have answer'd to the purpose rather than out of a pique to his Copy and a desire to make it stand in need to be corrected thus to pervert common sense and out of a too zealous care not to forfeit your Wisdome to commit such an illogical Absurdity But Sense and Logick tho' they be plain and honest true Friends yet I must own that like the Queens Old Courtiers they may appear scandalous Companions to a man of your more polite and modish Education However I dare answer for you it was
not ignorance of their worth but an unlucky necessity which made you introduce in their room two New Questions to while away the time and escape the true one which you had no mind to meet close and grapple with Yet perhaps you may have better luck in your First Question let us see By your First Question then and your Explication of your Design of it immediately after 't is easy to discern that you again quite mistake the End and Use and consequently the Nature of Tradition which is a very inauspicious beginning and puts us out of hopes you should ever discourse pertinently of it since you go about to impugn you know not what For Tradition does not bring us down set Forms of Words onely as you imagin viz. as you instance P. 7. Christ was the Son of God under which you say well a Heretical Sense may ly But it derives down to us the very sense of those words and all the rest of Christ's Doctrine there being found in Tradition all the ways and means to signify and express the Determinate Meaning and Sense of Forefathers that can possibly be imagin'd For they not only deliver the Propositions of Faith in such or so many Words as you apprehend but they signify to their Children the very Tenets they have in their hearts in such expressions as best sutes with the occasion according as their different methods of explaining themselves may lead them You may upon reflexion observe it passes thus in your self when you instruct people in their Faith In which circumstance you do not ty your self up to rigorous Forms of Words made to your hands but take your liberty to deliver your self in any manner that you judge will make your meaning be best understood The same Method is taken by the Pastours of the Church and the Fathers of Families too according to their pitch and station They Catechize their Children they Preach upon the Texts proper to such Points they dilate themselves in their Discourse with a full design to make their Sense be perfectly comprehended they reply to the difficulties of those who are not yet perfectly instructed or well satisfied and accommodate themselves to all their Exigencies Lastly they lead their Christian Lives and breed up others to do the same by those Principles And Experience as well as Reason tells us that nothing gives the determinate sense of Words which express Tenets more distinctly than does perpetual Practice and Living conformably to what 's signified by those Words The want of which Requisits in the Letter of Scripture which can give no Answer to any difficulty nor vary any expression to make its Meaning more Intelligible nor live and by Example make the Reader live according to such a sense shews clearly that taking it alone and unassisted by the Churche's Tradition determining and ascertaining it's meaning in Dogmatical Points it cannot in any proper Speech be call'd a Rule of Faith. 3. If notwithstanding what has been said this Discourse should still seem to you more a Speculation than a Real Truth which yet I judge impossible pray reflect how your self would go about to instruct your own Children in your Faith and you will easily find by experience when 't is brought home to your own case how connatural this Way is to clear to them your sense in what you would have them Believe Do not your self use the same Method Do you only deliver to them certain Forms of Speech without endeavouring by all the possible means you can invent to imprint the true sense that I may use your own Instance of these Words Christ is the Son of GOD in their Souls and to make it still clearer to them as their budding capacities grow riper and riper Do you not experience they come by degrees to understand you too and that you have at length transfus'd into them the Sense of the Tenet you had in your own Breast Do not you practically instil into them that they ought to Pray to Christ and exercise their Faith Hope and Charity towards Him while they are Praying Do not you tell them they are to give Divine Reverence to Christ without stinting them or making them scruple lest they give too much or commit Idolatry by giving that to a Creature which is only due to the True GOD And does not this Practise beyond all possibility of mistake insinuate into them that he is equally to be Ador'd with God the Father or Coequal to him and so not a Creature but very God of very God I doubt not but you do all this at least I am sure if you do it not you do not your Duty Nor do I doubt but your Children come at length to understand you too and by understanding you become of the same Religion And can you imagine that Men were not Men in all Ages but in the blind times of Popery forsooth degenerated into Parrots and learn'd to prate set-Words without minding their Sense Or that Christians were not alwayes Christians and endeavour'd to imbue under-growing Posterity with the Meaning of the Tenets they profest and hop't to be Sav'd by their propagating them to those whom they were bound to see Instructed in Faith Or lastly can you conceive there can be any Means invented by Man's Wit to make known and propagate the Sense of Words that express Points of Faith which is not in the highest measure found in Tradition If you cannot as I am sure you cannot then you must withal either confess that Tradition brings down the Sense of Christ's Law and not the bare Words or Sounds only or you must advance this monstrous Paradox that there is no possible way in the whole World for Mankind to communicate their Thoughts and Meanings to one another in such Points the contrary to which you experience dayly in your self and others And were this so then to what end were Catechisms Sermons and Controversies about such subjects To what end all Instructions Conferences and Explications of them by the Pastours Again if you grant these as you must to be the best Expedients to transmit down the Sense of Christ's Words that is our Faith how can you hold Scripture's Letter the Rule of Faith which taken as counterdistinguish't to Tradition wants all those most effectual Means of discovering to us it's Meaning Certainly That must be the Rule of Faith that is best qualify'd to give us our Faith and that must be best qualify'd to give us our Faith which has the best Means to give us Christ's Sense and not that which wants all the best Means to produce such an Effect On the other side supposing Christ's Doctrine once settled in the Body of the Church how can you deny Tradition thus abundantly furnisht with the best Means imaginable to deliver down the first-taught Doctrine to be such a Rule seeing no more is requir'd to be a Rule of Faith but to be qualify'd with a Power to acquaint us who live at this
distance with the true Sense of what was deliver'd by the Founders of the Church in the beginning without danger of losing it by the way which cannot be imagin'd as long as Tradition is held to the same believ'd to day which was held yesterday or that the immediately succeeding Fathers still deliver'd the same Doctrin To do which there wanted no Power as has been lately shewn to the full nor Will to use that Power being oblig'd to it by the greatest Penalties GOD himself could inflict the Damning Themselves and their Posterity 4. But say you pag. 8. If the Church may explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as to oblige men to believe that by Virtue of such Explication which they were not oblig'd to before then 't is impossible the Infallibility of Tradition should ly in a constant Tradition from Father to Son for they have no Power to oblige to any more than they received How Plausibly and smoothly this Discourse runs and how shrewdly it seems to conclude Would any well-meaning Reader imagin that it were perfect Non-sense all the while and wholly built on your own Liberality giving us another sort of Tradition which is no Tradition This malignant word Tradition must not be taken in its right sense that 's resolv'd for then it would grow too troublesom but take it in any other sense that is mistake it and then have at it For when you speak of explaining the sense and meaning of Tradition you do not take Tradition as you know well we do and as the word plainly imports for the Delivery of Doctrin but for Doctrins Delivered and so again we have once more lost the Question For what can these words mean If the Church may explain the sense and meaning of Tradition that is of the Method of conveying down Christs Doctrin The Method of Delivery is the very Signification of that Doctrin from Age to Age and how can one Explain the Sense and meaning of a signification of Christ's sense when it 's self is that very Explication of it This gives me occasion to reflect how oddly you have hamper'd our Tradition hitherto instead of handling it P. 9. You seem to doubt by your If no more were meant c. Whether it does not mean Tradition for the Books of Scripture and this you knew well enough before was none of our Tradition in dispute here which as may be seen by Mr. G's Demonstration put down by your self First Letter p. 4. and 5. is confest to be Tradition for matters of Faith or Doctrin Now in this new sense you give us there of Tradition you kindly grant it for 't is your own not that which we here mean by that word Next comes another If and makes it seem to signify Articles and Power And this is no Tradition at all neither ours nor yours nor any body's For neither those Articles nor that Power you speak of p. 10. are or can be the Delivery of Christ's Doctrin from day to day for that speaks such a Method of bringing down things not the things brought down And this you very gravely deny And so you may with my good leave either deny or expunge or condemn it to what doom you please for certainly it comes with a felonious Intention to draw the Reader out of his Road into a Labyrinth of Non-sense and then robb him of his Reason Again p. 7. you make it a Delivery of bare Words at best with a general impossible sense and perhaps a Heretical one too into the bargain whereas you cannot but know Tradition as We mean it is a Delivery of the sense of Christian Tenets and this a particular sense too and such a one as cannot possibly be Heretical while this Rule is adher'd to unless the First-Taught Faith were Heretical which is Blasphemy to imagin And here again p. 8. you make Tradition or Delivery to mean the Point delivered and would have us give you the signification and Explication of That which is it's self the signification and Explication of Christ's Faith and this too the very best that can be imagin'd Is it possible to deform Tradition more untowardly or wrest it into more misconstructions than has been done already After a serious manner certainly 't is impossible But Drollery is now to act its part And to cheer your spirits which droop't under the difficulty of answering the Argument for Tradition you put your self in masquerade and would make the Relation of perhaps two or three it may be partial Friends of yours concerning Mr. G's Discourse about You a perfect parallel to our Rule of Faith and that if they can mistake or misrepresent down goes Tradition Which amounts to this that sooner may all the Christian Fathers in any Age consisting of many millions and those disperst in far-distant Parts of the World be mistaken in their Faith which it imported them no less than their Salvation to know sooner may all of them conspire to deliver to their Children another Doctrin than that which they held the way to Heaven than that a very few of your own Party should to gratify you tell you a false Story or Aggravate tho' all of them were besides profest Adversaries to the Person against whom they witnest and indeed Witnesses in their Own Common Cause I beseech you Sir tho' you be never so much to seek for a solid Answer yet speak at least plausible things and do not thus expose your Credit while you affect to play the Wit. Poor Tradition what has it done to be thus misrepresented Did it deserve no better for bringing down the Book of Scripture but to be expos'd in so many aukward Vizards when it was to come upon the Stage and not once suffer'd to shew it's true face but still travestee'd into another Form and put in all shapes but its own This Carriage of yours is enough to make the Reader think you apprehend it to be some terrible Gorgons Head or some Basilisk and that the very sight of it unless it came thus muffled up would undo you At least he will suspect from such an untoward broken Scene that the Dramma is not like to be regular Indeed you shift too often and to catch and confute you I must travel thro' the whole Compass for no sooner can a man steer one way but your Discourse like the Wind whips straight into another quarter and about we must tack or we must not make forwards at all But I will insist no more at present on this dexterity of yours you will afford your Friends many fresh Instances of it through the whole course of this Letter hereafter Onely I must note your forgetfulness or what else may I call it For you took the Notion of Tradition very right First Letter p. 7. where you alledg'd you had a larger and firmer Tradition for Scripture than we had for us You did not there take Tradition of that Book for the Book delivered
Copy nor that any Copy can be True unless conformable to the True Original And if there can be any failure in any of these nay if you have not Absolute Certainty of all these you cannot have by your Grounds any Absolute Certainty of your Faith For if the Letter be wrong all is wrong that is built on it and it may be wrong for ought you know notwithstanding the Testimony of all Christian Churches relying on this Way of attesting the Truth of the Letter For you can never shew that all those Churches consented to apply their utmost diligence to examine and attest all the several Translations made in their respective languages or witnest that they came from the true Original or took the most exquisit care that was possible to see that the Translaters and the Copiers did their duty Which had they held the Letter to be their onely Rule of Faith and consequently that All Faith that is the very Being of the present and future Church and their own Salvation too depended on the Scripture they were obliged in conscience and under the highest Sin above all things in the World to have done and this with the exactest care imaginable Your Grounds then notwithstanding all you have said or alledged hitherto to ensure the Letter make no Provision for the Absolute Certainty of the Written-Rule nor consequently of your Faith. 27. But what becomes then say you of the Vulgar Latin Translation I answer in our Grounds no harm at all For the Canon of the Books comes down by the Testimony of all Christian Churches that are truly Christian and the Doctrin of Christ transfus'd into the hearts of the succeeding Faithful ever since the beginning both taught them how and oblig'd them to correct the Copy in those particular Texts that concern'd Faith if any Errour through the carelesness unattentiveness or malice of the Translaters or Transcribers at any time had crept in By the same Means as you can now adays correct the Copy in those Texts that ought to express some Point of Morality in case it were corrupted and deviated from Christian Manners viz. by vertue of the Sense of that Practical Tenet you were imbu'd with formerly this even tho' you had no other Copy or Text to amend it by Insomuch that how good an opinion so ever you had of the Copy Translater Printer or Correcter of the Press yet for all that you would conclude they had err'd and the Letter was faulty rather than forgo the Doctrin so firmly rivetted in your heart by the constant Teaching and Practice of the Christian world As for other particular Texts of an Inferiour Concern they could be best corrected by multitudes of other ancient Copies the Churches Care still going along in which too the greatest care that was possible to rectify it's Errours was taken by the Council of Trent that so it might be as exact as Human Diligence could well render it A thing as far as my memory reaches never order'd or very much regarded by any Council formerly 28. But I foresee your method of confuting which is to muster up Extrinsecall objections not at all to the purpose will naturally lead you to discredit this way of correcting Scripture's Letter in passages belonging to Faith as singular or New This being the same your Friend G. B. objected to the Way of Tradition it self as may be seen above Sect. 10. Such piddling Exceptions drest up prettily in gay language go a great way and make a fine shew in your Controversies and which is a benefit of most advantage to you excuse you from bringing any Intrinsecal Arguments tho' these onely are such as conclude any thing and tho' you are bound by your precise Duty to produce such Wherefore to ward this blow I shall alledge the Judgment of that Learned and Excellent Personage Sir Thomas More our first Modern English Controvertist who writing not against you in defence of our Grounds but to another Catholick Divine expresses candidly his Sentiment in these words Ego certe hoc persuadeo mihi idque ut opinor vere quicquid ad fidem astruendam faciat non esse a quovis melius versum quam ab ipsis Apostolis perscriptum Ideoque fit ut quoties in Latinis codicibus occurrat quidquam quod aut contra Fidem aut mores facere videatur Scripturarum interpretes aut ex aliis alibi verbis quid illud sibi velit dubium expiscentur aut ad vivum Evangelium Fidei quod per universam Ecclesiam in corda Fidelium infusum est quod etiam priusquam scriberetur a quoquam Apostolis a Christo ab Apostolis Vniverso Mundo praedicatum est dubios ejusmodi sermones applicent atque ad inflexibilem veritatis Regulam examinent ad quam si non satis adaptare queant aut sese non intelligere aut mendosum esse codicem non dubitent This is my Iudgment and as I conceive a True one that whatever Text is useful to build Faith on was not better translated by any than it was writ by the Apostles themselves And therefore as oft as any thing occurs in the Latin-Books that seems to make against Faith or Good Manners the Interpreters of Scripture either gather from other Words in other places what that doubt should mean or they compare those doubtful sayings to the living Gospel of Faith which was infus'd into the Hearts of the Faithful throughout the Vniversal Church which before any man writ it was Preach't by Christ to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the whole World examine them by the inflexible Rule of Faith with which if they cannot make it square they conclude that either they do not understand it or the Book is faulty where he passes by the former way with a sleight word expiscentur fish out the sense but insists on the latter way of preserving the Copy sincere as Certain and Proper 29. I must not pretermit your Objection p. 19. that the Ancient Christian Church never knew any thing concerning this Method of resolving Faith into meer Oral Tradition I would desire you to add Practical to Oral at least to conceive it to be understood all the way that being our True and constantly-avow'd Tenet But did the Antient Church in reality never know any thing of this way T is wonderful you should not understand they meant the same as we do unless they speak the self-same Words and make the same Discourses we do now Did not they all hold that who taught any thing contrary to the Doctrin delivered down by the Church was a Heretick Did any of them say that the Churche's Tradition of a Doctrin as Christs was liable to Errour Did any of them hold that it was lawful for your Sober Enquirer to rely on his Private Interpretation of the Scripture and relinquish the sense of the Church which is the true Point Not one 'T is one thing to say they oft quoted Scripture
against Hereticks who had rejected the Authority of the Church even the Council of Trent does so another to say they had no firmer Ground for their Faith but their own private Iudgments of it's sense T is one thing to give it high Commendations for it's Excellency Divine Doctrin Usefulness and Sufficiency for the Ends for which it was Ordained by God 'T is another to say that in those places which relate to Spiritual Points and high Mysteries of our Faith it is so clear that private Fancies can with Absolute Certainty fix upon it's true sense and on that Ground their Faith. T is one thing to say sometimes 't is Plain and Evident when they are Arguing against Hereticks this is a thing not unusual even among us when we are disputing and have an opinion that what we alledge is manifest and those Fathers or Councils which insisted on it had good reason to have that opinion of what they alledg'd having the Doctrin of Faith Scripture's best Interpreter in their hearts Besides when there is full assurance of it's sense who doubts but it is of a vast Authority too being in that case the same as if the Apostle or Christ himself were there and spoke his Mind in the Point under debate Whence they confuted Hereticks with defining from Scripture upon the assurance that they had the true sense of it another Way than the Heretick had by his private Interpretations But 't is another thing to say that as manag'd by Private Judgments working on the bare Letter or relying on Fallible Interpreters it is so unavoidably convictive beyond all possibility of giving it another plausible sense that all Mankind must think him a Renouncer of the clear Light of Reason or stark blind with Passion and Interest and abhorr him as such who shall interpret it after another manner And such the Rule of Faith must be otherwise none could with Conscience think or say any Heretick is obstinate nor any man no not the Church it self condemn him much less abhorr him for being such as was ever her Custome All the former Perfections we as heartily fully and constantly ascribe to Scripture as any Protestant in the world nay we say moreover that this want of Clearness which unqualifies it for being a Rule springs from a very high perfection in it viz. It 's deep Sense onely this one of giving every particular man who by his private Judgment Interprets it such assurance of its sense as is competent to Ground his Faith on we cannot grant this being no less contrary to common Reason than 't is even to Experience also To return then to your Objection You see Sect. 10. that the Antient Fathers were not such Strangers to this Method of Tradition we follow and explicate And you might have observ'd many others both nam'd and cited Surefooting p. 131. to 137. What matters it that they did not express That our Tenet or Dilate upon it in such Terms as we do now so they taught others to hold to what was deliver'd and not to rely on their own private Interpretations of Scripture against the present Churches Doctrin Since in doing this they held the substance of that which we have since more diffusely explain'd and reduc't our Discourses to more Methodical and Formal Resolutions of Faith which were not so much in fashion in former Ages Besides you are not to be told we both have could alledge Fathers enow for our Tenet and the Obligation to hold to the Doctrin deliver'd from Fathers that is to Tradition and how smartly and unanswerably they prest it against Hereticks as a certain Determiner of the Controversies between the Catholicks and Them. On the other side how often they complain'd of the Vncertainty of the Scripture interpreted by private Men as Grounding all Heresies by reason of the mysterious Obscurity of the Letter and its liableness to be misinterpreted and misunderstood Whereas it was never heard that the Rule of Tradition taken in the sense in which we hold it viz. for a Delivery of a Practical Doctrin publickly preach't to great multitudes at first practised by them and held and recommended as Divine and the way to Salvation did ever give rise to any Heresy and impossible it should Which one Reflexion to a Considerate Man is sufficient to conclude the whole present Controversy about the Rule of Faith. 30. From the Qualities requisit to make Scripture's Letter a Rule of your Faith we come to consider the Quantity it ought to have or the Number of Books which you tell us p. 19. Mr. M. suggested In order to which I have onely two things to ask you 1. Whether as I said formerly you have any unanimous Consent of the Christian Church that there was never a Book lost that was writ by some who were Divinely inspir'd and consequently did contain some Divine Revelations Or if you cannot prove but there was how do you know but those Divine Revelations which that Book or Books contain'd were not different from or to be superadded to those contain'd in the Canon we have now If you cannot prove these two Points then 't is manifest you cannot prove with Absolute Certainty that the Books Wee have now contain'd all the Divine Revelations 2. You insist onely on this Universal Testimony for the Canonical Books of the New Testament but I would know whether this Testimony reaches to each Chapter and every Verse of those Chapters nay each material Word in those Verses If it does not as you neither say nor with any Reason can say for 't is hard to prove the former impossible to prove the later but by our Rule then you are as far from your Faith as ever unless you bring some other Testimony that is Absolutely Certain to assure you that such and such a Verse which you would quote and rely on for such and such a Point of Faith nay the main and most significant Word in that Verse is true Scripture which I am sure you cannot For what Testimony else can be invented to do this if the other which was of the whole Christian Church cannot reach it Is there any possible way to ascertain this but by our Doctrin-Rule Upon this occasion pray inform me with what reason you could reflect so severely pag. 15. on the Church of Rome for not receiving the Epistle to the Hebrews in St. Hierom's Time assoon as other Churches and not on the Greek Churches which you use to prefer before the Latin who in the same Father's time refus'd to admit the Apocalypse The accepting or not accepting such Books even according to your own Doctrin depended on their being satisfied of the Evidence produced for their Apostolical Authority and so was an Act of Prudence antecedent to the Judgment or Determination of any Church whether Greek or Latin. But so unreasonable is your pique against the Church of Rome that she cannot act prudently without forfeiting her Infallibility Tho' another man would have
already Ship-wrackt The Fourth By it we are to judge what we are bound to believe as Divine Revelations runs upon the same strain for you are to shew us how by it I am to judge my self bound to believe any thing at all as a Divine Revelation that is as taught by Christ with a Firm and Vnalterable Assent such as Faith is till I am Certain it is so by being ascertain'd he taught it This is the True This is the Main Point which you slide over still as smoothly as a non-plust Commentator does over hard Texts that puzzle him to explicate I say once more 't is the Main if not onely Point for till you have made out this you can never prove that Scripture taken alone is a Ground of Faith at all much less an Absolutely Certain Ground and least of all your Ground in particular And therefore you said very True when you lamented p. 28. you were in a hard case for tho' say you there is an Absolute Certainty and this Certainty lies in Vniversal Tradition and we can shew this Vniversal Tradition yet we cannot shew the Ground of our Certainty For you cannot shew Universal Tradition for every particular Text that concerns Faith without our Tradition Rule for Doctrin nor Absolute Certainty you have the true Sense tho' you had that Certainty for the Letter without which 't is not your Ground at all A Certainty there is but not by vertue of your Grounds and so 't is none of your Certainty nor your Ground neither Whereas then you confess here that if you cannot shew the true Ground of your Certainty you deserve to be either pity'd or begg'd you say very true for we do from our hearts pity you let who will take the tother part We pity you to see such excellent Wits who had they a good cause would be honourably victorious forc't by the Patronage of a bad one to employ their Talents in shifting about for by-paths to avoid meeting the Question in the face We pity you for your being necessitated to impose upon your well-meaning Readers with your specious pretences of Gods Word instead of shewing them with Absolute Certainty on your Grounds that you have the true Sense of it in any one passage relating to the controverted points without which you cannot with Honesty pretend it Gods Word as to those Points And if that kind of begging may do you any good we shall earnestly and heartily beg of God's Infinite Mercy to give you hearts to seek Truth and candidly acknowledge it when found 39. I had almost forgot your Id est which connects your Third and Last Proposition together must be the Rule of our Faith Id est say you by it we are to judge what we are bound to believe as Divine Revelations These Id est's which should be us'd to clear things are still so made use of that they are the main Engines to confound them Let your Id est then say what it please I must tell you plainly you quite mistake the meaning of the Word Rule It speaks Rectitude and that such an Evident one as preserves those who regulate themselves by it from obliquity or Deviation that is in our case from Errour You ought then to have said The Rule of our Faith Id est by which while we follow it we shall be absolutely secur'd from erring in Faith For the Primary Effect of a Rule is to give Faith that prerequisit Quality as elevates it to the Dignity of such a kind of Assent and raises it above that dwindling feeble alterable assent call'd Opinion But you will needs to avoid coming neer so dangerous a Rock take it for a kind of Quantitative Measure nor for a Qualifying Principle Whereas indeed 't is not the What or how much we are to believe which is now our Question but the That we ought to believe any thing at all or That you can by your Grounds have any Faith at all for want of this Absolute Certainty which you pretend to 'T is this I say which is the true Subject of our present Debate For tho' we both held the same Quantity or Number of Points to a tittle yet it might be Faith in one of us and but Opinion in the other nay perhaps Opinion in both if both of us wanted Certain Grounds to evince they were Christs Doctrin which is the Formal Motive of our Faith. It belongs then to a Rule to ascertain both the That we are to believe and the What but the former Office of it is Antecedent and Principal the later Collateral and Secondary Common Sense telling us that we ought first to determin whether there is any Faith at all e're we come to debate what Points are of Faith what not These Fast-and-Loose Doings make me when ever I meet with an Id est still expect it means aliud est and that like your other Explications of your self it is brought in to divert our Eyes to another Object instead of keeping them still fixt upon the same 40. Enough has been said I am sure too much ever to be Answer'd to prove that Scripture alone as interterpreted by any Private Mans Judgment wants the Chief Property of a Rule of Faith viz. such a Clearness as is able to give all sorts of People or the Generality of Christians be they never so Sober Enquirers Absolute Assurance of it's Sense even in the highest Mysteries of our Faith without needing the Church's Help Nor will You ever be able to produce the Consent of all Christian Churches affirming that it has this Property Wherefore when it is call'd a Rule by some of the Antients it must be taken as Mr. M. sayes with the Interpretation of the Church adjoyn'd which having the Living Sense of Christ's Law in her Heart can animate the Dead Letter and preserve it from Explications any way prejudicial to the Faith received And thus indeed it may be call'd a Rule of Faith because as 't is thus understood it cannot lead any into Errour but is of good use to abett Truth by it's Divine Authority In which sense Councils proceed upon it often and sometimes call it a Rule And I remember the Famous Launoy when we were Discoursing once about Tradition shew'd me a little Book of his in which he goes about to prove that Councils had frequently defin'd against Hereticks out of Scripture On which occasion I ask't him if he judg'd those Councils fram'd their Definitions by the sense they had of the Letter by their own human Skill or by the sense of the Church which they had by Tradition he answer'd undoubtedly by the later and that there would be no End of Disputing with Hereticks had they taken the former Way By which we may discern that still Tradition was in proper speech their Rule even when they alledg'd Scripture Other call Scripture sometimes a Rule because it contains Faith in which sense even some Catholicks call it a partial Rule
very Principles oblige me to declare that what I attribute to them is First That they have All those Excellencies which Dr. St. yields them and one more which he does not of which hereafter Secondly That they are Profitable to all the Ends St. Paul writing to Timothy ascribes to them and that in such a high measure that I do from my heart grant them to be so great an Instrument of our Salvation that the Church had been at an incredible loss without them that not near half the number of Christian Souls would have been sav'd had it not pleas'd God to leave to the Church such a Powerful Means to instruct them in a virtuous life and raise them up to it Thirdly That when they are animated with the Sense of the Divinely-Inspired Writers by a Certain Interpretation they are very useful to confute Hereticks and that Thus Interpreted they are with much profit made use of to that end by Fathers and Councils Fourthly That tho' they were written on several occasions it was not without the Design of God's good Providence which orders all our Actions to the bringing about his Best Ends however they be occasional to us much more an Affair so mainly important to the Churches improvement Fifthly That there was also a peculiar Providence in preserving the Letter from any material Corruption and that the Second Causes by which this Providence exerted it self was the most obligatory Care of the Church to whom those Sacred Oracles were committed and the Knowledge she ever had of Christ's Doctrin 6 thly That the Sense of Scripture is so sublime in Spiritual Points and high Mysteries of Faith which are above Nature and could only be known to the World by Divine Revelation that no men by their Private Judgments much less all sorts of men coming to Faith and therefore unelevated and unenlighten'd by It can arrive at the knowledge of it's Sense by the Letter in those difficult Texts with such an unerring Certainty as is requisit for that most Firm Rational and Unalterable Assent call'd Faith and therefore that in These they need the Help of the Church Whereas in other passages that are Historical Moral c. where the subject matter is more obvious to ordinary Reason they are either clear of themselves or may be clear'd as much as is necessary by the Learning of the more Knowing Faithful For the same reason I hold that Scripture thus privately interpreted is not convictive of Hereticks who have imbib'd a contrary sentiment to that of the Divine Enditer because those men admit no Certain Interpreter of those difficult places And this want of Clearness in such Texts I do not take to be a Privative Imperfection but on the contrary to argue a very high Perfection in Scripture viz. as Vincentius Lirinensis has told us 1200 years ago Commonitor cap. 2. It 's Deep Sense Whence 't is rather to be call'd properly a Disproportion of that Sense to the low Conceptions of Private Iudgments looking after Faith or an Obscurity relatively to such Persons than an Absolute one since the Faithful who are instructed in that Sense are both capable to understand it right and moreover to discover still more and more Excellent Truths in it 7 thly That for this reason I cannot hold the Letter of Scripture privately interpreted the Rule of Faith or a Means for people of every capacity looking after Faith to know the Sense of it in those Dogmatical Articles with such a Certainty as was shewn above to be Necessary for a Ground of Faith nor can I allow that the Truth of Christian Faith ought to be built upon such a Sandy Foundation as are those Private Interpretations And therefore that there needs some other Rule to Ascertain people of all sorts what is Christ's true Doctrin in those points Moreover I make account the Experience of all Ages since Christ's time abets my Position Every Heretick and all his Followers relying on his private Interpretations of Scripture for his wicked Blasphemies as the Socinians do now who are as far as we can discern sincere and exact Followers of that Rule or Vsers of that Means and yet fall short of Christ's genuin Doctrine denying his Godhead and the Mystery of the B. Trinity A plain Argument that That cannot be the way to Truth which such vast multitudes have follow'd and yet have been led into Errour unless we knew them all to be wilfully sincere or strangely negligent which we can neither know nor have reason to think And as experience has shewn this to every mans eye so neither is it my sentiment onely The same Lirinensis telling us That by reason of the Scripture's Depth as many Opinions as there are Men seem possible to be drawn thence Where he ascribes the obscurity of the Letter not meerly to the fault of the Persons nor the hardness of the Words in which the Sense is deliver'd but to the Profoundness of the Sense it self Reason and Experience both informing us that where the matter is above the Readers capacity tho' the Words be never so plain yet the Doctrine is not easily comprehended without some who is already skill'd in that Sense § 5. As for Tradition The very sound of the Word may perhaps give you some prejudice against it because our Saviour reprehended the Jews for some unwarrantable Traditions of theirs This obliges me to give you a true Character of our Tenet concerning It and to make known to you particularly what Tradition means as we understand it in our Controversies which Dr. St. tho' he knows it will never do but on the contrary as shall be seen misrepresents it all along very disingenuously in every particular What we hold of it then is First That the Apostles by their Preaching during the whole time of their lives settled the self-same Christian Doctrin in the minds of the Generality of the Faithful dispersed in several Countries and not only at large and particularly explicated it and fixt it by their heavenly Preaching but riveted it as we may say by Miracles founded Churches and constituted Disciplin by means of which and their own Example they establish't them in the Practice of that Doctrin Lastly They recommended the continuing it as the means of Salvation and consequently that the swerving from it themselves or neglecting to educate their Children in it was the assured way to Eternal misery to them and their Posterity 2 dly That this vast multitude unanimously settled in the same Faith is that which we make the First Source of Tradition which had no more to do but to attest to the next Age what the First had receiv'd and practis'd nor could they forget a Doctrin which was so recommended and according to which they had led their Christian lives so long Nor could true Faith the Parent of all other Virtues which was in their hearts no nor even the Natural love to themselves and their Children permit them all to be
so Wicked as to decline from it voluntarily or neglect to educate the others in it however it was to be expected there would be now and then a failure in some Particulars deserting the former Doctrin and drawing Proselytes after them 3 dly That the same reason holds for the Continuate Delivery of the same Doctrin by the Second Age to the Third and so still forwards the most powerful Motives God himself could propose being laid to oblige Christians not to deviate from it in the least or be careless to recommend it And those Motives too a thousand times more lively imprinted and apprehended by the heaven-instructed Faithful than they were by any in the former Ages of the World before Christ. 4thly That by Tradition then is meant The Testimony of the whole foregoing Age of Christians to the next Age of what had been deliver'd and explain'd to them by their Living Voice and Practice Or taking Tradition as it ought to be for Oral and Practical both 'T is A Continu'd Education of undergrowing Posterity in the Principles and Practice of their Immediate Predecessours 5 thly That hence 't is Evident beyond needing Proof that this Rule cannot on it's part deceive us For putting that it was still follow'd or that Posterity still believ d and practis'd as their Immediate Fore-Fathers did who at first believ'd and practis'd as the Apostles had instructed them 't is manifest the Last Age of the World must have the same Faith that the First Age of Christianity had Whence follows evidently that no Errour could possibly come in at any time unless this Rule of Tradition had been deserted 6 thly That Tradition thus understood and we never understood it otherwise being the Living Voice and Practice of the Church in the immediate Age before is applicable to all even of the lowest Capacity as we experience to some degree in the instructions by Pastours even now adays And since it delivers it's Sense which in those that have follow'd that Rule has been even now shewn to be Christ's Doctrin by Preaching Catechizing Explaining daily Practising and all the ways imaginable to make it understood 't is also an Absolutely-Clear Conveyer of Christ's Doctrin downwards Add that should it's sense be at any time misapprehended the Church and her Pastours can explain their own meaning pertinently to the Askers Doubter's or Mistaker's Exigencies which a Letter in a Book cannot 7 thly That the Chief Care of the Church was to inculcate to the Faithful and preserve inviolate the Chief Points of the Christian Faith and therefore that Tradition did most particularly exert it's self in Teaching and Transmitting Those 8 thly 'T is not to be deny'd but Scriptural Tradition went along with this other we have explain'd For the Church having the same sense in her breast which the First Writers had were consequently the best Interpreters of it which was one Reason why the Fathers and Councils often made use of it to confute Hereticks and comfort the Faithful by it's concurrence But when they were to convert any to Faith it was never heard they took such a Method as to put the Bible in his hand and bid him look for his Faith there telling him 't was Plain even in the highest points that were dubious or Controverted to every capacity 9 thly That hence Scripture without the Churches help was never held by them Anciently nor can with reason be held by us now to be the Rule of Faith in the sense we use that word that is to be a Means or Way for All who are coming to Faith to arrive unerringly at it Lastly we hold that the Sense of Scripture's Letter in those sublime Points surpasses the apprehensions of private men coming to Faith and so the Letter alone cannot be an assured Ground to build the Truth of Christian Faith upon whence follows that Tradition which is Plain and Easy and only It can be in Proper Speech the Rule of Faith. § 6. This then is the true State of the Question between us This is our true Tenet both concerning Scripture and Tradition and what are the Points to be ascertain'd by them Now let us see how the Sermon represents us and whether your admired Preacher does so much as touch any one of these particulars § 7. In the first place you may please to take notice that he never lets you know or so much as suspect that the main Contest between him and me is about the Absolute Certainty or Uncertainty of Christian Faith His wicked Doctrin in that Point oblig'd me to write a whole Treatise formerly in Vindication of Christianity from such an Intolerable Scandal which I apply'd in the cloze of it against himself and Dr. Tillotson Had he let you know this he prudently foresaw your Zeal for Christianity your best Concern would have given you a just prejudice against his Sermon and the Preacher too and the very Conceit all Christians have of the Truth of their Faith would have made you abhor a Discourse out of a Pulpit maintaining it might possibly be a Ly. As for particulars § 8. First he talks of a Stedfastness and a firm and well-settled resolution to adhere to that Faith which Christ himself deliver'd But ought you not to be assur'd first that he did indeed deliver it Or are you to adhere to it as his whether you are certain 't is his or no Or is a resolution to hold stedfastly to what you judge is the Faith of Christ well-settled if that Faith of yours the Basis of your Spiritual Building and Ground of that Resolution be not well-settled it self but may sink into False-hood This is the true Point you are to look after and till you have perfect satisfaction from him in this wisely to consider that Pious Talk without Solid Grounds to support their Truth is but painting the out-side of a Sepulcher The tinkling cymball of a little Rhetorick and shews of much Reading may go far with persons whom such flourishes can prevail upon to forgo their Reason but he had but a very small respect for you if he hop't you were so easy to be play'd upon with the wind of a little articulate ayr § 9. It was very possible he says for them to have mistaken or misremember'd what was at first deliver'd Whom does he mean by Them What by First Delivery Does he mean the Vniversality of Christians in the First Age or any succeeding one Or that those Great Bodies settled in their Faith form'd into Church-Government and kept up to their Christian Duties by Disciplin could thus mistake or misremember the former Teaching and Practice which was a plain matter of Fact This is the only Tradition we ever spoke of or went about to defend None doubts but that when some single Apostle was Preaching in some places at first the Thoughts of the Hearers were as yet raw and the things that were told them were so strange that they did not
Truth 's behalf I am engag'd with an Adversary to whom no Personal Insufficiency can be objected Nothing could make the Victory come more Clear to the Cause I am defending and the more Dr St. is rais'd above the Common Levell of Writers the more Evidently it will appear that nothing but the pure force of Truth could drive a man of his Abilities to such unparallel'd Shifts and Subterfuges to palliate that Errour the Patronage of which he had so unfortunately espous'd Nor is it to be wonder'd at that even the best Wit in the World should be baffled while it maintains such a Cause For were it some Errour of an ordinary size that he defended or were the Truth which he opposes of a trivial Importance Rhetorick and misus'd Wit might perhaps bear it down and gain a seeming Victory over it but when the sole Point is whether even what we all hold to have been the Faith taught by Christ may for ought any man living knows be perhaps none of his and so a Falshood and a Lying Story 't is not to be imagin'd that any Tricks of Human Skill can prevail against a Point of that Sacred Concern It belongs to the Wisdom of our Good God to settle those things most firmly which are of the greatest Weight and therefore the Certainty we are to have that Christ was indeed the Author of the Faith we profess being such an Incomparable Good and the Basis of all our Spiritual Building must be by far more unremovably establisht and more surely plac't above a tottering Contingency than the strongest Pillars of this Material World whence all Attempts to undermine and weaken this Certainty which as shall be seen is the Chief Endeavour of Dr St. must be proportionably Weak and Ruinous To give you a Map of his main Performances taken from his Book in short and prov'd upon him in this Reply First Whereas 't is the Principal Duty of a Controvertist especially writing about the Grounds of Faith to justify that is to prove Faith to be True the Dr is so far from doing or allowing this good Office to be done to Faith that he maintains the direct contrary Nay he will not grant so much honour to any Particular Point of Faith and our Whole Faith is made up of such Particulars as to let it enjoy even his own kind of Absolute Certainty tho' that falls short of proving any thing to be above possibility of Falshood or which is the same True but says over and over in perfectly equivalent terms that the Sense which himself or any man or Church either has of Scripture in particular Points may not be the True Sense of it that is may not be Christ's Doctrin which if it be not it may not be True And is it possible that what may not be True can at the same time be True that is Is it possible that Truth may not be its self Secondly We are writing Controversy and consequently treating of Faith precisely according to a particular consideration belonging to it which is by what way 't is with Absolute Certainty derivable from Christ. This has been repeated and Eccho'd to him over and over even to Surfeit This was the Scope and Occasion of the Conference This is exprest in my Short Discourse against his way of having Certainty of Christ's Doctrin and clearly aim'd at in Mr G's Demonstration Nay this has been told him fifteen years ago in Errour Non-plust p. 44. Where I in these plainest words thus Stated the Question It being then agreed amongst us all that what Christ and his Apostles taught is God's Word or his Will and the Means to Salvation all that is to be done by us as to matters of Faith is to know with Absolute Certainty what was the first-taught Doctrin or Christ's Sense and whatever can thus assure us of That is deservedly call'd The Rule of Faith. Yet tho' we should trumpet this into his Ears every moment he is still Deaf and never takes notice of it or regards it in his whole Reply Nay he diverts from it with all the hast he can make when our express words force him to it To do this with the greater Formality and Solemnity he Entitles his Book A Discourse concerning the Nature and Grounds of the Certainty of Faith. Which Expression is so Large that it leaves it Indifferent for him under that Head either to treat of Faith as 't is in its self viz. as 't is Divine or of Faith as 't is Controverted between us that is of our Faith as 't is Ascertainable to us to be Christ's true Doctrin And that we may see this was done by Design when he comes to determine the Sense of those Equivocal Words he pitches upon that Meaning of them which is quite beside our purpose and nothing at all to our Question viz. upon Christ's Faith as 't is Divine which is not disputed but agreed to be such and this whether the Faith comes to our knowledge by Tradition attesting it or by an Absolutely Certain Interpretation of Scripture and the sole Question is whether the Tradition of the Church or the Letter of Scripture interpreted by any Way his Principles afford us be the more Certain and more Clear Way to give us Christ's Sense or which is the same our Faith. How untoward a Procedure is it then to stand quoting our School-Divines against me whenas the Objects of Controversy and of School-Divinity are so vastly different the one treating of Faith as made known to the World at first by Divine-Revelation the other of the Way to know now what was at first Divinely reveal'd by Human Motives inducing men to the Acceptation of it of for the same Doctrin Hence also when he was to bring Arguments which should evince by his Principles that the Faith held now is the same that was reveal'd at first to avoid that impossible task he falls unseasonably to alledge God's Grace and Invisible Moral Qualifications Which tho' absolutely requisit in many regards to Faith as 't is formally Divine yet are they most improper to be alledg'd in Controversy against an Adversary for a Proof that what he holds is the first-taught Doctrine since only God himself can know whether the Alledger or any man else has those Supernatural Means or no. To put a stop once for all to this impertinent Topick and to shew how he trifles while he quotes our School-Divines I alledge First that the plain state of the Question lately given which runs through our whole Controversy has forestall'd all he can object from them unless he can shew that they stated the Question and treated of Faith under the same Consideration as we do in our Controversy which I am Certain he cannot instance in so much as any one of them And in case they do not state it after the same manner we do in our Controversy with what sense can it be pretended that I contradict Them or They Me whenas we do not
between us 't is manifest the contest was whether he had Absolute Certainty of those Points he held upon his Rule What says the Dr now to this plain state of the Controversy 29. First he changes the Ground of Absolute Certainty for his Faith into proving the Absolute Certainty of the Ground or Rule of his Faith which transposes the Terms of the Question and alters the whole business For Absolute Certainty for Faith engages him to shew the Doctrin or Tenets of Faith to be thus Certain whereas Absolute Certainty of the Rule of our Faith makes Absolute Certainty affect the Rule but leaves all Faith Uncertain unless the pretended Rule proves a good one and renders the Doctrin of Christian Faith consisting of many particular Points thus Absolutely Certain which himself will tell us afterwards he will not stand to Next he Equivocates in the word Scripture which may either mean the Letter or the Sense of it Now the Sense of it being Faith 't is That only could be meant by Mr. G. and of which it was affirmed he could not shew Grounds absolutely ascertaining it The Sense I say of Scripture could only be question'd since the Letter was agreed to Wherefore to alledge Tradition for his Proof of what his Grounds will not allow to it viz. to bring down the Sense of Scripture or Faith and turn it off to the shewing Certainty of the Letter which was out of Question is a most palpable prevarication 3. He quite forgets to shew that any Point of his Faith or all of it speaking of the Controverted or Dogmatical Points as we do may not be False notwithstanding his Proof for the Certainty of its Letter which if it be 't is not Faith unless he will say the Points of his Faith may be so many Untruths 4. It has been prest upon him over and over in my Catholick Letters to shew how his Rule influences his Assent of Faith with Absolute Certainty It has been inculcated to him how both Rule and Ground are Relative words and therefore that he could not pretend they were to him Absolutely Certain Grounds for his Faith unless he shew'd how they made him Absolutely Certain of that Faith of his which was the Correlate Which tho' the most material Point and most strongly prest upon him he takes no notice of in his whole Reply and it shall be seen that when he comes to touch upon that Point after his fashion hereafter he is forc't to confess they are no Absolutely Certain Ground or Rule to him at all Lastly that when Faith being Truth the Question was whether he had any such Ground as could conclude it True that Christ had taught his Faith and consequently whether he has any Faith at all he slips over That and rambles into a Discourse about more or less Faith in Scripture instead of shewing he had any Other shifts he has but these are his master-pieces So that his whole performance as to the Conference amounted to no more than to take up the Bible in his hand and cry aloud Look ye Gentlemen here is my Ground or Rule of Faith and your selves must confess 't is Absolutely Certain and therefore you cannot deny but I have shewn you the Ground of Absolute Certainty for my Faith. But if it should be reply'd Sr an Arian or Socinian might do the same and yet no by-stander be the wiser for it or more able to discern which of you has Christs true Faith which not in regard that must be decided by shewing who has an Absolutely Certain Means to know the true Sense of the Letter the Drs insignificant Principles carry no farther but as we shall see anon to confess plainly neither of them have any such Means of Absolute Certainty at all And that he cannot manifest what was expected of him and he stood engag'd to manifest 30. The case then between us being such plain sense what says the Learned Dr to it Why besides his rare evasions lately mention'd he tells the Reader vapouringly his way of reasoning was too hot for Mr. G. which I have shewn to be frigid Nonsense He complains that our obliging him to prove or shew clearly what belong'd to him for no body held him to Mood and Figure is like the Trammelling a Horse That we insinuate Mr. G. is Non suited which is far from True. He is peevishly angry at the Metaphor of Playing at Cards and persecutes it without Mercy which is a scurvy sign that however he pretended to a Purse full of Gold and Silver he is a Loser and that he will be put to borrow some Citations out of Authors to combat the Council of Trent hoping to recover by that means some of the Credit he has lost by the Nonplusage of his Reason He pretends he gives us good security that is for the Letter of Scripture which was not the End of the Conference nor is our Question but not the least security for its Sense or Faith which was He talks of Declamations and the Schools in the Savoy and glances at my pretending to Intrinsical Grounds which is to maintain that Humane Authority which is the only thing I was to prove is to be believed blindly whether a man sees any Reason why he ought to believe it or no. He talks too of the Cardinals in the Inquisition who tho' my Just Judges were my very good Friends He says my Grounds had sav'd the Martyrs Lives and he makes a rare Plea for them out of my Principles Forgetting good man that we are writing Controversy to satisfy men who are in their way to Faith whereas those Blessed Martyrs were not only already Faithfull but moreover liv'd up to Christ's Doctrin and so had Inward Experience in their Consciences of it's Sanctity and Truth He imagins the Iews who saw our Saviour's Miracles had no Intrinsick Grounds Whereas True Miracles being evidently above Nature are known to be such by comparing them with the Course of Natural Causes known by a kind of Practical Evidence or Experience And must I be forc't to render him so Weak as to instruct his Ignorance that the Knowledge of things in Nature is an Intrinsick Ground and not Extrinsical as Testimony is He sticks close to his Friend Lominus right or wrong in despite of all the Evident and Authentick Testimonies to the contrary whom before for want of others to second him he split into Two and now multiplies into the Lord knows how many To gratifie his Friend Dr. Tillotson and excuse his and his own silence he says I have retracted the main Principles in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery which in plain terms is an Vnexcusable Falshood To explicate two or three words and shew by Prefaces States of the Question and many Signal passages they were Misunderstood and apply'd to wrong Subjects as I did to the satisfaction of my Judges and even of prejudic't persons signifies plainly not-to
Mankind but by Immediate Divine Assistance Yet he had the boldness or Forgetfulness to say p. 5. that If this be not Catholick Doctrin then I am Infallibly Certain I. S's Letters are far from being Catholick in their Sense It seems than either some men are Infallible for seriously I take Dr St. to be a Man or he fancies himself to be something above the Herd of Mankind or else sticks not at the Blasphemy to entitle the Blessed Spirit of Peace to have inspir'd him with such a quarrelsome Falshood 45. He discourses against Tradition as 't is Practical but has he said any thing against it as 't is Oral the force of which to clear Christ's Sense delivered down in the Church consists in Catechizing Preaching dilating upon the Points and explicating themselves at large replying to difficulties and accommodating their Discourse to all the Learners Exigences All which is found in the Living Voice of the Church and her Pastours as I shew'd him at large and none of it in the Letter in a Book What answers he to common Sense and to his own Experience too when he instructs others why he puts us off still with this frigid Cuckoo Answer that he is of another Opinion that writing is as plain as speaking and that words written have as much he ought to have said as Clear Sense in them as words spoken Which apply'd to our case is most palpable Nonsense and makes all Explications frivolous and all Catechizers and Commentators upon Scripture ridiculous The force I put in the Practicalness of Tradition is that supervening to the Oral delivery or being consonant to it it confirms it and makes it more Visible But he Combats the Practicalness of it consider'd alone and so impugns his own willfull Mistake But what says he to my discourse He alledg'd that Tradition might come down in Common Equivocal Words and so deliver no determinate Sense I reply'd that 't is inconsistent with the Nature of Mankind to mean nothing by the words they use especially in Tenets they were to be sav'd by therefore the Body of the Church had some Meaning or other of those Words Christ is the Son of God and Christ's Body is really in the Sacrament But this Meaning or Notion could not be a Common or General one in regard no Notion can be common to God a Creature to the Substance of Christs Body to the Substance of Bread much less to that Sacred Substance and some Accidents or Qualities Therefore there could not come down any such Common Notion by means of those Words wherefore there must have descended some particular Notion of each Point determining the signification of the Words to one sense or the other This was the true force of my Discourse I do still pretend it Demonstrable and let him answer it when he can for did he know the Consequences it will draw after it he would think it worth his while He 's at his old Logick again which is to bring an Instance against the Conclusion and is very brisk that it overthrows my Demonstration And what says his Instance It says the Corinthians and Artemonites understood by those words that Christ was only an Adoptive Son that is a Creature which is as much as to say they understood them in a Particular Sense which is all I there pretended And so his Instance is as he says truly Unlucky but 't is to himself not to mee for it makes good my words and instead of overthrowing confirms my Discourse that Men must have understood some Particular Sense by those words and our Learned Dr is so weak as to think that when what he brings for an Answer is so evidently for me it makes against me As for their pleading Tradition for their Sense surely he means a private Tradition from some former Hereticks and not the Publick Tradition of the Christian Church or that their Heretical Tenets were immediately deliver'd by that United Body of Christians for the manifest Falshood of this would have been confuted by Experience and have sham'd the Alledgers Nor could the Church in that case have condemn'd them since they spoke her sense But the good Dr mistook the Pretence of two or three quibbling Hereticks for the Vniversal Tradition of the Church as wicked an Error as it was possibly to stumble upon then triumphs how rarely his Instance has answer'd my Demonstration And thus ends his Reply to my short Discourse which having done he assures the Reader he has fully answer'd my main Argument against his Rule of Faith. Whereas he has not so much as touch't any single Proposition in it trifled or done worse even in the ridiculous odd way he has taken to answer it Which confirms me more then ever 't is past his skill to hurt it and even beyond his Courage to grapple with it 46. His contradicting himself is still urg'd upon him unless he can shew that true or Absolute Certainty does not secure those who have it in any thing from being deceived in that thing Again in his 15th Principle he said there needed no Infallible Society of men either to attest or explain the Scripture I reply'd that if it be Fallible we cannot by it be more than Fallibly Certain and we can have no Absolute Certainty from a Fallible Testimony This seems very plain for how should a man be absolutely or perfectly Certain of a thing by that very Testimony which not being perfectly Certain may perhaps deceive him in that very Thing His first Answer is that he understands no such thing as Infallibility in Mankind but by immediate Divine Assistance He understands Is that an Answer Does he understand how to answer our many Arguments to prove it By his not taking notice of them we are to understand and conclude he does Not. Again he declares that in that Principle of his he meant there needed no Infallibility by Divine Assistance and he utterly denies Natural Infallibility whence 't is manifest he allows no Certainty at all but Fallibility His Faith is in a fine case in the mean time He must shew I say that Fallibility in the Testimony can ground Absolute Certainty of the thing attested and this tho' a man sees that the Testimony and himself who relies on it may be in an Error before he can make either the Letter or the Book of Scripture Absolutely Certain by Tradition or Human Testimony which he maintains here is Fallible Can a man think or say interiourly I am Absolutely or perfectly Certain of a thing peradventure When that very Peradventure hinders his Certainty from being Absolute or Perfect What answers he to this plain Evidence Or how shews he that a seen Fallibility is able to beget Absolute Certainty Why First he says If by Fallible Certainty I mean this and that c. I mean Why I mean nothing by it but that 't is a wicked Contradiction I mean the same by
Genuin Effect of some kind of Evidence and therefore Absolute or Perfect Certainty ought to be the Effect of Perfect Evidence nor is any Evidence a Perfect one unless it Concludes Now he does not like Conclusive Evidence and so he ought to renounce Absolute Certainty 'T is as difficult to guess what he means here by those words in point of Reason True Reason knows no Methods but this to Assent if the Thing be Clear and to Suspend if it be Not and to conclude or argue being the proper Act of Reason straining after Truth what 's not concluded is not Clear and therefore not to be accepted for an Absolute Truth or Assented to as such The summ then to come close to our present Question is that Absolute Certainty of such a Doctrine's having been taught by Christ must either be built on True Evidence of the Grounds for it and then it cannot consist with Deception and so is Infallible Or it is not and then indeed it may sometimes come to Iustify a great Propension Hope or Deeming that 't is so Or if I conceive it to be of small concern an unexamining letting it pass for such but it can never Iustify an Absolute Assent See more of this Subject and a perfect Confutation of this wild Assertion in Errour-Nonplust and Reason against Raillery After many rambling sayings of his own he falls to speak of putting an End to Controversies especially about Certainty and Fatality What we have to do with Fatality I know not but I believe he heartily wishes an end of This Fatall Controversy concerning Certainty for he is in a miserable ross about it being driven now to declare whether he will deny First Principles or renounce his Vnprincipled Doctrin The best way I can invent to end all Controversies is this that since Controvertists are Disputants and are to produce their Arguments which are good for nothing nor can ever End Controversies unless they Conclude those who renounce Conclusive Evidence and instead of it bring Invisible Motives Qualifications may be expos'd and turn'd out of the Lists as being even by their own Confession Insignificant Talkers and Endless Brabblers His wrangle about Light and Darkness Christ and Belial is spoke to in my Second Catholique Letter Let him shew that his Rule Scripture interpreted by Private Judgments does not Patronize Heresy as well as Faith which he will never do and we will be content to acquit him from that horrid Blasphemy of making Light and Darkness very consistent and Christ the Author of our Holy Faith and Belial the Father of Heresy and Lies very good Friends of which wicked Doctrin 'till he does this he stands Indicted 49. I alledg'd that Scripture being the Common Rule to him and all Hereticks the particular or distinguishing Rule must be their own Private Iudgments interpreting Scripture Does he deny this or shew my Discourse faulty by assigning any other that particularizes or distinguishes them No neither What does he then Why he sends me to the old Philosophers to learn Logick And I tell him with many thanks I know none except Aristotle a competent Master for Me. Next he makes Sense to be a Rule of Iudging that is an Intellectual Rule which I deny For the Rule to any thing is the Immediate Light to judge of any thing and multitudes of intervening Knowledges are requisit to inform us when the advertisements of our Senses are right as is evident in the fallaciousness of Sense in a Stick seeming crooked in water the bigness of things seen at distance and innumerable other particulars But I ought to distinguish between the Rule of Iudgment and the Iudgment made according to that Rule And so I do if that be all For the Rule is the Informer my Iudgment the thing inform'd But yet if my Judgment follow the Information and still go wrong my Informer was no good Informer The Evidence of this and the propension of uncorrupted Nature to believe Pastours Fathers and Teachers and those who were wiser than themselves in things they were Ignorant of did I told him make the Generality of those out of the Church follow the Way of Tradition of their own Church and not regulate themselves in the choice of their Tenets by their private Judgment of Discretion working upon Scripture's Letter as is evident in whole Nations as Denmark meeting in one particular Belief and whole Sects agreeing in the very Judgment of their respective Leaders whence the Sense they make of Scripture as themselves understand it is not their Rule First he quotes a Decree of the Church of England that nothing is to be requir'd of any man to be believ'd as Faith but what 's read in Scripture or may be prov'd by it But this makes against himself unless he thinks the Generality that is the Layity of that Church esteem themselves more able to judge of the Sense of what 's read in Scripture or to prove all the highest Points of Faith by it than their Pastours and Church-Governours are for otherwise Nature will and ought to incline them to believe their Judgment rather than their own in that affair which is to follow the Way of Tradition Indeed I must confess that by the Doctor 's Principles every one of his Sober Enquirers ought to preferr his own Judgment of Discretion above the Church'es but what He says is one thing what the Dictates of honest Nature teaches Mankind is another 'T is confest the Layity of each Congregation judges the Sentiments of their Leaders to be agreeable to Scripture but I affirm withall that not one in ten thousand when he comes at age lays aside Prejudice and setts himself to consider anew by his scanning the Letter whether his Leaders told him right or presumes of the competency of his own knowledge to judge or determin whether They understood Scripture in the right Sense or no. He talks to us indeed of Helps and how they call in the old Interpreters of the Church and desire them to use their own Reason c. But every man sees that Few or None stand Indifferent 'till they have us'd all these Helps but undoubtingly accept that very Faith in which they were educated And so they continue 'till the discoursing or reading those of a contrary Opinion unsettles them and put them into Doubts Besides if those Helps he talks of are not secure from erring themselves as to what they help others in they may help them to Misunderstand the Sense of Scripture in the Highest Points of Faith and so help them to be Hereticks And yet these are all the best Helps his Principles can Help them to For he assures us and maintains stoutly by affirming them all to be Fallible in what they are to help us that all his Helps may be deceiv'd in that very thing in which they are to help others They may indeed according to him give a strong guess at what is Christ's Doctrin
way how Errour might come in is too great a Veneration to some particular Teachers which made their Disciples despise Tradition in comparison of their Notions And were those men Followers of Tradition who despis'd it His 6th is By Compliance with some Gentil Superstitions c. But did Tradition or the Church's Testimony deliver down to them these Heathenish Superstitions for Christs Doctrin Or rather would it not have preserv'd men from them had nothing else been attended to but that Rule His 7th and last is by Implicit Faith that is that when a man had found a Faithfull Guide to direct him he should submit himself to be Guided by him in things in which he could not guide himself A very dangerous case indeed But the Antidote to this malicious suggestion is that the same Church that they believ'd condemn'd all New Revelations and adher'd only to what was deliver'd He could have added an Eighth way how Errours in Faith come in had he pleas'd and That too such a one as had done a thousand times greater mischief than all the rest put together viz. Private Interpretations of Scripture which every man knows has been the source of all the Heresies since Christ's time But this being the sole Ground of his Faith it was not his Interest to let his Readers know it had been the Ground of all Heresy 76. But what 's all this to the Point Or how is the Demonstration lost if many men err'd upon divers other accounts so none err'd while they follow'd Tradition Unless he proves this he establishes our Demonstrations by his shewing how multitudes err'd who were led by other Motives and by his not being able to produce so much as one Instance of any that err'd by adhering to It. What Noise and Triumph should we have had could he have alledg'd so many Hereticks sprung up by grounding their opinions on mistaken Tradition as 't is known have arisen by grounding their wicked Tenets on misunderstood Scripture But alas tho' that were exceedingly to his purpose not one such Instance could he bring He talks a little faintly of the Arians Pelagians Nestorians c. not disowning Tradition But does he hope to perswade any man of Sense those Upstarts durst ever go about to put out the eyes of the World by pretending their Heresies were deliver'd down as Christs Doctrin by the Publick Testimony of the Church in their days or out-face the present Church that she her self had taught them what she knew themselves had newly invented Or would she have condemn'd them had they spoke her thoughts or follow'd her Doctrin With what Sense can any of this be imagin'd The Tradition then which they went upon was Citations of some former Authors which they misunderstood the very Method Dr St. and his fellow-Quoters take now a-days or else the Judgment of a few Foregoers of whom some might speak ambiguously others perhaps hanker'd after their Heresy 'T is very hard to guess what Dr St. would be at in alledging so many ways how Errour might be introduc't That it might come in and by Various ways no man doubts That it came in meerly by following Tradition or the Churches Testimony he says not That particular Multitudes might be seduc't by deserting Tradition is equally granted and needs no Proof And that it came in tho' Men Adher'd to Tradition which was the true Point he goes not about to prove nor seems so much as to think of Besides most of the Ways he assigns if not all are so many Desertions of Tradition which highly conduces to Strengthen our Argument while he impugns it Yet surely that could not be his Intention neither I cannot imagin then what all these seven Formall Heads are brought for but to make a Show of none knows what Sometimes I incline to think he is combating the Fourth Proposition proving the Body of Traditionary Christians could not innovate in Faith but either through forgetfulness or Malice And yet I cannot fix upon this neither both because he names not these two defects before he shows us his other ways of Erring as also because we are not come as yet to the Fourth Proposition where all the Stress lay but have spent all our time in confuting the First and Second which were Self-Evident But if that be his meaning as he intimates p. 112. to escape replying to the Fourth Proposition then let him know that whatever his unsound Principles say whoever deserts the Testimony of God's Church whether by the Authority or rather No-Authority of False Teachers or by Enthusiasm the root of which is Spirituall Pride or by following Secret Traditions against the Publick Authority of the Church or by adhering to a Sense of Scripture contrary to what Tradition allows or by too great a Veneration to some particular Teachers or by Compliance with Heathenish Superstitions or by whatever other Motive is Guilty before God of a Heinous Sin and it must spring from some degree of Malicious or Bad disposition in his heart For he cannot but See that himself or his Leader breaks the Order of the World by disobeying rising against and preferring himself before those whom God had set over him to feed direct instruct and Govern him Of which Order and of the Goods coming by it and the Mischiefs which attend the Violating it none of Common Sense whom some by-affection has not blinded can possibly be Ignorant 77. He concludes with these words If then Errours might come into the Church all these Ways What a vain thing it is to pretend that Orall Tradition will keep from any possibility of Errour Ah Dr. Dr Where 's your Love of Moral Honesty Where 's your Sincerity Where your Conscience Did ever any man pretend that Tradition will keep men from any Possibility of Errour whether they follow it or no Were not our most express words put down by your self p. 108. l. 27.28 If they follow this Rule they can never Err in Faith. And must those most important words be still Omitted and no notice taken of them but only in an absurd Distinction making Adhering to Tradition or Following it to be Not-Following it Is this Solid Answering or plain Prevaricating Again what Nonsense does he make us speak by omitting these words Is it not a Madness to say a Rule will direct them Right that do not Follow it That a Means will bring a man to his End who does not use it That a Way will keep a man from Straying in his Journey who does not walk in it Yet all these Contradictions we must be Guilty of by his leaving out the words If follow'd 'T is pretty too upon review of his words to reflect on his Craft 'T is vain to pretend that Orall Tradition will keep whom was it pretended to keep from any Possibility of Errour He should have added the followers of it but because he had Slipt this all along he leaves the Sense Imperfect and the word keep
till at last they were own'd and impos'd as necessary to be believ'd and practised Answ. If they belong'd to Faith they could not come in while the Rule of Tradition was adher'd to as has been prov'd and granted Tho' perhaps some Points involv'd in the main Body of Faith yet so particularly or universally known might on emergent occasions be singled out defin'd and more specially recommended than formerly without any Detriment to the Faith received but rather to the Advantage and farther Explication of it And as for unwarrantable Practices as they belong not to Faith so they do not concern our present business 6. What if Errour any of these Ways brought forth grew multiply'd spread obtain'd most power and drove out all that held the naked Truth out of all those Countries where it came Of which all Histories furnish us with Instances Answ. But does any History tell you this Errour spread over the whole Church without your supposing the Question that such or such a Tenet is an Errour which you pretend such which is above the Skill of Historians to decide and is only to be determin'd by examining First who have who have not a Certain Rule of Faith. Besides Errour in Faith never yet appeared even though abetted by Great men in the Church but it was oppos'd and Truth grew clearer by the Opposition made to it and tho' for a while it grew under the shadow of some Particular State yet no History ever recorded that all the States of Christendom ever joyn'd to protect it 48. Well but what are all these rambling Questions to our Argument which insists on the impossibility of Altering the yesterdays Faith but either out of want of Memory or out of Malice Apply them to this and they lose all their force how plausibly soever a witty man that talks at rovers supposes all to be Errour which the Revolting Party Held and never considers the Nature of Christian Mankind and their Circumstances may descant upon it For what Paradox is there tho' never so ridiculous that Wit discoursing thus wildly and at randome cannot make plausible Our General Objection then against your whole Paragraph is this that you never apply your several What ifs to our Argument Besides that you pretend in the beginning of it that you will shew other Reasons of such an Alteration which are neither Forgetfulness nor Malice and yet most of those you here assign are Defects of Goodness which implies some degree of Malice and some of them the highest Malice that can be 49. But say you we must seek out a new Medium to prove our Church Infallible for this already brought proves only she does not err so long as she holds to Tradition but still she may err if she leaves it wherefore we must prove she cannot leave Tradition or else She is not Infallible and so we are but where we were And do not you see this is already prov'd to your Hand For not to repeat the many Reasons produc't for this Point Sect. 45. Innovation and Tradition being formerly and diametrically opposite what proves she could not Innovate proves also that she could not leave Tradition for this were to Innovate And this our Argument you see has already prov'd nor is the force of that Proof weaken'd by any thing you have hitherto said I wonder you should dissemble a thing so obvious and run forwards upon that affected Inadvertence of yours as if it were a business unthought of by us before and requir'd a new Medium whereas it is the very thing our Argument chiefly aims at and for which we had of our own accord without any one's bidding made provision for before hand 50. Your next Sect. P. 25. would perswade us rather to prove our Church free from Errour which say you is a much easier task if she be so than to prove Her Self Infallible Very Good Your wise advice amounts to this that you would have us prove our Conclusion without beginning with our Premises or Principles If this be Yours and Dr. St's Logick 't is a very preposterous one and can only be made good by a Figure call'd Hysteron Proteron or Cart before Horse Though I must confess it keeps decorum and is perfectly of the same hue with all your Logick hitherto Please then to know that all our Faith may be Errour if the Testimony of the Church our Rule may be Erroneous and if it cannot nothing we hold of Faith can be so Again what mean you by our proving her free from Errour Your meaning is we should only prove she Embraces no Errour now but what Provision would this make for Her not falling perhaps into Errour to morrow We ought then to prove and so ought you too of your Rule that if we adhere to it it can at no time permit us to Err which could not be if at any time it might be deceiv'd it self or leave us deceiv'd while we follow it Besides if it were granted Fallible or Liable to Errour by what more evident Light or greater and clearer Testimony could we guide our selves to know when it did actually Err when not in deriving down Christs Doctrine Or by what more certain Way could we be directed to arrive at Christ's sence If there were any such It and not Tradition ought to be our Rule We return you then your Counsel back with many Thanks for it neither suits in any degree with Logick Common Sense our own or any other Principles But however it suites better with your convenience than these crabbed Demonstrations For you tell us One single Instance of her erring is enough to Answer all the Arguments can be brought for her Infallibility Sure you have a mind to convince all Schollars that read your Books you never heard of Logick in your Life Or else you would endeavour to baffle the whole Art of Discoursing because you foresee 't is like to baffle you An Instance may perhaps make an Objection against the Conclusion taking it single for a meer proposition and not as standing under Proof but Arguments are answer'd by finding defects in the Premises or the Consequence You might have seen to use your own words better Logick read to the D. of P. in my Pag. 10 and 11. Where 't is shewn you that if the Premises be right and the Inference good the Conclusion must be as necessarily True as that the same Thing cannot be and not be at once Yet you take no notice of it but still run on obstinately to confute all the Schools and Universities that ever Writ or Taught Logick from the beginning of the World to the Time of His and Your Writing The Truth is you are sick of the Argument and would shift it off on any Fashion Bring what Instances you please But first you are to Answer our Argument and next to see the Authority that qualifies your Instance for an Argument be above Morally Certain otherwise it will be
beyond the power of any Logick to make it conclude For the force of that Maxim on which the Conclusiveness of any Argument is built is far beyond any Moral Certainty Nor let Dr. St. think to stand arguing still ad hominem but let him be sure his Instance infers the Truth of his Conclusion when it comes to be put to the Test of a Syllogism This we will expect from him since it is the Right of the Respondent to deny any thing that is not driven up to Evidence and by that Test we will judge of your Instance and other Arguments if you have any that you will vouch to be Demonstrative that is Conclusive 51. You seem so kind as not to undertake to prove that an erring Church adheres to Tradition if it be True Apostolical Tradition and that it adheres to it wholly and solely I a little wonder at this for if you mean not by Tradition such a one as is built on Living voice and Practice you ran quite away from the Point If such a one you quit your own Rule by requiring men should adhere to the other wholly and Solely and admit that a Church adhering to such a Tradition is not an Erring Church I inferr Therefore till you answer our Argument which proves that our Tradition could not be interrupted by any Innovation you cannot with reason deny but ours is such You think Infallibility a kind of barr against our mutual Agreement as if there were any hopes or even possibility men's Minds should center unless it be in something that is Absolutely Certain or Evident Shew us something else endu'd with such an Evidence as is able to oblige Human Nature to an Universal Acceptation and Conviction and then blame us for maintaining Infallibility Till then pray excuse us for making such Provision for Faith as sets it beyond Possibility of Falsehood You drop some insignificant Exceptions after the Shower of your shrewd invisible Reasons As that our Argument must prove that no man that hath been taught the Faith can ever err from it and yet still withall confess that a Church following Tradition now may leave it afterwards This were an Incoherence with a witness But how do you shew our Argument must prove this absurd position Onely with saying it here over and over again without the least attempt to shew from our words or Doctrine this pretended necessity that we must both contradict our selves so grossely and besides go against our daily experience I do assure the Reader we have no where either such words or sense and that 't is meerly a false sham or some weak deduction of yours for want of some better thing to say Our Tenet is that tho' not one single man can erre while he adheres to our Rule yet even some particular Churches may leave off adhering to Tradition and so err in Faith. Onely we say that the main Body of the Church consisting of all particular Churches that compound Christianity being supported by Motives of adhering to the former Faith so Prevalent and Universal and apply'd to a very vast multitude of them cannot conspire to relinquish this Rule go against and disgrace their own Testimony nor consequently err in Faith. The word All indeed and They in each Proposition are distributive and appliable to each single man but do you find the least word in any of them that sayes that single men or great multitudes may not out of malice alter Faith Where find you that Or that they cannot desert the Rule and by Consequence their Faith. Pray be not so liberal of our Concessions without shewing somthing under our hands for it 52. But you sum up your Solution of our Demonstration with an admirable grace or rather you give us the very Quintessence of your Answer to it in these few words The Church of Rome says all have broke the Rule of Tradition but she onely and proves it by saying that she holds the same to day she did yesterday and so up to our B. Saviours time You proceed 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 How smart and victorious this looks But the best is 't is wholly built on some few of your own wilfull Falsifications Pray where did we ever bring these Words If she followed this Rule c. For a Proof that she holds the same to day which she did yesterday Or where did we prove we follow'd this Rule only with iffs But why are you so shy to quote the Pages or Paragraphs where we bring these absurd Proofs because you would be at Liberty to say any thing and yet not expose your Credit And 't is worth noting that you point out the Page in other occasions very diligently but when you have a mind to falsify 't is still supprest 'T is observable too that this insincerity of yours here is of such advantage to you that it gains the whole Cause For if we prove this main Point no better but with Iffs that our Argument has no force but by standing to your Kindness in Believing what Our Church says then there 's an End indeed for nothing can be more Evident than 't is that in that Supposition we are utterly routed our whole Cause quite defeated Now I would entreat the Reader for You are resolv'd neither to use your Eyes nor Honesty lest they should too openly accuse you that he will once more review our Argument as 't is put down by Dr. St. himself First Letter p. 4. and 5. and made good by me p. 8. and 9. and he will see clearly the first half of it was to prove that If they follow'd this Rule viz. of believing the same to day they did yesterday they could never err in Faith or were Infallible And the other part And they could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice alter it was brought to prove they did ever follow that Rule For since nothing but Innovation can break the Chain of Tradition whoever proves they could not innovate proves directly they could not recede from Tradition Nay 't was confest by Dr. St. himself when he was as yet in better circumstances First Letter p. 5. l. 4. that we prov'd our Church could not innovate by the Medium now mention'd Yet you have the Confidence to tell the Reader she only says she follows this Rule and if you will not believe her there 's an end Whereas you ought in candour to have said They prov'd she follow'd and could not but follow this Rule but I cannot answer their Argument and there 's an End. See what you have brought upon your self and how fatal it is to your pretended Answer that as you began your Reply to this 4th Proposition with a
pretended We are absolutely Certain such and such particular Points are contain'd there otherwise your General Ground comes not up to the Question nor does your Faith any service at all since it leaves it still Vncertain of which more hereafter Especially since you pretended or rather declar'd openly p. 14. that you now held all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles Which Profession reaches to all the Points of Faith and not onely to your Ground of Faith. I must confess you render'd that Profession insignificant and cancell'd the obligation as soon as you had made it in the Explication of those words immediately following which makes those hearty expressions Absolutely Certain of all the same Doctrin amount to no more but that you resolve your Faith into Scripture We must I see deal with you as those who have a pretence in Court do with Great Courtiers who lose their repute with them as ill-bred and unmannerly if they will needs take them at their word and do not distinguish between what 's spoken and what 's meant Your Answer was very honest and direct We are absolutely Certain we now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles The Comment is this I fram'd my Answer on purpose to shew that our Faith is not to be resolv'd into what Christ taught any otherwise than as it is convey'd to us by the Writings of the Apostles Evangelists Whereas if there be so much as one word of Writing or Evangelists even hinted in your Answer it self unless the Word Taught meant Writ which cannot be because we never read that Christ writ any Books or the least Semblance of reason for making this Skewing Explication but to shuffle off your too large Concession I will confess my self too shallow to fathom the profound depth of your inscrutable sense Resolve then your Faith in God's Name into what you will so you but shew us an Absolutely Certain Connexion between the Points resolved and the Rule into which you profess to resolve it Otherwise 't is no Resolution of Faith if the continued Chain of Motives winding it up to the First Truth or God's infinite veracity hangs slack Such Incoherence serves not for Faith which must be indissolubly connected to the Formal Motive of all our Faith else the Resolution of it may be shatter'd and broke to pieces by the way ere we come there Which if it may then the Resolution is no Resolution for that speaks Connexion of the Motives and Faith thus resolv'd may perhaps all be False and so is no Faith. 'T is your work then to shew in particular when you come to it and at present in general that your Rule gives you Absolute Certainty of the Points of Faith more than it does the Socinian who have the same Rule and profess to follow it as much as you do for your heart and yet erre enormously Nay in effect they take the same Method too to interpret Scripture which you do for tho' you give good words to the consent of former ages yet your Grounds do not allow it Absolute Certainty in bringing down Doctrin or interpreting Scripture and less than such a Certainty and in such things signifies nothing in our case And 't is either by your Rule and Method you can arrive thus certainly at the Sense of Scripture or by nothing If you could once with Absolute Certainty convince the Socinians of Obstinacy against a Clear Truth by your Rule or Method or both together I mean if you could make it clear to them that your Rule of Faith cannot possibly bear any other Sense so that the indifferent part of the world judg'd them wilful adherers to a false Interpretation or that you could silence them and put them to open shame for adhering to it you would do somthing Otherwise your starting aside still from the Absolute Certainty of the Points even tho' p. 14. you pretended to be Absolutely Certain you hold them All and talking to us of nothing but a General Ground is meer shuffling and shews plainly you meant not really in that Answer of yours to Mr. G's first Question where you spoke of all the Doctrin which includes every Particular Point so that by All it seems you meant None 'T is very paradoxical to see you distinguish here p. 14 between the Doctrin taught by Christ and that which was taught by the Apostles The reason why you do it is to insinuate into our Readers that we derive the source of our Tradition from Christ's Teaching orally as the Iews affirm of Moses delivering an unwritten Law else to what purpose this Distinction The Tradition we lay claim to has no such obscure Original it takes it's â—ife from the whole Body of Primitive Christians in the Apostles days dispers't in Great multitudes over the World and settled in the Knowledge of his Faith by means of their Preaching So that Tradition starts into motion from a most Publick and notorious matter of Fact viz. That the Apostles taught the First Christians such a Faith. To what imaginable purpose then was this frivolous distinction brought in You knew this was our Tenet and we knew well your Rule was Scripture What needed then this shuffling Paraphrase By Tradition you know we mean a Testimony for Doctrin receiv'd If the source be weak or that the Body of the Witnessers of it's Delivery at first and successively afterwards was smal the Tradition is consequently weak in proportion if Great it was stronger still according as the multitude of the Attesters was more numerous and their Credibleness more unexceptionable Well but admit your Faith be not resolv'd into what Christ taught by his own mouth but what the Apostles taught us from him why must you necessarily resolve your Faith into their Writings only Did the Apostles when they went to convert the world go with Books in their hands or Words in their Mouths Or were those Words a jot less Sacred when it came from their Mouths than when they put them in a Book Or lastly does any Command from Christ appear to write the Book of Scripture or any Revelation before hand that it was to be a Rule of Faith to the future Church No such matter and the Accidental occasions of it's writing at first and it's Acceptation afterwards bar any such Pretences On the other side their Grand Commission was not Scribite but only Predicate Evangelium Yet you can slubber this over without taking notice of it and carry it as if the Apostles Teaching mean't Writing only and that they taught the World no more than they writ Sure you do not mean the Apostles took Texts out of their own Books and preacht Sermons upon then as you do now Why must it be quite forgotten then and buried in silence that they taught any thing by word of mouth or preacht the Gospel publickly Allow that to be equally Sacred as what is writ and to be embrac't if well
of Errour for the pure Gold of Truth and Soul-poysoning Heresies for means of Salvation Had I a mind to set up a similitude-mender and that you will needs have it a Purse I should beg your leave to put it thus Suppose that Purse's Mouth were tyed up with a knot of such a mysterious contrivance that none could open it I mean still as to the understanding the Mysteries of our Faith but those who knew the Mind of the Bequeather and that the Church to which it was left as a Legacy had knowledge of his Mind and so could open it while others tortur'd their Wits with little tricks and inventions turning and winding the ambiguous folds of it some one way some another and yet entangled their own thoughts more and more while they went about to unty the Knots that so perplex't them 22. This is the true case You make account containing does all the business whereas 't is nothing at all to our purpose which is in the final Intention of it about the Absolute Certainty of your Faith unless we have equal assurance that you can get out thence what 's contain'd there as you pretend to have that 't is contain'd Now it cannot be deny'd but the Primitive Church was imbu'd with Christ's sense by the Preaching of the Apostles and their immediate Successours and so had a sure and proper Way to interpret Scripture and while this sense was still deliver'd down they could not fail of an absolutely Certain Rule to understand it right But there steps up now one Heretick then another opposing himself to the sense of the Church and relying on the dextery of his own wit will needs find out contrivances how to open the Scripture's Meaning by wayes of his private Skill But falls into multitudes of Errours finding no way to unfold the deeply-mysterious Book having refus'd to make use of the right means viz. Christ's sense descending in the Church by Tradition Whence notwithstanding all his little Arts and boasting presumption like the Fox in the Fable Vas lambit Pultem non attingit 23. Mistake me not I do not mean Scriptures Letter is not clear in such passages as concern Common Morality or the Ten Commandments with the Sense of which every one is imbu'd by the Light of Nature Nor in matters of Fact such as were most of those Marks or Signs to know the Messias by foretold us by the Prophets our Saviour's doing such and such Miracles his going beyond Iordan c. Nor in Parables explain'd by himself and such like But in Dogmatical Points or Tenets which are Spiritual and oftentimes profound Mysteries and of these by the way I desire still to be understood when I speak of the Certainty of the Letter or Sense of Scripture for with other Passages I meddle not as the Tenet of a Trinity Christ's God-head the Real Presence of his Body in the Sacrament and such like which have a vast Influence upon Christian Life either immediately or else in a higher Nature being as it were Principles to many other Articles of Faith which depend on their Truth One would verily think I say that such as these should be some of your Golden Points or else there were none at all contain'd in your Purse Yet we experience That even in such as these your Rule is not intelligible enough to keep the Followers of it from erring So that let your Purse have never so Golden and Silver a lining you are never the richer unless you can come at it or can certainly distinguish the pure Gold of Truth from the impure Dross of Errour Your Similitude then comes not home to your purpose nor shews that you have therefore all your Faith or all Divine Revelations because you have a Book which you judge contains them Let 's see now if it does not make against you You put the Doctrin or Points of Faith to be the Gold and Silver contain'd in the Purse and consequently that must be the Purse into which that Doctrin of Faith was put by Christ our Saviour and this was evidently the Heads and Hearts of the Faithful For the Points of Faith being so many Divine Truths are onely contain'd in Men's Minds properly and Words being by their very Definition but Signes of what is in our Minds Truths are no more really in a Book than Wine is really in a Bush which signifies it Since then those Truths were onely in the Breast of Christ Originally and after him in that of the Apostles and their Thoughts could not be communicated nor consequently the Gold and Silver deliver'd to the Legatees otherwise than by signifying it which can onely be done by one of these ways by Living Voice and Practice or by Writing that is by Tradition or Scripture neither of these can with any Sense be liken'd to the Purse it self into which the money is to be put or answer comparatively to It but they are both of them Wayes Means or Methods of putting these heavenly Riches into it's Proper Purse the Souls of the Faithful Of these two Ways our Saviour chose the First which was Teaching his Doctrin orally for he writ nothing and by doing thus told us it was the better For it had been against his Infinit Wisdom to chuse the worser way for Himself to make use of and leave the better to his Servants Nor did his servants the Apostles affect the Way of Writing so as to use it onely but on the contrary they made use of this Oral Way of Preaching constantly and that of Writing for the most part at least if not altogether occasionally They converted the present Church by their Preaching they comforted the future Church by leaving many most edifying Words and Actions of our Blessed Saviour Written which being Particulars and not breaking out openly into Christian Practice might otherwise in likelihood at least to a great degree have been lost to succeeding generations besides the abetment their Writings give to Faith it self when certainly interpreted and rightly understood So that according to this discourse of yours we should either have never a Purse to put Points of Faith in for you take no notice of the Souls of the Faithful into which they are properly put and in which onely they are in reality contain'd Or if you will needs call that a Purse which contains them meerly as a Sign does the thing signify'd or as that which may signify to us our Faith you must put two Purses Tradition and Scripture And then the onely Question is out of which Purse we can with more Certainty get it That is whether a Living Container which can give us perfect light of it's Sense by all the best ways imaginable or the Dead Letter which as Experience demonstrates can neither clear it's Sense to Private Understandings nor if we doubt of it's Meaning and had a mind to ask it could either hear or reply much less pertinently and appositely speak to the Asker as oft as he
tho' a private person can discover those Explicit Points and I suppose may declare them too to as many as he pleases for how can he in Charity do less But alas The silly insignificant Church can do nothing at all she must submit to the wondrous Gifts you have bestow'd upon the Rabble and her Governors and Pastors be accounted Tyrants if they shall dare to encroach upon their high Prerogatives or presume to share in their Priviledges of being able to unfold or know the Explicit Meaning of Scripture-Texts For in case they can know this and this Knowledge be good for the Faithful as it is being as you say necessary to Salvation 't is without question they may declare them or make them known to others nay and use their Authority too if you will vouchsafe to allow them any to edify the Faithful by making this Knowledge sink into them Nor can it prejudice their Reason that the Church obliges them to believe them for this is no more than obliging them to act according to Reason which tells them that since they must either trust themselves or their Pastours in such things and the Pastours must be incomparably better qualify'd than themselves are for the discovering of such mysterious Truths and withall appointed by God to teach them 't is far more Rational to submit to their Judgments in such things than to use their own But indeed you have reason to stand up for your Sober Enquirer for all Ring-leaders of any Heresy or Faction against the Church took this very Method in their proceedings The Spirit of Pride which possest them principled them with these Rational and Peaceable Maxims that they had Authority to judge their Judges teach their Teachers direct their Guides and that their own Wit excell'd that of all the World before them But when a Faction was form'd into a good lusty Body the Scripture-Rule was laid aside again so that 't is doubtful whether we have had ever a Sober Enquirer since as was shewn in my First Letter Sect. 25. 33. You desire to see this Power of the Church in Scripture in Express Terms and we tell you we need not let you see it in Scripture at all for Tradition even Common Sense tells us that the Church has Power to feed and instruct her Flock and enlighten them in what she knows and they are ignorant of If you demand how the Roman Church came by this knowledge of making Implicit Points Explicit I answer by Tradition giving her the Sense of Christ's whole Law and each Intire point of it and by the Light of Nature purify'd by supernatural knowledges antecedently as also by her Application when occasion required to reflect upon and penetrate deeply into that Sense which enables her to explicate her own thoughts or the Points of Faith more clearly now which she had indeed before but did not so distinctly look into them or set her self to explain them But pray what express Scripture has your Sober Enquirer for his Power to make the Implicit Points Explicit You reckon up diverse agreeablenesses p. 21. why this should be but not one word of express Scripture do you pretend to for it And if himself pretend to any such Power besides that it will look a little odd that God should take more care of private men than of his Church let him either shew us he has better means Natural or Supernatural to do this than the Church has or he discovers his Pride and Folly both to pretend to it You say p. 21. that the Church of Rome has no where declar'd in Council it has any such Power viz. to declare explicitly Points imply'd in Scripture But First you may please to know It has made such a declaration Sect. 4. where it defines that it belongs to the Church judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum to judge of the true sense and Interpretation of Scripture Next It accordingly proceeds upon this Power as I shall manifest by three several Instances One Sess. 13. cap. 4. where it explains those Texts Luc. 22. Io. 6. and 2 Cor. 11. to be meant of being truly Christ's Body and declares thence that the Church was ever perswaded of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation Another Sess. 14. cap. 7. Where it declares the Text 1 Cor. 1. Let a man examin himself c. to be understood by the Custome or Practice of the Church of Sacramental Confession necessary to be us'd before receiving the Sacrament by all those who are conscious to themselves of mortal sin The Third Sess. 14. cap. 1. where it interprets that Text of S. Iames cap. 5. to be by Apostolical Tradition understood of the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction Which places you do not judge so much as implicitly to contain that Sense but hold that they contain another thing How the Churches declaring explicitly Points descending by Tradition makes no new Articles of Faith is discours't above Sect. 4 5 6 7. By which you may see that Mr. G. and Mr. M. whom pag. 22. you will needs set at variance are notwithstanding very good Friends For if the Church knew the the sense which is contain'd in that place before the Doctrin is Old tho' the declaring it to be signifi'd by that particular Text be perhaps New. I say perhaps for in some signal passages much in use in the Churches Preaching Catechisms and Practise I doubt not but that not only the particular Doctrin but also that 't is signifi'd by such a Text comes down by Tradition in the Ecclesia docens Notwithstanding the agreeableness of these two Positions you triumph mightily here p. 23. that Thus Mr. M. has answer'd Mr. G 's Demonstration As much as to say I know not for my life what to say to it my self and therefore would gladly shift it off upon any Body so I could handsomely rid my Hands of it Thus you make for you can make any thing by your Method of mistaking every thing the Council of Trent clash with the Church of Rome a hard Task one would think by pretending to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous sense of the Fathers which you judge contradicts the making known and obliging Men to believe that explicitly now which they were not oblig'd to by any precedent Sense or Explication What mean the words Men and They If they signify all men and intend to signify that no man knew those imply'd Points before but all might hap to contradict them you mistake our Tenet for we judge it absolutely impossible that none of the Fathers should reflect more attentively on the full sense of the Points deliver'd or look into their own thoughts as Faithful and therefore it was much more impossible they should unanimously contradict those Points And unless they did so the Council of Trent and the Church of Rome may by the Grace of God very well correspond in their Doctrin for all your mistake For the Intention of the Fathers in
immediately sink deep into the Conceptions of the Generality But it was otherwise when in tract of time that Doctrin was farther spread more often inculcated and more clearly explain'd and well-instructed Pastours constituted to Teach it more expressly and put them forwards to practise it He mistake◠then and misrepresents the whole nature of Our Tradition and by antedating it sights against it before it could have a Being And as this Errour runs through all his Discourses and weak Inferences out of Scripture so the laying it open once for all is a full confutation of them all at once Add that he never consider'd whether when those several Churches Err'd or were in hazard to Err they did so by following even that particular Tradition or Preaching of such or such an Apostle or whether they came to err by deserting it If the Later the Tradition was not faulty but They who Deserted it Yet how different soever these two Points are the one making for that particular Tradition the other against it he never thinks of distinguishing them or letting the Reader know when the Tradition was in fault and when the Persons but runs on in common words as if he had no Design or determinate prospect whither he was going I am sure it is not at all towards the true Question nor against Us. § 10. But tho' all his Reflexions from the several pieces of Scripture are quite besides the purpose yet his Candid and Solid way of managing his own Mistakes and how he wire-draws every thing to make it seem fit deserves our particular observation He tells us speaking of the Church of Corinth that They which signifies the whole Church had like to have lost All their Faith whereas the Text only sayes Some among you And is it such a wonder that some among many should hap to be imperfectly instructed fantastical or refractory to their Teachers But his Partiality is most remarkable When he was forc't to be beholding to the Churches Testimony of Doctrine which is our Tradition to abet the Scripture he could tell us then This is very different from the Case of particular Persons in some Churches who might mistake or forget what was taught but sayes he the Churches themselves could not agree to approve on Errour in the Gospel contrary to the Faith deliver'd to them So that there it was a very different Case but here it seems the Case is not different at all but the very same For Some among You are enlarg'd to signify that Church it self and whereas the only Point those Some deny'd was The Resurrection of the Dead to let you see how utterly insignificant a thing Tradition is that can do no good at all he extends it to signify All their Faith hoping I suppose any thing would pass upon you so 't were spoke out of a Pulpit 'T is told you there All 's Gods Word and he presumes you will be so Civil to God Almighty and so Kind to himself as to accept it for Such and swallow it for Pure Truth § 11. I am oblig'd to him for allowing That the Testimony of every Christian Church did shew the Concurrence of all the Apostles as to the Doctrine contain'd in the several Gospels For then I hope they may be able to shew to the next Age and so forwards the concurrent Doctrine of the First which establishes the Original of our Tradition to be Absolutely Certain He discourses well p. 11. and he ends better That the Memory of the Apostles Doctrin was so fresh in their Minds that it was in effect the Consent of all the Apostles who had taught them And yet better That the concurrent Testimony of all the Apostolical Churches could not let them agree to approve an Errour in the Gospels contrary to the Faith deliver'd to them This is very extraordinary kind and no less solid For 1. these Words could not agree to approve a contrary Doctrine makes their Testimony Infallible 2. This discourse makes the acceptation of the Truth of the Gospels that is of their Sense depend on Vnwritten Tradition 3. We cannot doubt but that Doctrine was Full as fresh in their Memories when they were grown Older and were to transmit it to the next Age after the Apostles decease as it was before unless they lost the Memory of it by discoursing of it more while they taught it to others by Practising it longer themselves 4. As little can it be doubted but the Doctrine and Practise of the First Age was as Fresh in the minds of the Second Age since they Led their Christian Lives by it for it was Equally Intelligible and of Equal Concern still to them to Learn and Teach it as it was to the First Lastly That this being so the Testimony of that Body even now adays that adheres to Tradition is in effect the Consent of all the Apostles that taught it at First Observe Gentlemen that this is the only time Dr. St. has so much as touch 't upon Our Tradition and that he is so far from impugning or confuting it that he in some part directly in others by necessary Consequence acknowledges it's force and strongly abets it But it was not out of good will he was intent in that place upon making good the Truth of the Gospels and assoon as he has made use of it to serve a present turn he immediately discards it as good for little or nothing or nothing to the particular purpose he had lately allow'd the Testifying Christs Doctrine § 12. For the very next page he reckons up three things for which The common Tradition of the Apostolical Churches were useful after the Decease of the Apostles But not a word of their Vsefulness to Testify to others what they had learnt from those Masters of Christianity No sooner were the Apostles dead and that first Age had by their concurrent Testimony of the Doctrine they had receiv'd from them given credit to the Truth of the Written Gospels but immediately the whole Christian World had lost their Memory of that Doctrine on a sudden and the Grace to preserve and propagate it One would think by this wild Discourse of his that both Common Natural parts and all degrees of Ordinary Honesty had been preserv'd to them miraculously thitherto meerly to recommend the Truth of the Gospels and that assoon as that was done and the Apostles were dead the Author of Nature and Grace suspended or rather subtracted for ever all his Influence left them a Tabula rasa without either Memory or Goodness to learn their Faith a new out of Scripture § 13. And hence it is that he rallies upon Universal Testimony or Tradition as if it were some sleight story of a few Tatling Gossips or of those who heard what some say that others told them who had it from such c. Whereas had he said as he ought to have said What the whole First Age of Christians witnest
to the next Age that They had heard seen and practic 't and the whole next Age to the Third and so forwards with an Obligation still to transmit it Equal to that the First Age had to believe it there had been no place left for his ridiculous Raillery But his constant Method is this he endeavours to put you out of conceit with Tradition by concealing every thing that might give you a true Conceit what Tradition is and what we mean by it § 14. The Argument or Instance he brings to prove that the Authority of Tradition was mightily sunk in the Second Century is if possible ten thousand times worse One would verily think from those big words he would prove that All the Christians of the First Age had conspir'd to tell a Ly to the Second concerning Christ's Doctrin But this mountainous Expectation came off with a poor little mouse the relation of one single man Papias of what an Apostle had told him which he being a good honest Soul gain'd credit with diverse Tho' as for his wit Dr. St's Author Eusebius tells us he was a man of a mean capacity and scarce understood the meaning of what was spoken I wonder the Dr. blush't not to put such a Slur upon his Auditory as to compare the Publick Authority of the whole Christian World and the Universal Testimony of God's Church to the private story of one weak man or to pretend hence that if he were mistaken the Authority of Tradition mightily sinks and fails whereas 't is only his own Credit that falls into that disaster by making such a senseless Argument Yet this is the best and as far as I can find the only one he has brought to prove directly the First Age of Christians had bely'd Christ's Doctrin to the Second and that because one man of a mean Capacity mistook we may stand in doubt of our Assurance whether all the Learneder Faithfull nay all the Pastours and Bishops in the Church had Capacity enough to know an open matter of Fact viz. what had been taught and practis'd publickly every day by a World of Fore-fathers or the Integrity not to deceive us § 15. Of the same stamp is his alledging that St. Luke's reason why he writ his Gospel was to give Theophilus Certainty of those things wherein he had been instructed The Subject of our Enquiry is about the High Points of Christian Belief Does the Dr. think then that Theophilus was not a Christian or had no Certain Knowledg of his Faith ere St. Luke writ Or that the Apostles did not instruct people in those Main Articles Or that St. Luke's Writing those Points in short for those Points we speak of take up a very inconsiderable part of his Gospel could make him know it better and with more Certainty than their Preaching it at large With what Sense can any of this be pretended The Apostles did Miracles to attest their Doctrin Did St. Luke do any to attest the True Sense of all he writ in those Points Again what did his Gospel contain Only those Dogmatical Points controverted from time to time between the Sons of the Church and her Deserters of which and none but which we speak Alas these are the least part of his Gospel and make but a small appearance in it He relates our Saviour's Genealogy Temptation Fasting Miracles Parables his sending his Apostles and Disciples his Exhortations to Repentance and good Life the Manner of his Entring into Ierusalem his Instituting the Last Supper the particulars of his being apprehended accus'd condemn'd and Crucify'd Lastly his Burial Resurrection Apparitions and Ascension These are laid out in that Gospel at large together with many excellent sayings of our Blessed Saviour related verbatim And These as they were never pretended by us to be the Object of Tradition so tho' spoken of frequently and perhaps variously amongst Christians were Impossible ever to be perfectly remember'd by the Generality unless put in a Book and therefore St. Luke gives Theophilus and others the Certain and particular knowledge of all these Passages by Writing And Dr. St. confesses the same p. 17. and that his aym and Intention was to give an Account of the Life and Actions of Christ but not a word that his Writing was to give Theophilus Certainty or a Clearer Knowledge of those Main Articles to ascertain which Tradition is pretended by us to be the most proper Means § 16. Now let 's see how many notorious prevarications and faults he has fallen into in this one Instance 1. Our whole Controversy is about the Certainty of those sublime Points of Christian Faith which he conceals and confounds them with a multitude of particular Passages 2. He intimates our Tradition is to ascertain all that 's contain'd in St. Luke's Gospel Whereas he knows well we rely upon no Tradition but what 's in some degree Practical which those Particulars are not unless it be those of which we keep Anniversary Solemnities 3. He is so angry at Tradition that he pretends the very Oral Tradition or Preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles needed something to strengthen and confirm it Lastly he makes our Tradition to begin with the first Preaching of the Apostles whereas it dates it 's Original from the first Age of Christianity already perfectly instructed by them during all their Lives and settled into Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline at their Decease § 17. He seems at length to come neerer the Point and affirms That the Writings of the Apostles when Matters of Doctrin came to be contested were the Infallible Rule whereby they were to judge which was the true and genuin Doctrin of Christ and which is yet better that They were intended by the Holy Ghost to be a standing Rule whereby the Church was to judge which was the true and genuin Doctrine of Christ. I am glad with all my heart to hear him speak of the Church being a Judge of Controversies or that he allows Her any hand in ascertaining and proposing Faith. I ever understood him hitherto That every sober Enquirer was to judge of the sense of Scripture for himself That it was plain to him even in the highest Points and that if in any contested or dubious Articles the Letter of Scripture did not declare it explicitly his sober Enquirer could by parity of Reason render any Implicit Point Explicit without the Church's Help tho' this was the most difficult Task as to the penetrating the Sense of Scripture that is possible and far beyond the understanding what 's there Explicitly He told us too in his second Letter p. 31 32. that because there is no Infallible Iudge every man is to Iudge for himself and this by Scripture his Rule But here the case is alter'd and the Church is to judge of Christ's Doctrin by Scripture I can allow honest Retractions without upbraiding them and am contented that the Church should judge by Scripture both when
She is to Edify Her Children and in contests with Hereticks as to all those Points contain'd there and I think the only difficulty in that particular is By what means She came to be Absolutely-Certain of it's Sense Let him add then but one word more and say that by the Letter of Scripture She so judg'd of Faith that She could not be in an Errour or mistaken all the while and then Christian Faith is Absolutely-Certain and my greatest care is over And if he does not That what is the future Church after the Apostles Deaths the better for Scripture's being an Infallible Rule if She and Her Children partake not the Benefit of that Infallibility some way or other by being perfectly secur'd from Erring in Faith Is it not all one as to the intent of knowing assuredly we have the Faith taught by Christ whether we have an Infallible Rule or no if when we have done our best we may still stray from Her Faith Or why is not a Rule that is not Absolutely-Certain so I have Absolute Certainty I am directed by it as good for that purpose as an Absolutely-Certain Rule with no Absolute Certainty that I do indeed go according to it To speak to his proposition Whether the Church and the Faithful in Contests with Hereticks avail'd Her self of Scripture's Letter to gain Absolute-Certainty of it's Sense in those main Tenets or brought the Sense which She had another way along with her shall be decided if he pleases by St. Austin whom he cites here p. 16. § 18. He will prove Scripture a Rule from the general Reason of it's Writing and prove this general Reason from a Testimony of Irenaeus which speaks of the Gospel as abstracted from being Preach't and Written and who doubts but as such it is infallibly true He seems to build much upon the Words That it might be a Foundation and Pillar of our Faith. Be it what it will in it self the Point is How does it Build Faith in us By it 's meer Letter descanted upon by private Iudgments or interpreted by the Church The Later he denies the Former all our most earnest Pressing and Intreating could never bring him nor his Reflecter to go about to make out and he wayes it totally through this whole Sermon Let him then but shew that he has Absolute-Certainty of Scripture's Sense in those Tenets of Christian-Faith by any Method his Principles will allow him and his Sermon should have past for me without Controul That 's the main Point whereas all here is quite besides it As for those Words from S. Irenaeus he could have quoted the very same words in a manner from a better Author even the Holy Scripture calling the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth but that he lik't not the Application of them to the Church It seems he can neglect his Rule and make no more reckoning of it than he did of the Oral Tradition or Preaching of the Apostles when it stands in his way of comes cross to his purpose § 19. It has been manifested above that his Discourses from the writing of the Gospels and Epistles are all guilty of the same Fault and Antedate our Tradition and his Inferences thence as levell'd against our Tenet are weaker than Water He makes Tradition any thing what he pleases and will have it do every thing tho' it was never intended for it nor ever pretended by us it was able to do it One while it must bring down the Decrees of Councils Another while it must convey long Disputes about divers Points and the resolution of them and this Totidem Verbis otherwise the Apostles Sense might have been lost It must secure people from being remov'd from Christ's Gospel to another whereas no man ever held that the Galatians were remov'd from Christ's Gospel by following even the particular Tradition or Preaching of that Apostle nor that any particular Men nay Churches might not be remov'd from it even into Heathenism or Iudaism if they deserted it He expects too it should secure men from danger of being Deceiv'd whereas supposing them once well-Instructed in Faith and 't is suppos'd to our Tradition the Church was so 't is self-evident they can never be deceiv'd while they hold to that Certain Rule because that is to hold the same they were instructed in at first But if all were not well instructed at first as 't is impossible they should then they might be deceiv'd either by deserting Tradition or even by holding to such a Tradition if for want of perfect Instruction in that raw and unsettled state of Christianity that which they held at first was not perfectly Christ's Doctrine Nay he would have it keep even Hereticks from Defection Hypocrisie Lying and Deceiving which were a rare Tradition indeed to do such Kindnesses and work such good Effects upon those who had deserted it and would not make use of it at least he would have it keep People from Weakness and Folly which the Common Assistances of Nature and Grace will do after the Generality is well settled in that Doctrine For when all the Question is What the Apostles preach't 't is a Madness and Folly both to believe some few men before the Universal Testimony of the Christian Church But he will have Tradition still do all the Mischiefs imaginable and Writing do all the Good forgetting I suppose that there are some things in St. Paul's Writings which the Vnlearned and Vnstable wrest as they do also the other Scriptures to their own destruction All this while What is this to the Tradition we assert which begun afterwards § 20. From these impertinent Premises he infers as impertinent a Conclusion viz. That what was deliver'd in Scripture contains a compleat Rule of the true and genuin Faith as it was at first deliver'd to the Church Now that what 's signify'd by Scripture is the same the Apostles signify'd by their Preaching is plain Sense and never deny'd and so he needed not have made all this clutter to prove it But plain sense will do him no service whose best play 't is to blunder and confound every thing let us see then what it is that will. His first words What they have therein delivered can mean nothing but the Sense of Scripture for that is the thing signify'd or deliver'd by the Letter and both sides confess that the Sense of Scripture is Christ's Faith. If then we spell his Words together they plainly amount to this That Christ's Faith contains a compleat Rule of the true and genuin Faith as it was deliver'd at first to the Church that is Faith it self contains a compleat Rule to it's self Make sence of this who can The best I can make of it is That the Conclusion keeps decorum with the Premises and that he has mighty well imploy'd his Labour to keep such a huge Pother to infer such a worthy Point § 21. I have nothing
therefore whatever often happens through the Imperfection of Creatures such an Irrational Assent could never have been intended by God. Whence as it belongs to Infinite Goodness to give those who sincerely seek for Truth the Grace to embrace it so it belongs to infinite Wisdom to lay such means to arrive at Truth that is in our case such a Rule of Faith as both evince it 's Truth to those who are capable according to the most exact Methods of True Reason and withal perfectly secure those from Errour who follow that Rule let them be as Weak as they will. If then we are bound to embrace Christian Faith as a Truth and profess it to be so it must be indeed such and therefore the Grounds left us by God must be of that nature as to prove or conclude it to be such and if Dr. St. have no such Grounds that what he holds is really Christ's Doctrin he ought not to handle or preach Controversie since he must necessarily disgrace and weaken Christian Faith when he is to credit and establish it Nay he ought not to pretend he has that most firm and most strongly-supported Assent call'd Faith which depends necessarily on the Certainty that it was taught by Christ but candidly yield he has Opinion only in that Point not an Vnalterable Belief it is True but only a good Conceit or Hope that it is so or may be so Too weak a Prop to sustain it's Truth as it leans on Christ or his Apostles having taught it or to settle the Basis of all our Spiritual Life § 28. And now let 's apply this Discourse to his Ground or Rule by means of which he is to be thus assur'd or able to assure You of the Truth of those Controverted Points which you hear so warmly disputed in the world and which it so much imports you to be satisfy'd in 'T is Scripture's Letter in Texts that are thought to relate to those Points as understood or interpreted by Himself or any other Private Judgment What he has then to do is to make out with Absolute Certainty that this Method of arriving at the Knowledge of Christ's True Doctrin as to those Points cannot be Deceitful and Erroneous Otherwise 't is unavoidable his Faith and all Christian Faith no better grounded may be False and by consequence is not True. He will tell you Twenty fine Stories and give you many pretty words of it's being Sufficiently Certain Morally Certain that it has such Assurance as men accept for other matters c. But ask him smartly and closely if any of these Certainties or Assurances are Impossible to be False and he must not nor will deny it for should he say it he must pretend he could not be deceiv'd in his understanding those Texts right which he could not do without professing Infallibility in that particular Observe I beseech you where the stress of the whole Question lyes 'T is in this Whether this Ground or Method of his to be assur'd of Faith is able to prove it to have been truly and indeed taught by Christ so as it was not possible it should be otherwise By this Test if you examin the very good-Grounds for the Certainty of his Protestant Faith which he promises you here in his Preface you will find evidently he only gives you very good Words instead of very good Grounds and that whatever he produces whether he quotes or argues he will never vouch them to be so Certain but Deceit and Errour may possibly consist with them He will complain that 't is an unreasonable expectation because the nature of the things will not bear it And what 's this but to tell you in other terms that there neither is any Absolute Certainty of Faith nor can be any which bids fair for Atheism unless Interest satisfies the Will and by it the Reason By his speaking there of the main Points in Controversie between us I perceive he is running from the whole business in hand and seeking to shelter himself and hide his Head in a Wilderness But he shall not shift the Question thus and fall to ramble into endless Disputes Himself confest Second Letter p. 20. our Question was about the General Grounds of our Faith and not the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrin and I joyn'd issue with him upon the same To run to particular points while That 's a settling is to put the Conclusions before the Premises and to go about to ascertain things depending intirely on a Method or Rule without ascertaining that Method or Rule first is to begin at the wrong end and make the Cart draw the Horse § 29. I owe him yet an Answer to St. Austin He alledges that Father p. 16. whose Testimony says only That the Gospels are to be look't upon as Christ's own Hand-writing and that he directed the order and manner of the Evangelist's Writing which only signifies they were divinely inspir'd in both which none denies nor has This any Influence upon the Point in hand He could have quoted you other places out of Him if he had pleas'd which come up to it fully and I shall supply his backwardness with doing it my self Quaerendi dubitatio c. says that Learned and Holy Father The Doubt of Enquiry ought not to exceed the Bounds of Catholick Faith. And because many Hereticks use to draw the Exposition of the Divine Scriptures to their own Opinion which is against the Faith of the Catholick Disciplin therefore Ante tractationem hujus Libri Catholica Fides explicanda est Before the handling this Book the Catholick Faith is to be explained Where Dr. St's Sober Enquirer is curb'd and restrain'd in his licentious Search of his Faith in Scripture by the Catholick Faith had it seems some other way for were his Faith to be had meerly by searching Scripture for it with what sense ought he to be restrain'd while he was in the Way to Faith To restrain one who is in the right Way is to hinder him from going right or perhaps to put him out of his Way Again Tho' those Heretical Opinions were both against the true Sense of Scripture and against Tradition too yet had he held Scripture the Rule he should rather have said they were against the true signification of Scripture's Letter than against the Faith of the Catholick Discipline Besides if Catholick Faith was to be explain'd before they came to handle Scripture how was Scripture the Rule for all to come to Faith when as Faith was to be had nay well understood by the Explanation of it antecedently lest they might otherwise fall into Heresie And in another place speaking of a false Pointing of the Letter made by the Arians to abet their Heresie he confutes them thus Sed hoc But this is to be refuted by the Rule of Faith by which we are instructed before-hand in the Equality of the Trinity Had this Rule of Faith been held by him to
Indirect Tricks and Stratagems to avoid the force of Truth and which of us candidly pursues it and let them after a mutuall protestation upon their Honours that they will pass an Impartial Verdict give under their Hands the particulars in which each of us have notoriously fail'd or falter'd I mean that such Faults whether of Commission or Omission should be noted as may appear to be wilfully disingenuous or affectedly Insincere and not meerly Humane Oversights This fair and Equal Offer Gentlemen will exceedingly conduce to your and all our Readers Satisfaction and Dr St's accepting it is the only way to do right to his Credit which stands impeacht of using such unworthy Methods And your pressing him to it will be both a Iustification of your Friendship and Esteem for him and be also received as a very great favour by Your Friend and Servant in Christ J. S. ERRATA PAge 8. r. unconsonantly P. 23. l. 15. nor did p. 28. l. 2. of the Approvers p. 36. l. 34. can be competent p. 64. l. 22. thence embrace p. 68. l. 21. Câ—rinthians p. 70. l. 27. disparate p. 101. l. 33. may as much p. 102. l. 1. them not to p. 106. l. 29.30 is got p. 108. l. 1. not at all p. 112. l. 1. so plain and easy p. 115. l. 13. recurr to Ibid l. ult Censures p. 127. l. 3â— any Decree p. 12â— l. 13.14 may seem p. 140. l. 2. following it then p. 150. l. 18. Argument good p. 152. l. 23. stand yet in p. 156. l. 19. shewing it p. 166. l. 7. of my words p. 169. in the Margent See above p. 126. Introduction 1. IN his Preamble Dr. St. according to his usual way of confuting quarrels every word he meets with and gives every circumstance an invidious turn This looks brisk but how weak and flat he is in his Arguments shall be seen hereafter In the mean time the dimmest Eye may discern how Impertinent this is to our Dispute and to the Certainty of his Grounds of Faith nay to his own Title-page I am sorry to see him so much out of humour as to run against and strike at every thing near him tho' it lay not in his way But sinking men when their case is desperate must catch at straws having no firmer support at hand to keep them from drowning First He wonders why Mr. G. did not defend his own cause himself He was at that very time call'd upon to attend his Majesties Service and it was a Duty owing to Truth and our Sovereign as well as Charity and Friendship to him that some body should step in to supply for him 2 ly Why must J. S. be the man Because it was desir'd of him and he was besides prest to it by many Judicious Persons as one who had in their Opinion and by the Dr's own tacit Confession by his silence for 15 years unanswerably overthrown his Principles in Error Non-plust and besides he was injur'd provok'd and in a manner Challeng'd by him in his Second Letter by his quoting and abetting Haeresis Blacloana which was writ designedly against Him and by pretending the way of Controversy he follow'd was Pelagainism Now it belong'd properly to I. S. to clear this by his own Pen and whatever the Dr's Intention was I am to thank him he has put a force upon me to Vindicate my self in English which I have done in two Latin Treatises above ten years ago to the Satisfaction of my Judges and Superiors and the farther Illustration and Abetment of what I had written in my former Books 3 ly He quarrels the Titles of my Catholick Letters and that no one Church of the Christian World ever own'd it And does he in his great Learning think the Church is to Own or prescribe every one their particular Methods of handling Controversy All she is to do is to deliver to us Christ's Doctrine and then leave it to the Learning of her Controvertists to take such Methods to defend it as best sutes with their Circumstances and the Exigencies of the Persons they are to treat with Are all the Principles Dr. St. laid Is all his Discourse at the Conference with Mr. G Is his avow'd Position that every Sober Enquirer may without the Churches help find out all necessary Points of Faith own'd by any one Catholick Church I know not what that Great Conventicle of Geneva may do or what the new one that is now erecting here by the Triumvirate of the Church of England's Reformers mentioned in the scurrilous Reply to the Bishop of Oxford may do in time when they haue brought about their Projects but I am confident he shall never find any one Catholick Church that ever own'd diverse of his Principles and that Position 4 ly But why did I not call those Letters Roman-Catholick but Catholick He tells the Reader with much assuredness I durst not do so because I had not forgotten how hardly I had lately escaped Censure at Rome Now another man whose Reason was free and undisturb'd would think I should rather have done this in Gratitude to their allowing and accepting my Defence upon such honourable terms as a kind Admonition that mindfull of the Apostles words I am a Debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians both to the Wise and to the Unwise I would explain my self as to some passages which were somewhat obscure from the ambiguity of a word My true reason if he will needs have it was because Dr. St's private-spirited Rule was Common to all Hereticks and the Rule I defended was quite opposite to it and therefore Catholick and this even in the sense of many Eminent Protestants who pretend to Universal Tradition as the Rule to ascertain their Interpretations of Scripture to whom the name of Roman is not so agreeable 2. The Dr. will still be leaving the road-way of the Question tho' which I am sorry to see he runs himself into the Bryars most wofully So he tells the Reader I ought to have let him alone and not have writ against him because I have done next to nothing for my self and seem to have forgotten the Answer to my Sure-footing meaning Dr. Tillotson's Rule of Faith. Yes quite forgotten it without doubt About two Months after that Answer came out I publish'd my Letter of Thanks In which I laid open how he had mistaken still the main point in Controversy how he had willfully perverted my Sense all along and falsify'd my Words in many places nay inserted some of his own and then impugn'd what himself had disingenuously added I defended my Testimonies and reply'd to the most concerning passages Then observing that his whole Answer proceeded on a False Ground viz. That there was no Rule of Faith but what left it under the Scandalous ignominy of being perhaps False that is indeed no Rule at all therefore to stubb-up his shallow-rooted work from its Foundations I writ
but that 's all for he allows none to be Absolutely Certain of the Sense of Scripture but only of the Letter He proceeds after a strange rate and talks of Opinions doubtfull and Obscure places but avoids still to come up to those High Points of Faith particularly those of a Trinity and Christ's Godhead in which he knows I instanc't Then he blames my Logick for not distinguishing between the Rule of Faith and the Help to understand it And my Logick remembers its respects to his no Logick and sends him back word that since an Intellectual Rule to such a thing is an Immediate Light or Means to know that thing as his Friend Dr. T. has told him Rule of Faith p. 40. and is purposely fram'd to give us that Knowledge nay Essentially Ordain'd to that End 't is a Contradiction to say it needs another thing to lend it Clearness in order to give us Christ's Sense for then this other thing would be clearer than It as to that particular Effect and so This not the Other would be the true Rule of Faith. Yet he will needs prove this Contradiction True and that it may be a Rule and yet not have Power to regulate without the help of another And by what Argument will he prove it Oh he can prove things by better means than Arguments He has an Instance still at hand either when he is prest too close with anothers Arguments or wants one of his own These Instances are good Serviceable drudges and are ever ready to do all his Jobbs and yet I doubt his Instance brought to prove a Contradiction must it self be of the same Chimericall Family Let 's see 't is this that a Nurse teaches Children to Spell and read the New Testament so by degrees to understand Christ's Doctrin and yet the Faith of those persons is not resolv'd into this Help of the Nurse's Teaching but into the New Testament it self as the Ground of their Faith. I must confess I extreamly admire at this Drs Confidence and no less at his Imprudence that he does not rather not write at all then perpetually put such shams as these upon his Reader Are we speaking of all remote helps whatsoever or are we speaking only of a Help for the Rule to do its Proper Effect which is to give us Christ's Sense or our Faith God and Nature has helpt us with a Rational Being Eyes and Brains Conversation or Masters have helpt us with skill in the Language in which the Letter of Scripture is deliver'd and Tradition has helpt us with the Right Books and Copy of Scripture Do any of these concern our present enquiry Are not these all presuppos'd to his Rule The only Question is what help is necessary to give his Rule the rest being all presuppos'd the Power to regulate us in knowing the Sense of that Book or our Faith as to those Spiritual and most Important Articles To do this being the Proper Effect of his Rule and a Thing not being what it should be or is pretended to be unless it have a power in its self to do its Proper Effect since it 's Essence was ordain'd for it hence I affirm it must need no help to do this but must have it of it self and therefore if Scripture's Letters have not of it self Clearness enough to give those who are coming to Faith the requisite Certainty or knowledge of what 's its true Sense in those Dogmaticall Points 't is no Rule of Faith. This is the only Point and therefore must only be omitted what 's this to a Nurse's Teaching to read Or what 's her Teaching to the Immediate and Certain Light to know Christs Sense in those Main Articles His Friend Dr. T. goes by chance a little more consonantly and confesses the substance of this discourse of mine by allowing that the Letter of Scripture must be Sufficiently Plain even in those High Points I mention Rule of Faith p. 86.87 But it seems that upon second thoughts fearing to be pinch't hard upon that point they have since that time chang'd their measures 50. Put case then one of Dr. St's Flock should say to him Doctor this very Rule you bid me follow to my best Iudgment tells me you have err'd in holding the true Godhead of Christ nay suppose he should say the same to the whole Church of England what could He or that Church either say to such a man according to his Principles They can only propose and direct and that 's the utmost they ought to do and if he likes not their Proposal Direction they ought to let him alone nay commend him for sticking so close to his Rule as he understands it without fearing the face of Man. For 't is the greatest Injustice and Tyranny in the world to punish a man Temporally or which is worse by Ecclesiastical Censures for following sincerely this Rule of Faith. Besides who can tell but this man is better stock't with Dr. St's Morall Qualifications and Inward Light than his Judges and Pastours are And then to vex such a Saint is to fight against God And therefore the Scabb'd Sheep must be let alone to run astray or infect the Flock let the Church her Government go where they will. Now who sees not that these Principles must shatter the Church in pieces fill her with a multitude of Bedlam Sects and utterly overthrow Church-Government But what would I. S. do with such a man Why first I would endeavour to dispossess him of that Luciferian Spirit of Pride which such wicked Principles have tainted him with and win him to a rational Humility by representing how all Mankind in their several affairs seek out one more skill'd than themselves and use their best reason in pitching upon him and then trusting him in things themselves are Ignorant in I would shew him how the Order of the World the Commands of God and his known Duty do all oblige him to believe the Church in such matters rather than his own Private Interpretations I would endeavour to shew him that the Preservation of these necessary Orders engages God's Providence to assist his Church and keep her from Erring in Faith rather then private Men. I would show him that since the only thing he doubts of is to know what Christ taught that God has left some Way to make us sure of his true Doctrin he must first find out such a Way that if men follow'd it would secure them from Errour in that particular Nor would it be hard to demonstrate to him that Tradition is such a way and that Scripture's Letter interpretable by private Judgment is not that way I would shew him how impossible 't is the Body of the Church should have unanimously deserted that Way And amongst other things I would inform him how weakly Dr St. had defended his Own Rule and impugn'd ours and lastly how he and others who follow'd another way have been forc't to grant
Minds of Intellectuall Beings whereas it was only in Words Written as in a Sign that is no more properly than Wine was in a Bush and that therefore the former had incomparably Better Title to be the Purse if no Metaphor else would serve his turn but such an odd one at least it ought not to have been quite set aside But the Dr. without troubling himself much to mind what any body says but himself by which Method of Answering he has left above forty parts for one of my several Discourses unanswer'd will needs have Scripture to be the only Purse Containing Faith shall be enough for His purpose Ay that it shall tho' it be to No purpose And so he tells us that If all the Doctrin of Christ be there we must be Certain we have all if we have the Scripture that contains all And I tell him what common Sense tells all Mankind that a man may have all Aristotles works which contain all his Doctrin and yet not know or have one Tittle of his Doctrin Nor by consequence has the Dr. one jot of Christ's Doctrin by having meerly the Book that contains it Shall we never have done with this ridiculous and palpable Nonsense How often has it been prov'd against him in my Catholick Letters that the having a Book which contains All Faith as in a Sign for words are no more argues not his having any Faith at all unless he knows the Signification of that Sign Let 's examin then the meaning of the word have A Trunk has the Book of Scripture when that Book is laid up in it and that Book contains all Faith and so that Trunk may by his Logick have all Faith. Dr. St has the same Book and by having it has according to him all Faith too I ask Has he all Faith by having the Book any other way then the senseless Trunk has it If he Has then he has it in his Intellectuall Faculty as a Knowing Creature should have it and if so he knows it that is he knows the Sense of it as to determinate Points in it for All Christ's Faith consists of those determinate Points But he still waves his having Knowledge of determinate Points and talks still of Faith only as contain'd in Scripture in the lump and 't is in the lump in the Book too lying in the Trunk whence abstracting from his Knowledge of the particulars of Faith the wooden Trunk has all Faith as much as He. He 'l say he believes implicitly all that 's contain'd in Scripture whether he knows the Particular Points or no But is not this to profess he believes he knows not what Or is Implicit Belief of all in the Book Saving Faith when 't is the vertue of the Particular Points apply'd to the Soul 's Knowing Power and thence affecting and moving her which is the Means of Salvation He tells us indeed for he must still cast in some good words that he pretends not 't is enough for Persons to say their Faith is in such a Book but Now did I verily think that the Adversative Particular But would have been follow'd with they must be sure 't is in it But this would have made too good Sense and have been too much to the Point His but only brings in a few of his Customary lukewarm Words which are to no purpose viz. that they ought to read and search and actually believe whatever they find in that Book He means whatever they fancy they have found in it for he gives neither his Reader nor them any Security but that after their Reading and Searching they may still believe wrong He skips over that Consideration as not worthy or else as too hard to be made out and runs to talk of things Necessary and not Necessary I wish he would once in his life speak out and tell us how many Points are Necessary for the Generality of the Faithfull and whether God's dying for their Sins be one and then satisfy the World that the Socinians who deny that Point do not read search and actually believe what their Judgment of Discretion tells them is the Sense of Scripture and yet notwithstanding all this do actually believe a most damnable Heresy But still he says if a man reads and considers Scripture as he ought and pray for Wisdom he shall not miss of knowing all things necessary for his Salvation So that unless we know that he and his Party do pray for Wisdom and not pray amiss and consider Scripture as they ought none can be Certain by his own Grounds that He and his good Folks have any Faith at all or that their Rule directs them right He would make a rare Converter of Unbelievers to Christ's Doctrin who instead of bringing any Argument to prove that what his Church believes is truly such tells them very sadly and soberly He has right Knowledge of it and is sure of it because he has consider'd Scripture as he ought and begg'd Wisdom of God. But if this sincere Seeker hap to reflect that these pretences are things he can never come to know and that Socinians and all other Sects equally profess to consider Scripture as they ought and to pray for Wisdom too and yet all contradict one another he must if he have Wit in him and light upon no better Controvertists think Christians a company of Fops who can shew him no assured Ground of Faith but such a blind one as 't is impossible for him to see and would have him believe that That is a Certain Means for him to arrive at Christ's Faith which every side as far as he can discern do equally make use of and yet are in perpetual variance and Contention with one another about it So that our Doctor got deep into his old Fanaticism again and which is yet something worse would have pure Nonsense pass for a Principle to secure men of the Truth of the Points of Faith we believe and be taken for a good Argument in Controversy Certainly never was weaker Writer or else a Weaker Cause 60. I am glad he confesses that a Rule of Faith must be Plain and Easy and that otherwise it could not be a Rule of Faith for all Persons Let him then apply this to the Dogmatical Points which are only in Question and shew it thus Easy to all Persons in those Texts that contain those Articles and his Work is at an End. But alas that Work tho' 't is his only Task is not yet begun nor for any thing appears ever Will. For 't is a desperate Undertaking to go about to confute daily experience What new Stratagem must be invented then to avoid it Why he must slip the true Point again and alter it to an Enquiry Whether the Scriptures were left only to the Church to interpret it to the People in all Points or whether it were intended for the General Good of the Church so as to direct themselves in their Way
to Heaven and consequently whether it may not be open'd and understood by all Persons in Matters that are necessary for their Salvation What a rambling what a clutter of Questions is here when he knows and it has been repeated near a hundred a times over that our only Question is whether the Letter of Scripture be intelligible by all sorts coming to Faith in those Revealed Articles which are properly Christian with such a Certainty as is fit to build Faith upon But this is one main part of his Confuting Talent to throw in twenty Questions so none of them be the right one However tho' he 'll not keep the Way he 'll triumph unless we follow him out of the Way To his Questions then I answer 1. That none but Madmen ever thought or said that the Church was to interpret it as obscure to the People in All Points For ordinary Moral passages such as the Ten Commandments are plain enough of themselves Why did he not Instance in the Trinity the Godhead of Christ and such like which and only which we say are Obscure Because that had been to speak to our purpose and he thought it safer for him to suggest other matters which were not all to purpose 2. They were intended for the General Good of the Church to direct them in their Lives and so in their Way to Heaven and to that end are freely read by all that can understand Latin and might likely have continued permitted to all even of the most vulgar capacities had not men of his Principles made them think themselves when they had got a Bible in their hands wiser than the whole Church Whence they came to wrest them to their own Destruction and therefore it being now not for the General Good of such proud Fools the Church took care they should not be promiscuously allow'd to all tho' indulg'd to many even in the Vulgar Tongue and explain'd and preach't to All by their Pastours Lastly None knows distinctly what he means by Matters necessary to Salvation He should mean such as those sublime Points so often repeated but then he must make out such passages can be understood by all Persons looking after Faith with unerring Certainty to secure their Faith from being so many Falshoods or Heresies But he was not able to do this tho' he pretended the Rule for all persons must be plain and Easy As far as I can guess by a man's words whose whole Discourse is made up of Reserves he mistakes the Rule of Manners for the Rule of Faith and thus meant 't is indeed plain and Easy but as 't is such 't is nothing to the Question in debate which is of Christian Faith so 't is nothing to our purpose I but Bellarmin says Scripture is a Rule and that a Certain and Infallible one But when it comes to the proof he speaks only of the Old Testament and this as to the Law Testimonies or Commandments which are easily intelligible as being either Levitical Ordinances or Moral Precepts I but Christ proves his Doctrin by the Scripture and confutes the Sadduces from them Well give us such an Interpreter of Scripture as Christ was and we shall not doubt but they will prove his Doctrin and confute all the Hereticks in the World. His referring the Pharisees to Scripture was ad hominem for they allow'd the Scriptures yet would not believe his Miracles Tho' sure Dr St. will not say but Christs Miracles were in their own Nature more convincing Arguments than Interpretations of Scripture made or allow'd by the Pharisees But what 's all this to our purposes I gave three senses of the word Rule in my Third Catholick Letter and shew'd him in which of those Senses it was and could only be call'd a Rule in our circumstances But I might as well have spoke to a deaf man He must either counterfeit he never heard of it or he saw he must be baffled Common Words are his constant refuge and to speak distinctly exposes him to be Nonplust His Friend Dr Tillotson maintains that a Rule of Faith is the next and immediate Means whereby the Knowledge of Christ's Doctrin is convey'd to us Does he pretend that Learned Cardinal holds Scriptures Letter to be such a Rule for all People coming to Christian Faith to know certainly its sense in these High Mysteries without the Churches Interpretation The Dr knows he abhorrs the Tenet as the source of all Heresy Yet he quotes him on to say that Nihil est notius Nihil est Certius nothing is more known nothing more Certain than the Scripture and immediately applies it against me for saying that the Sense of it as to the Understanding the Mysteries of our Faith was not easy to be got out of the Letter But where 's his Sincerity Not a syllable has Bellarmin of Scriptures being so known as to its Sense nor any thing that looks that way He speaks only of the Canon or Books being most known by the Consent of all Nations who for so many Ages acknowledg'd its highest Authority and that it is most Certain and True in its self as not containing Humane Inventions but Divine Oracles So that our Learned Dr is exceedingly brisk when he gets the Sound of any word on his side no matter whether the sense be for him or against him If he can but gull his Reader dextrously his work is done For a Transition to treat of a Rule he tells the Reader that I have spent Twenty Years hard Labour about it I have indeed Employ'd some years and much pains in writing severall Treatises to settle Christian Faith as to our knowledge of it on a Sure Basis which he and his Co-Partners are still Vndermining and I glory in the Performance In return I will not tell the Dr that Mr Lowth says he spent a longer time that is full Five and Twenty years in a worse Employment I shall only say that I have through God's Blessing in less then two Months time writ a little Treatise against his Principles called Errour Nonplust which he has been fifteen years in answering and all his Quirks will never enable him to give it even a plausible Reply in fifteen more 61. And now we are come to scan the Nature of a Rule Which being a Point to be manag'd meerly by Reason the Reader must expect that one of us must necessarily speak perfect Nonsense For however both sides may talk prettily plausibly when the bus'ness is handled in a Wordish way of Glossing Citations such knacks of Superficial knowledge where the waxen ambiguous expressions may be made pliable to the Writers Fancy yet the Natures of Things will not brook they should be Injur'd but will Revenge themselves upon him that wrongs them by exposing him to the shame of speaking perfect Contradictions I alledg'd that the word Rule speaks Rectitude and that such an Evident one as preserves those who regulate
Letter or Right Sense of Scripture or that no Book is lost c. and so there 's an End of his Problematical Faith. I must confess that to prove First Principles False is something difficult but I have reduc't the business to as narrow a compass as I can that he may make short work of it He recurrs at present for want of some Clear Proof to Gods Providence concern'd in preserving Books written by Divine Inspiration Of which none doubts But why should not God's Providence be as much concern'd in preserving his Church from Erring in Faith that so both all those Books their Letters and Sense might be kept right as far as was Necessary Or why was God's Providence the Less for making the Churches Care and Help the Means to preserve both the Books and Letter of Scripture from suffering detriment Lastly why must his Providence be confin'd to only Translaters and Transcribers 68. Dr St. in his second Letter to Mr. G. p. 32. made the Canon of the New Testament the Rule of his Faith. To show the Inconsistency of his Tenets and utterly overthrow his Pretence of that Rule I alledg'd that If the whole Canon be his Rule then his Rule was deficient for some hundreds of years till the whole Canon was Collected and Acknowledg'd I prest farther that since it must take up some time e're those severall Books were Spread and accepted sometimes the Primitive Church had according to his Principles but Three quarters of their Faith Half of their Faith or less and so were but Three-quarters or Half-Christians according as the several pieces came by degrees to be Vniversally accepted For no man of Sense can doubt but that it cost some time e're the Churches so diffus'd heard of all those Books and much more e're they could be perfectly satisfy'd of the Universal Testimony of the Church Ascertaining them to have been writ by men Divinely inspir'd in regard it was of most Dangerous Consequence to accept that for Gods Word which was not beyond all doubt such So that we may with reason imagin that some Churches had at first but Two or Three Books of Scripture others but Four or Five that were well attested or could be rely'd on in such a High Concern Add that there were divers false Gospells and Spacious Books given out under the names of having the Apostles or Apostolical Men for their Authors which must have redoubled their care and made them backward to receive any that were not Authentick which would take up still more time to examin thoroughly To press my Argument still more home I urg'd that perhaps according to him they had no Faith at all during that long Interval because wanting other Books or sufficient warrant to rely on them they by consequence wanted a Multitude of other Texts with which they might Compare those they already had which is one part of his Method to find true Faith in Scripture To show more the Inconsonancy of his Doctrine I noted that notwithstanding all this he declar'd that he lookt upon the Primitive Church tho' so ill furnish't with his Rule as on the Best Arbitrator between us in all our Controversies about the Sense of the doubtfull that is Controverted places of Scripture Now one would verily think this pressing Discourse following the Point in Question so Close and pursuing it so Home were exceedingly worth his while to Answer if he could since it toucht his Rule and his Cause to the quick Now le ts see what he says in their Defence The Substance of his Answer for all the rest is impertinent is a most doughty and most weighty word If If God says he hath so Abundantly provided for his Church that there may be a full Revelation of all Points of Faith in the rest then the disputing the Authority of such an Epistle meaning that to the Hebrews doth not derogate from the Compleatness of the Rule of Faith. What 's become of his Sincerity and Morall Honesty which he so profest to Love Did I speak of the Epistle to the Hebrews Did not I not only speak of but most Expressly discourse all along of those many or most Books of Scripture not Universally known and accepted at the very first but by degrees spreading and gaining in Process of Time the Credit of being Authentick Does not my Discourse that by his Principles The Primitive Church had but Three quarters of her Faith half her Faith or less barr this Shamming Pretence that I speak only of that Epistle Or does he think I meant that that single Epistle was half or three quarters of the Canon of Scripture And now Reader I beg thy leave to insist here upon this Prevarication as an instance of one great Part of his Method in Confuting He picks out a word or two which may best serve him to slip away from the Point and turn it to quite another business but leaves the whole Stress and full import of the Argument Unanswer'd It were tedious still to reflect how oft he has done thus in this pretended Reply to my Catholique Letters But whoever compares his severall Answers to the respective places he pretends to speak to will see how dull and insignificant they are tho' if he be read alone especially with an Implicit Belief of his dealing fairly they look very jolly and brisk However to divert the Readers Eye he is even with me in another Point I said the accepting or not accepting Books whether in the Latin or Greek Churches was an Act of Prudence Antecedent to the Iudgment or Determination of any Church and so could not make or marr the Latin Churche's Infallibility in her Iudgment or Decrees He falls into a gross mistake of the word Antecedent and erects a Trophy of Victory upon his own Errour To clear which 't is to be observed that our Divines admit Prudentiall Considerations in any Church even tho' held Infallible Previous to her Decrees yet do not hold that Church is Infallible in those Acts of Prudence which are thus Antecedent Now tho' the whole Series of my Discourse there shows clearly that I spoke of an Antecedency in the Course of Humane Actions or of a Prudentiall Deliberation Antecedent to an Absolute Decision he turns it to an Antecedency in Chronology or of more Antient Writers and when he has apply'd that word to a wrong matter he has the Vanity to insult But he says I say not a Syllable to his proving hence the Roman Church was not then believ'd Infallible Surely he never consider'd what he pretends to Answer for by saying it was not only an Act of Prudence Antecedent to any Degree I show there was no occasion to show what was then believ'd of her Infallibility or not believ'd Again since the Certainty of that Epistles being writ by St. Paul depended on Testimony other Churches might perhaps know that better for some time than She. But the worst is he was preparing
be Answering for all that 'T is his Interest to do it solidly for he has all the World who in their Disputes follow the contrary Method to confute His main reason to prove that Arguing is a good way to Answer is because the Argument attempts to prove a thing Impossible and that 't is contrary to Sense and Experience to say the Latin and Greek Churches do not differ in what they receive upon Tradition and so the same Answer that Diogenes gave to Zeno's Argument against Motion by Walking will serve the turn Let 's examin this parallel in which consists the substance of his Defence of his bad Logick Does all the World see that the Generality of the Greek Church proceed upon Tradition in what they differ from the Latin as certainly and evidently as they see there is Motion Have not I produc't in my First Catholick Letter p. 35. reasons enow to shew him how disputable this point is none of which he so much as mentions Did not I there p. 13. quote him out of his own book Peter Lombard saying that the Difference between the Greeks and Latins is in Words and not in Sense Nay Thomas a Iesu Azorius c. who were of the same Judgment And could not these Learned men see a thing manifest to Sense and Experience Our point then is nothing like that of denying Motion nor is it contrary to Sense and Experience but such as bears a Dispute amongst intelligent Men and Great Schollars and therefore even by the Drs own Discourse an Argument or Instance brought against the Conclusion was no Answer to the Premises of the Argument brought by Mr. G. and so all the Division he runs upon it here is perfectly frivolous Nor was Mr G. oblig'd either to grant or deny the Greek Church had Err'd but was to insist on an Answer to his Argument because the Dr had playd foul play in attacking his Conclusion when he was to answer his Proof which if admitted no Discourse could possibly proceed For let us suppose Dr. St. had been to argue and had brought this Instance of the Greek Church would he have thought it fair that Mr G. when he was to answer it should have brought the Argument he made use of in the Conference and have bid him prove that two Churches following Tradition differ'd in Faith notwithstanding his Demonstration that they could not Or would it be held a competent Answer to his late Book against the Council of Trent to bid him prove it had not follow'd Tradition notwithstanding all that a multitude of Learned Catholick Authors had writ to the contrary I took heart then indeed as he says seeing the Dr so Nonplust but 't is his own fiction that I resolv'd to grapple with his Instance it being impertinent to do it in those circumstances and so he may thank himself if he were disappointed I was ty'd to the known Laws of Dispute and not bound to dance after his Pipe when he strays from all the Clearest Methods of Reasoning I objected that himself had defended the Greek Church from Erring in his Rational Account which spoils his own Instance of a Church going upon Tradition and Erring He calls this Trifling and says the Dispute was about Mr G 's Argument Yes but these words were not brought to abet his Agreement but expressly to shew the Drs Inconsonancy to himself and his Unconscienciousness in arguing from the Greek Churches Erring whereas it was his Opinion it did not Err. And tho' Mr G's Answer may be pretended not to be so pat to the particular Demand yet it was apposit to the main Point that no Church did at once adhere to Tradition and Err at the same time For which I gave my reason because if each Successive Generation follow'd their Fathers Tradition from the beginning the last Son must believe as the first did This was too hot to handle and so 't is answer'd with Good Night to the Greek Church which is Learned beyond expression Lastly upon my saying He might as well have instanc't in the Latin Church it self without running so far as Greece he takes hence an occasion to accept of the Challenge tho' it did not look like one being only spoke occasionally and threatens us not with a bare instance but a whole Book against us He may use his pleasure tho' I must tell him it looks but cowardly to threaten when he 's running away from his business undertaken and not yet perform'd and leaving the Absolute Certainty of his poor destitute Faith in the suds One would think it had been the more Compendious Way to overthrow our Cause to answer five or six lines if he could have done it But he had a mind to be at another Work more suitable to his Quoting Genius and hop'd to draw us after him from a Conclusive and short way of Discoursing to an Endless one of answering every frivolous misunderstood or misapply'd Citation 71. But now he will shew us how 't is Possible to adhere to Tradition yet err A hard Task if apply'd to our business For since to adhere to Tradition is still to believe what was deliver'd to shew that those who adhere to Tradition do err is to shew that they who still believ'd the same Christ taught did not believe the same Christ taught A Point so Evident that his Reflecter could not but grant it Yet let the Dr alone I dare hold a good wager on his side that he can by his confuting Method his Logick prove direct Contradictions to be True without any difficulty or as he calls it here with an Easy Distinction He begins with two Senses of Adhering to Tradition One of adhering to it as the Rule and Means of conveying matters of Faith. The other for adhering to the very Doctrin taught at first and truely convey'd down since by Tradition That is there are two sorts of Tradition or Delivery One is Tradition the Other is not Tradition or Delivery but the Points deliver'd Parallel to this is his Distinction of Traditionary Christians To what purpose is it to talk Sense to a man who is resolv'd to run still so wildly into Nonsense Do but see good Reader with what care I had forestall'd this very Absurd Distinction in my Third Catholick Letter p. 4.5.9.12 and shew'd how he had deform'd Tradition into all the untoward Senses man's wit could invent by making it now signify Articles now Power now Points deliver'd yet to convince the World that he cannot or rather must not speak Sense he 's at the same work again as briskly as ever And good reason Contradictions are better Friends to him than Principles for nothing more confounds the Reader which is all he looks after and to confound him with a shew of Distinguishing which Nature intended for a way to clear things does it with a better grace The same work he makes with the word Traditionary and tho' he were told what
Faith be Immediate even from day to day And thus Dr St. has begun to answer Mr G's Demonstration by keeping such a huge pother about a Proposition Evident by its own Light and pretending more faults in it than even a wise man could have shown in the Arrantest Falshood But he has not done with it yet the most Essentiall part of it remains yet behind And so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour Now the Proposition speaks of Believing the same all that while and he confutes it with talking of Claiming and Pretending to follow it Whence since to believe the same that was deliver'd is Actually following Tradition his distinguishing Talent has afforded us two sorts of following Tradition One which is really and indeed following it the other is only pretending to follow it and not doing so that is there is one sort of believing the same or of following Tradition which is not-following of it which is still of the same Learned Strain 74. The Second Proposition is And if they follow this Rule they can never Err in Faith what says he to this If they follow this Rule that is believe the same from Christ's time that was taught at first do not they believe the same Christ Taught One would verily think that this is as Evident as 't is that to believe the same is to believe the same True 't is so and therefore 't is with him Self-Evidently a meer Fallacy Certainly never was any Mortall Man such an Enemy to Common Sense But 't is his constant humour to talk big when he 's at a perfect Nonplus Well but how proves he 't is a meer Fallacy Why 1. He grants that those who believe Christ's Doctrin cannot Err. And is not this a rare Answer We both grant that Christ's Doctrine is True and consequently that who hold it cannot Err All this is Presuppos'd to our Question and so is no part of it But our Point is how we shall know assuredly what is Christs Doctrin Or by what Means shall we come at it 2. He says They might mistake in this Rule It has been shown him Third Cath. Letter p. 6 7.8.9 and in many other places upon occasion that they could not mistake in this Rule he never takes notice of it in his whole Answer and yet has the Confidence to object it afresh 3. He says They might follow another Rule This too has been prov'd against him nay 't is here prov'd in the Fourth Proposition of this very Argument for by proving they could not innovate in Faith 't is prov'd they that is the Body or Vniversality could not desert Tradition But what a shift is the Dr put to Do we contend here they could follow no other All the Proposition pretends to is that If they follow this Rule they cannot err in Faith. What says he to this Can they or can they not If they cannot then the Rule is a good Rule which is all we labour to prove here the rest is prov'd in the Fourth Proposition And if they can err tho' following it then since to follow it is still to believe the same the Dr must say that the same Faith tho' still convey'd down the same is not the same it self was at first which is a direct Contradiction Not one single word of Answer then to the Proposition has he given us only he affirms stoutly 't is Fallacious a very Cheap Answer to any Argument that is too crabbed and difficult but he cannot for his heart tell where the Fallacy lies The Conclusion is naught that he 's resolv'd on but he has nothing that is pertinent to say to the Premisses or Proof Yet something he must say for a shew and so he will shew some other ways that Errours might come in And perhaps I can shew him twenty more but still what 's this to the Point Can Errours in Faith come in while men follow this Rule of Tradition that is while they continue to believe the same that was still taught immediately before and this ever since Christs time This is our only business 75. Since I must now run out of the way after our Straggling Disputant I desire first the Reader would remark that the Proposition he is now answering is this If they follow this Rule viz. Tradition they can never err in Faith as also that by Tradition is meant the Publick Testimony of the Church of what was deliver'd as Christs Doctrine His first particular way of introducing Errours is by the Authority of False Teachers But was Tradition follow'd while they follow'd their Authority If it was then the Christian Church was a False Teacher and her Publick Testimony attested false Doctrin to be Christs which if he holds let him speak out and see how all Christians will detest him If Tradition was not follow'd but deserted when men were led by False Teachers what 's this to us or whom does it oppose For 't is plainly to abet Tradition to say that none could follow False Teachers but they must at the same time desert It. 'T is hard to conjecture then what he meant by alledging de Molinos unless it were to make his Friend Dr Burnets Book concerning Molinos sell. 'T is no news that False Teachers may introduce Errours and that that man pretended the Publick Testimony of the Church or that his whimsies were Christ's Doctrin deliver'd down from the beginning is both unheard of and Incredible His Second way of introducing Errours is by Enthusiasm Very well Did the Testimony of the Christian Church tell them that Enthusiasm was Christ's Doctrin If he says it did he makes the whole Christian Church in some Age to have been a pack of hare-brain'd Enthusiasts If it did not then 't is an honour to Tradition that they deserted it when they fell into that Spiritual Madness His Third way is by a pretence to a more secret Tradition But was this pretence to a Secret Tradition a pretending to follow the Publick Tradition of the Church If it was not it opposes not our Tradition but credits it And if he says it was then he makes what 's Secret to be Publick which is a Contradiction and the very alledging this makes him in some manner Guilty of that old Failing of his His Fourth is Differences among Church-Guides about the Sense of Scripture and Tradition I have already shewn him that it was impossible the Generality especially of Pastours should not know the Sense of Tradition and as for some Church Guides differing about the Sense of Scripture it was equally impossible they should Err in Faith as long as they interpreted Scripture by the Rule of the Church's Tradition and when they once left that Rule instead of being any longer Church-Guides they became generally if they were any thing Eminent Ringleaders of Heretical Sects which gives a high repute to our Tradition even by their erring when they deserted it His Fifth
Lastly why is not an Extrinsicall Ground or Testimony prov'd to be such by Intrinsicall Reasons sufficient in our case This should have been shewn but for this very reason 't is not so much as taken notice of either by him or his Master In a word he uses some of our words taken asunder from the Context of our intire Sense then blends them confusedly together on any fashion without any kind of order or respect to the true Question he gives us Relative words without telling us what they relate to he puts upon us Tenets we never advanc't or held but the direct Contrary And the witty Gentleman would still persuade his Reader he is Repeating his Lesson I have Taught him when as all the while he deserves more then a Ferula for his rehearsing it wrong or rather saying it Backwards Then follows his Grand Conclusion as the Flower of all the foregoing ones which we may be sure hits the Point Exactly And therefore says he either your Position overthrows your Churche's Authority or It your Position Most Excellent My Position is about Tradition which is the Self-same thing with the Churche's Authority and this precious Scribbler will needs have the same thing to destroy it self A fit Upshot for a Discourse without sence 89. We see by this one Instance there is scarce one Line nor many Significant Words in this half-page of his but runs upon Enormous Mistakes And does he think I have nothing else to do but to stand Rectifying still what he all along takes such Care and Pains to put into Disorder Especially since those few things that are pertinent are abundantly spoke to in my Third Catholick Letter and this present Reply I must intreat the Dr to excuse me if I have no mind to break his Young Controvertists and teach them how to Manage Mr G. did him I hope no disparagement in making me his Substitute but 't is not so gentile in him to set such a Fresh Man upon my back I 'le have nothing to do with his little Iourney-Men or Apprentices till the World be satisfy'd that their Master himself is a better Artist And if it shall appear that even the Learned Dr St. is able to make nothing of so bad a Cause 't is neither Discreditable to me nor any Disadvantage to the Truth I am defending if I neglect such a Sixth-rate Writer who confesses himself unworthy to carry his Books after him 90. The Omissions in answering my Second Catholick Letter are as many as that Letter it self contains since his untoward Method renders all his Talk Twitching and Girding at little sayings of mine utterly insignificant Whence that whole Treatise as 't is in it self stands yet Intire unless the Dr can shew by his new Logick that to mince half a Book into Fragments is to Answer the Whole 91. Thus the Dr has trickt off the answering my Second Cath. Letter But his Omissions in Answering the Third are both numerous and most highly Important and he is to render an Account of all this long Roll of his Neglects Why did he not clear himself of his altering there the Notion of Tradition into Articles and Powers of doing this or that shewn at large p. 4.5 Why answers he not the several Reasons proving against him that Tradition brings down the Sense of Christ's Doctrin and not only Common Words in the Clear Delivery of which Sense consists one of the main Properties of a Rule viz. its Plainness to People of all sorts who are to be regulated by it And why instead of performing this necessary Duty does he p. 43. after having vapour'd that 'T is bravely said if it could be made out does he not so much as mention the Reasons by which it was made out but ramble into such Nonsense p. 43. that He and his Party who are Deserters of Tradition cannot mistake it that Tradition or the Church'es Human Testimony being the Rule of Faith is a part of Christ's Doctrin c. Why no Excuse for his deforming the meaning of that plain word Tradition into many unsutable Significations and putting it in all shapes but its own Why no Defence of his most ridiculous Drollery in paralleling Tradition or the Testimony of God's Church to the Relation of two or three partial Witnesses of his own side in favour of their fellows Or for his Inconsonancy to himself his Insincerity in thus perverting it still when he was to impugn it whenas he took it very right when it made for himself Why not a word to my Clearest Demonstration that 't is impossible but Tradition must bring down a Determinate Sense of the Tenets it delivers which he answers not at all but only brings against Conclusion an Instance of the Corinthians and Arlemonites p. 45.46 which as far as it pretends they pleaded Tradition for their Heresy taking Tradition as we do for the Immediate Testimony of the Church is both False and Senseless Why no Answer at all to that most Concerning Point prov'd against him that the Church has Power to declare diverse Propositions to be of Faith not held distinctly before without any prejudice at all to Tradition And why no notice taken of my most Evident Proof that we make Christian Faith as 't is Formally Divine rely on the Divine Authority notwithstanding our Tenet that the Church'es Humane Authority is the Means to bring us to the knowledge of Christ's Doctrin and that the asserting this Later is not to overthrow the Church'es Authority in matters of Faith as he objected As also that the Venerable F. W. was not an Adversary to our way and that Lominus his Book the Dr rely'd on was no Argument that my Doctrin was faulty even in the opinion of my Judges Why gave he no reply to any of these but still run on with his former Calumnies as if nothing had been produc't to shew his manifest and Wilfull Mistakes Why no Answer to my Reasons proving at large the impotency of his malice in charging Pelagianism more than to repeat a few of words for a shew that this Humane Authority leads us to what 's Divine and there stopping whereas the very next words Yet not by its own force but by vertue of the Supposition agreed upon that Christ's Doctrin is such had spoil'd all his pretence Why no notice taken of my Citation out of Errour Nonplust writ against himself fifteen years ago which forestall'd all his rambling Mistakes and by consequence shew'd him strangely Insincere in dissembling his knowledge of my Tenet so expressly declar'd 92. Why no Plea alledg'd to justify his shuffle from the Grounds of his Protestant Faith in particular to the Grounds of Christian Faith in Common nor to excuse his next Shuffle and Nonsense to boot in making Faith by vertue of an id est to signify the Grounds for his Ground of Faith and turning Certainty of Scripture into a long ramble viz.
well knowing that the more Judgment a man has and the more he uses it the sooner and better he will discern that the Doctrin of Christ cannot be securely learnt from those of Your and Dr. St's Principles But Why all this Or How come I to stand in your way Do I hinder you from shewing Protestants that They are Certain of their Faith They allow a Judgment of Discretion if it stick there whether I do or no. But you cannot gratifie Catholics with Proof it seems because they are against Judgment of Discretion nor Protestants because they are for it that is in plain terms you will not prove the Certainty of your Faith at all You conclude very conformably that I have set us all on even Ground Yes most Mathematically even For I set Absolute Certainty on the one side and Vncertainty on the other and this in your Language is even Ground 7. Your next Paragraph says I fall upon the Certainty of Protestant Faith which I hope easily to overthrow The Reader cannot but apprehend now that I am making Arguments against it of which you know very well I did not think Where do I fall upon this Matter Why I said Suppose Mr. G. could not prove Protestants are certain are they therefore certain The meaning of which words is clearly this that the Certainty of Protestant Faith must depend on their own Proofs for it not on any Man 's being able or not able to prove the contrary which is what Dr. St. would have put upon us So that to avoid proving which was demanded you put upon me the direct contrary to what I affirm'd viz. That the Certainty of Protestant Faith does depend upon our not proving they have none whereas I contend it does not depend upon it What shifts are you put to that you may escape this dangerous business of proving your Faith Certain Well but did I say true or no You trouble not your Head with such impertinent thoughts but fall to prophesie what I imagin'd This say you he first imagins that all the certainty of our Faith is this That Papists cannot prove it to be uncertain and that then I make sport with my own Imagination Better and better Not to take notice of your shuffling in that Papists cannot prove Protestants are not Certain which I am very far from imagining because I said our not-proving the contrary is no Certainty to Protestants he will have me imagin it is their Certainty nay All their Certainty when he knows I am aware and confess they pretend to Scripture for it and p. 26. urg'd them to make out they had Absolute Certainty by It. The rest is to tell me I play and you will be serious And your way of being serious when you have chosen to fall upon this Question whether Protestants become Certain by our not proving them Uncertain is without saying a word to it to skip to another Paragraph of mine 8. Where I had said that Any man may find it confest to his hand by Protestants that they have no Absolute Certainty of their Faith For which I cited Dr. Tillotson And you tell me first that Dr. Tillotson is an excellent man and so he is for he excells even your self which requires a great Talent in your way of handling Controversie in all your Arts. Next to take your turn in imagining you imagin single Dr. Tillotson too many for all the Traditionary Catholicks to answer his Rule of Faith. And I imagin that Dr. Tillotson knows the contrary For I have been inform'd Dr. Tillotson had the offer of an Answer from a Traditionary Catholic long ago upon condition he would contribute his Credit to get it printed which he thought not sit to do Since I perceive you do not know an Answer when you see it unless the word Answer be in the Title-page I will not tell you it is answer'd already tho' I believe I can make it good But I will venture a fair Wager with you it will be answer'd in his own Formal way every jot as soon as Reason against Railery Lastly You deny that this Confession That Protestants have no Certainty no Absolute Certainty if it please you of their Faith is to be found in the pages cited or any other part of Dr. Tillotson's Book If you do not understand English I cannot help it but any one that does may find in the last of the pages cited As far as silence gives consent it is own'd by Dr. Tillotson himself For it was laid before him by Reason against Railery and with him it has lain these fifteen Years and yet you would perswade us you see it not nor I neither if I may be believ'd against my self 9. Your Rhetorick Sir is very great if it will do you this piece of Service but let us hear it however I had said to Dr. St. p. 23. You seem to grant you are thus Absolutely-Certain or Infallible by vertue of Tradition Upon which Theme you thus declame How confess we have no Certainty no Absolute Certainty I beseech you again and yet seem to grant we are Infallible and that too by Vertue of Tradition Some people had need of good Memories As if it were so strange a thing for Protestants to contradict one another or the same man himself or that there needed Memory to observe what passes every day By the favour of your Exclamations Dr. St. did say at the Conference that They are Absolutely Certain that they now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles by the Divine Revelations contained in the Writings of the New Testament and of those Revelations by the Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church And in his First Letter he did desire Mr. G. to prove that they have no Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of their Faith altho' they have a larger and firmer Tradition for it than we can have for the points of Faith in difference And Dr. Tillotson did say in his Rule of Faith p. 118. We are not infallibly certain that any Book speaking of Scripture is so ancient as it pretends to be or that it was written by him whose Name it bears or that this is the sence of such and such passages in it It is possible all this may be otherwise Now if one of those Writers do not seem to grant that they are Absolutely Certain or Infallible and that too by vertue of Tradition and the Other confess that they have no Absolute Certainty of their Faith English is no intelligible Language in England If you think this a Contradiction you may talk with your excellent men about it and let me alone till you can shew I talk against my self by relating barely what others say Must my Memory be blam'd when their Judgments are in fault For a Contradiction it is if Absolutely Certain and Infallible be the same which I both prov'd formerly and it will come
Iudgments and ask if the Letter be a Way to Them and you reply it is not a way to the Incompetent And so you who good squeamish Gentleman fall into a Scruple at the very name of Cards can play at Cross-purposes all along very freely even when Souls are at Stake I desire you to remember that I speak of a Way which they who take shall and that surely arrive at Christ's Faith. You talk of a way by which men so and so qualify'd may arrive at it As if may be were any thing to shall and must be or the qualifications of Travellers any thing to the way I foretold I should have nothing but an unconcerning Return for an Answer And you have made me tho' against my will prophesie not bating so much of my Prediction as the scornful Iest. For there is the Mountain and the Mouse and Reading a Lecture in Logick to verifie it 30. You conclude with an Argument against my Conclusion You I say who are Answering and have nothing to do with Arguing But what would we have Men who are uneasie will alwaies be shifting places All our earnest Sollicitations could not wring one Argument out of you when it was your turn to prove and now 't is your turn to Answer you thrust your Arguments upon us unbidden Nor is there any keeping you from falling into the same Fault with your Suppositions that Dr. St. did with his Instance You suppose then 1. That the Scripture is God's Word And so do I too provided you mean the true Sense of it For a false Sense whatever you think is in my Judgment not God's Word 2. That it was written to be understood Undoubtedly but not by every one barely by means of the Letter All Books are written to be understood Grammar for Children to understand Construction Mathematical Books for those who will understand Mathematicks and yet those Books without Masters will make but few Grammarians or Mathematicians 3. That it is written for the Instruction of Private Men. Yes but not for the only or sufficient means of their Instruction barely by the Letter 4. That they are concern'd to understand it Yes again and as much concern'd not to misunderstand it 5. That they may believe and live as it directs They not onely may but ought But pray remember that It directs no believing or living according to a false sense 6. That they have means left them of God for the Vnderstanding of it so far as it is of necessary concernment to them Yes and that Absolutely Certain Means the publick Interpretation of the Church or Tradition 7. And that using those Means as they ought they may understand it Never mince it with may they shall and certainly shall understand it who use those means From all you conclude at last And thus it is to them the way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught as necessary to their salvation How The way to those who use those Means Why this is just as I say But what becomes of those who use not those Means 'T was ill forgot when your Hand was in at supposing not to suppose in amongst the rest that Private Interpretation is the Means lest by God for understanding Scripture For if publick Interpretation be those Means as it needs must since I have prov'd that Private is not the Scripture plainly is no Way to those who only rely on the Private Means to understand it And your Protestants are much beholding to your Argument which shews that Scripture interpreted as they interpret it by private Iudgment is no Way to them And I were very unreasonable if I should take offence at your Challenge which bids me shew when I can that your suppositions are Vnreasonable or False Not I believe me For I should be very cross-natur'd to fall out with a man who takes my part 31. Thus you have try'd as you call it to answer my Argument and have succeeded even in your own Judgment I guess very sorrily For had you been Confident of your performance against it as it is you would never have thought of changing it as you do here p. 17. Men who have put by a Thrust are not sollicitous to instruct their Adversary how he should have Thrust And yet you will needs be teaching me how I should have done to have made sure work that is to have been sure to hit your Buckler I mean not to lose time on your Argument It were ridiculous for me to amuse my self with what never was nor will be said by any but your self No body else would have left out the principal Consideration using the Rule and so coming to Right Faith by using it As if a Rule would make a Line of it self tho' no body draw by it And a Way bring to the Journeys End even those who travel not in it In a word your Argument has all the faults of your Answer in short and onely shews you can speak from the purpose more solemnly and methodically by way of Syllogism 32. After you had thus nobly acquitted your self in answering my short Discourse you proceed in the same Method to answer Mr. G's Argument for the Infallibility of the Catholick Church Which e're I come to examin I must first say something to your Preliminaries 33. You doubt whether I think it needs any Proof that the Church of Rome is Infallible To those who reflect on the force of a vast Human Testimony attesting notorious matter of Fact and what Assent it claims from Human Nature in parallel occasions I do indeed judge it does not so much need Proof as Reflection But why should I think it needs no Proof against You who we see plainly have interpreted your selves out of your Natural Sentiments Your reason Sir because I say 'T is in vain to talk against one Infallibility without setting up another Now it has been demonstrated to you and never yet answered That Infallibility and Certainty are the same and Nature tells us that All Discourse supposes something Certain otherwise it may run on endlesly and so nothing can ever come to be concluded How is it possible then to discourse against Infallibility or any thing else without setting up and proceeding upon something that is Certain or Infallibly true By your constant jesting whenever Infallibility comes in the way you discover your anger against it because you know you can produce nothing that is truly Certain to ground your Faith. Notwithstanding the vulgar use to say commonly I am infallibly Certain of such a thing yet none laughs at them or thinks them extravagant And must we be afraid to use the same Language in our Controversie because your Ears are so tender or rather your Grounds so soft they cannot bear it If you will needs declare against Infallible Certainty be but so candid as to say still you are Fallibly Certain and see how your Readers will smile at your Folly And yet you ought
differenced from both Romanists and other Hereticks and Sectaries viz. Scripture plainly delivering a Sense own'd and declar'd by the Primitive Church of Christ in the Three Creeds Four First General Councils and Harmony of the Fathers After which you add 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 Never fear it Sir you are out of danger of being drawn any whither Ten thousand Cart-Ropes will not go round you and we must be at least Twenty Years in fastening them But let 's examin this your particular Rule 1. I ask whether since Differences use to be Essential these words own'd and declar'd by the Primitive Church c. which are found in the Difference of your Rule from that of others be at all Essential or not If not Essential since if you be Orthodox you ought to have a Rule essentially distinct from that of Hereticks and Sectaries what is this Essentially-different Rule of yours for 't is this we are enquiring after If you say 't is Essential then Scripture had not all the due power to regulate you as to your Faith without their additional Light And by consequence Scripture is not your Only and Intire Rule as you ever pretended hitherto since these are Part of it 2 When you say your Rule is Scripture plainly delivering a Sense c. I suppose you must mean such a particular Sense as is of Faith with you and can any more be requir'd to your particular Rule than Scripture plainly delivering your particular Faith Certainly you will not say it For there is the Divine Authority in the Scripture which is the Formal Motive of Divine Faith. There is Plainness which gives it a Directive Vertue and qualifies it for a Rule and the Clear Light of this plain Rule must shine bright upon the particular Tenets you hold for 't is to shine there and no where else Which once put what can all the other esteem'd by you but Human Authorities serve for Can they add weight to the Divine Authority or clear that to us which is already so plain by Scripture 3. Pray be candid and tell us After a thing is plain in Scripture are you to value a straw what either Primitive Church Creeds or Fathers say I dare say you will grant you are not Wherefore all these are utterly useless unless they be pretended to give you some light to interpret Scripture But this cannot be neither both because you tell us here plain Scripture is your Rule and it would not be plain but obscure if it needed an Explainer Besides you put this as a constitutive difference of your Rule and yet deny'd that any Interpretation of Scripture is such but Extrinsical to it 'T is then a great Mystery still how these Human Authorities affect your General Rule or influence your Faith already had by plain Scripture or to what end they serve but for a Show only 4. The Lutherans proceed upon all these as much as you and yet hold a Reall Presence of Christ's very Body in the Sacrament as much as we do So that this does not difference you in your Grounds or Rule from all other Sects for sure you will not deny that to be a Sect that holds an Errour which Dr. St. has taken such pains to prove is Idolatry My last question shall be Whether your sober Enquirers are not to come to their particular Faith by this their particular Rule of Faith And since 't is Evident they must we would know next how many of them are to arrive at any Faith at all For it will take up many Years to examin and compare all the Fathers and be sure of their Harmony with one another and with the Scripture too Nay the Duration of the World will be too short to compass that Satisfaction if we may believe the Bishop of Downs who assures us That out of the Fathers succeeding the Primitive Times both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring Sayings for themselves respectively Can any man living make Sense of such stuff or ever come at his Faith by such a Rule 57. For this last Reason chiefly I affirm'd That not one Protestant in a million follow'd Dr. St's Rule but honestly follow'd the Tradition of their own Church Pastours or Fathers that is believ'd as they had been educated To the first part of this Assertion you say little but that if there be any Fault 't is the Fault of the People only But if this peculiar Rule of yours which takes in the seeing your Sense of Scripture own'd and declar'd by the Primitive Church Four first General Councils and the Harmony of the Fathers be to be followed e're you can come at your Faith I doubt the Fault will prove to be in the Rule For very few Persons have Learning fewer Leisure enough and none of them security of having any Faith by this Method unless you could ensure their Salvation by inspiring those who are ignorant with competent Learning to understand all the Fathers and their Harmony and withal by letting them good long Leases of their Lives which I am of opinion you cannot The second part that they follow'd the Method of Tradition puts you in a marvelvellous jocund humour and as if you had forgot your way a thing not unusual with you you ask all amaz'd Where are we now In the Church of Rome e're we are aware of it We are all good Roman-Catholicks on a sudden we are become an Infallible Church c. and away you run with the Jest laughing and giggling as if you had found a Mare 's Nest. Surcease your fears good Sir you are not a jot the nearer being Catholicks for following your own Tradition It reaches no farther than Iohn Calvin Martin Luther or some such Reforming Heroe and there it ends and stops in a flat Novelty Whereas Catholicks abhor a Tradition that has any known Beginning or takes a Name from any Particular Author or has any Original but Christ his Apostles and the Church in the very first Age who were the Original Deliverers of it to the next and so to the succeeding ones Pray Sir what 's become of your Jest All I said was that You followed the Way of Tradition however misplac'd I prov'd it by Reasons and Instances you hint some omit others and pervert the rest You tell us 't is all Scriptural Tradition But we will trust our Eyes and Experience before your bare Word We see some taught before they can read we see them Catechiz'd in Churches and they repeat and believe what 's there told them tho' Scripture be not quoted for the distinct Passages We see them read the Scripture afterwards but we see withal not One in Thousands trusts his own Judgment of Discretion for the sense of it but without reluctancy or jealousie accepts that which his Pastours assign to it especially in Spiritual Points or Mysteries of
for then that Book had been the Delivery of its self and yet that Book had as good Title to be it's own Tradition as you had to make the Points delivered by our Tradition to be the Tradition or Delivery of those Points You granted too in the same place that the Latin and Greek Churches proceeded upon it and by granting this confest there were as many Attesters went to make it up as there were Men at least Intelligent men in the compass of the many vast Nations which those two Churches included How come you then so much to forget your self as to parallel it here to the pittiful Attestation of three or four possibly prejudic't Relaters But the reason of this self-contradicting and extravagant representation of Tradition is clear it was your Interest to take it right there and the same reason prevail'd with you to take it wrong here 5. But I am weary of fencing with Shadows when I can take any occasion that leads me to treat of what 's Substantial Mistake me not 't is not your Discourse that obliges me to it it had been a sufficient Answer to That to let the Reader see you purposely mistook the Nature of Tradition to divert and perplex his Thoughts and there let it rest Yet Because your taking Tradition wrong for the Doctrines deliver'd good use may be drawn from it I shall for the benefit of the Reader not decline speaking to what you object You make account p. 7. 8. the Tradition of the Church deliver'd the Point of the ` Reall Presence of Christ's being the Son of God in General Words onely Which waving what has been alledg'd in my 2 d. and 3 d. Sect. I judg for divers other Reasons to be Impossible For besides that if the Forefathers deliver'd onely the Words they taught their Children against the supposition no Faith in these Points for Faith has sense in it and is not Faith if it have none being in that case no true Iudgment or Truth who knows not that Words were instituted and intended by Mankind to signify something and therefore 't is inconsistent with the nature of the same Mankind when at Age especially the Wiser sort not to hold some Sense or other to be signify'd by those Words and with the nature of Christians not to instruct those whom they are to educate in Faith with that Sense as also with the nature of those who are to be Instructed not to desire to know the Sense of the Tenets they are to believe But that Sense cannot be a General one that is Common to all the several Tenets now sound among us for it will not be General if it exclude any one it must therefore abstract from all particulars and be applicable to every one Now there is no such Generical Notion or Sense which can be abstracted from Christ's Body which is Living and a piece of Bread unless this that they are both Quantitative or Mixt Bodies to believe which would make a very extravagant Point of Faith much less can such an Abstraction be made from Christ's Reall Living Body and some supernatural Gifts or Qualities either in the Bread or wrought in our Souls by Means of our receiving the Eucharist For a Substance and a Quality differ toto genere as the Logicians express it that is belong to different Commonest Heads which have no Genus above them or that can abstract from them Least of all can any such Common Notion be abstracted from the Natural or True Son of God and a meer Man no more than there can from God and a Creature Whence follows most evidently that since the Faithful must necessarily have always had some Meaning of those words in their hearts and a general Sense of them is impossible they must have ever had Particular Notions of those Words determining their Sense to the one signification or the other that is either to mean Christ's Real Body or not his Real Body a True and Essential Godhead or a meer Creature My second Reason is because Faith is Ordain'd to work through Charity or to stir up devour Affections in us whence as the distance is Infinite in both cases between one of those Senses and the other there being God on one side on the other a Creature so the Affections of the Soul wrought in us by our Faith must either oblige us to pay an Infinite Veneration to a Creature if Christ's Real Body and consequently God be not there or if Christ be not God which is the greatest deviation from true Religion that is possible or else to be highly Irreverent and to want the most efficacious Motive that can be imagin'd to excite and elevate our Devotion if he be there or Christ be indeed God. Nor can any middle disposition be invented that can make the Acts of the Soul hover between it's tendency towards an Infinite and Finite Being or between an Infinite and Finite Reverence I dare confidently conclude then and dare avow it to be Demonstrable out of the Nature of Mankind that either the one or the other Determinate Sense of those Words must have been held in all Ages ever since the Apostles time by the Generality of the foregoing Faithful more or less expresly as those respective Points broke out more or less into Christian Action which their Duty could not but prompt and oblige them to deliver to their Children as occasion served and consequently that that Particular sense and not onely as you fancy the General Words must have descended by Tradition 6. Next my Position is that taking the word Tradition for Points descending by Tradition as you will needs have it the Church has Power and Authority to explain the Sense and Meaning of them and to oblige others to believe Her and yet that this hinders not the Infallibility of Tradition from consisting in holding the same to day that was deliver'd yesterday c. This is the difficulty I conceive that so much troubles you To clear which you may please to reflect on what you know already by experience that let any man advance a single Tenet and afterwards upon occasion set himself to Explicate at large the Sense of that Proposition 't is plain there will be found in that large Explication many particular Propositions not adequately the same but in part different from that which he went about thus elaborately and distinctly to explain of which perhaps even himself was not aware while he did not reflect not being yet invited to make it clearer or dilate on it And yet he held even at first the Sense and not only the Words nay the whole Sense of that main Tenet or Sentence tho' he saw not distinctly every single Proposition contain'd in it till he became oblig'd to Scan and Study his own undistinguisht but true thoughts concerning it The same may be said of every Sermon and it's Text supposing it be rigorously held to and no more be attended to but to explain it's
Pelagianism to conclude that Human Motives which are Preliminaries to Faith and on which the assuredness of Faith it self depends as to us are Truly Certain And Might you not with as much reason say the same if one should maintain the Absolute Certainty of our Senses which is one of those Preliminaries How strangely do you misrepresent every thing you are to meddle with How constantly do you make your voluntary mistake of every Point serve for a Confutation of it 'T is confest ever was That the Human Authority of the Church or Tradition begets only Human Faith as its immediate Effect but by bringing it up to Christ it leads us to what 's Divine yet not by its own force but by Vertue of the Supposition agreed upon That Christ's Doctrin is such Is it Pelagianism to say we must use our Reason to come to Faith or do you pretend all the World must be the worst of Phanaticks and use none Or does it trouble you we offer to justifie that the Reasons we bring to make good that Preliminary which in our way of Discoursing is to introduce Faith are not such as may deceive us And that we do not confess they are Fallible or may deceive us as you grant of your Interpretations of Scripture which ground your Belief No surely we shall not quit the Certainty we have because you have none For if it be not Certain such Doctrines are indeed Christ's who is our Law-giver we cannot be sure they are True their Truth depending on his Authority and would you have us for fear of Pelagianism confess all our Faith may perhaps be but a story But into what an unadvisedness does your Anger transport you to run the Weapon through your own Side to do us a Mischief You bore us in hand First Letter p. 7. that you had a larger and firmer Tradition for Scripture than we have for what we pretend to Yet this Tradition could cause no more but Human Faith for I do not think you will say you had Divine Faith before you were got to your Rule of Divine Faith. By your Discourse then your self are an Arrant Pelagian too Perhaps worse than we because you pretend to a larger and firmer Human Tradition than you say we have nay you pretend it to be Absolutely Certain too which is a dangerous Point indeed Pray have a care what you do for you are upon the very brink of Pelagianism The knowing you have the true Books of Scripture is a most necessary Preliminary to your Faith for without knowing that you cannot pretend to have any Faith at all and if it be Pelagianism in us to hold such Preliminaries absolutely Certain I fear the danger may come to reach you too Yet you have one Way and but one to escape that damnable Heresy which is that you do not go about to demonstrate the Absolute Certainty of Your Tradition as we do of Ours That that is the very Venom of Pelagianism But take comfort Sir my life for yours you will never fall so abominably into the mire as to demonstrate or conclude any thing For what Idaea soever you may frame of it we mean no more by Demonstrating but plain honest Concluding Your way of Discoursing does not look as if it intended to conclude or demonstrate 'T is so wholly pass for as great a Man as you will made up of mistakes misrepresentations petty cavils witty shifts untoward explications of your own Words constant prevarications and many more such neat dexterities that whatever fault it may through human frailty provok't by powerful Necessity be liable to I dare pawn my life it will never be guilty of that hainous Crime of demonstrating or concluding any thing no not the Absolute Certainty of your firmer Tradition And yet unless you can prove or conclude 't is thus Certain 't is a Riddle to us how can you either hold or say 't is such 13 Pray be not offended if on this occasion I ask You a plain downright Question Is it not equally blamable to Falsify your Adversaries Tenet perpetually as 't is to falsify his Words Nay is it not worse being less liable to discovery and so more certainly and more perniciously Injurious And can any thing excuse You from being thus faulty but Ignorance of our Tenet I fear that Plea will utterly sail you too and leave you expos'd to the Censure of every sincere Reader when I shew him to his Eye that You could not but know all this before For in Error Non-plust p. 121. Sect. 8. You must needs have read the quite contrary Doctrine and how those who maintain Tradition do resolve their Faith. There is no necessity then of proving this Infallibility viz. Of the Church meerly by Scripture interpreted by Virtue of this Infallibility Nor do the Faithful or the Church commit a Circle in believing that the Church is Infallible upon Tradition For they believe onely the supernatural Infallibility built on the Assistance of the Holy Ghost that is on the Church's Sanctity and this is prov'd by the Human Authority of the Church to have been held ever from the Beginning and the force of the Human Testimony of the Church is prov'd by Maxims of meer Reason The same is more at large deliver'd in the foregoing Section and in divers other places Now this Book was Writ against your self and so 't is as hardly Conceiveable you should never have read it as 't is Unconceiveable how you should ever answer it And if you did read it what was become of your sincerity when you counterfeited your Ignorance of our Tenet All is resolv'd say you here p. 9. into meer Human Faith which is the unavoidable consequence of the Doctrin of Oral Tradition How shrewdly positive you are in your Sayings how modest and meek in your Proofs Nothing can be more manifest from our constantly avow'd Doctrin and your own opposing it too than 't is that Tradition resolves all into Christ's and the Apostles Teaching And pray do you hold that Christ is a meer man or that the Believing Him is a meer human Faith or that the Doctrin taught by Him and Them is meerly Human If this be indeed your Tenet I am sorry I knew it not before for then I should have thought fit to begin with other Principles to confute you And I pray God by your impugning known Truths you may never need e'm I see I had reason to alledge in Faith Vindicated that the Grace of God was requisit to make men assent to a Natural Conclusion when it came very cross to their Interest For it appears too plain 't is exceedingly needful to assist you here in a meer Point of Common Morality which is to enable you not to speak and represent things directly contrary to your own knowledge And I am sorry I must tell you and too evidently prove it that the greatest part of your Writings against Catholicks when the Point is to be manag'd by Reason
that Decree Sess. 4. was to repress the insolency of Hereticks wresting the Scripture to their own private sentiments contrary to the Sense of the Church or the unanimous Consent of the Fathers And how this is directly contrary to this power of obliging to believe somthing as in Scripture explicitly now which was not so known before is unconceivable unless you will prove that that Explicit Sense is directly contrary to the unanimous Consent of the Fathers or the Church which you will never do But t is a trivial Exploit to make Mr. M. clash with Mr. G. or the Church of Rome with the Council of Trent you can make that very Church clash with her self Suis et ipsa Roma and that openly and professedly too Nay which is most wonderful fall out with her self about her own Prerogatives For you tell us p. 23. that tho' it has assum'd this Power now spoken of yet it still disown'd it Now to assume a Power is to challenge it and to disown it is to renounce it which hang together much alter the rate of all your Discourse hitherto This Church of Rome is a most monstrous kind of Creature It goes backwards and forwards blows and sups declares for and against and all at once but we must imagin her to be such onely as she stands pourtray'd in Dr. St's Fancy 34. Your main Stratagem to elude all this discourse remains yet to be more fully detected tho' it has been occasionally toucht at diverse times formerly T is this that you are now upon the General Ground of Faith and not the particular Acts of it or the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrine And you seem to have reason for it too because the main point in Dispute was whether Protestants could shew any Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith. And this you think justifies you for hovering in the ayr and onely talking of your Scripture-Rule in common without lighting on or applying it to any one particular point contain'd in that Rule But this will avail you nothing For first Neither does our Discourse pinch upon any one particular Point but upon the Uncertainty of your Faith in general or on all your Points of Faith at once as built on your Ground So that 't is the pretended Ground of your Faith we are disputing against all the while and not any one particular Tenet We bring indeed Instances now and then of some particular Articles but 't is to shew that if your Ground has not power to ascertain absolutely those most Fundamental Points it has power to ascertain none and so is no Ground of Faith at all Secondly A pretended Ground cannot be known or acknowledg'd to be a real and firm Ground till we see it grounds somthing It 's Notion plainly imports a Relation to the Superstructure and you may as well prove a man a Father without proving he has a Child as prove any thing to be a Ground without proving such and such Points to be grounded on it and this in our case with Absolute Certainty Pray take that along with you still otherwise you turn your back to the Question and run away from it in the open Field T is tedious and mortifying beyond measure to hear you still talking and pretending you have an Absolutely Certain Ground for Faith and yet never see you so much as once endeavouring to shew how it 's Ascertaining Virtue affects the Articles you build upon it and that this particular Sense of Scripture in each respective Point has such a close and necessary Connexion with the Letter on which 't is built as to give Absolute Certainty of it to all that are competent Judges of the Sense of Words Which the Experience of all Ages since Christ confutes and our own Eyes Witness to be false in the Socinians and others Thirdly Your self confest once upon a time that you are absolutely Certain you now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles Now this candid expression would make any honest well-meaning man verily believe that you meant you had been absolutely Certain of every particular Christian Doctrin by vertue of your Ground or Rule But your incomparable dexterity quite and clean over-reach't us For when you came to explain your self there it amounted to no more but that your Faith was resolv'd into Scripture that is that you pretended to Scripture which contains all or as you told us p. 17. that you were absolutely certain you hold all because you hold all not in your Soul or Mind where Points of Faith are to be held but in a kind of Purse as it were as one is said when he holds a Book in his hand to hold all that is in it being possest of which tho' you cannot come at it's sense which is little better than if it were lock't up in a Trunk you are in possession of all Christian Faith notwithstanding and hold very firmly in that Sense all that was taught by Christ and his Apostles Fourthly Hence you have not perform'd what you undertook viz. to shew that Protestants had any Absolutely Certain Ground of their Faith. For 't is not enough to point out a Book and cry out aloud T is your Ground but you must shew that 't is indeed such a Ground Now a Ground or Rule bears in it's notion Evidence to those who are to use it and to know other things by it's Direction Nay more Clear Evidence For as all Certainty must have some kind of Evidence to create it in us so this Effect of Absolute Certainty can have no less than Clear Evidence for it's Cause But you may as easily prove Mankind has no Eyes to see with as go about to shew that the Letter of Scripture is thus clear in order to the discovery of right Faith even in the highest and most concerning Points of our Christian Belief Fifthly T is pleasant to observe what a rare Resolution of your Faith you give us p. 24. Our Faith say you is resolv'd into the Scripture as the Word of God and whatever is built on the Word of God is absolutely Certain You must indeed having deserted the Tradition of the Church either pretend to Scripture or nothing unless you will confess your selves to be pure Phanaticks or Pagans and it looks mighty plausibly to say that whatever is built on the Word of God is absolutely Certain for 't is a great Truth But the only Point is still Are you absolutely-certain by your Grounds that your Faith is indeed built on the Word of God You say indeed Scripture is your Ground you pretend to it as your Ground perhaps you think it so too and 't is not about your saying pretending or thinking it to be such that we dispute with you for we should not scruple to grant you all this without any Dispute at all But does your saying pretending or thinking Prove it to be so really and indeed All
the Sence writ in the Heart of the Church at first by the Preaching of the Apostles and continu'd ever since in the manner we have describ'd and prov'd § 24. But The Dr. is got into a Track of mistaking and he cannot get out of it He brings for his Third Argument our B. Saviour's advice to the Iews to search the Scriptures The business was to know whether he was the true Messias and the Prophecies relating to the Messias were Matters of Fact or else Moral and therefore proportion'd to the Understanding of the Searchers and plain enough so they apply'd but Industry Diligence to find them out Are your Mysteries of Christian Faith such Or Must weak unelevated Understandings therefore presume to penetrate the Meaning of the Scripture in Texts of so deep a Sense as those Mysteries are because the Jews were exhorted to do it in a matter within the Sphere of their Capacity Again The Tradition of the Iews was very strong that a Messias should come but that This was the Person there was no Tradition at all This was therefore either to be made known by his Miracles done to attest it or to be found out by the applying of diverse particulars to Him and by seeing they all concurr'd in him And did ever any of us pretend that Tradition was to bring down such particulars If he says we did he must shew where If he confesses we did not he must confess withal his Text and Discourse here is nothing to the purpose He turns it off from the Admonition of searching the Scriptures to know the true Messias to the knowing whether he were a Temporal Prince whereas the Tradition of his Kingdom 's being purely Spiritual was neither Vniversally held taught nor deliver'd at first by the First Founders of that Law nor settled in the hearts of the Synagogue or the Universality of the Jews in the beginning as Christ's Doctrin was by the unanimous Preaching of the Apostles in the hearts of such a numerous Multitude as was the Christian Church of the First Age. Which being evidently so What reason was there our Saviour should refer them to such a slight or rather no-Tradition and not to the Written Prophecies in which he was foretold Or What consequence can be drawn hence to the prejudice of Christian Tradition which and which only we defend and which as was fitting is so strongly supported that it is impossible to find a Parallel to equal or come nigh it And unless this be done all his Arguments against it stand thus A Lesser Force cannot do an Effect therefore a Greater cannot An odd piece of Logick but suitable to all the rest § 25. His Fourth Reason represents Tradition to be meerly Verbal and not Practical That it alone is to bring down particular Matters of Fact or Historical passages nay the Speculative Whimsies of the old Heathen Phylosophers None of which was ever pretended and so all his Discourse runs upon his old and oft-repeated Errour in the true meaning of Tradition § 26. The Reasons he gives for the Certainty of the Books of Scripture we allow to a Tittle and we add to them One over and above which is better than them all viz. the Obligation and Care of the Church which as She ever held the Scriptures to contain the same Doctrin which was preach't to Her at first by Christ's Order and that it was a most incomparable Instrument for the Edification of her Children the Abetment of Faith the Salvation of Mankind nay an Instruction to Her Self too in thousands of most excellent most useful and most enlightning passages so She could not but look upon Her Self as most highly oblig'd to preserve the Letter from any material Alteration and yet more particularly in case any Hereticks went about to corrupt it in any Texts nay Coma's or Pointings that concerned the main Articles of Christianity which they sometimes attempted the Doctrin of Christ in her Breast could easily direct them to set the Text right again and that with Absolute Certainty Nor does any say or so much as suppose any Book of Scripture is indeed lost as he hints p. 29. only upon his saying That the Scripture we have now contains all the Divine Revelations I us'd the right of a Disputant and put him to make good what he says and to prove he has the Absolute Certainty he pretended to that no Book was lost without which he could have no such Certainty those pieces of Scripture we have now did contain All the Divine Revelations which by his Grounds denying any Certainty but what might admit of Deceit I was sure he was not able to perform § 27. Nor do I at all doubt of the Influence of Divine Grace or of the Internal Satisfaction which good Souls who are already Faithful or as St. Thomas of Aquin cited by him expresses himself Have the Habit of Faith by which they have a right Iudgment of those things which are agreeable to that vertue receive concerning Scripture and Christ's Doctrin or that they confirm men more than Demonstration does Arguments have the Nature of Preliminaries to Faith or Searches after it but the Inward Satisfaction that that Heavenly Doctrin rectifies and purifies the Soul and levels it directly towards the Attainment of it's last Blissful End has the nature of a kind of Experience and as it were Possession and Enjoyment of what Humane Arguments previous to Faith had been looking after and contending for I suppose Gentlemen the Dr. brought in this Discourse to prepare your Minds by a shew of Piety to rest appay'd with any slight Reason that falls short of concluding and breed in you a prejudice against the necessity of his producing any such Arguments as place Christian Faith above Possibility of Falshood But he is as much out of the Way here as he was in all the rest For notwithstanding God's Grace and this Internal Satisfaction which is Proper to good Souls who are Believers already the Church and her Pastours must be furnish'd with solid and unanswerable Reasons to satisfie perfectly those both of the lowest and most acute capacity who are looking after Faith that the Doctrin She professes was taught by Christ and to evince and defend its Truth in that particular against the most subtile Adversaries which cannot be done unless the Reasons which we as Controvertists bring set it above possibility of Falshood that Christ taught it We cannot put God's Grace and our Internal Satisfaction into Syllogisms when we are disputing Nor does God intend by His Grace to prejudice the true Nature Himself has given us which is Reason but to perfect and elevate it 'T is against Reason that in Preliminaries to Faith which are the Objects of Natural Reason those who are capable to penetrate the force of reasons should assent beyond the Motive for as far as it is beyond the Motive 't is without any Motive that is without any Reason and
be the Letter of Scripture he would have had recourse to some exacter Copy correcting their faulty one and so have born up still to that Rule But 't is evident he does not thus He makes then the Sense of the Church or Tradition the Rule both to know our Faith and also to correct the faultiness of the Letter Whether this sutes better with the Drs. Principles or ours is left to your selves or any man of reason to judg and determine § 30. Thus comes off this famous Sermon which makes such a noise for a Confutation of the Traditionary Doctrin The Sum of it is 1. The Dr. takes no notice of the main Question betwixt us which is about the Absolute-Certainty that our Faith is Truly Christian or taught by Christ nor attempts to shew his is thus Certain but Preaches to you Stedfastness and a well-setled Resolution to continue in it yet avoids the giving you any Grounds to make you Stedfast and Well-setled in that resolution 2. He conceals every Advantage Christian Tradition has or is pretended to have that is he would perswade you to Hate it before you See it and to compare it to Scripture before you know what kind of thing it is which is yet worse he shews you another thing for It and through all his Discourse pretends 'tis It which is nothing at all to It but utterly unlike It viz. Particular Traditions both before and after that Vniversal Tradition only which we defend was setled 3. He fixes a false date upon the beginning of the Tradition we speak of that the vast source of it which with the Circumstances annext was able to continue the Current strong and the Derivation of Christ's Doctrin both Certain and Perpetual might not be reflected on To deform it the more he makes it meerly Verbal as if it were nothing but the telling some dry story by surpressing it's Practicalness in which consists it's chiefest Vertue 4. He hides from your consideration all the most Incomparable and most Powerful Motives which enforce its Continuance and oblige the Church never to forsake the first deliver'd Doctrin 5. He never regards even in those Particular Traditions whether they fail'd the Persons or the Persons fail'd Them but supposes still the Tradition was in all the fault without attempting to shew it 6. He would have you imagin the Church in the first Age consisting of Pastors and People lost all their Memory and Grace too assoon as ever the Apostles were dead lest it should be held Able and Willing to testify Christ's Doctrine to the Next Age which by Parity would Establish it a Rule for all succeeding Ages to the End of the World. 7. He mingles known Opinions and which he holds himself not to have been Universally deliver'd at first with Points which we All hold to have been first deliver'd Then as to the Matter of Object of Tradition which and only which we pretend it is to bring down with absolute Certainty and deliver Clearly viz. the Dogmatical or Controverted Articles of Christian Faith which are Practical he never mentions it at all with any distinction but tumbles and confounds it with all things imaginable for which it was never pretended and puts upon Tradition a hundred abus'd tasks as never thought of by us so improper oft times impossible in themselves As the deriving down the Ten Commandments Creeds Decrees of Councils set Forms of Words an Infinity of particular passages not at all Practical nay whole Epistles and Gospels Schemes of Doctrin taught by Heathen Philosophers Messages which use to be sent by long Letters Historical Narrations or Actions and in a word every thing he could invent but the right one viz. Those Controverted Points of Faith tho' it lay just before him the very nature of Controversy which we are about determining our Discourses to those Points and nothing else This is his General view of Scripture and Tradition as to the way of conveying down matters of Faith. He means a General view which misrepresents and blinds your sight of it in every Particular In a Word there is much of Reading Conduct and Wit in his Sermon but wholly misemploy'd to speak as handsomely as he could to no purpose and to miss the whole Point in Question with a great deal of Plausibility In which amongst his other Great Abilities justly acknowledg'd to be Excellent consists his most considerable Talent and Dexterity § 31. So he ends his Sermon with good Advice to you to follow Christ's Heavenly Doctrin in your Lives and Conversations Which as he worthily presses upon you so I shall heartily pray that God would vouchsafe you his Grace to follow it I am far from blaming His or any one's Preaching the wholsome Moral Doctrines of Christianity and laying it home to men's Consciences But I ought not if concern'd to suffer that when he pretends to speak to your Understandings and establish you in Faith he should bubble his Auditory with forty impertinent pretences Injurious to his candid Adversaries and to Truth as well as to your selves please and delude your Fancies with a great shew of his Reading and little conjectural Reflexions tack't prettily together and in the mean time send you away empty of knowing any Ground which may render you or any Absolutely Certain that what you hold is indeed Christ's Doctrin that is any Ground of perfect security that is cannot but be indeed his Doctrin without being which it ought not be held True. Whereas yet 't is only this Certainty which can give His or any other Sermon it 's full force and Energy Your Servant in Christ J. S. Advertisement The 2 d. 3 d. Catholick Letters are to be Sold by M. Turner at the Lamb in High-Holbourn THE FIFTH Catholick Letter IN REPLY TO Dr. Stillingfleet's Pretended ANSWER To About the Fortieth Part of I. S's Catholick Letters Addrest to all Impartial Readers By Iohn Sergeant Published with Allowance London Printed and sold by Matthew Turner at the Lamb in High-Holborn 1688. THE PREFACE Addrest to the most Partial of Dr. Stillingfleet's Friends Gentlemen WHen a Person is incomparably qualify'd above all others in any Particular men use to look upon him as a Pattern in that Kind I will not say Dr St. has manifested himself to be such an Exemplar in every respect that can be an Ingredient of an Ill Controvertist This is yet to be shewn and Pretence without Proof signifies nothing Only I may justly fear that while you are reading my Reply to his Answer as he calls it to my Catholick Letters you may be apt to judge that I am rather framing an Idea of what Human Weakness maintaining an insupportably-ill Cause may be obnoxious to than giving a Iust Character of his Performances and that 't is Absolutely Impossible that a Man of his Parts should be Guilty of such and so many Incredible Failings I acknowledge with all due Respect to him his Great Endowments and am heartily glad in
speak of the same Point and a Contradiction must be ad idem Secondly Our Divines bring Motives of Credibility to prove Christian Faith to be Divine and True such as are Miracles the Conversion of the World the Sufferings of the Martyrs c. Very good would Dr St. reply these might prove the Faith profest in those times to be True but you have alter'd that Faith since and therefore you are to prove that the Faith you profess now is the same which was of old So that out of the very nature of our circumstances This is the Only Point between us and the main business of our Controversy about the Rule of Faith or the Ground that can justify its Invariable Conveyance downwards for this being made out by us all the rest is admitted Thirdly Hence both the Protestants and We agree that That is to be called the Rule of Faith by which the knowledge of Christ's Doctrin is convey'd certainly down to us at the distance of so many Ages from the time of its first Delivery Does any of our School-Divines take the Words Rule of Faith in this Sense Not one They content themselves with what serves for their purpose and call that a Rule of Faith which barely contains Faith. Fourthly Our only Point being to know assuredly the former Faith by a Certain Conveyer how must this be made out to those who are enquiring what is Christ's True Doctrin Must we bid them rely on their Private Interpretations of Scripture No surely for this is the way Proper to all Hereticks Must we bring them the Publick Interpretation of it by the Church This might do the deed so we could manifest this by some Knowledges those Candidates are already possess'd of and did admit Must we then at the first dash alledge the Publick Interpretation of the Church Divinely assisted What effect can this have upon those who do not yet hold that Tenet and consequently how can this be a Proper Argument to convince them It remains then that we can only begin with their unelevated Reason by alledging the Church's Human-Authority or Tradition the most vast and best-qualify'd Testimony to convey down a notorious matter of Fact of Infinite Concern that ever was since the World was Created for a Certain Conveyer of Faith from the time that those Motives of Credibility proving the then Faith to be Divine were on foot And if so why not with the same labour and for the same Reasons to bring it down from the very Beginning of the Church And if we must alledge it are we not oblig'd as Disputants to bring such Arguments to prove that Authority Certain as do conclude that Point If they do not what are they good for in a Controversy or what signifies a Proof that Concludes nothing This is the Sum of my Procedure and my Reasons for it in short which are abundantly sufficient to shew to any man of Sense that while the Doctor objects our School-Divines to one in my Circumstances his hand is all the while in the wrong Box as will more at large be shewn hereafter He might have seen cited by me in my Clypeus Septemplex two Writers of great Eminency viz. Father Fisher the most Learned Controvertist of his Age here in England and a Modern Author Dominicus de Sancta Trinitate whose Book was Printed at Rome it self and appprov'd by the Magister Sacri Palatii who to omit divers others do abet each particular Branch of my Doctrin which renders insignificant all his pretence of my Singularity and my Opposition to the Catholick Controvertists But to leave off this necessary Digression and proceed As our Doctor has shuffled off the whole Question by taking the word Faith as treated of by us in a wrong Sense so he behaves himself as ill in every particular of the rest of his Title viz. in his discoursing of his pretended Certainty of Faith and of the Nature and the Grounds of it He cannot be won to give us any Account how his Grounds Influence the Points of Faith with the Absolute Certainty he pretended And as for the Certainty it self the only word of his Title that is left he never shews how any one Article even though it be most Fundamentall is absolutely secur'd from being False or Heretical by any Rule Ground or Way he assigns us Nor can I imagin any thing could tempt him to so strange Extravagances but the streight he was in being put to shew his Faith Absolutely Certain and his Despondency ever to perform an Vndertaking which he foresaw was by his shallow Principles impossible to be atchiev'd And hence he was necessitated to all these crafty Shifts and Wiles and all those Vnsound Methods which like so many complicated Diseases affect his languishing Discourse and dying Cause as shall be laid open in the Progress of this Discourse and particularly in the Concluding Section I shall only instance at present in two or three Material ones which like the Grain in wood run through his whole Work. For Example When any Question is propounded which grows too troublesome he never pursues that Game but flushes up another and flies at that 'till the true Point be out of sight Tell him our Point is whether the High Mysteries and other Spiritual Articles of Faith be Clear in Scripture he will never answer directly but runs to Points necessary to Salvation Ask him if the Tenet of Christ's Godhead be necessary to Salvation no direct Answer can we get to that neither tho' it be the very Point we instanc't in Press him that there are no Unnecessary Points and therefore that All are Necessary for the Generality of the Church he cries Alas for me but answers nothing Ask him what Points he accounts Necessary He is perfectly mute 'Till at length he shuffles about so that the true Question which is about a Rule of Faith comes to be chang'd into a Rule of Manners and those High Spiritual Points which are most properly Christian and could only be known to the World by Divine Revelation are thrown aside and Moral ones put in their place which were known to many even of the Heathen Writers And this is the best Sense I can pick out of a man who affects to wrap up those Tenets of his and their Consequences which he thinks would not be for his Credit to discover in Mysterious Reserves The like Shuffling he uses in the Notion of Certainty or any other that is of Concern in our present Dispute for he is a very Impartial man and treats them All alike Ask him then If Faith be Absolutely Certain by his Grounds He will not say it but more than once hints the contrary Are the Grounds of it at least Absolutely Certain tho' he makes them such ill-natur'd things that contrary to all other Grounds in the world they keep their Absolute Certainty to themselves and will let Faith have none of it Yes he 'll tell you they are provided
Faith Does he think the Mysteries of Faith are the Way to Faith Or can he pretend that the State of the Question exprest so carefully before-hand in a Preface to signify my meaning throughout the whole Treatise following is totally to be set aside and neglected and that only single words pickt out where for brevity's sake I did not constantly repeat it are to give my true Sense What impertinent Brabbling is this Again p. 16.17 I no less punctually declare that I only treat of the Objects or Points of Faith as their Truth depends on those Motives or Rule of Faith. Yet all will not do to a man bent upon Cavill 9. My last Note towards the End let 's him see clearly when to whom and how Infallible Assent is requisite and not requisite And I had forestall'd this too before in an Elaborate Discourse from p. 131. to p. 158. in Error Nonplust where I shew'd that since Faith must be True and not possible to be a Lye therefore all who have true Faith must be out of capacity of being in an Error or must be in some manner Infallible That it was enough simply to have Faith that they be Materially Infallible or not capable of being in an Error by relying on a Ground that cannot deceive them such as is the Testimony of Gods Church tho' they see not how it must be so Nay that this is absolutely sufficient for All who are coming to Faith provided they do not happen to doubt that their Reasons for the Churches Infallibility are Inconclusive and so be apt to remain unsatisfy'd or are not bound to maintain the Truth of Faith against Opposers in which case they are to be able to see and prove the Conclusiveness of their Grounds from some Certain Principle which I call there to be Formally Infallible This and much more is laid out there at large which prevents most of his Objections here But no notice takes the good Dr. of it It was it seems too great a Mortification to him to peruse a Book which he was highly Concern'd to answer and knew he could not 10. His Fourth Contradiction is solv'd in three lines I treated of the Humane Authority of the Church the Rule of Faith which was Extrinsical to Faith as 't is a Theological Virtue or Divine Yet it being an Extrinsical Argument as all Testimony is I therefore went about to prove it's force from Intrinsical Mediums fetcht from the Natures of the Things viz. Man's Nature and the Nature of the Motives Nor can the Certainty of Witnessing Authority be prov'd otherwise 11. His Fifth is clear'd by my first four Notes which shew that I spoke of Faith which was by the Confession of both Parties Divine and Supernatural and for that reason called so by me but did not treat of it as thus qualified or go about to prove it Divine but prov'd it's Truth meerly as it depended on Humane Faith previous to it and so did only formally treat of that Humane Faith it self on which the Knowledge of Divine Faith leans and by which those coming to Divine Faith are rais'd up to it Yet what hideous Outcries the Dr. makes here that by my Doctrine we are to seek for the Certainty of Faith formally Divine That I make Divine and Supernatural Faith derive it's Certainty from Natural Infallibility c. Tho' he knows as well as that he lives that we make Faith as Formally Divine derive it's Certainty from the Divine Authority testify'd to us by Miracles That this Establishment of Divine Faith by Supernatural means is presuppos'd to our Question and granted by both sides and that our only Point is how we may know certainly what was this Divine Faith thus ascertain'd at first Whoever reads Third Catholick Letter p. 23.24 will admire with what face he could object these falshoods or counterfeit an Ignorance of what has been so often and so clearly told him and which he had seen so particularly answer'd in my Defences But this is his usual Sincerity 'T is pretty to observe into what a monstrous piece of Nonsense our Dr. has fall'n here and how because I argue from Supernatural Faith he thinks I am arguing for it or proving it Whereas common sense tells every man who has not laid it aside that he who argues from another thing supposes that other thing and so cannot possibly while he does so go about to prove it or treat of it But it seems For and From are the same with his great Reason and not possible to be distinguisht He might have seen other Arguments drawn from the Supernaturality of Faith to prove that the Rule which is to light intelligent men who are Unbelievers to Faith must be more then Morally Certain But he thought best to chuse the worst and while he objected that too mistook From for For that is the Premisses for the Conclusion and the Cart for the Horse 12. His Sixth Exception if pertinent amounts to this I.S. did not prove any point Divine and Supernatural therefore Dr. St. needs prove no point of Faith he holds to be truly deriv'd from Christ A fair riddance of his whole Task For the rest We do not desire him to prove by his Rule one determinate point more than another only since he talks of his Grounds which cannot be such unless they derive their solid Virtue of supporting to what 's built on them we instance now and then in some main and most necessary Articles of which if he can give us no account how they come to be absolutely ascertain'd by his Ground or Rule he can give it of none Each Point of Faith is of a determinate sense We shew that Tradition gives and ascertains to us this determinate sense and we shew why it must do so and how it does so this with Absolute Certainty Let him shew his Rule has the power to do this then pretend we are on equal Ground But alas He must not say this who is all for Moral Certainty and fancies nothing above it For he cannot say by such Grounds any Point is or is True while it may be False that they were taught by Christ and if he says they are or were taught by Christ while they may not be so he in plain terms affirms the same thing may at once be and not be For thither the Doctrine of Faith's possible falshood must be reduc't at last and the Greatest of Contradictions will be found to be his First Principle 13. His 7th Exception is answer'd in my last Note which shews that the Ground upon which the Truth of Faith depends must be more than Morally Certain tho' every Believer needs not penetrate the force of those Grounds or have even so much as Moral Certainty of their Conclusiveness But what means he when he Objects my saying that True Faith by reason of its Immoveable Grounds can bear an asserting the Impossibility of it's Falshood Can
this man do himself a greater prejudice than by thus confessing that he holds not Christian Faith absolutely speaking True Or can he lay a greater scandal on Christian Faith it self than to quarrel at a Position that can give him no displeasure but by asserting it's perfect Truth If this do not like his new-fashion'd Christian Principles I suppose he will own the contrary Position and affirm that True Faith by reason of it's Moveable or Uncertain Grounds Cannot bear an asserting the Absolute Impossibility of it's Falshood And this is in plain terms to assert that absolutely speaking True Faith may all be False which is both Unchristian and strong Nonsense to boot He should have Preach't this to his Auditory at Guildhall and then he should have seen how every honest Hearer would have abhorr'd his Doctrine have lookt upon Him as scarce half a Christian and on such a Faith as absurd praeternatural and Irrational as well as I did 14. These are the greatest Contradictions the Dr. could pick even out of an Adversaries Book concerning which he keeps such a mighty noise blusters and triumphs He tells the Reader I affirm that Moral Certainty destroys the Essence of Faith. And I affirm it does taking Faith without some absolutely certain Principle as Demonstration is to ground it on For Faith is essentially True and it cannot be True to those who see that notwithstanding it's Grounds which are to prove it Christ's Doctrine it may yet be none of his Doctrine Again he says I make Moral Certainty Sufficient and Insufficient for Faith. Distinguish good Doctor 'T is not Sufficient for the Ground of Faith as we treat of it for if there may be Deceit in that Ground the Truth of Faith as to us sinks And yet Moral Certainty and even less of the force of that Ground is Sufficient to many nay All so they adhere to a Ground that is really Infallible and Salvation is attainable by those Persons Oh but Salvation is to be had by such a Faith no better grounded and that 's the main business What If for want of a firm Ground Faith hap to be False Who ever said it or that in case any Point embrac't upon such a Ground happen to be Vntrue it could be a Point of Faith or that any man could be sav'd by vertue of a Heretical Tenet or a pernicious Falshood Yet for want of Dr. St's understanding plain sense and his applying my words to a wrong subject I must forfeit my Sincerity and Moral Honesty whereas himself forfeits both by confounding every thing which I had so carefully distinguisht There is not a tittle objected by himself or Lominus but I distinctly and clearly answer'd in my Clypeus Septemplex and Vindiciae to the satisfaction of all my Superiours and Judges Yet this man of Moral Honesty has the Ingenuity to object them afresh without taking notice of my Answers or letting the Reader so much as know any such Satisfactory Answers or any answer at all had been already given 14. As for the three Propositions pickt out of my Books apart from the Context and which as taken in the precise words in which they were exhibited were censur'd I desire the Reader to reflect that these words There is no God tho' found in the Holy Scripture it self yet as separated from the words adjoyning and exprest in those precise terms are perfect Atheism and deserve the highest Censure and yet the same words as they lie in the Sacred Book it self with these foregoing words The Fool hath said in his heart joyn'd with them the direct contrary is signify'd by that place This was my very case The words or passages taken alone without the Prefaces declaring the sole Intent of the Author without the State of the Question and other Paragraphs or words in the same Paragraph giving light by the Tenour of the Discourse to my true meaning bore a shew as if I had affirm'd that it was requisite to Faith to demonstrate the Mysteries of Faith and among them the Supernatural Infallibility of the Church which is a Point of Faith. Especially since there was inserted by the Exhibiter a Parenthesis in the middle of the second Proposition he speaks of Propositions of Faith whereas there was not a word of any such thing but about fifteen times the contrary in the self-same Paragraph viz. That I spoke of Motives Premisses and Grounds of Faith. Now the Censurers knew not that those Propositions were in any Book or had any Antecedents or Consequents as they publickly declar'd and I have it under their hands and consequently Censur'd them as my self should have done had I been in their Circumstances and circumvented as they were As soon as I saw the Censure I offer'd voluntarily to Subscribe to it knowing that those Propositions thus singled out were no more my Doctrine than There is no God was the Sense of the Sacred Writer nay quite contrary to it The Censurers declar'd they were surpriz'd and complain'd they were by indirect wiles impos'd upon So at the Arch-Bishop of Paris his Command I writ my Vindiciae to manifest the true Sense of those passages as they lay in my Books which I shew'd very clearly and particularly to be that I only spoke of Faith as standing under a Rule ascertaining it's Descent from Christ. My Books being in English it was order'd that some Persons of great Learning and Repute who understood English should examine and testify whether taking those Propositions as they lay in my Books the Orthodox Sense I assign'd to them were indeed my genuine meaning in those places My Adversary too allow'd of them to attest it for indeed their known Probity and Learning was such that it was impossible to except against them and that Venerable and Pious Personage Abbot Montagu to whom they were known it being requir'd gave Testimony to both those Qualifications in them They all unanimously attested by their Subscriptions that the Orthodox Sense I assign'd was indeed the true meaning of those Places and that the Sense condemn'd was not in those Books but the direct contrary whence follows that when I Subscrib'd the Censure I subscrib'd only to what had ever been my own Doctrine Those Reverend and Judicious Persons were Mr Francis Gage Dr. of Sorbon Mr Thomas Godden Dr. of Divinity Mr Robert Barclay Principal of the Scotch Colledge in Paris Mr Bonaventure Giffard and Mr Iohn Betham then Batchelours of Divinity in Sorbon both of them since Doctors of the same Faculty and the former of them now Bishop of Madaura Mr Edward Cary Mr Edward Lutton and Mr G. K. The Arch-Bishop of Paris being perfectly satisfy'd hoping it might end future Disputes desired me to Subscribe to the Censure I refus'd at first alledging that such a Subscription might be improv'd into a pretence that I had retracted He replied Uteris itaque quâ Subscriptionis formulâ tibi placuerit
Make use therefore of what form of Subscription you please I replied Then I will declare that I do Subscribe not retracting my Doctrine but persisting in it which he allow'd and I did it in the self-same terms adding that I persisted in it as being free from Censure and approv'd by very Eminent Personages Which done the Censurers were order'd nay commanded to make me Satisfaction by an Instrument Sign'd by them both declaring that no Proposition in any Book of mine was toucht by their Censure Could there be a greater and more Authentick Clearing my Books and Doctrine from being Censur'd than that was or might not Dr St. by parity of reason as well have pretended that the Scripture teaches Atheism or that King David deserv'd to be Censur'd for saying There is no God as that any Proposition as found in my Books was there Censur'd or Declar'd Heretical 15. And now to lay open some of the Doctor 's Falshoods upon this occasion They are these 1. That the main Design of my Catholick Letters are there declar'd to be no Catholick Doctrine Well bowl'd Doctor Have I a word there pretending to shew the Mysteries of Faith or the Authority of the Church that is believ'd by Faith that is it's Supernatural Infallibility by Assistance of the Holy Ghost to be Demonstrable Is it not shewn you in most express words Third Cath. Letter p. 22.23 and in many other places that we speak only of the Humane Authority of the Church which is to be prov'd by Natural Mediums and not of the other which is believ'd by the Faithfull This then is a meer forg'd pretence against your own Conscience and perfect Knowledge 2. That I was Censur'd and retracted whereas 't is manifest not any thing as it lay in my Books that is indeed nothing of mine was Censur'd nor did I subscribe otherwise than as not Retracting my Doctrine but persisting in it as being free from Censure This the Arch-Bishop of Paris allow'd and the Censurers themselves judged to be Iust and True and upon those terms acquitted me and made me Satisfaction 3. He says that if this the Sense Condemn'd be not Catholick Doctrine he is Infallibly Certain my Letters are far from being Catholick in their Sense Now not one word is there in those Letters which is the Sense Condemn'd as I shew'd lately however I am glad he who has still been so high against all Infallibility in his Writings and deny'd it to the Catholick or any Church owns it at least in Himself I see now what Grounds he went upon when he would not make a Candid Retractation of his Irenicum Certainly this man would persuade us to take his word for our Rule of Faith. But the ill luck is his Infallibility is evidently prov'd already to be willfull Forgery against plain and Authentick matter of Fact. He say the A. B. of D. averrs many fine things already answer'd and that my Plea was ridiculous Which is false for any thing he or I know For that Illustrious Personage deny'd that Book of Lominus to be his or did any man own it but it came out surreptitiously without the Approbation of any man under an unknown name nay without so much as the Printers name to it which was punishable by the Laws there Whence we may judge of our Drs. sincerity In his Second Letter to Mr. G. p. 8. by putting Heresis Blacloana in the Margent over against his Appeal to F. W. He hinted that that Venerable Person was Author of that Book Beat off from that False and Ungrounded pretence he has found us another Author for it and I expect in his next piece we shall have a Third or Fourth according as his fancy so heated now that it has shaken off all regard to Civility shall prompt him Again he shews us how wonderfully ingenuous he is by his quoting against me the railing Book of an unknown Adversary which had besides all the Marks of a Libel in it and over-flipping the Attestation of Eight Worthy Divines of great repute who openly and owning their names did witness that those places in my Books did not bear the Sense in which those words pick't out thence were censur'd Add that Dr. St. knew all these particulars were clear'd satisfactorily since it appears by his quoting them he had read my Defences in which they are printed at large Which Common Sense may assure him I durst not have done in the Life-time of all the Persons mention'd and concern'd without quite losing my Cause Nay I should have expos'd my self to new Accusations as a Falsifier had I not dealt sincerely to a tittle and preserv'd all the Authentick Originals in my own hands for the Justification of my Defences which I yet have I charge the Dr. then to have publisht against me Willfull and Notorious Falshoods which he had reason to know to be such Yet we are still to think he did all this out of his pure Love to Moral Honesty of which he makes such a Saintly Profession I Challenge him moreover to shew me any one Catholique Writer of any Eminency I do profess I do not know so much as one of any degree whatever whoever Censur'd this Position that the Infallibility of the Churches Humane Authority antecedent to Faith and deriving down Christ's Doctrine might be demonstrated which is all I require in my Catholick Letters Whereas the Right Reverend F. W. has named him divers both Ancient and Modern who follow that Method in general and I have quoted divers Eminent Controvertists as occasion serv'd and particularly insisted on two beyond all Exception F. Fisher here in England and Dominicus de Sta Trinitate who writ and printed his Book at Rome and had it approv'd by the Magister Sacri Palatii who take the same way I do almost to a tittle I may add to the Drs. greater confusion the Authority of the Arch-Bishop of D. himself and of all those Eminent Persons who have approv'd my Doctrine as shall be seen hereafter 16. Not a man then has Dr St. on his side but one unknown and altogether unapprov'd Author Lominus and a bitter Adversary to me besides out of whose Falshoods interlarded with his own and by his Concealing my Replyes to all he objects and those such as fully satisfy'd my Judges and Superiours he makes a shift to patch up his Calumnies We will see next whether to his further shame my Books or Doctrin have not had Testimonials of greater weight to approve and authenticate them than that of Lominus was to Condemn them 17. In the first place that Blessed and Glorious Martyr the Illustrious and Eminently Learned Oliver Plunket Arch-Bishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland assoon as he heard my Books were oppos'd out of his meer Justice love of Truth and the Esteem he had of my Doctrin unsought to nay unthought of sent me out of Ireland an Approbation of it writ
Certainty in such Tradition I know no Party if Christian that has any Interest to oppose him The stronger any one can make this Faith they have all reason to like it the better By which 't is apparent that he is so far from condemning and censuring the way I take that he declares 't is not the Interest of any Party if Christian to oppose it and that himself and every one ought to like it better than the other way so it could be made good And that it can my best Reason tells me since as appears by my Method it has born the Test of being reduc't even to Self-Evidence and the miserable shifts and Evasions to which the most Learned of our Adversaries are driven to avoid it's force do more and more assure me 't is not at all hard to compass it 22. In the last place to omit many others I shall put the Testimony of that very Reverend Person F. Martin Harney Dr. of Divinity of the University of Lovain and Principal Regent of the General Studies of the Order of St Dominick Who being askt at Rome where he was at the time of the Contest his Judgment of my Doctrin compriz'd in my Method and of the Sense of the three Propositions as they lie in my Books gave under his hand this Testimonial of both I under-written have attentively read the Method writ by Mr John Sergeant and his Vindication of the three Propositions pickt out of his Books and I have found that the Method is sound Doctrin and usefull to reduce many to the Catholick Faith. And in his Vindiciae 'tis plainly demonstrated that the foresaid Propositions as written by the Author do make a Sense altogether Orthodox This Reverend Person I had never seen nor heard of nor could any thing but the love of Truth move him to this Approbation nay he must have lost much Credit with the Sacra Congregatio had my Doctrin been prov'd Vnorthodox or the Propositions in my Book as Infallible Dr. St. affirms Heretical 23. Modesty forbids me to mention the excessive Encomiums of that Eminent Controvertist Mr. Edward Worsley a Father of the Society who though utterly unknown to me took such a Friendship for me upon the reading my Books and in all places where he came extoll'd my poor Endeavours with such immoderate Expressions that to save my blushes in rehearsing them I intreat those who have the Curiosity to read them in my Declaratio from p. 73. to p. 78. I shew'd them to the Right Honourable the Earl of Castlemain who was pleas'd to do me the right to attest them to be his hand-writing The same noble Personage as many as knew F. Worsley will I doubt not do that right to his Memory as to witness for him that as he was Second to none in ability to distinguish between Sound and Tainted Doctrine so his sincere Candour and Integrity set him as far above the humour of Flattery as my Meanness could incline any to it 24. The Sum of my present Defence is this Eight Divines of great Repute appointed by the Arch-Bishop of Paris and admitted by my Adversary himself do unanimously attest that the Sense condemn'd is not in my Books but the contrary My Judge clears me the Censurers are commanded to make me Satisfaction The Highest Tribunal allows my Plea and acquits me Primates Arch-Bishops Bishops the Sorbon Eminent Divines and even those who take another way in their Writings approve and commend my Doctrine and most of them in very high and extraordinary expressions my own Superiour does the same nay even those who were formerly highly prejudic't declar'd themselves satisfy'd in it So that poor Dr. St. is left alone to ballance against all this weighty Authority with one Lominus a meer Utopian or Man in the Moon on whose sole no-Authority he grounds all his sensless Calumnies Was ever weak man so baffled Add that he knew that all these Defences of mine had been made and accepted many years ago and those Authorities alledg'd and my Doctrine thus approv'd and clear'd yet he had not the Candour to let his Reader have the least hint of any of those particulars which argues not too great love of Moral Honesty Nor does he take off any one Answer of those many I had given but only says over again rawly some few things objected reply'd to and printed fourteen Years ago and plays upon a double-sens't word or two by applying them still to wrong Subjects which is in effect to tell the Reader he must either talk insignificantly against evident matter of Fact or say just nothing and to confess in plain terms he is at a perfect Nonplus 25. To close this present business I desire the Reader to reflect that those Judges Approvers and Commenders of my Books and Doctrine liv'd generally in divers and far-distant Nations were of different Faculties and Universities of different Education different Orders and to some degree of different Principles and Interests some of them of slight acquaintance divers utterly unknown to me or I to Them. So that 't is impossible to imagine that any thing but the Force of Truth and the Integrity of my way of proving the Certainty of our Faith as to it 's being taught by Iesus Christ could make them conspire to allow or abet my Writings so heartily and unanimously Nor could there be any Human inducements to make them so partial to a private man every way inconsiderable and of no Esteem at all but what my Writings and Principles gave me Whence though no one Church as Dr. St. weakly objects has ever own'd my Doctrine to give formal Approbations of Controversial or Theological Writings not being a work proper for Churches yet the Dignity of the Persons and all these Circumstances consider'd I conceive it may amount to the full weight of the Judgment of any one particular Church whatsoever that my Doctrin is Sound and Orthodox Nor will he I believe find that any work of a particular Writer hath had more Authentick Testimonials for it than my poor Endeavours have had except that of the never-enough-praised the Bishop of Condom And 't is not the least Confirmation of their Integrity that they have been twice brought to the Tryal at Paris and Rome and nothing unsound found in them Though I must do the Doctor the right to acknowledge he has spoke one and hitherto but one true word but he is to be pardon'd for prevaricating from his constant method of speaking Falshoods for it was at unawares and he knew not he did so The Truth he spoke against his will was this That I hardly escaped Censure at Rome and therefore to make his words good I 'le tell him how it was All my Books were sent thither to Cardinal Barberin and amongst them one written by the Right Honourable my Lord Chancellour Hyde in defence of Dr. St. against Mr. Cressy pretending the Title of this last being torn out they were all writ by
retract them Nor shall he name any one Learned and Orthodox man of our Church who says my Explication is not Genuin and Sincere whereas I have nam'd him many Eminent in both those Qualities who have attested under their hands they are such He ends with bidding the Reader judge what I. S. has gotten by the Confession of Parties As much as in Modesty he could have wisht as appears by the Approbations of his Books and Success in his Suit. What Dr. St. has got by the Confession of his Party may be seen by an Eminent man not writing in hugger-mugger and Disguise but owning his Name viz. that he is accus'd of having Mountebankt and Quackt for full five and twenty years And these wretched shifts he has thought fit to use here to avoid the Point le ts us see he has not left it yet Nor am I to expect he should easily quit such an Inveterate Habit grown into a kind of Nature by a five and twenty years Custom and Practice 31. Now comes the State of the Question as his Second Letter has craftily put it tho' I conceive it was best Stated by shewing the Occasion and sole End of the Conference to which I will hold nor will I be beat off from it by any Excursions either then or since There was a Question then put to Dr. St. in these words Whether you are absolutely Certain that you hold now the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught his Apostles I thought I did well in putting him to answer directly that He was He says by my favour he us'd other words And what were those Why instead of the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught to his Apostles he answer'd All the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles There 's a Cloud in this carriage of his it being against the Clear way of honest Nature Was the Position as it lay in the terms of the Proposer true and so to be granted Why did he not grant it then Was it False why did he not deny it Was it Ambiguous why did he not the Proposer being present desire him to explain it No neither None of these plain and common Methods would please him What then He would needs change the words of the Question in his Answer And by what Rule Was his Answer the same in Sense with the Question If not his Answer was no Answer to that Question but the saying another thing on his own head If it was the same Sense why did he not speak to it directly in the Proposers words The reason he gives is because he 's afraid of Orall Tradition lest it should vary the Sense Whose Sense The Proposer's His Sense was fixt in determinate words and if it were not known the Doctor might have known it if he had pleas'd He means then his own Sense What must he put what Sense he thinks fit to the Question This is a quaint way of Answering And why should not the Proposer fear as himself did here lest by changing his words as he did enormously he should change his Sense too But this Orall Tradition like a Spright so haunts his Fancy that all along as shall be seen he either starts perpetually into Excursions and counterfeit Mirth or stumbles into downright Nonsense And this I believe verily is the General reason of all his failings But we are now to seek out his particular reason of changing the words here The last words that differ in the Question and Answer can break no squares for Christ and his Apostles agreed well enough and that Heavenly Master of theirs taught them All Faith either by Himself or the Holy Ghost sent in his name The danger then must be in these words the same Tenets in Faith which he changes for his security into the same Doctrin Because the word Doctrin signifies all in the lump as he expresses it to shew which he hop't it might be sufficient to shew the Book of Scripture whereas the Plural word Tenets might come to oblige him to shew how he has Absolute Certainty of each or any Point in particular to which he has a great Antipathy And accordingly when he came to perform this he chang'd again the Absolute Certainty of Faith into Absolute Certainty of Scripture I answer'd They held more to be of Faith than that the Book so call'd is Scripture He first trifles that we mean more than is contain'd in Scripture contrary to our express words where there 's not a Syllable of containing or not-containing all Faith. However if I mean his assent to Points of Faith contain'd in Scripture he promises a full Answer afterwards which we impatiently long to see Only we intreat him because 't is a far off he would not lose Absolute Certainty by the way nor fool our expectations when we come at it by letting the full Answer promist us vanish away into a flat denial he has any such Certainty of those Points at all 32. I argu'd ad hominem that since he confesses Tradition causes Certainty it makes Faith as Certain as Scripture He seems to confess it but denies we have such an Universal Tradition for our Tridentin Faith. As if the Faith come down by Tradition were not the same before and since that Council or that the Tradition we build on did not consist of such a vast Body of Attesters as were able to evince the truth of a plain matter of Fact unless those who had renounc't Tradition did club to it's Certainty But is it not pretty to observe that he pretends not to hold Faith to be Certain by our Tradition because 't is not Universal and yet at the same time disputes against Tradition's being a Certain Deriver of Christ's Faith even tho' it were Universal For his Principles allow no more hand in our Faith to Universal Tradition but only to bring down the Book of Scripture and then make that Book the only Ascertainer of our Faith. He threatens to shew the Tridentin Council had not Universal Tradition for it's Decrees and to give us a taste before-hand of that Treatise he adds Let the matter of Tradition it self as a Rule of Faith be one of those Points Well shot Doctor The Points he speaks of here are exprest to be Points of Faith and the Tradition we defend in our Controversy at present is the Human Authority of the Church which we make to be the Rule to those coming to Faith and so it is Antecedent to Faith and the Object of pure Natural Reason And does he in his Great Learning think This is a Point of Faith Or is it not possible to keep this roving Pen of his to any thing But he designs to prove this mighty Advantage of his Cause and that no Catholick Tradition can be produc't against his Church in any one Point of the Additional Creed of Pius IV. Suppose it could not has he therefore
in it The Lady having a high opinion of Dr. St's parts judg'd it impossible a man of his Learning should not be able to give an Answer to a few Lines in so long a time not reflecting how connected Truth hampers an Adversary and is perfectly Unanswerable So she prest vehemently for a Second a Distinct Answer After some tedious expectation he sends another more insignificant if possible than the former Which seen and the Lady now satisfied that he upon whom she most rely'd had done his utmost she alter'd her Judgment upon no other inducement than the seeing plainly that his Principles resolv'd all Certainty of Faith finally into the Private Spirit The Drs Reflecter was set on like an unexperienc't Perdu Souldier to combat it with a distinct Answer but alas he was shown to falter or falsify in every particular This ill success made the Dr. grow wary in speaking to any particular part of it but thought it safest here to stand aloof and throw stones at distance instead of grappling with it neerer hand His answer is that it proceeds upon two False Suppositions and Overthrows the Possibility of any Rule of Faith. My first False Supposition is that there is no Certainty without Infallibility No True or Absolute Certainty good Dr. For as for your Morall Certainty it may be Fallible enough I must confess I hate such nonsense as to say I am perfectly Certain of a thing yet peradventure I am deciev'd The word Absolute signifies Perfect and Certainty if True is taken from the Natures of the Objects or Things without us and if they stand perfectly engag'd by a True Knowledge of them they would not be what they are if when we truly conceive them as they are our Conception or Iudgment of them can be False that is if it be not in that particular Infallible This is plain Sense and told him long ago It has been demonstrated also in Faith Vindicated that True Certainty Infallibility were all one What answers he Why he makes as if he had never known or heard of our Arguments for it but falls to talk of the Stoicks Marke Epicurus his fooleries He learnedly mistakes the Definition Man is a Rational Creature for a Demonstration and dislikes it at the same time Lastly he tells us many other things the Antients held or said which are nothing to me who judge I know what belongs to Certainty and resolving of Truths into their Principles as well as they did and do think them very weak to stand disputing with the perfect Scepticks or convincing them by Criterions because all Discourse supposes something Certain to build upon otherwise it might go on endlessly that is would be to no End and the Scepticks admitted no Certainty of any thing at all 40. His Application of those Preparatives is that we are to expect no Absolute Certainty in proving the present Faith to be Christ's Doctrin And so he hopes to save his own Credit for producing none let the Credit of Christian Faith and the repute of its being an Absolutely Certain Truth go where it will for him However to avoid the shame justly due to such a Position he must cast in some good words to fool his Readers and so he grants that they who use due Care and diligence may attain to a true Certainty and satisfaction of Mind as to the sence of Scripture But he never attempts to show that possibly they may not do so but may hap to fall into damnable Heresies as the Socinians do who for ought he or I know us'd as much Care and Diligence as he and his Party use Again what means Satisfaction of Mind Is Faith ever a jot more Certain or True because some may be Satisfy'd it is Are not the Socinians as well satisfy'd in mind that Christ is not God as the Dr. is that he is God Moreover if the Argument he brings to prove his Faith to be Christ's true Doctrin does not conclude 't is a thousand to one that Acute and Intelligent men will find the flaw in it And what can those men do in that case so they be true to their Reason the only Light they can yet guide themselves by Must they Assent that his Faith came from Christ when they see that notwithstanding all the Proof he brings for it it may not be Christ's and hazard to Embrace that Doctrin for his Faith which may for any thing they know have the Father of Lyes for its Author They must Suspend then in that case and justify themselves by alledging that the best Arguments the most Learned Christians bring to prove it conclude nothing Nay 't is to be fear'd they will disgrace the Faithfull as a company of Fops for believing upon weak Grounds and by showing them such lay a just Scandall upon the Christian Church for pretending to hold what Christ taught when as yet none in it are able to prove it was his Doctrin And how would they laugh Christians out of Countenance if proceeding on Dr St's short Grounds they should only show them a Well-Attested Book containing those Doctrines without ascertaining absolutely the true Sense of it when as only that Sense was the Doctrine of Faith and which is worse when they saw multitudes of numerous Sects at perpetuall and irreconcileable variance about that Sense The true Rule of Faith then must be such as sets Faith above any Peradventure of not being Christ's true Doctrin and so secure all who rely on it how weak soever from being deceiv'd or in an Error and withall it must be such as Intelligent men seeking for assurance of Christ's Faith may be satisfy'd it is able to conclude it to be such and the more Learned Faithfull Evince to Doubters and Convince Opposers that the Faith held now by themselves and the Church is the Self-same that Christ and his Apostles taught at First But Dr St. dares not affirm any of this of his Rule of Faith therefore his pretended Rule is none His Instance of True Certainty attainable without Infallibility in that point of Faith viz. That Iesus was the True Messias is partly answer'd in my Fourth Catholique Letter and his alledging it has one strange inadvertence in it which I wonder he was not aware of which is that the Proof of it depended on the Interpretation of Scripture He had it seems forgot that to manifest himself to be the true Messias foretold by the Prophets was the main Point of our Saviours Doctrin and that he did Miracles to attest that Doctrin and make himself known to be that Person which Miracles were Infallible Marks that that Doctrine of his in that point was True. And when the Dr. produces Miracles to abet his Private Interpretations of Scripture then he may have a fair pretence to lay aside the Publick Interpretation of the Church Again he is quite out as to the Subject of his discourse For tho' it was a Point of
irregularly he hinders any Conclusion from following False because no two men can differ in a Sum unless they wrong or abuse the Rules of Computation Irregular because instead of the words who take that Way found in his Second Proposition and in our Discourse he coggs in the words make use of that way which are not so express in sence as the word Take is which imports following whither it leads or making a right use of it And it would have been too palpably absurd to say a man takes a way who leaves it as an Ill-reckoner must needs leave the true Rules of Arithmetick But those who both Take and Follow all along the Letter of Scripture interpreted by their private selves and this to their power and are skilfull in Languages in comparing places do yet go wrong therefore his Way is no Way and his Rule is no Rule Then follows the Triumph over my Inconsiderateness in not distinguishing between the Rule and its Application and I tell him the taking it following it or holding to it is the Applying it and all the Application it can need Nor shall all his starting holes and tricks ever be able to evade the force of this Argument 43. His Discourse of Moral Qualifications requisit to the Certainty of Faith as to know the Sense of the New Testament if apply'd to our present Question amounts to this that no man can see the force of a Natural Medium leading to Faith without Humility of Mind Purity of Heart Prayer to God sincere Endeavours to do God's Will c. So that for want of a good Argument he has left off Disputing and falls to Preaching tho' he has had but ill Success in his Guildhall Sermon 'T is granted all these are excellent means to purge the Will from By-affections and by doing so to leave the Understanding free to see the force of the Proof and thence inferr the Truth of what 's prov'd or shewn to our Reason But where 's this Proof where 's this Truth all the while Must we produce such invisible things for open Proofs If all these Moral Qualifications be requisit as he says to make men Certain of Christ's Doctrin he must prove that Himself and all his Sober Enquirers which are the Members of his private-Spirited Church have all these Qualifications e're we or any man living can be certain they have true Faith. Again how will he satisfy Doubters and convince acute Opposers and Adversaries what is the true Doctrin of Christ Will the alledging Invisible Qualifications do the work Moreover he is Certain of his Faith by his Rule and yet his Rule of Scripture ascertains none by his Doctrin but by vertue of these Moral Qualifications These then are either his Rule or the best part of it At least he maintains here they are requisit and that otherwise Scripture is no Rule He must then prove He has these Qualifications or he cannot shew he has any Rule or any Faith. In a word we are disputing as Controvertists and demand open intelligible Proofs and he sends us to Invisible holes which only God the searcher of Hearts can find out and is not this mighty Learned I wonder how he can pretend to Convert any man to Christ's true Doctrin by these Principles All he can do is to alledge and compare Texts to prove it certainly Christ's Doctrin I but Sir says the other how shall I be satisfy'd you have Humility of Mind Purity of Heart c. without which your self confess you cannot be certain of the true Sense of Scripture at all What Art the Doctor has to satisfy him in this hard Point I know not But setting the Doctor 's Faith aside what Provision has he made for the standing Visible Body of the Church to defend and maintain she has Christ's true Faith None in the world by his Principles unless she can prove she has all these Moral Qualifications So that all is left to each private man's breast and if he has but this good Conceit of himself that he is endow'd with all those excellent Virtues and fancies that he prays better than all his Neighbours let them be Socinians Quakers or what you will he is certain of his Faith meerly by vertue of this Self-conceit that he is such a Saint since by Dr. St's Principles without firm assurance that he is thus requisitly qualify'd he can never have any assurance at all of his Faith. Might he not as well have told us in one word that Himself and all his Friends are pure Saints and know themselves to be so and therefore they are Certain they have these rare Qualifications and by them Assurance of the Sense of Scripture or Christ's Doctrin but that all who do not think as they do want those Qualifications are of the Wicked and Children of Darkness and so can never have any Light to know whether they have Christ's true Doctrin or not This then is the rare Resolution of Dr. St's Faith. I expected he should produce clear Arguments as became a Controvertist and he alledges the most hidden Means in the world as becomes an Enthusiast 44. Yet the force of Truth is so great that it obliges him to confess that The Right Way will certainly bring men to their Iourneys End if they continue in it I subsume But the Letter of Scripture Interpretable by Private Judgments does not bring the Socinians to their End that is to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught tho' they continue in it whence I conclude that Scripture's Letter Interpretable by Private Judgments is not the Right Way to know surely what Christ his Apostles taught To escape this most evident Conclusion which utterly overthrows his whole Cause he starts aside with one If to the remote End Salvation whereas the End I spoke of in my Discourse which he is now answering was expressly to know assuredly Christ's Doctrin Then after a second If he tells us Scripture was not design'd as an Infallible Way to know the Truth on Falshood of particular Opinions by What have we to do with Opinions We speak of Points of Faith and instanc't expressly in the Blessed Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. Are these with him but Opinions Indeed I have reason to doubt that all Points of Faith are but Opinions with him nay he ought to doubt they are or may be worse than Opinions viz. Heretical Falshoods unless he thinks himself absolutely Certain of his Moral Qualifications for 't is those it seems must do the deed when all Arguments fail As for Infallibility there was no such word in my Discourse and he ought to answer my Argument in the words I put it and not to start into such Evasions and Logomachies Tho' the allowing of Natural Infallibility has been prov'd against him by Reason and Authority of those even of his own Church he never answers it but barely says over again there is no such thing as Infallibility in
sight talk in Common name great Authors for his Vouchers but never shew how they savour him by applying them And then he 's safe by virtue of a great noise fine Raree shows He ends with railing at the rate of a man at his Wits End I desire him to pacify his spleen for no man that knows me and my circumstances does or can think I write to raise my self or to be caressed as he phrases it by any man. I will never court any man's favour or fear his frowns when I am defending Truth 53. But the Scene is chang'd all of a sudden I am almost asham'd to reflect as it deserves on what follows in his two next Paragraphs 'T is so purely A-la-Mode of Merry Andrew Never did Grave Man make such a Fop of himself But his Reason was Nonplust and his Fancy was over-heated and this must plead his excuse for what could he do better in such ill circumstances To set right what his Raillery has so ravell'd I declar'd my Tenet was that every man is to use his Iudgment of Discretion or his Reason in finding out a Rule which could ascertain him of all the several Points taught by Christ Since the Rule of Faith being antecedent to Faith must consequently be the Object of pure Reason That by this Rule he was to judge for his Salvation and of all Controverted Points For if this Rule gave him Absolute Assurance that all those determinate Points were indeed taught by Christ then since he acknowledg'd Christ's Doctrin to be from God they were to be held by him to be Divine and True If it give him no such assurance of this being in it self Fallible then they are not to be held Divine nor True nor Faith nor the way to Salvation since in that case they might perhaps be Diabolical False Heresy and the way to Damnation Now no such Rule does he assign us but leaves it to the Iudgment of his sober Enquirers to find out those determinate Points in Scripture's Letter which in those Articles of so profound a sense is obscure to them Our Judgment of Discretion is to find out a Certain Light to walk by in those sublime passages in which the Light of our own Reason is very dim His is to do as well as he can in penetrating the Sense of the Scripture in such high passages tho' he sees he may fall into Error every step That is his way is indeed to be a Rule to our selves and scorn to be led by the Church tho' there be all the Reason in the world to think Her wiser than our selves in that affair What says the pleasant Dr to this Or how does he make good his judgment of Discretion or overthrow ours why First he laughs heartily over and over that I come closer to take a view of his Judgment of Discretion after 99. pages As if my whole Book had been to treat meerly concerning that one point and I had never handled it till now whereas his Conscience knows but that necessity has forc't him to bid it Farewell and every Reader sees that above forty other Points were to be handled as they lay in my way and that this concerning the Iudgment of Discretion was the very last I was to speak to What pityfull Trifling is this Then comes in the Game at Cards blew apron and Tub over and over That I yield to his Sober Enquirer what he aim'd at that I make the Fanaticks Catholiques and his Sober Enquirer a Iudge of Controversies and would have him judge without his Rule Which is a continu'd Series of willfull and ridiculous Forgeries For I allow him to judge of never a Point of Faith but by his Rule and affirm that he is to find out his Rule by his Reason or Judgment of Discretion But this clear Method he casts a Mist over all the way and finding that Seriousness would gravell him he has recourse to his beloved and still-assisting Friend Drollery Next he asks what if the matter propos'd by this Certain Authority which I have found out by my Reason be very much against Reason And I ask whether the Matter under Consideration be the Object of Naturall Reason or no If it be not then Reason is to concern it self in judging of the Humane Authority of the Church attesting it to be Christ's Doctrin which is Subject to Reason and not with the Other which is confessedly above Reason He knows I still speak of the High Mysteries and Articles of our Christian Belief which are Supernaturally reveal'd or taught by Christ and his Apostles and will he have the profound Judgment of discretion of his Sober Enquirers scan them by their Reason This savors too strong of the Socinian Yet he sticks not to say the same that is Natural Reason helps men to Iudge of the Matters propos'd by this Certain Authority It makes yet worse for his Credit that whereas I instance all along in the Tenets of the Blessed Trinity and the Godhead of Christ he stills recurrs to Points necessary to Salvation by counterposing which he seems to think those Mysteries not necessary to Salvation But who set the bounds of Reason why God and Nature by alotting Reason for its Sphere Naturall Objects and by so doing precluding her from attempting to sound the Profound Depth of Supernatural ones by her Shallow Line He is angry that as soon as this Certain Authority is discover'd we then cry Good night Reason I have no more use of you This savours yet more strongly then the former Would he have us after this Certain Authority has assur'd us 't is Christ's Doctrin still to suspend our Belief till we have examin'd the Mysteries themselves by our naturall Reason I am loath to name what this signifies I omit to insist on his bad Logick shall I say or want of Common Sense who tho' a Certain Authority were suppos'd yet discourses all along as if the things it proposes may still be false or need the Examination of Reason whether they be false or no. But this argues he has not once in his thoughts the Notion of True Certainty but means some Mock-Certainty or Probability by that word otherwise 't was impossible such a Fancy should have a seat in his Mind For the most obvious and Common Light of Reason tells him that what 's Truly Certain as what 's built on a Certain Authority is cannot be False nor can need any further Scrutiny whether it be or no. 54. Next he asks Are all People Capable of this Certain Reason They are or may be made so according to their pitch so Tradition be rightly represented and not Perverted as it was by him throughout his Sermon For nothing is more sutable to the Capacity of every one then is the Force of a vast Witnessing Authority And tho' they were not yet being in it self Certain it preserves even those who are uncapable of seeing the reason for its Certainty
Equivocated in the Tenet of the Reall Presence and according to the Drs late Distinction making Not-Regulating to be one sort of Regulating would needs have the word Reall to mean Not-Reall whence it was judg'd expedient to put it past quibble by such a rigorously-express Definition And I much fear this vexes the Drs Sacramentarian Spirit far more then Transubstantiation it self I omit that he has forgot here the Common distinction of what Points are necessary Necessitate Medij and what Necessitate Praecepti I suppose because this Later did not sute with his Levelling Principles which set the Church and his Rabble on even Ground as to Matters of Faith. 64. I alledg'd that those Articles of the Trinity and Christ's Godhead were Fundamentall Points and therefore if his Rule could not Absolutely Ascertain People of all sorts coming to Faith of those Articles it could assure them of None and so is no Rule of Faith. He runs quite away from the Points and thinks he has done enough to say It is Absolutely Certain that God has reveal'd the Fundamentalls of our Faith. But the Question sticks still Are you Absolutely Certain by your Rule that the Trinity and Christ's Godhead are Christ's Doctrin or signify'd with Absolute Certainty by Scripture's Letter To this he says nothing but shifts it off most Shamelessly to another thing Let him set himself to do this which is his Task and we will undertake to examin the Nature of his Medium and show it Inconclusive I alledg'd that there is Experience by the Socinians taking the same way that his Medium or way to be Certain of this is not Certain He again turns off Experience that the way he takes is not Certain to Experience of his Inward Certainty or his Inward Persuasion And asks briskly whether he or I know best A pleasant Gentleman Why does he not confute all my Book by that Method Does he think 't is enough to show he is Absolutely Certain of the Sense of Scripture as to those Points with barely saying he knows he is thus Certain of it better than I What wretched Shifts are these In pursuance of this new Method of Proving and Confuting He asks again How comes Mr. S. to know we are not Certain when we say we are Because when you are most highly Concern'd and stood Engag'd by promise to show this Absolute Certainty and are Prest to it Vehemently and upon the brink of losing your Credit for not doing it you still decline the showing you have any such Certainty for the Sense of Scripture as to those Points Still he asks Are not we Certain because some that is the Socinians are not Certain No Sir not barely for that reason but because the Socinians proceeding upon the Same Rule are so far from being Certain of the Sense of Scripture as to those Points that they esteem themselves Certain by the same Scripture of Hereticall Tenets Point-blank Opposit to those Points Common Reason assures us no End can be compass'd without a Means and therefore you can never show us You are Certain till you show us you follow a better Way rely on a firmer Ground and Guide your selves by a Clearer Light to make you Certain of Scriptures Sense in those passages than They do which you can never show and as appears by your wriggling from that Point by the most untoward Shifts imaginable dare not Attempt But some are uncertain of Orall Tradition nay Censure it I do not know one man but holds and reverences it It lies upon his Credit to name those who Censure it For Lominus is a Chimaerical name and signifies no body that he knows But suppose Some did yet it being an object of Naturall Reason they and I in that case could not proceed on the Same Grounds or Reasons as his Protestants and the Socinians do upon the Same Rule of Faith. 65. I alledg'd that by his Principles he could be no more Certain of his Rule then he is of the Truth of the Letter of Scripture in regard the Truth of the Sense of Scripture depends on the Trueness of the Letter Does he deny this Or does he show that without the Care of the Church preserving the Letter Right all along he can have any Such Certainty of the Letter He not so much as Attempts either I alledg'd farther that he cannot be thus Certain of the Right Letter without having the same Certainty of the Right Translation or the True Copy nor that any Copy is True unless it be taken from the First Originall Does he deny this Or does he show that all these may not fail if the Churches's Care be set aside No neither What Shift has he then Why he says 1. That some of us are Concern'd to Answer this as well as He. Not at all for those who say that Part of Faith is Contain'd in Scripture do not for all that say that their Faith is built on Scripture's Letter interpreted by any but the Church nor do they say but the Church without Scripture could have ascertain'd them of their Faith. 2. He says This strikes at the Authentickness of the Vulgar Translation Not at all For we have other Grounds to go upon which they have Not. 3. He skips after bringing some words of mine for what they were never intended from the Translation to the Canon of Scripture which are a Mile wide from one another that so he may however he speeds in all the rest at least talk plausibly of the Concurrent Testimony for the Canon In order to which he stands up a Patron for those Christian Churches of his who thus concurr'd and will not condemn them as not truly Christian till their Cause be better heard and examin'd Yet 't is Evident from his Second Letter to Mr. G. p. 25. that some of those Churches were Arians Nestorians and Eutychians condemn'd for Hereticks by most Antient General Councils which he blames it seems for declaring so rashly against them and reprieves his Friends from their Censures till a fairer Hearing It had been happy for them had Dr. St. presided in those Councils for he would doubtless have dealt with them very kindly and have clapt them head and tail together with good Catholicks into one Latitudinarian Bill of Comprehension 5. I alledg'd that the same Sense in the heart of the Church enabled and oblig'd Her to correct the Copy when faulty in Texts containing Points of Faith which instead of shewing it Incompetent or Disagreeable to the Nature of things he confutes most Learnedly by pretending that Atheists and Unbelievers would be scandaliz'd at it Whereas they would be much more scandaliz'd to see no Certain Means assign'd to preserve the Letter right from the beginning the very first Originals being lost and all left the Churches Care set apart to so many contingences of Translating and Transcribing 6. We must prove it first to be impossible for the Sense of the Church to vary in any two
we meant by it First Letter p. 8. and Second Letter p. 52. yet 't is never acknowledg'd but he still runs his Division upon it as if it were some Ambiguous or Mysterious Word till he has put the whole Tenour of the Discourse into Confusion Once more I tell him and desire the Reader to witness it that he already knows what we distinctly mean by those words and if he will not acknowledge it and speak to the Sense we give it upon our assurance that we never took them nor ever will take them otherwise he speaks not to me nor gives a word of Answer but as baffled men use runs for shelter to meer Brabbles and Impertinencies 72. And Now that is after he had laid Contradictions for his Principles he comes to give a Clear and distinct Answer to our Demonstration of the Infallibility of Tradition And no doubt by Virtue of such Grounds he will do wonders Mr. G's discourse was distinguish't by me in my First Letter p. 8.9 into four parts or Propositions of which the First is that All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did Yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour Now he knows that by Tradition we mean an Immediate Delivery and this from day to day for it would not be Immediate if it were at all Interrupted and by Traditionary those who follow'd this Rule of Immediate Delivery and do Actually believe the say to day which they did yesterday and that if they do not this they desert this Tradition by Interrupting Immediate Delivery and so cease to be Traditionary Christians All this he already knows for it has been told him over and over Whence he cannot but know tho' he thinks not fit to Acknowledge it that the Proposition is Self-Evident and plainly amounts to this that They who believe still the same do still believe the Same and the word Traditionary was only made use of to express those Persons in one word because it had been tedious still to use so Many Could any man but this Gentleman undertake to combat a Proposition so formally which is in Sense Identicall and Self-Evident I took him to be one who would own his Humane Nature which obliges every man to assent to such Clearest Truths and so vainly hop't he had nothing to say to it But as he says very true I was mistaken for he has many things to say to lay open the Notorious Fallacy of it in every Clause How Every Clause Why there 's but one Clause in the Whole for the adjoyn'd words and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour are the most Essentiall part of it and distinguish Christian Tradition from that of Hereticall Traditions begun since Christ's time So that the Dr makes account that One signifies Many This is but an ill Beginning and I do assure the Reader all the rest is not a jot Wiser But now come the Notorious Fallacies Why did I not say that All Christians are Traditionary Or that All Christians have gone upon this Principle Because many are call'd Christians especially by him who have deserted this Principle and so have no Title to be call'd Traditionary But principally because if we speak of True Christians that was the thing to be Concluded for those men are not such who Disacknowledge a Way of knowing Christ's Doctrin which is prov'd to give them Absolute Certainty of it So that it is a Notorious Fallacy according to Dr St's new Logick not to make the Conclusion the very First Proposition of an Argument and the Fallacy lies in judging that the Last thing should not be the First Hitherto then this most Learned Logician has not taken one step without stumbling into a manifest Contradiction One Single Clause is Many Clauses Self-Evident Propositions are Notoriously Fallacious Words whose meaning have been particularly explain'd to him over and over and so can have but one Sense as we speak of them may have Many Senses Adhering to and following Tradition is not adhering to it and not following it and the Conclusion or End of an Argument is to be the Beginning of it or the Proof is to be the Thing Proved Nor is this any wonder for 't is but fit that Self-Evident Truths should only be oppos'd by Self-Evident Contradictions 73. After these Noble Performances he falls into his old track of Dividing and Subdividing he talks of Evidence from the Word of God from the Guides of the Church he runs to Infallibly holding to Tradition not spoke of Yet but following in the Argument he tells us they may go upon another Rule c. Anticipating thus all the following discourse and complaining all is not prov'd at once when as we are as yet but at the very first words of the Proof There is no End of the Faults and Failings of these Sinfull self-Evident Truths Falshoods and Contradictions are Saints to 'em It supposes falsly he says that the Change in Faith must be so sudden and Remarkable whereas it was Graduall and so to pitch upon such a Precise and Narrow Compass of time is very Unreasonable Lastly to Illustrate and compleat his Answer with an Instance he tells us that by the same Method one may demonstrate it to be Impossible that any Language should be Chang'd By which we may gather that Dr St's Incomparable Skill in Philosophy and deep Inspection into the Natures of Things makes account that Truths are of the same Nature with Quantitative Things or Bodies All Corporeall Motions amongst the rest Sounds or Speaking have a Thousand Indeterminate Degrees between any two determinate Points Does he think 't is so with Truths and Falshoods Or does he imagin the Thoughts of the Christian World could take a Walk of two or three Hundred years between Is and Is not Did he never hear that Truths consist in an Indivisible that he thus compares them to Quantitative or Divisible Natures and judges the Comparison so apposit Putting then once the true Notion of the Points in the Head and Heart of the Christian Church and if they were never there the Apostles lost their labour the least Change in it must change the Point Did he never reflect why a Tenet is Metaphorically call'd a Point And that 't is because a Point is Indivisible The putting in the Proposition to day and Yesterday is to express the Immediateness of Tradition Others amongst the rest the Council of Trent and many of the Fathers particularly St. Athanasius call it Delivering down by Hands and the hands of the Children must be Immediate to the hands of their Fathers else the one could not receive what the other Delivers Nor do I or any man living know how if the whole Church should be in an Errour but one day by deserting the Rule of Faith they should ever retrieve True Faith again having forsaken the only way to it Of such consequence it is that the Means of conveying down Christ's
weakly and insincerely objected Lastly he tells us that if Divine Faith fixes not on the Infallibility of Tradition then we may have Divine Faith without it Yes by his Enthusiastick Principles but not by Connatural ways since himself must acknowledge that neither the Letter nor Sense of Scripture is Absolutely Certain without it 79. It would be very pleasant to see how this Gallant Caviller would prove St. Paul a Pelagian Heretick That Blessed Apostle affirm'd that Fides per auditum Faith comes to our knowledge by Hearing For the Certainty of the Primitive Faith was resolv'd into the Certainty of the Senses as the Means to come to the first knowledge of the Doctrin and of That Sense more particularly because Preaching was the Way of instilling Faith then Now comes Dr St. and having pray'd I suppose for Wisdom before-hand tells that Holy Apostle that Divine Faith must have Infallible Grounds but that the Certainty of the Senses is meerly Natural That he runs from Divine Motives to Humane ones He asks him smartly what Infallible Ground is there for this Divine Faith and where it fixes If not on the Certainty of the Senses then we may have Divine Faith without them If it does fix on their Certainty then Divine Faith is to be resolv'd into Naturall Means And what is this but Pelagianism Thus the stupendiously Learned and more then supernaturally Enlighten'd Dean of St. Pauls has clearly prov'd St. Paul himself an arrant Pelagian But if St. Paul should answer as I do that he spoke not of Divine Faith or the Doctrin of it as in it self or as 't is formally supernatural but only of Divine Faith as standing under Natural Means for us to come to know it then it would follow that it would require higher Grounds to be resolv'd into as 't is Divine yet for all that that he could have no Faith at all nor certainty of it unless by Miracle but by virtue of these Natural Means to give him knowledge of it But our Verball Controvertist never reflects that there may be divers Resolutions made of Faith as 't is controverted according to the nature or exigency of the Dispute Against a Deist that holds it not Divine it is to be resolv'd into the Divine Authority and this must be shewn to be engag'd for it by those Motives of Credibility which prove it to be such But this is quite besides our present Dispute since both parties grant it and consequently all his Discourse here is quite besides the purpose 80. I doubt not but the Dr would have had another fling at St. Paul for Pelagianism in case he would not allow that a Pious Disposition of the Will did make the verdict of the Sense of Hearing Certain and piece out the Deafishness of the Auditours when that Sense had some Imperfection as he does here by making me a Pelagian for saying the Will 's Assistance cannot make an Argument if it be defective Especially should we both say that Dr St's Moral Qualifications Purity of Heart Humility of Mind and Prayer for Wisdom would not make a deaf Ear hear well or a bad Argument conclude For both our cases are perfectly Parallel since we both speak of the Way to come at the Knowledge of Divine Faith. But his Logick I see would have his Readers when an Argument drawn from meer Nature is propos'd which is short of Concluding let it be in Physicks Metaphysicks or what he will for it alters not our case shake their heads very piously and answer Truly Sir tho' I see your Reason does not conclude or satisfy my Understanding that the thing you would prove is True yet out of a Pious Inclination to the Cause I will call in my Wills Assistance and out of pure Goodness think it does conclude and that the Thing is for all that really True. I would wish him by all means to maintain still that 't is Pelagianism to deny that the Inconclusiveness of an Argument is supply'd by the kind-heartedness of the Will. Nothing in the World but this can justify all his Insignificant Proofs make them pass for valid good ones 'T is ridiculous he says to alledge that I resolve all into Christ's and the Apostles Teaching Why Is it not agreed on between us that Christ is God and his Doctrine Divine And is not this to bring us to Divine Faith if we prove it to be His Doctrine Or is it not enough for our purpose when 't is confess'd on both sides that Christ's Doctrine is Divine Why is it then ridiculous to profess we do this Because Caelestius Pelagius did the very same And so I must be a Pelagian still that 's resolv'd on Those Hereticks did indeed pretend their Heresies were Christ's Doctrin But this is no particularity in Them for every Heretick since Christ's time did the same else they had not been Hereticks but Pagans Iews Turks or Deists But we go no further upon this Principle than they did Why Did they ever alledge that the Tradition or Immediate Testimony of the Body of the Church deliver'd down their Doctrin for Christ's Or durst they disgrace themselves by going about to avail themselves of such an open and Notorious Lye This he should have prov'd solidly and clearly But instead of proving it he barely says it and who will at this time of day believe his word And yet if he does not this every sincere Reader must see that he has sacrific'd his sincerity to his spite against Catholicks and judges Slander and Calumny no Sin. Observe here by the way his consistency with himself In his Second Letter to Mr G. p. 9. he affirm'd that we resolv'd All into meer Humane Faith and here he confesses we resolve all into Christ's and his Apostles Teaching Had not I then good reason to ask him if Christ was a meer Man it falling in so Naturally Yet he is mighty angry at those words and says he gave no occasion for them and imputes it to Malice I do assure him that I us'd those words to shew that by resolving All into Christ's Teaching I resolv'd Faith finally into what is confessedly Divine Why he should take it so to heart or apply it to himself when it was not in the least intended his conscience best knows However it puts him to make a Profession of his Faith in that point which I heartily pray may be sincere 82. The last point which he thinks fit to take notice of omitting by his favour many which were more concerning is that the Council of Trent disowns a power of making Implicit Articles of Faith contain'd in Scripture to become Explicit by its Explaining the Sense of them He proves this Because the Church of Rome doth not pretend to make New Articles of Faith whereas to make Implicit Doctrines to become Explicit is really so to do This a little varies from what he said in his Second Letter nor can I find a
yet for all his flourishes about Criterions he has said nothing to those Reasons only he has made a sleight Discourse of his own p. 53.54 but never shew'd any particular Means securing his Party from Erring more than the vilest Hereticks us'd Why little or no regard to my Reasons shewing that Scripture Interpretable by their private Judgment of Discretion is not the Rule which the Generality of Protestants rely on which if true utterly overthrows his whole Pretence to That for his Rule He blunders indeed about it in clear words and tells his own Tale very prettily but he has not answer'd my Reasons as the Reader may discern who is pleas'd to compare them with his Reply Lastly why no Answer to each particular Proposition of my Short Discourse or shewn it inconnected demonstrating that none who follow'd his Rule can have Assurance that what they believe is Christ's Doctrin But instead of this Duty bringing pretended False Suppositions against the Whole which suppos'd nothing but that we could have no more Reason to judge the Socinians Insincere or Careless or less Skilfull in the Sense of words than we have to think He is 86. These are his Omissions in Answering my First Catholick Letter As for my Second since his Title pretends an Answer to them All in Generall and he referrs us to another able to speak for himself meaning his Reflecter we are to imagin he makes account he has Answer'd them All by Himself or by his Proxy But good God! what an Answer has that weak man given us His Discourse is a Chain of Sand. 'T is a mess of Controversy dish't up in Sippets a meer Hash of Repartees or reason torn into Raggs A Discourse as every man knows has it's true Force by the Constant Tenour of it and this Tenour is shatter'd all to pieces by a new invented Method of short Dialogues where he makes me at his pleasure say as little at a time as he lists and he plays upon it as much as he pleases I must break-off just where he thinks fitting and he Enlarge against an imperfect Discourse unassisted by it's Comparts as long as he Judges convenient Now he 's at the beginning of my Book and immediately at the Middle or End of it gathering thrums-ends of little Sentences which he patches together so aukwardly that they have no Connexion at all but what his unskillfull or Partiall hand bestows upon them If we expect Reason from him he tells us he never undertook to Prove but to Reflect A very pretty come off I wonder what Answer is proper to a man who proves nothing nay not so much as Vndertook it Thus much for his Method But the Tricks and Shifts in managing it are Innumerable 'T is almost as easy to determin how many words may be made of the four and Twenty Letters as to trace all the Anagrams he makes of my Sense by weaving it in his loom to sute his own Fancy or Interest When our Question is only about a Certain Rule of Faith he alters it when he lists to a Certain Rule of Life p. 33. as if we pretended Scripture not Clear in Morall Points by which means he turns the whole Question to a quite different Subject His Contradictions are frequent for he never speaks of the Nature of any thing that concerns our Dispute but he constantly falls into that irrecoverable lapse As he turn'd the precise Duty of proving into the Needless Impertinency of Reflecting so tell him of Falsifications he tells you p. 52. he meant them for Ironies And indeed his whole Reflexionary if I may call it so is nothing but a continu'd Irony it being very hard to know when he 's in Jest when in Earnest Only he garnishes his Scorn with demure pretences of Charity and Civility that so he may affront his Adversary with a more plausible Garb of Affected Gravity and Godliness 87. As for the strength of his Reasons since one Instance is held by Dr St. and him a Competent Answer to a pretended Demonstration I hope one pregnant Instance how he quite misses the whole matter in hand may be allow'd sufficient to render insignificant his Hopping and Skipping Dialogues by shewing plainly that his ill-levell'd Reflexions hit not me but Squint aside to other Subjects E're I come to my Instance I desire the Reader to bear in Remembrance for I cannot repeat it too often because my Adversary is resolv'd never to take notice of it that Our Controversy Supposes as agreed to by both Parties that Christ's Doctrin is Divine and that our Whole Question is about the Means to bring down to us those Sublime Spiritual Articles of Christian Faith with such a Certainty and Clearness as may oblige us to assent firmly and unalterably that what we hold concerning them now at present is the self-same that was taught by him and his Apostles and consequently is Divine and True. Next we affirm that the Letter of Scripture not being Clear to people of all sorts looking after Christ's True Doctrin in those Texts which relate to such High Points the best way to satisfy such men that those Articles came down invariably from Christ is the Humane Authority of the Christian Church And Lastly that the Credibleness of this Authority is prov'd by Intrinsical Mediums taken from the Natures of Things lying levell to our Reason which contribute to support it from being liable to be deceiv'd or to deceive us in that affair viz. from the Nature of Man who being a Rational Creature cannot possibly act without a Motive or a Reason and is withall endow'd with such and such Faculties belonging to such a Nature As also from the Practical Nature Highest Import of the Doctrin to be deliver'd and the Nature of those most powerfull Motives obliging the Generality to whom they are apply'd to transmit down faithfully a Doctrin held Divine and Lastly from the Nature of divers Circumstances of the Universe All which are laid out in my Second Cath. Letter p. 57.58.59.60 To which nothing but a very sleight return with many Omissions has been given us by Him and nothing at all by Dr St. tho' these as the Reader may see if he pleases to review them be the most forcible part of that Treatise to prove the uninterrupted Perpetuity of Tradition hitherto on which the Resolution of our Grand Question mainly depends 'T is enough it seems for such a trifling Reflecter at the end of his Pamphlet to call the passages he has omitted amongst which are the Natures of those things Hedges and Puddles and close Reasons drawn from them frisking Fancies and that 's all can justly be expected from one who seems to be a sworn Schollar to the Great Professor of Learned Jests and Ingenious Prevarications 88. These particulars concerning our Tenet known to all that have read our Controversy being reflected on let 's see how this Gentleman represents it and how profoundly he discourses against us In
his 12th Page he will needs repeat our Tenet or as he with much Formality is pleas'd to call it the Lesson I have taught him which put into distinct Sentences he makes to be this 1. Your Churches Authority is Human Authority Answ. Our Church'es Authority is also Divine and as such 't is the Rule of Faith to those who are already Faithfull But in our Controversy which is about the Way for men to come to Faith 't is not proper to alledge any other than her Natural or Humane Authority consisting of a vast Body of Men both able and oblig'd to testify such open matters of Fact as is the Delivery of a Doctrin so Qualify'd by those that educated us And the Reason is because 'till men come at Christ's Faith they can only guide themselves by their Reason whence the Credibility of that Authority must be provable by Reason against those who shall deny it 2. He says It has force to prove the Truths which depend upon it Yes it has force to prove to us this matter of Fact that those Truths descended from Christ but not the Intrinsical Truth of any one Article in it self To do this is the work of Divine Revelation not of Humane Authority 3. It has this force and concludes against such as own its Veracity but it deserves no Assent further than Reason gives it to deserve Well then since we bid him guide himself by his Reason e're he admits it will he at least admit it and yield assent to it when Reason shews him it deserves it This is all we desire of him and 't is a very reasonable request in us for it only desires he would not renounce his Reason and forfeit his Manhood Now come his Conclusions from mistaken Premisses Hence I conclude Seeing We admit not your Church'es Authority nor own its Veracity it proves nothing to us nor concludes any thing against us From what Antecedent is this Conclusion drawn Did we ever press him to admit it blindly the Point is will he renounce his Reason when it tells him this Authority ought to be believ'd This is our Tenet and should have been taken in e're he had inferr'd any thing at all but then it would have marr'd his Conclusion and his admirable Method of taking every Discourse of mine to pieces and never putting it together again and so it was thought expedient to neglect it His next Conclusion is Seeing Articles of Faith depend not on Humane Authority your Church'es Authority can have no effect on Humane Nature to oblige to a Belief of them Where we have near as many Faults as Words For First Articles of Faith in themselves or as to their Intrinsicall Verity depend only on the Divine Authority as their Formall Motive but as to us or as to our knowledge of those Articles Now which were taught by Christ long since which is our only business a successive Human Authority the most strongly supported of any that ever was in the World to convey down a matter of Fact of Infinit Concern is the properest way to Attest them whence all those Articles in that regard do depend on that Human Authority after the same manner as even himself also holds the Book of Scripture does Secondly What an Incredible Folly is it not to distinguish between those Articles which were Taught at First and so are Divine as in Themselves and the same Articles as Knowable by us Now to have been Taught Long ago nor to reflect that our Controversy only treats of them under this latter Consideration Nor to know that as thus Consider'd All Articles of Faith not only May but Must necessarily depend on Human or Naturall Means since without Such they cannot be introduc't into our understandings connaturally nor by any way but by Immediate Inspiration which is perfect Enthusiasm Nor Lastly not to advert that even the Divinity of Faith depends in some sort on Naturall Means St. Paul tells us Faith comes by Hearing and if so then Faith depended on Hearing as to its coming to be Known by us Nay as Christian Faith was Formally from God it depended thus on Miracles which could not be known to be such but by their being above the Course of Nature nor could they be known to be above the Course of Nature unless the course of Nature it self had been fore-known the Knowledge of which is only Naturall or Human. Thirdly His following words in this Ridiculous Conclusion shew him utterly ignorant of our whole Question otherwise he could not with any degree of sincerity have put it upon us that we hold the Human Authority of our Church obliges to a Belief of the Articles themselves whereas what we hold is that it only obliges us to Assent they came from Christ or were inerrably deliver'd down by the Churche's Testimony Fourthly By leaving out all mention of what 's most particularly our Tenet in this Point he puts it upon us to hold that Human Authority has effect upon Human Nature of it self whereas we never presum'd or affirm'd it either had or ought to have any but by Vertue of the Reasons which vouch't for its Veracity nay I both Affirm'd and Prov'd the direct Contrary His Third Conclusion is Seeing all its Credit depends on its Intrinsicall Reasons produc't till they be produc't we are not bound to give any Credit to it No nor bound to mind them much it seems nor Answer them fully when produc't as appears by his omitting the most forcible Reasons for the Certainty of Tradition's Continuance as was Lately shown But why is this made a distinct Conclusion or disjoynted from the rest whereas it was the most necessary and Essentiall part of our true Tenet Because the Method he so Religiously observ'd throughout his Dialogue-Answer which is to shatter asunder the intire Sense of every passage would not allow it His Fourth Conclusion is When these Reasons shall be produc't its Testimony has but the Nature of an Externall Motive not of an Intrinsicall Ground Answ. Intrinsicall Ground To what To Christian Faith as 't is Divine 'T was never pretended nor can it belong in any regard to our Question since 't is not disputed between us but Acknowledg'd by us both that Christ's Doctrin is Such Means he then 't is not a Proper Medium to prove Christ's Faith deriv'd to us who live now How can he even pretend to shew that so vast a Testimony is not proper to Attest a Notorious Matter of Fact viz. what Doctrin was Deliver'd immediately before and this throughout every Age Year or Day Again what means he when he says Testimony is not an Intrinsicall Ground What man in his senses ever said or thought it We spoke indeed of Intrinsicall Grounds to prove the Credibleness of that Testimony but not a word have we even hinting that Testimony it self is an Intrinsical Ground to any thing If he will needs be talking Nonsense let him take it to himself and not put it upon me
because Part of Christ's Doctrin is contain'd in it the other part descending by Tradition which acceptation of the Word Rule is yet less Proper because as has been prov'd it may be contain'd there and yet we be never the neerer knowing our Faith meerly by virtue of Scripture's containing it But no Catholick ever said that every sober Enquirer may find out all necessary Points of Faith in Scripture without the Churches Help A Doctrin which You declare p. 21. You are far from being asham'd of And yet let me tell You Sir You will never find this Position of yours as it lies without the Churches Help in the Universal Tradition of all Christian Churches and unless You find this You will never prove they held it a Rule in the genuin and proper signification in which we take that Word and tho' they shou'd call it a Rule in either of the former Senses lately mention'd they impugn not us at all who grant the same 41. You will needs run out of the way p. 30. to talk of a Iudge of Controversies but the best is You acknowledge you do go thus astray by acknowledging 't is another distinct Controversy and yet tho' you acknowledge this You still run on with it that is You still wander from the Point You triumph mightily p. 31. that it is impossible for us to bring such an unanimous Consent of all Christian Churches for our Infallible Iudge or our Infallibility as Protestants bring for their Rule As for the later where were your thoughts Sir while you thus bad adieu to the plainest Rules of Discourse Cannot we go about to demonstrate the Infallibility of a Human Testimony by Natural Mediums but instead of Answering it you must object against our Conclusion and bid us bring the Consent of all Churches to abett that which neither depends nor is pretended to depend on Authority but on meer Reason Cannot one say two and three make five but he must be presently bobb'd in the mouth that he cannot shew the Consent of all Christian Churches for it and that unless he does this let it be never so evident 't is not True T is very pleasant to reflect how brisk you are still with this Consent of all Churches I suppose because 't is a Topick very seldom heard of in your Controversies tho' as has been shewn over and over 't is not a jot to your purpose nor avails any thing to the evincing you have an Absolutely-Certain Ground of your Faith. And if we have an Infallible Rule or such a Rule as permits not those to be deceiv'd that follow it can there be any thing more Rational than to hold by consequence that there is an Infallible Iudge or that our Church can judge unerringly in matters belonging to Faith the word Iudge onely signifying that that Person or Persons are in Authority or are Authoritative Deciders to preserve the Integrity of Faith and the Peace of the Church So that supposing Church-Governours or Bishops and that those Sacred Concerns are to be provided for plain Reason demonstrates to us this too as well as the other without needing the Consent of all Christian Churches tho' you need not to be told this does not want neither unless you think that all the General Councils that defin'd against Hereticks imagin'd they might perhaps be in an Errour all the while and the Heretick whom they condemn'd in the right Your Appeal to all the Churches of the Christian World for your Rule has a plausible appearance but vanishes into air when one comes to grasp it How often must it be repeated that you have as yet produc't no Rule at all for your Faith For you have neither prov'd that Scripture's Letter as to every substantial word that concerns Faith is absolutely-Certain nor that it has in it the nature of a Rule nor that 't is your Rule more than 't is to all the Hereticks in the world nor that your Assent to any Point upon that Rule as made use of by you for want of Connexion between the Points to be believ'd and the Rule on which they are believ'd can have the nature of true Faith in it If talking big would do the deed you would indeed do wonders but let your Reasons be proportionable otherwise strong words and faint blows are but very ill-matcht Now I must declare plainly I cannot see the least semblance of so much as one solid Proof in this whole Treatise of yours If there be confute me by shewing it and maintaining it to be such You explain you own Tenet over and over till one is weary of readding it and half asham'd so often to answer it You talk much of God's Word that we are bound to believe it that it contains God's Will and all things necessary to Salvation and twenty such fine things which bear a Godly Sound and would do well in a Sermon where all goes down glib there being none to contradict you but are very dull and flat in Controversy On the contrary not one Argument have you even offer'd at to prove you have Absolute Certainty of the Rule or Ground of your Faith but have faln short in every one of those Considerations both as to the Notions of Certainty Ground Rule Faith and that 't is your Ground your Rule and your Faith. 42. A Rule to any thing if we take that word in a proper sense as we do in our modern Controversies is the Immediate Light to direct us in order to our knowing that thing For in case it be not Immediate but some other thing intervenes that is needful to direct us and by whose Rectitude we frame our thoughts as to that affair and that it renders the other capable to direct us that other becomes presently the Thing Ruled and not the Rule in regard it wanted the Rectitude of another thing to direct it that so it might be fit to direct us Wherefore the Interpretation of Scripture being more Immediate to the knowing the Sense of it's Words that is to the knowing our Faith than is the Letter for it is manifest that all who have the Letter have not right Faith unless they make a right Interpretation of it hence Mr. M. had reason to object that The Christian Church did not agree that every man is to interpret Scripture for himself or to build his Faith upon his own private Interpretation of it Nor ought you to be offended at his position in regard you told us before p. 7. 8. a Heretical Sense may ly under these General Words Christ is the Son of God and different Senses may be couch't under these Christ is really in the Eucharist and so even according to your self 't is the Interpretation or the assigning the Sense to those words which makes True Faith or Heresy Wherefore 't is plain that your own Interpretation of Scripture is in true speech your Rule for That is a more Immediate Direction to give you the Sense of
to do with his Objecting some of our Writers but shall come to his Second Reason drawn from the notorious Vncertainty of meer Tradition and that never was any trial made of it but it fail'd even when it had the greatest Advantages Expect Gentlemen by those high and mighty Words he will bring most Convincing Arguments to prove that the Universal Testimony of the Church in delivering down those high Points of Faith is notoriously Vncertain and fail'd in every Age nay the very First for then it had the Greatest Advantages the Christians having then fresh Memories and being then Infallible since they could not agree to approve false Doctrin as himself told us p. 11 12. For my part I am of his mind and never knew any other Tradition have Advantages comparable to what Christian Tradition had for transmitting the Doctrine of Faith and if he lets you know what those Advantages of Christian Tradition were and shews them unable to oblige the Church to convey Christ's Doctrin down he will gain his Point But if he prevaricates from this necessary Duty he abuses you with fine Luke-warm Words to no purpose I do assure you before hand tho' he talks here of Advantages he has not in his whole Sermon mention'd much less ingenuously inform'd you of any one Advantage Christian Tradition has but industriously conceal'd every particular that gives it force Yet who sees not that without doing this 't is impossible to impugn it or deal fairly with his Auditory for how should you judge of the Comparison without a clear sight of the things Compar'd § 22. He did very prudently not to insist on the falling of Tradition in the Law of Nature For 1. He must have shewn It fail'd them and not They fail'd It by deserting it which could only be done by proving that had they continu'd to follow it they could have stray'd into Polytheism which he can never do it being evidently Impossible 2. That to make good the Parallel he must have prov'd it had as Ample an Original which gives a vast force to Testifying Authority as Christian Tradition had which is equally impossible for it had for its Source but one single man Adam 3. That there were not more powerful Motives nor greater Assistances of Grace to continue the Christian Doctrine under the Law of Grace than there were under that most imperfect Law of Nature nor more exact Discipline in the Church of Christ than there was in that loose State which had been hard Points and altogether impossible even to attempt with any shew of Reason He did very wisely too to Wave the Opinion of the Millenaries the time of Easter and the Communicating of Infants For he both knows that every Apostolical Tradition had this last been suppos'd such is not necessarily an Article of Faith as also that none of these nor yet their contrary was a Point of Christian Doctrine Preach't and Settled unanimously over the World by the Apostles He made account he had a better game to play by shewing how Tradition fail'd in delivering down the Apostles Creed But he might had he pleas'd as well have left out That as the Others for none of the Explainers of Tradition ever held or said it was to bring down Set Form of Words which requir'd application of Memory and Repetition of them in Order but only the Sense of the First Age which was Christ's true Faith instill'd after a connatural way by Education and apt to be exprest in different Words according to different Circumces § 23. Were it granted him That things Written supposing the Letter could be prov'd to be still continu'd Absolutely Certain had the Advantage as to the Certainty of Conveyance above things meerly committed to Memory and Tradition yet he is where he was The Point between us still sticks that is Whether meer Words expressing in short such sublime spiritual Tenets as are most of the chief Articles of Christian Religion are so Clear to private Judgments nay to All even the Vulgar that are looking for Faith that they can have that perfect Assurance of their true Sense as to build that Never-to-be-Alter'd Assent call'd Faith upon their understanding them This is the summ of our difficulty this is what we most insist upon and are perpetually pressing him to shew the security of the Method he takes to give us this Certainty I do not mean the Certainty of the Letter about which he keeps such ado but of the sense of it in such Points if he thinks any one of them so necessary that the Generality cannot be sav'd without the knowledge of it This is it which most imports you to know if you value the having such Grounds for your Faith as ought in true reason to perswade you 't is true that it was Taught by Christ or that you are not perhaps dociend and in an Errour all this while But not one word of this in the whole Sermon He argues from God's making choice of Writing when he deliver'd the Ten Commandments What means he or how can he apply this to our Question Are the Ten Commandments which are plain honest Nature of as Deep and Mysterious a Sense as the high Points we speak of Are they so hard to be understood that Writing is not a clear Conveyer of God's Sense in such Matters Does he hear a great part of the World at variance about the Meaning of the Ten Commandments as multitudes of Hereticks have been Wrangling with the Church ever since Christ's time about the Sense of Scripture in those Dogmatical Points Were the Texts which contain those Points as plain to all Mankind as the Ten Commandments are or as are generally the Historical and Moral parts of Scripture I should frankly declare that Scripture might in that Supposition be a Rule of Faith as to the Points contained in it and that there would be no need of the Church for our simply believing but only to confirm our Faith explain it more throughly when any part of it imply'd in some main Point is deny'd apply it to our Consciences by her Preaching and keep us up to the Doctrin it delivers by her Government and Discipline So that our Controversy-Preacher who has never hit the Point hitherto doubly misses it here in his representing Tradition as held by us needful to supply the defect of Clearness in Moral passages that are plain enough of themselves and that 't is to bring down Set-Forms of Words which is not its business whatever it be those Words express And this shews his Mistake in his Second Proof viz. the restoring the Knowledge of the Law Written by a Written Book which was a Way most Proper for that End. Whence for the same Reason if there were any deviation from the Christian Doctrin which as contradistinguish't to that other was writ in the Living Tables of the Hearts of the Faithful the best Way of preserving or restoring That was by