where speaking of the Application of the Cause to the Patient p. 63. 64. 65. I end thus In a word Christianity urg'd to execution gives its followers a new Life and a new Nature than which a neerer Application cannot bee imagin'd So that you see I make account it's Application depends upon it's being urg'd to Execution and what is it that urges things to Execution but Government and Disciplin I wish Sir when you are to confute a rational Discourse you would not stand running after Butter-flies and catching by the way childishly at this little word and the other little word to play upon them jestingly but have patience to read it thorough and take the whole substance of it into your head and so endeavour to speak to it solidly This is the way to benefit your Readers to whom you owe this duty nay a far better to credit your self with understanding men than all those petty tricks of impertinent Wit and ironical Expressions which you so passionately dote upon I am heartily weary of so illiberal a task as to spend ink and paper much less time in discovering mens defects and I assure you Sir I am very sorry your carriage made it necessary whereupon though I see much rubbish of this nature behind and have overslipt too very much yet I should have ended did not I find my self highly concern'd to defend one Assertion of mine than which you who use no hot phrases but are all Civility and Sweetness say p. 173. nothing can be more impudent I humbly thank you Sir This most impudent position is this that Sure-footing p. 65. being to meet with the Objection that there have been many Hereticks or deserters of Tradition I say If wee look into Histories for experience of what has past in the world since the first Planting of Christianity wee shall find far more particulars fail in propagating their kind than their faith Now Sir if this bee prov'd not at all impudent which you judge most impudent I hope the rest which you judge less impudent may easily pass for blameless Let 's to work then and because 't is your business as well as mine I beseech you lend mee your thoughts to go along with mine from one end of the 7th discourse in Sure-footing to the other Company may do much in making them attentive otherwise I see plainly they will stand loitering and gazing by the way at this odd word or the inelegancy of that phrase or noting some passages that may bee prettily mistaken and make excellent good sport by which means You who as you say p. 292. are apt to unbend your brains without bidding will hardly ever bee drawn to go forwards with a deliberate pace half the way In the said discourse then p. 65. you see I design to clear an objection of my own which I conceiv'd obvious namely that there have been actually many Hereticks or deserters of Tradition I make my way to it p. 66. by asserting that the way of Tradition is as efficaciously establisht in the very grain of mans nature as what seems most naturall the propagation of their kind Hence I come at last to that most impudent assertion that more have faild in propagating their kind than their Faith Proceeding to proove it I show p. 66. how Heresy or a failing to propagate Faith happens and I allow p. 68. that it must bee perform'd by deserting Tradition and chusing at least for a show another Rule that so they may have occasion to break from the former Church But I affirm withall p. 65. § 3. that assoon as the breach is sufficienly made and the novellists begin to bee shap't into a body whatever for a show they still would seem to keep to yet that they presently desert the new Rule they had taken up and the naturall way of Tradition again recovers it self that the Reformers themselves make use of it to keep their company together that Children are taught they are to beleeve their Pastors and Fathers even in interpreting Scripture that the first Reformers punish them if they break from their body and hold not to the Sence of Scripture they give them And hence I conclude p. 74. that the number of the Actuall deserters of the naturall way of Tradition have been but few to wit the First Revolters that the descendents of these Revolters follow'd the way of Tradition however misplac't then I added some considerations for Grounds to ballance the number of Failers in propagation with the number of those who faild in Tradition and as reasons why I concluded this number less but you never use to speak to my reasons onely you mistake my discourse and my conclusion to mean not onely the First breakers but their descendents too which I make account return naturally to the Traditionary way then you denie and impugn like a learned logician the Conclusion it self amplify strangely upon your own mistake of it instancing in all the Countries almost East West North and South triumph mightily and would have mee show you a whole nation that refus'd to marry As if my Conclusion could not bee true unless such a rare sight were show'd you all at a clap E're I come closer to the proof of my Assertion I foresee I am to make good first that even the deserters of Tradition when they think themselves sufficiently enfranchiz'd from the disciplin of the former Church and that their followers settle into a kind of Body under them bring in again the way of Tradition or rather indeed permit nature to work both in the new brood that grow up under those Fathers who had lately deserted Tradition and in those deserters themselves nothing being more naturall than both for the Fathers Elders or Governours to desire and even expect the children Posterity and Subjects should follow their judgments and not to make themselves wiser than their betters nor for the descendents and young ones credulously to beleeve those whom they look't upon ever with an awe and respect and to permit their lives to bee fram'd by their conduct I affirm then that even in all those Sects that have faln from the Catholick Church whether Protestants Lutherans Presbyterians or whatever else they bee that pretend to hold to Scripture the Generality if not all are continu'd to the former body or immediately foregoing Generation by Tradition and not by virtue of Scripture Evidence uniting their understandings For what a wild conceit it is to imagin that the Children throughout a whole Kingdom of Lutherans for example should still light to interpret Scripture just as did their Forefather Lutherans and thence unanimously hold to the Lutheran Profession And the same in Protestants Presbyterians Arians Pelagians And the like may bee said in some sort even of Turks and Heathens that 't is not the virtue of any motive that they go upon which keeps up a Succession of men of the same Tenet but the naturall force of Education at first and Custome
True and hee expresses himself to do it lest Adversaries from his being wholly silent should take occasion to bee more impudent That is the reason of the thing requir'd it not but the unresaonableness of the Carping humour of Adversaries You alledge his words That Faith which was profest by the Fathers in the Nicene Council according to the Scriptures 315. l. 3. 4. c. is to mee sufficient c. Whence your discourse makes his opinion to bee that Scripture is the sufficient Rule of Faith Lord Sir where are your thoughts wandring or what 's the Nominative Case in that clause is to mee sufficient to the word is Is it not that Faith to wit the Nicene which you mistake for the Rule of Faith and joyn the Epithet sufficient to Rule of Faith which in the Testimony is joyned to Faith Your conceit that it seems hence the Scripture was to him the Rule to judge the Creeds of Generall Councills is a very weak one hee told you before his Faith came to him by Tradition of Ancestours all that is here intimated is that hee judg'd the Nicene Creed to be according to the Scriptures and what Catholik judges not so of that and the Council of Trent too and yet holds not Scripture which is to bee interpreted by the Church the Rule and Standard to judge the Church by To use your own words p. 332. You use a wretched importunity to perswade Testimonies to bee pertinent yet all will not do and your too violent straining them makes them the more confess their naturall reluctancy But now comes the Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus charg'd to be taken not by mee but by the Authour I borrowed it of out of the middle of a long Sentence and both before it and after it Scripture nam'd so as to make it quite opposit to our Tenet I have already given account of my action and my Adversary now become my Judge charges it not wholly upon mee Alas I am not able to read the Testimonies in the books and understand them there 't is such a peece of mastery and therefore am fain to take them upon trust from others that can read them there But my Seducer how hee will acquit himself of so foul an Imputation is left to any Ingenuous Papist to judge c Sir let mee tell you you should consider circumstances ere you come to lay on such heavy charges I beseech you was the book in which this Seducer forsooth us'd this Testimony writ against Protestants who hold Scripture the Rule of Faith or against some Catholik Divines holding the Opinion of Personall Infallibility Clearly against the later This being so what was hee concern'd to transcribe the whole large Testimony no wrong being done to them either position of Ecclesiasticall Tradition which hee cites or of Scripture which hee cites not equally making against that Tenet or rather that passage of Ecclesiasticall Tradition being far more efficacious upon them than that which concern'd Scripture which they account not obligatory unless interpreted by the Church By this time the Reader will discern there was a great deal of rashness in the Accuser but no Insincerity at all in the Alledger Nor is there the least danger of the Testimonies following upbraiding them who patch together abundance of false words and fictions that they may seem rationally not to admit the Scriptures For what is this to us whose endeavours are to lay 〈◊〉 beginning from First Principles why wee and every man may and ought rationally admit the Scriptures and neither make our Faith ridiculous by admitting into it what 's uncertain nor leaving any excuse to Atheisticall Impiety in not admitting what 's Certain This is the summe of my aim and endeavours though nothing will content you but that wee admit the Letter to bee plain to all and by consequence to you and then your Fancy is to bee accepted for God's Word and your pride of understanding will bee well at ease You pass over nine of my Testimonies two from St. Basil and three from St. Austin alledg'd by mee Sure-footing p. 135 136 137. one from Ireneus and two from Tertullian and another from St. Peter Chrysologus Sure-footing p. 138 139. sleighting them as but a few whereas speaking of Testimonies from the Fathers as you do here you had answer'd but eight in all which you seem by your words to judge such a great multitude in comparison of 9 and those 9 or those few which remain as you call them so inconsiderable for their number in respect of the other numerous or innumera le 8 that the paucity of their number made them less deserve speaking to Yet a careless generall kind of Answer you give such as it is p. 318. telling the Reader that there is nothing of Argument in those few which remain but from the ambiguity of this word Tradition which wee will needs take for unwritten Tradition You add p. 318. that you need not show this of every one of them in particular for whosoever shall read them with this Key will find that they are of no force to conclude what hee drives at I was going Sir to use your own words and to ask with what face you could pretend this Let 's bring the book I 'le undertake it shall not blush to tell you how careless you are of what you say I omit that the word Tradition doth by Ecclesiasticall use signifie in the first place unwritten Tradition Moreover that wee may let Mercy triumph over Justice wee will pardon the first Testimony found p. 135. though St. Basil by counterposing Tradition of Faith to the conceits of the Heretick Eunomius seems to mean by Tradition Sense receiv'd from Fathers attesting this being the most opposit to Conceits or new-invented Fancies that can bee for even an Interpretation of Scripture may bee a Conceit or Fancy newly invented whereas what 's barely deliver'd cannot bee such The 2d is the same St. Basil's p. 136. Let Tradition bridle thee Our Lord taught thus the Apostles preach't it the Fathers conserv'd it our Ancestours confirm'd it bee content to say as thou art taught Is not here enough to signifie unwritten Tradition Did Christ teach it by reading it in a written Book or the Apostles preach it by book or is the perpetuating it by Fathers and Ancestours the keeping it by way of writing The third is St. Austin's p. 136. I will rather beleeve those things which are Celebrated now by the Consent of Learned and unlearned and are confirm'd throughout all Nations by most grave Authority Is universall consent and most grave Authority of all nations the book of Scripture or written Tradition or rather is it not most Evidently unwritten universall Tradition or Sense in the hearts of all Beleevers learned and unlearned or the Church Essentiall The 4th is from the same St. Austin 'T is manifest that the Authority of the Catholik Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance Do these
words Authority of the Catholick Church mean the Book of Scriptures Or can I desire more then this Father offers mee in express terms or a greater Testimony that you are to seek for an Answer to it then the strange Evasion you substitute instead of a reply Especially if wee take the Testimony immediatly following which from the best establisht Seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthen'd by the Series of Bishops succeeding them and by the Assertion of so many nations Is here the word Tradition pretended Indifferent and apt to bee taken ambiguously and not rather Assertions of so many nations or Consent of nations and Authority of the Catholik Church of force to cause Faith and Assu rance which to demonstrate is the whole Endeavour of Sure-fooring The 5th is the same Fathers cited p. 137. The Faithfull do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church Is the word Church the same with the word Tradition or in danger of being ambiguous or as you say of the word Tradition p. 318. commonly us'd by the Fathers to signify to us the Scriptures The 6th is of St. Irenaeus All those who will hear Truth may at present perfectly discern in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles manifest in the whole world What means the world at present but that the Tradition of the Apostles is yet vigorous and fresh in the Church which remark had very unfitly suted with Scriptures The 7th and 8th are Tertullians Both say the same Sence that what is establisht as Sacred or profest at this present day in the Churches of the Apostles is manifestly deliver'd by the Apostles or a Tradition of the Apostles which is incompetent to Scripture it not being a Tradition or point delivered but the Delivery The last is of Chrysologus which has indeed the word Tradition but by the additionall words of the Fathers not left ambiguous but determin'd to unwritten Tradition For the Fathers according to you are not to give or diliver down the Sence of Scriptures it being plain of it self This Sir is the upshot of your skill in Notebook-learning the three first Testimonies from Scripture you answerd not mistaking quite what they were brought for the 4th you omitted You have given pittiful answers to eight from the Fathers and shufled off nine more without answer pleading you had given us a Key to open them which was never made for those locks By which I see you reserve your greatest Kindnesses like a right friendly man till the last You will not have the Councill of Trent make Tradition the onely Rule of Faith you had oblig'd mee had you answer'd my reason for it in my 4th note p. 145. 146. But this is not your way you still slip over my reasons all along as if none had been brought and then say some sleight thing or other to the Conclusion as if it had never been inferrd by mee but meerly gratis and rawly affirm'd I have explicated our Divines that seem to differ from mee herein Sure footing p. 187. 188. and the Council it self takes my part in it by defining and practising the taking the Sence of Scripture from that quod tenuit tenet Sanct a Mater Ecclesia which in this antecedency to Scriptures Sence can no where bee had but from Tradition You cavill at mee for not putting down the words in which that Councill declares it self to honour the Holy Scripture and Tradition with equall pious affection and reverence Why should I you see I was very short in all my allegations thence and rather touch't at them for Catholicks to read them more at large than transcrib'd them fully But how groundless your Cavill is may bee understood hence that I took notice of a far more dangerous point to wit it's putting the Holy Scriptures constantly before Tradition and show'd good reason why But you approve not even of any honour done to the Scriptures upon those Terms and your interest makes you wish that rather it's Letter and Sence both should remain uncertain than it should owe any thing to the Catholick Church You ask how an Apostle and Evangelist should bee more present by the Scripture ascertain'd as to words and Sence then by or all Tradition I answer because that Book is in that case Evident to bee peculiarly and adequately his whereas Orall Tradition was common to all and 't is doubtable what hand some of those Apostles or Evangelists might have had in the source of that which was lineally deriv'd to us Sir I wonder how you hit so right once as not to answer likewise the Testimony I brought p. 152. of the Catholick Clergy's adhering to Tradition in the â—ick of the breach you might as well have spoke to that as to the Council of Trent divers others But I perceive it had some peculiar difficulty as had divers of the neglected nine else your Genius leads you naturally to flie at any thing that has but the semblance or even name of a Testimony whereas unactive I stoop at no such game till I see certainly 't is worth my pains and I fear yours will scarce prove so THey come in play p. 320. And because they are huddled together here something confusedly it were not amiss to sort them under Dr. Pierce's Heads found Sure-footing p. 170. To the first Head which comprises those which are onely brought to vapour with belongs that of St. Hierom. p. 323. To the second Head which consists of those which are raw unapply'd and onely say something in common which never comes home to the point belong all those of Eusebius That of St. Chrysostome and St. Austin's p. 324. of Iustin and Theodoret p. 325. That of Hilary p. 327. of St. Basil. p. 328. of Chrysostom p. 328. and 329. and those of St. Austin in the same place Of Theoph. Alexandr p. 330. Theodoret p. 330. 331. The 2d and 3d. from Gerson p. 331. To the 4th that of St. Austin p. 325. To the 7th Head which comprises those which are false and signifie not the thing they are quoted for appertain that of Ireneus p. 326. of St. Austin St. Hierome and the 2d of Theoph. Alexandrinus p. 330. To the 8th consisting of those which labour of obscurity by an evidently ambiguous word that of Optatus p. 327. The first from Gerson p. 331. and that from Lyra p. 332. St. Cyprian's Testimony was writ by him to defend an Errour which both wee and the Protestants hold for such and therefore no wonder if as Bellarmin sayes more errantium ratiocinaretur hee discoursed after the rate of those that err that is assumes false Grounds to build his errour on Whence the inferring an acknowledg'd false Conclusion from it is an argument rather his Principle was not sound I know Sir you will fume at this usage of your Testimonies but with what reason For first you putting them down rawly without particularizing their force or import
the reason of your mistaking mee here and in some other passages was this I minded not Rhetorick at all but onely Sense you as became a solid Confuter minded not the Sence at all but onely the Rhetorick which by mee was never aim'd at either there or in any other part of my Book If what I write bee Truth and my Expression Intelligible I have my End and can without Envy permit you to dress up your own Falshoods in the gingle of periods and empty flourishes The second place brought to make mee liberally acknowledge that it follows from my Principles no man can possibly relinquish Tradition is found in you p. 165 and 166. and thus Since no man can hold contrary to his knowledge nor doubt of what hee holds nor change or innovate without knowing hee doth so it is a manifest Impossibility a whole Age should fall into an absurdity so inconsistent with the nature of one single man Is here any liberall acknowledgment that no man can desert Tradition Or is there a word here to that purpose but onely that no man can doubt of or hold the contrary to what hee knows nor go about so visible an action as innovating without knowing hee does so with which yet may well consist that not onely one single man but all mankind may for any thing is there said knowingly and wilfully desert Tradition and turn Apostates I wonder learned Sir what you are akin to that Philosopher who maintain'd Snow was black you have so admirable a faculty of identifying the most disparate nay contrary notions and by a knack of placing things in false lights make even Propositions which signifie the self-same become perfect Contradictions The third place of mine which you say must make mee liberally acknowledge it a genuine consequence from my Principles that 't is impossible one single man should relinquish Tradition is cited by you p. 166. from Sure-footing p. 87. That it is perhaps impossible for one single man to attempt to deceive posterity to which you add in another Letter by renouncing Tradition It had been better in such nice points to put down my own words especially when you put them in a different Letter Mine are 'T is perhaps impossible that they should mislead posterity in what themselves conceit to bee true which is different from the Words and Sense you represent for mine for many weak persons by Sophistry or fine words pretended from Scripture and baptiz'd God's Word may bee inveigled to conceit that Tradition is false in which case should they renounce Tradition yet they would not therefore mislead posterity from what they conceit true which is all I there say or undertake for But the main is you represent mee to say 't is perhaps impossible in one single man which reaches any man whether good or bad whereas my discourse there proceeds upon good and holy men onely It begins thus p. 89. For supposing Sanctity in the Church that is that multitudes in it make heaven their first love had those Fathers that is those Holy men misled Posterity c. and then follow some of the words you cite I mean all of them that are mine This being so bee Judge your self Sir whether bating you the perhaps and speaking absolutely it bee not impossible for one good and holy man to mislead posterity in what he conceits to be true and whether it may not consist well enough with this branch of my discourse that great multitudes may turn bad that is chuse some false good for their last end and then out of affection to that disregard what 's true what 's false and mislead their children contrary to their own knowledge You say p. 171. that the onely thing I offer in that discourse to prevent this Objection is this Sure-footing p. 65. 'T is not to bee expected but some contingencies should have place where a whole Species in a manner is to bee wrought upon c. And had there been no more mee thinks it might have made you wary to challenge mee with the direct contrary had you not resolv'd to lay the necessity of my contradicting my self in every passage for one of your first Principles to confute mee with But I offer'd far more and more obvious preventions than that See the immediate Conclusion from my Grounds put down by your self p. 162. which one would think should inform you best what is the most genuine consequence from the same Principles This put it follows as certainly that a GREAT NUMBER OR BODY of the first Beleevers and after-faithful in each Age would continue to hold themselves and teach their children as themselves had been taught that is would follow and stick to Tradition c. Does a great number or Body signifie all not one excepted which you falsly put upon mee How disingenuous a proceeding is this to perswade your Reader those are not my Consequences from my Principles which I make my self but those which you make for mee and how do you make them by perverting constantly my words and sense Again you know I had writ a discourse declaring how Heresies came to bee introduc't and therefore one would think any sober Confuter that were not bent upon Cavill ere hee had challeng'd mee to hold that no one man could possibly turn Heretick that is that no Heresie could possibly come in should have look't first in that place to see how and by what means I made Heresies actually come in But you were resolv'd before-hand what to do that is to make mee speak contradictions and so it was not your Interest to see it or take notice of it Otherwise there you had seen mee prevent all the imputations which you by virtue of your forg'd monosyllable All had put upon mee See Sure-footing p. 66. We will reflect how an Heresie is first bred Wee must look then on Christs Church not onely as on a Congregation having in their hearts those most powerful motives able of their own Nature to carry each single heart possest by them but as on the perfectest form of a Common-wealth having within her self Government and Officers to take care all those Motives bee ACTUALLY APPLY'D AS MUCH AS MAY BEE to the subject Laity and that all the sons of the Church c. notwithstanding it happens sometimes that because 't is impossible the perfection of discipline should extend it self in so vast a multitude to every particular some one or few persons by neglect of applying Christian motives to their souls fall into extravagancies c. and if Governours bee not vigilant and prudent draw other curious or passionate men into the same faction with themselves which words would have clearly shown you that for want of due application which was one of the requisites my demonstrations went upon the Cause fell short of producing its effect of adhering to Tradition And this you might have seen neerer hand namely in the foregoing Discourse the very same which pretended to demonstrate
to bee briefer in which I thank you you have helpt mee much by your manner of handling them I will pass by divers of your little quirks upon my whether real or pretended mistakes in things unconcerning and onely touch upon what is more pertinent And first I am sorry I must begin with the old complaint that you mistake quite whether purposely or no let others judge what was my intent in producing those Testimonies Can you really and in your heart think they were intended against the Protestants that you set your selves so formally to answer them or can you judge mee so weak a Disputant as to quote against you the 2d Council of Nice or the Council of Trent so elaborately whereas I know you would laugh at their Authority as heartily as you did at my First Principles Sure if I meant it I am the First Catholick Controvertist that ever fell into such an errour My intent manifest in the Title and the whole course of my writing there was this that having deduc't many particulars concerning the Rule of Faith which manner of Explication might seem new to Catholik Controvertists I would endeavour to show to them rather than to you that both others of old and the Catholik Church at present favourd my Explication This was my main scope however as divers Testimonies gave mee occasion I apply'd them by the way against Protestants Your second mistake is found p. 304. where you accuse mee to have committed as shamefull a circle c. and why because according to mee Scripture depends upon Tradition for it's Sense and yet I bring Scripture for Tradition Sir my Tenet is that nothing can sence Scripture with the Certainty requisit to build Faith upon but Tradition which yet well consists with this that both you and I may use our private wits to discourse topically what sence the words seem most favourably to bear And you may see I could mean no more by the many deductions I make thence alluding to my Tenet which yet I am far from your humour of thinking all to bee pure God's Word or Faith nor yet Demonstration as you put it upon mee in other Testimonies p. 308. Though I make account I use never a Citation thence but to my judgment I durst venture to defend in the way of human skill proceeding on such Maxims as are us'd in word-skirmishes to sound far more favourably for mee than for you But let 's see what work you make with my Authorities After you have unworthily abus'd Rushworth in alledging him rawly to say Scripture is no more fit to convince than a Beetle is to cut withall whereas his Discourse runs thus that as hee who maintains a Beetle can cut must cut with it but cannot in reason oblige others to do so so they who hold Scripture is the true Iudge of Controversies and fit and able to decide all quarrells and dissentions against the Christian Faith bind themselves c. After this prank I say of the old stamp you put down p. 303. three of my Testimonies from Scripture and immediately give a very full and ample Answer to them all in these words From which Texts if Mr. S. can prove Tradition to bee the onely Rule of Faith any more than the Philosopher Stone or the Longitude may bee prov'd from the 1 Cap. of Genesis I am content they should pass for valid Testimonies To which my parallell Answer is this From which Reply and our constant experience of the like formerly if it bee not evident that Mr. T. will never with his good will deal sincerely with his Adversary but in stead of confuting him impose on him still a False meaning and impugn that in stead of him I will yeeld all his frothy Book to be solid Reason I beseech you Sir where do you find mee say or make show of producing those Testimonies to prove Tradition the onely Rule of Faith For Truth 's sake use your Eyes and read Do not I express my self Sure-footing p. 126. to produce the first Citation to show how Scripture seconds or abets my foregoing Discourse meerly as to the Self-evidence of the Rule of Faith Does not the second contend for the Orality of the Rule of Faith it 's Uninterruptedness and perpetuall Assistance of God's Spirit and the third of imprinting it by the way of living Sense in men's hearts And though I say those places speak not of Books but deliver themselves in words not competent to another Rule yet I contend not they exclude another Rule or say there is but one Rule and no more There was indeed p. 12. another Testimony from St. Paul contradistinguishing the Law of Grace from Moses his Law which sounded exclusively but you were pleas'd to omit it and so I shall let it stand where it did You advance to my Testimonies from Fathers and Councils and never was young gentleman so fond and glad that hee had found a hare sitting as you are to have discovered whence I had those Citations Presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all is mirth and triumph and Jubilee You are a Seer Sir and will find out the Truth by Revelation and so I had as good ingenuously confess it 'T was thus then When my book was nere printed some Friends who had read my discourses dealt with mee to add some Authorities alledging that in regard I follow'd a way of Explication which was unusuall it would give it a greater currency to show it consonant though not in the whole Body of it yet in the most concerning particulars to the Sentiments both of the former and present Church I foresaw the disadvantage my little time would necessarily cause me yet willing to defer to the Judgment of my Betters I resolv'd it Casting about in what Common-place-book I might best look for I had not time to rummage Libraries nor am I so rich as to have a plentifull one of my own it came into my mind there were diverse of that nature in that book where you made so fortunate a Set and caught such a covy of Citations in one net together I ask't first the Authour's leave who answer'd that when a Book was once made publick it was any one 's that would use it nor knew I till you came to teach mee more manners I ow'd any account to any man else neither do I think your self in your Sermons stand quoting all the Common-place-books or private Authours where you meet a Testimony or Sentence transcrib'd you make use of Hereupon I took the book with mee to a Friend's Chamber near the Press where Proofs already expected my correcting hand and there having no other book by mee fell to work This hast made mee examin nothing being very secure of the perfect sincerity of the Authour I rely'd on but put them down in his words and order This Sir is candidly the true History of that affair which will spoil much of your discourteous vapour showing a great deal of empty vanity in
or driving them home to any point my very sorting them under these Heads sounds a greater particularity in my Exceptions and Answer than you show'd any in alledging them Next you had refus'd to do mee the reason I begg'd in my Letter to my Answerer § 8. in vouching you Testimonies to bee Conclusive or Satisfactory which unless you did I had already told you there it was my resolution to give them no other Answer And I shall candidly make known my Intention why I do so and shall ever do so till you come to some good point in that particular I had observ'd what multitudes of voluminous Books had and might bee writ in the way of Citation without any possibility of satisfying that is to the extream loss of time and prejudice to rational souls while any Citation however qualify'd was admitted and no Principles laid to sort them and show which were Conclusive wherefore I judg'd it the best way to drive you from that insignificant and endless way of writing to tell in short my exceptions against each Testimony and to force you to vouch them Conclusive And I pray why should I or any be put to show each of those Citations to our excessive pains inefficacious whereas your self who is the Alledger will not take pains to show any one of them to bee efficacious But your way here is the weakest in that kind I ever read or heard of You huddle together a clutter of Citations never apply them particularly as I constantly did mine Overleap all considerations of their qualifications nakedly set them down as you say p. 332 and then tell us they are enough to satisfie any unpassionate Reader that dare trust himself with the use of his own Eyes and Reason Which is plausible indeed to flatter fools that are passionately self-conceited otherwise I conceive an unpassionate Reader will require much more if he ever knew what Controversy meant Hee would know the variety of Circumstances Antecedents Consequents c. Besides speaking Equivocally or Rhetorically not distinctly and literally may alter every Testimony there Above all hee would consider whether they were expressive onely of some persons Opinions and not rather of the solid and constant sense of the faithful in that Age vvithout which they want the nature of Testimonies Is it clear to every man's Eyes and Reason none of these or other faults render all yours Inefficacious Is it clear that when they say Scripture is plain they mean plain to all even Heathens that never heard of Faith such must bee the Plainness of the Rule of Faith or onely to those who have learn't Christian Doctrin already by the Church that is who bring their Rule with them I am sure St. Austin de Doctrinâ Christianâ your best Testimony speaks of such Readers as are timentes Deum ac pietate mansueti those which fear God and are meek with piety that is those which are not onely Faithful or Christians already but pious and good Christians which makes it nothing to your purpose Again some one passage may bee so plain as a learned man may in the opinion of learned men plainly confound an Adversary but will it bee clear and plain in all necessary points to the vulgar who hear a great many hard words brought on both sides and have no skill to judge who has the better in such contests yet the Rule of Faith must bee plain even to the vulgar and able to give them Satisfaction Again when the Fathers provoke to the Scripture is it not against those who deny the Church but accept the Scripture and so the necessity of disputing out of some commonly-acknowledg'd Principle may bee the onely reason they take that method 'T is evidently so in that you quote from St. Austin against Maximinus p. 329. and against the Donatists who deny'd the Judgment of the Catholik Church quae ubique terrarum diffunditur and so hee was to prove his point ubi sit Ecclesia out of Scripture or no way Again is it clear out of the Citations nakedly set down what went before and after Is it clear for example that when they speak highly of Scripture they mean not Scripture unsenc't but onely taken as Significative of God's sence as it must to bee the Rule of Faith or if of Scripture senc't they mean not senc't by the Church but by the human skill of private persons which is the true point between us St. Austin without doubt makes the Church the Interpreter of Scripture as is clearly seen by his Discourse at the end of his 17. Chap. Of the Profit of Beleeving which spoils your pretence to his Authority Nay do not they often mean by Scripture the very Sence of it that is Christs Doctrine or the Gospel As oft as you hear them speak of the Things that are written or call them Principles or The Rule of Truth and Opinions or speak of conforming other Doctrines to them and such like so oft they speak of the Doctrin it self contain'd in Scripture or the Truths found there Such is that of Clemens cited by you p. 316. 317. which speaks meerly of the Sence of it or the Truths in it which hee makes deservedly the Rule to other Truths and hence now hee names Scripture then the Tradition of the Church then Scripture again it being indifferent to his purpose the same Sense which hee onely intends being included in both Such is also evidently your best Testimony to wit that of Irenaeus which speaks of the Gospell it self preach't and writ that is clearly of the Sence indifferent to either way of Expression But what is this or indeed all that is said there to the Letter of Scripture taken as Significative of God's Sense that is not for that Sense nor as including it but as the Means and Way to it as it must bee taken when 't is meant for a Rule of Faith and the plainness and Certainty of that Way to all that are yet to come to Faith taking that Letter as interpretable by private Skill and Maxims of Language-learning which is the true point between you and us Bring Testimonies for this and you will do wonders To use your own words p. 318. I need not shew what I have discours't here of every of his Testimonies in particular for whosoever shall read them with this Key will find they are of no force to conclude what hee drives or ought to drive at I am loath to suggest any Jealousie of your Insincerity in all these Citations though you have seldome fail'd in that point Present my service to your Friend Mr. Stillingfleet and assure him hee shall not bee neglected though there were no other reason but your high commendations of him Your humble Servant J. S. A Postscript to the Reader READER THough I write to Mr. T. yet I publish to thee and so have a Title to salute thee with a line or two Tell mee then dost not find thy Expectation deluded which Sure-footing
A LETTER OF THANKS From the AUTHOR OF SURE-FOOTING To his Answerer Mr. J. T. Quis autem magis de his novit hic ne seductus homo qui etiam nunc superest hucusque in hoc mundo versatur aut qui ante nos Testes fuerunt habentes ante nos Traditionem in Ecclesiâ quique etiam à Patribus suis Traditum acceperunt quemadmodum etiam hi à Patribus suis didicerunt qui ante ipsos fuerunt quomodo Ecclesia acceptam à Patribus suis veram fidem usque huc continet itemque Traditiones Epiphan contra Aerium haer 75. Paris 1666. SIR 1. YOur Friend Mr. Stillingfleet who I thank him professes a great deal of real kindness for mee tells your self in the beginning of his Appendix that your performances in your Book have been so clear and satisfactory that hee hopes Mr. S. in stead of another Letter of directions to his Answerer will write you one of Thanks for the Reason and Kindness you have shew'd him throughout your Book I hate to be ungratefull and have that reall kindness for him and your self too as not to suffer your hopes to be defeated My Obligations of Gratitude hee concieves to spring from a twofold Head the Reason and the Kindness you have shown mee The former of which is to be examin'd by reducing the respective parts of your Discourse to Grounds or Principles which I shall do when it shall please God to give me leasure and health to answer your Book and I promise you faithfully to own as much Reason in it as these will allow mee I fear you may dislike the verdict of Principles and think them discourteous because of their inflexible genius and self-confident too because they love naturally to express themselves with an Assuredness and are oft so bold as unconcern'd in the Sceptical humour of others to talk of those bug bears to Fancy Evidence and Demonstration But be assur'd Sir though they are not altogether so good-natur'd nor bashfull as your timorous quivering Probabilities which you phrase modest yet they are very just and honest and as they cannot flatter you so neither will they injure you in the least My other Obligation to Gratitude is the Kindness you have shew'd me and as Mr. Stillingfleet sayes very truly throughout your Book which it were a Sin to deny For I know no greater Kindness from one that opposes me than to write in such a manner as to put himself upon the greatest Disadvantages imaginable to give me so many Advantages against him and his Cause Nor am I to expect your Intention should go along with your Favours 't is abundant Kindness in an Adversary that by his means I enjoy the reality of the Benefit and this I have receiv'd from you never to bee forgotten but with Ingratitude As oft as you omit what 's important mistake either voluntarily or weakly triumph causlesly injure me undeservedly cavill groundlesly prevaricate from the business purposely revile bitterly jeer sillily or falsify and pervert my meaning or words palpably so many reall Kindnesses you conferr upon your poor Servant of which in this Letter of mine both to your self and the world I here make my hearty Profession and Acknowledgment 2. And first I am to give you very humble thanks for totally waving to take notice of my Letter to my Answerer The whole scope of it was to request you would hold to a Method which was evidently Conclusive that you would begin with some First Principles and vouch them to bee as First Principles should bee self-evident That as all Art and Common Sence gives it you would not produce any Thing against Tradition till you show it depends not on Tradition for its Certainty that you would either confess your Testimonies unapt to Certify or declare in what their virtue of Certifying consists which must needs either show them feeble if they be such or if otherwise enforce and strengthen them That you would uphold your Arguments satisfactory that is able to subdue the Understanding to Assent and show us how they come by that virtue with diverse other Requests not Prescriptions as you call them onely tending to make a short End of Controversy by bringing Truth quickly to a clearing by the way of Principles Now who sees not that I had oblig'd my self to the same severe Laws of Concluding by proposing them to you and so had you had any Principles worthy to be call'd such or the confidence in your Cause to venture upon any Conclusive method you had gain'd a notable advantage against me in laying hold of that method and obliging me to stand to it because I was the Proposer of it At least you might have pleas'd to have shown my Way Inconclusive and substituted and establish't a better in case you had thought any Evident or Conclusive method your Advantage But 't is a manifest signe you judg'd any rigorous way of Concluding unsutable to your Causes and your own Interest and that to continue still on Foot Inconclusive endlesly-talking wayes of Discourse as is yours which consists in being able to say a great many pretty plausible any-things to every thing was more proportion'd and advantageous to your moderate modest courteous and probable Faith which is I dare say for it far from that Boldness and Self-confidence as to talk of Principles Evidence Demonstration or even Certainty unless minc't and allay'd with the Epithet Sufficient though you will never show us how acknowledg'd possibility to be otherwise can ever convince us sufficiently to Assent the thing is so or why a Capacity to bee false for any thing wee know is not the very notion of Incertainty and so most abusively pinn'd to the notion of Certainty Now that you should so perfectly wave speaking to that Letter it being particularly directed to your self whereas the Book you pretend to answer was not the end aym'd at in it being by all men's Confession very importantly good that is to shorten Controversies and bring our Disputes to a period also the method of Discoursing being as Logick tells us one of the praecognoscenda to the Discourse it self and so either Disputant has right to require it should be first treated of though I civilly requested it of you Lastly it being so indifferently fram'd to your or my interest or rather totally for his who had Truth or Grounds on his side that is for you were your cause so qualify'd and as such equally lik't by Judicious Protestants as well as Catholicks This being so that you should so totally sleight and disregard it in these circumstances is a clear argument you think it not safe to venture your cause and Credit upon Principles or any Evident or Conclusive method of discoursing and a plain Confession by way of Fact that all your discourse against my Book has neither Principles to subsist by nor Evidence to conclude by Which acknowledgment of yours though tacitly and modestly exprest for you are a
manner is compounded of putting tricks upon your Adversaries that is putting their sayings upon such accounts they never intended then impugning your own fictions 'T is not on the impossibility of any going out of us nor meerly because whenany one is out of our Church hee is not in it wee ground the Necessity of our Churches Unity but in this that her nature and Constitution is so fram'd that shee can admit no division in her Bowells but keeps her self distinguisht from Aliens If any one recede from Faith it must bee by not hearing the present Churches living voice teaching him points which the Knowledge Practice and Expressions of the Teachers determins and make Evident what they are whence his disbeleef if exprest is an Evident matter of Fact which is most apt to make a plain distinction between the disbeleever and the Beleevers and an Evidence beyond Cavill for the Church Governours to proceed upon This done as likewise in the case of high disobedience against Church-Laws or Governours shee Excommunicates that is solemnly separates the Schismaticall Offender from the Obedient Faithfull Hence those Faithfull look upon him as a Rebell or Outlaw or as our Saviour expresses as a Heathen or Publican no Church-officer admits him to Sacraments but upon his pennance and Satisfaction nor any Son of the Church will communicate with him in Sacred duties Pray you Sir is this the Temper of your Church of England Your Rule is the Letter of Scripture as conceiv'd significative of Gods word and this to private understandings Again you say all necessary points of Faith are plain in it nay that nothing is fundamentally necessary but what is plain there Hence all that hold the Letter to bee plainly Expressive of Gods Sence and intend to hold to what they conceive plain there whether Socinians Anabaptists Independents or whatever other faction all hold to your Rule of Faith and so are all Protestants For if you would ty any of these to any determinable points you force them from the Rule of Faith Scripture as seeming plain to them and would instead thereof bring them to a reliance on your Judgement And if you would punish them for not doing it you cannot evidence their Fault by way of matter of Fact that so you may proceed upon it for as long as they profess their intention to hold to what seems plain to them in Scripture and that your Text seems less plain to them there than their own you ought not to proceed against them Ecclesiastically without disannulling your avowed Rule of Faith And your carriage executes accordingly neither using Church-discipline against them for Tenets nor yet for denying or disobeying your Goverment Episcopacy though held by you divinely instituted When did you put any distinction by any solemn Ecclesiastical declaration between an Anabaptist Presbyterian Socinian c. and your selves When did you excommunicate them warn the purer Protestants by any Publick Ecclesiasticall Act not to joyn with them in Sacred Offices but to look upon them as Aliens Might not any of them come to receive the Communion if hee would or has any discipline past upon him to debar him from being admitted None that wee see Your Party then in indeed no Ecclesiasticall body cohering by Unity of Tenets or Government but a Medly rather consisting of men of any tenet almost and so bears division disunion and Schism that is the Formal cause of non-Entity of a Church in it's very Bowells These two flams of yours are Sir the Favours you have done my Friends and I can onely tell you in a country complement I thank you as much for them as if you had done them to my self Seeing your Reason begin to play it's part bravely in the following part of your Book I thought I had done my duty of Thanking but I percieve one main Engin your Reason made use of was to make mee perpetually contradict my self And this you perform'd by singling a few words out of my Book from their fellows introducing them in other circumstances and so almost in every Citation falsifying my Intentions and this purposely as will bee seen by this that you practis'd designe and Artifice in bringing it about This obliges mee in stead of making an End to return back and to show how sincerly you have us'd mee in almost all your Citations I omit your false pretence that I mean't to define contrary to my express words You tell your Reader p. 11. That if any presume to say this Book Scripture depends not on Tradition for it's Sence then the most scurrilous language is not bad enough then are those Sacred writings but Ink variously figur'd in a Book quoting for those words App. 4th p. 319. But if wee look there not a word is there found of it's depending or not depending on Tradition for it's Sence nor of making that the Cause why I us'd those words you object cite for it but onely that whereas my Lord of Downs sayes his Faith has for its object the Scriptures I tell him that since he means not by the word Scripture any determinate Sence which is the formall parts of words hee must mean the Characters or Ink thus figur'd in a Book as is evident there being nothing imaginable in them besides the matter and the form which every Schollar knows compound the thing This being then the plain tenour of my discourse there and not the least word of Tradition sencing Scripture Whatever the Truth of the Thing is 't is evident you have abus'd my words as found in the place you cite My Citation p. 12. which abstracts from what security wee can have of those parts of Scripture which concern not Faith you will needs restrain to signifie no security at all either of Letter or Sence which is neither found in my words nor meaning How you have abus'd my words to avoid Calumny with the Vulgar cited by you p. 13. as also the former of those cited p. 14. I have already shown § 9 and 10. P. 17. You quote my words 'T is certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ whence you infer they writ the same Doctrine they taught Which your introducing Discourse would make to signifie an Equality of Extent in Writing and Tradition by saying I grant this Doctrine which signifies there the First deliver'd Doctrine was afterwards by the Apostles committed to writing Whereas whoever reads my 29th Cor. will see I can onely mean by the word same Doctrine a not-different Doctrine Whatever the truth of the point is this shows you have an habituall imperfection not to let the words you cite signifie as the Authour evidently meant them but you must bee scruing them to serve your own turn You quote mee p. 36. to say that Primitive Antiquity learn'd their Faith by another method a long time before many of those Books were universally spread amongst the Vulgar The summe of your Answer is that when the Apostles who did miracles
were dead Writing then became needfull But that in those Circumstances Orall Tradition was a sufficient way of conveying a Doctrine What I note is that you ended your citation at the words before those Books were universally spread amongst the Vulgar but had you added what follow'd immediately to compleat that period much less the Catalogue collected and acknowledged you had been put to confess too that Tradition was a sufficient way for diverse Ages after the Apostles were dead which had been little favourable to your Tenet I complain then that by citing mee by halves as you do frequently you slip the answering better half of my Arguments and here particularly as appears by the words much less that part in which I put the most force P. 41. You put mee to say expresly that Tradition is the best way imaginable to convey down such Laws to us Now if by the word such you onely meant such as it concerns every man to bee skilfull in and had so exprest it you had done well for 't is my position but you had brought an ill-resembling Instance of Magna Charta and make mee seem to allow your Instance and to affirm Tradition is the best way to bring down Magna Charta as appears by your words Mr. S. saith expresly it is but how truly I appeal to the Experience and the wisedome of our Law-givers who seem to think otherwise making my word such mean such as Magna Charta which is far from my meaning in regard I judge not Magna Charta a thing in which 't is every man's particular concern to bee skilfull in but Lawyers onely whom others trust few in England but they being thoroughly acquainted with the Laws found there Take your own Liberty Sir in making Parallells 't is my Advantage you should you pick out such aukward ones but when you have made them do not disingenuously put them upon mee and quote mee to say them expresly Thus you use my words Why may not hee mistrust his own Eyes which p. 16 and 17. were apply'd by mee to the business of mistaking or not mistaking in transcribing perfectly a whole Book or correcting the Press in which we daily experience miscarriage but you apply these words to your own senceless Parallell of seeing the City of Rome p. 83 and then by such an application endeavour to make them seem ridiculous as they must needs for you had discourst ridiculously and by making them part of your Discourse and not taking them as any part of mine had made them so too I could instance in many others of this nature but I am too long already P. 61. being to state the point you alledge my words Sure-footing p. 13. That the Protestants cannot by Scriptures mean the Sence of them but the Book that is such or such Characters not yet senc't or interpreted And there you stop my immediately following words explaining my meaning are these that is such and such Characters in a Book with their Aptness to signifie to them assuredly God's mind or ascertain them of their Faith And this Explication you omit which had been nothing had you not made an ill use of that omission but your Cavills afterwards and the loud out-cries in your Book in many places of a senceless Book my Ignorance of your Tenet what not are all grounded upon your own fly omitting those words in which I exprest your Tenet to bee that those Characters were significative of your Faith I wonder what else you would have a Rule of Faith to bee but a Mean's to signifie to you God's Sence or the Faith Christ taught those inspir'd Writers It was one of my requests in my Letter that wee might agree to acknowledge what was Truth in one another's Books but you use all the Arts Insincerity can suggest to deprave wrest or diminish my words rather than I should appear to speak reason in any thing All must bee monstrous in your Adversary when your pregnant Fancy and dextrous pencil come to delineate it which shews indeed much crafty wit but I doubt the Reader will think it argues not too much Honesty I affirm'd Sure-footing p. 17. that the numerous Comments writ upon the Scripture and the infinite Disputes about the Sence of it even in most concerning points as in that of Christ's Divinity beat it out so plain to us that this to wit to find out a Certain Sence of Scripture by their Interpretation is not the task of the Vulgar that 't is perfect phrenzy to deny it which you quote p. 85. and diverse other places leaving out still my words and sence that this is not the task of the Vulgar upon which that whole § proceeds and impugning it accordingly See your own words p. 86. making mee say The Protestants cannot bee certain of the true Sence of it as if Protestants and Vulgar were the same notion Also p. 86. Hee tells us say you the numerous Comments upon Scripture are an Evidence that no man can bee Certain of the true Sence of it This improves it into a very ample Falsification for the word no man excludes all Catholikes too and indeed all the world however proceeding to interpret it whereas I onely engage in the place cited against the Vulgar And after you have ended you Confute all built on your own omission of those important words you single out after your old fashion two or three of my words 't is perfect phrenzy to deny it and call it a hot phrase whereas 't is very luke-warm taken in the occasion I spoke it namely that the Vulgar could not bee certain of the right Interpretation of Scripture since even Learned Commentators so strangely differ'd about it How you will clear your self of this kind Insincerity without casting a mist before men's eyes that they cannot read right I cannot in your behalf imagin P. 104 You quote mee twice as endeavouring to prove that men may safely rely on a generall and uncontroll'd Tradition Which though you pretend not my words yet I count it an injury to impose upon mee such a Sence Uncontroll'd joyn'd to Tradition is such another Epithet as Sufficient joyn'd by you to Certainty I who contend for the absolute Certainty of Faith would say Uncontrollable not Uncontroll'd for a thing may be Uncontroll'd meerly because it had the good Fortune that none had occasion to look into it and so controll it whereas nothing can bee Uncontrollable but by virtue of it's Grounds 't is built on preserving it from a Possibility of ever being controll'd Your intent in producing those two Citations from mee is as you declare it p. 105. is to show the Unhappiness of my Demonstrations that in order to demonstrate the uncertainty of Books and Writings must suppose all those Principles to bee uncertain which I take to bee self-evident and unquestionable when I am to demonstrate the Infallibility of Orall Tradition A hard case yet it will bee harder to come of for you
to bee false for any thing wee know or that wee have onely Probability for our Faith And you kindly tell us p. 135. that what M. S. calls a civill piece of Atheistry is advanc't in most express terms by his best Friends Sir I account Rushworths Dialogues my best Friend and I perceive you abuse the Preface of it notoriously which was wholly design'd to evince the contrary positions citing the Author of it p. 132. to say that such a Certainty as makes the cause alwayes work the same Effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherwise ought absolutely to bee reckon'd in the degree of true Certainty whereas hee only tells us there p. 7. that by Morall Certainty some understood such a Certainty as made your cause alwayes work the same Effect whom a little after hee reprehends for undervaluing this for morall Certainty which is true or Physicall Certainty putting an Instance of the Certainty hee has that hee shall not repeat in order the same words hee spoke this last year and yet sayes hee these men will say I am onely morally Certain of it Your injury then lyes here that by leaving out the words at the beginning of the Citation by morall Certainty some understood such a Certainty c. you make him say what hee evidently makes others say and condemns them for so saying for hee is far from abetting their tenet tha a reall possibility to bee otherwise makes a true Certainty but asserts that to bee truly Certain which they mistook for possible to bee otherwise or morally Certain which is the plain tenour of his discourse as it is the whole scope of that Preface to force the direct contrary Position to what you would so disingenuously impose upon him The two next Citations are onely mistaken for 't is one thing to say what men would doe did they love Heaven as they ought or had they no Interest in their Souls another to ask what means is most efficacious to beget a hearty love of Heaven in their Souls the prudentialness of their obligation in case of a higher probability onely joyn'd with their undervalue of Heaven was enough to make them miscarry but 't is a question whether 't was enough to elevate them sufficiently amidst the Temptations of our three Spirituall Enemies to heavenly love so as to save them or if they bee very speculative against the Temptations of Fancy and the seeming Impossibility of the mysteries Also 't is another thing to ask what men should do if there were no Infallibility or which is all one to them if they hold none and whether Infallibility or an absolute Impossibility Faith should bee otherwise bee not incomparably the best for mankind and so laid by God who ever does the best for his Creatures As I would not therefore have the Protestants renounce all practice of Religion because they have not an Infallible means of knowing their Faith to bee true so neither do I doubt but had they such Assurance their Faith would work through Charity with far more liveleness and steadiness than either it now does or can do You abuse what you cite from mee p. 140. by impugning half the Sentence onely the other half would have discoverd I spoke not of mans nature according to his morall part but according as 't is cognoscitive and this chiefly in naturall Knowledges imprinted directly by his Senses on his Soul Represent things truely and then dispute as much as you will otherwise you but injure your self and abuse your Reader while you go about with a preposterus Courtesy to oblige mee P. 145. According to your usuall sincerity you quote Rushworth's Nephew to say that a few good words are to bee cast in concerning Scripture for the satisfaction of indifferent men who have been brought up in this verball and apparent respect of the Scripture to which you add who it seems are not yet arriv'd to that degree of Catholick Piety and Fortitude as to endeavour patiently the word of God should bee reviled and slighted Wheras in the place you cite hee onely expresses it would bee a Satisfaction to indifferent men to see the positions one would induce them to embrace maintainable by Scripture Which is so different from the invidious meaning your malice puts upon it and so innocent and unoffensive in it self that one who were not well acquainted with you and knew not your temper and over good nature to bee such that you car'd not to undo your self to do your Friend a Kindnes would wonder with what Conscience you could so wrest and pervert it P. 146. You mention my explaining the notion of Tradition which you carp at as tedious and yet as wee have seen by frequent experience all was too little to make you understand it though I endeavourd there according to my utmost to render it unmistakable But you mistake it here again objecting that I instance in set forms the Creed and ten Commandments whereas the Apol. for Tradition sayes That cannot bee a Tradition which is deliver'd in set words It had been better you had put down that Authors own words Apol. p. 81. which are A Tradition as wee have explicated it being a Sence deliver'd c. for why was it not possible hee and I should explicate it diversly But to the point I speak of Tradition or delivery you and the Apology of a Tradition or the thing deliver'd which you confound Now a Tradition or point deliver'd being Sence and Sence abstracting from my particular manner of expressing it hee had good reason to say there that a Tradition is a Sence settled in the Auditor's hearts by hundreds of different Expressions explicating the same meaning nor do you any where find mee say but that though the Creed and Ten Commandments bee the shortest expressions of the main points of Speculative and Practicall Christianity and so most sutable to the young memories I speak of yet I no where say that Forefathers exprest the Sences contain'd in them no other way or that they did not deliver them in hundreds of different Expressions according as the manifold variety of occasions and circumstances accidentally lighting prompted the Fancies of the Teachers after a naturall kind of manner to declare themselves You see Sir how unfortunate you are still when you would make us contradict our selves or one another And the civillest Excuse for your perpetuall failings herein is to alledge that you are utterlyignorant of what you would impugn and I wish that were the worst You put upon mee p. 152. that unless a person to bee converted can demonstrate one pretended Rule certain and Infallible the other not hee hath not found out the Rule of Faith I wish you had told us where I say this for I must disavow it as directly opposit to my Doctrine which is that our Rule of Faith's Certainty is Practically-self-evident and known by virtue of an obvious familiar conversation with the nature of things and
therefore that persons to bee converted may come to Faith without demonstration at all I may perhaps say that in an Assent thus grounded there is found at the bottom what is demonstrable by a learned man or apt to yeeld matter for a demonstration but that those who come to Faith must demonstrate or frame demonstrations which 't is manifest onely Schollers and good ones too can do is fa from my Tenet however 't is your Kindness to put it upon mee right or wrong You shall take your choice whether the Reader shall think you understand not the Tenet you are confuting or that understanding it you wilfully injure it You proceed p. 153. that according to Mr. S. Reason can never demonstrate that the one is a Certain and Infallible Rule the other not That never is a hard word and it will seem wonderfull to some Readers I should say Reason can never demonstrate this and yet in that very Book contend to demonstrate it by Reason my self nay make that the main scope of my Book But Sir those Readers know not yet the power of your wit and sincerity which can make mee say any thing nay say and unsay as it pleases Yet you quote my express words for it Sure-footing p. 53. where you say I tell you Tradition hath for it's basis Man's Nature not according to his Intellectualls because they do but darkly grope in the pursuit of Science c. I deny them Sir to bee my words or sence you have alter'd the whole face and frame of them by putting in the word Because which makes mee discourse as if man's Intellectualls could never arrive at Evidence nor consequently Certainty and you keep the Reader from knowing the true sence of my words by curtailing the sentence with an c. my words are not according to his Intellectualls darkly groping in the pursuit of Science by reflected thoughts or Speculations amidst the misty vapours exhal'd by his Passion predominant over his rationall will which discovers I speak of our Intellectualls plac't in such circumstances or employ'd about such a matter as our Passion or Affection is apt to blind and mislead us in it which wee experience too too often But do I therefore affirm our understanding can never arrive at Science at all or that our Passion exhales vapours to hinder us from seeing the Truth of the first Proposition in Euclid or was it ever heard that any man was transported so by his Passion as to deny there was a Henry the 8th Or can any one out of Passion bee ignorant of or forget what is inculcated into his Sences almost every day which naturall Knowledge I there make the Basis of Tradition Pray Sir reflect on my words once more and on the Tenour of my Discourse and you shall see it onely says that Tradition has for it's Basis man's Nature not according to his morall part which is of it self pervertible nor yet his Intellectualls as subject to his Moralls but on naturall Knowledges imprinted by direct Sensations not subject at all to his Will but necessary and inevitable and when you have done this you will easily see how you injure mee though I expect not from you any Acknowledgment of it You commit those Faults too often to concern your self in such a trifle as any handsome Satisfaction Your next Citation p. 153. layes on load 'T is taken out of my 2d Appendix p. 183. My whole Discourse there is to show how Reason behaves her self in finding out the Authority shee is to rely on that this is God's Sence or Faith and how in the points of Faith themselves Concerning the former I discourse there § 3. and have these Expressions that No Authority deserves assent farther than true Reason gives it to deserve that the Church's Authority is found by my Reason to bee Certain that 't is perfectly rationall to beleeve the Church assuring mee the Divine Authority is engag'd for such and such points that Gods and the Church's Authority as Objects imprinting a conceit of themselves in my mind as they are in themselves oblig'd my Reason to conclude and my Iudgment to hold them such as they were nor have I the least expression of diffidence of naturall Reason's certifying mee perfectly of the Ground of my Faith which can no wayes bee done by Acts of reflected Reason which I there speak of but by demonstrating it After this § 4. I come to discourse how differently Reason bears her self in order to the points of Faith or the mysteries themselves Hereupon I have these words p. 183. Reason acts now much differently than formerly Before I came at Faith shee acted about her own Objects Motives or Maxims by which shee scan'd the Autho rities wee spoke of but in Acts of Faith shee hath nothing to do with the Objects of those Acts or Points of Faith Then follow immediately the words you cite Shee is like a dim-sighted man who us'd his Reason to find a trusty Friend to lead him in the twy-light and then rely'd on his guidance rationally without using his own Reason at all about the Way it self Which most plainly signifies that as a dim-sighted man cannot use his Reason about the Way for that requir'd it should well affect his Senses and imprint it's right notion there which it did not but yet could use his Reason about chusing a trusty Friend to guide him for this depended not on his dim-sight but the converse and negotiation with his neighbours and relations which hee had been inur'd to and so was capable to wield and manage such a Discourse So our Reason dim-sighted in the Mysteries of Faith in which neither Senses nor Maxims of Human Science had given her light enough could not employ her talent of discoursing evidently and scientifically to conclude the Points of Faith themselves but yet was by Motives and Maxims within her own Sphere enabled to scan the nature of Authorities and find out on which as on a trusty Friend shee might safely rely This Sir is evidently my Discourse from whence you will needs force mee to say Reason is dim-sighted about the Authority wee come to Faith by or the Rule of Faith Now my whole Discourse in that very place aiming at the direct contrary and you leaving out the immediately foregoing words which clearly discover'd it I hope you will not take it ill Sir if I tell you I fear any sincere Examiner of it will judge that though you hold Plain-dealing a Jewell yet you would not bee willing to go to too much cost for it Especially when he reflects that you build better half your Confutation in your Book on such kind of willing mistakes and hope to blind it and make it take by Sophister-like quibbles flouts and jeers with which you use to sound your own triumph I expected sweet Sir some First Principles of your Discourse and I see now you intend those Artifices for such none else have I met with nor do you
afterwards which wee experience daily to have so strange a Power that the most evident Arguments are scarce able to wean persons otherwise very rationall from the most absurd and weakly grounded Prejudices and that to root out judgments thus planted from their Souls seems as violently to shock and strain nature in them as if one went about to tear a limb from their Body If it bee acknowledged then as it must that Education has such an incomparable force in preserving an unanimousness between Foregoers and Posterity and Education consists in making the descendents think act as did their Forefathers wee shall discover that Education hath in it the very nature of Tradition and consequently that 't is by virtue of Tradition any Sect continues the same which devolves into this that therefore as soon as any Sect is form'd it returns or slides back if it continues naturally into the way of Tradition I am afraid Sir by this time you are ready to object for 't is your way out of an over-zealous affection to find Absurdities in your Adversary to catch at any thing that seems so at first sight without maturely weighing it that by this means I make all Protestants Quakers nay Turks and Heathens too of our Religion by making them follow our Rule of Faith Tradition and you have a little to that purpose p. 147. and elsewhere much more if I remember right But Sir I shall undeceive you easily by distinguishing between Tradition taken at large or as I call it Sure-footing p. 74. the natural way of Tradition and Christian Tradition That has the abetment and Concern of many Natural ties to make it follow'd and in Publick and universally-concerning matters of fact it layes a kind of force upon man's Nature as in the Existence of William the Conquerour Mahomet Alexander c. This has besides Supernatural Assistances of the Holy Ghost to strengthen the greatest force of Nature But to omit other differences what concerns us most at present is that This pretends to bee an Uninterrupted Derivation from Christ whence 't is call'd Christian Tradition whereas any other for example yours in following your Fore-fathers can pretend uninterruptedness no farther than your first Reformer whose immediate Ancestors being Catholik your chain is broke or at an end whence for the same reason this short-lin'd Tradition ought to be called his for example the Lutheran and not Christian Tradition The more therefore you or any other adhere to any other Tradition so much farther you recede from and are more obstinate against Christian Tradition since doing so you hold more firmly to that which was a renouncing the other These rubs remov'd wee advance to our point which is to examin whether in likelihood more particulars have fail'd propagating their Kind than their Faith To do this the shorter and clearer wee will pitch upon one Instance which your self mention namely of the vast multitudes which since Luther in Germany Denmark Sueden England Scotland Ireland c. have renounc't the Roman-Catholik Faith And since by our former Discourse and indeed common Sense none in any of those Countries were Actual Deserters of Tradition by which I mean Catholik or Christian Tradition but those who once held it which their Descendents did not but either follow'd Tradition at large or their Tradition that is the Tradition of what these Deserters educated them to hence wee are to exclude all the innumerable Descendents from those Actuall Deserters as persons unconcern'd at all in my Discourse my express words ever excluding them And because those Deserters began not all with Luther but some fell 20. some 40. years after him I will put my self upon the disadvantage to put them all to be fal'n sooner to wit about 20. years after Luther it being all one to our Case for no more could fall but all those that actually then did fall in regard wee allow their Descendents to continue their Fathers steps though wee put them to fall all at once Imagin then that in the Year 1537. all were fall'n that did fall either then before I mean before that Year since Luther and after that time what proportion may wee conceive they might bear to all Catholikes then living whether in the Greek or Roman Church whether in those parts of the world or America whose Conversion was then well begun I conjecture wee should be very liberall to grant they equall'd one third that is were the fourth part of those who were found living in the Year assign'd and adhering to Tradition This lai'd let us consider next how many wee may conceive to have fail'd in that Year and ever since that is for 128. Years in propagating their kind And first wee will take a view of those who die by naturall Deaths or Casualties before they enter into the ordinary Circumstance of Propagation Marriage and yet conduc't in their proportion to the instilling Faith into those they converst with For assoon as any arrive to that pitch of age as to express themselves Christianly in their Language and Behaviour 't is evident they connaturally insinuate into others of an inferiour pitch they converse with to their slender Degree the same things they hold and practise and so are truly parts of the Church Essential as delivering or parts of Tradition and though wee might begin much sooner to reckon them such yet wee will to avoid dispute take them from the age of 14. to 24. before which time if any marry there are as many that marry later and if this be not enough to ballance it to an Equality wee will allow all lay-people that live unmarry'd and all that marry and yet die before they have children or never have any into the bargain Those then between the age of 14. and 24. reckoning the whole time of man's life 90. Years are the 9th part of mankind that were found living in our Age. Putting then all the present Livers in that Age to die in the Year wee pitch't upon that so wee may for clearness reduce our Discourse to the same determinate compass of time wee may well put the 9th part of mankind living in that Year to die between 14. and 24. that is to die without conducing to propagate their kind though they contribute to propagate their Faith and if this number bee thought too great because of the healthfulness of that Age wee will account it but a tenth part though in truth it deserves to bee held rather an 8th or 7th because of the numerousness of that Decad in comparison of the persons found Living in those Decads beginning from the 60th 70th and the 80th Year which are very few Certain then 't is according to our best morall Estimation a tenth part of mankind within that prefixt Year die I mean a tenth part of those who do then die who have had a hand in propagating Faith and not their Kind Next let us multiply that tenths part by the number of the Years elaps't since
you to magnifie so highly such petty trifles and so totally unconcerning the main of the business You laugh p. 305. that I who confest my self a bad Transcriber transcrib'd him how childish a Cavill is this As if every one who is to bring Testimonies whether hee like his task or no must not transcribe them from some place or other yet you tell mee ironically you will do mee the right to assure the Reader that I do it very punctually and exactly I wish to requite you Sir I could assure the Reader you had as punctually and exactly transcrib'd mee you had sav'd a great deal of precious credit by it and I a great deal of precious time and ungratefull pains in laying open your Insincerity But to our Testimonies The first is from the Synod of Lateran The force of which you say p. 306. lies in the word deliver'd which is indifferently us'd for conveyance by writings or word of mouth But Sir there are also in that Testimony the words preaching and teaching and I do not beleeve it is so Indifferent to you whether you preach by word of mouth or no that you should say the word Preaching sounds not conveyance of a thing orally The next Testimony has the same Exception and the same Answer But you say this Council particularly this part of the Epistle were excepted against by some What matter 's it so they did not except against it for this passage or this Doctrin which may serve for Answer also to the mistaking Exceptions against the 7th Generall Councill which follows next Thus Origen and Tertullian are both excepted against yet are both commonly alledg'd and allow'd where the Reasons of those Exceptions have no place Next follow your Answers to the Fathers I alledg'd But first p. 310. you must mistake Rushworth next mee For Rushworth speaks not I mean in the first Citation of Delivery but of a point delivered nor do I here intend to convince thence the Certainty of Delivery or Tradition which you proceed upon for making Fathers parts of Tradition it would make the same thing prove it self Understand then rightly Sir what I am about and then I shall accept your impugning it for a favour The Truth of the thing is one thing and the Iudgment of a person concerning it is another And 't is not to evince the Truth of the point I produce these Testimonies for in the order of Discoursing the Knowledge of Traditions or First Authority's Certainty antecedes and gives strength to all the other inferiour and dependent ones What I only aim at then is only to show that thus they judg'd not to convince the Truth of the Thing from their Judgment and thence to show my self not to be singular in thus judging Whence also 't is that I entitled this part Consent of Authority c. Retract then I beseech you Sir any such thoughts or expressions as that I would hence convince Tradition to be the whole Truth of Faith demonstrate prove it For I intend to prove no more by the rest then by those from the Council of Trent which onely aim to show that so and so that Council said and held The First Testimony of a Father is Pope Celestines the force of which you think quite spoild p. 310. by Binnius his other Reading of such a word And why I pray unless he could make it out his reading were true the other false which I see not attempted But you let it pass and answer that retain'd by Succession from the Apostles till this very time may mean by Scripture as well as by Orall Tradition I conceive not and I give you my reason because who make Scripture their Rule are unconcern'd whether their Faith was retaind to this very time from the Apostles by Succession or no For though all the world apostatiz'd and so interrupted that Succession yet as long as they have the Letter of Scripture it being plain to all their Faith is retain'd still What you quote this Father afterwards to say of Scripture wee heartily say Amen to so you mean by Scriptures that Book sen'ct by its proper Interpreter as to points of Faith the Church And you are to show he meant otherwise You choke with an c. better half of Irenaeus his Testimony p. 311. which spoils your answer to the first for it speaks of his present dayes when the Scripture was not onely left by the Apostles but spread and to bee had and yet that many nations of those Barbarians who beleeve in Christ had even then salvation writ in their hearts without Characters and Ink diligently keeping the ancient Tradition The Substance of your Answer to Origen 312. is onely this that unless I mean by Churches Tradition preserv'd by order of Succession mysticall interpretations of Scripture so deliver'd down you assure mee Origen is not for my turn And I assure you Sir 't is so learned an Answer that I dare not oppose it Tertullian is next to whom by offering to wave him you show your self 312. little a Friend and no kindness is lost for hee is as little a Friend to you driving such as you in his Prescriptions from any Title to dispute out of or even handle Scripture yet you say he saies no more but beleeve what is Traditum deliverd though as alledg'd by mee Sure-footing p. 133. hee sayes much more in a large intire Testimony which you not so much as mention You tell mee also hee meant deliver'd by the Scriptures but you strain hard to make it come in And Tertullian is the unlikeliest man in the world to provoke to the Scriptures who tells us de praescrip c. 16. Nihil proficit congressus Scripturarum nisi plane ut aut Stomachi quis ineat eversionem aut cerebri Scripture-disputes avail nothing but meerly either to make ones Stomack or his head turn But alas Sir how are you gravell'd with the two First Testimonies from Athanasius and how slightly you pass them over p. 313. The Protestants first maxim is Beleeve no men nor Ancestors nor Church but search the Scriptures that is seek for your Faith there Against which way his whole discourse is bent as may bee seen surefoot p. 133. 134. Is Faiths coming down by Ancestours the same as coming down by a book or doe not the words from Christ by Fathers mean by words expressing the Sense in their hearts but by a book not to bee Senc't by them but plain of it self The third Testimony expresly saies 'T is to bee answer'd to those things which alone of it self suffices that those are not of the Orthodox Church and that our Ancestors never held so You tell mee it is a gross errour that hee thought this alone or without Scripture might bee sufficient I wonder what mean the words which alone of it self suffices if they bee not exclusive of any thing else as necessary words have lost their signification and I my reason I but hee quotes Scripture for it afterwards