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
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
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
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
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