may make false Construction and yet the Rule be a good Rule Tho' you should go thither for your Notion of a Rule we should be but where we were For as the Grammar-Rule let it be never so ill understood will make good Construction in case it be us'd so the Scripture-Rule if it be as you put it us'd must needs produce right sense But the truth is a Grammar-Rule is not a Rule till it be understood for he who understands not what 't is for Cases and Verbs to agree has no Rule to make them agree And then if you will make the Letter of Scripture such a Rule you will make the Letter first understood to be the Rule of understanding it and people misunderstand what they understand and the misunderstood Rule be a Rule which is only a Rule by being understood In short turn it which way you will you will to borrow an Expression be much beholden to the Reader to make Sense of what you say 22. You question on Must a Way be a wrong Way because some that take it will not keep it Riddle my Riddle again Pray who are or can be those some who take it and will not keep it As long as they take it they keep it I think and they keep it not against their Wills sure He who has no Will to keep it may when he pleases go out of it but then he does no longer take it and is none of the some of whom the Question speaks for they all take it and so we have nothing to do with him When all is done the Will here is to no more purpose than the Vnderstanding before For he who takes the Way shall certainly arrive at his Journeys end let him Will what he pleases and the Way must needs be a wrong way if he do not 'T is great pity you are not in the right You would save more men than the Benefit of their Clergy For the Thief in a Cart upon the Way to Tyburn would never come there if willing not to keep that Way would keep him from it But by affirming that some take the Way who yet will not keep it you affirm that some do and do not Take it And so Dr. St. is well holp up with a Reflecter who imagins we are talking of one who only takes the Way at first and afterwards leaves it whereas 't is plain the Argument proceeds of such as make the Way their Choice and persist to follow no other to their lifes End. 23. Lastly You tell us that Till it be prov'd God has left such a Way or Rule as no man can possibly err out of it mistake it or abuse it c. For you must permit me to stop by the way I am too short breath'd to run over the long period at a loose But let you alone to make all sure You are safe enough if all must go on your side till some body prove to you that no man can err out of the Way left by God mistake or abuse it that is till some body prove that Ways are Prisons out of which there is no escaping or that the man cannot possibly fall into Errour who is out of the Way to Truth As many as leave the Catholick Church leave the Way left by God and you like a right pleasant man would have it prov'd that the thing cannot possibly be done which we see is done by millions and would have us who say they all do err and mistake prove they cannot All this while I a little suspect you mean otherwise than you say and that by your words Errour and Mistake and Abuse of the Way you understand missing the End of the Way Truth But let us see what you will make of it What would you have prov'd next Why That it is not enough that God has left us such a Way or Rule as men may understand and observe if they be not wanting to themselves What do you call being wanting to themselves I understand how a man that will not travel or leaves a right and takes a wrong way is wanting to himself but he who puts himself upon the Way continues on in it and changes not his Road is not wanting to himself in any thing I can imagin which belongs to the Way And the way of this Traveller I maintain against you has not enough to be a Way if it barely may and yet may not bring him to his Journeys End. What will this come to at last Why till these things be prov'd It will not follow that the Scripture's Letter in the sense you have own'd it is not the Way tho' not only Presbyterians and Socinians but the greater number of Mankind should own it and yet differ about Fundamental Points contain'd in it What you call the Sense which you own of the Letter of Scripture will come by and by But will not that follow which you say here will not Will it not follow that the Way by which a man that goes in it comes to Errour is not the Way to Truth Will it not follow that he who at his Journeys End finds himself at York did not go the Way to London Pray what 's the Way to a Place Is it not that Passage that he who has past it finds himself at that Place And so the Way to know the Doctrin of Christ and his Apostles is it not the Means which he who has us'd knows that Doctrin Why then since Presbyterians and Socinians both interpret by their private Judgments and one side knows not the Doctrin of Christ it follows as unavoidably that the Way of private Interpretation is no sure way to know it as that he who has gone through the Strand and finds himself at Charing Cross has not gone the way to Moorfields That is as certainly as that a Way is a Way or Means to bring a man to such a Place 24. What do you talk then of erring for and mistaking and abusing the Way Or what do you mean 'T is true those erring men do mistake the true Way and for that reason err But they mistake not the Way which you say is the true Way They do interpret by their private Judgment and so take not mistake it use not abuse it Sure you mean that they mistake the Doctrin of Christ and so by mistaking the Way you very wisely understand mistaking the End. And then what a man are you to contend their way is a Way and a sure Way too to bring them to the Knowledge of Christ's Doctrin when they pursue it and are not brought to that Knowledge And what Eyes have you who perceive not that therefore it cannot be a sure way Again to what purpose do you tell us that men may understand and observe as if Observing concern'd our Question of Knowing if they be not wanting to themselves when they who take a right Way not only may but must and cannot possibly fail of coming whither
Faith in the Jewish Law that a Messias was to come yet that this very Person Iesus Christ was to be that Messias was no Point of Faith among them and God's Providence we see took a far better way to make it out than Private Interpretations of the Scripture unless he thinks Miracles no more Effectual nor more Certain than private Interpretations are What insignificant nothings this Man brings for his choice Arguments and what pains he takes in the worst cause in the world viz. To maintain that Christian Faith needs not to be Absolutely Certain And this for no other reason for 't is every Christian's Interest it should be so but because his bad Principles can afford him no Argument to prove it to be such 41. His Pretence of my Second False Supposition viz. that a Rule of Faith according to me must be a Mechanical Rule and not a Rational is weak beyond expression Every Schollar knows his Friend Dr. T. particularly who took the same way and us'd the same expressions Rule of Faith. p. 4. that Metaphors are translated from Materiall to Intellectual things in regard we have no Genuin Conceptions of these Later and indeed most of the Language of Christianity is made up of such expressions whence we can argue by Analogy from the one to the other The word Rule is one of those Metaphoricall words and hence we say that as a Material Rule is that by which if we draw our Pen it directs us to make a Right Line so the Rule of Faith being intended by God to direct us to Truth will lead those Right who follow it and regulate themselves by it Does not this Metaphor look a little more Proper and the Discourse upon it hang better together than his likening Scripture to a Purse yet he utterly dislikes it and tells the Reader I falsly suppose the Rule of Faith must be a Mechanicall or Carpenters Rule with all its Dimensions fixt and denies that himself supposes it to be such a Materiall or Mechanicall Rule Nor any man sure that were not stark Mad. Again do we here meddle with its Dimensions or how much is of Faith as he did when he spoke of his Rule The Straightness of the draught preserving us from the Obliquity of Errour is the only point we aim at Next he denies there is any such Intellectuall Rule because there may be Mistakes in the Vnderstanding and Applying it and therefore Care and Diligence and Impartiality are requir'd else men may miss How Miss tho' they follow it Then it self was not Straight and so no Rule For the very notion of a Rule is to be a Thing that has a Power to regulate or direct us right or keep the Understanding that follows it from missing and to follow it is all the Application it can need to do its Effect Whence all the Care and Diligence and Impartiality he speaks of must be employ'd in seeing they do indeed follow it for none of these can help or hinder the Rule in its Power of directing since it had this of it Self independently of the Persons But his Rule tho' all these as far as we Mortalls can discern be us'd by the Socinians in the following it still suffers those Carefull and Diligent and Impartiall followers of it to err in Faith Therefore 't is no Rule of Faith. But 't is mighty pretty to observe that when he is pincht with plain Sense he ever and anon runs to the old Philosophers who he says would have laugh'd at me for applying a Materiall Rule to Intellectuall things Sure he 's not well awake I draw a Metaphor indeed from a Materiall Rule to an Intellectuall one and then apply that Intellectual Rule to Intellectuall things but I know none so mad as to apply a Materiall Rule to Intellectuall things unless he thinks I am measuring Faith by a Taylors Yard or finding out the right Sense of Scripture by a Ruler and a Ruling pen. 42. But why Presbyterians and Socinians This insinuation says he has as much folly as Malice in it and makes as tho' Wee of the Church of England were Socinians in those points viz. The Trinity and Godhead of Christ. God forbid I should be so injurious to them I do assure him and them faithfully I intended it as a piece of Justice to them and put in Presbyterians instead of Protestants because I had reason to hope those private-spirited Principles were none of theirs and that divers of their Eminent Writers had own'd the Universall Tradition and Practice of the Church for their Rule of interpreting Scripture And I have some Ground to think they might in time have profest it publickly had not Dr. St's Irenicum-Doctrines fill'd that Church with men of no steady Principles and made luke warm Persons flock into it corrupting it's Body by which means there have been in the Church of England so few Church-of-England Men. But why so Cholerick Why such wincing and kicking I do assure him I did not think I had in the least toucht him If he be so over-apprehensive and angry withal I fear he has done himself more wrong in taking it to himself than I ever intended him Again what means he by Wee of the Church of England I am told by a hearty Member of it and one who owns his Name too how true it is let the Dr's Conscience look to it that he is contented to sit and sing in the bearing Branches of that Church so long as he fills his Pockets but when the gathering time is over it is to be cut down as that which cumbereth the Ground By which he sees that he must either clear himself by a candid and full Retractation of his ill Principles or he will have no Title to the word Wee But we are come forwards to his farther Defence of his Rule or rather to his overthrowing the Absolute Certainty of Christian Faith in order to which he asks How can Reason be Certain in any thing if men following their Reason can mistake Very easily Because Reason is a Faculty or a Power apt to be actuated by True or False Principles and accordingly 't is Determinable to Truth or Falshood But if Reason follow any Maxim taking it to be a Principle to such a thing and yet errs in that thing then that pretended Principle is no true Principle Yet says he Men following the Rules of Arithmetick may mistake in casting up a Summ. And can he seriously think that a man who casts it up False does not decline while he thus mistakes from Arithmetical Rules May he not with as good Sense say that Two and Three do not make Five for all Rules of Computation hang together by the same necessity In a word his Instance falters in the Third Proposition viz. That Two who have made use of the same way differ at least a hundred in casting up the Sum. Which is False and by altering the Terms
Babbling when they are exceeded Must you be minded that the Business must be stopt before it come to the Conclusion and that otherwise there is no speaking against it For you know that if the Premisses be right and the Inference good the Conclusion must be as necessarily True as it is that the same thing cannot be and not be at once that is must be more certain than that England for Example shall not crumble into Atoms or be swallow'd up in the Sea to morrow For this and a thousand such things may happen to all material Nature that a Contradiction should prove True cannot And 't is perfect Contradiction that Terms which cohere in the Premises by being the same with a Third should not cohere with one another in the Conclusion Must you be minded that an Arguer is to prove his Conclusion and an Answerer to shew he does not by assigning where and how he fails Do you do any such matter Do you so much as go about it And would you have what you say pass for an Answer Pray consider the Case The Church of Rome is Infallible says Mr. G. She is not say you He brings his Argument and you your Instance against it What are People the wiser now and which shall they be for the Argument or the Instance They have reason to think well of the Argument because you have no fault to find with it and they may think as they please of the Instance You would not I suppose have them believe you both and think the Church of Rome for your sake Fallible and for his Infallible at once Pray what assistance do you afford them to determin either way And what do you more than e'en leave them to draw Cuts and venture their Souls as handy-dandy shall decide for you or Mr. G. 'T is true when Zeno would needs be paradoxing against the possibility of Motion his Vanity was not ill ridicul'd by the walking of Diogenes before him For 't was palpably and ridiculously vain to talk against Motion with a Tongue that must needs move to talk against it And there may be vanity too in our Case for ought I know But where shall it be lodg'd Why more with Mr. G's Argument than your Instance Why is it more vain to pretend to prove Infallibility upon which depend the Hopes which Millions and Millions have of a blessed Eternity and which is prov'd by Arguments to which you think it your best way not to attempt to Answer than it is to except against a Conclusion against the Premises whereof there lies no Exception That is to find fault with a Sum Total and find none in the particulars or the casting up For a Conclusion is a kind of Sum Total of the Premises But it is infinitely more vain to talk against one Infallibility unless you will set up another For if there be no Means by which Men may be secur'd that the ways they take to arrive at their greatest and only Good will not deceive them it cannot be expected they will take all the pains that are necessary to compass that Good which for ought they can tell they may not compass with all their pains 'T is a pleasant thing in you to talk of the vanity of Mr. G's Demonstration when by seeking to take Infallibility out of the World you are making the whole Creation vain For all Material Nature was made for Rational Nature and Rational Nature requires Rational Satisfaction in all its proceedings and most of all in the pursuit of Happiness And what Rational Satisfaction can there be if there may be Deceit in whatever can be propos'd for Satisfaction In short the Result of your Instance whatever was the Aim it is to amuse and confound People and hinder them perhaps from seeing what otherwise would be clear but it shews them nothing nor can for that Argument of yours is not at all of a shewing Nature 13. 'T is at best but an Argument as they call it ad hominem which you know are of the worst sort of Arguments They serve for nothing but to stop an Adversaries mouth or shame him if he cannot answer without contradicting himself but are of no use towards the Discovery of Truth For a thing is not the more or less True because such a Man's Tongue is ty'd up for speaking against it But is it so much as an Argument ad hominem As all the little force of the Topic consists in the Obligation which a Man may have to grant or deny what it supposes he does it affords no Argument at all against the Man who has no such Obligation And pray where does it appear that Mr. G. is oblig'd not to deny that the Greek Church has err'd in matters of Faith And how can you of all Men suppose he is You who in your Rational Account p. 32. quote these words from Peter Lombard The Difference between the Greeks and Latins is in Words and not in Sense Name Thomas à Iesu and Azorius and tell us of other Roman Catholic Authors of the same judgment whom I suppose you could name Pray how comes Mr. G. to lye under an Obligation from which Men of Reputation in his own Communion are exempt And what a wise Argument ad hominem have you made against him whom your self have furnish'd with an Argument ad hominem to confute it when he pleases In fine he goes to work like a Scholar puts his Premises and infers his Conclusion which you know cannot but be True if there be no Fault in his Premises And 't is for you to find one when you can You put nothing to shew how the Inference you make should be True but barely assume without proof that he cannot deny it p. 5. As if Truth depended on his Denying or Affirming and that what People say or think made things True or False And even for so much you are at his Courtesie If he be not the better Natur'd and will crossly affirm or deny in the wrong place you and your Argument are left in the lurch In a word one may see he aim'd at Truth who takes at least the way to it what you aim'd at you best know but no body shall ever discover what is or is not True by your Method 14. But that you may not complain your Cock is not suffer'd to fight let us see what your Instance will do You put it thus p. 5. The Greek Church went upon Tradition from Father to Son as much as ever the Roman did And I desir'd to know of Mr. G. whether the Greek Church notwithstanding did not err in matters of Faith And if it did then a Church holding to Tradition was not Infallible How If it did Why then it is apparent if it did not your Argument holds not And will you assume that the Greek Church errs who believe she does not Will you take a Premise to infer a Conclusion upon which the Salvation of People depends
to justifie themselves for not believing rashly or for fear of making them sure of their Salvation 4. I had alledg'd farther that till Protestants produce the Grounds which prove their Faith to be True it cannot with Reason be held Truth You put my Discourse first in my Words only leaving out those which did not please you and then disguise it in your own and laugh at it for being too plainly True For plain Truth it seems is a ridiculous thing with you and you are of opinion that the more plain it is that you ought to bring your Proofs the less you are oblig'd to bring them Thence you start aside to tell us that the vulgar Catholic has less certainty than the vulgar Protestant because the one has only the Word of his Priest the other has the Word of his Minister and the Word of God in Scripture besides Do you think Catholic Priests are at liberty to tell the vulgar what Faith they please as your Ministers may interpret Scripture as seems best to their Judgment of Discretion when you cannot but know they dare not teach them any Faith but what the Church holds nor does the Church hold any but upon Tradition Again You do well to say your People have it in Scripture or in a Book for they have it no where else And you know the vulgar Socinians and Presbyterians and all the rest have it as much there as your vulgar Protestants notwithstanding all you have said or can say and then I suppose you do not think they Truly have the Word of God on their side unless you think the Word of God says different things to different Hearers When you prove that you and your Ministers have any Certain means of making it out that the Sense which by their explaining and catechising they put upon the Written Characters is truly God's Meaning you will do something make many Converts and my self one among the rest Till then to possess your vulgar Protestants with a Conceit of having the Word of God is meerly to delude them Sure you wanted a Common-place to furnish out your Paragraph or else writ it in a Dream For to tell me that Truth can depend no more upon the Saying of a Romish Priest than of an English Minister when I tell you it depends not on any private man's Sayings is not a Reply of a man well awake In two words Bring you Proofs say I the Saying that is the No-proof of a Minister is as good as the No-proof of a Priest say you And the short and the long is No Proof I thank you 5. But two things say you follow from my Position which you fear I will not grant The First is That if we cannot with Reason hold a Truth till the Intrinsical Grounds of it be produc'd we cannot with reason hold any thing for a Truth namely because the Church of Rome hath determined it for her Determination is no Intrinsical Ground of the Truth but only an outward Testimony or Declaration of it and then what 's become either of her Infallibility or Authority to command our Faith As slips of honest Ignorance deserve compassion and instruction and I do not know this to be any more I will be so charitable as to set you right Authority amongst those who already admit it for True has Force to prove that to be Truth which depends on it and will conclude against those who allow its veracity if it be shewn to be engag'd against them But it has not this Effect upon Human Nature by its proper Power as 't is meer Authority but because Intrinsical Mediums justifie it to be worthy to be rely'd on Whence let that Authority come into dispute it will lose it's Credit unless it can be prov'd by such Mediums to deserve what it pretends to And hence you see we go about to demonstrate the Infallibility of the Church's Human Authority in deriving down Christian Faith. To clear this farther I advance this Fundamental Position viz. No Authority deserves any Assent farther than Reason gives it to deserve And therefore without abating any thing of our respect we may affirm that the Authority of the whole Catholick Church would be no greater than that of an old Woman or one of your sober Enquirers were there no more Reason to be given for believing the former than there is for believing the later And consonantly to this Doctrin we declare to you that When Dr. St. comes to argue either out of Authority of Writers or Instances depending on their Authority against Tradition he shall be prest to make out by Intrinsical Mediums they are Absolutely Certain or they shall deservedly be look'd upon and contemn'd as Inconclusive By this time I hope you see that All Truths are built on Intrinsical Mediums and that whereas you apprehended they would overthrow our Church's Testimony or Authority such Mediums in case we produce them are the best means to establish it and give it force upon our selves and others As also how it comes that the Church can oblige to Belief which is not by a dry commanding our Faith as you apprehend but by having its Human Authority so solidly grounded upon Reason that it self becomes a Motive able to beget according to the best Maxims of Rational Nature such an Assent in us to this matter of Fact that Christ and his Apostles taught such Doctrins But what a put off is this We say Truth is not therefore Truth because of mens bare Sayings or Authority and therefore demand your Proofs from Intrinsical Mediums for thither it must come e're it be known for Truth to make out what you pretend Your Answer in effect is You are afraid to do it lest you should destroy our Church's Infallibility and Authority How much is our Church in your Debt that the Care of Her makes you careless of those Souls in your own Church to whom you owe this satisfaction 6. The second thing you fear I will not grant is A Iudgment of Discretion to common People with which they may discern the Intrinsical Grounds of Truth You gave your self at first the Character of a scrupulous man and I see by this you have a mind to maintain it You know that those who write and print can have no design their Books should not be read and you know those that read will and must judge of what they do read and yet your scrupulosity can fear I will not allow the Common People to judge of the Intrinsical Grounds of Truth who take pains they may judge put it into their power to judge and out of my own and so cannot hinder them tho' I would Indeed I think it no great sign of a Judgment of Discretion to pretend to discern the Truth of Faith by Lights that do not shew it to be True and upon such a Judgment I wish and labour People should not venture their Souls But I disallow no other Iudgment of Discretion full
thing than the Credit of those two or three First Witnesses goes 'T is the First Source of a Testimony which gives the succeeding ones all their weight to prove the Thing that is witnest to be True 'T is that from which the Largeness and Firmness of a Testimony brought to evince the Truth of any thing is to be measured or calculated Since then the stream of Tradition for Doctrin had for its Source innumerable Multitudes of those Christians in the First Age in many places of the World who heard the Apostles preach it and saw them settle the Practice of it in the respective Churches but the Original Testifiers that such a Book was writ by such or such an Apostle or Evangelist were very few in comparison sometimes perhaps not past two or three It cannot with any shew of Sense be pretended that the Tradition for the several Books of Scripture is in any degree comparable in either regard to the Tradition for Doctrin Your next Answer is that This Vniversal Tradition is no more but Human Testimony and that can be no ground for Infallibility which excludes all possibility of Errour Pray why not If things were so order'd as indeed they are that the Testifiers could neither be deceiv'd in the Doctrin being bred and brought up to it nor conspire to deceive us in telling the World in any Age that the new Doctrin they had invented was immediately delivered then it was not possible any Errour could come in under the notion of a Doctrin delivered from the beginning But is not your Tradition for Scripture Human Testimony too And if that can be erroneous may not all Christian Faith by your Principles be perhaps a company of Lying Stories You must be forc'd by your own words here to confess it but I dare say your Parishioners should you openly avow it would hate you for the Blasphemy You would tell them I doubt not as you do us that Moral Certainty is enough to stand on such a Foundation that is such a Certainty as may deceive you and by a necessary consequence may haste to overturn the whole Fabrick of Christian Faith. In the mean time let 's see how manifestly you contradict Dr. St. when you should defend him He avow'd Absolute Certainty for the Book of Scripture and this upon the Foundation of Tradition and you tell us here Tradition can ground but Moral Certainty Now all the World till you writ counter distinguisht Absolute and Moral Certainty which you jumble in one But distinct they ever were are and shall be for the Word Moral signifies a Diminution or Imperfection of Certainty and Absolute plainly expresses the Perfection of it whence 't is Evident that either you contradict Dr. St. perhaps not without his private Order or he himself We shall have all words shortly lose their signification for no other reason but to give you room to shift this way and that when you are too close prest with Reason 35. Now since Dr. St. had granted that Tradition is Absolutely Certain for Scripture and I had prov'd that Absolute Certainty was the same with Infallibility what should hinder me from inferring that unless some special difficulty be found in other things that light into the same channel it must bring them down infallibly too Your Gifts of Interpretation expounds these Words of mine thus These other things are things unwritten in that Holy Book I do assure you Sir you are mightily mistaken I never told you yet that all Faith was not contain'd in Scripture explicitly or implicitly What I meant was that the whole Body of Christs Doctrin and not only that such a Book was Scripture nay the self-same Doctrin of Faith that is contain'd in Scripture comes down by Tradition or the Churche's Testimony But with this Difference as to the Manner of it among others that the Church that testifies it having the sense of it in her Breast can explain her meaning so as to put it out of all Question to Learners Doubters and Enquirers which the Scripture cannot Whence we need not fish for our Faith in the channel of Tyber as your great Wit tells us St. Peter's Ship the Church that caught so many Fishes at first the Body of Primitive Christians who were the first deliverers of Christ's Doctrin hath stor'd up provision enough for the succession of Faith to the Worlds end There we find it to our Hands 'T is your sober Enquirers who Fish for it among dead unsensed Characters and in the Lake of Geneva from whence to save the labour of going thither you and your Friends are deriving a great Channel to run into Thames over-swell it's Banks and drown all the Churches Lacus Lemanus is your Tyber Geneva your Rome and Iohn Calvin the Prime of your new Apostles your St. Peter 36. All this is but prelude But now comes Mr. G's Argument and therefore we are to expect now however you but trifled hitherto more pertinent close Discourse The first Proposition was this All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day they did yesterday so up to the time of our B. Saviour This you seem to deny in regard they may perhaps be so call'd from their adhereing to a Tradition which reaches not so high as our Saviours time but only pretends to it whither we only pretend to it or no will be seen hereafter when the Fourth Proposition comes to be examin'd In the mean time pray jumble not two Questions which are distinct and ought to be kept so The whole Business here is about the use or Sense of the word Traditionary how we both take it in our present Controversy Now that we both agree in the Notion of Tradition whence Traditionary is deriv'd is evident by this that we lay claim to such a Tradition as reaches to Christ and go about to prove it you deny our Claim and endeavour to disprove it But 't is evident you deny the same thing to us which we lay Claim to otherwise we should not talk of the same Thing and so should not understand one another nor could discourse together wherefore 't is manifest we both agree in the Notion or Meaning of that Word however we disagree in the Application of it to the Persons Nor do we pretend in the least what you would put upon us here to inferr hence that this body of Christians that now adheres to it did always so but only contend that if they did not ever adhere to it they must have deserted it and taken up another Rule and so cease to be true Claimers of a Tradition from Christ or Traditionary Christians Moreover we judge we have right to lay Claim to it till we be driven out of it by a former and better Title since we were in possession of this Rule at the time of the Reformation or held all our Faith upon that tenure 37. The second Proposition is this If they follow this Rule they can
till at last they were own'd and impos'd as necessary to be believ'd and practised Answ. If they belong'd to Faith they could not come in while the Rule of Tradition was adher'd to as has been prov'd and granted Tho' perhaps some Points involv'd in the main Body of Faith yet so particularly or universally known might on emergent occasions be singled out defin'd and more specially recommended than formerly without any Detriment to the Faith received but rather to the Advantage and farther Explication of it And as for unwarrantable Practices as they belong not to Faith so they do not concern our present business 6. What if Errour any of these Ways brought forth grew multiply'd spread obtain'd most power and drove out all that held the naked Truth out of all those Countries where it came Of which all Histories furnish us with Instances Answ. But does any History tell you this Errour spread over the whole Church without your supposing the Question that such or such a Tenet is an Errour which you pretend such which is above the Skill of Historians to decide and is only to be determin'd by examining First who have who have not a Certain Rule of Faith. Besides Errour in Faith never yet appeared even though abetted by Great men in the Church but it was oppos'd and Truth grew clearer by the Opposition made to it and tho' for a while it grew under the shadow of some Particular State yet no History ever recorded that all the States of Christendom ever joyn'd to protect it 48. Well but what are all these rambling Questions to our Argument which insists on the impossibility of Altering the yesterdays Faith but either out of want of Memory or out of Malice Apply them to this and they lose all their force how plausibly soever a witty man that talks at rovers supposes all to be Errour which the Revolting Party Held and never considers the Nature of Christian Mankind and their Circumstances may descant upon it For what Paradox is there tho' never so ridiculous that Wit discoursing thus wildly and at randome cannot make plausible Our General Objection then against your whole Paragraph is this that you never apply your several What ifs to our Argument Besides that you pretend in the beginning of it that you will shew other Reasons of such an Alteration which are neither Forgetfulness nor Malice and yet most of those you here assign are Defects of Goodness which implies some degree of Malice and some of them the highest Malice that can be 49. But say you we must seek out a new Medium to prove our Church Infallible for this already brought proves only she does not err so long as she holds to Tradition but still she may err if she leaves it wherefore we must prove she cannot leave Tradition or else She is not Infallible and so we are but where we were And do not you see this is already prov'd to your Hand For not to repeat the many Reasons produc't for this Point Sect. 45. Innovation and Tradition being formerly and diametrically opposite what proves she could not Innovate proves also that she could not leave Tradition for this were to Innovate And this our Argument you see has already prov'd nor is the force of that Proof weaken'd by any thing you have hitherto said I wonder you should dissemble a thing so obvious and run forwards upon that affected Inadvertence of yours as if it were a business unthought of by us before and requir'd a new Medium whereas it is the very thing our Argument chiefly aims at and for which we had of our own accord without any one's bidding made provision for before hand 50. Your next Sect. P. 25. would perswade us rather to prove our Church free from Errour which say you is a much easier task if she be so than to prove Her Self Infallible Very Good Your wise advice amounts to this that you would have us prove our Conclusion without beginning with our Premises or Principles If this be Yours and Dr. St's Logick 't is a very preposterous one and can only be made good by a Figure call'd Hysteron Proteron or Cart before Horse Though I must confess it keeps decorum and is perfectly of the same hue with all your Logick hitherto Please then to know that all our Faith may be Errour if the Testimony of the Church our Rule may be Erroneous and if it cannot nothing we hold of Faith can be so Again what mean you by our proving her free from Errour Your meaning is we should only prove she Embraces no Errour now but what Provision would this make for Her not falling perhaps into Errour to morrow We ought then to prove and so ought you too of your Rule that if we adhere to it it can at no time permit us to Err which could not be if at any time it might be deceiv'd it self or leave us deceiv'd while we follow it Besides if it were granted Fallible or Liable to Errour by what more evident Light or greater and clearer Testimony could we guide our selves to know when it did actually Err when not in deriving down Christs Doctrine Or by what more certain Way could we be directed to arrive at Christ's sence If there were any such It and not Tradition ought to be our Rule We return you then your Counsel back with many Thanks for it neither suits in any degree with Logick Common Sense our own or any other Principles But however it suites better with your convenience than these crabbed Demonstrations For you tell us One single Instance of her erring is enough to Answer all the Arguments can be brought for her Infallibility Sure you have a mind to convince all Schollars that read your Books you never heard of Logick in your Life Or else you would endeavour to baffle the whole Art of Discoursing because you foresee 't is like to baffle you An Instance may perhaps make an Objection against the Conclusion taking it single for a meer proposition and not as standing under Proof but Arguments are answer'd by finding defects in the Premises or the Consequence You might have seen to use your own words better Logick read to the D. of P. in my Pag. 10 and 11. Where 't is shewn you that if the Premises be right and the Inference good the Conclusion must be as necessarily True as that the same Thing cannot be and not be at once Yet you take no notice of it but still run on obstinately to confute all the Schools and Universities that ever Writ or Taught Logick from the beginning of the World to the Time of His and Your Writing The Truth is you are sick of the Argument and would shift it off on any Fashion Bring what Instances you please But first you are to Answer our Argument and next to see the Authority that qualifies your Instance for an Argument be above Morally Certain otherwise it will be
against too by others Yet I shall not be so like some I know to turn a Dispute into a Wrangle but shall apply my self to shew how far the Doctrine of Tradition is from deserving to be charg'd with such injurious reflexions 10. But before I go farther I must take notice of your quoting F. Warner here p. 8. and your appealing to him where you put Haeresis Blacloana in the Margent By which you seem to hint that he is the Author of that Book and an Adversary to the Doctrin of Tradition even so far as to judg it not sound in Faith for no less aversion could make you very much question whether F. W. would absolve any man who professed to embrace Catholick Faith on Mr. G's Grounds But as that very Reverend Person declares he never saw that Book till some of them were presented him bound so himself has forestal'd your little policies aiming to set us at variance in our Tenets in his Anti-Haman p. 203. We Catholicks have Faith because we believe firmly those Truths that God has reveal'd because he reveal'd them to the Church Which as a faithful Witness gives hitherto and will give to the end of the World Testimony to that Revelation And we cannot be Hereticks because we never take the liberty to chuse our selves or admit what others chuse but we take bona fide what is deliver'd us reveal'd by the greatest Authority imaginable on Earth which is that of the Catholick Church He proceeds Here then is the Tenure of our Faith. The Father sent his only begotten Son consubstantial to himself into the world and what he heard of his Father he made known to us Io. 15.11 The Father and Son sent the H. Ghost and hee did not speak of himself but what he heard that he spoke Io. 16.13 The Holy Ghost sent the Apostles and they declared unto us what they had seen and heard 1 Io. 1.3 The Apostles sent the Highest and Lowest Prelates in the Church and the Rule by which they fram'd their Decrees was Let nothing be alter'd in the Depositum Let no Innovation be admitted in what 's deliver'd Quod Traditum est non innovetur But he more expresly yet declares himself no Adversary to this way ibid. p. 267. Your Friend Mr. G. B. had call'd this way of proving Doctrines that They had them from their Fathers they from theirs a New method of proving Popish Doctrines and receives for Answer these words You discover your Ignorance in saying that Method was New or that Arnaud invented it Mr. Thomas White had it before Arnaud Mr. Fisher a Iesuite before T. W. Bellarmin before him St. Austin St. Stephen Pope Tertullian before them all Where you see he both allows this very Method we take as practis'd by Modern Controvertists of note nay by some of his own Order too whom he is far from disapproving and by Antient Fathers also whom he highly venerates Your petty Project thus defeated I shall endeavour to open your Eyes if they be not which God grant they be not wilfully shut 11. The Asserters of Tradition observing that the Adversaries they had to deal with admitted Christ's Doctrin to be Divine held it the most compendious way to put a speedier End to all Controversies which Experience taught them were otherwise liable to be spun out into a voluminous length and the most efficacious Method to conclude all the Heterodox of what denomination soever to prove That the Doctrin held now by the Catholick Church was Christ's or the self-same that was taught at first by Himself and his Apostles It was bootless for them to attempt to prove this by Texts of Scripture manag'd by their Private Wits For the Truth of our Faith depending on Christ's Teaching it if it were not Absolutely Certain Christ taught it it could not be evinc't with Absolute Certainty to be True. Now the same Experience inform'd them that no Interpretation of Scripture made by Private Judgments of themselves or others could arrive to such a pitch of Certainty and consequently would leave Faith under the scandalous ignominy of being possibly and perhaps actually false It was to as little purpose to alledge against such Adversaries the Divine Assistance to the Church or Christs Promise of Infallibility to it as you very weakly object to Mr. G. p. 16. as not once asserted by him For tho' this was believ'd by the Faithful yet it was disown'd by all those Heterodox and being it self a point of Faith it seem'd improper to be produc't for a Rule of Faith. Besides how should they prove this Divine Assistance If by Scripture interpreted by their Private Judgments these not being Absolutely Certain it would have weaken'd the Establishment of that Grand Article which to the Faithful was a kind of Principle to all the rest in regard that upon the Certainty of it the Security they had of all the other Articles was to depend If by the Divine Authority of the Church it self it was not so easie to defend that method not to run round in a Circle whereas all Regular Discourse ought to proceed straight forwards These Considerations oblig'd them to set themselves to make out by Natural Mediums that the Human Authority of such a Great Body as was that of the Church was Absolutely Certain or Infallible in conveying down many visible and notorious Matters of Fact and among the rest or rather far above the rest the Subject being Practical and of infinite Concern that such and such a Doctrin was first taught to the Age contiguous to the Apostles and continued ever since By this means they resolv'd the Doctrin of the present Church into that of Christ and his Authority and consequently these being suppos'd by both Parties to be Divine into the Divine Authority granted by all to be the Formal Motive of Divine Faith. 12. This is the true state of that Affair And now I beseech you Learned Sir Where 's the Polagianism Where is the least Ground or shadow of Ground for all these bugbear words and false accusations which to make them sink deeper into the Reader 's Belief and create a more perfect abhorrence of our Tenet come mask't here under an affected shew of Godliness All hold their Faith relies on the Divine or Christs Authority into which they finally resolve it and all Catholicks hold Grace necessary to believe the Mysteries of Divine Faith tho' all perhaps do not judge Grace needful to believe upon Human Authority this Matter of Fact viz. That Christ taught it Yet my self in Faith vindicated seeing that the admitting this Truth would oblige the Heterodox to relinquish their ill-chosen Tenets and return to the Church against which they had a strong aversion did there declare my particular Sentiment That God's Grace and some Assistance of the Holy Ghost was requir'd to make them willing to see the force even of this Natural Demonstration so much against their Humour and Interest Is it
Pelagianism to conclude that Human Motives which are Preliminaries to Faith and on which the assuredness of Faith it self depends as to us are Truly Certain And Might you not with as much reason say the same if one should maintain the Absolute Certainty of our Senses which is one of those Preliminaries How strangely do you misrepresent every thing you are to meddle with How constantly do you make your voluntary mistake of every Point serve for a Confutation of it 'T is confest ever was That the Human Authority of the Church or Tradition begets only Human Faith as its immediate Effect but by bringing it up to Christ it leads us to what 's Divine yet not by its own force but by Vertue of the Supposition agreed upon That Christ's Doctrin is such Is it Pelagianism to say we must use our Reason to come to Faith or do you pretend all the World must be the worst of Phanaticks and use none Or does it trouble you we offer to justifie that the Reasons we bring to make good that Preliminary which in our way of Discoursing is to introduce Faith are not such as may deceive us And that we do not confess they are Fallible or may deceive us as you grant of your Interpretations of Scripture which ground your Belief No surely we shall not quit the Certainty we have because you have none For if it be not Certain such Doctrines are indeed Christ's who is our Law-giver we cannot be sure they are True their Truth depending on his Authority and would you have us for fear of Pelagianism confess all our Faith may perhaps be but a story But into what an unadvisedness does your Anger transport you to run the Weapon through your own Side to do us a Mischief You bore us in hand First Letter p. 7. that you had a larger and firmer Tradition for Scripture than we have for what we pretend to Yet this Tradition could cause no more but Human Faith for I do not think you will say you had Divine Faith before you were got to your Rule of Divine Faith. By your Discourse then your self are an Arrant Pelagian too Perhaps worse than we because you pretend to a larger and firmer Human Tradition than you say we have nay you pretend it to be Absolutely Certain too which is a dangerous Point indeed Pray have a care what you do for you are upon the very brink of Pelagianism The knowing you have the true Books of Scripture is a most necessary Preliminary to your Faith for without knowing that you cannot pretend to have any Faith at all and if it be Pelagianism in us to hold such Preliminaries absolutely Certain I fear the danger may come to reach you too Yet you have one Way and but one to escape that damnable Heresy which is that you do not go about to demonstrate the Absolute Certainty of Your Tradition as we do of Ours That that is the very Venom of Pelagianism But take comfort Sir my life for yours you will never fall so abominably into the mire as to demonstrate or conclude any thing For what Idaea soever you may frame of it we mean no more by Demonstrating but plain honest Concluding Your way of Discoursing does not look as if it intended to conclude or demonstrate 'T is so wholly pass for as great a Man as you will made up of mistakes misrepresentations petty cavils witty shifts untoward explications of your own Words constant prevarications and many more such neat dexterities that whatever fault it may through human frailty provok't by powerful Necessity be liable to I dare pawn my life it will never be guilty of that hainous Crime of demonstrating or concluding any thing no not the Absolute Certainty of your firmer Tradition And yet unless you can prove or conclude 't is thus Certain 't is a Riddle to us how can you either hold or say 't is such 13 Pray be not offended if on this occasion I ask You a plain downright Question Is it not equally blamable to Falsify your Adversaries Tenet perpetually as 't is to falsify his Words Nay is it not worse being less liable to discovery and so more certainly and more perniciously Injurious And can any thing excuse You from being thus faulty but Ignorance of our Tenet I fear that Plea will utterly sail you too and leave you expos'd to the Censure of every sincere Reader when I shew him to his Eye that You could not but know all this before For in Error Non-plust p. 121. Sect. 8. You must needs have read the quite contrary Doctrine and how those who maintain Tradition do resolve their Faith. There is no necessity then of proving this Infallibility viz. Of the Church meerly by Scripture interpreted by Virtue of this Infallibility Nor do the Faithful or the Church commit a Circle in believing that the Church is Infallible upon Tradition For they believe onely the supernatural Infallibility built on the Assistance of the Holy Ghost that is on the Church's Sanctity and this is prov'd by the Human Authority of the Church to have been held ever from the Beginning and the force of the Human Testimony of the Church is prov'd by Maxims of meer Reason The same is more at large deliver'd in the foregoing Section and in divers other places Now this Book was Writ against your self and so 't is as hardly Conceiveable you should never have read it as 't is Unconceiveable how you should ever answer it And if you did read it what was become of your sincerity when you counterfeited your Ignorance of our Tenet All is resolv'd say you here p. 9. into meer Human Faith which is the unavoidable consequence of the Doctrin of Oral Tradition How shrewdly positive you are in your Sayings how modest and meek in your Proofs Nothing can be more manifest from our constantly avow'd Doctrin and your own opposing it too than 't is that Tradition resolves all into Christ's and the Apostles Teaching And pray do you hold that Christ is a meer man or that the Believing Him is a meer human Faith or that the Doctrin taught by Him and Them is meerly Human If this be indeed your Tenet I am sorry I knew it not before for then I should have thought fit to begin with other Principles to confute you And I pray God by your impugning known Truths you may never need e'm I see I had reason to alledge in Faith Vindicated that the Grace of God was requisit to make men assent to a Natural Conclusion when it came very cross to their Interest For it appears too plain 't is exceedingly needful to assist you here in a meer Point of Common Morality which is to enable you not to speak and represent things directly contrary to your own knowledge And I am sorry I must tell you and too evidently prove it that the greatest part of your Writings against Catholicks when the Point is to be manag'd by Reason
of Errour for the pure Gold of Truth and Soul-poysoning Heresies for means of Salvation Had I a mind to set up a similitude-mender and that you will needs have it a Purse I should beg your leave to put it thus Suppose that Purse's Mouth were tyed up with a knot of such a mysterious contrivance that none could open it I mean still as to the understanding the Mysteries of our Faith but those who knew the Mind of the Bequeather and that the Church to which it was left as a Legacy had knowledge of his Mind and so could open it while others tortur'd their Wits with little tricks and inventions turning and winding the ambiguous folds of it some one way some another and yet entangled their own thoughts more and more while they went about to unty the Knots that so perplex't them 22. This is the true case You make account containing does all the business whereas 't is nothing at all to our purpose which is in the final Intention of it about the Absolute Certainty of your Faith unless we have equal assurance that you can get out thence what 's contain'd there as you pretend to have that 't is contain'd Now it cannot be deny'd but the Primitive Church was imbu'd with Christ's sense by the Preaching of the Apostles and their immediate Successours and so had a sure and proper Way to interpret Scripture and while this sense was still deliver'd down they could not fail of an absolutely Certain Rule to understand it right But there steps up now one Heretick then another opposing himself to the sense of the Church and relying on the dextery of his own wit will needs find out contrivances how to open the Scripture's Meaning by wayes of his private Skill But falls into multitudes of Errours finding no way to unfold the deeply-mysterious Book having refus'd to make use of the right means viz. Christ's sense descending in the Church by Tradition Whence notwithstanding all his little Arts and boasting presumption like the Fox in the Fable Vas lambit Pultem non attingit 23. Mistake me not I do not mean Scriptures Letter is not clear in such passages as concern Common Morality or the Ten Commandments with the Sense of which every one is imbu'd by the Light of Nature Nor in matters of Fact such as were most of those Marks or Signs to know the Messias by foretold us by the Prophets our Saviour's doing such and such Miracles his going beyond Iordan c. Nor in Parables explain'd by himself and such like But in Dogmatical Points or Tenets which are Spiritual and oftentimes profound Mysteries and of these by the way I desire still to be understood when I speak of the Certainty of the Letter or Sense of Scripture for with other Passages I meddle not as the Tenet of a Trinity Christ's God-head the Real Presence of his Body in the Sacrament and such like which have a vast Influence upon Christian Life either immediately or else in a higher Nature being as it were Principles to many other Articles of Faith which depend on their Truth One would verily think I say that such as these should be some of your Golden Points or else there were none at all contain'd in your Purse Yet we experience That even in such as these your Rule is not intelligible enough to keep the Followers of it from erring So that let your Purse have never so Golden and Silver a lining you are never the richer unless you can come at it or can certainly distinguish the pure Gold of Truth from the impure Dross of Errour Your Similitude then comes not home to your purpose nor shews that you have therefore all your Faith or all Divine Revelations because you have a Book which you judge contains them Let 's see now if it does not make against you You put the Doctrin or Points of Faith to be the Gold and Silver contain'd in the Purse and consequently that must be the Purse into which that Doctrin of Faith was put by Christ our Saviour and this was evidently the Heads and Hearts of the Faithful For the Points of Faith being so many Divine Truths are onely contain'd in Men's Minds properly and Words being by their very Definition but Signes of what is in our Minds Truths are no more really in a Book than Wine is really in a Bush which signifies it Since then those Truths were onely in the Breast of Christ Originally and after him in that of the Apostles and their Thoughts could not be communicated nor consequently the Gold and Silver deliver'd to the Legatees otherwise than by signifying it which can onely be done by one of these ways by Living Voice and Practice or by Writing that is by Tradition or Scripture neither of these can with any Sense be liken'd to the Purse it self into which the money is to be put or answer comparatively to It but they are both of them Wayes Means or Methods of putting these heavenly Riches into it's Proper Purse the Souls of the Faithful Of these two Ways our Saviour chose the First which was Teaching his Doctrin orally for he writ nothing and by doing thus told us it was the better For it had been against his Infinit Wisdom to chuse the worser way for Himself to make use of and leave the better to his Servants Nor did his servants the Apostles affect the Way of Writing so as to use it onely but on the contrary they made use of this Oral Way of Preaching constantly and that of Writing for the most part at least if not altogether occasionally They converted the present Church by their Preaching they comforted the future Church by leaving many most edifying Words and Actions of our Blessed Saviour Written which being Particulars and not breaking out openly into Christian Practice might otherwise in likelihood at least to a great degree have been lost to succeeding generations besides the abetment their Writings give to Faith it self when certainly interpreted and rightly understood So that according to this discourse of yours we should either have never a Purse to put Points of Faith in for you take no notice of the Souls of the Faithful into which they are properly put and in which onely they are in reality contain'd Or if you will needs call that a Purse which contains them meerly as a Sign does the thing signify'd or as that which may signify to us our Faith you must put two Purses Tradition and Scripture And then the onely Question is out of which Purse we can with more Certainty get it That is whether a Living Container which can give us perfect light of it's Sense by all the best ways imaginable or the Dead Letter which as Experience demonstrates can neither clear it's Sense to Private Understandings nor if we doubt of it's Meaning and had a mind to ask it could either hear or reply much less pertinently and appositely speak to the Asker as oft as he
Copy nor that any Copy can be True unless conformable to the True Original And if there can be any failure in any of these nay if you have not Absolute Certainty of all these you cannot have by your Grounds any Absolute Certainty of your Faith For if the Letter be wrong all is wrong that is built on it and it may be wrong for ought you know notwithstanding the Testimony of all Christian Churches relying on this Way of attesting the Truth of the Letter For you can never shew that all those Churches consented to apply their utmost diligence to examine and attest all the several Translations made in their respective languages or witnest that they came from the true Original or took the most exquisit care that was possible to see that the Translaters and the Copiers did their duty Which had they held the Letter to be their onely Rule of Faith and consequently that All Faith that is the very Being of the present and future Church and their own Salvation too depended on the Scripture they were obliged in conscience and under the highest Sin above all things in the World to have done and this with the exactest care imaginable Your Grounds then notwithstanding all you have said or alledged hitherto to ensure the Letter make no Provision for the Absolute Certainty of the Written-Rule nor consequently of your Faith. 27. But what becomes then say you of the Vulgar Latin Translation I answer in our Grounds no harm at all For the Canon of the Books comes down by the Testimony of all Christian Churches that are truly Christian and the Doctrin of Christ transfus'd into the hearts of the succeeding Faithful ever since the beginning both taught them how and oblig'd them to correct the Copy in those particular Texts that concern'd Faith if any Errour through the carelesness unattentiveness or malice of the Translaters or Transcribers at any time had crept in By the same Means as you can now adays correct the Copy in those Texts that ought to express some Point of Morality in case it were corrupted and deviated from Christian Manners viz. by vertue of the Sense of that Practical Tenet you were imbu'd with formerly this even tho' you had no other Copy or Text to amend it by Insomuch that how good an opinion so ever you had of the Copy Translater Printer or Correcter of the Press yet for all that you would conclude they had err'd and the Letter was faulty rather than forgo the Doctrin so firmly rivetted in your heart by the constant Teaching and Practice of the Christian world As for other particular Texts of an Inferiour Concern they could be best corrected by multitudes of other ancient Copies the Churches Care still going along in which too the greatest care that was possible to rectify it's Errours was taken by the Council of Trent that so it might be as exact as Human Diligence could well render it A thing as far as my memory reaches never order'd or very much regarded by any Council formerly 28. But I foresee your method of confuting which is to muster up Extrinsecall objections not at all to the purpose will naturally lead you to discredit this way of correcting Scripture's Letter in passages belonging to Faith as singular or New This being the same your Friend G. B. objected to the Way of Tradition it self as may be seen above Sect. 10. Such piddling Exceptions drest up prettily in gay language go a great way and make a fine shew in your Controversies and which is a benefit of most advantage to you excuse you from bringing any Intrinsecal Arguments tho' these onely are such as conclude any thing and tho' you are bound by your precise Duty to produce such Wherefore to ward this blow I shall alledge the Judgment of that Learned and Excellent Personage Sir Thomas More our first Modern English Controvertist who writing not against you in defence of our Grounds but to another Catholick Divine expresses candidly his Sentiment in these words Ego certe hoc persuadeo mihi idque ut opinor vere quicquid ad fidem astruendam faciat non esse a quovis melius versum quam ab ipsis Apostolis perscriptum Ideoque fit ut quoties in Latinis codicibus occurrat quidquam quod aut contra Fidem aut mores facere videatur Scripturarum interpretes aut ex aliis alibi verbis quid illud sibi velit dubium expiscentur aut ad vivum Evangelium Fidei quod per universam Ecclesiam in corda Fidelium infusum est quod etiam priusquam scriberetur a quoquam Apostolis a Christo ab Apostolis Vniverso Mundo praedicatum est dubios ejusmodi sermones applicent atque ad inflexibilem veritatis Regulam examinent ad quam si non satis adaptare queant aut sese non intelligere aut mendosum esse codicem non dubitent This is my Iudgment and as I conceive a True one that whatever Text is useful to build Faith on was not better translated by any than it was writ by the Apostles themselves And therefore as oft as any thing occurs in the Latin-Books that seems to make against Faith or Good Manners the Interpreters of Scripture either gather from other Words in other places what that doubt should mean or they compare those doubtful sayings to the living Gospel of Faith which was infus'd into the Hearts of the Faithful throughout the Vniversal Church which before any man writ it was Preach't by Christ to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the whole World examine them by the inflexible Rule of Faith with which if they cannot make it square they conclude that either they do not understand it or the Book is faulty where he passes by the former way with a sleight word expiscentur fish out the sense but insists on the latter way of preserving the Copy sincere as Certain and Proper 29. I must not pretermit your Objection p. 19. that the Ancient Christian Church never knew any thing concerning this Method of resolving Faith into meer Oral Tradition I would desire you to add Practical to Oral at least to conceive it to be understood all the way that being our True and constantly-avow'd Tenet But did the Antient Church in reality never know any thing of this way T is wonderful you should not understand they meant the same as we do unless they speak the self-same Words and make the same Discourses we do now Did not they all hold that who taught any thing contrary to the Doctrin delivered down by the Church was a Heretick Did any of them say that the Churche's Tradition of a Doctrin as Christs was liable to Errour Did any of them hold that it was lawful for your Sober Enquirer to rely on his Private Interpretation of the Scripture and relinquish the sense of the Church which is the true Point Not one 'T is one thing to say they oft quoted Scripture
Absolutely Certain if you be not equally Certain of the later Surely none at all For 't is not the whole Book in the lump that can be produc't to prove Faith or confute Heresy but particular Texts and if These and the mainly significant Words in them be not Absolutely Certain what becomes of the Absolute Certainty of your Rule or your Faith Nay I am not fully satisfied that their concurrent Testimony does strengthen the Certainty of even so much as the Books For I observe that our Judges suspect the Testimony of honest men and misdoubt the justness of the Cause if known Knights of the Post are call'd in to corroborate their Evidence But you have prudent Maxims of your own which are beyond the reach of Lawyers 37. You endeavour to come a little closer to the Point p. 29. and set your self to prove that Scripture is your Rule of Faith ay that it is In order to which You advance this Proposition that Certainly all that believe it to be the Word of GOD must take it for a Rule of Faith. These two confident Words Certainly and Must are very efficacious to perswade those who will take it upon your Word nay they are so magisterial that they impose a kind of necessity upon them of believing all is as you say or else of denying your Authority which would break Friendship But if they will not but happen to be so uncivil as to require Proofs for it they quite lose their force and which is worse such positive Assertions make People expect very strong Arguments to Answer and make good such confident Affirmations else it hazards Credit to pretend Great Things and bring little or no Proof How you will justify those big Words we shall see shortly In the mean time let us ask you how you come to be thus Certain of it Is there no more requisit to a Rule but to be the Word of God Or did you never read in Errour non-plust long ago p. 73 74 75. the Answer now given You to this Pretence in the Confutation of your 12 th Principle in which You endeavour to establish Scripture to be a Rule Or can You so much forget your self and your duty to reply to it as to discourse still thus crudely with the same confidence as if You had never read or heard of such a Book or any thing alledg'd there to the contrary If we must needs mind You of it so often take these few words along with you now at least and till you have reply'd to them and others such which are there alledg'd I beseech you let us be tir'd no more with such Talk as serves onely to amuse but can never edify or convince To be writ by men divinely inspir'd to be Divine Infallible and the Word of God signifies no more but that they the Scriptures are perfectly Holy and True in themselves and beneficial to Mankind in some way or other and this is the farthest these Words will carry But that they are of themselves of sufficient Clearness to give sincerely endeavouring Persons such security of their Faith while they rely on them as cannot consist with Errour which is requisit to the Rule of Faith these Words signifâ—y not They may be most Holy they may be most True in themselves they may be exceedingly Useful or Beneficial to Mankind and yet not endow'd with this Property which yet the Rule of Faith must have And pag. 75. What then Dr. St. is to do is to produce conclusive Reasons to evince that the Letter of Scripture has such a Perspicuity and other Perfections belonging to such a Rule as must Ground that most Firm and Unalterable and if rightly Grounded Inerrable Assent call'd Christian Faith. We see here the Question rightly stated and the Point that sticks now let 's see whether your Proof does so much as touch it or in the least mention it 38. The Argument you make choice of I suppose it is your best the matter in hand being of highest consequence to prove that all who believe Scripture to be the Word of God must take it for a Rule of Faith is this For since the reason of our believing is because God has reveal'd whatever God has reveal'd must be believ'd and a Book containing in it such Divine Revelations must be the Rule of our Faith. i. e. by it we are to judge what we are bound to believe as Divine Revelations What a wild medly is here instead of a Reason Here are four Propositions involv'd The First is this the reason of our believing is because God has reveal'd and this is granted onely you may note that we are equally bound to believe what God has reveal'd by the Church's Testimony as by Writing if it be equally clear it was thus reveal'd nay more by the former than by the later in case that way of ascertaining the Divine Revelation be more clear than this nor does your First Proposition deny this but rather asserts it The Second This whatever God has reveal'd must be believ'd And this is pretended for an Inference but alas 't is nothing less For how does it follow that because the reason of our believing is God's Revealing therefore we are bound to believe what God has reveal'd whether we know it or no All then that can be said of it is that 't is pious Non-sense unless you add to it that we have also Certain Grounds God has indeed reveal'd it For otherwise besides the danger of erring our selves in matters of the highest moment and this unalterably too in regard we entertain that Errour as recommended by the Divine Revelation we shall moreover hazard to entitle God's Infinit veracity to a Falsehood and make Truth it self the Authour of Lies The Third that a Book containing in it such Revelations must be the Rule of our Faith is absolutely deny'd For a Book may contain in it Divine Revelations and I may not know certainly it does contain them Or I may know certainly by very good Testimony it does contain them yet not know certainly it does contain them all Or I may know it does contain them all yet perhaps not be able to know any one of those Divine Revelations in particular which are contain'd there for example if it be in a language I understand not Or tho' I do understand the language yet by reason of it's mysterious Sublimity and deep Sense and thence Obscurity and Ambiguity in many passages relating to spiritual matters and the Chief Articles of our Christian Profession I cannot be assur'd with Absolute Certainty which is the right Sense of it and therefore considering me as in the way to Faith that my Assent depends necessarily on the Truth of some Preliminary which is the object of pure Reason I might not nay cannot with any true Reason firmly assent to what I see may be an Errour nor hazard my salvation upon an Vncertain Ground and on which I know great multitudes have
Faith Does he think the Mysteries of Faith are the Way to Faith Or can he pretend that the State of the Question exprest so carefully before-hand in a Preface to signify my meaning throughout the whole Treatise following is totally to be set aside and neglected and that only single words pickt out where for brevity's sake I did not constantly repeat it are to give my true Sense What impertinent Brabbling is this Again p. 16.17 I no less punctually declare that I only treat of the Objects or Points of Faith as their Truth depends on those Motives or Rule of Faith. Yet all will not do to a man bent upon Cavill 9. My last Note towards the End let 's him see clearly when to whom and how Infallible Assent is requisite and not requisite And I had forestall'd this too before in an Elaborate Discourse from p. 131. to p. 158. in Error Nonplust where I shew'd that since Faith must be True and not possible to be a Lye therefore all who have true Faith must be out of capacity of being in an Error or must be in some manner Infallible That it was enough simply to have Faith that they be Materially Infallible or not capable of being in an Error by relying on a Ground that cannot deceive them such as is the Testimony of Gods Church tho' they see not how it must be so Nay that this is absolutely sufficient for All who are coming to Faith provided they do not happen to doubt that their Reasons for the Churches Infallibility are Inconclusive and so be apt to remain unsatisfy'd or are not bound to maintain the Truth of Faith against Opposers in which case they are to be able to see and prove the Conclusiveness of their Grounds from some Certain Principle which I call there to be Formally Infallible This and much more is laid out there at large which prevents most of his Objections here But no notice takes the good Dr. of it It was it seems too great a Mortification to him to peruse a Book which he was highly Concern'd to answer and knew he could not 10. His Fourth Contradiction is solv'd in three lines I treated of the Humane Authority of the Church the Rule of Faith which was Extrinsical to Faith as 't is a Theological Virtue or Divine Yet it being an Extrinsical Argument as all Testimony is I therefore went about to prove it's force from Intrinsical Mediums fetcht from the Natures of the Things viz. Man's Nature and the Nature of the Motives Nor can the Certainty of Witnessing Authority be prov'd otherwise 11. His Fifth is clear'd by my first four Notes which shew that I spoke of Faith which was by the Confession of both Parties Divine and Supernatural and for that reason called so by me but did not treat of it as thus qualified or go about to prove it Divine but prov'd it's Truth meerly as it depended on Humane Faith previous to it and so did only formally treat of that Humane Faith it self on which the Knowledge of Divine Faith leans and by which those coming to Divine Faith are rais'd up to it Yet what hideous Outcries the Dr. makes here that by my Doctrine we are to seek for the Certainty of Faith formally Divine That I make Divine and Supernatural Faith derive it's Certainty from Natural Infallibility c. Tho' he knows as well as that he lives that we make Faith as Formally Divine derive it's Certainty from the Divine Authority testify'd to us by Miracles That this Establishment of Divine Faith by Supernatural means is presuppos'd to our Question and granted by both sides and that our only Point is how we may know certainly what was this Divine Faith thus ascertain'd at first Whoever reads Third Catholick Letter p. 23.24 will admire with what face he could object these falshoods or counterfeit an Ignorance of what has been so often and so clearly told him and which he had seen so particularly answer'd in my Defences But this is his usual Sincerity 'T is pretty to observe into what a monstrous piece of Nonsense our Dr. has fall'n here and how because I argue from Supernatural Faith he thinks I am arguing for it or proving it Whereas common sense tells every man who has not laid it aside that he who argues from another thing supposes that other thing and so cannot possibly while he does so go about to prove it or treat of it But it seems For and From are the same with his great Reason and not possible to be distinguisht He might have seen other Arguments drawn from the Supernaturality of Faith to prove that the Rule which is to light intelligent men who are Unbelievers to Faith must be more then Morally Certain But he thought best to chuse the worst and while he objected that too mistook From for For that is the Premisses for the Conclusion and the Cart for the Horse 12. His Sixth Exception if pertinent amounts to this I.S. did not prove any point Divine and Supernatural therefore Dr. St. needs prove no point of Faith he holds to be truly deriv'd from Christ A fair riddance of his whole Task For the rest We do not desire him to prove by his Rule one determinate point more than another only since he talks of his Grounds which cannot be such unless they derive their solid Virtue of supporting to what 's built on them we instance now and then in some main and most necessary Articles of which if he can give us no account how they come to be absolutely ascertain'd by his Ground or Rule he can give it of none Each Point of Faith is of a determinate sense We shew that Tradition gives and ascertains to us this determinate sense and we shew why it must do so and how it does so this with Absolute Certainty Let him shew his Rule has the power to do this then pretend we are on equal Ground But alas He must not say this who is all for Moral Certainty and fancies nothing above it For he cannot say by such Grounds any Point is or is True while it may be False that they were taught by Christ and if he says they are or were taught by Christ while they may not be so he in plain terms affirms the same thing may at once be and not be For thither the Doctrine of Faith's possible falshood must be reduc't at last and the Greatest of Contradictions will be found to be his First Principle 13. His 7th Exception is answer'd in my last Note which shews that the Ground upon which the Truth of Faith depends must be more than Morally Certain tho' every Believer needs not penetrate the force of those Grounds or have even so much as Moral Certainty of their Conclusiveness But what means he when he Objects my saying that True Faith by reason of its Immoveable Grounds can bear an asserting the Impossibility of it's Falshood Can
between us 't is manifest the contest was whether he had Absolute Certainty of those Points he held upon his Rule What says the Dr now to this plain state of the Controversy 29. First he changes the Ground of Absolute Certainty for his Faith into proving the Absolute Certainty of the Ground or Rule of his Faith which transposes the Terms of the Question and alters the whole business For Absolute Certainty for Faith engages him to shew the Doctrin or Tenets of Faith to be thus Certain whereas Absolute Certainty of the Rule of our Faith makes Absolute Certainty affect the Rule but leaves all Faith Uncertain unless the pretended Rule proves a good one and renders the Doctrin of Christian Faith consisting of many particular Points thus Absolutely Certain which himself will tell us afterwards he will not stand to Next he Equivocates in the word Scripture which may either mean the Letter or the Sense of it Now the Sense of it being Faith 't is That only could be meant by Mr. G. and of which it was affirmed he could not shew Grounds absolutely ascertaining it The Sense I say of Scripture could only be question'd since the Letter was agreed to Wherefore to alledge Tradition for his Proof of what his Grounds will not allow to it viz. to bring down the Sense of Scripture or Faith and turn it off to the shewing Certainty of the Letter which was out of Question is a most palpable prevarication 3. He quite forgets to shew that any Point of his Faith or all of it speaking of the Controverted or Dogmatical Points as we do may not be False notwithstanding his Proof for the Certainty of its Letter which if it be 't is not Faith unless he will say the Points of his Faith may be so many Untruths 4. It has been prest upon him over and over in my Catholick Letters to shew how his Rule influences his Assent of Faith with Absolute Certainty It has been inculcated to him how both Rule and Ground are Relative words and therefore that he could not pretend they were to him Absolutely Certain Grounds for his Faith unless he shew'd how they made him Absolutely Certain of that Faith of his which was the Correlate Which tho' the most material Point and most strongly prest upon him he takes no notice of in his whole Reply and it shall be seen that when he comes to touch upon that Point after his fashion hereafter he is forc't to confess they are no Absolutely Certain Ground or Rule to him at all Lastly that when Faith being Truth the Question was whether he had any such Ground as could conclude it True that Christ had taught his Faith and consequently whether he has any Faith at all he slips over That and rambles into a Discourse about more or less Faith in Scripture instead of shewing he had any Other shifts he has but these are his master-pieces So that his whole performance as to the Conference amounted to no more than to take up the Bible in his hand and cry aloud Look ye Gentlemen here is my Ground or Rule of Faith and your selves must confess 't is Absolutely Certain and therefore you cannot deny but I have shewn you the Ground of Absolute Certainty for my Faith. But if it should be reply'd Sr an Arian or Socinian might do the same and yet no by-stander be the wiser for it or more able to discern which of you has Christs true Faith which not in regard that must be decided by shewing who has an Absolutely Certain Means to know the true Sense of the Letter the Drs insignificant Principles carry no farther but as we shall see anon to confess plainly neither of them have any such Means of Absolute Certainty at all And that he cannot manifest what was expected of him and he stood engag'd to manifest 30. The case then between us being such plain sense what says the Learned Dr to it Why besides his rare evasions lately mention'd he tells the Reader vapouringly his way of reasoning was too hot for Mr. G. which I have shewn to be frigid Nonsense He complains that our obliging him to prove or shew clearly what belong'd to him for no body held him to Mood and Figure is like the Trammelling a Horse That we insinuate Mr. G. is Non suited which is far from True. He is peevishly angry at the Metaphor of Playing at Cards and persecutes it without Mercy which is a scurvy sign that however he pretended to a Purse full of Gold and Silver he is a Loser and that he will be put to borrow some Citations out of Authors to combat the Council of Trent hoping to recover by that means some of the Credit he has lost by the Nonplusage of his Reason He pretends he gives us good security that is for the Letter of Scripture which was not the End of the Conference nor is our Question but not the least security for its Sense or Faith which was He talks of Declamations and the Schools in the Savoy and glances at my pretending to Intrinsical Grounds which is to maintain that Humane Authority which is the only thing I was to prove is to be believed blindly whether a man sees any Reason why he ought to believe it or no. He talks too of the Cardinals in the Inquisition who tho' my Just Judges were my very good Friends He says my Grounds had sav'd the Martyrs Lives and he makes a rare Plea for them out of my Principles Forgetting good man that we are writing Controversy to satisfy men who are in their way to Faith whereas those Blessed Martyrs were not only already Faithfull but moreover liv'd up to Christ's Doctrin and so had Inward Experience in their Consciences of it's Sanctity and Truth He imagins the Iews who saw our Saviour's Miracles had no Intrinsick Grounds Whereas True Miracles being evidently above Nature are known to be such by comparing them with the Course of Natural Causes known by a kind of Practical Evidence or Experience And must I be forc't to render him so Weak as to instruct his Ignorance that the Knowledge of things in Nature is an Intrinsick Ground and not Extrinsical as Testimony is He sticks close to his Friend Lominus right or wrong in despite of all the Evident and Authentick Testimonies to the contrary whom before for want of others to second him he split into Two and now multiplies into the Lord knows how many To gratifie his Friend Dr. Tillotson and excuse his and his own silence he says I have retracted the main Principles in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery which in plain terms is an Vnexcusable Falshood To explicate two or three words and shew by Prefaces States of the Question and many Signal passages they were Misunderstood and apply'd to wrong Subjects as I did to the satisfaction of my Judges and even of prejudic't persons signifies plainly not-to
in it The Lady having a high opinion of Dr. St's parts judg'd it impossible a man of his Learning should not be able to give an Answer to a few Lines in so long a time not reflecting how connected Truth hampers an Adversary and is perfectly Unanswerable So she prest vehemently for a Second a Distinct Answer After some tedious expectation he sends another more insignificant if possible than the former Which seen and the Lady now satisfied that he upon whom she most rely'd had done his utmost she alter'd her Judgment upon no other inducement than the seeing plainly that his Principles resolv'd all Certainty of Faith finally into the Private Spirit The Drs Reflecter was set on like an unexperienc't Perdu Souldier to combat it with a distinct Answer but alas he was shown to falter or falsify in every particular This ill success made the Dr. grow wary in speaking to any particular part of it but thought it safest here to stand aloof and throw stones at distance instead of grappling with it neerer hand His answer is that it proceeds upon two False Suppositions and Overthrows the Possibility of any Rule of Faith. My first False Supposition is that there is no Certainty without Infallibility No True or Absolute Certainty good Dr. For as for your Morall Certainty it may be Fallible enough I must confess I hate such nonsense as to say I am perfectly Certain of a thing yet peradventure I am deciev'd The word Absolute signifies Perfect and Certainty if True is taken from the Natures of the Objects or Things without us and if they stand perfectly engag'd by a True Knowledge of them they would not be what they are if when we truly conceive them as they are our Conception or Iudgment of them can be False that is if it be not in that particular Infallible This is plain Sense and told him long ago It has been demonstrated also in Faith Vindicated that True Certainty Infallibility were all one What answers he Why he makes as if he had never known or heard of our Arguments for it but falls to talk of the Stoicks Marke Epicurus his fooleries He learnedly mistakes the Definition Man is a Rational Creature for a Demonstration and dislikes it at the same time Lastly he tells us many other things the Antients held or said which are nothing to me who judge I know what belongs to Certainty and resolving of Truths into their Principles as well as they did and do think them very weak to stand disputing with the perfect Scepticks or convincing them by Criterions because all Discourse supposes something Certain to build upon otherwise it might go on endlessly that is would be to no End and the Scepticks admitted no Certainty of any thing at all 40. His Application of those Preparatives is that we are to expect no Absolute Certainty in proving the present Faith to be Christ's Doctrin And so he hopes to save his own Credit for producing none let the Credit of Christian Faith and the repute of its being an Absolutely Certain Truth go where it will for him However to avoid the shame justly due to such a Position he must cast in some good words to fool his Readers and so he grants that they who use due Care and diligence may attain to a true Certainty and satisfaction of Mind as to the sence of Scripture But he never attempts to show that possibly they may not do so but may hap to fall into damnable Heresies as the Socinians do who for ought he or I know us'd as much Care and Diligence as he and his Party use Again what means Satisfaction of Mind Is Faith ever a jot more Certain or True because some may be Satisfy'd it is Are not the Socinians as well satisfy'd in mind that Christ is not God as the Dr. is that he is God Moreover if the Argument he brings to prove his Faith to be Christ's true Doctrin does not conclude 't is a thousand to one that Acute and Intelligent men will find the flaw in it And what can those men do in that case so they be true to their Reason the only Light they can yet guide themselves by Must they Assent that his Faith came from Christ when they see that notwithstanding all the Proof he brings for it it may not be Christ's and hazard to Embrace that Doctrin for his Faith which may for any thing they know have the Father of Lyes for its Author They must Suspend then in that case and justify themselves by alledging that the best Arguments the most Learned Christians bring to prove it conclude nothing Nay 't is to be fear'd they will disgrace the Faithfull as a company of Fops for believing upon weak Grounds and by showing them such lay a just Scandall upon the Christian Church for pretending to hold what Christ taught when as yet none in it are able to prove it was his Doctrin And how would they laugh Christians out of Countenance if proceeding on Dr St's short Grounds they should only show them a Well-Attested Book containing those Doctrines without ascertaining absolutely the true Sense of it when as only that Sense was the Doctrine of Faith and which is worse when they saw multitudes of numerous Sects at perpetuall and irreconcileable variance about that Sense The true Rule of Faith then must be such as sets Faith above any Peradventure of not being Christ's true Doctrin and so secure all who rely on it how weak soever from being deceiv'd or in an Error and withall it must be such as Intelligent men seeking for assurance of Christ's Faith may be satisfy'd it is able to conclude it to be such and the more Learned Faithfull Evince to Doubters and Convince Opposers that the Faith held now by themselves and the Church is the Self-same that Christ and his Apostles taught at First But Dr St. dares not affirm any of this of his Rule of Faith therefore his pretended Rule is none His Instance of True Certainty attainable without Infallibility in that point of Faith viz. That Iesus was the True Messias is partly answer'd in my Fourth Catholique Letter and his alledging it has one strange inadvertence in it which I wonder he was not aware of which is that the Proof of it depended on the Interpretation of Scripture He had it seems forgot that to manifest himself to be the true Messias foretold by the Prophets was the main Point of our Saviours Doctrin and that he did Miracles to attest that Doctrin and make himself known to be that Person which Miracles were Infallible Marks that that Doctrine of his in that point was True. And when the Dr. produces Miracles to abet his Private Interpretations of Scripture then he may have a fair pretence to lay aside the Publick Interpretation of the Church Again he is quite out as to the Subject of his discourse For tho' it was a Point of