Imprimatur,

GVIL. NEEDHAM.

A LETTER TO A FRIEND, Reflecting on some Passages in A LETTER to the D. of P. IN ANSWER TO THE Arguing Part OF HIS FIRST LETTER To Mr. G.

LONDON: Printed for William Rogers at the Sun, over-against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street. 1687.

A LETTER TO A Friend, &c.

SIR,

HAVING by your favour had a sight of the late Letter in Answer to the Arguing part of the D. of P's. first Let­ter to Mr. G. I now return you it with my thanks, and some Reflections on so much of it, as attempts to demonstrate the Infallibility of the Romish Faith, and denies the certainty of ours. For whatever becomes of the Conference, which gave occasion to this Letter, the Contents of it thus far are of as much Con­cernment to You and Me, and indeed to all Pro­testants, as to that worthy Person to whom he writes it. The man is, you see, a great pretender to Logick, but you find him making much more use of his Rhetorick; and indeed it is to this, if to [Page 2] any thing, that he is beholding for so much as a pretence to the other; and if we feel no harm from this, we need not fear that the other can hurt us. You may be sure he wants no Wit, whom Mr. G. intrusts to hold his Cards, and play his Game too, with so well known a Gamester. Pardon me for using his own Language in a matter so serious, I say not, as his Letter, but as the Subject of it. His Stile is pleasant and taking enough, his way of Arguing meerly popular, and his Art accom­modate to the design he is upon, of deluding the less thinking. Lastly, his C [...]nfidence is such, as we ought to expect in men that talk of nothing lower than Self-evidence, absolute Certainty, and Infallibi­lity.

I wish with all my heart, that his value for Souls, so precious to God, be really as great, as he would have us think theirs is little, who (as he deriding­ly speaks) set up for Ministers of the Gospel. If he find any of them so regardless of their Duty, as he faith they are; let him freely, for me, spend all his Rhetorick in Exclamations against them, as he has begun to do, Page 5. But when he talks of every Bodies speaking for himself one day, and bring­ing in his own account; and asks, if the Happiness or Misery of their Souls will not depend on that account? And then expostulates with our Ministers in this manner, Can you suffer them to run that terrible Hazard, without making them able to justifie their accounts themselves, and furnishing them with Assu­rance that they can, and with no more to say, but that they hoped Dr. St. would make his party good with Mr. G. Ibid. I am apt to think him some Convert, [Page 3] who knows not what to say, either for the Church he hath chosen, or against that he hath forsaken. He has heard, it may be, something to this pur­pose said against the Priests of that Church, where­of he now is; and not knowing what else to say, nor yet how to be silent, he saith the same against the Ministers of ours. Because our Ministers know that every one of us must give account of himself to God, therefore they not only give us leave, but earnestly exhort us to read and study the Gospel of Christ, whereby we must be judged; which is a Liberty very rarely granted in the Church of Rome. And because they know also our Happi­ness or Misery depends on this account we shall be able to give of our selves, therefore they will not have us depend upon their Word only, who are not able to acquit us in the day of Judgment, as the Romanists must do upon the word of their Priests, or upon nothing at all that I know of; but in preaching, they explain the Scripture to us, are importunate with us to search it; they Catechize us, exhort us to confer often with them, commend good Books of Instruction to us, use all ways they can to make us grow in Grace and Knowledg, and to enable us to give our account with joyfulness. But how comes this man, if he be a Roman Catho­lick, to talk of furnishing them with assurance that they can? If they may be assured that they can give up a good account, may they not be assured that they have the Grace of God, and of their Iusti­tisfication and Salvation? And if so, then what's become of that Decree of the Council of Trent,—We must not affirm, that they who are truly justified, ought [Page 4] to conclude with themselves, without any doubting at all, that they are justified; seeing no man can know by a certainty of Faith, under which there can be no falshood, that he hath obtain'd the Grace of God? If no man ought or can be assured that he hath the Grace of God, how are our Mini­sters bound to furnish us with Assurance that we can justifie our Accounts our selves? Can a man justifie his accounts, that is not sure he hath the Grace of God? Possibly his meaning may be no more, but that our Ministers give us not sufficient Assurance of the Truth of our Faith; and for want of that, we cannot justifie our accounts. But if this be his meaning, it is very untowardly expressed, and after all, it will be a little hard to conceive, how the bare Assurance of the Truth of what is taught, should enable a man to justifie his ac­count, without an Assurance of Grace too, which the Council denies that any man can have.

He tells us next, That Truth is Truth, because 'tis built on intrinsecal grounds, and not on private mens Abi­lities, or their saying this or that. And hence infers, that Till those grounds be produced, it cannot be with reason held Truth. Ibid. He might as well have said more plainly, What any thing is, that it is, whatever be the Reasons why it is so, or whoever saith it is, or it is not: Yet can no man with Reason believe it, till he have a Reason to believe it. All this is true, and I think every body knew it before he told us it; nor is it the truer, because he hath said it, and therefore we have no more Reason to believe it, than we had before. But seeing Truth is Truth, whatever [Page 5] private men say we think it can depend no more upon the saying of a Romish Priest, than of an English Minister; and therefore we think also, that the Vul­gar Papist, at best, hath less certainty of the Truth they hold, than the Vulgar Protestant of the Truth we hold, whilst, besides the word of the Priest, the former hath no grounds at all to build his Faith upon; but the later hath, besides the word of the Minister, the Word of God in the Scripture, which he may consult when he will. Moreover, if we cannot with Reason hold a Truth, till the intrinsecal grounds of it be produced, then two things more must be true, which I fear this Roman Catholick will not grant us. First, That we cannot with Reason hold any thing for a Truth, namely, because the Church of Rome hath determined it; for her determination is no intrinsecal ground of the Truth, but onely an outward testimony or declaration of it; and then what's become either of her Infallibility, or of her Authority to com­mand our Faith? Secondly, That the Common Peo­ple must be allow'd their Iudgment of Discretion; for how without the free use of that, they shall discern the Intrinsecal grounds of Truth when produced, and so with Reason hold it, I fear our Author cannot easily demonstrate: which yet if he cannot do, he must by his own Principles be forced to grant, That the Church of Rome hath no more Infallibility or Autho­rity than the Church of England hath; she is to be believed onely when she produceth the Intrinsecal ground of Truth, and not otherwise, unless we must believe her without Reason; and so far is the Church of England to be believed, or any Church whatsoever. And so this Author hath (unawares I suppose) set us [Page 6] all on even ground, and I hope we may be able to maintain our ground against all that he saith here­after for himself, or against us, to gain the advan­tage of us again.

First, He falls upon the Certainty of the Protestant Faith; which he hopes very easily to overthrow; and it will be as easily done, if it stand upon no surer ground than he would have it. Suppose (saith he) Mr. G. could not prove Protestants are not certain, are they therefore certain? pag. 4. This he first ima­gines, that all the certainty of our Faith is This, that Papists cannot prove it to be uncertain, and then 'tis pretty to see what sport he makes with his own ima­gination. But let him play on, it seems time for us to be in earnest and more serious, when the certainty of our Faith is struck at. It is too weighty a matter to be play'd away at a game of Cards; which is all he is commission'd to. Yet will he make the World believe, that we have thrown it away already; nay, he will needs make us believe it too. You know well enough (saith he) that to prove Protestants have no Abso­lute certainty of their Faith, is no hard task for a weak man. I say nothing yet of the word [Absolute] but ask, how know we this? Why, we know any man may find it confessed to his hand by Protestants, pag. 6. Who I pray are these Protestants? Dr. Tillotson, in his Rule of Faith, pag. 117, 118. I have so great a reverence for that very Excellent man, that I am not unwilling, though he be but one Protestant, that he should pass for many, and too many for all the Tradi­tionary Catholicks to answer his Rule of Faith; but his Confession, that Protestants have no certainty of their [Page 7] Faith, I must desire some good Catholick to shew me in those two Pages, or in any other part of his Book, when he can answer it, for till then I despair of find­ing it. We do not yet therefore see this Confession, no nor he neither, if he may be believed against himself (some People have need of good Memories to save their Credit) for pag. 23. he tells us, We seem to grant we are thus Absolutely certain, or Infallible by Virtue of Tradition. How? Confess we have no cer­tainty, and yet seem to grant we are Infallible; and that too by Virtue of Tradition? This is to make us right Traditionary Papists, indeed, whether we will or no, such as Rushworth, Dr. Holden, Mr. Cressy, and Mr. White; all contending for the Infallilbility of Tradition, and yet confessing that what the greatest part of Man­kind must be satisfied with, is Probability and Conje­cture; as he may find in the 120th; and following Pages of Dr. Tillotson's Rule of Faith; where if he find them wrong'd, he hath the liberty to vindicate them if he can. Only I will here give him and his friends a seasonable warning, That if any Protestant shall, being now minded of it by him, begin to plead Infallibility by virtue of Tradition; it will behove them in time, after their many shiftings from Post to Post, to seek them out yet a new one; for when both Parties pretend a like to Infal­libility and Tradition, neither of these can be any longer a sit Medium whereby to prove which is in the right.

It is agreed (as he saith well) on all hands, Men are saved by believing and practising what Christ taught, not barely by believing Scripture is Scripture, Page 7. And 'tis as true which he tells us, Page 8. [Page 8] Where Churches differ in Faith, infallible Faith in one cannot stand with certain Faith in the other. Whence he may do well to take notice, that when our certainty is once proved, no more is needful to confute their Infallibility. Now the Question is, (saith he) Whether Protestants are absolutely cer­tain, that they hold now the same Tenets in Faith, and all that our Saviour taught his Apostles? Page 6. Which Question in that Challenge of his, Page 22. is thus explained. Make manifest, that Protestants have absolute certainty, not only of the Scripture, which they call their Rule; but of the Faith, which they pretend to have from that Rule, or else suffer ano­ther thing to be manifest, viz. That you cannot do it, and thither I am sure it will come. The Proof, he often tells us, is our part; and though he be so confident, that we cannot make it good; yet are we not afraid to undertake it, even all that he here calls upon us to prove, leaving out the word [Absolutely] till he tell us what is meant by it, as he will do anon. The certainty that we have of the Holy Scripture, which we acknowledg to be our Rule of Faith, we manifest after the same manner, as they do theirs, except only, that we ground it not on the Infallibility of their Church; and yet, if that will do us any good, we have it too confirming our certainty. But so much cer­tainty he yields us; only he asks, Did our Saviour teach, and do Protestants believe no more, than that the Book so call'd, is Scripture? Page 6. Yes, tho I do not find that our Saviour ever taught that the Book so called is Scripture, one great part where­of was not written when he taught; yet do we [Page 9] believe that it is Scripture, and Divine Scripture' the Word of God, containing in it all things necessary to Salvation, and that all things therein contain'd are true. Now this being granted us, that our Scripture is God's Word, we think that we do sufficiently prove the certainty of every Article of our Faith when we shew it to be solidly grounded on that Word; and this being shewn, our Faith is either certain, or they who deny it to be so, must affirm the Word of God, on which it is wholly grounded, to be no good ground of Certainty. Neither indeed can these men deny the certainty of our Faith, without de­nying that of their own too, so far as it is the same with ours; as indeed it is in all our necessary Articles, ours being no other but those in the Creeds, which are as well theirs, as ours.

Thus far then we have often proved the cer­tainty of our Faith, and if he require it, will be ready to do it again. But this he knows well enough, and therefore would set us a har­der task; but it is by all Laws of Disputation in our choice whether we will accept of it or no. Two things more he will have us prove. First, That we are Absolutely certain of all this: And Secondly, Not only this, but of all that more which our Saviour taught his Apostles. But that we are not obliged to prove either of these things, we are at least as sure, as he is that we can­not; and that I will confess to him is sure e­nough, taking his words in his own sense.

[Page 10]For first, he tells us, Pag. 23. The profession of Absolute certainty makes a fair approach towards the Doctrine of Infallibility, or rather 'tis the self same with it. And again, in the same Page he makes Absolutely certain, and Infallible, all one thing. When therefore he can meet with Protestants that Pro­fess themselves absolutely certain in his sense, that is, Infallible; 'tis fit he should call upon them, as we do on Roman Catholicks, to prove all is their due, which they as absurdly as presumptuously arrogate to themselves. But whilst he has to do with Protestants of the Church of England, who are of a modester disposition, let him not put them to the Blush for him, by telling them 'tis their duty to prove themselves to be as much wiser than they know themselves to be, as the Church of Rome thinks her self wiser than all other Churches.

And truly the next part of his demand is as un­reasonable as this, to bid us prove that we are absolutely certain of All that Christ taught his Apo­stles. We are certain, as was said, of that which Christ and his Apostles have taught us in the Holy Scripture, writ on purpose to inform us of what they taught; and this we have reason to think enough, and all that we are bound to be certain of; because, we cannot imagine, if they writ not all that we are bound to know and believe, why they were at the pains to write so much; for if it be as these men tell us, that to believe but a part is as damnable as to be­lieve nothing, they had as good have writ nothing as not the whole that we must believe. A few lines more might have instructed us in that all more which ('tis said) we should certainly believe, or a [Page 11] few words might have directed us to the Infallible Church to learn it. Were those good men so scanted of time, or sparing of pains, that they could not afford us this all more; especially whilst they spend so much of both in writing largely, things supposed by all not Absolutely necessary? And did the Primitive Church also grudge her Children the full knowledge of this all that Christ and his Apostles taught as the neces­sary Faith of Christians? We do not find in any of the ancient Creeds one branch of this all more, which the Trent Council so lately taught and commanded by vertue of Tradition. To say no more, we have cer­tainty of all that is taught us in Scripture, and we know of no more that Christ and his Apostles taught us. The Papists say there is more, and we are bound to believe it; cannot now this Gentleman see by his own Rules of Disputation, that he and his Bre­thren ought to bear their own burden, the proof of all this more, that he would have us say we are cer­tain of?

You see I hope by this time, that we decline no proof that is incumbent upon us. We prove the Scripture to be the Word of God; we prove every Ar­ticle of our Faith by the Scripture; and thus we prove we have sufficient certainty of our whole Faith. Our Rule being certain, the Faith which agrees with it is cer­tain too. If there be any thing more, that it is sup­posed Christ taught, and Christians must believe, he that affirms it, is obliged to prove it, or no longer to quarrel with those who know nothing of it.

Well, I perceive this Author has a mind to shew what he can do to prove we have no certainty of our Faith, in kindness, to us I suppose; that he may ease [Page 12] us of the mpossible task, as he accunts it, of proving that we have. And he has done it unanswerably, it we will believe him. I declare openly (saith he) that you cannot answer this Discourse. However we will try, and we have some reason for it, seeing he tells us it nearly toucheth our Copyhold, which he may well believe we have no mind to part with. We have it thus, Pag. 30, 31.

I. God hath left us some Way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught. This is a certain truth; what is then the inference from it?

II. Therefore this Way must be such, that they who take it, shall arrive by it at the end it was intended for, that is, to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught. Alas! what dallying is here! Who is the wiser for this inference? Or who knows one jot the more by it, than he did by the Antecedent? If God hath left us a Way to know, then by that Way we may know. If such be his Inferences that he here engageth to make good, he needs not fear to make good his engagement, tho' his Inference be good for nothing. But his next may be better. Let us hear it.

III. Scripture's Letter interpretable by Private Iudgments, is not that Way. Who doth the man here dispute against? Our Doctrine is, that The Scripture only is the Rule of Faith, or, The Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvati [...]n. I suppose it is against us that he would be thought to dispute in this unanswer­able Discourse; and why doth he not in terms con­tradict our Doctrine, saying, The Scripture only is not [Page 13] the Rule of Faith, or the Scripture contains not all things necessary to Salvation? If, because he had in his Pro­position used Way for Rule (which is very indifferent to us) he ought in his Assumption also to use the same word; yet, why saith he not Scripture only, but Scripture's Letter? And why more yet, Scripture's Letter interpreted by private Iudgments? All this pack­ing of the Cards is not for nothing. However let us deal fairly and above-board.

If then by Scripture's Letter he mean (as some of his Friends do) unsensed Characters, I confess Scripture's Letter cannot be the Rule, or Way to know. But such insignificant things we are unac­quainted with in the Holy Scripture, which we own; if there be any such in his, it will lose nothing by throwing them out. Yet if he can think it reasonable to allow as much to the Scripture, which is a Letter from the infallible God, to Men, as he expects we should allow to this Letter of his, that it contains good Sense expressed in words significant and intelligible, we deny his Assumption, that Scripture's Letter is not this way.

Again, if by these words, interpretable by private Iudgments, he mean the Scripture any way interpre­table, as any private man may possibly wrest the words to make them comply with his own Sentiments, or through ignorance and laziness, and neglect of such helps and means as are fit to be used, may misunderstand them, he must have as wide a Conscience, and as lit­tle Modesty, as the impudent and wicked Author of Pax Vobis, who has the face to fasten such a mean­ing to the 6th of our 39. Articles, which hath no respect at all to the Interpretation of Scripture, but [Page 14] only to the Sufficiency and Canon thereof. But if his meaning be, that Scripture, as it may be under­stood by a private Man of a competent Iudgment, using such helps as are proper, is not the way; we again deny his Assumption. For we suppose these things, That the Scripture is Gods Word, That it was written to be understood, That it was written for the Instruction of private men, That they are concerned to understand it, That they may believe and live as it di­rects; That they have means left them of God for the understanding of it, so far as it is of necessary concernment to them; And that using these means as they ought, they may understand it, and thus it is to them the way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught as necessary to their Salvation. And now let him shew, when he can, that these Suppositions are unreasonable or false.

But he offers at a Proof of what he saith; For (saith he) we experience Presbyterians and Socinians (for Example) both take that way, and yet differ in such high Fundamentals as the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. I might here talk with him in his own ridiculing Language, Page II. We bring our Argu­ment, and he his Instance against it. What are Peo­ple the wiser now? And which shall they be for, the Argument, or the Instance? For if an Instance, such as this in Presbyterians and Socinians, is enough to stand in Bar against any Argument proving the Ho­ly Scripture to be the Way to know what Christ and his Apostles taught; what Reason can he give us, why the like Instance should not be as good against an Argument for Tradition's being the Way? Tradition it seems is so precious a thing [Page 15] with these men, that Experience is nothing in comparison of any Argument that they have ad­vanced to defend it; but the Scripture is a thing of so little worth, seeing it favours them so little, that Experience, or any thing else, is thought enough to shew the Folly of trusting to it. But to let this pass; the force of his Argument is this, If any Men can be found who wrest or misinterpret Scrip­ture, then can it not be the Way to know what Christ and his Apostles taught. Now to find men wresting the Scripture, he needed not have sought amongst Presbyterians and Socinians, he might have met with Instances enow amongst Popes and Councils. But for the validity of the Consequence, he must yet seek a little farther, or get a Decree of some new Council to make it good; tho this will not do his Work neither; for 'tis granted us, that the same Infallible Authority which by a bare Declaration can make an Article of Faith, may be mistaken in the Arguments it useth to prove it so. And indeed this Argument proves nothing, but that he has no good Opinion of the Scrip­ture. For must a Rule be no good Rule, because some who use it, misunderstand it, and abuse it? Must a Way be a wrong Way, because some that take it, will not keep it? In short, till it be prov­ed that God hath left such a Way or Rule, as no man can possibly err out of it, mistake it, or abuse it, and that it is not enough that he hath left us such a Way or Rule, as men may understand and observe if they be not wanting to themselves, it will not follow that the Scripture's Letter in the Sense we have own'd it, is not the Way, tho not [Page 16] only Presbyterians and Socinians, but the greater number of Mankind should own it, and yet differ about fundamental Points contained in it; no more than it follows, that because we see men misinterpret and break good Laws daily, therefore those Laws are unintelligible, or cannot be kept, and must be thought insufficient to shew them what the Lawgiver expects from them.

Yet, if this Instance in Presbyterians and Socinians be not a sufficient Proof that Scripture is not the way left us by God to know the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, you must expect no other in this unan­swerable discourse; for all that follows, is but two [Therefores,] and one Conclusion twice repeated, as you here see.

IV. Therefore Scripture's Letter interpretable by private Iudgments is not the way left by God to know surely, what Christ and his Apostles taught, or surely to arrive at right Faith. And again,

V. Therefore they who take only that way, cannot by it arrive surely at right Faith, since 'tis impos­sible to arrive at the end, without the means or way that leads to it. And so you have an unanswer­able Discourse. Is this the Thing the Mountain has at last brought forth to send us home a Laugh­ing? Is this the Man that undertakes to read Logick to the D. of P.? What trifling is, this in him, who pretends to so much care of Souls? Thus he should have argued to have made sure work:

[Page 17] God hath left us some Rule, which no man can possibly misunderstand or abuse. But Scripture Letter is not such a Rule, as no man can possibly misunderstand or abuse. Therefore, The Scriptures Letter is not the Rule which God hath left us.

Had we now denied the Minor in this Syllogism, then his instance of Presbyterians and Socinians, would have done him good Service. But if we had chanced to have denied the Major, as in all likelyhood we should have done, he had been at an utter loss, as we shall clearly see now we come to consider how he handles his own Rule, viz. Tradition.

The next Question is, How it may appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible? To prove she is, he will grant us to be his part, if he think it need any proof, as I question whether he doth or no. For page 12, he tells us, It is vain to talk against one Infallibility, un­less we will set up another. An Infallibility, he suppo­seth there must be among men, and then the old Argu­ment must take place, that seeing no other pretends to it, but the Roman Catholicks, it must be among them; we must therefore either prove it to be with us, or in vain shall we deny it to be with them, whether they prove it or no, for some where it must be. But now suppose we deny that there is such a thing to be found among men? Then will he have us grant, That there are no means by which men may be secured from being deceived; and then, they will not take all that pains that are necessary to compass that good, which for ought they can tell, they may not compass with all their pains. Ibid. But here he is too hasty, for thô we know not where to find infallible men, now living on Earth, yet we know there is an Infallible and Li­ving God, and He by Men indued with his Infallible [Page 18] Spirit, hath given us his Word plainly Written, and this Word is a sufficient means to secure us from being dangerously deceived, in any thing necessary to our Sal­vation, if we diligently attend unto it, and use the proper helps of understanding it. And this is our en­couragement to take all pains to compass the good we desire, that the same Infallible God who hath given the means, hath assured his blessing to them that dili­gently use them. Yet I a little wonder, to hear him talk of men's being discouraged from taking pains to be well assured of the truth, for want of an Infallible Guide, when it hath been the common Argument a long time, whereby such a Guide has been commended to us, that it would save us the pains of examining the par­ticulars of our faith. If we be in love with ease, or if we be content to take pains, all's one, there's enough in the Infallibility of the Church of Rome for all; the pleasure of the one, or the necessity of the other, may be a Motive sufficient to enter into that Communion, wherein we may, it seems, have our free choice of either. What cunning Gamesters are these men, that hope to win with any hand? Certainly they trust more to their Art, than to their Cards.

After we have been sent from place to place to seek this Infallibility, where now shall we find it at last? In Tradition if any where, for we have miss'd it eve­rywhere else. And there we have already found it, if our Authour must be trusted. The certainty of Scrip­ture is from Tradition, therefore there is no refusing that Tradition causes certainty, and makes faith as certain as Scripture, page 7. Yet it may be this Certainty comes not up to Infallibility: yes it is the very same as you heard before, and he adds, page 23. This makes Tradi­tion to be an Infallible ascertainer of some things at least; [Page 19] and so unless some special difficulty be found in other things, that light into the same channel, it must needs bring them down Infallibly too. Now it is very true, that we have the Books of Scriptures by Tradition, and what other way such antient Books could be convey'd unto us, I confess I do not know; neither indeed can I see what greater Certainty any man can reasonably de­sire, that these indeed are the very same Books which the Authors of them left to the Church, and which the Church hath always received as the Word of God. And this Tradition, we look upon as a ground of suf­ficient certainty of this matter of Fact, wherein no man was ever wont to desire better, nor in reason can. But then first, This Tradition is not that of the Church of Rome only, which is the only Tradition that I ever heard of, that has been pretended to be the ground of Infalli­bility, but a more Vniversal Tradition of all Christians; if some of whom had not been more careful to preserve these Books, than they of Rome, we might, for ought I know, have lost some of them, at least, that Excel­lent Epistle to the Hebrews. And in the next place, this Vniversal Tradition, is no more but Humane Testi­mony, and that can be no ground of Infallibility, which excludes all possibility of Error. A Moral Certainty is enough to stand on such a foundation, and all that can be rationally desired in this case. These Books, as writ by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, are the foundation of our Christian Faith; and he knows, I hope, that neither Papists nor Protestants content themselves with Tradition, but produce abundance of other Arguments, for the Confirmation of Scripture's Divine Authority. And whereas he saith, it makes Faith as Certain as Scripture, no man can doubt but conveying the Book to us, it conveys to us all points of Faith contained in [Page 20] the Book; and witnessing the Book to be writ by men divinely inspired, it also gives as good credit to the Faith contained in it, as humane Testimony can give. But he means another thing, when he thus explains himself, Vnless some special difficulty be found in other things that light into the same channel, it must needs bring them down infallibly too. These other things are things un­written in that Holy Book; and without more ado, we will promise him, that when ever he can shew us those other things, and assure us that they light into the same channel of Vniversal, not only Roman Tradi­tion, and are so convey'd to us, we will entertain them with the same Certainty as we entertain the Scri­pture, upon account of that Tradition only. But for these other things, which are to be parts of Faith too, I fear we must either fish for them in the Channel of Ti­ber, or not at all find them.

All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day, which they did yesterday, and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour, page 8. So saith Mr. G. And saith our Author, There is no denying this, but by denying that Traditionary Christians, are Traditionary Christians. But suppose these Traditionary Christians, be so call'd from their ad­hering to a Tradition, which reacheth not so high as our Blessed Saviour's time, but only pretends to it, as they are by others, if not by themselves; may we not call them Traditionary Christians, and confess too that they believe the same to day as they did yesterday, yea, and as they did ever since the Council of Trent, or some hundreds of years before that, and yet deny that they believe the same, that was believed quite up to the time of our Blessed Saviour? Yes, this is and will be denied, till he can prove it.

Next Mr. G. faith, If they follow this Rule, they can [Page 21] never err in Faith. And his Friend tell us, This is pal­pably self-evident, and p. 9. therefore they are in­fallible. But unless the Rule of Tradition, which they follow, be longer than it is yet proved to be, they may follow it, and err all along by following it. And let it be never so long, yet if they follow it not they may err, and therefore are not infalli­ble; except he shew, that they cannot choose but fol­low it. So that unless it be first, as was before said, proved that God hath given a Rule which no man can possibly swerve from, (which supposed, not only a Pope or Council, but all who have it are infalli­ble) we must all be content to be fallible still. Yea, but, They could not innovate in Faith, unless they did forget what they held the day before, or out of malice alter it. Our Authour undertakes to make this out more clearly, and therefore we will hear what he saith for our better information, page 18. He asks, Did Christ teach any error? and he may be confident we will say He did not. Then it follows, When a Father believ'd what Christ taught him, and the Son what the Father believ'd, did not the Son too believe what Christ taught? No doubt of it but he did. Run it on (then saith he) to the last Son that shall be born in the World, must not every one believe what Christ taught, if every one believe what his Fa­ther believed? It is certain he must. And will you then (saith he) go about to perswade us, that there actu­ally is a company of men in the World, who adhered to this Rule, all Sons believing always as their Fathers did, whereof the first believed as Christ taught, and who notwithstanding erred in matters of Faith? No, he may be sure on't, we will never be so unreasonable, except he can first perswade us to enter into the Ro­man [Page 22] Communion, where we must lay by our Reason, and renounce our Private Iudgments, and then I know not what absurd things we may be brought to do. Were it not very easie here for a man of less rediculing Wit than he triumphs in, to make as fine Sport with his Non obstante here, as he doth with a­nother, page 33, and could do. I doubt not, with two more, which he knows of in the Councils of Constance and Trent? But I leave him to sport a­lone. We will grant him it is impossible to prove, That men have erred, notwithstanding they never erred; and let him, if he please, note it in his Almanack, amongst his Self-evidents.

But notwithstanding, (I would not have him want this word to play with) I say notwithstanding all he hath here said, one little thing is yet to be proved, viz. That these Traditionary Christians, ad­here undecliningly to an unquestionable Tradition, descending really and unvariably from Christ and his Apostles, and could not possibly do otherwise; that is, That they never either did or could err from the Faith first taught; for this is but supposed hitherto, and from this self-evident supposition, (for it is as evi­dent (saith he) as that Traditionary Christians are Tra­ditionary Christians) he necessarily concludes thus, Sup­pose Traditionary Christians neither did nor could err, it is certain they neither did nor could err. Make what you can more of it.

There be two things, which, if they be incident to men, may, as is already confessed, cause an in­novation or alteration in Faith, Forgetfulness and Malice. But our Authour hopes we can have no advantage by pleading either of these, in barre to the Infallibility of Tradition. You do not, I sup­pose, [Page 23] desire, (saith he) that we should prove, that men had always Memories, or that Christians were never malicious enough to damn themselves, and their posterity wittingly, and yet it can stick no where else, page 32. Yet were there no danger of men's forget­ting what had been taught, it is hard to say, why the Penmen of the Scripture, should have been at the needless pains to write it; Nay, St. Peter him­self, if men's Memories be always so faithful, seem'd to be too forgetful of this, with so much diligence as he expresseth to Endeavour that they might be able after his decease, to have these things always in remembrance, 2 Pet. 1.15. And that by giving them unto them in Writing. And if such Malice as he talks of, can never possibly be found amongst Chri­stians, or men professing themselves so; to damn them­selves and Posterity wittingly, I would fain have him tell us, how it comes to pass, that we find at this day among such Christians, so many thousands by wickedness of all sorts hastning to damnation them­selves, and taking as little care to provide any bet­ter for their Children? May not Christians through Malice and Wickedness, be as careless of preserving the Faith, as of maintaining Holiness in themselves or their Posterity, when they know that Sin is as dam­nable as Error.

Again, supposing neither Forgetfulness nor Malice, enough to spoil the Rule of Tradition, What if all Sons did not understand aright, all that Fathers had taught them? Is not this as possible, as for some not to understand aright, what Christ and his Apostles taught them? And such there were amongst their hearers. What if some Sons were so negligent, as to take no care either to remember or teach [Page 24] what they had been taught by their Fathers? Have we not daily experience of such careless persons, who yet want neither understanding, nor Memory? What, if some through Ambition, Vain-glory, and Popularity, set abroach new Doctrines, and taught them for Aposto­lical Traditions? What, if others to save themselves from Persecution, concealed part, and corrupted more of the Doctrine of Christ by their own Traditions, taken not from Christ, but from their forefathers, Iews, or Gen­tiles? And to say no more, What, if some through a blind zeal, ignorant, devotion, superstitious rigour, and vain credulity, added many things to the doctrine of Christ, which by degrees grew into more general e­steem, till at last they were own'd and imposed as ne­cessary to be believed and practiced? What, i [...] Error any of these ways brought forth, grew, multiplied, spread, obtain'd most power, and drove out all that held the naked truth, out of all those Countries where it came? Because Instances brought by us, are unwelcome to this Gentleman, I will leave him, to furnish himself with them out of all Histo­ries.

But now, he will, I suppose betake himself again to his only Refuge, That when any of these fell into Error, they left their Rule, Tradition. I long (saith he) to hear it made out. That an erring Church can still plead Tradition, and adhere to it, p. 18. For, that a Church may follow Tradition at one time, and leave it at another, is no news, p. 15. If this be no news, then, though we should grant Tradition to be an Infallible conveyance of the Truth, yet, would it not make, even that Church, which now adheres to it, to be In­fallible; and therefore the Church of Rome (though we should confess her at present, to adhere to Infallible [Page 25] Tradition) could not prove her self thereby to be In­fallible. That Church onely is Infallible, which can­not err. The Church that at one time follows Tra­dition, may leave it at another, and so doing errs. Therefore if the Church of Rome be Infallible, she must prove, not only that she follows Tradition, for so she proves only that she doth not err; but also that she cannot leave it, for Infallibility excludes all possibility of erring, by leaving Tradition, She must therefore seek out a new Medium to prove her self In­fallible. For hitherto, according to his own way of reasoning, she has but the same priviledge that all Churches have, not to err so long as she holds to Tra­dition, and doth not leave it.

Yet, if it may be proved onely that the Church of Rome doth not err, I think we are obliged to Com­municate with her. And therefore it were enough for her to prove her self free from Error, which is a much easier task, if she be so, then to prove her self Infallible. To prove the former is enough, and in vain she attempts to prove the later, till the former be proved. Why then labours she to no purpose? For as light as this Author makes of Instances, yet all the World knows, that a single Instance, in one Error, is enough to answer all the Arguments can be brought for her Infallibility; seeing it must needs be false to say she cannot err, who in any one thing doth err. And truly, I think her very claim to Infallibility, is e­nough to prove that she doth err, and therefore is not Infallible.

That an erring Church may plead Tradition, himself does not greatly deny, which is one thing that he [Page 26] longs to hear made out. And he needs not go to the Greek Church, his own will abundantly shew it him. But, That an erring Church adheres to Tradition, if he means true Apostolical Tradition, and adhering to it wholly and onely, I know no man that will undertake to make it out, to save his longing. Let him shew us the Church that holds to this Tradition, and we will not onely grant she errs not, but will also be of her Communion, though we will not grant her to be Infallible, and so an happy end will be put to all our Disputes at once.

I confess, it seems very odd to me, that men should call us Hereticks, and condemn us for erring in Faith, and at the same time prove the Articles of their own Faith, by the Infallibility of their Church, and ground that Infallibility on Tradition, and prove that Tradition to be an Infallible convey­ance, by an Argument, which if it proves any thing to the purpose, must prove, that no man that hath been taught the Faith, can ever err from it; and yet, still withal, confess that a Church following Tradition now, may leave it afterwards. If a man may leave the Rule, and by leaving it, err in Faith, then his holding to it formerly, did not secure him from all error in Faith. And if a man cannot err from what he hath been taught, then can no man that hath been taught the Faith, be an Heretick. In short, Christ and his Apostles taught one and the same Doctrine, Innovations, 'tis certain, and Altera­tions have been made in this Doctrine, it's no mat­ter whether it was through Forgetfulness, or Malice, or some other motive, such things undeniably there are amongst Christians, and therefore some have been [Page 27] taught otherwise than at first men were taught; so that without all dispute, the Rule of Tradition is some­where broken. The Church of Rome saith, all have broke it but she only, but how proves she this? She says, she holds the same to day, which she did yesterday, and so up to our Blessed Saviour's time. We call again for a proof of this, She tells us, if she follow'd this Rule, she could never err in Faith. But did she follow this Rule? She says, she did, and if you will not believe her, there's an end.

And here I might end your trouble, but that I have spied a few gleanings yet behind, which may possibly be worth gathering up. He tells, page 25. We give only a General Latitudinarian Rule, common to all the Heresies in the World: You know Sir, that the Holy Scripture is our Rule, and this is indeed the General Rule given by God to us all, and in this sense Latitu­dinarian too, that it contains all things necessary to Salvation, and common to Hereticks, it is and ought to be, thô they miserably abuse it, and thô I could tell him too of Hereticks, that trusted more to his Rule than to ours. He therefore must pardon us, if we can­not give him a better Rule than God hath given us, neither can think fit to throw it away, because some men will abuse it. Yea but, it makes light and dark­ness very consistent, and Christ and Belial very good friends. Ibid. I hope you read not this without a more than ordinary concernment for the man, who ever he is, that hath so little reverence for God and his holy Word, for he cannot but know that the Holy Scripture only is our Rule, against which he ventures to utter so much Blasphemy. All the return I shall make for this, [Page 28] is my hearty prayer, That God may give him Repen­tance unto life.

In his 26 page, we are told, That the Difference con­stituting our Protestant Rule, as distinguished from that of those most abominable Hereticks, can only be [As my own Judgment or others of my side, thus or thus in­terpret Scripture's Letter] and wriggle (saith he) which way you please, there it will and must end at last. Who can expect less, but that where men pretend to Infalli­bility, they should also pretend to know what is our Rule, better then we our selves, poor fallible Creatures do? To what purpose should we tell them again and again, what is our Rule, when they are resolved beforehand, not to believe that we know what it is. If this con­ceited Sir would give us leave to know our own minds, I would tell him once more, That Plain Scripture is our Rule, and that the Interpretation of it by any Sect of people, Romanists or others, is extrinsecal to it, and no constitutive difference of it. In general, 'tis the Word of God; in contradistinction to the Roman Rule of Scripture and Traditions, 'tis the Written Word, or Scripture on­ly; and as differenced from both Romanists and other Hereticks and Sectaries, it is Scripture plainly delivering a sense own'd and declared by the Primitive Church of Christ in the Three Creeds, Four first General Coun­cils, and Harmony of the Fathers. This I hope is plain dealing and no Wriggling, and here we take up our stand, let him endeavour to draw us whither he can.

After he has been quarrelling with our Rule, and with us for not giving a more distinct Rule, he next complains of us for not following our Rule. Not one [Page 29] of a Million, even of your own Protestants (saith he) re­lies on, or ever thinks of relying on your Rule of Faith, in order to make choice of their Faith, or determining what to hold. Ibid. Thô I fear many of them are too neg­ligent, yet I hope he is out in his account, or else I know he is uncharitable in thus judging, without taking an account of them. I am apt to think they are more at­tentive to their Rule than he imagines, or else they would be a little more indifferent which Religion prevails, than most of them yet seem to be. Yet be it as he would have it, 'tis the fault of the people onely, neither of our Religion nor our Rule: And he knows well enough how easie it is for us too to spie such faults abroad.

After much talk to the same, I mean, to no purpose, he asks page 27. How few use all the Fallible means (for you allow them no other) which they are to make use of to find out their Faith? Again I answer, too few; but yet many more than he could wish did make use of them. And how Fallible soever these means be, they are as Infallible as any afforded the people in his Church, and as much more certain, as the Word of God is more certain than that of a Priest.

But now comes the great Secret of all, which was never discover'd till now. Not the Letter of Scripture, but honest Tradition is our Rule, page 28. Nay, and this is evident too (though we could none of us see it all this while, what bad eyes have Protestants?) That the Tradition of our Fa­thers and Teachers, and not Scripture's Letter is in­deed our Rule, page 29. Where are we now? In [Page 30] the Church of Rome e're we were aware of it? We are all good Roman Catholicks on a sudden, we are become an Infallible Church and did not know it. What Vertue is there in these fine Letters, and how insensibly do they work upon us? Fear not Sir, he has proved it I'le warrant you, and that un­answerably, as he does all things. Children sim­ply believe their Fathers and Teachers, page 27. Therefore their Rule is Tradition. This is true, only we must remember, 'tis a Tradition of Scrip­ture only. Next, all hearers do not inquire whether others give not more congruous explications of Scri­pture, then their own preachers do. Therefore they follow Tradition. They do indeed follow what the preacher has deliver'd to them from the Scripture, and what he has made them see plainly there, they think it needless to run as far as Rome, to see more clearly by unwritten Tradition. Lastly, The Reformers meant not that the believing Church should have the Liberty to Interpret Scripture against the teaching Church, or Pastors, or coin a Faith out of it, contrary to the present or former Congregation of which he was a Member, page 29. Therefore a­gain they follow Tradition. They do indeed Apo­stolical and Scriptural Tradition. And herein both Pastors and People are well agreed, that they are neither for Coining faith, and therefore will neither of them give leave to the other so to do. They have a good old Faith delivered to them both by Scripture, and the Primitive Church, and to this they are resolved to stand.

Thus Sir, having given you my thoughts of this ingenious Letter; I leave you to think what [Page 31] you can of it better, desiring you only to think no worse of your own Religion for it, till you hear more from

Your very faithful Friend and Servant.
FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.