A LETTER To the D. of P. In Answer to the Arguing Part of his First Letter.

1. THAT you may not take it unkindly the Arguing Part of your Letter to Mr. G. should pass unregarded, I have been prevail'd upon to accept of his Commission to hold his Cards, while he is not in Circumstances to play out his Game him­self. But can assure you beforehand, since Matter of Fact is clearing by other Hands more proper, I mean to confine my self to Matter of Right; and so shall give you the least and most excusable trouble that can be, a short one.

2. Your Letter tells us, that the Conference was for the sake of a Gentleman, who I heard desir'd to be sa­tisfi'd that Protestants are absolutely certain of what they believe, and made account you could satisfie him, and profess'd, if you could not, he would quit your Communion. And you take care to inform us (p. 2.) that he was satisfi'd, and declar'd immediately after the [Page 4] Conference, that he was much more confirm'd in the Commu­nion of your Church by it, and resolv'd to continue in it. But could you not have afforded to inform us likewise by what he was satisfi'd? For there is many a Man who would be as glad, and is as much concern'd to be satis­fi'd in that Point as that Gentleman; and he would not have been a jot the less confirm'd or the less resolv'd, if his Neighbor had been confirm'd and resolv'd with him. I cannot for my life imagin why you should make a Secret of a thing, which, besides your own and your Churches Honor, concerns the Salvation of thou­sands and thousands to know.

3. Your Letter I perceive would shift it off to Mr. G. whom you desire (p. 7.) to prove that Protestants have no Absolute Certainty, &c. Of this Proposal there will be occasion to say more by and by. At the present I pray you consider how you deal with those Souls who rely on you. If you should move them to trust their Estates with a Man of your naming, of whom you would give no other satisfaction that he were able to manage them, and faithful, and responsible, but only to bid those who doubted, prove the contrary; I fancy there would need all the Credit you have to hinder the Motion from appearing very strange: And yet you have the confidence to make them one as much stranger as their Souls are more worth than their Mony: For you would have them hazard their Souls where they are not safe, for any care you take to satisfie them that they are. Why, suppose Mr. G. could not prove that Protestants are not Certain, are they therefore Certain? Has Peter Twenty pounds in his Purse, because Paul cannot prove he has not? Or, ever the more Title to an Estate, because an Adversary may have the ill luck to be Non-suited? Must not every body speak for him­self [Page 5] one day, and bring in his own Account, which will pass or not pass as it is or is not faulty in it self, whe­ther any fault have been found in it before or no? And will not the Happiness or Misery of their Souls for ever depend on that Account? 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 hop'd Dr. St. would make his Party good with Mr. G.? That things so precious to God as Souls should be of no more value with those who set up for Ministers of the Gospel! That their great and only care, as far as I see, should be to make a shew, and pass for some body here, let every one take his chance here­after! Besides, Truth is therefore Truth, because 'tis built on Intrinsecal Grounds which prove it to be such; and not on private Mens Abilities, or their saying this or that; wherefore till those Grounds be produc'd, it cannot be with reason held Truth: And Dr. St. is more particularly oblig'd to make good he has such Grounds, having had such ill fortune formerly with the Princi­ples to which he undertook to reduce Protestant Faith, as appears by the Account given of them in Error Non-plust.

4. But, leaving these Matters to be Answer'd where we must all answer why we have believ'd so and so; pray let us have fair play in the mean time. Let every one bear his own Burthen, and you not think to dis­charge your self by throwing your Load on another Man's Shoulders. You affirm there is Absolute Cer­tainty on the Protestants side and 'tis for him to prove it who affirms it. If you do it but half so well as Mr. G. can, and has, the Infallibility which he asserts, you will earn Thanks from one side, and Admiration from the [Page 6] other. But it is for you to do it: To trick off proving the contrary upon your Adversary, is to own that Pro­ving is a thing which agrees not with your Constitu­tion, and in which your Heart misgives you.

5. Yet even so you were uneasie still, and would not venture what Mr. G. could do, as slightly as you think, or would have others think of him. You know well enough, that to prove Protestants have no Absolute Certainty of their Faith, is no hard Task even for a weak Man:Dr. Tillotson's Rule of Faith, p. 117, 118. You know any Man may find it confess'd to his hand by Protestants. And therefore you had reason to bethink your self of an Expedient to trick it off again from that Point,Pag. 7. and put Mr. G. to prove, That Prote­stants have no Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of their Faith, viz. the Scripture. The Merits of this Cause too I think will return hereafter more fitly; in this place I mind only the Art. Pray, was not the very First Que­stion at the Conference,Dr. St's Second Letter, p. 14. Whether Protestants are abso­lutely Certain that they hold now the same Tenets in Faith, and All that our Saviour taught to his Apostles? And your Answer that They are? Did our Saviour teach, and do Protestants believe no more, than that the Book so call'd is Scripture? Is Certainty of this more, and Certainty of this Book all one? And was not the Question plainly of the Certainty of this, and of All this more? Here is then an Enquiry after one thing plainly turn'd off to another. Yes; but this was one of the two things which the whole Conference depended upon. As if the whole Conference did not depend on that thing which was to be made manifest by the Conference, viz. the Absolute Certainty of Protestant Faith. Mr. G. indeed did himself ask some Questions about your Certainty of your Rule; Questi­ons, whose course it was wisely done to cut off, before they had question'd away your Certainty of Faith. For, [Page 7] after they had caus'd it to be admitted, that the Cer­tainty of Scripture is from Tradition, there was no re­fusing to admit that Tradition causes Certainty, and makes Faith as Certain as Scripture. And then it would have prov'd something difficult to satisfie even a willing Man, that the Faith is Certain which is oppo­sit to a Faith come down by Tradition. But it was seen whereto it would come, and thought fit to break off in time, and not let the Conference proceed too far. In the mean time Absolute Certainty of Scripture was not the Point of the Conference, nor is it the Point of Concern. Besides that 'tis agreed on all hands, Men are Sav'd by Believing and Practising what Christ taught, not barely by believing Scripture is Scripture: And Salvation is the thing that imports us in these Disputes, and 'twere well that nothing else were minded by Disputers. But it imported you it seems both to shift off Proving from your self, and to stifle any further Talk of the Certainty of Protestant Faith, and keep us from looking that way by fixing our Eyes on another Object. And this is all you do; but with so much Art, that I verily think many a Reader is persuaded you are talking all the while to the purpose. The truth is, you have reason to carry it as you do; for it is good to avoid underta­king what cannot be perform'd: And you cannot, and I believe know you cannot make out, That Protestants are Absolutely Certain, that they now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles, as you affirm'd in your Answer to Mr. G's first Question. And this I thought it imported to tell you plainly and publickly, that it might be in your hands to pin the Controversie-basket, and bring all Catholics to your Church; where I will answer you will be sure to find us, if you make us sure we shall find this Certainty there when we come.

[Page 8]6. In the mean time why has not Mr. G. done alrea­dy as much as should be done? It is plain, that where Churches differ in Faith, Infallible Faith in one, cannot stand with Certain Faith in the other. Wherefore if Mr. G. have fix'd Infallibility in his own Church, he has re­mov'd Certainty from all that differ from her. Let us then take and sift Mr. G's Argument, even as you put it, who had not, I suppose, partiality enough for him, to make it better than it was. You put it thus, p. 4, 5.

7. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday, and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour; and if they follow this Rule, they can never err in Faith, therefore are Infallible. And you (Mr. G.) prov'd they could not innovate in Faith, unless they did forget what they held the day before, or out of malice alter it. And now,

That there may be no mistake, let us take each Pro­position by it self.

8. The First is, [All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday, and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour.] You have nothing to say to this, I hope: For since Traditionary Christians are those who proceed upon Tradition, and Tradition sig­nifies Immediate Delivery, it follows, that unless they believe the same to day which they did yesterday, and so upwards, they cease to be Traditionary Christians, by proceeding not upon an Immediate, but an Interrupted Delivery, or some other Principle. And so there is no denying this Proposition, but by affirming that Tradi­tionary Christians are not Traditionary Christians.

9. The second Proposition is this. [And if they fol­low this Rule, they can never err in Faith.] This is pal­pably self-evident: For, to follow this Rule is to be­lieve still the same to day which they did yesterday: And so, [Page 9] if they did this from Christ's time, and so forwards, they must still continue to believe, to the end of the World, the self-same that Christ and his Apostles taught; and, therefore, cannot err in Faith, unless those Authors of our Faith did: Which that they did not, is not to be prov'd to Christians.

10. There follows this Inference: [Therefore they are Infallible.] This is no less plainly self-evident. For these words [They can never err in Faith] in the Ante­cedent, and [They are Infallible] in the Consequent, are most manifestly the self-same in sense, and perfectly equivalent.

11. The fourth and last (which according to you, aim'd to prove, that they could not innovate) is this. [They could not innovate in Faith, unless they did forget what they held the day before, or out of malice alter it.] And this is no less unexceptionable than its Fellows. For, if they knew not they alter'd Faith, when they al­ter'd it, they had forgot what they believ'd the day be­fore. If they alter'd it wittingly, excuse them from Malice who can; who, believing, as all who proceed up­on Tradition do, that Tradition is the certain Means to convey the Doctrin of Christ, would notwithstand­ing alter the Doctrin convey'd to them by Tradition. Pray what ails this Argument? and what wants it, save bare Application, to conclude what was intended as fully and as rigorously as you can desire? And, pray, what need was there to apply it to the Roman Church, and say she follow'd Tradition, to you who deny it not either of the Roman or Greek Church? As every thing is true, and every thing clear; who now besides your self would have thought of an evasion from it? And yet you venture at one, such as it is.

12. You tell us then, (p. 5.) That you thought the best way [Page 10] to shew the vanity of this rare Demonstration, was to pro­duce an Instance of such as follow'd Tradition, and yet Mr. G. could not deny to have err'd, and that was of the Greek Church, &c. You had e'en as good have said, what Mr. G. says is true, but yet he does not say true for all that. For to pitch upon nothing for false, is, in Disputes, to own that every thing is true. The best way, say you? I should have thought it every jot as good a way to have said nothing when one has nothing to say. But yet the World is oblig'd to you for letting them know what Scholars knew before, that Protestants think it the best way to answer Catholic Arguments, to give them no Answer at all: For you are not to be told that this Instance of yours is not an Answer to Mr. G-'s Argument, but a new Argument against him of your own, which undoubtedly you might have pro­duc'd as well as my Lord Falkland, if you had been, as my Lord Falkland was, arguing. But it is your turn now to answer. And must you be minded of what every Smatterer in Logic knows, that an Answerer is con­fin'd to his Concedo, his Nego, and Distinguo, as the Propositions which he is to speak to, are True, False or Ambiguous? He may deny the Inference too, if he find more or other Terms in the Conclusion than in the Premises. But these are his Bounds; and Answer­ing turns 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 [Page 11] morrow: For this, and a thousand such things may happen to all material Nature; that a Contradicti­on should prove True, cannot. And 'tis 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.? 'Tis 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 'twas 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 [Page 12] 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. 'Tis 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. 'Tis, 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 [Page 13] 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 'tis 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 [Page 14] 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, which Premise your self in your own heart think is not true? Can you deal thus with their Souls, who pin them upon you, perswade them of what you are not perswaded your self, and offer them a Securiy for their Eternity, in which your own judgment tells you there is a flaw? For you have declar'd your self upon this Matter in your Rational Account, and ta­ken great pains to clear the Greek Church, at least upon the Article of the Holy Ghost, in which consists their main difference with the Latins, and to which the other two you mention were added, I suppose, for fashion sake. I know you there propose to free that Church from the charge of Heresie. But pray what difference betwixt Heresie and Error in matter of Faith? unless you will trifle about Obstinacy, and such collateral considerations; which neither concern us here, nor were any part of your Defence there. I see too that you word it here conditionally, and with reference to Mr. G's. Answer: As if his Answer made [Page 15] or marr'd, and the Greek Church did or did not err, as he says, I, or No. Whatever Mr. G. may say, or you have said, unless the Greek Church actually does Err, your Instance is no Instance of a Church that goes upon Tradition and Errs; and your Inference that then a Church holding to Tradition was not Infallible, is wondrous pertinently inferr'd from the Example of a Church that errs not. Pray take it well that I intreat you by all the care you have of your own Soul, and should have of others, to manage Disputes about Faith a little otherwise, and not propose Arguments, in which you must needs think your self there is no force. For there is plainly none in this, if the Greek Church does not err; and you at least think she does not. I am sure 'tis what I would not do my self for all the World.

15. But to proceed to Mr. G's. Answer, (p. 5.) It was say you, that the Greek Church follow'd Tradition, till the Arians left that Rule and took up a new one, &c. And why has he not answer'd well? You assum'd that the Greek Church err'd while it went upon Tradition; If you did not, you said nothing; for, that a Church may follow Tradition at one time, and leave it at another, is no news. 'Tis the case of all erring Churches which ever follow'd Tradition at all. Mr. G's Reply then that Tradition was follow'd till another Rule was taken up, denies that Tradition and Error were found together, as you contended, in the Greek Church. And pray what more direct or more full Answer can there be to an Argument, than to deny the Premises? As slightly as you would seem to think of him, he understood dis­puting better than to start aside into an Exception against your Conclusion, but answers fair and home by denying the Assumption from which you infer it; [Page 16] which now he has done, you know it rests with you to prove it; and yet you never think on't, as far as I see; but, as if you had no more to do, fall a complaining against Mr. G. for speaking of the Arians, and not of the present Greek Church; and against his Copy, for leaving out the Inference which you drew. In doing which, if he did so, he did you no small kindness; there being no Premises to draw the Inference from, as has been shewn above; or if any, such as put you to contradict your own Doctrin ere any thing could fol­low from them.

16. As for the omission of the Inference, I know not how it happen'd, nor mean to meddle with matter of Fact. But I see they had reason, who observ'd before me, that 'tis a thing of no manner of Consequence, I ve­rily think, in your own Judgment. Unless you think the Age we live in so dull, that, without much ham­mering it into their Heads, it cannot be perceiv'd, that if a Church has err'd which held to Tradition, a Church may err which holds to Tradition. Or, unless you think it of mighty Consequence to have an Infe­rence stand in the Relation which fell with the Pre­mises at the Conference. Mr. G. took them away by his denial, and you must begin again, and bring some­thing from whence you may draw an Inference, if you will needs have an Inference; for an Inference cannot be drawn from nothing. Pray divert us not perpetu­ally from minding what we are about; but remember the Question now is, Whether the Greek Church held to Tradition and err'd at once? and bethink your self, if you please of a Medium, which will infer that Point for you; for Mr. G. you see denies it.

17. From his mentioning the Arians you take occasi-to speak big, and bear us in hand he was hard put to [Page 17] it, and sought an occasion, and affirm (p. 6.) you could get no Answer at all to the Case of the present Greek Church. As if his Answer pincht on the Arians, and were not as full to the present as past Greek Church. It goes on this, That those who err in Faith, let them be who they will, and the Error what it will, and in what Time and Place you will, all leave Tradition. Whether the Case of the present Greek Church be the same with the Arians, is matter of Fact, with which Mr. G. did well not to meddle; it is for you to make it out, if you will make good your Argument. Modern or Ancient Heresie is all one to his Answer, which is applicable to all Heresie: And you complain of the want of an Answer when you have one. Pray, if a Man should put an Objection to you about an Animal, for Example, and you answer it of all Animals, would you think it just in him to quarrel with you for not mentioning the Rational or Irrational in particular? And yet this is your Quarrel to Mr. G. All your mag­nificent Talk (p. 6.) of undeniably true, granted by Mr. G. known to every one, &c. as apt as I see it is to make a Reader believe your Instance is notoriously true, and a­gainst which Mr. G. has nothing to say, cannot make me, or any Man of Reason, who examins the Point, be­lieve he has any Reason to say more, till you do. He has answer'd directly, and positively deny'd, that Error and Tradition can be found together in the Greek Church, or any other, modern or ancient. There it sticks, and you may drive it on farther (it being your own Argu­ment) if you please. Only when you tell us (p. 6.) that the present Greek Church in all its Differences with the Roman, still pleaded Tradition, and adher'd to it, I wish you had told us whether you speak of Differences in matter of Faith, or no. For Differences may be occasi­on'd [Page 18] by matters of Faith, which are not Differences in Faith. If you do not, you support your Instance very strongly, and prove the consistence of Tradition with Error in Faith very Learnedly, from Differences which belong not to Faith. If you do, as Nature itches after strange Sights, I long to see by what Differences, or any thing else, it can be made out, That an erring Church can still plead Tradition, and adhere to it. Not but that for Pleading much may be, there are such confident doings in the World. As certain as it is, that the Religion in England now, is not the same which it was before Henry the Eighth, I think there is confidence enough in England to plead Tradition for it. 'Tis but finding some Expression in an ancient Writer, not couch'd with Prophetical foresight enough to avoid being understood, as some will desire it should, and it will serve turn to pretend to Antiquity, and bear the Name of Tradition. So I suspect you take it your self, when you say the Arians insisted on Tradition: For sure you do not think in earnest, that Doctrin contrary to Consubstantiality, was taught by Christ, and believ'd from Father to Son till the Council of Nice. This, or some such thing may perhaps have been pleaded; but for adhering to Tradition, Your Servant. For, pray, did Christ teach any Error? 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? Run it on to the last Son that shall be born in the World, must not every one believe what Christ taught, if every one believ'd what his Fa­ther believ'd? And will you go about to persuade us, that there actually is a company of Men in the World who adher'd to this Method, all Sons believing always as their Fathers did, whereof the First believ'd as Christ taught, and who notwithstanding err'd in matters of [Page 19] Faith? They would thank you for making this out, who would be glad that Christ taught Error and were not God. But it is not plainer that Two and Three make Five, than it is that this cannot be. And yet you would top it upon us, and bear us in hand it is not only true, but apparent in the Greek Church, and known to every body who knows any thing of it. The comfort is, there is nothing for all these Assertions but your Word; in which, where you stick not to pass it for an arrant Impossibility, I for my part do not think there is Abso­lute Certainty.

18. I see not what there remains more, but to bear in mind where we are. At the Conference, instead of answering Mr. G's Argument, you would needs make one of your own, which was in short; The Greek Church goes upon Tradition and errs, therefore another Church may err which goes upon Tradition. There was no need to trouble the Greek Church for the matter: It had been altogether as methodical, and as much to pur­pose, to have instanc'd in the Latin Church it self, and never gon further; and shorter, to have spar'd Instan­cing too, and have said without more ado, Mr. G's Con­clusion is not true: For you do no more, till you make it appear, that the Church you pitch upon for an In­stance, do's indeed adhere to Tradition and err. But, because this had been too open, and People would have sooner perceiv'd that it had been to say, I know not how to answer Mr. G's Argument, but will notwithstanding stand to it, that his Conclusion is false, you thought the best way to divert the Reader's attention from what's before him, was to travel into Greece; and yet when you come there, do no more than if you had stay'd at home: For you barely say there is both Tradition and Error in the Greek Church, and you might have said [Page 20] as much of the Latin; or, without mentioning either, have said, Tho' Mr. G. has prov'd a Traditionary Church cannot err, I say it can and has. All is but Saying till you come to Proving: Only to make a formal shew with an Antecedent and a Conclusion, you say it with the Ceremony of an Argument; of which since Mr. G. deny'd the Antecedent, he had no more to do till you prov'd it.

19. So it stood at the Conference, and so it stands still, and for ought I see, is like to stand: For tho' you have writ two Letters since, there appears no word of Proof in either, or sign that you do so much as think on it: You only say your Instance over again, and would have the Face you set upon it, and great Words you give it, make it pass for plain and undeniable, when all the while it is plainly impossible, and actually deny'd. Mr. G. I hope, will bide by his Answer, because it is a good one, true in it self, and direct to the Point: For it denies just what you assum'd, That the Greek Church stood upon Tradition, and fell at the same time into Error. And speaking as you do, or should do, of Er­ror in matter of Faith, Euclid never made any thing plainer than it is, That where ever Error comes in, Tra­dition goes out. Of necessity therefore, if the present Greek Church have adher'd to Tradition, it has not err'd: If it have err'd, it has not adher'd to Tradition. Which of the two is the Case, neither concerns Mr. G. nor can he dispute it without following bad Example, that is, falling to Argue now it is his Part to Answer. You would pass it upon us, that the Greek Church has err'd without swerving from Tradition; and you must either make it out, or acknowledge you have made much ado about nothing: For your Instance is no In­stance, till it appears to be true; Till you do it, there is no Work for Mr. G.

[Page 21]20 At the close (p. 7.) you desire Mr. G. to make good two things, and tell us why you desire it, and what will fol­low if he accept or decline your Motion. I neither un­derstand how your Proposals follow from your Reasons, nor your Consequences from your Proposals: But think it no more worth losing time upon: them, than you thought it worth boasting of the Victory. The First is, That we [Protestants] have no Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of our Faith, viz. the Scripture; altho' we have a larger and firmer Tradition for it, viz. the Consent of all Christian Churches, than you [Catholics] can have for the Points of Faith in difference between us.

21. I can tell you a better Reason for this Proposal than any you give. There was no avoiding to own Absolute Certainty to a Man who talk'd of quitting your Communion without it. But you knew well enough that your Absolute Certainty would be thwittled into Sufficient Certainty, and Sufficient Certainty into no Certainty at last; and had your Wits about you when you thought of this Proposal: For it is in effect to say, This Certainty of Faith is a troublesom matter, and not for my turn; Let us go to something else, leave Faith and pass to Scripture; of which you, Mr. G. shall prove we have no Absolute Certainty: For, if I should go about to prove we have, I foresee, that while I am seeking harbor in my larger and firmer Tradition, I shall venture to split upon your Infallibility, There can be no necessity sup­pos'd of any In­fallible Society of Men, either to attest or ex­plain these Wri­tings among Christians. Dr. St. Prin­ciple 15. to contradict my 15th Principle for the Faith of Protestants, and full at unawares into the Snares laid for me in Error Nonplust, from p. 90 to p. 96, which I have no mind to come near. But whatever Reasons you had to make this Proposal, I see none that Mr. G. has to ac­cept it. Do you prove, if you please, that you have Absolute Certainty; you, who bear those in hand who consult you, that you have; and Absolute Certainty [Page 22] too of that of which you profess'd your self absolutely Certain,Dr. St's Copy. viz. That you now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles; which by your own confession there, is the true Point. For you know very well, one is not certain of his Faith by being cer­tain of Scripture: Your self take all who dissent from yours, to have not only an Vncertain, but a Wrong Faith, else why do you dissent from them? And yet they have all as much Certainty of Scripture as you. The truth is, if you were prest to make out your Absolute Certainty even of Scripture in your way, you would perhaps find a hard Task of it, for all your Appeal to Tradition. But it was not the Point for which the Conference was, nor ought it be the Point here, nei­ther ought Mr. G. to meddle with it, and you trust much to his good Nature to propose it: For, besides that all the thanks he would have for his pains, would be to have the Arguments against your Certainty, turn'd against the Certainty of Scripture one day, as if he did not believe Scripture Certain: You would have him undertake a matter in which he has no concern, to save you from an Undertaking in which you are deeply concern'd, but with which you know not how to go thorow; which is a very reasonable Request. In a word, it is for you either to make manifest now, what you should have made manifest at the Conference, viz. That Protestants have Absolute Certainty, not only of the Scripture, which they call their Rule, but of the Faith which they pretend to have from that Rule; or else to suffer another thing to be manifest, viz. That I said true when I said you cannot do it; and thither I am sure it will come.

22. However, I am glad to hear any Talk from you of Absolute Certainty, even tho' it be but Talk: 'Tis a [Page 23] great Stranger, as coming from your Quarters, and has a friendly and an accommodating look, and therefore for both regards deserves a hearty welcome. For this ve­ry Profession makes a fair approach towards the Do­ctrin of Infallibility, or rather 'tis the self-same with it; it being against Common Sense to say you judge your self Absolutely Certain of any thing, if at the same time you judge you may be deceiv'd in thus judging. But I accept the Omen that you seem to grant you are thus Absolutely Certain, or Infallible, by virtue of Tra­dition; for this makes Tradition to be an Infallible Ascertainer in some things at least; and, so, unless some special difficulty be found in other things that light into the same Channel, it must needs bring them down in­fallibly too. Now I cannot for my heart discern what great difficulty there can be 'to remember all along the yesterdays Faith, or to be willing to be guided and in­structed by their yesterdays Fathers, Teachers and Pastors; especially the sense of the Points (to omit many other means) being determin'd by open and daily Practice. Yet I a little fear all this your seeming kindness for Tradition, is only for your own Interest; and that, because you were necessitated to make use of it to abet Scripture's Letter, you allow it in that regard, these high Complements; but in other things, particularly in conveying down a Body of Christian Faith (which is incomparably more easie) it will pre­sently become useless and good for nothing. In the former exigency you esteem it A worthy Rule, but in the later duty, A Rule worthy—

23. Now to let the Reader plainly see that it was meer Force, and not Inclination, which oblig'd you to grant an Absolute Certainty in Tradition conveying down Scriptures Letter, we will examin what you [Page 24] allow'd it when you laid your Principles, and so spoke your own free thoughts unconstrain'd by any Adversa­ry: Your fifteenth Principle is put down (p. 90.) in Error Nonplust, and that part of it that concerns this present Point, is thus reflected upon by your Adversary (p. 92, 93.) [Again, tho all this were true, and that the Scriptures were own'd as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly reveal'd, that no sober Enquirer can miss of what's necessary to Salvation, and that therefore there needed no Church to explain them: Yet 'tis a strange Consequence, that therefore there can be no necessity of any Infallible Society of Men to Attest them, or to witness that the Letter of Scripture is right. This is so far from following out of the former part of Dr. St's. Discourse, that the contrary ought to follow; or, from prejudicing his own pretence, that it conduces exceed­ingly to it. For certainly his Sober Enquirer would less be in doubt to miss of what's necessary to Salvation in case the Letter, on which all depends, be well attested, than if it be not; and most certainly an Infallible Society of Men can better attest that Letter than a Fallible one: and those Writings can with better shew of Reason be own'd to contain in them the Will of God, if their Letter be attested beyond possibility of being wrong, than if left in a possibility of being such; for if the Letter be wrong, All is wrong in this case.—] As manifest then as 'tis, that to be Absolutely Certain of any thing, is not to be Fallibly Certain of it; that is, as manifest as 'tis, that to be Ab­solutely Certain of a thing, is to be Infallibly Certain of it; so manifest it is, that you there contradict your self here, and, that, however you may endeavour to come off, you allow not heartily, nor without some re­gret and reluctancy, an Absolute Certainty to Tradi­tion, even in Attesting Scripture's Letter.

[Page 25]24. In these words of yours (p. 7) [As to the Rule of our Faith] give me leave to reflect on the word [OVR,] and thence to ask you, who are YOV? A Question which I ask not of your Name or Sirname, but of your Judgment (as you call it) of Discretion. Are you a Socinian, an Arian, a Sabellian, an Euty­chian, &c. or what are you? Are you a whole, or a half, or a Quarter-nine-and-thirty-Article Man? Do you take them for Snares, or Fences, and when for the one, and when for the other, and wherefore? These words [The Rule of OVR Faith] make you all these at once; for all these profess unanimously Scripture's Letter is their Rule of Faith. Mr. G. when he came to your House, imagin'd he was to treat with a Protestant, or something like it, and to have learn'd from you what Absolute Certainty you would assign for your, (that is, Protestant) Faith; and you give him only a Generical Latitudinarian Rule, common to all the He­resies in the World. The Project of the Comprehen­sion-Bill was a trifle to this: It brings into one Fold all the most enormous Straglers that have been since Christ's time, nay Wolves, and Sheep and all. It blends into one Mass the most heterogeneous and hitherto irre­concilable Sects. Nay, it miraculously makes Light and Darkness very consistent, and Christ and Belial ve­ry good Friends. For your own Credit sake then di­stinguish your kind of Protestants (if you be indeed one of that Church) from that infamous Rabble of stigmatiz'd Hereticks; and let us know what is the Proper Difference that restrains that Notion of a Com­mon Rule to your particular, as such a kind of Protestant, and shew us that specifical Rule to be Absolutely Cer­tain. I say, such a kind; for even the word Prote­stant too is a Subaltern Genus, and has divers Species, [Page 26] and 'tis doubted by many, who are no Papists, under which Species you are to be rankt. But, why should I vex you with putting you upon manifest Impossibili­ties? For the Letter being the common Rule to them all, and, as daily experience shews us, variously explica­ble, that which particularizes it to belong specially to this or that Sect, as its proper Rule, can be only this, [According as my self, and those of my Iudgment under­stand or interpret it.] The Difference then constituting your Protestant Rule, as distinguisht from that of those most abominable Heresies, can only be [as my own Iudgment, or others of my side, thus or thus interpret Scripture's Letter] and wriggle which way you please, there it will and must end at last. Go to work then, distinguish your self by your Ground of Faith, and then make out this your proper Rule to be Absolutely Cer­tain or Infallible; and then, who will not laugh at you for attempting it, and assuming that to your self, which you deny to God's Church, and preferring your self as to the Gift of Understanding Scripture right, before the whole body of those many and Learned Churches in Communion with Rome? Nay, and be­fore the Socinians too; without so much as pretend­ing to make out to the World, that you have better Means, either Natural or Supernatural, to interpret those Sacred Oracles, than had the others.

25. My last Exception is, that you pretend the Let­ter of Scripture is a Rule of Faith for your People, which not one in a Million, even of your own Pro­testants relies on; or ever thinks of relying on, in or­der to make choice of their Faith, or determining what to hold. This pretence of yours looks so like a meer Jest, that I cannot perswade my self you are in earnest, when you advance such a Paradox. For, 'tis manifest [Page 27] that while your Protestants are under Age, and not yet at years of Discretion to judge, they simply believe their Fathers and Teachers; that is, they follow the way of Tradition, however misplac'd. And, when they come to Maturity, pray tell us truly, how many of your Sober Enquirers have you met with in your life, who endeavour to abstract from all the prejudices they have imbib'd in their Minority, and, reducing their in­clin'd thoughts to an equal Balance of Indifferency, do with a wise Jealousie, lest this Popish way of be­lieving immediate Fathers and Pastors should delude them, as it has done the whole World formerly, re­solve to examin the Book of Scripture it self, read it attentively, pray daily and fervently, that God's Spirit would discover to them, whether what they have learn'd hither to be true or no, and what is; and, in a word, use all the Fallible means (for you allow them no other) which your Sober Enquirers are to make use of to find out their Faith? I doubt, if you would please to answer sincerely, you would seriously con­fess you scarce ever met with such a one in your life; that is, never met with any one who rely'd upon Scri­pture's Letter practically for his Rule of Faith, what­ever you may have taught them to talk by rote. Can any Man of Reason imagin, that all the Reformed in Denmark or Sueden (to omit others) did light to be so unanimously of one Religion meerly by means of read­ing your Letter-Rule, and your Sober Enquiry? Or can any be so blind, as not to see, that 'tis the following the natural way of Tradition, or Childrens believing Fa­thers (that is, indeed, of Education) that such multi­tudes in several places, continue still of the same per­swasion; and that you consequently owe to this way, which you so decry in Catholics, that any considerable [Page 28] number of you do voluntarily hang together at all? And that those Principles of yours, which you take up for a shew, when you write against Catholics, would, if put in practice, in a short time crumble to Atoms all the Churches in the World? Perhaps, indeed, when your Protestants come at Age, they may receive some Confirmation from their Fathers and Preachers, quoting Scripture-places against what Catholics hold, or what they shall please to say they hold; and by the same means come to believe a Trinity, the Godhead of Christ, Christ's Body being absent in the Sacrament, and such like; but do the Hearers and Learners make it their business to use all careful disquisition (for a slubber­ing superficial diligence will not serve the turn in mat­ters of such high Concern) whether the Catholics, and those great Scripturists, who deny those other Points, do not give more congruous explications of those places than their own Preachers do? unless they do this, or something equivalent, 'tis manifest the Letter of Scri­pture is not their Rule, but honest Tradition. And that they do no such thing, is hence very apparent, that they rest easily satisfi'd, and well appaid with their Parson's interpretation of Scripture, they presently ac­cept it for right and good, and readily swallow that sense, which some Learned Men, of their own Judg­ment, assign it, without thinking themselves oblig'd to observe your Method of Sober Enquiry. You may rail against the Council of Trent, as you will, for for­bidding any to interpret Scripture against the Sense which the Church holds; but 'tis no more than what your Hearers perpetually practise, and the Preachers too (for all their fair words) expect from them. And I much doubt even your self (tho' your Principles are the most pernicious for taking matters out of the [Page 29] Churche's, and putting them into private Hands, of any Protestant I ever yet read) would not take it very well if some Parishioner of yours, presuming upon his Prayers for Direction, &c. should tell you that you err'd in Interpreting Scripture, and that the Sense he gave it, was sound and right Faith, yours wrong and Heretical; and I would be glad to know what you would say to him, according to your Principles, if he should hap to stand out against you, that he understands Scripture to be plainly against a Trinity and Christ's Divinity, as Iohn Biddle did against the Minister of his Parish, and the whole Church of England to boot. 'Tis plain you ought to cherish and commend him for standing firm to his Rule; But I am much afraid you would be out of humor with him, and esteem your self affronted. You may pretend what you please of high Expressions given by Antiqui­ty, of Scripture's incomparable Excellency, and Suffici­ency for the Ends it was intended for, which we do not deny to it; but I dare say, even your self do's not think, that either the Ancient Faithful, or the Modern Reform­ers, meant that any of the Ecclesia credens, or Believing Church, should have the liberty to Interpret Scripture against the Ecclesia docens, or Teaching Church, i. e. Pastors; or Coyn a Faith out of it, contrary to the present or former Congregation of which he was a Member.

26. The sum is; 'Tis evident hence, that Tradition of your Fathers and Teachers, and not Scriptures Let­ter, is indeed your Rule; That by it you Interpret Scripture; which then only is call'd your Rule, and made use of as such, when you are Disputing against us; because having thus set it up, to avoid and counter­balance the Authority of the former Church you left, you make account your own private Interpretation of [Page 30] it may come to be thought Argumentative against the great Body of those Churches from whose Communion you departed; and yet you judge no private Parishio­ner should claim the same Priviledge against you, with­out affronting your great Learning, and Pastoral Au­thority. But I much wonder you should still venture to call Scripture's Letter a Rule of Faith, having been beaten from that Tenet so pitifully in Error Nonplust, from Pag. 59. to Pag. 72. where I believe you may observe divers Particulars requisit to be clear'd e're the Letter can be in all regards Absolutely Certain, which the Consent of all Christian Churches will never reach to by their meer Authority, unless you will allow the Sense of Christ's Doctrin descending by Tradition, did preserve the Copy substantially right and intire.

27. Your pretended Rule of Faith then, being in rea­lity the same that is challeng'd by all the Heretics in the World, viz. Scripture's Letter Interpreted by your selves; I will let you see in this following short Dis­course, how far it is from being Absolutely Certain.

I. God has left us some Way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught.

II. Therefore this Way must be such, that they who take it, shall arrive by it at the End it was in­tended for; that is, know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught.

III. Scripture's Letter Interpretable by Private Iudgments, is not that Way; for we experience Pres­byterians and Socinians (for example) both take that Way, yet differ in such high Fundamentals, as the Trinity, and the Godhead of Christ.

[Page 31] IV. Therefore Scripture's Letter Interpretable by Private Iudgments, is not the Way left by God to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught, or surely to arrive at right Faith.

V. Therefore they who take only that Way, cannot by it arrive surely at right Faith, since 'tis impossible to arrive at the End, without the Means or Way that leads to it.

28. I do not expect any Answer to this Discourse, as short as it is, and as plain and as nearly as it touches your Copyhold; it may be serv'd as Mr. G's Argument is, turn'd off so so with an Instance, if there be one at hand; or, with what always is at hand, an Irony or scornful Jest, your readiest; and, in truth, most useful Servants: But you must be excus'd from finding any Proposition or Inference to deny, or any thing, save the Conclusion it self: Which, tho' it will not be fairly a­voided, I cannot hope should be fairly admitted, unless I could hope that Men would be more in love with Truth than their Credit. Till Truth be taken a little more to heart, Catholic Arguments will and must always be faulty; but they are the most unluckily and crosly faulty of any in the World; faulty still in the wrong place. When fault is found in other Arguments, it is always found in the Premisses; in these, 'tis found in the Conclusion: In which, notwithstanding, all who know any thing of a Conclusion, know there can be no fault, if there be none in the Premisses. Indeed, they shew that to be true which Men cannot endure should be true; and that is their great and unpardon­able fault. That you may not think I talk in the Air, [Page 32] I declare openly, that you cannot Answer this Discourse, unless you will call some unconcerning Return an An­swer; and I engage my self to shew the Proposition true, and the Inference good, which you shall pitch upon to deny; And the Distinction, if you will make any, not to purpose. The truth is, I engage for no great mat­ter; for I know beforehand you can no more Answer now, than you could to Error Nonplust, or can prove an Absolute Certainty in Protestant Faith.

29. To return now to Mr. G. the Second thing which you desire him to make good, is, That the Tradition from Father to Son is an infallible Conveyance of Matters of Faith, notwithstanding the Greek Church is charged by him with Er­ror, which adher'd to Tradition. That is, you desire him to prove over again, what you tell us your self he has prov'd once already: For you tell us (p. 5.), he prov'd, That they [Traditionary Christians] could not innovate in Faith, unless they did forget what they held the day before, or out of malice alter it. Pray, when it is prov'd, that the Conveyance of Faith by Tradition, excludes the pos­sibility of Change in Faith, save by forgetfulness or malice, is it not prov'd, That, where there could be neither forgetfulness nor malice, there could be no change in Faith? You do not, I suppose, desire he should prove, that Men had always Memories, or that Christi­ans were never malicious enough to damn themselves and Posterity wittingly; and yet it can stick no where else: If it can, said Mr. G. assign where. Now you know very well, that a Conveyance which makes it impossible that Faith should ever be chang'd, is an In­fallible Conveyance; and the very thing is prov'd which you desire should be prov'd. What reason has Mr. G. to prove it a second time? And what reason have you to desire it? If Proof would content you, [Page 33] you have it already; but a second cannot hope to con­tent you better than the first, unless it be worse.

30. Yes, but you would have him prove, Notwith­standing the Greek Church, &c. (p. 7.) Notwithstanding? Why, do you think it is with Arguments as with Writs, where the want of a Non obstante spoils all? When a Truth is once prov'd, is it not prov'd, notwithstand­ing all Objections? And will any Notwithstanding un­prove it again? Will your Notwithstanding shew us there was a time in which Men were not Men, nor acted like Men? Will it shew us, that a thing which cannot possibly be chang'd, may yet possibly remain not the same? Will it shew us, that a Cause can be without its Effect, or an Effect without its Cause? Will it shew us, that a thing can be and not be at once? Unless it can do such Feats as these, you may keep your Notwith­standing to your self, for any Service it will do you here: For all the Notwithstandings in the world cannot hinder a thing which is true, from being true; nor the Proof which proves it to be true, from being a Proof. Mr. G's Proof shews, that Tradition from Father to Son is an Infallible Conveyance of Faith, as plainly, as that Men are Men: And would you persuade us with the Rhetorick of your Notwithstanding, that we do not see what we see? Tho' you had brought twenty of them instead of one, we could see nothing by them▪ but that you had a good Fancy; for they shew us nothing of the Object, nor offer at it. You shew us not how the Operations of Human Nature should be suspended in our present Case, nor any thing which should or could suspend them, but would have us believe Men were prodigi­ously forgetful or malicious, purely for the sake of an Imagination of yours. I pray rub up afresh your old [Page 34] Logical Notions, and reflect whether it were ever heard of in University Disputes, that when an Argument is advanc'd, the Defendant is allow'd to make Objections against it; and instead of Answering, bid the Arguer prove his Conclusions to be true, Notwithstanding all his Objections? Consider how perfectly this confounds the Offices of the Disputant and Defendent, and makes all Regular Discourse impossible. Consider how this new Method of yours destroys the very possibility of ever concluding any thing, that is, the very Faculty of Rea­soning; For Objections being generally multipliable without end, if all of them must be Solv'd e're any Argument concludes, nothing will be concluded, nor any Conclusion admitted: And so a long so Farewel to Rational Nature. Consider that Truth is built on its own Intrinsecal Grounds, and not on the Solving Ob­jections. For your own Credits sake then with Learn­ed Men and Logicians, do not seek to evade with Not­withstandings, but Answer fairly and squarely to the Ar­gument as it lies: Consider, that who has found the Cause, has found the Effect. Mr. G. has found us a Cause of Infallible Conveyance, and therefore has shew'd us an Infallible Conveyance. You pretend, that tho' there was the Cause, there was not the Effect; and this 'tis known beforehand cannot be, and you knew it as well as any body: But you knew likewise there was no saving your Stakes without playing a new Game; and therefore, give you your due, did all that could be done, in trying to divert our sight from a Matter plain before us, and amuse us us with a Matter of Fact, which you are sure will be ob­scure enough, by that time it is handled long enough. The Terms you put, viz. Tradition, Error, and the [Page 35] Greek Church, must needs bring into Dispute, whether such and so many Quotations, or some one or two Men disclaiming their Tenet to be a Novelty, be a Proof of Tradition from Father to Son; whether the Error be any Error; and whether, and for how much, an Error in Faith, and how much of it belongs to Divinity; whether the Greek Church be ingag'd by a Citation from a Greek Author; of two that be cited, one against another, which shall be preferr'd, and thought to speak the sense of his Church; and which is a Latiniz'd, which a frank Grecian. And who shall see through the Mists which these Dis­putes will raise? More too will fall in in process of time: There will be wrangling about the sense of Words, the propriety of Phrases, the preference of Readings, and twenty such important quarrels; which will tire out every body, and satisfie no body. In short, you saw that if you could perswade People not to think the Church of Rome Infallible, till all be said, which will occur to be said of the Greek Church, you are safe enough; For Doomsday will come before that day. Till then you may carry it with a shew of Eru­dition, because there must be abundance of Greek ci­ted. And this is all which can come of your In­stance; and I wish it were not all you had in your Eye.

31. In the mean time you have not answer'd Mr. G. because you have found no fault in any Propositi­on, or in the Inference of his Argument; and there­fore it rests with you to answer it. He has answer'd you; because he has found this fault with your In­stance, which you make your Antecedent, that it is not true; and that the Greek Church did not at once [Page 36] err in Faith, and adhere to Tradition: and therefore it rests again with you to prove it; and yet while you are Debtor both ways, you call upon him to pay. Ere we part, Take this along with you, that the Debt which you are precisely bound to satisfie, first is to answer his Argument, and till you do this, you can claim no right to Object or Argue.

REFLECTIONS ON Dr. St's Reflecters Defence Addrest to Himself.

1. I Enquire not, Sir, since it concerns me not to know, why you would needs become a Party, or rather an Advocate in a Cause, depending between Dr. St. and another. If it were desir'd of you, you are to be ex­cus'd, so you perform well what you undertook; that is, to defend the Dr. especially his Logick, and his Absolute Certainty; But if you had nothing to draw you in, besides the Weight of what you had to say, I think you might very well have kept out. You begin like a man of Art, with prepossessing your Reader against your Adversary, and in favour of your self: and so would have me pass for a pleasant, artificial, deluding Companion; and your self for a man, Godly even to scruple, and who cannot barely repeat the Metaphor (of holding ones Cards) without P. 2. asking Pardon. The Reader will find, by your writing, to which of us your former Character is most like. In the mean time, I own the Confidence of talking of Self-evidence, and Absolute Certainty, and Infallibility; and bless the Mercy of God, for making me of a Communion, in [Page 2] which that Language is Proper; and humbly pray Him to preserve me from the Face (if I must not say Confi­dence) of setting up for a Guide without them. For, be­tween a blind Guide, and one who sees not his way, I think the difference is not great. Much good may your Modesty do you; your Obscurity; your Vncertain­ty and Fallibility. If your Conscience perswade you these are the best qualifications of Christan Doctrin, and best Security which God would provide for the Souls of men, mine would sooner use Twenty Metaphors, than perswade People to venture their Eternity upon them. But, at worst, it is no greater fault in me sure, than in Dr. St's first Letter, p. 7. & second, p. 14. Dr. St. to talk of Absolute Certainty. Unless he per­haps repent, and would be content an unfortunate Word inconsiderately blurted out, should be retracted for him by another, which 'tis not so handsome to retract him­self; whereas I, like a man of Confidence, meant what I said, and stand to it; and can have no good opinion of those modest men, that say and unsay, as sutes with the occasion.

2. To fall to our Business, your Discourse has Three Parts. The First reflects on what I said of turning Proof over from your Protestants to Catholicks: The Second pretends to answer my Argument; And the Third, Mr. G's. Some Gleanings in your Language there are be­sides; but this is the main Crop. Upon the first Point, since Proof does or does not belong to Protestants, there is nothing more to be said to purpose, but either to shew that Proof does not belong to them, or to bring it if it does. But let us see how you handle the matter.

3. I had exprest my self to grieve and wonder there should be so little value for Souls among your Party, as to send Men to the Tribunal of God, without furnish­ing them with assurance that they can justifie their Accounts themselves.

[Page 3] But if (say you) they may be assured they can give up a good account, P. 3. may they not be assur'd that they have the Grace of God, and of their Iustification and Salvation? And then what becomes of the Council of Trent? Of what Account do you speak, I beseech you? If, as I did, of an Account of Faith, I hope you will not perswade us a man cannot know why he believes, without knowing whether he be in the State of Grace, or sure of his Salvation; and there­fore,P. 4. I hope you will not persist to think it 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; since his very Assurance of the Truth which he believes is a Iustification of his Account, for be­lieving it. If you speak of an Account of our whole lives, it becomes you huge well to talk of my Confidence, who have your self the Confidence to turn things against the plain Scope of my Discourse, against my plain Words, and (I much fear) against your own Knowledge. For where the only Question was of the Certainty of Protestant Faith, or (which is all one) of Christian Faith, upon your Protestant Grounds: an Account why your Protestants believe, who cannot tell whether Christ taught it, was the only Account that belongs to that Question. But what needs more? Are not you, I too, fully perswaded, while we are writing this very Contro­versie, that we maintain the Truth of our Faith by such arguments as can justifie us not to have fail'd of that Duty; and if we do so, cannot both us justifie our selves in that particular, and all who assent upon them, to God as well as man? And cannot either of us bring a solid Argument to prove that Christ Taught what we hold, without being assur'd before-hand we are in the state of Grace, and shall be sav'd? Or, Is this any thing to the Council of Trent, as you pretend? What paltring is this [Page 4] then, to pretend, that no Controvertist can bring a Proof that concludes Christ Taught such a Doctrin, and so justifies them that adhere to the Truth it evinces; for fear (forsooth) of making men sure of their Iustification and Salvation, and of contradicting the Council of Trent. A pretty fetch, to excuse your selves from bringing any Arguments worth a Straw to justifie your Followers, for believing upon them! Alas! you have store enough of them; but out of pure Conscience (we must think) dare not produce them, for fear of enabling your People 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 [Page 5] 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, P. 5. 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, Ibid. 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 [Page 6] 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 'tis 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, [Page 7] 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, P. 5. 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 well knowing, that the more Judgment a man has, and the more he uses it, the sooner and better he will discern, that the Do­ctrin of Christ cannot be securely learnt from those of [Page 8] Your and Dr. St's Principles. But, Why all this? Or, How come I to stand in your way? Do I hinder you from shewing Protestants that They are Certain of their Faith? They allow a Judgment of Discretion, if it stick there, whether I do or no. But you cannot gratifie Ca­tholics with Proof, it seems, because they are against Judgment of Discretion; nor Protestants, because they are for it; that is, in plain terms, you will not prove the Certainty of your Faith at all. You conclude very con­formably, that I P. 6. have set us all on even Ground: Yes, most Mathematically even: For I set Absolute Certainty on the one side, and Vncertainty on the other; and this, in your Language, is even Ground.

P. 6.7. Your next Paragraph says, I fall upon the Certainty of Protestant Faith; which I hope easily to overthrow. The Reader cannot but apprehend now, that I am ma­king Arguments against it, of which you know very well I did not think. Where do I fall upon this Matter! Why, I said, Suppose Mr. G. could not prove Protestants are certain, are they therefore certain? The meaning of which words is clearly this, that the Certainty of Prote­stant Faith must depend on their own Proofs for it, not on any Man's being able or not able to prove the contrary, which is what Dr. St. would have put upon us. So that (to avoid proving, which was demanded) you put upon me the direct contrary to what I affirm'd, viz. That the Certainty of Protestant Faith does depend upon our not proving they have none; whereas I contend it does not depend upon it. What shifts are you put to, that you may escape this dangerous business of proving your Faith Certain. Well, but did I say true, or no? You trouble not your Head with such impertinent thoughts, but fall to prophesie what I imagin'd. This (say you) he first imagins, that all the certainty of our Faith is this, That Pa­pists [Page 9] cannot prove it to be uncertain, and that then I make sport with my own Imagination. Better and better! Not to take notice of your shuffling in, that Papists cannot prove Protestants are not Certain, which I am very far from imagining; because I said our not-proving the con­trary, is no Certainty to Protestants, he will have me imagin it is their Certainty; nay, All their Certainty: when he knows I am aware, and confess they pretend to Scripture for it; and, p. 26. urg'd them to make out they had Absolute Certainty by It. The rest is, to tell me I play, and you will be serious: And your way of being serious, when you have chosen to fall upon this Question, whether Protestants become Certain by our not proving them Uncertain, is, without saying a word to it, to skip to another Paragraph of mine.

8. Where I had said, that Any man may find it confest to his hand, by Protestants, that they have no Absolute Cer­tainty of their Faith: For which I cited Dr. Tillotson. And you tell me first, that Dr. Tillotson is an excellent man; and so he is; for he excells even your self (which requires a great Talent in your way of handling Con­troversie) in all your Arts. Next, to take your turn in imagining, you imagin single Dr. Tillotson too many for all the Traditionary Catholicks to answer his Rule of Faith. P. 6. And I imagin, that Dr. Tillotson knows the contrary: For I have been inform'd, Dr. Tillotson had the offer of an Answer, from a Traditionary Catholic long ago, upon condition he would contribute his Credit to get it prin­ted: which he thought not sit to do. Since I perceive you do not know an Answer when you see it, unless the word [Answer] be in the Title-page, I will not tell you it is answer'd already, tho' I believe I can make it good: But I will venture a fair Wager with you, it will be an­swer'd, in his own Formal way, every jot as soon as [Page 10] Reason against Railery. Lastly, You deny that this Con­fession That Protestants have no Certainty (no Absolute Certainty, P. 7. if it please you) of their Faith, is to be found in the pages cited, or any other part of Dr. Tillotson's Book. If you do not understand English, I cannot help it; but any one that does, may find in the last of the pages cited. As far as silence gives consent, it is own'd by Dr. Tillotson himself:See Reason a­gainst Railery, p. 97. to p. 114. For it was laid before him by Reason against Railery, and with him it has lain these fifteen Years; and yet you would perswade us you see it not,Ibid. nor I neither, if I may be believ'd against my self.

9. Your Rhetorick, Sir, is very great, if it will do you this piece of Service; but let us hear it however. I had said to Dr. St. p. 23.My First Let­ter, p. 23. You seem to grant you are thus Abso­lutely-Certain or Infallible, by vertue of Tradition. Upon which Theme you thus declame. How? confess we have no Certainty (no Absolute Certainty, I beseech you again) and yet seem to grant we are Infallible, and that too by Ver­tue of Tradition. —Some people had need of good Memo­ries. As if it were so strange a thing for Protestants to contradict one another, or the same man himself; or, that there needed Memory to observe what passes every day. By the favour of your Exclamations, Dr. St. did say at the Conference,Dr. St's second Letter, p. 14. that They are Absolutely Certain, that they now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles, —by the Divine Revelations con­tained in the Writings of the New Testament; and of those Revelations by the Vniversal Testimony of the Christian Church. Ibid. p. 15. And in his First Letter he did desire Mr. G. to prove that they have no Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of their Faith, Dr. St's First Letter, p. 7. altho' they have a larger and firmer Tradition for it than we can have for the points of Faith in difference. And Dr. Tillotson did say in his Rule of Faith, p. 118. We are not infallibly certain that any Book (speaking of [Page 11] Scripture) is so ancient as it pretends to be, or that it was written by him whose Name it bears; or, that this is the sence of such and such passages in it: It is possible all this may be otherwise. Now, if one of those Writers do not seem to grant that they are Absolutely Certain, (or In­fallible) and that too by vertue of Tradition, and the Other confess, that they have no Absolute Certainty of their Faith, English is no intelligible Language in England. If you think this a Contradiction, you may talk with your excellent men about it, and let me alone; till you can shew I talk against my self by relating barely what others say. Must my Memory be blam'd, when their Judgments are in fault? For a Contradiction it is, if Ab­solutely Certain and Infallible be the same; which I both prov'd formerly, and it will come into play again e're long. However I only said they seem'd to grant, &c. For the Tenet of Faiths Vncertainty, if I may speak what I think, is hearty in them; it's Absolute Certainty is but seeming; and surely, 'tis lawful to say he seems to hold it, who in print avows it, whether he do indeed hold it or no.

10. From hence you pass to a company of Traditio­nary Gentlemen; with whom if you have business,P. 7. I have none, and think yours cannot be very great, since you take this time to dispatch it. You may dispatch with me, if you please, first; and say what you will to them afterwards. Dr. Tillotson, you say, in his Rule of Faith, p. 120. &c. said great matters of them, and if I find them wrong'd, I have the liberty to vindicate them. I know you would invent twenty impertinent Tasks for me, so I would but forget the point in hand, and excuse you from proving. But how careless are you of what you say. One of those Authors was occasionally vindicated in the Letter of Thanks, and the notorious Abuse of him, made [Page 12] good against that Dr's Excuse, in Reason against Railery, p. 227. to p. 234. And were it seasonable, perhaps we should find the others abus'd too, or wilfully misunder­stood. But, What is this to our present business? At last, you conclude with a seasonable Warning, as you call it; That,Ibid. if any Protestant shall begin to plead Infallibility by Vertue of Tradition, it will behove Catholicks in time to seek cut a new one. Why so, I beseech you! This is as much as to say, that, as soon as Protestants take a fancy to any thing that belongs to Catholicks, it is their own, and Ca­tholicks must presently yield it up. Your reason is, be­cause When both Parties pretend alike to Infallibility and Tradition, neither of these can be any longer a fit Medium to prove which is in the Right. What will be when both pretend alike, we shall see when the Time comes. But, Why must they, or how can they pretend alike? Can Tradition infallibly deliver contrary things? Why should Tradition be a Medium less fit to determine between Ca­tholick and Protestant, which of them has right to In­fallibility, when both pretend to it by Tradition, than a Deed to determine between Peter and Paul, which has right to the Estate, which both claim by the same Deed? Do their contrary Pretences hinder it from being seen whether the Deed be for Peter or Paul; or Tradition for Catholicks or Protestants? Or do you think a Protestant, to get Tradition on his side, has no more to do, but to pre­tend to it. At this rate, Scripture cannot be a fit Medium for you, because all Hereticks pretend to it, and alike too. But it seems, that with you, when two pretend, One with Right, the Other without it, they both pretend alike, or with equal Title. Of which it was, indeed, seasonable to warn us; for neither we, (nor any man well in his wits) would have hit on it of our selves. Thus much in return to your present Excursion. But what's become of your [Page 13] Proof all this while? Instead of bringing that, you tell me, I fall upon Protestant Certainty, of which there was not the least shew; that I speak against my self; that Dr. Tillotson is an Excellent man, that he did not con­fess, &c. Out of which rambling Talk we are to con­clude, That your Protestant Proof needs not appear; but to make us amends for this constant Neglect, you will needs give us a seasonable Warning; and that's worth all the Proof in the World.

11. Yet we shall have this Proof, I hope, in the next Paragraph: For you give me notice then, When your Cer­tainty (Absolute Certainty, P. 8. I pray you again for Dr. Stil­lingfleet's sake) is once prov'd, no more is needful to confute our Infallibility, and that you are not afraid to undertake making it good, even All that I here call upon you to prove. And you do not raise our Expectations sure only to de­feat them. Yet it bodes ill, that you would have the word [Absolutely] left out a while: A motion which would make a jealous man suspect you had a design to palm a Certainty upon us which will prove no-Certainty. But you are Absolute Master of your own Proofs, and may put in and put out what you please. I, for my part, cannot consent to leave that word out; because it is not fair to alter a word of Dr. St's; nor possible, tho' it were fair. For you and I cannot make him not have said what he has said; and, tho' we should agree to suppress that Word amongst our selves, it will still be found in his Two Letters, do what we can. But, now we are thus far onward, 'tis pity to break for a single Word; and to give you your due, you begin to deal here very fair with us. We manifest, say you. Very well: Now the Busi­ness is on the Hinges again; and here is not only Proof, but Manifest Proof coming. But what is it which you manifest? Why, the Certainty you have of Scripture;Ibid. and [Page 14] that, after the same manner as we do our▪ Rule or Scripture, I know not which you mean. But, I see you need a good Memory too as well as your Neighbours: For you do not remember that Absolute Certainty of Scripture is not the Point to be prov'd, tho' I told you so in the very page you cite. I wav'd that point, not to be more severe than needs and put Protestants upon a Task which I told them withal They would find a hard one; but from which, while we both agree that Scripture is Certain, I was wil­ling to excuse them. Again, You forget that just before you wonder'd at me for saying, You seem to grant you are thus Absolutely Certain or Infallible by vertue of Tradition; and now you say, you manifest your Certainty in the same manner as we do; and sure you do not forget, that Our manner of manifesting is by Tradition. But, to lose no more time about that which is not the point, pray How do you prove that which is▪

P. 9.12. Why, you think you do sufficiently prove the Certain­ty of every Article of your Faith, when you shew it to be solid­ly grounded on God's Word; and, this being shewn, won­derful things will follow. In the mean time you speak Oracle, and have all the reason in the world to think that you prove sufficiently, when you solidly shew: Nei­ther did you need to mince it with sufficiently, for 'tis very Absolutely Certain you do prove when you solidly shew or prove; and this you might have said with less Ceremony if you had been pleas'd: For we can see well enough, that when there is Proof, there is Proof; tho' our Expectation had not been screw'd up with your professions of Courage to undertake, or Shews to perform. This is just to invite your Company, say Grace to them, tell them you think you treat them sufficiently, when you set Solid Meat on the Board; and, all this done, send them hungry away. Pray, when will that When of yours be? [Page 15] When will the day come, in which you will shew your Faith to be solidly-grounded on the Word of God? Eve­ry Article, as you word it, (to bring it, I suppose, to your solid Endless way of Quoting and Criticizing) is too much at present. We are not got so far yet: It will be time to talk of This or That Article, when This or That Article is in Question. At present, you are to shew, if you can, that you have any Means, unless you take Ours to ground any Article solidly on the Word of God. You are to shew your interpretation of it is Absolutely Certain, and that God's Word means as you teach it does. Other­wise your Confident Talking will not hinder us from seeing that you wretchedly delude your Followers; while you are your selves truly Vncertain, whether any thing you teach them be True, and Conscious that you are so.

13. And yet, tho' you have served us thus, you have a fetch to lay the blame upon me, for being harder to you than the Laws of Disputation are. I will have them, P. 9 he says, prove two things more: First, that they are absolutely certain of All This. By the way, I take for granted, that by All This, you mean All which Dr. St. affirm'd, which was All of which I desir'd Proof. And Secondly, Not only this, but of All that more which Our Saviour taught his Apostles. Of this Charge I own the first half. I did de­mand proof of Absolute Certainty, and that for All This; and shall persist to demand it, till you shew me the Dis­putation-Law-Book, which allows a Disputant to say what he pleases, and chuse whether he will prove it or no when he has done. Dr. Stillingfleet did affirm, that You are Absolutely Certain; and, absolutely Certain that you now hold All the same Doctrin that was Taught by Christ & his Apostles. And of All this, Dr. St's second Letter, p. 14. all the Laws of Disputation that I ever read or heard of, warrant me to demand proof: [Page 16] And you shall permit me to believe there was something in the Wind, besides those Laws, which makes you de­cline to give it. I had been Logician good enough, if you had known how to have prov'd. Yes, but I make Absolutely-Certain and Infallible all one. I make them all one! Why, all Mankind made them so before I was born. Take all the Men who pretend to Absolute Cer­tainty, and all the ways by which they pretend; Au­thority, Demonstration, Sense, Experience, or what you will; and see whether all Mankind agree not, that when there is room for Deceit, there is no Absolute Certainty; and let a man pretend to be Absolutely Certain as much as he will, if he be, or may be deceiv'd, he will be but laught at for his pains, and not thought Absolutely Cer­tain by any man in the World, no not by your Reflecting self. And yet you would perswade us I break the Laws of Disputation by understanding that Word as every body else does. Certainly, you would make a pleasant Law-maker for Disputation: For when you have forbid us to understand words as others do, we could dispute no longer, nor so much as converse; for there would be no knowing one anothers meaning.

14. But if I take that word ill, how must I do to take it well? Not to mistake a second time, I would be glad to know how your self take it, who to be sure take it right. But this you keep to your self; and you have reason, if by Absolutely Certain you mean not Absolutely Certain, which I suspect is the true case; and must be, unless you would have it mean nothing. Otherwise, why might not we know what you will let it mean, if you will not let it mean what I and every body else think it does. Since you leave me to my self, I shall, at the hazard of incurring again the Penalties of your Laws of Disputation, venture to think that He, who will not suffer those who are Abso­lutely [Page 17] Certain to be Infallible, will have them Fallible; that is, Deceivable in that whereof they are Absolutely Certain; and for ought they can tell, actually deceiv'd. And then he will have Protestants believe that their Reli­gion is the same that is taught by Christ, stand firm, and draw over to it as many as they can, and vex and perse­cute their Neighbours whom they cannot; prefer it be­fore the Unity of the Church, and keep up differences in Religion with as much jealous Concern, as if the Wall of Division in the Church were the only safe Fence of the Nation; in a word, stake their Souls and Eternity upon it: When, all the while, he cannot Absolutely tell whe­ther it be True or No; nay, knows he cannot. Let him honestly tell Protestants so; and if they will venture Per­secution, and Schism, and Salvation on those terms, the Fault is their own, and he has wash'd his Hands: Other­wise, he deludes them shamefully. If they waver, and stand upon Security, they are told, they are Absolutely Certain, and this confirms them; for it is as good Security as Heart can wish: But, when it comes to be sifted, it appears they may be deceiv'd for all their Security; and their Absolutely-Certain Religion proves to be such as per­haps is arrantly False. In short, they have a bare Sound to rely upon for their Souls. Call their Security Abso­lutely Certain, and 'tis good Protestant Doctrin; but call it Infallible, (which is the same) and 'tis rank Popery, and your Protestants will none of it. And so, they may if they will, and must if they will continue to be of your principles, be content with Sounds: But, if they will stand upon Security from Deceit, they must look for it where it is to be had: With all they can get here, it re­mains They may be Deceiv'd.

15. The second-half of your Charge is purely your own Invention, and as pleasant an Invention as ever ro­ving [Page 18] Fancy suggested. Absolute Certainty of Protestant Faith was turn'd by Dr. St. to Absolute Certainty of Scripture. Since then, Protestants believe more than that Scripture is Scripture, I said, they were to prove their Absolute Certainty of the more which they believ'd besides. You have taken such extraordinary pains to mistake me, as plainly as I exprest my self, that you fan­cy I would have them say they are thus certain of those Points which they deny to be in Scripture, and think them to be added by the Council of Trent, and which, therefore, they believe not. And these Points you un­derstand to be the more of which I demanded Proof; and so by your power in Reflection, to desire Proof of what they do believe, is to desire Proof of what they do not be­lieve: Absolute Certainty of what is their Faith, is Ab­solute Certainty of what is not their Faith; and their not-Faith is their more-Faith. Ridiculous Folly! To pretend we expected Protestants should prove to us such Points as they deny'd, and our selves held; whence they could need no Proof to us; and if they needed any to others, it was certainly our proper Duty, not theirs, to produce them. Many, when they are hard put to it, have wav'd the consideration of Shame, but 'tis a sad thing utterly to renounce Common Sence too. Yet, what is it you will not do? What absurd pretences not lay hold of, rather than be brought to this odious and dangerous thing call'd Proving? You reflect out your Paragraph with the H. Scripture, the good men, who penn'd it, with the Primitive Church, and Primitive Creeds, and the Council of Trent, and this you call Re­flecting on my Letter.

16. Yet you set a good face on't at p [...]r [...]ing, and tell us, You decline no Proof that is incumbent on you; as if it were not incumbent on you to prove what you say. [Page 19] You add, That we see by this time—as if there were any thing to be seen in all your Reflections, but that they de­cline all Proof, and that with the most aukward shifts in the World, as, Because the Council of Trent had made a Declaration concerning Grace, p. 3. Because a Minister is as good a man as a Priest, p. 4. Because the Infallibility and Authority of the Church of Rome might run a risque, p. 5. Because Catholicks and Protestants hit it not about Judgment of Discretion, Ibid. Because Dr. Tillotson is an Excellent man, p. 6. Because we will not dispense with the word [Absolute] which was Dr. St's, but will needs take it in its natural sense, and not admit of your no-sense of it, Ibid. These and many other such weighty Reflections have been our chief en­tertainment; and yet your scrupulous Modesty has the Confidence to say you decline no Proof that is incumbent on you, P. 11. when you have incumb'd all the while, if that be the word, on nothing but throwing out Baits to draw us from your incumbent Proof, to other matters. You talk indeed of Proof at last; and that which you say of it, is, That you prove when you prove. Moreover, you blame me for desiring Proof of two things more; where­of One is the very thing your selves have made the point to be prov'd, and the other I never desir'd you to prove at all. With this stuff you face it out,Ibid. that You prove Scripture to be the Word of God; which, if one should put you to it, you cannot; and every Article of your Faith by the Scripture (common words, which every Heretick may and does use); when I have been all this while sollici­ting with all the earnestness I can, to know which way you can prove any Article with Absolute Certainty by Scripture; and you will not tell me, and I am sure, can­not. Though you have the Confidence to say you do it, yet every body may perceive you know you cannot. For [Page 20] your very next words are, Thus we prove we have suffi­cient Certainty of our whole Faith; which is to say, You decline Dr. St's Absolute Certainty, nor know of any way to prove more than sufficient Certainty. And this suffi­cient Certainty of yours may be no-Certainty: For there goes no more to make a thing sufficient, than to make a man content with it. A Yard of Cloth will make a suffi­cient Garment for him who is content to go half naked; and a Table without Meat is a sufficient Meal for him who is contented to fast. And so, as long as you can prevail with your Protestants to be content without Cer­tainty, you can prove they have Certainty abundantly Sufficient, because no-Certainty will suffice. Marry, if they will insist upon having at least this Sufficient Cer­tainty which you promise, I know not how you will do without Weights and Scales to weigh out your Certain­ty, according to several mens Exigencies, and make down-weight Sufficient, except they will take your word; for you have no more to give them even for so much: But, for Absolute True Certainty, the only Cer­tainty of which Dr. Stillingfleet spake and I demanded Proof, They must absolutely excuse you. Poor Prote­stants, to be thus us'd! That Empty Words and solemn Outsides, and Confident Noise, should be offer'd to them for Truth, and, which is more deplorable, pass upon them! That they should not yet perceive they are but the Stra­tagems of those no-principled men, who impose on them, and secretly laugh at them for their Easiness; and yet reflect not that they must answer one day with their souls, for suffering themselves to be so impos'd upon.

17. From your Proving Talent you pass to your An­swering Talent; and will try to answer a Discourse of mine, in which there are but See my first Letter, P. 30. Five Propositions. The First, [God has left us some way to know surely what Christ [Page 21] and his Apostles taught.] This you grant to be a Certain Truth: and so there is one step of our Journey made. I think you grant the second too, not that you positively say I or No; for that is too precise & dull a Method for a Man of your parts: But as Plain Truth seems always ri­diculous to you; you laugh at it for a foolish Inference, because 'tis so visibly in the Antecedent. You are not aware I perceive, that your Raillery is Complement. To be contain'd in the Antecedent, which you make the Fault, is the Praise of an Inference; without which it would indeed be good for nothing, or rather not be at all. For which way can an Inference be drawn from an Antecedent, in which it was not to be drawn? Would you have us draw Wine out of an empty Cask, or Beer out of a Jarr of Oyl. Again, the more we know the thing is where we would draw it, the surer our Draught. But you seem to be so little acquainted with Antecedents & Inferences, that 'tis no wonder; by making them your sport, you make your self the sport of those who do un­derstand them. In the mean time your laughing is own­ing that the Inference is contain'd in the Antecedent, and therefore Certain, as you before own'd the Antecedent was. And so we are another step onwards; and might so forwards without stopping longer, if you could have let my Proposition alone. But, you must needs be word­ing on't your own way, to shew that either you did not understand it, or that you had a mind to inform us how neatly and dexterously you could change and pervert words, as well as Answer. My Words were: Therefore this way must be such that they who take it, shall arrive by it at the End it was intended for; that is, know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught. Your Words which you pretend equivalent to mine, are these: P. 12. [If God has left us a Way to know, then by that Way we may know.] Pray Sir, [Page 22] do You take my sence, or say what I do? Is shall know and may know all one? I say that they who take the Way left by God shall, that is, cannot chuse but know; as he can­not chuse but draw a straight Line, who draws it by a straight Rule; and he cannot chuse but come to London who goes on the Right Way thither: If either could miss, provided they draw by the Rule, and travel on in the Road; the Rule of the One is not straight, nor the Way of the other Right. And, so, I make account that the Way to know the Faith of Christ, is not a Right Way, if those who take it can fail to know their Faith; and there­fore not the Way left by God. You barely say, we may know with which it consists we may not know; and, so, you make us a Way in which they who travel may be always out of the Way; which is well enough for a Way of your making; but it is certainly no Way of God's making; for it is plainly no Way. But leaving this little tryal of your skill; that which you say to my Propositi­on (unfalsifyed) if you say any thing is, that 'tis, indeed a little too visibly, but yet true, and so we may go on.

18. You Preface to the Third Proposition with ask­ing, who I dispute against? and why if I would be thought to dispute against you, I do not use such and such Terms? Two very pleasant Questions! Your own and my Title Page tell as many as see them that I am disputing against D. of Paul's; and yet you stand enquiring after the se­cret again, to ask why I do not use Terms to your mind, is to ask why the Defendant does not go to the Plaintiff to draw his Answer. You shall excuse me from being be­holding to you, if you please; till you have a better knack at making Arguments, for your self, you shall make none for me, by my consent. But, where lyes the Quar­rel? You do not sure expect I should write to your liking; and if you think I speak not against you, and your party, [Page 23] you need not trouble your self with what I say. What does not touch you, cannot hurt you; so you may say concedo totum, and rest secure by being unconcern'd. Yet you speak at last, and not till then, to purpose; when you bear the Reader in hand I pack the Cards, P. 13. and you will play fair; 'tis that must carry the Cause, or nothing. To get the Readers Affection on his side much imports him, who has nothing but such little Rhetorical tricks to trust to.

19. But, as if I had not the gift of Prophesy to fore­see with what a kind of Man I should have to do, I hap­pen'd to propose first what I intended to prove, before I went about to prove it, which I thought was the clearest way. You at a venture take what comes first, and tho' you saw it was my Conclusion which I inferr'd from the following Proposition, will needs speak to it before you speak to the Premises. This has so blunder'd all things, that the Reader will not easily perceive what we are do­ing. I shall thefore, (as you should have done) mind only the Proof here, and reserve the Inference till we come to the place where I made it. I put then to be prov'd that [Scripture's Letter interpretable by private Iudgements is not that Way] viz. the Way left by God; and for my proof that [we experience Presbyterians and Socinians, for example, both take that Way [of private In­terpretation] viz. and yet differ in such high Fundamentals as the Trinity and Godhead of Christ.]

20. You, before you answer, would have it thought you might ridicule me in my own Language. Never spare me, good Sir, nor balk your mirth for me if I give a just Occasion: But where lies the Jest? Why, I quarrell'd with Dr. St. for bringing an instance, and now bring one my self: If this be all, I shall be tempted to be merry in my turn.My First Let­ter, p. 10. I told Dr. St. he might undoubtedly have produc't his Instance if he had been arguing, but minded him that [Page 24] his turn was then to Answer, and that his Instance was not an Answer, but a new Argument. And yet this is not plain enough for you to see that I faulted not the Instance, but the unseasonable Argument, as I should any other in such circumstances; and you would have it ridiculous in me who am arguing to do what I only excepted against, be­cause he was not arguing; and freely acknowledg'd he might do, if he had been to argue. Sure you were in a pleasant humour, when you thought of turning me into ridicule, because your self understood not where the stress lay, tho' it were never so plainly told you. But to let this pass, as you say, with your causelesly gleeking Reflections upon Scripture and Tradition, what say you to the Proof I bring?

P. 15.21. Why, the force of my Argument (say you) 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. One thing after another, if it please you. Talk of the force of my Argument as much as you will, but, e're you leave the Proposition before you, of the Presbyterians and Socinians, 'tis but fair to grant or deny it. I must intreat you too to leave translating my Argu­ments. They are New yet, and need no mending; when they do, I will be better satisfied of your Skill in the Trade, before I become your Customer. By your next words, rallying against the Validity of the Consequence, I guess you grant the Antecedent; and so, that care being over, we have nothing but the Consequence to mind. The Dispute would fall in more properly under the next Proposition which infers the Consequent; but now I am here, I will hear what you say, before I pass farther. You say then, That indeed this Argument proves nothing, but that I have no good opinion of the Scripture. Will this ve­nomous Cant never be left? I think the Scripture too [Page 25] good and too sacred to be abus'd by wrong Interpreta­tions, and labour to preserve it from them: You labour to keep it expos'd to that Abuse; Pray, which of us two have a better Opinion and more Reverence for the Scrip­ture? You proceed: Must a Rule be no good Rule, because some who use it misunderstand it and abuse it? What may you mean by this? I take my Ruler, and draw a Line by it; Does the Straightness or Crookedness of this Line depend upon my Vnderstanding? What is't then you call Misunderstanding a Rule? If you make the Letter of Scripture the Rule, and so private Interpreting the Vsing it, or drawing the Line, and the Sense the Line drawn; unriddle to us, if you can, how the Sense drawn from the Letter can any more fail to be True, than the Line drawn by the Rule to be straight; and which way that Sense can be misunderstood; and how the Rule can be a good Rule if it be us'd, and the Sense to which it is a Rule be misunderstood? Or, do you mean perhaps that 'tis with the Scripture as with a Grammar-Rule; where he who understands not what 'tis for a Nominative Case and a Verb to agree, 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 'tis 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 [Page 26] 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? P. 15. 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. 'Tis 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 'tis plain, the Argument proceeds of such as make the Way their Choice, and persist to follow no other to their lifes End.

Ibid.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, [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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? 'Tis 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 it leads, any more than the man [Page 29] who goes down the Strand, of coming to Charing-Cross; and when men have no more to do with a Way, but to travel in it; and so cannot be wanting to themselves, in that respect if they do. Of the same batch is your mis­understanding and not keeping the Way. As if they who interpret by their private Judgments did not keep the way of interpreting by private Judgments. And tho' their Understandings be none of the best when they take that for the sure Way to understand by, yet that very misunderstanding is their understanding it to be the Way; and so they, even in your opinion, misunderstand not the Way, however they misunderstand by it. In fine, you amuse us with a company of VVords, which have a Sound; but either no sense at all, or none to purpose: And it remains, that, because a Way must bring every one that takes it to the End of that Way; and private Interpreta­tion does not bring Socinians to the sure Knowledge of Christs Doctrine, which is the End; that, therefore Pri­vate Interpretation of Scripture is not a way to know that Doctrine surely.

25. And yet you can bear us in hand that this follows no more than it follows that because we see men misinter­pret and break good Laws daily, P. 16. therefore those Laws are Vnintelligible, or cannot be kept, and must be thought in­sufficient to shew them what the Law-giver expects from them. What breaking and keeping the Laws is brought in for, you best know that bring them in. Our Discourse is only about knowing the Doctrin of Faith, and not at all about Living up to it; and so has nothing to do with those who know, but will not keep the Laws, as is the case of most Malefactors. But you end your Dis­course well I must needs say, and very sutably to all the rest, with an Instance directly against your self. You see that Laws left to Private Interpretation are, by all [Page 30] Mankind, judg'd insufficient, and publick Interpreters therefore set up every where; and, from the Parity with them which are Insufficient, you conclude the Letter of Scripture is not Insufficient. Any body but your self would have made another Use of this Instance. As God can write much plainer than Men, when he thinks fit, and has more care of their Salvation than they of their Temporal Concerns; another man would have conclud­ed that God did not intend their Salvation should depend on the privately-interpretable Letter of the Divine Law, which he left less plain than Men made the Letter of Humane Laws. But you, it seems, had a mind to make your Discourse all of a piece. The best is, 'tis now end­ed, & we are free to pass on to the fourth Proposition. To which, because the force of Exceptions against an Infe­rence before it be inferr'd appears not so well, I reserve what you say against it, while I put it only to be prov'd.

26. It is this, Therefore Scriptures 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 now I must look to my self, for you pour out here your distinguishing Talent upon me. If, say you, by Scripture's Letter, he means unsensed Characters, P. 13. then I confess Scriptures Letter cannot be the Rule or Way. There is one branch of your Distinction; and so the other, unless you will talk non-sense, must needs be, Scripture's Letter, meaning sensed Characters, can be or is the Rule. Your words are, Yet if he can think it reasonable to allow as much to the Scripture as he expects we should allow to this Letter of his, that it contains good sence exprest in words significant and intelligible; we deny his Assumption that Scripture's Letter is not this way. As you have this Art, among the rest, to talk unintelli­gibly, [Page 31] when you have a mind to't, in very plain English, I wish some Body would tell me for you, whether you take scripture's Letter in this period for unsensed or sen­sed Characters; for truly I cannot tell my self. By the terms you put [intelligible] and [significant] one would guess you mean unsensed Characters; for [intelligible] im­ports what may be understood, but is not yet; and [signifi­cant] what may be perceived by the sign, whether it be or no. And then you have made a fair hand of it with your fair dealing, who distinguish the word [Letter] in­to Characters unsensed and Characters unsensed; and grant it to be a Rule in one of the two same meanings, and deny it in the other. But you shall talk sense for me, and mean Characters sensed; and then lets see how much you have mended the matter. A Character sensed signi­fies a Character with the sense joined to it: The sense of the Characters of Scripture is the sense of God, and the sense of God is that which we are to believe. And, so, Scripture-Characters sensed; signify Faith it self in con­junction with those Characters. Now Faith is the End to which we are looking for a Way to carry us. To tell us then that scripture's Letters taken for sensed Characters is this way, is to tell us that the end is the way to it self; that the means to get Faith is to have it first; that, when we know it, we know it; that, when we are at our Journeys End, we are in the direct Road to it, and such fine things, which would tempt a man not very fond of disputing, to leave it off and betake himself to some other business: For how can you or any think fit to vex poor contro­versy all your life, when your very sense proves Non-sense? And yet it is not that you have not serv'd a Prenti­ship long enough in the Mystery: But the best Shoema­ker in the world cannot make a good shoe of Bad Leather.

27. Yet, as you are not a man to be discourag'd with [Page 32] ill success, you are at your Distinctions again; and tell us that, if by these words, interpretable by private Judg­ments,Ibid. I 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 us'd, may misunderstand them, I must have a very bad Conscience, &c. As if the Question were about my Conscience. But you would say, I sup­pose that Scripture, so meant, is not the Way, and I say it is not too. Pray, what Conscience is yours, if mine be bad when I say as you do?P. 14. But if my 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, you again deny my Assumption. Because it would render the Discourse unintelligibly confus'd to re­peat so many lines at every turn, I shall, with your good leave; say in short, Good and Bad Judgments; under­standing by the Bad all the qualifications of the First Branch, and all of your second by the Good. I take you then to say that Scripture's Letter, as interpretable by Bad Judgments is not the Way; but, as Interpretable by Good Judgments is the Way. By this account three parts in four of Mankind at a modest computation, have no VVay. For so many Bad Judgments there are at least. But, the main Point is, while we are enquiring which the Way is which God has left, pray what have we to do with the Iudgments of men? Can they make or unmake it? Or does it depend on them to be or not be the Way he left, as they happen to be different? It is a VVay only so long as good Judgments travel in it, and ceases to be a VVay assoon as Bad Judgments come upon it. A Way, I think, is a VVay whether it be beaten by the Lusty or the Lame, the Pur-blind or the Well-sighted. And, so if [Page 33] the Letter of Scripture, interpretable by Private Judg­ments, be the Way which God has left us, 'tis not the Goodness or Badness of Private Judgments which can make it not the Way. Wherefore, tho' you have chopt upon a Distinction for which we are beholden to you, for we might chance else not to have minded there are Good and Bad Judgments in the World; Yet your Distinction unluckily has no relation at all to the que­stion. Nevertheless, it serves for Talk and Show, and bids fair to draw us from thinking what 'tis we are about, to wrangling about how much Brains go to a Competent Iudgment, how much Pains to Diligence, and such very useful Disputes: which, if you had any, was in likeli­hood your Design. For sure you cannot but see your self, that your Distinction is no more to our purpose than News from Hungary or the Morea.

28. Again, your First Branch says that Bad Judgments may misunderstand the Letter of Scripture, and that it is not the Way to such; which I think is to say, that it is not the Way for that reason; for you do not, and I suppose, will not say that they may not understand it right, if luck serve, let them be never so Bad; but, be­cause they may misunderstand it, therefore it is not the Way. Why then the very reason you give why it is not the Way in your First branch, bars you from ma­king it a Way in your Second. For all you say of your competent and assisted Judgment, is, that they may un­derstand it right; which is not denying, if it be not owning, they may likewise understand it wrong. And then, you may unriddle to us when you can, how the Bad Judgment, which may misunderstand it, makes it no Way, and the Good makes it a Way, which may misunder­stand it too. You are strangely partial to Good Iudg­ments, to make the Possibility to misunderstand Scrip­ture's [Page 34] Letter exclude the Bad and admit the Good; and the Possibility to understand it right, include the Good and shut out the Bad. Thus men have, or have not a Way as they find favour with you, and as you like their Judgments. As far as I see, your Favour is all in all. For, since you make the Letter of Scripture a Way to Good, but not to Bad Judgments, there is no knowing when it is and when it is not the Way, till we know which must pass for Good, and which for Bad Judg­ments: and so nothing can come of it till we have a Test to try them. Now, I am much afraid that your own Judgment is, like Bayes his Play, your only Test; and that you make account all goes right as long as People think as you do. Marry, if they chance to deviate from you, they lose their Iudgments, or their Diligence, or their Proper Helps, or something, and stop up their way with their own Faults. There is no doing here without Scales again to weigh out the Brains which go to a Competent Iudgment, the Pains which go to Diligence, and the rest. Otherwise, we have lost Scripture; and, for our Com­fort, get your Word instead of it. For, if Scripture inter­pretable by a Competent Judgment be our Way, and yours be a Competent Judgment (which no doubt you suppose as your First Principle) 'tis a plain Case that Your Iudgment is our Way; which in truth is the Sum of all. So long as we will believe as you would have us, we shall have the most magnificent words in the world, for our Souls. We shall all have Competent Iudgments from Nature, and Proper Helps from Grace. We shall (as many as will stand upon't) have Absolute Certainty, nay infinitely greater Certainty than Reason can afford, the Word of God. But, all is to be understood with the condition annext of trusting You for all. Otherwise we have neither Diligence, nor Iudgment, nor Helps, nor [Page 35] Certainty, nor Word of God, nor any thing in the world but Your Word; who yet cannot for your life make any three words you say hang handsomely together.

29. But I have stray'd after your Will-of-the-Wisp till I have almost lost sight of our Point. The Question is, Whether Scripture's Letter Interpretable by private Iudg­ments be the Way left by God. I maintain it is not; and prove it, because men who take that way err. For, I thought it needed no proving, that the Way left by God is not the Way to Errour. You distinguish twice; First the Letter into Sensed and Vns [...]nsed Characters; that is, if you make there any Distinction at all. Now the Pro­position is of the Letter Interpretable, that is, not yet In­terpreted, or which has not yet the Sense put to it, and so is yet unsensed. When you then distinguish the Letter Interpretable, into Sensed and Vnsensed, you make a Di­stinction, whereof one branch is not comprehended in the Notion to be divided. 'Tis just the same as to distin­guish Learned Men into Learned and Vnlearned; or Men into Negroes and Horses. Your Second Distinction is, of Iudgments, into Competent and Incompetent, which is Twin to the former. I vouch't for Proof the Presbyte­rians and Socinians; men of very Competent Judgments; and who are neither ignorant, nor lazy, nor negligent, nor baulk any means or helps, which they judge can enable them to understand the Letter, or that you have, ex­cept that, for a Spiritual Guide (which, I suppose, is one of the Helps) they in likelihood use the Assistance of some body of their own, not of Your Perswasion. But if one of your Protestant Guides be a proper help to your Protestant, a Socinian sure is proper to a Socinian. In short, they fall under none of your ill Qualifications, and when I speak of Competent and Qualify'd Judgments, you distinguish the Competent into some which are Com­petent, [Page 36] and some which are not Competent; and, again, the Qualify'd, into those which are, and those which are not Qualify'd. The sum is this, I ask whether the Vn­sensed Letter be the Way; and you answer, the Sensed Letter is; that is, the End is part of the way to the End. I propose you Competent Iudgments, and ask if the Letter be a Way to Them, and you reply, it is not a way to the Incompetent. And so you, who, good squeamish Gen­tleman, fall into a Scruple at the very name of Cards, can play at Cross-purposes all along very freely, even when Souls are at Stake. I desire you to remember that I speak of a Way, which they who take, shall, and that surely, arrive at Christ's Faith. You talk of a way by which men so and so qualify'd, may arrive at it. As if may be were any thing to shall and must be; or the quali­fications of Travellers any thing to the way. I My First Letter, P. 31. fore­told I should have nothing but an unconcerning Return for an Answer: And you have made me, tho' against my will, prophesie; not bating so much of my Prediction as the scornful Iest. For there is the Mountain and the Mouse, and Reading a Lecture in Logick to verifie it.

30. You conclude with an Argument against my Conclusion: You, I say, who are Answering, and have no­thing to do with Arguing. But, what would we have? Men who are uneasie will alwaies be shifting places. All our earnest Sollicitations could not wring one Argu­ment out of you when it was your turn to prove; and now 'tis your turn to Answer, you thrust your Arguments upon us unbidden. Nor is there any keeping you from falling into the same Fault with your Suppositions, that Dr. St. did with his Instance. You suppose then 1. That the Scripture is God's Word. And so do I too, provided you mean the true Sense of it. For a false Sense, what­ever you think, is, in my Judgment, not God's Word. [Page 37] 2. That it was written to be understood. Undoubtedly; but not by every one, barely by means of the Letter. All Books are written to be understood: Grammar, for Children to understand Construction; Mathematical Books for those who will understand Mathematicks; and yet those Books without Masters will make but few Grammarians or Mathematicians. 3. That it is written for the Instruction of Private Men. Yes, but not for the only, or sufficient means of their Instruction, barely by the Letter. 4. That they are concern'd to understand it. Yes again; and as much concern'd not to misunderstand it. 5. That they may believe and live as it directs. They not onely may, but ought. But, pray remember, that It directs no believing or living according to a false sense. 6. That they have means left them of God for the Vnder­standing of it, so far as it is of necessary concernment to them. Yes, and that Absolutely Certain Means, the publick Inter­pretation of the Church or Tradition. 7. And that, using those Means as they ought they may understand it. Never mince it with may; they shall and certainly shall under­stand it who use those means. From all you conclude at last. And thus it is to them the way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught as necessary to their salva­tion. How! The way to those who use those Means! Why this is just as I say. But what becomes of those who use not those Means? 'Twas ill forgot when your Hand was in at supposing, not to suppose in amongst the rest, that Private Interpretation is the Means lest by God for understanding Scripture. For, if publick Interpre­tation be those Means, as it needs must, since I have prov'd that Private is not; the Scripture plainly is no Way to those who only rely on the Private Means to understand it. And your Protestants are much beholding to your Argument which shews that Scripture, inter­preted, [Page 38] as they interpret it, by private Iudgment, is no Way to them. And I were very unreasonable if I should take offence at your Challenge, which bids me shew, when I can, that your suppositions are Vnreasonable or False. Not I, believe me; For I should be very cross-natur'd to fall out with a man who takes my part.

31. Thus you have try'd P. 12.as you call it, to answer my Argument; and have succeeded (even in your own Judg­ment, I guess) very sorrily. For had you been Confident of your performance against it as it is, you would never have thought of changing it, as you do here p. 17. Men who have put by a Thrust are not sollicitous to instruct their Adversary how he should have Thrust. And yet you will needs be teaching me, how I should have done to have made sure work; that is, to have been sure to hit your Buckler. I mean not to lose time on your Argu­ment. It were ridiculous for me to amuse my self with what never was nor will be said by any but your self. No body else would have left out the principal Considerati­on, using the Rule, and, so, coming to Right Faith by using it. As if a Rule would make a Line of it self, tho' no body draw by it: And a Way bring to the Journeys End; even those who travel not in it. In a word, your Argument has all the faults of your Answer in short; and onely shews you can speak from the purpose more so­lemnly and methodically, by way of Syllogism.

32. After you had thus nobly acquitted your self in answering my short Discourse, you proceed in the same Method to answer Mr. G's Argument for the Infallibili­ty of the Catholick Church. Which, e're I come to examin, I must first say something to your Prelimi­naries.

33. You doubt whether I think it needs any Proof that the Church of Rome is Infallible. To those who reflect [Page 39] on the force of a vast Human Testimony, attesting no­torious matter of Fact, and what Assent it claims from Human Nature in parallel occasions, I do indeed judge it does not so much need Proof as Reflection. But, why should I think it needs no Proof against You; who, we see plainly, have interpreted your selves out of your Na­tural Sentiments? Your reason, Sir, because I say 'Tis in vain to talk against one Infallibility, P. 17. without setting up another. Now it Faith Vindi­cated, P. 37, 38. has been demonstrated to you, and never yet answered, That Infallibility and Certainty are the same; and Nature tells us, that All Discourse supposes something Certain, otherwise it may run on endlesly, and so nothing can ever come to be concluded. How is it possible then to discourse against Infallibility, or any thing else, without setting up and proceeding upon something that is Certain, or Infallibly true? By your constant jesting whenever Infallibility comes in the way, you discover your anger against it, because you know you can produce nothing that is truly Certain, to ground your Faith. Notwithstanding the vulgar use to say com­monly, [I am infallibly Certain of such a thing] yet none laughs at them or thinks them extravagant: And must we be afraid to use the same Language in our Contro­versie, because your Ears are so tender, or rather your Grounds so soft, they cannot bear it? If you will needs declare against Infallible Certainty, be but so candid as to say still you are Fallibly Certain, and see how your Readers will smile at your Folly: And yet you ought to own one or the other, if you be Certain at all; for there can be no Third or Middle sort of Certainty, which is neither Fallible or Infallible. Pray speak to this Point, and let's have a little Reason from you at least, and not perpetual Rambling and Shuffling. How can you justi­fie your selves, that you are not Deserters of Human Na­ture, [Page 40] by affirming (or at least supposing) there is no Infalli­bility (that is, True Certainty) to be found amongst Men? Betrayers of Christian Faith, while you leave it all capa­ble to be a Lye; nay, maintain the full Sense of that wic­ked Position [All Christian Faith is possible to be False] in Discourses directly fram'd for that set-purpose! Blas­phemers of God's Providence, in declaring and asserting that he has left less Certain Grounds for Faith, and con­sequently for the Salvation of Mankind, for which the World was created, and God himself dy'd, than he has for other things of a trifling importance! Will it expiate for those Crimes, to talk cantingly here of an Infallible and Living God, and his giving us His Word by Men endu'd with an Infallible Spirit; Sayings fit to take the good Women that are much pleas'd with Godly Talk in a Ser­mon, but frivolous in our Controversie! Who ever que­stion'd that God was Living or Infallible; or that he has left us an Infallible Word? The only question is, whe­ther you can settle for others, or have your self, any Ab­solutely-Certain way to know the sence of that Word which this Infallible God has left us.P. 18. You tell us in­deed 'tis plainly written: but that's the Question still, and the Point we deny; and for which we are continu­ally demanding your Proof, and such a one as may con­fute our daily Experience, assuring us, that 'tis not plain to Private Iudgments. Yet this only important Point, you only name, then slide over it and retreat to your old refuge, that weak insignificant pretence of Sufficient Certainty, (by which, I suppose, you mean a Certainty that is neither Infallible nor Fallible) and tell your Peo­ple, if they will take your word against their own expe­rience, the Plainness of it (for 'tis that must give them this Security) secures them from being dangerously de­ceiv'd; then, as 'tis but fitting, follow again of course [Page 41] [in things necessary to Salvation] and [using the Proper helps] which (as we shall see anon) will cost one's life to peruse; and this you tell us, encourages them to take pains to be well assur'd of the Truth. Fine words, I must confess, if they had any Sense! Is it such a rare Encouragement to take pains to be well assur'd their Faith is True, when you tell them, that after all their pains they can never be sa­tisfied, but it may be False; that is, they can never be sa­tisfy'd that it is True? But, when all's done, and the Certainty of your Grounds fail you, your last refuge is, that the same Infallible God who has given the Means, has assur'd his Blessing to them that diligently use them. But this begs the Question: For, if the Rule you follow be not the Means ordain'd by God to arrive at Faith, you have neither the right Means, nor can you be assur'd of any Blessing by using them; unless you can prove God has promis'd his Assistance to those that use not the Means he appointed; or will certainly direct those to the right Place who take the wrong Way to it. Next, you fall into a Wonderment to hear me talk of mens being discou­rag'd —for want of an Infallible Guide. And I wonder you should hear me talk what I never spoke. Not one Syllable was there of a Guide: All my Discourse was a­bout an Infallible Rule. But the Truth is, you are sick of any Discourse that sifts the Uncertainty of your Rule; and therefore car'd not what new pretence you started, nor whether it were a False or True one, so you could but get the Dispute transferr'd to another subject. Yet, upon this false pretence you run on with your Raillery to the end of the Section.

34. But, at last you have found Infallibility in Tradition, P. 18. after you have been sent from place to place to seek it. Pray, Sir, who sent you? We, with whom you are discoursing, never directed you to any other, but to that of Tradition: [Page 42] and you know well, and every Reader sees, we are treat­ing of no Infallibility, but only that. Yet you triumph mightily, you have found a thing which was proffer'd to you unsought: and found it at last, which was both pro­pos'd to you and urg'd upon you at first. What an ever­lasting Trifler are you, to confess to your Reader you have been running after Butterflies all this while, and could not once turn your Eye to the Question which was just before you, nay prest upon you! Well, but what are my My First Let­ter, P. 7. words? [The Certainty of Scripture is from Tra­dition.] Do you deny this? No, you positively assert it, First Letter, p. 7. Let's proceed. [Therefore there is no refusing to admit, that Tradition causes Certainty.] Do you deny this? How can you without destroying the Certainty of your own Rule [Scripture] which depends upon it, and withal contradicting your self? I added, [And makes Faith as Certain as Scripture.] Can you deny this? That is, will you affirm the same Virtue does not work the same Effect if the matter be capable? Let's see now how you answer. Yet it may be this Certainty comes not up to Infallibility. Yes, it does; for the Certainty here spoken of was Absolute Certainty, as was twice in­sisted on immediately before, from your own words, p. 6. and I P. 23. prov'd it was the same with Infallibility which you have never disprov'd; and so, unless you give a bet­ter Answer, your own Acknowledgment that Tradition causes Absolute Certainty, forces you to grant we are In­fallibly Certain of our Faith. But say P. 19. you, The Tradi­tion for Scripture was more Vniversal: Suppose it so, was not Tradition for Doctrin large enough to cause Abso­lute Certainty! Or, are not ten millions of Attesters as able to cause Absolute Certainty as Twenty? Pray, consider a little the Vertue of Witnessing Authority, and the force it has upon Human Nature. When the Num­ber [Page 43] comes to that pitch, that it is seen to be impossible they should all be deceiv'd in the thing they unanimou­sly attest, or conspire to deceive us, their Testimony has its full Effect upon us, and begets in us that firm and un­alterable Assent we call Absolute Certainty; and the Ad­dition of myriads more adds nothing to the substance of that Assent, since it was wrought without it. But the main is, you quite misunderstand the nature of a long Successive Testimony. Let ten thousand men witness what two or three, who were the Original Attestors of a thing, said at first, and twenty thousand more witness in the next Age what those ten thousand told them, and so forwards, yet (taking them precisely as Witnesses) they amount to no more, in order to prove the Truth of that thing, than the Credit of those two or three First Wit­nesses goes. 'Tis the First Source of a Testimony, which gives the succeeding ones all their weight to prove the Thing that is witnest to be True: 'Tis 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, P. 19. and that can be no ground for Infallibility which excludes all possibility of Errour. Pray [Page 44] 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 First Letter, P. 7. 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 'tis 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 [Page 45] Absolutely Certain for Scripture, and I had prov'd that Absolute Certainty was the same with Infallibility, what should hinder me from inferring,My First Let­ter P. 21. 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. P. 21. 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 46] 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 'tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 47] Rule they can never err in Faith. Whence follows the Third; [And therefore they are Infallible.] Your Answer Sir, to this. Can they adhere still to what was deliver'd, and yet err in Faith, if what was still deliver'd, was Christ's Doctrin. Your Answer is;P. 21. His Friend tells us this is palpably self-evident. And does not his Adversary confess it too? Do not your self acknowledge it in your 21st, and 22d. Pages, and say you must lay by your Rea­son, turn Romanist, and renounce your Private Iudgment, if you did not grant it. And can the Reader, so well ac­quainted with your shuffles, judge it less than palpably self-evident, which your humour, so restiff to grant any thing, tho' never so clearly prov'd, is forc't to yield to. Lastly, does his Friend only tell you 'tis self-evident? Does not he prove it to be as Evident as 'tis that the same is the same with it self? And is not such a thing Evident by its own light, or out of the very Terms, that is, self-evident? Pray, Sir, when I prove any thing, let the Reader know I did so; and do not thus constantly pre­tend still that I only said so, or told you so. A pretty Stratagem to avoid speaking to my Proofs; but how ho­nest let the Reader judge.

38. But, say you, unless this Tradition be longer than it is yet prov'd to be, they may follow it, P. 21. and err all a­long in following it. No doubt of it; if it fall short of reaching up to Christs, we may follow it, and Err by fol­lowing it, as all Hereticks do in following their novel Tra­ditions. That (yet) is a very pretty Word; for it puts the Reader into a conceit that we have produc't nothing from the beginning of the World, to the very time of your Writing, to prove our Tradition reaches to our Sa­viours dayes; and yet, if we challenge you that we have prov'd it in the very next words of our Argument, you can make your escape, by saying, that you are not yet [Page 48] come to speak to that point, and that you meant no more. Who would think there should be such Vertue in a petty Monosyllable, as at once to disgrace us, and save you harmless! The second Answer to this Point is, Let it (the Tradition spoken of) be never so long, yet if they follow it not, they may err. Very good! The Arguers Words are, If they follow this Rule they cannot err in Faith; which implies, that, if they do not, they may err: and you say the self-same over again, with an ayr of Opposition, and there's an Answer for us now. As if to conform to your Adversaries Words were to confute him, any thing will serve, rather than say no­thing.

39. The fourth Proposition brought to prove that this Tradition we lay Claim to, does indeed reach to Christ and his Apostles, is this, They could not innovate in Faith, unless they did forget what they held the day before, or out of malice alter it. And here lies the main Stress of the Controversy between us; for you have granted here, Page 21.22. that were this Rule follow'd, they must still enjoy the same Faith Christ and his Apostles taught; and this Discourse is brought to shew they did follow it. We are to expect then that your choicest Engines must be set on work to baffle a Proof, which, if it holds; brings such dangerous consequences after it, and indeed concludes the whole Controversy. Your first Attempt is in plain terms most Evident, & a most Unconscionable Falsification. After you had (P. 21.) re­cited this fourth Proposition, you immediately add. Our Author undertakes to make this out more clearly, & therefore we will hear what he saith for our better Information. P. 18. He asks, did Christ teach any Errours? and so you go on re­citing that whole Argument, which proves, that if the first Fathers believ'd what Christ taught, and the suc­ceeding [Page 49] Sons all along believ'd what their Fathers did, the last-born Son in the World believ'd the same that Christ taught. Pray, Sir, play fair above-board. You have directly falsify'd that whole Discourse, by pretend­ing here that the words you cite were to make out that Fourth Proposition clearly, (viz. That we could not innovate in Faith &c.) whereas the truth of that Fourth Proposi­tion was made out by me nine pages before (viz. p. 9.) and the Discourse you mention here, as intended to make it out, is found p. 18, 19. and levell'd at a quite diffe­rent business: viz. that a Church could not adhere to Tradition, and at the same time erre, as you pretended we must grant of the Greek Church. Clear your Cre­dit when you can, I charge it upon you as a voluntary Insincerity: but you shall never clear it unless by put­ting out your Reader's eyes, or perswading him not to use them. So that it seems let us bring what Argu­ments we will, you need do no more when they are too hard to answer, but apply them to a wrong Point they were never mean't to prove, and then 'tis easy to shew manifestly they are frivolous and good for nothing. In the mean time, who sees not that your Cause as well as your Credit is run a ground and like to split, when you are put to such shifts! I wonder how this gross Fault could escape Dr. St's acute sight, if he perus'd and re­view'd your Reflexions.

40. Your Second Answer, or rather Cavill, is, that you could make as fine sport with the word [Notwith­standing] as I did, but that, it seems, it spoils your Gra­vity. Yet you can dispence with that Formal humour very easily, as oft as a hard Point presses you, espe­cially when you are put to Proving: nor are we now to learn that you can laugh at a feather, when you have nothing of more weight to say. But, where lies the [Page 50] Jest? I never excepted against the Word, but the mis­applying it by Dr. St. Who, when he was at a loss to give an Answer to Mr. G's Demonstration, very learned­ly and advisedly thought it best to deny the Conclusion, Object an Argument of his own against it, and then bid the Opponent prove his Thesis (which he had prov'd already) notwithstanding his Argument. When you find me thus untowardly making use of That, or any other, Word, you are at liberty to except against me. In the mean time put this in the number of your Reflections, that when a man pretends to make sport when there is no occasion, he but discovers his own Folly. But the Point is, Can you make good his Logick in this irregular Proceeding? This is what we expected from a writer that undertakes to defend him. But the Task is so insuperable, that neither your won­derful Learning, nor Dr. St. himself, nor all the World to help him can ever be able to do it; unless he can make the Schools renounce all Rules of Art, and Man­kind their Reason. But what were my words that were so mirthful? Why, I deny'd that a Body of men could adhere to Tradition, and notwithstanding erre. Is here a­ny occasion of fine sport? Or, cannot I use a plain word in the Context of my Discourse falling in na­turally, because he had misus'd it unskillfully and in­artificially? I see by this sliding over it so gentilely, this is all the Answer I am to expect to my 10, 11, 12, 13, 33d. and 34th. pages; where such Errours against all Methods of Dispute are charg'd upon the Dr. as would banckrupt any mans Credit who had not a large stock of it laid in beforehand. And all the favour his best Friends can do him to excuse his Person, is to re­fund it upon his Cause.

41. But, tho' it was granted that Discourse of mine [Page 51] cited by you pag. 21. was so evident, that it was both Vnreasonable and absurd to deny it, yet it must not scape without some animadversion. A Fault there must be in it, that's decree'd; and what should that Fault be, but that good one of being too Evident. And this, as was shewn formerly, is one of the new tricks taken up to evade Answering. When our Arguments are too clear to be baffled by any (even plausible) Reason, being next to self-evident, or easily reducible to it, to save us the labour you reduce it thither your self, but first vilely deform'd, that it may become a fit Subject for your Jesting way of Confuting. We will grant him (say you) it is impossible to prove that men have err'd notwithstand­ing they never err'd. Very excellent! But do you not grant much more; viz. that It is impossible they should adhere to our Rule, and yet erre? You do, and, in doing so, you grant the whole substance of my Discourse. And so let them laugh that win. I am sure you have lost by this forc't Confession, that Tradiction is a certain Rule, and that I have prov'd it evidently. Which no man will grant of your Rule that is in his wits, nor can the wit of all the men in the World ever prove it to be such as you have yielded ours to be.

42. The same disingenuity often repeated gives all the force to your next Sect. For, 1. P. 22. You pretend we but suppose it hitherto, that these Traditionary Christians adhere undecliningly to a Tradition descending really, and invariably from Christ and his Apostles, &c. How! on­ly suppos'd hitherto! Was it not prov'd, and not barely suppos'd in the Fourth Proposition, and made good by me, p. 9. If you will not come up to it, but stand ho­vering, fencing, jesting, falsifying▪ and capering about by the way, must we be blam'd as barely supposing it hitherto? 2. You falsify our words: For who ever said [Page 52] a Supposition is Self-evident, which every one sees, while 'tis barely a Supposition, is not Evident at all. Why quote you not the page where we say this? Be­cause you would not be caught. 3. You falsify again without care of credit or regard to your Reader, in af­firming, that from this self-evident Supposition I necessarily conclude thus; suppose Traditionary Christians neither did nor could erre, it is certain they neither did nor could erre. But why again no place quoted! Because you had again falsify'd it, and durst not hazard disco­very.

43. I perceive, your play here (p. 22.) is to disjoint our Discourse, and jumble all the pieces of it confusedly together; and, so, it must be my Work to rectify what you had so industriously unravell'd. Since then Mr. G. had made use of these words [Traditionary Christians] their Sense was first to be explain'd, and therefore I My First Letter, p. 8.declar'd that the meaning of them was, such Christians as proceeded upon an Immediate Delivery not only at present, or since the Council of Trent, or some hundreds of years before, as you put upon us, p. 20. but upwards till Christ's time; and all the advantage I gain'd thence was that in case they did not adhere to it all along, it would follow that the pretended Traditionary Christians (our selves) were not really such, and so the Subject of our Dispute would be lost, and we should receive a perfect foil. Could any thing be clearer or more candid? Yet, how many shuffles, and baffling Jests, you have been pleas'd to bestow on us instead of admitting so clear a Proposition; to how many wrong ends you have ap­ply'd it, never thought on by us, we have already seen. For the Truth is, you are so horribly afraid of any con­nected Discourse, that you dare not so much as suf­fer it to peep out, but it alarums your Jealousie; no, not [Page 53] the very signification of the single words to be distinct­ly known, or the most Evident Proposition, tho' it be Indifferent to either Cause, to be admitted. Now let's see what you say to it; you make it amount to this: Suppose Traditionary Christians neither did nor could err, P. 22. it is Certain they neither did nor could err. Which you call my necessary Conclusion from my self-evident Supposi­tion. You improve mightily, Sir, in your Talent of Insincerity. Our entire Discourse runs thus, if we must needs put it into Form for you. Those who adhere to Tra­dition all along from the beginning, neither did nor could err in Faith, (otherwise they would not be Adherents to Tradition or Traditionary Christians). But this Body of Christians, call'd The Roman Catholick Church, does now, and did from time to time adhere to Tradition. There­fore this Body of Christians, call'd The Roman Catholick Church, neither did or could err in Faith. This is Mr. G's Argument: The Major is granted by P. 21, 22. your self. The Proof of the Minor is contain'd in Mr. G's Fourth Propo­sition, which I have shown to be valid in my First Let­ter, p. 9. and the Discussion of it is now under hand. The Conclusion is in greatest danger, lest you should, according to the new True-Protestant Logick, deny it again, and bring some Instance against it; otherwise, since it follows evidently, it will shift well enough for it self. This, I say, is our intire Discourse; all the rest is your flashy Drollery, your ever faithful Friend, when you are perplext how to Answer.

44. The Argument then for the Perpetuity of our Tradition from Christ's time, runs thus. They could not innovate in Faith, unless they did forget what they held the day before, or, out of malice, alter it. To en­force this Argument, I discours'd My First Letter, P. 32. thus. You do not, I suppose, desire we should prove that men had alwaies Me­mories, [Page 54] or that Christians were never malicious enough to damn themselves and their Posterities wittingly; and yet, it can stick no where else. Yet you are such a bold Undertaker, that you will needs prove they may be both thus Forgetful and thus Malicious. A hard Task one would think; especially since the Argument pro­ceeds upon Forgetting and Altering what they Re­membred and Held Yesterday. Your First Reason to prove they might be thus Forgetful, P. 23. is; because Other­wise it is hard to say why the Pen-men of the Scripture should have been at the needless pains to write it. Let's apply this to the Argument, and your Discourse is this. 'Tis hard to say that Christians could have re­membred their Yesterday's Faith, had not Scripture been writ. Now, pray Sir, be serious, and tell us, Do you think there is any danger, or even possibility of this among the very Protestants in England, tho' they had never a Bible to read to morrow? How many of them read not so much as a Chapter in three or four days, how many not in a much longer time; nay, how few of them read all their Faith there in a Year, or even in their whole Life; and yet they retain the memory not only of their Yesterdays, but last Years Faith? What a weakness is this, to suppose Miracles must be done for no other end, but that you may answer our Ar­gument? The Reasons why Scripture was writ, you might have read in St. Paul to Timothy;2 Tim. c. 3.16, 17. where there is no such thing as to make men remember their Yester­days Faith, nor that Scripture is of Necessity at all; but only that 'tis Profitable for many Uses there enumera­ted. Your Second Argument to confute our Demon­stration, is a Text, 2 Pet. 1.15. by which you will con­vince us, Mens memories are not alwaies so faithful: You must mean to remember their Yesterdays Faith; [Page 55] for this Degree of Memory only the Argument insists on. But what says that B. Apostle? I will endeavour, that you may be able, after my Decease, to have these things alwaies in remembrance. Now, there is not so much as one Word in the whole Chapter concerning the remem­bring or forgetting their Faith, much less the Faith they held Yesterday; or leaving their Faith in Writing for that purpose, but only (Faith suppos'd) of remem­bring his particular Exhortations to Good Life; and, by thus inculcating them, to stir them up (as 'tis said, v. 13.) to Christian Virtue, and leaving such things in Writing to that end. Now, such Spiritual and Moral Instructions are both easily Intelligible, especially, since he had taught the same to them formerly; and Man's Natural Corruption making even good men apt to slide back from the high degree of Perfection in which they had been educated; no doubt a Letter left by that Holy Apostle, now near his death, as he there tells them, would strike them more feelingly, and excite them more effectually to pursue that Course of Holy Life, in which he had instructed them. What misera­ble Stuff is this? Would not Faith have an excellent Basis, did it depend on Scripture interpreted by your Private Judgments. When this one Instance manifests, you have the boldness to quote Scripture for any thing, tho' never so disparate and unconcerning, and then blasphemously nick-name it God's Word, when 'tis no­thing at all to the purpose. But, I beseech you, Sir, let's have the Return of one Scholar to another. If our Argument lye too open, or the Connexion in it be too slack, speak to it as you ought; but think not your Private Interpretations a competent Solution to Demonstrations. If such wretched Answers may serve the turn, the Schools and Universities may shut up [Page 56] Shop, and Reasoning bid adieu to the World: Every Fop will find a Text he can hook in, nor will he fail of interpreting it blindly to his own purpose, when he is gravell'd with an Argument; and of calling it God's Word when he has done. Who will not see you are sinking, when you catch at such Straws and weak Twigs to keep you above Water.

45. By this time the Reader will be satisfy'd, that Notwithstanding all you have answer'd, Men had Memo­ry enough not to forget their Yesterdays Faith: Next, you go about to prove Christians may be malicious enough to alter it. May not Christians (say you, p. 23.) through malice and wickedness, be as careless of preserving the Faith, as in maintaining Holiness in themselves or their Posterity, when they know that Sin is as damnable as Errour? Be Judge your self. Do not many of your Congregation (and the like may be said of all Sects) sin often, and yet few or none of them desert their Faith once? The reasons why the Parallel holds not, are these. 1. Sins are generally private; at least, Men do for the most part endeavour and hope to conceal their Faults, for fear of shame and discredit. But the Change of Faith must be profest and open; otherwise it alters not the case; and Posterity will still believe on, accor­ding as things appear outwardly. 2. Sinners are sel­dome Malicious to that degree, as to resolve firmly to persist so to the end of their Lives; but generally fall out of frailty, and intend and hope to repent. And so this very thing will oblige them still to hold to their former Faith, which (as Experience tells them) fur­nishes Sinners with means of Repentance. 3. Man's Nature being inclin'd to Truth, scarce one man tells a Lye, but hopes to cloak it. But here, when they de­liver another Faith for the same that was held Yester­day, [Page 57] every man must know his Neighbour to be an abominable shameless Lyar; and, the Concern being so Sacred, must hold himself and all his fellow-Alterers the wickedst men living▪ Unless it be said they went conscientiously upon some other ground than Tradition; for to pretend to be sav'd by Tenets held upon no ground at all, is absolutely impossible to consist with Rational Nature. But 'tis impossible they should take up ano­ther Ground: Because if they could not innovate in Faith, they could not innovate in that upon which they held all their Faith. Nor could they be certain, but all their former Faith might be renounc'd, if a new Rule of Faith were taken up. To hear of which, could not consist with the temper of Christians, to bear a loss for all their Faith. Besides, Men are more tenacious of their Principles, especially if they have gain'd a vast Credit by their long Continuance, than they are to re­linquish all they have receiv'd upon those Principles. Again, Tradition is the Authority of the whole Eccle­sia Docens, the Chiefest part of (I might say the Ecclesia Credens too) witnessing the deliver'd Faith; which is so vast a Body, that it could never (were there nothing but its own Interest) permit it self to be thought to have attested a Lye hitherto: Add, That none could be competent Judges what was fit to be a Rule of Faith, but They who were so concern'd both in Duty and Interest, Tradition should not be set aside. Which con­siderations clearly evince an Universal Change in the Rule of Faith; and this over the whole Body of Belie­vers is absolutely impracticable. Lastly, There must be some great time between their discarding Tradi­tion and espousing a New Rule; during which time, we must imagin the whole Church (except perhaps some few that discourse it first) would be made up [Page 58] of Seekers; some hovering one way, some another; in which case they would as yet have no Faith, and consequently there could be no Church. 'Tis left then, that if they could innovate in Faith, they must pretend to Tradition still when they had evidently deserted it; that is, they must profess to hold the Yesterdays Faith, when all the World must see, and every man's own Heart must tell him the contrary: Which is the high­est Impossibility. Luther alter'd, Calvin alter'd, so did many others; but none of them had the face to say they still adher'd to Tradition, or the Faith deliver'd immediately before, and that they had not alter'd. 4. Men fall into Sins through Temptations, and Temp­tations are various, according to mens Tempers and Circumstances; whence it happens, that one falls into one sort of Sin, others into another, as things light. But 'tis impossible there should have been Causes laid in the World, so Universal, as to reach a whole Body of men consisting of so many Millions of different Countries, Tempers, and Circumstances, so as to impel them effectually to fall into the same Individual sort of sin, and this such a horrid and shameful one, viz. The Altering the Faith they hop'd to be sav'd by, and this so suddenly. The Nature of the thing shows evi­dently 'tis above Chance; and the very Interest of the World would forbid such a Conspiracy, were there nei­ther Religion, Conscience, nor Common Humanity in it. Their very Passions, Disaffections, and Enmity to one another, would make them disagree in carrying on such a wicked Project: Their Natural Tempers, ab­stracting from their Common Propension to Truth, and the care of preserving their Credits utterly lost by speaking such open and pernicious falshoods, would render them apt, out of a meer Antipathy of Humour, [Page 59] to oppose one another; and all this, supposing there were no Goodness at all in the World; to suppose which, evacuates all Christian Motives, and their Effi­cacy, and makes our dear Saviour preach and dye in vain; especially, since there never wanted, no, not even in the worst times, a fair Degree of Disciplin to apply those Motives. Nay, State-Interest, or the Quar­rels of Princes, would make them glad to take hence an Advantage against their emulous Neighbours; and to think it the best Policy to lay hold on such an occa­sion, to fight in behalf of Faith and Common Honesty, against a pack of shameless Lyars, and Deserters both of Religion and Human Nature, who car'd not what be­came of their own Salvation, or that of others. Lastly, Th [...]se Causes thwarting the Universal Alteration of Faith, while Christians proceeded on the former Rule of Tradition; and full as much hindring the taking up a New Rule in opposition to the Testimony of the Uni­versal Church; as there could be no Cause to make men conspire to alter the Yesterdays Faith, so Christian Motives, which contain the greatest Hopes and Fears imaginable, the Hopes of never-ending Bliss, and Fears of Eternal and Intolerable Misery, which were be­liev'd and apply'd to the generality of Christians, could not, on the contrary side, but influence them most powerfully to preserve unchanged and inviolate both the Rule and the Faith. 'Tis as Certain then, that a very Great Body of Adherers to Tradition, and consequently to the first deliver'd Faith, would still re­main on Foot in the World, as that Effects could not be without Proper Causes, or that Motives, which are the Proper Causes to work upon Rational Nature, will produce their Effect: I mean such Motives as engage their very Nature. Add, That such a Change must [Page 60] needs have been publickly known; and, so, have exci­ted the Pens, Tongues, Interests (perhaps Swords too) of the Traditionary and Innovating Party one against another, at the time of the Change; as we see has hap­pen'd in our late Alterations or Reformations. Yet no such thing was ever mentioned in History; or come to us by Tradition; or any thing alledg'd, but some differences amongst particular Spectators, and their Ad­herents siding with them; which amounts to nothing comparable to that Universal and most Memorable Concussion, such a vast Change as this we speak of, must needs have made in the whole Body of the Church.

46. Summing up then this Discourse, 'tis manifest you have no way to answer our Argument, but by sup­posing there was a time (the Lord knows when) in which there were no considerable Body of Men in the World, either good Christians, honest men, or valuing their Credit; but only a company of brutish, Godless, Lying Ruffians, without the least Degree of Grace or Shame in them. Unfortunate Confuter! Aristotle lookt upon things as they were; Plato on things as they should be; but, to make a show of an Answer to our Argument, you would have your Readers look upon the Christian World, as it neither is, was, should be, or can be.

47. But you object. What if all Sons did not un­derstand aright all that Fathers had Taught them! P. 23. An­swer. If All did not, most of the Intelligent and Pastours, who were of greater Authority than those, some less-understanding Persons, and ty'd by their Duty and Office to instruct their Ignorance, would and could easily do it, when the Doctrin, open Practice and Disci­plin of the Christian Church was settled, and made it [Page 61] both so obligatory and so easie. 2. What if some Sons were so negligent as to take no care either to remember or teach what they had been taught by their Fathers? Answ. If only some were so, then those who were diligent to do this, would reprehend them, and see to have things amended, and those careless Persons, especially if Pastours, reduc'd to their Duty; there being Orders on foot in the World to oblige them to it. Besides, 'tis an unheard-of Negligence, not to know or remem­ber the next day the Faith they held the day before; nor did it require that care you pretend to retain the remembrance of it four and twenty hours. 3. What if some, through Ambition, Vain-Glory and Popularity, P. 24. set a broach New Doctrines, and taught them for Aposto­lical Tradition? Answ. If only some were so, then those others, who were good Men, and free from those Vi­ces, would set themselves to oppose them, make known their false pretences, and lay open their Novel­ties: Both Reason assuring us, that Good men use not to be so stupidly careless in such Sacred Concerns; and History informing us they were ever very zea­lously vigilant to oppose Hereticks, when ever they began to vent their Pestilent, Doctrins. 4. What if others, to save themselves from Persecution, conceal'd part, and corrupted more of the Doctrin of Christ by their own Traditions, taken not from Christ, but from their Forefa­thers, Iews or Gentiles? Then those who were out of Persecution, or valu'd it not so much as they did their Conscience, would oppose their Unchristian Procee­dings: Then the Fathers, Doctors, and Pastours of the Church would reveal what they had conceal'd, restore what they had corrupted, and manifest that their Pre­tences and Subterfuges were False, and that the Doctrin they subintroduc'd, had not descended by the open Channel of the Christian Church's Tradition. 5. What [Page 62] if some through a blind Zeal, ignorant Devotion, Super­stitious, Rigour, and vain Credulity, added many things to the Doctrin of Christ; which by degrees grew into more general esteem, 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 [Page 63] 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 P. 23.24.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, P. 23. 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,P. 25. 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 [Page 64] 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.

P. 25.50. 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, 'tis 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 [Page 65] 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. Ibid. 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 'tis 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 'tis shewn you, that if the Premises be right, and the Inference good, the Conclusion must be as necessarily True, as that the same Thing cannot be, and not be at once: Yet, you take no notice of it, but still run on obstinately to confute all the Schools and Universi­ties that ever Writ or Taught Logick from the beginning of the World, to the Time of His and Your Writing. The Truth is, you are sick of the Argument, and would shift it off on any Fashion. Bring what Instan­ces you please; But first you are to Answer our Argu­ment, and next, to see the Authority that qualifies your Instance for an Argument, be above Morally Cer­tain; otherwise it will be beyond the power of any Lo­gick to make it conclude: For the force of that Maxim on which the Conclusiveness of any Argument is built, is far beyond any Moral Certainty; Nor let Dr. St. think [Page 66] to stand arguing still ad hominem; but let him be sure his Instance infers the Truth of his Conclusion, when it comes to be put to the Test of a Syllogism. This we will expect from him; since it is the Right of the Re­spondent to deny any thing that is not driven up to Evi­dence; and by that Test we will judge of your In­stance and other Arguments, if you have any that you will vouch to be Demonstrative, that is, Conclusive.

51. You seem so kind as not to undertake to prove that an erring Church adheres to Tradition, if it be True Apostolical Tradition, and that it adheres to it wholly and solely. I a little wonder at this; for if you mean not by Tradition such a one as is built on Living voice and Practice, you ran quite away from the Point; If such a one; you quit your own Rule, by requiring men should adhere to the other wholly and Solely, and ad­mit that a Church adhering to such a Tradition is not an Erring Church. I inferr: Therefore, till you an­swer our Argument which proves that our Tradition could not be interrupted by any Innovation, you can­not with reason deny but ours is such. You think Infallibility a kind of barr against our mutual Agree­ment; as if there were any hopes or even possibility men's Minds should center, unless it be in something that is Absolutely Certain or Evident. Shew us some­thing else endu'd with such an Evidence as is able to oblige Human Nature to an Universal Acceptation and Conviction, and then blame us for maintaining Infalli­bility. Till then pray, excuse us for making such Pro­vision for Faith, as sets it beyond Possibility of False­hood. You drop some insignificant Exceptions after the Shower of your shrewd (invisible) Reasons. As that our P. 26. Argument must prove that no man that hath been taught the Faith can ever err from it; and yet still [Page 67] withall, confess that a Church, following Tradition now, may leave it afterwards. This were an Incoherence with a witness: But how do you shew our Argument must prove this absurd position! Onely with saying it here over and over again, without the least attempt to shew from our words or Doctrine, this pretended ne­cessity, that we must both contradict our selves so grosse­ly, and besides go against our daily experience. I do assure the Reader we have no where either such words or sense, and that 'tis meerly a false sham or some weak deduction of yours, for want of some better thing to say. Our Tenet is that, tho' not one single man can erre while he adheres to our Rule, yet even some par­ticular Churches may leave off adhering to Tradition, and so err in Faith. Onely we say that the main Body of the Church consisting of all particular Churches that compound Christianity, being supported by Mo­tives of adhering to the former Faith, so Prevalent, and Universal, and apply'd to a very vast multitude of them, cannot conspire to relinquish this Rule, go a­gainst and disgrace their own Testimony, nor conse­quently err in Faith. The word [All] indeed, and [They] in each Proposition are distributive, and appli­able to each single man; but do you find the least word in any of them, that sayes that single men or great mul­titudes may not out of malice alter Faith? Where find you that! Or that they cannot desert the Rule, and by Consequence their Faith. Pray, be not so liberal of our Concessions, without shewing somthing under our hands for it.

52. But you sum up your Solution of our Demon­stration with an admirable grace, or rather you give us the very Quintessence of your Answer to it in these few words.P. 27. The Church of Rome says all have broke the [Page 68] Rule of Tradition but she onely, and proves it, by saying that she holds the same to day she did yesterday, and so up to our B. Saviours time. You proceed. We call again for a Proof of this. She tells us, If she follow'd this Rule she could never err in Faith. But did she follow this Rule? She says she did; and if you will not believe her, there's an end. How smart and victorious this looks? But the best is, 'tis wholly built on some few of your own wilfull Falsifications. Pray, where did we ever bring these Words, [If she followed this Rule, &c.] For a Proof that she holds the same to day which she did ye­sterday. Or where did we prove we follow'd this Rule only with iffs? But why are you so shy to quote the Pages or Paragraphs where we bring these absurd Proofs? because you would be at Liberty to say any thing and yet not expose your Credit. And 'tis worth noting, that you point out the Page in other occasions very diligently; but, when you have a mind to falsify, 'tis still supprest. 'Tis observable too that this insin­cerity of yours here is of such advantage to you, that it gains the whole Cause. For, if we prove this main Point no better but with Iffs, & that our Argument has no force but by standing to your Kindness in Believing what Our Church says, then there's an End indeed; for nothing can be more Evident, than, 'tis that in that Supposition, we are utterly routed, & our whole Cause quite defeated. Now I would entreat the Reader (for You are resolv'd neither to use your Eyes nor Honesty, lest they should too openly accuse you) that he will once more review our Argument, as 'tis put down by Dr. St. himself, First Letter, p. 4. and 5. and made good by me, p. 8. and 9. and he will see clearly, the first half of it was to prove, that If they follow'd this Rule, viz. of believing the same to day they did yesterday, they could never err in Faith, or [Page 69] were Infallible: And the other part [And they could not innovate in Faith, unless they did forget what they held the day before, or out of malice alter it] was brought to prove they did ever follow that Rule. For since nothing but Innovation can break the Chain of Tradition, whoever proves they could not innovate, proves directly they could not recede from Tradition. Nay, 'twas confest by Dr. St. himself, when he was as yet in better circumstances, (First Letter, p. 5. l. 4.) that we prov'd our Church could not innovate, by the Medium now mention'd. Yet you have the Confidence to tell the Reader, she only says she follows this Rule; and if you will not believe her, P. 27. there's an end: Whereas you ought in candour to have said, They prov'd she follow'd, and could not but follow this Rule; but I cannot answer their Argument, and there's an End. See what you have brought upon your self, and how fatal it is to your pretended Answer, that as you See above. Sect. 39. began your Reply to this 4th. Proposition with a most wicked Falsifi­cation, so you close it up here with a double one, and those too of so large a size, that were they True, they had car­ry'd all before them. Your intermediate Endeavours are many of them of the same kind; the rest Mistakes, (and generally wilful ones) which I thought at first to have reckon'd up; but they thicken'd so upon me, that I saw it would be tedious to count them, and so gave it over. But your excuse for this insincere Carriage is, That you do no more than all Writers use to do, who have had the bad luck to defend an ill Cause, and come to be prest with Close Truth. All they can do, when they are not able to give a good acount of themselves, is, to bend all their study and seek about for shifts, how they may give no account. And the D. of P. and you are of this prudent Generation. I say once again, 'Tis your Chief Study how to shift; and long Study of any thing, with frequent practice, makes a man Excellent at it; & every man loves most to do that he [Page 70] is Excellent at; and so we are to expect it. To convince the Reader whether I wrong you or no, Put you your Arguments for the Absolute Certainty of your Rule in conveying to us Christ's Sense, and for your following it, as close and home as you can possibly; and see whether I do not answer it directly, fairly & squarely, without any of these shifting Excursions or Falsifications: And let our different Carriage be the Test to distinguish the candid Asserters of Truth, from the Insincere Abetters of Errour.

53. After I had shew'd that Scripture privately inter­preted could not be a Rule of Faith, the nature and me­thod of our Dispute led me into an Enquiry what was in reality your Rule, as you are such a kind of Protestant; and, to this End I discours't thus; That Scripture was a Ge­nerical Rule, common to you and all Heresies in the world; and, That your Specifical Rule must be [as my self and those of my Iudgment understand or interpret it.] And can there be any thing more Evident? Do not they all strive to lay claim to the Letter of Scripture for their Rule, as well as you? Do not they all, as much as you, rely upon it, and avail themselves by quoting it still, and endea­vouring to shew it favourable to their respective Tenets? Plain Experience informs us and every one, they all do this, and that too, with an ardour and earnestness equal to yours, as far as we can discern. In this then you all agree; and therefore 'tis beyond all dispute, Scripture is your Common or Generical Rule, if we may believe your Carriage and Profession. Now let's see what 'tis you dis­agree in. And 'tis manifest you disagree in the Sense of Scripture; otherwise, the Sense of Scripture being God's Sense or your Faith, you would be of the same Faith; which cannot be pretended, since you contradict them, and they You, in matters belonging to Faith; and What's the Way to arrive at the Sense of Scripture? Certainly the Interpreting it; for Interpretation signifies in proper [Page 71] speech the Giving or Assigning to Words their sense; and do not you accept that Sense of Scripture for your Faith which your Private Judgment interpreting it, conceives to be truly its meaning; and they, in like manner, as they apprehend it, ought to be interpreted? Is it not for this very end you so cry up your Judgment of Discretion, and that you are not to submit to the Decrees of Councils or Consent of Fathers, farther than you conceive them agreeable to the Word of God? Does not Dr. St. profess openly, that his sober Enquirer may understand the Ex­plicit Sense of Implicit Points that are Doubtful (such as all main Points of Faith are) without the Church's help, (Second Letter, p. 21.) that is, without any Publick In­terpreter? And, Will you after this deny that Scripture is your General Rule in which you agree with all Here­ticks; and your specifical, peculiar or proper Rule, in which you differ from them, and they from one another, is Scripture, as Interpreted by your selves? The thing is plain, let's see what you say to it. You, with a very dexterous artifice, grant and not grant it, as we shall see anon: and tell us, 1. That Scripture is and ought to be common to all Hereticks, tho' they miserably abuse it. Pray, Sir, use my words; I said, a Common Rule to them and you; and, Can that be truly a Rule, which they direct themselves by and yet warp into Errour? You tell us indeed they misera­bly abuse it; and the Socinians will say the same of you, while you pretend to prove thence Christ is God. And how shall this Quarrel be decided? For 'tis hitherto a drawn Match between you, while you fight with that ambidextrous Weapon, Scripture's Letter interpretable by Private Iudgments. The Point still sticks: How can an indifferent man, seeking for Faith by your Rule, be satis­fy'd They abuse it more than You? Must not you be ob­lig'd to shew him some clearer Light than They have, and that this Light justifies you for judging thus harshly of them, that they are such miserable Abusers of Scripture? [Page 72] And, if you do not, must he not in true reason judge 'tis pretended by you gratis; as also, that you are highly un­charitable, to charge them downright with so hainous a Crime? 'Tis that farther degree of Light in You that must justifie you for these pretences, which we would gladly see; for, whatever it is, 'tis That which distinguishes you from them, and sets you up to be Right Vsers of Scripture; that is, it gives you the Right Sense of it, or your Faith; and so it must difference you Essentially from them in your Grounds or Rule. 'Tis this Light, I say, we would be at; Why is it so shy to shew its Face? 2. Tho' 'tis hard to conceive how they can be said to abuse Scripture who follow it to their Power; yet, since you will have it allow'd you gratis, Does not their pretended miserable Abuse of Scripture consist in misinterpreting it? Certain­ly, you must say it does. And if so, then your right In­terpretation of it, or your taking it in a right sense, is that in which your right Vse of it consists: wherefore your own Interpretation of it, is, beyond all Evasion, that which differences you from them; and so 'tis your pecu­liar or specifical Rule of Faith. 3. Do those Hereticks who thus miserably abuse it, do this out of Wilfulness, that is, do they indeed understand it right, but pretend they do not; or do they use their endeavour to understand it, and yet hap to abuse it by misunderstanding it? If the for­mer, then again you must tell us gratis, and ought to make it out to an Indifferent man seeking for Faith, that the Socinians (and all the erring Sects) are the most wick­edly insincere, and the most blasphemous men in the World, nay, the greatest Hypocrites to boot; to know certainly by Scripture that Christ is God, and yet know­ingly impugn his Divinity, voluntarily abuse Scripture they seem so highly to venerate, and pretend Conscience all the while: And yet none but you have such horrid apprehensions of them: and as for my self, seeing how [Page 73] they decline no Adversary at the alledging and compa­ring Places, how sedulously they make Scripture their Study, and in all appearance adhere to the Letter; I veri­ly believe they follow it to their power, but fall into Er­rour through their misfortune of espousing a wrong Rule. And if you still say they are thus voluntarily insincere, I desire to know of you by what outward signs can an indifferent man judge You and your Party are not as Insincere as They, or perhaps more? Acquaint us, I say, for what other Reason you say this, but because they frame another Sense of Scripture than you do, that is, interpret it differently from You? If you can give no other than your own Interpretation is the only Light you have to judge them Hereticks, or to determine what's Heresie; and by consequence to judge what's True Faith; and so 'tis unavoidably your Rule of Faith, of which more by and by. But, if you say they follow it to their power, and yet err in Faith, then the fault not being in Them, for not following their Rule, their fault must be (as it is yours) their adhering to a Rule which secures not men, tho' doing their best to understand it, from falling into Heresie; that is, it consists in their pitch­ing upon that for their Rule, which is indeed no Rule at all.

54. Your Rule then equally patronizing true Faith and Heresie, I had reason to affirm, that it inferr'd those blasphemous Propositions, as to make Light and Darkness very consistent, and Christ and Belial very good Friends. Now, this being my Charge, it was manifest­ly your Duty to shew it does not patronize true Faith and Heresie, and by doing so, induce those horrid blas­phemies; and to make out, that only true Faith can be grounded on Scripture privately interpreted; and there­fore, that I had impeach'd it wrongfully. But this was too hard a Point to meddle with. Instead of doing this, and clearing your self from Blasphemy, which [Page 74] was directly incumbent on you, you tell the Reader, with a great garb of Gravity, that I speak Blasphemy my self, Blasphemy against God and his Holy Word; when I only mention it while I am charging you with it. And hereupon, like a right Good man, you fall to talk Godly, and out of your pure Charity will needs be­stow upon me the Benediction of your hearty Prayer, that God would give me Repentance unto Life. Indeed, had I said that Christ and Belial could ever be recon­cil'd, or advanc'd any Position that imply'd it, as yours does, I confess, I must have been Guilty of a horrid Blasphemy. But, not knowing how to clear your self, for owning no Rule but such a one as equally patroni­zes Truth and Falshood, and therefore, by a necessary consequence, infers those Blasphemies; you very de­murely put on a Godly Countenance, and betake your self very charitably to your hearty Prayers. As much as to say, In good Truth, Sir, I cannot answer you, nor shew I have any Rule, but what serves for Errour as well as Truth; but yet if that may excuse me, I will be content in lieu of it, to pray for you with all my Heart. Is not this pleasant?

55. Thus much for your Rule as 'tis common to You and all Hereticks. What's your particular Rule? Here 1. You take it ill that we will needs know what's your Rule better than your selves do;P. 28. And we take it as ill of You, that you would have us believe you before our own Evident Reason. We know you cannot defend such an insignificant Rule as your own Interpretations; and therefore are forc'd to disown it, when we press you to give a good account of it; with which may very well consist, that you proceed upon it when the danger is remote. 2. You assure us Plain Scripture is your Rule; that is,Ibid. (as appears by your Discourse here) your Rule as you are such a kind of Protestant. Pray, will you [Page 75] explain and unriddle to us this most obscure word [Plain] in what kind of Points, to whom, and by what kind of Light, is Scripture taken as your Rule, Plain? And let's have something more than a blind Word to work on. Experience tells us Scripture is not plain, even in the highest Points of Faith, since so many follow it, and yet go astray. Again, if it be so plain, all your useful Helps are needless; and Lastly, Scripture conceiv'd by you to be plain, which is your particular Rule, can never be made out to be Absolutely Certain; for the Socinians too proceed upon Scripture, Plain to them, as their Rule, and yet err; which evinces 'tis not so plain as to con­vince and certainly enlighten Human Reason attending to it: An evident Argument, that both the one and the other do but fancy it plain, but that, in reality, 'tis Plain to neither. 3. You declare, that the Interpreta­tion of it by any Sect of people, Romanists or others, P. 28. is Ex­trinsical to it, and no constitutive difference of it. That the Interpretation of Romanists is not the particular Rule of Your Protestants, all the World knew before; which makes it frivolous to tell us so here. Nor do we chal­lenge you, or pretend, that the Interpretation of any other Sect is your Rule; for we told you, that the Interpreta­tion of each Sect, respectively, was its particular Rule. 'Tis Your own Interpretation we said was your Rule; instead of granting or denying which, you shuffle about, and talk of the Interpretation of Romanists, and other Sects. But, if (which is strangely exprest) in other Sects you include your own too, 'tis all one to my Discourse. For, whether you regard the Interpretation of your own Sect, or make account, that as each individual Angel is a distinct Species, so each individual Interpreter among you is a distinct Sect, still Scripture, as interpretable by your selves, is your particular Rule, and not Extrinsical to it. For let me ask you once more, Is not the Sense [Page 76] of Scripture your Faith? and, Is not that Essentially your Particular Rule of Faith, that gives you your Par­ticular Faith? and, Must I mind you again, that it is the very Essence (as I may say) or nature of Interpre­tation to give you the Sense of the Words of Scripture, which in our case is your Faith. Wriggle then still which way you please, you can never avoid, but your own Interpretation of Scripture is your Particular Rule; taking you either for a whole Sect, an Individual, or Both.

56. At length, as a man in danger when he is fol­low'd close at the Heels, and ready to be caught, takes a desperate leap, tho' he hazards himself a mischief; you venture boldly to declare what is your particular Rule, as differenced from both Romanists, and other Hereticks and Sectaries; P. 28. viz. Scripture plainly delivering a Sense own'd and declar'd by the Primitive Church of Christ in the Three Creeds, Four First General Councils, and Har­mony of the Fathers. After which you add, This, I hope, is plain dealing, and no wriggling; and here we take up our stand, let him endeavour to draw us whither he can. Never fear it, Sir, you are out of danger of being drawn any whither. Ten thousand Cart-Ropes will not go round you, and we must be at least Twenty Years in fastening them. But let's examin this your parti­cular Rule. 1. I ask, whether, since Differences use to be Essential, these words, [own'd and declar'd by the Primitive Church, &c.] which are found in the Diffe­rence of your Rule from that of others, be at all Essen­tial, or not: If not Essential, since, if you be Orthodox, you ought to have a Rule essentially distinct from that of Hereticks and Sectaries, what is this Essentially-diffe­rent Rule of yours; for 'tis this we are enquiring after? If you say 'tis Essential; then Scripture had not all the due power to regulate you as to your Faith, without their additional Light: And, by consequence, Scripture [Page 77] is not your Only and Intire Rule, as you ever pretended hitherto; since these are Part of it. 2 When you say your Rule is Scripture, plainly delivering a Sense, &c. I suppose you must mean such a particular Sense as is of Faith with you: and can any more be requir'd to your particular Rule than Scripture plainly delivering your particular Faith? Certainly you will not say it. For, there is the Divine Authority in the Scripture, which is the Formal Motive of Divine Faith. There is Plainness, which gives it a Directive Vertue, and qualifies it for a Rule; and the Clear Light of this plain Rule must shine bright upon the particular Tenets you hold, for 'tis to shine there, and no where else. Which once put, what can all the other, esteem'd by you but Human Authorities, serve for? Can they add weight to the Divine Authority, or clear that to us which is already so plain by Scripture? 3. Pray be candid, and tell us, After a thing is plain in Scripture, are you to value a straw, what either Primitive Church, Creeds, or Fa­thers say? I dare say you will grant you are not. Wherefore, all these are utterly useless, unless they be pretended to give you some light to interpret Scripture. But this cannot be neither; both because you tell us here plain Scripture is your Rule, and it would not be plain, but obscure, if it needed an Explainer: Besides, you put this as a constitutive difference of your Rule, and yet deny'd that any Interpretation of Scripture is such, but Extrinsical to it. 'Tis then a great Mystery still, how these Human Authorities affect your General Rule, or influence your Faith already had by plain Scrip­ture, or to what end they serve but for a Show only. 4. The Lutherans proceed upon all these as much as you, and yet hold a Reall Presence of Christ's very Body in the Sacrament, as much as we do. So that this does not difference you in your Grounds or Rule from all [Page 78] other Sects; for sure you will not deny that to be a Sect, that holds an Errour, which Dr. St. has taken such pains to prove is Idolatry. My last question shall be, Whether your sober Enquirers are not to come to their particular Faith, by this their particular Rule of Faith? And, since 'tis Evident they must, we would know next how many of them are to arrive at any Faith at all? For it will take up many Years to examin and com­pare all the Fathers, and be sure of their Harmony with one another, and with the Scripture too. Nay, the Duration of the World will be too short to compass that Satisfaction, if we may believe the Dissuasive from Popery, p 7. Bishop of Downs, who assures us, That out of the Fathers succeed­ing the Primitive Times, both sides eternally and in­confutably shall bring Sayings for themselves respectively. Can any man living make Sense of such stuff, or ever come at his Faith by such a Rule?

57. For this last Reason chiefly, I affirm'd, That not one Protestant in a million follow'd Dr. St's Rule, but honestly follow'd the Tradition of their own Church, Pastours or Fathers; that is, believ'd as they had been educated. To the first part of this Assertion you say little, but that if there be any Fault, 'tis the Fault of the People only. But if this peculiar Rule of yours, which takes in the seeing your Sense of Scripture own'd and declar'd by the Primitive Church, P. 29. Four first General Councils, and the Harmony of the Fathers, be to be fol­lowed e're you can come at your Faith; I doubt the Fault will prove to be in the Rule. For very few Per­sons have Learning, fewer Leisure enough, and none of them security of having any Faith by this Method; un­less you could ensure their Salvation by inspiring those who are ignorant with competent Learning to under­stand all the Fathers and their Harmony; and withal, by letting them good long Leases of their Lives; which I [Page 79] am of opinion you cannot. The second part, that they follow'd the Method of Tradition, puts you in a marvel­vellous jocund humour; and, as if you had forgot your way (a thing not unusual with you) you ask, all amaz'd, Where are we now? In the Church of Rome e're we are aware of it: We are all good Roman-Catholicks on a sudden, we are become an Infallible Church, &c. and away you run with the Jest, laughing and giggling as if you had found a Mare's Nest. Surcease your fears, good Sir, you are not a jot the nearer being Catholicks for fol­lowing your own Tradition. It reaches no farther than Iohn Calvin, Martin Luther, or some such Reforming Heroe; and there it ends and stops in a flat Novelty. Whereas Catholicks abhor a Tradition that has any known Beginning, or takes a Name from any Particular Author, or has any Original but Christ, his Apostles, and the Church in the very first Age, who were the O­riginal Deliverers of it to the next, and so to the suc­ceeding ones. Pray Sir, what's become of your Jest? All I said, was, that You First Letter, p. 27. l. 3, 4. followed the Way of Tradition, however misplac'd; I prov'd it by Reasons and Instances; you hint some, omit others, and pervert the rest. You tell us, 'tis all Scriptural Tradition. But we will trust our Eyes and Experience before your bare Word. We see some taught before they can read; we see them Cate­chiz'd in Churches, and they repeat and believe what's there told them, tho' Scripture be not quoted for the distinct Passages. We see them read the Scripture after­wards; but we see withal not One in Thousands trusts his own Judgment of Discretion for the sense of it; but, without reluctancy or jealousie, accepts that which his Pastours assign to it; especially in Spiritual Points, or Mysteries of Faith, about which we are chiefly discour­sing. But do not your self incline to admit (as much as we can expect from a man that affects not too much [Page 80] candour) that very thing you so laugh at here. I af­firm'd, that Not one in a million thinks of relying on your Rule of Faith, in order to make choice of their Faith, &c. This you answer with hems and hahs: Tho' I fear — yet I hope he is out in his Account— I am apt to think they are more attentive— Yet be it as he would have it, P. 29. &c. Now, since they must either have their Faith by Reliance on their Pastours and Preachers, delivering it to them, and educating them in it, that is, by some kind of Tradition; or else by relying on Scripture; Ibid. and your self seems to doubt, or rather in a manner grants it, That they have it not the later way; you must at least doubt that they have it by the Way of Tradition. But your Fancy was so big with your empty Jest, that you had forgot what you had allow'd but a little before.

58. Thus, Sir, I have trac'd you punctually step by step; not (as is your constant use) pickt out a few words scatter'd here and there: which you thought you might most commodiously pervert: wherefore I have reason to expect the same exact measure from you. The Sum of your Answer is manifestly this. Shuffles and wilful Mistakes without number; Evasions endless; Falsificati­ons frequent; Godly Talk frivolous; Jests groundless; and all these brought in still to stop Gaps when your Reason was Nonplust. Be pleas'd to leave off your Af­fected Insincerities; otherwise I must be forc't to Ex­pose them yet farther; than which there can be no Task more Ungrateful imposed upon

THE THIRD Catholick Letter, &c.

1. I Come now to take a view of your Second Letter, with my Eye, as in the former, fixt only upon what I think you mean for Ar­gument. Whether you give us just your First Words at the Conference; or second Thoughts since; whether no troublesome Part of Mr. G's Discourse be left out; in short, whatever belongs to matter of Fact, shall be out of my prospect, which shall be bounded by what you think fit to open to it.

You acquaint us here (Pag. 7.) that you put two Que­stions. 1. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in the sense and meaning of Tradition? 2. Is this Tradition a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture? And you complain of Mr. G. that his Copy makes you ask a very wise Question. viz. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in Tradition. Why this Question should be ironically call'd a very wise one, I cannot ima­gin. I am sure it is very pertinent to the Intention of your Dispute, and directly points at one of the Chief Subjects of the Conference. But you shall have your Will; tho' I beleive it will appear Mr. G's question made better Provision for your Credit in point of Wis­dom [Page 4] than you have done for your self.

2. For, your Second was in truth a very needless Question; because both your self and all your Audi­tours, if they ever heard any thing of this kind of Controversy, knew beforehand without needing to ask, that the Tradition we lay claim to, pretends to derive down the Intire Body of Christ's Doctrin, and not only the Books of Scripture, of which (P. 9.) you very learnedly seem to counterfeit your self ignorant. And this is the first part of your distinguishing the plain Sense of this Word [Tradition] as held by Mr. G. By this Question you tell us (p. 9.) you intended to put a diffe­rence between the Tradition held by us [Protestants] and the Tradition disputed. For the first meaning of the Word [Tradition] which you grant, you put the Vni­niversal Testimony of the Christian Church, as to the Books of Scripture. The second and deny'd meaning you con­tra distinguish from the former in these words. But if by Tradition be understood either some necessary Articles of Faith not contain'd in Scripture, or a Power in the Church to make unnecessary to become necessary, this I de­ny'd, &c. Certainly, Sir, you have a Logick of your own so peculiarly fitted to your designes, that no man living but your self ever us'd it. I ever thought, and apprehended I had all the World on my side for thinking so, that all Differences or Distinctions were to be Opposites, and to divide the Common Genus, or the Notion that was to be distinguish't; and, therefore, since the first sense of the Word [Tradition] was Tradition for Books of Scripture, which is your Tenet; I verily ex­pected the opposit sense of it should have been Traditi­on for Doctrines, which is Ours; and that, as the former was Tradition for Christ's Words, so the latter should be Tradition for Christ's Sense. But while I was vainly [Page 5] imagining the second sense of the Word would be Tra­dition for Faith, instead of that I found nothing but such Articles, and such a Power. Did ever any mortal Man think or pretend that Tradition was an Article, or a Pow­er, any more than that it was a Horse shoe? Did your self when you granted the Latin and Greek Churches fol­low'd Tradition,Dr. St's First Letter. P. 5. intend to signify that they follow'd Articles and Powers? The summ then of your learned Distinction is in plain Terms this: Tradition is two-fold: One is a Tradition for Books; the other is no Tradition at all, but only Articles and Power. Had it not been better then to have accepted of Mr. G's Civility, and have answer'd to the purpose, rather than out of a pique to his Copy, and a desire to make it stand in need to be corrected, thus to pervert common sense, and out of a too zealous care not to forfeit your Wisdome, to commit such an illogical Absurdity? But Sense and Lo­gick, tho' they be plain and honest true Friends, yet I must own that, like the Queens Old Courtiers, they may appear scandalous Companions to a man of your more polite and modish Education. However, I dare answer for you, it was not ignorance of their worth, but an unlucky necessity, which made you introduce in their room two New Questions to while away the time and escape the true one, which you had no mind to meet close and grapple with. Yet perhaps you may have bet­ter luck in your First Question; let us see: By your First Question then, and your Explication of your De­sign of it immediately after,P. 7. 'tis easy to discern that you again quite mistake the End and Use, and consequently the Nature of Tradition; which is a very inauspicious beginning, and puts us out of hopes you should ever discourse pertinently of it, since you go about to im­pugn you know not what. For Tradition does not bring [Page 6] us down set Forms of Words onely, as you imagin, viz. (as you instance P. 7.) Christ was the Son of God, under which you say well a Heretical Sense may ly: But it derives down to us the very sense of those words, and all the rest of Christ's Doctrine; there being found in Tradition all the ways and means to signify and express the Determinate Meaning and Sense of Forefathers that can possibly be imagin'd. For, they not only deliver the Propositions of Faith in such or so many Words, as you apprehend; but, they signify to their Children the very Tenets they have in their hearts, in such ex­pressions as best sutes with the occasion, according as their different methods of explaining themselves may lead them. You may upon reflexion observe it passes thus in your self when you instruct people in their Faith: In which circumstance, you do not ty your self up to rigorous Forms of Words made to your hands, but take your liberty to deliver your self in any manner that you judge will make your meaning be best understood. The same Method is taken by the Pastours of the Church (and the Fathers of Families too according to their pitch and station.) They Catechize their Chil­dren; they Preach upon the Texts proper to such Points; they dilate themselves in their Discourse, with a full de­sign to make their Sense be perfectly comprehended; they reply to the difficulties of those who are not yet perfectly instructed, or well satisfied; and accommodate themselves to all their Exigencies. Lastly, they lead their Christian Lives, and breed up others to do the same, by those Principles: And, Experience as well as Rea­son tells us, that nothing gives the determinate sense of Words which express Tenets, more distinctly than does perpetual Practice, and Living conformably to what's signified by those Words. The want of which [Page 7] Requisits in the Letter of Scripture, which can give no Answer to any difficulty, nor vary any expression to make its Meaning more Intelligible, nor live, and by Example make the Reader live according to such a sense, shews clearly, that, taking it alone and unassisted by the Churche's Tradition (determining and ascertaining it's meaning in Dogmatical Points) it cannot in any proper Speech be call'd a Rule of Faith.

3. If, notwithstanding what has been said, this Dis­course should still seem to you more a Speculation than a Real Truth (which yet I judge impossible): pray re­flect how your self would go about to instruct your own Children in your Faith; and you will easily find by experience, when 'tis brought home to your own case, how connatural this Way is to clear to them your sense, in what you would have them Believe. Do not your self use the same Method? Do you only deliver to them certain Forms of Speech, without endeavouring, by all the possible means you can invent, to imprint the true sense (that I may use your own Instance) of these Words [Christ is the Son of GOD] in their Souls; and to make it still clearer to them, as their budding capacities grow riper and riper? Do you not experience they come by degrees to understand you too; and that you have at length transfus'd into them the Sense of the Tenet you had in your own Breast? Do not you practically instil into them, that they ought to Pray to Christ; and ex­ercise their Faith, Hope and Charity towards Him while they are Praying? Do not you tell them they are to give Divine Reverence to Christ; without stinting them, or making them scruple, lest they give too much, or com­mit Idolatry, by giving that to a Creature, which is only due to the True GOD? And does not this Practise, be­yond all possibility of mistake, insinuate into them, that [Page 8] he is equally to be Ador'd with God the Father, or Coequal to him; and, so, not a Creature, but very God of very God? I doubt not but you do all this; at least, I am sure, if you do it not, you do not your Duty: Nor do I doubt but your Children come at length to understand you too, and, by understanding you, become of the same Religion. And can you imagine, that Men were not Men in all Ages, but (in the blind times of Popery forsooth!) degenerated in­to Parrots, and learn'd to prate set-Words, without mind­ing their Sense? Or, that Christians were not alwayes Christians, and endeavour'd to imbue under-growing Posterity with the Meaning of the Tenets they profest; and hop't to be Sav'd by their propagating them to those whom they were bound to see Instructed in Faith? Or, lastly, can you conceive there can be any Means inven­ted by Man's Wit, to make known and propagate the Sense of Words that express Points of Faith, which is not in the highest measure found in Tradition? If you can­not, (as I am sure you cannot) then you must withal either confess, that Tradition brings down the Sense of Christ's Law, and not the bare Words or Sounds only; or, you must advance this monstrous Paradox, that there is no possible way in the whole World for Mankind to communicate their Thoughts and Meanings to one ano­ther in such Points; the contrary to which you expe­rience dayly in your self and others. And, were this so, then, to what end were Catechisms, Sermons and Con­troversies about such subjects? To what end all Instructi­ons, Conferences, and Explications of them by the Pa­stours? Again, if you grant these (as you must) to be the best Expedients to transmit down the Sense of Christ's Words, that is, our Faith; how can you hold Scripture's Letter the Rule of Faith: which, taken as counterdistin­guish't to Tradition, wants all those most effectual Means [Page 9] of discovering to us it's Meaning. Certainly, That must be the Rule of Faith that is best qualify'd to give us our Faith; and that must be best qualify'd to give us our Faith, which has the best Means to give us Christ's Sense; and not that which wants all the best Means to produce such an Effect. On the other side, supposing Christ's Doctrine once settled in the Body of the Church, how can you deny Tradition, thus abundantly furnisht with the best Means imaginable to deliver down the first-taught Doctrine, to be such a Rule; seeing no more is re­quir'd to be a Rule of Faith, but to be qualify'd with a Power to acquaint us who live at this distance with the true Sense of what was deliver'd by the Founders of the Church in the beginning, without danger of losing it by the way; which cannot be imagin'd as long as Tradition is held to, the same believ'd to day which was held yesterday, or that the immediately succeed­ing Fathers still deliver'd the same Doctrin. To do which there wanted no Power, as has been lately shewn to the full; nor Will to use that Power; being oblig'd to it by the greatest Penalties GOD himself could in­flict, the Damning Themselves and their Posteri­ty.

4. But, say you (pag. 8.) If the Church may explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition, so as to oblige men to believe that by Virtue of such Explication, which they were not oblig'd to before, then 'tis impossible the Infallibi­lity of Tradition should ly in a constant Tradition from Fa­ther to Son; for they have no Power to oblige to any more than they received.] How Plausibly and smoothly this Discourse runs, and how shrewdly it seems to conclude? Would any well-meaning Reader imagin that it were perfect Non-sense all the while, and wholly built on your own Liberality, giving us another sort of Tradi­tion which is no Tradition? This malignant word [Tra­dition] [Page 10] must not be taken in its right sense, that's re­solv'd, for then it would grow too troublesom; but, take it in any other sense, that is, mistake it, and then have at it. For when you speak of explaining the sense and meaning of Tradition, you do not take Tradition, as, you know well, we do, and as the word plainly imports; for the Delivery of Doctrin, but for Doctrins Deliver­ed; and so again, we have once more lost the Question. For, what can these words mean? If the Church may explain the sense and meaning of Tradition; that is, of the Method of conveying down Christs Doctrin? The Method of Delivery is the very Signification of that Doctrin from Age to Age, and how can one Ex­plain the Sense and meaning of a signification of Christ's sense, when it's self is that very Explication of it? This gives me occasion to reflect how oddly you have hamper'd our Tradition hitherto instead of handling it. P. 9. You seem to doubt by your [If no more were meant, &c.] Whether it does not mean Tradition for the Books of Scripture; and, this you knew well enough before, was none of our Tradition in dispute here; which, as may be seen by Mr. G's Demonstration put down by your self, First Letter p. 4. and 5. is confest to be Tra­dition for matters of Faith or Doctrin: Now in this new sense you give us there of Tradition, you kindly P. 9. grant it; for 'tis your own, not that which we here mean by that word. Next comes Ibid.another [If] and makes it seem to signify P. 10. Articles and Power. And this is no Tradition at all; neither ours, nor yours, nor any body's: For, nei­ther those Articles nor that Power you speak of p. 10. are or can be the Delivery of Christ's Doctrin from day to day; for that speaks such a Method of bringing down things, not the things brought down. And this you very gravely deny. And so you may, with my good leave, either deny or expunge, or condemn it to what [Page 11] doom you please; for certainly it comes with a feloni­ous Intention, to draw the Reader out of his Road into a Labyrinth of Non-sense, and then robb him of his Reason. Again, p. 7. you make it a Delivery of bare Words, at best, with a general (impossible) sense, and perhaps a Heretical one too, into the bargain; where­as you cannot but know Tradition, as We mean it, is a Delivery of the sense of Christian Tenets, and this a par­ticular sense too; and such a one as cannot possibly be He­retical, while this Rule is adher'd to; unless the First-Taught Faith were Heretical, which is Blasphemy to imagin. And, here again p. 8. you make Tradition or Delivery to mean the Point delivered, and would have us give you the signification and Explication of That which is it's self the signification and Explication of Christ's Faith; and this too, the See Sect. 2, & 3.very best that can be imagin'd. Is it possible to deform Tradition more un­towardly, or wrest it into more misconstructions than has been done already? After a serious manner, certainly, 'tis impossible: But Drollery is now to act its part: And to cheer your spirits, which droop't under the difficulty of answering the Argument for Tradition, you put your self in masquerade; and would make the Relation of perhaps two or three, it may be, partial Friends of yours, concerning Mr. G's Discourse about You, a per­fect parallel to our Rule of Faith; and that, if they can mistake or misrepresent, down goes Tradition. Which amounts to this, that sooner may all the Christian Fa­thers in any Age, consisting of many millions, and those disperst in far-distant Parts of the World, be mista­ken in their Faith, which it imported them no less than their Salvation to know; sooner may all of them conspire to deliver to their Children another Doctrin than that which they held the way to Heaven; than that a very [Page 12] few of your own Party should, to gratify you, tell you a false Story, or Aggravate; tho' all of them were, be­sides, profest Adversaries to the Person against whom they witnest; and, indeed, Witnesses in their Own Com­mon Cause. I beseech you, Sir, tho' you be never so much to seek for a solid Answer, yet speak at least plau­sible things, and do not thus expose your Credit while you affect to play the Wit. Poor Tradition, what has it done to be thus misrepresented! Did it deserve no better for bringing down the Book of Scripture, but to be expos'd in so many aukward Vizards, when it was to come upon the Stage, and not once suffer'd to shew it's true face, but still travestee'd into another Form, and put in all shapes but its own? This Carriage of yours is e­nough to make the Reader think you apprehend it to be some terrible Gorgons Head, or some Basilisk; and, that the very sight of it, unless it came thus muffled up, would undo you. At least he will suspect from such an unto­ward broken Scene, that the Dramma is not like to be regular: Indeed you shift too often, and to catch and confute you I must travel thro' the whole Compass; for no sooner can a man steer one way, but your Discourse, like the Wind, whips straight into another quarter; and about we must tack, or we must not make forwards at all. But I will insist no more at present on this dexte­rity of yours; you will afford your Friends many fresh Instances of it, through the whole course of this Letter hereafter. Onely I must note your forgetfulness, or what else may I call it? For you took the Notion of Tradition very right, First Letter (p. 7.) where you al­ledg'd you had a larger and firmer Tradition for Scrip­ture than we had for us: You did not there, take Tra­dition of that Book, for the Book delivered; for then that Book had been the Delivery of its self; and yet [Page 13] that Book had as good Title to be it's own Tradition, as you had to make the Points delivered by our Tra­dition to be the Tradition or Delivery of those Points. You granted too in the same place that the Latin and Greek Churches proceeded upon it; and, by granting this, confest there were as many Attesters went to make it up as there were Men, (at least Intelligent men) in the compass of the many vast Nations which those two Churches included: How come you then so much to forget your self as to parallel it here to the pittiful At­testation of three or four possibly prejudic't Relaters. But the reason of this self-contradicting and extravagant representation of Tradition is clear; it was your In­terest to take it right there, and the same reason pre­vail'd with you to take it wrong here.

5. But I am weary of fencing with Shadows, when I can take any occasion that leads me to treat of what's Substantial. Mistake me not, 'tis not your Discourse that obliges me to it; it had been a sufficient An­swer to That, to let the Reader see you purposely mi­stook the Nature of Tradition, to divert and perplex his Thoughts, and there let it rest. Yet, Because your taking Tradition wrong, for the Doctrines deliver'd, good use may be drawn from it, I shall, for the bene­fit of the Reader, not decline speaking to what you object. You make account (p. 7. & 8.) the Traditi­on of the Church deliver'd the Point of the `Reall Presence, & of Christ's being the Son of God, in Ge­neral Words onely. Which, waving what has been al­ledg'd in my 2d. and 3d. Sect. I judg for divers other Reasons to be Impossible. For, besides that, if the Fore­fathers deliver'd onely the Words, they taught their Children (against the supposition) no Faith in these Points, for Faith has sense in it, and is not Faith if it [Page 14] have none, being in that case no true Iudgment or Truth; who knows not that Words were instituted and in­tended by Mankind to signify something; and, therefore, 'tis inconsistent with the nature of the same Mankind, when at Age, especially the Wiser sort, not to hold some Sense or other to be signify'd by those Words; and with the nature of Christians, not to instruct those whom they are to educate in Faith, with that Sense; as also with the nature of those who are to be In­structed, not to desire to know the Sense of the Tenets they are to believe. But, that Sense cannot be a Ge­neral one, that is, Common to all the several Tenets now sound among us (for it will not be General if it ex­clude any one) it must therefore abstract from all par­ticulars, and be applicable to every one. Now there is no such Generical Notion or Sense which can be ab­stracted from Christ's Body, which is Living, and a piece of Bread, unless this, that they are both Quan­titative or Mixt Bodies; to believe which would make a very extravagant Point of Faith; much less can such an Abstraction be made from Christ's Reall Living Bo­dy, and some supernatural Gifts or Qualities, either in the Bread, or wrought in our Souls by Means of our receiving the Eucharist; For a Substance and a Quali­ty differ toto genere (as the Logicians express it) that is, belong to different Commonest Heads, which have no Genus above them, or that can abstract from them. Least of all can any such Common Notion be abstract­ed from the Natural or True Son of God, and a meer Man; no more than there can from God and a Creature. Whence follows most evidently, that, since the Faith­ful must necessarily have always had some Meaning of those words in their hearts, and a general Sense of them is impossible, they must have ever had Particular [Page 15] Notions of those Words, determining their Sense to the one signification, or the other; that is, either to mean Christ's Real Body, or not his Real Body; a True and Essen­tial Godhead, or a meer Creature. My second Reason is, because Faith is Ordain'd to work through Charity, or to stir up devour Affections in us; whence, as the distance is Infinite in both cases, between one of those Senses and the other, there being God on one side, on the other a Creature; so the Affections of the Soul wrought in us by our Faith, must either oblige us to pay an Infinite Veneration to a Creature if Christ's Real Body (and consequently God) be not there, or if Christ be not God; which is the greatest deviation from true Religion that is possible; or else, to be high­ly Irreverent, and to want the most efficacious Motive that can be imagin'd to excite and elevate our Devo­tion, if he be there, or Christ be indeed God. Nor can any middle disposition be invented that can make the Acts of the Soul hover between it's tendency towards an Infinite and Finite Being, or between an Infinite and Finite Reverence. I dare confidently conclude then, and dare avow it to be Demonstrable out of the Na­ture of Mankind, that either the one or the other De­terminate Sense of those Words must have been held in all Ages, ever since the Apostles time, by the Gene­rality of the foregoing Faithful; more or less expresly, as those respective Points, broke out more or less in­to Christian Action; which their Duty could not but prompt and oblige them to deliver to their Children as occasion served; and consequently, that that Par­ticular sense, and not onely (as you fancy) the Gene­ral Words, must have descended by Tradition.

6. Next, my Position is, that, taking the word [Tradition] for Points descending by Tradition, as you [Page 16] will needs have it, the Church has Power and Au­thority to explain the Sense and Meaning of them, and to oblige others to believe Her; and yet, that this hin­ders not the Infallibility of Tradition from consisting in holding the same to day that was deliver'd yesterday, &c. This is the difficulty, I conceive, that so much trou­bles you. To clear which, you may please to reflect on what you know already by experience; that, let a­ny man advance a single Tenet, and afterwards, up­on occasion, set himself to Explicate at large the Sense of that Proposition; 'tis plain, there will be found in that large Explication many particular Propositions; not adequately the same, but in part different from that which he went about thus elaborately and distinctly to explain; of which perhaps even himself was not aware while he did not reflect; not being yet invited to make it clearer, or dilate on it. And yet he held, even at first, the Sense (and not only the Words) nay the whole Sense of that main Tenet or Sentence; tho' he saw not distinctly every single Proposition contain'd in it, till he became oblig'd to Scan and Study his own undistin­guisht, but true, thoughts concerning it. The same may be said of every Sermon and it's Text, supposing it be rigorously held to; and no more be attended to but to explain it's intrinsick and full Meaning. In which case, the Preacher sticks not to assure his Auditory, that what he has Preach't to them all the while, is Gods Word; and to press them to regard it as such, as far as his small Authority over them can reach. And, had he more, in case he did verily judge his Explica­tion of that Text was genuin, and, consequently, Christ's true Sense; he would questionless esteem himself bound to make use of that Authority to his utmost, to edify them with the Explicit Belief of each Particular con­tain'd [Page 17] in so Excellent a Truth. This being so, why should not the same Priviledge be granted to the Church and her Pastours to explicate, upon due occasion, the Sense of Christ's Faith, in many particular Propositions involv'd in the main Tenet, (even tho' we should sup­pose them to be not heard of, perhaps not distinctly thought of, before) which is allow'd to every private man, and any ordinary Preacher? And, if those Go­vernours of the Church be, by their Office, Conservers of Christs Law, and see that these Propositions, new­ly singled out, are included, in any Point of Faith re­ceiv'd upon their Rule; why ought they not, out of their Duty and Zeal to preserve Christ's Faith Intire, both define these Points, and also use their Authority to oblige the Faithful to accept them as such; or, if they disaccept them and express themselves against them, to exclude them from their Communion?

7. But still, say you, these particular Points came not down by Tradition, nor were deliver'd as held yesterday, and so upwards till Christ's Time; for they were not held at all before they were defin'd or declar'd. I distinguish: These Propositions were held ever and descended ever as they were involv'd in the Intire Point; in the bowels of which, the Sense of those others were found: But, as singled out in such and such particula­rizing manners of Expression, they were (perhaps) not held ever. I say, not held ever formerly, at least not universally. Which is the true reason why some Private Writers, nay possibly some Great Men, might (out of a dutiful fear not to add to Faith) have doubted of them, or disaccepted them, perhaps oppos'd them; till the Collective Church, or some Great Body of them, who are able to look more intelligently into those Points, declar'd and unfolded the Sense of the main Article, in [Page 18] which they were hitherto enwrapt: For, besides that it is their peculiar Office, and (as it were) Trade, to look deeper into the Sense of the several Points of Faith, then others do; 'tis very Rational to conceive, that those Tenets were found more particularly explicated in some parts of the Body of the Church than in o­thers; which makes it difficult to affirm any particu­lar Point defin'd since Christ's time, was not in many places of the Church held ever, tho' it was not in All; nor made as yet any great Noise, being as yet neither oppos'd, (which alarum'd the Church to reflect heed­fully upon it;) nor so powerfully recommended, which oblig'd the Faithful more briskly and manifestly to own it. What difficulty or disagreeableness to the conna­tural course of things there is in all this, I cannot ima­gin; Nor, I am confident, your self; unless your thoughts, startling at the unwelcom Conclusion, should recoil back to your former mistake, that only Words came down by Tradition; or that Christ's Sense was never in the Breast of the Diffusive Church (his Spouse, and the Pillar and Ground of Truth) and in the Understand­ings of her Pastours; which takes all Faith out of the world, and destroys the very Essence of a Church: Or, lastly, that many particular (or rather partial) Propositions are not included in the Total Sense of eve­ry main Tenet, and disclos'd by a full explication of it; whence it comes to be discover'd to be a Part of It, that is, in part It.

8. I am sorry you will needs give me occasion to interrupt such Discourses, as tend to the clearing some Truth, to defend Tradition against your reproachful mistakes; with which, in defiance to all Sense, I had almost said against your own Conscience too, you have loaded it. But these are some of your Extrinsecal Ar­guments, [Page 19] which, for want of better, jealousy of your cause and reputation prevails with you still to make use of; and, so, you will triumph mightily if they be past over unconfuted. You attempt, p. 8. to play your Politick Game, and to conquer us by dividing us in our Rule of Faith; tho' it cost your Credit ve­ry dear to effect it. To this end, running on in your former mistake of the plain word [Tradition] and that it means Points and Articles, you tell us sadly that this denying to the Church of Rome Power to explain Tradi­tion takes off from its Power & Authority. That it resolves all into meer Humane Faith— meer Natural Reason— That the utmost it can amount to, p. 9. is resolving Faith into a Logical Demonstration. Then follows the Holy Cant. And is this the Faith Christians are to be sav'd by? what Grace of God, what Assistance of the Holy Spirit are necessary to such a Faith as this? But for this I refer you to the Haeresis Bla­cloana. You should have added See Haeresis Blacloana. [where Dr. Tillotson, and my self have the honour to be brought in for writing so Catholickly]. Truly Sir, you have given us a very pretty Period; in which many of your mo­dish qualifications vy for the precedency, and 'tis hard to determin which has most Title to it. Nay, p. 13. you tell Mr. G. that our Grounds overthrow the Church's Authority in matters of Faith, and proceed upon Pelagi­an Principles. Your Charge, Sir, is very grievous and heavy; and therefore, unless the Evidence you bring to prove it, be answerable, you will manifest your self to proceed upon a new Christian (in truth, an old Un­christian) Principle; but, which suits it seems with your humour, and is requisite to your Cause, Calumniare fortiter— I need not tell you whose it was.

9. To stop your mouth therefore once for all con­cerning Haeresis Blacloana, know that that Book, tho' [Page 20] Printed in a Catholick Country, could not be licenc't; but came out surreptitiously, without any Printers name at it, or any other then a fictitious name of the Au­thor. Know that it was sent to Rome, and was com­par'd there with the Doctrin of Tradition which it impugn'd. And yet it was not found that this Do­ctrine either overthrew the Churches Authority in mat­ters of Faith, nor that there was any Pelagianism in it: Otherwise those Books which were accus'd of it, and defended Tradition to the height, had not escap't their Censure. This shews how shallow this Excepti­on of yours is, and to what mean shifts you are reduc't, since you can quote a squabbling Book of one Roman-Catholick against another about Tradition, in stead of answering the Argument for it. An ill-natur'd man might (you know very well) name Authors of another Com­munion, not too well thought and spoken of by Eminent Persons of their own side, and written 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. p. 13. 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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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? [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] upon Human Authority, this Matter of Fact, viz. That Christ taught it. Yet my self in P. 154. 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! 'Tis 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 [Page 25] 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. [Page 26] 'Tis 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 'tis thus Certain, 'tis a Riddle to us, how can you either hold or say 'tis 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 'tis 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. Error Non-plust, P. 121. 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 [Page 27] 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, 'tis as hardly Conceiveable you should never have read it, as 'tis 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 'tis, 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 'tis 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, is (in a manner) made up of such study'd Insinceri­ties.

14 You give us another Instance of this Indisposi­tion [Page 28] of your Will, p. 13. where you tell us Mr. M. says, that the first thing which was propos'd, and indeed the one­ly subject Mr. G. had any purpose to discourse on was, whe­ther Protestants had a Ground of Absolute Certainty for their Faith or not? This you do not deny; but turn it off to a quite different business; and then slide from that to another, till you had wheel'd about the Questi­on from what was intended to the Point you thought best serv'd your turn to shuffle in. Here (say you) the Faith spoken of is that Faith whereby we are Christians. Ibid. How? Are Protestants and Christians then Convertible Terms or Synonyma's? Are there not many sorts of Christians which are not Protestants? And is it not plain, and not contradicted by your self, that it was demanded, whether (your) Protestants had a Ground of Absolute Certainty for their (that is Protestant) Faith? Does not the word [their] signify theirs as distinct from all other sorts of Christians? And is it come now to signi­fy theirs simply as Christians, or as conjoyn'd with all the rest? This is too open dodging to pass upon the Rea­der. 'Tis granted, you hold many of the same Chri­stian Points which Catholicks do; but 'tis deny'd, you can as you are Protestants (I mean still such Protestants as are of your Principles) hold them to be Absolutely Certain, or hold them upon such Grounds as are able to support that Firm and Unalterable Assent, call'd Faith: The Grounds proper to your Protestants being (as was shewn in my Former Letter, Sect. 24.) to hold them upon the Letter interpreted by your selves. Of which Letter, by virtue of your Principles, you can have no Absolute Certainty (as shall be shewn hereafter;) and of that Letter Interpreted by your private Iudgments, much less. In a word, either you speak of Points held by Protestants,p. 14. which you pretend to be all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles; and [Page 29] then you are distinguisht not onely from those Christi­ans call'd Catholicks, but from Socinians, Lutherans, and (to omit others) Calvinists too, if you be one of those that hold Episcopacy to be of Divine Right: Or else you mean the Assent, given to those Points of Pro­testant Faith, on their pretended Rule; and then, you must shew your Assent is more Absolutely Certain than that of the three last, and divers others who Dissent from you in their Tenets, and yet go upon the Same Rule; and make it out to us, that, tho' it be both theirs and yours, yet still' tis yours in particular, or peculiar­ly yours, as you are such Protestants.

15. Your next Prevarication is much worse. After you had shov'd Protestant Faith into Christian Faith, you throw it a Barr and a half further off by virtue of an Id est. Absolute Certainty of the Christian Faith: i. e. (say you) of the Grounds on which we believe the Scripture to contain the Word of God, or all things necessa­ry to be believ'd by us in order to salvation. This Id est, like Pacolets wooden Horse, has a Charm to transfer us from one Pole to the other in an instant. By virtue of its all-powerful Magick, Christian Faith is made to be the same with the Grounds on which we believe the Scrip­ture to contain the Word of God; so that, according to you, Faith is the same with your Grounds for Scrip­ture's being your Ground; that is, Faith is made the same with the Grounds for your Ground of Faith. What a medley of Sense is this, and how many folds have we here involving one another! Christian Faith is Divine, these Grounds and the Faith built on them is Human, being the Testimony of Men: Are these two the same Notion? Had I a mind to be Quarrelsome, how easily, how justly too, might I retort your former Calumny against Tradition; and object that this way of yours [Page 30] resolves all into meer Human Faith, meer Natural Rea­son, that it makes God's Grace and Assistance of the Holy Ghost unnecessary to Faith; and then ask, Is this the Faith Christians are to be sav'd by? And reckon up twenty other absurdities springing from this ill-grounded Position. But I am now to trace your transferring Faculty. In your First Letter p. 7. you speak onely of Absolute Cer­tainty as to the Rule of your Faith, viz. the Scripture; but here the case is alter'd;Dr. St. Second Letter, p. 14. and Certainty of Scripture is turn'd into Certainty of the Grounds on which we be­lieve the Scripture to contain the Word of God. These slippery doings, and not any Reasons you bring, make you Inconfutable; for, we must set upon the Proteus in all his shapes ere we can bind him. The Question is not, whether Scripture Contains the Word of God, that is, his Sense, or our Faith, but (which we cannot mind you of too often, for all will be too little to make you take notice of it) how the Sense contain'd there can be got out thence, or be signify'd to us with Absolute Certainty, even in the very highest Points of Christian Faith, and what Grounds you have to bring about this Effect: For, you can profess no Absolute Certainty of any one point, till you have made it out with Absolute Certainty, that the Sense, you pretend contain'd in Scripture is it's genuin Meaning. This is your true task, if you would prove the Ab­solute Certainty of your Protestant Faith, or your Faith as depending on your Principles. But of this we hear not a syllable.

16. And I beseech you, to what end is it to tell us you are speaking of your Rule or Ground of Faith, if it carry you not thorow to any one particular; no, not those Points which are most Fundamental, and so most necessary for the Salvation of Mankind? Since, [Page 31] notwithstanding you have your Rule, you are still as far to seek as before in all a Rule should be good for? Remember, the Question and Mr. T's expectation was about the Absolute Certainty of Protestant Faith, by ver­tue of your Rule or Ground; and, therefore, if your Rule does not reach to Absolute Certainty of the main Points of Faith at least, you are still at a loss both for your Faith, and for a Ground of your Faith. Yet this, conscious of it's failure, you seem unwilling to stand to, by still sliding silently over it, or slipping by it when it lies just in your way. For, You tell us, pag. 20. that your Faith rests on the Word of God as its Absolute Ground of Certainty. Which by the way is another little shuffle; for you should have said absolutely-Cer­tain Ground, not Absolute Ground of Certainty. But let that pass, and let the horse-mill go for the mill-horse. You proceed. But the particular▪ Ibid. Certainty as to this or that Doctrine, depends on the Evidence that it is con­tain'd in Scripture. You ought to have said, if you would make your Faith so Certain as you pretended [We are absolutely Certain such and such particular Points are contain'd there] otherwise your General Ground comes not up to the Question, nor does your Faith any service at all, since it leaves it still Vncertain; of which more hereafter. Especially, since you preten­ded, or rather declar'd openly, p. 14. that you now held all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles: Which Profession reaches to all the Points of Faith, and not onely to your Ground of Faith. I must confess you render'd that Profession insignificant, and cancell'd the obligation as soon as you had made it, in the Explication of those words immediately follow­ing; which makes those hearty expressions [Absolutely Certain of all the same Doctrin] amount to no more, [Page 32] but that you resolve your Faith into Scripture. We must, I see, deal with you as those who have a pre­tence in Court do with Great Courtiers; who lose their repute with them as ill-bred, and unmannerly, if they will needs take them at their word, and do not distinguish between what's spoken and what's meant. Your Answer was very honest and direct [We are abso­lutely Certain we now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles. The Comment is this, [I fram'd my Answer on purpose to shew that our Faith is not to be resolv'd into what Christ taught, any otherwise than as it is convey'd to us by the Writings of the Apostles & Evangelists.] Whereas, if there be so much as one word of [Writing or Evangelists] even hinted in your An­swer it self (unless the Word Taught meant Writ, which cannot be because we never read that Christ writ a­ny Books) or the least Semblance of reason, for ma­king this Skewing Explication, but to shuffle off your too large Concession, I will confess my self too shallow to fathom the profound depth of your inscrutable sense. Resolve then your Faith, in God's Name, into what you will, so you but shew us an Absolutely Certain Connexion, between the Points resolved, and the Rule into which you profess to resolve it: Otherwise 'tis no Resolution of Faith, if the continued Chain of Mo­tives winding it up to the First Truth, or God's infinite ve­racity, hangs slack. Such Incoherence serves not for Faith, which must be indissolubly connected to the Formal Motive of all our Faith; else the Resolution of it may be shatter'd, and broke to pieces by the way, ere we come there. Which if it may, then the Resolution is no Re­solution, for that speaks Connexion of the Motives; and, Faith thus resolv'd may perhaps all be False, and so is no Faith. 'Tis your work then to shew in parti­cular, [Page 33] when you come to it, and at present in general, that your Rule gives you Absolute Certainty of the Points of Faith, more than it does the Socinian, who have the same Rule, and profess to follow it as much as you do for your heart, and yet erre enor­mously. Nay, in effect they take the same Method too to interpret Scripture which you do; for, tho' you give good words to the consent of former ages, yet your Grounds do not allow it Absolute Certainty in bringing down Doctrin or interpreting Scripture; and less than such a Certainty, and in such things, signifies no­thing in our case. And 'tis either by your Rule and Method, you can arrive thus certainly at the Sense of Scripture, or by nothing. If you could once with Ab­solute Certainty convince the Socinians of Obstinacy against a Clear Truth by your Rule, or Method, or both together; I mean, if you could make it clear to them that your Rule of Faith, cannot possibly bear any other Sense, so that the indifferent part of the world judg'd them wilful adherers to a false Interpre­tation, or that you could silence them, and put them to open shame for adhering to it, you would do som­thing▪ Otherwise, your starting aside still from the Absolute Certainty of the Points, even tho' p. 14. you pretended to be Absolutely Certain you hold them All, and talking to us of nothing but a General Ground, is meer shuffling; and shews plainly you meant not re­ally in that Answer of yours to Mr. G's first Question, where you spoke of all the Doctrin; which includes e­very Particular Point; so that by All it seems you meant None. 'Tis very paradoxical to see you distin­guish here (p. 14) between the Doctrin taught by Christ, and that which was taught by the Apostles. The reason why you do it, is to insinuate into our [Page 34] Readers that we derive the source of our Tradition from Christ's Teaching orally (as the Iews affirm of Moses delivering an unwritten Law) else to what pur­pose this Distinction? The Tradition we lay claim to has no such obscure Original; it takes it's [...]ife from the whole Body of Primitive Christians in the Apostles days, dispers't in Great multitudes over the World, and settled in the Knowledge of his Faith by means of their Preaching. So that Tradition starts into motion from a most Publick, and notorious mat­ter of Fact, viz. That the Apostles taught the First Christians such a Faith. To what imaginable pur­pose then was this frivolous distinction brought in? You knew this was our Tenet; and we knew well your Rule was Scripture. What needed then this shuf­fling Paraphrase? By Tradition, you know we mean a Testimony for Doctrin receiv'd. If the source be weak, or that the Body of the Witnessers of it's Delivery at first, and successively afterwards, was smal, the Tra­dition is, consequently, weak in proportion; if Great, it was stronger still, according as the multitude of the Attesters was more numerous, and their Credibleness more unexceptionable. Well, but admit your Faith be not resolv'd into what Christ taught by his own mouth, but what the Apostles taught us from him, why must you necessarily resolve your Faith into their Writings only? Did the Apostles when they went to convert the world go with Books in their hands, or Words in their Mouths? Or were those Words a jot less Sacred when it came from their Mouths, than when they put them in a Book? Or, lastly, does any Command from Christ appear to write the Book of Scripture, or any Revelation before hand that it was to be a Rule of Faith to the future Church? No such matter: and the Acci­dental [Page 35] occasions of it's writing at first, and it's Accep­tation afterwards, bar any such Pretences? On the other side, their Grand Commission was not Scribite, but only Predicate Evangelium. Yet, you can slubber this over without taking notice of it, and carry it as if the Apostles Teaching mean't Writing only, and that they taught the World no more than they writ. Sure you do not mean the Apostles took Texts out of their own Books, and preacht Sermons upon then as you do now. Why must it be quite forgotten then, and bu­ried in silence, that they taught any thing by word of mouth or preacht the Gospel publickly? Allow that to be equally Sacred as what is writ, and to be embrac't if well attested, and blame the Attestation, and Tra­dition as it may be found to deserve; but still, when you would put your own Tenet as distinguish't from ours, be so kind as to put ours too; and do not stand talk­ing to us, and fooling your Readers, with the Rab­bies pretended Tradition from Moses his mouth: no more like ours than an Apple is like an Oyster. A­gain, this Resolution of your Faith gives every one Absolute Certainty of his Faith, who believes he has Ab­solute Certainty of Scripture's letter, and that it contains the Word of God. And yet Experience tells us that whole Bodys of Learned men believe all this, and yet differ (that is, one side errs) in the highest Mysteries of Christian Faith. Whence follows, that both sides, by this Doctrin, are Absolutely Certain of their Faith; one side (for example) is Absolutely Certain there is a Tri­nity, and that Christ is God; the other, thatthere is no Trinity, and that Christ is not God. This seems but a very odd account of the Certainty of Protestant Faith.

17. But you refine upon your self, in your Answer [Page 36] to the 3d Question. p. 15. It was ask't there [By what Certain Rule do you know that the New Testament which we now have, does contain all the Divine Revelations of Christ, and his Apostles? This Question evidently aims at two things: viz. First whether some Books writ by the Apostles were not lost; (as appears by those words which we now have:) For if they were, then, be­ing penn'd by men divinely inspir'd, they must neces­sarily contain some Divine Revelations in them too, as well as did the other; and then how does it appear there were not more or other Revelations, contain'd in them than were contain'd in the books now extant? The other is, that you know well very many hold that diverse Divine Revelations were deliver'd down by Tradition, and not all by Writing. Let's see now how your Answer sutes with this Question. By the Vniversal Testimony (say you) of the Christian Church from the Apostles times downwards. This Reply, if per­tinent to that Question, must mean that this Vniver­sal Testimony ascertains us, that the Scriptures we have now, contains all the Divine Revelations. But, when you come to explain your self, it comes to no more but that, The Testimony of the Apostolical, and the succeed­ing Churches did by degrees make men fix upon the Cer­tain Canon of the New Testament. What a flight have you taken on a sudden! Where will you pitch when you light? I am sure not on the place where you took wing, and where you ought to have stay'd. For, What is their Testimony for the Books we now have, to the Books which have or may have prerish't and to their containing some other Divine Revelations? Or, what is the fixing upon the Certain Canon of the Books to the difficulty, whether some Divine Revelations did not descend by Tradition without Writing? Do the A­postolical [Page 37] or succeeding Churches testify either of these? Or, do you so much as pretend they do? Not a syllable of this do you say or take notice of▪ and, so, not a syllable have you Answer'd to his Question. Which was not about the Canon of Scripture, or how you would resolve your Faith, with which you keep such a pother over and over; but, whether the New Testament we have now, contain'd all the Divine Reve­lations? If you explicate Scripture no better for your Faith, than you do your own words here, you will questi­onless make a very extraordinary piece of work of it. Your Answers come now and then pretty home, the smartness of the Questions obliging you to it; but, your Explications of them immediately after, seem pur­posely fram'd that we should not take you at your Word in your Answers.

18. That Answer then prevaricating from the whole Question, Mr. G. endeavour'd to press for a pertinent return to what was demanded; and therefore puts his fourth Question thus. Was that Vniversal Testimony an Infallible Rule to assure us certainly down to our time, p. 17. that the New Testament contain'd all the Divine Revelations of Christ and his Apostles? Your Answer was. The Vni­versal Testimony of the Christian Church concerning the Book of Scripture and the Doctrin contain'd therein, is a sufficient Ground to make us certain of all matters necessary to our Salvation.

19. Here are many things worth our Admiration. In the First Letter p. 7. this Universal Testimony was onely to ascertain the Scripture. In the Answer to the Third Question here, 'tis onely to assure us that the New Testament contains all the Divine Revelations: But, here it is to certify us of the Doctrine too contain'd in it: which, if you mean as your Words seem to sound, [Page 38] is all we require in our Tradition-Rule. There may be some other subtle meaning lying yet coucht in those Words, which Time may discover; tho' we cannot yet, till he that made the Lock bring the Key. Again, 'tis ask't if it be an Infallible Rule? Tis answered, Tis a sufficient Ground. Tis ask't, whether this Testimony assures us certainly the New Testament contains all the Divine Revelations? Tis answer'd, it makes us cer­tain of all Matters necessary to our Salvation: which is clearly intended for a diminishing expression, and ar­gues some fear of undertaking for All the Divine Reve­lations being contain'd there, or All the Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles, as was pretended p. 14. One would verily imagin by this unsutable An­swer, that Dr. St. and Mr. G. were playing at Cross-pur­poses, the Answer is so wide from the Question, at least that there is some indirect design lies lurking; it being so opposite to the wayes of honest Nature. When one asks a positive Question, all Mankind expects a Po­sitive Answer to the very words as they ly, I, or No: Or, if the words be ambiguous, 'tis the duty of the An­swerer to desire to be satisfied of the meaning of the Asker, if present, ere he answers; without which, in that case, 'tis impossible to reply pertinently. But, it is not your temper nor interest to use such clear and open candour. For, you saw that great multitudes had the Letter thus secur'd to them, yet had not Absolute Cer­tainty that all the Divine Revelations are contain'd in it; therefore by adding [and the Doctrin contain'd therein] you had some faint hopes you might be safe. Again, you saw well, that, should you grant Universal Testi­mony to be an Infallible Rule, you would hazard to grant too much to Tradition, and all the learned Jests you have broke upon us for asserting Infallibility would [Page 39] fly back upon your self: therefore grant it you durst not. Nor, yet durst you deny it to be an Infallible Rule; for then (since one of the two it must forcibly be) you must affirm it to be a Fallible Rule: And then the com­mon sence of all Mankind (Mr. T. amongst the rest) would be justly scandaliz'd at the non sense: For an in­tellectual Ground that may perhaps let sink into Falsity, and overturn what's Built on it, deserves not the name of a Ground; and a Rule which may perhaps mislead me when I follow it, is in reality no Rule: Besides, should you declare 'tis a Fallible Rule, Men would wonder with what sense you could pretend that a Fallible Testimony (nay, which you confess to be such) can make you Absolutely Certain of the thing it attests: it being the same as to profess I grant they may all be deceiv'd in what they tell me, yet I am absolutely Certain, by their very Testimony, that what they tell me is True. What could you do then in that perplexity, being neither in condi­tion to allow Infallibility, nor avow Fallibility; and standing gor'd with both the Horns of the Dilemma or Contradiction? Why, you were forc't to call in your constant and dear Friend [sufficient Certainty] to help you out at a dead plunge. For, this is able to do more than Miracle; this can divide an Indivisible, and put a middle betwixt two Contradictories; by shew­ing the World a Certainty, that is neither Infallible nor Fallible, but between both, or mixt of both; we may imagin, half the one, half the other. Lastly, fearing that you would be driven at length (as you must) to bring your Rule home to particular Points, and knowing t [...]e Socinians, and other late-sprung Heretical Congre­gations (whom you ought to acknowledge Christian Churches, since they hold stiffly to that which you maintain here is the onely Rule of Christian Faith) de­ny'd [Page 40] many of those, which you hold Divine Revelations, to be contain'd in Scripture; nay, on the contrary, hold they are excluded thence; and that the opposit [...] Te­nets are contain'd there; therefore you very prudently and warily chang'd [All the Divine Revelations] which were the words of the Question, into [all matters ne­cessary for our Salvation▪] Providing thus a security for their Souls at least, tho' you could not for their Er­rours; and a kind of Excuse for the Incertainty of your Rule, which permitted the followers of it to run astray; and withal, a Retreat for your self. In all which dex­terous Alterations, as this due commendation must be allow'd you, to have acted very wisely and politickly; so it must be absolutely deny'd you have given any Answer at all to the Question. The Words which you would obtrude upon us for an Answer, carry indeed a pretty shew, and shift it off with much cunning; but when we come to look into their sense, with an Eye directed to the Question, they squint aside to quite o­ther matters; and the whole Reply, in a manner, is made up of different Notions from what was ask't. Nor can I liken the Replies you generally make to our Ques­tions, or the Explications you make of your own An­swers, to any thing better than to that mock Exposition of the First Verse in Genesis, which Luther made for your Friend Zuinglius's Iinterpretation of Hoc est Corpus meum. Deus (God) that is a Cuckow; creavit (created) that is, devoured; Coelum & Terram (Heaven and Earth) that is a Hedge Sparrow with bones, and feathers and all.

20. You put a pretty Similitude indeed to Illustrate your own Tenet;P. 17, r 8. but in reference to our main Ques­tion, the Absolute Certainty of your kind of Protestant Faith by your Grounds, 'tis so far from running on four legs, that it is in many regards, lame on the right, [Page 41] (and indeed onely) foot it ought to stand on, and (which is worse) is perhaps against your self. You resemble the Holy Scripture to a purse full of Gold and Silver; left by a Father, and entrusted to Executours; who tell his Son, this is all his Father left him; and, if they deal truly with him, do certainly deliver all it contains. This the Primitive Church, Christ's Executours, did, by de­livering us the Scripture; and assuring us all Divine Truths, which respect Mans Salvation, were contain'd there in the Lump; among which, some were Gold Points, some Sylver Points; but, having the Purse of Scripture, we have the one as well as the other, and, consequent­ly, all matters necessary to our Salvation, these being of greatest moment. Thus stands the Similitude, for, run it cannot; and the summ of it (as far as I apprehend it) amounts to this; that, because Scripture contains all, and Protestants have Scripture, therefore, they have all. A strange kind of Discourse! As if, because they have it in a Book, therefore, they have it in their Minds or Souls, in which, and, no where else, Faith is to reside. And as if a Man, were a jot the more learned, for having purchast Aristotles Works, and reading, and not under­standing them.

21. I could except against divers particulars, presum'd on, in this Similitude; as, that you have any Absolute Certainty of your having the whole Scripture that was writ, or, that it contains all Divine Revelations; or, that you have the right Copy, to every material particle in it, that may signify Faith, that is, indeed, right Scrip­ture, &c. (or the right Purse, &c. But, I am more con­cern'd for some plausible Insinuations in this Similitude, which may hazard to corrupt the Reader's Judgment. For, however, you decline and avoid it, yet the gene­rality of Readers, whenever they hear any speech of [Page 42] the Certainty of the Grounds of their Faith, they imme­diately apprehend they are to be Certain of the parti­cular Points of their Faith by vertue of those Grounds. And, 'tis a common Errour in many, of an indifferent good Judgment, (I wish it did not sway with some who pass for great Schollars) that, when a thing easily sinks into their Apprehension, they are apt to conceit it to be a Truth. When, therefore they hear of a Purse, which is a thing very easy to open, (it being no more but pulling two strings which use to run very glib;) and, that Scripture is in many regards, here compar'd to a Purse; they are presently inclin'd to fancy, that, Scripture's sense is as easy to be come at, as 'tis to take money out of a Purse: 'Tis but plucking those easily following strings, and the deed is done. But, alas! Here lies all the difficulty. The Arians, Novatians, Socini­ans, &c. have all of them this Purse, yet are never the richer; but, for want of skill to open it, and get the Gold and Silver thence, they go away empty, or worse. Now, certainly, those high points, viz. A Trinity, Christ's Divinity; the Real Presence, &c. Should de­serve to be reckon'd amongst the Golden Ones; and, therefore, should be as most valuable, so most easily at­tainable; being of the highest import for the Church, or the Body of Christianity. Yet, 'tis granted the Socini­ans Err in the two first of those Points, for all their a­cuteness and wit. I except next against the resembling the Contents of it to Gold and Silver; which certainly enrich those who are Possessours of such a Purse: where­as, those Sects lay claim to that Purse too with equal Title, yet, coming to open it by their Interpretation, they take the Dross 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 [Page 43] 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, 'tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 44] 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 [Page 45] 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 [Page 46] 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 See above, Sect. 2. & 3. 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 had occasion to press still for satisfaction. Again, the Written Instrument or Means of putting this heaven-stampt coyn in our Souls, is an Ignoble Instrument in comparison; being in re­ality, as to it's Material part, or taken as abstracted from the Sacred Sense which is signify'd by it, nothing but Ink thus figur'd on Paper. Whereas, the material part of the other is the most Noble that can be found under Heaven it self: viz. the Church which all Christi­ans must acknowledge to be the Spouse of Christ, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, and consisting of the Living Temples of the Holy Ghost; That, for whose edificati­on [Page 47] the Scripture was writ; and, so, holds proportion with it as the Means does with the End, which is in a manner Infinit. Nay, That, for which all the Mate­rial World was created, and the Oeconomy of it still carry'd on, from the first beginning of Time to it's last Period. Lastly, That for whose sake God himself was made Man, and dy'd a most cruel Death on a Cross. So that 'tis unconceivable, that it can enter into the thoughts of any intelligent man who believes this to be the due Character of the Church, there should be any com­petition betwixt the Letter of Scripture and it; or that it can possibly be doubted to which of them (all things consider'd) we ought to attribute most in looking after Faith. But, to return to your similitude. The sum of it is this: That the Gold and Silver you speak of, being the Doctrin of Faith; not the Scripture, but the Heads, and Hearts of the Faithful, (that is, of the Church) does really and indeed contain it; and, consequently, this onely can with any propriety be compar'd to a Purse. That, both Tradition and Scripture are to be liken'd to the several Ways of putting the Heavenly Treasure of Faith, into this Purse, or Faith into the Souls of the Faithful. Lastly, that taking them as con­taining them, as signes do the things signify'd, it is not their containing this Treasure does us any good, but the delivering it out to us; no more than a man is better for having a Trunk full of Money so circumstanc't that he could never come at it: and, that, between these two ways of coming at this Treasure, or their delivering it out to us there is no comparison, whether we regard the Intelligibleness, or Providential Establishment of those respective Instruments in order to such an End. So that your similitude, how prettily soever it look't at first, hath one misfortune very common to such fine useless [Page 48] toys, that is, to be good for nothing; for it neither comes up to the Question, nor sutes with your own Tenet.

24. But ere we part from this Point, it were not amiss to examin a little that cautious expression of yours [all things necessary for salvation] into which you change that bold assertion that you are absolutely cer­tain you now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles. I ask you then, what do you mean by those words [necessary for Sal­vation] which mince the matter so warily? Do you think Christ taught any unnecessary Points, or did a need­less action! Sure you will not say it. And yet my self will grant too, and agree with you that fewer Means than the Knowledge of all Christ taught, may suffice for the Salvation of some particular persons. What follows then, but, that, since they are all necessary for some body, and yet not all necessary for every particu­lar person, more of them are necessary for one man than for another, and all of them necessary for the body of the Church: whose Pastours are to instruct their Chil­dren in them, and apply the Efficacy of them to their Souls, as their capacities admit, and exigencies require. For, tho' some few may be saved without the knowledge of such & such Points, (slender Motives being enough for their circumstances,) yet multitudes of others may re­quire incomparably more effectual Means, to buoy them up from the World, and raise them to heaven; and so, they would certainly miscarry for want of them. Particu­larly, the points now mention'd, are of such a high and general Influence, that, without these, the Devo­tion of a very great portion of the Church, would be enfeebled, many of the Souls that want them be lost eternally, and others be but dim Stars in the Glorious Firmament of Heaven, in comparison of what they [Page 49] might have been, had their Minds been cultivated with such elevating considerations. And, can the Church, which God has entrusted with those Souls, think that 'tis agreeable to his Will, his Flock should ei­ther dy, or fall short of the full growth they might have had in the plentiful Pastorage he had provided for them? It rests then for you, either to shew those Points not necessary for the Generality, and that your Grounds are sufficient to give men, both as able and as willing (for ought appears) to understand Scripture right as your self is, Absolute Certainty of Them (which is to confute Experience, and dispute against your own Knowledge,) or else to confess ingenuously you have no Absolute Certainty of even the highest Fundamentals, and most necessary Points for the Salvation of Mankind.

25. Thus much to shew that your Rule gives you no Absolute Certainty of all such matters as are necessary for your Salvation, with reference to the Points of Faith; to certify which, Experience assures us it does not reach. Now, should we speak of the Assent of Faith, the Short Dis­course, p. 30, 31. of my former Letter, demonstrates clearly you can have no Absolute Certainty of any one, and so cannot with reason affirm your Faith is True; since, want­ing Absolute Certainty that Christ taught it, it may be False. The same point has been prest upon you in Faith vindicated, Reason against Raillery, Errour non-plust, and diverse other Books: yet tho' it was the most important objection that is or can be imagin'd, as plucking up by the roots all your Faith, and destroying it from it's ve­ry Foundation; no return could ever yet be obtain'd, nor candid Reason produc't, but onely a put-off with sufficient Certainty, and such dow-bak't words; without being able or even endeavouring, to shew that Grounds less than Absolutely Certain can possibly be thus sufficient [Page 50] for the Nature, the Ends and Vses of Faith. But 'tis high time to return to our Disputants.

26. Against this pretended Answer of yours, you in­troduce Mr. M. suggesting several things. P. 18. First, As to difference of Translations. To which you reply. Doth Mr. M. think our Faith is to be resolv'd into the Original Texts? What he thinks, you know better than you would seem to do. He cannot but think, if he may believe you, that you resolve your Faith into the Let­ter of Scripture. He cannot but think that by these words you mean the Right Letter; for, otherwise, it would not be Scripture: Nor can he think, or you ei­ther, it can be the Right Letter, unless it have a Right Translation, and this, from a True 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 [Page 51] 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:Ibid. 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 [Page 52] 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, id (que) (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; Epist· ad Mar­tinum Dorpi­um. 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.] [Page 53] 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? Tis 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, [Page 54] and relinquish the sense of the Church, which is the true Point? Not one. 'Tis one thing to say they oft quoted Scripture against Hereticks, who had rejected the Authority of the Church, (even the Council of Trent does so;) another, to say they had no firmer Ground for their Faith, but their own private Iudgments of it's sense. Tis one thing to give it high Commendations for it's Excellency, Divine Doctrin, Usefulness and Suffici­ency for the Ends for which it was Ordained by God: 'Tis another, to say that, in those places which relate to Spiritual Points and high Mysteries of our Faith, it is so clear, that, private Fancies can with Absolute Cer­tainty fix upon it's true sense, and, on that, Ground their Faith. Tis one thing to say sometimes, 'tis Plain and Evident, when they are Arguing against Hereticks: this is a thing not unusual even among us, when we are disputing, and have an opinion that what we alledge is manifest; and those Fathers or Councils which insisted on it, had good reason to have that opinion of what they alledg'd, having the Doctrin of Faith, (Scrip­ture's best Interpreter▪) in their hearts: Besides, when there is full assurance of it's sense, who doubts but it is of a vast Authority too; being in that case the same as if the Apostle or Christ himself were there, and spoke his Mind in the Point under debate. Whence they confu­ted Hereticks with defining from Scripture; upon the assurance that they had the true sense of it another Way, than the Heretick had by his private Interpretations. But, 'tis another thing to say, that, as manag'd by Pri­vate Judgments, working on the bare Letter, or relying on Fallible Interpreters, it is so unavoidably convictive, beyond all possibility of giving it another plausible sense, that all Mankind must think him a Renouncer of the clear Light of Reason, or stark blind with Passion [Page 55] and Interest, and abhorr him as such, who shall inter­pret it after another manner. And such the Rule of Faith must be, otherwise, none could with Conscience think or say any Heretick is obstinate, nor any man (no not the Church it self) condemn him, much less abhorr him for being, such, as was ever her Custome. All the for­mer Perfections we as heartily, fully, and constantly ascribe to Scripture as any Protestant in the world: nay, we say moreover, that this want of Clearness which un­qualifies it for being a Rule, springs from a very high perfection in it; viz. It's deep Sense; onely this one, of giving every particular man, who by his private Judg­ment Interprets it, such assurance of its sense as is com­petent to Ground his Faith on, we cannot grant; this be­ing no less contrary to common Reason, than 'tis even to Experience also. To return then to your Objection. You see Sect. 10. that the Antient Fathers were not such Strangers to this Method of Tradition we follow and explicate. And, you might have observ'd many others both nam'd and cited, Surefooting p. 131. to 137. What matters it that they did not express That our Te­net, or Dilate upon it in such Terms as we do now; so they taught others to hold to what was deliver'd, and not to rely on their own private Interpretations of Scripture against the present Churches Doctrin? Since in doing this, they held the substance of that which we have since more diffusely explain'd, and reduc't our Discourses to more Methodical and Formal Resolutions of Faith, which were not so much in fashion in former Ages. Be­sides, you are not to be told we both have & could alledge Fathers enow for our Tenet, and the Obligation to hold to the Doctrin deliver'd from Fathers, that is to Tra­dition; and how smartly and unanswerably they prest it against Hereticks, as a certain Determiner of the Con­troversies [Page 56] between the Catholicks and Them. On the other side, how often they complain'd of the Vncertain­ty of the Scripture interpreted by private Men, as Grounding all Heresies; by reason of the mysterious Obscurity of the Letter, and its liableness to be misin­terpreted and misunderstood? Whereas, it was never heard that the Rule of Tradition taken in the sense, in which we hold it (viz. for a Delivery of a Practical Doctrin, publickly preach't to great multitudes at first, practised by them, and held, and recommended as Divine, and the way to Salvation) did ever give rise to any Heresy, and impossible it should. Which one Re­flexion to a Considerate Man, is sufficient to con­clude the whole present Controversy about the Rule of Faith.

30. From the Qualities requisit to make Scripture's Letter a Rule of your Faith, we come to consider the Quantity it ought to have, or the Number of Books; which you tell us p. 19. Mr. M. suggested. In order to which, I have onely two things to ask you. 1. Whe­ther, as I said formerly, you have any unanimous Consent of the Christian Church, that there was never a Book lost that was writ by some who were Divinely inspir'd; and, consequently, did contain some Divine Revelati­ons? Or, if you cannot prove but there was, how do you know but those Divine Revelations, which that Book or Books contain'd, were not different from, or to be superadded to those, contain'd in the Canon we have now? If you cannot prove these two Points, then 'tis manifest you cannot prove with Absolute Certainty, that the Books Wee have now, contain'd all the Divine Revelations. 2. You insist onely on this Universal Te­stimony for the Canonical Books of the New Testament; but, I would know whether this Testimony reaches to [Page 57] each Chapter and every Verse of those Chapters, nay, each material Word in those Verses? If it does not, as you neither say, nor with any Reason can say (for 'tis hard to prove the former, & impossible to prove the la­ter but by our Rule) then you are as far from your Faith as ever; unless you bring some other Testimony that is Absolutely Certain, to assure you that such and such a Verse, which you would quote and rely on for such and such a Point of Faith, nay, the main and most sig­nificant Word in that Verse is true Scripture: which, I am sure you cannot: For, what Testimony else can be invented to do this, if the other, which was of the whole Christian Church, cannot reach it? Is there any possible way to ascertain this, but by our Doctrin-Rule? Upon this occasion, pray inform me with what reason you could reflect so severely pag. 15. on the Church of Rome; for not receiving the Epistle to the Hebrews in St. Hierom's Time, assoon as other Churches; and, not on the Greek Churches, (which you use to prefer before the Latin) who, in the same Father's time, refus'd to admit the Apocalypse? The accepting or not accepting such Books, even according to your own Doctrin, de­pended on their being satisfied of the Evidence produced for their Apostolical Authority; and so was an Act of Prudence, antecedent to the Judgment or Determination of any Church, whether Greek or Latin. But, so un­reasonable is your pique against the Church of Rome, that she cannot act prudently without forfeiting her In­fallibility. Tho', another man would have acknow­ledg'd, it was rather a very commendable cautiousness in the Latin & Greek Church too, not to admit into such a sacred Roll, Books that were not yet clearly prov'd to be authentickly such; than a blameable Lapse, or so hainous a Crime, that for committing it, she must needs [Page 58] lose all her Title to Christ's promis'd Assistance.

31. This gives me occasion to ask you what becomes of Your Rule, and, consequently, of Your Faith all that while? If the Letter of the Canonical Books, that is, of the whole Canon of the New Testament be your Rule, and those Books were part of this Canon, they must necessa­rily be part of your Rule too; whence it follows that your Rule was not Intire, but deficient for some hun­dreds of years, till the whole Canon was Collected and Acknowledg'd. I see you do but complement with the Primitive Church of the first 300 years; and, that you onely cry it up to avoid the unkindness, which the suc­ceeding Ages shew to your Cause; for, by your Doct­rine, you cannot but hold that the Ages which follow'd it, are to be prefer'd: Since These had your intire Rule, the Others wanted some parts of it; and sometimes held but three parts of it, half of it, or less, (and so, by your Principles, were but three quarters or half Christians) according as the several pieces came by degrees to be acknowledg'd, and universally accepted. I doubt Mr. M's Discourse about the Number of Books, more per­plexes you, than your are willing to make shew of. For, pray, how many of these Books go to make up your Rule of Faith? If any one, or some few, then you should not have stood upon the Canon we have now; that is, all the Apostolical Books, or Scripture in general. If all the Canonical Writings be your Rule, then perhaps the Primitive Christians had but half their Faith, or less; it may be none at all, because, wanting yet those other Books, they wanted necessary places to compare those Texts with they already had; which is a great part of your Method to find out your Faith in Scripture. Pray, satisfy us about this exact Number of Books, and how many will just serve the turn; and, make some­thing [Page 59] cohere; for, I cannot for my heart as yet find any thing that does. You talk to us of a Purse, and say it must be full; but, when we come to look at it more narrowly, it appears to have been for some time but half a Purse, and wanted one side of it, at least had a great Hole in it: so that you put us into an apprehension, that many of the Gold and Silver Points might have dropt out of it in the time of the Primitive Church; by which Church notwithstanding, and no other, in our disputes about Faith, you seem heartily willing to be judg'd. But,p. 31. let us examin a little the Consent of all (your) Christian Churches for Scripture, you make such brags of.Dr. St's first Letter. p. 7. In the first place marches and leads the Van, your Christian Church of the Noble Arch-Heretick Marciou; who blot­ted out of the Canon the Epistle to the Epiphan. haer. 24. n. 9. Hebrews, that to Titus, and both those to Timothy; who admitted one­ly St. Luke's Gospel to be Divine, and Iren. lib. 3. rejected all the Epistles of St. Paul, as an Apostate from the Law. In the next rank, go abreast those three Famous Christian Chur­ches of Ebion, Valentinus, and Cerinthus: Of which Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. the First admitted onely St. Matthews Gospel; the Iren. lib. 2. cap. 26. second, onely St. Iohn's; and the third, onely St. Mark's. After them, come others, mentioned by St. Hierom and Epiphanius, who in a manner brought all into doubt;Hier. ad Paul at Eustoch. in Proem. Ep. ad Philom. Epip. haer. 76. especially if Faith depended in those days on the comparing of places; for, they held that diverse things both in the Old Testament and the New, were not inspir'd by GOD, but writ by a Human spirit. I need not acquaint you, that Luther, Brentius & Chemnitius, did revive the old Doubts about the Epistle to the He­brews and the Apocalypse, of later dayes. Nor need it be recounted how many Orthodox Christian Churches did not accept diverse Books formerly. And, tho' after­wards, as you say well, they came by degrees to fix on [Page 60] the Certain Canon of the New Testament, yet I am apt to judge that this was not perform'd by Immediate Testi­mony: P. 15. For, the Witnesses were long ago dead, and their Grand-Fathers too, who could attest that such a Book was indeed, to their knowledge, written by such an Apo­stle or Evangelist. It descended then by Oral Tradition in those respective Churches. Whence, as that Tra­dition was not so Practical, so it was restrain'd to some few in each Church, and was withal, very narrow at first in comparison of our Tradition for Christ's Doctrin; which was, in a manner, universally and publickly preach't and practis'd. Now the strength of a Tradi­tion, and the largeness of it are to be taken from the largeness of the first Attestation; and all that after-Ages can do, when they attest such things, is to wit­ness that they received it from some others; but so, that the Tradition was still narrower as it came nearer the fountain; which very much weakens it. By what other Lights the Church guided her self in her accep­ting such and such Books for Canonical Scripture, be­longs to another place. Your Tradition then was not Universal for Scripture in the first 300 years, and its O­riginal Attestation was weak in comparison of that which was for Doctrin.

P. 20.32. I have little to say to your Explicit or Implicit Points contain'd in Scripture: For, I see they are both equally to no purpose, while but contain'd there, till you bring us a Rule to interpret the Letter with Absolute Certainty. If any ought to be explicitely there, none can have so good a Title to it as those high and most Funda­mental Articles spoken of so often; yet we see there are no places producible for them, but may have other senses given them; and bear (as experience shews us) not yet ended, and, for ought we know, endless Dis­putes [Page 61] among your sober Enquirers attending to your Rule. Onely I a little wonder you should say 'tis sufficient for your purpose, that all Doctrin of Faith necessary to Salva­tion are contain'd in (the Letter of) Scripture, either expli­citly or implicitly. If they be necessary to Salvation, they must be necessary to be believ'd or known to be there; for they must save men by believing them, and acting ac­cording to that Belief, or no way; and, if they be onely implicitly there, they are as yet unknown, or not believ'd: So that, according to you, that is a Point necessary to Sal­vation, which does not at all conduce to it. But, I wonder more at the happiness of your Sober Enquirer to whom, you affirm and stand to it stoutly,Ibid. those Im­plicit Points will become Explicit without the help of the Church; and yet you call it assuming, Ibid. in the Church of Rome, to do the same, or declare the Sense of such Articles. Certainly, this Sober Enquirer is your special Darling, and Favourit. He, tho' a private person, can discover those Explicit Points; and I suppose may declare them too, to as many as he pleases; for how can he in Chari­ty do less? But alas! The silly insignificant Church, can do nothing at all; she must submit to the wondrous Gifts, you have bestow'd upon the Rabble, and her Go­vernors and Pastors be accounted Tyrants if they shall dare to encroach upon their high Prerogatives, or pre­sume to share in their Priviledges of being able to un­fold or know the Explicit Meaning of Scripture-Texts: For, in case they can know this, and this Knowledge be good for the Faithful (as it is, being as you say necessary to Salvation) 'tis without question they may declare them, or make them known to others: nay, and use their Authority too (if you will vouchsafe to allow them a­ny) to edify the Faithful by making this Knowledge sink into them. Nor can it prejudice their Reason, that [Page 62] the Church obliges them to believe them; for this is no more than obliging them to act according to Reason; which tells them that, since they must either trust them­selves or their Pastours in such things, and the Pastours must be incomparably better qualify'd than themselves are, for the discovering of such mysterious Truths, and withall appointed by God to teach them; 'tis far more Rational to submit to their Judgments in such things, than to use their own. But, indeed, you have reason to stand up for your Sober Enquirer; for all Ring-leaders of a­ny Heresy, or Faction against the Church, took this very Method in their proceedings. The Spirit of Pride, which possest them, principled them with these Rati­onal and Peaceable Maxims, that they had Authority to judge their Judges, teach their Teachers, direct their Guides, and that their own Wit excell'd that of all the World before them. But, when a Faction was form'd into a good lusty Body, the Scripture-Rule was laid a­side again; so that 'tis doubtful whether we have had e­ver a Sober Enquirer since, as was shewn in my First Letter Sect. 25.

33. You desire to see this Power of the Church in Scripture in Express Terms; and we tell you we need not let you see it in Scripture at all: for Tradition, & even Common Sense, tells us, that the Church has Power to feed, and instruct her Flock; and enlighten them in what she knows, and they are ignorant of. If you demand how the Roman Church came by this knowledge of making Implicit Points Explicit? I an­swer, by Tradition, giving her the Sense of Christ's whole Law, and each Intire point of it; and by the Light of Nature purify'd by supernatural knowledges antecedently; as also by her Application, when occasion required, to reflect upon, and penetrate deeply into that [Page 63] Sense; which enables her to explicate her own thoughts (or the Points of Faith) more clearly now; which she had indeed before, but did not so distinctly look into them, or set her self to explain them. But pray, what express Scripture has your Sober Enquirer for his Power to make the Implicit Points Explicit? You reckon up diverse agreeablenesses p. 21. why this should be; but not one word of express Scripture do you pretend to for it. And if himself pretend to any such Power, besides that it will look a little odd that God should take more care of private men than of his Church, let him either shew us he has better means Natural or Supernatural to do this, than the Church has, or he discovers his Pride and Folly both to pretend to it. You say p. 21. that the Church of Rome has no where declar'd in Council it has a­ny such Power; viz. to declare explicitly Points imply'd in Scripture. But, First, you may please to know It has made such a declaration Sect. 4. where it defines that it belongs to the Church, judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum, to judge of the true sense, and Interpretation of Scripture; Next, It, accordingly, proceeds upon this Power, as I shall manifest by three several Instances. One Sess. 13. cap. 4. where it ex­plains those Texts, Luc. 22. Io. 6. and 2 Cor. 11. to be meant of being truly Christ's Body; and declares thence that the Church was ever perswaded of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation. Another, Sess. 14. cap. 7. Where it declares the Text, 1 Cor. 1. Let a man examin himself, &c. to be understood by the Custome (or Practice) of the Church, of, Sacramental Confession, necessary to be us'd before receiving the Sacrament by all those who are conscious to themselves of mortal sin. The Third, Sess. 14. cap. 1. where it interprets that Text of S. Iames cap. 5. to be by Apostolical Tradition understood of [Page 64] the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction. Which places you do not judge so much as implicitly to contain that Sense, but hold that they contain another thing. How the Churches declaring explicitly Points descend­ing by Tradition, makes no new Articles of Faith, is discours't above, Sect. 4, 5, 6, 7. By which, you may see that Mr. G. and Mr. M. whom (pag. 22.) you will needs set at variance, are, notwithstand­ing, very good Friends. For, if the Church knew the the sense which is contain'd in that place, before; the Doctrin is Old, tho' the declaring it to be signifi'd by that particular Text, be perhaps New. I say perhaps; for, in some signal passages, much in use in the Churches Preaching, Catechisms and Practise; I doubt not but that, not only the particular Doctrin, but also that 'tis signifi'd by such a Text, comes down by Tradition in the Ecclesia docens. Notwithstanding the agreeableness of these two Positions, you triumph mightily here p. 23. that, Thus Mr. M. has answer'd Mr. G's Demonstration. As much as to say, I know not for my life what to say to it my self, and therefore, would gladly shift it off upon any Body, so I could handsomely rid my Hands of it. Thus, you make (for you can make any thing by your Me­thod of mistaking every thing) the Council of Trent clash with the Church of Rome (a hard Task one would think!) by pretending to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous sense of the Fathers; which you judge contradicts the making known, and obliging Men to believe that explicitly now, which they were not oblig'd to by any precedent Sense or Explication. What mean the words [Men] and [They] If they signify all men, and intend to signify that no man knew those imply'd Points before, but all might hap to contradict them, you mistake our Tenet: for, we judge it absolutely impossible that none [Page 65] of the Fathers should reflect more attentively on the full sense of the Points deliver'd, or look into their own thoughts as Faithful; and, therefore, it was much more impossible they should unanimously contradict those Points. And, unless they did so, the Council of Trent, and the Church of Rome may, by the Grace of God, very well correspond in their Doctrin for all your mistake. For the Intention of the Fathers in that Decree (Sess. 4.) was to repress the insolency of Hereticks wresting the Scripture to their own private sentiments [contrary to the Sense of the Church, or the unanimous Consent of the Fathers.] And how this is directly contrary to this pow­er of obliging to believe somthing, as in Scripture, ex­plicitly now, which was not so known before, is un­conceivable; unless you will prove that that Explicit Sense is directly contrary to the unanimous Consent of the Fathers or the Church, which you will ne­ver do. But, tis a trivial Exploit to make Mr. M. clash with Mr. G. or the Church of Rome with the Council of Trent; you can make that very Church clash with her self— Suis et ipsa Roma — and that openly and professedly too: Nay, which is most wonderful, fall out with her self about her own Prerogatives. For, you tell us p. 23. that tho' it has assum'd this Power now spoken of, yet it still disown'd it. Now to assume a Pow­er, is to challenge it; and to disown it, is to renounce it; which hang together much alter the rate of all your Discourse hitherto. This Church of Rome is a most monstrous kind of Creature: It goes backwards, and for­wards, blows and sups, declares for and against, and all at once: but we must imagin her to be such onely as she stands pourtray'd in Dr. St's Fancy.

34. Your main Stratagem to elude all this discourse, remains yet to be more fully detected, tho' it has been [Page 66] occasionally toucht at diverse times formerly. Tis this, that you are now upon the General Ground of Faith, p. 20. and not the particular Acts of it, or the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrine. And you seem to have reason for it too, because the main point in Dispute was, whe­ther Protestants could shew any Ground of Absolute Certain­ty for their Faith. p. 24. And this you think justifies you for hovering in the ayr, and onely talking of your Scripture-Rule in common, without lighting on or applying it to any one particular point contain'd in that Rule. But this will avail you nothing. For, first; Neither does our Discourse pinch upon any one particular Point, but up­on the Uncertainty of your Faith in general, or on all your Points of Faith at once as built on your Ground. So that, 'tis the pretended Ground of your Faith we are disput­ing against all the while, and not any one particular Tenet. We bring, indeed, Instances now and then of some par­ticular Articles; but, 'tis to shew that, if your Ground has not power to ascertain absolutely those most Fun­damental Points, it has power to ascertain none; and, so, is no Ground of Faith at all. Secondly, A pretended Ground cannot be known or acknowledg'd to be a real and firm Ground, till we see it grounds somthing, It's Notion plainly imports a Relation to the Superstructure; and you may as well prove a man a Father without prov­ing he has a Child, as prove any thing to be a Ground without proving such and such Points to be grounded on it; and this (in our case) with Absolute Certainty. Pray, take that along with you still, otherwise you turn your back to the Question, and run away from it in the op­en Field. Tis tedious and mortifying beyond measure to hear you still talking, and pretending you have an Absolutely Certain Ground for Faith, and yet never see [Page 67] you, so much as once, endeavouring to shew how it's Ascertaining Virtue affects the Articles you build upon it; and that this particular Sense of Scripture in each respective Point has such a close, and necessary Connexion with the Letter on which 'tis built, as to give Absolute Certainty of it to all that are competent Judges of the Sense of Words. Which the Experience of all Ages since Christ confutes, and our own Eyes Witness to be false in the Socinians and others. Thirdly, Your self confest once upon a time that you are absolutely Certain you now hold all the same Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles. Now,P. 14. this candid expression would make any honest well-meaning man verily believe that you meant you had been absolutely Certain of every particular Christian Doctrin, by vertue of your Ground or Rule. But your incomparable dexterity quite and clean over-reach't us. For, when you came to explain your self there, it amounted to no more but that your Faith was resolv'd into Scripture (that is, that you pre­tended to Scripture) which contains all, or as you told us p. 17. that you were absolutely certain you hold all, because you hold all, not in your Soul or Mind (where Points of Faith are to be held) but in a kind of Purse as it were; as one is said, when he holds a Book in his hand, to hold all that is in it: being possest of which, tho' you cannot come at it's sense (which is little better than if it were lock't up in a Trunk) you are in possession of all Christian Faith notwithstanding, and hold very firmly (in that Sense) all that was taught by Christ and his Apo­stles. Fourthly, Hence you have not perform'd what you undertook, viz. to shew that Protestants had any Absolutely Certain Ground of their Faith. For, 'tis not e­nough to point out a Book, and cry out aloud Tis your Ground, but you must shew, that 'tis indeed such a Ground. [Page 68] Now a Ground or Rule bears in it's notion Evidence to those who are to use it, and to know other things by it's Direction; Nay more, Clear Evidence: For, as all Cer­tainty must have some kind of Evidence to create it in us, so this Effect of Absolute Certainty can have no less than Clear Evidence for it's Cause. But, you may as easily prove Mankind has no Eyes to see with, as go about to shew that the Letter of Scripture is thus clear in order to the discovery of right Faith, even in the highest and most concerning Points of our Christian Belief. Fifthly, Tis pleasant to observe what a rare Re­solution of your Faith you give us p. 24. Our Faith (say you) is resolv'd into the Scripture as the Word of God, and whatever is built on the Word of God, is abso­lutely Certain. You must, indeed, having deserted the Tradition of the Church, either pretend to Scripture, or nothing; unless you will confess your selves to be pure Phanaticks or Pagans: and it looks mighty plau­sibly to say, that whatever is built on the Word of God is absolutely Certain; for 'tis a great Truth. But the on­ly Point is still, Are you absolutely-certain by your Grounds, that your Faith is indeed built on the Word of God? You say, indeed, Scripture is your Ground, you pretend to it as your Ground, perhaps you think it so too; and, 'tis not about your saying, pretending or think­ing it to be such, that we dispute with you; for we should not scruple to grant you all this without any Dispute at all: But does your saying, pretending or think­ing Prove it to be so really, and indeed? All Heresies in the world do as much as this comes to, and yet are no less Heresies than if they did none of this. Tis your Proving it to be your Ground (and that an Absolutely Cer­tain one too) which we would be at; but, we justly complain you flinch from the onely thing in Dispute [Page 69] and perpetually balk us. We tell you once more, (and we cannot repeat it too often) there is a necessary Connex­ion between the Ground and the Building; for, 'tis not a Building if it have no Ground, nor the Ground of a Build­ing if nothing be built on it. You are then to shew us Absolute Certainty of this necessary Connexion between the Scripture and your Faith, or you do nothing but talk at random. But, alas! You have not the Confi­dence to make out this, or produce your Reasons to con­elude this Ground and this Building have such a neces­sary Relation; and I must tell you plainly, you can never do it. For, pray, tell me, May not the Socinians, and indeed all Hereticks that ever arose in the Church, say, pretend, and (perhaps) think the same that you do? Nay, do not they all alledge the same? Do not they all profess to resolve theit Faith (I mean their abominable Errours) into the written Word? Do not they pretend it for their Ground, and, that they build their prophane Te­nets on it; & lastly, avow as stoutly as you do for your heart, that whatever is built on Gods Word, is absolute­ly Certain? Will you allow these Pleas Argumentative for them, or, that their wicked Errours are therefore true Faith and Absolutely Certain, because they alledge all this! And can you be so unreasonable as to expect we should pass that for a good Argument, or a conclusive Reason to prove you have Absolute Certainty for your Faith, which your self disallows, when 'tis alledg'd for them; nay, which you must disallow and declare against, unless you will patronize all their Heresies? Pray, lay your hand on your Heart, and consider (I am sure, 'tis more your own Good, than mine, you should) into what a La­mentable, or rather Chimerical Condition God's Church is reduc't by your Resolution of your Faith here, and the Account you give of it. The Pillar and Ground of [Page 70] Truth, is reduc't by you into a confused Chaos of inco­herent Errours; Christ's immaculate Spouse is associated with all the Adulterate Synagogues of Sathan; lastly, Faith as to it's Certainty is in no better a Condition than Heresy, and Heresy is upon even Ground with Faith. I have a better opinion of the Church of England, than to believe Her most learned and genuin Members, will own such a Resolution of her Faith, as will make the Socinians, and all other Hereticks in the World their fellow-Christians and Brothers; as they must be forced to do, if they own no other Resolution of it than all those pestilent Sects unanimously profess. I see Mr. G had good reason to ask you in his 5th. Question, What Churches you accounted Christian Churches? For, I much fear, by your Discourse and Principles, you exclude None: Nor ought you, so they heartily hold the same Gound of Faith with you; for then all their Vnchristian Tenets are to pass for Material Errours, not Formal He­resies: They hold all true Faith in the Purse still, tho' they mistake the coyn and mettal; and that's enough, in all conscience, for such a Church as that you are about rearing or dawbing up. You pass a complement indeed upon the four first General Councils, and that you re­ject all such Doctrins as were condemn'd by them; which use to be words of course in your Controversies; as [your humble servant] and such like, are in our common Conversation: but, when you are once got out of the circumstance of pretending to hold to some Antiquity, that so you may set a better face on it, when you oppose the Papists; when that job is over, they are but Falli­ble Congregations, and so perhaps were deceiv'd in all they defin'd against the Arians, Eutychians, &c. Especi­ally, if one of your sober Enquirers comes to fancy o­therwise; and, no doubt, there were many such even in [Page 71] those dayes. And, then comes the 21st. Article of Q. Elizabeth's Symbol, and knocks them down all at once with a Declaration that their Decrees have neither Strength nor Authority, unless it may be declar'd, that they be taken out of Holy Scripture; and so all is with a turn of ones hand brought back to the same Point again, and, farewell Councils: Your self, and any one of your sober Enquirers, are at full liberty still to judge of them by your Scripture-Rule; and the Resolution of your Faith is establish't by that Article (at least as you make use of it) to be the same with that which is made, and profest by all the vile Hereticks in the world. For, as Dr. Burnet sayes very candidly in his Answer to the Me­thod of oonverting Protestants, p. 83. and, no doubt up­on your Principles, If any man, after his strictest Enqui­ries, is still perswaded that a Council, has decreed against the true meaning of the Scriptures, in a point necessary to Salvati­on, then he must prefer God to Man, and follow the Sounder tho' it should prove to be the lesser party: And, if any Com­pany or Synod of Protestants have decree'd any thing con­trary to this, in so far they have departed from the Protestant Principles.] Where we see he gives every sober Enquirer leave to judge of Councils, even tho' General ones, for he excepts None; and himself shews them the way, by Judging & Censuring the Councils of his own Church.

35. Another scruple yet remains incumbent on you to clear; which is, that, by your putting it upon Mr. G. to prove you have not Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of your Faith, and by your innate Antipathy a­gainst Infallibility, 'tis very dubious whether your self do indeed hold the Tradition of all Christian Churches Absolutely Certain, even for the Scripture; however to save your Credit, you then pretended it, fearing your denying it might disedify Mr. T. Since then you ly under [Page 72] a shrewd suspicion, that you do not deal really with him, and the rest of your Readers, in this forc't Pro­fession; it would become you, in your Reply, both to shew why you allow that Testimony to be Absolutely Certain, and yet are such an Enemy to Infallibility; since common sense tells us, no man can judge himself Absolutely Certain of a thing, if he judges he may at the same time be deceiv'd in it; and, withal, that you may give more satisfaction to your Readers herein, than an empty and scarce credible acknowledgment of it, when you were in untoward Circumstances; pray, go to work like a Schollar, and demonstrate to us by way of solid Reason, working upon the Nature of the Thing (for no Argument meerly probable will suffice to prove a Testimony Absolutely Certain) how, and by what vertue this Tradition of all Christian Churches comes to be thus Absolutely Certain for the Letter of the Scripture; as you see we endeavour to demonstrate the Absolute Cettainty of our Tradition for Doctrin, There cannot be a worthi­er Point to exert your self in, nor a greater service done to your Rule; nor a better way to clear your self to the incredulous part of the World, than to perform this: for one knows not whence meer Words, and outward Professions may proceed; but, solid and convincing Reasons can come onely from a Heart possest wiih the Truth of what is Profest. Go to work then, and bless us with the sight of this truly Learned and Iudicious Per­formance, And, while your hand is in, please to shew us too, that, the Absolute Certainty of this Universal Testimony reaches to prove your Rule Intire; that is, reaches to prove no part of the Written Word was lost: nay, that it reaches to the particular Verses, and the most substantial Words in those Verses, as well as to the main Books; and lastly, to Translations also and Tran­scriptions; [Page 73] as you ought to do in case they be (as in­deed they are) of equal Concern, in our circumstances, as the Books themselves. Or, if you deny they are e­qually important; and, maintain that this Absolute Cer­tainty may be had of your Rule, without the same Cer­tainty for these; then please to give us your Reasons for it, and shew how Faith can be Absolutely Certain, tho' the Letter on which it depends, may perhaps have been maim'd or corrupted by any of these miscarriages. Or, if you think fit to say you have Absolute Certainty of your Faith, tho' you have not Absolute Certainty for it's Rule; then, confess candidly and ingenuously your Faith is Absolutely-speaking Vncertain; and, to make good that rare Christian Tenet, fall to work and confute utterly that Positive Book [Faith Vindicated] which undertakes to produce a multitude of Demon­strations to prove that Faith cannot possibly be false; and, withal, please to inform us to what end you maintain your Rule of Faith to be Absolutely Certain, if it do not make your Faith thus Certain too, or what that Certain­ty serves for. Any thing would content us, so you would once leave fluttering, and hovering in common Words: Either tell us plainly all Faith is Uncertain, or come at length to some firm bottom, on which we may with Absolute Certainty ground the Truth of it, and raise it above some plausible Likelihood. But, we remonstrate against your putting us off with the Old Sham [Suffici­ent Certainty] unless you particularize to us what kind of Certainty you hold, and make out 'tis sufficient for the Nature, the Ends and Vses of Faith, and the Obligati­ons issuing from it, and incumbent on the Prosessours of it. If you refuse to condescend to these fair Proposals, all the World must think you onely temporiz'd with Mr. T. and the occasion; and that you have not that [Page 74] Zeal for your Rule of Faith (whose grand Interest 'tis these things should be made out) as you pretend. Once more I tell you, that, if all this will not move you to this every way necessary undertaking, I must then plain­ly challenge you, that it is your necessary and precise Duty, in this very circumstance, as you are a Contro­vertist; and, as I am concern'd with you under that no­tion, I must demand it of you.

36. I know not well whether it be worth the while to justify Mr. M. for calling your Answer to Mr. G's 5th. Question Trifling; or whether it be necessary, after so ample a Discovery, that all the rest of them, taking them in the sense you explicated them, deserv'd no better Character. You were ask't onely the meaning of your Words, [Christian Church] but you had a mind to be li­beral, and give more than was ask't, the meaning of [Vniversal Testimony] too: and to tell us, that, by V­niversal Testimony, you mean Vniversal Consent. That is to say, by Vniversal Testimony, you mean Vniversal Te­stimony: For, all agree or consent in the Testimony, if it be Vniversal. Then, to the precise Question, you An­swer, that, by the Christian Church, you mean all Chri­stian Churches; which is to say, that, by the Christian Church, you mean the Christian Church; for All the Parts make the Whole; so that, instead of an Explication, you give us the same thing over again, and almost in the same Words. And, pray, who's the wiser for such an Answer? Yet, tho' it be impertinent, and nothing to the purpose, 'tis at least True, and Evident by its self, without needing to make it a Question: If you would please to afford us such Evidences, when 'tis to purpose, you would highly oblige us. Certainly, a Considering Reader cannot but think you are very unhappy in ex­plicating your self; for, either your Explications run [Page 75] quite away from your Answer, which you are to ex­plicate, and are a mile wide of them; or they come too close to them, and are the self-same said over again, and almost in the same Words. But, can any one think so excellent a Wit, as Yours, is justly reputed, should ex­pose himself so manifestly, without some latent Design? Tis incredible: Let us take a view then of Mr. G's 5th. Question; Being the Words Christian Church may be taken in several Latitudes by Persons of different Religi­ons, I desire to know what that Christian Church is, &c. Here we see plainly, that the main of the Question was, what Churches were accounted by You Christian, or how that Word [Christian] was to be explicated; and, You give him for explication the self-same word again, and in effect tell him, that by Christian is meant Chri­stian; and thats all he can get from You. And, You did prudently; for, had You come to distinguish which Congregation was Christian, which not, You must have secluded all Hereticks, which your Principles could not do; for your Ground of Faith here is most manifestly Common to all of them; and so You would have lain open to the Disrepute of having and professing a Brother­head with all those Excrementitious Out-casts; and your pretended Rule (notwithstanding its other many Divine Excellencies) had appear'd to be utterly unqualifi'd with Clearness and Firmness enough to be call'd a Rule or Ground. To avoid this, and in Consonancy to your Principles, You take all their Testimonies in for Scri­pture, and pretend it strengthens it. So it may perhaps as to the Books: But, You know how the Church com­plain'd of the Hereticks for corrupting the Letter of Scripture, to make it Favourable for them; and, there­fore, for any thing You know, they cry'd up the Books, because they had fitted them for their own purpose. [Page 76] Whence, tho' the Testimony for the Books should be stronger by their concurrence, yet the Credit of the Let­ter, in the respective places that oppose those Hereticks, is weaker for their allowing them, because they admit­ted them as consistent with their Tenets; otherwise, they would have rejected them, as they did others upon that score. And, what advantage can you gain by the former towards the proving your Ground of Faith Ab­solutely Certain, if you be not equally Certain of the later? Surely none at all: For, 'tis 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 [Page 77] 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 12th. 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,Error Non-plust, P. 74. 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 signif [...]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 [Page 78] 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, 'tis 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 [Page 79] said of it is, that 'tis 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 already Ship-wrackt. The Fourth [By it we are to judge what we are bound to believe as Divine Revelations) runs upon the same strain; for you are to shew us how by it I am to judge my [Page 80] self bound to believe any thing at all as a Divine Re­velation, that is, as taught by Christ, with a Firm and Vnalterable Assent, (such as Faith is) till I am Certain it is so, by being ascertain'd he taught it. This is the True, This is the Main Point; which you slide over still as smoothly as a non-plust Commentator does o­ver hard Texts, that puzzle him to explicate. I say once more, 'tis the Main if not onely Point: for, till you have made out this, you can never prove that Scripture (taken alone) is a Ground of Faith at all, much less an Absolutely Certain Ground; and, least of all, your Ground in particular. And therefore you said very True when you lamented p. 28. you were in a hard case: for tho' (say you) there is an Absolute Cer­tainty, and this Certainty lies in Vniversal Tradition, and we can shew this Vniversal Tradition, yet we cannot shew the Ground of our Certainty. For, you cannot shew Universal Tradition for every particular Text that con­cerns Faith without our Tradition-Rule for Doctrin; nor Absolute Certainty you have the true Sense, tho' you had that Certainty for the Letter, without which 'tis not your Ground at all. A Certainty there is, but not by vertue of your Grounds, and so 'tis none of your Certainty, nor your Ground neither. Whereas then you confess here that, if you cannot shew the true Ground of your Certainty you deserve to be either pity'd or begg'd, you say very true: for we do from our hearts pity you, let who will take the tother part. We pity you to see such excellent Wits, who, had they a good cause, would be honourably victorious, forc't by the Patro­nage of a bad one to employ their Talents in shifting about for by-paths to avoid meeting the Question in the face. We pity you for your being necessitated to impose upon your well-meaning Readers with your [Page 81] specious pretences of Gods Word, instead of shewing them with Absolute Certainty (on your Grounds) that you have the true Sense of it in any one passage rela­ting to the controverted points; without which you cannot with Honesty pretend it Gods Word as to those Points. And, if that kind of begging may do you any good, we shall earnestly and heartily beg of God's In­finite Mercy to give you hearts to seek Truth, and candidly acknowledge it when found.

39. I had almost forgot your Id est, which con­nects your Third and Last Proposition together [—must be the Rule of our Faith, Id est (say you) by it we are to judge what we are bound to believe as Divine Revelations. These Id est's, which should be us'd to clear things, are still so made use of that they are the main Engines to confound them. Let your Id est then say what it please, I must tell you plainly, you quite mistake the meaning of the Word Rule; It speaks Rectitude, and that such an Evident one as preserves those who regulate them­selves by it from obliquity or Deviation, that is, in our case, from Errour. You ought then to have said—The Rule of our Faith, Id est, by which, while we follow it, we shall be absolutely secur'd from erring in Faith, For the Primary Effect of a Rule is to give Faith that prere­quisit▪ Quality as elevates it to the Dignity of such a kind of Assent, and raises it above that dwindling, fee­ble, alterable assent call'd Opinion. But you will needs, (to avoid coming neer so dangerous a Rock) take it for a kind of Quantitative Measure, nor for a Qualifying Prin­ciple: Whereas, indeed, 'tis not the What or how much we are to believe, which is now our Question; but, the That we ought to believe any thing at all; or That you can by your Grounds have any Faith at all for [Page 82] want of this Absolute Certainty, which you pretend to; 'Tis this I say, which is the true Subject of our present Debate. For tho' we both held the same Quan­tity or Number of Points to a tittle, yet it might be Faith in one of us, and but Opinion in the other; nay perhaps Opinion in both, if both of us wanted Certain Grounds to evince they were Christs Doctrin, which is the For­mal Motive of our Faith. It belongs then to a Rule to ascertain both the That we are to believe, and the What; but the former Office of it is Antecedent and Principal, the later Collateral, and Secondary: Common Sense telling us that we ought first to determin whether there is any Faith at all, e're we come to debate what Points are of Faith, what not. These Fast-and-Loose Doings make me, when ever I meet with an Id est, still expect it means [aliud est] and that, like your other Explicati­ons of your self, it is brought in to divert our Eyes to another Object instead of keeping them still fixt upon the same.

40. Enough has been said, I am sure too much ever to be Answer'd, to prove that Scripture alone as inter­terpreted by any Private Mans Judgment, wants the Chief Property of a Rule of Faith, viz. such a Clearness as is able to give all sorts of People, or the Generality of Christians (be they never so Sober Enquirers) Abso­lute Assurance of it's Sense, even in the highest Myste­ries of our Faith, without needing the Church's Help. Nor, will You ever be able to produce the Consent of all Christian Churches affirming that it has this Proper­ty. Wherefore, when it is call'd a Rule by some of the Antients, it must be taken (as Mr. M. Dr. St. second Letter, p. 29. sayes) with the Interpretation of the Church adjoyn'd; which, having the Living Sense of Christ's Law in her Heart, can ani­mate the Dead Letter, and preserve it from Explications [Page 83] any way prejudicial to the Faith received. And, thus indeed, it may be call'd a Rule of Faith; because, as 'tis thus understood, it cannot lead any into Errour, but, See Sect. 23▪is of good use to abett Truth by it's Divine Authority. In which sense Councils proceed upon it often, and sometimes call it a Rule. And, I remember the Famous Launoy, when we were Discoursing once about Traditi­on shew'd me a little Book of his, in which, he goes a­bout to prove, that Councils had frequently defin'd a­gainst Hereticks out of Scripture. On which occasion I ask't him, if he judg'd those Councils fram'd their De­finitions by the sense they had of the Letter by their own human Skill; or by the sense of the Church, which they had by Tradition: he answer'd, undoubtedly by the later; and that there would be no End of Disputing with Hereticks, had they taken the former Way. By which we may discern that still Tradition was in pro­per speech their Rule, even when they alledg'd Scri­pture. Other, call Scripture sometimes a Rule, because it contains Faith; in which sense even some Catholicks call it a partial Rule because Part of Christ's Doctrin is contain'd in it, the other part descending by Tradition: which acceptation of the Word [Rule] is yet less Proper; because (as has been prov'd) it may be contain'd there, and yet we be never the neerer knowing our Faith meer­ly by virtue of Scripture's containing it. But no Ca­tholick ever said that every sober Enquirer may find out all necessary Points of Faith in Scripture without the Church­es Help. A Doctrin, which You declare p. 21. You are far from being asham'd of. And yet, let me tell You Sir, You will never find this Position of yours as it lies [without the Churches Help:] in the Universal Tradition of all Christian Churches; and, unless You find this, You will never prove they held it a Rule in [Page 84] the genuin and proper signification in which we take that Word; (and tho' they shou'd call it a Rule, in either of the former Senses lately mention'd, they impugn not us at all, who grant the same.

41. You will needs run out of the way, p. 30. to talk of a Iudge of Controversies; but the best is, You acknowledge you do go thus astray, by acknowledging 'tis another distinct Controversy; and yet, tho' you ac­knowledge this, You still run on with it, that is, You still wander from the Point. You triumph mightily p. 31. that it is impossible for us to bring such an unani­mous Consent of all Christian Churches for our Infallible Iudge—or our Infallibility, as Protestants bring for their Rule. As for the later, where were your thoughts, Sir, while you thus bad adieu to the plainest Rules of Dis­course? Cannot we go about to demonstrate the Infalli­bility of a Human Testimony by Natural Mediums, but, instead of Answering it, you must object against our Conclusion, and bid us bring the Consent of all Churches to abett that, which neither depends, nor is pretended to depend, on Authority, but on meer Reason? Cannot one say two and three make five, but he must be presently bobb'd in the mouth that he cannot shew the Consent of all Christian Churches for it; and that, unless he does this, let it be never so evident, 'tis not True? Tis very pleasant to reflect how brisk you are still with this Consent of all Churches; (I suppose be­cause 'tis a Topick very seldom heard of in your Con­troversies) tho' as has been shewn over and over, 'tis not a jot to your purpose, nor avails any thing to the evincing you have an Absolutely-Certain Ground of your Faith. And, if we have an Infallible Rule, or such a Rule as permits not those to be deceiv'd that follow it, can there be any thing more Rational than to hold by [Page 85] consequence, that there is an Infallible Iudge, or that our Church can judge unerringly in matters belonging to Faith? the word Iudge onely signifying that that Per­son or Persons, are in Authority, or are Authoritative Deciders, to preserve the Integrity of Faith, and the Peace of the Church. So that, supposing Church-Go­vernours or Bishops, and that those Sacred Concerns are to be provided for, plain Reason demonstrates to us this too as well as the other, without needing the Con­sent of all Christian Churches; tho' you need not to be told this does not want neither; unless you think that all the General Councils that defin'd against Hereticks, imagin'd they might perhaps be in an Errour all the while; and the Heretick, whom they condemn'd, in the right. Your p. 3. Appeal to all the Churches of the Christian World for your Rule, has a plausible appea­rance, but vanishes into air when one comes to grasp it. How often must it be repeated that you have as yet produc't no Rule at all for your Faith? For you have neither prov'd that Scripture's Letter, as to every substantial word that concerns Faith, is absolutely-Certain; nor that it has in it the nature of a Rule; nor that, 'tis your Rule, more than 'tis to all the Hereticks in the world; nor that your Assent to any Point upon that Rule, as made use of by you, (for want of Connexion between the Points to be believ'd, and the Rule on which they are believ'd,) can have the nature of true Faith in it. If talking big would do the deed, you would indeed do wonders; but let your Reasons be proportionable; otherwise, strong words and faint blows are but very ill-matcht. Now, I must declare plainly I cannot see the least semblance of so much as one solid Proof in this whole Treatise of yours. If there be, confute me by shew­ing it, and maintaining it to be such. You explain [Page 86] you own Tenet over and over till one is weary of read­ding it, and half asham'd so often to answer it. You talk much of God's Word; that we are bound to believe it, that it contains God's Will, and all things necessary to Salvation; and, twenty such fine things; which bear a Godly Sound, and would do well in a Sermon where all goes down glib, there being none to contradict you; but, are very dull and flat in Controversy. On the con­trary, not one Argument have you even offer'd at, to prove you have Absolute Certainty of the Rule or Ground of your Faith, but have faln short in every one of those Considerations; both as to the Notions of Certainty, Ground, Rule, Faith; and that 'tis your Ground, your Rule, and your Faith.

42. A Rule to any thing, if we take that word in a proper sense as we do in our modern Controversies, is the Immediate Light to direct us in order to our know­ing that thing. For, in case it be not Immediate, but some other thing intervenes that is needful to direct us, and by whose Rectitude we frame our thoughts as to that affair, and that it renders the other capable to direct us; that other becomes presently the Thing Ru­led, and not the Rule: in regard it wanted the Recti­tude of another thing to direct it, that so it might be fit to direct us. Wherefore the Interpretation of Scrip­ture being more Immediate to the knowing the Sense of it's Words, (that is to the knowing our Faith) than is the Letter, for it is manifest that all who have the Letter have not right Faith unless they make a right Interpretation of it; hence Mr. M. had reason to object, that The Christian Church did not agree that every man is to interpret Scripture for himself, or to build his Faith upon his own private Interpretation of it: Nor ought you to be offended at his position, in regard you told [Page 87] us before p. 7. & 8. a Heretical Sense may ly under these General Words [Christ is the Son of God] and different Senses may be couch't under these, Christ is really in the Eucharist; and so, (even according to your self) 'tis the Interpretation or the assigning the Sense to those words which makes True Faith or Heresy. Wherefore, 'tis plain that your own Interpretation of Scripture is, in true speech, your Rule; for That is a more Immediate Direction to give you the Sense of Scripture than is the Letter; which is Antecedent, and presuppos'd to the Interpretation, as it's Matter or Object. Nor had you your Faith tho' you had the Letter, till you had interpreted it. And, besides, the proper and Immedi­ate Effect of Interpretation, is to give the Sense of Words, and 'tis the Sense of Scripture which is your Faith, and so your own Private Interpretation is unavoidably your Rule. If then you will vouch, as you do all over, that the Universal Consent of all Christian Churches gave you your Rule, it must attest your way of interpreting Scrip­ture too, by private judgments; Nay, it must moreover attest that way to be absolutely Certain; otherwise you can never shew how your kind of Protestant Faith, no better grounded, can be absolutely Certain; and this, as to all the Doctrin that was taught by Christ and his Apostles; for both which you very unadvisedly undertook when you were at a pinch; hoping, I suppose, to shift it off again with one of your transferring Expedients, or some squinting [Id est]. To what purpose is it then to tell us here p. 31. how a man (one of your Sober En­quirers I suppose) is to behave himself, where the Texts or places are doubtful. For, unless the Consent of all Christian Churches bring us down by their U­niversal Testimony that those methods are to be taken, and that they are absolutely Certain Means for all that [Page 88] use them to interpret Scripture right, or come at the true Sense of it, you are still as incapable as ever of shewing us absolute Certainty for your Faith, or that you have any Faith at all by those Means. Nay, I much mistake you if your Principles will allow these Means, no not even the Testimony which brings down to us the Sense of the Primitive Church (upon which you here pass a complement) to be more than Fallible. If you do, you admit our Rule: If you do not, I would advise you to prepare your Reasons to convince the World how a Fallible Authority can prove that what is built on it is absolutely Certain. However, you set the best Co­lour upon these Fallible Means you can; telling us, your Sober Enquirer is to make use of the best helps, the best and most reasonable means, &c. tho' they are such that in likelihood it will take up his whole life time, ere he can use and peruse them all, so as to compass sincerely this satisfaction; nay 'tis ten to one he will dy a Seeker: and then he will have enquir'd very sober­ly, to go to the next world to ask the way to heaven. I wonder how many of the Church of England, or e­ven of Geneva, made use of all these Means ere they finally pitch't upon their Faith: I much doubt—Vel duo, vel nemo— Few or none. And we would know of you whether any of those means, or all together, are ab­solutely Certain. If none, you are still where you were. If you say any or all, you will fight against Experi­ence; for many who use all these Means do notwith­standing differ. You would insinuate by the words, [doubtful places] that the Points your Sober Enquirers doubt of, are but unnecessary, sleight, or disputable; but alas! they are the highest Mysteries of our Christian Faith; and if they must take such pains, as to compare Scripture and Expositors, and the Sense of the Primi­tive [Page 89] Church (which will require perusing attentively a pret­ty Library) ere they can accept these for Points of Faith, what satisfaction is to be expected in all that Christ and his Apostles taught, by your Rule, which asks such labori­ous study to understand it's Sense in these; or by your me­thod, which is both Endless, & when all is done Vncertain?

43. Of how different a Judgment the Primitive Church was, let a Chief Pillar of it, St. Athanasius in­form us (Lib. de Synodis Arimini & Seleuciae) where he blames some Clergy-men of his time for going about enquiring what they were to believe, in these words, Si credidissent, nunquam, quasi Fidem non haberent, de Fide quaesivissent.—Sese Infideles esse declaraverunt, cum id quaerant quod non habent. If they had believ'd, they had never enquir'd, as if they did want Faith.— They have declar'd themselves to be Vnbelievers by their enquiring after what they have not. So, that, it seems all your Sober Enquirers are (according to this Fathers Judg­ment) Infidels, or Vnbelievers. Observe here the vast distance between your Principles and those of this Holy Father and most learned Controvertist. Nothing but seeking and enquiry (with the Epithet of sober to grace it a little) will serve your turn; but, he tells us, on the quite contrary, that, if Wee seek, or enquire, we have no Faith at all: Which, in plain English, signifies thus much; you judge that to be the onely way to Faith, which, he judges a plain Argument of having none. You are all for seeking for your Faith in Scripture; He, for taking what is already found to our hand some other Way, w^ch. must be by Tradition. One thing I should much won­der at, did not I know your private-spirited Principles; 'tis this, why amongst other means you assign for your sober Enquirer to make use of, you do not put the Iudg­ment of the Present Church (let it be your own if you [Page 90] please) for one? I should think the Faith of the Church had more weight in it, than all the rest put together, if you do indeed hold it a True Church; and 'tis far more easy to know its sense, where it has thought fit to expli­cate it's self clearly. The finding the sense of Commen­tatours, and the Places compar'd, and of Primitive Anti­quity, costs infinit trouble; whereas, there is no difficul­ty to know the sense of the Present Church, speaking to you by Living Voice, and consonant Practise. I should think too, 'tis most agreeable to the Order of the World, the Unity of the Church, and the Maxims of Government (if you will allow any such to a Church) that People should follow the Doctrin of their Teachers, be led by their Pastours, and obey their Superiours; rather than be left to their own private Fancies, in mat­ters of such Concern, that, if they clash with them in their Judgment, it hazards to break all those sacred Or­ders, by which the World subsists. Let me ask you one thing, ere we leave this Point. Is your sober Enquirer Bound to use these means for his satisfaction in doubtful Points, or not? You say expresly here, that, he is bound to do this; and, so I suppose you will be disatisfi'd with him, if he falls short of this Duty. I ask next, did Mr. T. use all these means in a doubtful Point, to compass a rational satisfaction? How should he, when he was sa­tisfi'd, and confirm'd, and resolv'd in so little time. Yet, for all your contrary Doctrin here, you are well satis­fi'd with him, nay, you undertake p. 13. to satisfy the World that Mr. T. had sufficient Grounds for what he then said; which was, that, he was much more confirm'd in the Communion of our (the Protestant) Church, and resolv'd to continue in it, Pray, Sir, was he a sober Enquirer or no? If he was, did he in two hours time, that Mr. G. and you were Disputing, use the means you say your [Page 91] sober Enquirer is bound to make use of in doubtful cases; as his was, if he dealt sincerely with Mr. G. and did not play booty? Did he in two or three hours time, pray, me­ditate, compare Scripture, and Expositours upon it, use the help of spiritual Guides, & the sense of the Primitive Church, which, are but some of the Means you prescribe p. 31. He made prodigious hast, if he did use those means: How comes he then to be so satisfi'd, nay, so resolv'd, without using those means; and so worthy of your Pa­tronage, if he did not what you say here, he was bound to do? These are Mysteries, which must be veil'd from the eyes of the Vulgar, & Prophane. Nor is there any way to reconcile these Contradictions, but to understand you with this Clavis; that, you say any thing that seems to serve your turn, when you are disputing against us, and disclaim it again when the circumstance is alter'd; and that, as you pretended that for your Rule of Faith, which not one in a thousand follow; so you pretend those me­thods must be taken, to understand your Rule right to the end we may not be deceiv'd by it, which, neither are taken by any, nay, need not be taken at all, tho' you told us here men were bound to take them; the believing your word that your Answer was competent (See the An­wer to Dr. St's First Let­ter, Sect. 12.18, 30. which was indeed none) acquitted his Obligation, and atton'd for his rashness. This, this alone, was so meri­torious, that, it was equivalent to Prayer, Meditation, comparing Scripture, and Expositours upon it, the help of spiritual Guides, and the sense of the Primitive Church, which, you declare here, such as he were bound to con­sult for their satisfaction in Faith. By which I guess your Test to distinguish a Sober from a Rash Enquirer, is, whe­ther he will rely on your Word or Skill for his security of Heaven. If he will, he is of your sober sort without more ado; and, need not trouble himself with those pain­full [Page 92] Methods: If he will not, he must go through them all, or be Rash. The Truth is, you play sure; and may safely defy any man living ever to enquire himself sober­ly out of your Communion: For, whoever begins, shall be sure to dy before he have enquir'd half way.

44. At length, to my great Comfort (for 'tis tedious to find no Reasons to speak to, but still to be employ'd in confuting Mistakes) I am come to the last Task, that, as far as I can discern, will belong to my Province. To­wards the end of pag. 31. your Discourse ayms to esta­blish your kind of Iudgment of Discretion; which makes such a noise in your Books, and of late rings out of the Pulpit too.See Mr. Kid­der's famous Sermon Preach'd at St. Paul's Cross, Feb. 23. 1686. You make way to it thus, If we have the Consent of all Christian Churches against the onely pretended Infallible Iudge, we have their Consent likewise that every man is to judge for his own Salvation. Your Argument, such as it is, stands thus, By the Consent of all Christian Churches, there is no Infallible Iudge, therefore, every man must judge for himself. It seems then nothing will con­tent you now but Infallibility; and, if that be not to be had, every one may set up for himself in the Iudging Profession. Why, suppose the Governours of Our Church, when you left Her, or of your Own Church either, were Fallible; are you grown so nice on a sud­den, and your Conscience so tender in embracing any thing less than Infallibly-Certain, for Faith, that Falli­bility will not serve your turn, which hitherto, you so contentedly hugg'd and ador'd, and so wittily derided any Certainty above it? Suppose they had but your Suffi­cient Certainty, or great Likelyhoods, fair Probabilities, or such like, for their Interpretations of Scripture; must they therefore lose their Power of Iudging in that parti­cular, because they are Bishops? Or, forfeit the Digni­ty of Pastours and Leaders, because they are not Infalli­ble? [Page 93] You have such an a king tooth at the Churches in­termeddling in Faith-matters, no not so much as to help her Children in the most necessary Points (p. 21..) so they be doubtful, that neither profes't Infallibility nor acknowledg'd Fallibility will put you in good humour with Church-Governours; but out they must, and your sober Enquirer starts up in their stead. For he must judge whether they tell him right or no, when all's done; I sup­pose by the light Scripture gives him, as he is to judge of the veracity of General Councils; and so we are got into the giddy whirl-pool of a Circle. He must learn the Sense of Scripture by them, and yet trust himself interpreting Scripture, not them, for the Sense of it? 'Tis pitty but he had a blew Apron on, and a Tub to hold forth in what heavenly light he had gain'd, by interpreting Scripture after the Method you have shewn him. Tis true, if there were no Absolute Certain­ty in the way to Faith (and I believe you hold none in your Church) every man must shift for himself as well as he may; yet still even in that case, he is bound to do that which shall appear best, and come up as neer to Certainty as he can. And can he in any reason think his own Enquiry will bring him to more Certainty, than the Pastors of his Church, who had been sober Enqui­rers too themselves, and understood the Means you as­sign to make that Enquiry, perhaps a thousand times bet­ter than himself? If he thinks them better qualify'd than himself for interpreting Scripture, he sins against the Light of Reason, not to trust them rather than him­self: For they have, in that Supposition, more know­ledge than he; Tis left then, that he is to judge himself to be better qualify'd than his Church, her Bishops and all his Pastors are for that work: and, upon this brisk self-conceit, the Book of Scripture flies open on a sudden, [Page 94] discloses it's Sense, and discovers to him his Faith. Cer­tainly, such a man is likely to have a very Reverend esteem of his Church, her Bishops and Pastors; and yet, your Principles would have all men such. Indeed, you would have your sober Enquirers, pray and meditate. But, it should seem they are to pray, amongst other things, God would give them the Grace not to obey or believe their Pastors so much as themselves in necessary Points; (I hope you hold the Tenet of a Trinity, Christ's God-head, and such other Points, such) which otherwise their honest Natural Reason, conscious to it self of it's own Ignorance, will very much tempt them to do; and to meditate on God's great Mercy, in giving them great­er Abilities and better Assistance than he does to his Church; for they are very ungrateful if they forget so signal and extravagant a Favour. But, let us see what is to be meant by an Infallible Iudge; for you do not particularize your acception of those words; nor let your Reader see what Judge, how, or for what reason we hold him Infallible.

45. If you mean by [Iudge] an Authoritative Deci­der of Controversies about Faith (as was said above) and that (which is what we hold) his verdict is Infal­lible by proceeding upon an Infallible Rule, you must either pretend the Christian Church never permitted Church-Governours to exercise their Authority in de­ciding matters of Faith; or else that it never held they had an Infallible Rule to go by. And I believe your utmost attempts will fall so far short of producing a­ny such Consent of Universal Tradition for either, that it will be directly against you in both; and you must have a strange opinion of the Decrees of General Coun­cils, in such cases, if you apprehend they held either of those self-condemning Tenets. And yet I cannot tell, but [Page 95] I have made my self too large a Promise concerning this Universal Consent of all Christian Churches being for us or not against us in this particular: For I remember now, that, when you were to state the Notion of Tra­dition, you took in the Consent of all former Hereticks to make your Tradition for Scripture larger and firmer than ours is against you, Dr. St's First Letter, p. 7. Dr. St. second Letter, p. 25. and to make your Argument stron­ger by their concurrent Testimony; and I see a glimmer­ing light already, which will grow very clear ere long, you take in the same infamous Gang to bear witness against our Infallibility; And what a case is the Catho­lick Church in then? We can never expect those obsti­nate Revolters from that Church or those Churches which were then in Communion with Rome, will ever ac­knowledge the Governours had a just Authority to declare against them as Hereticks (for they were all of them, to a man, true-blew Sober Enquirers) or that those Go­vernours proceeded upon an Infallible Rule; for this were to cut their own throats, and acknowledge themselves Hereticks; a mortification not to be submitted to by much contumacious spirits. Now all these by your Principles are to be accounted Christian Churches, and are call'd so very currently, and very frequently by you (p. 24. 25. 26. and in many other places) without any distinction at all. And so we are reduc'd to a very pretty condition, according to the admirable mould in which you have new-cast the Church. For, unless all those Hereticks of old, any Lutherans, Calvinists, and all the inferiour Subdivisions of Faith Reformers, vouch­safe to give their concurrent Testimony to the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church (which condemn'd them all; and, as appears by the Council of Trent throughout, by the same Rule of Tradition) she is to have no Infallibility at all allow'd her; her old Rule too [Page 96] is condemn'd by them for a False Light, because it con­demn'd them, and their New-Light; nor consequently can she be an Infallible Iudge in Faith-Controversies. This is a very hard Law; Yet your severe Discourses allow us no better quarter. You alledge that the Ea­stern Churches utterly deny the Roman Churche's Infalli­blely, tho' they be of very different denominations. You mean (I suppose) amongst the rest, the Nestorians, Eu­tychians, and such kind of good folks. And can you without blushing avail your self of such concurrent Testi­monies against the Body communicating with the Ro­man, and her Infallible Rule, whose Ancestors were condemn'd by that very Body to which the present Roman-Catholick Church uninterruptedly succeeds; and were cast out of the Church for receding from the Christian Doctrine, held even then upon that very Rule?

46. But what have we to do with any of your pre­tended Christian Churches, whether Eastern, or not-Ea­stern, Modern, or Antient; many or few? Or, what have you to do with them either, if you would, as becomes a Controvertist, speak home to us. You know already we place the Infallibility of our Church in delivering, defining and Iudging of Faith-Controver­sies, in the Absolutely Certain Rule of Tradition. All therefore that have adher'd to Tradition as their Rule, must allow to Her this Inerrableness, while she adheres to it, else they must condemn themselves. And those pretended Churches which have deserted Tradition, can never, for many reasons, be of any competent Autho­rity against the Roman-Catholick. For, having no Cer­tain Rule, they can have no sure Ground of what they believe or alledge against her: And, besides, being her Enemies, and condemn'd by her, and that by vertue of [Page 97] this very Rule they carp at, common Equity tells every man 'tis not a pin matter what such men say of that Rule, or that Church either, whether those men live East, West, North, or South. I perceive by your far-stretcht words here p. 31. [All the Churches of the Christian World, All the Eastern Churches tho' of very different de­nominations, that you imagin the force of an Authority depends meerly on the Number of the Witnesses; where­as we make account it depends much more on their Weight; that is, on their Knowledge, and on their Sin­cerity, or Indifferency of their Wills, as to the Person or Affair concerning which they are to witness: And Fal­lible Congregations, which are both Out-casts, and E­nemies, have for each of those regards, no weight at all.

47. You have another Fetch yet left to prejudice the Reader against our Tenet. For, you often make menti­on of our Infallibility, the Roman, or the Roman Church­es Infallibility, and (as appears p. 15. and 16) of the Infallibility of the Particular Church of Rome; whereas the Question, and our true Tenet, is, of those many particular Churches communicating with the Ro­man; so that you seem desirous to convince us you are re­solv'd never to speak to any point sincerely or represent it ingenuously. For this sleight, tho' it seems trivial, insinuates into your Readers, that we hold the very Spot of Rome is the precise, and adequate mold in which In­fallibility is cast. Please then to remember, and pray let it be the last time we tell you of it, that it is her fol­lowing the See First [...] p. 18.self-evidently certain Rule of Tradition, in which as a Controvertist I do, in this Dispute, place her Infallibility. That, being thus absolutely Certain of her Faith, we can prove she is qualify'd to be an In­fallible Iudge of Faith. That every Bishop is a Iudge [Page 98] of Faith-Controversies in proportion to his Sphere, and the Highest Bishop above them all: but still, the last resort or Test of their final obliging to Belief (for any one may oblige his Diocesans to Silence for Peace's sake) is with reference to the Body of the Church; and the Infallibility of the Church is refunded into the Certain­ty of her Rule; and there it rests. Hence, conscious to your selves of the want of such an Infallible Rule, you dare pretend to no Infallible Iudge, but are forc't to leave every particular man to his private Iudgment of Discretion; tho' you experience it shatters your Church, no better principled, into thousands of Sects. In a word, in the way of our Controversy, all Discourse ought to be­gin Originally, and end Finally in an absolutely Certain Rule of Faith; that is, in such a Rule as influences our Tenets with the same Certainty. We are sure we have such a Rule, and, so, we are sure we have true Faith; and we are sure you can have no Certainty that You have true Faith, because true Faith requires Absolute Certainty, and, therefore, an Infallible Rule, which you renounce. This is the main Point between us, on which depends all the rest, whether it relates to an Infallible Church or Infallible Iudge. Look it then in the face; spare it not, but level your whole quiver of Rea­sons at this mark. Unless you do this, you do but trifle; you beat the bush, and scatter leaves, but spring no­thing. While this Infallible Rule remains unconfuted, you must confess there may, and ought to be an Infallible Iudge; and your Iudgment of Discretion is convinced to be a meer Libertinage, forcibly granted to all, for want of Principles in your selves to Ground them certainly in their Faith, keep them steady in it, and reduce them to it when they deviate.

48. To come closer, and take a more distinct view of [Page 99] this Iudgment of Discretion, I will acquaint you how far and in what I allow it, how far and in what I reject it. I grant that every man is to judge for his own salvation, and to endeavour by his Reason to find the Way to right Faith. I grant with you that all Mankind agrees in it; and there­fore wonder at your self-contradiction to make us dis­agree to it, who certainly are some part of Mankind. I grant that, otherwise, 'tis to no purpose to go about to make Converts: I add, nor for you, and me, to write Contro­versies. I grant that every man is to judge of the best way to Salvation, and of all the Controversies between us and you; and especially of the true Grounds of Faith; and to be well satisfy'd who proceeds on a Certain Rule, who not; and that the contrary Tenet is as ridiculous as what's most, unless your putting upon us, against your daily ex­perience, such a sottishness as to hold it. I add, that, since every man is to judge of his Grounds, therefore the Rule of Faith must be such as needs not much Learning and Reading, Se Faith vind. p. 132, 133, 134, 135.but must ly level to every man's Natural Light of Understanding; as the nature of Testifying Authority, and it's Certainty does. I will grant you moreover, that to deprive Mankind of this Priviledge of judging thus, is to debarr him of the Light and Use of his Reason, when 'tis most needful for him; that is, when it should direct him how to find out the way to his Eternal Happiness, and, avoid the paths that lead him to E­ternal Misery. But, I utterly deny, that therefore, he ought to think it Discretion to hammer out his Faith by the dints of his private and unelevated Reason, from Words that are of so deep, and mysterious a sense; and this, after he has experienced that multitudes of other men, as wise or wiser than himself, and (for ought he can discern) very sincere too, do their best to understand them right; and yet, as appears by their contradicting [Page 100] one another in matters of highest importance, one of those Great, and Learned Parties, does erre most dange­rously; I deny that his Discretion can lead him to judge that God's Providence has left no absolutely Certain Way to Faith, it being of so vast a Concern, and highest ne­cessity: Or that it can command him to Assent firmly and unalterably to any Tenet as a Truth, nay, profess it to be such, even with the laying down his Life to attest it; and yet that, notwithstanding, it may be a Lye, for a­ny thing can be known by the Grounds he goes upon. And, therefore, I deny that, in case Faith depends on some Authority bringing it from Christ (without Cer­tainty of which none can be Certain 'tis True at all) that Authority should be Fallible in that affair, and per­haps deceive him while he trusts it, or relies on it: Or, in case it depends on some other Means (viz. Scripture's Letter, and his own Interpretation of it) that Means should not certainly bring him to the End, if he makes use of it to the best of his power: I deny it to be Dis­cretion to think himself capable to judge he has Absolute Certainty of the Intire Books of Scripture, even to such particular Words or Verses he builds on, but by our Tradition for Doctrine; as likewise of their Translations and Transcriptions all along; and, of the Copies being taken at first from the true Original; whence I deny he can with true reason judge his Faith True; since a fault in any of these may make it False. I deny that he can with any Discretion judge that the ways you prescribe p. 31. for your Sober Enquirer to understand the Letter of Scripture right, and so come at true Faith, (viz. comparing Scripture and Expositours upon it, help of spiritual Guides (who confess they may all be deceiv d, and so may mislead him) and knowing the sense of the Primitive Church, &c.) are the means left by God for [Page 101] Men to arrive at Faith and Salvation; since to do this, he sees so many volumns must be read over, compar'd, and well-weigh'd, that in all likelihood, a hundred parts of Mankind for one (I may say a thousand) would Dy e're they could make a certain choyce which side to take in dubious points; and to add to his discomfort, those Points which of all other, are of highest concern, as are the Tri­nity, Christ's Godhead, the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, the Efficacy of God's Grace, and such like, are the most dubious; as being most controverted by the Pretenders to the Scripture-Rule. I deny he can with any Discretion, when he comes to receive satisfacti­on of the Absolute Certainty of his Faith, suffer himself to be fobb'd off with telling him there is Absolute Cer­tainty of such a Book which contains it; when common Sense tells him he is as far as ever from having such a Certainty of his Faith, unless he has the same Certainty he interprets that Book right; and does not err pernici­ously by misunderstanding the sense of it in those impor­tant Articles: Especially, since your selves, tho' it be a­gainst your own Interest, are forc't to confess other Great and Learned Bodies had most grievously misunderstood its meaning, who had both the same Letter, and the same Means to look into it that he has, & all that your Grounds afford him. I deny, he can with the least Discretion Judge it possible that all Christian Fathers could forget to day what they held yesterday; or that they should, if they remember'd it, knowingly resolve to damn themselves and Posterity, by teaching them a wrong Faith; or, that they could conspire to do so if they would; and conse­quently, that he ought not, if he acts discreetly, judge, that this Rule of Tradition is an absolutely, or infalli­bly-Certain Conveyer of Christ's Faith down to Our Dayes. Whence, I deny that he can with the least grain [Page 102] of Discretion refuse to communicate with those who pro­ceed on such an evidently Certain Rule, and are found in Possession of their Faith upon that secure Tenure; and adhere to those others who declare against any Infallible Rule; that is, who confess the means they have to know any one particular Point of Faith or (which is all one) any Faith at all, is Fallible; that their Guides may per­haps all mislead them, and their Rule permit the Fol­lowers of it to Err. You see now how we allow them the Use of their Reason, and Judgment of Discretion, till it brings them to find a Certain Authority; and, when they have once found That, the same Iudgment of Discre­tion, which shew'd them that Authority was Absolutely Certain, obliges them to trust it, when it tells them what is Christ's Faith; without using their private Judg­ment any longer, about the particular Points themselves, thus ascertain'd to them, but submitting to It. In doing which, yet, they do not at all relinquish their Reason, but, follow and exercise it. For, nothing is more Ratio­nal than to submit to an Authority which my Reason has told me is Absolutely Certain, in things which the same Reason assures me can no other wayes be known certain­ly but by that Authority.

49. Now, let us consider the Iudgment of Discretion, as understood by you, of which your sober Enquirer makes use to find out his Faith. 'Tis onely employ'd a­bout searching out the sense of Scripture's Letter by Fallible means; which he can never hope will preserve him Certainly from Errour, let him do his very best; since he is told, even by your selves, that Great Bodies of very Learned Men, and acute Scripturists do follow the same Rule, and yet erre in the highest Articles of our Belief; nay, he sees himself, by daily experience, how many Sects follow that for their Rule, yet vastly [Page 103] differ. Whence, instead of judging discreetly, he com­mits the most absurd Indiscretion in the world, to ha­zard his salvation upon his own Interpretation of Scrip­ture; when, at the same time, he is told by those very Men who propose to him this Rule, that there is no Ab­solute security (neither by his own Industry, nor his Churche's veracity) from erring in that Interpretation. And, not onely this, but he sees or may see, if he will soberly enquire, what Certain Grounds are propos'd by o­thers; and yet suffers his Reason, and the Truth to be run down with the noisy hubbubs against Popery; and, either out of a blameable Weakness, or, perhaps out of an inexcusable obstinacy, rejects those Grounds, or disregards the looking into them. I say again, Inex­cusable: For, the very Nature of Faith tells him, that, 'tis an Vnalterable Assent, and, that it cannot possibly be a Ly; whence, common sense will tell him, 'tis not to be hoped for amongst those who confess that all the Know­ledge they have of each particular Point of Faith, (that is of any Faith) is Fallible; and, onely likely to be had amongst those who own and maintain their Grounds can­not deceive them; so that, such a man, if he ever came to a due Reflexion upon what most concerns him, sins a­gainst the Light of Reason, in many regards; and, what you call Iudgment of Discretion is convinc't to be the most Vnjudicious Indiscretion imaginable: And, your sober Enquirer, who builds all his hopes of salvation up­on such a Iudgment, proves himself (the weight of the Concern being duly consider'd) to be the most rash and hair-brain'd Opiniastre, and the most credulously blind, that ever submitted and prostituted his Rational Faculty (with which God has endow'd him, and will require a strict account of him, how he has us'd it) to a most Groundless and Improbable Conjecture. Disregarding all Authority out of his presumption on his own Skill, [Page 104] or that he is more in GOD's Favour than the whole Church; and, I much fear, out of a spiritual Pride, and self-conceit, that he can find out all necessary Faith well enough of himself, without being beholding to any Church at all; or, (as you instruct him here p. 21. and declare openly and avowedly you are not asham'd of it) without the Churches Help. Which, is the very First Principle, nay, the Quintessence of all Heresy; Fa­naticism in the Egg, perfect Enthusiasm when hatch't, and downright Atheism when fledge.

THE FOURTH Catholick Letter.

§ 1. WHen Controversies are Preach't out of Pulpits, every Well-meaning Hearer is apt to con­ceit, that what sounds thence is to be receiv'd as a Voice from Heaven: Too great a Dis­advantage to be admitted by a Person concern'd, who judges he is able to shew 'tis but a false Eccho: especially, when he sees this forestalling the World by a Sermon, is a meer preparation to turn the Question quite off the Hin­ges; and, withal, as the Preface intimates, to bring it from the handling one single Point, which bears all the rest along with it, to the debating of many; none of which can be decided, till That be first clear'd. Hence I esteem'd it not only a Justice to my self, but a Christian Duty to others, to Address my Defence to You, his Au­ditory; who (I fear) were led into Errours by many particulars in that Sermon, relating to our Controversy. I have reason to hope this Discourse will keep your Thoughts Impartial; which done, I will desire no other Umpire of our Contest, at present, but your selves.

§. 2. It being the Chief and most Precise Duty of a Controvertist to secure the Truth of Christian Faith, [Page 2] and this not being possible to be done, without proving it True That Christ or his Apostles taught it: hence, it has ever been my Endeavour to establish that Fundamen­tal Verity in the first place, by settling some Method that might secure it with a perfect or Absolute Certainty. Nature tells us, an End cannot be compassed without a a Means enabling us to attain it; whence, the first thing to be examin'd is, what that Means is, that is to give us this Certainty. Your common Reason assures you, that what's [True] cannot possibly be False; and the common Sentiment of all Christians, and the very Notion of Faith it self, has, I doubt not, imbu'd you with this apprehension, that your Faith cannot but be True; nor does any thing sound more harsh to a Christian Ear than to affirm that All Christian Faith may perhaps be but a Ly­ing Story; which yet 'tis unavoidable it may be, if it may not be True that 'tis Christ's Doctrine.

§. 3. You will wonder perhaps, when I acquaint you this is my greatest quarrel with Dr. St. and others of his Principles, that they make all Christian Faith possible to be False. Dr. Tillotson, with whom he agrees, and whose Rule of Faith he approves, maintains there, that there is no Absolute Security to be had from our be­ing Deciev'd in judging we have the right Letter, or right Sense of the Holy Scripture, or that they were Writ by those Divinely-inspired Persons; but that, not­withstanding all the certainty we can have of those particulars, Rule of Faith. p. 118. It is possible all this may be otherwise. This I say, as appears by my Preface to the Second Catho­lick Letter, and by my Discourses quite through all the Three, is our Grand Contest, under which all our other differences subsume. But this Dr. St. was so pru­dent as to conceal from you, lest it should shock all his well-meaning Hearers; and I do assure you, and [Page 3] shall shew it, that, in those matters which he thought it expedient to let you know, he so misrepresents every thing, that he has both deluded You, injur'd the Truth, and quite dropt the Question. Whether he is to make satisfaction to Truth and to You, or I to Him, is to be determin'd by the Evidence I bring to make good my Charge. To State the Question then.

§. 4. As to the Holy Scriptures, my very Principles oblige me to declare that what I attribute to them, is,

First, That they have All those Excellencies which Dr. St. yields them, and one more which he does not; of which hereafter.

Secondly, That they are Profitable to all the Ends St. Paul writing to Timothy ascribes to them; and that in such a high measure, that I do from my heart grant them to be so great an Instrument of our Salvation, that the Church had been at an incredible loss without them; & that not near half the number of Christian Souls would have been sav'd, had it not pleas'd God to leave to the Church such a Powerful Means to instruct them in a virtuous life, and raise them up to it.

Thirdly, That, when they are animated with the Sense of the Divinely-Inspired Writers by a Certain Interpretation, they are very useful to confute Here­ticks; and that, Thus Interpreted, they are with much profit made use of, to that end, by Fathers and Councils.

Fourthly, That, tho' they were written on several oc­casions, it was not without the Design of God's good Pro­vidence; which orders all our Actions to the bring­ing about his Best Ends, however they be occasional to us; much more an Affair so mainly important to the Churches improvement.

Fifthly, That there was also a peculiar Providence [Page 4] in preserving the Letter from any material Corruption; and, that the Second Causes by which this Providence exerted it self, was the most obligatory Care of the Church to whom those Sacred Oracles were committed, and the Knowledge she ever had of Christ's Doctrin.

6thly, That the Sense of Scripture is so sublime in Spi­ritual Points and high Mysteries of Faith, which are a­bove Nature, and could only be known to the World by Divine Revelation, that no men by their Private Judgments, much less all sorts of men coming to Faith (and therefore unelevated and unenlighten'd by It) can arrive at the knowledge of it's Sense by the Letter in those difficult Texts, with such an unerring Certainty as is requisit for that most Firm, Rational and Unalterable Assent, call'd Faith; and, therefore, that in These, they need the Help of the Church: Whereas in other passages that are Historical, Moral, &c. where the subject matter is more obvious to ordinary Reason, they are either clear of themselves, or may be clear'd, as much as is necessary, by the Learning of the more Knowing Faith­ful. For the same reason I hold, that Scripture, thus pri­vately interpreted, is not convictive of Hereticks, who have imbib'd a contrary sentiment to that of the Divine Enditer; because those men admit no Certain Interpre­ter of those difficult places. And, this want of Clear­ness in such Texts, I do not take to be a Privative Im­perfection; but, on the contrary, to argue a very high Perfection in Scripture; viz. as Vincentius Lirinensis has told us 1200 years ago, Commonitor, cap. 2. It's Deep Sense; Whence 'tis rather to be call'd properly, a Dis­proportion of that Sense to the low Conceptions of Pri­vate Iudgments looking after Faith; or an Obscurity, relatively to such Persons, than an Absolute one: since the Faithful, who are instructed in that Sense, are both [Page 5] capable to understand it right, and moreover to dis­cover still more and more Excellent Truths in it.

7thly, That for this reason, I cannot hold the Letter of Scripture privately interpreted the Rule of Faith, or a Means for people of every capacity, looking after Faith, to know the Sense of it in those Dogmatical Ar­ticles; with such a Certainty, as was shewn §. 2. above to be Necessary for a Ground of Faith; nor can I allow that the Truth of Christian Faith ought to be built upon such a Sandy Foundation as are those Private Interpretations. And, therefore, that there needs some other Rule to As­certain people of all sorts what is Christ's true Doctrin in those points. Moreover, I make account the Experi­ence of all Ages since Christ's time abets my Position. Every Heretick, and all his Followers, relying on his private Interpretations of Scripture for his wicked Blasphemies; as the Socinians do now, who are (as far as we can discern) sincere and exact Followers of that Rule, or Vsers of that Means; and yet, fall short of Christ's genuin Doctrine, denying his Godhead, and the Myste­ry of the B. Trinity ▪ A plain Argument that That cannot be the way to Truth, which such vast multitudes have follow'd, and yet have been led into Errour, unless we knew them all to be wilfully sincere, or strange­ly negligent; which we can neither know, nor have rea­son to think. And, as experience has shewn this to eve­ry mans eye, so neither is it my sentiment onely. The same Ibid. Lirinensis telling us, That by reason of the Scripture's Depth, as many Opinions as there are Men seem possible to be drawn thence. Where he ascribes the obscurity of the Letter not meerly to the fault of the Persons, nor the hardness of the Words, in which the Sense is deliver'd, but to the Profoundness of the Sense it self; Reason and Experience both informing us, that, [Page 6] where the matter is above the Readers capacity, tho' the Words be never so plain, yet the Doctrine is not easily comprehended without some who is already skill'd in that Sense.

§. 5. As for Tradition; The very sound of the Word may perhaps give you some prejudice against it, because our Saviour reprehended the Jews for some un­warrantable Traditions of theirs. This obliges me to give you a true Character of our Tenet concerning It, and to make known to you particularly what [Tradi­tion] means, as we understand it in our Controversies; which Dr. St. (tho' he knows it) will never do; but, on the contrary, (as shall be seen) misrepresents it all along very disingenuously in every particular. What we hold of it then, is,

First, That the Apostles, by their Preaching during the whole time of their lives, settled the self-same Christian Doctrin in the minds of the Generality of the Faithful, dispersed in several Countries; and not only at large and particularly explicated it, and fixt it by their heavenly Preaching, but riveted it (as we may say) by Miracles; founded Churches, and constituted Disciplin; by means of which, and their own Exam­ple, they establish't them in the Practice of that Doctrin. Lastly, They recommended the continuing it as the means of Salvation; and, consequently, that the swerving from it themselves, or neglecting to educate their Children in it, was the assured way to Eternal misery to them and their Posterity.

2dly, That this vast multitude unanimously settled in the same Faith is that which we make the First Source of Tradition; which had no more to do but to attest to the next Age what the First had receiv'd and practis'd; nor could they forget a Doctrin which was so recom­mended, [Page 7] and according to which they had led their Christian lives so long: Nor could true Faith (the Pa­rent of all other Virtues) which was in their hearts, no nor even the Natural love to themselves and their Children, permit them all to be so Wicked as to decline from it voluntarily, or neglect to educate the others in it; however, it was to be expected there would be now and then a failure in some Particulars, deserting the former Doctrin, and drawing Proselytes after them.

3dly, That, the same reason holds for the Continuate Delivery of the same Doctrin by the Second Age to the Third, and so still forwards; the most powerful Mo­tives God himself could propose being laid to oblige Christians not to deviate from it in the least, or be care­less to recommend it. And those Motives too a thousand times more lively imprinted and apprehended by the heaven-instructed Faithful, than they were by any in the former Ages of the World, before Christ.

4thly, That by [Tradition] then is meant, The Testi­mony of the whole foregoing Age of Christians to the next Age, of what had been deliver'd, and explain'd to them by their Living Voice and Practice. Or, taking Tra­dition (as it ought to be) for Oral and Practical both, 'Tis, A Continu'd Education of undergrowing Posterity in the Principles and Practice of their Immediate Predeces­sours.

5thly, That hence 'tis Evident beyond needing Proof, that this Rule cannot (on it's part) deceive us. For, put­ting that it was still follow'd, or, that Posterity still be­liev d and practis'd as their Immediate Fore-Fathers did, who at first believ'd and practis'd as the Apostles had instructed them; 'tis manifest the Last Age of the World must have the same Faith that the First Age of Christianity had. Whence follows evidently that no [Page 8] Errour could possibly come in at any time unless this Rule of Tradition had been deserted.

6thly, That Tradition, thus understood, (and we ne­ver understood it otherwise) being the Living Voice and Practice of the Church in the immediate Age before, is applicable to all even of the lowest Capacity; as we experience, to some degree, in the instructions by Past­ours even now adays. And, since it delivers it's Sense (which, in those that have follow'd that Rule, has been even now shewn to be Christ's Doctrin) by Preaching▪ Catechizing, Explaining, daily Practising, and all the ways imaginable to make it understood, 'tis also an Ab­solutely-Clear Conveyer of Christ's Doctrin downwards. Add that, should it's sense be at any time misapprehen­ded, the Church and her Pastours can explain their own meaning, pertinently to the Askers, Doubter's or Mis­taker's Exigencies; which a Letter in a Book cannot.

7thly, That the Chief Care of the Church was to inculcate to the Faithful, and preserve inviolate the Chief Points of the Christian Faith; and, therefore, that Tradition did most particularly exert it's self in Teaching and Transmitting Those.

8thly, 'Tis not to be deny'd but Scriptural Traditi­on went along with this other we have explain'd. For the Church having the same sense in her breast which the First Writers had, were, consequently, the best In­terpreters of it; which was one Reason why the Fathers and Councils often made use of it to confute Hereticks, and comfort the Faithful by it's concurrence. But, when they were to convert any to Faith, it was never heard, they took such a Method as to put the Bible in his hand, and bid him look for his Faith there; telling him 'twas Plain even in the highest points, that were dubious or Controverted, to every capacity.

[Page 9]9thly, That, hence, Scripture, Dr. St's. Se­cond Letter, p. 21. without the Churches help, was never held by them Anciently, nor can with reason be held by us now to be the Rule of Faith, in the sense we use that word; that is, to be a Means or Way for All who are coming to Faith, to arrive unerringly at it.

Lastly, we hold that the Sense of Scripture's Letter, in those sublime Points, surpasses the apprehensions of pri­vate men coming to Faith; and, so, the Letter alone can­not be an assured Ground to build the Truth of Christi­an Faith upon: whence follows that Tradition (which is Plain and Easy) and only It, can be in Proper Speech the Rule of Faith.

§. 6. This then is the true State of the Question be­tween us. This is our true Tenet, both concerning Scrip­ture and Tradition, and what are the Points to be ascer­tain'd by them. Now, let us see how the Sermon re­presents us, and whether your admired Preacher does so much as touch any one of these particulars.

§. 7. In the first place you may please to take notice that he never lets you know, or so much as suspect that the main Contest between him and me is about the Ab­solute Certainty, or Uncertainty of Christian Faith, His wicked Doctrin, in that Point, oblig'd me to write a Faith vindi­cated from pos­sibility of False­hood. whole Treatise formerly in Vindication of Christia­nity from such an Intolerable Scandal; which I apply'd, in the cloze of it, against himself and Dr. Tillotson. Had he let you know this, he prudently foresaw your Zeal for Christianity (your best Concern) would have given you a just prejudice against his Sermon, and the Preach­er too; and the very Conceit all Christians have of the Truth of their Faith, would have made you abhor a Dis­course out of a Pulpit, maintaining it might possibly be a Ly. As for particulars.

[Page 10]§. 8. First, he talks of a Stedfastness, and a firm and well-settled resolution to adhere to that Faith which Christ himself deliver'd. P. 1. But, ought you not to be assur'd first that he did indeed deliver it? Or are you to adhere to it as his, whether you are certain 'tis his or no? Or is a resolution, to hold stedfastly to what you judge is the Faith of Christ, well-settled, if that Faith of yours, the Basis of your Spiritual Building and Ground of that Resolution, be not well-settled it self, but may sink into False-hood? This is the true Point you are to look after; and, till you have perfect satisfaction from him in this, wisely to consider, that Pious Talk without Solid Grounds to support their Truth, is but painting the out-side of a Se­pulcher. The tinkling cymball of a little Rhetorick, and shews of much Reading, may go far with persons whom such flourishes can prevail upon to forgo their Reason; but he had but a very small respect for you, if he hop't you were so easy to be play'd upon with the wind of a little articulate ayr.

§. 9. It was very possible, he says, for them to have mistaken or misremember'd what was at first deliver'd: P. 4. Whom does he mean by [Them] What by [First Delivery]? Does he mean the Vniversality of Christians in the First Age, or any succeeding one? Or that those Great Bodies settled in their Faith, form'd into Church-Government, and kept up to their Christian Duties by Disciplin, could thus mistake or misremember the former Teach­ing and Practice, which was a plain matter of Fact? This is the only Tradition we ever spoke of, or went a­bout to defend. None doubts, but that, when some single Apostle was Preaching in some places at first, the Thoughts of the Hearers were as yet raw, and the things that were told them were so strange, that they did not immediately sink deep into the Conceptions of [Page 11] the Generality. But, it was otherwise, when in tract of time that Doctrin was farther spread, more often in­culcated, and more clearly explain'd; and well-instruct­ed Pastours constituted, to Teach it more expressly, and put them forwards to practise it. He mistake [...] then and misrepresents the whole nature of Our Tradition; and by antedating it, sights against it, before it could have a Being. And, as this Errour runs through all his Discourses, and weak Inferences out of Scripture; so the laying it open once for all, is a full confutation of them all at once. Add, that he never consider'd whe­ther, when those several Churches Err'd, or were in ha­zard to Err, they did so by following even that parti­cular Tradition, or Preaching of such or such an Apo­stle; or, whether they came to err by deserting it. If the Later, the Tradition was not faulty, but They who Deserted it; Yet, how different soever these two Points are, the one making for that particular Tradition, the other against it, he never thinks of distinguishing them, or letting the Reader know when the Tradition was in fault, and when the Persons; but runs on in common words, as if he had no Design, or determinate prospect whither he was going. I am sure it is not at all towards the true Question, nor against Us.

§. 10. But, tho' all his Reflexions from the several pie­ces of Scripture are quite besides the purpose, yet his Candid and Solid way of managing his own Mistakes, and how he wire-draws every thing to make it seem fit, deserves our particular observation. He tells us, speaking of the Church of Corinth, P. 5. that They (which signifies the whole Church) had like to have lost All their Faith; whereas the Text only sayes [Some among you.] And, is it such a wonder that some among many should hap to be imperfectly instructed, fantastical or refracto­ry [Page 12] to their Teachers. But his Partiality is most remark­able. When he was forc't to be beholding to the Churches Testimony of Doctrine (which is our Tradition) to abet the Scripture; he p. 11. could tell us then, This is very dif­ferent from the Case of particular Persons in some Churches, who might mistake or forget what was taught; but (sayes he)—the Churches themselves could not agree to ap­prove on Errour in the Gospel contrary to the Faith de­liver'd to them. So that there it was a very different Case; but here it seems the Case is not different at all, but the very same. For [Some among You] are enlarg'd to signify that Church it self; and whereas the only Point those Some deny'd, was The Resurrection of the Dead, to let you see how utterly insignificant a thing Tradition is that can do no good at all, he extends it to signify [All their Faith] hoping I suppose any thing would pass up­on you, so 'twere spoke out of a Pulpit; 'Tis told you there, All's Gods Word; and he presumes you will be so Civil to God Almighty, and so Kind to himself as to accept it for Such, and swallow it for Pure Truth.

§. 11. I am oblig'd to him for allowing, That the Testimony of every Christian Church did shew the Concur­rence of all the Apostles, p. 10, 11. as to the Doctrine contain'd in the several Gospels. For then, I hope, they may be able to shew to the next Age (and so forwards) the con­current Doctrine of the First, which establishes the Ori­ginal of our Tradition to be Absolutely Certain. He dis­courses well (p. 11.) and he ends better; That the Me­mory of the Apostles Doctrin was so fresh in their Minds, that it was in effect the Consent of all the Apostles who had taught them. And yet better; That the concurrent Testimony of all the Apostolical Churches could not let them agree to approve an Errour in the Gospels, contrary to the Faith deliver'd to them. This is very extra­ordinary [Page 13] kind and no less solid. For, 1. these Words, [could not agree to approve a contrary Doctrine] makes their Testimony Infallible. 2. This discourse makes the acceptation of the Truth of the Gospels, that is of their Sense, depend on Vnwritten Tradition 3. We can­not doubt but that Doctrine was Full as fresh in their Me­mories, when they were grown Older, and were to transmit it to the next Age after the Apostles decease, as it was before; unless they lost the Memory of it, by discoursing of it more while they taught it to others, & by Practising it longer themselves. 4. As little can it be doubted but the Doctrine and Practise of the First Age, was as Fresh in the minds of the Second Age, since they Led their Christian Lives by it; for it was Equal­ly Intelligible, and of Equal Concern still to them to Learn and Teach it, as it was to the First. Lastly, That this being so, the Testimony of that Body, even now a­days, that adheres to Tradition, P. 11. is in effect, the Consent of all the Apostles that taught it at First. Observe, Gen­tlemen, that this is the only time Dr. St. has so much as touch't upon Our Tradition; and that he is so far from impugning or confuting it, that he, in some part direct­ly, in others by necessary Consequence, acknowledges it's force, and strongly abets it. But, it was not out of good will; he was intent in that place upon making good the Truth of the Gospels; and, assoon as he has made use of it to serve a present turn, he immediately discards it as good for little or nothing, or nothing to the particular pur­pose he had lately allow'd, the Testifying Christs Doctrine.

§. 12. For the very next page, he reckons up three things, for which, The common Tradition of the Apostolical Church­es were useful after the Decease of the Apostles. P. 12. But not a word of their Vsefulness to Testify to others what they had learnt from those Masters of Christianity. No sooner were [Page 14] the Apostles dead, and that first Age had, by their con­current Testimony of the Doctrine they had receiv'd from them, given credit to the Truth of the Written Gospels; but immediately the whole Christian World had lost their Memory of that Doctrine on a sudden, and the Grace to preserve and propagate it. One would think by this wild Discourse of his, that both Common Natural parts, and all degrees of Ordinary Honesty had been preserv'd to them miraculously thitherto, meerly to recommend the Truth of the Gospels; and, that assoon as that was done, and the Apostles were dead, the Author of Nature and Grace suspended or rather subtracted for ever all his Influence, & left them a Tabula rasa (without either Memo­ry or Goodness) to learn their Faith a new out of Scripture.

P. 13.§. 13. And, hence it is that he rallies upon Univer­sal Testimony or Tradition as if it were some sleight story of a few Tatling Gossips, or of those who heard what some say, that others told them, who had it from such, &c. Whereas had he said as he ought to have said, What the whole First Age of Christians witnest to the next Age, that They had heard, seen, and practic't; and the whole next Age to the Third, and so forwards, with an Ob­ligation still to transmit it, Equal to that the First Age had to believe it, there had been no place left for his ri­diculous Raillery. But his constant Method is this; he endeavours to put you out of conceit with Tradition, by concealing every thing that might give you a true Conceit what Tradition is, and what we mean by it.

P. 14.§. 14. The Argument or Instance he brings to prove that the Authority of Tradition was mightily sunk in the Second Century, is, if possible, ten thousand times worse, One would verily think, from those big words, he would prove that All the Christians of the First Age had con­spir'd to tell a Ly to the Second, concerning Christ's [Page 15] Doctrin. But, this mountainous Expectation came off with a poor little mouse, the relation of one single man, Papias, of what an Apostle had told him; which he be­ing a good honest Soul, gain'd credit with diverse. Tho', as for his wit, Dr. St's Author, Eusebius, tells us he was a man of a mean capacity, and scarce understood the meaning of what was spoken, I wonder the Dr. blush't not to put such a Slur upon his Auditory, as to compare the Pub­lick Authority of the whole Christian World, and the Universal Testimony of God's Church, to the private story of one weak man; or to pretend hence that if he were mistaken, the Authority of Tradition mightily sinks and fails; whereas 'tis only his own Credit that falls in­to that disaster by making such a senseless Argument. Yet, this is the best, and, as far as I can find, the only one he has brought to prove directly the First Age of Chri­stians had bely'd Christ's Doctrin to the Second; and that because one man of a mean Capacity mistook, we may stand in doubt of our Assurance whether all the Lear­neder Faithfull, nay all the Pastours and Bishops in the Church, had Capacity enough to know an open matter of Fact, viz. what had been taught and practis'd publick­ly every day by a World of Fore-fathers, or the Integri­ty not to deceive us.

§. 15. Of the same stamp is his alledging that St. Luke's reason why he writ his Gospel,P. 14. was to give Theophilus Certainty of those things wherein he had been in­structed. The Subject of our Enquiry is about the High Points of Christian Belief: Does the Dr. think then that Theophilus was not a Christian, or had no Certain Knowledg of his Faith, ere St. Luke writ? Or, that the Apostles did not instruct people in those Main Articles? Or that St. Luke's Writing those Points in short (for those Points we speak of take up a very inconsiderable part of [Page 16] his Gospel) could make him know it better, and with more Certainty than their Preaching it at large? With what Sense can any of this be pretended? The Apostles did Miracles to attest their Doctrin: Did St. Luke, do a­ny to attest the True Sense of all he writ in those Points? Again, what did his Gospel contain? Only those Dog­matical Points controverted from time to time between the Sons of the Church, and her Deserters; of which, and none but which, we speak? Alas! these are the least part of his Gospel, and make but a small appear­ance in it. He relates our Saviour's Genealogy, Temp­tation, Fasting, Miracles, Parables, his sending his A­postles and Disciples, his Exhortations to Repentance and good Life, the Manner of his Entring into Ierusa­lem, his Instituting the Last Supper, the particulars of his being apprehended, accus'd, condemn'd, and Cru­cify'd. Lastly, his Burial, Resurrection, Apparitions and Ascension. These are laid out in that Gospel at large, together with many excellent sayings of our Blessed Sa­viour related verbatim. And These, as they were never pretended by us to be the Object of Tradition; so, tho' spoken of frequently (and perhaps variously) amongst Christians, were Impossible ever to be perfectly remem­ber'd by the Generality, unless put in a Book; and there­fore St. Luke gives Theophilus (and others) the Certain and particular knowledge of all these Passages by Writ­ing: And Dr. St. confesses the same (p. 17.) and that his aym and Intention was to give an Account of the Life and Actions of Christ, but not a word that his Writing was to give Theophilus Certainty or a Clearer Knowledge of those Main Articles, to ascertain which Tradition is pretended by us to be the most proper Means.

§. 16. Now let's see how many notorious prevari­cations and faults he has fallen into in this one Instance. [Page 17] 1. Our whole Controversy is about the Certainty of those sublime Points of Christian Faith; which he conceals, and confounds them with a multitude of particular Passages. 2. He intimates our Tradition is to ascertain all that's con­tain'd in St. Luke's Gospel. Whereas, he knows well, we re­ly upon no Tradition but whats in some degree Practical, which those Particulars are not; unless it be those, of which we keep Anniversary Solemnities. 3. He is so angry at Tradition, pag. 15. that he pretends the very Oral Tradi­tion or Preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles, needed something to strengthen and confirm it. Lastly, he makes our Tradition to begin with the first Preaching of the Apostles; whereas, it dates it's Original from the first Age of Christianity; already perfectly instructed by them, during all their Lives, and settled into Ecclesiastical Or­der and Discipline at their Decease.

§. 17. He seems at length to come neerer the Point, and affirms, That the Writings of the Apostles, when Matters of Doctrin came to be contested, pag. 14. were the Infalli­ble Rule whereby they were to judge which was the true and genuin Doctrin of Christ; and, which is yet better, that They were intended by the Holy Ghost, to be a stand­ing Rule, whereby the Church was to judge which was the true and genuin Doctrine of Christ. I am glad with all my heart, to hear him speak of the Church being a Judge of Controversies; or, that he allows Her any hand in ascertaining and proposing Faith. I ever under­stood him hitherto, That every sober Enquirer was to judge of the sense of Scripture for himself; That it was plain to him even in the highest Points; and, that if, in any contested or dubious Articles, the Letter of Scri­pture did not declare it explicitly, his sober Enquirer could Dr. St's Answer to the Catholic Let­ters, p. 71 by parity of Reason render any Implicit Point Explicit, Dr. St's Second Let­ter, p. 21. without the Church's Help; tho' this was [Page 18] the most difficult Task as to the penetrating the Sense of Scripture that is possible, and far beyond the under­standing what's there Explicitly. He told us too in his second Letter, p. 31, 32. that, because there is no Infalli­ble Iudge — every man is to Iudge for himself; and this by Scripture, his Rule. But, here the case is alter'd, and the Church is to judge of Christ's Doctrin by Scripture. I can allow honest Retractions without upbraiding them; and am contented that the Church should judge by Scripture, both when She is to Edify Her Children, and in contests with Hereticks, as to all those Points contain'd there; and, I think the only difficulty in that particular is, By what means She came to be Ab­solutely-Certain of it's Sense. Let him add then but one word more, and say that by the Letter of Scripture She so judg'd of Faith, that She could not be in an Errour, or mistaken all the while, and then Christian Faith is Absolutely-Certain, and my greatest care is over. And, if he does not That, what is the future Church, after the Apostles Deaths, the better for Scripture's being an In­fallible Rule, if She and Her Children partake not the Benefit of that Infallibility some way or other, by be­ing perfectly secur'd from Erring in Faith? Is it not all one as to the intent of knowing assuredly we have the Faith taught by Christ, whether we have an Infallible Rule or no, if, when we have done our best, we may still stray from Her Faith? Or, why is not a Rule that is not Absolutely-Certain, so I have Absolute Certainty I am directed by it, as good for that purpose, as an Abso­lutely-Certain Rule with no Absolute Certainty that I do indeed go according to it. To speak to his proposi­tion: Whether the Church and the Faithful in Contests with Hereticks avail'd Her self of Scripture's Letter, to gain Absolute-Certainty of it's Sense, in those main Te­nets; or brought the Sense (which She had another [Page 19] way) along with her, shall be decided if he pleases, by St. Austin, whom he cites here, p. 16.

§. 18. He will prove Scripture a Rule from the gene­ral Reason of it's Writing;See p. 15. and prove this general Rea­son from a Testimony of Irenaeus, which speaks of the Gospel as abstracted from being Preach't and Written; and who doubts but as such it is infallibly true. He seems to build much upon the Words [That it might be a Foundation and Pillar of our Faith.] Be it what it will in it self, the Point is, How does it Build Faith in us? By it's meer Letter, descanted upon by private Iudg­ments, or, interpreted by the Church? The Later he denies; the Former, all our most earnest Pressing and Intreating could never bring him, nor his Reflecter to go about to make out; and he wayes it totally through this whole Sermon. Let him then but shew that he has Absolute-Certainty of Scripture's Sense, in those Tenets of Christian-Faith, by any Method his Principles will allow him, and his Sermon should have past for me without Controul. That's the main Point, whereas all here is quite besides it. As for those Words from S. Irenaeus he could have quoted the very same words (in a manner) from a better Author (even the Holy Scripture) call­ing the Church, the Pillar and Ground of Truth; but that he lik't not the Application of them to the Church. It seems he can neglect his Rule, and make no more reckoning of it than he did of the Oral Tradition, or Preaching of the Apostles, when it stands in his way, of comes cross to his purpose.

§. 19. It has been manifested above, that his Discours­es from the writing of the Gospels and Epistles are all guilty of the same Fault, and Antedate our Tradition;p. 16, 17. &c. and his Inferences thence, as levell'd against our Tenet, are weaker than Water. He makes Tradition any thing [Page 20] what he pleases, and will have it do every thing, tho' it was never intended for it, nor ever pretended by us it was able to do it. One while it must bring down the p. 19. De­crees of Councils. Another while it must convey ibid. long Disputes about divers Points; and the resolution of them; and this Totidem Verbis, otherwise the Apostles Sense might have been lost. It must secure people from be­ing p. 20. remov'd from Christ's Gospel to another; whereas no man ever held that the Galatians were remov'd from Christ's Gospel by following even the particular Tradition or Preaching of that Apostle; nor that any particular Men, nay Churches, might not be remov'd from it e­ven into Heathenism, or Iudaism, if they deserted it. He expects too, it should secure men from p. 21. danger of being Deceiv'd; whereas, supposing them once well-In­structed in Faith (and 'tis suppos'd to our Tradition the Church was so) 'tis See above §. 5. Note 5. self-evident they can never be deceiv'd while they hold to that Certain Rule; be­cause that is to hold the same they were instructed in at first. But if all were not well instructed at first, as 'tis impossible they should, then they might be deceiv'd, ei­ther by deserting Tradition, or even by holding to such a Tradition; if, for want of perfect Instruction in that raw and unsettled state of Christianity, that which they held at first was not perfectly Christ's Doctrine. Nay, he would have it keep even Hereticks from Ibid. Defection, Hypocrisie, Lying and Deceiving: which were a rare Tra­dition indeed, to do such Kindnesses, and work such good Effects upon those who had deserted it, and would not make use of it; at least, he would have it keep Peo­ple from Weakness and Folly; which the Common As­sistances of Nature and Grace will do, after the Genera­lity is well settled in that Doctrine. For, when all the Question is, What the Apostles preach't, 'tis a Madness [Page 21] and Folly both to believe some few men, before the Uni­versal Testimony of the Christian Church. But he will have Tradition still do all the Mischiefs imaginable, and Writing do all the Good; forgetting, I suppose, that there are some things in St. Paul's Writings, 2 Pet. 3.16. which the Vn­learned and Vnstable wrest, as they do also the other Scrip­tures, to their own destruction. All this while, What is this to the Tradition we assert, which begun afterwards?

§. 20. From these impertinent Premises, he infers as impertinent a Conclusion, viz. That, P. 22. what was deliver'd in Scripture contains a compleat Rule of the true and genuin Faith, as it was at first deliver'd to the Church. Now, that what's signify'd by Scripture is the same the Apo­stles signify'd by their Preaching, is plain Sense, and never deny'd; and, so he needed not have made all this clutter to prove it. But plain sense will do him no service, whose best play 'tis to blunder and confound every thing; let us see then what it is that will. His first words [What they have therein delivered] can mean nothing but the Sense of Scripture; for that is the thing signify'd or deliver'd by the Letter; and both sides confess, that the Sense of Scripture is Christ's Faith. If then we spell his Words together, they plainly amount to this, That Christ's Faith contains a compleat Rule of the true and ge­nuin Faith, as it was deliver'd at first to the Church, that is, Faith it self contains a compleat Rule to it's self. Make sence of this who can. The best I can make of it is, That the Conclusion keeps decorum with the Premises; and that he has mighty well imploy'd his Labour to keep such a huge Pother to infer such a worthy Point.

§. 21. I have nothing to do with his Objecting some of our Writers, but shall come to his P. 23. Second Reason, drawn from the notorious Vncertainty of meer Tradition; and that never was any trial made of it but it fail'd, even [Page 22] when it had the greatest Advantages. Expect Gentlemen, by those high and mighty Words, he will bring most Convincing Arguments, to prove that the Universal Testimony of the Church in delivering down those high Points of Faith is notoriously Vncertain, and fail'd in e­very Age, nay, the very First, for then it had the Grea­test Advantages; the Christians having then fresh Me­mories, and being then Infallible, since they could not a­gree to approve false Doctrin, as himself told us p. 11, 12. For my part I am of his mind, and never knew a­ny other Tradition have Advantages comparable to what Christian Tradition had for transmitting the Doc­trine of Faith; and if he lets you know what those Ad­vantages of Christian Tradition were, and shews them unable to oblige the Church to convey Christ's Doctrin down, he will gain his Point: But, if he prevaricates from this necessary Duty, he abuses you with fine Luke-warm Words to no purpose. I do assure you be­fore hand, tho' he talks here of Advantages, he has not in his whole Sermon mention'd, much less ingenuously inform'd you of any one Advantage Christian Tradition has; but industriously conceal'd every particular that gives it force. Yet, who sees not that without doing this, 'tis impossible to impugn it, or deal fairly with his Auditory; for how should you judge of the Compari­son, without a clear sight of the things Compar'd?

§. 22. He did very prudently, not to insist on the fal­ling of Tradition in the Law of Nature;Ibid. For 1. He must have shewn It fail'd them, and not They fail'd It by de­serting it; which could only be done by proving that had they continu'd to follow it, they could have stray'd into Polytheism; which he can never do, it being evidently Impossible. 2. That, to make good the Parallel, he must have prov'd it had as Ample an Original (which [Page 23] gives a vast force to Testifying Authority) as Christian Tradition had; which is equally impossible; for it had for its Source but one single man, Adam. 3. That there were not more powerful Motives, nor greater Assistan­ces of Grace to continue the Christian Doctrine under the Law of Grace, than there were under that most imper­fect Law of Nature; nor more exact Discipline in the Church of Christ, than there was in that loose State: which had been hard Points, and altogether impossible even to attempt with any shew of Reason.ibid. He did very wisely too to Wave the Opinion of the Millenaries, the time of Easter and the Communicating of Infants. For he both knows that every Apostolical Tradition (had this last been suppos'd such) is not necessarily an Article of Faith; as also that none of these (nor yet their con­trary) was a Point of Christian Doctrine Preach't and Settled unanimously over the World by the Apostles. He made account he had a better game to play, by shew­ing how P. 23.24. Tradition fail'd in delivering down the Apo­stles Creed. But he might, had he pleas'd, as well have left out That as the Others; for See my third Catholick Let­ter §. 2, & 3. none of the Explainers of Tradition ever held or said it was to bring down Set Form of Words, which requir'd application of Memo­ry and Repetition of them in Order; but only the Sense of the First Age (which was Christ's true Faith) instill'd after a connatural way by Education; and apt to be ex­prest in different Words, according to different Circum­ces.

§. 23. Were it granted him, That P. 26. things Written (sup­posing the Letter could be prov'd to be still continu'd Absolutely Certain) had the Advantage, as to the Certain­ty of Conveyance, above things meerly committed to Me­mory and Tradition; yet he is where he was. The Point between us still sticks; that is, Whether meer Words, [Page 24] expressing in short such sublime spiritual Tenets, as are most of the chief Articles of Christian Religion, are so Clear to private Judgments, nay, to All (even the Vulgar) that are looking for Faith, that they can have that perfect Assurance of their true Sense, as to build that Never-to-be-Alter'd Assent, call'd Faith, upon their un­derstanding them. This is the summ of our difficulty; this is what we most insist upon, and are perpetually pressing him to shew the security of the Method he takes to give us this Certainty: I do not mean the Certainty of the Letter (about which he keeps such ado) but of the sense of it in such Points, if he thinks any one of them so necessary, that the Generality cannot be sav'd with­out the knowledge of it. This is it, which most imports you to know, if you value the having such Grounds for your Faith, as ought in true reason to perswade you 'tis true that it was Taught by Christ, or that you are not perhaps dociend, and in an Errour all this while. But, not one word of this in the whole Sermon. P. 16. He argues from God's making choice of Writing, when he deliver'd the Ten Commandments. What means he, or how can he apply this to our Question? Are the Ten Command­ments, which are plain honest Nature, of as Deep and Mysterious a Sense, as the high Points we speak of? Are they so hard to be understood, that Writing is not a clear Conveyer of God's Sense in such Matters? Does he hear a great part of the World at variance about the Meaning of the Ten Commandments, as multitudes of Hereticks have been Wrangling with the Church ever since Christ's time, about the Sense of Scripture in those Dogmatical Points? Were the Texts which contain those Points as plain to all Mankind as the Ten Com­mandments are, or as are generally the Historical and Moral parts of Scripture, I should frankly declare, that [Page 25] Scripture might in that Supposition be a Rule of Faith, as to the Points contained in it; and that there would be no need of the Church for our simply believing, but only to confirm our Faith, explain it more throughly, when any part of it, imply'd in some main Point, is deny'd; apply it to our Consciences by her Preaching, and keep us up to the Doctrin it delivers by her Government and Discipline. So that our Controversy-Preacher, who has never hit the Point hitherto, doubly misses it here in his representing Tradition, as held by us needful to supply the defect of Clearness in Moral passages, that are plain enough of themselves; and that 'tis to bring down Set-Forms of Words, (which is not its business) whatever it be those Words express. And this shews his Mistake in his P. 27. Second Proof; viz. the restoring the Knowledge of the Law Written by a Written Book; which was a Way most Proper for that End. Whence, for the same Reason, if there were any deviation from the Christian Doctrin, which, as contradistinguish't to that other, was writ in the Living Tables of the Hearts of the Faithful, the best Way of preserving or restoring That, was by the Sence writ in the Heart of the Church at first by the Preaching of the Apostles, and continu'd ever since, in the manner we have describ'd and prov'd.

§. 24. But, The Dr. is got into a Track of mistaking, and he cannot get out of it. He brings for his Third Ar­gument our B. Saviour's advice to the Iews to search the Scriptures. The business was,Ibid. to know whether he was the true Messias; and the Prophecies relating to the Mes­sias were Matters of Fact, or else Moral; and therefore proportion'd to the Understanding of the Searchers; and plain enough, so they apply'd but Industry & Diligence to find them out. Are your Mysteries of Christian Faith such? Or, Must weak unelevated Understandings therefore [Page 26] presume to penetrate the Meaning of the Scripture in Texts of so deep a Sense as those Mysteries are, because the Jews were exhorted to do it, in a matter within the Sphere of their Capacity? Again, The Tradition of the Iews was very strong, that a Messias should come; but that This was the Person, there was no Tradition at all. This was therefore either to be made known by his Mi­racles done to attest it, or to be found out by the apply­ing of diverse particulars to Him, and by seeing they all concurr'd in him. And did ever any of us pretend, that Tradition was to bring down such particulars? If he says we did, he must shew where! If he confesses we did not, he must confess withal, his Text and Discourse here is nothing to the purpose. He turns it off from the Admo­nition of searching the Scriptures to know the true Messias, to the knowing whether he were a Temporal Prince; whereas the Tradition of his Kingdom's being purely Spiritual, was neither Vniversally held, taught, nor deli­ver'd at first by the First Founders of that Law, nor settled in the hearts of the Synagogue, or the Universality of the Jews in the beginning, as Christ's Doctrin was by the unanimous Preaching of the Apostles in the hearts of such a numerous Multitude as was the Christian Church of the First Age. Which being evidently so, What rea­son was there our Saviour should refer them to such a slight, or rather no-Tradition, and not to the Written Pro­phecies, in which he was foretold? Or, What conse­quence can be drawn hence to the prejudice of Christian Tradition, which, and which only, we defend; and which (as was fitting) is so strongly supported, that it is impossible to find a Parallel to equal or come nigh it. And unless this be done, all his Arguments against it stand thus, A Lesser Force cannot do an Effect, therefore a Grea­ter cannot. An odd piece of Logick, but suitable to all the rest.

[Page 27]§. 25. His Fourth Reason represents Tradition to be meerly Verbal, and not Practical. p. 28. That it (alone) is to bring down particular Matters of Fact, or Historical pas­sages; nay, the Speculative Whimsies of the old Heathen Phylosophers. None of which was ever pretended; and, so, all his Discourse runs upon his old and oft-repeated Errour in the true meaning of Tradition.

§. 26. The Reasons he gives for the Certainty of the Books of Scripture, we allow to a Tittle; and we add to them One, over and above, which is better than them all; viz. the Obligation and Care of the Church; which, as She ever held the Scriptures to contain the same Doctrin which was preach't to Her at first by Christ's Order, and that it was a most incomparable Instrument for the Edifi­cation of her Children, the Abetment of Faith, the Salvation of Mankind, nay, an Instruction to Her Self too in thousands of most excellent, most useful, and most enlightning passa­ges; so She could not but look upon Her Self as most highly oblig'd to preserve the Letter from any material Altera­tion; and yet more particularly, in case any Hereticks went about to corrupt it in any Texts (nay, Coma's or Pointings) that concerned the main Articles of Christia­nity, which they sometimes attempted; the Doctrin of Christ in her Breast, could easily direct them to set the Text right again, and that with Absolute Certainty. Nor does any say, or so much as suppose any Book of Scripture is indeed lost, as he hints, p. 29. only, upon his saying, That See Third Catholic Let­ter, p. 36. the Scripture we have now, contains all the Divine Revelations; I us'd the right of a Disputant, and put him to make good what he says, and to prove he has the Absolute Certainty he pretended to, that no Book was lost, without which he could have no such Certainty those pieces of Scripture we have now, did contain All the Divine Revelations; which, by his Grounds, deny­ing [Page 28] any Certainty but what might admit of Deceit, I was sure he was not able to perform.

§. 27. Nor do I at all doubt of the Influence of Divine Grace, P. 30. or of the Internal Satisfaction which good Souls, who are already Faithful, (or as St. Thomas of Aquin cited by him, expresses himself, Have the Habit of Faith, by which they have a right Iudgment of those things which are agreeable to that vertue) receive concerning Scripture and Christ's Doctrin; or that they confirm men more than Demonstration does. Arguments have the Nature of Pre­liminaries to Faith, or Searches after it; but the Inward Satisfaction that that Heavenly Doctrin rectifies and pu­rifies the Soul, and levels it directly towards the Attain­ment of it's last Blissful End, has the nature of a kind of Experience, and, as it were, Possession and Enjoyment of what Humane Arguments, previous to Faith, had been looking after, and contending for. I suppose, Gentlemen, the Dr. brought in this Discourse to prepare your Minds, by a shew of Piety, to rest appay'd with any slight Rea­son that falls short of concluding, and breed in you a pre­judice against the necessity of his producing any such Arguments, as place Christian Faith above Possibility of Falshood. But, he is as much out of the Way here as he was in all the rest; For, notwithstanding God's Grace, and this Internal Satisfaction, which is Proper to good Souls who are Believers already, the Church and her Pastours must be furnish'd with solid and unanswerable Reasons, to satisfie perfectly those, both of the lowest and most acute capacity, who are looking after Faith, that the Doctrin She professes was taught by Christ; and, to evince and defend its Truth, in that particular, against the most subtile Adversaries; which cannot be done, unless the Reasons which we, as Controvertists, bring, set it above possibility of Falshood, that Christ taught it. [Page 29] We cannot put God's Grace and our Internal Satisfaction into Syllogisms when we are disputing. Nor does God intend by His Grace to prejudice the true Nature Him­self has given us, which is Reason; but to perfect and elevate it. 'Tis against Reason, that in Preliminaries to Faith, which are the Objects of Natural Reason, those who are capable to penetrate the force of reasons, should assent beyond the Motive; for, as far as it is beyond the Motive, 'tis without any Motive; that is, without any Reason; and, therefore (whatever often happens through the Imperfection of Creatures) such an Irrational Assent could never have been intended by God. Whence, as it belongs to Infinite Goodness to give those who sincerely seek for Truth, the Grace to embrace it; so it belongs to infinite Wisdom to lay such means to arrive at Truth, (that is, in our case, such a Rule of Faith) as both evince it's Truth to those who are capable, according to the most exact Methods of True Reason; and withal, perfect­ly See Errour Non-plust, p. 134, 135. secure those from Errour who follow that Rule, let them be as Weak as they will. If then we are bound to embrace Christian Faith as a Truth, and profess it to be so, it must be indeed such; and therefore the Grounds left us by God must be of that nature, as to prove or con­clude it to be such: and, if Dr. St. have no such Grounds that what he holds is really Christ's Doctrin, he ought not to handle or preach Controversie; since he must ne­cessarily disgrace and weaken Christian Faith, when he is to credit and establish it. Nay, he ought not to pre­tend he has that most firm, and most strongly-supported Assent, call'd Faith, which depends necessarily on the Certainty that it was taught by Christ, but candidly yield he has Opinion only in that Point; not an Vnalte­rable Belief it is True, but only a good Conceit or Hope that it is so, or may be so: Too weak a Prop to sustain [Page 30] it's Truth, as it leans on Christ or his Apostles, having taught it; or to settle the Basis of all our Spiritual Life.

§. 28. And now let's apply this Discourse to his Ground or Rule, by means of which he is to be thus assur'd, or able to assure You of the Truth of those Controverted Points, which you hear so warmly disputed in the world; and which it so much imports you to be satisfy'd in. 'Tis Scripture's Letter (in Texts that are thought to re­late to those Points) as understood or interpreted by Him­self, or any other Private Judgment. What he has then to do, is to make out with Absolute Certainty, that this Method of arriving at the Knowledge of Christ's True Doctrin, as to those Points, cannot be Deceitful and Er­roneous. Otherwise, 'tis unavoidable, his Faith, and all Christian Faith, no better grounded, may be False, and, by consequence, is not True. He will tell you Twenty fine Stories, and give you many pretty words of it's being Sufficiently Certain, Morally Certain, that it has such Assu­rance as men accept for other matters, &c. But ask him smartly and closely, if any of these Certainties or Assu­rances are Impossible to be False, and he must not, nor will deny it: for, should he say it, he must pretend he could not be deceiv'd in his understanding those Texts right, which he could not do without professing Infalli­bility in that particular. Observe, I beseech you, where the stress of the whole Question lyes. 'Tis in this, Whe­ther this Ground or Method of his to be assur'd of Faith, is able to prove it to have been truly and indeed taught by Christ, so as it was not possible it should be otherwise. By this Test, if you examin the very good-Grounds for the Certainty of his Protestant Faith, which he promises you here in his Preface, you will find evidently he only gives you very good Words instead of very good Grounds; and that, whatever he produces, whether he quotes or argues, [Page 31] he will never vouch them to be so Certain, but Deceit and Errour may possibly consist with them. He will com­plain, that 'tis an unreasonable expectation, because the nature of the things will not bear it. And what's this, but to tell you in other terms, that there neither is any Absolute Certainty of Faith, nor can be any: which bids fair for Atheism, unless Interest satisfies the Will, and by it the Reason. By his speaking there of the main Points in Controversie between us, I perceive he is running from the whole business in hand, and seeking to shelter himself, and hide his Head in a Wilderness. But he shall not shift the Question thus, and fall to ramble into endless Dis­putes. Himself confest (Second Letter, p. 20.) our Que­stion was about the General Grounds of our Faith, and not the particular Certainty as to this or that Doctrin, and I joyn'd issue with him upon the same. To run to par­ticular points while That's a settling, is to put the Con­clusions before the Premises; and, to go about to ascer­tain things depending intirely on a Method or Rule, with­out ascertaining that Method or Rule first, is to begin at the wrong end, and make the Cart draw the Horse.

§. 29. I owe him yet an Answer to St. Austin. He alledges that Father (p. 16.) whose Testimony says only, That the Gospels are to be look't upon as Christ's own Hand-writing, and that he directed the order and manner of the Evangelist's Writing; which only signifies they were divinely inspir'd in both: which none denies; nor has This any Influence upon the Point in hand. He could have quoted you other places out of Him, if he had pleas'd, which come up to it fully; and I shall sup­ply his backwardness with doing it my self. Quaerendi dubitatio, &c. (Lib. 1. Gen. ad Lit. Imper­fect. cap. 1. says that Learned and Holy Father) The Doubt of Enquiry ought not to exceed the Bounds of Catholick Faith. And, because many Hereticks use to draw [Page 32] the Exposition of the Divine Scriptures to their own Opi­nion, which is against the Faith of the Catholick Disciplin; therefore — Ante tractationem hujus Libri Catholica Fides explicanda est. Before the handling this Book, the Catholick Faith is to be explained. Where Dr. St's Sober Enquirer is curb'd and restrain'd in his licentious Search of his Faith in Scripture, by the Catholick Faith, had (it seems) some other way; for, were his Faith to be had meerly by searching Scripture for it, with what sense ought he to be restrain'd, while he was in the Way to Faith: To restrain one who is in the right Way, is to hinder him from going right, or perhaps to put him out of his Way. Again, Tho' those Heretical Opinions were both against the true Sense of Scripture, and against Tradition too; yet, had he held Scripture the Rule, he should rather have said they were against the true signi­fication of Scripture's Letter, than against the Faith of the Catholick Discipline. Besides, if Catholick Faith was to be explain'd before they came to handle Scripture, how was Scripture the Rule for all to come to Faith, when as Faith was to be had (nay, well understood by the Ex­planation of it) antecedently, lest they might otherwise fall into Heresie? And, in another place, speaking of a false Pointing of the Letter, made by the Arians, to abet their Heresie, he confutes them thus; De Doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 1. (Sed hoc— But this is to be refuted by the Rule of Faith, by which we are instructed before-hand in the Equality of the Trinity. Had this Rule of Faith been held by him to be the Let­ter of Scripture, he would have had recourse to some exacter Copy, correcting their faulty one; and, so have born up still to that Rule: But 'tis evident he does not thus. He makes then the Sense of the Church or Tra­dition the Rule, both to know our Faith, and also to correct the faultiness of the Letter. Whether this sutes better [Page 33] with the Drs. Principles or ours, is left to your selves or any man of reason to judg and determine.

§. 30. Thus comes off this famous Sermon which makes such a noise, for a Confutation of the Traditionary Doc­trin. The Sum of it is, 1. The Dr. takes no notice of the main Question betwixt us, which is about the Absolute-Certainty that our Faith is Truly Christian or taught by Christ, nor attempts to shew his is thus Certain; but Preaches to you Stedfastness and a well-setled Resolu­tion to continue in it, yet avoids the giving you any Grounds to make you Stedfast and Well-setled in that resolution. 2. He conceals every Advantage Christian Tradition has, or is pretended to have; that is, he would perswade you to Hate it, before you See it, and to com­pare it to Scripture before you know what kind of thing it is; which is yet worse, he shews you another thing for It, and through all his Discourse pretends 'tis It, which is nothing at all to It, but utterly unlike It; viz. Particular Traditions, both before and after that Vniver­sal Tradition (only which we defend) was setled. 3. He fixes a false date upon the beginning of the Tradition we speak of, that the vast source of it, which (with the Circumstances annext) was able to continue the Current strong, and the Derivation of Christ's Doctrin both Certain and Perpetual, might not be reflected on. To deform it the more, he makes it meerly Verbal, as if it were nothing but the telling some dry story, by surpressing it's Practicalness, in which consists it's chief­est Vertue. 4. He hides from your consideration all the most Incomparable, and most Powerful Motives which enforce its Continuance, and oblige the Church never to forsake the first deliver'd Doctrin. 5. He ne­ver regards, even in those Particular Traditions, whether they fail'd the Persons, or the Persons fail'd Them; but [Page 34] supposes still the Tradition was in all the fault, without attempting to shew it. 6. He would have you imagin the Church in the first Age (consisting of Pastors and People) lost all their Memory and Grace too, assoon as e­ver the Apostles were dead, lest it should be held A­ble and Willing to testify Christ's Doctrine to the Next Age, which by Parity would Establish it a Rule for all succeeding Ages to the End of the World. 7. He mingles known Opinions, and which he holds himself not to have been Universally deliver'd at first, with Points which we All hold to have been first deliver'd. Then, as to the Matter of Object of Tradition, which, and on­ly which we pretend it is to bring down with abso­lute Certainty, and deliver Clearly (viz. the Dogma­tical or Controverted Articles of Christian Faith, which are Practical) he never mentions it at all with any distinction, but tumbles and confounds it with all things imaginable for which it was never pretended; and puts upon Tradition a hundred abus'd tasks as never thought of by us, so improper, & oft times impossible in themselves; As, the deriving down the Ten Commandments, Creeds, Decrees of Councils, set Forms of Words, an Infinity of particular passages not at all Practical, nay, whole E­pistles and Gospels, Schemes of Doctrin taught by Hea­then Philosophers; Messages which use to be sent by long Letters; Historical Narrations or Actions; and in a word, every thing he could invent but the right one (viz. Those Controverted Points of Faith) tho' it lay just before him: the very nature of Controversy, which we are about, determining our Discourses to those Points, and nothing else: This is his General view of Scripture and Tradition, as to the way of conveying down matters of Faith. He means a General view, which misre­presents and blinds your sight of it in every Particu­lar: [Page 35] In a Word, there is much of Reading, Conduct and Wit in his Sermon; but wholly misemploy'd to speak as handsomely as he could to no purpose, and to miss the whole Point in Question with a great deal of Plausibility. In which, amongst his other Great Abili­ties, justly acknowledg'd to be Excellent, consists his most considerable Talent and Dexterity.

§. 31. So he ends his Sermon with good Advice to you to follow Christ's Heavenly Doctrin in your Lives and Conversations. Which, as he worthily presses upon you, so I shall heartily pray that God would vouchsafe you his Grace to follow it. I am far from blaming His or any one's Preaching the wholsome Moral Doctrines of Christianity, and laying it home to men's Consciences: But I ought not, if concern'd, to suffer, that, when he pretends to speak to your Understandings, and establish you in Faith, he should bubble his Auditory with forty impertinent pretences, Injurious to his candid Adversa­ries and to Truth, as well as to your selves; please and delude your Fancies with a great shew of his Reading, and little conjectural Reflexions tack't prettily toge­ther; and, in the mean time, send you away empty of knowing any Ground which may render you, or a­ny, Absolutely Certain, that what you hold is in­deed Christ's Doctrin; that is, any Ground of perfect se­curity; that is, cannot but be indeed his Doctrin; with­out being which it ought not be held True. Whereas yet, 'tis only this Certainty which can give His or any other Sermon it's full force and Energy.