A LETTER OF THANKS From the AUTHOR OF SURE-FOOTING To his Answerer Mr. J. T.  Quis autem magis de his novit, hic ne seductus homo qui etiam nunc superest, & hucusque in hoc mundo versatur, aut qui ante nos Testes fuerunt, habentes ante nos Traditionem in Ecclesiâ; quique etiam à Patribus suis Traditum acceperunt, quemadmodum etiam hi à Patribus suis didicerunt qui ante ipsos fuerunt, quomodo Ecclesia acceptam à Patribus suis veram fidem usque huc continet, itemque Traditiones. Epiphan: contra Aerium. haer. 75. 
Paris, 1666.   

SIR,  
1. YOur Friend Mr. Stillingfleet, who, I thank him, professes a great deal of real kindness for me, tells yourself in the beginning of his Appendix, that your performances in your Book have been so clear and satisfactory, that he hopes Mr. S. in stead of another Letter of directions to his Answerer, will write you one of Thanks, for the Reason and Kindness you have showed him throughout your Book. I hate to be ungrateful, and have that real kindness for him and yourself too as not to suffer your hopes to be defeated. My Obligations of Gratitude he concieves to spring from a twofold Head; the Reason and the Kindness you have shown me. The former of which is to be examined by reducing the respective parts of your Discourse to Grounds or Principles; which I shall do when it shall please God to give me leisure and health to answer your Book; and I promise you faithfully to own as much Reason in it as these will allow me: I fear you may dislike the verdict of Principles and think them discourteous because of their inflexible genius, and self-confident too, because they love naturally to express themselves with an Assuredness, and are oft so bold as (unconcerned in the Sceptical humour of others) to talk of those bug bears to Fancy, Evidence and Demonstration; But be assured, Sir, though they are not altogether so good-natured nor bashful as your timorous quivering Probabilities, which you phrase modest, yet they are very just and honest; and, as they cannot flatter you, so neither will they injure you in the least. My other Obligation to Gratitude is the Kindness you have showed me; and, as Mr. Stillingfleet says very truly, throughout your Book, which it were a Sin to deny. For I know no greater Kindness from one that opposes me than to write in such a manner as to put himself upon the greatest Disadvantages imaginable to give me so many Advantages against him and his Cause. Nor am I to expect your Intention should go along with your Favours; 'tis abundant Kindness in an Adversary that by his means I enjoy the reality of the Benefit; and this I have received from you, never to be forgotten but with Ingratitude. As oft as you omit what's important, mistake either voluntarily or weakly, triumph causelessly, injure me undeservedly, cavil groundlessly, prevaricate from the business purposely, revile bitterly, jeer sillily; or falsify and pervert my meaning or words palpably; so many real Kindnesses you confer upon your poor Servant, of which in this Letter of mine both to yourself and the world I here make my hearty Profession and Acknowledgement.  
2. And first I am to give you very humble thanks for totally waving to take notice of my Letter to my Answerer. The whole scope of it was to request you would hold to a Method which was evidently Conclusive; that you would begin with some First Principles, and vouch them to be, as First Principles should be, self-evident; That (as all Art and Common Sense gives it) you would not produce any Thing against Tradition till you show it depends not on Tradition for its Certainty; that you would either confess your Testimonies unapt to Certify, or declare in what their virtue of Certifying consists, which must needs either show them feeble if they be such; or, if otherwise, enforce and strengthen them: That you would uphold your Arguments satisfactory, that is, able to subdue the Understanding to Assent, and show us how they come by that virtue; with divers other Requests, not Prescriptions as you call them, only tending to make a short End of Controversy by bringing Truth quickly to a clearing by the way of Principles. Now, who sees not that I had obliged myself to the same severe Laws of Concluding, by proposing them to you; and so, had you had any Principles worthy to be called such, or the confidence in your Cause to venture upon any Conclusive method, you had gained a notable advantage against me in laying hold of that method and obliging me to stand to it, because I was the Proposer of it. At least you might have pleased to have shown my Way Inconclusive, and substituted and established a better, in case you had thought any Evident or Conclusive method your Advantage. But 'tis a manifest sign you judged any rigorous way of Concluding unsuitable to your Causes and your own Interest; and that to continue still on Foot Inconclusive & endlesly-talking ways of Discourse, (as is yours, which consists in being able to say a great many pretty plausible any-things to every thing) was more proportioned and advantageous to your moderate, modest, courteous and probable Faith; which is (I dare say for it) far from that Boldness and Selfconfidence as to talk of Principles, Evidence, Demonstration, or even Certainty, unless minced and allayed with the Epithet Sufficient; though you will never show us how acknowledged possibility to be otherwise can ever convince us sufficiently to Assent the thing is so, or why a Capacity to be false for any thing we know, is not the very notion of Incertainty, and so most abusively pinned to the notion of Certainty. Now, that you should so perfectly wave speaking to that Letter, it being particularly directed to yourself, whereas the Book you pretend to answer was not; the end aimed at in it being by all men's Confession very importantly good, that is to shorten Controversies and bring our Disputes to a period; also the method of Discoursing being (as Logic tells us) one of the praecognoscenda to the Discourse itself, and so either Disputant has right to require it should be first treated of, though I civilly requested it of you: Lastly, it being so indifferently framed to your or my interest, or rather totally for his who had Truth or Grounds on his side; that is, for you, were your cause so qualified; and, as such, equally liked by Judicious Protestants as well as Catholics: This being so, that you should so totally sleight and disregard it in these circumstances, is a clear argument you think it not safe to venture your cause and Credit upon Principles or any Evident or Conclusive method of discoursing; and a plain Confession by way of Fact that all your discourse against my Book has neither Principles to subsist by, nor Evidence to conclude by. Which acknowledgement of yours though tacitly and modestly expressed (for you are a modest man in all your rational performances, and only very brag and brisk when some jest haunts your fancy or when you are disposed to flout and rail at the impudence of my assertions) is as high a favour as your great wit could have invented; and so I am bound to yield you a return of Infinite Thanks for it; which I beseech you accept in part of requital, till I come to show hereafter out of the nature of that Letter that all your Probable talk in this Book had been marred in case you had yielded to do me the reason which I there requested  
3. Next I am to thank you heartily that you begin your Impugnation with the most disingenuous Cavil that perhaps has ever been heard of Intending to frame my discourse as plain and unexceptionable as I could concerning the Rule of Faith, I declared (page 4.) that I intended not rigorous definitions of either word, but only to reflect on and make use of some Attributes, Predicates or Properties, which in the sense of such who intelligently use those words, are apprehended to be involved in or truly appertaining to their signification, I added that I gave that caution to avoid mistake and Cavil: which might ensue upon pretence of defining, but could not upon merely predicating, so my propositions were true: This done, I begun with the plainest sayings I could use, and thence drew on the process of my discourse by the most immediate steps I could invent. The tenor of my First discourse was thus: A Rule signifies a thing which is able to regulate him who uses it, therefore it must have in it those Qualities by which 'tis able to do that it's proper Effect; therefore it must be knowable as to it's existence to the Persons it is to regulate; as also, it must be knowable to have in it a virtue to regulate or guide them right. Again, the word Faith being Equivocal, and sometimes taken for Conscience, sometimes for a strong Trust or Reliance, sometimes for Fidelity or Honesty etc. I had a mind to restrain it to our present purpose as it is taken for an Assent of the understanding upon Authority; and, so, expressed myself §. 8. that, Faith is the same with believing; thence I affirmed something of Divine Belief, as much as would bring me to evince this that Faith in a Christian Sense imported Knowledge of Supernatural things; which is all I aimed at in this Branch of my discourse. So that I used all the art and care I could to avoid Cavil. But Sir, I perceive to my comfort your Disingenuity (which is one of your chief kindnesses) is beyond all prevention. First, you can by no means think my explication of those Terms sufficient p. 1. you should have said those affirmations true, or, those Predicates, truly pronounced of the subject; for this is all I aimed at, and not to compile Explications. Next, you say, this proposition A Rule is to regulate or guide him that uses it, is a Description; which I beseech you believe was never intended. Afterwards you complain I confound Rule and Guide, by making regulating and guiding equivalent; and I defend myself, that those words being vulgarly confounded may without wronging Art be used so till we have occasion to distinguish them, which I have no where in my whole book: Nor had I blamed Mr. Whitby for this but that in the very discourse where he professed to distinguish Rule from Guide, he notwithstanding, even there confounded their notions. Were I to distinguish them, I should (if you would not be angry) put this difference between them, that Guide hath something Personal in its signification, which Rule abstracts from. But you proceed with your kindnesses; and (pag. 2.) call those words my definition; though (so unparallelld is your candour) you quote my words a little after that I inrended here no definitions: and then show my definition (forsooth) Faulty, because I fell Englishmen for their clearer understanding this word, that 'tis a Thing able to regulate etc. whereas regulate is less removed from the Latin & so, less plain than Rule the word defined. Whereas yourself know I meant not to define; and I beseech you believe me when I tell you I as little meant to write to any Englishmen that did not understand the word Regulate as well as the word Rule. Yet I must define whether I will or no, though there be no other occasion why it should be so but only that you might break a jest, which tickled your Fancy, and so your fingers itched to put it down; 'Tis a Definition of your own parallel to my counterfeited one, that a Lawgiver is one that hath the power of Legislation; And in this you have hit right; for 'tis just such another definition as mine was.  
4. After this you bring in my other Definition (as you call it) that Faith is the same with believing, and immediately add my words disowning any sayings of mine in this first discourse to be definitions at all, as had you transcribed a little farther you might have let the Reader see more visibly. And, so kind you are, that my very not intending to define which is alone able, one would think, to excuse all the pretended faults in my mistaken definitions must have a little touch of a Cavil notwithstanding from that fertile wit of yours, which minds not desert nor misdesert, but follows it's own Genius, & indifferently pours out itself merely to vent its exuberancy. Now the reason why those words Faith is the same with believing must needs be a Definition too, is Evident: you had another witty conceit came into your Fancy, which was a Country-fellows Definition, saying that an Invasion was as if he should say an Invasion; which would not have fitted, unless you had made my words Faith is the same Believing a definition too; and it had been a thousand pities such a pretty jest should have been lost. But, Sr. since I meant to bring my notion from a more Equivocal to a less Equivocal word, & thence proceeded (as you call it) defining a great way farther, that is indeed predicating or affirming divers other things in that §. why you should catch at my very first words, Faith is the same with believing, and make that alone a Definition, neglecting all the following ones, is impossible for such dull heads as mine to divine; unless it were that the Country-definition had a very great Ascendent and Influence over your Conscience and Sincerity as well as your Fancy.  
5. This definition of mine (to see how things will come about) puts you in mind (p. 3.) of my First Principles 〈…〉 is a Rule, Faith is Faith. Upon which you triumph thus. This ie the right self-evident method he talks so much of; and his Principles agree admirably well with his definitions. If he had proceeded in the same method, and added that a Rule of Faith is a Rule of Faith, Oral Tradition is Oral Tradition, and that to say Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith is as much as to say Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith, the whole business had been concluded without any more ado, and I think no body would have gone about to confute him. What a terrible thing it is to deal with your great Wits! Let's see how a little honest plain Logic will dissipate this vapour. To Conclude is to show evidently that two notions we call the Subject and Predicate are identified or connected in that Proposition we call the Conclusion. To do this we find a Third notion, called a medium or Argument to be identified with those two, whence we infer them to be the same: but how shall we know that third notion to be identified with those two others, that is, how shall we know the major and minor propositions to be true? By finding another medium connected with them: And how far must this go on? Endlessly, or no? If endlessly, since every following Connexion is proved by some foregoing ones, in case we cannot come to see some First Connexion or Principle, we could conclude or deduce nothing. And how must we evidence the Connexion of the Terms (or of the Subject and Predicate) in these First Principles? By another antecedent connexion of those Terms with a Third? No; for these are supposed the First Connexion's. Wherefore, since they cannot be evidenced by any thing out of themselves and yet must be Evident, else nothing could be evidenced by them, it follows they must be Evident of themselves or self-Evident. And in what consists this Self Evidence? merely in this that no medium, middle Term or Argument can come between the notions of their Subject and Predicate; which devolves finally into this, that the Subject and Predicate are perfectly the same notion: So that all Science about any thing is finally resolved into the nature or Essence of that thing, that is into that things being what it is, or which is all one it's being the same with its self, which your great Learning laughs at. Hence, what is, is; or Every thing is what it is, as plain and course as it looks, is the last resort of all Evidence in the world; and, in particular Sciences, that the Subject of that Science is what it is; as that man is a Man, Quantity is Quantity, and so, a Rule is a Rule, Faith is Faith, must principle all that can be solidly concluded either about Man, Quantity, Rule or Faith.  
6. Had you reflected on any maxims of Art, and not stood pursuing your affected buffonery when it became you to discourse like a solid Scholar, you would have seen how little ground you had for your taunting nonsense. To say that a Rule is a Rule is a First Principle, had not been held a just occasion of giggling, much less had you been so indiscreet as to parallel my Conclusion Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith with my Principle A Rule is a Rule; or to put it upon me that because I make my Terms in my Principle self-evidently identical, therefore I ought to do so in my Conclusion too; whereas your Conscience tells you and my whole Book informs the Reader I go about at least to prove it in so rigorous a method that as you fear to admit, and so wave speaking to my Letter, so you and your fellow Probable-Christians judge it your best play to laugh at it. And 'tis a cheap way if you had a Fool to deal with who would let such weak evasions serve your turn.  
But let me sum up my obligations to you at present. You have manifestly falsified my Intention: pretending I meant to define, whenas I expressly disowned it, Sure Footing p. 4. You omit to answer whether those Propositions or Predications of mine be true or false; and, if true, whether my Consequences be right or no; which was all your task at present: you lay the gull you have raised for your Ground, and thereupon cavil and flout all the way without sense, reason, or the least occasion: You laugh at the nature of First Principles, bewraying either your Ignorance of those things on which all solid Discourse can only be built, or your Necessity of scorning such unfriendly Discoverers of your weakness: &, which is the worst of all, you make this unsavoury kind of Talk, the first part of your Onset, and the first taste you give your Reader of your Sincerity and depth of Reasoning. And now, Sir, be Judge yourself, whether the confessing yourself thus amply to be a disingenuous and weak Caviller, be not strangely obliging to your thankful Servant. Really, Sir, unless you will be so good as to take the telling you candidly of your Faults to be sufficient Payment, I am exceedingly afraid I shall live and die in your debt. I could make good sport with the word measure in your definition (for you will define to excel me though none requires it of you) but I dare not imitate you, nor pretend to so great a degree of witty and pleasant Eloquence. Only I will beg leave to transcribe your words which introduce your definitions p. 4. Rejecting then his way of definition as inept and frivolous, and no ways tending to give a clearer notion of things, I shall endeavour to explain a little better (if I can) the meaning of these Terms. And certainly, Sir, a man may with a little Astrology prognosticate your victory; for you combat nothing but a Chimaera your own brain had coined. In the mean time 'tis another small Kindness to show yourself so vain as to build your own triumphs on a voluntary misprision. But right or wrong you are resolved to conquer, and I must have patience.  
7. I hoped when I came to your second Section your Reason which as your Friend Mr. Stillingfleet (who hums your Book as loud as you can do his for your heart) tells us runs throughout your Book, would have given some respite to your Kindnesses, and my Thanks for them; but I discern in this and your following Section that your very Reason itself is compounded of Kindness, and that your soberest impugnation of my discourse is made up of Groundless Cavils and (which I am loath to say) voluntary mistakes. I am sorry to see it, because I intended to throw aside the rubbish of your Book in this Letter, that in my Answer I might better lay open the admirable Fabric of your Discourse, and have nothing there to do but to speak to solid points. But in this disappointment I must behave myself as well as I can, and your Goodness must help me out by pardoning me if I omit to thank you for innumerable Kindnesses which are involved in your Rational performances, till God gives me health and leisure.  
8. You are pleased to honour me with a very loud and heavy Calumny all over your Book, as reviling Scripture, vilifying, disgracing it, and what not. Now, Sir, I use still to distinguish in Scripture the Sense of it from the Outward Letter, which distinction if you admit not, I have no more to do but to allege experience confessed by all, that many Sects who have the outward Letter inform it with different Senses; which evidently argues a Divisibility or Distinction between that Letter and its Sense. Admitting then this Distinction, and that the Sense of words is the Soul of, them, I cannot allow that Letter with any propriety to be called God's word, unless informed and enlivened with God's Sense; but only dead Characters; for sincerely, Sir, I never saw a Bible creep about and move itself that I should call it, that is, the paper and characters, Living. Now, taking those Letters in complexion with God's Sense, and, as informed by it, I challenge your utmost spite which most of your book, especially the end of this Section, shows to be very bitter against me, whether you ever read any man give a higher respect to those Oracles than myself. See my words Sure-Footing p. 40. & 146. which you might have had the Candour to acknowledge. And as for the Author of rushworth's Dialogues whom you accuse of the same crimes I know not whether you will take my word or no, but I assure those who will, that when on occasion I was moving him to write a Comment on the Books of the New Testament, he shook his head and replied! Ah, Sir, do you know what you ask? They are so full of profound heavenly sense, that 'tis beyond the wit of man to declare it without injuring it; assuring me it was to sublime a task and required such perfection of Science especially Divinity, that he durst not undertake it. I challenge you therefore as you hope to be held an honest man, to show me any one expression in all my writings, where I speak of the Letter of Scripture in Complexion with its Sense, (which only is truly God's word); otherwise then with highest reverence; nay of that very Letter as managed by any method of arriving at a Certain and determinate Sense of it but with respect. For otherwise the mere Letter of Scripture quoted by the Devil and taken in his sense is the Devil's Word, not Gods, and for the same reason the same Letter cited by you to signify your Sense is your Word, (though you tell your Auditors boldly that all is God's Word you talk out of the Pulpit) unless you first make Evident you adhere to a Certain method of interpreting it right, which you shall never evince; nay Certainer & Solider then is the living Voice and Practice of the Church Essential, which you so laugh at, and would persuade your Readers to renounce and disbeleeve it to adhere to your Grammatical Quibbling & Criticisms. So that all your anger at us in reality springs hence that we will, not let Your Word be taken for Gods, and honoured (forsooth) and reverenced with a sacred and Divine veneration. Hence all this heat and foam of ill language. And, good reason, for this one point of not permitting your private Interpretations of Scripture that is your Word to be held Gods, so deeply concerns your Copyhold, that, if this cheat be once discovered, yourself, all the Books you write, nay all your whole Profession signifies just nothing. This short and plain Discourse once understood by our Readers, as I hope it will, your fierce Calumny against me as a Blasphemous person devolves to this that you venerate your own Talon or Fancy in sencing the Letter of Scripture as a most Sacred thing, nay place it in stead of the Holy Ghost who first dictated that Sense to the Divine Writers. And can you do me a greater Kindness than to discover this, and be so highly concerned for it?  
9 You tell the Reader p. 13. that whatever I attribute to Scripture for fashion's sake, or (say you) to avoid Calumny with the vulgar, as he says very ingeniously in this Explication of the 15th. Corollary; nevertheless 'tis plain that according to his own Hypothesis, he cannot but look upon it as perfectly useless and pernicious. By which words you would make me acknowledge I attribute nothing to Scripture but to avoid Calumny with the vulgar: whereas in the place you cite there is no such matter; but only that some of our Controvertists (not I) condescended to the Protestants sleight-way of quibbling out of Scripture, lest they should calumniate them to desert Scripture itself. But this is your usual sincerity.  
10. You quoted (after you have discoursed as if there could be no use of Scripture besides making it the Rule of Faith) And that it is intolerably pernicious according to his Hypothesis is plain, because every silly upstart heresy fathers itself upon it; and then quote for these words Sure-footing. p. 40. But look there and one may read, I speak of Scripture only as ill-managed by you; that is, putting it without any distinction of the Persons in the people's hands, and leaving it to their Interpretation to make use of it for a Rule of Faith. Now, if Scripture as mis-managed bear the same notion with Scripture itself, than you have dealt very honestly, and done me no Kindness in falsifying my intentions evident from my words in that very place, and inveighing against me accordingly. As for your next citation, that Scripture-words, not senced, nor having any certain Interpreter (under which notion I express myself to take them) are waxen-natured, that is, appliable to divers senses, 'tis so beat out by manifest experience, that 'tis beyond Cavil to confute it; and the very Disputes between john Biddle and the Protestants is sufficient to evince it. But your Candour is pleased to confound Scripture's Letter taken as unsenced, with the same Letter as taken with its true Sense, that is, taken as God's Word; and that Letter as taken without any Certain Interpreter, with the same Letter as certainly interpreted, and then who so abominable miscreants as the poor Papists; who must be forced to say, not what themselves in reality say, but what their disingenuous (though even therein kind Adversaries) will needs have them say.  
11. Your third Section tells us that you are much puzzled for Instances of Traditions Followers differing in Faith; and you are so put to it that you cannot I mean (you will not) distinguish between the Head of our Church acting as a Definer of Faith or Proceeder upon Tradition, and acting as a prudent Governor. Please then to take notice how this Affair of Censuring Books is managed. Divers Books, perhaps of twenty several Authors are ordered to be read over by some Divines, and their Judgements concerning them to be given in, which they do: The Chief Officers of the Church perhaps have twenty other things to handle that very day; and Themselves have neither leisure to peruse the Books, nor discuss the Propositions; which coming clad in a Theological dress would in Prudence require a great deal of deliberation ere any of them were expressly and particularly to be declared against with its peculiar Censure. All that the nature of their Circumstances permits them to do is to trust those Divines, and to proceed accordingly, to warn the Faithful to beware of those Books, in which they are informed there is such danger. So that the motive those Governors proceed upon is their care of preserving the Faithful untainted, and the Judgement of Divines, not Christian Tradition. And, what motive proceed those Divines upon in these Censures? Upon their best skill as Divines; that is their best skill in drawing Consequences; in which neither themselves nor any else say they are Infallible; Thus much for the Censurers. Now come we to the Person censured and his Books. Of what nature are they? Theological Discourses. And what do such Discourses rely on formally? On Tradition? Nothing less: On this he relied as a Believer or Christian, not as a Divine, but on his own humane skill in explicating Faith or its Ground, and his talon in deducing right Consequences, in which also he and every man Living is Fallible: You see, Sir, by this time the ripe fruits of your performance in this point, and that you have brought a worthy Instance of Difference amongst Reliers on Tradition, in a passage wherein neither side rely on Tradition Oh, but they contradict one another in the very point of Tradition: 'Tis your weak and unproud conjecture; and besides you cannot (I mean still, will not) distinguish between the Substance of Tradition (that is the Infallibility of the Living Voice and Practice of the Church Essential in conveying down uninterruptedly Christ's Doctrine) and the Explication of it; show the Church of Rome condemns the former and you have my free Confession I am at a loss for my Faith. But, though you show she condemns and censures all the later, that is all the Explications whether made by that Author, myself, or any other, yet, as long as she condemns not the former, she hath done nothing against Tradition; and so your wise Instance is spoiled, as it was no other likely, being the weakest you could have invented against Tradition, and the least concerning it; in regard there is not one learned Catholic in the Church that looks upon the Acts of the Roman Inquisition in Censuring Books, as on Infallible Definitions of Faith.  
12. You'll ask, where lies the Fault in such cases? I answer, no where that I know; not in the Head of the Church, who acted the most prudently and carefully that could be in such an affair; neither censuring any particular Proposition, where there was no more Certainty to ground that Censure, than the Judgement of some Divines; and yet providing by the Caution his censure imported that the conceived harmfullness in those Books might work no ill Effects: whence 'tis but an invidious presumption of your own, that perhaps the Pope is censured for it in England. Nor, were those Roman Divines Faulty in case they judged secundum ultimum potentiae; but were bound in conscience to give in to the Court what they thought. Again, those Explications of Divinity-points looking new to them, and it being the natural Genius of the Followers of Tradition to be jealous of any thing that is new, and this not only in Faith but also in Explications of Faith, in regard these pretend a coherence and connexion with Faith itself, it seems to me to sound a laudable zeal both in them and others to be suspicious of and less a Friend at First to what's new, till it be farther looked into and appear innocent. Nor can I say 'tis a Fault in the person censured, in case he sincerely meant to write what he judged was truth and so most advantageous to the Church, and submits to the Orders of his Chief Ecclesiastical Superior. You see, Sir, the whole case: in which I am larger because you are kinder here than ordinary; and, your Instance falling pitifully short, you piece it out with Falsehoods (p. 22.) that we in England censure perhaps the Pope for this Action; that the person censured disobeyes the Summons of his Chief Pastor; that p. 24. the Governors of the Church do professedly cherish Ignorance in the Generality of the Papists for the increasing their devotion. These are great favours indeed: you are too liberal, Sir, and will undo yourself unless you restrain your hand from this profuseness of kindness.  
Your 4th. Section is all Reason, & (like the foregoing one in which you laid your grounds and fell to build) so strong and firm that it needs more than an ordinary blast to blow it down. Therefore I conceive 'tis best to stay a while and gain more breath, which is something short with me at present.  
13. But your fifth even kills me with Kindness, and acquaints the Reader with a dangerous oversight of mine enough to overthrow my whole Book. 'Tis this, that I make Traditions Certainty a First and self-evident Principle, and yet go about to demonstrate it; which you soberly admonish me to take heed how I take it upon me; that Aristotle never demonstrated First Principles, because they could not be demonstrated; that most prudent men are of Opinion that a self-evident principle, of all things in the world, should not be demonstrated, because it needs not; you ask, to what end should a man write a Book to prove that, which every man must assent to without proof so soon as 'tis propounded to him etc. Now, Sir, in my mind you should only have combated this, and have given no other Answer to my whole Book but to this only: for nothing can be so senseless nor so impertinent as to go about to prove that which that which can need no proof, nor consequently less meriting an Answer. I would then, had I been in your case, have thought it my best and most honourable play, to omit all counterfeitings of my Adversaries defining, all those multitudes of groundless Cavils, voluntary mistaks, Calumnies, laughing at his First Principles, Evidence, demonstration, etc. together with all my wordish exceptions at his rumbling Rhetoric, perching upon the nature of things, and other such expressions; and have solely applied myself to this one Folly evacuating his whole Book and so excusing my Answer; And this you might have done with far greater hopes of conquering than in any of the rest; because, that a First and self-evident Principle cannot be evidenced seems so clear that it even looks like a First Principle itself, of which no other part of your confutation has the least Countenance or resemblance: And be assured, Sir, since you would not use this advantage against me as you might, you shall never have me upon the like lock again.  
Caught in these straits by your entangling Logic I endeavour my escape on this manner. Self-evidence is twofold, Speculative and Practical. Speculative self-evidence it that which cannot be made Evident by any Speculation or Skill, but is known merely by the common light of understanding: such is that which is found in those Principles I dicourst of before, which were therefore Self-evident speculatively because, their Subject and Predicate being the very same notion, no other middle notion could come between them, by connexion with which they might be shown connected with one another: You remember them I suppose; it was they that made you and your Friends such sport in your Book. Practical Self-evidence is that which we are not thus imbued with by nature through the common light of Understanding, nor yet is it acquired by rational Discourses, (for this is Evidence by-deduction, not Self-evidence) but that which is stolen into us as it were at unawares by a common converse with things in this world, which all mankind in a manner even those who are very rude are acquainted with. Examples of the former are (if you have done laughing) A Rule is a Rule, Faith is Faith, also A whole (or a part and more) is more than a part; or, is a part and more. Examples of the later, for your better satisfaction, I propose three or four. One shall be that in a square space 'tis a nearer way to go from one corner to that which is opposite, by the Diameter, than to go by the two sides. Another shall be that, things look less afar off and bigger neerer-hand. A third shall be that (abstracting from madness) 'tis impossible Mr. T. or any other such (you see how kind I am to you) should take for his Text The Fool hath said in his heart there is no God, and at the same time, and in the same circumstances things stand now in England, should preach Atheism and endeavour to persuade them out of that very Text, there is no God. The last shall be the Existence of Q. Elizabeth or K. Henry the 8th. Now I affirm that all these are Practically-self-evident: for it was not by virtue of Speculative discourses the vulgar arrived to the Knowledge of these and such like things (as is evident by this that they know not how to prove these, or give an account of their assent by way of evident discourse) but by virtue of the common knowledges of things in the world they are acquainted with. Now what is thus self-evident is so far from being impossible to be evidenced Speculatively, that 'tis the proper task of Learned men (by which I mean not those tedious mighty men of Talk, who think it an excellent confutation of Sense to cavil at words and Expressions) to look into Nature, and discover or (if you be not offended) demonstrate what were the proper Causes which wrought thus, after a natural manner, that Effect called Certainty in rational Souls as to all the aforesaid particulars; which found, they will appear to be the mediums fit to demonstrate that Effect. That this is so in the two first Examples, you are so well skilled in Euclid, & the mathematics (though one Prophet T. says I have not read him) as to know that notwithstanding this Practical-self-evidence all mankind has of them, Mathematicians notwithstanding go about to demonstrate them speculatively without fearing to do a needless action, out of the nature of Quantity; as I make account I could demonstrate the 4th. & the 3d. too out of the nature of Man, or out of this (if you please) that a man is a man or a rational Creature, that is a Thing that acts not, if he have the use of Reason, without a motive.  
To come nearer home, I concieve that 'tis to all unprejudiced and unpreoccupated Understandings, as are all Catholics who have not their Faith from skill but by the natural way of Education. Self-evident Practically, that the Doctrine delivered now as taught by Christ and his Apostles, by such as profess to have it by way of Tradition or uninterrupted Succession from them, is truly their Doctrine; or, that the Certainty of Traditions conveying down matters of Fact is practically-self-evident; and thence I proceed to look speculatively into the Causes of such an Assurance, and so demonstrate it. Which when I go about, I discover that, besides what ascertained Humane Tradition in witnessing the Existence of Henry the 8th. or any other matter of Fact, infinite Advantages were found in Christian Tradition enabling it to bring down the first-preached Doctrine above what was found in them. But I expatiate too far.  
I hope by this, Sir, you see at length what my whole Book aims at; though (good man) you were so taken up with cavilling at little wordish Exceptions you spied it nor before; that is, to demonstrate by way of Speculation what I conceived before to be self-evident practically; you see also at the same time how infinitely you oblige me by professing your Ignorance of this point; for in so doing you profess withal that you are utterly Ignorant of what my whole Book meant. And, are not you rarely qualified to be an Impugner of my Book, who are so perfectly to seek in knowing what's the main end it drives at? Is it not evident hence that your endeavours to confute me can never go to the bottom of the difficulty, but only talk superficially, that is wordishly and withal mistakingly to some passages in it? Surely, plain reason tells us in every ordinary affair that if one man understands not the main end the other aims at, however he may talk prettily and express himself in good language, yet he can never speak home and to the purpose. And as this is plain à priori from its proper Cause, your Ignorance of my main intent, so you have abundantly demonstrated the same à posteriori in your whole Book; which no where (as I hope to show you hereafter) begins at the bottom; but is wholly made up of a great many airy gay prettinesses, such as best befits one who mocks at Evidence and Demonstration. But 'tis no matter your Friend Mr. Stillingfleet will extol you for it the more, and the Generality of your party, who are accustomed and educated by you to lose sermonary Discourses will like it the better; whereas, had you professed the way of Evidence, you had been charactered by him as monstrously opinionated of yourself, and that kind of Readers, your only admirers, would not have understood you.  
14. Your second Part treats about the Properties of the Rule of Faith, and whether they agree solely to Oral Tradition. I assigned seven; of which you are pleased to mistake quite no fewer than all. But I must not here take notice too much of your Reason, but of your Kindnesses contradistinguisht by your Friend Mr. Stillingfleet to your Reasons, that is, which are Irrational.  
You tell me p. 57 that I might have learned something from the same Author from whom I borrowed my Chief Properties of the Rule of Faith, if I had but had the patience to have considered his Explication of them. Surely, learned Sir, you have great skill in Judiciary Astrology; or else you deal with Lily, and Booker; or perhaps have an enchanted Glass which discovers to you all I do in my study. For you know exactly all I do there; nay which is yet more wonderful, all I do not. You know better than myself I never use to read the Fathers; you can pronounce fearlessly that I never read Euclid, and here you can tell to a hair where I borrowed my Chief Properties of the Rule of Faith, and that it was Dr. Holden' s Analysis. What Mephistopheles reveals these secrets to you? But, Sir, I beg your pardon; I will not put this gift of yours upon such a score: you are a Divine, and so no doubt know these things by the Spirit of Prophecy; nor am I a little proud to know that so great a Prophet is so near related to me by his Friendship and Kindnesses. But, Sir, take heed; even holy men and Prophets themselves have been deceived sometimes. I need not quote Scripture to you, how a certain person offered to be a lying Spirit in the mouth even of Prophets; and as for your present Prophecy I do faithfully assure you that I never read a leaf in Dr. Holden's Analysis in my life; nor knew, till your Book told me it, he treated at all of the Properties of the Rule of Faith. The occasion of this neglect was that I was told he went the way of Rushworth's Dialogues, which I made account I comprehended sufficiently, and so minded not to peruse it. You see, Sir, what you gain by being persovally affrontive; which you exceedingly affect in your Book to me and others; and so studiously endeavour it that to find occasions for it, you stick not to say the most false and unjustifiable things rather than not humour that Infirmity of your Will. Now your Kindness in this partinular carriage consists in this, that you discover plainly a resolution to cavil though you engage yourself by that means to assert things which may easily be false, and which 'tis impossible for you to prove or justify were they true; which signifies you are neither too civil, over honest, nor endowed with any exceeding proportion of Prudence. But Mr. Stillingfleet likes you never the less for it, and perhaps will proclaim your praises the louder for your victory, however achieved by Stratagem. Dolus an virtus.—  
15. You are pleased p. 60. to Cavil that the words absolutely ascertainable to us (are as you who are master of Language, and so may say any thing, deliver yourself) most contradictiously expressed. And why? because they import, with respect to us, without respect to us: As if it were such an unheard of thing that the word absolutely should ofttimes signify perfectly, as when we say absolutely good an absolute Workman, Scholar, etc. And then I beseech you inform me what Contradiction there is in saying the Rule of Faith is perfectly ascertainable to us. Besides you should as well have placed the contradiction in the words absolutely ascertainable. For if it be once sense that it is absolutely ascertainable, it cannot be ill to add to us; for the word ascertainable implies a respect to some or other. On this occasion (that I may not trouble my Reader often with such nitty Exceptions, with which your Book abounds) it were not amiss to reflect how industriously your friend Mr. Stillingfleet and you, who, as 'tis most sit, echo mutual praises to one another, affect and pursue such empty cavils; any misplaced word whether it happen through the Compositors letting it in, in a wrong place, or printing it whennot sufficiently blotted out in the original; any less propriety in an expression, occasioned by the hast I was in when I writ my Appendix against him, which was sent to the press in loose Quarters of sheets; any Metaphor which light unsuitable to your Cavilling Genius, as that of perching, which makes yourself very jollyly merry; any pretended degree of obscurity in a word, as that of Regulate in stead of Rule; any expression that sounds not roundly and tersely Rhetorical, in a book in which I meant no Rhetoric at all: These and divers others such wordish Faults or no Faults, ('tis all one with you) are judged mighty pieces of ignorance according to the genius of such airy kind of Scholarship; and great Triumphs made upon them. Whereas I should rather wish to combat the inward meaning and sense of a discourse than it's outward dress or manner of expression, provided the manner of expressing wrong not that sense. Hence I except mainly against the Titles of Mr. Stillingfleets and Mr. tillotson's books: It being both highly improper and abusive of the signification of words to call that a Rule which is Confessedly possible to be False, that is which possibly has no power in it to rule at all; and equally absurd to call that a Rational Account of any thing which is built on no First, that is Self-evident Principle, without which no rational discourse can subsist nor Conclusion be deduced, as I showed lately § 5. Unless perhaps Mr. Stillingfleet takes Rational as we use the word reasonable when we say a thing is reasonable strong, that is we hope it will hold, but yet we see not but it may break. This is my way of excepting; but were Mr. Tillotson to work upon the word Rational 'tis good luck he is Mr. Stillingfleets dedicated and dedicating friend, for otherwise 'tis forty to one he would have about with him. And first he would have called the Title of his Book, his Definition of it; and then have fallen foul with him for setting forth a Book to Englishmen and using the word Rational which was nearer the Latin, instead of the word Reasonable which was plain English, and so more intelligible to his Readers.  
But enough of these Fooleries; 'tis now high time I return to my Friend and his Kindnesses. Your present one, Sir, (which I acknowledge common to you and your Friend, and you ought to applaud one another for it) consists in this: that by your magnifying and frequently insisting upon exceptions against my words, not upon a Logical score, because they are Equivocal or injure the Sense we are discussing, but upon a Grammatical, or Rhetorical, that is a Superficial account in which the point under debate is no way concerned, is a very hearty acknowledgement to your Reader that you value the airy gingling of words more than the solid substance of Sense; which discovers you, how much soever you have read, noted and scribbled, to be very Empty of true Learning or Science: This is a real Kindness, Sir, and I humbly thank you both for it.  
Your second Section and some following ones for the main part of them speak nothing but pure Reason; I mean in your way, that is sophistically and knowingly deforming every passage you meet with. Yet to do you right you speak a great Truth in the beginning of your § 4. p. 65. when you say, And thus I might trace him through all the Properties of the Rule of Faith; for nothing is more Certain than that. Thus, that is, handling things as you do, one may do any thing, nay even write a Book against the First Principles themselves. The Rule of Faith being confessedly the means to arrive at the Points of Faith, and the Sense or meaning of Scripture being the Points of Faith, it follows unavoidably that the Protestants must say (if they will speak sense) that the Rule of Faith must be the means to bring them to the Sense or meaning of Scripture; for which, according to them, the Letter of Scripture as significative, being sufficient, 'tis consequent they can only mean by Rule of Faith the Letter of Scripture as significative of God's Sense or Points Faith. I beseech you, Sir, what say you to this Discourse? Do you answer it, or show that, if you take Scripture in any other Sense for Rule of Faith than as thus considered, you do not confound the Rule of Faith with the Points of Faith? Not a jot. Nor is it your fashion to speak to my Reasons, or Consequences. Thus you answered my First Discourse, the most solid and most Fundamental part of my Book? Deforming the plain sayings I built on for Definitions, denying my conclusions in a following Section, and saying something against them; but not a word I can find any where against the Proofs which inferred them, deduced at large there for 14. §. §. together; that is from § 2. to the end. Your way of answering is generally when you are graveled with the Reason, to bring some ridiculous Parallel, then laugh heartily and mock at that, and so discountenance the other. But here to do you right, you bring two very good ones, but the comfort is you understood them not to be such, else we should not have had them; which you put a little oddly and then triumph, and think yourself victorious. Pray Sir, lend me your Parallels a while to manage. The first of them is found p. 62. concerning which I thus discourse. Taking the Statute-book for the means to convey to us the Sense of that Book or the Laws, I must still say you cannot mean by Statute-book the Sense of that Book or the Laws, that is that Book as conjoined with its Sense, for so it would signify that the same Thing is a means to itself, that is, is before and after itself: you must only mean then by Statute-book, thus considered, the Letter of that book as yet unsenced, or contradistinguisht from the same book as conjoined with its sense; that is, the Letter of that Book as Significative. Thus I conceive it perfectly parallel to mine, and withal very rational. But you make it amount to this p. 62. l. 13. That a Book cannot convey to a man the Knowledge of any matter, because if it did it would convey to him the Thing to be known. The later part of which is true though I perceive you know it not; for these words [Knowledge of a matter] involves in their signification [the thing Known] as if you reflect on your own words, Matter and Thing, you will quickly discover. But the Sophistry lies in this, that when you say, a Book cannot convey, etc. you equivocate in the word Book, which I contend must either be taken for the Letter of it in conjunction with the Sense which is the thing known, and then it cannot thus accepted, be a means of arriving at the Knowledge of the Thing or the Thing as known, for than it would signify as much as if one should say, the Letter with the thing known is the means of arriving at the thing known; or else, it must be taken for the Letter as Significative only, or without the Sense, and so it may be conceived a way of arriving at that Sense 'tis judged apt to signify. But, Sir, your contending here against a thing so Evident has a great deal of reason for it; you would have the outward Letter of Scripture confounded with the Sense of it, that those who hear you quote the Letter, may thee fooled to imagine you have still the Sense aoo; whereas, should these be known to bear distinction, it would be very obvious to question whether you speak any thing of God's Word, or no, how much soever you have the outward Letter in your mouth and pen; Which reflection alone if it were considerately weighed, would spoil all your writing and preaching too: For thus go your First Principles; The outward Letter lying in a book must first be called God's Word, and held so plain that it cannot be misunderstood; and then the Sense you give it must needs be held God's Sense; which politic Principles laid, I see not what you are inferior to those whom the Holy Ghost inspired; and your sayings are to have the same force, if the plot take, as the words of a Prophet or Evangelist. And who would not be angry, fume and take on against a Discourse which is likely to divest you of so considerable and beneficial a Prerogative?  
Your second Parallel applies my Distinction concerning Scripture to Oral Tradition; for you have a special Faculty of your own in making men contradict themselves; thus you used a whole cluster of our Authors p. 119, 120. and as for poor me, if you take me underhand I can scarce speak a word consonantly. Now, Sir, we are thus far agreed, and better Friends than you took us to be that I allow your Parallel to a tittle, and stick not at all to grant what you would force upon me p. 63. that, When I say Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith, I can only mean by Oral Tradition the Living Voice and Practice of the Church as apt to signify the Sense of Forefathers; and not the Sense, or those Points of Faith which they are apt to signify. Also that those Words and Practices taken formally as the means to know Points of Faith are contradistinguished from that Sense, or those Points, and opposed to it relatively as a means is opposed to an End; and therefore taken as considered in this abstraction and contradistinction as a Means to cause their actual Sense in us, I say those Words and Practices are without Sense; in the same manner as a Means, taken formally for such, is without the End, and excludes it from its notion. All this I voluntarily grant, and lest you should conceit your strong Reason has brought me to it, I let you know I ever took them so formerly: See Sure-footing p. 41. 2d. Edition (which I still intent to quote), By Oral or Practical Tradition we mean a delivery down from hand to hand (by Words and a constant course of frequent and visible Actions conformable to those Words) of the Sense and Faith of Forefathers. Where you see I make Sense or Faith the thing delivered; and Words and Actions the Way of delivering: which therefore must needs exclude one another formally. Yet you think you have gotten a notable advantage against me by this Parallel Discourse, telling your Reader p. 63. When he hath answered this Argument he will have answered his own. A shrewd Opponent! who confutes me by putting me to answer an Argument, thinking it would puzzle me grievously, which is my own express, and avowed Doctrine. Is not this a strange mistake?  
But, Sir, let me reflect on my Obligations. First you write a Book against Tradition, and yet discover plainly in this last mistake, you understand not in what I put Tradition to consist, that is you impugn, I thank you, you know not what. We are like to find a wise confutation of it when we come to examine its rational part, which still misses in what's most substantial and fundamental. Next, you revile me all over as abusing Scripture for unsenced, or without Sense when we speak of it as your Rule of Faith; and yet you see now we speak the same of our own as to that point; which I am sure you think me too highly venerate; and your mistake springs hence that (which is a shame for a Scholar, especially for one Mr. Stillingfleet so highly praises) you understand not the nature of Abstraction, and imagine and represent me to say 'tis devoid of sense, senseless without sense etc. Which I no where affirm of it absolutely butas ti's abstractedly considered as a means to arrive at Sense, and as so taken it must not be conceived as having that Sense which ti's a way to arrive at. Once more for all (that I may clear your mistakes to you) know that we make account there is the same reason for our Rule's being only significative or a way to Sense, that is, as such not-yet senced, as for yours: but we put the difference here that we make account Living voice and Constant Practice of the circumstant Faithful of the Church Essential is by our perpetual comnverse with them and other conveniencies so perfectly significative of their sense in delivered points or points belonging to natural Christianity, that they leave to the Generality no possible ambiguity or occasion of mistake; the persons being alive to explain themselves in any such Difficulty, if their carriage and Expressions could possibly leave any; whereas the Letter of Scripture as left to be interpreted by private heads, is given both by reason and Experience to be diversely interpretable; and cannot by way of living voice apply itself pertinently to explain its own meaning when it's sense is perverted by any; but lies at the mercy of the interpreters pretending to draw it into different faces, by alluding one place to another, Criticising, and other fallible knacks. You make a great noise all over your Book as if we would make God unable to write intelligibly; but you beg the question all the while, which is whether God intended the Scripture for a Rule of Faith or no; for if not, then why is it not as intelligible as it need be? Again, the question is whether God intended it for every private man to interpret, or rather that they should hear the Church in that as well as in all things else belonging to Christianity: If he did, than They (not God) lead themselves into error though their Spiritual Pride, which makes them usurp the Church's Prerogative. But Tuetullian long ago has given you the best Answer (de Praescrip. Haer. c. 39) Nec periclitor dicere ipfas quoque Scripturas sic esse ex Dei voluntate compositas ut haereticis, materias subministrarent; cum legam oportere haereses esse quae sine Scripturis esse non possunt. Nor am I afraid to say that the Scriptures themselves are so framed by the will of God that they should afford matter to Heretics; for I read that there must be Heresies, which without the Scriptures could not be. I hope now you are satisfied that Tertullian is as great a Reviler of the Letter of Scripture as is your Friend I. S.  
As for the point itself it needs no more to evince it to any except verbal Cavillers, but this; That Sense is no where formally but in intelligent Things, that is, in our case only in men's minds; nor can it be otherwise in words then as in Signs that is Significatively. Since than I deny not but the protestants are to hold Scriptures Letter Apt to signify God's Sense, as is seen Sure-footing p. 13. the very passage you cavil at, I wonder what you would have, or upon what Grounds you can require more.  
You proceed as if you meant to overwhelm me with your Favours and tell the Reader p. 64. it is pleasant to observe with what cross and untoward Arguments he goes about to prove dead Characters not to have the Properties of a Rule of Faith. May not one without danger of infidelity fear, Sir, that as some vessels give every thing that comes into them a tincture of the ill sent with which they are imbued; so every thing that passes into your Fancy grows cross and untoward by a predominancy of those Qualities there? You will give the Reader a taste or two you say, but the artificial sauce you add to it will be found to alter quite the natural one of the dish itself.  
The first taste is that I say It cannot be evident those Books were writ by men divinely inspired, till all the seeming Contradictions be solved. Upon this your fluent wit works thus. How can this be an Argument against those, who by Scriptures must mean unsenced characters. I had thought Contradictions had been in the sense of words not in the Letters and Characters; but I perceive he hath a peculiar Opinion that the four and twenty Letters contradict one another Sir. I perceive you have been used formerly to be hummed at the University for breaking jests when you should dispute, and have taken such a liking to the Grandee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those Applauses, you cannot for your heart yet wean yourself of that merry pin of Fancy. But though you be pleasant as you say and follow your sport yet I must be sober and regard the profit of our Readers. I discourse then thus. Contradictions are formally in men's minds, and significatively in words. Since then in the very place you quarrel at I allow your Tenet to be necessarily this, that those Characters are Significative of God's Sense, my discourse runs evidently thus. Since God cannot tell a lie, or, (which is all one, signify a Contradiction) if the Letter of Scripture cannot be cleared from being Significative of Contradictions it cannot be held of God's enditing. See you any occasion, Sir, in this plain discourse which can deserve such mirth and triumph. You might have pleased then after my words that the Protestants must mean by Scripture, unsenced Characters, have added what immediately follows there p. 13 with their Aptness to signify to them assuredly God's mind, which I repeat again in the same place, and then where's the difficulty? It being very good reason in my mind to say that God's Spirit cannot order words to be written which signify a lie. But this passage, dear Sir, shows plainly you value honesty and fair dealing much less than your Jest, dismembering a Sentence which ought necessarily go all together, to gain a sorry occasion for your pastime and merriment.  
The next taste you give of me is enough to give any Reader who loves sincerity a whole belly full of your manner of confuting. 'Tis found p. 65. where you make me say that the Scripture cannot be the Rule of Faith, because those who are to be ruled and guided by the Scriptures Letter to Faith cannot be Certain of the true Sense of it. Upon this you descant thus. Which is to say that unsenced Letters and Characters cannot be the Rule of Faith, because the Rule of Faith must have a certain Sense, that is, must not be unsenced Letters and Characters; which in plain English amounts to thus much, Unsenced Letters and Characters cannot be the Rule of Faith, that they cannot. Here is not much rumbling of Rhetoric (as you call it p. 63.) but here is a strange jumbling of Sense. Let's see if I can set right what you have taken such pains to disorder. I discourse then thus, Points of Faith are determinate Senses, and Faith is Certain; therefore the Way or Means to Faith, that is the Rule of Faith, must be a Certain Way of arriving at those determinate Senses: These Senses (say you Protestant's) are arrived at by the Scripture's Letter signifying it to you, therefore you must be Certain by it that those Determinate Senses were meant by God. Not that the Rule of Faith was those Senses, but the Way to them, and They the End of it, of which that Rule must be significative (as I all over expressed) & so it was properly related to those Senses as the thing Signified. Whence in proper Speech they are to be called its Sense; in the same manner as 'tis called my Handwriting which my Hand writ, though neither my Hand is the writing, nor involves writing in any part of its Definition, but is distinguished from it as Cause from Effect; nor yet does the Letter taken as the Way to Faith, or God's Sense, imply as any part of itself the Sense 'tis to cause in my Knowing Power. If by this time you be awake you will see how you wilfully abuse me, and how far I am from tautologizing, which for a blind to avoid a more pertinent Answer you pretend. The pith of the Cavil lies in those words in your Descant; The Rule of Faith must have a certain Sense, that is (as you put it upon me) it must not be unsenced Letters and Characters, or it must be senced Letters, etc. Observe the words have and be: the former of which means no more than when we say a Cause must have an Effect; but we do not therefore infer that the Cause taken as a Cause has in itself that very Effect which it produces in another; for Example, the Fire which causes or heats is not heated, not the Cold that cools cooled; nor for the same reason the Letters which are the Cause of Sense in us are not, as such, senced, that is have not that very Effect in themselves which they produce in another, viz. in the understanding: For Senced means made to be understood, and they cannot be made to be understood, taken as significative or as the way to be understood. I hope by this you see how the Rule of Faith being the Means, Way or Cause of arriving at Faith or Sense may have a certain Sense, caused by it, as its Effect, and yet itself not be or include the Effect it causes in another, but for that very reason exclude it, and so be unsenced; but yet significative, or apt to be senced.  
After this follows the Triumph. And thus I might trace him through all his Properties of the Rule of Faith. Which I heartily yield too, and I believe my Reader that examines these Passages will be verily persuaded not only that you may do it, but that you will do it, 'tis so natural to you, and necessary to boot. Now the greatest Favour you have done me herein is that by a few unselected Passages you have so acquainted our Readers with your manner of writing and what may be expected from it, that it will render it needless for me to spend time in laying you open any farther. Besides I foresee your Reason (such as it is) begins to come into play. Yet some few Favours scattered here and there, will, I fear, not cease to solicit my Gratitude.  
You drop some of them upon my Friends. Capt. Everard you say (p. 75.) or his Friend affirm there are plain contradictions in Scripture, impossible to be reconciled, and therefore Protestants ought to submit to the Infallibility of the Church; instancing in the third Series of Generations, Mat. 1. said there to be fourteen; yet, counted, amount but to thirteen. And, has he not good reason? since neither can Scripture alone recommend itself to an Unbeliever to be of God's enditing if it be found by him to be significative of irreconcilable Contradictions, and so needs the Church's Authority to ascertain it to be such; nor can we have any security such Contradictions might not be found in the main points of Faith themselves, did not the Church's Faith writ in her heart keep the Letter of it safe from such enormous Corruptions. Yet you must have your jest, and to bring it in you constantly mistake on set purpose; ask (p. 76.) if the Infallibility of the Church can make Thirteen Fourteen: notwithstanding you say p. 75. this difficulty has been sufficiently satisfied by Commentators: I suppose therefore you judge those Commentators have sufficiently satisfied you that Thirteen are Fourteen: Any body can sufficiently satisfy any difficulty with you, provided the Church and her Infallibility have no hand in it. On this occasion I beseech you, Sir, give me leave to ask you what Commentator has reconciled that most Evident Contradiction in your Translation of the Scripture. Look in your Psalms put in the Book of Common-Prayer, and there Ps. 105, v. 28. we have these words; He sent darkness and it was dark; and they were not obedient unto his word But in the same Psalm and verse put in the middle of the Bible, these: He sent darkness and made it dark; and they rebelled not against his word the former place says they were not obedient the latter they were obedient. I suppose you conceit (mistaking the whole thing) your Church without Infallibility can reconcile those things, which ours even with Infallibility is at a horrible puzzle with.  
Mr. Cressy's turn is next; against whom you have many a fling, but one especially p. 93. because he says Schism is impossible in our Church. Which you call absurd and ludicrous; you tell him he cannot deny but 'tis possible for men to break from our Communion: but that the Subtlety of it lies here that therefore Schism is impossible in our Church, because so soon as a man is a Schismatic he is out of it. This done, you ask. And is it not as impossible in the Church of England? Sir, I must tell you your whole Book in a manner is compounded of putting tricks upon your Adversaries; that is putting their sayings upon such accounts they never intended, & then impugning your own fictions. 'Tis not on the impossibility of any going out of us, nor merely because whenany one is out of our Church, he is not in it, we ground the Necessity of our Church's Unity; but in this that her nature and Constitution is so framed that she can admit no division in her Bowels, but keeps herself distinguished from Aliens. If any one recede from Faith it must be by not hearing the present Churches living voice teaching him points which the Knowledge Practice and Expressions of the Teacher's determins and make Evident what they are; whence his disbeleef, if expressed, is an Evident matter of Fact which is most apt to make a plain distinction between the disbeleever and the Believers, and an Evidence beyond Cavil for the Church Governors to proceed upon. This done (as likewise in the case of high disobedience against Church-Laws, or Governors) she Excommunicates, that is solemnly separates the Schismatical Offender from the Obedient Faithful; Hence those Faithful look upon him as a Rebel or Outlaw or (as our Saviour expresses) as a Heathen or, Publican; no Church-officer admits him to Sacraments but upon his penance and Satisfaction, nor any Son of the Church will communicate with him in Sacred duties. Pray you, Sir, is this the Temper of your Church of England? Your Rule is the Letter of Scripture as conceived significative of God's word, and this to private understandings. Again you say all necessary points of Faith are plain in it, nay that nothing is fundamentally necessary but what is plain there. Hence all that hold the Letter to be plainly Expressive of God's Sense and intent to hold to what they conceive plain there, whether Socinians, Anabaptists, Independents or whatever other faction, all hold to your Rule of Faith, and so are all Protestants. For, if you would tie any of these to any determinable points, you force them from the Rule of Faith, Scripture as seeming plain to them, and would instead thereof bring them to a reliance on your Judgement. And if you would punish them for not doing it, you cannot evidence their Fault by way of matter of Fact, that so you may proceed upon it; for, as long as they profess their intention to hold to what seems plain to them in Scripture, and that your Text seems less plain to them there than their own, you ought not to proceed against them Ecclesiastically without disannulling your avowed Rule of Faith. And your carriage executes accordingly neither using Church-discipline against them for Tenets, nor yet for denying or disobeying your Government, Episcopacy, though held by you divinely instituted: When did you put any distinction by any solemn Ecclesiastical declaration between an Anabaptist, Presbyterian, Socinian etc. and yourselves? When did you excommunicate them & warn the purer Protestant's by any Public Ecclesiastical Act not to join with them in Sacred Offices, but to look upon them as Aliens? Might not any of them come to receive the Communion, if he would? or has any discipline passed upon him to debar him from being admitted? None that we see. Your Party then in indeed no Ecclesiastical body, cohering by Unity of Tenets or Government, but a Medley rather consisting of men of any tenet almost, and so bears division, disunion and Schism, that is, the Formal cause of nonentity of a Church, in its very Bowels.  
These two flams of yours, are, Sir, the Favours you have done my Friends; and I can only tell you in a country compliment, I thank you as much for them, as if you had done them to myself.  
Seeing your Reason begin to play its part bravely in the following part of your Book, I thought I had done my duty of Thanking: but I perceive one main Engine your Reason made use of was to make me perpetually contradict myself. And this you performed by singling a few words out of my Book from their fellows, introducing them in other circumstances, and so almost in every Citation falsifying my Intentions; and this purposely, as will be seen by this that you practised design and Artifice in bringing it about. This obliges me, in stead of making an End, to return back; and to show how sincerely you have used me in almost all your Citations.  
I omit your false pretence that I meant to define, contrary to my express words.  
You tell your Reader p. 11. That if any presume to say this Book, (Scripture) depends not on Tradition for its Sense, than the most scurrilous language is not bad enough; then are those Sacred writings but Ink variously figured in a Book, quoting for those words App. 4th. p. 319. But if we look there, not a word is there found of its depending or not depending on Tradition for its Sense nor of making that the Cause why I used those words you object, & cite for it; but only that whereas my Lord of Downs says his Faith has for its object the Scriptures, I tell him that since he means not by the word Scripture any determinate Sense (which is the formal parts of words) he must mean the Characters or Ink thus figured in a Book, as is evident; there being nothing imaginable in them besides the matter and the form which, every Scholar knows, compound the thing. This being then the plain tenor of my discourse there, and not the least word of Tradition sencing Scripture. Whatever the Truth of the Thing is, 'tis evident you have abused my words as found in the place you cite.  
My Citation p. 12. which abstracts from what security we can have of those parts of Scripture which concern not Faith, you will needs restrain to signify no security at all either of Letter or Sense: which is neither found in my words nor meaning.  
How you have abused my words [to avoid Calumny with the Vulgar] cited by you p. 13. as also the former of those cited p. 14. I have already shown §. 9, and 10.  
P. 17. You quote my words, 'Tis certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ, whence you infer they writ the same Doctrine they taught. Which your introducing Discourse would make to signify an Equality of Extent in Writing and Tradition, by saying I grant this Doctrine (which signifies there the First delivered Doctrine) was afterwards by the Apostles committed to writing. Whereas, whoever reads my 29th. Cor. will see I can only mean by the word same Doctrine, a not-different Doctrine. Whatever the truth of the point is, this shows you have an habitual imperfection not to let the words you cite signify as the Author evidently meant them, but you must be serving them to serve your own turn.  
You quote me p. 36. to say, that Primitive Antiquity learned their Faith by another method a long time before many of those Books were universally spread amongst the Vulgar. The sum of your Answer is, that when the Apostles who did miracles were dead, Writing then became needful: But that in those Circumstances Oral Tradition was a sufficient way of conveying a Doctrine. What I note is that you ended your citation at the words [before those Books were universally spread amongst the Vulgar] but had you added what followed immediately to complete that period, [much less the Catalogue collected and acknowledged] you had been put to confess too that Tradition was a sufficient way for divers Ages after the Apostles were dead, which had been little favourable to your Tenet. I complain then that by citing me by halves, as you do frequently, you slip the answering better half of my Arguments; and, here particularly, as appears by the words [much less] that part in which I put the most force.  
P. 41. You put me to say expressly that Tradition is the best way imaginable to convey down such Laws to us. Now if by the word such, you only meant such as it concerns every man to be skilful in, and had so expressed it, you had done well, for 'tis my position; but you had brought an ill-resembling Instance of Magna Charta, and make me seem to allow your Instance, and to affirm Tradition is the best way to bring down Magna Charta, as appears by your words. Mr. S. saith expressly it is; but how truly I appeal to the Experience, and the wisdom of our Lawgivers who seem to think otherwise; making my word such, mean such as Magna Charta, which is far from my meaning: in regard I judge not Magna Charta a thing in which 'tis every man's particular concern to be skilful in, but Lawyers only whom others trust; few in England, but they being thoroughly acquainted with the Laws found there. Take your own Liberty, Sir, in making Parallels ('tis my Advantage you should, you pick out such awkward ones) but when you have made them, do not disingenuously put them upon me, and quote me to say them expressly. Thus you use my words, Why may not he mistrust his own Eyes, which (p. 16, and 17.) were applied by me to the business of mistaking or not mistaking in transcribing perfectly a whole Book or correcting the Press, in which, we daily experience miscarriage; but you apply these words to your own senseless Parallel of seeing the City of Rome p. 83, and then by such an application endeavour to make them seem ridiculous, as they must needs for you had discoursed ridiculously, and by making them part of your Discourse, and not taking them as any part of mine, had made them so too. I could instance in many others of this nature, but I am too long already.  
P. 61. being to state the point, you allege my words Sure-footing p. 13. That the Protestants cannot by [Scriptures] mean the Sense of them, but the Book, that is, such or such Characters not yet senced or interpreted. And there you stop; my immediately following words explaining my meaning are these: that is, such and such Characters in a Book with their Aptness to signify to them assuredly God's mind, or ascertain them of their Faith. And this Explication you omit; which had been nothing had you not made an ill use of that omission; but your Cavils afterwards, and the loud out-cries in your Book in many places, of a senseless Book, my Ignorance of your Tenet, & what not, are all grounded upon your own fly omitting those words in which I expressed your Tenet to be, that those Characters were significative of your Faith; & I wonder what else you would have a Rule of Faith to be but a Mean's to signify to you God's Sense, or the Faith Christ taught those inspired Writers. It was one of my requests in my Letter that we might agree to acknowledge what was Truth in one another's Books; but you use all the Arts Insincerity can suggest to deprave, wrest or diminish my words, rather than I should appear to speak reason in any thing. All must be monstrous in your Adversary when your pregnant Fancy and dextrous pencil come to delineate it; which shows indeed much crafty wit, but I doubt the Reader will think it argues not too much Honesty.  
I affirmed Sure-footing p. 17. that the numerous Comments writ upon the Scripture and the infinite Disputes about the Sense of it even in most concerning points, as in that of Christ's Divinity beat it out so plain to us that this (to wit to find out a Certain Sense of Scripture by their Interpretation) is not the task of the Vulgar, that 'tis perfect frenzy to deny it, which you quote p. 85. and divers other places, leaving out still my words and sense that [this is not the task of the Vulgar;] (upon which that whole § proceeds) and impugning it accordingly: See your own words p. 86. making me say The Protestants cannot be certain of the true Sense of it, as if Protestants and Vulgar were the same notion: Also p. 86. He tells us (say you) the numerous Comments upon Scripture are an Evidence that no man can be Certain of the true Sense of it. This improves it into a very ample Falsification, for the word [no man] excludes all Catholics too, and indeed all the world, however proceeding to interpret it; whereas I only engage in the place cited against the Vulgar. And, after you have ended you Confute all built on your own omission of those important words, you single out (after your old fashion) two or three of my words ['tis perfect frenzy to deny it] and call it, a hot phrase; whereas 'tis very lukewarm taken in the occasion I spoke it; namely that the Vulgar could not be certain of the right Interpretation of Scripture, since even Learned Commentators so strangely differed about it. How you will clear yourself of this kind Insincerity without casting a mist before men's eyes, that they cannot read right, I cannot in your behalf imagine.  
P. 104, You quote me twice as endeavouring to prove that men may safely rely on a general and uncontrolled Tradition. Which, though you pretend not my words, yet I count it an injury to impose upon me such a Sense. Uncontrolled joined to Tradition is such another Epithet as Sufficient joined by you to Certainty. ay, who contend for the absolute Certainty of Faith, would say Uncontrollable, not Uncontrolled; for a thing may be Uncontrolled merely because it had the good Fortune that none had occasion to look into it, and so control it: whereas nothing can be Uncontrollable but by virtue of its Grounds 'tis built on, preserving it from a Possibility of ever being controlled. Your intent in producing those two Citations from me is as you declare it p. 105. is to show the Unhappiness of my Demonstrations, that in order to demonstrate the uncertainty of Books and Writings must suppose all those Principles to be uncertain which (I) take to be self-evident and unquestionable when I am to demonstrate the Infallibility of Oral Tradition. A hard case! yet it will be harder to come of, for you never are more powerful than when you use your wit to make Authors fall out with one another, and unnatural me with myself. But to the point: In the first Citation I say, That the common course of humane Conversation makes it a madness not to believe great multitudes of Knowers,— etc. But I add Sure-footing p. 49. what you omit, that in the way of Tradition all Deliverers or immediate Forefathers are Knowers.— all the Knowledge requisite being of what they were taught and practise't accordingly all their lives. I beseech you, Sir, are those great multitudes of immediate Forefathers Knowers when they deliver down a Book for a right one; that is, do they all know the Translation is right made, the Copy right printed or written, and all the Perquisits which are needful that they may be truly said to know this Book is rightly qualified. You see then how far I am from contradicting myself, unless you show that I hold all Recommenders or Accepters of a Book to be Knowers, as they are of the practical Doctrine they were bred and brought up to, which I neither do, nor can with any Sense profess. The Reader also will see that the stratagem by virtue of which you made me contradict myself, was your omitting those words of mine which made the contrary clear.  
The next place you cite p. 104. from me to the same purpose, is this, that none but madmen can suspect deceit where such multitudes agree unanimously in a matter of Fact. Now the words such multitudes, mean all their immediate Forefathers qualified as Knowers, as I expressed myself a little before, which will veryill suit your purpose, in regard the matters of Fact employed about the delivering a right Book, as in translating, transcribing, pointing right etc. of which their Senses only can make them Knowers, are so innumerable, and minute, & yet such that very great miscarriages may ensue upon a very little oversight, that to think all Forefathers, can know no Fault in any of these intervened, is such an extravagant conceit, that only a most obstinate passion could make a rational soul entertain it. The point is at present that you affect to represent me to the half part, and by that art you take me up perpetually before I be down; For it is not an agreement in any matter of Fact, but in such a one as may be known by all, in which I place the force of being able to oblige others to assent to their proposals.  
You treat me far worse p. 105. making me say that the Providence of God is no security against those Contingencies the Scripture is liable to, because we cannot be certain of the divine Providence or Assistance to his Church but by the Letter of Scripture; which is to put upon me a ridiculous Argument, making me infer there is no such Assistance, from this, that we cannot be Certain of it but such a way. Whereas Common sense tells every one that our Certainty being an Effect of the Thing's Existence, must depend indeed on their Existence, in regard we cannot be Certain of what is not; But the things can exist whether we be Certain of them or no; I affirm then and charge upon you that I have no where either such words or sense in my whole book as you with a strange precipitancy (to say no worse) affirm p. 104. that I tell you Sure-footing p. 18. where my discourse only pretends to show that, who will argue orderly must first be Certain of that on which he builds his Conclusion ere he asserts the Conclusion itself; This was the tenor of my discourse there which I conceive to be evident beyond Cavil. If I erred any where 'twas in supposing you only took from Scripture that God assisted his Church in preserving a right Copy of Scripture and therefore argued preposterously if you inferred. God has a Providence over his Church in preserving right Scripture, therefore 'tis preserved right. But this I spoke only with an If, and besides had good grounds for it: For I conceived there being but two ways to know this, by Revelation which you profess to have only by way of Scripture; and by natural Reason, whence you could not have it: For however mere nature might teach its exact Followers there was a God, and that he had Providence over his Creatures, (as it taught Socrates, Seneca and such like) yet I remember not that we have any Ground to say mere nature informed any, God had a Church, much less that there was no way to Provide for her continuance in Faith, or deriving his Doctrine down in her, but by way of Books. Hence I concluded and conclude still it must be either by Scripture or no way you can know God has such a kind of Providence over his Church.  
You are pleased to tell your Reader p. 119. that this Principle [That in matters of Religion a man cannot be reasonably satisfied with any thing less than that Infallible Assurance which is wrought by Demonstration], is the main Pillar of Mr. SH' s. Book; whereas I assure you, Sir, the last part of the kind slur you put upon me, [which is wrought by Demonstration] was never either my words nor sense; neither Pillar nor the least part of Sure-footing: wherefore, as you put those words in a different Letter for mine, so you had done well to have put down the place too where those words were found; which you wisely omitted. If I had affirmed that that Assurance which grounds Faith must be wrought by Demonstration, how should I pretend the Vulgar can be saved who are manifestly incapable of Demonstration, as I also frequently acknowledge. Understand then my Tenet at length, which you ought to have done ere you begun to write against it; but that to use your own words you thought it an absurd and ridiculous study to bend your brains to read my Book as you would do Euclid p. 292. which yet is no more but to consider attentively my Principles and my Consequences. My Tenet is that all the Faithful have, and those who seek after Faith may have, and those who seek after Faith may have Assurance of their Faith wrought in them by Practical Self-evidence, in the same natural manner, but with far better Reason, than they believe there was a Henry the 8th. and, that 'tis only Scholars that go about to Demonstrate what the Faithful know, but, for want of Study or Reflection on their own thoughts and on the Causes and Manners with which they were so assured, are ignorant how to make it out. I beseech you, Sir, repress this overflowing of Kindness in giving me so many Advantages against you, and take a little pains to understand what I say, nor (to borrow your elegant expression p. 292.) suffer yourself to be so demurely discharged of a Study so necessary and so honourable.  
I had affirmed in my Letter to my Answerer p. 5th. that it was a civil piece of Atheistry to say Faith is possible to be false for any thing we know, or that we have only Probability for our Faith; And you kindly tell us p. 135. that what M. S. calls a civil piece of Atheistry is advanced in most express terms by his best Friends. Sir, I account rushworth's Dialogues my best Friend, and I perceive you abuse the Preface of it notoriously, which was wholly designed to evince the contrary positions; citing the Author of it p. 132. to say that such a Certainty as makes the cause always work the same Effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherwise, ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true Certainty, whereas he only tells us there p. 7. that by Moral Certainty [some understood] such a Certainty as made your cause always work the same Effect; whom a little after he reprehends for undervaluing this for moral Certainty, which is true (or Physical) Certainty; putting an Instance of the Certainty he has that he shall not repeat in order the same words he spoke this last year; and yet (says he) these men will say, I am only morally Certain of it. Your injury then lies here, that by leaving out the words at the beginning of the Citation by moral Certainty [some understood] such a Certainty etc. you make him say what he evidently makes others say, and condemns them for so saying; for he is far from abetting their tenet than a real possibility to be otherwise makes a true Certainty; but asserts that to be truly Certain which they mistook for possible to be otherwise or morally Certain; which is the plain tenor of his discourse, as it is the whole scope of that Preface to force the direct contrary Position to what you would so disingenuously impose upon him. The two next Citations are only mistaken; for, 'tis one thing to say what men would do, did they love Heaven as they ought, or had they no Interest in their Souls, another to ask what means is most efficacious to beget a hearty love of Heaven in their Souls; the prudentialness of their obligation, in case of a higher probability only, joined with their undervalue of Heaven was enough to make them miscarry; but 'tis a question whether 'twas enough to elevate them sufficiently amidst the Temptations of our three Spiritual Enemies, to heavenly love so as to save them; or if they be very speculative, against the Temptations of Fancy and the seeming Impossibility of the mysteries. Also 'tis another thing to ask what men should do if there were no Infallibility, or (which is all one to them) if they hold none; and, whether Infallibility or an absolute Impossibility Faith should be otherwise, be not incomparably the best for mankind, and so, laid by God who ever does the best for his Creatures. As I would not therefore have the Protestants renounce all practice of Religion because they have not an Infallible means of knowing their Faith to be true; so neither do I doubt, but had they such Assurance, their Faith would work through Charity with far more liveleness and steadiness than either it now does or can do.  
You abuse what you cite from me p. 140. by impugning half the Sentence only; the other half would have discovered I spoke not of man's nature according to his moral part, but according as 'tis cognoscitive and this chiefly in natural Knowledges imprinted directly by his Senses on his Soul. Represent things truly, and then dispute as much as you will, otherwise you but injure yourself and abuse your Reader, while you go about with a preposterus Courtesy to oblige me.  
P. 145. According to your usual sincerity you quote Rushworth's Nephew to say that a few good words are to be cast in concerning Scripture for the satisfaction of indifferent men who have been brought up in this verbal and apparent respect of the Scripture; to which you add, who it seems are not yet arrived to that degree of Catholic Piety and Fortitude as to endeavour patiently the word of God should be reviled and slighted. Whereas in the place you cite he only expresses it would be a Satisfaction to indifferent men, to see the positions one would induce them to embrace, maintainable by Scripture. Which is so different from the invidious meaning your malice puts upon it, and so innocent and unoffensive in itself, that one who were not well acquainted with you and knew not your temper and over good nature to be such that you cared not to undo yourself to do your Friend a Kindness, would wonder with what Conscience you could so wrest and pervert it.  
P. 146. You mention my explaining the notion of Tradition, which you carp at as tedious; and yet (as we have seen by frequent experience) all was too little to make you understand it, though I endeavourd there according to my utmost to render it unmistakable. But you mistake it here again, objecting that I instance in set forms, the Creed and ten Commandments, whereas the Apol. for Tradition says That cannot be a Tradition which is delivered in set words. It had been better you had put down that Authors own words Apol. p. 81. which are, A Tradition (as we have explicated it) being a Sense delivered &c. for why was it not possible he and I should explicate it diversely? But to the point. I speak of Tradition or delivery, you and the Apology of a Tradition or the thing delivered, which you confound. Now a Tradition or point delivered being Sense, and Sense abstracting from my particular manner of expressing it, he had good reason to say there, that a Tradition is a Sense settled in the Auditor's hearts by hundreds of different Expressions explicating the same meaning; nor do you any where find me say but that, though the Creed and Ten Commandments be the shortest expressions of the main points of Speculative and Practical Christianity, and so most suitable to the young memories I speak of, yet I no where say that Forefathers expressed the Senses contained in them no other way; or, that they did not deliver them in hundreds of different Expressions, according as the manifold variety of occasions and circumstances, accidentally lighting, prompted the Fancies of the Teachers after a natural kind of manner to declare themselves. You see, Sir, how unfortunate you are still when you would make us contradict ourselves or one another; And the civilest Excuse for your perpetual failings herein is to allege that you are utterlyignorant of what you would impugn; and I wish that were the worst.  
You put upon me p. 152. that unless a person to be converted can demonstrate one pretended Rule certain and Infallible, the other not, he hath not found out the Rule of Faith. I wish you had told us where I say this, for I must disavow it as directly opposite to my Doctrine which is that our Rule of Faith's Certainty is Practically-self-evident, and known by virtue of an obvious familiar conversation with the nature of things, and, therefore, that persons to be converted may come to Faith without demonstration at all. I may perhaps say that in an Assent thus grounded there is found at the bottom what is demonstrable by a learned man, or apt to yield matter for a demonstration; but that those who come to Faith must demonstrate or frame demonstrations (which 'tis manifest only Scholars, and good ones too, can do) is fa from my Tenet, however 'tis your Kindness to put it upon me, right or wrong. You shall take your choice whether the Reader shall think you understand not the Tenet you are confuting, or that understanding it you wilfully injure it.  
You proceed p. 153. that according to Mr. S. Reason can never demonstrate that the one is a Certain and Infallible Rule, the other not. That never is a hard word; and it will seem wonderful to some Readers I should say Reason can never demonstrate this, and yet in that very Book contend to demonstrate it by Reason myself; nay make that the main scope of my Book. But, Sir, those Readers, know not yet the power of your wit and sincerity, which can make me say any thing, nay say and unsay as it pleases. Yet you quote my express words for it, Sure-footing p. 53. where you say I [tell you, Tradition hath for its basis Man's Nature, not according to his Intellectuals, because they do but darkly grope in the pursuit of Science, etc.] I deny them, Sir, to be my words or sense; you have altered the whole face and frame of them by putting in the word Because, which makes me discourse as if man's Intellectuals could never arrive at Evidence nor consequently Certainty; and you keep the Reader from knowing the true sense of my words, by curtailing the sentence with an [&c.] my words are, not according to his Intellectuals, darkly groping in the pursuit of Science, by reflected thoughts or Speculations, amidst the misty vapours exhaled by his Passion predominant over his rational will] which discovers I speak of our Intellectuals placed in such circumstances, or employed about such a matter, as our Passion or Affection is apt to blind and misled us in it, which we experience too too often. But do I therefore affirm our understanding can never arrive at Science at all, or that our Passion exhales vapours to hinder us from seeing the Truth of the first Proposition in Euclid; or was it ever heard that any man was transported so by his Passion as to deny there was a Henry the 8th? Or can any one out of Passion be ignorant of or forget what is inculcated into his Senses almost every day, which natural Knowledge, I there make the Basis of Tradition? Pray, Sir, reflect on my words once more and on the Tenor of my Discourse, and you shall see it only says, that Tradition has for its Basis man's Nature, not according to his moral part, which is of itself pervertible, nor yet his Intellectuals as subject to his Morals, but on natural Knowledges imprinted by direct Sensations, not subject at all to his Will, but necessary and inevitable: and when you have done this, you will easily see how you injure me, though I expect not from you any Acknowledgement of it. You commit those Faults too often to concern yourself in such a trifle as any handsome Satisfaction.  
Your next Citation p. 153. lays on load. 'Tis taken out of my 2d. Appendix p. 183. My whole Discourse there is to show how Reason behaves herself in finding out the Authority she is to rely on that this is God's Sense or Faith, and how in the points of Faith themselves. Concerning the former I discourse there §. 3. and have these Expressions, that No Authority deserves assent farther than true Reason gives it to deserve; that the Church's Authority is found by my Reason to be Certain; that 'tis perfectly rational to believe the Church assuring me the Divine Authority is engaged for such and such points; that Gods and the Church's Authority as Objects imprinting a conceit of themselves in my mind as they are in themselves, obliged my Reason to conclude and my judgement to hold them such as they were; nor have I the least expression of diffidence of natural Reason's certifying me perfectly of the Ground of my Faith, which can no ways be done by Acts of reflected Reason, (which I there speak of) but by demonstrating it. After this §. 4. I come to discourse how differently Reason bears herself in order to the points of Faith or the mysteries themselves. Hereupon I have these words. p. 183. Reason acts now much differently than formerly. Before I came at Faith she acted about her own Objects, Motives or Maxims by which she scanned the Autho rities we spoke of; but in Acts of Faith she hath nothing to do with the Objects of those Acts, or Points of Faith. Then follow immediately the words you cite, She is like a dim-sighted man; who used his Reason to find a trusty Friend to lead him in the twilight, and then relied on his guidance rationally without using his own Reason at all about the Way itself. Which most plainly signifies, that, as a dim-sighted man cannot use his Reason about the Way, for that required, it should well affect his Senses, and imprint its right notion there, (which it did not,) but yet could use his Reason about choosing a trusty Friend to guide him, for this depended not on his dim-sight, but the converse and negotiation with his neighbours and relations which he had been inur'd to, and so was capable to wield and manage such a Discourse: So our Reason, dim-sighted in the Mysteries of Faith in which neither Senses nor Maxims of Human Science had given her light enough, could not employ her talon of discoursing evidently and scientifically to conclude the Points of Faith themselves; but yet was by Motives and Maxims within her own Sphere, enabled to scan the nature of Authorities, and find out on which as on a trusty Friend she might safely rely. This, Sir, is evidently my Discourse, from whence you will needs force me to say Reason is dim-sighted about the Authority we come to Faith by or the Rule of Faith. Now my whole Discourse in that very place aiming at the direct contrary, and you leaving out the immediately foregoing words which clearly discovered it, I hope you will not take it ill, Sir, if I tell you I fear any sincere Examiner of it will judge, that though you hold Plaindealing a Jewel, yet you would not be willing to go to too much cost for it. Especially when he reflects that you build better half your Confutation in your Book on such kind of willing mistakes, and hope to blind it and make it take by Sophister-like quibbles, flouts and jeers with which you use to sound your own triumph. I expected, sweet Sir, some First Principles of your Discourse, and I see now you intent those Artifices for such; none else have I met with, nor do you build on any thing so much as these; but, one of these laid for a Ground, you run on with such a Career as if you would overthrow all the Sense and Reason that ever comes in your way.  
You tell me p. 158. by a parallel Discourse to mine against my Lord of Downs that my demonstrations are none unless I vouch some particularity in my Method above what's in others, which p. 160. you say you remember not I have done any where. It seems you read my Transition not with any sober intent to understand it and speak solidly to it, but only to carp at it, and break jests upon it. Have you so soon forgot the pleasant mood it put you into p. 3, and 4. I contest then that the Method I there declare myself to pursue is particular above what I ever observed in any of your Controvertists; not that they want better Parts to lay it, but because they want a good Cause to bear it, and give them leave to follow it. I declare also that I hold that Method sufficient to demonstrate by, though I pretend it not the exactest than can be made. As for those great men whom you allege to differ in demonstrations, (Charles Thynn I leave to bear you company, you are both such merry Blades) I doubt not but, were the business well examined, their differences spring from not attending heedfully to the Method of concluding; and that no miscarriage could ensue in any Discourse, were the way of Discoursing perfectly laid, agreed to, and exactly followed; nay that those few Differences amongst Geometricians arise from the same defect; as, were it seasonable, I could show particularly (with the help of a Friend, you must think) in that famous one about angulus contingentiae. But to our present purpose; methinks, Sir, you may remember, a thing called a Letter to my Answerer, where I endeavoured at least at some means to settle some particularity in our Method above what has been practise't in other Controversies formerly, begging you would agree to it that so we might both follow it; but you would have none you thanked me: Since than you would not accept it when offered, you should not ask for it again when your Book is writ and the Circumstances of using it past. But perhaps there lies the policy of it! You end with a Glance or two at my Selfconfidence? But are you Prophetical in this too, Sir, that 'tis some proud and vain humour in me, and not rather my Assuredness of the Truth of my Cause, and of the Conclusiveness of my Method, which makes me deliver myself undauntedly? See my Letter to my Answerer where I have these words p. 18. By this means it will be quickly discovered whether or no you have overthrown my Discourse by showing it ill-coherent, and how far 'tis faulty: that, if I cannot clear it to be connected, I may confess my fault and endeavour to amend it. For, however I see my Grounds evident, yet I am far from judging myself Infallible in drawing my Consequences: though I see withal the Method I take, will not let me err much; or, if I do, my Error will be easily discoverable; because I go not about to cloud myself in Words, but to speak out, as plain as I can, from the nature of the Thing. Had you a desire to practise the due candour towards me I should have done to you, you would not have sought occasions to put in upon a personal priding myself in my performances, which I so frequently disown and place all my advantage in my Cause and my Method. But you are angry I deliver myself so boldly in what I take to be Truth; I beseech you, Sir, is it not natural for any one who judges he speaks what's Evident, to express himself fear lesly when he disputes against an Adversary of the Truth whose Cause he has espoused; as, 'tis on the contrary for one who judges he has only Probability for what he says, to speak dis-confidently, and condescendingly, and when he indeed sneaks not daring to speak out, then to praise himself and his party for modest and moderate men? You know by experience, Sir, ' 'tis. Has there in our late age come out a Book more brisk than this of yours, not in asserting, but in scorn, and proud petulancy, and (which is to be pitied) proud of an airy jest or some gay conceit? Shall I be bold to tell you, Sir, what is j confidence? To undertake to write a Discourse about the Ground of Faith, without so much as one Principle that deserves to be called such to bless himself with; to lay for Grounds all along Falsifications of his Adversaries meaning and words, and then quibbling, taunting and vapouring as if all the world were his own. Lastly, to tell his Auditors soberly and sadly out the Pulpit all is God's Word he preaches, and press they should believe him; and yet when he writes against us, confess all he preaches concerning Salvation and the Way to it, may possibly be false; that is, for any thing he absolutely knows, he has not told them one true word all the while. This, Sir, I must needs confess, is such a Heroic strain of selfconfidence that, however it be familiar and natural to others, yet I despair for my part ever to attain it. To bear one's self as holding a thing a demonstration which he judges he has Evidence that 'tis such, is a puling and trifling kind of self-conceit; but to carry it out with the greatest Formality in the world as if it were most Certain, and yet hold at the same time and profess 'tis possible to be false, that is, may for any thing any man knows, be shown false to morrow, is a noble and gallant Self confidence, and such a one as fears not the face of any man living.  
P. 161. You come to examine my demonstrations à priori, and in order to it, my four Grounds, which you affirm you will set down in my own words. Which intimates you did not do so formerly, though it be your duty to do it always; However 'tis a Kindness which I am bound to thank you for, and as far as I discern you have not faltered in it, of which I here make my hearty Acknowledgement. But, Sir, may I not fear this particular Resolution of yours here to be Sincere springs hence, because in this Sect. 2. where you put down my words, you do not yet go about to apply them to your Discourse, and attempt to confute; which in your next Section p. 163. you endeavour? I foresee you will be shrew'dly tempted there, for want of other Answer, to break your resolution; till we come there then I leave you with my hearty wishes of strength & constancy against that habitual Infirmity which so often overcoms all your resolutions of that nature.  
And we are now come to your third Sect p. 163. (the place of the trial of your perseverance) where you begin your confute; and contend first that my Demonstration would conclude too much viz. as you tell us p. 164 that if it were true, it would be impossible any Christian should turn Apostate or Heretic, or that any Christian should live wickedly. I marry, this were a rare Demonstration indeed! But, how comes my demonstration to be thus guilty of a plot to make all the world Saints, or rather of drawing after it a Conclusion so extravagant. By virtue of a direct Falsification both of my words and Sense, by cogging in a word little in show but very large in Sense, namely the monosyllable [All] making my Principle run thus that the greatest hopes and fear are applied to the minds of all Christians; which you put down here in the Italic letter, the same you quoted my words in. I beseech you, Sir, review my own words put down lately by yourself p. 161. 162. at what time you made that good resolution, and see if any such word be there; But, what's most material is this; Let the Reader survey your following discourse which aims to confute me, and he will see'tis wholly and solely built on this word All, so that your own Falsification is still the First Principle, which gives the Strength and Life to your Confutation. What use you make of it may be seen p. 164 l. 8. That any Christian etc. Ib. l. 12. That any Christian should live wickedly l. 18. That any Christian should turn Apostate l. 26. But all Christians have those Arguments of Hopes and Fears strongly applied. l. ult. 'Tis necessary all Christians. Again p. 165. l. 3. (which I desire the Reader to note that he may see how bold you are in your imposing things upon me) If these causes be put in all the Faithful actually causing as (say you) Mr. S. saith expressly in his Grounds; Whereas I assure the Reader Mr. S. says expressly no such thing. But to proceed p. 165. l. 8. & 9 'tis impossible there should be any defection, etc. l. 14. 'tis impossible any single Christian. P. 167. It concludes there can be no Heretics or Apostates etc. This, dear Sir, you use me: First you put upon me other words and meaning, and then overthrew most powerfully not what I said or meant, but what you had counterfeited me to do; which victorious way of confuting runs through the better half your Book.  
You affirm p. 165. that I liberally acknowledge in other places this (to wit, that 'tis impossible any single Christian should either totally Apostatise or fall into Heresy) is a genuine Consequence from my Principles. Surely, Sir, your great plot is to have me thought a direct mad man or Frantic; For never did any man moderately in his wits advance a Position and pretend to demonstrate it, which is contrary to the Eye sight and frequent Experience of the whole world; nay write a whole Chapter as I did Sure-footing p. 65. how Heresies come in, and yet maintain in the same Book no man can turn Heretic that is that no Heresy could ever come in. Well, but what are those other places which must prove me a liberal Acknowledger of such an unheard of Paradox? You assign four places p. 165, & 166. The first you introduce me thus. He tells us (and then you quote my words from Sure-footing p. 54.) That it exceeds all the power of Nature (abstracting from the Cases of madness and violent disease) to blot the Knowledges of this Doctrine out of the Soul of one single Beleevor. I assure you, Sir, I tell you no such thing, and that I have neither those words nor sense in my whole Book, which makes me doubt you did not so much as make a resolution here to set down my own words, as you did formerly; and I wish for your own sake, you did not resolve the contrary. My Doctrine is that the Knowledges of this (or Christ's) Doctrine, may be blotted, not only out of the Soul of one single Believer, but all Believers, in case it be laid there only opinionatively, or imprinted slightly by a fleeting Sermon or wordish discourse, apt to go in at the one ear and out at the other. My words in that place cited are these? It exceeds all the power of nature (abstracting from madness and violent disease) to blot knowledges THUS FIXED out of the Soul of one single believer. And, what mean the words [thus fixed] 'tis told you in the same p. 54. in Sure-footing, that 'tis by so oft repeated Sensations; which (in the foregoing page, where that discourse begins) is explained to be, by Impressions upon the Senses, not made once but frequently, and in most, many times every day; and that to make those more express and apt to be taken notice of, their lives are to be framed by the Precepts they hear and conformable Examples they see. All this is implied in the words [thus fixed] as found in that place; which therefore being very prudent in your generation, you demurely omitted; else it had seemed no great Paradox (which 'tis your constant endeavour to make me still speak) that no one man, unless mad or much diseased, can forget what he daily experiences in others others and practices himself. But, grant all true you pretend to, and that every man must needs have or retain the knowledge of Christ's doctrine however imprinted; yet, do I any where say that no man can act against knowledge, and so relinquish Tradition, and by that means turn Apostate or Heretic? when you find that Position in me, cite it, and let us see it, otherwise barely to allege me saying they cannot but know it, argues not I say they must necessarily follow it. The last of those four Citations which you bring for this point p. 166. immediately follows this first (now discussed) in Sure footing p. 54. whence it concerns the same matter, namely the Indelibleness of Knowledges thus fixed out of the Soul of one single man; as is Evident to him that reads the passage in its proper place; though false dealing be so natural to you, you assure the Reader p. 166. that in the full career of my bombast Rhetoric I deliver it (that is, as you express it a little before the Impossibility that Tradition should fail in any one single person) roundly without fear or wit; whereas neither there nor in that whole Discourse is there one syllable concerning Traditions being adhered to or not adhered to, (this Subject beginning the next Discourse in these words, All this is well, may some say, in case Tradition had been ever held to) but only of its Certainty or Regulative virtue, founded on natural Knowledges imprinted by frequented Sensations in such a manner as is impossible to be blotted out in one single Testifier or part of Tradition. I am loath to think or say too hardly of you, Sir, only I say 'tis strange a mere Chance should produce so constant an Effect of perverting my Evident Sense (oft times words too) in each passage. It may be the reason of your mistaking me here and in some other passages was this, I minded not Rhetoric at all, but only Sense; & you, (as became a solid Confuter) minded not the Sense at all but only the Rhetoric: which by me was never aimed at either there or in any other part of my Book: If what I write be Truth, and my Expression Intelligible, I have my End; and can without Envy permit you to dress up your own Falsehoods in the jingle of periods and empty flourishes.  
The second place brought to make me liberally acknowledge that it follows from my Principles no man can possibly relinquish Tradition is found in you p. 165, and 166. and thus; Since no man can hold contrary to his knowledge, nor doubt of what he holds, nor change or innovate without knowing he doth so, it is a manifest Impossibility a whole Age should fall into an absurdity so inconsistent with the nature of one single man. Is here any liberal acknowledgement that no man can desert Tradition? Or is there a word here to that purpose? but only, that no man can doubt of or hold the contrary▪ to what he knows, nor go about so visible an action as innovating without knowing he does so; with which yet may well consist that not only one single man but all mankind may (for any thing is there said) knowingly and wilfully desert Tradition and turn Apostates. I wonder, learned Sir, what you are akin to that Philosopher who maintained Snow was black! you have so admirable a faculty of identifying the most disparate nay contrary notions; and by a knack of placing things in false lights, make even Propositions which signify the selfsame, become perfect Contradictions.  
The third place of mine, which you say must make me liberally acknowledge it a genuine consequence from my Principles that 'tis impossible one single man should relinquish Tradition, is cited by you p. 166. from Sure-footing p. 87. That it is perhaps impossible for one single man to attempt to deceive posterity, to which you add in another Letter [by renouncing Tradition]. It had been better in such nice points to put down my own words, especially when you put them in a different Letter. Mine are, 'Tis perhaps impossible that they should misled posterity in what themselves conceit to be true; which is different from the Words and Sense you represent for mine; for many weak persons by Sophistry or fine words pretended from Scripture and baptised God's Word, may be inveigled to conceit that Tradition is false; in which case should they renounce Tradition, yet they would not therefore misled posterity from what they conceit true; which is all I there say or undertake for. But, the main is, you represent me to say, 'tis perhaps impossible in one single man; which reaches any man whether good or bad; whereas my discourse there proceeds upon good and holy men only. It begins thus p. 89. For, supposing Sanctity in the Church, that is, that multitudes in it make heaven their first love— had those Fathers, (that is those Holy men) misled Posterity, etc. and then follow some of the words you cite, I mean all of them that are mine. This being so, be Judge yourself, Sir, whether (bating you the perhaps, and speaking absolutely) it be not impossible for one good and holy man to misled posterity in what he conceits to be true; and whether it may not consist well enough with this branch of my discourse, that great multitudes may turn bad, that is, choose some false good for their last end; and then, out of affection to that, disregard what's true, what's false, and misled their children contrary to their own knowledge.  
You say p. 171. that the only thing I offer in that discourse to prevent this Objection is this Sure-footing. p. 65. 'Tis not to be expected but some contingencies should have place where a whole Species in a manner is to be wrought upon, etc. And, had there been no more, me thinks it might have made you wary to challenge me with the direct contrary, had you not resolved to lay the necessity of my contradicting myself in every passage for one of your first Principles to confute me with. But I offered far more and more obvious preventions than that. See the immediate Conclusion from my Grounds put down by yourself p. 162. which one would think should inform you best what is the most genuine consequence from the same Principles; This put, it follows as certainly that a GREAT NUMBER OR BODY of the first Believers, and after-faithful in each Age, would continue to hold themselves, and teach their children as themselves had been taught, that is, would follow and stick to Tradition, etc. Does a great number or Body signify all, not one excepted, which you falsely put upon me? How disingenuous a proceeding is this; to persuade your Reader those are not my Consequences from my Principles which I make myself, but those which you make for me? and how do you make them? by perverting constantly my words and sense. Again, you know I had writ a discourse, declaring how Heresies came to be introduced, and therefore one would think any sober Confuter that were not bend upon Cavil, ere he had challenged me to hold that no one man could possibly turn Heretic, that is, that no Heresy could possibly come in, should have looked first in that place to see how and by what means I made Heresies actually come in. But you were resolved beforehand what to do; that is, to make me speak contradictions, and so it was not your Interest to see it or take notice of it. Otherwise, there you had seen me prevent all the imputations which you by virtue of your forged monosyllable [All] had put upon me. See Sure-footing, p. 66. We will reflect how an Heresy is first bred. We must look then on Christ's Church not only as on a Congregation, having in their hearts those most powerful motives— able of their own Nature to carry each single heart possessed by them,— but as on the perfectest form of a Commonwealth, having within herself Government and Officers to take care all those Motives be ACTUALLY APPLIED AS MUCH AS MAY BEE to the subject Laity; and that all the sons of the Church, etc.— notwithstanding, it happens sometimes that, because 'tis impossible the perfection of discipline should extend itself in so vast a multitude to every particular, some one or few persons by neglect of applying Christian motives to their souls, fall into extravagancies, etc.— and— if Governors be not vigilant and prudent, draw other curious or passionate men into the same faction with themselves, which words would have clearly shown you that, for want of due application, (which was one of the requisites my demonstrations went upon) the Cause fell short of producing its effect of adhering to Tradition. And this you might have seen nearer hand, namely, in the foregoing Discourse, the very same which pretended to demonstrate; where, speaking of the Application of the Cause to the Patient p. 63. 64. 65. I end thus: In a word, Christianity urged to execution, gives its followers a new Life, and a new Nature; than which a nearer Application cannot be imagined. So that you see I make account its Application depends upon its being urged to Execution; and what is it that urges things to Execution, but Government and Discipline? I wish, Sir, when you are to confute a rational Discourse, you would not stand running after Butterflies, and catching by the way childishly at this little word, and the other little word, to play upon them jestingly; but have patience to read it thorough, and take the whole substance of it into your head, and so endeavour to speak to it solidly. This is the way to benefit your Readers, (to whom you owe this duty) nay a far better to credit yourself with understanding men, than all those petty tricks of impertinent Wit, and ironical Expressions, which you so passionately dote upon.  
I am heartily weary of so illiberal a task as to spend ink and paper, much less time, in discovering men's defects; and I assure you, Sir, I am very sorry your carriage made it necessary; whereupon, though I see much rubbish of this nature behind, and have overslipt too very much, yet I should have ended, did not I find myself highly concerned to defend one Assertion of mine, than which you (who use no hot phrases, but are all Civility and Sweetness) say p. 173. nothing can be more impudent; I humbly thank you, Sir. This most impudent position is this, that Sure-footing, p. 65. being to meet with the Objection, that there have been many Heretics or deserters of Tradition, I say, If we look into Histories for experience of what has passed in the world since the first Planting of Christianity, we shall find far more particulars fail in propagating their kind than their faith. Now, Sir, if this be proved not at all impudent, which you judge most impudent, I hope the rest, which you judge less impudent, may easily pass for blameless.  
Let's to work then, and because 'tis your business as well as mine, I beseech you lend me your thoughts to go along with mine from one end of the 7th. discourse in Sure-footing to the other, Company may do much in making them attentive; otherwise, I see plainly they will stand loitering and gazing by the way at this odd word, or the inelegancy of that phrase, or noting some passages that may be prettily mistaken and make excellent good sport; by which means You who as you say p. 292. are apt to unbend your brains without bidding, will hardly ever be drawn to go forwards with a deliberate pace half the way. In the said discourse then p. 65. you see I design to clear an objection of my own which I conceived obvious, namely that there have been actually many Heretics or deserters of Tradition. I make my way to it p. 66. by asserting that the way of Tradition is as efficaciously established in the very grain of man's nature as what seems most natural, the propagation of their kind: Hence I come at last to that most impudent assertion that more have failed in propagating their kind than their Faith. Proceeding to prove it, I show p. 66. how Heresy, or a failing to propagate Faith, happens; and, I allow p. 68 that it must be performed by deserting Tradition, and choosing (at least for a show) another Rule, that so they may have occasion to break from the former Church. But I affirm withal p. 65. §. 3. that assoon as the breach is sufficiently made, and the novelists begin to be shaped into a body, whatever for a show they still would seem to keep to, yet that they presently desert the new Rule they had taken up, and the natural way of Tradition again recovers itself; that, the Reformers themselves make use of it to keep their company together; that, Children are taught they are to believe their Pastors and Fathers even in interpreting Scripture; that the first Reformers punish them if they break from their body, and hold not to the Sense of Scripture they give them. And hence I conclude p. 74. that the number of the Actual deserters of the natural way of Tradition have been but few, to wit, the First Revolters that the descendants of these Revolters followed the way of Tradition, however misplaced; then I added some considerations for Grounds to balance the number of Failers in propagation with the number of those who failed in Tradition; and as reasons why I concluded this number less: but you never use to speak to my reasons; only you mistake my discourse and my conclusion to mean not only the First breakers, but their descendants too, which I make account return naturally to the Traditionary way; than you deny and impugn like a learned logician, the Conclusion itself, amplify strangely upon your own mistake of it, instancing in all the Countries almost East, West, North and South; triumph mightily, and would have me show you a whole nation that refused to marry: As if my Conclusion could not be true, unless such a rare sight were showed you all at a clap.  
ere I come closer to the proof of my Assertion I foresee I am to make good first that even the deserters of Tradition, when they think themselves sufficiently enfranchised from the discipline of the former Church and that their followers settle into a kind of Body under them, bring in again the way of Tradition, or rather indeed permit nature to work both in the new brood that grow up under those Fathers who had lately deserted Tradition, and in those deserters themselves: nothing being more natural than both for the Fathers, Elders or Governors, to desire and even expect the children, Posterity and Subjects should follow their judgements, and not to make themselves wiser than their betters; nor for the descendants and young ones credulously to believe those whom they looked upon ever with an awe and respect, and to permit their lives to be framed by their conduct. I affirm then that even in all those Sects that have fallen from the Catholic Church, whether Protestants, Lutherans, Presbyterians, or whatever else they be that pretend to hold to Scripture, the Generality if not all are continued to the former body or immediately foregoing Generation by Tradition, and not by virtue of Scripture Evidence uniting their understandings. For what a wild conceit it is to imagine that the Children throughout a whole Kingdom of Lutherans for example, should still light to interpret Scripture just as did their Forefather Lutherans and thence unanimously hold to the Lutheran Profession? And the same in Protestants, Presbyterians, Arians, Pelagians. And the like may be said in some sort even of Turks and Heathens, that 'tis not the virtue of any motive that they go upon which keeps up a Succession of men of the same Tenet, but the natural force of Education at first and Custom afterwards; which we experience daily to have so strange a Power, that the most evident Arguments are scarce able to wean persons, otherwise very rational, from the most absurd and weakly grounded Prejudices; and that to root out judgements thus planted from their Souls, seems as violently to shock and strain nature in them as if one went about to tear a limb from their Body. If it be acknowledged then, as it must, that Education has such an incomparable force in preserving an unanimousness between Foregoers and Posterity, and Education consists in making the descendants think & act as did their Forefathers, we shall discover that Education hath in it the very nature of Tradition; and consequently, that 'tis by virtue of Tradition any Sect continues the same; which devolves into this, that, therefore, as soon as any Sect is formed it returns or slides back (if it continues) naturally into the way of Tradition.  
I am afraid, Sir, by this time you are ready to object (for 'tis your way, out of an overzealous affection to find Absurdities in your Adversary, to catch at any thing that seems so at first sight without maturely weighing it) that by this means I make all Protestants, Quakers, nay Turks and Heathens too of our Religion, by making them follow our Rule of Faith, Tradition; and you have a little to that purpose p. 147. and elsewhere much more if I remember right. But, Sir, I shall undeceive you easily, by distinguishing between Tradition taken at large, or as I call it Sure-footing p. 74. the natural way of Tradition, and Christian Tradition. That has the abetment, and Concern of many Natural ties to make it followed, and in Public and universally-concerning matters of fact, it lays a kind of force upon man's Nature, as in the Existence of William the Conqueror, Mahomet, Alexander, etc. This has, besides, Supernatural Assistances of the Holy Ghost, to strengthen the greatest force of Nature. But to omit other differences, what concerns us most at present, is, that This pretends to be an Uninterrupted Derivation from Christ, whence 'tis called Christian Tradition; whereas any other, for example yours in following your Forefathers, can pretend uninterruptedness no farther than your first Reformer; whose immediate Ancestors being Catholic, your chain is broke, or at an end; whence, for the same reason, this short-lined Tradition ought to be called his, (for example the Lutheran) and not Christian Tradition. The more therefore you, or any other adhere to any other Tradition, so much farther you recede from, and are more obstinate against Christian Tradition; since, doing so, you hold more firmly to that which was a renouncing the other.  
These rubs removed, we advance to our point, which is to examine whether, in likelihood, more particulars have failed propagating their Kind than their Faith. To do this the shorter and clearer we will pitch upon one Instance which yourself mention, namely, of the vast multitudes which since Luther, in Germany, Denmark, Sueden, England, Scotland, Ireland, etc. have renounced the Roman-Catholik Faith. And, since by our former Discourse and indeed common Sense, none in any of those Countries were Actual Deserters of Tradition (by which I mean Catholik or Christian Tradition) but those who once held it, which their Descendants did not, but either followed Tradition at large, or their Tradition, that is the Tradition of what these Deserters educated them to, hence we are to exclude all the innumerable Descendants from those Actual Deserters, as persons unconcerned at all in my Discourse, my express words ever excluding them. And, because those Deserters began not all with Luther, but some fell 20. some 40. years after him, I will put myself upon the disadvantage to put them all to be fallen sooner, to wit, about 20. years after Luther: it being all one to our Case, for no more could fall but all those that actually then did fall (in regard we allow their Descendants to continue their Father's steps) though we put them to fall all at once. Imagine then that in the Year 1537. all were fallen that did fall either then, before, (I mean, before that Year, since Luther) and after that time; what proportion may we conceive they might bear to all Catholics then living whether in the Greek or Roman Church, whether in those parts of the world or America, whose Conversion was then well begun? I conjecture we should be very liberal to grant they equalled one third (that is were the fourth) part of those who were found living, in the Year assigned and adhering to Tradition.  
This laid, let us consider next how many we may conceive to have failed in that Year and ever since that is for 128. Years in propagating their kind. And first we will take a view of those who die by natural Deaths or Casualties, before they enter into the ordinary Circumstance of Propagation, Marriage; and yet conduced, in their proportion, to the instilling Faith into those they conversed with. For, assoon as any arrive to that pitch of age as to express themselves Christianly in their Language and Behaviour, 'tis evident they connaturally insinuate into others of an inferior pitch they converse with, to their slender Degree, the same things they hold and practise; and so are truly parts of the Church Essential as delivering, or parts of Tradition; and, though we might begin much sooner to reckon them such, yet we will to avoid dispute take them from the age of 14. to 24. before which time if any marry, there are as many that marry later, and if this be not enough to balance it to an Equality we will allow all lay-people that live unmarried, and all that marry and yet die before they have children or never have any, into the bargain. Those then between the age of 14. and 24. reckoning the whole time of man's life 90. Years, are the 9th. part of mankind that were found living in our Age. Putting then all the present Livers in that Age to die in the Year we pitched upon (that so we may for clearness reduce our Discourse to the same determinate compass of time) we may well put the 9th. part of mankind living in that Year to die between 14. and 24. that is, to die without conducing to propagate their kind, though they contribute to propagate their Faith; and, if this number be thought too great, because of the healthfulness of that Age, we will account it but a tenth part, though in truth it deserves to be held rather an 8th. or 7th. because of the numerousness of that Decad in comparison of the persons found Living in those Decades, beginning from the 60th. 70th. and the 80th. Year, which are very few. Certain then 'tis according to our best moral Estimation a tenth part of mankind within that prefixed Year die (I mean a tenth part of those who do then die) who have had a hand in propagating Faith and not their Kind. Next, let us multiply that tenths part by the number of the Years elapsed since, that is, from the Year 1537. that is for 128. Years, and 'tis plain that we shall have 128. tenths, that is near 13. times as many as lived in that whole Year. Wherefore, the Actual Deserters of Tradition reaching but to one 4th. of the mankind that lived in that Year as was shown above, it follows that the number of those since Luther, who died without propagating their kind amounts to 4. times thirteen times, that is, above 50. times more than those who actually deserted Tradition since that time or those who failed to propagate their Faith.  
Again, let us weigh the multitudes found in any one Year to belong to the whole Ecclesiastical Body of the Catholic Church, wherever extended, with the innumerable Companies of all the several Religious Orders of men and women with their Lay-Attendants, and consider what proportion they may be held to bear to the whole Body of the Church living in the same Year, and so, to those that die in that Year: That we may not exceed, we will allot them to take up but a four hundreth part of the Church; nay (that we may no more be troubled with Mr. tillotson's uncharitable raillery p. 172. 173.) we will allow them to amount but to a fivehundreth part of those who lived or died in that Year we pitched on; that is there died that Year only a fivehundreth part of the Church that propagated their Faith and not their kind; which low number is a most advantageous Concession of ours, if we take out as we ought all those that died from 14. to 24. formerly spoken of. But, be it only a fivehundreth part; yet this multiplied by 128. the number of the Years since, there being four times 128. found in 500 rises to be a full fourth part of the Totall living in the Year 537. that is full as many as were the Actual deserters of Tradition since Luther. Add, that the persons now insisted on (of whom we might double the number,) are all of them absolutely the most Eminent parts of Tradition that are, viz. the whole entire Body of the Church Governors or Ecclesiadocens; a very few of whom experience has taught us to have been able to propagate our Holy Catholic Faith to many Nations in a few Years; the rest such whose exemplary devout lives exhibit the practice of Christianity in so eminent a perfection, and with such influence over the hearts of the Generality, that next to the Sacred Authority, and Exalted Sanctity of the others, nothing more fruitfully propagates Christian Life and Doctrine than those who are thus barren to the world.  
Thus much for the number of Propagaters of their Faith, and not their Kind amongst those who were formerly Catholics; but what a strange counterpoise does it add, if we go about to compute those vast Nations which since Luther have of new accrued to Tradition, and who have been spiritually geniti in Evangelio; and this, (which enhances our Advantage) not by Lineal Descendants in the same place, but a few Externs, and in such places, to wit, Heathenism, where there has been no Deserters of Tradition formerly, nor any since to diminish their number by their counterbalance. Whence I have title to add not only the first Adherers to Catholic Religion there, but also all their Posterity since who have stuck to it, they being Cleavers to Tradition, and so counterdistinguished to Relinquishers of Tradition. Which if we compute ever since the time about Luther, who can aver (considering the vastness of the Territories they possess) they equal not the Totall of the Deserters of Tradition that have been from the beginning of the Church.  
One Consideration is yet more than all the rest; but, I must not lay claim to it at present, lest I break bargain, having confined myself to the circumstance of time since Luther; yet 'tis not unlawful to mention it. 'Tis this; that for divers Centuries before Luther there had not been any considerable number of Actual Deserters of Tradition, (as who is read in Ecclesiastical Histories cannot but know) but almost all Followers of it, that is, Propagaters of it practically to the immediately undergrowing Faithful. During which time if we calculate how many, both in those lay-people who died from 14. to 24. and all those Religious and Sacred Persons, the best Propagaters of Faith, failed in propagating their kind, it will be very difficult (I had almost said, most impudent) to deny but they unproportionably almost exceed the number of the Actual Deserters of Tradition that have been since Christ. For I see no reason to judge by what I have read in Ecclesiastical History, that the number of the Actual Relinquishers of the Church have exceeded the number of the Churches Totall, taken in any determinate time, thrice repeated; If you can show there were more, you may please to acquaint us with the sight. In the mean time I hope you understand by this time my position is so secure that I can allow you 40. times as many, and yet fear no danger of being most impudent.  
You may allege perhaps this is but an Evasion now, but was not my Sense when I writ. To which I answer, I have shown it to have been my meaning already out of my plain words, and whoever reads Sure-footing p. 74. and 75. shall see there expressly the Grounds laid for each branch of this discourse: which, Sir, had you been pleased to read over with a mind, to admit them into your understanding faculty, you might have saved me this labour of dilating on them, and yourself the blemish of ranting against a position as that than which nothing can be more impudent, which only your carelessness to read it, or resolution not to heed it, hindered from being most innocent.  
It were not unseasonable perhaps, if I should here amuse you with another Paradox, namely that the deserting Tradition strengthens it; I mean, that, Tradition, when a Heresy arises, gains more of Intensiveness and vigour, than it loses in its Extensiveness; nay that the Intensiveness which accrues to it by that means is the way to make it branch out afterwards into a far greater Extent. I begin my Explication of this from your words p. 176. If I should see a whole nation fail because no body would marry or contribute to propagate etc. By which I perceive you misunderstand the nature of the things in hand. In the business of marriage there is nothing to contrast with it on the other side, but being natural and held withal a holy state, they that will (that is, they who will not voluntarily oblige themselves to another holier) may undertake it; whence it has no Universal Opposite, and so takes its free course, when convenient, and is liable only to common Contingencies. But in things of Corrupt Nature and Grace, the matter is carried quite otherwise; and, because either side has a great opposition against the other, and withal a very great, or rather a kind of Universal sway and force, hence the course of such things consists in a kind of Undulation: So that, now, Corrupt Nature when she finds herself a little more free, follows her own tendency or propension, and bears downwards; and now again Supernatural and Gracious Assistances with which the Wisdom of the Eternal Father had furnished his Church superabundantly, being shocked and excited even by this contrary motion of Nature, begin to put themselves forwards into an opposite motion, and strive more vigorously to raise themselves upwards. For example; Discipline, which is to apply Christian motives, by tract of time grows remiss in the Church; hence decay of virtue, dissoluteness of life, addiction to material goods, and, consequently Ignorance, creep in by insensible degrees into divers parts, so that it happens there are multitudes of corrupt Members in the Church, and regardless of any duty; who, therefore, want nothing but a fair occasion, and one to lead them to break all ties of Virtue and Obedience, and run into the utmost Extravagancies. Nor can we think but in the course of such a vast variety as is found in a World, now and then there will be found amongst those wicked men some notable fellow, of a subtle wit, a bold spirit, and a plausible tongue, so circumstanced that he can hope for Impunity by the friendship of some great person, and so dares give way to his proud desire of having followers, or his private spleen, to renounce the Church's Faith, and shake of the yoke of her discipline. Hereupon, the rampires of Government and discipline being forced and violently broken down, presently like a Torrent or Inundation all those whose hearts were corrupted with spiritual pride, or other vices, like brute beasts, leap after one another out of the Fold of the Church, and threaten to trample down all that's Sacred; Reviling the Church, and laying to her charge all the faults found in particular persons, as if they were Effects of her Doctrine; though their own knowledge tells them otherwise; and make use of failings in particular Governors to renounce and extirpate the Government itself.  
On the contrary those good Catholics who by this Trial are made manifest, stir up their zeal both in behalf of their Faith and their Governors, instituted by Christ; and detest the vicious Lives and Pride of those Rebels, the Parents of such a horrid Revolt. The Governors, alarmed, begin to look into the Cause of this distraction, and to provide wholesome Remedies. They call Councils (General ones if need be) to straiten afresh Ecclesiastical Discipline; enjoining the Officers of the Church to stand every one to his Charge. They take order to promote worthy Officers, and to advance Ecclesiastical Learning; they recommend afresh by their grave Authority the points of Faith, to the Ecclesia Credens, as the depositum preserved uninterruptedly in the Church from Christ and his Apostles, and establish them in a particular belief of them; nay make these more intelligible and rational by Explicating them more at large; or, if the Heretical party involve and confound them in ambiguous words, they define and declare them in language most properly suiting to the sense writ in the hearts of the Faithful; and, lastly, anathematise the Revolters, if they prudently judge their contumacy irreducible; that, so, the remaining Body may concieve a just horror and aversion against that Rebellious party, and be preserved uninfected with their contagious Communion. All which Advantages and much more are visibly found in the Change made in the Church by that neverenough-renowned Synod the Council of Trent occasioned by Luther's fall. Nor is this all; for the Faithful not only grow more virtuous by the reformation of Church-disciplin, but even by the Calumnies of their Adversaries: Again, the learned party in the Church are excited to far greater industry, and consequently Knowledge, by the insulting opposition of the Church's enemies: whose disgracing points of Faith for absurd and contradictions, stir up divines to show their conformity with acknowledged natural Truths, as does their calling into question the Ground and Certainty of Faith, open the understandings of those who defend it, to look into the Causes on which Gods sweet and strong Providence has founded its infallible Perpetuity, and so demonstrate it. A task no Heretic durst ever attempt, finding Principles failing him to begin with; that is, Causes laid by God's Providence to build his Congregation on; whence all they can do is to talk gaily and plausibly about the Conclusions themselves and laugh at Principles.  
From which discourse is Evident that by occasion of a Heresy (which purifies the Church of all her ill humours, and rectifies and makes sound what remains) Tradition renews as it were its Youth and recovers its vigour; whence also it must needs Propagate and extend itself still unto more and more Subjects, as is also daily Experienced. 'Tis seen also that the abundance of corrupt Humours begets Heresy at First; for multitudes fall away then, whereas afterwards scarce two or three in any Age desert the Catholic Banner. It appears also that Secular interest or desire of Liberty and Spiritual Pride, not zeal of Truth begun and continued the breach; I mean in the Leaders; for afterwads they are content to remain where they are without troubling themselves to propagate the Truth to other Nations; nay, they have let the large region of Nubia run to wrack (for as Mr. T. to make us smile, tells us p. 174. Alvarez says, it was for want of Ministers) and never sent so much as one single Protestant Parson to assist them. It shows also, how unconcerned the Catholic Churches Stability is in all the Heresies that have or shall fall; since they only tend to confirm and radicate more deeply in the hearts of the Faithful the Points of Faith they renounced; to occasion reformation of discipline and so to purify their virtue. Lastly, it shows how Tradition or the Delivery of Faith by the Living Voice and Practice of the Catholic Church is so immovably planted by the hand of the Almighty, that it loses nothing by all the Actual Deserters of it that ever have been, but is by that means only pruned of its sapless branches to shoot out in due season livelier and farther. But, to return my Friend.  
I hope Sir you will pardon me if I have rather taken pains to open your understanding a little in acquainting it more fully with that part of my doctrine is totally mistake, than to proceed with your Faults; in lieu of which I here pardon you all the Injuries you have done my meaning or words in near the other half your book, that is from p. 176. to p. 300. though I see them many, and some of them very gross ones. The Testimony part I would not here neglect, because as you shall see shortly, they concern not my book as any proofs of the point, and so are improper to be allowed room in my future Answer: which designs nothing but against your reasons. You are resolved to be brief in them, and I hope to be briefer; in which, I thank you, you have helped me much by your manner of handling them. I will pass by divers of your little quirks upon my whether real or pretended mistakes in things unconcerning, and only touch upon what is more pertinent.  
And first, I am sorry I must begin with the old complaint that you mistake quite (whether purposely or no let others judge) what was my intent in producing those Testimonies. Can you really and in your heart think they were intended against the Protestants, that you set yourselves so formally to answer them? or can you judge me so weak a Disputant as to quote against you the 2d. Council of Nice or the Council of Trent so elaborately; whereas I know you would laugh at their Authority as heartily as you did at my First Principles? Sure if I meant it I am the First Catholic Controvertist that ever fell into such an error. My intent, manifest in the Title and the whole course of my writing there was this, that having deduced many particulars concerning the Rule of Faith which manner of Explication might seem new to Catholic Controvertists, I would endeavour to show to them rather than to you that both others of old, and the Catholic Church at present favoured my Explication. This was my main scope, however, as divers Testimonies gave me occasion, I applied them by the way against Protestants.  
Your second mistake is found p. 304. where you accuse me to have committed as shameful a circle, etc. and why, because according to me Scripture depends upon Tradition for its Sense, and yet I bring Scripture for Tradition. Sir, my Tenet is, that nothing can sense Scripture with the Certainty requisite to build Faith upon but Tradition; which yet well consists with this, that both you and I may use our private wits to discourse topically what sense the words seem most favourably to bear. And you may see I could mean no more by the many deductions I make thence alluding to my Tenet, which yet I am far from your humour of thinking all to be pure God's Word or Faith, nor yet Demonstration, as you put it upon me in other Testimonies p. 308. Though I make account I use never a Citation thence, but to my judgement I durst venture to defend in the way of human skill, proceeding on such Maxims as are used in word-skirmishes, to sound far more favourably for me than for you.  
But let's see what work you make with my Authorities. After you have unworthily abused Rushworth, in alleging him rawly to say Scripture is no more fit to convince, than a Beetle is to cut withal, whereas his Discourse runs thus, that as he who maintains a Beetle can cut must cut with it, but cannot in reason oblige others to do so; so they who hold Scripture is the true judge of Controversies, and fit and able to decide all quarrels and dissensions against the Christian Faith, bind themselves, etc. After this prank (I say) of the old stamp, you put down p. 303. three of my Testimonies from Scripture, and immediately give a very full and ample Answer to them all in these words. From which Texts if Mr. S. can prove Tradition to be the only Rule of Faith, any more than the Philosopher Stone or the Longitude may be proved from the 1 Cap. of Genesis, I am content they should pass for valid Testimonies. To which my parallel Answer is this. From which Reply, and our constant experience of the like formerly, if it be not evident that Mr. T. will never with his good will deal sincerely with his Adversary, but in stead of confuting him, impose on him still a False meaning, and impugn that in stead of him, I will yield all his frothy Book to be solid Reason. I beseech you, Sir, where do you find me say or make show of producing those Testimonies to prove Tradition the only Rule of Faith. For Truth's sake use your Eyes and read. Do not I express myself Sure-footing p. 126. to produce the first Citation to show how Scripture seconds or abets my foregoing Discourse merely as to the Self-evidence of the Rule of Faith. Does not the second contend for the Orality of the Rule of Faith, it's Uninterruptedness, and perpetual Assistance of God's Spirit, and the third of imprinting it by the way of living Sense in men's hearts? And, though I say those places speak not of Books, but deliver themselves in words not competent to another Rule, yet I contend not they exclude another Rule, or say there is but one Rule and no more. There was indeed p. 12. another Testimony from St. Paul, contradistinguishing the Law of Grace from Moses his Law, which sounded exclusively; but you were pleased to omit it, and so I shall let it stand where it did.  
You advance to my Testimonies from Fathers and Councils, and never was young gentleman so fond and glad that he had found a hare sitting as you are to have discovered whence I had those Citations: Presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all is mirth and triumph and Jubilee. You are a Seer, Sir, and will find out the Truth by Revelation, and so I had as good ingenuously confess it. 'Twas thus then. When my book was ne'er printed, some Friends, who had read my discourses, dealt with me to add some Authorities; alleging that, in regard I followed a way of Explication which was unusual, it would give it a greater currency to show it consonant, though not in the whole Body of it, yet in the most concerning particulars to the Sentiments both of the former and present Church. I foresaw the disadvantage my little time would necessarily cause me; yet, willing to defer to the Judgement of my Betters, I resolved it. Casting about in what Common-place-book I might best look, for I had not time to rummage Libraries, nor am I so rich as to have a plentiful one of my own, it came into my mind there were divers of that nature in that book where you made so fortunate a Set, and caught such a covy of Citations in one net together. I asked first the Author's leave, who answered, that when a Book was once made public it was any one's that would use it; nor knew I, till you came to teach me more manners, I owed any account to any man else; neither do I think yourself in your Sermons stand quoting all the Common-place-books or private Authors where you meet a Testimony or Sentence transcribed you make use of. Hereupon I took the book with me to a Friend's Chamber near the Press, where Proofs already expected my correcting hand; and there, having no other book by me, fell to work. This hast made me examine nothing, being very secure of the perfect sincerity of the Author I relied on, but put them down in his words and order. This, Sir, is candidly the true History of that affair, which will spoil much of your discourteous vapour, showing a great deal of empty vanity in you, to magnify so highly such petty trifles, and so totally unconcerning the main of the business You laugh p. 305. that I who confessed myself a bad Transcriber, transcribed him; how childish a Cavil is this? As if every one who is to bring Testimonies, whether he like his task or no, must not transcribe them from some place or other; yet you tell me ironically, you will do me the right to assure the Reader (that I) do it very punctually and exactly. I wish, to requite you, Sir, I could assure the Reader you had as punctually and exactly transcribed me; you had saved a great deal of precious credit by it, and I a great deal of precious time and ungrateful pains in laying open your Insincerity. But, to our Testimonies.  
The first is from the Synod of Lateran. The force of which you say p. 306. lies in the word [delivered] which is indifferently used for conveyance by writings or word of mouth. But, Sir, there are also in that Testimony the words preaching and teaching, and I do not believe it is so Indifferent to you whether you preach by word of mouth or no, that you should say the word Preaching sounds not conveyance of a thing orally.  
The next Testimony has the same Exception, and the same Answer. But you say this Council particularly this part of the Epistle were excepted against by some. What matter's it, so they did not except against it for this passage or this Doctrine (which may serve for Answer also to the mistaking Exceptions against the 7th. General Council which follows next) Thus Origen and Tertullian are both excepted against, yet are both commonly alleged and allowed where the Reasons of those Exceptions have no place.  
Next follow your Answers to the Fathers I alleged. But first p. 310. you must mistake Rushworth, next me. For Rushworth speaks not (I mean in the first Citation) of Delivery, but of a point delivered; nor do I here intent to convince thence the Certainty of Delivery or Tradition which you proceed upon; for, making Father's parts of Tradition, it would make the same thing prove itself. Understand then rightly, Sir, what I am about, and then I shall accept your impugning it for a favour. The Truth of the thing is one thing, and the judgement of a person concerning it, is another; And 'tis not to evince the Truth of the point I produce these Testimonies, for in the order of Discoursing the Knowledge of Traditions (or First Authority's) Certainty, antecedes and gives strength to all the other inferior and dependent ones. What I only aim at then is only to show that thus they judged (not to convince the Truth of the Thing from their Judgement) and thence to show myself not to be singular in thus judging. Whence also 'tis that I entitled this part Consent of Authority, etc. Retract then, I beseech you, Sir, any such thoughts or expressions as that I would hence convince Tradition to be the whole Truth of Faith, demonstrate, prove it: For I intent to prove no more by the rest then by those from the Council of Trent, which only aim to show that so and so that Council said and held.  
The First Testimony of a Father is Pope Celestines; the force of which you think quite spoilt (p. 310.) by Binnius his other Reading of such a word. And why I pray? unless he could make it out his reading were true, the other false; which I see not attempted. But you let it pass, and answer that [retained by Succession from the Apostles till this very time] may mean by Scripture, as well as by Oral Tradition. I conceive not, and I give you my reason; because, who make Scripture their Rule, are unconcerned whether their Faith was retained to this very time from the Apostles by Succession, or no: For, though all the world apostatised, and so interrupted that Succession, yet, as long as they have the Letter of Scripture, it being plain to all, their Faith is retained still. What you quote this Father afterwards to say of Scripture, we heartily say Amen to, so you mean by Scriptures that Book sen'ct by its proper Interpreter (as to points of Faith) the Church. And, you are to show he meant otherwise.  
You choke with an &c. better half of Irenaeus his Testimony p. 311. which spoils your answer to the first; for it speaks of his present days when the Scripture was not only left by the Apostles, but spread and to be had, and yet that many nations of those Barbarians who believe in Christ, had (even then) salvation writ in their hearts without Characters and Ink, diligently keeping the ancient Tradition.  
The Substance of your Answer to Origen 312. is only this, that unless I mean by Church's Tradition preserved by order of Succession, mystical interpretations of Scripture so delivered down, you assure me Origen is not for my turn. And I assure you, Sir, 'tis so learned an Answer that I dare not oppose it.  
Tertullian is next, to whom by offering to wave him, you show yourself 312. little a Friend; and no kindness is lost for he is as little a Friend to you driving such as you in his Prescriptions from any Title to dispute out of or even handle Scripture, yet you say he says no more but believe what is [Traditum] delivered; though as alleged by me Sure-footing p. 133. he says much more in a large entire Testimony which you not so much as mention. You tell me also he meant delivered by the Scriptures, but you strain hard to make it come in. And Tertullian is the unlikeliest man in the world to provoke to the Scriptures, who tells us (de praescrip. c. 16.) Nihil proficit congressus Scripturarum, nisi plane ut aut Stomachi quis ineat eversionem, aut cerebri. Scripture-disputes avail nothing but merely either to make one's Stomach or his head turn.  
But, alas, Sir how are you graveled with the two First Testimonies from Athanasius and how slightly you pass them over p. 313. The Protestants first maxim is Believe no men, nor Ancestors nor Church, but search the Scriptures, that is seek for your Faith there: Against which way his whole discourse is bend, as may be seen surefoot: p. 133. 134. Is Faiths coming down by Ancestors the same as coming down by a book? or do not the words, [from Christ by Father's] mean [by words expressing the Sense in their hearts,] but [by a book not to be Senced by them, but plain of itself?] The third Testimony expressly says. 'Tis to be answered to those things [which alone of itself suffices] that those are not of the Orthodox Church, and that our Ancestors never held so. You tell me it is a gross error that he thought this alone (or without Scripture) might be sufficient; I wonder what mean the words [which alone of itself suffices:] if they be not exclusive of any thing else as necessary, words have lost their signification, and I my reason. I but, he quotes Scripture for it afterwards! True; and he expresses himself to do it lest Adversaries from his being wholly silent should take occasion to be more impudent. That is, the reason of the thing required it not, but the unresaonableness of the Carping humour of Adversaries. You allege his words That Faith which was professed by the Fathers in the Nicene Council according to the Scriptures 315. l. 3. 4. etc. is to me sufficient, etc. Whence your discourse makes his opinion to be that Scripture is the sufficient Rule of Faith. Lord? Sir, where are your thoughts wand'ring? or what's the Nominative Case in that clause [is to me sufficient] to the word is? Is it not that Faith: to wit, the Nicene, which you mistake for the Rule of Faith, and join the Epithet, sufficient, to Rule of Faith, which in the Testimony is joined to Faith? Your conceit that it seems hence the Scripture was to him the Rule to judge the Creeds of General Councils is a very weak one: he told you before his Faith came to him by Tradition of Ancestors; all that is here intimated is that he judged the Nicene Creed to be according to the Scriptures; and what Catholic judges not so of that and the Council of Trent too, and yet holds not Scripture which is to be interpreted by the Church the Rule and Standard to judge the Church by? To use your own words p. 332. You use a wretched importunity to persuade Testimonies to be pertinent; yet all will not do, and your too violent straining them makes them the more confess their natural reluctancy.  
But now comes the Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, charged to be taken (not by me, but by the Author I borrowed it of) out of the middle of a long Sentence, and both before it and after it Scripture named so as to make it quite opposite to our Tenet. I have already given account of my action; and my Adversary, now become my Judge, charges it not wholly upon me. Alas, I am not able to read the Testimonies in the books and understand them there, 'tis such a piece of mastery; and therefore am fain to take them upon trust from others that can read them there. But my Seducer, how he will acquit himself of so foul an Imputation is left to any Ingenuous Papist to judge &c, Sir, let me tell you, you should consider circumstances ere you come to lay on such heavy charges. I beseech you was the book in which this Seducer (forsooth) used this Testimony writ against Protestants who hold Scripture, the Rule of Faith, or against some Catholic Divines holding the Opinion of Personal Infallibility? Clearly against the later. This being so what was he concerned to transcribe the whole large Testimony, no wrong being done to them? either position of Ecclesiastical Tradition, which he citys, or of Scripture which he citys not, equally making against that Tenet; or rather that passage of Ecclesiastical Tradition, being far more efficacious upon them than that which concerned Scripture which they account not obligatory unless interpreted by the Church. By this time the Reader will discern there was a great deal of rashness in the Accuser, but no Insincerity at all in the Alledger. Nor is there the least danger of the Testimonies following, upbraiding them who patch together abundance of false words and fictions that they may seem rationally not to admit the Scriptures; For what is this to us whose endeavours are to lay 〈◊〉 beginning from First Principles why we and every man may and ought rationally admit the Scriptures; and neither make our Faith ridiculous by admitting into it what's uncertain, nor leaving any excuse to Atheistical Impiety in not admitting what's Certain? This is the sum of my aim and endeavours, though nothing will content you, but that we admit the Letter to be plain to all, and, by consequence, to you; and then your Fancy is to be accepted for God's Word, and your pride of understanding will be well at ease.  
You pass over nine of my Testimonies; two from St. Basil, and three from St. Austin, alleged by me Sure-footing p. 135, 136, 137. one from Ireneus, and two from Tertullian, and another from St. Peter Chrysologus, Sure-footing p. 138, 139. slighting them as but a few; whereas, speaking of Testimonies from the Fathers, as you do here, you had answered but eight in all; which you seem by your words to judge such a great multitude in comparison of 9, and those 9, or those few which remain (as you call them) so inconsiderable for their number in respect of the other numerous or innumera le 8, that the paucity of their number made them less deserve speaking to. Yet a careless general kind of Answer you give such as it is p. 318. telling the Reader that there is nothing of Argument in those few which remain, but from the ambiguity of this word Tradition; which we will needs take for unwritten Tradition. You add p. 318. that you need not show this of every one of them in particular; for, whosoever shall read them with this Key, will find that they are of no force to conclude what he drives at. I was going, Sir, to use your own words, and to ask with what face you could pretend this? Let's bring the book; I'll undertake it shall not blush to tell you how careless you are of what you say. I omit that the word Tradition doth by Ecclesiastical use signify in the first place unwritten Tradition. Moreover, that we may let Mercy triumph over Justice, we will pardon the first Testimony; found p. 135. though St. Basil by counterposing Tradition of Faith, to the conceits of the Heretic Eunomius seems to mean by Tradition Sense received from Father's attesting; this being the most opposite to Conceits or new-invented Fancies that can be; for even an Interpretation of Scripture may be a Conceit or Fancy newly invented, whereas what's barely delivered cannot be such.  
The 2d. is, the same St. Basil's p. 136. Let Tradition bridle thee; Our Lord taught thus, the Apostles preached it, the Fathers conserved it, our Ancestors confirmed it, be content to say as thou art taught. Is not here enough to signify unwritten Tradition? Did Christ teach it by reading it in a written Book? or the Apostles preach it by book or is the perpetuating it by Fathers and Ancestors the keeping it by way of writing▪ The third is St. Austin's p. 136. I will rather believe those things which are Celebrated now by the Consent of Learned and unlearned, and are confirmed throughout all Nations by most grave Authority. Is universal consent and most grave Authority of all nations, the book of Scripture or written Tradition? or rather is it not most Evidently unwritten universal Tradition or Sense in the hearts of all Believers learned and unlearned, or the Church Essential?  
The 4th is from the same St. Austin. 'Tis manifest that the Authority of the Catholic Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance. Do these words [Authority of the Catholic Church] mean the Book of Scriptures? Or can I desire more than this Father offers me in express terms? or a greater Testimony that you are to seek for an Answer to it then the strange Evasion you substitute instead of a reply? Especially if we take the Testimony immediately following, which from the best established Seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthened by the Series of Bishops succeeding them; and by the Assertion of so many nations. Is here the word Tradition pretended Indifferent and apt to be taken ambiguously? and not rather Assertions of so many nations, or Consent of nations, and Authority of the Catholic Church, of force to cause Faith and Assu rance? which to demonstrate is the whole Endeavour of Sure-fooring.  
The 5th is the same Fathers cited p. 137. The Faithful do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church. Is the word Church the same with the word Tradition or in danger of being ambiguous, or (as you say of the word Tradition p. 318.) commonly used by the Fathers to signify to us the Scriptures?  
The 6th. is of St. Irenaeus. All those who will hear Truth may at present perfectly discern in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles, manifest in the whole world. What means the world [at present] but that the Tradition of the Apostles is yet vigorous and fresh in the Church? which remark had very unfitly suited with Scriptures.  
The 7th and 8th are Tertullias. Both say the same Sense, that what is established as Sacred or professed at this present day in the Churches of the Apostles is manifestly delivered by the Apostles or a Tradition of the Apostles; which is incompetent to Scripture, it not being a Tradition or point delivered, but the Delivery.  
The last is of Chrysologus, which has indeed the word Tradition, but by the additional words [of the Fathers] not left ambiguous but determined to unwritten Tradition: For the Father's according to you are not to give, or diliver down the Sense of Scriptures, it being plain of itself.  
This Sir, is the upshot of your skill in Notebook-learning; the three first Testimonies from Scripture you answered not, mistaking quite what they were brought for; the 4th you omitted. You have given pitiful answers to eight from the Fathers and shuffled off nine more without answer, pleading you had given us a Key to open them which was never made for those locks. By which I see you reserve your greatest Kindnesses, like a right friendly man, till the last.  
You will not have the Council of Trent make Tradition the only Rule of Faith; you had obliged me, had you answered my reason for it in my 4th note p. 145. 146. But this is not your way; you still slip over my reasons all along as if none had been brought, and then say some sleight thing or other to the Conclusion, as if it had never been inferrd by me, but merely gratis and rawly affirmed. I have explicated our Divines that seem to differ from me herein, Sure footing p. 187. 188. and the Council itself takes my part in it, by defining and practising the taking the Sense of Scripture from that quod tenuit & tenet Sanct a Mater Ecclesia, which, in this antecedency to Scriptures Sense, can no where be had but from Tradition. You cavil at me for not putting down the words in which that Council declares itself to honour the Holy Scripture and Tradition with equal pious affection and reverence. Why should I? you see I was very short in all my allegations thence and rather touched at them for Catholics to read them more at large, than transcribed them fully. But how groundless your Cavil is may be understood hence that I took notice of a far more dangerous point to wit its putting the Holy Scriptures constantly before Tradition, and showed good reason why? But you approve not even of any honour done to the Scriptures upon those Terms; and your interest makes you wish that rather its Letter and Sense both should remain uncertain, than it should owe any thing to the Catholic Church. You ask how an Apostle and Evangelist should be more present by the Scripture ascertained as to words and Sense then by or all Tradition? I answer, because that Book is in that case Evident to be peculiarly and adequately his, whereas Oral Tradition was common to all; and 'tis doubtable what hand some of those Apostles or Evangelists might have had in the source of that which was lineally derived to us.  
Sir, I wonder how you hit so right once as not to answer likewise the Testimony I brought p. 152. of the Catholic Clergy's adhering to Tradition in the ●ick of the breach, you might as well have spoke to that as to the Council of Trent & divers others: But I perceive it had some peculiar difficulty, as had divers of the neglected nine, else your Genius leads you naturally to fly at any thing that has but the semblance or even name of a Testimony: whereas, unactive I stoop at no such game till I see certainly 'tis worth my pains; and I fear yours will scarce prove so  
THey come in play p. 320. And because they are huddled together here something confusedly, it were not amiss to sort them under Dr. Pierce's Heads found Sure-footing, p. 170.  
To the first Head, which comprises those which are only brought to vapour with, belongs that of St. Hierom. p. 323.  
To the second Head, which consists of those which are raw, unapplyed, and only say something in common which never comes home to the point, belong all those of Eusebius. That of St. chrysostom and St. Austin's p. 324. of justin and Theodoret p. 325. That of Hilary p. 327. of St. Basil. p. 328. of Chrysostom. p. 328. and 329. and those of St. Austin in the same place. Of Theoph. Alexandr. p. 330. Theodoret p. 330. 331. The 2d. and 3d. from Gerson. p. 331.  
To the 4th. that of St. Austin p. 325.  
To the 7th. Head, which comprises those which are false, and signify not the thing they are quoted for, appertain that of Ireneus p. 326. of St. Austin, St. Hierome, and the 2d. of Theoph. Alexandrinus p. 330.  
To the 8th. consisting of those which labour of obscurity by an evidently ambiguous word, that of Optatus p. 327. The first from Gerson p. 331. and that from Lyra p. 332.  
St. Cyprian's Testimony was writ by him to defend an Error, which both we and the Protestants hold for such, and therefore no wonder if (as Bellarmin says) more errantium ratiocinaretur, he discoursed after the rate of those that err; that is, assumes false Grounds to build his error on. Whence the inferring an acknowledged false Conclusion from it, is an argument rather his Principle was not sound.  
I know, Sir, you will fume at this usage of your Testimonies: but with what reason? For first, you putting them down rawly, without particularising their force or import, or driving them home to any point, my very sorting them under these Heads, sounds a greater particularity in my Exceptions and Answer, than you showed any in alleging them. Next, you had refused to do me the reason I begged in my Letter to my Answerer §. 8. in vouching you Testimonies to be Conclusive or Satisfactory; which unless you did, I had already told you there it was my resolution to give them no other Answer. And I shall candidly make known my Intention why I do so, and shall ever do so, till you come to some good point in that particular. I had observed what multitudes of voluminous Books had and might be writ in the way of Citation without any possibility of satisfying, that is, to the extreme loss of time, and prejudice to rational souls, while any Citation however qualified was admitted, and no Principles laid to sort them, and show which were Conclusive; wherefore I judged it the best way to drive you from that insignificant, and endless way of writing, to tell in short my exceptions against each Testimony, and to force you to vouch them Conclusive. And I pray, why should I or any be put to show each of those Citations, to our excessive pains, inefficacious, whereas yourself, who is the Alledger, will not take pains to show any one of them to be efficacious? But your way here is the weakest in that kind I ever read or heard of. You huddle together a clutter of Citations, never apply them particularly as I constantly did mine: Overleap all considerations of their qualifications, nakedly set them down, (as you say p. 332) and then tell us they are enough to satisfy any unpassionate Reader that dare trust himself with the use of his own Eyes and Reason. Which is plausible indeed to flatter fools that are passionately selfconceited, otherwise I conceive an unpassionate Reader will require much more, if he ever knew what Controversy meant. He would know the variety of Circumstances, Antecedents, Consequents, etc. Besides, speaking Equivocally or Rhetorically, not distinctly and literally, may alter every Testimony there; Above all he would consider whether they were expressive only of some persons Opinions, and not rather of the solid and constant sense of the faithful in that Age; without which they want the nature of Testimonies. Is it clear to every man's Eyes and Reason, none of these or other faults render all yours Inefficacious? Is it clear that when they say Scripture is plain, they mean plain to all, even Heathens that never heard of Faith, (such must be the Plainness of the Rule of Faith) or only to those who have learned Christian Doctrine already by the Church; that is, who bring their Rule with them. I am sure St. Austin de Doctrinâ Christianâ, your best Testimony, speaks of such Readers as are timentes Deum ac pietate mansueti, those which fear God, and are meek with piety; that is those which are not only Faithful or Christians already, but pious and good Christians; which makes it nothing to your purpose. Again, some one passage may be so plain as a learned man may in the opinion of learned men plainly confound an Adversary; but will it be clear and plain in all necessary points to the vulgar, who hear a great many hard words brought on both sides, and have no skill to judge who has the better in such contests? yet the Rule of Faith must be plain even to the vulgar, and able to give them Satisfaction. Again, when the Fathers provoke to the Scripture, is it not against those who deny the Church, but accept the Scripture, and so the necessity of disputing out of some commonly-acknowledged Principle, may be the only reason they take that method? 'Tis evidently so, in that you quote from St. Austin against Maximinus p. 329. and against the Donatists, who denied the Judgement of the Catholic Church quae ubique terrarum diffunditur; and so he was to prove his point ubi sit Ecclesia, out of Scripture or no way. Again, is it clear out of the Citations nakedly set down, what went before and after? Is it clear for example that when they speak highly of Scripture, they mean not Scripture unsenced, but only taken as Significative of God's sense, as it must, to be the Rule of Faith; or, if of Scripture senced, they mean not senced by the Church, but by the human skill of private persons, which is the true point between us? St. Austin without doubt makes the Church the Interpreter of Scripture, as is clearly seen by his Discourse at the end of his 17. Chap. Of the Profit of Believing, which spoils your pretence to his Authority. Nay, do not they often mean by Scripture the very Sense of it, that is Christ's Doctrine or the Gospel? As oft as you hear them speak of the Things that are written, or call them Principles, or The Rule of Truth and Opinions, or speak of conforming other Doctrines to them, and such like, so oft they speak of the Doctrine itself contained in Scripture, or the Truths found there. Such is that of Clemens cited by you p. 316. 317. which speaks merely of the Sense of it, or the Truths in it, which he makes deservedly the Rule to other Truths; and hence, now he names Scripture, then, the Tradition of the Church, than Scripture again, it being indifferent to his purpose, the same Sense (which he only intends) being included in both. Such is also evidently your best Testimony, to wit, that of Irenaeus, which speaks of the Gospel itself, preached and writ; that is, clearly of the Sense indifferent to either way of Expression. But what is this or indeed all that is said there to the Letter of Scripture taken as Significative of God's Sense, that is, not for that Sense, nor as including it, but as the Means and Way to it (as it must be taken when 'tis meant for a Rule of Faith) and the plainness and Certainty of that Way, to all that are yet to come to Faith, taking that Letter as interpretable by private Skill and Maxims of Language-learning, which is the true point between you and us? Bring Testimonies for this, and you will do wonders. To use your own words p. 318. I need not show what I have discoursed here of every of his Testimonies in particular; for, whosoever shall read them with this Key will find they are of no force to conclude what he drives (or aught to drive) at.  
I am loath to suggest any Jealousy of your Insincerity in all these Citations, though you have seldom failed in that point. Present my service to your Friend Mr. Stillingfleet, and assure him he shall not be neglected, though there were no other reason but your high commendations of him.  
Your humble Servant J. S.   

A Postscript to the Reader,  
READER,  
THough I write to Mr. T. yet I publish to thee, and so have a Title to salute thee with a line or two. Tell me then, dost not find thy Expectation deluded, which, Sure-footing had raised, and our Controversy begin to slide back into petty squabbles? Consider, I beseech thee how little I contributed to it, nay what care I took to prevent it; hazarding some ill opinion of singularity in putting forth antecedently a Letter to my Answerer, requesting we might hold to a Conclusive Method, rather than (which I foresaw) permit the clearing that most concerning point in hand relapse into wordish Talk. If thou readest that Letter, I hope thou wilt acquit me, and think it rational; nay more, thou wilt easily see that Mr. T. not only waves speaking to it, or giving reason why, but goes point-blank opposite to it, using frequent Ironies, quibbles and little squibs of University-wit; and neither laying Principles, nor admitting, or denying my Consequences (except very seldom) nor distinguishing Testimonies, or vouching any Thing or Way he builds on to be Conclusive; but catching mistakingly at this little word, and the other, putting upon me twenty false meanings, with all the crafty Arts that may be to make me relinquish pursuing the method I had begun, so disadvantageous to him, and fall to clear myself and accuse him, which is little to our Cause and unsavoury to our Readers, and so, not worth heeding or reading; whence he and his Friends might hope the Discourse would die and come to nothing. And, indeed, who expects better from him, who characters Controversy (which is the Science or Knowledge of the Grounds of Faith) to be nothing but a Blessed Art of Eternal Wrangling? By which means he gains himself indeed much credit for a great Controvertist, who avoids all Methods of Concluding any thing, that is, labours to keep on foot and promote all the Ways of Wrangling; and makes his Adversary none, who pursues Conclusiveness and Ways to avoid Wrangling. But the plot shall not take; I shall still go on my Way in my Answer; and to this End that I might there only attend thy Benefit, I have voided out of the Way this riff-raff with which this Great Controvertist in his Way had so learnedly assaulted me. In a word, I declare my resolution (God giving life and health) to be this. I will never leave following on my blow, till either I bring them to lay Principles that will bear the test; or, it come to be made evident to all the world they have none. What I attempt is, to settle the Absolute Immoveableness of Faith against my Adversary, whose avowed Position 'tis p. 118, that 'tis possible to be False; nay the Certainty of Scripture too, which he puts in the same case as to its Firmness. Pardon the sleightness in composing this, and perhaps some possible oversight, though my conscience knows of none. I am chid by my Doctor for writing it while I was in a course of Physic, my strength and health both much decayed. Which, if it pleases God of his Goodness to restore, I promise thee amends.  
〈◊〉 7. 66. Thy Soul's hearty Wellwisher J. S.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
Page 7. line 16. Description. p. 14. l. 10. Sections. p. 17. l. 17. in his. 16. l. 30. You proceed. p. 30. l. 16. particular. p. 32. l. ult. about. p. 36. l. 22. beefooled. l. 23. too; whereas l. 24. a Distinction. d. 39 l. 11. we too. p. 40. l. 27. Tertullian. p. 48. l. 21. determine. p. 49. l. 19 determinate. p. 56. l. 23. your Confute. p. 63. l. 3. the cause. p. 66. l. to from any. p. 69, l. 2, 3. Knowledges. p. 75. l. 16. despair. l. 27. demonstration. p. 77. l. ult. Thus. p. 95. l. 15. tenth. p. 98. l. 2. more forcible. p. 105. l. 21. self. p. 106. l. 1. to some. p. 107. l. 16. Philosopher's. p. 121. l. 23. Tradition's. p. 112. l. 9 Binius. p. 117. l. 1. falsehoods. p. 120. l. 28. deliver.