A LETTER To the D. of P. IN ANSWER TO THE Arguing Part OF HIS FIRST LETTER To Mr. G.  
Published with Allowance.  
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, for His Household and Chapel. 1687.   

A LETTER To the D. of P. In Answer to the Arguing Part of his First Letter.  
1. THAT you may not take it unkindly the Arguing Part of your Letter to Mr. G. should pass unregarded, I have been prevailed upon to accept of his Commission to hold his Cards, while he is not in Circumstances to play out his Game himself. But can assure you beforehand, since Matter of Fact is clearing by other Hands more proper, I mean to confine myself to Matter of Right; and so shall give you the least and most excusable trouble that can be, a short one.  
2. Your Letter tells us, that the Conference was for the sake of a Gentleman, who I heard desired to be satisfied that Protestants are absolutely certain of what they believe, and made account you could satisfy him, and professed, if you could not, he would quit your Communion. And you take care to inform us (p. 2.) that he was satisfied, and declared immediately after the Conference, that he was much more confirmed in the Communion of your Church by it, and resolved to continue in it. But could you not have afforded to inform us likewise by what he was satisfied? For there is many a Man who would be as glad, and is as much concerned to be satisfied in that Point as that Gentleman; and he would not have been a jot the less confirmed or the less resolved, if his Neighbour had been confirmed and resolved with him. I cannot for my life imagine why you should make a Secret of a thing, which, besides your own and your Church's Honour, concerns the Salvation of thousands and thousands to know.  
3. Your Letter I perceive would shift it off to Mr. G. whom you desire (p. 7) to prove that Protestants have no Absolute Certainty, etc. Of this Proposal there will be occasion to say more by and by. At the present I pray you consider how you deal with those Souls who rely on you. If you should move them to trust their Estates with a Man of your naming, of whom you would give no other satisfaction that he were able to manage them, and faithful, and responsible, but only to bid those who doubted, prove the contrary; I fancy there would need all the Credit you have to hinder the Motion from appearing very strange: And yet you have the confidence to make them one as much stranger as their Souls are more worth than their Money: For you would have them hazard their Souls where they are not safe, for any care you take to satisfy them that they are. Why, suppose Mr. G. could not prove that Protestants are not Certain, are they therefore Certain? Has Peter Twenty pounds in his Purse, because Paul cannot prove he has not? Or, ever the more Title to an Estate, because an Adversary may have the ill luck to be Nonsuited? Must not every body speak for himself one day, and bring in his own Account, which will pass or not pass as it is or is not faulty in itself, whether any fault have been found in it before or no? And will not the Happiness or Misery of their Souls for ever depend on that Account? Can you suffer them to run that terrible hazard, without making them able to justify their Accounts themselves, and furnishing them with assurance that they can, and with no more to say but that they hoped Dr. St. would make his Party good with Mr. G.? That things so precious to God as Souls should be of no more value with those who set up for Ministers of the Gospel! That their great and only care, as far as I see, should be to make a show, and pass for some body here, let every one take his chance hereafter! Besides, Truth is therefore Truth, because 'tis built on Intrinsecal Grounds which prove it to be such; and not on private men's Abilities, or their saying this or that; wherefore till those Grounds be produced, it cannot be with reason held Truth: And Dr. St. is more particularly obliged to make good he has such Grounds, having had such ill fortune formerly with the Principles to which he undertook to reduce Protestant Faith, as appears by the Account given of them in Error Nonplussed.  
4. But, leaving these Matters to be Answered where we must all answer why we have believed so and so; pray let us have fair play in the mean time. Let every one bear his own Burden, and you not think to discharge yourself by throwing your Load on another Man's Shoulders. You affirm there is Absolute Certainty on the Protestants side, and 'tis for him to prove it who affirms it. If you do it but half so well as Mr. G. can, and has, the Infallibility which he asserts, you will earn Thanks from one side, and Admiration from the other. But it is for you to do it: To trick off proving the contrary upon your Adversary, is to own that Proving is a thing which agrees not with your Constitution, and in which your Heart misgives you.  
5. Yet even so you were uneasy still, and would not venture what Mr. G. could do, as slightly as you think, or would have others think of him. You know well enough, that to prove Protestants have no Absolute Certainty of their Faith, is no hard Task even for a weak Man: 
Dr. Tillotson's Rule of Faith, p. 117, 118.  You know any Man may find it confessed to his hand by Protestants. And therefore you had reason to bethink yourself of an Expedient to trick it off again from that Point, 
Pag. 7.  and put Mr. G. to prove, That Protestants have no Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of their Faith, viz. the Scripture. The Merits of this Cause too I think will return hereafter more fitly; in this place I mind only the Art 
Dr. St's Second Letter, p. 14.  Pray, was not the very First Question at the Conference, Whether Protestants are absolutely Certain that they hold now the same Tenets in Faith, and All that our Saviour taught to his Apostles? And your Answer that They are? Did our Saviour teach, and do Protestants believe no more, than that the Book so called is Scripture? Is Certainty of this more, and Certainty of this Book all one? And was not the Question plainly of the Certainty of this, and of All this more? Here is then an Enquiry after one thing plainly turned off to another. Yes; but this was one of the two things which the whole Conference depended upon. As if the whole Conference did not depend on that thing which was to be made manifest by the Conference, viz. the Absolute Certainty of Protestant Faith. Mr. G. indeed did himself ask some Questions about your Certainty of your Rule; Questions, whose course it was wisely done to cut off, before they had questioned away your Certainty of Faith. For, after they had caused it to be admitted, that the Certainty of Scripture is from Tradition, there was no refusing to admit that Tradition causes Certainty, and makes Faith as Certain as Scripture. And then it would have proved something difficult to satisfy even a willing Man, that the Faith is Certain which is opposite to a Faith come down by Tradition. But it was seen whereto it would come, and thought fit to break off in time, and not let the Conference proceed too far. In the mean time Absolute Certainty of Scripture was not the Point of the Conference nor is it the Point of Concern. Besides that 'tis agreed on all hands, Men are Saved by Believing and Practising what Christ taught, not barely by believing Scripture is Scripture: And Salvation is the thing that imports us in these Disputes, and 'twere well that nothing else were minded by Disputers. But it imported you it seems both to shift off Proving from yourself, and to stifle any further Talk of the Certainty of Protestant Faith, and keep us from looking that way by fixing our Eyes on another Object. And this is all you do; but with so much Art, that I verily think many a Reader is persuaded you are talking all the while to the purpose. The truth is, you have reason to carry it as you do; for it is good to avoid undertaking what cannot be performed: And you cannot, and I believe know you cannot make out, That Protestants are Absolutely Certain, that they now hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles, as you affirmed in your Answer to Mr. G's first Question. And this I thought it imported to tell you plainly and publicly, that it might be in your hands to pin the Controversie-basket, and bring all Catholics to your Church; where I will answer you will be sure to find us, if you make us sure we shall find this Certainty there when we come.  
6. In the mean time why has not Mr. G. done already as much as should be done? It is plain that where Churches differ in Faith, Infallible Faith in one, cannot stand with Certain Faith in the other. Wherefore if Mr. G. have fixed Infallibility in his own Church, he has removed Certainty from all that differ from her. Let us then take and sift Mr. G's Argument, even as you put it, who had not, I suppose, partiality enough for him, to make it better than it was. You put it thus, p. 4, 5.  
7. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday, and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour; and if they follow this Rule, they can never err in Faith, therefore are Infallible. And you (Mr. G.) proved they could not innovate in Faith, unless they did forget what they held the day before, or out of malice alter it. And now,  
That there may be no mistake, let us take each Proposition by itself.  
8. The First is, [Alderman Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday, and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour.] You have nothing to say to this, I hope: For since Traditionary Christians are those who proceed upon Tradition, and Tradition signifies Immediate Delivery, it follows, that unless they believe the same to day which they did yesterday, and so upwards, they cease to be Traditionary Christians, by proceeding not upon an Immediate, but an Interrupted Delivery, or some other Principle. And so there is no denying this Proposition, but by affirming that Traditionary Christians are not Traditionary Christians.  
9 The second Proposition is this. [And if they follow this Rule, they can never err in Faith.] This is palpably self-evident: For, to follow this Rule is to believe still the same to day which they did yesterday: And so, if they did this from Christ's time, and so forwards, they must still continue to believe, to the end of the World, the selfsame that Christ and his Apostles taught; and, therefore, cannot err in Faith, unless those Authors of our Faith did: Which that they did not, is not to be proved to Christians.  
10. There follows this Inference: [Therefore they are Infallible.] This is no less plainly self-evident. For these words [They can never err in Faith] in the Antecedent, and [They are Infallible] in the Consequent, are most manifestly the selfsame in sense, and perfectly equivalent.  
11. The fourth and last (which according to you, aimed to prove, that they could not innovate) is this. [They could not innovate in Faith, unless they did forget what they held the day before, or out of malice alter it.] And this is no less unexceptionable than its Fellows. For, if they knew not they altered Faith, when they altered it, they had forgot what they believed the day before. If they altered it wittingly, excuse them from Malice who can; who, believing, as all who proceed upon Tradition do, that Tradition is the certain Means to convey the Doctrine of Christ, would notwithstanding alter the Doctrine conveyed to them by Tradition, Pray what ails this Argument? and what wants it, save bare Application, to conclude what was intended as fully and as rigorously as you can desire? And, pray, what need was there to apply it to the Roman Church, and say she followed Tradition, to you who deny it not either of the Roman or Greek Church? As every thing is true, and every thing clear; who now besides yourself would have thought of an evasion from it? And yet you venture at one, such as it is.  
12. You tell us then, (p. 5.) That you thought the best way to show the vanity of this rare Demonstration, was to produce an Instance of such as followed Tradition, and yet Mr. G. could not deny to have erred, and that was of the Greek Church, etc. You had even as good have said, what Mr. G. says is true, but yet he does not say true for all that. For to pitch upon nothing for false, is, in Disputes, to own that every thing is true. The best way, say you? I should have thought it every jot as good a way to have said nothing when one has nothing to say. But yet the World is obliged to you for letting them know what Scholars knew before, that Protestants think it the best way to answer Catholic Arguments, to give them no Answer at all: For you are not to be told that this Instance of yours is not an Answer to Mr. G.'s Argument, but a new Argument against him of your own, which undoubtedly you might have produced as well as my Lord Falkland, if you had been, as my Lord Falkland was, arguing. But it is your turn now to answer. And must you be minded of what every Smatterer in Logic knows, that an Answerer is confined to his Concedo, his Nego, and Distinguo, as the Propositions which he is to speak to▪ are True, False or Ambiguous? He may deny the Inference too, if he find more or other Terms in the Conclusion than in the Premises. But these are his Bounds; and Answering turns Babbling, when they are exceeded. Must you be minded that the Business must be stopped before it come to the Conclusion, and that otherwise there is no speaking against it? For you know that if the Premises be right, and the Inference good, the Conclusion must be as necessarily. True, as it is that the same thing cannot be, and not be at once; that is, must be more certain than that England, for Example, shall not crumble into Atoms, or be swallowed up in the Sea to morrow: For this, and a thousand such things may happen to all material Nature; that a Contradiction should prove True, cannot. And 'tis perfect Contradiction that Terms which cohere in the Premises, by being the same with a Third, should not cohere with one another in the Conclusion. Must you be minded that an Arguer is to prove his Conclusion, and an Answerer to show he does not, by assigning where and how he fails? Do you do any such matter? Do you so much as go about it? And would you have what you say pass for an Answer? Pray consider the Case: The Church of Rome is Infallible, says Mr. G.: She is not, say you. He brings his Argument, and you your Instance against it. What are People the wiser now? and which shall they be for; the Argument or the Instance? They have reason to think well of the Argument, because you have no fault to find with it; and they may think as they please of the Instance. You would not, I suppose, have them believe you both, and think the Church of Rome for your sake Fallible, and, for his, Infallible at once. Pray what assistance do you afford them to determine either way? And what do you more than even leave them to draw Cuts, and venture their Souls as handy-dandy shall decide, for you or Mr. G.? 'Tis true, when Zeno would needs be paradoxing against the possibility of Motion, his Vanity was not ill ridiculed by the walking of Diogenes before him. For 'twas palpably and ridiculously vain to talk against Motion with a Tongue, that must needs move to talk against it. And there may be vanity too in our Case, for aught I know: But where shall it be lodged? Why more with Mr. G's. Argument than your Instance? Why is it more vain to pretend to prove Infallibility, upon which depend the Hopes which Millions and Millions have of a blessed Eternity, and which is proved by Arguments, to which you think it your best way not to attempt to Answer, than it is to except against a Conclusion, against the Premises whereof there lies no Exception? That is, to find fault with a Sum Total, and find none in the particulars or the casting up: For a Conclusion is a kind of Sum Total of the Premises. But it is infinitely more vain to talk against one Infallibility, unless you will set up another. For, if there be no Means, by which Men may be secured, that the ways they take to arrive at their greatest and only Good will not deceive them it cannot be expected they will take all the pains that are necessary to compass that Good, which for aught they can tell, they may not compass with all their pains. 'Tis a pleasant thing in you to talk of the vanity of Mr. G's. Demonstration, when, by seeking to take Infallibility out of the World, you are making the whole Creation vain. For all Material Nature was made for Rational Nature, and Rational Nature requires Rational Satisfaction in all its proceedings, and most of all in the pursuit of Happiness: And what Rational Satisfaction can there be, if there may be Deceit in whatever can be proposed for Satisfaction? In short, the Result of your Instance, whatever was the Aim, it is to amuse and confound People, and hinder them perhaps from seeing what otherwise would be clear; but it shows them nothing, nor can; for that Argument of yours is not at all of a showing Nature.  
13. 'Tis, at best, but an Argument (as they call it) ad hominem; which you know are of the worst sort of Arguments. They serve for nothing but to stop an Adversaries mouth, or shame him, if he cannot answer without contradicting himself; but are of no use towards the Discovery of Truth. For a thing is not the more or less True, because such a Man's Tongue is tied up for speaking against it. But is it so much as an Argument ad hominem? As all the little force of the Topic consists in the Obligation which a Man may have to grant or deny what it supposes he does, it affords no Argument at all against the Man who has no such Obligation. And pray where does it appear that Mr. G. is obliged not to deny that the Greek Church has erred in matters of Faith? And how can you, of all Men, suppose he is? You, who in your Rational Account (p. 32.) quote these words from Peter Lombard; The Difference between the Greeks and Latins, is in Words and not in Sense▪ Name Thomas a jesus, and Azorius, and tell us of other Roman Catholic Authors, of the same judgement, whom I suppose you could name. Pray, how comes Mr. G. to lie under an Obligation, from which Men of Reputation in his own Communion are exempt? And what a wise Argument ad hominem have you made against him, whom yourself have furnished with an Argument ad hominem to confute it when he pleases? In fine, he goes to work like a Scholar, puts his Premises, and infers his Conclusion, which you know cannot but be True, if there be no Fault in his Premises: And 'tis for you to find one when you can. You put nothing to show how the Inference you make should be True, but barely assume, without proof, that he cannot deny it (p. 5.): As if Truth depended on his Denying or Affirming, and that what People say or think, made things True or False. And even, for so much, you are at his Courtesy: If he be not the better Natured, and will crossly affirm or deny in the wrong place, you and your Argument are left in the lurch. In a word, one may see he aimed at Truth, who takes at least the way to it: what you aimed at, you best know; but no body shall ever discover what is, or is not True, by your Method.  
14. But that you may not complain, your Cock is not suffered to fight, let us see what your Instance will do. You put it thus, (p. 5.) The Greek Church went upon Tradition from Father to Son, as much as ever the Roman did. And I desired to know of Mr. G. whether the Greek Church notwithstanding did not err in matters of Faith; And, if it did, than a Church holding to Tradition was not Infallible. How! If it did? Why then it is apparent if it did not, your Argument holds not. And will you assume that the Greek Church errs, who believe she does not? Will you take a Premise to infer a Conclusion, upon which the Salvation of People depends, which Premise yourself in your own heart think is not true? Can you deal thus with their Souls, who pin them upon you, persuade them of what you are not persuaded yourself, and offer them a Securiy for their Eternity, in which your own judgement tells you there is a flaw? For you have declared yourself upon this Matter in your Rational Account, and taken great pains to clear the Greek Church, at least upon the Article of the Holy Ghost, in which consists their main difference with the Latins, and to which the other two you mention were added, I suppose, for fashion sake. I know you there propose to free that Church from the charge of Heresy. But pray what difference betwixt Heresy and Error in matter of Faith? unless you will trifle about Obstinacy, and such collateral considerations; which neither concern us here nor were any part of your Defence there. I see too that you word it here conditionally, and with reference to Mr. G's. Answer: As if his Answer made or marred, and the Greek Church did or did not err, as he says, ay, or No. Whatever Mr. G. may say, or you have said, unless the Greek Church actually does Err, your Instance is no Instance of a Church that goes upon Tradition and Errs; and your Inference that then a Church holding to Tradition was not Infallible, is wondrous pertinently inferred from the Example of a Church that errs not. Pray take it well that I entreat you by all the care you have of your own Soul, and should have of others, to manage Disputes about Faith a little otherwise, and not propose Arguments, in which you must needs think yourself there is no force. For there is plainly none in this, if the Greek Church does not err; and you at least think she does not. I am sure 'tis what I would not do myself for all the World.  
15. But to proceed to Mr. G's. Answer, (p. 5.) It was say you, that the Greek Church followed Tradition, till the Arians left that Rule and took up a new one, etc. And why has he not answered well? You assumed that the Greek Church erred while it went upon Tradition; If you did not, you said nothing; for, that a Church may follow Tradition at one time, and leave it at another, is no news. 'Tis the case of all erring Churches which ever followed Tradition at all. Mr. G's Reply then that Tradition was followed till another Rule was taken up, denies that Tradition and Error were found together, as you contended, in the Greek Church. And pray what more direct or more full Answer can there be to an Argument, than to deny the Premises? As slightly as you would seem to think of him, he understood disputing better than to start aside into an Exception against your Conclusion, but answers fair and home by denying the Assumption from which you infer it; which now he has done, you know it rests with you to prove it; and yet you never think on't, as far as I see; but, as if you had no more to do, fall a complaining against Mr. G. for speaking of the Arians, and not of the present Greek Church; and against his Copy, for leaving out the Inference which you drew. In doing which, if he did so, he did you no small kindness; there being no Premises to draw the Inference from, as has been shown above; or if any, such as put you to contradict your own Doctrine ere any thing could follow from them.  
16. As for the omission of the Inference, I know not how it happened, nor mean to meddle with matter of Fact. But I see they had reason, who observed before me, that 'tis a thing of no manner of Consequence, I verily think, in your own Judgement. Unless you think the Age we live in so dull, that, without much hammering it into their Heads, it cannot be perceived, that if a Church has erred which held to Tradition, a Church may err which holds to Tradition. Or, unless you think it of mighty Consequence to have an Inference stand in the Relation which fell with the Premises at the Conference. Mr. G. took them away by his denial, and you must begin again, and bring something from whence you may draw an Inference, if you will needs have an Inference; for an Inference cannot be drawn from nothing. Pray divert us not perpetually from minding what we are about; but remember the Question now is, Whether the Greek Church held to Tradition and erred at once? and bethink yourself, if you please of a Medium, which will infer that Point for you; for Mr. G. you see denies it.  
17. From his mentioning the Arians you take occasi-to speak big, and bear us in hand he was hard put to it, and sought an occasion, and affirm (p. 6.) you could get no Answer at all to the Case of the present Greek Church. As if his Answer pinched on the Arians, and were not as full to the present as past Greek Church. It goes on this, That those who err in Faith, let them be who they will, and the Error what it will, and in what Time and Place you will, all leave Tradition. Whether the Case of the present Greek Church be the same with the Arians, is matter of Fact, with which Mr. G. did well not to meddle; it is for you to make it out, if you will make good your Argument. Modern or Ancient Heresy is all one to his Answer, which is applicable to all Heresy: And you complain of the want of an Answer when you have one. Pray, if a Man should put an Objection to you about an Animal, for Example, and you answer it of all Animals, would you think it just in him to quarrel with you for not mentioning the Rational or Irrational in particular? And yet this is your Quarrel to Mr. G. All your magnificent Talk (p. 6.) of undeniably true, granted by Mr. G. known to every one, etc. as apt as I see it is to make a Reader believe your Instance is notoriously true, and against which Mr. G. has nothing to say, cannot make me, or any Man of Reason, who examines the Point, believe he has any Reason to say more, till you do. He has answered directly, and positively denied, that Error and Tradition can be found together in the Greek Church, or any other, modern or ancient. There it sticks, and you may drive it on farther (it being your own Argument) if you please. Only when you tell us (p. 6.) that the present Greek Church in all its Differences with the Roman, still pleaded Tradtion, and adhered to it, I wish you had told us whether you speak of Differences in matter of Faith, or no. For Differences may be occasioned by matters of Faith, which are not Differences in Faith. If you do not, you support your Instance very strongly, and prove the consistence of Tradition with Error in Faith very Learnedly, from Differences which belong not to Faith. If you do, as Nature itches after strange Sights, I long to see by what Differences, or any thing else, it can be made out, That an erring Church can still plead Tradition, and adhere to it. Not but that for Pleading much may be, there are such confident doings in the World. As certain as it is, that the Religion in England now, is not the same which it was before Henry the Eighth, I think there is confidence enough in England to plead Tradition for it. 'Tis but finding some Expression in an ancient Writer, not couched with Prophetical foresight enough to avoid being understood, as some will desire it should, and it will serve turn to pretend to Antiquity, and bear the Name of Tradition. So I suspect you take it yourself, when you say the Arians insisted on Tradition: For sure you do not think in earnest, that Doctrine contrary to Consubstantiality, was taught by Christ, and believed from Father to Son till the Council of Nice. This, or some such thing may perhaps have been pleaded; but for adhering to Tradition, Your Servant. For, pray, did Christ teach any Error? When a Father believed what Christ taught him, and the Son what the Father believed, did not the Son too believe what Christ taught? Run it on to the last Son that shall be born in the World, must not every one believe what Christ taught, if every one believed what his Father believed? And will you go about to persuade us, that there actually is a company of Men in the World who adhered to this Method, all Sons believing always as their Fathers did, whereof the First believed as Christ taught, and who notwithstanding erred in matters of Faith? They would thank you for making this out, who would be glad that Christ taught Error and were not God. But it is not plainer that Two and Three make Five, than it is that this cannot be. And yet you would top it upon us, and bear us in hand it is not only true, but apparent in the Greek Church, and known to every body who knows any thing of it. The comfort is, there is nothing for all these Assertions but your Word; in which, where you stick not to pass it for an arrant Impossibility, I for my part do not think there is Absolute Certainty.  
18. I see not what there remains more, but to bear in mind where we are. At the Conference, instead of answering Mr. G's Argument, you would needs make one of your own, which was in short; The Greek Church goes upon Tradition and errs, therefore another Church may err which goes upon Tradition. There was no need to trouble the Greek Church for the matter: It had been altogether as methodical, and as much to purpose, to have instanced in the Latin Church itself, and never gone further; and shorter, to have spared Instancing too, and have said without more ado, Mr. G's Conclusion is not true: For you do no more, till you make it appear, that the Church you pitch upon for an Instance, does indeed adhere to Tradition and err. But, because this had been too open, and People would have sooner perceived that it had been to say, I know not how to answer Mr. G's Argument, but will notwithstanding stand to it, that his Conclusion is false, you thought the best way to divert the Reader's attention from what's before him, was to travel into Greece; and yet when you come there, do no more than if you had stayed at home: For you barely say there is both Tradition and Error in the Greek Church, and you might have said as much of the Latin; or, without mentioning either, have said, Tho' Mr. G. has proved a Traditionary Church cannot err, I say it can and has. All is but Saying till you come to Proving: Only to make a formal show with an Antecedent and a Conclusion, you say it with the Ceremony of an Argument; of which since Mr. G. denied the Antecedent, he had no more to do till you proved it.  
19 So it stood at the Conference, and so it stands still, and for aught I see, is like to stand: For tho' you have writ two Letters since, there appears no word of Proof in either, or sign that you do so much as think on it: You only say your Instance over again, and would have the Face you set upon it, and great Words you give it, make it pass for plain and undeniable, when all the while it is plainly impossible, and actually denied. Mr. G. I hope, will bide by his Answer, because it is a good one, true in itself, and direct to the Point: For it denies just what you assumed, That the Greek Church stood upon Tradition, and fell at the same time into Error. And speaking as you do, or should do, of Error in matter of Faith, Euclid never made any thing plainer than it is, That where ever Error comes in, Tradition goes out. Of necessity therefore, if the present Greek Church have adhered to Tradition, it has not erred: If it have erred, it has not adhered to Tradition. Which of the two is the Case, neither concerns Mr. G. nor can he dispute it without following bad Example, that is, falling to Argue now it is his Part to Answer. You would pass it upon us, that the Greek Church has erred without swerving from Tradition; and you must either make it out, or acknowledge you have made much ado about nothing: For your Instance is no Instance, till it appears to be true; Till you do it, there is no Work for Mr. G.  
20 At the close (p. 7.) you desire Mr. G. to make good two things, and tell us why you desire it, and what will follow if he accept or decline your Motion. I neither understand how your Proposals follow from your Reasons, nor your Consequences from your Proposals: But think it no more worth losing time upon them, than you thought it worth boasting of the Victory. The First is, That we [Protestant's] have no Absolute Certainty as to the Rule of our Faith, viz. the Scripture; altho' we have a larger and firmer Tradition for it, viz. the Consent of all Christian Churches, than you [Catholics] can have for the Points of Faith in difference between us.  
21. I can tell you a better Reason for this Proposal than any you give. There was no avoiding to own Absolute Certainty to a Man who talked of quitting your Communion without it. But you knew well enough that your Absolute Certainty would be thwittled into Sufficient Certainty, and Sufficient Certainty into no Certainty at last; and had your Wits about you when you thought of this Proposal: For it is in effect to say, This Certainty of Faith is a troublesome matter, and not for my turn; Let us go to something else, leave Faith and pass to Scripture; of which you, Mr. G. shall prove we have no Absolute Certainty: For, if I should go about to prove we have, I foresee, that while I am seeking harbour in my larger and firmer Tradition, I shall venture to split upon your Infallibility, 
There can be no necessity supposed of any Infallible Society of Men, either to attest or explain these Writings among Christians.  to contradict my 15th Principle for the Faith of Protestants, and fall at unawares into the Snares laid for me in Error Nonplussed, from p. 90 to p. 96, which I have no mind to come near. But whatever Reasons you had to make this Proposal, I see none that Mr. G. has to accept it. Do you prove, if you please, that you have Absolute Certainty; you, who bear those in hand who consult you, that you have; 
Dr. St. Principle 15.  and Absolute Certainty too of that of which you professed yourself absolutely Certain, viz. That you now hold all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles; 
Dr. St's Copy.  which by your own confession there, is the true Point. For you know very well, one is not certain of his Faith by being certain of Scripture: Yourself take all who dissent from yours, to have not only an Uncertain, but a Wrong Faith, else why do you descent from them? And yet they have all as much Certainty of Scripture as you. The truth is, if you were pressed to make out your Absolute Certainty even of Scripture in your way, you would perhaps find a hard Task of it, for all your Appeal to Tradition. But it was not the Point for which the Conference was, nor ought it be the Point here, neither aught Mr. G. to meddle with it, and you trust much to his good Nature to propose it: For, besides that all the thanks he would have for his pains, would be to have the Arguments against your Certainty, turned against the Certainty of Scripture one day, as if he did not believe Scripture Certain: You would have him undertake a matter in which he has no concern, to save you from an Undertaking in which you are deeply concerned, but with which you know not how to go thorough; which is a very reasonable Request. In a word, it is for you either to make manifest now, what you should have made manifest at the Conference, viz. That Protestants have Absolute Certainty, not only of the Scripture, which they call their Rule, but of the Faith which they pretend to have from that Rule; or else to suffer another thing to be manifest, viz. That I said true when I said you cannot do it; and thither I am sure it will come.  
22. However, I am glad to hear any Talk from you of Absolute Certainty, even tho' it be but Talk: 'Tis a great Stranger, as coming from your Quarters, and has a friendly and an accommodating look, and therefore for both regards deserves a hearty welcome. For, this very Profession makes a fair approach towards the Doctrine of Infallibility, or rather 'tis the selfsame with it; it being against Common Sense to say you judge yourself Absolutely Certain of any thing, if at the same time you judge you may be deceived in thus judging. But I accept the Omen that you seem to grant you are thus Absolutely Certain, or Infallible, by virtue of Tradition; for this makes Tradition to be an Infallible Ascertainer in some things at least; and, so, unless some special difficulty be found in other things that light into the same Channel, it must needs bring them down infallibly too. Now I cannot for my heart discern what great difficulty there can be to remember all along the yesterdays Faith, or to be willing to be guided and instructed by their yesterday Fathers, Teachers and Pastors; especially the sense of the Points (to omit many other means) being determined by open and daily Practice. Yet I a little fear all this your seeming kindness for Tradition, is only for your own Interest; and that, because you were necessitated to make use of it to abet Scripture's Letter, you allow it in that regard, these high Compliments; but in other things, particularly in conveying down a Body of Christian Faith (which is incomparably more easy) it will presently become useless and good for nothing. In the former exigency you esteem it A worthy Rule, but in the later duty, A Rule worthy—  
23. Now to let the Reader plainly see that it was mere Force, and not Inclination, which obliged you to grant an Absolute Certainty in Tradition conveying down Scriptures Letter, we will examine what you allowed it when you laid your Principles, and so spoke your own free thoughts unconstrained by any Adversary: Your fifteenth Principle is put down (p. 90.) in Error Nonplussed, and that part of it that concerns this present Point, is thus reflected upon by your Adversary (p. 92, 93.) [Again, though all this were true, and that the Scriptures were owned as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly revealed, that no sober Enquirer can miss of what's necessary to Salvation, and that therefore there needed no Church to explain them: Yet 'tis a strange Consequence, that therefore there can be no necessity of any Infallible Society of Men to Attest them, or to witness that the Letter of Scripture is right. This is so far from following out of the former part of Dr. St's. Discourse, that the contrary aught to follow; or, from prejudicing his own pretence, that it conduces exceedingly to it. For certainly his Sober Enquirer would less be in doubt to miss of what's necessary to Salvation in case the Letter, on which all depends, be well attested, than if it be not; and most certainly an Infallible Society of Men can better attest that Letter than a Fallible one: and those Writings can with better show of Reason be owned to contain in them the Will of God, if their Letter be attested beyond possibility of being wrong, than if left in a possibility of being such; for if the Letter be wrong, All is wrong in this case—] As manifest then as 'tis, that to be Absolutely Certain of any thing, is not to be Fallibly Certain of it; that is, as manifest as 'tis, that to be Absolutely Certain of a thing, is to be Infallibly Certain of it; so manifest it is, that you there contradict yourself here, and, that, however you may endeavour to come off, you allow not heartily, nor without some regret and reluctancy, an Absolute Certainty to Tradition, even in Attesting Scripture's Letter.  
24. In these words of yours (p. 7) [As to the Rule of our Faith] give me leave to reflect on the word [OUR,] and thence to ask you, who are YOU? A Question which I ask not of your Name or Surname, but of your Judgement (as you call it) of Discretion. Are you a Socinian, an Arian, a Sabellian, an Eutychian, etc. or what are you? Are you a whole, or a half, or a Quarter-nine-and thirty-Article Man? Do you take them for Snares, or Fences, and when for the one, and when for the other, and wherefore? These words [The Rule of OUR Faith] make you all these at once; for all these profess unanimously Scripture's Letter is their Rule of Faith. Mr. G. when he came to your House, imagined he was to treat with a Protestant, or something like it, and to have learned from you what Absolute Certainty you would assign for your, (that is, Protestant) Faith; and you give him only a Generical Latitudinarian Rule, common to all the Heresies in the World. The Project of the Comprehension Bill was a trifle to this: It brings into one Fold all the most enormous Stragglers that have been since Christ's time, nay Wolves, and Sheep and all. It blends into one Mass the most heterogeneous and hitherto irreconcilable Sects. Nay, it miraculously makes Light and Darkness very consistent, and Christ and Belial very good Friends. For your own Credit sake then distinguish your kind of Protestants (if you be indeed one of that Church) from that infamous Rabble of stigmatised Heretics; and let us know what is the Proper Difference that restrains that Notion of a Common Rule to your particular, as such a kind of Protestant, and show us that specifical Rule to be Absolutely Certain. I say, such a kind; for even the word Protestant too is a Subaltern Genus, and has divers Species, and 'tis doubted by many, who are no Papists, under which Species you are to be ranked. But, why should I vex you with putting you upon manifest Impossibilities? For the Letter being the common Rule to them all, and, as daily experience shows us, variously explicable, that which particularizes it to belong specially to this or that Sect, as its proper Rule, can be only this, [According as myself, and those of my judgement understand or interpret it.] The Difference then constituting your Protestant Rule, as distinguished from that of those most abominable Heresies, can only be [as my own judgement, or others of my side, thus or thus interpret Scripture's Letter] and wriggle which way you please, there it will and must end at last. Go to work then, distinguish yourself by your Ground of Faith, and then make out this your proper Rule to be Absolutely Certain or Infallible; and then, who will not laugh at you for attempting it, and assuming that to yourself, which you deny to God's Church, and preferring yourself as to the Gift of Understanding Scripture right, before the whole body of those many and Learned Churches in Communion with Rome? Nay, and before the Socinians too; without so much as pretending to make out to the World, that you have better Means, either Natural or Supernatural, to interpret those Sacred Oracles, than had the others.  
25. My last Exception is, that you pretend the Letter of Scripture is a Rule of Faith for your People, which not one in a Million, even of your own Protestants relies on, or ever thinks of relying on, in order to make choice of their Faith, or determining what to hold. This pretence of yours looks so like a mere Jest, that I cannot persuade myself you are in earnest, when you advance such a Paradox. For, 'tis manifest that while your Protestants are under Age, and not yet at years of Discretion to judge, they simply believe their Fathers and Teachers; that is, they follow the way of Tradition, however misplaced. And, when they come to Maturity, pray tell us truly, how many of your Sober Enquirers have you met with in your life, who endeavour to abstract from all the prejudices they have imbibed in their Minoriy, and, reducing their inclined thoughts to an equal Balance of Indifferency, do with a wise Jealousy, lest this Popish way of believing immediate Fathers and Pastors should delude them, as it has done the whole World formerly, resolve to examine the Book of Scripture itself, read it attentively, pray daily and fervently, that God's Spirit would discover to them, whether what they have learned hither to be true or no, and what is; and, in a word, use all the Fallible means (for you allow them no other) which your Sober Enquirers are to make use of to find out their Faith? I doubt, if you would please to answer sincerely, you would seriously confess you scarce ever met with such a one in your life; that is, never met with any one who relied upon Scripture's Letter practically for his Rule of Faith, whatever you may have taught them to talk by rote. Can any Man of Reason imagine, that all the Reformed in Denmark or Sueden (to omit others) did light to be so unanimously of one Religion merely by means of reading your Letter-Rule, and your Sober Enquiry? Or can any be so blind, as not to see, that 'tis the following the natural way of Tradition, or children's believing Fathers (that is, indeed, of Education) that such multitudes in several places, continue still of the same persuasion; and that you consequently owe to this way, which you so decry in Catholics, that any considerable number of you do voluntarily hang together at all? And that those Principles of yours, which you take up for a show, when you write against Catholics, would, if put in practice, in a short time crumble to Atoms all the Churches in the World? Perhaps, indeed, when your Protestants come at Age, they may receive some Confirmation from their Fathers and Preachers, quoting Scripture-places against what Catholics hold, or what they shall please to say they hold; and by the same means come to believe a Trinity, the Godhead of Christ, Christ's Body being absent in the Sacrament, and such like; but do the Hearers and Learners make it their business to use all careful disquisition (for a slubbering superficial diligence will not serve the turn in matters of such high Concern) whether the Catholics, and those great Scripturists, who deny those other Points, do not give more congruous explications of those places than their own Preachers do? unless they do this, or something equivalent, 'tis manifest the Letter of Scripture is not their Rule, but honest Tradition. And that they do no such thing, is hence very apparent, that they rest easily satisfied, and well apaid with their Parson's interpretation of Scripture, they presently accept it for right and good, and readily swallow that sense, which some Learned Men, of their own Judgement, assign it, without thinking themselves obliged to observe your Method of Sober Enquiry. You may rail against the Council of Trent, as you will, for forbidding any to interpret Scripture against the Sense which the Church holds; but 'tis no more than what your Hearers perpetually practise, and the Preachers too (for all their fair words) expect from them. And I much doubt even yourself (tho' your Principles are the most pernicious for taking matters out of the Church's, and putting them into private Hands, of any Protestant, I ever yet read) would not take it very well if some Parishioner of yours, presuming upon his Prayers for Direction, etc. should tell you that you erred in Interpreting Scripture, and that the Sense he gave it, was sound and right Faith, yours wrong and Heretical; and I would be glad to know what you would say to him, according to your Principles, if he should hap to stand out against you, that he understands Scripture to be plainly against a Trinity and Christ's Divinity, as john Biddle did against the Minister of his Parish, and the whole Church of England to boot. 'Tis plain you ought to cherish and commend him for standing firm to his Rule; But I am much afraid you would be out of humour with him, and esteem yourself affronted. You may pretend what you please of high Expressions given by Antiquity, of Scripture's incomparable Excellency, and Sufficiency for the Ends it was intended for, which we do not deny to it; but I dare say, even yourself does not think, that either the Ancient Faithful, or the Modern Reformers, meant that any of the Ecclesia credens, or Believing Church, should have the liberty to Interpret Scripture against the Ecclesia docens, or Teaching Church, i. e. Pastors; or Coin a Faith out of it, contrary to the present or former Congregation of which he was a Member.  
26. The sum is; 'Tis evident hence, that Tradition of your Fathers and Teachers, and not Scriptures Letter, is indeed your Rule; That by it you Interpret Scripture; which then only is called your Rule, and made use of as such, when you are Disputing against us; because having thus set it up, to avoid and counterbalance the Authority of the former Church you left, you make account your own private Interpretation of it may come to be thought Argumentative against the great Body of those Churches from whose Communion you departed; and yet you judge no private Parishioner should claim the same Privilege against you, without affronting your great Learning, and Pastoral Authority. But I much wonder you should still venture to call Scripture's Letter a Rule of Faith, having been beaten from that Tenet so pitifully in Error Nonplussed, from Pag. 59 to Pag. 72. where I believe you may observe divers Particulars requisite to be cleared ere the Letter can be in all regards Absolutely Certain, which the Consent of all Christian Churches will never reach to by their mere Authority, unless you will allow the Sense of Christ's Doctrine descending by Tradition, did preserve the Copy substantially right and entire.  
27. Your pretended Rule of Faith then, being in reality the same that is challenged by all the Heretics in the World, viz. Scripture's Letter Interpreted by yourselves; I will let you see in this following short Discourse, how far it is from being Absolutely Certain.  
I. God has left us some Way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught.  
II. Therefore this Way must be such, that they who take it, shall arrive by it at the End it was intended for; that is, know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught.  
III. Scripture's Letter Interpretable by Private judgements, is not that Way; for we experience Presbyterians and Socinians (for example) both take that Way, yet differ in such high Fundamentals, as the Trinity, and the Godhead of Christ.  
IV. Therefore Scripture's Letter Interpretable by Private judgements, is not the Way left by God to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught, or surely to arrive at right Faith.  
V. Therefore they who take only that Way, cannot by it arrive surely at right Faith, since 'tis impossible to arrive at the End, without the Means or Way that leads to it.  
28. I do not expect any Answer to this Discourse, as short as it is, and as plain and as nearly as it touches your Copyhold; it may be served as Mr. G's Argument is, turned off so so with an Instance, if there be one at hand; or, with what always is at hand, an Irony or scornful Jest, your readiest, and, in truth, most useful Servants: But you must be excused from finding any Proposition or Inference to deny, or any thing, save the Conclusion itself: Which, tho' it will not be fairly avoided, I cannot hope should be fairly admitted, unless I could hope that Men would be more in love with Truth than their Credit. Till Truth be taken a little more to heart, Catholic Arguments will and must always be faulty; but they are the most unluckily and crossly faulty of any in the World; faulty still in the wrong place. When fault is found in other Arguments, it is always found in the Premises; in these, 'tis found in the Conclusion: In which, notwithstanding, all who know any thing of a Conclusion, know there can be no fault, if there be none in the Premises. Indeed, they show that to be true which Men cannot endure should be true; and that is their great and unpardonable fault. That you may not think I talk in the Air, I declare openly, that you cannot Answer this Discourse, unless you will call some unconcerning Return an Answer; and I engage myself to show the Proposition true, and the Inference good, which you shall pitch upon to deny; And the Distinction, if you will make any, not to purpose. The truth is, I engage for no great matter; for I know beforehand you can no more Answer now, than you could to Error Nonplussed, or can prove an Absolute Certainty in Protestant Faith.  
29. To return now to Mr. G. the Second thing which you desire him to make good, is, That the Tradition from Father to Son is an infallible Conveyance of Matters of Faith, notwithstanding the Greek Church is charged by him with Error, which adhered to Tradition. That is, you desire him to prove over again, what you tell us yourself he has proved once already: For you tell us (p. 5), he proved, That they [Traditionary Christians] could not innovate in Faith, unless they did forget what they held the day before, or out of malice alter it. Pray, when it is proved, that the Conveyance of Faith by Tradition, excludes the possibility of Change in Faith, save by forgetfulness or malice, is it not proved, That, where there could be neither forgetfulness nor malice, there could be no change in Faith? You do not, I suppose, desire he should prove, that Men had always Memories, or that Christians were never malicious enough to damn themselves and Posterity wittingly; and yet it can stick no where else: If it can, said Mr. G. assign where. Now you know very well, that a Conveyance which makes it impossible that Faith should ever be changed, is an Infallible Conveyance; and the very thing is proved which you desire should be proved. What reason has Mr. G. to prove it a second time? And what reason have you to desire it? If Proof would content you, you have it already; but a second cannot hope to content you better than the first, unless it be worse.  
30. Yes, but you would have him prove, Notwithstanding the Greek Church &c. (p. 7.) Notwithstanding? Why do you think it is with Arguments as with Writs, where the want of a Non obstante spoils all? When a Truth is once proved, is it not proved, notwithstanding all Objections? And will any Notwithstanding unprove it again? Will your Notwithstanding show us there was a time in which Men were not Men, nor acted like Men? Will it show us, that a thing which cannot possibly be changed, may yet possibly remain not the same? Will it show us, that a Cause can be without its Effect, or an Effect without its Cause? Will it show us, that a thing can be and not be at once? Unless it can do such Feats as these, you may keep your Notwithstanding to yourself, for any Service it will do you here: For all the notwithstanding in the world cannot hinder a thing which is true, from being true; nor the Proof which proves it to be true, from being a Proof. Mr. G's Proof shows, that Tradition from Father to Son is an Infallible Conveyance of Faith as plainly as that Men are Men: And would you persuade us with the Rhetoric of your Notwithstanding, that we do not see what we see? Tho' you had brought twenty of them instead of one, we could see nothing by them, but that you had a good Fancy; for they show us nothing of the Object, nor offer at it. You show us not how the Operations of Human Nature should be suspended in our present Case, nor any thing which should or could suspend them, but would have us believe Men were prodigiously forgetful or malicious, purely for the sake of an Imagination of yours. I pray rub up afresh your old Logical Notions, and reflect whether it were ever heard of in University Disputes, that when an Argument is advanced, the Defendant is allowed to make Objections against it; and instead of Answering, bid the Arguer prove his Conclusions to be true, Notwithstanding all his Objections? Consider how perfectly this confounds the Offices of the Disputant and Defendant, and makes all Regular Discourse impossible. Consider how this new Method of yours destroys the very possibility of ever concluding any thing that is, the very Faculty of Reasoning; For Objections being generally multipliable without end, if all of them must be Solved ere any Argument concludes, nothing will be concluded, nor any Conclusion admitted: And so a long so Farewell to Rational Nature. Consider that Truth is built on its own intrinsical Grounds, and not on the Solving Objections. For your own Credit's sake then with Learned Men and Logicians, do not seek to evade with notwithstanding, but Answer fairly and squarely to the Argument as it lies: Consider, that who has found the Cause, has found the Effect. Mr. G. has found us a Cause of Infallible Conveyance, and therefore has showed us an Infallible Conveyance. You pretend, that tho' there was the Cause, there was not the Effect; and this 'tis known beforehand cannot be, and you knew it as well as any body: But you knew likewise there was no saving your Stakes without playing a new Game; and therefore, give you your due, did all that could be done, in trying to divert our sight from a Matter plain before us, and amuse us us with a Matter of Fact, which you are sure will be obscure enough, by that time it is handled long enough. The Terms you put, viz. Tradition, Error, and the Greek Church, must needs bring into Dispute, whether such and so many Quotations, or some one or two Men disclaiming their Tenet to be a Novelty, be a Proof of Tradition from Father to Son; whether the Error be any Error; and whether, and for how much, an Error in Faith, and how much of it belongs to Divinity; whether the Greek Church be engaged by a Citation from a Greek Author; of two that be cited, one against another, which shall be preferred, and thought to speak the sense of his Church; and which is a Latinized, which a frank Grecian. And who shall see through the Mists which these Disputes will raise? More too will fall in in process of time: There will be wrangling about the sense of Words, the propriety of Phrases, the preference of Readins, and twenty such important quarrels; which will tyre out every body, and satisfy no body. In short, you saw that if you could persuade People not to think the Church of Rome Infallible, till all be said, which will occur to be said of the Greek Church, you are safe enough; For Doomsday will come before that day. Till than you may carry it with a show of Erudition, because there must be abundance of Greek cited. And this is all which can come of your Instance; and I wish it were not all you had in your Eye.  
31. In the mean time you have not answered Mr. G. because you have found no fault in any Proposition, or in the Inference of his Argument; and therefore it rests with you to answer it. He has answered you; because he has found this fault with your Instance, which you make your Antecedent, that it is not true; and that the Greek Church did not at once err in faith, and adhere to Tradition: and therefore it rests again with you to prove it; and yet while you are Debtor both ways, you call upon him to pay. Ere we part, Take this along with you, that the Debt which you are precisely bound to satisfy, first is to answer his Argument, and till you do this, you can claim no right to Object or Argue.  
I am SIR Your humble Servant.