latter This is my Body It is evident indeed that such an Edition would be of no Credit But why Not for any defect in the sound or other intrinsic fault as hath been shewn but because the Authority of one single person which recommends the first Sentence cannot weigh with that of the whole World which delivers the last For could these two Sentences change their Extrinsic Testimonies they would change their Credit also Much more of this Nature might be added But we need not have Recourse to Suppositions for an Evidence of this Truth which is sufficiently confirmed by that Difference in the Translations of the Scripture which is already in the World. By Difference in Translations I mean a Difference in * Viz. when one Translation hath Words expressing a different Sense from those which are in another Sense and not in Language as Dr. St was pleased to Mistake my meaning in his second Letter to Mr. G In which piece for the most part he Answers my Objections by mistaking them And certainly Books may be Answered with ease when Ignorance it self as Mistaking is either Real or Pretended is able to do the work The prevention of such mistakes was one of the Reasons why I preferr'd Personal Conferences before the Writing 〈◊〉 â—ooks tho indeed for the securing such Conferences from such after mis-representations as we have here I thought it convenient that what was said in them should be committed to Writing immediately upon the place I say then that this Difference of Sense in the several Translations of the Bible which are now in Being is an undenyable proof that the Scripture does not manifest it self to us by it 's own Lustre as is pretended at least in all it's parts For since all these Differences of Sense expressed by Different words are held for Authentic by Different Bodies of Christians whereas at most there can be but one of these Different Expressions Genuine or True it must follow that the Truth of every parcel of Scripture is not evident to All alike and consequently not Evident from it self And indeed to say the truth I never knew that any sort of Christians endeavored to justifie the preference of their own Version before that of others from the Sound or Texture of the Expressions but always from it's Conformity to the Original Languages Antient Copies or the like which they would not have done could the bare Sound or Frame have sufficiently pleaded for it What is here proved from the Difference in the Translations of the Bible may be yet farther evinced by that which there is in the number of the Canonical Books since if the Scripture were evident of it self how come whole Books to be received by some and rejected by others And here a new Reason offers it self to me why Protestants should be asked more particularly what Testimony they have for their Bible since they lay aside so much of that Canon which was confirmed by the Council of Carthage in the year 397. subscribed to by St. Augustin as also by the sixth General Council A. D. 680. and hath been so generally in use ever since for want as they pretend of that Testimony which is sufficient I should design an endless piece of work should I purpose to set down all the absurdities which necessarily are derived from this Assertion viz. that the Scripture is Proved by it self Dato uno absurdo mille sequuntur I hope what I have said is enough for the rejecting a Position which ought rather to be esteemed it 's own dis-proof than the Scripture can be look'd on as it 's own Proof For since it is most apparent that the Sense of all the parts of Holy Scripture is not Plain to us by it 's own Light how comes it to pass that without further help we may know the Words which we Read to be the Words of the Holy Ghost and not know the Sense which we have of them to be the Sense intended by the same Holy Ghost The Sense being that which immediately is from God whereas the words are from Men At least in such Translations as are not made by Divine Revelation or Inspiration Which as I take it the Reformed Church of England doth not pretend to Wherefore I cannot think that any one will say that the Phrase or Form of Words in any place of Scripture is such as manifestly shews it self to be from God and yet that at the same time he is ignorant whether the Sense which he conceives of those Words be from God or from himself It follows from these Considerations That Scripture how Sacred and Divine soever it be is not manifested to us by it 's own light and consequently it is neither impertinent in it self nor derogatory to the Scripture to ask upon what Extrinsic Testimony it is received and acknowledged for Such Give me leave to add one word by way of Corollary to what hath been said which is that seeing the Holy Scriptures are not made Evident by themselves and that no Prudent Man can receive any thing upon the credit of False and Corrupted Witnesses it must be inferred that the Protestant Reformers ought to quit their pretence of being Guided by Scripture since they have no other Rule of knowing what is such and what not but the bare Letter of that which is called so and the Testimony of those whom they accounted to have so much Corruption and Falsness that they separated from them without the least apprehension of the Guilt of Schism For separating from the whole World as hath been said they must needs separate from those upon whose Authority or Testimony they received their Bible And this in effect was the summ of Mr. P's Argument against Dr. T. I should not have insisted so tediously on the foregoing points had I not known that how frivolous soever those pretences of our vilifying Scripture looking on it as Insufficient and the like may seem to any thinking Man yet the common People are most grosly and almost incurably deluded by them And we are * Rom. 1. v. 14. Debtors both to the Wise and to the Vnwise And forasmuch as concerns this last Point which I have spoken to viz. the pretended self-evidence of the Scripture it hath dropt in my hearing not only from the Mouths of the middle sort but even from those of the Learned World. And even Dr. T. himself glances at it in his Tenth Page Nothing being more Necessitous or putting a Man upon worse shifts than an ill Cause But tho' I have been very long on this subject yet I cannot but make one Observation more before I proceed to another which is that the Protestants when they find themselves destitute of solid Proof as in truth they always do for the Support of their peculiar Tenets are wont to heap a great many Unconcluding things together that so if possible what is wanting in Strength may be made out by Number Which however like Cyphers tho'
and Socin Meth. p. 26. Work of his own in these Words Though he the Right Socinian thinks a Doctrin is plain in Scripture yet if he believes it to be against HIS REASON he assents not to it And p. 27. A Man of this Church of England suspects not Reason it self but his own present Art of Reasoning whensoever it concludes against that which he reads and reads without doubting of the Sense of the Words This he lays down for the Difference between the Church of England and the Socinians Hitherto I have taken the Socinians at least for a witty Generation But henceforward if the Doctor 's Character of them be true I must hold them all for Blockheads on pain of being held for one my self For what is it to think a Doctrin plain in * Supposing Scripture to be the Word of God. Scripture but to think it to be revealed by God And consequently what is it not to believe a Doctrin which is thought to be plain in Scripture but not to believe what is thought to be revealed by God And is not this in other terms to suppose that it is possible for God to reveal a Falshood Wherefore if this be the sign of a Right Socinian as the Doctor would have it a Bedlam is fitter for him than an Inquisition But the truth is the Socinians are not such Fools as this Gentleman would make them They do not think the Doctrin they reject to be plain in Scripture Nay before they reject it they conclude it not to be * The Arians and Socinians are so far from thinking the Catholic Doctrin touching the Divinity of our Savior to be plain in Scripture that they think the contrary to be plainly there bringing for in many Texts as My Father is greater than I Joh. 14. 28. and the like which the Doctor knows well enough plain Wherefore in those points wherein they differ from the Catholics what the One understands Literally in the Word of God the Other interprets Mystically or Figuratively And in reference to these Texts they behave themselves no otherwise than the Protestants do towards those Words of our Savior in the Institution of the Blessed Sacrament viz. This is my Body which they will not understand in a Literal Sense Again the Doctor says That a Church-of-England-man suspects not Reason it self but his own present Art of Reasoning I have not time to speculate on the nicety of this Distinction and so I let it pass altho' I believe that a Socinian would be extreme glad to know how he might come to be guided by Reason it self when he suspects his present Art of Reasoning * What causeth a Church-of-England-man to suspect his present Art of Reasoning Is it not his present Art of Reasoning Can Reason guide him without any Reasoning The Doctor seems to be very subtil here Is not the Faculty to be suspected when its Operation is faulty Can the Reason be Perfect and yet the Reasoning which flows from it Defective But whereas the Doctor 's Church-of-England-man suspects his own present Art of Reasoning whensoever it concludes against that which he reads and reads without doubting of the Sense of the Words I dare likewise engage that whatsoever the Right Socinian reads in Scripture without doubting of the Sense of the Words he shall believe as firmly as any Church-of-England-man in the World. This is proved already and if the Doctor think otherwise I shall have cause to suspect if not his Reason yet at least his present Art of Reasoning The Reason why I have examined this Quotation is because it is taken out of a Book which I am recommended to by the Doctor for an Answer to those Questions I would have propos'd to him at the Conference The Readers have my sense * Above p. 73. sequ already concerning the Answering of short Questions and proposed in a Personal Conference by a Reference to long Books which seems to be but the putting off the Trial at best What Encouragement I have from this Quotation to have recourse to that Book in particular out of which it was * But if this he the choice what is the refuse chosen by the Author himself let them Judge For if we may guess at the Stuff by the Pattern they will be able to do it A. P. press'd Writing says the Doctor pag. 60. yet when Dr. T. began to do so he declin'd it The Reader will have * Above p. 67. seq See also Mr. P. 's Acc. p. 10. seq seen that A. P. had a great deal of reason to decline the signing an insignificant Wrangle about the Authority of one single Book which was all the Writing Dr. T. propos'd and that the Doctor had no Reason at all to decline what was propos'd to him viz. the writing of the whole Conference unless it be such as he will be loth to own Whereabouts proceeds Dr. T. would these Disputers Pag. 60. be A while ago they were all for Verbal Conferences when Written ones were offer'd as more safe and useful Now when Verbal Conferences are agreed to Writing is press'd What a pretty Sophism is here Does not Dr. Tenison know whereabouts these Disputers would be Did not those who were all for Verbal or rather Personal Conferences desire that the Argumentative part of such Conferences might be taken in * Viz. for hindring such after misrepresentations as we have had from our Dr. as I said before pa. 61. Writing and that nothing else might be published as Authentic but what was so written And were not Conferences so managed viz. Personally and by Writing * See the above-mentioned Letter to Dr. E. S. p. 26. seq preferr'd before the carrying on of a Disputation by Books and not Verbal Conferences as the Doctor insinuates before Written ones Was the Doctor ignorant of this I do not think he was But a pretended Mistake is an excellent Instrument in the hand of a Controvertist It serves to deceive his own Party and at least to make Work for his Adversaries And now I would not have the Sense of what I have said here or elsewhere on this Subject so far mistaken as that I should be thought to look on such Personal and Written Conferences as infallible means of deciding Controversies whereas I only prefer this way of proceeding in them before that of writing Books I know there is nothing of this Nature which some time or other is not liable to the underminings of Craft and therefore as far as I have been able to observe when such kind of Conferences are obtained which is only where they cannot be kept off with any credit the Protestants either refuse to dispute of the Main Points such as the Rule of Faith the Proof of Scripture or the like and fall on some other Branch where as I have said before there is more room for disputing unless the matter be soon brought to the Rule of
but the second Branch of Mr. P's Mr. P. ask'd from whom we were to receive the Scriptures My Question was from whom we were to have the Meaning of them Now St. Augustin will tell you that you ought to receive the Sense or meaning of the Scripture from those on whose Testimony you admit the Letter according to a * Aug. contra Epist Fundam passage which I formerly Quoted to Dr. St And which he not liking as I suppose St. Augustins Judgment took no notice of Wherefore according to the Sense of this Father if Dr. Tenison had found out those Christians on whom he might have relyed for the receiving of the Scriptures which was Mr. P's Question he would have known whom to have trusted for the understanding them which was Mine Which being so I leave my Readers to Judge whether either of these Questions were not much more to the purpose than that which the Dr. set up Indeed it was so little to our Controversie whether that Book were truly St. Ambrose's or not that I wonder that a grave Man should forget himself so much as to lay any stress on it when other Proofs were offered full as plain and out of Writers of as great Authority as St. Ambrose and even when there is a passage to the same purpose and to a great degree in the same words in an undoubted Work of St. Ambrose Nay one of the Arguments which is brought against the Authority of this Book De Sacramentis is that the words of this Quotation are in another Work of the same St. Ambrose and that it is improbable this Author would use the same Words and Phrases in two distinct Books Which if a good Argument against the Authority of that Book is likewise a very good one for the Authority of the Passage Wherefore if that passage which was alledged or one Equivalent to it were undoubtedly St. Ambrose's of what moment could it be whether that particular Book which was first named were St. Ambrose's or not If the passage prove what it was produced for it is at least Equivalently in an undoubted work of St. Ambrose And if it prove nothing why so much clutter whether the Book be Authentic or not Here the Reader may be put in mind of another Method which the Protestants use in their Disputations When the Work of any Father is Quoted by Catholics if it were ever doubted of there is no remedy but it must pass for Spurious And when it shall happen to be Undoubted they will do as much as in them lies to render it Dubious at least in those places which are Quoted But when nothing of this will do their last shift is Interpretation which indeed does their business effectually This Interpretation is laid up like a Treasure which is never to be brought forth but in cases of urgent necessity Otherwise they would need no other Fond for the carrying on of almost all their Controversial Expeditions For what need is there that they should spoil their Eyes with poring on old Worm-eaten Manuscripts for the disproof of an Author when perhaps the passage which they would evade is not half so plain against them as that of some unquestioned Book which already they have set aside by their Interpretation What Obligation is there that Words in a Spurious Work should have quite another Sense than the self-same words in one which is Legitimate No but this knack of Interpreting is too great a cheat to be often Practised and therefore when any thing else will serve the turn this must not appear I said that Interpretation was their last shift But unless this be understood with some restriction I think I was too hasty in my Reckoning Their shifts are like the Priviledges of some Parliaments not so easie to be numbred For sometimes when the Author is unquestioned the passage too palpably plain to be wrested and the Party somewhat more indifferent and not so greedy of being impos'd on and when for these reasons the Gordian-knot cannot be untyed what should they do but follow Alexanders example They lop off a Century or two out of the Five Hundred Years which their Brethren are wont to Appeal to and it is great odds but the Father that is Quoted most of them and those the most Celebrated being in the fourth and fifth Centuries drops with them and loses his Authority not out of any particular picque that they have against this Father whoever he be but because he lived in ill times and when Popish Errors began to be predominant But if it shall so happen that they do not see him lying on the ground together with these Two Hundred Years the third Century is sure to follow and then it is a Thousand to one but they have him down However if after all this he shall yet remain untoucht Perhaps another Branch may fall for these Errors were very early in the Church or else the Fathers are sicut caeteri Homines and as Dr. T. intimates p. 16. there is no Decisive Determination to be built on what they say This you will say as I have said * See above pa. 27. before agrees not well with an Appeal to the first Five Hundred Years However this gradual Proceeding argues great Moderation a thing that is sometimes bragg'd of and shews that the Members of this Church are not for carrying matters to Extremities but where Necessity which hath no Law obliges them I intimated above that it was ten to one but Dr. Tenison would have refused to Write or Sign any Answer to my Questions Which was no groundless Conjecture of my own For had he not differed from himself he would most certainly have done so A Gentleman of my acquaintance then a Protestant had formerly carried him these Questions and desir'd his Answer to them in Writing In the first place the Doctor took a very sufficient time for consideration And in the second he absolutely refused to give any thing under his hand saying in excuse that he knew not what Inference might be made Whereupon I remember I advised the Gentleman to put him in mind at their next meeting of the Logical Maxim A veris possunt nil nisi vera sequi telling him consequently that if his Answer were true he need not fear that any thing should follow from it but Truth In the mean time I am not ignorant that there is something in the Doctors Narrative which is a kind of * Pag. 18. Answer to my Questions But as the Reader will perceive it is not offered by the Doctor as his Answer to them neither is there any thing else set forth as such throughout his whole Pamplet save only the mention of two Books pag. 56. and a little one which perhaps might be one of them that Mrs. V. had from him pag. 24. I say there is nothing else but these Books which is proposed by Dr. T. as an Answer to those Questions Now for my own part I