such persons are known to be lost it may be doubted nay it ought to be granted that the present Written Rule is defective in the nature of a Rule unless it be well made out that those divinely-inspir'd Writings which were lost were of another Nature then these extant and therefore that they had no part in being a Rule The Proofs for which point ought to be very pregnant and convincing otherwise it may be question'd whether any Books writ by men divinely inspir'd had in them the nature of a Rule or were intended for that end by God And this is particularly inforc'd because Dr. Sâ— here Princ. 28. makes Scripture the Rule and Measure of what we are to believe and if the Measure fall short 't is to be fear'd the thing measur'd or Faith will fall short likewise But if he says onely some of those divinely-inspir'd Writings were sufficient 't is very necessary it should be made out how many are needful that so it might be throughly understood what are the precise Grounds of Christian Faith concerning which yet there is much difference in opinion amongst those who hold the Letter-Rule which signifies that none of them know distinctly what themselves assign or hold to be that Rule Or if he says that onely those which Gods Providence has preserv'd are that Rule then he must either say that Gods Providence therefore preserv'd these because they contain'd holy Doctrin and were writ by men divinely-inspir'd or were apt to benefit future mankind and then by the same Reason those which perish'd should have been preserv'd too or else that God preserv'd these in particular because these which remain are besides those qualifications Proper and Sufficient to be the Rule of Faith And then he begs the Question and supposes his own Tenet true even while he is proving it so Nexâ— supposing the Originals of these Books now extant to have been once the Rule of Faith it was requisite the Church in the beginning shouâ—d have look'd upon them as such and consequently have made account for the first 300 years till when they were not collected or universally propos'd it had no Absolute Certainty or Entire Body of their Faith But of this we hear not that any had the least Jealousie or that they lookt after Books of Scripture as Things without which the Church was not either absolutely Certain of its Faith or had not all its Faith Again had those Books been then the Rule of Faith as considering that some of them were unacknowledg'd one scatter'd here another there accidentally is sensless to imagin Yet how can we â—ow or future Ages hereafter have Absolute Certainty that some substantial word or other is not alter'd omitted or inserted in those places that concern the main Points of Faith for example the Godhead of Christ or the Real Presence in case there be no Infallible Authority to attest the Truth of it which Dr. St. denies here Princ. 15. It is not evident he must say that none of these can be made out with Absolute Certainty and consequently confess with Dr. T. that all this may be otherwise unless he have recourse to Gods Extraordinary Assistance to the multitudes of Transcribers and Translators because of the Necessity the Letter should be thus preserv'd still unchang'd in regard otherwise none could say his Faith is True which again begs the Question and supposes it the Rule of Faith instead of proving it so Farther Let the Letter be suppos'd exactly like the Original how will that Letter secure from all possible Error all that rely on it as the Rule of Faith ought or to use Dr. St's words Princ. 15. reveal so plainly the whole will of God that no sober Enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation Now if they cannot miss of what 's necessary for salvation they must needs hit on it and so are in a manner Infallible as to that point while they rely thereon To put it to the Tryal let us consider what Disputes there are out of Scriptures Letter between Socinians and their Opposers about a Trinity and the Godhead of Christ and what between Catholicks and their Adversaries about the Real Presence How many Interpretations of This is my Body How many Allusions of one place to another in both those Points to hammer out the Truth and these agitated on both sides by Bodies of eminent men excellent Scholars Acute Scripturists Must every sober Enquirer and every private ignorant person who sincerely endeavours needs hit on the right and judge better of these Points than all those Learned men Or must we needs conclude that all those learned Enquirers found in each of those vast different parties are mad or Insincere I wish he would prove this 'T is his best Interest and would give his Argument some likelihood which till then has none for the Fact being so notorious how earnestly they all endeavour to find out the Truth of these points by the Letter none will judge but that if their Heads or Hearts be not strangely disorder'd by Folly or Insincerity the Letter which shouâ—d inform them is strangely incompetent for that end But 't is remarkable how neatly Dr. St. skips aside from the Point He undertakes not to give us any Assurance that his sober or sincere Enquirers shall by vertue of this his Rule of Faith find out that any one point of his Faith is an Absolutely Certain Truth but only that he shall not miss of what is necessary for salvation that he shall not erre or at least not be damn'd for it So that for any thing appears by his discourse let him but read the Scripture though he holds nothing but Error by so doing yet he is still in the way to salvation by the very Reading and Running into Errour But this deserves a particular reflexion hereafter Lastly the very nature and Genius of the Scripture as it now is shows that however it be excellently Vseful for perfecting the Lives of the Faithful in many regards yet it was never intended for the Rule of Faith For to omit innumerable other reasons frequently alledg'd by our Authors Its several parts were evidently writ on several emergent occasions and have not the least semblance as if the whole had been purposely compil'd to deliver an intire Body of Faith Nor does it observe any method tending to clear each several Point For it neither begins with defineing or explaining every word made use of in signifying those Points which is the best means to avoid Equivocation the Ground of all mistake nor does it pursue home the evidencing any one Point by making us aware of the sinister senses in which each word expressing that Point might seem to be taken nor does it put objections against each Tenet and establish us in the right Apprehension of it by solving them nor distinguish by laying common Rules to know when the words are to be taken properly when Metaphorically much less tell us particularly in
to be ascertain'd that he who was really GOD Infinite in all his Attributes and Infinitely happy in himself should purely out of his overflowing Goodness toward miserable mankind take his nature upon him become his Brother Friend Physician Master nay suffer for his sake many hardships during his life and at length buffeting scourging crowning with thorns and a most cruel death on the Cross and to keep the remembrance of these many Benefits warm in our hearts to give us after a wonderful manner his most precious Body and Bloud in a Sacrament instituted for that end by this means not only reviving the memory of the former incomparable love-motive but also adding new Incitements to that best of virtues by our apprehending lively that he so dearly embreasts and embosoms himself with us by his uniting himself to us through his corporal presence that so our souls may by means of the Love springing from this consideration feed on and be united to him Spiritually On the other side if these be not Truths but that the Church may perhaps erre in embracing them who sees not that the Church it self is Idolatrous at least materially in giving True Divine Honor which is Proper only to the Creator to a Creature Each of these two Points then is of that High concern as to Christian Life and Practice that it must needs be of its own nature either a most wicked and damnable Heresy to deny or else to assert it Wherefore 't is the highest Impiety to imagin that God has left no Way to ascertain Mankind whether these two Points omitting many others be True or False since 't is unavoidable they are if True the greatest and most efficacious helps to Christian Devotion that can be If False the greatest Hindrances to the same as corrupting the best Devotions of those Christians into Idolatrous worship The Knowing then the truth of these and such like being most certainly will'd by God we are to expect such a Rule of Faith as is declarative of these and such as these with Absolute Certainty Let us now consider whether Writing be the best means for such an end which if it be not it may certainly be concluded from Gods Wisdome Goodness c. that it hath not been made choice of or intended by God for it But 't is observable that Dr. St. perpetually waves any Discourse of this nature and chuses rather to argue from Gods Power which though I have already shown how Incompetent and Absurd it is let us examine at least what works he makes of it If says he the will of God cannot be sufficiently declared to men by writing it must either be c. I must distinguish the words cannot be declared by writing as I did formerly and affirm that they may either mean that the Way of Writing as taken in the whole latitude of its nature and standing under Gods Infinite Power ordering it with all possible Advantage to the end intended cannot sufficiently declare Gods will as to such Points or they may mean that Gods Revelation of his Will by Writing so qualifi'd as it is now actually found in the Scripture cannot sufficiently or with absolute Certainty declare Gods Will as to the Points aforesaid to men of all capacities in all future Ages Taking them in the former sense I deny the Proposition and say that Gods will as to such Points can be sufficiently declar'd by Writing For 't is absolutely within the compass of Gods Power to contrive a Book on that manner as might define exactly or else explicate at large in what precise sense every word that expresses each point of Faith is to be taken and to provide that it should never be taken in that book in more than that one sense or if in more to notifie to us in which places 't is taken in a different meaning He could also have laid it so that a hundred or two of Originals of these Books might be preserv'd publickly in several distant Countries from the Beginning which might by their perfect Agreement bear Testimony to one another and so assure us the Text was kept hitherto inviolate even to a tittle and also remain a Standard to correct all the multitudes of Diverse Readings which as experience shows us is apt otherwise to set the Copies at variance with one another He could also have so order'd it that the Original Languages might have been as well understood by the Generality of the Church as their own is so have avoided the Uncertainty of Translations Again lest crafty Hereticks should at any time for the future by wittily alluding places or playing upon words or other Sophistries pervert the sense Gods Power could have caus'd a Book to be written after the manner of a large Prophecy foretelling that in such a time 〈◊〉 place such and such a Heretick should arise perverting such and such a Point and forewarn men of his Sophisms and Errours This and much more might have been effected by Gods Power to establish Writing such an absolutely Certain and Intelligible Way which why his Wisdome should not have done in case Faith be an Assent which while it relies on the Ground God has left for Mankind cannot be an error as it may be if none can be absolutely certain both of the Text and sense of Scriptures I would gladly be informed Especially since Dr. St. tells us here Princ. 15. there is no need of an Infallible society of men either to attest or explain them and all that is Fallible as common sense tells us falls short of elevating it above possibility of being an Errour whence follows that there being no means on foot in the world Tradition of the Church failing or being set aside to secure us absolutely of this it can only be had by the Extraordinary Operation of Gods Power securing the Letter of such writings and rendering those VVritings themselves perfectly Intelligible in the manners assign'd in case VVriting be indeed the RULE OF FAITH VVriting then can be the Rule of Faith or able thus to ascertain Faith to us if Gods Infinit Power undertakes the framing it such as I have express'd but because experience tells us 't is not so order'd let us leave this Platonick way of considering how thing should be in that supposition and following the Aristotelian consider things as they are and accordingly examin how Gâ—ds Wisdome has thought fit to order such Writings actually and thence gather whether however 't is agreed between us they be most excellent for other uses and ends they were ever intended by the same Wisdome for a Rule of Faith To evince the contrary of which not to repeat those many Arguments I have brought elsewhere I fartner offer these Reasons First If the Writings of men divinely inspir'd were meant for a Rule of Faith then either all such Writings as such are therefore to belong to that Rule or some onely If all then since some Writings granted to have been written by
be so the not appearing to be otherwise will avail nothing to conclude it so All it can effect is to make us maintain our liberty of suspence and Indifferency that so we may be void of forestalment or prejudice and free to believe it when competent or conclusive Reasons shall appear to evince it What then Dr. St. is to do is to produce Conclusive Reasons to evince that the Letter of Scripture has such a perspicuity and other Perfections belonging to such a Rule as must ground that most Firm Vnalterable and if rightly grounded Inerrable Assent call'd CHRISTIAN FAITH and this considering the Nature of Faith the Effects which are to proceed from Faith and Obligations issuing from it and Incumbent on the Faithful as such But in stead of performing this necessary Duty of his to argue as if though the Reasons he brings conclude it not yet it must needs be so because we have no Evidence 't is not so is so pleasant and new invented a way of arguing that he must find the VVorld a new Logick and Mankind it self a new nature ere he will arrive by means of such Discourse at any Conclusion And whereas he seems to build much on the word Equal alledging that we must for the reasons there given hold the Scriptures the Rule of Faith unless it appear they are defective with an Evidence Equal to that whereby we believe those books to be the word of God 'T is absolutely deny'd not only for the reason lately given in common that none can be bound in reason to hold or own any unprov'd Position but particularly because of the peculiar nature of the thing we are discoursing of For the Rule of Faith being that which is to tell us God said such or such things or engages the Divine Authority for their Verity if we should happen to misuse Scriptures Letter by letting loose people of all capacities to rely on it as their Rule of Faith then in case it should peradventure not have been intended by God for this end but for some others we expose our selves and others to the desperate danger of running into Endless Errors by this misusage of Scripture and of adhering to those Errors as firmly as if God himself had spoke them that is we hazard erring irrecoverably in matters which ate the proper means of salvation and blaspheming God daily in making him the Patron of Lies In this case then there is particular caution to be used and so if upon sincere and strict Examination it be but any thing dubious that Scripture was never intended by God for a Rule of Faith we can never be obliged to hold or own it for such especially not having any Certain Argument to conclude it such much less must we be oblig'd to hold it to be such unless we have EQVAL Evidence of its Unfitness to that whereby we believe those Books to be the word of God unless Dr. St. will say that nothing ought to restrain a man from hazarding the greatest mischiefs in the world but perfect Evidence that no harm will come of it So that still his main business and without which he does nothing at all remains yet to be done which is to bring solid convincing Proofs that God intended Scripture or his Written Word for the Rule of Faith that is for such a Rule as people of all sorts relying on it should be Infallibly or absolutely-secur'd from Error by so doing In making good which concerning Point he hath hitherto trifled exceedingly Nay himself here is afraid to own the Goodness of his own Proof otherwise he would never have thought it fit to annex those words Vnless it appear with an Evidence equal to that whereby we believe those books to be the word of God that they were never intended for that End because of their obscurity or imperfection For the Evidence whereby it appears those Books are the word of God must be conclusive else according to his Grounds we can never conclude one word of Faith True and so an Evidence equal to it must be Conclusive likewise If then he had thought his reasons to prove Scripture the Rule of Faith were Good and Conclusive Common sense would have forbid him to add these cautious words Vnless it appears with an equal evidence c. for Common sense tells us no Conclusive reason can possibly be brought for the Negative if Conclusive Reasons be once produc'd or be producible for the Affirmative It appears then by this behaviour of his on this occasion that he distrusts that either he has produc'd any Conclusive reason for that main Point of Scriptures being intended for the Rule of Faith or that any can be produc'd Lastly That we may give perfect satisfaction to this Fundamental Principle of his though perhaps there is not Evidence Scriptures Letter was never intended for the Rule of Faith equal to that whereby we believe those Books to be the Word of God in regard we believe this upon the Authority of Gods Church which is supported with the whole strength of Best Nature and Supernaturals yet we have rigorous and Conclusive Evidence that it is not penn'd in the very best way imaginable to avoid all ambiguity of words and forestall mistakes as being immediately inspir'd by God whose works are perfect if it had been intended by him to be our Rule of Faith it ought to be And I shall presume I have already brought Conclusive Evidences both à priori and also à posteriori in my answer to his 10th Principle to evince that it has not in it the nature of such a Rule nor consequently was it intended by God to be such a Rule How incomparably excellent soever it be for other Ends for which it was indeed and solely intended But omitting all the rest at present I remind him of one which I cannot too often repeat and enforce it upon him thus He cannot deny but the Points of a Trinity and Christs Godhead are most Fundamental Points of Faith he cannot deny but both Protestants and Socinians rely on the Letter of Scripture for the sole Rule of their Faith and sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them which is all he requires on the Persons side He cannot deny but that notwithstanding this one party holds There is no Trinity and that Christ is not God the other that there is a Trinity and that Christ is God and so one side erres most Fundamentally He cannot deny but Error being a Defect there must be a fault somewhere to beget this Error that is either in the Persons judging of what the Rule of Faith tells them or else in judging that to be a Rule which is not the Rule for in case they erre in neither of these 't is impossible they should erre or misconceive at all in matters of Faith He cannot deny in any reason but the persons on both sides being such acute men and excellently well vers'd in the Letter of Scripture have both Capacity
such Firm and Evident Grounds But I presume I have already perform'd this in my Sure-footing and its Corollaries as also in Faith Vindicated and its Inferences and if it shall appear needfull or be requir'd of me by Learned Men it may perhaps hereafter be brought into a closer and more rigorous Form Yet that it may be seen how easily our Discourses concerning the Certainty and Ground of Faith are resolvable into Evident Principles I shall annex for an Instance a small Peace of mine whiâ—h though it was never pretended to be a severe Process by way of Principles but only meant for a connected Discourse yet I doubt not but I shall show that each main Ioynt of it where it speaks assertively has a Firm and Evident Principle at the Bottom giving it Stability and Evidence and through vertue of these Qualifications rendering it Solidly and Absolutely Convictiveâ— THE METHOD To Arrive at SATISFACTION IN RELIGION 1. SInce all Superstructures mnâ—t needs be weak whose foundation is not surely laid He who desires to be satisfy'd in Religion ought to begin with searching out and establishing the Ground on which Religion is built that is the First Principle into which the several Points of Faith are resolv'd and on which their Certainty as to us depends 2. To do this 't is to be consider'd that a Church is a Congregation of Faithful and Faithful are those who have true Faith Wherefore till it be known which is the true Faith it cannot be known which is the true Church Again A Council is a Representative A Father an Eminent Member of the Church and a Witness of her Doctrin Wherefore till it be known which is the true Church it cannot be known which is a Council or who a Father Lastly Since we cannot know which is Scripture but by the Testimony of those who recommend it And of Hereticks we can have no security that they have not corrupted it in favour of their false Tenets neither can we be secure which is Scripture till we be satisfy'd who are the truly Faithful on whose Testimony we may safely rely in this affair 3. Wherefore he who sincerely aims at Satisfaction in Religion ought first of all to find out and establish some assured Means or Rule by which he may be secured which is true Faith For till this be done He cannot be secure either of Scripture Church Council or Father but having once done this is in a ready way to Judge certainly of all Whereas if he begin with any of the other or indeed argue from them at all till the Rule of Faith be first settled he takes a wrong Method and breaks the Laws of discourse by beginning with what is less cortain and indeed to him as yet uncertain and in effect puts the Conclusion before the Premisses unless he argue Ad Hominem or against the personal Tenets of his Adversary which is a good way to Confute but not to Satisfie 4. And because the Rule of Faith must be known before Faith can be known and Faith before Scripture Church Councils and Fathers it appears that to the finding out this Rule no assistance of Books will be requisite for every one who needs Faith is not capable to reade and understand Books There is left then only Reason to use in this Inquiry And since People of all Capacities are to be saved much sharpness and depth of wit will not be requisite but plain Nâ—tural Reason rightly directed will suffice 5. This being so the Method of seeking satisfaction in Religion is become strangely both more short and easie For here will need no tedious turning over Libraries nor learning Languages nor endless comparing voluminous Quotations nor so much as the skill to read English all being reduc'd to the considering one single Point but such an one as bears all along with it and this too comprehensible as will appear to a mean understanding Again the large debating particular Points in a controversiall way is by this means avoided For when the Right Rule of Faith is certainly known then as certainly as there is any faith in the world all that is received on that Rule is certain and of faith Not but that 't is of excellent use too to cherish and strengthen the faith especially of Young Believers by shewing each particular Point agreeable to right Reason and Christian Principles and recorded expresly in or deduced by consequence from the Divinely-inspired Books 6. Lastly This Method is particularly suitable to the Nature of sincere Inquirers who if they want the liberty of their own Native Indifferency and be aw'd by any Authority whatever before that Authority be made out cannot but remain unsatisfy'd and inwardly feel they proceed not according to Nature and the conduct of unbyast Reason Whereas when the Authority is once made evident Reason will clearly inform them that it becomes their Nature to assent to it 7. But how will it appear that 't is so easily determinable by common Reason which is the right Rule of Faith Very evidently But first we must observe the Assent called Faith depends upon two Propositions What God hath said is true and God hath said this out of which two necessarily follows the Conclusion that this or that in particular is true Of these two we are concerned only in the later For to examin Why God is to be believed when he has said any thing which they call the formal Motive of faith is not a Task for those who own Christianity But all we have to do is to finde out What God hath said or which in our case is all one What Christ has taught and that whatever it be which acqnaints us with this we call THE RVLE OF FAITH as that which Regulates our belief concerning Christs Doctrine or the Principles of Religion Now I affirm iâ— may be obvious Reason be discover'd which this Rule is and that by looking into the Nature of it or considering what kinde of thing it ought to be which is no more than attentively to reflect what is meant by those two ordinary words RULE FAITH 8. And both of them acquaint us that the Rule of Faith must be the means to assure us infallibly what Christ taught For in case a Rule though we apply it to our power and swerve not from it leave us still deceivable in those points in which it should regulate us we need another Rule to secure us that we be not actually deceiv'd and so this other and not the former is our Rule Next Faith speaking of Christian Faith differs â—rom Opinion in this that Opinion may be false but Faith cannot Wherefore the Rule of faith both as 't is a Rule and as it grounds Faith doubly involves Infallibility in its Notion 9. Let us apply this to Scripture and Tradition for setting aside the Light of the private Spirit grounding Phanaticism there are no more which claim to be Rules of faith see to which of them this
Notion fits that is whic hath trnly the Nature of the Rule of faith And this is perform'd by examining which of them is of its own Nature if apply'd and held to able to assure us infallibly that Christ taugbt thus and thus 10. And for the Letter of Scripture not to insist that if it be deny'd as many if not all the parts of the New Testament have been by some or other or mention that those who receive the Boâ—ks do often and always may doubt of almost any particular Text alledged whether some fault through Malice Negligence or Weakness be not crept into it in which Cases the Letter cannot evidence it self but needs another Rule to establish it I say not to insist upon these things which yet are undeniable We see by experience Multitudes of Sects differing from one another and some in most fundamental Points as the Trinity and Godhead of Christ yet all agreeing in the outward Letter And it is not onely Uncharitable but even Impossible to imagin that none among so vâ—st Multitudes do intend to follow the Letter to their power while they all proâ—ess to reverence it as much as any read it frequently study it diligently quote it constantly and zealously defend the sense which they conceive of it fo far that many are even ready to die for it Wherfore it cannot be suspected but they follow it to their power and yet 't is so far from infallibly teaching them the Doctrine of Christ that all this notwithstanding they contradict one another and that in most fundamental points The bare Letter then is not the Rule of Faith as not being of its own Nature able to assure us infallibly though we follow it to our power what Christ has taught I would not be mistaken to have less Veneration than I ought for the Divine Books whose Excellence and Vsefulness as it is beyond man to express so peradventure among men there are not many who conceit this deeper than my self and I am sure not one amongst those who take the confidence to charge us with such irreverent thoughts But we are now about another Question They are the Word of God and their true Sense is Faith We are enquiring out the Rule of Faith whose office t is not to satisfy us that we ought to believe what God has said which none doubts of but What it is which God has said And I affirm That the Letter alone is not a sufficient means to assure us infallibly of this and the experience of so many erring Thousands is a lamentable but convincing proof of it 11. On the other side there needs but common sense to discern That TRADITION is able if follow'd to ones power to bring infallibly down to after Ages what Christ and his Apostles taught at first For since it means no more but delivery of Faith by daily Teaching and Practise of Immediate Forefathers to their respective Children and it is not possible that men should be ignorant of that to which they were educated of that which they daily saw and heard and did let this Rule be follow'd to ones power that is let Children resolve still to believe and practise themselves what they are taught by and practis'd with their Fathers and this from Age to Age and it is impossible but all succeeding Children which follow this Rule must needs from the Apostles time to the end of the World be of the same Faith which was taught at first For while they do thus there is no change and if there be no change 't is the same Tradition then thus understood has in it the Nature of the Rule of Faith as being able if held to to bring down infallibly what Christ and his Apostles taught 12. We have found the Rule of Faith there remains to find which body of men in the World have ever and still do follow this Rule For those and onely those can be infallibly assured of what Christ taught that is can onely have true Faith Whereas all the rest since they have but Fallible grounds or a Rule for their Faith which may deceive them cannot have right Faith but Opinion onely which may be false whereas Faith cannot 13. And first 't is a strong presumption that those many particular Churches in communion with the Roman which for that reason are called Roman-Catholicks do hold their Doctrine by this infallible Tenure since they alone own Tradition to be an Infallible Rule whereas the Deserters of that Church write whole Books to disgrace and vilify it And since no man in his wits will go about to weaken a Tenure by which he holds his Estate 't is a manifest sign that the Deserters of that Church hold not their Faith by the Tenure of Tradition but rather acknowledge by their carriage that Tradition stands against them and that 't is their Interest to renounce it lest it should overthrow their Cause Wherefore since Tradition § 11. is the only means to derive Christs Doctrin infallibly down to after Ages they by renouncing it renounce the only means of conveying the Docttine of Faith certainly to us and are convinc'd to have no Faith but only Opinion And not only so but even to oppose and go point-blank against it since they oppose the only-sure Method by which it can with certainty come down to us 14 Besides since Tradition which I always understand as formerly explicated to be the Teaching the Faith of immediate Forefathers by words and practise hath been proved the only infallible Rule of Faith those who in the days of K. Henry VIII and since have deserted it ought to have had infallible certainty that we receded from it formerly for if we did not but still cleav'd to it it could not chuse but preserve the true Faith to us and if they be not sure we did not they know not but we have the true faith and manifestly condemn themselves in deserting a Faith which for ought they know was the true one But Infallible Certainty that we had deserted this Rule they can have none since they neither hold the Fathers Infallible nor their own Interpretation of Scripture and therefore unavoidably shipwaack themselves upon that desperat Rock Which is aggravated by this Consideration that they built not their Reformation upon a zealous care of righting Tradition which we had formerly violated nor so much as Testimonial Evidence as shall be shown presently that we had deserted It but all their pretence was that we had deserted Scripture and because they assign no other certain means to know the sense of the Holy Books but the Words and those are shown to be no certain means § 10. 't is plain the Reformers regarded not at all the right Rule of Faith but built their Reformation upon a weak Foundation and incompetent to sustain such a building Whence neither had the first Reformers nor have their Followers Faith at all but only Opinion 15. On the contrary since 't is known and
Divinity p. 191. 192. In Logick p. 228. 236. 237. His Performances reduc't to their proper Principles Contradictions p. 236. Tradition the Rule of Faith p. 45. 46. 141. 142. Vnion how to be hoped p. 51. 52. Writing how capable to be the Rule of Faith p. 36. 37. 38. Errata PAge 2. line 4. receive p. 11. l. 21. perfectly p. 15. l 2. disparate p. 32. l. 1â— then we can p. 45. l. 12. Again p. 67. l. 27. dele and this as far c. to the end of the 4th line after p. 81. l. 29. dele of p. 84. l. 2. Endeavorers l. 29. Endeavorers p. 104. l. 4. dele we p. 10â— l. 5. his p. 124. l. 5. and. p. 131. l. 30. dele in the. p. â— 2. l. 11. infallibly l. 23. then p. 834. l. 17. be False l. 20. about p. 159. l. 22. if p. 1â—0 l. 14. as l. 15. dele be p. 167. l. 11. dele if p 173. l. 18. to a higher degree p. 177. l. 23. which are p. 181. l. 2. degree p. 184. l. 24. ground p. 185. l. 15. reason given l. 18. keep men p. 187. l. 14. is p. 188. l. 14. dissatisfaction l. 21. some p. 192. l. 5. conformable l. 16. it l. 26. by her all p. 193. l. 17. our p. 198. l. 2. receiv'd p. 199. l. 14. in wisemen in this point p. 202. l. ult The 5th and 6th p. 214. l. 3. dele to p. 216. l. 12. its p 221. l. 18. Dr. St. p. 234. l. 18. applying it p. 235. l. 23. produc't one p. 250. l. 9. not THE FIRST EXAMEN CONCERNING Dr. Stillingfleet's Design in this Discourse as exprest in his TITLE 1. IN the first place the Title superscribed to this Discourse and signifying to us the Nature and Design of it is to be well weighed that so we may make a right Conceit of what we are justly to expect from Dr. St. in this occasion 'T is this The Faith of Protestants reduc'd to Principles 2. Now Principles as we have discours'd in the Preface must either be Evident to both Parties or at least held and granted by both else no discourse can proceed for want of Agreement in that on which all Rational Process is grounded Also they must be Proper for the End intended or Influential upon the Conclusion which the Arguer aims to evince otherwise if the thing in question deceive not its Evidence and Truth from them though those Propositions be never so evident in themselves yet they cannot be to It or in this Circumstance a Principle whatever they may be in others Wherefore to make good this Title Dr. St. is to produce nothing for a Principle but what is either granted at first by both Parties or else is of so open and undeniable an Evidence as all the World must see and acknowledge it such as are either first Principles or those which immediatly depend upon them and are comprehended under them or if he builds on any Propositions as Principles which are not thus evident but need Proof he is at least to render them evident ere he builds upon them And lastly he is to apply them close to that which he professes to conclude from them otherwise he can never show them to be Principles in this occasion any more than one can be a Father who has no Off-spring or than any thing can be a Ground which has no Superstructures 3. Next we are to consider what Dr. St. means by the word Faith in this place And I hope he will not think I injure him in supposing he has so good thoughts of the Faith of Protestants as to hold 't is more than a bare Opinion whose Grounds may all be false For if so the Assent of Protestants as Faithful may possibly be an Error and all the Tenets they profess to be Truths and hope to be sav'd by believing them liable to be prov'd nothing perhaps in reality but a company of Lies If then as in this supposition he must he holâ—s the 〈◊〉 of Protestants Impossible to be Faâ—â—e he is 〈◊〉 to reduce it into 〈◊〉 Grounds and Principles as are likewâ—â—e Impossible to be False and consequently if it relies on Authority he is to bring Infallible Authority for it all that is Fallible as Common sense teaches admitting Possibility of Falshood in whatever is grounded on it Such Grounds then or Principles he is oblig'd to produce for the Faith of Protestants in case he holds it may not perhaps be an Error for any thing he or his Church knows But in case he judges this Assent or Belief of Protestants may be True Faith though the Grounds of it may be False then he ows me an answer to Faith Vindicated where the contrary is prov'd by multitudes of Arguments not one of which has yet receiv'd one word of sober Reply from him or Dr. Tillotson though as appears by the Inferences at the end of that Book it most highly concerns them both to speak to the several Reasons it contains 4. In the third place we are to reflect what may be meant by the word reduc'd in the said Title And since all Truths not self-evident nor known by immediate impression on sense are at first deriv'd or deduc'd from Principles this word reduc'd having a signification directly contrary to the other intimates to us that Dr. St. makes account he has begun by putting the Faith of Protestants which is the Conclusion and brought it back for so the word reduc'd imports to Principles whereas 't is Evident to every Scholar he proceeds in a way quite contrary to what he here pretends First laying six Principles agreed on then thirty others which since they go before his Conclusions we are to think he meant for Principles too and thence drawing in the Close six Inferences or Sequels which is most manifestly to deduce from Principles not to reduce to them 5. But however it be blameable in one who owns himself a Scholar especially pretending the rigorous and learned way of proceeding by Principles not to understand the nature of the Way himself takes yet let us kindly suppose that Dr. St. out of an unwariness only made use by chance of an improper word which being but a human lapse is more easily pardonable especially since the Method he here undertakes viz. to begin with Principles is if rightly manag'd and perform'd the most honorable for a Scholar and the most satisfactory that may be and so deserving to make amends for many greater faults Let him then by reduc'd to Principles mean deduc'd from Principles yet since both reducing and deducing imply the showing a Connexion between those Principles and what 's pretended to be drawn from them and this either Immediate as to every particular Conclusion or Mediate We are to expect Dr. St. should still show us this Connexion which is best and most clearly done by relating each of his six Conclusions to their respective Premisses or Principles that so by this distinct proceeding and owning
many others give Living voice an incomparable Advantage over Dead Characters in point of Intelligibleness and Expressiveness And though Dr. St. may contend that whatever advantage in signifying That has over This may possibly be put in writing and exprest by means of many large Explications writ by the person himself that was to deliver his mind yet he can never show that those Multitudes of words in those very Explications have the same degree of Significativeness and Intelligibility as if they had been spoken vivâ voce by their Author since they will still want all or most of the Advantages now spoken of which manifestly determine the signification of words To omit that all this will little make for his purpose when he comes to apply it since Scripture has no such large Explications writ upon it to supply that less clearness of expressing which the way of writing is necessarily subject to if compar'd with that of speaking much less if daily practise go along with living voice to declare mens minds as is found in Tradition As for what he adds and builds on that Scripture may be known to be the word of God If he means it may be known to be such according to the Grounds he proceeds on he ought either to have put it amongst Principles agreed on by both sides or else have prov'd it which he no where attempts but afterwards Princ. 15. very solidly and learnedly disproves and confutes while he denies the necessity of any Infallible society of men to attest or explain those VVritings For since in the bare Letter as it lies there are found many passages which contradict one another and abstracting from all Interpretation and Attestation of the Letter no part of it is to be held truer than other for if it once lose the repute of being Gods word as in that case it must 't is all equally liable to be false it follows that if there be neither any men Infallible in attesting nor in explaining those Writings all the World may be deceiv'd in performing both those duties and so all Mankind may be deceived both in judging the Scriptures which we now have to be the same book which was writ at first since there is no INFALLIBLE Attestation of it and also may be deceiv'd in judging there are not Contradictions in it since there is no Infallible Explanation of it to secure it from many such Imputations Evident in the bare Letter taking it as un explain'd or uninterpreted Any man of reason would think that to leave Scripture in such a pickle were but a slender provision to give it such a Certainty as will fit it to be a Rule of Faith if he but reflects that that Rule must be the Basis of all our Knowledg that God ever reveal'd any thing at all that is of all Mankinds way to salvation But suppose it thus granted that the will of God can be fufficienty declared to Men by writing in the manner declared above let 's see what follows 11. It is agreed among all Christians that although God in the first Ages of the VVorld did reveal his mind to men immediately by a voice or secret inspirations yet afterwards he did communicate his mind to some immediatly inspir'd to write his VVill in Books to be preserv'd for the benefit of future Ages and particularly that these Books of the New Testament which we now receive were so written by the Apostles and Disciples of Iesus Christ. This is granted only it is not agreed among all that bear the name of Christians of what nature this benefit is which God intended men in future Ages by the Scriptures whether of strengthening them in Faith and stirring them up to good Life or teaching them their Faith at first and assuring it to them nor how this benefit comes to be deriv'd to the Generality whether by Immediate reading and penetrating it themselves or through the Preaching and Instruction of some others deputed by God for that end who have Faith in their hearts already by some other Means But we are to expect Dr. St. will in the process of his discourse clear this point solidly and throughly for 't is the main hinge of all this Controveesie He goes forward thus 12. Such Writings have been received by the Christian Church of the first Ages as Divine and Infallible and being deliver'd down as such to us by an Vniversal consent of all Ages since they ought to be owned by us as the Certain Rule of Faith whereby we are to judge what the Will of God is in order to our salvation unless it appear with an Evidence equal to that whereby we believe those Books to be the Word of God that they were never intended for that end because of their obscurity or Imperfection This whole Paragraph amounts to one Proposition which is this such Writings viz. penn'd by men divinely inspir'd for the benefit of future Ages receiv'd at first and deliver'd down ever since as Divine and Infallible are to be held the Certain Rule of Faith unless there be Evidence of their Defectiveness equal to that of their being Gods Word Which is a bare Assertion neither prov'd from any Principle agreed or not agreed on and therefore perfectly Groundless and unprov'd and False into the bargain though the main stress of his whole discourse relies on it Now that 't is False I prove because its Contradictory is True For there may be writings penn'd by men Divinely inspir'd and deliver'd down to us as Divine and Infallible and yet we need not be bound to hold them the Rule of Faith though we have not equal Evidence of their defect as we have that they are the VVord of God Since to be writ by men divinely-inspir'd to be Divine Infallible and the word of God signifies no more but that they are perfectly Holy and True in themselves and beneficial to mankind in some way or other and this is the farthest these words will carry but that they are of themselves of sufficient Clearness to give sincerely-endeavouring persons such Security of their Faith while they rely on them as cannot consist with Error which is requisit to the Rule of Faith these words signifie not They may be most Holy they may be most True in themselves they may be exceedingly Vseful or Beneficial to mankind and yet not be endow'd with this Property which yet the RVLE OF FAITH must have And whereas he says they are for these reasons to be owned for the Rule of Faith that is we are for these reasons to judge and profess them such unless it appear with an equal evidence c. that they are defective sure he never understood what Iudging and Professing is built on who can make such a Discourse Our Assent or Iudgment is built on the Grounds or Reasons which conclude the thing to be as we judg and not on our seeing nothing to the contrary for in case the reasons produc'd conclude not the thing to
Christianity yet for any thing we know or these crafty common words inform us they have still all that is needfull to save them that is though they go wrong all their lives they are still all the while in the way to Heaven But I suppose Dr. St. means that no more is necessary for any ones salvation than just as much as he can understand in Scripture Which I wish he would once begin to set himself to prove make out by some convincing argument I am heartily weary of speaking still to his unprov'd and voluntary Assertions 14. To suppose the Books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any things necessary to be believed or practised are not contained in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the Writers with Insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first Ages with folly in believing the Fulness and Perfection of the Scriptures in order to salvation As far as I apprehend the foregoing Principle was intended to shew that Scripture was sufficirntly Intelligible to be the Rule of Faith and this under examination is to prove it to be the measure of Faith as he calls it Princ. 28. and all he contends here is that it CONTAINS all that is necessary TO BE BELIEV'D and practic'd And that we may not multiply disputes I grant those Holy Books contain all he pretends some way or other either Implicitly or Explicitly either in Exprest words or by necessary conâ—equence But that those Books contain or signifie for they are the same all that is to be believed and practiced so evidently that all persons who sincerely endeavor to know their meaning and this for all future Ages may thence alone as his discourse aims to evince that is without the Churches interpretation arrive to know what 's necessary for their salvation with such a Certainty as is requisite for the Nature and Ends of Faith and the Obligations annext to it I absolutely deny and if he means this by the word Perfection which he adds to Fulness I deny also that either the first Author can be charg'd with Fraud since he promis'd no such thing or the Writers with Insincerity since they were not commanded nor did intend thus to express it nor as far as appears had any order from God to set down his whole mind but only writ the several pieces of it occasionally nor did the Christian Church in the first Ages ever attribute to Scriptures such an Intelligibleness as that private persons should ground their Faith upon their Evidence without needing the Churches Interpretation if we speak of all points necessary to Mankinds salvation as he seems and ought to do And here I desire to enter this declaration to all the world that I attribute not the least Imperfection to the Holy Scriptures Every thing has all the Perfection it ought to have if it can do what it was intended to do and in the manner it was Intended Treatises of deep Philosophy are not Imperfect if they be not as plain as plainest Narrative Histories no not if they be ita editi ut non sint editi in case they were meant as a matter for the Author to explain and dilate upon to his Scholars nor are the Laws Imperfect though they often need Learned Judges to interpret them Nor are we to expect that the Prophecy of Isaiah should be as plain as the Law of Moses The Immediate End of writing each piece as far as appears to us was occasional St. Pauls Epistles were evidently so nor can I doubt but they were perfect in their kind and apt to signify competently to those to whom he writ what he intended so that if they had any farther doubt they might send to ask him or do it viva voce and yet we see that even in those days when the complexion of all the Circumstances was fresher and neerer then now some unlearned persons err'd damnably in mistaking and misconceiving them that is while they went about to frame their Faith out of them 'T is questionless also they rely'd upon them as Gods Word or dictated by the Holy Ghost else they had not so built upon them or adher'd to them They might sincerely endeavour too to know their meaning yet if the Writings were disproportion'd to their pitch they migh Erre damnably for all that What farther End God intended the H. Scriptures for appears not by any Expresse either promise or declaration of our Saviour but out of the knowledge that they were writ by persons divinely inspir'd and the Experience the Church had of their Vsefulness towards Instruction and Good Life joyn'd with the Common Knowledg we have that all Goods that come to the Church happen through the ordering of Gods Providence hence we justly conclude as Dr. St. well says that they were intended and writ also for the Benefit of future Ages And from their Vsefulness and the success of their Use we may gather how God intended them for the Church The Learned and stable sons of the Church read them with much fruit to excite their wills to Goodness The Pastore of the Church make excellent use of them in exhorting preaching catchising c. and in many other uses of this sort they are excellently beneficial which are so many that were it now seasonable for me to lay them open at large as I truly hold them none would think I had little Reverence for Scriptures but in deciding Controversies or finally silencing Hereticks as the Rule of Faith ought to do by the unavoidable evidence of the Text to private persons no use was ever made of them alone with any success as the Fathers also complain Unless the the Churches Authority going along animated the dead Letter in dogmatical passages and shew'd the sense of the places to have been perpetually held from the beginning and so give It the Sense Majesty Authority and Force of Gods VVord elevating it thus above the repute of being some private Conceit or Production of Skill and Wit interpreting the Letter Scripture then is perfect or has all due to the nature God intended it if duly made use of as the Churches best Instrument it be able to work those Effectâ— spoken of though it be not so Evident or self-authoriz'd as to be the Rule of Faith We give it absolute Pre-eminence in its kind that is above all other Writings that ever appear'd in the world but we prefer before it Tradition or Gods Church which is the Spouse of Christ the Pillar and Ground of Truth and consisting of the Living Temples of the H. Ghost for whose sole Good as its Final End Scripture it self was intended and written 15. These Writings being owned as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly reveal'd that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation there can be no necessity supposed of any Infallible society of men either