the Grounds of it even while he goes about to defend it These were my words then and I am sorry he would needs dare and provoke me to make them good In which if I have justified my self too particularly let him blame himself All this while I seriously declare that I am far from thinking that Dr. T. himself is not assur'd that there is a GOD and farther yet from imagining that already holding one he should hold it possible afterwards GOD should cease to be which ridiculous folly constant to his prevaricating humour he puts upon me p. 8. What I affirm is That his ill Principles do equivalently confess it possible there neither is nor ever was a GOD and this I have abundantly shown out of his own words Yet I doubt not but himself through GOD's Goodness has by Practical Self-evidence in the same manner the Vulgar who are no Speculaters or Scholars also have it absolute Certainty of the Existence of a Deity in despight of his weak Speculations nay that in this very Sermon he hath one or two Proofs which have in them the force of a Demonstration though his not understanding and so ill-managing of them and then calling them Probabilities has endeavour'd all that may be to render them good for nothing I end with some of his own words Pref. p. 37. That if Dr. T. did in truth believe that the Existence of a Deity or a Creation are as he says Serm. p. 20 so evident that they can hardly be made plainer than they are of themselves he should by all means have let them alone for they were in a very good condition to shift for themselvs but his blind and Sceptical way of proving them is enough to cast a mist about the clearest Truths in the world And I must take the liberty to admonish him that it lies not in the power of all the Enemies of Christianity in the world to do it half that Mischief as one Christian Divine may who by his earnestness manifests a desire to do the best he can by the vogue he bears seems able to do the best that may be done yet produces not any one proof which he vouches to be absolutely conclusive of the Truth either of Christianity or a Deity but rather by his carriage denies there are any such while he talks of Likelihood Probability more Credible Opinion Moral Certainty and such-like whose very names ought not to be heard or endur'd in a discourse aiming to settle the Grounds of Faith or the Tenet of a Deity Let him consider that he must take his measure of the Certainty of Grounds from the Object or Thing not from our freedom from doubt and such-like for these may be light and silly whereas the Grounds of Faith being â—aid by GOD must necessarily be wise and solid and so when look'd into Absolutely-Conclusive of the thing Let us then who hold a GOD leaving Creatures to their weaknesses vindicate our Maker from the scandalous Imputation of governing Mankind tyrannically by commanding us to assent thâ—t a thing is which at the same time we see may not be so obliging us to hold contrary to the Light of Nature and the very First Principles which Himself had ingrafted in us that what is is at the same time possible not to be and to profess a point True nay dy to attest its Truth which may perhaps be shown False to morrow nay which our selves see may be now False He tells us here in common p. 90 and he tels us truly that which way soever we turn our selvs we are incountred with Clear Evidences and sensible Demonstrations of a Deity Why does he then coming to make out that point say the nature of the thing will not bear clear Demonstration and that onely Mathematical matters are capable of it Why pursues he not such Proofs as these and makes them out and stands by them and reduces them to First Principles and so obliges Humane Nature to assent to them under evident forfeiture of their Sincerity and even Manhood Is he afraid clear Evidences and sensible Demonstrations will not necessarily conclude Why does he put Suppositions that the thing were and then argue thus blindly that since supposing it were it would give no more light of it self than it does therefore it is Is there any necessity for such a ridiculous perplexing and inconclusive method when we may vouch we have Clear Evidences and Demonstrations Lastly Why does he distrust the Objects strength and explain our Assurance of a Deity and Faith by Moral Certainty or such as will satisfie prudent men in humane Affairs Probabilities amassed together not doubting and other such-like feeble diminutive expressions Are not Clear Evidences and Sensible Demonstrations that is Demonstrations à posteriori in point of Certainty incomparably beyond such quivering Grounds and such dwindling Adhesions I wish Dr. T. would take these things into his better thoughts and at least by amending his Expressions and Reasons hereafter make some tolerable satisfaction for this intolerable Injury done to Faith and GOD's Church DISCOURSE VI. That Dr. T. makes all the Grounds of Christian Faith Possible to be False Of Infallibility Demonstration and Moral Certainty § 1. THus much to justifie my first Charge that Dr. T. made that Fundamental Tenet of a Deity and consequently all Religion Possible to be False My second Charge is that he particularly makes all Christian Faith possible to be false and 't is found Faith Vindicated p. 171. where I put down his own words which concern that purpose though he who presuming on the Partiality of his Friends takes the Liberty to say any thing which even Eye-sight may Confute assures his Reader pag. 5. that I durst not Cite them I laid my Charge in this Tenor 'T is necessarily consequent from the foregoing Paragraphs that if I have Discours't right in this small Treatise of mine and have proved that Faith and consequently its Grounds must be Impossible to be False then Mr. T.'s Confession p. 118. to which Mr. St.'s Doctrine is Consonant that It is possible to be otherwise that is to be False that any Book is so Antient as it pretends to be or that it was Written by him whose Name it bears or that this is the sence of such and such Passages in it is a clear Conviction that neither is the Book-Rule he maintains the True Rule of Faith § 3. Nor have he and his Friends True Faith § 4. And consequently there being no other Rule owned taking away Private Spirit but Tradition that Tradition is the only-True Rule of Faith § 6. and so the main of Sure-Footing stands yet firm And lastly 't is evinc't that his own Book which opposes it opposes the only-True because the only Impossible-to-be-False Ground of Faith that is he is convinc't in that Supposition to go about to undermine all Christian Faith Whence the Title of his Probable-natur'd Book Rule of Faith is manifested to be an improper Nickname
would believe him That my Principles do plainly exclude from Salvation at one blow Excommunicate Vnchristian all that do not believe upon my Grounds And nothing is easier than to prove it in his way 'T is but mistaking again the Notion of School-Divines for the Notion of Faithful and School for Church as he did lately and the deed is done immediately without any more trouble He is the happiest man in his First Principles and his Method that I ever met with the parts of the former need not hang together at all but are allow'd to be Incoherent and the later is a building upon false pretences and wrong Suppositions and then what may not he prove or what Conquest cannot he obtain by such powerful Stratagems He sayes he has proov'd at large in the Answer to Sure-Footing that the Council of Trent did not make Oral Tradition the sole Rule of her Faith Possibly I am not so lucky as to light on this large Proof of his all I can finde with an ordinary search is four or five lines Rule of Faith pag. 280. where after a commonly-Objected often-answer'd Citation from the Council of Trent declaring that Christian Faith and Discipline are contain'd in written Books unwritten Traditions therefore that they receive honor the Books of Scripture also Traditions with equal pious affection and reverence He adds which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith Now I had put this very Objection against my self Sure-f pag. 346. and proceeded to clear it to the end of pag. 150. particularly pag. 147.149 upon this Reason because taking the Scripture interpreted by Tradition as the Council expresses it self to do and forbids any man to interpret it otherwise it has the full Authority of Gods Word and so equally to be reverenced Whereas taking it interpreted by private heads which only will serve Dr T's turn 't is nothing less as not engaging the Divine Authority at all But now to the Notion of a Rule there is more required as Dr. T. himself grants and contends 't is found in Scripture viz. that it be so evident that every sensible may understand it as to matters of Faith and this building on the Council of Trents Authority and Judgment I deny to be found in the bare Letter of Scripture and hence say 't is no Rule I omit the repeating very many Arguments from the Council for that point deduc't from pag. 141. to pag. 146. never toucht nor so much as taken notice of in that Mock-Answer of his § 16. But that he may not mistake me I shall not stick to declare whom I exclude from Salvation at least from the way to it whom not and upon what Grounds speaking of the ordinary course of Gods Providence as I declare my self to do throughout this whole Treatise I make account that perfect Charity or Love of God above and in all things is the Immediate Disposition to Bliss or Vnitive of a Soul to God Also that this Virtue cannot with a due heartiness be connaturally or rationally wrought in Souls if the Tenet of a Deity 's Existence and of Christian Faith be held possible to be a Ly. Hence I am oblig'd by my Reason to hold that those who judge there are no absolueely-Conclusive Reasons for the Existence of a Deity nor for the Truth of Christian Faith are as such out of the Road of Salvation On the other side those who hold the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truths they profess Infallible and by Consequence their Faith Impossible to be False as all Catholikes do though as Divines they fail in making out how and by what particular means it comes to be Infallible yet through the virtue of this firm and steady Adhesion to such Principles as are because they are Truths apt to beget solid and well-grounded that is indeed True Virtues such as are a vigorous Hope and a fervent and all-ovre-powering Charity hence they possess the Connatural Means or are in the right way to Heaven And for this Reason I esteem Dr. T 's way of discoursing concerning a Deity and Faith in his Sermons most pestilent and mischievous to Souls as being apt of its own Nature to incline them if they have wit to discern its shallowness first to a kind of Scepticism in Religion and at next to Carelesness Irreligion and Atheism though truly I think 't is not his Intention to do so but that his shortness in Understanding the Nature and Grounds of Christianity makes him conceit he does excellently even to admiration all the while he commits such well-meaning Follies Nor do I think the Church of England will upon second thoughts think fit to Patronize Principles so destructive to the Nature of Faith found in the breast of every Protestant I ever yet met with who all with one mouth will own that 't is absolutely Impossible Christian Faith should be a Lye and abhor the contrary Position as wicked and damnable How Dr. T. may have season'd some of his own Auditors by preaching Controversy to them which he extremely affects I cannot tell 't is according as they incline to believe him more than the Generality of the Christian World whose Sentiments he opposes in his Discourses about the Ground of Faith DISCOURSE VIII With what Art Dr. T. answers my METHOD A Present made to his Credulous Friends shewing how solidly he confuted SVRE-FOOTING by readily granting the main of the Book What is meant by Tradition That J. S. is not singular in his way of discoursing of the Grounds of Faith § 1. HE makes a pass or two at my METHOD and that I conceive must serve for an Answer to it for an Answer I heard was threatned would appear very shortly but this pleasant Preface was the only thing which appeared and all that appears like Answer in it is that he would make it believ'd he ought not answer at all And this he does very neatly and like a Master For let no man think I have a mean Opinion of Dr. T. but every one is not good at all things some are good at proving some at disproving some at shifting of the Question without either proving or disproving every one in his way and in his way I know no man living a greater Master nor so great as the Dr. Two things he does and both of them strange ones First he affirms that Discourse is founded on the self-evident Infallibility of ora◠Tradition Next that He has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Surefooting The first of them would make the Reader apprehend I there suppos'd Oral Tradition self-evidently Infallible and then run on all the way upon that supposition which if it obtain belief as from his Credit he hopes it may since every Scholar knows all Discourses must be founded either on first Principles or at least on such as are granted by those against whom we
argue he sees I must needs be held the most ridiculous Discourser that ever spoke or writ to build a whole Treatise upon a Supposition unprov'd and which begs the whole Question Now whatever I concluded in that short Discourse I deduced step by step and made the foregoing Proposition draw still after it by undeniable Consequence the following one He concealing all mention of Proof or endeavour of it calls my Conclusions Principles and then who would think but that I had laid them to build that Discourse upon them and deserted my usual way of beginning with the known Natures of the Things in hand as I there did with those of Rule and Faith and from them proceeded minutely to whatever I concluded Had his Friend Dr. St. taken the same course his Principles would have evidently discovered their own weakness of themselves and had excus'd others the unnecessary trouble of answering them Next he makes me say that the Infallibility of this Rule is evident to common Sense and says himself that the Foundation of this Method is the self-evident infallibility of Oral Tradition by which words an honest Reader would verily think I suppos'd it gratis to be sâ—lf-evident to common Sense and never troubled my self to prove it whereas though I indeed hold 't is practically self-evident of which I have elsewhere given account yet I proceeded as if I did not but proved § 8. out of the Natures of Rule and Faith that the Rule of Faith whatever it be must be Infallible § 10. that therefore Scripture's Letter is not that Rule and § 11. that Tradition is The Reader being thus questionless well dispos'd to think it very unnecessary he should consider as he calls it or answer any passage of a thing made up of unprov'd Principles or built on an unprov'd Supposition he tels him farther that he has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Sure-footing whence he is not concern'd to take notice of it at present And so the business is done for why should he take pains to give answer to that which deserves none or if it did is answered This Reason though by the way is a little open For in case I did bring any Arguments in my Method to make good that Tradition is an Infallible Rule of Faith and this after I had seen and perhaps sufficiently consider'd too what he replies to Surefooting for any thing appears I may either have amended the Reasons given in Surefooting or produc't better in my Method and so whatever he has said to Surefooting it might have been proper to have considered and said something to the Method too unless he could say with truth that he had already answered the veâ—y Reasons urg'd in It which I do not remember he has nor am confident himself neither § 2. But yet â—o instance in this one passage how rare a piece his cry'd-up Rule of Faith is and how excellently it answers Surefooting let us â— little reflect what this sufficient consideration of his â—mounts to Surefooting was divided into two parts The first from the Properties of a Rule of Faith proved that Tradition was that Rule and this was the business of that Book from the beginning to pag. 57. and particularly of the 5 th Discourse whose Title was Of the Notion of Tradition and that all the Properties of the Rule of Faith do clearly agree to it The 2 d. part begins Discourse 6. and endeavors to demonstrate the Indefectiveness of Tradition or that it has hitherto ever been followed The Confutation of my first part ends in his Rule of Faith pag. 150 the Answer to my 2 d. begins pag. 151. or these two the former was in a manner the whole concern of my Book For if it were prov'd that Tradition was the Rule of Faith that is the only Conveyer of Christs Doctrine hitherto it must either be said by those against whom I argue that it hath not been hitherto convey'd to us at all and so that there are no Christians in the world which they will not say or else that those who proceed upon Tradition for their Rule are the right Christians Whence the later part was only ex abundanti not of absolute necessity especially in case I argu'd ad hominem This being so let Dr. T's Friends and mine when they hap to discourse about us please to send for his Book and mine and with aâ— equal partiality distrusting us both rely upon Sir Tho. Moors pair of honest unbyass'd witnesses Their own Eyes They will find that his Rule of Faith undertakes pag. 146. to answer my 5 th Disc. which pretended to shew that all the properties of the Rule of Faith do clearly agree to Tradition and thence concluded Tradition The Rule of Faith and accordingly quotes pag 41. where that Discourse began in Surefooting They will see the Title of his Sect. 6. which he uses to put in the Margin is That the Properties of a Rule of Faith do not belong to Oral Tradition Now I assigned seven such Properties Surefoot pag. 11 and 12. He was pleas'd to make but two Part. 2. Sect. 1. Sufficiently plain sufficiently certain Coming then at the bottom of pag. 148. to confute that whole Discourse which was the most substantial part of my Book and contained the most pressing Arguments to my main purpose he compleats his answer to it in one single page viz. 149. nay in one piece of that Page This would seem strange and something difficult if any thing were so to Dr. T. and his singular Method of answering Books All sayes he that he pretends to prove in this Discourse is that if this Rule hath been followed and kept to all along the Christian Doctrine neither has nor can have received any change 'T is all indeed I pretended and all I desired to prove for certainly if it can preserve Christian Doctrine unchanged it has in it the Nature of a Rule and what has in it the Nature of a Rule is I conceive a Rule whether it have been followed or not which is a Question I had not then examined but reserved to my following Discourses To this then after his sufficient consideration What sayes the Dr. All this sayes he is readily granted him For my part I have no reason to except against that answer for all my Writing aims at is that people should see the Truâ—h and acknowledge it and since he readily grants all I pretend to prove I were very unreasonable if I should not be contented Though if I were dispos'd to be cross this word readily is something liable to exception After he has employ'd a good part of his Book in preparing to speak to the main Question in dividing and subdividing and playing all the tricks which may make it look like an Answer and when he comes to the Question to grant it because he could do no other is indeed to grant it but not very readily People will not think he was very ready to
earnestly with me to surcease They alledged that unpassionate Examiners might easily discover by what had been done already how frivolous and insignificant the whole way was which my Adversary took and that another and more convictive Reply might possibly heighten the anger to fatal extremities That if I were less sensible of my own safety I should yet have regard to my Friends and all Catholicks that it was to be feared that an exception against a particular person might in that Iuncture be enhanc'd to a Crime of the Whole and the crossing the humour or interest of that implacable Party raise the storm of the Great Diana of the Ephesians and give the Gospel-Trumpeters occasion to sound out aloud Papa ad Portas To this was joyned for why should I be ashamed to acknowledge my Poverty into which that Persecution had driven me that I had written more then I was able to print In fine Authority and Reason and Necessity prevail'd with me and I forbore to finish what I had begun and to publish what I had finish'd But yet the desire I had to be instrumental in settling so important a Truth suggested to me a middle way which as I hoped would be incapable to be wrested into offence so I saw plainly would be much more beneficial to the world and to the Learned more satisfactory I had observ'd in the Sermon which Dr. T. call'd the Wisdom of being Religious a Concession which amounted to this that the very Tenet of a Deity might possibly be false I saw the same sence often imply'd in his Rule of Faith and p. 1â—8 plainly own'd I perceiv'd and knew all men of insight must needs perceive with me that as this was the onely material so 't was a full Answer to my Book and rendred the disquisition whether this or that be the Rule of Faith very superfluous if it might be maintained It had no Rule at all nor was capable of any For a Rule speaking of an Intellectual Rule as both of us do being a means to make us certainly know something to be a Truth He who says that thing may possibly be false or not be a Truth says it neither has nor can have any Rule I resolved therefore to write a Treatise in behalf of Christian Faith in common in which I endeavoured to demonstrate from all Heads I could invent that the Generality of Christians or those who rely on the common Motives left by God to the Church as I exprest my self in my Introduction the assent called Faith must be Impossible to be False or Erroneous And applying this to Dr. T. and his Adherents who as I shew'd from his own words granted his Assent built on that which he esteems his onely Rule of Faith possible to be false I concluded them beyond all possibility of evasion not to have true Faith nor be truly Faithful And this I conceive was to follow on my blow as I had promised it being unimaginable how the Controversie could be prest more home than to conclude my Adversary and his whole Cause from the very An Est of Faith the Subject of our Dispute nor how his whole Book which he calls the Rule of Faith can be more fundamentally overthrown than by shewing from his own words and the Nature of the Thing that his mis-called Faith has no Rule at all nor can have any I conceiv'd too that this was to make good the engagement into which I had enter'd to force them either to lay Principles which would bear the Test or let all the world see they had none For in case they did manifest their Faith Impossible to be False they must of necessity build it upon such Grounds as would sustain such a Building if they did not the World must needs judge by their silence that they had none and that they knew and confest they could not evidence themselves truly Faithful and right Christians I saw besides that this method permitted me to pursue a rational close way of Discourse without the continual interruption which the insisting upon my Adversaries mistakes must needs occasion which as it was more satisfactory to me and more creditable to my Cause so I judg'd it more beneficial to the intelligent Reader for a particular Answer must of necessity be made up for the greatest part of accusations where the Answerer thinks it his best play to mistake all along instead of direct confuting I cannot say I am in the right but I must say likewise that who says otherwise is in the wrong and that he either misunderstands or misrepresents and this either ignorantly or wilfully to show which is a task no more pleasant to the Reader than the Writer People being of opinion and I think they have great reason that the time and pains spent in such wranglings might with much more advantage be employ'd in convincing the Truth in question Lastly my aim was from the beginning to bring Controversies to a Conclusion in order to which I had proposed a Conclusive Method my Adversary neither accepted of mine nor proposed any other of his own as I had desired And I saw that by proceeding with him in his talking fashion the Point might come to be lost in a Wilderness of Unconnected Words Wherefore I judg'd it better to pursue my design more closely and by the bare stating the Nature of Christian Faith to reduce all Disputes to this short Period Either produce and vouch such Grounds for your Faith as are Impossible to be False or 't is evident you have none It seemed by the Event the way I took was not ill chosen Dr. T. being still able to boast his Book was not particularly answer'd and so uphold his Credit with those who look not deeply into Things seem'd by his silence well-appay'd and I heard of no more extraordinary Anger against me And for my part I was contented that superficial People should judge as their wit serv'd them it being abundant satisfaction to my Labours that Intelligent and Insighted Persons might perceive by them how matters stood and into how narrow a compass Controversie was reduced And of this I have ample experience from the most Iudicious of our Nation who unanimously assur'd me that it was impossible to carry things farther or bring Controversie to a shorter Method since now the whole Cause depended upon one single Proposition by the sole examination of which it was to be decided Thus stood the Controversie and thus for some years it rested For the future I intended when it might be seasonable to write onely such Grounds as I judged might be a solid Foundation for Union which as I have always look'd upon as the best of Works so I know 't is Impossible till order be first taken to secure the Absolute and Immoveable Certainty of Faith it self which I think is not otherwise to be done then by shewing how and which way it comes to be Certain In this Calm I heard several reports that the
and the Book it self to merit no Reply You see here Gentlemen how great stress I lay upon Dr. T.'s confession that the Ground of his Faith and consequently his Faith it self is possible to be False And really if he clears himself of it I must acknowledg I suffer a very great Defeat because I so much Build upon it If he does not he is utterly overthrown as to all intents and purposes either of being a good Writer or a solid Christian Divine and he will owe the World satisfaction for the Injury done to Faith and the Souls of those whom his Doctrine has perverted by turning their Faith which ought to be an Assent whose Grounds and consequently it self are Impossible to be an Error or False into Opinion whose Grounds and by consequence it self are possible to be such and lastly unless he Avoids or Râ—â—ants this Error objected all he has Written 〈◊〉 â—â—nvinc't without any more ado to be againâ—â—â—ith and its true Grounds and so it will be quite overthrown in the Esteem of all those who have the Nature of Faith writ in their hearts and that 't is Impossible an Act of right Faith that is an Asseâ—â— built on those Grounds God has left in the Church for Mankind to embrace Faith and commanded them to believe upon those Grounds whether Scripture's Letter or the Churches Voice should be an Error or the Profession of it a Lye which all sober Protestants Presbyterians nay almost all Sects except some few witty men inclining much by reading such Authours to Scepticism that is inclining to be nothing at all perhaps some Socinians reject abhominate and hate with all their hearts The Charge is laid and the Case is put now let us come to the Trial Which ere we do I desire those Readers who have Dr. T.'s Preface by them to read his 9 th page or else his whole page 118. in his Rule of Faith lest either of us may injure him by a wrong Apprehension I discourse thus § 2. First 't is Evident that he who makes the Ground and Rule of Faith possible to be False makes Faith it self such likewise since nothing is or can be stronger than the Grounds it stands on Next the Rule of Faith to Dr. T. is the Scripture's Letter and consequently that what he conceives the Sense of the Scripture is God's Sense or Faith Lastly that in the place now Cited and Related by him he speaks of the Authority of the Book of Scripture and of its Sence as he acknowledges here page 15. These things thus premised I put him this Dilâ—mma Either he holds what he conceives to to be the Sence of Scripture that is his Faith True or he does not If he holds it not to be True then 't is unavoidable he must hold it at least possible to be False if not actually such But if he says he holds it to be True then since after he had spoke of the security he had or had not of the Book and Sense of Scripture he immediately subjoyns these very words It is possible all this â—ay be otherwise He as evidently says that what he conceives the Book of Scripture and Sence of such or such passages in it that is his Faith is possible to be False as 't is that what 's OTHERWISE THAN TRVE is False I do not know how Dr. T. could possibly speak more plainly what I charge him with than he has done in those words unless he should use the word False which too Candid and Rude expression would expose him openly to the dislike of all Sober mâ—n and therefore he disguiz'd it in its more moderate Equivalent otherwise I say Equivalent And if it be not I would gladly know of him what the word otherwise relates to Human Language forbids that any thing can be said to be otherwise unless it be otherwise than something I ask then otherwise than what does he mean when being in the Circumstance of Discoursing what security he had of the Antiquity Writers and Sence of Scripture he told us It is possible to may be otherwise Is it not as evident as words can express he must mean It is possible the Book of Scripture is not so antiâ—nt as the Apostles time It is possible it was not Writ by the Apostles and Evangelists It is possible this is not the Sence of it in such passages as concern Faith for to these and these only our Discourse and the Nature and Title of his Book determin'd it which amounts to this that none has absolute Certainty of either Letter or Sence of Scripture nor consequently of his Faith in case it be solely grounded upon that as he professes See Reader how all Truths even the most Sacred ones go to wrack when men fram'd only for fine Talk undertake to prove and how parallel his defence of the Ground of all Christian Faith is to that he gave us lately of the Existence of a Deity He so prov'd a God that he granted it possible there might be none and now he so proves Scripture to be a Rule that he grants it possible it may be no Rule since common Sence tells us that can never be an Intellectual Rule which followed may lead into Errour By which we see Dr. T. needed here the Blessing as he calls it of that Identical Proposition A Rule 's a Rule else he would not write a Book to prove Scripture a Rule and then ever and anon in equivalent Language tell us 't is none I wish he would now and then reflect upon such Evident Truths and not out of an openly-declar'd Feud against those First Principles fall thus perpetually into manifest Contradictions § 3. But how does Dr. T. clear himself of this Charge of mine or how comes he off from his own words First he again puts down those very words which say over and over what I charge upon him and then asks very confidently where he says any such thing which is just as wise a craft as Children use when they hoodwink themselves and then tell the By-standers they shall not see them Next he tells us that All he sayes is that we are not Infallible in judging of the Antiquity of a Book or the sence of it meaning that we cannot demonstrate these things so as to to shew the contrary necessarily involves a contradiction but yet c. Is this all he sayes What then is become of those famous words It is possible all this may be otherwise which were onely objected But let us examine what he does acknowledge Whether he be Infallibly certain or no it matters not but it should be shewn why if Scripture be the sole Ground of Faith some at least in the World who are to Govern and Instruct the Church should not be thus certain of both in case we be bound to assent and as we questionless are dy to attest the Points of our Faith to be absolutely-certain Truths Again if Dr. T. be not Infallibly certain
and so we may call them Moral Christians which Epithet being opposite to Absolute signifies they are not absolutely Christians and since nothing is indeed that which 't is not absolutely it 's true sence is that they are indeed no Christians yet since they like the word Moral so extremely well when they are to express the certainty due to Faith 't is but fitting they should wear it when we express them as Faithful Though then The Hopeful seems very well to represent their humour yet 't is but fitting they should have the Priviledge of naming themselves and Moral Christians let them be Against these Moral Christians and Them onely I discourse in this present Treatise But what have I to do with the Persons I doubt not but Gods Goodness the Method of whose Gracious Providence is to support the Failings of his Creatures as far as the Natures of Particular Things and the Order of the World will permit very often supplies the Defects of Mens Speculations with Connatural ways of Knowledge fixing them thus in a strong Adherence to the most Concerning Truths by ways which even their unreflecting selves are not aware of Whence I am the farthest from judging any Mans Person perhaps of any living and endeavour all I can to retain a Charitable Opinion even of Dr. T's Personal Intentions in common and excuse him diverse times in this very Treatise where I write against him as far as Evidence of the contrary will give me leave 'T is this wicked Tenet then and It onely which I combat at present and which I see plainly so unsettles unhinges and renders useless and ineffectual all Christianity that I ought to declare an utter and irreconcileable Enmity against It and that I shall through GOD's Assistance prosecute it home to the very doors of Scepticism the Bane of all Humane Science as well as Faith in whose gloomy Grott situate in the Confines of dark Ignorance Mankind's Natural Hell they first saw the twilight or rather indeed were born blind Yet it cannot be expected that declaring as I do a just Indignation against this wicked Tenet I should treat a Writer favourably considering him precisely as a Maintainer of it or bear my self respectfully to those insincere and unhandsome Methods and Ways which he makes use of to abet It and prejudice the Sacred Truth it opposes whether those ways be Sophisms in Reasoning or else Scurrility supplying the place of Reason the main Engine employ'd in this Preface I shall then take a little of that much liberty he uses to give them the Entertainment and Return due in Iustice to their Demerits Yet that I may avoid all just occasion of offence I shall endeavour for the most part to use his own words omitting still the rudest hoping he will have less Reason to be angry at his own Eccho since if he had not Originiz'd it it had not reflected And if he assum'd to himself the freedom to abound so with Irony and wholly neglect speaking to my Reasons of which whatever they be none can deny but that I use to have good store in my Writings I hope it will not be indecent if now and then I speak to those plausible Ironies themselves there being nothing else to refute otherwise since according to Dr. T's Method of Disputing these are my onely Confuters and full of Brag and Triumph he and his Friends would most certainly have pretended as they did formerly on the like occasion that Inability to reply had caus'd my desistance I come then to examine this spruce Preface in doing which I must be forc'd to lay open at large his knack of answering Books that so I may have just Title to make some Requests to You our Umpires in behalf of the Rights proper to Learning Declaring before-hand that where-ever I am large in any Discourse becoming a Scholar 't is not a Duty paid to his Preface which has nothing like a show of solid Scholarship in it but a Respect due to You our Learned Iudges to whom I Appeal INDEX ASsent Dissent and Suspense pag. 81 82 c. Catholick Divines vindicated p. 18 179. Certainty of Scriptures Letter and Sense deny'd by Dr. T. p. 120 121 151. asserted by J. S. p. 121 122. Definitions of General Councils why necessary p. 181 182. Demonstration p. 41 42 43 119 120 174. found in Ethicks and Physicks p. 57. to 63. First Principles Identical Propositions p. 7. to 41. Dr. T 's Firm Principle shown weak p. 71 72 c. Freedom from doubt not sufficient for Faith p. 84. to 94. p. 124. to 128. Infallibility asserted p. 64. to 67.112 to 116. requisite to Assent and Faith p. 68 69. In what sence it admits of degrees p. 138. to â— 141. Unlearned Believers how Infallible p. 134 135 136 181. Moral Certainty p. 141. to 147. Objections from Catholick Divines refuted p. 175. to 179. Practical Self-evidence p. 4 5 6 116 117. Prudential Grounds incompetent for Faith p. 142 to 146. Scriptures Letter no Rule Pref. p. 5 6 7.199 200. Tradition the Rule of Faith p. 32 33 183. Granted to be such by Dr. T. p. 192. to p. 200. Held by other Catholick Divines in J. S. his sense p. 212. to 216. Explained p. 202. to 212. It s Certainty how a First Principle and Self-evident p. 3 4. A Full Answer to Dr. T's Preface with an Examination of his Grounds of Religion DISCOURSE I. Clearing the way to the following ones by manifesting his two Fundamental Exceptions to be perfectly Injust and voluntarily Insincere § 1. HIs Preface begins p. 3. with two Charges viz. That I still persist to maintain after so fair an Admonition that first and self evident Principles are fit to be demonstrated to which he addes a Third that I make Identical Propositions to be First Principles in the matter under dispute He argues too against the two former imaginary Assertions of mine which in this Preface is a rare thing thus p. 37. There can be nothing to make First Principles more Evident because there is nothing before them to demonstrate them by And I acknowledge the reason given to be as victorious as any passage in his Rule of Faith where he has multitudes of such wrong-aim'd Arguments intended I conceive to shew how far his Reason can carry when it shoots at rovers for 't is levell'd at no mark But observe I beseech you Gentlemen how I am dealt with and let these two leading Cases discovering his way of Confute obtain a just suspence of your Judgments concerning all his other performances till you see them examined § 2. In Sure footing p. 114. 2d Edit which I stâ—ll quote I deduc'd two Propositions the former that Tradition is the First Principle IN WAY OF AVTHORITY as it engages for matter of Fact long ago past or as in other places I therefore name it FIRST AUTHORITY because 't is manifest that the Authentication of Books and Monuments all depend upon Tradition The other was
whatever is good in those Acts of Faith is refunded into God the Author of every good Gift as its Original Cause what Defective into the Limitedness and Imperfection of Creatures § 5. This Tenet of Infallibility which unprejudic'd Nature teaches even the rudest in things subject to Sense and common Reason and Learned men in things provable by exact Art the Adversaries of true Certainty our Scepticks in Religion endeavour to render ridiculous and cast a mist about it by the most unreasonable pretence that ever was invented which is to affirm that a man cannot be Infallible in one thing but he must be so in all As if I could not infallibly know what 's done in my Chamber or practic'd openly amongst those I converse with but I must be likewise infallible in knowing what is done in the Moon And Dr. T. is one of these for Contradiction is as natural to him as 't is to a fish to swim who tells us here pag. 19. That Omniscience within a determinate Sphere is an Infinite within a finite Sphere as if it were very evident that to know All in such a matter is to know Infinit or all things in the World or so hard to comprehend that one may know all the money in ones Purse without knowing all the money that is extant or all the men in the room without knowing all Mankind I wish Dr. T. would shew us why knowing all in such a particular matter must needs argue an Infinit knowledg or why the knowing all things in a determinate Sphere which last words when he came to answer that is break his Jests our Prevaricator prudently omitted may not consist with an ignorance of many things out of that Sphere Must the word All in such a matter needs signifie Infinit or did the commonest Reason ever thus go wrack I suppose my Friends resolute hazard against Identical Propositions made him fall into this more than childish mistake For this plain Truth What 's all but in one matter onely is all but in one matter onely had preserv'd him from this Nonsense but he took this for his Ground to proceed upon that All in one matter onely 〈◊〉 All in every matter or which is more is Infinit and so still he continues most learnedly to lay Contradictions for his First Principles because their Interest and his are inseparably linkâ— against the Common Enemy Identical Propositions This I must confess is a very smart and ingâ—nious kind of reasoning and proper to Dr. T. unless perhaps his sworn Brother at hating First Principles and Papists put in for a share It appears by a certain Paper called Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet he is a strong pretender and will cry halfs But 't is time now to return to examine his Answer § 6. It is not necessary indeed to Truth that every one should demonstrate a thing so as to shew that the contrary necessarily involves â— Contradiction for the same thing may be known also through Practical Self-evidence to those who cannot demonstrate but yet the thing must be demonstrable else 't is not Knowable or Ascertainable For Demonstrable is a plain honest word what game soever Dr. T. and his Friend make at it and imports no more abstracting from subtle quirks but only Capable to be known or Intellectually seen by way of Proof whence a Learned man who goes about to prove any thing by strength of severe Reason ought either to demonstrate it or he falls short of his Dâ—â—y Once more I desire Dr. T. to take me right and to reflect that when I say The Thing is Demonstrable or pretend to demonstrate I do not take the word Demonstration with all those many subtleties and perquisits the Schools require I as little love niceties as any man living and can as easily dispense with them so the solid part be well provided for and the Truth of the Thing establisht which if it be not done I make account nothing is done in these cases in which Assent dying to attest things to be Truths are required I onely mean then by Demonstration such a Proof as is taken not from any Exrinsecal consideration as is Authority which grounds Belief but from the intrinsecal Nature of the Thing or Subject in Dispute and such a Proof as necessarily concludes the Thing to be which cannot be possibly done without engaging finally some Identical Proposition or that Things being what it is on which all is built Now this being evidently so and if it be not let Dr. T. shew the contrary I would ask our verbal Divine why he ought not to demonstrate that is prove by necessary concluding Argument both the Letter and Sence of Scripture if he would have men assent most firmly to Faith built according to him solely upon their Certainty Is it not his intent in his Discourses to Conclude what he speaks of How can he do this unless he shews the Conclusion necessarily follows Again does he not intend to conclude 't is a Truth that this is the Letter and Sence of Scripture He must do so or else he can never pretend that Faith built upon it is Truth And if he proves it Truâ— must he not at the same time prove it's Contradictory False And is any thing False but what says a Thing is so when indeed 't is not so or is not so when indeed 't is so which is a direct Contradiction Wherefore Dr. T. can never Conclude a thing to be True unless he brings a Proof necessarily engaging the Nature of the Thing that is unless according to my sence of the Word he both Demonstrates and also shews the contrary necessarily to involve a Contradiction Both these satisfactory Certainties my Grounds attribute to Scriptures Letter and Sence See Surâ—f pag. 116 117 in points appertaining to Faith and he here denies both pag. 10. whence is seen which of us two has more real Honour and Respect for Scripture He who makes neither its Letter or Sence to have any Grounds able to ascertain them that is as to our purpose makes them good for nothing or I who grant and prove both § 7. I suppose Dr. T will say again as he did in that point of a Deity that the nature of the Thing will not bear a Certainty of Scriptures Letter or Sence that so he may be true to his firm Principle and make all Faith alike uncertain I answer the more blame will fall to their share who take away the Certainty of that which is the first Principle in way of Authority or First Authority namely TRADITION which and onely which can Authenticate Books and the thing being of high Concern Practically carry down the same Doctrine and so easily preserve the Book significative of the same Sence Noâ— doubt I but 't is demonstrable that the Practice of England and the Concern of the thing joyn'd with the necessary Evidence of any Alteration in a matter daily so nicely Canvast and continually Us'd can and
the Motives laid by God for Mankind or his Church to embrace Faith are possible to be False As if the simplest could not nay were not most likely of all other to believe upon weak and incompetent Motives which therefore could never have been laid by God for his Church to embrace her Faith upon Or as if the most Simple that are could not rationally believe the Church and so become Infallible in their Assents by adhering to her though their weak understandings do not penetrate or comprehend how the Church or themselves come to be so nay perhaps have not a clear sight of what the word Infallible means till some Discourse awaken the apprehension of it in them § 10. Having thus acted the Disputant Exit Theologus intrat Scuâ—ra and pag. 13.14 plays the old Tricks of Legerdemain over again that is leaves out half an Argument of mine and playâ— upon the other half with all the disingenuous craft a wit bent that way could invent In Faith Vindicated pag. 89. and 90. I discours't thus The profound Mysteries of Faith will seem to a Heathen Impossible to be True therefore the Motives must at least seem Impossible to be False but Dr. T. confesses both Letter and Sence of Scripture which are his Rule of Faith possible to be False nor it being an Object proportion'd to humane Reason is there any thing to make it seem better than it is that is to make it seem Impossible to be False therefore were there no better Grounds than his it would be against all Reason to believe Having view'd my Discourse I desire the Reader to peruse the Answer here given by my Confuter He names the word Argument says two pretty words upon it that 't is pleasant and surprizing leaves out better half of it conceals perfectly all that part of it which concludes strongly against his own insufficient Grounds catches at a word and would make my Discouse and Argument aim to prove Faith Impossible to be False because the Motives are only seemingly such Whereas every Page in that Book and its whole Design shews I meant and prov'd them to be actually really and indeed such Had I a mind to evade such petty Cavils I could alledg that both may seem Impossible to be False yet one more seem so than the other But the Truth is advancing to confute him I argu'd ad hominem and contended that against a seeming Impossibility to be True nothing but Motives seemingly Impossible to be False can with any show of Reason be held convictive but he had no Motives even seemingly Impossible to be False but confessedly Possible to be such therefore they had no imaginable show of Convictiveness I grant then 't is a drawn Match as he calls it between equally-seeming Impossibilities and because 't is so therefore a seeming Impossibility to be True in the Object is by much an overmatch to what 's less than a seeming Impossibility to be False in the Motives or Grounds but both Letter and Sence of Scripture his Grounds of Faith are confessedly possible to be otherwise that is False and so are less than seemingly even to himself impossible to be False therefore his Motives to believe are incomparably overmatcht by the difficulty of the Mysteries to be believed and so there could be rationally according to his Grounds no Faith at all This is my true Argument which perhaps might be surprizing to him which made him thus start aside from putting or answering it though we may perceive by his carriage he esteems not it and others such like very pleasant Indeed he still puts on a pleasant Look when he should be Sober and is ever most Merry when it becomes him to be the most Serious but this is long since understood to be a necessary Policy not a Genuine effect of Nature He tells us that Transubstantiation is evidently Impossible to be True If so then it implies some Contradiction which if he shows me in any thing held of Faith by Catholicks in that Point I will become Dr. T's Convert and obedient Auditor But alas How will he prove any thing to be a Contradiction Since those Faulty Propositions are as was prov'd Disc. 2.3 therefore such because they are Opposite to Identical ones or the First Principles as hath been prov'd Seeing then Dr. T. has long since renounc't all those from being First Principles for any thing I can discern he must either hold there are no Contradictions at all or else which comes to the same hold that Contradictions are Truths § 11. But he goes forwards amain in confuting a Point which no man living ever maintain'd viz. that every single Christian must be Infallible that is as Dr. T. will needs take it must so penetrate his Grounds and what relates to them as to see clearly he cannot be deceivâ—d in judging his Grounds of Faith Conclusive Whereas my Tenet is that let any man though of the Acutest Understanding and greatest Learning that may be entertain any Tenet as Faith oâ— Reveal'd by God upon any other Motive than what God has lost to his Church this man however thus Endow'd not only may but in likelihood will be deceiv'd not for want of Wit but for want of Grounds ascertaining and infallibly engaging the Divine Revelation On the other side let the Simplest and Weakest Understanding that is happen to embrace Faith upon the Motives laid by God and left in his Church he is Infallibly secure from being in an Errour not through the strength of his Understanding perfectly discerning and penetrating the Conclusive nature of his Grounds but though the strength of those Grounds themselves or of the Causes laid by Gods Providence to plant and continue right Faith in the Church by means of which what he has thus more by the peculiar disposition of God's gracious Providence than any reach of his own Wit or Judgment fortunately embrac't is preserv'd impossible to False and consequently his Assent to it impossible to be an Errour because the Churches Authority upon which he receiv'd it is Infallible And surely 't is but fitting that all who believe upon that Rule God has left and commanded us to follow should be thus secur'd from possibility of Mistake for otherwise since a Power is relative to its proper Act what 's possible to be False may actually be so and so we might come to be led actually into Errour by obeying God's Commands which is impossible To apply thâ—s If Dr. T. therefore makes Scripture's Letter the Rule of Faith left by God for Mankind to receive their Faith upon and by doing so has commanded them to believe it he must either say that its Sence and Letter taking them as he builds his Faith on them have no Possibility of Falshood or besides the many absurdities already mentioned grant that our All-wise and Good God can possibly lead men into actual Errour nay command them to profess and die for a Ly than which nothing can be imagin'd
Object 't is possible or within the compass of Gods power to make all Mankind err yet taking in his other Attributes which determin his Omnipoence to do only what 's Wise and Good and according to Truth it cannot be God should either will or do it and so it cannot be effectively done at all § 18. He objects that the Church of Rome challenges Infallibility upon no other account but that of Supernatural Assistance I answer the Church had her Rule of Faith left to her hand by Jesus Châ—ist who founded and constituted her and found it not out by Speculative Reason Whence 't is not the proper Concern of a Church to discourse very particularly about the manner and nature of the Rule of Faith but of Speculative Divines who look into the natures of things and there find the Reasons of those Truths God has barely told us Next 't is only of Faith that Christ has promis'd to assist his Church but whether Supernaturally only or also by Natural means is no where defin'd my Tenet is that he assists his Church both ways as I at large defend in Surefooting and that the best strength of Nature and Grace are both of them exerted to their utmost to ascertain the Infallible Authority on whose Testimony we receive our Faith But with this difference that the Supernatural Assistance exceedingly comforts Faith in those who are True Believers already and the Natural Assistance as far as concerns the due Satisfaction of Reason informs the Understanding of those who yet discern no Supernatâ—rality at all in the Church and have nothing but their Natural Reason to guide themselves by without which I see not how either a Circle is avoidable or rational Satisfaction to such men possible for were not a Natural Assistance admitted to introduce the knowledge of the other Supernaturals would be the way to Supernaturals and Faith the means to arrive at Faith which would confound the Means with the End I wish Dr. T. would leave off this new way of confuting by telling me still I am the only man or first man that said he should have said proov'd such or such a thing which cavil if he answer not my Argument as he seldome thinks of that duty signifies either nothing at all or else a high Commendation to me as improving Knowledge to some degree But more of this point when I come to defend my Method § 19. Hitherto then Dr. T. has given us no Absolute Certainty either of the Existence of a Deity oâ— of Christian Faith as far as it depends on the Letter of Scripture but onely such miscall'd Certainty as means Vncertainty whence his pretended Certainty of its Sence falls to the Ground But let us see how he vindicates the Certainty of Faith and himself not to hold it possible to be false by ascertaining at least the Sense of it supposing the Letter were right He tells us pag. 20. That as for the Sense of Books 't is plainly impossible any thing should be delivered in such clear and Certain words as are absolutely incapable of any other Sense And what 's the natural Sequel of this appli'd to Scripture but that 't is plainly Impossible Faith built on thaâ— Sense or rather which is that Sense should not be possible to be False and consequently the Letter can never be a competent Rule of Faith whereas in this way of conveying iâ— down by Living Voice and Practise of the Church that is â—y Cateâ—hizing publike Preaching private Discoursing consonant Living 't is made so manifest to the Generality what was held in each year immemediately before that no prejudice can make them all so mad as either to mistake or misrepresent it as 't is for Example in England for the Generality of Protestants to err or impose this this year upon the Belief of England that last year they held and practic'd Prayer for the Dead or assisting at the Christian Sacrifice By which 't will be easily seen whether of us two makes better provision for the Certainty of Faith He proceeds Yet notwithstanding this the meaning of them may be so plain as that any unprejudic'd and reasonable man may certainly understand them Let him apply this to Scripture the discourse stands thus All men are unreasonable and prejudic't who take not Scripture in my sense If this be not the meaning of his words let him tell us by what other Maxims he guides himself in judging who are such when he tells us any unprejudic't and rersonable man may certainly understand the Sense of Scripture If he can assign no other reason of those mens Faultiness but their disagreeing with him in the meaning of Scripture I doubt his Readers will scarce believe him that all Socinians and other Sects who differ from him in main Points are Passionate and Prejudic't If an indifferent man stood by while D. T. and a Socinian disputed and heard one of them cite place after place compare one place to another and use all the means he could to make out the right sense of the words and the other use the self-same Method and yet nothing concluded decisively as it never was in this way of managing disputes I fear he would be little the nearer satisfaction and embracing Dr. T's Tenet upon his saying that his Adversary was passionate and prejudic't He parallels the Certainty of Scripture Sence to that of Euclids Definitions and Axioms in the sense of which men are universally agreed and think themselves undoubtedly Certain of it and yet the words in which they are exprest may possibly bear another sence He trifles Let him show me the Generality of Scripturists as unanimously agreeing in the sense of Scripture as Geometricians do in those Axioms and Definitions or let him leave of bringing such disagreeing Parallels importing that there are not men of all Sides and Sects as willing to see Truth in things belonging to their eternal Salvation as to see the Truth in Mathematicks How many Interpretations are there of This is my Body and of those many Texts which signifie Christ to be true God Both of main Concern the understanding them wrong being on one side Idolatry on the other Blasphemy Yet we have Eminent Learned men Acute Wits Excellent Linguists Good Logicians and Historians and lastly very great Scripturists who compare also place to place yet all this notwithstanding nothing is decided finally still they Debate Write Quote Interpret and will do while this Method is taken to the Worlds End Does Dr. T. find such a disagreement amongst men Learned in the Mathematicks in the understanding the Axioms and Definitions of Euclid Add that those men in other matters are not Passionate or Prejudic't but are held Prudenâ— and Sober by great portions of Mankind nor do they lose their Repute amongst Indifferent Judges as renouncing their Manhood or perfectly deserting Reason that is they are not held Madmen for not adhering to such a determinate Sense of those places which argues
evidently that they renounce not Evidence and that the Scriptures Letter thus manag'd is not apt to ascertain them at all and so no Rule Yet he gives us one great Reason as he calls it why men do not agree in the Sense of Scripture as well as in the others because their Interests and Lusts and Passions are more concern'd So that according to Dr. T. a man who is to be guided by his Pastors and Teachers cannot be Certain of the Sense of Scripture nor consequently of Faith unless he can look into the hearts of men which is proper to God alone and discern who are Passionate prejudic'd Interessed and Lustful Again this Reason is found on either side to a great degree for were not those Axioms and Definitions so Evident that absurd men would incur the shame of Mankind to deny them there wants no temptation of Interest and passion to make Authors go about to control and contradict the Writings of others to gain themselves applause and credit But if this be one great Reason of disagreement in the Sense of Scripture I would gladly know what are the other great Reasons But of these we hear nothing and there is good Reason why for since his one great Reason is the ill-disposedness of the persons the other great Reason must be the defectiveness of the Thing that is the Inability of Scripture's Letter by reason of its Inevidence to private Understandings to make them agree in one Sense of it which manifestly makes it unfit to be a Rule of Faith § 20. To Conclude the Summe of Dr. T's Vindication of himself from making according to his Grounds Faith possible to be False amounts to this He produces words to disprove it which manifoldly confess it he endeavours all along to shew that Infallible Certainty cannot be had of either Scripture's Letter or Sense that is he grants that the whole world may be deceiv'd though all the Causes be put to secure them in the Ground of Faith or denies that absolutely speaking Faith is Certainly-True Again loath to speak out to that point candidly he shuffles about and puts upon his Adversary divers odd and ridiculous acceptions of the word Faith omitting the right one which was given to his hand Lastly being to give account what kind of Certainty he allow'd to Faith he gives such a Notion of it as signifies nothing and has all the Marks of Vncertainty imaginable taking his measure of Certainty which ought to proceed from the Object or Proof from the Subject's perswasion or adhesion to it which common Experience testifies may indifferently be found in Truths and Falshoods and Common sense confutes Nature telling every man that my Assent is not therefore Certain because I do not doubt it see not the least cause of doubt am fully perswaded and verily think so but because the Thing is seen indeed to be so or because the Proof is Conclusive Either then let him bring such Proofs and own and shew them to be such or he leaves his Cause in the lurch and his Credit which he is here defending unclear'd by yielding Faith possible to be absolutely False that is for any thing any man living knows actually such DISCOURSE VII In what manner Dr. T. replies to FAITH VINDICATED § 1. DR T. has no Fellow nor his way of Confute any parallel Not to provoke the peevishness of malice too far and yet follow home my blow more fully and yet withal to uphold the Efficacie of Faith grounded on the just Conceit of its Absolute Certainty I writ a a Book call'd Faith Vindicated in behalf of Christian Faith in Common shewing the absolute Certainty or Security from Error of that kind of Assent provided it be grounded on those Motives God had left to settle his Church and by it Mankind in Faith as I declared my self in my Introduction It pretended Demonstration from the beginning to the end and had not one drollish or unsober expression in it Take a Map of it in a few words I conceiv'd my self debtor both Sapientibus and Insipientibus and hence the Concern being common to all Christians amongst the rest to Speculative Divines I resolv'd to prove it by Arguments sutable to every Capacity To the more Intelligent to the end of the Third Eviction to the Middle or Prudential sort to the end of the Fifth· and to them of the lowest Capacity in the last every one being enabled by Tradition or Education to comprehend what the common Language and Practice of Christianity teaches them as to Speechees and Carriages appertaining to Faith I begun after I had put two Postulatum granted by all Christians with Logical Arguments which I pursu'd at large because as 't is a common Trick in Sophisters and half Logicians to abuse that Excellent Art to elude the clearest Evidendences so it became a more necessary Duty in me to prevent by the closest Proofs fetch 't from almost all Heads imaginable that belong'd to that skill any misusages of its Maxims to patronize Falshood This could be no other than very Speculative and accordingly I declar'd in my Introduction what my Reader was to expect in Discourses of that kind nor will any man indu'd with common Sense wonder that I should use Logical Expressions when I make Logical Discourses or Terms of Art when I speak to Scholars These things reflected on let us see now what a dextrous way our Learned Confuter takes to answer that whole Book for he manifests here an intention to give it no other and to overthrow so many Demonstrations § 2. His first way of Confute is to pick out a leaf or two of the most Speculative part of that Treatise only intended for Scholars and apply it to the Understandings of those who are onely Sermon-pitch to whom because such Discourses are unsutable and withal too hard for him to answer hence he very politickly both gratifies the Fancies of those Readers and avoids himself the difficult task of answering the pressing Reason in it by playing the Wit when 't was dangerous to act the Scholar and making use of his constant Friend at a dead lift Drollery in stead of relying on the Patronage of Reason which as he experiences so often betrays and exposes hss weakness He runs on therefore a whole leaf or two in this jovial Career ere he can recover himself till even his own Friends who are not aware of the necessity admire at his endless Raillery and true to his Method neglects wholly the Sense and excepts mightily against five or six hard words namely potentiality actuality actuation determinative supervene and subsume which it seems puzzle him exceedingly for he professes to think them Mystical He calls the Discourse jargon Foolish and Nonsense which two last words he is ever most free of when his Reason is most at a loss He likens it to the Coptick and Slavonian Language talks of Astrology Palmistry Chymistry and what not and with such kind of stuff confutes it
most unmercifully even to utter desolation § 3. In return to which kind of carriage though it deserves only contempt let us hear first how Dr. T. answers himself who Serm pag. 120.121 very zealously reprehends and preaches against this absurd Fault in himself in these words Let none sayes he think the worse of Religion or those Reasons which oblige us to profess 't is absolutely-True because some are so bold to despise and deride For 't is no disparagement to any person or thing to be laught at but to deserve to be so The most grave and serious matters in the whole world are liable to be abus'd Nothing is so excellent but a man may fasten upon it something or other belonging to it whereby to traduce it A sharp wit may find something in the wisest man whereby to expose him to the contempt of Injudicious people The gravest Book that ever was written may be made ridiculous by applying the sayings of it to a foolish purpose For a jâ—st may be obtruded upon any thing And therefore no man ought to have the less Reverence for the Principles of Religion or those Reasons which oblige us to hold and profess Faith absolutely-True because idle and prophane WITS nonplust Controvertists can BREAK IESTS upon them Nothing is so easie Dr. T. knows that by long and very useful Experience as to take PARTICVLAR PHRASES and EXPRESSIONS out of the best Book in the world and to abuse them by forcing an odd and ridiculous Sense upon them But no wise man will think a good Book FOOLISH for this Reason but the MAN that abuses it Nor will he esteem that to which every thing is liable to be a IVST Exception against any thing At this rate ase must despise ALL things But surely the better and shorter way is to condemn THOSE who would bring any thing that is worthy into Contempt Also in his foregoing Sermon pag. 86 87. he gives good Doctrine to the same purpose but never intended to follow it himself These things whether Faith be absolutely true or no are of Infinit consequence to us and therefore 't is not a matter to be slightly and superficially thought upon much less AS THE WAY OF ATHEISTICAL MEN IS to be PLAID and IESTED withal If any one shall turn Religion or a Discourse aiming to shew it absolutely Certain into Raillery and think to CONFVTE it by two or three BOLD IESTS this man doth not render IT but HIMSELF Ridiculous Again Though the Principles of Religion or the Proofs of Faith's absolute Certainty were never so clear and evident yet they may be made RIDICVLOVS by VAIN and FROTHY MEN as the gravest and wisest personage in the world may be abus'd by being put into a Fools Coat and the most Noble and excellent Poem may be debas'd and made vile by being turn'd into BVRLES QVE Thus Dr T. by Preaching what he never intended to Practice has most amply laid open his own Folly and hits himself still while he aims at the Atheist and no wonder for their Causes as far as I impugn him here are not very wide of one another since nothing approaches neerer to the denying all Religion than to hold it all Vncertain At least I would gladly know of him in what his way of Discourse here against my Reasons for the Absolute Certainty of Faith differs from that of Atheists against a Deity and all Religion The Points to be considered by both of them are of a solid and concerning Nature and both handle them drollishly and make Raillery supply the place of Reason Nor will it avail him to reply that my Proofs were not solid and so oughr to be confuted with mockery For he ought first shew by reason that they thus highly misdeserve and then employ his Talent of Irony upon them afterwards and not make meer Irony supply the place of Reason Besides himself acknowledges pag 87. that If the Principles of Religion were doubtful and Vncertain yet this concerns us so neerly that we ought to be serious in the Examination of them And certainly no judicious or good man will doubt but that it highly and neerly concerns all good Christians to know whether their Faith the Substance of all their Hope particularly the Existence of a Trinity and Incarnation the Points I mention'd be absolutely Certain or not I leave it to the choice of Dr. T's Friends whether they will rather approve his Doctrine in his Sermons or his unconsonant Practice in this Preface If the former they must condemn him out of his own mouth to be Foolish Ridiculous and an Imitator of Atheists and his way of writing Insignificant But if they like the Later then they must conclude his Sermons as equally blame-worthy for opposing so laudable a Practice Unfortunate man who very gravely takes Texts against Scoffers and makes Sermons upon them and then behaves himself all over so Scurrilously and Drollishly in his whole Preface to them as levels those very Sermons as directly against himself as could possibly be contriv'd or imagin'd Which is in effect by his carriage to tell the Atheist that that Scoffing and Drollish way of answering and managing Discourses about Religion which is so horrid sin in them because they are of the Vngodly and Wicked is notwithstanding none at all but a very great Virtue in the Saints and the Godly and in a particular manner Meritorious so it be practis'd against those Men of sin the most abhominable Papists § 4. Besides as Dr. T. well observed when he was in a more sober humour Every thing even the best is liable to be abus'd and made ridiculous by drollish Jests and consequently this Method be so exactly observss when he is to confute me will as he very well expresses it in his Pref. pag. 26 equally serve to prove or confute any thing To shew the all-powerful strength and virtue of it let us imagine that Euclid had been a Catholick Dr. T. might have preacht â— Sermon or two full of zeal against Witchcraft and have produc't some Fair Probabilities to perswade the people that Mathematicians were all meer Frier Bacons and absolute Conjurers because they use to draw Circles and uncouth Figures which look like Magick to second which Dr. St's Book concerning Images would mutatis mutandiâ— light very pat and home and then when he had done writ a Preface to those Sermons against the Prince of Conjurers or the Belzebub of those Incarnate Devils Euclid and confute him on this manner First he might pick out some Demonstrations of his in which were five or six words harder than ordinary at least too hard for the Vulgar though clear enough to the Learned men in that Art as Isosceles Parallelograms Parallelepipe Cylinder Diameter Eicosaedron and such like and when he had transcrib'd them into a Ridiculous Preface which he was sure no good Mathematicians would ever care to read but vulgar Souls would much admire and out of their hatred to these Popish
the former Proof as put down by himself here pag. 24. is to conclude it Impossible that THESE Points of Faith should be False that is SVCH points as express only the An est of a thing and so have for their Predicate Existent as I exprest my self in that Argument And my Conclusion of the 2 d. Proof is this as put down by himself here pag. 25. 'T is impossible therefore that what is thus affirm'd to be True that is in such words as can bear no pertinent distinction should in any regard be affirm'd possible to be False the impossibility of distinguishing the Predicate pertinent ly excluding here all possibility of diverse respects Is this barely to go about to prove that what 's True is Impossible to be False or rather that no different regards or respects can in such Faith-propositions as these be made use of to elude or diminish the granting their Intire Truth The Proposition An Ethiopian is black is but in part True because it can bear diverse respects or regards to distinguish it pertinently viz. according to his Teeth and his Skin But in those Propositions which have Existent for their predicate no imaginable regards can be found appliable to it so to distinguish it pertinently The next Falsification of my Intention is to pretend that I argue barely out of the nature of Subject Copula and Predicate whereas by my whole Discourse 't is most evident that I argue precisely from their being such Subjects and Predicates that is such as could bear no pertinent Distinction diminishing the Integrity of their Truth In a word the Question was about the Truth or which is all one Impossibility of Falshood in Faith-Propositions and I was there treating it Logically I would gladly then have any sober and Intelligent man inform me why it was not as proper and pertinent for me to argue out of the nature of Propositions in which only Truth is found and particularly out of the nature of such Propositions that is those who have such Subjects such Predicates in them as it is for a Mathematician writing a Discourse of Trigonometry to argue out of the nature of such a kind of Angle or a Triangular Figure Or why in so doing I can justly be thought to have deflected from the Rules or Method of exactest Art § 8. In a word had I in a Christian English Sermon stood very gravely repeating Sixteen verses out of a Heathenish Latin Poet or had I after I had so often mock't at others for bumbast Rhetorick and so indirectly extoll'd my self for my smooth style talkt of persons of a PROFLIGATE TEMPER as did Dr. T. here pag. 33. and pag. 163. Some idle Wit who had nothing else to do might perhaps have taken just occasion to sport himself with my imperfection But to mock at a Writer for using the Terms proper to the Art he is discoursing in seems to argue a very Profligate temper of Levity at least that I may say no worse § 9. Thus much for his first Answer to faith Vindicated consisting wholly of Drollery Neglects and other worse Faults His second is that the main of that Book being to prove that what 's True is Impossible to be False I oppose no body that â—e knows of in this matter I answer whoever pleases to run over the several Heads from which I argue in Faith Vindicated hinted briefly in the Margent will see that that which he pretends in a manner the only point is but once designedly made use of and very rarely toucht at in other places and that there are near forty Proofs of another nature though sometimes all Truths being connected they happen to be partly coincident into the same Sometimes also I suppose it but it bears no show of reason that most of my Book is spent in proving it But is it so clear that I oppose no body he knows of in proving that what is True is Impossible to be False Does not he know one Dr. T. That same person I suppose will tell us soberly that he can prove his Faith True relying on what he conceives to be the Letter and Sense of Scripture and yet speaking of the Certainty he had of both these he told us expresly Rale of Faith pag. 118. All this may possibly be otherwise that is that possibly he has neither right Letter nor right Sense of Scripture and consequently that what he affirms to be his Faith and True is notwithstanding Possible to be False The same man being to vindicate himself in this Pref. pag. 10. explain'd his meaning to be that he could not demonstrate those things so as to shew that the Contrary necessarily involves a Contradiction Now if he cannot prove that the Contrary to any thing involves a Contradiction he can never prove that contrary to be False nothing being False which clashes not by consequence at least with some First Principle or involves a Contradiction and as long as he cannot prove it False 't is possible to be True for any thing he knows and if the Contrary to Faith be affirm'd possible to be True Faith it self must be possible to be False and yet though his discourses make it Possible to be False the obligation incumbent on him as a Christian forces him 〈◊〉 affiâ—m that 't is notwithstanding True So that the Goodness of Christianity joyn'd with the Badness of his Grounds oblige him to grant equivalently though he be warier than to do it directly that what is True is possible to be False § 10. Now because 't is against the very grain of Rational nature to admir of such a palpable Contradiction if the word Truth be rightly and properly understood hence I am Certain he and such as he are provided with a dâ—stinction at the bottom of their hearts and only hold that their Faith is morally True that is some great Likelihood or as True as many things are of which we judg our selves morally Certain and did not in the least doubt of them yet oftentimes upon clearer Information have found our selves deceiv'd in our Opinion of them and the Thing to be False And that this is Dr. T's sentiment in this matter appears farther besides what hath been now said from his owning such a moral Certainty only for the Grounds of his Faith as frees one from doubt from his feeble and dwindlings Expressions of his Certainty of a Godhead and lastly from his blaming me pag. 29. for râ—sting contented with no less Certain Grounds than such as are absolutely Conclusive of the thing And how one who relies on his Speculative Proofs for the Renouncers of Tradition can have no claim to Practical Self-evidence can be thought to hold Faith absolutely True and yet disclaim himself and blame in others the pretending to such Motives as absolutely conclude or prove it to be True or how a man can with honesty affirm a thing is absolutely True and yet deny he is absolutely Certain of it I must confess