side he who discourses ill violates the nature of the Thing and runs into contradictions absurdities and what means violating the nature of the Thing or speaking contradiction but the making the Thing not be what it is and so falsifying by his discourse that Principle which was diametrically opposite in this circumstance to the Contradiction he sustain'd which was that Things being what it is For example Dr. T. puts Scripture's Letter to be a Rule of Faith and yet unless he will be strangely uncharitable must grant convinc'd by experience in the Socinians and others that many follow it to their power and yet judge not right concerning what 's True Faith what not which destroyes the nature of a Rule or makes a Rule not to be a Rule contrary to the very First Principle in that affair For he puts it to be a Rule ex suppositâ—one and yet puts it to be no Rule because the Followers of it to their power are misled which argues there being in this case no fault in Them the want of a Regulative Virtue in It and that 't is no Rule § 11. Hence is easily understood what use is to be made of the very First Principles viz. not to make that which is the First Principle in such an affair one of the Premisses in a Syllogism much less to make that one single Identical Proposition both the Premisses or two Propositions as our shallow Logician in his wild rant of Drollery would perswade the Reader But the very First Principles have a far more Soveraign Influence over the Discourse than any of those Particular Propositions decisively as it were abetting or dis-approving the Whole 'T is therefore to stand fixt in the mind of the Discourser and be heedfully attended to so to give a steadiness to all his ratiocination 'T is its office to be the Test or Touchstone of Truth and Falshood or a Rule which is a Measure of what 's Right what crooked oblique or deviating from true nature If in Dispute one hold firmly to that it authenticates his Discourse to be the solid Gold of Truth If any plausible Talk make a mock-show of Connexion or Truth it discovers the cheat showing by its own most Evident Connexion the unconnectedness or loosness of the others empty Babble and demonstrates it to be the meer Dross of Falshood how fair soever it appear to the Eye at first and how prettily soever it be superficially gilded with sophisticate Rhetorick or other artificial Tricks of counterfeit Truth 'T is like an immoveable Basis that sustains all the Superstructures of Truth though it self rise not above its own firm level or like a Rock which by its rigid hardness dashes asunder into Contradiction and Folly the ill-coherent and weak Productions of Witty Ignorance No wonder then Dr. T. abuses so the First Principles as good for nothing for he perceives them dispos'd to abuse him by shewing all his Discourses to be nothing but well-clad Nonsence and though his way of Discourse or his Cause not bearing it he cannot work with them yet if I be not much mistaken they will make work with him ere it be long But to return to our Instances § 12. Faith meaning by it a Believing upon Motives left by God in his Church to light Mankind to his Truth as I exprest my self in my Preface to Faith vindicated and elsewhere is an Assent Impossible to be False and this is found in its Definition as its Difference essentially distinguishing it from Opinion which is possible to be False and is prov'd by more than forty Demonstrations in Faith Vindicated not one of which has yet been in the least reply'd to Wherefore being a direct part of the Definition it engages that First Verity on which the Definition it self is grounded that is if Faith be not Impossible to be False Faith is not Faith Wherefore Dr. T. who for all his shuffling makes Faith thus understood possible to be False is convinc't to clash with that self-evident Identical Proposition by making Faith to be not Faith and if the pretended Demonstrations in Faith Vindicated or any of them stand he and his Friend Dr. St. if they truly say what they think are as certainly concluded to be none of the Faithful as 't is that Faith is Faith § 13. Also Tradition being a delivery of the Faith and Sence of immediate Forefathers to their Children or to those of the next Age by Living Voice and Practice that is by Câ—techising Preaching Conversing Practising and all the ways thâ—t can be possibly found in Education it follows that if Mankind cannot express what they have in their thoughts to others at long run as we use to say so as to make Generality at least the wisest understand them we have lost Mankind since to do this requires little more than Eyes Ears Power of Speaking and Common Sence Wherefore let this way of Tradition be follow'd and it will convey the first-taught Faith or the Doctrine of the First Christians that is True Faith to the end of the World Therefore it hath in it all that belongs intrinsecally to the Rule of Faith that is if men be not wanting to themselves but follow it to their power it will infallibly derive down the First that is Right Faâ—th Since then every thing is what it is by its having such a nature in it Tradition having in it the nature of a Rule is indeed a Rule Wherefore he who denies that Tradition has in it the nature of a Rule denies by consequence that Mankind is Mankind and he who denies It having in it all that is requisite to the nature of a Rule to be a Rule denies by consequence a Rule to be a Rule § 14 My last Instance showing withal more amply the Use of First Principles shall be of that Identical Proposition which grounds the whole nature of Discourse and 't is this The same is the same with it self Which is thus made use of The Copula is expresses the Identity or as we may say the sameness of the Subject and Predicate which it connects and 't is the aim of Reason to prove these two Terms identify'd in the Concsusion or which is all one that that Proposition we call the Conclusion is True But how shall this be prov'd A Third Term is sought for which is the same with those Two others and thence ' tâ—s evinc'd that those two are the same with one another in the Conclusion and why Because otherwise that Third Term would not be the same with its own self or be what it is if it were truly the same thing with two others and yet those two were not the same thing with one another but it would have Division in its very nature or not be its self being in that case distracted into more essential natures that is being Chimerical and consequently two Things according to one of which 't is the same with one of those Terms according to the other the
Reason against Raillery OR A Full Answer TO Dr. TILLOTSON's PREFACE Against J. S. With a farther EXAMINATION Of His Grounds of Religion The gravest Book that ever was written may be made ridiculous by applying the Sayings of it to a foolish purpose Dr. Tillot Serm. p. 121. Anno Dom. MDCLXXII Advertisement IT being the general Temper of Mankind to call any thing by an odious Name which themselves dislike and particularly the Humour of the Times to call every thing Popery which comes cross to their Interest I cannot expect my present Adversary whose Zeal as will appear by the perusal of this Treatise carries him much farther than his Reason should be exempt from a Failing so Epidemical and withal so Necessary for his Purpose For nothing more easily solves all Arguments or more readily Answers any Book with the Vulgar than this short Method Inure them to a hideous apprehension of Popery then call any Production by that Name and all farther Confute is needless With the Vulgar I say for I shall presume that whoever reads this Treatise will judge it Incredible Dr. T. should hereafter attempt to write to such as are truly Learned till he thinks fit to settle and pursue some Conclusive Method of Discoursing which I am sure he will not because his Cause will not bear it I am to expect then from the Disingenuity of my Opposers that this Piece will be branded for Popery thence the publishing it made an Insolence and to lay on more load strain'd to an Immodest Abuse of the late Merciful Indulgence I am forc'd therefore to stop the Reader at the very Entrance and to declare to him before-hand that in perusing this Treatise he shall find that the Points at present maintained by me are onely these That Christian Faith and the Tenet of a Deity are Absolutely Certain If this be Popery all the Sober and Well-meaning Protestants Presbyterians and almost all England nay all True Christians are Papists for not one of them who uses or discourses of the word FAITH but râ—tains in his natural thoughts unless bad Speculation have corrupted Nature this hearty conceit of it that 't is absolutely Impossible to be all a Ly for any thing any man living knows and abhor the contrary Tenet that is they are all on my side If then Dr. T. does not in discoursing here the Grounds of Faith sustain this contrary Tenet and so violate the Nature of Faith I have at present no quarrel with him but he a very grievous one with me for wronging him and I must acknowledge I owe him Satisfaction as publick as the Injury If he does all Protestants Presbyterians c. have the same Quarrel with him I have and so ought to joyn with me against him and he will owe Satisfaction to them all as well as to Catholicks for corrupting the Nature of Faith which we all acknowledge necessary to Salvation into Opinion and so quite enervating its force and influence towards bringing Souls to Heaven as will be shewn hereafter I could alledge to justifie my Writing at present the earnest and daring provocations of Dr. T. and his Friend publickly in their late Books also that this Treatise was near Printed ere His Majesties Gracious Declaration was Published But I shall make use of no other Justification but the nature of my Cause which is the Common Concern of all good Christians and can never be unseasonable to defend or be offensive to any who is heartily a Friend to Christianity to see it defended And if any Clamours be rais'd against me for so doing 't is abundantly satisfactory to me that the World before-hand understands how worthy the Cause is for the maintaining of which I suffer this reproach TO The Knowing Candid WITS of This Nation Especially Those who are an Ornament To the UNIVERSITIES And other Learned SOCIETIES GENTLEMEN I Know not to whom all Attempts to advance Truth in any kind can more properly belong than to You to whom Knowledge gives Ability to discern the profest study of Truth Candour and Sincerity to own what You discern and both together a perfect Qualification to be Iudges in Affairs of this Nature The Enemies to Learning are Ignorance and Passion and I take you to be as much above the later as the World will witness you are free from all suspicion of the former I have great reason to believe I am not mistaken in the judgment I make of You and that few Nations can produce an equal number of Men so Acute to discover the Truth so Wise to judge of it and speaking generally so Unbyass'd to acknowledge it This consideration gives me a high esteem for your Authority and that Esteem the Confidence to make choice of You for my Umpires The wise Iustice of this Nation has provided that all differences betwixt contending Parties be try'd by their Peers and though your dissenting from me in some particular Points might possibly cause Iealousie in one who was not well assured of his own Cause or your Integrity yet the Interests of Learning are common to us both and of the Right or Injury done to That you are the Best and peradventure Onely Iudges and for that Point I confidently appeal to You. Having made my Address give me leave in the next place to declare my Case I had observed with much grief the Swarms of new Sects not to mention the declining of many good Wits towards Atheism which pester our Country and looking into the Causes of such sad Effects it needed no great reach to discover that the Fancies of men being both by Nature and Circumstances fram'd to great variety it could not be expected but they should take their several Plies and sway mens Thoughts and Actions accordingly unless some Principle Evident in a manner to all should oblige the Judgment of the Wiser at least to adhere unanimously to the same Profession of Faith and satisfie by Motives within their own ken and even forestall by the way of Nature the irregular deviations to which weaker Fancies must of necessity be subject Nor could I nor indeed can any man think but that as GOD the Author of every perfect Gift settled Faith most firmly at first in the hearts of the Primitive Believers by Evident Miracles so he intended and ordered as far as was on His part that it should continue all along the same or that his Church should persevere in Unity of Faith and consequently that he settled such a Rule to convey the knowledge of it to us as was of a nature able to establish it and satisfie according to their several capacities both the Wise and the Unwise Whence necessarily follows that all division about Faith is to be refunded into the faulty unwariness of men who deflect from that Rule not into want of fore-sight in the All-wise Founder of the Church in leaving us such a Rule of Faith as should set us all on wrangling instead of keeping us at Unity These considerations
all hapt to be a Lye that they proceeded on all their Religion for all this was wicked and the the most zealous Devotion to Dame Juno and the rest nay dying for their sakes was notwithstanding their good meaning in common Dr. T's Moral Certainty and Firm Principle a diabolical and mischievous Action not a jot better as to the effect of gaining Heaven than the making their Children pass through the Fire to Moloch perverting and destroying the Soul that perform'd it nay dy'd for it by addicting it to what was not its true last End or Eternal Good and all this because there wanted Truth at the bottom to render those Actions and Sufferings Virtuous Wherefore unless Dr. T. produces some immoveable Grounds to establish Christianity to be most certainly True especially the Existence of a Deity which enfeâ—bled all the rest falls down to the Ground he can never convince that either Acting or Suffering for it is a Virtue any more than it was in Heathenism when the same was done for their False Gods and so he can never with reason persuade his Auditory to it but having once prov'd that it matters less whether all the Assenters penetrate the full force of the motive or no for if once it be put to be True all Actions and Sufferings proceeding from those Truths shall connaturally addict those Souls to their True Last End and dispose them for it though their Understandings be never so imperfect and their good or well-meaning will certainly bring them to Heaven but 't is because their Will and its Affections were Good which they could not be as is prov'd were they not built upon some Truth § 9. Again Dr. T. discourses all along as if all were well when one is free from all doubt but I would desire his Friends seriously to ask him one question which is whether though his Grounds exclude all doubt from his mind at present yet he sees any certain Reason why he may not perhaps come to doubt of all his Faith and even of a Godhead too to morrow If he says He sees not but he may he must say withal that he sees it not and consequently holds it not to be True for if he once saw it to be Truth he could not hold it possible ever to be doubted of with reason If he affirms that he sees he can never come with reason to doubt of it then he sees his Grounds for holding it cannot possibly be shown False else it might both be doubted and what is more deny'd and if he hold his Grounds cannot possibly be made out to be False then he must say they are Impossible to be False and if they be Humane Authority Infallible which yet he stifly denies But the plain Truth is he holds not by virtue of any Grounds he lays his Faith to be True but onely a plausible Likelihood else Common Sence would force him to acknowledge and stand to it that the Grounds on which he builds his Assent are Impossible to be False and not to palliate his Uncertainty of it with such raw Principles and petty Crafts to avoid an honest down-right procedure which is to say plainly My Grounds cannot fail of Concluding the Thing absolutely True I will justifie them to be such and here they are But he is so far from this that the best word he affords them who do this right to Christianity is to call them vapouring and swaggering men with all the disgraceful Ironies he can put upon them § 10. By this time my last Charge that this Firm Principle of his betrays all Religion into the Possibility I might have said Likelihood of being a Lye instead of establishing it is already made good and needs onely a short Rehearsal For 1. He Asserts that we cannot be Certain of a Deity unless we entertain his Firm Principle which is so full stuft with Nonsence and Folly that unlesâ— it be in Bedlam I know no place in England where 't is like to find Entertainment That the Evidence or Visibleness of an Object begets Certainty in us is that which the Light of Nature ever taught me and all Mankind hitherto but that the Obscurity of an Object or its affording us no True Evidence grounding our Absolute Certainty of it nay that even its Incapableness to afford us any in our Circumstances and consequently our Despair of seeing any such Evidence for it should contribute to make us Certain of it nay more that this must be entertain'd as a Firm Principle and which is yet more be obtruded upon all Mankind under such an unmerciful Penalty that unless they entertain this as honourably as a Firm Principle not any man shall be Certain of any thing no not so much as that there 's a God is such a super-transcendent Absurdity as surpasses all Belief or even Imagination but a Rhetorician may say any thing when talking pretty Plausibilities is onely in vogue and a melodious Gingle to please the Ear is more modish than solid Reasons to satisfie the Understanding Next he vouches not any Reason he brings to be absolutely Conclusive and consequently owns not any Point of Faith no not the Existence of a Deity to be absolutely Certain which not to assert but as has been shown from his Firm Principle equivalently to deny even then when he is maintaining it is an Intolerable Prejudice to that Weighty and Excellent Cause he hath undertaken and so is engag'd to defend 3. He waves the Conclusiveness of his Reasons that the Thing is True and contents himself that it keeps us free from actual doubt which reaches not Assent for to doubt a thing is to incline to think it False and so not to doubt is barely not to incline to think it False which is far short of holding it True and consequently from making a man a Christian Besides our not doubting may be in many regards Faulty and spring from Surprize Passion and Ignorance as well as from Ignorance as hath been prov'd but a good Reason cannot be faulty Wherefore to relinquish the patronage of the Goodness and Validity that is absolute Conclusiveness of Christian Proofs of which there are good store for this point defending onely their Plausibility and instead of that victorious way of convincing the Understanding into Assent requiring onely a feeble not doubting is in plain terms to betray his Cause and tacitly or rather indeed too openly to accuse Christianity of an Infirmity in its Grounds as being incapable to effect what they ought a Firm Assent to the Points of Christian Doctrine as to absolutely certain Truths 4. By making our Certainty of it or the adequate effect of its Motives consist meerly in our not doubting of it he makes its Effect and consequently the Efficacy of those Motives themselves no better than those which Heathens Turks and Hereticks have for these also exclude Actual Doubt from the Minds of the Generality of these respective Sects If he says Christians have no just reason
the small strength they have when they do their utmost is not earnestly and heartily engag'd neither in the Patronage of our Cause or in proving it probable there 's a GOD but onely incline favourably towards us rather than the other Besides those who are of moderate tempers use to be favourable to every Body and there is not in the whole World such sweet soft-natur'd melting pliable tender-hearted compassionate and indulgent things as these same Probabilities They are ever at hand to lend their weak help to any body that wants a good Argument and will fit any Cause in the World good or bad Yet for all their kind and gentle behaviour in obliging none to assent to them or say as they do as your rude Demonstrations use I have notwithstanding a kind of prejudice against them which is that they are False hearted and use to play Jack-a-both-sides most egregiously for scarce was there ever any Tenet in the world so absurd but when not one good Reason durst appear for it this tatling Gossip Dame Probability would for all that undertake it and let her have but her neat Chamber-maid Rhetorick to trick her up with Laces Spangles Curles Patches and other such pretty Baubles she will dare to incounter with any Truth in the World or maintain the most absurd Paradox imaginable as Dr. T. and his Friend well know else they would be out of heart ever to write more And this is the Reason I conceive why p. 22. he calls them FAIR saying If FAIR Probabilities of Reason concur with Testimony and no less than thrice in the same page he makes mention of FAIR Proofs He says not GOOD Proofs or CONCLVSIVE that the Thing is TRVE or that there 's a GOD no take heed of that this would quite take the business out of the hand of Probability which a Rhetorical Divine ought not to do for nothing suits with Rhetorick's humour so well as Probabiâ—ity does and Demonstration cares not one straw for her But he gives them their just due and calls them onely Fair Proofs and Fair Probabilities that is Pretty Plausible and Taking and if they were not so of themselves what is there which a little daubing with Rhetorical Varnish will not make FAIR But the Upshot oâ— Sum Total of his Proofs is the best sport if it were not most pernicious 't is this That these Fair Probabilities taken together and in their united force have a great deal of Conviction in them Which amounts to this plain Confession though couch'd in wary Terms that there is not one good Proof amongst them all yet many bad ones put together will make a good one I know indeed that a concurrence of many Likelihoods renders a thing more Probable and encourages us to Outward Action but to think that many Probabilities will reach that Indivisible Point in which Truth and consequently our Assent to any thing as a Truth is found is quite to mistake the nature of Truth and Assent too which consist in Is or Is not and since to convince rationally is to conclude the thing is I desire Dr. T's Logick to inform the World how since a Probable Proof is that which onely concludes the thing Probable and consequently many probable ones are terminated in rendring it MORE Probable how I say many Proofs onely Probable can conclude the thing to be MORE THAN PROBABLE that is to be CERTAINLY or convince the Understanding that 't is unless they happen to engage some Nature or other and consequentâ—y some Identical Proposition which Dr. T. neither pretends nor goes about to show but on the other side declares himself an utter Enemy to such Principles and consequently to such a way of Discourse § 12. In a word Dr. T's Positive Proofs of a Godhead are reducible to these two Heads Humane Testimony and Probabilities of Reason as appears by his own words Serm. p. 22 23. and Testimony which p. 22. he tells us is the Principal Argument in a thing of this nature he divides into Vniversal Tradition and Written History Now Written History is not therefore True because 't is writ but depends upon Living Authority or Tradition to authenticate it and how ridiculous he would make the Certainty of Tradition even that which is confessedly grounded on the Sensations of great multitudes which is vastly above this here spoken of is seen in hâ—s Rule of Faith and here again he tells us Pref. p. 16. All Humane Testimony is Fallible and so all built on it is possible to be False for this plain reason because all men are Fallible Wherefore according to his Grounds 't is concluded there may possibly be No GOD for any thing Humane Testimony says to the Point And 't is as evident from the very word that Probabilities of Reason though never such Fair ones conclude as little Lastly he tells us Serm. p 22. that Fair Probabilities of Reason concurring with Testimony this Argument has all the strength it can have and thus Dr. T. instead of proving there is a GOD has endeavour'd to make out very learnedly that it may be there 's no such Thing and that neither Reason nor Authority can evince the Truth of the Point § 13. I omit his abusing the word Testimony which is built on Sensations in alledging it to prove a Creation which neither was nor could be subject to the Senses of the first Mankind nor consequently could the persuasion of future Deliverers and Writers have for its Source Attestation or Testimony I omit also his negâ—ecting to make use of Testimony to prove Miracles GOD's proper Effect which are subject to Sense and which both Christians Jews and Heathens of all Nations and Times both unanimously have and the first Seers could properly attest I suppose his Confidence in his Rhetorick made him chuse the worser Arguments to show how prettily he could make them look or perhaps the Genius of Things lie so that the slightest Arguments most need and so best suit with Rhetorical Discoursers § 14. By this time I suppose Gentlemen there will appear just reason for that moderate and civil hint I gave Dr. T. in my Introduction to Faith Vindicated of the weakness of his Grounds in these words In which Sermon under the Title of the Wisdom of being Religious and a great many seeming shows and I heartily think very real Intentions of impugning Atheism by an ill-principled and in that circumstance imprudent and unnecessary Confession in equivalent Terms of the possible Falsehood of Faith nay even as to the Chiefest and most Fundamental Point the Tenet of a Deity Religioâ— receives a deep wound and Atheism an especial advantage as may perhaps be more particularly shown hereafter After which I give his Sermon all its due Commendations and then subjoyn Onely I could wish he had right Principles to ground his discourse without which he can never make a Controvertist but must needs undermine the solid Foundation of Christianity if he undertake to meddle with
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
against them and I declar'd the design of my Testimonies to be to second by Authority what I had before establish'd by Reason All this is well were there not I fear two mistakes in it One that I writ that Book against Protestants particularly whereas it equally oppugns all that hold Christ and his Apostles to have taught true Doctrine bâ—t deny the Churches Living Voice and Practice to be the means of conveying it down hitherto of what denomination soever they be His second Mistake is his not considering that the whole substance of a Book may be writ against such or such a sort of men and yet the whole way of managing it not be against or different from them but from some particular Divines who as I conceiv'd would better rellish my Reasons if they saw all the several Conclusions deduc'd from them seconded by Authority And this was the true Case But Dr. T. is not to understand this till he be willing to acknowledge the Distinction between the Church and the Schools which he is resolved he never will lest it spoil his writing Controversie § 5. But what I complain of is That he objects I do this because I am conscious of the weakness of those Testimonies By which words his partial Friends will easily conclude he had so weakened those Testimonies that I was not able to uphold them whereas Letter of Thanks from p. 106. to p. 122. I very particularly reply'd to all he had alledg'd against them in his Rule of Faith and gave an account of his performances in these words p. 120. This Sir is the upâ—hot of your Skill in Note-Book Learning The three first Testimonies from Scripture you answered not mistaking what they were brought for the fourth you omitted you have given pitiful Answers to eight from the Fathers as I there shewed and shuffled off nine more without Answer c. Which Charge as to every Branch of it I there make good particularly and he no where clears here or attempts to clear more than by barely saying that I am conscious of the weakness of my Testimonies I think 't is best for me to take the same Method and say Dr. T. is conscious of the weakness of all he has written and so in a â—rice confute all he has writ and with far better Reason than he can pretend to seeing any Feather will serve to sweep down such Cobweb stuff as his Fair Probabilities Now Gentlemen did Dr. T. let his Readers understand this Performance of mine and this Neglect of his it would not appear his Answers to these Testimones had been so strong that my self had any cause to be conscious of their weakness therefore contrary to his promise they were to be quite forgotten it was but fitting and needful Well there have been perhaps many others equally-excellent in the Art of Memory but certainly in that raâ—e and useful Art of Oblivion he bears away the Bell from all Writers extant By virtue of this and the Assistance of that Fallacy in Logick call'd non causa pro causâ he obtains all his imaginary Victories § 6. He comes next to clear himself of False Citations and to let the Reader see how little I am to be trusted he will instance in two or three and I heartily desire I may be no otherwise trusted than as it shall appear upon severe examination of what we both alledge that he is culpable and my self Innocent Now in culling out and managing his Instances we may be sure he favours himself as much as he can handsomely the two first of them being trifles in comparison of many others omitted ond neither of them charged by me as false Citations whatever he pretends meaning thereby adding diminishing or altering the words of the Author Also the very first of these is the easiest to bear a tolerable explication of any one objected in the Book In examining which I request our respective Friends to be severely impartial and attentive to what was imputed by me and what answer'd by him in doing which Eye-sight is to be their best Guide And If I have to any degree wrong'd him I shall not think it a jot prejudicial to my credit to declare that upon second thoughts I ought to mitigate or retract my words accordding to the just degree the Truth of the thing shall require § 7. I charg'd him with a notorious abuse of the Preface to Rushworths Dialogues in citing the Author of it to say what he makes others say and condemns them for saying it To go securely to work we are to put down first the words of the Prefacer which are these This Term Moral Certainty every one explicated not alike but some understood by it such a Certainty as makes the Cause always work the same Effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherways others call'd that a Moral Certainty which c. A third Explication of that word is c. Of these three says the Prefacer who having related the opinions of others now begins to speak his own sense the first ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true Certainty and the Authors consider'd as mistaken in undervaluing it Am not I sure I shall never repeat in the same order all the words I have spoken this last year Yet these men will say I am onely Morally Certain Now the Question is whether I did well or no in blaming Dr. T. for imposing on the Prefacer to say that what consists with possibility of working otherwise is true Certainty whereas that Author avows that to be true Certainty which others said took not away the possibility of working otherwise What I affirm is that he annexes noâ— those words though it take not away the possibility of working otherwise to True Certainty but onely adds them as explicating the Conceit of others And that those words when the Cause always works the same Effect contain the just notion of what he allows there for True Certainty Dr. T. thinks the Contrary and that he allows or approves that for True Certainty which did not take away the possibility of working otherwise To state the Case clearly that we may see on whose side the fault lies let us consider what was imputed by me what reply'd by him My Charge is two fold one blaming his Manner of putting it directly upon the Prefacer by leaving out the words Some understood c. and so far is Evident See the words of the Preface SOME UNDERSTOOD by Moral Certainty c. See Dr. T. Rule of Faith p. 132 Lastly Mr. Wh. doth MOST EXPRESSLY contradict this Principle of M. S's in these following passages In his Preface to Mr. Rushworth HE SAYS that such a Certainty as makes the Cause always work the same Effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherwise ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true Certainty and those Authors are mistaken who undervalue it Now though one who cites
another ought to be allow'd the liberty of taking those words which express his Sentiments without putting them always in the very method and posture in which they are found in the Author while there is no ambiguity or doubt of the Authors sense in that place yet where 't is at least doubtful that the sence is otherwise as is manifest to any one who reads that Preface which as I alledg'd though Dr. T. never takes notice of it was wholly intended to evince the Absolute Certainty of Faith 't is not so fairly and clearly candid to introduce it as a most express saying of an Author and putting it directly upon him as his Saying whereas there at least needs a Discourse and the drawing some Consequences to prove it his Sense and Doctrine as will appear shortly and on the other side 't is opposite to the whole strain and scope of the Treatise in which 't is found Thus far then I conceive my self in rigorous Truth justifiable namely for imputing to Dr. T. that he left out the words Some understood for he did so and by so doing put that saying directly upon the Prefacer himself and expresâ— not that himself onely gather'd it by consequence from his words § 8. The chief and main part of the Charge is That the imputed Tenet is not the sence of the Prefacers words in that place and since he does not directly say it but 't is inferr'd onely from his approving an others Tenet either in whole or in part the Point is to be decided by such Reflexions as give us best Light of his Sense In order to which I alledge 1. That the whole Scope of that Treatise is aim'd to prove the quite contrary Position which Consideration being confessedly the best Interpreter of any Author to neglect that and catch at any little semblance in two or three particular words and then force upon that Author a Tenet perfectly contrary to what his whole Discourse is bent to prove favours too strong of a Wit resolv'd to cavil This I objected in my Letter of Thanks and this Dr. T. thought it his best play not to take notice of here for it was unanswerable and too evidently concluded him Injurious to the Prefacer First then I desire the Reader to reflect that there is not any show of relating the possibility there spoken of to the Divine Omnipotence but onely to the natures of Second Causes next that since every thing is what 't is made to be if those Causes can possibly work otherwise the thing may be otherwise These due Reflexions made and settled to those who have not leasure to read the whole Preface I offer these particularities P. 6. he blames those who bring not an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY or COACTIVE of the Vnderstanding and at the end of that § he presses those who say those Moral Motives are such as all are oblig'd to yield to to show how all can be bound to believe that which they evidently see MAY BE FALSE And which is remarkable these Expressions are found in the § immediately before the Citation D.T. so misrepresents whence 't is likely he could not but see and reflect on them Again p. 10. Else you will be forc'd to say that the very way God Himself has shewn to Heaven MAY POSSIBLY lead to Hell P. 13. The formal part of our Action unless it carry EVIDENCE and Certainty with it cannot be ventur'd on vvithout reproach Now as appears p. 12 he ayms this discourse at Actions belonging to Faith and answers that is opposes those who say the Reason or Ground of our Action need be no more but a high Probability or Contingent as a Thousand to One c. P. 14. This necessity binds God to put an INEVITABLE CERTITUDE in the Motives of Faith P. 16. There is NOTHING advanc'd towards the TRUTH of the ASSENT since this remains known that the Position MAY BE FALSE c. And to omit others p. 20. he puts the Question whether a desultory Assent which so agrees to this side that the Believer sees it FALLIBLE be sufficient for Christian Life and Action and coming in the next § to answer it he calls this an INCERTITUDE or defect of Certitude and declares that it makes a Religion either absolutely NONE or not a RATIONAL one but a MEER FOLLY These Citations duely reflected on it will appear very strange to any ingenuous man that Dr. T. could easily imagine an Author never noted till now to be given to contradict himself who so expresly in such and so many signal passages and in the whole Tenour of that Discourse nay the very immediately foregoing § manifests himâ—elf to hold that the Grounds of Faith cannot possibly lead men the wrong way that they must be Evident and Inevitably Certain that if it may be False we cannot assent to it at all as a Truth that if the Believer sees 't is Fallible 't is Irrational a meer Folly to hold it or else destructive of Religion 'T is strange I say to imagin that a Writer who is any thing in his wits should put forth a Treatise purposeâ—y to evince the Absolute Certainty or Impossibility of Falsehood in the Grounds and Motives to Faith and in it so often and so particularly avow it and yet in the same Treatise confess that what 's possible to be false is True Certainty and so a competent Ground to establish Faith on that is maintain the contrary Position to what he intended or pretended § 9. Having thus amply made good this part of my charge laid against Dr. T. Letter of Thanks p. 63. viz. That 't is the plain tenour of the Prefacers Discourse and the whole scope of that Preface to force the direct contrary Position to what Dr. T. would so disingenuously have put upon him of which he here takes no notice nor gives account why he hapt not to mind or regard that best way of interpreting an Authors words or not to see so many clear Expressions against his Interest rather than one obscure one seemingly for it we come next to consider the particular words in the place cited and see whaâ— strong temptation they could give Dr. T. to take him in a sense never intended notwithstanding so many pregnant Evidences to the Contrary § 10. The Prefacer said that Some understood by Moral Certainty such a Certainty as makes the Cause always work the same Effect though it take not away the Absolute Possibility of working otherways He adds afterwards that this ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true Certainty and the Authors considered as mistaken in undervaluing it And I must confess that to one who lights by accident on this single passage taken abstractedly from the rest and could reach no deeper than the Grammar or superficial placing of words it bears at first sight a show as if the Prefacer had approv'd that to be a True Certainty not onely when the Cause always works the same Effect as I
take him to mean but also when it takes not away the possibility of working otherwise in which sence Dr. T. understands him But I must avow that 't is Impossible any rational deliberate man who endeavours to looke into the sence of words can justly frame even hence any such imagination For which I offer these Reasons 1. That though the distinct Limits of Moral Certainty be unknown yet in the general Conceit of those who use that word particularly those alluded to here Moral Certainâ—y is that which consists with a possibility of being otherwise wherefore True Certainty which is here counterpos'd to Moral must be counterpos'd also to that which constitutes Moral Certainty namely to a Possibility to be otherwise 2. Since Absolute Certainty is that kind of Certainty which is oppos'd to the Moral one the True Certainty here mention'd must mean the same with Absolute Certainty which is also avow'd and requâ—r'd by that Author p. 6. now cited But 't is acknowledg'd that Absolute Certainty excludes all possibility of Falsehood therefore the True Certainty allow'd and approv'd here by the Prefacer is that which has no Possibility of being False 3. These things being so viz. Moral Certainty being that which has annext to it possibility of Falsehood and Absolute or True Certainty being confessedly inconsistent with it 't is unimaginable that he who blameâ— any man for mistaking or undervaluing a thing for Morally Certain should not also blame him for mistaking and undervaluing it as possible to be False since this is annext in the conceit of those blame-worthy persons to Moral Certainty as its proper Constitutive and Equivalent Also 't is unconceiveable that he who approves a thing as Truly or Absolutely Certain should not also mean it Impossible to be False this being the proper Constitutive and conâ—equently Equivalent of True or Absolute Certainty 'T is evident then that Authors sence can be no other than this that when the Cause always works the same Effect 't is True or Absolute Certainty and not Moral Certainty onely and consequently that 't is Impossible to be false and that those words which he added in their names expressing it onely Morally Certain though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherways are utterly disapproved by him in his disapproving their calling it Moral Certainty which is of the self-same notion My Charge then is justify'd to a tittle viz. that Dr. T. left out the words Some understood and put upon the Prefacer to say it most expresly whereas the Sense he imposes is contrary to express words of his in divers places nay to the whole intention and drift of that Preface and necessarily opposite to the sence of those words in that very particular place he cites for it This is manifestly Dr. T's Fault mine if any is this that I might have mitigated the phrase Notorious Abuse c and have been so wise as to consider that Dr. T. does not use to look so narrowly into the Sense of words as I still expect from him nor regards the Antecedents or Consequents as candid Adverâ—aries use but contents himself with the first countenance they bear right or wrong especially if it make for his Interest and hereupon I ought to have been more merciful to habâ—tual Imperfections I have been larger in clearing thâ—s Point because I hear his Friends apprehend he has gain'd a notable advantaâ—e against me in this particular and I dare even submit it to their Judgment if Friendship will permit them to examine it with any degree of impartiality I hope this will serve for an Instance how Dr. T. still misunderstands our Dâ—viâ—es when he objects them against me as also how far I have been from imposing any thing unjustly upon him in the least God be praised I do stand in need of such petty Crafts § 11. In clearing himself of the next Fault objected he is still himself and I wish he did not still grow worse and worse The Fallacy caâ—l'd non causa pro causa or pretending a wrong Reason which runs through half his performances was never more needful than in this present conjuncture I invite then even his best Friend Dr. St. himself to judge of the case and desire him having first read the p. 65. in my Letter of Thanks to determine the point in Controversie In that place I represented Dr. T. as quoting from Rushworths Dialogues after himself had preambled Rule of Faith p. 144. that probably it was prudent to cast in a few good words concerning Scripture for the Satisfaction of Indifferent men who have been brought up in this verbal and apparent respect of the Scriptures and then adding as a kind of Comment upon those words who it SEEMS are not yet arriv'd to that degree of Catholick Piety and Fortitude as to endure patiently the Word of God should be reviled or slighted Now this Preamble Comment introduc'd by it seems that is from those words he had cited did put upon that Author and by him on Catholicks so unworthy and Invidious a meaning that it oblig'd me to put down the rest of the words immediately following in the Dialogues and omitted by Dr. T. that so I might clear the sober meaning and intention of that Author from what he had so unhandsomely impos'd and not troubling my self to repeat over again what he had newly said I introduc'd them thus Whereas in the place you cite he onely expresses it would be a Satisfaction to indifferent men to see the Positions one would induce them to embrace maintainable by Scripture Which done I added as the Result of my whole Charge Which is so different from the Invidious MEANING your malice puts upon it and so innocent and inoffensive in it self that one would wonder with what Conscience you could thus WREST and PERVERT it Whence 't is evident that my total Charge was of impâ—sing an Invidious MEANING of Wresting and Perverting an innocent and inoffensive meaning that he onely exprest which words I immediaâ—ely subjoyned after the Doctors Comment and not after Rushworths words it would be a Satisfaction c. to see those Positions maintainable by Scripture nor was there in the whole Charge any Controversie about the right or wrong perfectly or imperfectly quoting the WORDS This being evident as it will be to any ordinary Understanding that guides it self by Eye-sight and Common Sense let us see what disingenuous ways Dr. T. uses to escape blame 1. He never in the least mention'd his imposing upon those words an Invidious Meaning or of wresting an innocent and unoffensive Intention which was solely objected whence he is so far from clearing himself from the Fault imputed that out of an over-tender kind-heartedness to his own Credit he not so much as names it or takes notice of it Next instead of that he substitutes a False Charge never dream't on by any man but himself namely that I deny'd those Words who have been brought up in this verbal and