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
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
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