be so as it happens in many Controvertists who are well instructed in the Grounds of their Faith yet not so well verst in the nature of particular points but believe them only by Implicit Faith or else one of their knowledges may be more Clear and distinct than the others and so serve to perfect and advance it in the same manner as Art does Nature Least of all can it follow that the Infallibility of the Church Representative is needless for This is not intended to teach the Faithfull their Faith at first nor do I remember ever to have seen a Generall Council cited in a Catechism but this is performed by the Church Diffusive by her Practise and Language and by her Pastors in their Catechisms and Instructions But it 's use is to secure and preserve Faith already taught and known from receiving any taint by the Equivocating Heretick and to recommend it more Authoritatively to the Faithfull when clear'd And whoever reads my 4th Note will see so many particularities in the Members which compound a Representative Church above others who are purely Parts of Ecclesia Credens that he cannot in any Reason judge them Vseless though those others be in an Inferiour degree Certain of their Faith too For all this while the word Infallible which seems to have so loud a sound and is made such a monstrous peece of business by the Deniers of it is in plain Terms no more but just barely Certain as I have prov'd Faith Vind. p. 37. 38. and Reason against Rail p. 113. To come closer up then to my Adversary His 20th Principle which speaks of Assent in common is wholly built upon a False supposition that it can only be Grounded upon Evidence For however indeed in perfect Reflecters that are unbyast Evidence of the Object or of the Credibleness of the Authority is alwayes requisit to breed Assent yet Experience teaches us that Assent in weak and unreâ—lecting persons is frequently built on a great Probability sometimes a very little one and sometimes men Assent upon little or no reason at all their Passion or Interest byassing their wills and by it their Understandings and this many times even against such reason as would be Evident to another Again matteriall Infallibility which is enough to that Assent we speak of precisely and solely consider'd depends solely at least Principally on the Object contrary to what is there asserted And whereas he says Princ. 29. that the Infallibility of every Particular person is not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church he sees by this discourse it both is and must be Asserted and that we maintain that every particular person must be materially Infallible or incapable of erring while he relies on the Grounds laid and recommended by God that is while he believes the Church which yet is far from rendring the Formal Infallibility of the Church useless unless he will say that because it suffices for the pitch of weak people whose duty 't is not to maintain and make out the Truth of their Faith that they be simply in the right or void of Errour and that they see after a gross manner that the thing is so though they cannot defend it therefore there is no need that those whose duty 't is to do so should be able to penetrate the Grounds of Faith and so explicate prove and maintain it to be True Nor will it follow that though the Generality were after a rude and gross manner formally Infallible in their belief that the Church is Infallible and therefore that the Points she proposes are all likewise Infallibly-true it will not follow I say hence that a greater and clearer and more penetrative degree of Formal Infallibility is useless in Church-Governours for as appears by my 4th Note there are many other things to be done by them of absolute necessity for the Church which far exceed the pitch and posture of those dull Knowers of the lowest Class which is the next degree above Ignorance and are unauthoriz'd to meddle in such affairs Unless he will say that Art is needless because there is Nature or that there needs no Iudges to decide such Cases in which the Law seems plain And thus much for the clearing this concerning Point In the rest of his Principles I shall be briefer But I must not pass over his Transition to them which is this We are further to enquire what Certainty men may have in matters of Faith supposing no External Proponent to be Infallible And he need not go far to satisfie his Enquiry For it being most evident by the Disputes between the Protestants and Socinians that Scripture needs some External Proposer of it's true meaning in such kinde of Points as also some External Proposer or Attester that this is the true Text of it on which all is built Also it being evident that Dr. St. Princ. 15. denies any Infallible Proposers of either of these and that here again he pursues close the same doctrin Lastly this Proposer being such that however we can have Certainty without It that the Divine Authority is to be believed yet we must depend on It for the Knowledge when and where 't is engag'd that is we must depend on It for the Certainty of our Faith It follows that in case this Proponent be not Infallible it can never be made out with Infallible Certainty that the Divine Authority stands engag'd for the Truth of any one Point of Faith and consequently that the Certainty men have in matters of Faith is not an Infallilible one And if it be not an Infallible Certainty which Faith has as he no where challenges but very laboriously disproves it he need not go far to enquire or learn what Certainty it must have for Common Sense tels him and every man who has the least spark of Natural Logick that if Faith must have Certainty as he grants and have not Infallible Certainty it must either have Fallible Certainty or none at all there being no Middle between them and so we must make account that because it overstrains D. St's weak Grounds to assert Faith to be Infallibly Certain therefore his next Attempt must be to overstrain Common Sense and to the inestimable Honour of Christian Religion maintain that all Christian Faith is Fallibly-Certain But he must do it smoothly and warily and however he nam'd the word Infallible loud enough and oft enough when he was confuting it yet he must take heed how he names the word Fallible Certainty when he is asserting it lest it breed laughter or dislike though it be evident out of the very Terms that he who confutes Infallible Certainty must maintain Fallible Certainty sf he maintains any But now he begins his defence of Faiths Fallible Certainty and 't is fit we should listen Monstrous things use to challenge and even force Attention from the most unconcern'd 24. There are different degrees of Certainty to be attained according to the
that those things he bragg'd of and rely'd on as Principles are in Reality but so many Paradoxes or Impertinences I hope we may sâ—â—cease our Fears and turn them into a more pleasant humour Though the Prognostick be very obvious what he can do in this case yet who knows but for once he may work an Impossibility who as will appear in the ensuing Treatise has told us so many Contradictions In the mean time if he thinks fit to attempt any Reply 't is Evident from the former Discourse what he is to do unless he will strangely Prevaricate from his Duty viz. either to disallow my settling here the nature of Principles and state them better that is either to deny that they are to have any Evidence or Influence at all or else if he allows it to make out that his pretended Principles have those Qualifications which is best done by resolving them into First Principles and connecting them distinctly with their respective Consequences And let him remember that till he does this he neither defends Himself against my present Answer nor gives a home Reply to Protestancy without Principles whatever gay things or things he sayes to particular passages in it since himself acknowledges these Principles of his were intended an Answer to that Book and out of the nature of both Treatises they appear to be the proper Return to it I have no occasion nor is it my intent here to write against the Church of England or any of her Legitimate Sons rather I must declare that in case they all hold as M. Thorndike a Man of Eminent Learning Esteem amongst them declares himself to do Just weights p. 159. that the Scripture interpreted by the perpetual Practice of God's Church is the Ground of Faith which implies that Practical Tradition is that which gives them Christs Sense or Faith and so is their Rule I must heartily applaud their joyning with Catholicks in the main Point of all and which settled is apt to unite us in all the rest What I impugn then here is a pestilent Tenet destructive to all Episcopacy and the very Essence of Church making Church-Governors Useless in their main Duty of Teaching Faith to their Flock and Lame in that of Government For if every private man is to rely on his own Interpretation he ought neither believe nor Obey the Church when the contrary seems to his Fancy to be grounded in Scripture and if that man do but alledge he judges in clear in Scripture and consequently that the Church is corrupt and errs I see not with what Iustice according to these Principles the Church can either excommunicate him or bind him to his Duty I expect Dr. St. will object that I deny divers of his Principles which some of ours have granted for his Friend Dr. T. and he abound in such sleight Topicks To which though I could answer that unusquisque in sensu suo abundat in productions of Human Reason yet I need only alledge Dr. St's ambi-dextrous and ambiguâ—us way of contriving his Principles to look so with different faces that even the same man may sometimes apprehend them to mean thus sometimes otherwise Besides all his Confuters aym nâ—t at one End Mr. E. W. intending only to shew they conclude not the Point they pretend and which is superscribed to them Mr. N. O. to shew their Destructiveness to Government while I take for my task to discover their Oppositness to all Logick True Learning and Common Rationality and that there is nothing at all in him of what was pretended neither Principles Consequences Connexion Conclusions Reduction Influence nor End Nor must he think that every thing that is granted by any for dispute sâ—ke is allowed for good by the Respondent 't is frequent to express we grant things which we only pass as nothing to the main Point which is to be concluded nor can Dr. St. pretend with any reason that others have yeelded them to be Principles whereas I deny it The Authour of Reason and Religion p. 650. has pithily declared his 〈◊〉 of them and their true merit in 〈◊〉 words Whether the fore-mentioned Principles be True False Controverted or Obscure no Verity peculiar to 〈…〉 be deduc't from them which expresses their want of Clear Evidence and so quite degrades them from the Dignity of Principles If any think the Title prefixt to this Book forestals immodestly the Readers Iudgment my Reply usust be that I hope for Readers of more Prudence then to receive Prejudice from so easie an Occasion A Counterfeit Modesty sprung from Sceptical Despair or Disregard of Truth will naturally dislike such Expressions but those who heartily hold there is such a thing as Truth and intirely love It will esteem the open avowing her compleat victoriousness both Fitting and Necessary and that she conquers at present I have all the best Maxims of Rational Nature engag'd for my Security INDEX ABsolute Certainty of Faith asserted p. 21. 22. 50. 51. Attributes of God not engaged to preserve private Interpreters of Scripture from damnable Errours p. 81. to 85. Not to be argu'd from alone p. 32. 33. much less from Power alone p. 33. 34. Certainty how abusively taken p. 164. 165. 166. 168. 173. 174. 179. 180. True Certainty asserted and from its deepest Grounds explain'd p. 167. 168. Moral Certainty in Faith discust p. 176. 177. 178. A Christian Life Spiritual p. 8. 9. 54. 55. 191. to 195. The Church turn'd with the heels upward by Dr. St. p. 96. 97. His six Conclusions examin'd p. 211. the nature of Conclusions laid open p. 222. Faith in Catholicks Rational p. 29. Infallibility requisit to Faith p. 92. to 96. 104. 158. 159. 162. how found in the vulgar how in others p. 133. to 157. Mankind how Infallible and in what p. 186. to 189. Necessary to the being of a Church p. 232. 233. 234. Principles agreed to by both sides examin'd p. 7. 8. c. shown to be two-fold p. 12. Principles not agreed to examin'd The 1st p. 20. the 2d p. 22. the 3d. p. 23. the 4th p. 24. the 5th p. 26. the 6th p. 30. the 7th p. 31. the 8th p. 35. the 9th p. 38. the 10th p. 53. the 11th p. 72. the 12th p. 73. the 13th p. 81. the 14th p. 85. the 15th p. 90. the 16th p. 96. the 17th p. 104. the 18th p. 106. the 19th p. 114. the 20th p. 128. the 21th 22th 23th p. 130. the 24th p. 159. the 25th p. 163. the 26th p. 171. the 27th p. 173. the 28th p. 179. the 29th p. 181. the 30th p. 185. Rule of Faith distinctly clear'd p 44. 45. 49. 54. 55. c. Vnanimously held by Catholicks p. 45. 46. How held by the Council of Trent p. 47. 48. Scripture not the Rule p. 60. to 69. p. 79. 80. How perfect p. 86. 87. c. 109. to 113. Sophistry in Dr. St. laid open p. 25. 26. 27. 28. 30. 31. 74. 75. 131. 132. 161. 164. 165. Ignorance in
only in the Word It being agreed then amongst us all that what Christ and his Apostles taught is Gods Word or his Will and the Means to Salvation all that is to be done by us as to matters of Faith is to know with Absolute Certainty what was the first taught Doctrine or Christs sense and whatever can thus assure us of that is deservedly call'd the Rule of Faith Now the word Rule made use of to mean a Spiritual or Intellectual Direction is Metaphorical or translated from some Material thing as most words that express Spiritual Notions are and 't is one of those kind of Metaphors which are transferr'd from one thing to another for some Proportion or Resemblance between them For as a Material Rule is such a thing as if one endeavour to go according to it and decline not from it preserves one from going crooked so this Intellectual Rule call'd the Rule of Faith is of that Nature that if one go according to it and swerve not from it it preserves one from going wrong or from erring in his knowledge of what is True or First-deliver'd Faith and Faith being intended for persons of all sorts or Capacities the Rule of Faith must be able to preserve even those of the meanest Capacity from Erring in Faith while they relie upon It. Agian this being the Proper and Primary Effect of the Rule of Faith and every Nature that is having essentially in it self a Power to produce of its self and without the Assistance of any other its Primary Effect or rather being it self that Power as man to discourse Fire to burn c. it follows that since to preserve all that relie on it in right Faith is the Proper effect of the Rule of Faith what has not in it self the Power to do this and this of its self independently on any thing else but on God who establishes the Natures of all things to be Certain Powers to produce their Proper Effect is not in true speech a Rule of Faith Since then not one Catholick in the World holds that Scriptures Letter of it self and independently on something else viz thâ— Church's Tradition attesting the Truth of the same Letter and Interpreting it has in it self Power thus to certifie persons of all capacities of Christian Faith without possibility of Erring nor any one but holds the Churches Authority is able alone to do this Effect since 't is known and confest it actually perform'd this in the beginning there is not one Catholick that I know of who holds either that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith taking the words in this sense or that any thing but the Churches living voice and Practice or Tradition is It and so taking the words properly as I do they all agree with me On the other side taking those words the Rule of Faith for any thing that contains Faith or that may signify it with absolute Certainty to people of all sorts not of it self but meerly by vertue of another whose Power of Asserting the Truth of the Letter in those Passages at least that concern Christian Faith and of unerringly Interpreting it lends it to be thus certainly significative of Gods Will taking I say Rule of Faith in this sense as some of ours do I grant with them that Scripture is a Rule of Faith So that still I agree with them in the Thing only I dissent from them in the word and judge that this Container of Christs Doctrin as now describ'd is but improperly call'd a Rule of Faith as not having in it self the nature of such a Rule that is not having a Power in it self and of its self thus to ascertain Faith by absolutely engaging the Divine Authority This Distinction now given I learned from the Council of Trent which no where says that Scripture is a Rule of Faith as it does expresly of Tradition Sess. 5. but only that it contains Faith as also Tradition does but whether it contains it in such a manner that all those who are to have Faith by relying on it may by so doing be absolutely secur'd from erring which is requisite over and above to make it in true speech deserve the name of a Rule the Council says nothing I am sure it is far from saying that people of all sorts reading the Scriptures and attending solely to the Letter as interpreted and understood by their private selves shall be sure never to erre in right Faith nay it engages not for their security from erring so much as in any one point which yet ought to be said if Scripture in it self and of it self have the power of regulating them in their Faith or be a Rule Rather the Council by its Carriage says the direct contrary for though being about to define against Hereticks it professes to follow in its definitions the written word yet 't is observable that it no where builds on any place of Scripture but it professes at the same time to build its Interpretation of that place on Tradition which evidently argues that though Scripture in the Judgment of the Council contain'd the Point yet that which indeed regulated the Council in its Definitions was the Tradition of the Church as it also expresly declares where ever it defines And I dare say that there is not one Catholick in the world who thinks the Council knew not both what and how to define against Luther and Calvin at that time without needing to seek its Faith anew in Texts of Scripture which plainly concludes that the Council was not regulated by It or look'd upon it as her Rule but only consider'd it as of a sacred Authority and available against Hereticks professing to rely on Scripture and accusing the Church for going contrary to the Word of God Nay the Council defines that none should dare to interpret Scripture contrary to the sense which our H. Mother the Catholick Church hath held and does hold which clearly takes it out of private hands and makes the sense of the Church ever held the only Interpreter of Scripture especially in matters of Faith and extends to all Scripture which unavoidably makes it no Rule of Faith I am sure the Distinction now given shows my sentiment consistent if not perfectly agreeing with that Common Opinion of our Divines that Scripture is a Partial Rule or that Scripture and Tradition integrate one compleat Rule For they clearly mean by those words that Faith is partly contain'd in Scripture partly in the Tradition of the Church So that what they had an eye to in so doing was not the Evidence requisit to a Rule but only the degree of Extent of Scripture to the matter contain'd in it whence 't is evident they meant onely that Scripture contain'd some part of Faith which I perfectly allow to it and perhaps more This is my Judgment concerning the notioâ— of the Rule of Faith and what is such a Rule and these my Reasons for that Judgment If any one thinks
act as they adjudg'd had both led them into actual Errour and punisht them thus grievously in that case for adhering to Truth which are too horrid blasphemies to be heard or imagin'd But if they mean onely for some time of that Law or some Ages immediately before Christ when the Synagogue was most corrupt this implies a Confession that such a Society was necessary in the Ages foregoing and then Dr. St. is to show us why it was not equally necessary in the later as in the former and not suppose it gratis Nor was the Synagogue ever more corrupt than in our Saviour's days and yet we see how severely he enjoins the Jews of that time to obey the Scribes and Pharisees because they sate in Moses his Chair which it were blasphemy to say Christ could do if he had not secur'd their Doctrine from being Erroneous that is preserv'd them Inerrable in that Affair Add that were all granted yet there is far more necessity of explaining the Scriptures now than at that time For the Law was in a manner all of it either matters of Fact to be done or Moral Duties and so agreeable to nature whence both of these were far more easily expressible in proper language and consequently Intelligible than the sublime spiritual and mysterious Tenets of the Law of Grace which are more hard to be exprest in per words and being more removed from our knowledg the natures of the Things are more hard to be penetrated and so those words more difficult to be rightly comprehended and understood without an Interpreter than were those other 16. There can be no more intolerable usurpation upon the Faith of Christians than for any person or society of men to pretend to an Assistance as Infallible in what they propose as was in Christ or his Apostles without giving an equal degree of Evidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did viz. by miracles as great publick and convincing as theirs were by which I mean such as are wrought by those very persons who challenge this Infallibility and with a design for the Conviction of those who do not believe it Thus the Dr. makes sure work against the Infallibility of any Church which overthrown his single self nay any private man or woman that has but self-conceit and confidence enough to proceed openly upon these Principles of his is upon even ground with the best nay all the Churches in the World at the main point of understanding and determining what 's Faith what not Nay more may defie all the Governours of all Churches in the World if he or she be but conscious to themselves that they sincerely endeavour and soberly enquire for the true meaning of the divine writings for these being their Rule of Faith and being assuâ—ed by Dr. St. that they cannot miss if they soberly enquire of what is necessary for salvation and being inform'd by common Reason that 't is a point very necessary to the salvation of a Christian or one who is to follow and adore Christ to know whether he be God and so may without fear of Idolatry have Divine Honour given him or no these things being so in case it should seem to the best judgement of such a man and let him be for example one brought up in the Church of England and newly turn'd Socinian that Christ is not God he ought not to relinquish his Rule of Faith at any rate nor what he judges the Scriptures sense of it this being his Faith but maintain it boldly against all his Pastors talk and quote Scripture as briskly as the best of them all desy them to their faces nay dye in defence of his interpretation of it and be a special Martyr though he take his death upon it that all his lawful Pastors and the whole Church of which he is a member are most hainons Idolaters for giving the worship proper to God to a man In this case 't is plain the Church cannot pretend to oblige him to believe her interpretation of Scriptuâ—e Alas all such power is quite taken out of her hands by these new principles not to act exteriourly as she does for that were to oblige him to deny his Faith in his Actions and carriage and this in so hainous a point as committing flat Idolatry and which his Rule of Faith tells him is such Nor to acquiesce so far as to hold his tongue and not contradict the Church for 't is both ingratitude to God who has so plainly reveal'd it to him in Scripture not to stand up for his honour so wickedly violated by the Church and withall most uncharitable to his neighbour not to communicate to him the light he has receiv'd by such plain Revelation from God's word and to endeavour his reducement from so grievous an Idolatry especially if this man be a Minister of the Church of England whose Office and Duty 't is to hold forth or preach what he judges God's word Nay though it were a Lay-man or a Lay-woman all 's a case why may they not with as much reason make known so concerning a truth plainly reveal'd to them as Aquila and Priscilla did of old As for all power of the Church to restrain them that 's quite thrown out of doors Humane commands can have no force when the best duties to God and man are neglected by obeying and the more the Church is obstinate and opposes this private man or woman by so much greater is the necessity of his or her informing the Church right and standing up for the Truth Hereafter more of this at present let us see how he destroyes infallibility in the Church which is his chief design and indeed it makes very much for his purpose for I so far concurr with him that if it be but fallible in attesting or explaining Scripture 't is little available to the grounding Christian Faith so that if infallibility be but overthrown and these Principles setled in its stead every private man is a Church which our corrupt nature loving liberty will no doubt be very taking and please the rabble exceedingly He is so earnest at his work that he stumbles for hast For first who did ever pretend to an infallibility equal to what was in Christ or his Apostles as his words import Christ was essentially infallible the Apostles by Immediate Inspiration from God The Church pretends indeed to be infallibly assisted but that she pretends to have it either essentially as God has it or by way of immediate inspiration as the Apostles had it is a thing I never yet learnt 'T is enough to justify her constant claim of infallible assistance that she have it mediately or by means of the ordinary working of natural and supernatural causes so shee but have it And to have it this way seems far more agreeable to reason than the other of immediate inspiration as to have by way of immediate inspiration was far more fitting for the Apostles For
neither was it in their dayes accepted by a great portion of the world that Christ was God or his Doctrine truth that so they might receive it transmitted from the foregoing divinely assisted Church that these and these doctrines were His but they were the First that were to propagate this doctrine and publish and make out the Truth of it not could their own testimony avail to the end inâ—ended for what could they testify That Christ said thus and did such and such miracles to testify the truth of his doctrine or that the H. Ghost inspir'd them The latter was latent and the hearers had but their own words for it the other was patent indeed and so fully Convictive to those who knew and convers'd with them and were acquainted with the Circumstances but to remote nations whither two or three of them were to go and Preach it signifi'd little and depended upon their bare words Hence Miracles were at first and shall till the end of the world in like cases be absolutely necessary to make such unheard of Tenets enter and sink into the hearts of great multitudes how circumstanc't soever But when afterwards a World or vast Body of men were by those Extraordinary Means settled unanimously in a firm beleif that Christ was God or at least that his doctrine was true there could need no more but to know it was continu'd down all along the same to make deserters of his Church against whom we dispute at present accept it and it being visible audible and practical and so subject to sense hence Attestation of the foregoing Age to the Age succeeding was the most Proper way to continue it down and perfectly Certain being now grown so Ample and Vast and the Attesters being Intelligent Persons and having the sense of Christ's Law written in their heart could deliver and explain themselves pertinently to all arising difficulties and clear all possible misunderstandings which the dead Letter could not and so this Living rule is perfectly Intelligible too I omit here the Supernatural assistances which those who comprehend what most effectual means of Sanctity there is in the Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline of the Church and consequently as appears by divers excellent effects of it the Product also of those means or Holiness in great multitudes of the Faithful will see and acknowledge do incomparably strengthen the Authority of the Church in delivering down right Faith Hence appears our Dâ—s unreasonableness intimated to us in this principle That though Connatural and Ordinary means be now laid in the world to continue Christ's doctrine from ouâ— time forwards and were laid in the first Age to continue it along hitherto Though Common Reason and as I remember St. Austin have taught him that into the place of Miracles succeeded the consent of Countries Nations though Mr. Baxter whom perhaps he holds as Holy a Father as great a Saint and as eminent a Scholar as St. Austin himself have told him in his More Reasons for the Christian Religion c. p. 32. That humane testimony may be so circumstanc't as amounts to a natural infallible certainty instancing in the existence of King Iames and our Laws being made by King and Parliament which how Dr. T. his Schollar will like I know not and so the Churches infallibility in Faith to the end of the world might descend down to us by testimony to have been the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles without needing New miracles done still to evince it Nay though himselâ— in correspondency to both these Doctors does in his Rational account p. 205. make Tradition of the same use to us now which our Eyes and Ears had been if we had been actually present when Christ delivered his Doctrine and wrought his miracles and so could as well certify us of the first taught doctrine as if we had seen and heard it and consequently of the Infallibility of the Church in case that were a point of Doctrin taught at first yet now one of his principles must be that no Argument though never so strong and convictive no Tradition how well qualifi'd soever it be nor any Plea in the world though never so legal and evident shall acquit the Church from a most intolerable Usurpation if she challenge Infallibility but down right Miracles full as great observe his â—igour publick and convincing as were those of Christ and his Apostles and wrought by those very persons that challenge this infallibility nay and wrought with a design too for the conviction of those who do not beleeve it How shrewdly sure this Romeâ—destroying Principle is laid But if one should ask seriously whether a Convincing reason to prove this infallibility I mean such a one as evidently concluded the point might not do without a miracle I know no rational man that ever would deny his assent upon such a condition nor would Dr. St. perhaps in another occasion but here oh here 't is another case His hatred against the Church of Rome's Infallibility is so vigorous that he professes to desy Demonstration it self that is renounce Humane Nature rather than admit it nothing but Miracle with all the nice cautions imaginable shall serve the turn A notable resolution and only parallel to his whom nothing would satisfy of the truth of Christianity but the miraculous appearance of his Angel Guardian but the Miracle not being granted him he dy'd an Atheist In a word if the Church ever usurpt't the pretence of Infallibility I hope she first invaded it at one time or other Now since as long ago as St. Paul's time she we was called by that good man Columna Firmamentum veritatis The Pillar and Ground of Truth which words ill consist with a Fallible proposer of such truths as belong to her sphear oâ— points of Faith he ought to shew and make out when the Church lost that Title and preheminence otherwise since she is found claiming it now and actually holding and possessing it upon the tenure of Tradition as promis'd her by Christ we have very good reason to hold she never usurp'd it at all but inherited it by a continued line of Succession from the beginning of Christianity to this very day Nor has it ever seem'd Intolerable to any but to those whom nothing would content but new fangled Innovation and altering the long-establish'd doctrine of Christ deliverd down perpetually from his time 17. Nothing can be more absurd then to pretend the necessity of such an infallible Commission and Assistance to assure us of the truth of these writings and to interpret them and at the same time to prove that Commission from those writings from which we are told nothing can be certainly deduc'd such an assurance not being supposed or to pretend that infallibility in a Body of men is not at liable to doubts and disputes as in those books from whence only they derive their Infalliblity The first part of this Principle is granted as to the Absurdity of the
Position abating the Degree of it for I take it to be equally or more absurd not to assent to the Infallibilty of a great body of men which is all that is pretended whatever Reason or Tradition appear for it without an evident Miracle The second part is likewise granted in case it suppose as it seems to do the knowledge of their Infallibility deriv'd only from those very books which they recommend and in passages which they are to explicate ere they can be sure of such an infallibility Otherwise 't is possible a book obscure in multitudes of other passages may be clear in that one which relates them to the Church or that body which they are to hear and obey as to the proper interpreters of the Scriptures in Dogmatical and controverted passages which belong to Faith But the Dr. should do well to shew us any society of men or Church that pretends to build her Infallibility only on the Scriptures interpreted by that very Infallibility Otherwise it will not touch our Church who claimes the Supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost upon her Rule of Faith Tradition and as for her being naturally supported from errour in attesting former doctrines 't is grounded by those who discourse of that point upon Humane nature as to its infallible Sensations and on its Rationality which renders it incapable to do any thing without a motive as they must do should they transmit a not-deliver'd that is an evidently-new doctrine for an old or deliver'd one 18. There can be no hazard to any person in mistaking the meaning of any particular place in those books supposing he use the best means for understanding them comparable to that which every one runs who beleeves any person or society of men to be infallible who are not for in this later he runs unavoidably into one great error and by that may be led into a thousand but in the former God hath promis'd either he shall not erre or he shall not be damn'd for it This whole Paragraph is built on a false and unprov'd supposition viz. that any Adversary of his beleeves any society of men to be Infallible which is not Other faults there are in it and that good store as granting in effect here what he lately deny'd that a man using the best means for understanding Scripture may mistake the meaning of any particular place though not with a hazard incomparable to that of the other whereas if Scripture be the Rule of Faith as he contended 't is impossible that a man relying and proceeding upon it and using that means in the best manner he can possibly should come to erre in his Faith for in this case the man having done all that can be done by him as to the understanding the Rule the fault must needs be in his judging that to be a Rule which is none But this main and fundamental error is coucht in the last words in the former God hath promis'd he shall not erre or shall not be damn'd for it what mean in the former case c. This certainly and nothing but this if we may trust his own words in mistaking the meaning of any particular place in thâ—se books supposing he use the best means for understanding them Now 't is a strange thing to me that God should promise that a man mistaking the meaning of these books should not erre in so doing But omitting this slip of Dr. St's Reason or memory I ask what means this disjunctive promise either of not erring or not being damn'd for it Why it means that Dr. St. knows not well himself what to say to the point or whether he should stand to it or no that a man using the best means for understanding Scripture that is according to him the best means lest by God for him to arrive at Faith should not erre and therefore he warily subjoyn'd or he shall not be damn'd for it and then he thinks himself secure enough from confute it being a hard thing to conclude of any particular wellâ— meaning man when he is damn'd when not whereas it might perhaps be no such hard matter to prove whether what he held was true or not I could ask him whence or how he comes to this assurance of God's disjunctive promise here so confidently asserted on the truth of which the salvation of so many souls necessarily depends Not by Tradition For this would make him rely on a society of men or a Church which he hates with all his heart not by Scripture for this would make the same thing be the proof to it self not by Reason for we are to suppose he has done his best in that already and yet as is shown has effected nothing But I would demand of him seriously did God ever promise that if one takes such a way as for want of a due intelligibleness in proportion to his capacity is not able to secure him from error he shall not erre or that if he will needs be wiser than his Pastors and chuse a Means for such an end which God never intended for that end he shall yet be sure to arrive at that end by that means or that if by relying on it and erring he shall happen to fall short of sufficient means he shall notwithstanding miraculously be sav'd without sufficient means These are the points he is to consider well and speak to and not thus confidently call every thing a Principle which he thinks fit to say on his own head though never so extravagant In a word let him prove Scripture to have in it the nature of a Rule of Faith or which will fall into the same to have been intended by God for that end that is to be of it self such to people of all capacities that soberly enquire as secures them from erring in Faith while they rely on it and this of it self without needing any society of Men or Church to attest or explain it and then I shall yeild his discourse to run as currently as his own heart can wish but in proving this he hitherto hath and ever must fall short most miserably He hath often as I noted formerly instead of saying his Rule of Faith should preserve those who endeavour to follow it from error or from missing of truth substituted those words cannot miss of what is necessary for their salvation and such like The examination of which words I have reserved till now and that I may do him all right imaginable I will press his Argument or rather indeed bare saying in behalf of Scripture as far as my reason can carry it None can deny but that the knowledge of a very few points are sufficient for well-meaning particular persons as appears by the Ieweâ— that were sav'd and many silly and weak Christians since nor can it be deny'd but every one that reads Scripture or hears it read by one they dare trust may understand some few good things to which if they live up heartily and
if they do not 't is their own fault they shall be sure to be sav'd And as for such points as a Trinity Christ's Godhead Real Presence and such like the knowledge of them even in case they are truths is not of necessity to salvation since none doubts but tis absolutely speaking possible to be sav'd without knowledge of them since many have been actually sav'd who never heard of any such points Having impartially said in short the best I could in Dr. Sts. behalf and much more than he has said for himself let us see now what ought to be reply'd in behalf of Truth To make way to it I premise these Maxims 1. That according to the Ordinary course of God's Providence men are sav'd by means 2. That All points of Faith are to some degree Means of salvation 3. That according to the several Circumstances and Exigencies of particular persons one needs more Means than another 4. That therefore it must be said some have miscarry'd because they had no more of those means of salvation apply'd to them who might yet have been sav'd had they had more This being so how great a presumption and madness it is to affirm that every man who reads the Scripture shall be sure to understand there so much as is sufficient means for His salvation or motives to work up his soul to a disposition for Heaven considering his Exigencies without needing the knowledge of other Points which contain other Motives ten times more forcible perhaps to move and excite him to true interior goodness Is it not manifest that considering mens several capacities which 't is a perfect Phrenzy to think they must needs be perfectly adjusted to their spiritual necessities one may as well say that every one who throws a Die upon a Fortune book shall most certainly light on his own Lot as that every one who reads Scripture shall let his exigencies be what they will find motives sufficient for his salvation If Dr. St. sayes that some one or two Points have prov'd sufficient for some few therefore they might have serv'd All if they would and that God's goodness towards Christians obliges him to no more I reply First That he speaks against nature since t is evident some temptations require greater Motives to overcome them than others and no man can assure us that those who have fewest motives shall not have the strongest temptations And if it were but rightly comprehended that t is Love of God which unites us to him and so saves us and that 't is for want of this those miscarry who do miscarry it would be easily understood that many excellent and incomparable motives as the Godhead of Christ and such like are lost to weak souls and consequently Heaven by their not understanding them and not only so but by the necessary connexion of truths with one another while they misunderstand the Scripture and so by their holding opposite to such great truths oppose in their thoughts other points of Faith those also lose their motive force whence their souls become tainted with multitudes of erroneous Maxims and Practices Secondly this answer takes away the necessity of all other points of faith but of such a few of them only which have hapt by the very especial assistance of God's preventing and assisting grace to have accidentally as it were suffic'd to have sav'd some few If he sayes that proceeding on this manner none can hold an error for they are to hold nothing but what they see to be evidently there and in all other things which they see not they are to suspend I would know what should hinder them from thinking they see that to be evidently there which is not evidently there since 't is acknowledg'd the vulgar or Generality are but bad judges and distinguishers of a true Evidence from a Counterfeit one besides there are in the open Letter as it lyes many Heresies and if they know these to be such how can they be sure of any thing they read there to be True since nothing is plainer in the letter than are those Heresies unless it be said that natural or moral Maxims taught them these places are to be literally understood and did not tell them so of the other and then they are beholding to those Maxims and not to Scripture for their faith since in that case It has taught them no more than they knew before Again may not an acute wit make out to the generality of D. Sts. Faithfull that to know the meaning of Scripture right they must compare one place with another and then by doing so dexterously make them beleeve a thousand Errours to be pure Scripture and God's Word which are not Much more might be said on this occasion but I only make one reflexion on this Principle and so proceed His intent in it is to shew which Party runs greater hazard The Adherers to Scripture us'd on his fashion or those who hear the Church and he would run us down by vertue of an unprov'd Supposition that the Church is not Infallible To offer him fair play let us grant him all the advantages he pretends to in Scripture and let him grant us all we pretend to secure us in the Church and then compare the two hazards together nay more let us condescend as much as himself can imagine even so as to abate the Infallibility of the Church and to grant that she is Fallible and yet the very light of Nature will stand on the side of our Faithfull against his For this teaching them that Superiours are to be obey'd and their Teachers to be heard and believ'd in things not known to be against God's Command and experience telling them that Scripture is oft times liable to dispute in passages that to both sides seem clear both Humility Prudence Obedience and the due care of their Salvation and all Virtues that can be concern'd in this kind of action incline them strongly rather to adhere to what Persons wiser then themselves or their Pastors conceive to be the meaning of Scripture than to what seems so to themselves in opposition to the same Pastors and Multitudes of other Christians who are evidently of greater knowledge and as far as they can be inform'd of equall sincerity 19. The Assistance which God hath promis't to those who sincerely desire to know his will may give them greater assurance of the Truth of what is contain'd in the Books of Scripture than it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other Persons to do supposing they have not such assurance of their Infallibility God hath promis't no Assistance that those should arrive at their end who take a way disproportion'd to that end otherwise God should oblige himself to work constant Miracles as oft as well-meaning people out of weakness should act imprudently Next if men desire sincerely to know Gods will and be humble and if they be not 't is doubtfull their desire is not sincere as is
ought they will as God's command the Order of the World and common Reason obliges them be rather willing to trust their Pastors who are better qualifi'd for such Knowledge and whom God hath set over them to instruct them what is the sense of Scriptures than trust their own private shallow judgments And 't is observable that Dr. St's discourse all along concerning this point is a plain begging the Question For if God have left a Church and commanded the Faithfull to hear it and conform to it's Faith and consequently to receive the sense of Scripture as to Points of Faith from it then there is no necessity of Scripture's being intended to be plain to all Capacities of it self nor of thinking men may sincerely desire to know God's will in Scriptures and use due means to understand it without making use of the Churches Judgment in that affair upon which false supposition Dr. St. wholly builds his otherwise perfectly ruinous discourse Wherefore his supposition being deny'd I must reply that those who sincerely desire to know Gods wisl have a certain virtue in them called Humility and this teaches them not to overween in their own opinion but to think that their Pastors appointed by God to teach them are generally wiser then those who are to be taught and that those who are wiser know better than those who are lesse wise A little of this plain honest rational Humility would quite spoil all Dr. St's discourse and convince all his Principles to be a plausible piece of Sedition and licentious presumption tending of its own nature utterly to destroy all Church and Church-Government and if applied to that Subject Temporal too I should be glad to know what means the word such in the last line if he means Infallible and that the Church pretending to Infallibility must have Infallible Assurance that she is Infallible t is asserted by us and his supposition that she is not is absolutely deny'd For the Church is Infallibly certain that Christ's promise to her shall not fail and also Infallibly certain by constant Tradition and the beleef of good Christians in all Ages that Christ has promis'd her this Security or Immunity from Errour in Faith none questioning it but those who have rebel'd and revolted from her In a word this whole Principle is Faulty being built on a False and unprov'd Supposition and were the Supposition granted and that the Church were Fallible still it were false that his Faithfull would have greater Assurance of their Faith than ours as hath been partly now shown and more amply in my Reply to the foregoing Principle Recapitulation The Sum then of Dr. St's Performances in these ten Principles of his which most Fundamentally concern his Faith and the pretended Reduction of it to Principles is briefly this that he hath not brought so much as one single Argument proving either that Scripture's Letter is the Rule of Faith nor that Tradition or the Infallible Testimony of Gods Church is not it And as for the particular Maxims or Sayings of his on which he chiefly relies they have been one by one disprov'd and the opposite Truths establish't As 1. That Faith being such an Assent as when built as it ought to be on the means left by God for mankinde to rely ou is impossible to be False and so that Means or the Rule of Faith being necessarily such as while men rely upon it is impossible they should erre These things I say being so as I have largely prov'd in Faith Vindicated and the Introductory Discourse to this present Examin Dr. St. has not so much as made an offer or attempt to show that Scripture is the Rule of Faith 2. That since 't is agreed God can contrive Writings sufficiently Intelligible for that End or sufficiently clear to ascertain those who rely upon them of their Faith and yet on the other side 't is evident God has not de facto done this or contriv'd such Methods and ways as our Reason tels us evidently are proper means to keep those Writings call'd the Scriptures from being thus mis-understood by severall Parties even in Fundamental Points as we experience they are it follows hence most manifestly that God never intended the way of writing for the Rule of Faith 3. Since several Parties of excellent capacities in understanding words aright and both owning Scripture for their Rule and applying themselves with greatest diligence to know the true sence of it do notwithstanding differ in those Fundamental Points of a Trinity and the God-head of Christ 't is manifest that Scripture is not able so secure those who rely on it to their power of the Truth of their Faith and so is not the Rule of Faith 4. Again since in passages that concern Faith the knowing whether the words be taken properly or improperly is that which determines what is Faith what not and this knowledge is not had from Scripture it follows that Scripture is not the Rule of Faith 5. God has no where promis'd that he will still assist those who sincerely endeavour to compass an end in case they take a way disproportion'd to attain that end and which way was consequently never intended by him for such an end for this were to engage himself to do perpetual Miracles when ever any one should act irrationally Wherefore unless it be first solidly prov'd that Scripture is the Rule of Faith or apt of its own nature to give those who rely on it Inerrable security of the Truth of their Faith while they thus rely on it and consequently that it was intended by God for such an end none can justly lay claim to God's assistance or tax his Justice or Veracity if they fall into Errour Much lesse if they neglect those Duties which Nature makes evident to them and common Christianity teaches viz. to obey and hear their Governours Pastors and Teachers ordain'd by God and rely on their own private Wit or God's Immediate Assistance to their single selves rather than to those Publick Officers of the Church God had appointed to govern and direct them for this intolerable spiritual Pride is so odious and pernicious that it most justly entitles them to delusion Errour and Heresie 6. Hence since God has left some means for Faith and 't is Blasphemy to say that those who rely according to their utmost power on the means left and Intended by God to lead Men into Truth can while they do so run into Errour which yet private understandings as was seen may relying on the Written Word it follows 〈◊〉 unavoidably that some other way is left which is not Writing to secure the Relyers on it from Errour in Faith or to be to them the Rule of Faith 7. Scripture not being the Rule and Christ's Doctrine being once settled and accepted in the Christian part of the World by means of Miracles there needed no more but to derive it down to future Ages and this Doctrine being Practicall and so objected
to to our Sences Testimony was sufficient to do it so it were sufficiently qualify'd that is the best and on the best manner supported that any ordinary means can be such was the Testimony of the Church or Tradition which besides what is found in humane Testimony has also the whole body joynt force of supernaturall motives to preserve the Testifiers Attentive and Veracious Thus the Church or the Christian Society of Men being establish't Infallible in delivering down Faith needs not prove her Infallibility by Miracles but 't is sufficient the Faithfull beleeve that Christ promis't to protect her from Errour and consequently to beleeve the An est of her Infallibility or that she is infallible upon the same Rule they beleeve all their Faith and the Scriptures too viz. upon Tradition and that her Controversiall Divines who are to defend Faith by way of Reason or Argument prove the Quid est of this Infallibility or make out in what it consists or in what second Causes this ordinary and constant Assistance is founded and consequently prove it's force by such Maxims as ground the Certainty of Humane Testimony and if the Reader comprehends them by the strange efficacy of supernaturall motives also conspiring to strengthen Nature as to that effect of rightly testifying the Doctrine received and beleeved to be Christ's 8. There is no Necessity then of proving this Infallibility meerly by Scripture interpreted by virtue of this Infallibility Nor do the Faithfull or the Church commit a Circle in beleeving that the Church is Infallible upon Tradition For first taking them as Faithfull precisely they are meerly Beleevers not Reasoners or such as put one proposition artificially before or after another Next they beleeve only the supernaturall Infallibility built on the Assistance of the Holy Ghost that is on the Churches Sanctity and this is prov'd by the Human Testimony of the Church to have been ever held since the beginning and the force of the Human Testimony of the Church is prov'd by Maxims of meer Reason Add that the Certainty of such a vaâ—t Testimony is self-evident practically in the same manner as 't is self-evident that the Testimony of all England cannot deceive us in telling us there was such a man as King Iames whence no Circle can possibly be committed if it be beleeved for it's own sake or rather known by its own light though there would be if discoursing it rationally we should put the same Proposition to be before and after it self 9. Since those who have the least capacity of penetrating Scripture and consequently according to Dr. St. have the fewest Motives of good life applyed to them may frequently live amongst greatest Temptations that is in circumstances of needing the most 'T is a blind Undertaking and no securer nor wiser than idle Fortune-telling to bear men in hand that persons of all capacities who sincerely Endeavour shall understand Scripture in all such things as are necessary for their Salvation 10. Since 't is most evident that private Iudgments may err in understanding Scripture but not evident that Christ has not promis'd his Church Security from erring in Faith they run the greater hazard by far who rely on their private sense of Scripture then those do who rely on the Church especially since the Church denyes not Scripture but professes to go according to it and so in common reason is likely to comprehend its meaning far better than private men but most especially since our Moderns when they first began to rely on their own Judgments of Scripture for their Faith revolted from hearing the Church and rebell'd against Pastours and lawfull Superiours which both Gods Law and the light of Nature taught them they were to follow and submit to Thus our new Apostle of the private spirit of Gifts and new Light hath endeavour'd to pull down the Church and subvert the Foundation laid by Christ and instead thereof to set up as many Churches as there are private and proud Fancies in the world Each of which may by this devillish Doctrine defy the Church for Teaching him his Faith or for governing him as as a Church that is governing him as one of the Faithfull for she can bind never a subject in conscience to any thing but what her self and each man judges to be True and Sound wherefore if any or each private person understands Scripture another way then she does he is enfranchis'd by his Rule of Faith which he ought not relinquish from her Authority she may in that case wish him well and pity him as every old wife may also do and he in return may wish well to the Church end pity her She may endeavour to admonish and instruct him better so to pluck him out of his Errour and he in requital that he may not be behind-hand with the Church in Courtesy may with equal nay better Title admonish the Church of her failing and endeavour to pull her out of her Errour or as the new phrase is reform her for being conscious to himself that he reads the Scripture and sincerely indeavours to know the meaning of it he has all the security of his Faith and consequently of the Churches being in an Errour that may be Nor can he being thus gifted want Power to preach to her and others For certainly the World would be most perversly ordered if they who are in Errour should have Licence and Power to propagate their Errours and those who follow Truth should have no leave to propagate Truth Thus the Church has lost all power that is has lost her self being able neither to lead nor drive her equally-gifted Subjects so that her exercising Jurisdiction over them would by this wicked Doctrine be a most Tyrannical persecution and every such private man's refractory Disobedience see the wonderful gifts of the private spirit would become a most Glorious Confession of Christian Faith and every Rebell acting against the Church so he be but so self-conceited as to judge he knows more of God's mind in the Scripture then all the Church besides would by this Doctrine in case the Secular power should think fit to curb his Insolence be a most blessed Martyr such no doubt as John Fox'es were The Fifth Examen Sifting the Eleven remaining Principles which seem Chiefly to concern the nature of Faith WHoever hath perus'd the foregoing Examin and reflected well upon what a sandy Foundation Dr. St. has built his Faith will doubtless expect that he will assigne it such a nature as is of no exceeding great strength for fear lest his weak Grounds ' should not support his Superstructures nor his Proofs carry home to his Conclusions Now the Conceit which the Generality of Christians have of Faith importing it's true Nature is that 't is such an Assent as is impossible to be an Errour or False Whence follows that its Grounds are likewise such And indeed since all hold That Faith is an Immoveable and Unalterable Assent which is to
bide by us and we by it all our whole lives till we arrive at our future state the Region of Light where we shall see facie ad faciem who sees not that it must be held and so since there can be no Necessity to hold a thing to be what 't is not must be Impossible to be false for otherwise were we to hold it that is were it self possible to be False it ought to be held Alterable when ever more Light should appear discovering it to be an Errour To evince this Truth I have produc't multitudes of Arguments in Faith vindicated none of which has been thought fit to be reply'd to though mine and Faith's opposers still craftily persist to insinuate the contrary Errour But I will at present make use only of one which will I conceive best conclude the Point between us For Dr. St. makes Scripture the Rule of Faith and so speaks of Faith as standing under what he conceives the firmest and clearest Ground and which was left by God for Mankind to embrace Faith I do the same when I assert the Churches Testimony or Tradition to be the Rule So that neither of us speak of the particular odd ways by which some persons casually come to have Faith nor of Faith as had by such means but of the common road-way left by God for Mankind to attain to Faith and of Faith as standing under such a Means or Rule Upon this Agreement if we joyn issue and proceed it seems that nothing but evident Obstinacy against manifest Truth can hinder us from agreeing in our Conclusion For since if we may be deceiv'd in beleeving even while we follow the direction of that Rule which God himself has appointed to light us to Faith it would follow that there is no means imaginable likely to do that effect as also that God himself had deceived us which is both Blasphemous and Impossible it must follow That Faith built upon the Rule left by God whether Scripture or Tradition must be Impossible to be an Errour and consequently its Ground or Rule must be Impossible to be False or Erroneous Wherefore Dr. St. is oblig'd as well as I am to hold heartily this double Conclusion and if he attempts to discourse of that point to make it out that the Rule he assignes is such as cannot leave us in Errour and our Infinitely-perfect God in the blame How far short he hath fallen hitherto of making out his pretended Rule of Faith viz. Scripture as standing under the Judgement of every private person to be Impossible to suffer men to err while adhering to that way is already shown How heartily now he asserts Faith it self built on the Means or Rule left by God to be Impossible to be Erroneous or False comes next to be examined 20. No mans Faith can therefore be Infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be Infallible because the nature of Assent doth not depend upon the objective Infallibility of any thing without us but is agreeable to the Evidence we have of it in our mindâ—s for Assent is not built on the nature of things but their Evidence to us This Principle begins with a Fallacy of non causa pro causa For what man in his Witts ever said or held that Faith must therefore be Infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be Infallible must a meer saying that is a saying neither self-evident nor prov'd be held a competent Ground to build the Existence of any thing upon But let us suppose that Dr. St. by the words is said to be meant is or prov'd to be as is indeed our true Tenet let 's see how he confutes us Our Tenet is that in case the Proposer of Faith be Infallible all that rely on It for that particular are by so doing Infallible likewise He argues against us from the nature of Assent which he sayes depends not on the Objective Infallibility of any thing without us but is agreeable to the evidence we have of it in our minds If he means by the words depends not such a dependence as is Immediate I grant it For our Assent being an effect wrought in our Soul and a Result of some foregoing knowledges notions or natures of things within us which produce that Assent if it be a Conclusion or compound it if a First Principle 't is impossible any thing without us and staying there without evidencing it self to our minds or breeding some Interiour discovery of itâ—elf there should beget any Assent at all concerning it But if he means by those words that our Assent depends not mediately or depends not at all on the Object without us as his large Expression seems to signify then 't is absolutely deny'd For the Evidence of the Thing in us is an Effect of the nature of the Thing without us nor could evidence of the Thing in us cause Assent without such dependence on the Object or Thing without us for unless by means of the Object and dependence on it this Evidence it self could not be The last words For Assent is not built on the nature of things but their evidence to us is but a Tautology or short rehearsall of the reason lately given and so needs no new Answer Yet however D. St. for want of Logick expresses himself ill confusedly there is notwithstanding a kind of knot in in his discourse and I shall lend my best Assistance to loose it but first it will be necessary to put down his three next Principles since they all seem to club into one Dilemma against Infallibility 〈◊〉 Proponent 21. It is therefore necessary in order to an 〈◊〉 Assent that every particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be beleeved so that the Ground on which a necessity of some Externall Infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make every particular person Infallible if no Divin Faith can be without an Infallible Assent and so renders any other Infallibility useless 22. If no particular person be Infallible in the Assent he gives to matters proposed by others to him then no man can be Infallibly sure that the Church is Infallible and so the Churches Infallibility can signify nothing to our Infallible Assurance without an equal Infallibility in our selves in the belief of it 23. The Infallibility of every particular person being not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church and the one rendring the other useless for if every person be Infallible what need any representative Church to be so and the Infallibility of a Church being of no effect if every person be not Infallible in the belief of it we are farther to inquire what certainty men may have in matters of Faith supposing no externall Proponent to be Infallible Ere I begin my Discourse I am to note Dr. St's shuffling way of contriving his Sentences here or of penning his Principles as he call's them His 21st contends 't is necessary
to Infallible Assent that every particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be beleev'd And the 22d in consonancy to it mentions the Infallibility of particular persons in the Assent they give to matters proposed by others to them which clearly signify that Faith cannot be Infallible unless we have Infallibility or Infallible Knowledge of the Points of Faith for what can matters propos'd to us to be beleev'd signify else On the other side in the 21st Princ. he seems only to aim at proving there must be Infallibility in us that the Proponent is Infallible Also Princ. 22. he concludes that to our Infallible Assurance there is required equal Infallibility in our selves in the belief of the Churches Infallibility And lastly Princ. 23. he concludes the Infallibility of the Church of no effect if every person be not Infallible in the beleef of it Which expressions are of quite different sense from the former and require not Inâ—â—llibility in the in the matters propos'd to beleeved as did the other but only in knowing the Proponent to be Infallible Now because I have no mind to cavill but am heartily glad when he gives me occasion to handle any good point I will not take him as his former words sounded it being perfect Nonsense to require evidence of the Points Propos'd ere we can be certain of the Authority that Proposes them for what need can there be either of any Proposer or of knowing him Infallible if we be Infallible certain antecedently of the Points themselves but I shall willingly pass by those expressions as effects either of a strange Unwariness or of a crafty Preparing for future Evasion and discourse of the Later Thesis For in truth it hints at a very excellent difficulty though he proposes it but ill and pursues it worse I will therefore clear his discourse from his contradictory expressions and put it home and close as well as I can and so as I hope himself will not say I at all wrong it He seems them to argue thus Objective Infallibility in another viz. the Proponent avails nothing to make my Faith or Assent Infallible unles I be also Infallibly certain that the Proponent is Infallible wherefore in case Infallibility be requisit to Faith every one of the Faithfull must be also Infallible But this renders both these Infallibilities useles and Insignificâ—nt for the Infallibility of the Church is of no effect if every person be not Infallible and if every person be Infallible what need any Church Representative or Councill be so Therefore this Doctrine of an Infallible Proponent is frivolous and Inconsistent To make way towards the clearing this considerable difficulty I premise these few Notes 1. That a man may be Infallible or out of the power of being deceiv'd in some particular thing two manner of wayes Either from his penetrating the reasons which conclude the thing to be as he judges that is from his knowledge that the Thing is so which we may fitly term Formally Infallible Or else by adhering not through Knowledge but accidentally as it were to some thing which is a reall Truth though he penetrate not the Grounds why it is True or by adhering to the Judgment of another person in some thing or Tenet whose Judgment is indeed well grounded and Certain as to that Thing though he see not 't is so And such a man may fitly be said to be materially Infallible Both of them are absolutely secur'd from Errour or Infallible Fundamentally by the Thing 's being such as they judge it to be that is in our case by relying on a Proponent which is Infallible and they differ only in the wayes by which they come to rely upon that Proponent the one being led to it by perfect Sight that the thing must be so or that the Proponent must be Infallible the other perhaps blindly at best not out of clear discernment embracing that Judgment yet as long as he adheres to the Judgment of another man who cannot be deceiv'd or in an Errour as to that thing himself is actually secur'd from possibility of erring and so Infallible or Incapable to be in an Errour likewise To this difficulty I had regard in my Faith vindicated when I distinguish't between Faith's being True in us and True to us For the blindest Assenter that is though he stumble upon a Truth yet if he really hold it his Judgment is truly and really conformable to the Thing or Object and consequently True or Impossible to False and so himself undeceivable or uncapable to be in an Errour in holding thus yet if we go abut to relate that Truth which is in him to evident reasons or Grounds in his mind connaturally breeding that Conformity of his Judgment to the Thing there is no such thing perhaps to be found whence 't is not True to him or evident to him 't is True since he sees not or knows not that 't is True yet still as I said before he is Infallible or Impossible to be in an Errour while he adheres to it as True because that Judgment of his is in reality comformable to the thing 2. 'T is requisit and necessary that the Assent of Faith in every particular Beleeyer be at least materially Infallible provided it be built as it ought upon the means laid by God for Mankind to embrace Faith that is upon the Right Rule of Faith For omitting many other mischiefs and Inonveniencies otherwise as was lately prov'd it would follow that God who is essential Truth did lead Mankind into Errour in case relying sincerely on what God order'd them to rely on their Judgment by so doing did become Erroneous 3. 'T is requisit and necessary that the Assent of Faith in diverse particular Beleevers be formally Infallible or that those persons be Infallibly certain by Evident Reason that the Authority or Rule of Faith they rely on cannot herein deceive them Else Great Witts and acute Reflecters whose piercing understandings require Convictive Grounds for their Faith would remain for ever unsatisfy'd nor could the wisest Christians sincerely and heartily Assent to nor with Honesty profess the truth of their Faith nor could any prove it True to establish Rational doubters in it or convert men of exact knowledge to it or convince Hereticks calling the Truth of it in question Nor could Governours and Leading Persons with any Conscience or Credit propose and Preach the Truth of Faith to the Generality Also it 's Truth being otherwise unmaintainable the best vigour of Faith and it's efficacy to work through Charity must needs be exceedingly enfeebled deaded 'T is necessary then that the Grounds of Faith be both Conclusive of it's Truth and also penetrable by those whose Proper work it is to make deep Inspection into them whence they will become formally or knowingly-Infallible that the Authority they rely on for Faith's Conveyance cannot possibly deceive them 4. Besides these men who are to
the Church may in the Grounds of their Faith if Infallibility be denied Or lastly how will their Evidence be Clear if the nature of Mâ—ral Things will not bear so clear an Evidence or afford us so much light of themselves as by it to conclude absolutely the Thing is so as when it comes to the point I foresee both these profound Admirers of Morall Certainty will heartily maintain and Dr. T. in his Prefaâ—e to his Sermons p. 29. in express terms blames me for expecting in the Grounds of Faith And whereas he says 't is absurd to say that thâ—se who are Certain of what they believe may at the same time not know but it may be False I grant it absurd nay more I affirm that in case they be truly Certain that is in case their Certainty be taken from the Thing or Object then not only they may not knâ—w at the same time but it may be False but not at any time ever afterwards unless the thing it self hap to be in that regard Alterable For true Certainty is built on the thing 's being as it is and nothing can ever be truly known to be otherwise than it is But if he takes Certainty in a wrong sense for a Firm Assent to a Thing as True however that Assent be grounded then though upon supposition he firmly Assents he cannot at the very same time be shaken in that Assent or not firmly Assent yet he is far in that case from any Knowledge or Intellectual Certainty one way or other because he regards not the Thing or Object whence only true Knowledge can be had whatever he deems or imagines concerning the truth of that which he firmly assents to Laâ—tly these Excuses are quite besides the purposex I never accused their thoughts They are beyond the reach of my sight but their Discourse and Writings I can see and discover that they make Faith possible to oâ— False as I have shown at large in Reason against Raâ—llâ—ry I meddle not then with what they assent to or whether or no they can or do hold the contrary what I objected was that their words in their books imported the possible Falshood of Faith for which they yet owe satisâ—action to all Christians for the common Injury done to Faith and as yet they have given none at all 26. Whatever necessarily proves a thing to be true does at the same time prâ—ve it Impâ—ssible to be False because 't is Impossible the same thing should be True and False at the same time Therefore they who assent firmly to the Doctrin of the Gospel as true do thereby declare their belief of the Impossibility of the Falshood of it The first part I easily grant and the reason for it to be most valid And for the same reason I expect he will in counterchange grant me this Proposition that whatever words say prove or imply a thing possible to be False do at the same time say prove or imply that 't is not necessarily true And then Dr. T. must consider how he will avoid the force of it who makes Scripture the sole Rule of Faith or the only means for Mankind to be assur'd of their Faith and yet Rule of Faith p. 118. professes that both the Letter and Sense of it are possible to be otherwise than the Protestants take them to be which in case they take their sense of Scripture or Faith to be True must mean possible to be otherwise than True that is possible to be False Whether his own contrary Positions hang together or no is not my Concern As for his Inference I deny that assenting being an Interiour Act is declaring ones belief But I suppose he meant it thus Therefore they who declare they assent firmly to the doctrin of the Gospel as True do thereby declare their belief of the Impossibility of the Falshood of it and thus this is readily also granted only in requital I expect he should for I am sure he must grant me this counter-proposition that therefore they who declare their belief of the possibility of Falshâ—od in Faith and it's Grounds or of the Letter and Sense of the Gospel do thereby declare they do not assent firmly to the doctrin of the Gospel as true Which done let Dr. St. and his Friend look to the Consequences of it It lies still very heavy upon their Credit as Writers and ever must till they retract it No sincere Protestant who loves his Faith more then their Writings will ever be brought to endure it if he once set himself seriously to consider it 27. The Nature of Certainty doth receive several Names either according to the nature of the proof or the degrees of the Assent Thus Moral Certainty may be so called either as it is opposed to Mathematical Evidence but implying a firm Assent upon the highest Evidence that Moral things can receive Or as it is opposed to higher degrees of Certainty in the same kind So Moral Certainty implyes only greater Probabilities of one side than the other In the former sense we assert the Certainty of Christian Faith to be moral but not only in the latter This Principle is pernicious to Human Nature as well as to Faith and destructive to all Principles in the world that are true ones and not like it self First it designs to give us the several Names which the nature of Certainty doth receive but it does indeed acquaint us with some species or kinds of Certainty unless he will say that the moral Certainty he assignes to Faith is of the same kind with Probability which I perceive he is loath to own Next to what purpose is it to discourse of one or more sorts of Certainty or to distinguish it's Notion unless we firâ—t knew the Common notion of Certainty it self The word Moral which is one of it's Differences and chiefly intended to be explained here is hard enough of it self alone but when to this shall be added a new difficulty of not knowing what Certainty which is the Genus means we are like to make a wise business of it Now all the Knowledge we have hitherto gain'd of Certainty in a discourse purposely intended to make us underâ—tand the Certainty of Faith is this that 't is a firm Assent to a thing as true and that there may be a Fallible Certainty both manifestly imply'd in his discourse where all that we can gather of the Nature of Certainty by the former is that perhaps 't is a fixing or resting in some Tenet without any ground and by the later that 't is a Chimaera or Nonsense Thirdly he distinguishes Certainty according to the nature of the Proof or the degree of the Assent but I vehemently deny it as the most absurd Position imaginable that there can be any kind of Certainty taken from the degrees â—f the Assent in contradistinction to the nature of the Proof for this would make as if the Subject's or person's assenting more or less did constitute
make it more a Certainty or a better Certainty which makes the Conclusiveness or Evidence had from the Object needless to create a Certainty and signifies thus much in plain Terms Think or imagine what you will so you imagine it strongly and hold it stifly you are as Certain of it as may be Had he said A Christian is or may be thus Certain by such a Proof had from the Object as was truly Conclusive of the Thing how Genuin Coherent Clear had his Expression been which now is forc't Incongruous and Obscure how Agreeable to Reason and the nature of Certainty as all Mankind understands it which now is most Irrational and Unsuitable to the same Nature How Honourable and Creditable had it been to his Cause and to himself too as a Writer But men that have not Truth on their side and consequently are quite destitnte of found Principles and true Grounds must not dare to speak Sense Himself told us Princ. 20. that the nature of Assent is agreeable to the Evidence we have of it in our Minds let him remember then that the highest degree of a firm Assent requires in reason the highest gree of Clear Evidence to beget it which yet he lately deny'd to be had from Moral things and attributed it peculiarly to the Mathematicks So that all is Incoherent all is Common and big words hollow and so of a loud and high Sound but without any determinate Sense Again how does it follow that because a Christian is thus Certain that the Scriptures are the Word of God that therefore his Faith is thereby resolved into the Scriptures as into the Rule and Measure of what he is to believe There is not the least show of consequence for this unless he had first prov'd that God had intended to speak so clear in the Scripture as every private Understanding should not sail of being secur'd from mistake while it rely'd upon It as also that God had spoken to us no other way but by the written Word which he has no where prov'd nor can ever prove And if the former of these as experience tels us 't is be wanting 't is not a Rule to those Persons if the latter 't is not necessarily the Measure of what they are to believe 29. No Christian can be oblig'd under any pretence of Infallibility to believe any thing as a matter of Faith but what was revealed by God himself in that Book wherein he believes his Will to be contained and consequently is bound to reject whatsoever is offer'd to be imposed upon his Faith which has no foundation in Scripture or is contrary thereto which Rejection is no making Negative Articles of Faith but only applying the general Grounds of Faith to particular Instances as because I believe nothing necessary to Salvation but what is contain'd in Scripture therefore no such particular things which neither are there nor can be deduc't thence If Christians were bound to hold that God had reveal'd his whole Will in that Book and this so clearly that all or most Chriâ—tians could not miss of understanding it right so as thereby to be absolutely Certain of their Faith then indeed the first half of his Principle here runs very currently and smoothly but these rubs lying still in the way which Dr. St. has not in the least removâ—d they being also satisfy'd by the General Conceit of Christianity and by the Nature and Genius of Christian Faith that it cannot possibly be an Errour or Lye and consequently muâ—t have such Grounds as cannot possibly permit all the world to be in an Errour while they rely on them that is Grounds which are Infallibly secure and on the other side observing both by experience and Reason that Scripture is not such a Ground as that private Understandings applying to it are thereby perserv'd from possibility of erring as Dr. St. also confesses in his next Principle hence they are invited strongly to conceive that God has left some Persons on earth easily to be found who may supply what is wanting of Clearness to Scriptures Letter in the highest Points of Faith and that God will some way or other perserve them from erring and that while thus protected by God's signal Providence whether this be performed Naturally Supernaturally or both wayes they cannot Erre in that Affair or in acquainting us with right Faith So that unless Dr. St. make out solidly that Scripture has in it the true nature of the Rule of Faith of it self and without needing any Church he must expect in reason that the very nature of Faith will necessarily incline all sincere persons who have due care of their souls and of finding out true Faith to beleeve the Infallibility of the Church And whereas he says that their rejection of such Points which have no Foundation in Scripture or are contrary thereto is no making New Articles of Faith but only applying the General Grounds of Faith to particular Instances he discourses therein very consonantly to his own Grounds were they worth any thing Yet I have one thing to propose to his Consideration which is that to justify his Reformers he must produce Grounds full as good or rather better for the Rejection of those Points as for his Faith or to speak more distinctly he must have as perfect or rather perfecter Certainty for these two Propositions Nothing it to be beleeved which has no Foundation in Scripture and This or that rejected Point has no Foundation in Scripture as he has for any point of Christian Faith For since upon the Evidence they had of these two Propositions they disobey'd and rebell'd against their then lawful Superiours and Church Pastors and broke Church-Union which was evidently forbidden by God's Law and so the preserving Union obeying them is a point of Faith and which themselves confess is such and binds them as such in case the reasons for their imposing New points be not valid that is if these two Propositions on whose Evidence they rely'd when they alledged they were wrongfully impos'd and thence rejected them be not True it follows that they must at least have equal Evidence nay more for bare Equality would only Balance them in a doubtful suspence berween either side that those Propositions on which they grounds their Rejection of those Articles and disobedience to their Pastours aad Superiours are True as they have for their Faith And if the Grounds of this Rejection ought to be more Certain then the Grounds of their Faith there is either some thing wrong in the pretended Grounds of their Faith or else their Negative Articles ought to be allow'd the honour of being Points of Faith too since their greater Certainty gives them fair and equal Title to it if not Absolute Preeminâ—nce 30. There can be no better way to prevent mens mistakes in the sense of Scripture which men being Fallible are subject to than the considering the consequence of mistaking in a matter wherein their salvation
gratis this position that nothing but Miracle ought to serve whether there be other Means laid or no Or that no Proof but Miracle can possibly be sufficient to satisfy mens Reasons in a thing Subject to Reason For the Natural Assistance of the Church is such of it self and the Suppernatural supposing the knowledge of Sanctity in the Church is as plain Reason as that the greatest motives to Goodness and Interiour Goodness caus'd by those motives will make those good men who have it act as good men ought and are apt to do The 17th proceeds wholly upon a False Imputation laid on our Church and on his confounding most absurdly the notion of the Church with that of the Schools or rather taking a few speculative Divines and those the weakest to be the Church The 18th is again built on an unprov'd Supposition of which kind of Grounds he is still very free and on a falsely pretended promise from God so to secure any private-spirited Contemner of the Church that he shall be in the way to Salvation whether he Err◠or no though as common sense and the Order of the world gives it he forfeit both his Reason and his Virtue by not hearing his Lawfull and Learned Pastors rather than his self-conceited Ignorant self The 19th has the same Faults with the former and is wholly False even though his own Supposition mention'd in the close were freely granted him which 't is not The four Principles following are made up of these Errours 1. That we hold that no man can have a True and saving Faith unless he sees and knows that the Proponent is Infallible 2. That the nature of Assent when rational depends not on the Object 3. That one cannot have an Infallible Assent in Faith without Infallible Assistance to judge of the Points of Faith themselves 4. That there is no middle between no particular person and every particular person being formally Infallible whereas my Tenet is that some must be so most may be so and all need not be so 5. That because all must be materially Infallible or in the true Faith but know not how they are so therefore 't is useless that any should know how to make out those Grounds to settle explain and defend Faith and it's Certainty These with his self-contradiction are the jarring Elements which compound these four terrible Principles with which he hopes to undermine and blow up the Churches Infalibility and the absolute Certainty of all Christian Faith The 24th gives good words in common of Certainty and Evidence but he means by the former Fallible Certainty by the Later only some Probability or Improbability so it but appears so to the Subject And is a total prevarication from Settling the Truth of Faith to not doubting the Truth of the Scripture of which there is no question The 25th holds forth a most wicked and gross Absurdity destructive of all Certainty Evidence Faith Christianity and even Man-hood viz. that to Assent firmly to any thing as True is to be Certain of it And intimates two others viz. that a man who is now Certain of a thing may at another time know that thing to be False though not at the same time as also that such a Certainty is competent for Belief or Faith The 26. speaks Evident Truth in the beginning of it but is nothing available to his cause but rather against him The Inference thence is False being defectively exprest and when rectify'd is also a clear Truth but highly prejudices himself The 27. is utterly 〈◊〉 of common Sense Certainty Faith and Christianity The 28. Principle is a weak and inconsistent Discourse The 29. supposes Scriptures Intelligible enough in all Points of Faith without the Church and to contain expresly God's whole will o◠every Article of Faith or at least with such a Ground of it there as that 't is deducible thence by private understandings with a Certainty competent for Faith none of which he has at all prov'd nor ever will The 30th and last confesses all men liable to Errour in Faith though relying on the Means left by God to secure them from it which evidently makes that means to be none and assigns a way for their best security which all Erring Sects in the world as far as we can discern take and yet still erre And lastly for an Upshot he makes account like a Solid Divine that our Christian Life is not at all Interiour but only Exteriour and consequently that Faith is no part of a Christian's Life nor the means to the other parts of it nor Infidelity and Heresy a Sin or Vice and then all 's safe and his Principles stand firm for then 't is evident that every private man may reject the Church at pleasure and be sure to understand as much in Scripture as is necessary to Salvation for if these be no sins and so do not damn a man either immediatly or mediatly there is nothing that will But indeed in Dr. St's kind of Reformation they are rather to be accounted Cardinal and Fundamental Virtues Such Sensless Principles ought to produce no better Fruit for this sutes their Practice and his Principles Rebel against God's Church break the most Sacred Order of the World and do but talk stoutly and with a bold grace and a pretty way of Expression of Scripture and God's Word and then all is Holy and Good Reflecting then back on the nature of Principles and considering that to deserve that name they must necessarily have in them two Qualifications viz. Evidence in themselves and Influence upon some other Propositions which are to derive their Evidence from them and it being manifest both out of this short Review and much more out of the full Replies to each of them that not one of those which D. St. here cals Principles but is either Vnevident and False or if True Impertinent and void of any the least Influence upon the Point he aym'd to prove by them They are clearly convinc't to have nothing in them like Principles or entitling them to the honour of that name and that he might with far more reason have call'd them Conceits Paradoxes Quodlibets or Crotchets And I know no better way for him to vindicate them but to entreat his Fellow-Hater of Infallibility Dr. T. who has a special gift at* putting Principles into Categorical and Hypothetical Syllogisms to undertake these that so the world may see the rare consequences that arise from them to which lest he should fail his Friend we now address The Sixth Examen of Dr. St's Six Conclusions ANY man who had either heard of Logick or reflected a little upon Nature would verily have thought that such obscure Principles should necessarily have produc't more obscure Conclusions since the Evidence of the Later being deriv'd only from the former and participated from them must needs be found in a lesser degree of Perfection in these than is the Evidence of those former from whence 't
is borrow'd and caus'd But herein consists Dr. St's Masterpiece that though his Principles be never so dark his Conclusions are yet as light as Noon-day But I mâ—st not forestall the Reader 's mirth What I am to do is to declare in short what kind of things Conclusions ought to be in doing which I will say no more than all men of Art in the world and all who understand common reason will yeeld to be evident A Conclusion then 1. Is a Proposition which follows out of Premisses which are it's Principles 2. The Knowledge of it's Verity depends on our knowing that the Premisses it's Prinples are True 3. Therefore the verity of these Premisses must be more known to him whom we intend to convince of the Truth of the Conclusion than is the Truth of the Conclusion it self otherwise 't is in vain to endeavour to convince him of this by the other 4. The Consequence or Following of the Conclusion out of the Premisses or the Conâ—uxion between them must be made known for if by vertue of this Coherence it follow not thence it may be perhaps a great Truth but 't is not at all a Conclusion 5. To do this 't is requisite that each particular Conclusion should either be put immediatly after itâ—s particular Premisses or else be related to them otherwise how shall any one be able to judge whether they cohere or no if he know not what things are to cohere Lastly the Conclusion must be such as that in the granting it the victory of the Opponent consists and so it must come home and close to the very point in difference between the two disputing parties These short Notes duely reflected on we advance to a nearer view of his pretended Conclusions They are introduc't with these three dry words It follows that And here is our first defeat The Consequences are Six the Principles Thirty and yet no light is thought fit to be given us which Conclusion follows out of which Principles but we are left to grope in the dark and guess at a thing which as shall be seen hereafter no Sphynx or Oâ—dipus can ever make any probable nor even possible conjecture of I wonder to what end he with such exact care noted all both Principles and Consequences in due Order with numbring Figures was it only to give us a sleeveless notice that there were just Thirty Principles and just Six Conclusions I see no such great Mystery or Remarkableness in that observation as should deserve such a Caution or Care He should then either have omitted these or else to shew them usefull have afforded us a few Figures more relating each Conclusion to to it 's respective Premisses or Principles But the reason of this Carriage is manifest For had he done this we might have examin'd what coherence each Conclusion had with it's Premisses and whether it follow'd from them by necessary consequence or no Also whether the Premisses were more Evident then it self was and all those other Properties of a Conclusion lately noted without which 't is the height of Non-sense to call any saying a Conclusion Had these considerations come to the Test his Consequences had come off as ill or worse than his Principles Let themselves tell us whether I wrong them or no. It follows that 1. There is no necessity at all or use of an Infallible Society of men to assure men of the Truth of those things which they may be Certain of without and cannot have any greater assurance supposing such Infallibility to be in them This Proposition is so far from being a Conclusion from any Principles much less from his that 't is self-known to all men of common sense and amounts indeed to a first Principle For an Infallible Society of men so circumstanc't as he describes is most evidently needless and to no purpose and so this Conclusion amounts in plain Terms to this Identical Proposition only paraphras'd a little What 's needless is needless Or 't is to no purpose to put that which is of no purpose when put or of no purpose to be put Which are known by the Light of Nature and so cannot admit Proof Is not this a rare man who first lays such obscure Principles as need Proof and so ought to be call'd Conclusions and then pretends to infer such Conclusions as cannot possibly need proving being self-evident and so ought rather to be call'd First Principles What I desire at present is that he would please to acquaint us out of which of his â—o Principles it follows that what needs not needs not If out of none this is no Conclusion though it be a most Evident Truth 2. The Infallibility of that Society of men who call themselves the Catholick Church must be examin'd by the same Faculties in man the same Rules of triall the same motives by which the Infallibility of any divine Revelation is This is of the same nature with the foregoing For the former part which says that this Infallibility must be examin'd by the same Faculties in man is as plain as 't is that nothing can be examin'd without a Faculty or Power to examin or that nothing can examin but what can examin which is Evident beyond all possibility of Proof Or was ever any man in this world so silly as to imagin that whereas we must use our Reasoning Faculty in judging the Infallibility of any Divine Revelation yet perhaps we are to make use not of the same Faculty but of our Loco-motive expulsive or Retentive Faculty in examining the Infallibility of the Church As for the rest of it if he means by Rules of Trial and Motives the maxims and Reasons we have for holding the Truth of any thing as he can mean no other then 't is manifest that taking Divine Revelation for a point of Faith reveal'd 't is Infallibility is to be examin'd by the same means other Points of Faith are and so 't is to be concluded Infallibly True as other points of Faith also are because the Divine Authority is shown to be engag'd for the Truth of it Again taking those words to signify the Act or way of Revealing which goes before Faith and so is the Object of meer natural Reason 't is evident its Infallibility is to be examin'd by the same Maxims as the Infallibility of other Human Authorities also are or rather thus taken the Infallibility of the Church testifying deliver'd Faith and the Infallibility of the Divine Revelation are one and the same thing So that Distinguishing his words to clear his sense his Conclusion plainly amounts to this that Points of Faith are to be examin'd in the same manner as Points of Faith are to be examin'd or else That Things of such a nature Subject to Human Reason are to be examin'd in the same manner as things of that nature Subject to Human Reason are to be examin'd Or rather which will fit both of them that Things of any nature are to be
examin'd as things of that nature are to be examin'd which is so evident to all men of common sense that it cannot need Proof and can scarce admit any I am sure is never prov'd by him That is 't is no Conclusion drawn from any of his Principles but putting in stead of the same Rules of tryal and Motives these words the same way which includes them both equivalently 't is only a Repetition of his 5th and 6th Principle and continues the same affected ambiguity in the word Revelation as he us'd formerly nay and is the same nonsense too in case he takes Revelation in either place for a point of Faith reveal'd and the Infallibility of the Church for that only which is built on Natural Assistance that is for it 's Human Testimony for so 't is most manifest the same motives neither are nor can be common to both For Points of Faith are receiv'd upon Authority as their proper Motive and are Relative to That and the Human Authority of the Church depends on Maxims of meer natural Reason and not at all on Authority which evidence they depend upon different motives and so must be examin'd by motives which are not the same This pretended Conclusion then is no new Proposition from his Premisses as a Conclusion ought to be but the self same with them and is either self-evident or else a meer peece of Folly and Nonsense that is the Terms of it being clear'd both False and unprov'd and so again no Conclusion which must be made evident or Prov'd 3. The less convincing the Miracles the more doubtfull the marks the more obscure the sense of either what is call'd the Catholick Church or declar'd by it the less reason hath any Christian to beleeve upon the account of any who call themselves by the name of the Catholick Church No man in his wits could any more doubt of this then of what 's most Evident by the Light of Nature for Convincingness of Miracles Evidence of the Marks and Sense of the Church being evidently Means or Reasons to believe this Conclusion putting less of 〈◊〉 these Reasons amounts in plain Terms to this Indentical Proposition Where there is less reason to believe there is less reason to believe which is Dr. St. can show possible to follow out of any of his Principles as Premisses as he here pretends he will do more then Miracle For he hath not there prov'd in the least that our Miracles are less convâ—ncing our Marks doubtful our sense obscure nor so much as mention'd those points much lesse gone about to confute our pretence of their Convincingnesse and Evidence and without doing this to pretend this is a Conclusion and that it follows from his Principles whereas it is incomparably more evident then the best of those he makes use of is to abuse the common regard due to his Readers and to declare he makes account they never knew what belong'd to ordinary Natural Logick or the Common Light of Reason 4. The more absurd any Opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason which any Church obtrudes upon the Faith of men the greater reason men shill have to reject the pretence of Infallibility in that Church as a grand Imposture This is just such another as the former For it being self-evident that Absurdities and Contradictions are not to be held and self-evident likewise that that which recommends such things to our belief 〈◊〉 to be rejected this pretended Conclusion amounts to this plain Truth that What has more reason to be rejected has greater or more reason to be rejected which is an Identical Proposition so plain that it cannot need or admit Proof and if it did or could there is not the least semblance of any thing offer'd in his Principles to prove it by nor any sentence or clause in them concerning that matter which has the tenth part of the â—lear Evidence that shines in this Proposition which he pretends follows from them as a Conclusion 5. To disown what is so taught by such a Church is not to question the veracity of God but so firmly to adhere to that in what he hath revealed in Scriptures that men dare not out of love to their souls reject what is so taught The first part of this is of the same nature with the former For the words such a Church and so taught meaning absurdly and repugnantly to First Principles the Truth of it is full as self-evident to all Christians who hold God the Authour of Truth as 't is that The Authour of Truth is not the Authour of Lies The rest of it which would seem to put the opposite to the foregoing part and tels us that to disown what is so taught by such a Church is firmly to adhere to what 's revealed in Scripture c. is absolutely False for to disown what is so taught by such a Church amounts to no more but to hold to the First Principles of Sense and Reason in points conrrary to those Principles obtruded by that Church which a man may do and yet be an Athiest for any thing Dr. St. has brought to make him adhere to Scripture for I much doubt that a profest Fallible Certainty for such wonderful extraordinary Points as he will be bound to believe if he becomes a Christian will scarce be able to give him full satisfaction of their Truth if he guide himself by the First Principles of Reason as Dr. St. pretends he should Nor is it in Dr. St's love of his Soul as he like a Saint pretends here but Humour and Interest to adhere so firmly to his private Interpretation of Scripture for his Rule of Faith which he cannot but see has not in it the nature of such a Rule nor consequently was ever intended by God for such an end since renouncing Infallibility in men he must confess that all possible means being used to finde out Truth by Interpretations of Scripture no better grounded it still leaves all the Reliers on it in a possibility of being mistaken as himself also confesses Princ. 30. that is Insecure that their Faith is True or only Fallibly Certain of their Faith Before I proceed to his sixth and last Conclusion it were not amiss to examine these according to the Noâ—es put down formerly containing some Qualifications necessarily belonging to all Conclusions and to show by their want of all those how utterly unlike these five last are to what they pretended to be And first not one of them follows out of his Principles as from their Premisses as I show'd in each of them 2. Their Verity is known and evident to all Mankind independently on those Principles of his 3. Their Verity is more known than is that of those Principles For speaking of the main import and weight of them abstracting from some particular words and phrasing his notions they are all in a manner self-evident and Unexceptionable whereas his thirty Principles are liable to
multitudes of exceptions as hath been shown in the proper Answers to each 4ly and 5ly The Consequence Connexion or Following of these pretended Conclusions out of their Premisses is not so much as attempted to be shown nor any one of them related to any Principle or Principles but all the Figures which distinguish both the one and the others stand for Cypherâ— and are useless Lastly were all these Conclusions granted him yet still he is never the nearer having prov'd or compas't what he intended For suppose we granted that there can be no necessity of an Infallible Society of men to do that which can be done as well without them What if the supernatural Infallibility of the Church must be examin'd by the fame Faculty and the same ways Points of Faith are or it 's Natural Infallibility the same way it 's Natural or Human Authority is examin'd What if we have less Reason to believe it if it's Miracles be less convincing it's Marks more doubtfull and it's sence more Obscure and greater reason to reject it the more absurd it's opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason What if to disown such Doctrines be not to question God's Veracity What I say if all these were granted by us as they would have been very readily at the first though he had never skirmish't and flourish't and kept this pother with laying so formally six Principles agreed on by both sides and then thirty other of his own yet he is not one jot the nearer the reducing the Faith of Protestants to Principles which was promis't us at the beginning and so we ought to expect the performance of it when he had deduc't his Conclusions which use to infer the Intent propos'd to himself by the disputant and to come home to the very point the Arguer would be at Indeed if he could show us solidly that Infallibility in a Church were useless that examin'd by such ways and means as it ought it would be overthrown and could not stand the trial that it's Miracles were Unconvincing it's Marks Doubtfull it 's Sense declar'd by it Obscure or that it's Opinions were indeed Absurd and Repugnant to the First Principles of Sense and Reason very great matters had indeed in that case been done against our Church and Faith yet still nothing at all to the establishment of his own A Catholick might in that case have indeed lost his own Faith and be to seek for another but never find any meerly by means of these destructive Positions alone unless Dr. St. can settle him some other Ground built on better Principles and such as are competent to settle Faith on which Fallible Certainty were it sense will never reach So that were all his Conclusions hitherto freely granted he is still as far from having attain'd what he propos'd to himself and promis't others as at the beginning Nor can it be imagined why he makes us this mock-shew of Consequences but only that as at the beginning he put down most undeniable and most sacred Principles agreed on both sides so to make his Readers apprehend before-hand he must needs conquer who had such sure Cards to play though by his shynesse to make use of them and apply them home it appear'd he had no Title to them so now he puts five undeniable Propositions for Conclusions to make weak nnattentive Readers imagine he had actually conquer'd for nothing sounds a more compleat Victory that to inâ—ferr evident Conclusions But the ill luck is not one of them is a Conclusion not has that kind of Evidence in it which is peculiar to such Propositions viz. Evidence-had by means of Proof but they are all evident of themselves or self-evident and so a good plot is unluckily spoil'd I have yet one thing more to say to them that they have all of them evidently the Nature of Premisses in them and would do extraordinary service to his Cause taken in that capacity as far I mean as he ayms to overthrow the Catholick Church if the badness of it would let him pursue them and stand by them and apply them To show which I will put them down in a clear method that it may be seen where the point sticks The First Conclusion then has in it the Nature of a Major Proposition and put in a Discourse stands thus That Infallibility without which men may be Certain of Faith and cannot have greater Assurance of Faith were it put is not necessary to be put But suoh is the Infallibility of the Church of Rome Therefore the Infallibility of the Church of Rome is not to be put The second stands thus if it can at all concern the purpose That Infallibility which is to be examin'd by the same Faculties Rules of Trial and Motives by which the Infallibility of any Divine Revelation is cannot bear the test but must be overthrown But the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church is to be thus examin'd Therefore it cannot stand the test but must be overthrown The Third stands thus That Church whose Miracles are less convincing marks more doubtfull sense more obscure has less reason to be beleev'd But such is the Church of Rome Therefore she has less reason to be beleev'd The Fourth thus The Infallibility of that Church whose Opinions are absurd and repugnant to the First Principles of sense and reason has great reason to be rejected as a Grand Imposture But the Infallibility of the Church of Rome is the Infallibility of such a Church whose Opinions are absurd and repugnant to the First Principles of Sense and Reason Therefore it 's Infallibility ought to be rejected as a Grand Imposture The Fifth thus They who disown Doctrins thus absurd and repugnant to the First Principles of Sense and Reason do own and not question therein the veracity of God But we in disowning the Roman Church disown such doctrins Therefore We in so doing own or do not question the Veracity of God By which discourses 't is evidently seen that the natural posture and place for these five Propositions in an attempt to overthrow the Roman Churches Infallibility and to excuse the Protestants for not obeying her as is here intended for they are nothing at all to the reducing the Faith of Protestants to Principles which they were pretendedly brought for is to make them the Major Propositions where the Chief Principles to all Conclusions use and ought to be placed 'T is evident also that these Premisses or Principles stand firm in their own undeniable Verity and the only Thing for him to do is to make good all the Minor Propositions which done all the Conclusions must necessarily follow and so his work is done as indeed it always ought to be when the Conclusion is inferr'd Whereas making these Major Propositions the Conclusions 't is manifeâ— he is to begin again and argue from them when he had concluded and so was at an end oâ— his discourse So that 't is most
such Firm and Evident Grounds But I presume I have already perform'd this in my Sure-footing and its Corollaries as also in Faith Vindicated and its Inferences and if it shall appear needfull or be requir'd of me by Learned Men it may perhaps hereafter be brought into a closer and more rigorous Form Yet that it may be seen how easily our Discourses concerning the Certainty and Ground of Faith are resolvable into Evident Principles I shall annex for an Instance a small Peace of mine whiâ—h though it was never pretended to be a severe Process by way of Principles but only meant for a connected Discourse yet I doubt not but I shall show that each main Ioynt of it where it speaks assertively has a Firm and Evident Principle at the Bottom giving it Stability and Evidence and through vertue of these Qualifications rendering it Solidly and Absolutely Convictiveâ— THE METHOD To Arrive at SATISFACTION IN RELIGION 1. SInce all Superstructures mnâ—t needs be weak whose foundation is not surely laid He who desires to be satisfy'd in Religion ought to begin with searching out and establishing the Ground on which Religion is built that is the First Principle into which the several Points of Faith are resolv'd and on which their Certainty as to us depends 2. To do this 't is to be consider'd that a Church is a Congregation of Faithful and Faithful are those who have true Faith Wherefore till it be known which is the true Faith it cannot be known which is the true Church Again A Council is a Representative A Father an Eminent Member of the Church and a Witness of her Doctrin Wherefore till it be known which is the true Church it cannot be known which is a Council or who a Father Lastly Since we cannot know which is Scripture but by the Testimony of those who recommend it And of Hereticks we can have no security that they have not corrupted it in favour of their false Tenets neither can we be secure which is Scripture till we be satisfy'd who are the truly Faithful on whose Testimony we may safely rely in this affair 3. Wherefore he who sincerely aims at Satisfaction in Religion ought first of all to find out and establish some assured Means or Rule by which he may be secured which is true Faith For till this be done He cannot be secure either of Scripture Church Council or Father but having once done this is in a ready way to Judge certainly of all Whereas if he begin with any of the other or indeed argue from them at all till the Rule of Faith be first settled he takes a wrong Method and breaks the Laws of discourse by beginning with what is less cortain and indeed to him as yet uncertain and in effect puts the Conclusion before the Premisses unless he argue Ad Hominem or against the personal Tenets of his Adversary which is a good way to Confute but not to Satisfie 4. And because the Rule of Faith must be known before Faith can be known and Faith before Scripture Church Councils and Fathers it appears that to the finding out this Rule no assistance of Books will be requisite for every one who needs Faith is not capable to reade and understand Books There is left then only Reason to use in this Inquiry And since People of all Capacities are to be saved much sharpness and depth of wit will not be requisite but plain Nâ—tural Reason rightly directed will suffice 5. This being so the Method of seeking satisfaction in Religion is become strangely both more short and easie For here will need no tedious turning over Libraries nor learning Languages nor endless comparing voluminous Quotations nor so much as the skill to read English all being reduc'd to the considering one single Point but such an one as bears all along with it and this too comprehensible as will appear to a mean understanding Again the large debating particular Points in a controversiall way is by this means avoided For when the Right Rule of Faith is certainly known then as certainly as there is any faith in the world all that is received on that Rule is certain and of faith Not but that 't is of excellent use too to cherish and strengthen the faith especially of Young Believers by shewing each particular Point agreeable to right Reason and Christian Principles and recorded expresly in or deduced by consequence from the Divinely-inspired Books 6. Lastly This Method is particularly suitable to the Nature of sincere Inquirers who if they want the liberty of their own Native Indifferency and be aw'd by any Authority whatever before that Authority be made out cannot but remain unsatisfy'd and inwardly feel they proceed not according to Nature and the conduct of unbyast Reason Whereas when the Authority is once made evident Reason will clearly inform them that it becomes their Nature to assent to it 7. But how will it appear that 't is so easily determinable by common Reason which is the right Rule of Faith Very evidently But first we must observe the Assent called Faith depends upon two Propositions What God hath said is true and God hath said this out of which two necessarily follows the Conclusion that this or that in particular is true Of these two we are concerned only in the later For to examin Why God is to be believed when he has said any thing which they call the formal Motive of faith is not a Task for those who own Christianity But all we have to do is to finde out What God hath said or which in our case is all one What Christ has taught and that whatever it be which acqnaints us with this we call THE RVLE OF FAITH as that which Regulates our belief concerning Christs Doctrine or the Principles of Religion Now I affirm iâ— may be obvious Reason be discover'd which this Rule is and that by looking into the Nature of it or considering what kinde of thing it ought to be which is no more than attentively to reflect what is meant by those two ordinary words RULE FAITH 8. And both of them acquaint us that the Rule of Faith must be the means to assure us infallibly what Christ taught For in case a Rule though we apply it to our power and swerve not from it leave us still deceivable in those points in which it should regulate us we need another Rule to secure us that we be not actually deceiv'd and so this other and not the former is our Rule Next Faith speaking of Christian Faith differs â—rom Opinion in this that Opinion may be false but Faith cannot Wherefore the Rule of faith both as 't is a Rule and as it grounds Faith doubly involves Infallibility in its Notion 9. Let us apply this to Scripture and Tradition for setting aside the Light of the private Spirit grounding Phanaticism there are no more which claim to be Rules of faith see to which of them this