side he who discourses ill violates the nature of the Thing and runs into contradictions absurdities and what means violating the nature of the Thing or speaking contradiction but the making the Thing not be what it is and so falsifying by his discourse that Principle which was diametrically opposite in this circumstance to the Contradiction he sustain'd which was that Things being what it is For example Dr. T. puts Scripture's Letter to be a Rule of Faith and yet unless he will be strangely uncharitable must grant convinc'd by experience in the Socinians and others that many follow it to their power and yet judge not right concerning what 's True Faith what not which destroyes the nature of a Rule or makes a Rule not to be a Rule contrary to the very First Principle in that affair For he puts it to be a Rule ex suppositâ—one and yet puts it to be no Rule because the Followers of it to their power are misled which argues there being in this case no fault in Them the want of a Regulative Virtue in It and that 't is no Rule § 11. Hence is easily understood what use is to be made of the very First Principles viz. not to make that which is the First Principle in such an affair one of the Premisses in a Syllogism much less to make that one single Identical Proposition both the Premisses or two Propositions as our shallow Logician in his wild rant of Drollery would perswade the Reader But the very First Principles have a far more Soveraign Influence over the Discourse than any of those Particular Propositions decisively as it were abetting or dis-approving the Whole 'T is therefore to stand fixt in the mind of the Discourser and be heedfully attended to so to give a steadiness to all his ratiocination 'T is its office to be the Test or Touchstone of Truth and Falshood or a Rule which is a Measure of what 's Right what crooked oblique or deviating from true nature If in Dispute one hold firmly to that it authenticates his Discourse to be the solid Gold of Truth If any plausible Talk make a mock-show of Connexion or Truth it discovers the cheat showing by its own most Evident Connexion the unconnectedness or loosness of the others empty Babble and demonstrates it to be the meer Dross of Falshood how fair soever it appear to the Eye at first and how prettily soever it be superficially gilded with sophisticate Rhetorick or other artificial Tricks of counterfeit Truth 'T is like an immoveable Basis that sustains all the Superstructures of Truth though it self rise not above its own firm level or like a Rock which by its rigid hardness dashes asunder into Contradiction and Folly the ill-coherent and weak Productions of Witty Ignorance No wonder then Dr. T. abuses so the First Principles as good for nothing for he perceives them dispos'd to abuse him by shewing all his Discourses to be nothing but well-clad Nonsence and though his way of Discourse or his Cause not bearing it he cannot work with them yet if I be not much mistaken they will make work with him ere it be long But to return to our Instances § 12. Faith meaning by it a Believing upon Motives left by God in his Church to light Mankind to his Truth as I exprest my self in my Preface to Faith vindicated and elsewhere is an Assent Impossible to be False and this is found in its Definition as its Difference essentially distinguishing it from Opinion which is possible to be False and is prov'd by more than forty Demonstrations in Faith Vindicated not one of which has yet been in the least reply'd to Wherefore being a direct part of the Definition it engages that First Verity on which the Definition it self is grounded that is if Faith be not Impossible to be False Faith is not Faith Wherefore Dr. T. who for all his shuffling makes Faith thus understood possible to be False is convinc't to clash with that self-evident Identical Proposition by making Faith to be not Faith and if the pretended Demonstrations in Faith Vindicated or any of them stand he and his Friend Dr. St. if they truly say what they think are as certainly concluded to be none of the Faithful as 't is that Faith is Faith § 13. Also Tradition being a delivery of the Faith and Sence of immediate Forefathers to their Children or to those of the next Age by Living Voice and Practice that is by Câ—techising Preaching Conversing Practising and all the ways thâ—t can be possibly found in Education it follows that if Mankind cannot express what they have in their thoughts to others at long run as we use to say so as to make Generality at least the wisest understand them we have lost Mankind since to do this requires little more than Eyes Ears Power of Speaking and Common Sence Wherefore let this way of Tradition be follow'd and it will convey the first-taught Faith or the Doctrine of the First Christians that is True Faith to the end of the World Therefore it hath in it all that belongs intrinsecally to the Rule of Faith that is if men be not wanting to themselves but follow it to their power it will infallibly derive down the First that is Right Faâ—th Since then every thing is what it is by its having such a nature in it Tradition having in it the nature of a Rule is indeed a Rule Wherefore he who denies that Tradition has in it the nature of a Rule denies by consequence that Mankind is Mankind and he who denies It having in it all that is requisite to the nature of a Rule to be a Rule denies by consequence a Rule to be a Rule § 14 My last Instance showing withal more amply the Use of First Principles shall be of that Identical Proposition which grounds the whole nature of Discourse and 't is this The same is the same with it self Which is thus made use of The Copula is expresses the Identity or as we may say the sameness of the Subject and Predicate which it connects and 't is the aim of Reason to prove these two Terms identify'd in the Concsusion or which is all one that that Proposition we call the Conclusion is True But how shall this be prov'd A Third Term is sought for which is the same with those Two others and thence ' tâ—s evinc'd that those two are the same with one another in the Conclusion and why Because otherwise that Third Term would not be the same with its own self or be what it is if it were truly the same thing with two others and yet those two were not the same thing with one another but it would have Division in its very nature or not be its self being in that case distracted into more essential natures that is being Chimerical and consequently two Things according to one of which 't is the same with one of those Terms according to the other the
the Motives laid by God for Mankind or his Church to embrace Faith are possible to be False As if the simplest could not nay were not most likely of all other to believe upon weak and incompetent Motives which therefore could never have been laid by God for his Church to embrace her Faith upon Or as if the most Simple that are could not rationally believe the Church and so become Infallible in their Assents by adhering to her though their weak understandings do not penetrate or comprehend how the Church or themselves come to be so nay perhaps have not a clear sight of what the word Infallible means till some Discourse awaken the apprehension of it in them § 10. Having thus acted the Disputant Exit Theologus intrat Scuâ—ra and pag. 13.14 plays the old Tricks of Legerdemain over again that is leaves out half an Argument of mine and playâ— upon the other half with all the disingenuous craft a wit bent that way could invent In Faith Vindicated pag. 89. and 90. I discours't thus The profound Mysteries of Faith will seem to a Heathen Impossible to be True therefore the Motives must at least seem Impossible to be False but Dr. T. confesses both Letter and Sence of Scripture which are his Rule of Faith possible to be False nor it being an Object proportion'd to humane Reason is there any thing to make it seem better than it is that is to make it seem Impossible to be False therefore were there no better Grounds than his it would be against all Reason to believe Having view'd my Discourse I desire the Reader to peruse the Answer here given by my Confuter He names the word Argument says two pretty words upon it that 't is pleasant and surprizing leaves out better half of it conceals perfectly all that part of it which concludes strongly against his own insufficient Grounds catches at a word and would make my Discouse and Argument aim to prove Faith Impossible to be False because the Motives are only seemingly such Whereas every Page in that Book and its whole Design shews I meant and prov'd them to be actually really and indeed such Had I a mind to evade such petty Cavils I could alledg that both may seem Impossible to be False yet one more seem so than the other But the Truth is advancing to confute him I argu'd ad hominem and contended that against a seeming Impossibility to be True nothing but Motives seemingly Impossible to be False can with any show of Reason be held convictive but he had no Motives even seemingly Impossible to be False but confessedly Possible to be such therefore they had no imaginable show of Convictiveness I grant then 't is a drawn Match as he calls it between equally-seeming Impossibilities and because 't is so therefore a seeming Impossibility to be True in the Object is by much an overmatch to what 's less than a seeming Impossibility to be False in the Motives or Grounds but both Letter and Sence of Scripture his Grounds of Faith are confessedly possible to be otherwise that is False and so are less than seemingly even to himself impossible to be False therefore his Motives to believe are incomparably overmatcht by the difficulty of the Mysteries to be believed and so there could be rationally according to his Grounds no Faith at all This is my true Argument which perhaps might be surprizing to him which made him thus start aside from putting or answering it though we may perceive by his carriage he esteems not it and others such like very pleasant Indeed he still puts on a pleasant Look when he should be Sober and is ever most Merry when it becomes him to be the most Serious but this is long since understood to be a necessary Policy not a Genuine effect of Nature He tells us that Transubstantiation is evidently Impossible to be True If so then it implies some Contradiction which if he shows me in any thing held of Faith by Catholicks in that Point I will become Dr. T's Convert and obedient Auditor But alas How will he prove any thing to be a Contradiction Since those Faulty Propositions are as was prov'd Disc. 2.3 therefore such because they are Opposite to Identical ones or the First Principles as hath been prov'd Seeing then Dr. T. has long since renounc't all those from being First Principles for any thing I can discern he must either hold there are no Contradictions at all or else which comes to the same hold that Contradictions are Truths § 11. But he goes forwards amain in confuting a Point which no man living ever maintain'd viz. that every single Christian must be Infallible that is as Dr. T. will needs take it must so penetrate his Grounds and what relates to them as to see clearly he cannot be deceivâ—d in judging his Grounds of Faith Conclusive Whereas my Tenet is that let any man though of the Acutest Understanding and greatest Learning that may be entertain any Tenet as Faith oâ— Reveal'd by God upon any other Motive than what God has lost to his Church this man however thus Endow'd not only may but in likelihood will be deceiv'd not for want of Wit but for want of Grounds ascertaining and infallibly engaging the Divine Revelation On the other side let the Simplest and Weakest Understanding that is happen to embrace Faith upon the Motives laid by God and left in his Church he is Infallibly secure from being in an Errour not through the strength of his Understanding perfectly discerning and penetrating the Conclusive nature of his Grounds but though the strength of those Grounds themselves or of the Causes laid by Gods Providence to plant and continue right Faith in the Church by means of which what he has thus more by the peculiar disposition of God's gracious Providence than any reach of his own Wit or Judgment fortunately embrac't is preserv'd impossible to False and consequently his Assent to it impossible to be an Errour because the Churches Authority upon which he receiv'd it is Infallible And surely 't is but fitting that all who believe upon that Rule God has left and commanded us to follow should be thus secur'd from possibility of Mistake for otherwise since a Power is relative to its proper Act what 's possible to be False may actually be so and so we might come to be led actually into Errour by obeying God's Commands which is impossible To apply thâ—s If Dr. T. therefore makes Scripture's Letter the Rule of Faith left by God for Mankind to receive their Faith upon and by doing so has commanded them to believe it he must either say that its Sence and Letter taking them as he builds his Faith on them have no Possibility of Falshood or besides the many absurdities already mentioned grant that our All-wise and Good God can possibly lead men into actual Errour nay command them to profess and die for a Ly than which nothing can be imagin'd
right that is both sides of the Contradiction must be True if Dr. T's Faith be True built only on moral Certainty which would utterly destroy his enemies Identical Propositions I would gladly know at least why these two equally matcht Moral Certainties shall not make a drawn battel of it or how it shall be determin'd on whose side the Certain Truth stands I doubt it will be the hardest task that ever was for him to make it even morally Certain there is a Trinity for this cannot be done but by manifesting the Letter of Scripture bears no shadow of Reason on the Socinians side otherwise that seeming Reason may be a just cause for a Protestant to suspend perhaps doubt of it and so not be morally-Certain § 15. The meaning then of these word Moral Certainty being so Indeterminate that Dr. T. himself cannot tell what to make of it no wonder our Divines cannot agree about it If he says he understands it very well I desire to put it to the Trial by producing any one Proposition held by him to be but morally-Certain and shew us Logically Art being the Test of Nature how or by virtue of what it's Terms hang together or to make out according to his own notion of Moral Certainty that not one Prudent man in the world does or can be dissatisfi'd with it What I conceive is meant generally by Moral Certainty is a high Probability or some great Likelihood which being an insufficient Ground for Faith for we are to profess and dy for the Truth of our Faith and not for its Likelyhood onely â— judge the name of it ought not to be heard when we speak of the Certainty due to Faith and itâ— Grounds unless it be signifi'd at the same time that 't is us'd Catachrestically or abusively to mean Absolute Certainty § 16. I expect D. T. will instead of making out the nature of this Chimeâ—ical Certainty run to Instances for example that of our being morally certain of the Sun 's rising to morrow and such like But first I contend he is not Certain of this his own Instance If he be let him give his Grounds of Certainty for it and go about to prove or conclude the night before that it will I doubt much he will when he comes to try it find himself gravel'd and confess with me that 't is only highly Likely 'T is well he did not live in Joshuah's or Ezekiah's time and tell them the day before that Moses his Law was only as Certain as that the Sun would not stand still or go backwards the next day for if so I doubt much those who had heard and believ'd him would have taken a just scandal at their Faith seeing Points held equally Certain as it prove actually False Again what more Certainty has he now of the Suns rising again within 18 hours after his setting than they in those days were the day before that it would not go back or stand still and yet we see they were not Certain of it for we know they had been mistaken in it and that Judgment an Error By which we see that D. T's moral Certainty means such a Certainty w ch as appear'd by this Event was Vncertain or such a Certainty as was Certain peradventure Now this nonsence has no harm in it but that 't is opposite to an Identical Proposition What 's Certain is Certain which weighs not with Dr. T. who has renounc't all First Principles In a word our B. Saviour has beforehand prevented all such Instances by â—elling us that Heaven and Earth shall fail but his Words shall not fail Intimating that the whole Fabrick of the World much more some one great part of it is tottering and unstable in comparison of the unchangeable nature of Truth and such all good Christians are to profess their Faith and be ready to dy to attest it § 17. Having thus done more than Miracle and establisht MORAL CERTAINTY which were not its self were it not unestablisht â—e procceeds p. 18. to overthrow Infallibility alledging that the Vnderstanding cannot be absolutely secur'd from all possibility of mistake but either by the perfection of its own nature which he thinks all Mankind but Mr. S. have hitherto granted that it could not or by supernatural Assistance I desire he would not stretch my Tenet beyond the bounds my self give it I never said that Human Understandingâ— could not possibly be mistaken in any thing at all but only in Knowledges built on Sensations in Knowing the Truth of First Principles in Knowing while left to Nature till Speculation for which they are too weak put them into a puzzle by Practical Self-evidence confusedly and in common something belonging to some natures daily converst with and lastly some Learned men in diverse deductions of Evident Reason for example in diverse Propositions in Euclid But that which our Subject restrains it to being about the Infallible Conveyance down of Faith is the First of those viz. Infallibility of our Sensations for once putting this Tradition is an Infallible Rule Speaking then of this which is all my present purpose requires I am so far from being the only man who holds it that Dr. T. excepting Scepticks if perhaps he be not one of that Sect is I think the only man that ever deny'd it Are not both of us infallibly certain that we Eat Drink Write and Live or did any but a mad-man ever think seriously that sober Mankind abstracting from Disease in some particulars might possibly be deceiv'd in such Knowledges as these Are not our Senses contriv'd naturally as apt to convey Impressions from the Objects to the Knowing Power I speak not of the different degrees of perfection necessarily annext to each but as to the main so as to be sufficient for use and needful Speculation as any other Causes in Nature are to do their proper Effects Have they not also as little Contingency in them and that Contingency as easily discoverable by the Standard of circumstant Mankind with whom they converse as in Iâ—terical Persons and such like This being so I affirm that the Basis on which our Rule of Faith is built viz. Natural Knowledges is more secure than any part of Nature since naturally 't is Impossible Mankind can err in these and whereas we are not Certain but it may in some Conjuncture become God's Infinite Wisdom and Goodness to exert his Divine Omnipotence and alter the course of Nature even in considerable portions of it as in the Instances given of the Sun 's standing still and going back the Universal Deluge and such like yet in our case 't is Impossible beeausâ— the altering Nature's course in such as these were directly to create False Judgments or Errour in Mankind of which 't is Impossible Essential Wisdom Goodness and Truth should be the Immediate and peculiar Cause Naturally therefore it cannot happen nor yet Supernaturally For though taking the proportion between Gods Omnipotence singly considered and the
that I never said or thought it was self-evident that Tradition had alwayes been followed but only that it is of own nature 〈◊〉 evidently infallible Rule abstracting from being followed his answer to my Method is this I have not spoken to the point before and therefore am not concern'd to speak to it now for why should people expect more from me here than elsewhere or rather I have granted the point already and thereforâ— am not concern'd to say more to it And I for my part think he is in the right because it seems a little unreasonable to require the same thing should be done twice I think it best to leave him to his sufficient-consideration and go on to the next Onely I desire the Reader to reflect how empty a brag 't is in the Drs. how partial in their Friends to magnify this peece as Vnanswerable Yet in one Sense 't is such for a Ready Grant of what 's Evident Truth can never be answer'd or refuted § 7. His next Pretence is that my METHOD excludes from Salvation the far greatest part of our own Church To which though enough hath been said already yet because the clearing this will at once give account of what I mean when I affirm Faith must be known antecedently to Church which bears a shew as if I held we are not to rely on the Church for our Faith I shall be something larger in declaring this Point To perform which more satisfactorily I note 1. That those who are actually from their Child-hood in the Church have Faith instill'd into them after a different manner from those who were educated in another Profession and after come to embrace the right Faith The formâ—â— are imbu'd after a natural way with the Churches Doctrine and are educated in a high Esteem and Veneration of the Church it self Whereas the Later are to acquire Faith by considering and looking into its Grounds and are educated rather in a hatred against the true Church than in any good opinion of her The former therefore have the full weight of the Churches Authority both as to Naturals and Supernaturals actually apply'd to them and working its effect upon them Practical self-evidence both of the Credit due to so Grave Learned Ample and Sacred an Authority as also of the Holiness the Morality or Agreeableness of her Doctrine to Right Reason which they actually experience rendring in the mean time their Assent Connatural that is Rational or Virtuous The later Fancy nothing Supernatural in her nor experience the Goodness of her Doctrine but have it represented to them as Wicked and Abhominable In a word the Former have both Faith and the Reasons for it practically instill'd into them in a manner at the same time and growing together daily to new degrees of Perfection whereas the Later must have Reasons antecedently to Faith and apprehending as yet nothing Supernatural in the Church must begin with something Natural or meerly Humane which may be the Object of an unelevated Reason and withal such as may be of its own nature able to satisfie rationally that haesitation and disquisitive doubt wherewith they are perpleâ—â— and settle them in a firm Belief 2. My Discourse in that Treatise as appears by the Title is intended for those who are yet to arrive at satisfaction in Religion that is for those who are not yet of the Church and so I am to speak to their natural Reason by proposing something which is an Object proper and proportion'd to it and as it were leading them by the hand step by step to the Church though all the while they walk upon their own Legs and see with their own Eyes that is proceed upon plain Maxims of Humane Reason every step they take 3. Though I use the Abstract word TRADITION yet I conceive no wise man will imagine I mean by it some Idea Platonica or separated Formalility hovering in the Air without any Subject but that the Thing I indeed meant to signifie by it is the Church as DELIVERING or as Testifying and taking it as apply'd to those who are not yet capable to discern any Supernaturality in the Church the Natural or Humane Authority of the Church or the Church Testifying she receiv'd this Faith uninterruptedly from the beginning So that Tradition differs from Church as a man consider'd precisely as speaking and acting differs from Himself consider'd and exprest as such a Person which known by Speech and Carriage or by himself as speaking and acting other considerations also belonging to him which before lay hid and are involv'd or as the Schools express it confounded in the Subject or Suppositum become known likewise So the Churches Humane Testimony or Tradition which as was shown Sure f. p. 81 82 83. is the greatest and most powerfully supported even naturally of any in the World is a proper and proportion'd object to their Reason who yet believe not the Church but it being known thence that the Body who proceeds on that Ground possesses the first-deliver'd that is Right Faith and so is the true Church immediately all those Prerogatives and Supernatural Endowments apprehended by all who understand the nature of Faith to spring out of it or attend on it are known to appertain and to have ever appertain'd to the True Church and amongst the rest Goodness or Sanctity the proper Gift of the H. Ghost with all the Means to it which with an incomparable Efficacy strengthens the Souls of the Faithful as to the Delivery of Right Faith whence she is justly held and believ'd by the new-converted Faithful to be assisted by the H. Ghost which till some Motive meerly Humane had first introduc'd it into their Understandings that this was the True Church they could not possibly apprehend § 8. In this way then of discoursing the Church is still the onely Ascertainer of Faith either taken in her whole Latitude as in those who are already Faithful or consider'd in part onely that is as delivering by way of naturally Testifying which I here call Tradition in order to those who are yet to embrace Faith Whence appears the perfect groundlesness of Dr. T's Objection and how he wholly misunderstands my Doctrine in this point when he says the Discourse in my Method does Vnchristian the far greatest part of our own Church For first he mistakes the Ground of Believing to those actually in the Church for that which is the Ground for those who are yet out of the Church to find which is the Church Next since all Believers actually in the Church even to a Man rely on the Church both naturally and supernaturally assisted and I am diseoursing onely about the Natural means for those who are out of the Church to come to the Knowledge of it his Discourse amounts to this that because those who are yet coming to Faith rely onely on the Humane Testimony of the Church therefore they who are in the Church and rely upon the Church both humanely
discover'd to me that I could not bestow my pains better on any subject than in making known what was the Right Rule of Faith and evidencing to men Capable of Evidence out of the Nature of the Thing in hand that It had indeed the qualities proper to a Rule of Faith that is Virtue or Power to acquaint us that live now without the least danger of Errour what Christ and his Apostles taught at first To this end I shew'd first in Sure-footing that the Letter of Scripture had not this Virtue and by consequence could not be the Rule intended and left us by Christ. Many Arguments I us'd from p. 1. to p. 41. though these two short Discourses are sufficient to evince the point to any who is not before-hand resolv'd he will not be convinc'd First that that can never be a Rule or Way to Faith which many follow to their power yet are misled and this in most Fundamental Points as we experience in the Socinians and others For I see not how it can consist with Charity or even with Humanity to think that none amongst the Socinians or other erring Sects endeavour to find out the true sence of Scripture as far as they are able nor how it can be made out that all without exception either wilfully or negligently pervert it and yet unless it be shewn rational to believe this it can never be rational to believe that the Letter of Scripture as useful and as excellent as it is in other respects is the Rule of Faith for if They be not all wanting to themselves and their Rule 't is unavoidable that their Rule is wanting to them Next They who affirm the Letter is the Rule must either say that the bare Letter as it lies antecedently to and abstracting from all Interpretation whatsoever is the Rule and this cannot be with any sence maintained for so God must be held to have Hands Feet Passions c. Or else that the Letter alone is not sufficient to give as Assurance of Gods sence in Dogmatical Points of high concern as the Trinity Incarnation c. without the Assistance of some Interpretation and to say this is to say as expresly as can be said that the Letter of Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith since it gives not the Certain Sence of Christ without that Interpretation adjoyned Nay more since 't is the nature of Interpretation to give the Sence of words and the nature of the Rule of Faith to give us the Sence of Christ this Interpretation manifestly is the Rule of Faith and the Revelation to us who live now of what is Christs Doctrine I know it is sometimes said that the Letter may be interpreted by it self a clear place affording light to one more obscure but taking the Letter as Antecedent to all Interpretation as in this case it ought I can see no reason for this Pretence For let us take two such places e. g. It repented God that he had made man and God is not as man that he should repent abstract from all interpretation and let him tell me that can of the two places taken alone which is the clear and which is the obscure one Atheists will be apt to take such pretences to reject the Scripture and impiously accuse it of Contradiction but how that method can assist a sincere man who hopes by the meer Letter to find his Faith and hinder the Obscure place from darkning the Clear place as much as the Clear one enlightens the Obscure one I understand not In fine It exposes a man to the Scandal and Temptation of thinking there is no Truth in Scripture but Absolute assurance of Truth it gives no man Besides the former of the Reasons Lately given returns again For the Socinians compare place to place as well as others other Sects do so too and yet all err and some in most fundamental Points Wherefore it must be either presum'd they all err wilfully or the Way cannot be presumed a Right Way Farther it may be ask'd when one pitches upon a determinate sence of any place beyond what the Letter inforces by what light he guides himself in that determination and then shewn that that Light whatever it is and not the Letter is indeed the Formal Revealer or Rule of Faith Much more might be said on this occasion but my business now is to state my Case not to plead it The Letter Rule secluded I advanc'd to prove that Tradition or that Body call'd the Church which Christ by himself and his Apostles constituted taken as delivering her thoughts by a constant Tenor of living Voice and Practise visible to the whole World is the absolutely-certain way of conveying down the Doctrine taught at first from Age to Age nay Year to Year and so to our time which is in other Terms to say that Pastors and Fathers and the conversant Faithful by discoursing preaching teaching and catechising and living and practising could from the very first and so all along better and more certainly make their thoughts or Christs Doctrine be understood by those whom they instruct than a Book which lies before them and cannot accommodate it self to the arising Difficulties of the Reader I am not here to repeat my Reasons they are contain'd in my Book which I called Sure footing in Christianity And because I observ'd our improving Age had in this last half Century exceedingly ripen'd and advanc'd in manly Reason straining towards Perfect Satisfaction and unwillingly resting on any thing in which appear'd a possibility to be otherwise or to express the same in other words bent their thoughts and hopeful endeavours to perfect Science I endeavoured in that Treatise rigorously to pursue the way of Science both in disproving the Letter-Rule and proving the Living Rule of Faith beginning with some plain Attributes belonging to the natures of Rule and Faith and building my whole discourse upon them with care not to swerve from them in the least And being conscious to my self that I had as I proposed to do closely held to the natures of the Things in hand I had good reason to hold my first five Discourses demonstrative which is all I needed have done as appears p. 57 and 58. the rest that follow'd being added ex abundanti and exprest by me An endeavour to demonstrate as by the Titles of the Sixth and Eighth Discourse is manifest though I do not perceive by the opposition of my Answerers why I should not have better thoughts of them than at first I pretended This is the matter of Fact concerning that Book as far as it related to me and a true account why I writ on that Subject and in that manner What thoughts I had of its usefulness and hopes it might prove serviceable towards composing the differences in Religion of which the World has so long complained though from the long and deep meditation I must necessarily have made upon those Principles I may reasonably be judg'd to
properly a Science for this Abstraction or manner of being in our mind frees the notion or nature thus abstracted that is the thing as thus conceiv'd by us from Vncertainty nay indeed fixes it in a kind of Immutability whereas were it consider'd as found in the World there would be no firm Ground at all for any Discourse For example perhaps by reason of the perpetual turmoil of things in Nature there is not to be found in the World any one Body either mathematically Straight Circular or Triangular yet because the nature of Body conceiv'd as in Rest bears it we can abstract from Motion and so consider quantitative Things according to what they can bear in themselves taken as not moving or in Rest therefore we can make such steady notions and when we have done discourse them and ground a long train of new Conclusions which we call a particular Science upon such a Nature thus conceiv'd § 9. And for that reason I would gladly know why Ethicks or Morality is not equally demonstrable as Mathematicks For we can equally abstract those Moral Notions of Virtues and Vices and consider them apart as we can do those Mathematical ones of Lines and Numbers I know 't is grown a common humour in the World taken up I know not how by course and continu'd none knows why to think otherwise But I must confess I never could discern any reason for it and shall be thankful to that man who can show me any that convinces In the mean time I give mine for the Affirmative which is this That the same reason holds for Ethicks as for Mathematicks since all the perquisits for Demonstration are found in the one as in the other To put it to the Test let 's consider what Euclid does when he demonstrates and by virtue of what We see he puts his Definitions and some common Maxims peculiar to that Subject and then by his Reason connecting the first Deductions with his Principles and the following Deductions with the foregoing onâ—â— weaves them into a Science And is it not evident that we can as well know what 's meant by those words which express Virtues and Vices and so as well define them as we can those other Also that the Common Maxims of Morality are as self-evident to Humane Nature as any First Principles in the World I admire then what should hinder Ethicks to be as perfect a Science as the clearest piece of Mathematicks since we can equally abstract the several notions handled in it from matter equally define them and consequently assisted by Common Maxims equally-evident with equal clearness discourse them which is all that is requir'd § 10. If it be said that particular Moral Actions are liable to Contingency 't is answer'd that this hinders not but the Speculative part of Morality is a true Science Even Mathematical Demonstrations when reduc'd to practice and put in matter are subject also to Contingency as we experience daily in Mechanicks and yet the Speculative part which abstracts from matter is never the less Scientifical § 11. The greatest difficulty is in that Cardinal Virtue call'd Prudence and I confess that because the exercise of this Virtue is surrounded with an incomprehensible number of Accidents and way-laid as it were with all the Ambushes and Stratagems of Fortune and consequently to make its Success Certain we must be put to fathom the natures of many several things nay more their Combinations or Joynt-actings with their several circumstances and especially of those things which are the Common Causes of the World as the influences of the Sun Moon and other Stars if they have any that is considerable and lastly of the Elements which 't is impossible for our short-sighted Knowledge to reach hence Prudence in its Execution or put in matter is liable to more Contingency by far than any piece of the Mathematicks where we have but one or two single notions or natures to grapple with and weild Yet notwithstanding all these difficulties I must still contest that the Maxims of Prudence upon which its Dictamens are chiefly grounded are self-evident practically and to the Learned Demonstrable viz. That we ought to sow and plant in their proper seasons that 't is best for Merchants to hazard though they be insecure of the Event and a thousand such-like § 12. I expect Dr. T. will object the fickle nature of the Will which renders all Contingent where this perpetually-changing Planet has any Influence But yet there 's a way for all that to fix this volatil Mercurial Power and make it act with a constancy as great as any other thing in Nature To conceive how this may be effected we are to consider that the Will too has a peculiar nature of its own which it can no more forgo than the most constant Piece found in Nature can do Its that is The Will can no more leave off being a Will than a Rule can not-be a Rule Faith not-be Faith or any other of those ridiculous Identical Propositions as Dr. T. calls them not be true Now the Will being a Power and Powers taking their several Natures from their Objects or as the Schools express it being specify'd by them and the Object of the Will as distinguish'd from the Understanding being Good and this propos'd to It by that Knowing Power that is Good at least appearing such if it can be made evident that such a thing can never appear a Good to the Subject thus circumstanc'd 't is demonstrable the Will cannot will it nay as evident as 't is that A Will is a Will § 13. To apply this to particulars In case there be a Trade or Profession of Merchants and it be evident to all the Followers of that sole Employment that Themselves Wives and Children must starve unless they venture to Sea the notventuring can never appear to them thus circumstanc'd that is addicted to that onely way of Livelihood as is suppos'd a Good and so 't is demonstrable that abstracting from Madness or Exorbitant Passion which is not our Case they can never will not-to-venture Or if a great multitude of men have embrac'd no Profession but that of the Law and as we 'll suppose have no other Livelihood but That so that it becomes evident it can never appear a Good to them not to take Fees 't is as Certain they will not refuse them as 't is that a Thing is it Self or that a Will is a Will because a Will is a Power whose Essence 't is to have such an Object as is appearingly Good § 14. To come closer to our purpose Suppose Innumerable multitudes of Fathers or Immediate Predecessors in any Age had an inclination to deceive their Children or immediate Successors in the World and consequently that the Immediate End they propos'd to themselves were to make them believe such Points of Faith were received by them from Forefathers which were indeed newly invented these men I say in case they must see
before and after it self as also that for the same Reason it can have no force upon one not yet arriv'd at Faith as the Rule of Faith ought to have because 't is as yet unknown to him § 14. Again I agree with them that there are ought to be many several Prudential Reasons suted to men of several Capacities and Circumstances moving them to disquisition and inclining them to embrace the right Faith and joyn themselves to the true Church but I say withal that 't is one thing to move a man to enquire and incline him to Assent another thing to settle him in a most firm Assent to such and such Points as absolutely Certain Truths which is requisit to Faith Hereupon I affirm that this later Effect cannot be wrought rationally without Grounds truly Evident and absolutely Conclusive of the thing and Knowable either by Practical Self-evidence to men of all sorts or also to the Learned by a certainly concluding Proof which I call a Demonstration I affirm moreover with due respect to those Divines that Motives onely Prudential seem improper to be named in this Case and that they must be Principia Sapientiae and not Prudentiae which can rationally make us absolutely Certain of the being or not-being of any thing that is of its Truth or Falshood the Object of Prudence being Agibilia and not Intelligibilia as such and its proper Exercise and Use being to determine a man to act exteriorly or to act thus in Circumstances where Contingency and hazard is found and not to act interiorly or meddle in the affair of Intellectual Certainty or Truth depending solely on the Principles of our Vnderstanding which are Impossible to be False and therefore plac't beyond all Contingency and Hazard In a word I shall not fear to be thought singular in my Principles while I ground my self on the nature of Faith which both all Catholicks and the Generality of those who are call'd Christians hold and St. Thomas of Aquin the Prince of School-Divines asserts as I shew'd Faith Vindicated pag. 130. § 14. As for all Objections of this nature once more I request Dr. T. to make good this Consequence that my Discourse cannot be true unless all our Divines even of the same way in common agree with me and I promise him this done to reply distinctly to all his Extrinsecal and Impertinent Exceptions which waving in the mean time my Premises he so constantly lelevels against my Conclusions And whereas he sayes I cannot reasonably charge him with those things till I have vindicated our own Divines I desire him to consider that I could not were I their Adversary charge them with what I can justly charge him They all to a man hold the Catholick Church on which they rely Infallible and hold this more firmly than they do any of their Speculations and consequently they hold their Faith Impossible to be False and so preserve the true Nature of Faith Inviolate whereas what he is to hold to most firmly according to his Principles is his own private Interpretation of Scripture which he himself and all the world besides see and hold to be Fallible and so he must say that all his Faith built upon it is possible to be a Ly for any thing he knows by which means he destroyes the nature of Faith as far as Gods Goodness will give him leave in himself and others and corrupts it into Opinion They produce Motives which though they call them Prudential are indeed some of them Demonstrative and coincident in part with Tradition whereas Dr. T. has nothing at all in his Grounds taking him as opposing Catholicks or standing to his own Rule of Faith which rightly stated has even the least shâ—w of Prudential to an unbyast man much less of Demonstrative Lastly were it a proper place to handle the point at large it were easy to shew they differ onely in a word but Dr. T. errs in the whole Thing though indeed in most of our Divines here cited he mistakes them and not they the main point whatever he pretends for however they make Prudential Motives sufficient to find the Church yet not one of them but makes the Authority of the Church when found on which they ground their Faith of far greater weight than such an Evidence as does ordinarily satisfie prudent men in humane affairs since they all hold it Infallible which is vastly more than Dr. T. holds to ground his Faith § 15. His third Answer is that this Principle of mine makes every true Believer Infallible in matters of Faith which sayes he is such a Paradox as I doubt whether ever it enter'd into any other mens mind Now this Charge of his joyn'd with my true Tenet that true Believers are those who rely on the Motives or Means left by God in his Church to light mankind in their way to Faith signifies thus much that 't is a wonderful and strange Paradox that those that follow and rely on the Motives laid by Gods Providence to direct them to Truth should in so doing not possibly be led into Error that is 't is a most absurd Paradox to say that Essential Truth should not be the Immediate and Proper Cause of Falshood But he discourses still upon this point as if I had held that the Vulgar are preserv'd from possibility of Errour or are Infallible not through the Goodness of the Grounds left by God to preserve them from Erring but from the strength of their own Vnderstanding which I do not remember I ever thought or said even of the most Learned He asks If this be true what need then of my Infallibility of Pope or Council And I ask him what need Governors when people know their Duty or Judges seeing the main of the Common Law is Traditionary to men verst in such affairs Self-known practically Let him but assure the world that no Upstart shall have an humour to rebel and innovate but that all Christians shall practice and hold to what they know evidently was practic'd and held by the immediately foregoing Church and I will assure him there will need no Infallible Desiner not any at all as to such points But Dr. T. discourses still as if there were no difference between the rude dim degree of Knowledge in the Vulgar and the accurate exact and oft-reflâ—cting Knowledge of those who by their great Learning their Education their Posture and Office are particularly verst and most deeply insighted into the affairs of Faith and all that belongs to the right explaining or wording it thence declaring it authentickly so to keep its distinct Sense clear in the minds of the Faithful which the Equivocating Witty Heretick endeavours to render confus'd and obscure I wish he would study our Tenets a while and understand them ere he undertakes to confute us He is very raw in things of this nature § 16. His next Errour is worse than the former He would fain perswade Catholicks if any
would believe him That my Principles do plainly exclude from Salvation at one blow Excommunicate Vnchristian all that do not believe upon my Grounds And nothing is easier than to prove it in his way 'T is but mistaking again the Notion of School-Divines for the Notion of Faithful and School for Church as he did lately and the deed is done immediately without any more trouble He is the happiest man in his First Principles and his Method that I ever met with the parts of the former need not hang together at all but are allow'd to be Incoherent and the later is a building upon false pretences and wrong Suppositions and then what may not he prove or what Conquest cannot he obtain by such powerful Stratagems He sayes he has proov'd at large in the Answer to Sure-Footing that the Council of Trent did not make Oral Tradition the sole Rule of her Faith Possibly I am not so lucky as to light on this large Proof of his all I can finde with an ordinary search is four or five lines Rule of Faith pag. 280. where after a commonly-Objected often-answer'd Citation from the Council of Trent declaring that Christian Faith and Discipline are contain'd in written Books unwritten Traditions therefore that they receive honor the Books of Scripture also Traditions with equal pious affection and reverence He adds which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith Now I had put this very Objection against my self Sure-f pag. 346. and proceeded to clear it to the end of pag. 150. particularly pag. 147.149 upon this Reason because taking the Scripture interpreted by Tradition as the Council expresses it self to do and forbids any man to interpret it otherwise it has the full Authority of Gods Word and so equally to be reverenced Whereas taking it interpreted by private heads which only will serve Dr T's turn 't is nothing less as not engaging the Divine Authority at all But now to the Notion of a Rule there is more required as Dr. T. himself grants and contends 't is found in Scripture viz. that it be so evident that every sensible may understand it as to matters of Faith and this building on the Council of Trents Authority and Judgment I deny to be found in the bare Letter of Scripture and hence say 't is no Rule I omit the repeating very many Arguments from the Council for that point deduc't from pag. 141. to pag. 146. never toucht nor so much as taken notice of in that Mock-Answer of his § 16. But that he may not mistake me I shall not stick to declare whom I exclude from Salvation at least from the way to it whom not and upon what Grounds speaking of the ordinary course of Gods Providence as I declare my self to do throughout this whole Treatise I make account that perfect Charity or Love of God above and in all things is the Immediate Disposition to Bliss or Vnitive of a Soul to God Also that this Virtue cannot with a due heartiness be connaturally or rationally wrought in Souls if the Tenet of a Deity 's Existence and of Christian Faith be held possible to be a Ly. Hence I am oblig'd by my Reason to hold that those who judge there are no absolueely-Conclusive Reasons for the Existence of a Deity nor for the Truth of Christian Faith are as such out of the Road of Salvation On the other side those who hold the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truths they profess Infallible and by Consequence their Faith Impossible to be False as all Catholikes do though as Divines they fail in making out how and by what particular means it comes to be Infallible yet through the virtue of this firm and steady Adhesion to such Principles as are because they are Truths apt to beget solid and well-grounded that is indeed True Virtues such as are a vigorous Hope and a fervent and all-ovre-powering Charity hence they possess the Connatural Means or are in the right way to Heaven And for this Reason I esteem Dr. T 's way of discoursing concerning a Deity and Faith in his Sermons most pestilent and mischievous to Souls as being apt of its own Nature to incline them if they have wit to discern its shallowness first to a kind of Scepticism in Religion and at next to Carelesness Irreligion and Atheism though truly I think 't is not his Intention to do so but that his shortness in Understanding the Nature and Grounds of Christianity makes him conceit he does excellently even to admiration all the while he commits such well-meaning Follies Nor do I think the Church of England will upon second thoughts think fit to Patronize Principles so destructive to the Nature of Faith found in the breast of every Protestant I ever yet met with who all with one mouth will own that 't is absolutely Impossible Christian Faith should be a Lye and abhor the contrary Position as wicked and damnable How Dr. T. may have season'd some of his own Auditors by preaching Controversy to them which he extremely affects I cannot tell 't is according as they incline to believe him more than the Generality of the Christian World whose Sentiments he opposes in his Discourses about the Ground of Faith DISCOURSE VIII With what Art Dr. T. answers my METHOD A Present made to his Credulous Friends shewing how solidly he confuted SVRE-FOOTING by readily granting the main of the Book What is meant by Tradition That J. S. is not singular in his way of discoursing of the Grounds of Faith § 1. HE makes a pass or two at my METHOD and that I conceive must serve for an Answer to it for an Answer I heard was threatned would appear very shortly but this pleasant Preface was the only thing which appeared and all that appears like Answer in it is that he would make it believ'd he ought not answer at all And this he does very neatly and like a Master For let no man think I have a mean Opinion of Dr. T. but every one is not good at all things some are good at proving some at disproving some at shifting of the Question without either proving or disproving every one in his way and in his way I know no man living a greater Master nor so great as the Dr. Two things he does and both of them strange ones First he affirms that Discourse is founded on the self-evident Infallibility of ora◠Tradition Next that He has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Surefooting The first of them would make the Reader apprehend I there suppos'd Oral Tradition self-evidently Infallible and then run on all the way upon that supposition which if it obtain belief as from his Credit he hopes it may since every Scholar knows all Discourses must be founded either on first Principles or at least on such as are granted by those against whom we
by some Natural and therefore more easily-known Assistances belonging to the Church those out of her are brought to the knowledge that she is Supernaturally assisted This is the Method I take in resolving Faith If any man can show me any other that is either more solid more orderly more connatural and agreeable to the nature of Faith or more honourable to Gods Church I shall as willingly and easily quit it as I now out of long and serious consideration embrace and firmly adhere to it But it appears plain to me that whoever contradicts this especially as to that point which occasion'd this Discourse must withal contradict a Maxim on which all Science is principally built namely that The Definition is more known than the Notion defin'd which I take to be understood not onely of the Whole Definition but of each single part of it for if any one part be more obscure than the thing defin'd the whole Definition as having that obscure part in it must necessarily be more obscure likewise Wherefore the Definition of a Church being Coetus Fidelium c. A Congregation of Faithful c. the notion of Faithful and consequently of Faith must either be more Known and Knowable than that of Church and consequently antecedent to it in right method of Discourse or the Definition would be obscurer than the Thing defin'd which if it be said I must confess I know not to what end Definitions are or why they do not rather conduce to Ignorance than to Science Add that True Faith being most Intrinsecal and Essential to a Church 't is by consequence a more forcible and demonstrative Argument to convince inevitably that such a Body in which 't is found is the True Church than is any Extrinsecal Mark whatsoever And if it be objected that Extrinsecal Marks are more easily Knowable I doubt not but in those who are led away by superficial Appearances there is some show of Reason in this Objection but I utterly deny that if we go to the bottom to settle the Absolute Certainty of any of these Marks any of them can be known at all much less more easily known if the Certainty of Tradition in visible and practical matters of Fact be questionable and that neither Scripture Fathers Councils Histories Monuments or any thing else of that nature can pretend to Absolute Certainty if Tradition be Uncertain or can pretend to be known unless Tradition be first that is more known as is shown particularly in the Corollaries to Sure-footing § 11. Hence is seen that the word Tradition is taken in a threefold sence For the Way of Tradition or Delivery taken at large For the Humane or Natural Authority of the Church as delivering And lastly for its Divinely-assisted or Supernatural Authority call'd properly Christian. When 't is taken in one fence when in another the nature of the matter in hand and the concomitant circumstances will evidently determine Onely we must note that these three Notions are not adequately contradistinct the later still including the former as Length Breadth and Depth do in Continu'd Quantity For The Humane Authority of the Church includes Tradition taken at large and adds to it the best Assistances of Nature as is shown Sure-f p. 82 83. The Supernatural Authority includes all found in the other two and adds to it the best Assistances of Grace as is particularly declared there from p. 84. to p. 93. So that all the Perfection of Tradition that is imaginable is to be found in that which we call Christian or in the Testifying Authority of Christs Church § 12. But because 't is still D. T 's best play to make use of Extrinsecal Exceptions so to divert the Readers Eye and avoid answering my Intrinsecal Reasons taken from the nature of the Things with which he is loth to grapple and since amongst the rest he is very frequent at this Impertinent Topick of my discoursing the Grounds of Faith after a different manner than other Divines do it were not amiss omitting many pregnant Instances which might be collected out of Dr. Stratford the Learned Author of Protestancy without Principles and many others to the same purpose to show how far he mistakes in this point by instancing in one Controvertist of eminent both Fame and Learning as any in his time one who writ before Rushworth's Dialogues appeared or perhaps were thought of and so cannot be suspected a Follower of that New Way as Dr. T. call it I mean Mr. Fisher. This able Controvertist in his Censure of Dr. White 's Reply p. 83 84 maintains that VNWRITTEN that is Oral and Practical TRADITION is the PRIME GROVND OF FAITH more Fundamental than Scripture and shows how his Adversary Mr. White the Minister grants in effect the same In his Answer to the nine Points p. 27. he concludes strongly that Scriptures are not the Prime Principles of Faith supposed before Faith which Infidels seeing to be True resolve to believe the Mysteries of Faith but onely are secondary Truths dark and obscure in themselves believed upon the Prime Principles of Faith Which words as amply and fully express that Scripture is not the express Rule of Faith as can be imagin'd For how should that have in it self the nature of an Intellectual Rule which in it self is dark and obscure Or how can that which is believed upon the Prime Principles that is partly at least upon the Ground or Rule of Faith be any part of that Rule since what 's believ'd is the Object of Faith and so presupposes the Rule of Faith Also in the beginning of his Argument he makes the Prim◠Principles of Faith or Vnwritten Tradition as he elsewhere calls it that is the same we mean by Oral and Practical evident in it self And p. 40. he puts the Question between us and Protestants to be what is the external Infallible Ground unto which Divine Inspiration moveth men to adhere that they may be settled in the true saving Faith Where first besides Gods grace moving us to every good Act which all Catholicks hold to be necessary there is requisite according to him an External Infallible Ground next that without such a Ground a man cannot be settled in true saving Faith Again p. 38 coming to lay the ground of knowing any Doctrine to be Apostolical he mentions none but onely Publick Catholick Tradition taught unanimously and perpetually by Pastors which p. 37. he calls a Rule Infallible and says that onely Hereticks charge it to be Fallible where also he explains the meaning of his Principle that The Apostolical Doctrine is the Catholick after this manner The Doctrine which is deliver'd from the Apostles by the Tradition of whole Christian Worlds of Fathers unto whole Christian Worlds of Children c. Of this Tradition which by the words now cited appears to be evidently the same I defend he affirms p. 38. that 't is prov'd to be simply Infallible by the very nature thereof and quotes Suarez to
of Irony or any thing in the least of an impertinent nature but a serious pursuâ—t of the Point by way of Reason from the beginning to the end It seems there being in it no show of Passion it was the Reason of it which gall'd and was so uneasie to him What need was there to fall into such down right Rudeness as to call a Proposition of mine for which I offer'd my Reasons most impudent as did Dr. T. Rule of Faith p. 173. and in forty other places to make the Droll supply the Divine Was it not enough to answer the Reasons and let the World judge If he can show any such rude Language in my Letter of Thanks I here blame my self for it though it be responsum non dictum The worst word I use is charging hâ—m with falsifying my words and sense and it seems to me but hard Law if he may take the liberty to commit such Faults frequently and I may not so much as name his Faults when 't is my Duty as his Answerer to discover them § 2. He would clear himself of some Faults objected to do which he summons together all his best Arts First he picks out generally what can best bear a show of Reply Next he counterfeits a wrong Objection and lastly conceals in what manner and for what Reasons it was prest against him and by this means he hopes to escape blame § 3. First he would justifie himself for saying I went about to explain words because my self said I would examine well what is meant by them which seems equivalent to explaining them but he conceals what kind of explications I deny'd my self to mean and what he unjustly imputed twice in one page p. 3. namely Definitions he conceals how he would needs make me intend to define and yet most disingenuously put down himself at the same time my very words in which I disclaim'd any pretence to define but onely to reflect on some Attributes Predicates or Properties of what was meant by those words that is some pertinent and true Sayings concerning Rule and Faith which though they in part explicate them which I never deny'd yet they are far from looking like those compleat Explications call'd Definitions or even like those less artificial ones call'd Descriptions or like those Explications industriously compil'd which was the word I us'd to adequate the intire notion of the word under consideration For example Faith being there taken for Believing I come to discover it imports some kind of knowledge and then argue from it as such § 8. Again I affirm § 12. that the notion of the word Faith bears that 't is a Perfection of the Soul or a Virtue and thence discourse from it as it imports a Virtue Also § 16. I affirm that Faith mainly conduces to Bliss or Salvation c. and thereupon frame such a Discourse as is apt to spring out of such a Consideration Now all these in part explicate the Thing that is disclose or say some Truth that belongs to its nature yet not one of those sayings looks like an Explication of the word FAITH for this speaks an Intireness and an Adequateness to the notion explicated which 't is evident not one of these particular Affirmations or Sayings have the least show of He conceals also what was aâ—ledg'd Letter of Thanks p. 6. for indeed 't was not creditable that candid Scholars should reflect on it viz. that the word Faith being Equivocal and sometimes signifying Conscience sometimes Fidelity or Honesty c. I was necessarily to explain my self in what sense I understood it there and to declare that I took it for Belief and accordingly said Faith is the same with Believing which no sooner done but my pleasant Confuter will needs have that expressing or clearing its distinct sense in one single word to be a Definition too and plays upon it p. 3. with such affected Raillery as would make any sober man unacquainted with the Arts he uses to escape the duty of replying justly wonder But I shall easily satisfie our Readers what 's the true reason of this Carriage He thought it not fit to give one word of a sober and solid Reply to any one of thoâ—e many Reasons in that first discourse of mine built all upon those Affirmations or Predications now spoken of though this be the substantialest part of my Book and the Foundation of the rest on whâ—ch I ground rhe Properties of a Rule of Faith importing its Absolute Certainty but neglecting all my Premisses and Proofs he falls to deny my Conclusion and talk something against it in his own way So that 't is evident these Jests were to divert the Reader from the Point and so serve instead of a Confute to that whole Discourse A rare Method signifying thus much if candidâ—y and plainâ—y laid open and brought to Termâ— of Reason Because I can pretend any thing and play upon it with Ironies prettily exprest therefore my kind unexamining friends being inur'd to believe all I say to be Gospel let my Adversary say what he will he shall never be held to discourse solidly I charge him then afresh with an affected Disingenuity design'd to palliate hâ—s â—eglect of answering and let him know that as 't is manifest out of my Book I built not there those seven Properties of the Rule of Faith â—he Reasons for which he no where refutes on the Exactness Intireness or Goodness of any falsely-pretended Definition or Explication but on the Truth of those Propositions or the Agreement of those Attributes or Properties to the respective natures of Rule and Faith as their Subjects Also he may please to reflect that these being involv'd in the signification of those words by discovering and then dilating upon each of those singly I declare by consequence what is meant by those words as far as concerns my present purpose without compiling Explications or framing Definitions which onely were the Things I deny'd Lastly I charge this Insincerity far more home upon him now than ever that whereas in my Letter of Thanks from p. 5. to p 9. I had at large refuted these ridiculous Exceptions of his he in this very place where he pretends to speak particularly to my Letter of Thanks never takes notice of any one word there alledg'd but conceals all that had been produc'd to answer those Exceptions and bears himself as if no such Answers had been given This I must confess falls much short of either nibbling or gnawing and I am forc'd to declare that this constant carriage of his discovering too openly a perfect disregard of Truth abates in me much of that respect which otherwise his good Endowments would naturally give me § 4. His second Remembrance of my Letter of Thanks for though he says here p. 32. he must not forget it yet he haâ— been perfectly unmindful of it hitherto is that I say My Testimonies were not intended against the Protestants whereas my Book was writ
apparent respect of Scripture to be found in Rushworth whereas there is not a syllable to that purpose in my Book Thirdly to give Countenance to this False Charge those words of mine whereas in the place you cite he onely expresses which in me were immediately subjoyned to his Comment and were evidently design'd to restrain that Authors words to a Sense different from what he had impos'd he here joyns immediatly after the very Woâ—ds themselves though there were three or four lines between one and the other By this stratagem making the Reader apprehend the word onely was exclusive or negative of more words found in Rushworth whereas by the whoâ—e tenour of the Charge by all the words which express it and lastly by the placing those words he onely exprest immediately after his unhandsome Comment 't is most manifest they onely excluded any Ground or occasion of so strange a misconstruction and aim'd not in the least at denying any other words but onely at clearing that this was that Authors sole Intention Yet in confidence of these blinding Crafts and that his unexamining Readers will believe all he says he sounds the triumph of his own Victory in this rude and confident manner Certainly one would think that either this man has no Eyes or no Forehead I will not say as Dr. T. does here in a Sermon preach'd against himself p. 123. that a little wit and a great deal of ill-nature will furnish a man for Satyr onely I must say that the tenth part of this Rudeness in another though justly occasion'd too would have been call'd Passion and ill Language But I see what 's a most horrid Sin in the abominable Papist is still a great Virtue in the Saints On this occasion since he is so hot and Rustick I must be serious with him and demand of him publickly in the face of the World Satisfaction for this Unjust Calumny and that I may not be too rigorous with him I will yield him innocent in all the rest if he clears himself of this one passage in which he counterfeits the greatest Triumph and Victory Of this Fault I say which he has newly committed even then when he went about to clear himsellf of a former § 12. His last Attempt is to give an account why he added that large senc'd Monosyllable All to my words which is the onely False Citation be hath yet offer'd to Examination the former two not being objected as such whatever he pretends Now the Advantage he gains by adding it is manifestly this that if that word be added and that I indeed say The greatest Hopes and Fears are strongly apply'd to the minds of ALL Christians it would follow that no one Christian in the world could apostatize or be a bad man which being the most ridiculous position that ever was advanc'd and confutable by every days experience his imposing this Tenet on me by virtue of this Addition iâ— as he well expresses it Serm. p. 87. putting me in a Fools Coat for every Body to laugh at I appeal'd Letter of Thanks p. 66 67. to Eye-sight that no such word was ever annext to the words now cited and thence charg'd him with falsifying He would clear himself in doing which he denies not that he added the word All this was too evident to be cloak'd but he gives his reason why he added it on this manner He alledges my words that Christian Doctrine was at first unanimously settled in the minds of the Faithful c. and firmly believ'd by all those Faithful to be the vvay to Heaven Therefore infers Dr. T. since in the pursuit of the Dâ—scourse 't is added that the greatest Hopes and Fears vvere strongly apply'd to the minds of the First Believers those First Believers must mean ALL those Faithful spoken of before and the same is to be said of the Christians in after Ages This is the full force of his Plea My Reply is That I had particular reason to add the word All in the former part where I said that That Doctrine vvas firmly believ'd by ALL those faithful for they had not been Faithful had they not firmly believed it and yet had equal reason to omit it when I came to that passage the greatest motives were strongly aprly'd to the minds of the first Believers because I have learn'd of our B. Saviour that many receive the word that is believe and gladly too yet the thorny cares of this world to which I add Passions and ill Affections springing from Original Sin choak the Divine Seed and hinder it from fructifying whereas had it had the full and due effect which its nature requir'd it had born Fruit abundantly Now since those Motives are of themselves able to produce it in all and oftentimes convert the most indispos'd that is the most wicked Sinners I conceive this happens for want of due Application making the Motives sink deep into the Understanding Power so as to make it conceit them heartily which vigorous Apprehension we use to call Lively Faith nothing else being required to any effect but the Agents Power over the Patients indisposition and a close Application of the Power to the Matter t is to work upon Which kind of Application being evidently not made to All there was no show of reason why I should put that word in that place and much less that Dr. T. should put it for me I was forc't indeed to name the word Believers because it was impossible to conceive that those Motives should be strongly apply'd to the Minds of Jews or Heathens Again I was forc't to express it plurally since no sober man can doubt but the doctrine of Faith sunk deep into the hearts or wills of more than some one and thence wrought in them through Charity but that I should mean by that word onely plurally exprest a Number of Believers having those Motives strongly applyed to them Equal to those who firmly believed or were Faithful is unconceivable by any man who looks into the sense of words this being the same as to apprehend that all who believe speculatively lay to heart those Motives to good Life which Faith teaches them a thing our daily Experience confutes Moreover I endeavoured to prevent any such Apprehension in my very next words after my Principles which were these This put it follows as certainly that a GREAT NVMBER of the first Believers and after faithful would continue c. Now these words a Great number of the first Believers having most evidently a Partitive sense that is signifying onely a Part or some of them it might seem strange to any Man that knows not Dr. T 's might in such performances and that nothing is Impossible for him to mistake who will do it because he must do it that he could interpret those very same words First Believers to mean all not one excepted 'T is a trifling Evasion then to hope to come off by saying as he does here p. 36. If it