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 Grounds of it even while he goes about to defend it These were my words then and I am sorry he would needs dare and provoke me to make them good In which if I have justified my self too particularly let him blame himself All this while I seriously declare that I am far from thinking that Dr. T. himself is not assur'd that there is a GOD and farther yet from imagining that already holding one he should hold it possible afterwards GOD should cease to be which ridiculous folly constant to his prevaricating humour he puts upon me p. 8. What I affirm is That his ill Principles do equivalently confess it possible there neither is nor ever was a GOD and this I have abundantly shown out of his own words Yet I doubt not but himself through GOD's Goodness has by Practical Self-evidence in the same manner the Vulgar who are no Speculaters or Scholars also have it absolute Certainty of the Existence of a Deity in despight of his weak Speculations nay that in this very Sermon he hath one or two Proofs which have in them the force of a Demonstration though his not understanding and so ill-managing of them and then calling them Probabilities has endeavour'd all that may be to render them good for nothing I end with some of his own words Pref. p. 37. That if Dr. T. did in truth believe that the Existence of a Deity or a Creation are as he says Serm. p. 20 so evident that they can hardly be made plainer than they are of themselves he should by all means have let them alone for they were in a very good condition to shift for themselvs but his blind and Sceptical way of proving them is enough to cast a mist about the clearest Truths in the world And I must take the liberty to admonish him that it lies not in the power of all the Enemies of Christianity in the world to do it half that Mischief as one Christian Divine may who by his earnestness manifests a desire to do the best he can by the vogue he bears seems able to do the best that may be done yet produces not any one proof which he vouches to be absolutely conclusive of the Truth either of Christianity or a Deity but rather by his carriage denies there are any such while he talks of Likelihood Probability more Credible Opinion Moral Certainty and such-like whose very names ought not to be heard or endur'd in a discourse aiming to settle the Grounds of Faith or the Tenet of a Deity Let him consider that he must take his measure of the Certainty of Grounds from the Object or Thing not from our freedom from doubt and such-like for these may be light and silly whereas the Grounds of Faith being â—aid by GOD must necessarily be wise and solid and so when look'd into Absolutely-Conclusive of the thing Let us then who hold a GOD leaving Creatures to their weaknesses vindicate our Maker from the scandalous Imputation of governing Mankind tyrannically by commanding us to assent thâ—t a thing is which at the same time we see may not be so obliging us to hold contrary to the Light of Nature and the very First Principles which Himself had ingrafted in us that what is is at the same time possible not to be and to profess a point True nay dy to attest its Truth which may perhaps be shown False to morrow nay which our selves see may be now False He tells us here in common p. 90 and he tels us truly that which way soever we turn our selvs we are incountred with Clear Evidences and sensible Demonstrations of a Deity Why does he then coming to make out that point say the nature of the thing will not bear clear Demonstration and that onely Mathematical matters are capable of it Why pursues he not such Proofs as these and makes them out and stands by them and reduces them to First Principles and so obliges Humane Nature to assent to them under evident forfeiture of their Sincerity and even Manhood Is he afraid clear Evidences and sensible Demonstrations will not necessarily conclude Why does he put Suppositions that the thing were and then argue thus blindly that since supposing it were it would give no more light of it self than it does therefore it is Is there any necessity for such a ridiculous perplexing and inconclusive method when we may vouch we have Clear Evidences and Demonstrations Lastly Why does he distrust the Objects strength and explain our Assurance of a Deity and Faith by Moral Certainty or such as will satisfie prudent men in humane Affairs Probabilities amassed together not doubting and other such-like feeble diminutive expressions Are not Clear Evidences and Sensible Demonstrations that is Demonstrations à posteriori in point of Certainty incomparably beyond such quivering Grounds and such dwindling Adhesions I wish Dr. T. would take these things into his better thoughts and at least by amending his Expressions and Reasons hereafter make some tolerable satisfaction for this intolerable Injury done to Faith and GOD's Church DISCOURSE VI. That Dr. T. makes all the Grounds of Christian Faith Possible to be False Of Infallibility Demonstration and Moral Certainty § 1. THus much to justifie my first Charge that Dr. T. made that Fundamental Tenet of a Deity and consequently all Religion Possible to be False My second Charge is that he particularly makes all Christian Faith possible to be false and 't is found Faith Vindicated p. 171. where I put down his own words which concern that purpose though he who presuming on the Partiality of his Friends takes the Liberty to say any thing which even Eye-sight may Confute assures his Reader pag. 5. that I durst not Cite them I laid my Charge in this Tenor 'T is necessarily consequent from the foregoing Paragraphs that if I have Discours't right in this small Treatise of mine and have proved that Faith and consequently its Grounds must be Impossible to be False then Mr. T.'s Confession p. 118. to which Mr. St.'s Doctrine is Consonant that It is possible to be otherwise that is to be False that any Book is so Antient as it pretends to be or that it was Written by him whose Name it bears or that this is the sence of such and such Passages in it is a clear Conviction that neither is the Book-Rule he maintains the True Rule of Faith § 3. Nor have he and his Friends True Faith § 4. And consequently there being no other Rule owned taking away Private Spirit but Tradition that Tradition is the only-True Rule of Faith § 6. and so the main of Sure-Footing stands yet firm And lastly 't is evinc't that his own Book which opposes it opposes the only-True because the only Impossible-to-be-False Ground of Faith that is he is convinc't in that Supposition to go about to undermine all Christian Faith Whence the Title of his Probable-natur'd Book Rule of Faith is manifested to be an improper Nickname
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
both passes my Imagination and I am confident every man's living who considers well what he says 'T is Evident then from Dr. T's whole Carriage in this business that unless perhaps the natural force of Tradition work a Practical-self evidence in him of those points in which they who hold to Tradition and He agree which he is not aware of Dr. T. does not hold his Faith absolutely but morally True which is a very strong piece of Nonsence as was shown in Faith Vindicated and will be seen hereafter and therefore it was but â—itting and necessary that I should clear the word Truth from a ridiculous Equivocation or impertinent Distinction put upon it by such Sceptical pretenders to Christianity and manifest that the word Truth in those Propositions which express the An est of a thing speaks Being and so necessarily involves Impossibility of not being or Impossibility of Falshood in its notion or which is all one materially though formally 't is different that what 's True must be Impossible to be False § 11. Hence will appear the reason why I affirm'd that discourse more than Mathematically-demonstrative because it was immediately built on that First Principle in Metaphysicks 'T is impossible the same thing should be and not be at once Which is Superiour to and clearer than any Mathematical Principle since the verity of all the Maxims of This depend on the Truth of the Other Or to explain my self more fully because 't is intirely built on the notion or nature of Being which is more Evident than any Mathematical one If he denies it he is desir'd to produce any Mathematical notion which is of equal clearness which done a little reflexion will teach him that that Mathematical notion whatever it is can bear a Definition that is can be represented or made clearer than it was while exprest by that single word defin'd whereas the notion of Being cannot possibly bear any but while we go about to explicate it better we are forc't to put its own notion in its definition and other notions besides less Evident than it self and so while we go about to explicate it better we explain it worse whence it will appear evidently by our defeat when we attempt to clear it better that 't is the clearest notion that is or clearer than Mathematical ones and consequently the discourses grounded on the Nature of Being are more than Mathematically demonstrative But I pardon this mistake to Dr. T. whom I verily judg to be sincerely Ignorant in such kind of speculations and not affectedly only as he discovers himself to be in multitudes of others Hence by the way is seen also how strangely the World is mistaken in Metaphysicks esteeming that highest Science intolerably obscure and impenetrably difficult whereas its Object being those notions that concern Being all its Obscurity and Hardness to one whom right Logick hath taught accurately to distinguish and steadily to keep distinct his notions consist only in this that 't is too Luminous and Intelligible in the same manner as the Sun is hard to be seen at Noon-day whence it happens that because we are inur'd by custome to make Definitions or Explications of what we are discoursing about and here the Subject not needing nor bearing it we can make none of Being which is the Principal Object in that Science hence being put out of our road we are at a puzzle and seem to have lost our way through too much light But 't is time now to return to his Confutation of Faith Vindicated § 12. His next Answer is that in asserting Infallibility to be necessary to the true nature of Faith I have the Generality of my own Church my professed Adversaries That is Dr. T. will say any thing Let him show me I will not say the Generality or any great number but even any one particular Catholick professing either that he relies not on the Church for his Faith or that the Church he relies on is not Infallible and I here declare that he is no Catholick and doubt not but â—ll good Sons of the Church will joyn with me in looking upon him as such I hope those Readers who are Scholars will by the way reflect how solid a Method Dr. T. still takes to confute my Discourse which is to let all my Proofs or Premises alone untoucht and fall to combat my Conclusion with Extrinsecal Mediums Next he tells â—s the Church of Rome pretends only to Infallibility founded on Christs Promise to secure the Church from Errour by a Supernatural Assistance which is evidently different from Mr. S ' s. Rational Infallibility of Tradition In which discourse are almost as many faults as words For 1. It supposes the Church excludes the concurrence of natural means to her Infallibility which he shall never show Next it supposes I exclude Supernatural Assistance and admit only Natural whereas I expresly include and openly vouch it in Sure footing from pag. 85. to pag. 93. And 3 ly He supposes that Supernatural and Rational are Inconsistent whereas in the place now cited and never spoke to in his much applauded Rule of Faith I all a long prove the Supernatural means to be very Rational and have so good an Opinion of God's Government of the World as to make account that Supernatural things have far more excellent Reason for them than Natural ones and that God does not enviously hide from us the sight of those Reasons but permits and wills they should be seen and penetrated by those who are disposed and capable by the antecedent Illumination of Faith assisted by other Natural Knowledges to look into them § 13. After this he tells us That the Divines of our Church before this new way was found out did generally resolve Faith into the Infallible Testimony of the Church and this into our Saviours promise and the Evidence of the â—rue Church into motives onely Prudential So that what he lately put upon our Church is now come to signifie Divines of oâ—a Church which gives us to understand Dr. T. makes account that Faith and School-Divinity Church and Schools Humane deduction and Divine Revelation signifie one and the same thing Next he â—cquaints us that this new way of ours was the old way in case the Divines did generally before this new way was found out resolve Faith into the Infallible Testimony of the Church For nothing is more Evident than that all the late Explicaters of Tradition make it the same with the Attestation or Testimony of the Church In that which follows I partly agree with that other sort of Divines partly I dissent from them I agree with them that our Saviour promist Infallibility to his Church as also that the knowledge of this Promise had by Faith is an excellent satisfaction to those who are already Faithful but I say withal that being a Point of Faith it can be no part of the Rule of Faith for so the same thing would in the same respect be
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
and so we may call them Moral Christians which Epithet being opposite to Absolute signifies they are not absolutely Christians and since nothing is indeed that which 't is not absolutely it 's true sence is that they are indeed no Christians yet since they like the word Moral so extremely well when they are to express the certainty due to Faith 't is but fitting they should wear it when we express them as Faithful Though then The Hopeful seems very well to represent their humour yet 't is but fitting they should have the Priviledge of naming themselves and Moral Christians let them be Against these Moral Christians and Them onely I discourse in this present Treatise But what have I to do with the Persons I doubt not but Gods Goodness the Method of whose Gracious Providence is to support the Failings of his Creatures as far as the Natures of Particular Things and the Order of the World will permit very often supplies the Defects of Mens Speculations with Connatural ways of Knowledge fixing them thus in a strong Adherence to the most Concerning Truths by ways which even their unreflecting selves are not aware of Whence I am the farthest from judging any Mans Person perhaps of any living and endeavour all I can to retain a Charitable Opinion even of Dr. T's Personal Intentions in common and excuse him diverse times in this very Treatise where I write against him as far as Evidence of the contrary will give me leave 'T is this wicked Tenet then and It onely which I combat at present and which I see plainly so unsettles unhinges and renders useless and ineffectual all Christianity that I ought to declare an utter and irreconcileable Enmity against It and that I shall through GOD's Assistance prosecute it home to the very doors of Scepticism the Bane of all Humane Science as well as Faith in whose gloomy Grott situate in the Confines of dark Ignorance Mankind's Natural Hell they first saw the twilight or rather indeed were born blind Yet it cannot be expected that declaring as I do a just Indignation against this wicked Tenet I should treat a Writer favourably considering him precisely as a Maintainer of it or bear my self respectfully to those insincere and unhandsome Methods and Ways which he makes use of to abet It and prejudice the Sacred Truth it opposes whether those ways be Sophisms in Reasoning or else Scurrility supplying the place of Reason the main Engine employ'd in this Preface I shall then take a little of that much liberty he uses to give them the Entertainment and Return due in Iustice to their Demerits Yet that I may avoid all just occasion of offence I shall endeavour for the most part to use his own words omitting still the rudest hoping he will have less Reason to be angry at his own Eccho since if he had not Originiz'd it it had not reflected And if he assum'd to himself the freedom to abound so with Irony and wholly neglect speaking to my Reasons of which whatever they be none can deny but that I use to have good store in my Writings I hope it will not be indecent if now and then I speak to those plausible Ironies themselves there being nothing else to refute otherwise since according to Dr. T's Method of Disputing these are my onely Confuters and full of Brag and Triumph he and his Friends would most certainly have pretended as they did formerly on the like occasion that Inability to reply had caus'd my desistance I come then to examine this spruce Preface in doing which I must be forc'd to lay open at large his knack of answering Books that so I may have just Title to make some Requests to You our Umpires in behalf of the Rights proper to Learning Declaring before-hand that where-ever I am large in any Discourse becoming a Scholar 't is not a Duty paid to his Preface which has nothing like a show of solid Scholarship in it but a Respect due to You our Learned Iudges to whom I Appeal INDEX ASsent Dissent and Suspense pag. 81 82 c. Catholick Divines vindicated p. 18 179. Certainty of Scriptures Letter and Sense deny'd by Dr. T. p. 120 121 151. asserted by J. S. p. 121 122. Definitions of General Councils why necessary p. 181 182. Demonstration p. 41 42 43 119 120 174. found in Ethicks and Physicks p. 57. to 63. First Principles Identical Propositions p. 7. to 41. Dr. T 's Firm Principle shown weak p. 71 72 c. Freedom from doubt not sufficient for Faith p. 84. to 94. p. 124. to 128. Infallibility asserted p. 64. to 67.112 to 116. requisite to Assent and Faith p. 68 69. In what sence it admits of degrees p. 138. to â— 141. Unlearned Believers how Infallible p. 134 135 136 181. Moral Certainty p. 141. to 147. Objections from Catholick Divines refuted p. 175. to 179. Practical Self-evidence p. 4 5 6 116 117. Prudential Grounds incompetent for Faith p. 142 to 146. Scriptures Letter no Rule Pref. p. 5 6 7.199 200. Tradition the Rule of Faith p. 32 33 183. Granted to be such by Dr. T. p. 192. to p. 200. Held by other Catholick Divines in J. S. his sense p. 212. to 216. Explained p. 202. to 212. It s Certainty how a First Principle and Self-evident p. 3 4. A Full Answer to Dr. T's Preface with an Examination of his Grounds of Religion DISCOURSE I. Clearing the way to the following ones by manifesting his two Fundamental Exceptions to be perfectly Injust and voluntarily Insincere § 1. HIs Preface begins p. 3. with two Charges viz. That I still persist to maintain after so fair an Admonition that first and self evident Principles are fit to be demonstrated to which he addes a Third that I make Identical Propositions to be First Principles in the matter under dispute He argues too against the two former imaginary Assertions of mine which in this Preface is a rare thing thus p. 37. There can be nothing to make First Principles more Evident because there is nothing before them to demonstrate them by And I acknowledge the reason given to be as victorious as any passage in his Rule of Faith where he has multitudes of such wrong-aim'd Arguments intended I conceive to shew how far his Reason can carry when it shoots at rovers for 't is levell'd at no mark But observe I beseech you Gentlemen how I am dealt with and let these two leading Cases discovering his way of Confute obtain a just suspence of your Judgments concerning all his other performances till you see them examined § 2. In Sure footing p. 114. 2d Edit which I stâ—ll quote I deduc'd two Propositions the former that Tradition is the First Principle IN WAY OF AVTHORITY as it engages for matter of Fact long ago past or as in other places I therefore name it FIRST AUTHORITY because 't is manifest that the Authentication of Books and Monuments all depend upon Tradition The other was
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
of these things then let him say he is fallibly certain of it which done Nature will shew him how perfect Nonsence he speaks whence the same Nature will tell him with a little reflexion that since the word Infallibly can with good sence be joyn'd with the word Certain either 't is adeqaate to that word and extends its sence as far as the others and then there is no Certainty where there is not Infallibility or it does not extend as far as the word Certain and then we may be Certain of some things yet not-Infallibly Certain which since not-Infallibly means Fallibly signifies clearly we may be fallibly certain of those things But common sence teaches us how ridiculous 't is to say we are fallibly certain of any thing 'T is most evident therefore and demonstrable that there is no Certainty but where there is Infallibility and that we can never be said to be truly Certain of any thing till all circumstances consider'd we see our selves out of possibility of being deceived hic nunc in that very thing Whence Dr. T. denying Infallible assurance of both Letter and Sence of Scripture is convinc'd to deny all true Certainty of either and so to render all Faith built upon it Uncertain that is possible to be false and could he with sense take the other part of the distinction and say he is fallibly certain of it yet the guilt of the same Position will still remain with him This Logical Demonstration I produc'd in Faith Vindicated pag. 37. of which Dr T. takes notice here pag. 17 thus Mr. S. is plâ—as'd to say that Certainty and Infallibility are all one concealing thus from his Reader I had ever prov'd it lest he should be oblig'd â—o speak to my Proofs which he neither likes nor uses and bears himself as if I had only said it which suppos'd then indeed his bare saying the contrary was a competent Answer This done he confutes it manfully with telling his Readers I am the first man that evâ—r said it and that 't is foolish I beseech you Gentlemen is it the fashion in the Univeesities to solve Arguments on this manner That is to neglect the Premisses call the Conclusion foolish and think to overthrow the Reason in the Opinion of his Readers because 't is not some hackney Argument brought into play perhaps an hundred times over and ninety nine times answer'd but now produc'd first Certainly one would think in reason that what has been many times alledg'd should rather be slighted because it may have received already many Answers and not such Pcoofs as first appear because 't is certain they never yet had any at all nor do I conceive that the Noble and Learned Virtuosi of the ROYAL SOCIETY use to reject any Production because the Author of it is the first that invented it but they allow it Examination and if it hold the Trial approve it and commend the Author § 4. I shall endeavour to give him another Argument of the Necessity of admitting Infallibility though I have good reason to fear he will afford it again no other Answer but only this that I am the first man that ever produc'd it 'T is this Taking the word False or Falsus subjectively or as in the Subject that is as making the Jugment False or Erroneous 't is a Participle of the Verb Fallor and signifies deceived actually to which corresponds as its proper Power Fallible or capable to be deceived Now the contrary to False thus understood is True taken also subjectively or as making the Judgment which in it is True or Un-erroneous in that its Act. Wherefore the proper Power corresponding to that Act must necessarily be that which is oppos'd to Fallible that is Infallible Again taking the word False Objectively or as found in the Proposition which is the Object or Cause of our Judgment as 't is false or actually deceived It s proper Power corresponding to it is Capable to deceive Wherefore also taking its Opposit Truth Objectively or for the Object of our Judgment when 't is True the proper Power corresponding to it must be Incapable to deceive 'T is concluded then from both these Considerations that we can neither affirm Points or Propositiont of Faith which are the Objects of such Acts True but we must affirm withal that they are Incapable to make us judge erroneously while we assent to them nor that our Judgment or Act of Faith can be True or Un-erroneous but we must be Infallible in so judging Thus far concerning the necessity of admitting Infallibility if we once put our Assents or Acts of Faith to be true Judgments From which 't is a different Question to ask how we become thus Infallible onely 't is Evident that in case the former Proposition be put viz that we must affirm our Acts of Faith True Infallible we must be or Impossible to be in an Errour when we make those Acts. But now to this Infallibility in those Acts God's Providence leads men diversly according to their several degrees of Capacity Those who are arriv'd to a great pitch of Learning come to it by absolutely-concluding proofs call'd Demonstrations that is by penetrating the nature of the Authority on which it is built and such men can make out clearly and distinctly to their own Thoughts the Certainty of that Authority by discoursing it to themselves others they can resolve it into its Grounds meet with and answer Objections and in a word see themselves to be Infallibly Certain of it In these men therefore though the Truth of their Tenet be indeed taken from the Object as 't is always yet the Clearness Distinctness and firm Strength of it springs from the Perfection of their well-cultivated Understanding Those who are of a weak pitch are led to it by Practical Self-evidence of the nature of Authority and of the way in common by which they receive Faith which dim rude sight even in the simplest serves to carry them on to act according to right nature when they assent but they cannot discourse their thoughts nor resolve them into Principles nor answer Objections nor see themselves clearly to be infallibly Certain Nay more the greatest part of these especially if very simple do by some lucky chance or rather by a particular disposition of Gods good Providence light upon this right way more than by any strength of their own wit looking into Grounds but being in it once they find that which satisfies them according to knowledges familiariz'd to them by converse with the World and which are of themselves solid and satisfactory In a word it became Gods goodness so to order things that the Acts of all the Faithful might be as much as was possible in men of every pitch and capacity Rational or Virtuous whatever Contingency may happen in some particulars Original Sin and by it Passion Ignorance or Interest sometimes byassing them and making them act with precipitancy In which case
whatever is good in those Acts of Faith is refunded into God the Author of every good Gift as its Original Cause what Defective into the Limitedness and Imperfection of Creatures § 5. This Tenet of Infallibility which unprejudic'd Nature teaches even the rudest in things subject to Sense and common Reason and Learned men in things provable by exact Art the Adversaries of true Certainty our Scepticks in Religion endeavour to render ridiculous and cast a mist about it by the most unreasonable pretence that ever was invented which is to affirm that a man cannot be Infallible in one thing but he must be so in all As if I could not infallibly know what 's done in my Chamber or practic'd openly amongst those I converse with but I must be likewise infallible in knowing what is done in the Moon And Dr. T. is one of these for Contradiction is as natural to him as 't is to a fish to swim who tells us here pag. 19. That Omniscience within a determinate Sphere is an Infinite within a finite Sphere as if it were very evident that to know All in such a matter is to know Infinit or all things in the World or so hard to comprehend that one may know all the money in ones Purse without knowing all the money that is extant or all the men in the room without knowing all Mankind I wish Dr. T. would shew us why knowing all in such a particular matter must needs argue an Infinit knowledg or why the knowing all things in a determinate Sphere which last words when he came to answer that is break his Jests our Prevaricator prudently omitted may not consist with an ignorance of many things out of that Sphere Must the word All in such a matter needs signifie Infinit or did the commonest Reason ever thus go wrack I suppose my Friends resolute hazard against Identical Propositions made him fall into this more than childish mistake For this plain Truth What 's all but in one matter onely is all but in one matter onely had preserv'd him from this Nonsense but he took this for his Ground to proceed upon that All in one matter onely 〈◊〉 All in every matter or which is more is Infinit and so still he continues most learnedly to lay Contradictions for his First Principles because their Interest and his are inseparably linkâ— against the Common Enemy Identical Propositions This I must confess is a very smart and ingâ—nious kind of reasoning and proper to Dr. T. unless perhaps his sworn Brother at hating First Principles and Papists put in for a share It appears by a certain Paper called Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet he is a strong pretender and will cry halfs But 't is time now to return to examine his Answer § 6. It is not necessary indeed to Truth that every one should demonstrate a thing so as to shew that the contrary necessarily involves â— Contradiction for the same thing may be known also through Practical Self-evidence to those who cannot demonstrate but yet the thing must be demonstrable else 't is not Knowable or Ascertainable For Demonstrable is a plain honest word what game soever Dr. T. and his Friend make at it and imports no more abstracting from subtle quirks but only Capable to be known or Intellectually seen by way of Proof whence a Learned man who goes about to prove any thing by strength of severe Reason ought either to demonstrate it or he falls short of his Dâ—â—y Once more I desire Dr. T. to take me right and to reflect that when I say The Thing is Demonstrable or pretend to demonstrate I do not take the word Demonstration with all those many subtleties and perquisits the Schools require I as little love niceties as any man living and can as easily dispense with them so the solid part be well provided for and the Truth of the Thing establisht which if it be not done I make account nothing is done in these cases in which Assent dying to attest things to be Truths are required I onely mean then by Demonstration such a Proof as is taken not from any Exrinsecal consideration as is Authority which grounds Belief but from the intrinsecal Nature of the Thing or Subject in Dispute and such a Proof as necessarily concludes the Thing to be which cannot be possibly done without engaging finally some Identical Proposition or that Things being what it is on which all is built Now this being evidently so and if it be not let Dr. T. shew the contrary I would ask our verbal Divine why he ought not to demonstrate that is prove by necessary concluding Argument both the Letter and Sence of Scripture if he would have men assent most firmly to Faith built according to him solely upon their Certainty Is it not his intent in his Discourses to Conclude what he speaks of How can he do this unless he shews the Conclusion necessarily follows Again does he not intend to conclude 't is a Truth that this is the Letter and Sence of Scripture He must do so or else he can never pretend that Faith built upon it is Truth And if he proves it Truâ— must he not at the same time prove it's Contradictory False And is any thing False but what says a Thing is so when indeed 't is not so or is not so when indeed 't is so which is a direct Contradiction Wherefore Dr. T. can never Conclude a thing to be True unless he brings a Proof necessarily engaging the Nature of the Thing that is unless according to my sence of the Word he both Demonstrates and also shews the contrary necessarily to involve a Contradiction Both these satisfactory Certainties my Grounds attribute to Scriptures Letter and Sence See Surâ—f pag. 116 117 in points appertaining to Faith and he here denies both pag. 10. whence is seen which of us two has more real Honour and Respect for Scripture He who makes neither its Letter or Sence to have any Grounds able to ascertain them that is as to our purpose makes them good for nothing or I who grant and prove both § 7. I suppose Dr. T will say again as he did in that point of a Deity that the nature of the Thing will not bear a Certainty of Scriptures Letter or Sence that so he may be true to his firm Principle and make all Faith alike uncertain I answer the more blame will fall to their share who take away the Certainty of that which is the first Principle in way of Authority or First Authority namely TRADITION which and onely which can Authenticate Books and the thing being of high Concern Practically carry down the same Doctrine and so easily preserve the Book significative of the same Sence Noâ— doubt I but 't is demonstrable that the Practice of England and the Concern of the thing joyn'd with the necessary Evidence of any Alteration in a matter daily so nicely Canvast and continually Us'd can and
will with Infallible Certainty bring down the Letter of Magna Charta the Statute Book and some Acts of Parliament the self-same from year to year at least in matters of high Consequence and by means of the Sense writ Traditionally in some mens heaâ—ts correct the Letter if Printers or Copiers should mistake If Dr. T. asks how I prove it I would tell him that the Nature of the Thing must make it Notorious if altered be cause great multitudes are conversant in it and it being esteemed of a kind of Sacred Nature weigh every tittle of it warily especially those passages that immediately touch some weighty Point whence should some whose Interest 't is to alter it go about such an Action it cannot appear a Good to the Generality whose Concerns are highly violated by that alteration to conceal and permit the Letter to remain Uncorrected and if it could not appear a Good to the Generality to consent to alter it nor become a Motive to the rest to attempt a seen Impossiblity neither one nor the other could will to alter it much less both conspire to do it and should they attempt it their will must either have no Object and then 't is a Power to nothing that is no Power or else act without an appearing Good and in both cases the Will would be no Will. This short hint will let the Reader see the Grounds I go upon 't is not now a proper place to pursue such Arguments close or press them home I wish I might see some return of the like nature from our two undemonstrating Adversaries who think it their best play to laugh at Principles and Demonstration because they know in their Consciences they are perfect Strangers to both § 8. Well but though Dr. T. denies any Infallible Certainty of the Ground of all Christian Faith let 's see at least what other Certainty he affords us And at the first sight any honest man might safely swear it must be if any a Fallible Certainty that is a very fair piece of Nonsense for 't is evident to all Mankind the Abhorrers of First Principles always excepted that if any Certainty be Infallible and there be any other besides this it must needs be a Fallible one since there can be no middle between Contradictaries So that Dr. T. is put to this hard choice either to bring such a Certainty for the Ground of all Christianity which is no Certainty or else such an one as is perfect Nonsense if it be named by its proper Name Lâ—t's see what choice he makes We are not sayes he Infallibly Certain that any Book c. But yet observe now the Opposit kind of Certainty delivered here pag. 9. We have a firm Assurance concerning these matters so as not to make the least doubt of them I marry this is a rare Certainty indeed We have not Infallible Certainty sayes Dr. T. of either Letter or Sense of Scripture but onely such an one as keeps us from making the least doubt of them Now since a very easie reflexion teaches us that we have no doubt of many things being True nay more have strong Hopes they are True and yet for all that hold them notwithstanding possible to be false 't is a strange Argument to prove he avows not the possible Falshood of Faith to alledge that he declared himself he had onely such an Assurance as not at all to doubt it For not to doubt a thing signifies no more but not to incline to think it False which a man may do and yet not at all hope 't is True seeing he who suspends indifferently from both sides and inclines to neither does not at all doubt a Thing or fear 't is False having no imaginable reason to ground the least degree of any such Fear more than he has to ground any Hope of its Truth Again those Speculators who attend not to Principles are oftentimes in a perplex'd case and through the Goodness of Nature hold a thing absolutely True while they attend to such motives as connaturally breed that perswasion which thing notwithstanding coming to make it out as Scholars and unable to perform it hereupon consider'd as Speculators they must hold possible to be False for any thing they know and this I conceive is Dr. T's condition Regarding the nature of Faith and the common Conceit of Christianity he cannot but see he must if he will be a Christian profess Faith impossible to be False and doublesly he will avow it such as long as he speaks Nature and avoids reflecting on his Speculative Thoughts but coming once to consider the points of Faith as standing under such proofs as his Unskilful Art affords him and conscious to himself as he needs must who sleights first Principles and all Methods to Knowledge that he hath never an Argument that is absolutely or truly Conclusive he is forc'd again taking in these unlucky circumstances to avow Faiths Ground and consequently its self to be Possible to be otherwise or False being willing to lay the blame on the Grounds of Faith and to say they cannot bear Absolutely-Conclusive Proofs rather than on the defectiveness of his own Skill and to represent them as unworthy to have the name of stable Grounds rather than he will lose a tittle of the Fame of being an able Divine Yet I will not say but the Christian in Dr. T. might overcome the Speculator at least ballance him in an equal suspence or beget in him a pretty good conceit of Faith's Impossibility to be False but then when he once reflects that this cannot be maintain'd without admitting Infallibility which is the word the abhominable Papists use nor made out without using First Principles or Identical Propositions which that malignant Man I. S. pretends to build on immediately the byass prevails and the Idea of Popery once stirred up which haunts his and his Friends fancy day and night in a thousand hideous shapes â— he runs in a fright so far from Impossibility of Falshood in Faith that he comes to a very easie Possibility of its being all a plain Imposture or Ly for any thing he absolutely knows since Grounds prevailing onely to make him not doubâ— of it can raise it no higher Moreover if this be a good Argument I declar'd my self so assur'd as not to make the least doubt of a thing therefore I could not avow it possible to be False it must be allow'd Argumentative to say I am so assured as not in the least to doubt of it therefore 't is not possible to be False Dull Universities that had not the wit to light all this while on Dr. T's Principles and way of arguing They ascertain all things at the first dash without more adoe I have a firm Assurance so as not to doubt of the Grounds of Christian Faith the Letter and Sense of Scripture therefore by this new Logick they are concluded Certain and Impossible to be False In opposition to which if you
more blasphemous against Essential Truth and Goodness Farther I declare 't is my Tenet that notwithstanding this failure in some particulars yet I hold that the Generality of the Faithful are so familiarly acquainted with the nature of Testifying Authority as to know grosly and confusedly by means of Practical Self-evidence that 't is a certain Rule to proceed upon and thence either discern themselves if they be very prudential or else are capable to be made discern who proceed upon that Rule who not Hence also I hold that Tradition or Testifying Authority is the best provision that could be made for all Mankind to receive Faith upon it being the most familiarly and most obviously knowable and penetrable by all sorts that can be imagin'd and far more than Languages Translations Transcriptions on which the Letter-Rule depends Lastly I hold that what is thus practically self-evident that is known in gross and confusedly by the Vulgar is demonstrable to the Learned who scan with exact Art the nature of those Causes which wrought constantly that certifying Effect in the Generality and find out according to what precisely they had that Certifying Virtue which found it will be the proper Medium to demonstrate the Certainty of that Authority by This is my true Tenet which my Prevaricating Adversary perpetually mistakes because he will do it and he therefore will do it because it must be done In mala causa as St. Austin sayes non possunt aliter § 12. He goes about to argue pag. 15. from the End of Faith and alledges that a freedome from seeing just cause of doubting the Authority and Sense of Scripture may make one believe or really assent to the Doctrine of it live accordingly and be saved By which I conceive he judges a Christians life consists in moving ones Legs Arms or Hands for 't is enough to stir us up to External Action that the motive be onely Probable but if a Christian's life be Spiritual consisting in interiour Acts of the Understanding and Will as a vigorous Hope and a fervent Love of unseen and unconceiveable Goods with other Virtues subservient to these and all these depend on Faith as their Basis and Faith depends for its Truth which gives it all its efficacie on the Rule of Faith I doubt it will scarce suffice to work these Effects heartily if Learned men speak out candidly and tell the Christians they are to govern that notwithstanding all they can discern they cannot see absolutely speaking that Christian Faith is a certain Truth but only a high likelihood a more Credible Opinion or a fair Probability It must therefore be beyond all these and so impossible to be false The main point then that Dr. T. ever misses in is this that he still omits to state what certainty is due to Christian Faith and its Grounds per se loquendo or according to its own Nature and the interiour Acts it must produce and the difficulties it must struggle through and overcome even in the Wisest and most Rational persons who are to be satisfied of its verity and so embrace it and considers it perpetually according to what per accidens that is not Essentially belongs to it but Accidentally may consist with it without utterly destroying its Nature that is he considers it not as found in those Subjects where it is in its true and perfect state or freed from all alloy of Irrationality but as in those where 't is found most defectively and imperfectly or as it most deviates from its right nature And this he is forc'd to do because he sees that should he treat of it as it ought to be or according to what it would be by virtue of the Motives laid by the Giver of every perfect Gift to bring mankind to Faith singly and solely consider'd without mingling the Imperfection of Creatures with his otherwise most powerful and wise Efficiency the Grounds of Christian Faith must be able to subdue to a hearty Assent the most Learned and wisest portions of Mankind which they could never do while they are seen by them to be Possible to be False § 13. He argues that Infallibility is not necessary to the Nature of Faith because this admits of Degrees that being the highest degree of Assent of none Besides Infallibility is an absolute Impossibility of being deceived and there are no degrees in absolute Impossibilities I answer that let a thousand Intellectual Creatures Angels or Men know and that Infallibly too the self-same-Object yet they all know it in different degrees of perfection not by means of knowing more in the Object for we will suppose it one single point but intensively or better on the Subjects side because of the different perfection of their understanding Power penetrating more clearly the self-same-Object To conceive this better let us reflect that the self-same thing may be corporally seen by several men and each infallibly know what it is by means of that sight yet because one of them has better Eyes than another one sees more clearly what 't is the other less Also the Blessed Saints and Angels in Heaven differ from one another in glory or in greater and lesser degrees of the blissful Vision that is one sees the Divine Essence better another not so well yet the Object being one Indivisible formality one cannot see more than another wherefore their great degree of Glory consists in this that one penetrates it better and as it were sinks it deeper in the knowing Power than another does which springs out of the several dispositions of the Subject or the antecedent Love of God which when 't is greater it more intimately and closely applies the Divine Object to the ferventlyâ—addicted Power Again on the Objects side there may be in some senses several degrees even of Absolute Impossibilities First because of the greater disproportion of the Object to the Power As put case it be Impossible that twenty men should lift such a weight 't is good sense to say if twenty men cannot lift it much less can two or if ten men cannot possibly resist the force of five hundred much less can they resist ten thousand of equal strength Next because one of the Impossibles depends upon another aâ— if be impossible the Conclusion should be False 't is more Impossible the Premisses should be so and yet more that the very First Principles should or thus 't is Impossible 2 and 3 should not make â— yet 't is more impossible God who is Self-existence should not be because in these the later Impossibility which depends on the formeâ— is onely Impossible by Consequence though still absolutely such that is were not at all Impossible if that which grounds it were not so Whence is seen that unless Dr. T. will say that all Created Understandings are of the self-same pitch of Excellence he must say that even supposing â—he self-same Object or Motive apt to assure Infallibly one may better penetrate it and so be more
would believe him That my Principles do plainly exclude from Salvation at one blow Excommunicate Vnchristian all that do not believe upon my Grounds And nothing is easier than to prove it in his way 'T is but mistaking again the Notion of School-Divines for the Notion of Faithful and School for Church as he did lately and the deed is done immediately without any more trouble He is the happiest man in his First Principles and his Method that I ever met with the parts of the former need not hang together at all but are allow'd to be Incoherent and the later is a building upon false pretences and wrong Suppositions and then what may not he prove or what Conquest cannot he obtain by such powerful Stratagems He sayes he has proov'd at large in the Answer to Sure-Footing that the Council of Trent did not make Oral Tradition the sole Rule of her Faith Possibly I am not so lucky as to light on this large Proof of his all I can finde with an ordinary search is four or five lines Rule of Faith pag. 280. where after a commonly-Objected often-answer'd Citation from the Council of Trent declaring that Christian Faith and Discipline are contain'd in written Books unwritten Traditions therefore that they receive honor the Books of Scripture also Traditions with equal pious affection and reverence He adds which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith Now I had put this very Objection against my self Sure-f pag. 346. and proceeded to clear it to the end of pag. 150. particularly pag. 147.149 upon this Reason because taking the Scripture interpreted by Tradition as the Council expresses it self to do and forbids any man to interpret it otherwise it has the full Authority of Gods Word and so equally to be reverenced Whereas taking it interpreted by private heads which only will serve Dr T's turn 't is nothing less as not engaging the Divine Authority at all But now to the Notion of a Rule there is more required as Dr. T. himself grants and contends 't is found in Scripture viz. that it be so evident that every sensible may understand it as to matters of Faith and this building on the Council of Trents Authority and Judgment I deny to be found in the bare Letter of Scripture and hence say 't is no Rule I omit the repeating very many Arguments from the Council for that point deduc't from pag. 141. to pag. 146. never toucht nor so much as taken notice of in that Mock-Answer of his § 16. But that he may not mistake me I shall not stick to declare whom I exclude from Salvation at least from the way to it whom not and upon what Grounds speaking of the ordinary course of Gods Providence as I declare my self to do throughout this whole Treatise I make account that perfect Charity or Love of God above and in all things is the Immediate Disposition to Bliss or Vnitive of a Soul to God Also that this Virtue cannot with a due heartiness be connaturally or rationally wrought in Souls if the Tenet of a Deity 's Existence and of Christian Faith be held possible to be a Ly. Hence I am oblig'd by my Reason to hold that those who judge there are no absolueely-Conclusive Reasons for the Existence of a Deity nor for the Truth of Christian Faith are as such out of the Road of Salvation On the other side those who hold the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truths they profess Infallible and by Consequence their Faith Impossible to be False as all Catholikes do though as Divines they fail in making out how and by what particular means it comes to be Infallible yet through the virtue of this firm and steady Adhesion to such Principles as are because they are Truths apt to beget solid and well-grounded that is indeed True Virtues such as are a vigorous Hope and a fervent and all-ovre-powering Charity hence they possess the Connatural Means or are in the right way to Heaven And for this Reason I esteem Dr. T 's way of discoursing concerning a Deity and Faith in his Sermons most pestilent and mischievous to Souls as being apt of its own Nature to incline them if they have wit to discern its shallowness first to a kind of Scepticism in Religion and at next to Carelesness Irreligion and Atheism though truly I think 't is not his Intention to do so but that his shortness in Understanding the Nature and Grounds of Christianity makes him conceit he does excellently even to admiration all the while he commits such well-meaning Follies Nor do I think the Church of England will upon second thoughts think fit to Patronize Principles so destructive to the Nature of Faith found in the breast of every Protestant I ever yet met with who all with one mouth will own that 't is absolutely Impossible Christian Faith should be a Lye and abhor the contrary Position as wicked and damnable How Dr. T. may have season'd some of his own Auditors by preaching Controversy to them which he extremely affects I cannot tell 't is according as they incline to believe him more than the Generality of the Christian World whose Sentiments he opposes in his Discourses about the Ground of Faith DISCOURSE VIII With what Art Dr. T. answers my METHOD A Present made to his Credulous Friends shewing how solidly he confuted SVRE-FOOTING by readily granting the main of the Book What is meant by Tradition That J. S. is not singular in his way of discoursing of the Grounds of Faith § 1. HE makes a pass or two at my METHOD and that I conceive must serve for an Answer to it for an Answer I heard was threatned would appear very shortly but this pleasant Preface was the only thing which appeared and all that appears like Answer in it is that he would make it believ'd he ought not answer at all And this he does very neatly and like a Master For let no man think I have a mean Opinion of Dr. T. but every one is not good at all things some are good at proving some at disproving some at shifting of the Question without either proving or disproving every one in his way and in his way I know no man living a greater Master nor so great as the Dr. Two things he does and both of them strange ones First he affirms that Discourse is founded on the self-evident Infallibility of ora◠Tradition Next that He has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Surefooting The first of them would make the Reader apprehend I there suppos'd Oral Tradition self-evidently Infallible and then run on all the way upon that supposition which if it obtain belief as from his Credit he hopes it may since every Scholar knows all Discourses must be founded either on first Principles or at least on such as are granted by those against whom we
argue he sees I must needs be held the most ridiculous Discourser that ever spoke or writ to build a whole Treatise upon a Supposition unprov'd and which begs the whole Question Now whatever I concluded in that short Discourse I deduced step by step and made the foregoing Proposition draw still after it by undeniable Consequence the following one He concealing all mention of Proof or endeavour of it calls my Conclusions Principles and then who would think but that I had laid them to build that Discourse upon them and deserted my usual way of beginning with the known Natures of the Things in hand as I there did with those of Rule and Faith and from them proceeded minutely to whatever I concluded Had his Friend Dr. St. taken the same course his Principles would have evidently discovered their own weakness of themselves and had excus'd others the unnecessary trouble of answering them Next he makes me say that the Infallibility of this Rule is evident to common Sense and says himself that the Foundation of this Method is the self-evident infallibility of Oral Tradition by which words an honest Reader would verily think I suppos'd it gratis to be sâ—lf-evident to common Sense and never troubled my self to prove it whereas though I indeed hold 't is practically self-evident of which I have elsewhere given account yet I proceeded as if I did not but proved § 8. out of the Natures of Rule and Faith that the Rule of Faith whatever it be must be Infallible § 10. that therefore Scripture's Letter is not that Rule and § 11. that Tradition is The Reader being thus questionless well dispos'd to think it very unnecessary he should consider as he calls it or answer any passage of a thing made up of unprov'd Principles or built on an unprov'd Supposition he tels him farther that he has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Sure-footing whence he is not concern'd to take notice of it at present And so the business is done for why should he take pains to give answer to that which deserves none or if it did is answered This Reason though by the way is a little open For in case I did bring any Arguments in my Method to make good that Tradition is an Infallible Rule of Faith and this after I had seen and perhaps sufficiently consider'd too what he replies to Surefooting for any thing appears I may either have amended the Reasons given in Surefooting or produc't better in my Method and so whatever he has said to Surefooting it might have been proper to have considered and said something to the Method too unless he could say with truth that he had already answered the veâ—y Reasons urg'd in It which I do not remember he has nor am confident himself neither § 2. But yet â—o instance in this one passage how rare a piece his cry'd-up Rule of Faith is and how excellently it answers Surefooting let us â— little reflect what this sufficient consideration of his â—mounts to Surefooting was divided into two parts The first from the Properties of a Rule of Faith proved that Tradition was that Rule and this was the business of that Book from the beginning to pag. 57. and particularly of the 5 th Discourse whose Title was Of the Notion of Tradition and that all the Properties of the Rule of Faith do clearly agree to it The 2 d. part begins Discourse 6. and endeavors to demonstrate the Indefectiveness of Tradition or that it has hitherto ever been followed The Confutation of my first part ends in his Rule of Faith pag. 150 the Answer to my 2 d. begins pag. 151. or these two the former was in a manner the whole concern of my Book For if it were prov'd that Tradition was the Rule of Faith that is the only Conveyer of Christs Doctrine hitherto it must either be said by those against whom I argue that it hath not been hitherto convey'd to us at all and so that there are no Christians in the world which they will not say or else that those who proceed upon Tradition for their Rule are the right Christians Whence the later part was only ex abundanti not of absolute necessity especially in case I argu'd ad hominem This being so let Dr. T's Friends and mine when they hap to discourse about us please to send for his Book and mine and with aâ— equal partiality distrusting us both rely upon Sir Tho. Moors pair of honest unbyass'd witnesses Their own Eyes They will find that his Rule of Faith undertakes pag. 146. to answer my 5 th Disc. which pretended to shew that all the properties of the Rule of Faith do clearly agree to Tradition and thence concluded Tradition The Rule of Faith and accordingly quotes pag 41. where that Discourse began in Surefooting They will see the Title of his Sect. 6. which he uses to put in the Margin is That the Properties of a Rule of Faith do not belong to Oral Tradition Now I assigned seven such Properties Surefoot pag. 11 and 12. He was pleas'd to make but two Part. 2. Sect. 1. Sufficiently plain sufficiently certain Coming then at the bottom of pag. 148. to confute that whole Discourse which was the most substantial part of my Book and contained the most pressing Arguments to my main purpose he compleats his answer to it in one single page viz. 149. nay in one piece of that Page This would seem strange and something difficult if any thing were so to Dr. T. and his singular Method of answering Books All sayes he that he pretends to prove in this Discourse is that if this Rule hath been followed and kept to all along the Christian Doctrine neither has nor can have received any change 'T is all indeed I pretended and all I desired to prove for certainly if it can preserve Christian Doctrine unchanged it has in it the Nature of a Rule and what has in it the Nature of a Rule is I conceive a Rule whether it have been followed or not which is a Question I had not then examined but reserved to my following Discourses To this then after his sufficient consideration What sayes the Dr. All this sayes he is readily granted him For my part I have no reason to except against that answer for all my Writing aims at is that people should see the Truâ—h and acknowledge it and since he readily grants all I pretend to prove I were very unreasonable if I should not be contented Though if I were dispos'd to be cross this word readily is something liable to exception After he has employ'd a good part of his Book in preparing to speak to the main Question in dividing and subdividing and playing all the tricks which may make it look like an Answer and when he comes to the Question to grant it because he could do no other is indeed to grant it but not very readily People will not think he was very ready to
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
say that 't is the highest degree of humane Certitude of which it may simply or absolutely be said Non posse illi falsum subesse that 't is IMPOSSIBLE IT SHOULD BE FALSE Can any thing be produc'd more expresly abetting my way of Discoursing the Grounds of Faith Nothing certainly unless it be that which immediately follows containing the reason why Tradition is by the very nature of it simply Infallible For says he Tradition being full Report about what was EVIDENT UNTO SENSE to wit what Doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publickly deliver'd unto the World it is IMPOSSIBLE it should be FALSE Worlds of Men CANNOT be uniformly mistaken and deceiv'd about a matter Evident to Sense and not being deceiv'd being so many in number so divided in place of so different affections and conditions IT IS IMPOSSIBLE they should so have agreed in their Tale had they so maliciously resolv'd to deceive the World Observe here 1. That he alledges onely Natural Motives or speaks onely of Tradition as it signifies the Humane Authority of the Church that is as taken in the same sense wherein I took it in my Method 2. He goes about to show out of its very nature that is to demonstrate 't is absolutely Infallible 3. He makes this Tradition or Humane Authority of the Church an Infallible Deriver down or Ascertainer that what is now held upon that tenure is the Apostles Doctrine or the first-taught Faith which once known those who are yet Unbelievers may infallibly know that Body that proceeds upon it to possess the true Faith and consequently infallibly know the true Church which being the very way I took in my Method and other Tâ—eatises it may hence be discern'd with how little reason Dr. T. excepts against it as so superlatively singular But to proceed Hence p. 40. he avers that the proof of Tradition is so full and sufficient that it convinceth Infidels that is those who have onely natural Reason to guide themselves by For though saith he they be blind not to see the Doctrine of the Apostles to be Divine yet are they not so void of common sense impudent and obstinate as to deny the Doctrine of Christian Catholick Tradition to be truly Christian and Apostolical And p. 41. The ONELY MEANS whereby men succeeding the Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures and Doctrines they deliver'd to the Primitive Catholick Church is the Catholick Tradition by Worlds of Christian Fathers and Pastors unto Worlds of Christian Children and Faithful People Which words as fully express that Tradition is the ONELY or SOLE Rule of Faith as can be imagin'd And whereas some hold that an Inward working of God's Spirit supplies the Conclusiveness of the Motive this Learned Writer p. 46 on the contrary affirms that Inward Assurance without any EXTERNAL INFALLIBLE Ground to assure men of TRVTH is proper unto the Prophets and the first Publishers of Christian Religion And lastly to omit others p. 47. he discourses thus If any object that the Senses of men in this Search may be deceiv'd through natural invincible Fallibility of their Organs and so no Ground of Faith that is altogether Infallible I answer that Evidence had by Sense being but the private of one man is naturally and physically Infallible but when the same is also Publick and Catholick that is when a whole World of men concur with him then his Evidence is ALTOGETHER INFALLIBLE And now I would gladly know what there is in any of my Books touching the Ground of Faith which is not either the self-same or else necessarily consequent or at least very consonant to what I have here cited from this Judicious Author and Great Champion of Truth in his Days whose Coincidency with other Divines into the same manner of Explication argues strongly that it was onely the same unanimous Notion and Conceit of Faith and of true Catholick Grounds which could breed this conspiring into the same way of discoursing and almost the self-same words § 13. Hence is seen how justly D. T. when he wanted something else to say still taxed me with singularity in accepting of nothing but Infallibility built on absolutely-conclusive Motives with talking such Paradoxes as he doubts whether ever they enter'd into any other mans mind that all mankind excepting J. S have hitherto granted that no Humane Vnderstanding is secur'd from possibility of Mistake from its own nature that my Grounds exclude from Salvation and excommunicate the Generality of our own Church that no man before J. S. was so hardy as to maintain that the Testimony of Fallible men which word Fallible is of his own adding mine being of Mankind relying on Sensations is Infallible that this is a new way and twenty such insignificant Cavils But the thing which breeds his vexation is that as my Reason inclines me I joyn with those who are the most solid and Intelligent Party of Divines that is indeed I stick to and pursue and explain and endeavour to advance farther those Grounds which I see are built on the natures of the Things Would I onely talk of Moral Certainty Probabilities and such wise stuff when I am settling Faith I doubt not but he would like me exceedingly for then his own side might be probable too which sandy Foundation is enough for such a Mercurial Faith as nothing but Interest is apt to fix DISCOURSE VIII In what manner Dr. T. Answers my Letter of Thanks His Attempt to clear Objected Faults by committing New Ones § 1. MY Confuter has at length done with my Faith Vindicated and my Methed and has not he done well think you and approv'd himself an excellent Confuter He onely broke his Jests upon every passage he took notice of in the former except one without ever heeding or considering much less attempting to Answer any one single Reason of those many there alledg'd and as for that one passage in which he seem'd serious viz. how the Faithful are held by me Infallible in their Faith he quite mistook it throughout Again as for my Method he first gave a wrong Character of it and next pretended it wholly to rely upon a point which he had sufficiently considered that is which he had readily granted but offer'd not one syllable of Answer to any one Reason in It neither My Letter of Thanks is to be overthrown next And First he says he will wholly pass by the Passion of it and I assure the Reader so he does the Reason of it too for he speaks not a word to any one piece of it Next he complains of the ill-Language which he says proceeded from a gall'd and uneasie mind He says partly true For nothing can be more uneasie to me than when I expected a Sober and Scholar-like Answer to find onely a prettily-worded Fardle of Drollery and Insincerity I wonder what gall'd him when he lavish'd out so much ill-language in Answer to Sure footing in which Treatise there was not one passionaâ—e word not one syllable
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