be so the not appearing to be otherwise will avail nothing to conclude it so All it can effect is to make us maintain our liberty of suspence and Indifferency that so we may be void of forestalment or prejudice and free to believe it when competent or conclusive Reasons shall appear to evince it What then Dr. St. is to do is to produce Conclusive Reasons to evince that the Letter of Scripture has such a perspicuity and other Perfections belonging to such a Rule as must ground that most Firm Vnalterable and if rightly grounded Inerrable Assent call'd CHRISTIAN FAITH and this considering the Nature of Faith the Effects which are to proceed from Faith and Obligations issuing from it and Incumbent on the Faithful as such But in stead of performing this necessary Duty of his to argue as if though the Reasons he brings conclude it not yet it must needs be so because we have no Evidence 't is not so is so pleasant and new invented a way of arguing that he must find the VVorld a new Logick and Mankind it self a new nature ere he will arrive by means of such Discourse at any Conclusion And whereas he seems to build much on the word Equal alledging that we must for the reasons there given hold the Scriptures the Rule of Faith unless it appear they are defective with an Evidence Equal to that whereby we believe those books to be the word of God 'T is absolutely deny'd not only for the reason lately given in common that none can be bound in reason to hold or own any unprov'd Position but particularly because of the peculiar nature of the thing we are discoursing of For the Rule of Faith being that which is to tell us God said such or such things or engages the Divine Authority for their Verity if we should happen to misuse Scriptures Letter by letting loose people of all capacities to rely on it as their Rule of Faith then in case it should peradventure not have been intended by God for this end but for some others we expose our selves and others to the desperate danger of running into Endless Errors by this misusage of Scripture and of adhering to those Errors as firmly as if God himself had spoke them that is we hazard erring irrecoverably in matters which ate the proper means of salvation and blaspheming God daily in making him the Patron of Lies In this case then there is particular caution to be used and so if upon sincere and strict Examination it be but any thing dubious that Scripture was never intended by God for a Rule of Faith we can never be obliged to hold or own it for such especially not having any Certain Argument to conclude it such much less must we be oblig'd to hold it to be such unless we have EQVAL Evidence of its Unfitness to that whereby we believe those Books to be the word of God unless Dr. St. will say that nothing ought to restrain a man from hazarding the greatest mischiefs in the world but perfect Evidence that no harm will come of it So that still his main business and without which he does nothing at all remains yet to be done which is to bring solid convincing Proofs that God intended Scripture or his Written Word for the Rule of Faith that is for such a Rule as people of all sorts relying on it should be Infallibly or absolutely-secur'd from Error by so doing In making good which concerning Point he hath hitherto trifled exceedingly Nay himself here is afraid to own the Goodness of his own Proof otherwise he would never have thought it fit to annex those words Vnless it appear with an Evidence equal to that whereby we believe those books to be the word of God that they were never intended for that End because of their obscurity or imperfection For the Evidence whereby it appears those Books are the word of God must be conclusive else according to his Grounds we can never conclude one word of Faith True and so an Evidence equal to it must be Conclusive likewise If then he had thought his reasons to prove Scripture the Rule of Faith were Good and Conclusive Common sense would have forbid him to add these cautious words Vnless it appears with an equal evidence c. for Common sense tells us no Conclusive reason can possibly be brought for the Negative if Conclusive Reasons be once produc'd or be producible for the Affirmative It appears then by this behaviour of his on this occasion that he distrusts that either he has produc'd any Conclusive reason for that main Point of Scriptures being intended for the Rule of Faith or that any can be produc'd Lastly That we may give perfect satisfaction to this Fundamental Principle of his though perhaps there is not Evidence Scriptures Letter was never intended for the Rule of Faith equal to that whereby we believe those Books to be the Word of God in regard we believe this upon the Authority of Gods Church which is supported with the whole strength of Best Nature and Supernaturals yet we have rigorous and Conclusive Evidence that it is not penn'd in the very best way imaginable to avoid all ambiguity of words and forestall mistakes as being immediately inspir'd by God whose works are perfect if it had been intended by him to be our Rule of Faith it ought to be And I shall presume I have already brought Conclusive Evidences both à priori and also à posteriori in my answer to his 10th Principle to evince that it has not in it the nature of such a Rule nor consequently was it intended by God to be such a Rule How incomparably excellent soever it be for other Ends for which it was indeed and solely intended But omitting all the rest at present I remind him of one which I cannot too often repeat and enforce it upon him thus He cannot deny but the Points of a Trinity and Christs Godhead are most Fundamental Points of Faith he cannot deny but both Protestants and Socinians rely on the Letter of Scripture for the sole Rule of their Faith and sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them which is all he requires on the Persons side He cannot deny but that notwithstanding this one party holds There is no Trinity and that Christ is not God the other that there is a Trinity and that Christ is God and so one side erres most Fundamentally He cannot deny but Error being a Defect there must be a fault somewhere to beget this Error that is either in the Persons judging of what the Rule of Faith tells them or else in judging that to be a Rule which is not the Rule for in case they erre in neither of these 't is impossible they should erre or misconceive at all in matters of Faith He cannot deny in any reason but the persons on both sides being such acute men and excellently well vers'd in the Letter of Scripture have both Capacity
different degrees of Evidence and measure of Divine Assistance but every Christian by the use of his reason and Common Helps of Grace may attain to so great a degree of Certainty from the Convincing Arguments of the Christian Religion and Authority of the Scriptures that on the same Ground on which men doubt of the Truth of them they may as well doubt of the Truth of those things which they judge to be most Evident to Sence Reason I wish D. S. had explain'd himself here what he means by different degrees of Evidence whether some Glances or likely Appearances of Truth call'd greater or lesser Probabilities or such Intelleâ—tual Sights at the least of them discovers the thâ—ng thâ—â— evidenc't to â—e be indeed so or True I suspect much he means the former because thâ—se are the most proper Grounds for Fallible Certainty which he is now going to establish whereas the Latter sort of Evidences would hazard to carry too far and to beget Infallible Certainty which would quite spoil his most excellent design of setling the Fallible Certainty of Faith for those Evidences which show the thing to be True show it at the same time to be Impossible to be False whence 't is a thousand to one that such Evidences as these would utterly destroy his beloved Fallible Certainty and endanger to introduce again by necessary and enforcing consequence that Popish Doctrine of Infallibility which he had newly discarded When he adds that every Christian may by the means here assigned attain to so great a degree of Certainty c. I had thought he had meant Certainty of the Points of his Faith but my hopes were much defeated when coming to the Point he flyes off to his Christians not doubting the Truth of the convincing Arguments of Christian Religion and of the Authority of the Scriptures For this is far wide of our purpose and his Promise which was to reduce the Faith of Protestants to Principles whereas these words signify no more but not to doubt of Christianity being the True Religion or Scriptures being God's word but reaches not to what are those points of Christianity or determinate sense of Scripture in particular which constitutes Protestantism and only concerns our debate Now 't is evident that the Roman-Catholicks profess not to doubt of the convincing Grounds of Christianity nor yet of Scripture but to hold that Christianity is the only-Trâ—e Religion and that the Scriptures are Holy and God's word and yet we differ so much from Protestants that he thinks us Idolaters What we are then in reason to expect from Dr. St. is that he would bring us Grounds for the Certainty of his Faith as to determinate Points viz. Christ's God-head a Trinity Reality or not-Reality of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and such like and those so certain as that we may as well doubt of what we judge to be most evident to sense and Reason as doubt of them as he here pretends and not put us off with Common words in stead of particular Satisfaction concerning his Faith and the Certainty thereof I would ask him then how it comes to pass that the Socinian whom he will not deny to have both use of his reason and common helps of Grace and both the convincing Arguments of the Christian Religion and Authority of Scriptures to make use of how I say he comes so to fall short of Evidence and consequently Certainty springing from that evidence concerning Christ's God-Head which is a Fundamental Point of Christian Faith that he doubts it nay utterly denies it whereas yet the Protestant having the same means to work with judges he has evidence and Certainty grounded on that evidence that Christ is God yet all this while they dissent not at all in things most evident to Sense or Reason I much fear our Drs. big words concerning his degrees of Evidence and the Certainty of his Faith built on those degrees will when examin'd amount to a very obscure evidence and a Problematical kind of Assuredness much like those comfortable lights which both parties have when they lay even wagers at Cock-fighting such games giving good hopes to both sides but good Security to neither But so it ought to be if the Grounds of Faith be not Infallibly but only Fallibly-Certain which is all he is bent to prove 25. No man who firmly Assents to any thing as True can at the same time entertain any suspicion of the falshood of it for that were to make him certain and uncertain of the same thing It is therefore absurd to say that these who are Certain of what they believe may at the same time not know but it may be False which is an apparent Contradiction and overthrows any Faculty in us of judging of Truth and Falshood This Principle and the next were I conceive intended to preserve the Dr's and his Friends Credit against the Inference at the end of Faith vindicated and diverse other Passages shewing them either to be far from good Christians in holding that all Christian Faith may possibly be an Errour and Lying Imposture or else very bad Discoursers of their own Thoughts whilst they equivalently exprest themselves in divers places to be possibly in an Errour in all they believe nay more all Christians in the whole world to be in the same condition This if justified cannot but reflect on them being so concerning a Lapse and I have at Dr. St's brisk instigation charg'd it home in Reason against Raillery though I still expres't my self to incline to the more Civil and more Charitable side and rather lay the blame on their Understandings then on their Wills and Intentions Which Book had Dr. St. seen when he writ this he would have discern'd the triflingness of these weak excuses But let 's see what he says His Firâ—t part is built on a most gross and senseless Errour which is that he who firmly assents to a thing as True is Certain of it as appears by those words for this were to make him Certain and Vncertain of the same thing I wonder exceedingly where the Dr. â—earn't this notion of Certainty Not from Mankinde I am sure at least not from those who had the use of their Reason For all these already know it to be Evident that a man may firmly assent to a thing as True and yet that thing be False must that man therefore be Certain of that Falshood and that it is though in reality it be not We experience that opposite parties firmly assent to contrary Tenets as True for example the Socinians firmly assent that Christ is not God We and the Protestants that Christ is God Catholicks assent firmly that they are not Idolaters when they make use of Holy Images in Divine Worship D. St. firmly assents they are at least he would perswade his 〈◊〉 by his Books he does so Are all these opposite sides Certain of their several Tenets because each side firmly assents to them as True
Church-Authority and if she had none her self 't is evident she could give none whence will follow that the Reformed Churches deriv'd nothing which was Constitutive of a Church from any foregoing one but were wholly erected anew and then I would know what Authority under that of Iesus Christ who constituted the Church at first had power to constitute it anew But if Dr. St. says that the Church of Rome rely'd on the Means left by God to ascertâ—â— Faith then 't is manifest that doing so she could not erre in Faith and so is as sound as may be whatever our Talking Disputant says Since then there is no middle between relying on the Means left by God to ascertain Faith and not relying on it and so that Body in Communion with the Roman Church must necessarily do one of them and if she does rely on it she must needs have all true Faith and so be very healthfull or sound if she does not she mâ—st needs have no True Faith at all and so not only lose her Health but her Essence too which by consequence un-churches the Reformers also it were good Dr. St. would consider the point over again and not talk thus any thing at random without proof As for his saying for saying things craftily and prettily is his only Talent that the Church of Rome by which I presume he means as we do those Churches in Communion with the Roman is not the Catholick Church this will be best decided by settling the Certain Rule of Faith and then by applying of it to consider whether any body out of her Communion have not deserted that Rule which if they have they will be prov'd thence to have no Faith nor consequently to have in them the Essence of a Church and so if this defect appear in them all they can be in true speech no parts of the Church in which case it must necessâ—â—ily follow that those in Communion with the Roman are the Catholick Church Let us begin with Grounds and pursue them by close discoursing and things will easily be decided but this Talking Voluntaries this countersfeitiâ—g and pretending to Principles and Conclusions when there is in reality neither the one nor the other is good for nothing but empty show These excellent performances having emboldend this man of Confidence to conceit he has done wonders he sounds the Triumph of his own Victory in these words This may suffice to shew the validity of the Principles on which the Faith of Protestants stands and the weakness of those of the Church of Rome These words give us occasion to reflect back on his Promise and his Performances His Promise was to reduce the Faith of Protestants to Principles What he has perform'd is this He has not yet laid one Proposition which is to him a Principle that is which he makes use of to conclude what he designs but what is both Obscure and False He has settled no Faith at all but brought all into Opinion by discarding Infallible and maintaining only Fallible Certainty And had he indeed settled any Faith yet he has not produc't own word to settle the Faith of Protestants in particular but all will equally fit a Socinian or a Quaker and his way of managing his Rule will much better sute with a Quaker or any Fanatick than with a Protestant Also in stead of reducing to Principles he at first begins to deduce from Principles and in the process of his discourse he puts Conclusions for Principles and Principles for Conclusions and so reduces and deduces that is draws backwards and forwards blows and sups both at once In a word the Total sum of his Heroick Atchievments amounts to this He has layd thirty Principles which wanting either evidence or else necessary Influence upon what he pretends to prove are no Principles He hath so reduc't to those Principles that he makes six Conclusions follow that is he deduces from them and so he has so reduc't to principles that he has not reduc't to them He has put that for a Rule which wanting power to direct aright those who are ro rely on it is evidently no Rule He has attributed such a Certainty to his Faith as is a Fallible one that is no Certainty but a Chimaera and consequently he has so Principl'd Faith as makes it no Faith but Opinion only He has made six Propositions so follow out the thirty which for want of necessary coherence with them do not follow Lastly he has made those to be Conclusions which for want of Premisses and by reason of their greater Evidence than is fonnd in his Prinâ—iples and for many other regards are not Conclusions but rather Principles All which is shown in their proper places So that his perplexing Intricacy in contriving and posturing his words oddly being once unravell'd their affected ambiguity clear'd and his Insignificances and Incoherences layd open the Common Light of nature will inform any Attentive and Intelligent Reader that Dr. St. has not reduc't the Faith of Protestants to Principles but that his whole discourse attempting it is reduc't to Contradictions Yet in confidence of his vast performances he ventures upon this grand Conclusion that shall strike all dead From all which it follows that it can be nothing but wilfull Ignorance weakness of Iudgment strength of prejudice or some sinful passion which makes any one forsake the Communion of the Church of England to embrace that of the Church of Rome But with how much greater reason may I conclude that in case the Church of England owns his way of discoursing herâ— and holds not that the Tradition Practice and Sense of Gods Church is to give us that assurance of the meaning of Scripture as to build Faith on it but that 't is to be left to every privâ—te mans Fancy to be his own Iudge in that affair nothing but either an Invincibly-weak Ignorance or the wicked Sin of Spiritual Pride making private men scorn to submit their Judgments to persons wiser than themselves or to be taught by their lawfull Pastors whom God has appointed for that end can make any man remain in the Communion of the Church of England and not unite himself to the Communion of the Church of Rome Especially since they all hold that Faith cannot possibly be False so must hold that the means to Faith cannot possibly lead the reliers on it into errour and yet if but meanly verst in the world they must needs experience that those who do rely on their own sense of Scripture differ in most Fundamental points of Christianity and so oneside necessarily erre in so doing FINIS TRANSITION TO THE Following Discourse HAving thus totally defeated Dr. St's Attempt to reduce his Faith to Principles and shown that in stead of performing this all the most substantiall parts of his Discourse are reduc't to so many Contradictious it may perhaps be expected I should assert the Truth of my own by showing that 't is built on
particularly whence each Deduction follows we may be better enabled to discover the Goodness of his Consequences and thence discern clearly the Truth of those Conclusions which we are to suppose his Intention in making those Discourses 6. In the last place we are to weigh very well what is meant by that signal and particularizing word Protestants for 't is the Faith of these and these only which he undertakes here to reduce to Principles And I will have the kindness for him as to suppose he so much zeals the Purity of the Protestant Church as not to defile her with the mixture of Anabaptists Independents Quakers and such like much less the most abominable Socinians who deny the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. Therefore these being secluded from the notion and name of Protestants we are encouraged by this Title to expect such a Discourse as is not proper for Socinians or any of those other Sects to alledge for themselves otherwise it might and ought with as much right be entitled The Faith of Socinians Quakers c. as the Faith of Protestants reduc'd to Principles The sum then of what we are by this Title to expect from Dr. St. is this viz. to shew us such Grounds for our Assent to Points as divinely reveal'd as are Impossible to be Erroneous and such as are not competent Allegations for Socinians Arians c. but proper to Protestants only Also that these Grounds or Principles are such as are either self-evident or made evident And this he is oblig'd necessarily to do unless he will sustain either that Socinians Fift-Monarchists c. are Protestants or that the Faith of Protestants is but Opinion or that there can be any Principles which are neither evident of themselves nor by means of others that is no ways evident or not evident at all Or lastly that he can show us any Conclusion reduc'd to Principles or deduc'd from them without shewing us that it is connected with them This then is what Dr. St's words bid us expect from him let us see now how he answers this expectation Second Examen Six Principles agreed on by both sides examin'd and their Import and Vse weigh'd 1. HE begins with laying down six Principles agreed on by both sides and they are as to the main all of them very True and granted by us if rightly understood wherefore in case any ambiguous word do occur I am to explain it that so our perfect concurrence with him in admitting them may be rightly apprehended and the discourse more unoffensively proceed in case these Principles should come hereafter to be made use of They are these 1. That there is a God from whom Man and all other Creatures had their Being 2. That the notion of God doth imply that he is a Being absolutely perfect and therefore Iustice Goodness Wisdome and Truth must be in him to the highest degree of perfection These two first are rigorously and literally true and worded very exactly 3. That man receiving his Being from God is thereby bound to obey his will and consequently is liable to punishment in case of Disobedience This Proposition is also most true yet that it may more throughly be penetrated and rightly apprehended it were not amiss to note that though the word obey generally amongst us signifies doing some outward action will'd by another yet in this occasion 't is to signifie also nay principally the exercising Interiour Acts of our soul viz. of Faith Hope and Charity in which kind of Acts consists our Spiritual Life as we are Christians That then this Principle may be better understood I discourse it thus that Because God as far as concerns his own Inclination or rather Nature precisely out of his over-flowing Goodness will all Good and amongst the rest the Means to Eternal Happiness to his Creatures and the Believing in Him Hoping all good from Him and Loving him are such Virtues or Perfections of the Soul as are apt and connatural means to raise and dispose it towards the attainment of Bliss or Fruition of the Deity hence he wills that man should believe on him hope in him and love him whence are apt to follow the outward observances of his Law and if they follow not out of these motives they are not properly virtues or truly Perfective of the soul in order to its Last end nor available in the least to the attainment of Bliss nor Acts of Obedience to God's will nor in true speech the keeping his Commandments God therefore willing us Happiness to be attain'd through the proper means to it it follows that those who disobey this Holy will of his that is those who do not cultivate their minds with the said Virtues of Faith Hope and Charity become liable by such their disobedience to eternal misery as wanting through this neglect the Proper Means which is to elevate them to the capacity of attaining Heaven 4. That in order to Man's obeying the Will of God it is necessary he know what it is for which some manifestation of the Will of God is necessary both that Man may know what he hath to do and that God may justly punish him if he do it not 5. Whatever God reveals to Man is infallibly true and being intended for the Rule of Man's obedience may be certainly known to be his Will I approve very wel of these two Principles And to this end I make it my request to the Proposer of them that the word manifestation and certainly known may be understood in their proper signification for that which is True or Absolute Certainty and not be taken abusively as Dr. T. still takes it for such a Certainty as is indeed Incertainty as is shown at large in Reason against Raillery and Faith vindicated Again that we may know whether this be a Principle agreed to by both sides as Dr. St. pretends I shall first put down our Tenet which is that at least the Pastors of the Church who are to teach the Faithful convert Unbelievers amongst whom are many acute wits as also to defend their Faith and make out the Truth of it may nay must have Infallible Grounds and so be Infallibly or Knowingly Certain of what God revealed to Man that is of their Faith If then Dr. St. grants the wisest portion in Gods Church to be thus Infallibly Certain of their Faith we agree with him in this Proposition but if he denies this kind of Certainty to them and consequently there being no middle between Infallible and Fallible says they and so the whole Church is only Fallibly-Certain of what they believe he both speaks non-sense and lays for a Principle agreed on by both sides that which is absolutely deny'd by us and indeed the main point in Controversy between us 6. God cannot act contrary to those Essential Attributes of Iustice Wisdom Goodness and Truth in any way which he makes choice of to make known his Will unto man by This Principle is absolutely granted having
enough and apply that Capacity to their power by as great a Diligence as any nor can he in Charity deny but they sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of it in such points Therefore he cannot deny but the persons attending to the Rule are faultless either in understanding Scripture in these points if it be to private Understandings clearly intelligible or VVill to understand it if they could and indeed 't is Incredible they should not will or desire this since they use such exact diligence in it and solemnly profess to rely on the Letter alone or that did they indeed sleight the Letter or purposely decline relying on it their byass should not manifestly appear in so long time and they be branded for Evident Insincerity He cannot deny then but the Persons are faultless as to their Capacity and Will to understand the Rule therefore unless he will renounce his Reason he cannot deny but the Fault must be in the same Persons judging that to be the Rule which is not and consequently that the Letter of Scripture is not alone and of it self clear and Intelligible enough to preserve private men both capable and diligent and relying solely on It from possibility of Error no not from actually Erring in most Fundamental Points of Faith nor consequently has it in it the true nature of the Rule of Faith and so since God never intends any thing should do what its Nature reaches not to do that is should do what it cannot do 't is manifest Scriptures Letter was never intended by God for that End or to be such a Rule 13. Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such away as writing being made choce of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the design and the Wisdome and Goodness â—f God to give infallible assurance to persons in writing his Will for the benefit of Mankind if those Writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation It is not yet prov'd nor ever will that God hath made choice of the Way of writing for a Rule of Faith nor design'd it for that end nor that the benefit he meant Mankind by such Writings was to Ground their Faith on what appear'd to their private Judgments to be the sense of the Letter therefore 't is no wonder if all persons stould hap to misunderstand it even in such things as are necessary for their salvation notwithstanding their sincere endeavour to know the meaning of them since God has never promis'd that any who takes a way never intended by him for such an End shall infallibly arrive at that End by such a Way nor is the Wisdome and Godness of God at all concern'd in preserving any from Error if they take such a Way especially if we reflect upon these following Considerations First That God hath no where engaged his word to secure every single or private man from Error who shall sincerely endeavour to find his Faith in the Scripture in case he rely on his own private Judgment neglect to hear his Pastors whence if such private persons rely on Gods promis'd Assistance to such an End they rely on what neither is nor ever was and so no wonder their hopes fail them if those Hopes be groundless Secondly They cannot but know if but meanly vers'd in the world that whole Bodies of men and amongst them divers of great learning interpret Scripture several ways in very concerning points of Faith and it must needs favour of a proud self-conceit in any person to think God regards his single self more than he does whole Bodies and Great Multitudes Again it cannot without a strange Unreasonableness Uncharitableness be imagin'd or judg'd that not one person of those many who adhere to the opposite Tenet as clear to them in Scripture according to their best Judgment does sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of these Sacred Books and if they do then Common sense tells this private person that the whole Foundation on which his Hope is built is unsound and that more is requisite than the Letter of Scripture and a sincere endeavour to understand it and that if these suffice to direct him right they ought for the same reason be sufficient to direct another and so he ought to doubt whether himself or those others proceeding on the same Grounds and having the same Means be in the right that is he ought to doubt of his Faith no better grounded Lastly This private man belongs to some particular Church and so has Pastors and Governors set over him to teach and instruct him and those too as wee 'l suppose read and rely on the Scriptures Also he must judg this Church sincerely endeavours to know the meaning of Scriptures for this being the requisit condition to find right Faith without this his Church has no right Faith and so is no Church now for a private man who is subject to such a Church and ought to be taught by the Pastors of that Church not to submit to the Judgment of that Church and his Lawful Pastors as to the Sense of Scriptures or his Faith even though they be sincere endeavours as well as he but to adhere to that for his Faith which appears to his private self to be in the Scriptures though he contradict and defy all the Church he his a member of in so doing which he ought to do if he proceed on this Principle that Scriptures may be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all things necessary for his salvatiou for he ought not for any mans sake relinquish his Faith or its Rule I say to behave himself thus as in that supposition he ought is such an intolerable ma apert Presumption so Sensless and Unnatural and Self-condemning a Rebellion and such a Fanatick Spiritual Pride as I much doubt will give a man but small title to hope for Especial Assistance from Gods Wisdom and Goodness At present I onely remarke the Faults of this Principle which are these First That it supposes God has made choice of or designd the Scriptures to be this Rule of Faith for private persons Next that Gods Wisdome and Goodness is Engag'd that it be thus Intelligible to every sinâ—ere Eadeavourer Neither of which is in the least prov'd or proveable Lastly when he comes to the close instead of making it so intelligible as that all sincere Endeavors might therby be absolutely secur'd from erring as to the Truth of their Faith which is the Duty of the Rule of Faith seeing very well these slight Grounds were not able to carry so far he substitutes in their room these waty words in all such things as shall be necessary for their salvation so that though they erre in all the main points of
ought they will as God's command the Order of the World and common Reason obliges them be rather willing to trust their Pastors who are better qualifi'd for such Knowledge and whom God hath set over them to instruct them what is the sense of Scriptures than trust their own private shallow judgments And 't is observable that Dr. St's discourse all along concerning this point is a plain begging the Question For if God have left a Church and commanded the Faithfull to hear it and conform to it's Faith and consequently to receive the sense of Scripture as to Points of Faith from it then there is no necessity of Scripture's being intended to be plain to all Capacities of it self nor of thinking men may sincerely desire to know God's will in Scriptures and use due means to understand it without making use of the Churches Judgment in that affair upon which false supposition Dr. St. wholly builds his otherwise perfectly ruinous discourse Wherefore his supposition being deny'd I must reply that those who sincerely desire to know Gods wisl have a certain virtue in them called Humility and this teaches them not to overween in their own opinion but to think that their Pastors appointed by God to teach them are generally wiser then those who are to be taught and that those who are wiser know better than those who are lesse wise A little of this plain honest rational Humility would quite spoil all Dr. St's discourse and convince all his Principles to be a plausible piece of Sedition and licentious presumption tending of its own nature utterly to destroy all Church and Church-Government and if applied to that Subject Temporal too I should be glad to know what means the word such in the last line if he means Infallible and that the Church pretending to Infallibility must have Infallible Assurance that she is Infallible t is asserted by us and his supposition that she is not is absolutely deny'd For the Church is Infallibly certain that Christ's promise to her shall not fail and also Infallibly certain by constant Tradition and the beleef of good Christians in all Ages that Christ has promis'd her this Security or Immunity from Errour in Faith none questioning it but those who have rebel'd and revolted from her In a word this whole Principle is Faulty being built on a False and unprov'd Supposition and were the Supposition granted and that the Church were Fallible still it were false that his Faithfull would have greater Assurance of their Faith than ours as hath been partly now shown and more amply in my Reply to the foregoing Principle Recapitulation The Sum then of Dr. St's Performances in these ten Principles of his which most Fundamentally concern his Faith and the pretended Reduction of it to Principles is briefly this that he hath not brought so much as one single Argument proving either that Scripture's Letter is the Rule of Faith nor that Tradition or the Infallible Testimony of Gods Church is not it And as for the particular Maxims or Sayings of his on which he chiefly relies they have been one by one disprov'd and the opposite Truths establish't As 1. That Faith being such an Assent as when built as it ought to be on the means left by God for mankinde to rely ou is impossible to be False and so that Means or the Rule of Faith being necessarily such as while men rely upon it is impossible they should erre These things I say being so as I have largely prov'd in Faith Vindicated and the Introductory Discourse to this present Examin Dr. St. has not so much as made an offer or attempt to show that Scripture is the Rule of Faith 2. That since 't is agreed God can contrive Writings sufficiently Intelligible for that End or sufficiently clear to ascertain those who rely upon them of their Faith and yet on the other side 't is evident God has not de facto done this or contriv'd such Methods and ways as our Reason tels us evidently are proper means to keep those Writings call'd the Scriptures from being thus mis-understood by severall Parties even in Fundamental Points as we experience they are it follows hence most manifestly that God never intended the way of writing for the Rule of Faith 3. Since several Parties of excellent capacities in understanding words aright and both owning Scripture for their Rule and applying themselves with greatest diligence to know the true sence of it do notwithstanding differ in those Fundamental Points of a Trinity and the God-head of Christ 't is manifest that Scripture is not able so secure those who rely on it to their power of the Truth of their Faith and so is not the Rule of Faith 4. Again since in passages that concern Faith the knowing whether the words be taken properly or improperly is that which determines what is Faith what not and this knowledge is not had from Scripture it follows that Scripture is not the Rule of Faith 5. God has no where promis'd that he will still assist those who sincerely endeavour to compass an end in case they take a way disproportion'd to attain that end and which way was consequently never intended by him for such an end for this were to engage himself to do perpetual Miracles when ever any one should act irrationally Wherefore unless it be first solidly prov'd that Scripture is the Rule of Faith or apt of its own nature to give those who rely on it Inerrable security of the Truth of their Faith while they thus rely on it and consequently that it was intended by God for such an end none can justly lay claim to God's assistance or tax his Justice or Veracity if they fall into Errour Much lesse if they neglect those Duties which Nature makes evident to them and common Christianity teaches viz. to obey and hear their Governours Pastors and Teachers ordain'd by God and rely on their own private Wit or God's Immediate Assistance to their single selves rather than to those Publick Officers of the Church God had appointed to govern and direct them for this intolerable spiritual Pride is so odious and pernicious that it most justly entitles them to delusion Errour and Heresie 6. Hence since God has left some means for Faith and 't is Blasphemy to say that those who rely according to their utmost power on the means left and Intended by God to lead Men into Truth can while they do so run into Errour which yet private understandings as was seen may relying on the Written Word it follows 〈◊〉 unavoidably that some other way is left which is not Writing to secure the Relyers on it from Errour in Faith or to be to them the Rule of Faith 7. Scripture not being the Rule and Christ's Doctrine being once settled and accepted in the Christian part of the World by means of Miracles there needed no more but to derive it down to future Ages and this Doctrine being Practicall and so objected
be so as it happens in many Controvertists who are well instructed in the Grounds of their Faith yet not so well verst in the nature of particular points but believe them only by Implicit Faith or else one of their knowledges may be more Clear and distinct than the others and so serve to perfect and advance it in the same manner as Art does Nature Least of all can it follow that the Infallibility of the Church Representative is needless for This is not intended to teach the Faithfull their Faith at first nor do I remember ever to have seen a Generall Council cited in a Catechism but this is performed by the Church Diffusive by her Practise and Language and by her Pastors in their Catechisms and Instructions But it 's use is to secure and preserve Faith already taught and known from receiving any taint by the Equivocating Heretick and to recommend it more Authoritatively to the Faithfull when clear'd And whoever reads my 4th Note will see so many particularities in the Members which compound a Representative Church above others who are purely Parts of Ecclesia Credens that he cannot in any Reason judge them Vseless though those others be in an Inferiour degree Certain of their Faith too For all this while the word Infallible which seems to have so loud a sound and is made such a monstrous peece of business by the Deniers of it is in plain Terms no more but just barely Certain as I have prov'd Faith Vind. p. 37. 38. and Reason against Rail p. 113. To come closer up then to my Adversary His 20th Principle which speaks of Assent in common is wholly built upon a False supposition that it can only be Grounded upon Evidence For however indeed in perfect Reflecters that are unbyast Evidence of the Object or of the Credibleness of the Authority is alwayes requisit to breed Assent yet Experience teaches us that Assent in weak and unreâ—lecting persons is frequently built on a great Probability sometimes a very little one and sometimes men Assent upon little or no reason at all their Passion or Interest byassing their wills and by it their Understandings and this many times even against such reason as would be Evident to another Again matteriall Infallibility which is enough to that Assent we speak of precisely and solely consider'd depends solely at least Principally on the Object contrary to what is there asserted And whereas he says Princ. 29. that the Infallibility of every Particular person is not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church he sees by this discourse it both is and must be Asserted and that we maintain that every particular person must be materially Infallible or incapable of erring while he relies on the Grounds laid and recommended by God that is while he believes the Church which yet is far from rendring the Formal Infallibility of the Church useless unless he will say that because it suffices for the pitch of weak people whose duty 't is not to maintain and make out the Truth of their Faith that they be simply in the right or void of Errour and that they see after a gross manner that the thing is so though they cannot defend it therefore there is no need that those whose duty 't is to do so should be able to penetrate the Grounds of Faith and so explicate prove and maintain it to be True Nor will it follow that though the Generality were after a rude and gross manner formally Infallible in their belief that the Church is Infallible and therefore that the Points she proposes are all likewise Infallibly-true it will not follow I say hence that a greater and clearer and more penetrative degree of Formal Infallibility is useless in Church-Governours for as appears by my 4th Note there are many other things to be done by them of absolute necessity for the Church which far exceed the pitch and posture of those dull Knowers of the lowest Class which is the next degree above Ignorance and are unauthoriz'd to meddle in such affairs Unless he will say that Art is needless because there is Nature or that there needs no Iudges to decide such Cases in which the Law seems plain And thus much for the clearing this concerning Point In the rest of his Principles I shall be briefer But I must not pass over his Transition to them which is this We are further to enquire what Certainty men may have in matters of Faith supposing no External Proponent to be Infallible And he need not go far to satisfie his Enquiry For it being most evident by the Disputes between the Protestants and Socinians that Scripture needs some External Proposer of it's true meaning in such kinde of Points as also some External Proposer or Attester that this is the true Text of it on which all is built Also it being evident that Dr. St. Princ. 15. denies any Infallible Proposers of either of these and that here again he pursues close the same doctrin Lastly this Proposer being such that however we can have Certainty without It that the Divine Authority is to be believed yet we must depend on It for the Knowledge when and where 't is engag'd that is we must depend on It for the Certainty of our Faith It follows that in case this Proponent be not Infallible it can never be made out with Infallible Certainty that the Divine Authority stands engag'd for the Truth of any one Point of Faith and consequently that the Certainty men have in matters of Faith is not an Infallilible one And if it be not an Infallible Certainty which Faith has as he no where challenges but very laboriously disproves it he need not go far to enquire or learn what Certainty it must have for Common Sense tels him and every man who has the least spark of Natural Logick that if Faith must have Certainty as he grants and have not Infallible Certainty it must either have Fallible Certainty or none at all there being no Middle between them and so we must make account that because it overstrains D. St's weak Grounds to assert Faith to be Infallibly Certain therefore his next Attempt must be to overstrain Common Sense and to the inestimable Honour of Christian Religion maintain that all Christian Faith is Fallibly-Certain But he must do it smoothly and warily and however he nam'd the word Infallible loud enough and oft enough when he was confuting it yet he must take heed how he names the word Fallible Certainty when he is asserting it lest it breed laughter or dislike though it be evident out of the very Terms that he who confutes Infallible Certainty must maintain Fallible Certainty sf he maintains any But now he begins his defence of Faiths Fallible Certainty and 't is fit we should listen Monstrous things use to challenge and even force Attention from the most unconcern'd 24. There are different degrees of Certainty to be attained according to the
the Authour and Finisher of our Faith is the true reason why I with so much zeal and Earnestness oppose him and his Friend for advancing Vncertainty and consequently Scepticism in Faith however they and their angry passionate party are pleas'd to apprehend me I perceive Dr. St. will hope to evade by saying that Christian virtue may be upheld by the Certainty we have of some Points of Faith though others be Vncertain which Points to make his Uncertainty of Faith go down the better he cals here Opinions But if he means by Opinions the Tenets of a Trinity Christs Godhead and Presence in the B. Sacrament all most highly concerning Christian Life one way or other in which we discern great parties differing who all â—dmit the Scripture and use the best means to interpret it as far as we can perceive nay and consider the consequence of mistaking too which he makes the very best means of all If I say these and such as these be the Opinions he speaks of and counterposes them to means to keep men from sin in their lives and that the Rule of Faith he assigns leaves whol Bodies of Reliers on it in actual Errour in such Fundamental Points of Faith and of most high concernment to good life as has been shown even while they proceed upon it 't is evident 't is not the Rule God intended his Church and mankinde to build their Faith on and so none can presume of security of mistake by relying purely upon it but all of Concern not known before by some other means that is all which it alone holds forth may be also liable to be a mistake likewise unless some other Authority more ascertainable to us then it abets it's Letter in such passages as are plain because they are either meerly Moral or Narrative or explain it's sense in others which are more spiritual and supernatural and so more peculiar and Fundamental to Christianity Recapitulation To meet with the absurd Positions exprest or else imply'd in the Doctrin deliver'd here by Dr. St. in these last Eleven Principles of his I take leave to remind the Reader of these few opposit Truths establisht in my former Discourse 1. That Assent call'd Faith taken as built on the Motives left by God to light Mankind to the Knowledge of his Will that is taken as it ought to be taken and as 't is found in the Generality is for that Reason Absolutely that is more then morally Certain or Impossible to be False 2. Though the Nature of Assent depend immediatly on the Evidence we have of it in our minds when 't is Rational yet in case it be True as the Assent of Faith ought to be it must necessarily be built and depend fundamentally on the nature of the Thing since without dependance on It this Evidence it self cannot possibly be had 3. A man may be materially Infallible or out of possibility of being actually deceiv'd in judging the divine Authority is engag'd by adhering to another's Iudgment who is Infallible or in the right in thus judging though he penetrate not the reason why that other man comes to be Infallible Also he who is thus Infallible being in possession of those Truths reliev'd upon the Divine Authority as the Formal motive of believing them which Truths as Principles beget those good Affections in him in which consist our Christian Life such a man I say has consequently enough speaking abstractedly for the Essence of Saving Faith though he be not Formally or knowingly Infallible by penetrating the Conclusiveness of the Grounds of Faith 4. To be thus materially Infallible or thus in the right in judging the Divine Authority is engag'd is requisite and necessary for the Essence of Faith otherwise the believing upon the Divin Authority when 't is not engag'd and so perhaps the believing and holding firmly to abominable Errours and Hereticall Tenets might be an Act of Faith to assert which is both absurd and most impious 5. 'T is requisite to the Perfection of Faith to be formally or Knowingly Infallible that the Divine Authority is engag'd For since it hazards Heresy and Errour to judge that the Divine Authority is engag'd for any point when 't is not it ought to breed suspence and caution in Reflecters till they see it engag'd consequently the better they see this the more heâ—rtily they are apt to assent to the point upon the Divine Authâ—rity So that the Absolute Certainty of the Grounds which conclude the Divine Authority engag'd betters and strengthens the Act of Faith 6. However it be enough for the Faith of those whose downright rudeness lets them not reflect at all to be only Materially Infallible that God's Authority is engag'd yet 't is besides of Absolute necessity to Reflecters who raise doubts especially for those who are very acute to discern some reason which cannot deceive them or to be formally or knowingly Infallible that 't is indeed actually engag'd for those points Otherwise it would follow that provision enough had been made by God to satisfy or cause saving Faith in Fools and none at all to breed Faith wise men which without satisfaction in this in point is in possible to be expected in such through-sighted Reflecters The same Formal Infallibility is necessary for the wisest sort of men in the Church both to deâ—end Faith and establish it's Grounds in a Scholar-like way as also for their Profession of the Truth of Faith and other Obligations incumbent on them as Faithfull and lastly for the Effects which are to be bred in them by Faith's Certainty 7. Though then the Rule of Faith needs not to be actually penetrated by all the Faithfull while they proceed unreflectingly yet it ought to be so qualifi'd that it may satisfy all who are apt to reflect and so to doubt of their Faith that is it 's Ruling power ought to be penetrable or evidenceable to them if they come to doubt and also so connatural and suitable to the unelevated and unreflecting thoughts of men of all sorts that it be the most apt that maybe to establish the Faithfull in the mean time and preserve them from doubting of their Faith Both these are found in Tradition or Testifying Authority and not in Scripture's Letter That therefore and not This is the Rule of Faith 8. Infallible Certainty of Faith being rejected the Moral Certainâ—y he substitutes must either be a Fallible Certainty or none this later is Impious the former is non-sense Wherefore all Dr. St's Discourse of Faith while he rejects Infallibility must forcibly have the one or the other of these Qualifications 9. A firm Assent to a thing as True renders no man Certain of what he thus assents to for so Hereticks might be truly Certain of all the pestilent Errours they hold so they but firmly assent they are True 10. Faith being the Basis of all Christian Virtues on which all our spiritual Edifice is built and from whence we derive all the
multitudes of exceptions as hath been shown in the proper Answers to each 4ly and 5ly The Consequence Connexion or Following of these pretended Conclusions out of their Premisses is not so much as attempted to be shown nor any one of them related to any Principle or Principles but all the Figures which distinguish both the one and the others stand for Cypherâ— and are useless Lastly were all these Conclusions granted him yet still he is never the nearer having prov'd or compas't what he intended For suppose we granted that there can be no necessity of an Infallible Society of men to do that which can be done as well without them What if the supernatural Infallibility of the Church must be examin'd by the fame Faculty and the same ways Points of Faith are or it 's Natural Infallibility the same way it 's Natural or Human Authority is examin'd What if we have less Reason to believe it if it's Miracles be less convincing it's Marks more doubtfull and it's sence more Obscure and greater reason to reject it the more absurd it's opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason What if to disown such Doctrines be not to question God's Veracity What I say if all these were granted by us as they would have been very readily at the first though he had never skirmish't and flourish't and kept this pother with laying so formally six Principles agreed on by both sides and then thirty other of his own yet he is not one jot the nearer the reducing the Faith of Protestants to Principles which was promis't us at the beginning and so we ought to expect the performance of it when he had deduc't his Conclusions which use to infer the Intent propos'd to himself by the disputant and to come home to the very point the Arguer would be at Indeed if he could show us solidly that Infallibility in a Church were useless that examin'd by such ways and means as it ought it would be overthrown and could not stand the trial that it's Miracles were Unconvincing it's Marks Doubtfull it 's Sense declar'd by it Obscure or that it's Opinions were indeed Absurd and Repugnant to the First Principles of Sense and Reason very great matters had indeed in that case been done against our Church and Faith yet still nothing at all to the establishment of his own A Catholick might in that case have indeed lost his own Faith and be to seek for another but never find any meerly by means of these destructive Positions alone unless Dr. St. can settle him some other Ground built on better Principles and such as are competent to settle Faith on which Fallible Certainty were it sense will never reach So that were all his Conclusions hitherto freely granted he is still as far from having attain'd what he propos'd to himself and promis't others as at the beginning Nor can it be imagined why he makes us this mock-shew of Consequences but only that as at the beginning he put down most undeniable and most sacred Principles agreed on both sides so to make his Readers apprehend before-hand he must needs conquer who had such sure Cards to play though by his shynesse to make use of them and apply them home it appear'd he had no Title to them so now he puts five undeniable Propositions for Conclusions to make weak nnattentive Readers imagine he had actually conquer'd for nothing sounds a more compleat Victory that to inâ—ferr evident Conclusions But the ill luck is not one of them is a Conclusion not has that kind of Evidence in it which is peculiar to such Propositions viz. Evidence-had by means of Proof but they are all evident of themselves or self-evident and so a good plot is unluckily spoil'd I have yet one thing more to say to them that they have all of them evidently the Nature of Premisses in them and would do extraordinary service to his Cause taken in that capacity as far I mean as he ayms to overthrow the Catholick Church if the badness of it would let him pursue them and stand by them and apply them To show which I will put them down in a clear method that it may be seen where the point sticks The First Conclusion then has in it the Nature of a Major Proposition and put in a Discourse stands thus That Infallibility without which men may be Certain of Faith and cannot have greater Assurance of Faith were it put is not necessary to be put But suoh is the Infallibility of the Church of Rome Therefore the Infallibility of the Church of Rome is not to be put The second stands thus if it can at all concern the purpose That Infallibility which is to be examin'd by the same Faculties Rules of Trial and Motives by which the Infallibility of any Divine Revelation is cannot bear the test but must be overthrown But the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church is to be thus examin'd Therefore it cannot stand the test but must be overthrown The Third stands thus That Church whose Miracles are less convincing marks more doubtfull sense more obscure has less reason to be beleev'd But such is the Church of Rome Therefore she has less reason to be beleev'd The Fourth thus The Infallibility of that Church whose Opinions are absurd and repugnant to the First Principles of sense and reason has great reason to be rejected as a Grand Imposture But the Infallibility of the Church of Rome is the Infallibility of such a Church whose Opinions are absurd and repugnant to the First Principles of Sense and Reason Therefore it 's Infallibility ought to be rejected as a Grand Imposture The Fifth thus They who disown Doctrins thus absurd and repugnant to the First Principles of Sense and Reason do own and not question therein the veracity of God But we in disowning the Roman Church disown such doctrins Therefore We in so doing own or do not question the Veracity of God By which discourses 't is evidently seen that the natural posture and place for these five Propositions in an attempt to overthrow the Roman Churches Infallibility and to excuse the Protestants for not obeying her as is here intended for they are nothing at all to the reducing the Faith of Protestants to Principles which they were pretendedly brought for is to make them the Major Propositions where the Chief Principles to all Conclusions use and ought to be placed 'T is evident also that these Premisses or Principles stand firm in their own undeniable Verity and the only Thing for him to do is to make good all the Minor Propositions which done all the Conclusions must necessarily follow and so his work is done as indeed it always ought to be when the Conclusion is inferr'd Whereas making these Major Propositions the Conclusions 't is manifeâ— he is to begin again and argue from them when he had concluded and so was at an end oâ— his discourse So that 't is most
Notion fits that is whic hath trnly the Nature of the Rule of faith And this is perform'd by examining which of them is of its own Nature if apply'd and held to able to assure us infallibly that Christ taugbt thus and thus 10. And for the Letter of Scripture not to insist that if it be deny'd as many if not all the parts of the New Testament have been by some or other or mention that those who receive the Boâ—ks do often and always may doubt of almost any particular Text alledged whether some fault through Malice Negligence or Weakness be not crept into it in which Cases the Letter cannot evidence it self but needs another Rule to establish it I say not to insist upon these things which yet are undeniable We see by experience Multitudes of Sects differing from one another and some in most fundamental Points as the Trinity and Godhead of Christ yet all agreeing in the outward Letter And it is not onely Uncharitable but even Impossible to imagin that none among so vâ—st Multitudes do intend to follow the Letter to their power while they all proâ—ess to reverence it as much as any read it frequently study it diligently quote it constantly and zealously defend the sense which they conceive of it fo far that many are even ready to die for it Wherfore it cannot be suspected but they follow it to their power and yet 't is so far from infallibly teaching them the Doctrine of Christ that all this notwithstanding they contradict one another and that in most fundamental points The bare Letter then is not the Rule of Faith as not being of its own Nature able to assure us infallibly though we follow it to our power what Christ has taught I would not be mistaken to have less Veneration than I ought for the Divine Books whose Excellence and Vsefulness as it is beyond man to express so peradventure among men there are not many who conceit this deeper than my self and I am sure not one amongst those who take the confidence to charge us with such irreverent thoughts But we are now about another Question They are the Word of God and their true Sense is Faith We are enquiring out the Rule of Faith whose office t is not to satisfy us that we ought to believe what God has said which none doubts of but What it is which God has said And I affirm That the Letter alone is not a sufficient means to assure us infallibly of this and the experience of so many erring Thousands is a lamentable but convincing proof of it 11. On the other side there needs but common sense to discern That TRADITION is able if follow'd to ones power to bring infallibly down to after Ages what Christ and his Apostles taught at first For since it means no more but delivery of Faith by daily Teaching and Practise of Immediate Forefathers to their respective Children and it is not possible that men should be ignorant of that to which they were educated of that which they daily saw and heard and did let this Rule be follow'd to ones power that is let Children resolve still to believe and practise themselves what they are taught by and practis'd with their Fathers and this from Age to Age and it is impossible but all succeeding Children which follow this Rule must needs from the Apostles time to the end of the World be of the same Faith which was taught at first For while they do thus there is no change and if there be no change 't is the same Tradition then thus understood has in it the Nature of the Rule of Faith as being able if held to to bring down infallibly what Christ and his Apostles taught 12. We have found the Rule of Faith there remains to find which body of men in the World have ever and still do follow this Rule For those and onely those can be infallibly assured of what Christ taught that is can onely have true Faith Whereas all the rest since they have but Fallible grounds or a Rule for their Faith which may deceive them cannot have right Faith but Opinion onely which may be false whereas Faith cannot 13. And first 't is a strong presumption that those many particular Churches in communion with the Roman which for that reason are called Roman-Catholicks do hold their Doctrine by this infallible Tenure since they alone own Tradition to be an Infallible Rule whereas the Deserters of that Church write whole Books to disgrace and vilify it And since no man in his wits will go about to weaken a Tenure by which he holds his Estate 't is a manifest sign that the Deserters of that Church hold not their Faith by the Tenure of Tradition but rather acknowledge by their carriage that Tradition stands against them and that 't is their Interest to renounce it lest it should overthrow their Cause Wherefore since Tradition § 11. is the only means to derive Christs Doctrin infallibly down to after Ages they by renouncing it renounce the only means of conveying the Docttine of Faith certainly to us and are convinc'd to have no Faith but only Opinion And not only so but even to oppose and go point-blank against it since they oppose the only-sure Method by which it can with certainty come down to us 14 Besides since Tradition which I always understand as formerly explicated to be the Teaching the Faith of immediate Forefathers by words and practise hath been proved the only infallible Rule of Faith those who in the days of K. Henry VIII and since have deserted it ought to have had infallible certainty that we receded from it formerly for if we did not but still cleav'd to it it could not chuse but preserve the true Faith to us and if they be not sure we did not they know not but we have the true faith and manifestly condemn themselves in deserting a Faith which for ought they know was the true one But Infallible Certainty that we had deserted this Rule they can have none since they neither hold the Fathers Infallible nor their own Interpretation of Scripture and therefore unavoidably shipwaack themselves upon that desperat Rock Which is aggravated by this Consideration that they built not their Reformation upon a zealous care of righting Tradition which we had formerly violated nor so much as Testimonial Evidence as shall be shown presently that we had deserted It but all their pretence was that we had deserted Scripture and because they assign no other certain means to know the sense of the Holy Books but the Words and those are shown to be no certain means § 10. 't is plain the Reformers regarded not at all the right Rule of Faith but built their Reformation upon a weak Foundation and incompetent to sustain such a building Whence neither had the first Reformers nor have their Followers Faith at all but only Opinion 15. On the contrary since 't is known and
Divinity p. 191. 192. In Logick p. 228. 236. 237. His Performances reduc't to their proper Principles Contradictions p. 236. Tradition the Rule of Faith p. 45. 46. 141. 142. Vnion how to be hoped p. 51. 52. Writing how capable to be the Rule of Faith p. 36. 37. 38. Errata PAge 2. line 4. receive p. 11. l. 21. perfectly p. 15. l 2. disparate p. 32. l. 1â— then we can p. 45. l. 12. Again p. 67. l. 27. dele and this as far c. to the end of the 4th line after p. 81. l. 29. dele of p. 84. l. 2. Endeavorers l. 29. Endeavorers p. 104. l. 4. dele we p. 10â— l. 5. his p. 124. l. 5. and. p. 131. l. 30. dele in the. p. â— 2. l. 11. infallibly l. 23. then p. 834. l. 17. be False l. 20. about p. 159. l. 22. if p. 1â—0 l. 14. as l. 15. dele be p. 167. l. 11. dele if p 173. l. 18. to a higher degree p. 177. l. 23. which are p. 181. l. 2. degree p. 184. l. 24. ground p. 185. l. 15. reason given l. 18. keep men p. 187. l. 14. is p. 188. l. 14. dissatisfaction l. 21. some p. 192. l. 5. conformable l. 16. it l. 26. by her all p. 193. l. 17. our p. 198. l. 2. receiv'd p. 199. l. 14. in wisemen in this point p. 202. l. ult The 5th and 6th p. 214. l. 3. dele to p. 216. l. 12. its p 221. l. 18. Dr. St. p. 234. l. 18. applying it p. 235. l. 23. produc't one p. 250. l. 9. not THE FIRST EXAMEN CONCERNING Dr. Stillingfleet's Design in this Discourse as exprest in his TITLE 1. IN the first place the Title superscribed to this Discourse and signifying to us the Nature and Design of it is to be well weighed that so we may make a right Conceit of what we are justly to expect from Dr. St. in this occasion 'T is this The Faith of Protestants reduc'd to Principles 2. Now Principles as we have discours'd in the Preface must either be Evident to both Parties or at least held and granted by both else no discourse can proceed for want of Agreement in that on which all Rational Process is grounded Also they must be Proper for the End intended or Influential upon the Conclusion which the Arguer aims to evince otherwise if the thing in question deceive not its Evidence and Truth from them though those Propositions be never so evident in themselves yet they cannot be to It or in this Circumstance a Principle whatever they may be in others Wherefore to make good this Title Dr. St. is to produce nothing for a Principle but what is either granted at first by both Parties or else is of so open and undeniable an Evidence as all the World must see and acknowledge it such as are either first Principles or those which immediatly depend upon them and are comprehended under them or if he builds on any Propositions as Principles which are not thus evident but need Proof he is at least to render them evident ere he builds upon them And lastly he is to apply them close to that which he professes to conclude from them otherwise he can never show them to be Principles in this occasion any more than one can be a Father who has no Off-spring or than any thing can be a Ground which has no Superstructures 3. Next we are to consider what Dr. St. means by the word Faith in this place And I hope he will not think I injure him in supposing he has so good thoughts of the Faith of Protestants as to hold 't is more than a bare Opinion whose Grounds may all be false For if so the Assent of Protestants as Faithful may possibly be an Error and all the Tenets they profess to be Truths and hope to be sav'd by believing them liable to be prov'd nothing perhaps in reality but a company of Lies If then as in this supposition he must he holâ—s the 〈◊〉 of Protestants Impossible to be Faâ—â—e he is 〈◊〉 to reduce it into 〈◊〉 Grounds and Principles as are likewâ—â—e Impossible to be False and consequently if it relies on Authority he is to bring Infallible Authority for it all that is Fallible as Common sense teaches admitting Possibility of Falshood in whatever is grounded on it Such Grounds then or Principles he is oblig'd to produce for the Faith of Protestants in case he holds it may not perhaps be an Error for any thing he or his Church knows But in case he judges this Assent or Belief of Protestants may be True Faith though the Grounds of it may be False then he ows me an answer to Faith Vindicated where the contrary is prov'd by multitudes of Arguments not one of which has yet receiv'd one word of sober Reply from him or Dr. Tillotson though as appears by the Inferences at the end of that Book it most highly concerns them both to speak to the several Reasons it contains 4. In the third place we are to reflect what may be meant by the word reduc'd in the said Title And since all Truths not self-evident nor known by immediate impression on sense are at first deriv'd or deduc'd from Principles this word reduc'd having a signification directly contrary to the other intimates to us that Dr. St. makes account he has begun by putting the Faith of Protestants which is the Conclusion and brought it back for so the word reduc'd imports to Principles whereas 't is Evident to every Scholar he proceeds in a way quite contrary to what he here pretends First laying six Principles agreed on then thirty others which since they go before his Conclusions we are to think he meant for Principles too and thence drawing in the Close six Inferences or Sequels which is most manifestly to deduce from Principles not to reduce to them 5. But however it be blameable in one who owns himself a Scholar especially pretending the rigorous and learned way of proceeding by Principles not to understand the nature of the Way himself takes yet let us kindly suppose that Dr. St. out of an unwariness only made use by chance of an improper word which being but a human lapse is more easily pardonable especially since the Method he here undertakes viz. to begin with Principles is if rightly manag'd and perform'd the most honorable for a Scholar and the most satisfactory that may be and so deserving to make amends for many greater faults Let him then by reduc'd to Principles mean deduc'd from Principles yet since both reducing and deducing imply the showing a Connexion between those Principles and what 's pretended to be drawn from them and this either Immediate as to every particular Conclusion or Mediate We are to expect Dr. St. should still show us this Connexion which is best and most clearly done by relating each of his six Conclusions to their respective Premisses or Principles that so by this distinct proceeding and owning
no Fault in it but that it expresses not all the Truth it ought for God not only cannot act contrary to those Essential Attributes but he is oblig'd by his very Nature to act perfectly according to them in making choice of such a Way or Rule to make known his Will unto man by as shall be all things consider'd most proper for Mankind that is most suitable to the respective Capacities of those who are to be led by it that so their Acts of Faith as far as they spring from the Provision of motives laid by God may be pefectly rational and also most effectual to the end for which God intended that Rule and Faith which depends on it These are the six Principles Dr. St. proposes as agreed to by both sides which in the main and thus understood are of so universal a Nature and such sacred Truths that if he draws any necessary consequences from them to the establishing the Faith of Protestants or overthrowing that of Catholicks which latter seems chiefly intended his Victory is likely to be very compleat If he does not but rather makes no use at all of them in concluding from them what he pretends and his Title imports it must needs be understood that they were only produc'd to make a plausible show and to prepare the Readers mind to Apprehend he must necessarily conquer all before him having such sacred Principles engag'd in his Patronage One thing more I am to add on this occasion which is that no discourse at all can proceed unless all the Principles be agreed to by both sides for if the Person against whom we argue deny our Principles 't is a folly to hope by means of them to force him to admit of the Conclusion depending solely on those Principles for its Truth and Evidence But we are to reflect that an Adversary may two manner of ways grant us our Principles either voluntarily and of his own accord or else forcibly that is convinc'd by strength of Argument if the Principles be subordinate ones and so can admit Proof or for fear of shame from Human Nature if they either be First Principles or that the Controversy by discourse be reduc'd to that most Evident Test. Since then Dr. St. makes account we yeild him but these six voluntarily we are to expect from him such manifest proofs for the other thirty as may make us by the clearness of their Evidence or under the penalty of having Mankind our Enemy for deserting Rational Nature assent to their verity otherwise there is no hopes for him to conclude any thing at all while we are at liberty to deny every thing he builds on But alas how far is it from such Talking Disputants even to think of such performances though the necessity of his duty if he pretends to Principles obliges him unavoidably to it Third Examen Sifting the first nine Principles that seem to concern the Nature of Divine Revelation in Common and its several ways AFter these six Principles agreed on follow thirty other Paragraphs or whatever else we may guess it fit to call them and they are introduc'd by this Transition These things being agreed on both sides we are now to inquire into the particular ways which God hath made choice of for revealing his Will to mankind I expected that since Dr. St. had promis'd us to reduce the Faith of Protestants to Principles he would after he had put down the Principles voluntarily agreed to by both sides have pursu'd the Method himself had made choice of and have produc'd next the Principles made use of by him in this particular matter which we are not voluntarily agreed on and either have maintain'd them to be First Principles and so self-evident or else subordinate ones and deriving their Evidence from those First and therefore have shown us their derivation from them or Connection with them This had been a Method becoming a man pretending to ground himself on Principles especially in a discourse where this and this only was pretended for by this means it might as reason requires have been examin'd first whether those Principles had subsisted or no in themselves which if they had then only the Consequences had needed Examination and so the Business of Truth had been quickly decided 2. But instead of this candid and clear and Methodical proceeding thirty odd kind of Sentences Sections Paragraphs or I know not what come hudling in one after another of such uncouth fashions such desperate and disagreeing natures so void of coherence with one another that none knows well what to call them not even Dr. St. himself as appears by the Carriage of the matter Some of them seem deductions from the Principles agreed on Others seem to contain Intire discourses of themselves The Illative particle therefore or its Equivalent which necessarily Ushers in all Conclusions is so rarely heard of here that one would verily think they were all Premisses or Principles but this Conceit is again thwarted because divers of them are meerly Hypothetical Propositions involving sometimes such a condition as never was put others are bare voluntary Assertions and False into the bargain Some few of them pretend modestly to own themselves deductions from some other Paragraphs but yet onely hint it afar off as it were not speak it out plainly as if they fear'd some danger Others pretend to draw a Consequence in their Close not at all following from the part foregoing Lastly the whole mass of them hang together like a rope of â—and for want of declaring their Relation to others and though now and then they counterfeit a semblance of some sleight coherence yet their whole Frame is loose and ill-built for want of an orderly and visible dependance of one part on another Now this odd variety in their Complexions puts an attentive Considerer at some loss what to name them no Apellation fitting the thirty but that which is common to such Quantities of matter or Multitudes of lines whether it be sense or non-sense such as are Paragraphs Sections and such like since their motly nature will neither let us call them Deductions nor Conclusions nor Principles nor Propositions nor Discourses nor Inferences nor Postulatums nor Axioms nor Maxims nor Proofs nor any thing of any such nature and yet all this while the superscription is The Faith of Protestants reduc'd to principles 3. It were not amiss for all that to consider what Dr. St. himself calls them and to hope thence for some better knowledge of their nature than we could attain to by our own Consideration But he is at variance with himself about the point no one common name being capable to fit them all where the things to be named are of so many Parishes or Families All he does as appears by his Transition to make them all taken together amount to an Inquiry into the particular ways which God had made choice of for revealing his Will to mankind I do not by any means like this
Insignificant word Inquiry 'T is so very safe that 't is absolutely Inconfutable Had he said candidly and plainly Here follow the Principles not agreed on voluntarily which therefore I will make Evident that my Adversary's Reason may be forc'd to acknowledg their verity and by that means my discourse proceed and way be made towards some Conclusion he had offer'd me some play for then I might possibly have discover'd the weakness or Inevidence of his Principles or the slackness of his Consequences but now all my Attempts are defeated by this one pretty word Inquiry for though I should hap to confute every line in all the thirty Paragraphs yet still after all this none can deny but he has inquir'd into the Point in hand whether he have produc'd one word to evince it or no Thus Dr. T. in his late Preface got rid of the hardest and mainly concerning passage in Sure-footing by vertue of two insignificant words alledging that he had sufficiently consider'd it in his Rule of Faith which words were perfectly verify'd though as appears in Reason against Raillery Disc. 8th he readily granted all I contended for as to that point Once more I desire our Learned Readers to reflect on the different manner in which I and my Adversaries bear our selves towards one another I candidly avow my Grounds to be Evident Principles my Consequences to be necessary my Arguments to be absolutely Conclusive or demonstrative and by so doing I offer them all the fair play imaginable and trusting to the invincible force of Truth expose my self freely for them to lay hold of my discourse where they see it their best Advantage They on the other side make a show indeed of bringing their Faith to Principles because the very pretence is honorable but when it comes to performance are so far from owning the Principles they proceed on for such that except in those six agreed on which as shall be shown are not one jot influential to the point they are aim'd to evince they not so much as name the word Principle nor vouch any Argument Conclusive or any Consequence to be Necessary much less candidly affirm such in particular to be thus qualifi'd but hide and obscure all these in one dow-bak'd slippery word Inquiry by which means none can tell where to take any sure hold of any part of their Discourse 4. Notwithstanding that Dr. St. is thus shy to name these thirty Paragraphs Principles in regard they are so monstrously unlike those Clear and Evident Truths which use and ought to bear that sacred name yet 't is manifest by his carriage he meant them for such and would have them thought such too for they immediately follow after the six Principles voluntarily agreed on as if they were the other sort of Principles not voluntarily agreed to and all of them antecede his six Conclusions or Sequels which he puts immediately to follow out of them Again the Running Title superscrib'd to them is The Faith of Protestants reduc'd to Principles All which manifests to us beyond Evasion that he makes use of and relies on them as Principles though he be something bashful to call them so directly Wherefore in compliance with his Intention we will for once strain a word to the highest Catachresis that may be and by a strange Antiphrasis call Black White and all these Paragraphs Principles 5. Yet though there be nothing of candid and clear and consonant to any maxims even of Natural Logick in this Discourse yet I must allow that there is as much cunning and slight and Sophistry in it as could well be stufft into so narrow a room Wherefore that I may not be like him I shall openly profess before hand what I undertake viz. to show plainly that he hath not spoke one efficacious word to the purpose he intended that is he has not produc'd any one Principle one Reason one Argument either settling in the least the Faith of Protestants nor unsetling that of Catholicks This will be seen by our Examination of each particular Principle in order and the Answer to them To which I now address 1. An entire Obedience to the Will of God being agreed to be the condition of mans happiness no other way of Revelation is in it self necessary to that end than such whereby man may know what the Will of God is Love of God above all things and of our Neighbour for his sake being the Fulfilling of the Law does by consequence include in it self eminently an Intire Obedience to the Will of God and is agreed to be the Condition of mans Happiness Yet this Love or Charity presupposing Hope and both Hope and Love presupposing Faith as their Basis both of these do by consequence come within the compass of Obeying the Will of God and are in their several manners and according to their several natures Conditions of mans Happiness as I doubt not but all sober Protestants will grant Again Faith being part of our Obedience to the Will of God and so commanded by him and it being against those Attributes of God agreed on by both sides to command Man to act contrary to the right Nature himself had given him and establish'd it Essential to him that is contrary to true Reason Also Faith being a Virtue and so agreeable to right Nature nay more a supernatural Virtue and so perfecting and elevating Right Nature or True Reason not debasing or destroying it it follows from these and many other Reasons alledg'd in Faith Vindicated that this part of our Obedience call'd Faith must be rationabile obsequium a Reasonable Obedience and that our Assent call'd Belief taking it as impos'd by God is conformable to Maxims of Right Reason and that it perfects and not in the least perverts Human Nature But it is directly opposit to Human Nature as given us by God or to Right Reason to assent and profess that Points of Faith are True as the Nature of Christianity settled by our Saviour enjoyns us in case we are to rely solely on the Divine Authority for the formal Motive of this our believing or holding them such and yet when we come to doubt concerning their Truth cannot possibly arrive to see any Grounds absolutely Certain that the Divine Authority is indeed engag'd for the Truth of the said Points Also 't is quite opposite to Human Nature to love Heaven above all things in case there be not Grounds absolutely certain that God has told us there is such a thing as Heaven or such a Blissful state attaiâ—â—ble by us in the sight of Him wherefore when Dr. St. says no other way of Revelation is in it self necessary to this end or to the Entire Obedience to Gods Will than such whereby man may know what the Will of God is we are to mean by the word know that at least the governing part of Gods Church or Ecclesia docens may be absolutly-certain that the Points of Faith the assenting to and professing which
God may make known his will to us either by Immediate voice from Heaven or inward Inspiration to every particular person or inspiring some to speak personally to others or assisting them with an Infallible Spirit in Writing such Books which shall contain the Will of God for the benefit of distant persons and future Ages All this is granted and much more for there are innumerable other ways conceivable how God may make known his Will to us besides those here recounted in case we regard only Gods Power to do it and set aside his Wisdome and other Attributes namely those four ways mention'd by me above and multitudes of other such But out of all these Gods Wisdome which has pre-establish'd the nature of all things will make choice of That which is fittest to perform the Effect intended that is to certifie absolutely the first deliver'd Faith to us who live now And left it should be too early understood which Way is best for that End which would forestall and render void Dr. St's future discourses he therefore very politickly quite leaves out any peculiar mention of our Rule of Faith which one might have thought deserv'd a place amongst the rest Leaves out I say for those words or inspiring some to speak personally to others sute better with Prophetical Messengers than with the Tradition of Gods Church Wherefore premising this Note that it is agreed Christ and his Apostles taught and settled the whole Body of Faith at first and therefore that there needs no more for us to know Gods Will now but to find out what is the best means of conveying the same down to our days I beg leave to supply Dr. St's neglects and to insert into the middle of this § these words or else by the way of open Attestation of a world of Immediate Christian Fathers to a world of Children by living voice and constant practice of what they had learn'd by their daily sensations which had Dr. St. done any considerate Reader whom his much talking of Gods Power and what God may do had not diverted from reflecting that his Wisdom determins his Power in ordinary and General Effects to do what accorâ—ing to the establish'd natures of things is the fittest means to compass such an end would quickly have inclin'd to judge this the most connatural and fittest way and therefore actually to have been made choice of by God being assisted or supported by the basis of Human Nature according to its Sensations which are naturally fram'd to receive right Impressions and according to his Rational Faculty which determins him to speak Truth still in open and undisguisable matters of Fact and if that Body of men call'd the Church had any effectual means of Goodness in practice amongst them super-assisted also by Grace not to vâ—ry from right Faith and knowingly deliver a False for a True one And thus ends the first Division of Dr. St's Discourse promising to reduce the Faith of Protestants to Principles In which I observe but a few things even hinted that can make for his purpose and not so much as any one of them prov'd but either slightly and slily insinuated or dexterously brought in not by Connexion of Terms far be any such piece of Confidence from so Learned and profound a Jeerer at Demonstration but by the virtue of some pretty Equivocation I remind the Reader of the chief of them by putting some of my opposite Propositions each of which is made good in its respective place 1. An Entire Obedience to the Will of God is principally performed by a heartily-assenting Faith a Lively Hope and an Ardent Charity and not by outward actions otherwise than as they spring from these therefore the way of Gods revealing his Will to us or the Rule of Faith which grounds these must be absolutely-certain or Impossible to be False 2. The Nature of the Mysteries or Points of Faith are more remov'd from our knowledge than those Maxims which assure us that God reveal'd them therefore 't is not proper to begin with examining those Points but the Grounds for Gods revealing them 3. This way of proceeding is perfectly secure for the Divine Authority being granted veracious if there be Infallible Grounds that God has said them those Points are Infallibly True If not they are not Points of â—aith and so not worth examining whether they be True or no. 4. Gods Power alone gives us no Light what is or is not the Rule of Faith but his Wisdom Goodness c. joyn'd with the Knowledge of the Fitness or Vnfitness of the Thing pretended to be so 5. Gods Wisdome makes choice of that way to reveal his Will to the Generality of Mankind which according to its nature as now establish'd is a capable or fit Instrument to such an Effect and not by that way which is only capable to do it by an extraordinary working of his Power These may serve for Antidotes to the opposite Positions if he thinks fit to own them For though he is able to deliver himself as clearly as most men if he pleases yet he affects all over this discourse a strange perplext Intricacy and Ambiguity and he puts down his Principles in the same manner as a crafty Lawyer who had a mind to bring an Estate afterwards into dispute pens Writings Much shifting wit there is in them but nothing of candid clear and down right And this Intricacy is made greater by his unconnected way of discoursing no man living being able to discern in better half of his odd-natur'd Principles what influence they have either Immediate or Mediate upon any thing following The rest of what is contain'd in these nine are either Absurdities already laid open or else Impertinent Truths as will be seen by their uselesness in the Process of this Discourse A Discourse CONCERNING The Rule of Faith Necessary to the better clearing the following Principles THe several Ways of Revealing at least as many as Dr. St thought fit being propos'd he goes about in the next place to establish one of them viz. Writing to have been intended by God to be the Rule of Faith or the fittest means to ascertain Faith to us who live now and this he does in the first five Principles Whence he proceeds to reject the Infallibility of any Church whatever either to attest or explain those Writings and this he attempts to prove in the five â—exâ— On this occasion it were not amiss to declare before hand what I mean by Rule of Faith or rather to repeat something of that much I have writ formerly concerning that point in my Second Appendix to Sure-footing and elsewhere that so all equivocation being taken away it may more clearly be seen where the Point sticks on Dr. St's side as also that his understanding me to have different sentiments from some Catholick Divines in this matter may be remov'd for if I understand my self or them there is no variance at all between us in the Thing but
he can go to work more Logically and exactly in finding out the true nature and notion of a Rule and show me I take it improperly I shall heartily thank him and acknowledge my mistake But I never yet discern'd any such Attempt nor do I see any reason to fear any such performance And I much doubt should any Catholick Divine out of a Charitable Intention of Union which I shall ever commend and heartily approve trusting to the Equivocalness of the word say Scripture is the Rule or a Rule I much doubt I say that when the thing comes to be examin'd to the bottom it will scarce tend to any solid good for however Words may bend yet the true Grounds of Catholick Faith are Inflexible and we must take heed lest while we yield them the Word they expect not as they may justly having such occasion that we should grant the Thing properly signify'd by that Word which if they do we must either recede or else forgo Catholick Grounds But now the difference between me and Dr. St's party is in the very Thing it self and this as wide as Contradiction can distance us For Dr. T. whom he still abetts makes it possible that he has neither True Letter nor True sense of Scripture that is makes his Rule of Faith and consequently his Faith built solely on It possible to be False And all that go that Way fall unavoidably into that precipice while they admit no Grounds but what are Fallible as I have shown at large in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery Whereas I still bear up to the Impossibility that Christian Faith should be a Ly and consequently I maintain that the Rule of Faith which engages the Divine Authority on which its Truth solely depends and without engaging which it might be all False must be Impossible to be False or Infallibly certain And hence taking my rise from the Nature of Faith in which all Protestants and indeed all that have the name of Christians except some few speculators agree with me viz. that taking it as built on those Motives left by God for his Church to embrace Faith that is taking it as it ought to be taken 't is above Opinion and Impossible to be False hence I say building on this mutual Agreement I pursue a solid Union which I declare my self most heartily to zeal Hoping that this point once distinctly clear'd against the Sophisms and blinding Crafts of some weak Heterodox Writers it will quickly appear that 't is every mans Concern who is of Capacity to look after such Grounds that the Divine Authority on which the Truth of all Faith depends is engag'd for the Points he holds as are absolutely Certain or Impossible to be False And I make account that were this quest heartily pursu'd it would quickly appear both by others Confessing the possible Falsehood of theirs as also by inforcing Reasons nay by Dr. Tillitsons yielding to the sufficiency of this Rule even when he was to impugn it that nothing but Tradition or the Testimony of the Church can be such a Ground Perhaps also it might be shown that both more learned and more sober Protestant Authors have own'd the admitting Tradition and a reliance on the Churches Authority for their Faith and for the true sense of Scripture in order to the attaining true Faith than those are who have maintain'd this private-spirited way so zealously advanc'd by Dr. St. of leaving it to be interpreted by every vulgar head to the utter destruction of Church and Church-Government This is and shall be my way of endeavouring Vnion which beginning at the bottom and with our mutual Agreement in so main a point that it bears all along with it viz. the Absolute Certainty of Faith is hopeful to be solid and well built and so Effectual if it please God to inspire some Eminent and Good Men to pursue home a Principle which themselves have already heartily embrac'd If not I have this satisfaction that I have done a due right and honor to Christian Faith and given it that advantage by asserting its perfect security from error as Gods Grace assisting is apt to make it work more efficaciously both interiourly and exteriourly in those who already possess it Fourth Examen Sifting the the ten following Principles concerning the Letter-Rule and Living Rule of Faith THe right nature of the Rule of Faith being thus stated 't is high time to address to our Examen how Dr. St. from Principles settles us such a Rule beginning from his tenth 10. If the Will of God cannot be sufficiently declar'd to men by Writing it must either be because no Writing can be Intelligible enough for that end or that it can never be known to be written by men Infallibly assisted The former is repugnant to common sense for words are equally capable of being understood spoken or written the later overthrows the possibility of the Scriptures being known to be the word of God I have already said and in divers books manifoldly prov'd that no declaration of God's will or which is all one in our case no Rule of Faith is sufficient conâ—â—dering the Nature and Ends of Faith 〈◊〉 obligations arising from it but 〈…〉 to be false and built on Infallible Grounds This premised we are to inquire whether Writing be the best Way for thus assuring it in all Ages to the end of the world To come then closer to our Answer We are first to reflect again what Dr. St. means by the Will of God at least what he ought to mean by it For these words at the first sight seem to signifie onely some External Actions commanded by God to be performed or avoided and it is the Dr's Interest they should be taken onely in this sense for such a will is more easie to be signifi'd by Writing than some other things of a more abstruse spiritual and dogmatical nature which yet are of absolute Necessity to be believ'd by the Church such as are the points of the Trinity Incarnation and Godhead of Christ who dy'd for us since then Gods Will extends not only to aim at Mankinds Attainment of his Last End or True Happiness but also to provide for the best means to it or to give us knowledg of those Motives which are apt to create in man a hearty Love of Heaven above all things the best Condition of Mans Happiness or Immediate disposition to it it follows that the holding all those Tenets which contain in themselves such Motives do all come within the compass of the Will of God To omit many others I will instance in two Points of main Concern and Influence towards Christian Life namely the Godhead of Christ and the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament Now who sees not how wonderful an Ascendent both these if verify'd must needs have over Christian hearts Can any Amulet of Love be so charming or apt to elevate to the Love of God above all things as
the Church may in the Grounds of their Faith if Infallibility be denied Or lastly how will their Evidence be Clear if the nature of Mâ—ral Things will not bear so clear an Evidence or afford us so much light of themselves as by it to conclude absolutely the Thing is so as when it comes to the point I foresee both these profound Admirers of Morall Certainty will heartily maintain and Dr. T. in his Prefaâ—e to his Sermons p. 29. in express terms blames me for expecting in the Grounds of Faith And whereas he says 't is absurd to say that thâ—se who are Certain of what they believe may at the same time not know but it may be False I grant it absurd nay more I affirm that in case they be truly Certain that is in case their Certainty be taken from the Thing or Object then not only they may not knâ—w at the same time but it may be False but not at any time ever afterwards unless the thing it self hap to be in that regard Alterable For true Certainty is built on the thing 's being as it is and nothing can ever be truly known to be otherwise than it is But if he takes Certainty in a wrong sense for a Firm Assent to a Thing as True however that Assent be grounded then though upon supposition he firmly Assents he cannot at the very same time be shaken in that Assent or not firmly Assent yet he is far in that case from any Knowledge or Intellectual Certainty one way or other because he regards not the Thing or Object whence only true Knowledge can be had whatever he deems or imagines concerning the truth of that which he firmly assents to Laâ—tly these Excuses are quite besides the purposex I never accused their thoughts They are beyond the reach of my sight but their Discourse and Writings I can see and discover that they make Faith possible to oâ— False as I have shown at large in Reason against Raâ—llâ—ry I meddle not then with what they assent to or whether or no they can or do hold the contrary what I objected was that their words in their books imported the possible Falshood of Faith for which they yet owe satisâ—action to all Christians for the common Injury done to Faith and as yet they have given none at all 26. Whatever necessarily proves a thing to be true does at the same time prâ—ve it Impâ—ssible to be False because 't is Impossible the same thing should be True and False at the same time Therefore they who assent firmly to the Doctrin of the Gospel as true do thereby declare their belief of the Impossibility of the Falshood of it The first part I easily grant and the reason for it to be most valid And for the same reason I expect he will in counterchange grant me this Proposition that whatever words say prove or imply a thing possible to be False do at the same time say prove or imply that 't is not necessarily true And then Dr. T. must consider how he will avoid the force of it who makes Scripture the sole Rule of Faith or the only means for Mankind to be assur'd of their Faith and yet Rule of Faith p. 118. professes that both the Letter and Sense of it are possible to be otherwise than the Protestants take them to be which in case they take their sense of Scripture or Faith to be True must mean possible to be otherwise than True that is possible to be False Whether his own contrary Positions hang together or no is not my Concern As for his Inference I deny that assenting being an Interiour Act is declaring ones belief But I suppose he meant it thus Therefore they who declare they assent firmly to the doctrin of the Gospel as True do thereby declare their belief of the Impossibility of the Falshood of it and thus this is readily also granted only in requital I expect he should for I am sure he must grant me this counter-proposition that therefore they who declare their belief of the possibility of Falshâ—od in Faith and it's Grounds or of the Letter and Sense of the Gospel do thereby declare they do not assent firmly to the doctrin of the Gospel as true Which done let Dr. St. and his Friend look to the Consequences of it It lies still very heavy upon their Credit as Writers and ever must till they retract it No sincere Protestant who loves his Faith more then their Writings will ever be brought to endure it if he once set himself seriously to consider it 27. The Nature of Certainty doth receive several Names either according to the nature of the proof or the degrees of the Assent Thus Moral Certainty may be so called either as it is opposed to Mathematical Evidence but implying a firm Assent upon the highest Evidence that Moral things can receive Or as it is opposed to higher degrees of Certainty in the same kind So Moral Certainty implyes only greater Probabilities of one side than the other In the former sense we assert the Certainty of Christian Faith to be moral but not only in the latter This Principle is pernicious to Human Nature as well as to Faith and destructive to all Principles in the world that are true ones and not like it self First it designs to give us the several Names which the nature of Certainty doth receive but it does indeed acquaint us with some species or kinds of Certainty unless he will say that the moral Certainty he assignes to Faith is of the same kind with Probability which I perceive he is loath to own Next to what purpose is it to discourse of one or more sorts of Certainty or to distinguish it's Notion unless we firâ—t knew the Common notion of Certainty it self The word Moral which is one of it's Differences and chiefly intended to be explained here is hard enough of it self alone but when to this shall be added a new difficulty of not knowing what Certainty which is the Genus means we are like to make a wise business of it Now all the Knowledge we have hitherto gain'd of Certainty in a discourse purposely intended to make us underâ—tand the Certainty of Faith is this that 't is a firm Assent to a thing as true and that there may be a Fallible Certainty both manifestly imply'd in his discourse where all that we can gather of the Nature of Certainty by the former is that perhaps 't is a fixing or resting in some Tenet without any ground and by the later that 't is a Chimaera or Nonsense Thirdly he distinguishes Certainty according to the nature of the Proof or the degree of the Assent but I vehemently deny it as the most absurd Position imaginable that there can be any kind of Certainty taken from the degrees â—f the Assent in contradistinction to the nature of the Proof for this would make as if the Subject's or person's assenting more or less did constitute
Certainty we have of all that concerns it ought by consequence be better grounded and firmer then any or all it's superstructures Also 't is ill Divinity to counterpâ—se matters of Faith to the Means to keep men from sin in their lives since Matters of Faith or Christ's doctrin is the very best of those Means or to pretend that Errours in Opinion I suppose he means in Faith that being the point are not more dangerous to mens Souls than a vicious life for this supposes Faith no part of a Christian Life nor Infidelily Heresy Iudaism or Turcism to be vices which by consequence degrades Christian Faith from being a virtue contrary to the Sentiment of all Christianity since the beginning of the Church I shall hope from any impartial and Intelligent Reader who is a Christian that he will acknowledge these Posiâ—ions of mine bear a clear Evidence either in theâ— sâ—lves or in their Prâ—ofs and consequently that the opposite ones advanc't either Explicitely or Implicitly by Dr. St. are both Obscure and which is worse Vntrue The Total Account of Dr. St's Principles THus have I spoken distinctly and fully to Dr. St's Principles It were not amiss to sum up their merits in brief and give a short character of them that so it may be seen how infinitly short they fall of deserving so Honorable a Name But first we are to speak a word or two to the Principles agreed on by both sides of which the First and Third are great Truths and the word God and Obedience due to God now then barely nam'd but no kind of Conclusions are drawn from those two particular Propositions influential to the End intended viz. to reduce the Faith of the Protestants to Principles whence though they are most Certain Truths yet as standing here they are no Principles The 2d and 4th which concern God's Attributes are not at all us'd neither For he cannot use them alone to evince Scripture's Letter is the Rule unless he first prove that Scripture's Letter is the fittest for that End and that therefore it become Gods's Attributes to chuse it which he no where does and whereas he would argue thus Princ. 7. God hath chosen it for a Rule therefore 't is agreeable to his Attributes 't is both Frivolous because all is already concluded between us if he proves God has chosen Scripture for that end for then 't is granted by all it must be agreeable to his Attributes and also Preposterous for he makes that the Conclusion which should be in case he argu'd from God's Attributes the Principle For his Argument ought in that case to run thus Gods Wisdom and Goodness has chosen that for a Rule which is wisest and best to be chosen but Scriptures Letter is such therefore he has chosen it for a Rule The 4th and 5th are either never made use of by him as Principles or else they make directly against himself For Fallible Certainty only which having discarded that which is Infallible he sustains can never make any one know what is God's will This is an ill beginning and a very slender Success hitherto let us see next whether he has better luck with his own Principles The first taking the words literally and Properly as they ought to be taken in Principles is against himself for he confesses there that such a way of Revelation is in it self neccessary to our Intire Obedience to God's will as may make us know what the will of God is but common sense tells us that Fallible Certainty which only having rejected Infallible Certainty he can maintain is farr from making us Know This Principle therefore is either against himself or if he means to go less by the word Know than what is apt absolutely and truly to ascertain 't is nothing to his purpose for so it can only settle Opinion and not Faith The second is Useless Impertinent and in part False The Third is False and Impertinent to boot The Fourth is Ambiguous and taken in that sense when distinguish't which he seems to aym at 't is absolutely False The 5th is Absurâ—d Preposterous and against all Art in putting us to argue from what 's less known to what 's more known and withal totally False The 6th is Sophiâ—tically Ambiguous and in great part False The 7th builds on a groundless pretence and contains a notorious 〈…〉 The 8th is to no purpose or sinâ—â— as appears in the Process of his discourse he means by the words Certainly and Know only Fallible Certainty which is none at all he cannot possibly advance by such a discourse towards the settling us a Certain Rule of Faith Besides he either supposes Scripture as it now stands Sufficient which is to beg the Question or else he confounds God's Ordinary Power working with the Causes now on foot in the world which only concern'd the present point with his Extraordinary or what he can possibly effect by his Divine Omnipitence The 9th only Enumerates the several ways how God may be conceiv'd to make known his will and in doing so either minces or else quite leaves out the Tradition of Gods Church as if it were Vnconceivable God should speak to men by their Lawfull Pastors in the Church whereas yet himself must confess that in the beginning of the Church Faith either was signify'd and certify'd by that or no way The 10th goes upon a False Supposition and includes two Fallaces call'd by Logicians non causa pro causa or assigning a wrong Cause and omitting the True one Also 't is in part False in saying words are equally oapable of being understood spoken or written and lastly it confounds again God's Ordinary Power with his Extraordinary The 11th makes account there is no benefit of Divine Writings but in being the Rule of Faith which is against Common sense and daily Experience The 12th comes home to the point but 't is perfectly Groundless Unprov'd False and as full of Absurdities of severall sorts as it can well â—old The 13th begins with a False Position proceeds with a False and unprov'd Supposition and endeavours to induce a most Extravagant Conclusion only from Premisses granted kindly by himself to himself without the least Proof The 14tb contains three False and unprov'd Suppositions viz. that God promis't his Church to deliver his whole will in Writings or that the Writers of Scripture had any order from God to write his whole will explicitly or that the primitive Church beleev'd it to have such a perfection as to signify without needing the Church all saving Truth to every sincere Reader with such a Certainty as is requisit to Faith The 15th begins again with a False and unprov'd Supposition and draws thence a consequence not contain'd in the Proof and in part against the interest of his own Tenet and Lastly brings in confirmation of it an Instance which makes against himself The 16th putts upon Catholicks a Tenet they never held and is wholly False Irrational and Absurd assuming