discover'd to me that I could not bestow my pains better on any subject than in making known what was the Right Rule of Faith and evidencing to men Capable of Evidence out of the Nature of the Thing in hand that It had indeed the qualities proper to a Rule of Faith that is Virtue or Power to acquaint us that live now without the least danger of Errour what Christ and his Apostles taught at first To this end I shew'd first in Sure-footing that the Letter of Scripture had not this Virtue and by consequence could not be the Rule intended and left us by Christ. Many Arguments I us'd from p. 1. to p. 41. though these two short Discourses are sufficient to evince the point to any who is not before-hand resolv'd he will not be convinc'd First that that can never be a Rule or Way to Faith which many follow to their power yet are misled and this in most Fundamental Points as we experience in the Socinians and others For I see not how it can consist with Charity or even with Humanity to think that none amongst the Socinians or other erring Sects endeavour to find out the true sence of Scripture as far as they are able nor how it can be made out that all without exception either wilfully or negligently pervert it and yet unless it be shewn rational to believe this it can never be rational to believe that the Letter of Scripture as useful and as excellent as it is in other respects is the Rule of Faith for if They be not all wanting to themselves and their Rule 't is unavoidable that their Rule is wanting to them Next They who affirm the Letter is the Rule must either say that the bare Letter as it lies antecedently to and abstracting from all Interpretation whatsoever is the Rule and this cannot be with any sence maintained for so God must be held to have Hands Feet Passions c. Or else that the Letter alone is not sufficient to give as Assurance of Gods sence in Dogmatical Points of high concern as the Trinity Incarnation c. without the Assistance of some Interpretation and to say this is to say as expresly as can be said that the Letter of Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith since it gives not the Certain Sence of Christ without that Interpretation adjoyned Nay more since 't is the nature of Interpretation to give the Sence of words and the nature of the Rule of Faith to give us the Sence of Christ this Interpretation manifestly is the Rule of Faith and the Revelation to us who live now of what is Christs Doctrine I know it is sometimes said that the Letter may be interpreted by it self a clear place affording light to one more obscure but taking the Letter as Antecedent to all Interpretation as in this case it ought I can see no reason for this Pretence For let us take two such places e. g. It repented God that he had made man and God is not as man that he should repent abstract from all interpretation and let him tell me that can of the two places taken alone which is the clear and which is the obscure one Atheists will be apt to take such pretences to reject the Scripture and impiously accuse it of Contradiction but how that method can assist a sincere man who hopes by the meer Letter to find his Faith and hinder the Obscure place from darkning the Clear place as much as the Clear one enlightens the Obscure one I understand not In fine It exposes a man to the Scandal and Temptation of thinking there is no Truth in Scripture but Absolute assurance of Truth it gives no man Besides the former of the Reasons Lately given returns again For the Socinians compare place to place as well as others other Sects do so too and yet all err and some in most fundamental Points Wherefore it must be either presum'd they all err wilfully or the Way cannot be presumed a Right Way Farther it may be ask'd when one pitches upon a determinate sence of any place beyond what the Letter inforces by what light he guides himself in that determination and then shewn that that Light whatever it is and not the Letter is indeed the Formal Revealer or Rule of Faith Much more might be said on this occasion but my business now is to state my Case not to plead it The Letter Rule secluded I advanc'd to prove that Tradition or that Body call'd the Church which Christ by himself and his Apostles constituted taken as delivering her thoughts by a constant Tenor of living Voice and Practise visible to the whole World is the absolutely-certain way of conveying down the Doctrine taught at first from Age to Age nay Year to Year and so to our time which is in other Terms to say that Pastors and Fathers and the conversant Faithful by discoursing preaching teaching and catechising and living and practising could from the very first and so all along better and more certainly make their thoughts or Christs Doctrine be understood by those whom they instruct than a Book which lies before them and cannot accommodate it self to the arising Difficulties of the Reader I am not here to repeat my Reasons they are contain'd in my Book which I called Sure footing in Christianity And because I observ'd our improving Age had in this last half Century exceedingly ripen'd and advanc'd in manly Reason straining towards Perfect Satisfaction and unwillingly resting on any thing in which appear'd a possibility to be otherwise or to express the same in other words bent their thoughts and hopeful endeavours to perfect Science I endeavoured in that Treatise rigorously to pursue the way of Science both in disproving the letter-Letter-Rule and proving the Living Rule of Faith beginning with some plain Attributes belonging to the natures of Rule and Faith and building my whole discourse upon them with care not to swerve from them in the least And being conscious to my self that I had as I proposed to do closely held to the natures of the Things in hand I had good reason to hold my first five Discourses demonstrative which is all I needed have done as appears p. 57 and 58. the rest that follow'd being added ex abundanti and exprest by me An endeavour to demonstrate as by the Titles of the Sixth and Eighth Discourse is manifest though I do not perceive by the opposition of my Answerers why I should not have better thoughts of them than at first I pretended This is the matter of Fact concerning that Book as far as it related to me and a true account why I writ on that Subject and in that manner What thoughts I had of its usefulness and hopes it might prove serviceable towards composing the differences in Religion of which the World has so long complained though from the long and deep meditation I must necessarily have made upon those Principles I may reasonably be judg'd to
and so we may call them Moral Christians which Epithet being opposite to Absolute signifies they are not absolutely Christians and since nothing is indeed that which 't is not absolutely it 's true sence is that they are indeed no Christians yet since they like the word Moral so extremely well when they are to express the certainty due to Faith 't is but fitting they should wear it when we express them as Faithful Though then The Hopeful seems very well to represent their humour yet 't is but fitting they should have the Priviledge of naming themselves and Moral Christians let them be Against these Moral Christians and Them onely I discourse in this present Treatise But what have I to do with the Persons I doubt not but Gods Goodness the Method of whose Gracious Providence is to support the Failings of his Creatures as far as the Natures of Particular Things and the Order of the World will permit very often supplies the Defects of Mens Speculations with Connatural ways of Knowledge fixing them thus in a strong Adherence to the most Concerning Truths by ways which even their unreflecting selves are not aware of Whence I am the farthest from judging any Mans Person perhaps of any living and endeavour all I can to retain a Charitable Opinion even of Dr. T's Personal Intentions in common and excuse him diverse times in this very Treatise where I write against him as far as Evidence of the contrary will give me leave 'T is this wicked Tenet then and It onely which I combat at present and which I see plainly so unsettles unhinges and renders useless and ineffectual all Christianity that I ought to declare an utter and irreconcileable Enmity against It and that I shall through GOD's Assistance prosecute it home to the very doors of Scepticism the Bane of all Humane Science as well as Faith in whose gloomy Grott situate in the Confines of dark Ignorance Mankind's Natural Hell they first saw the twilight or rather indeed were born blind Yet it cannot be expected that declaring as I do a just Indignation against this wicked Tenet I should treat a Writer favourably considering him precisely as a Maintainer of it or bear my self respectfully to those insincere and unhandsome Methods and Ways which he makes use of to abet It and prejudice the Sacred Truth it opposes whether those ways be Sophisms in Reasoning or else Scurrility supplying the place of Reason the main Engine employ'd in this Preface I shall then take a little of that much liberty he uses to give them the Entertainment and Return due in Iustice to their Demerits Yet that I may avoid all just occasion of offence I shall endeavour for the most part to use his own words omitting still the rudest hoping he will have less Reason to be angry at his own Eccho since if he had not Originiz'd it it had not reflected And if he assum'd to himself the freedom to abound so with Irony and wholly neglect speaking to my Reasons of which whatever they be none can deny but that I use to have good store in my Writings I hope it will not be indecent if now and then I speak to those plausible Ironies themselves there being nothing else to refute otherwise since according to Dr. T's Method of Disputing these are my onely Confuters and full of Brag and Triumph he and his Friends would most certainly have pretended as they did formerly on the like occasion that Inability to reply had caus'd my desistance I come then to examine this spruce Preface in doing which I must be forc'd to lay open at large his knack of answering Books that so I may have just Title to make some Requests to You our Umpires in behalf of the Rights proper to Learning Declaring before-hand that where-ever I am large in any Discourse becoming a Scholar 't is not a Duty paid to his Preface which has nothing like a show of solid Scholarship in it but a Respect due to You our Learned Iudges to whom I Appeal INDEX ASsent Dissent and Suspense pag. 81 82 c. Catholick Divines vindicated p. 18 179. Certainty of Scriptures Letter and Sense deny'd by Dr. T. p. 120 121 151. asserted by J. S. p. 121 122. Definitions of General Councils why necessary p. 181 182. Demonstration p. 41 42 43 119 120 174. found in Ethicks and Physicks p. 57. to 63. First Principles Identical Propositions p. 7. to 41. Dr. T 's Firm Principle shown weak p. 71 72 c. Freedom from doubt not sufficient for Faith p. 84. to 94. p. 124. to 128. Infallibility asserted p. 64. to 67.112 to 116. requisite to Assent and Faith p. 68 69. In what sence it admits of degrees p. 138. to â— 141. Unlearned Believers how Infallible p. 134 135 136 181. Moral Certainty p. 141. to 147. Objections from Catholick Divines refuted p. 175. to 179. Practical Self-evidence p. 4 5 6 116 117. Prudential Grounds incompetent for Faith p. 142 to 146. Scriptures Letter no Rule Pref. p. 5 6 7.199 200. Tradition the Rule of Faith p. 32 33 183. Granted to be such by Dr. T. p. 192. to p. 200. Held by other Catholick Divines in J. S. his sense p. 212. to 216. Explained p. 202. to 212. It s Certainty how a First Principle and Self-evident p. 3 4. A Full Answer to Dr. T's Preface with an Examination of his Grounds of Religion DISCOURSE I. Clearing the way to the following ones by manifesting his two Fundamental Exceptions to be perfectly Injust and voluntarily Insincere § 1. HIs Preface begins p. 3. with two Charges viz. That I still persist to maintain after so fair an Admonition that first and self evident Principles are fit to be demonstrated to which he addes a Third that I make Identical Propositions to be First Principles in the matter under dispute He argues too against the two former imaginary Assertions of mine which in this Preface is a rare thing thus p. 37. There can be nothing to make First Principles more Evident because there is nothing before them to demonstrate them by And I acknowledge the reason given to be as victorious as any passage in his Rule of Faith where he has multitudes of such wrong-aim'd Arguments intended I conceive to shew how far his Reason can carry when it shoots at rovers for 't is levell'd at no mark But observe I beseech you Gentlemen how I am dealt with and let these two leading Cases discovering his way of Confute obtain a just suspence of your Judgments concerning all his other performances till you see them examined § 2. In Sure footing p. 114. 2d Edit which I stâ—ll quote I deduc'd two Propositions the former that Tradition is the First Principle IN WAY OF AVTHORITY as it engages for matter of Fact long ago past or as in other places I therefore name it FIRST AUTHORITY because 't is manifest that the Authentication of Books and Monuments all depend upon Tradition The other was
side he who discourses ill violates the nature of the Thing and runs into contradictions absurdities and what means violating the nature of the Thing or speaking contradiction but the making the Thing not be what it is and so falsifying by his discourse that Principle which was diametrically opposite in this circumstance to the Contradiction he sustain'd which was that Things being what it is For example Dr. T. puts Scripture's Letter to be a Rule of Faith and yet unless he will be strangely uncharitable must grant convinc'd by experience in the Socinians and others that many follow it to their power and yet judge not right concerning what 's True Faith what not which destroyes the nature of a Rule or makes a Rule not to be a Rule contrary to the very First Principle in that affair For he puts it to be a Rule ex suppositâ—one and yet puts it to be no Rule because the Followers of it to their power are misled which argues there being in this case no fault in Them the want of a Regulative Virtue in It and that 't is no Rule § 11. Hence is easily understood what use is to be made of the very First Principles viz. not to make that which is the First Principle in such an affair one of the Premisses in a Syllogism much less to make that one single Identical Proposition both the Premisses or two Propositions as our shallow Logician in his wild rant of Drollery would perswade the Reader But the very First Principles have a far more Soveraign Influence over the Discourse than any of those Particular Propositions decisively as it were abetting or dis-approving the Whole 'T is therefore to stand fixt in the mind of the Discourser and be heedfully attended to so to give a steadiness to all his ratiocination 'T is its office to be the Test or Touchstone of Truth and Falshood or a Rule which is a Measure of what 's Right what crooked oblique or deviating from true nature If in Dispute one hold firmly to that it authenticates his Discourse to be the solid Gold of Truth If any plausible Talk make a mock-show of Connexion or Truth it discovers the cheat showing by its own most Evident Connexion the unconnectedness or loosness of the others empty Babble and demonstrates it to be the meer Dross of Falshood how fair soever it appear to the Eye at first and how prettily soever it be superficially gilded with sophisticate Rhetorick or other artificial Tricks of counterfeit Truth 'T is like an immoveable Basis that sustains all the Superstructures of Truth though it self rise not above its own firm level or like a Rock which by its rigid hardness dashes asunder into Contradiction and Folly the ill-coherent and weak Productions of Witty Ignorance No wonder then Dr. T. abuses so the First Principles as good for nothing for he perceives them dispos'd to abuse him by shewing all his Discourses to be nothing but well-clad Nonsence and though his way of Discourse or his Cause not bearing it he cannot work with them yet if I be not much mistaken they will make work with him ere it be long But to return to our Instances § 12. Faith meaning by it a Believing upon Motives left by God in his Church to light Mankind to his Truth as I exprest my self in my Preface to Faith vindicated and elsewhere is an Assent Impossible to be False and this is found in its Definition as its Difference essentially distinguishing it from Opinion which is possible to be False and is prov'd by more than forty Demonstrations in Faith Vindicated not one of which has yet been in the least reply'd to Wherefore being a direct part of the Definition it engages that First Verity on which the Definition it self is grounded that is if Faith be not Impossible to be False Faith is not Faith Wherefore Dr. T. who for all his shuffling makes Faith thus understood possible to be False is convinc't to clash with that self-evident Identical Proposition by making Faith to be not Faith and if the pretended Demonstrations in Faith Vindicated or any of them stand he and his Friend Dr. St. if they truly say what they think are as certainly concluded to be none of the Faithful as 't is that Faith is Faith § 13. Also Tradition being a delivery of the Faith and Sence of immediate Forefathers to their Children or to those of the next Age by Living Voice and Practice that is by Câ—techising Preaching Conversing Practising and all the ways thâ—t can be possibly found in Education it follows that if Mankind cannot express what they have in their thoughts to others at long run as we use to say so as to make Generality at least the wisest understand them we have lost Mankind since to do this requires little more than Eyes Ears Power of Speaking and Common Sence Wherefore let this way of Tradition be follow'd and it will convey the first-taught Faith or the Doctrine of the First Christians that is True Faith to the end of the World Therefore it hath in it all that belongs intrinsecally to the Rule of Faith that is if men be not wanting to themselves but follow it to their power it will infallibly derive down the First that is Right Faâ—th Since then every thing is what it is by its having such a nature in it Tradition having in it the nature of a Rule is indeed a Rule Wherefore he who denies that Tradition has in it the nature of a Rule denies by consequence that Mankind is Mankind and he who denies It having in it all that is requisite to the nature of a Rule to be a Rule denies by consequence a Rule to be a Rule § 14 My last Instance showing withal more amply the Use of First Principles shall be of that Identical Proposition which grounds the whole nature of Discourse and 't is this The same is the same with it self Which is thus made use of The Copula is expresses the Identity or as we may say the sameness of the Subject and Predicate which it connects and 't is the aim of Reason to prove these two Terms identify'd in the Concsusion or which is all one that that Proposition we call the Conclusion is True But how shall this be prov'd A Third Term is sought for which is the same with those Two others and thence ' tâ—s evinc'd that those two are the same with one another in the Conclusion and why Because otherwise that Third Term would not be the same with its own self or be what it is if it were truly the same thing with two others and yet those two were not the same thing with one another but it would have Division in its very nature or not be its self being in that case distracted into more essential natures that is being Chimerical and consequently two Things according to one of which 't is the same with one of those Terms according to the other the
virtue of the plain Evidence of this one Paradox to overthrow the Certainty of Tradition nay the Certainty of all Natural Sciences to boot for these according to him are solely built upon Induction which depends on Sensations and These if we may trust him are all possible to be deceiv'd § 19. And is not Faith it self by these Grounds left in the same pickle It s Rule whether it be Tradition or Scriptures Letter evidently depends upon Humane Authority and this says he is all Fallible and what 's built on a Fallible Authority says Common Sence may possibly be an Errour or False therefore 't is most unavoidable from his Principles that all Faith may Possibly be False however the shame of owning so Unchristian and half-Atheistical a Tenet makes him very stifly and angrily deny the Conclusion but he shall never show why 't is not a most necessary and genuine Consequence from his Position of all Humane Authority being Fallible I expect that instead of a direct Answer to the force of my Argument he will tinkle a little Rhetorick against my Conclusion or start aside to a Logical Possibility that men may be deceiv'd and affirm that 't is not a Contradiction in Terms and so may be effected by the Divine Omnipotence But that 's not our point We are discoursing what will follow out of the ordinary Course of Causes the Conduct of which is the work of the Worlds all-wise Governour whence if those Portions of Nature or Mankind cannot be deceiv'd without Miracle and 't is most vnbeseeming GOD to do a Miracle which reaches in a manner a whole Species as that no Fire in the World should burn no Water wet especially if it be most absurd to conceive that GOD the Author of all Truth nay Essential Truth it self should do such a stupendious and never-yet-heard-of Miracle to lead Men into Errour as is our case 't is most manifestly consequent it cannot be effected at all that Mankind should be Fallible in Knowledges built on their constant Sensations § 20. It follows And though none of these be strict Demonstration yet have we an undoubted Assurance of them when they are prov'd by the best Arguments that the nature and quality of the Thing will bear To this we will speak when we come to examine his Firm Principle He proceeds None can demonstrate to me that there is such an Island in America as Jamaica yet upon the Testimony of credible Persons and Authors who have writ of it I am as free from all doubt concerning it as from doubting of the clearest Mathematical Demonstration True none can demonstrate there is either Jamaica or any such Place Yet I see not why they may not demonstrate the Knowledge of the Attesters from the Visibility of the Object and their Veracity from the Impossibility they should all conspire to act or say so without some appearing Good for their Object or intend to deceive in such a matter and so circumstanc'd when 't is evidently Impossible they should compass their intended end As for his affirming that he is as free from all doubt concerning it as he is from doubting of the clearest Mathematical Demonstration I answer that a man may 〈…〉 yet not hold the Thing True as shall presently be shown And if Dr. T. pleâ—se to look into his own Thoughts he shall find instill'd through the goodness of Nature by Practical Self-evidence more than a bare freedom from doubt viz. such a firm Assent Adherence to it as a Certain Truth that he would deem him a Madman or a Deserter of Humane Nature who could doubt of it and in a word as firm an Assent as to any Mathematical Demonstration which why he should according to Maxims of right Reason have unless he had a Demonstration of it or at least saw it by Practical Self-evidence impossible that Authority should hic nunc be deceiv'd or conspire to deceive and so held the Authority Infallible as to this point I expect his Logick should inform me § 21. We are now come to take a View of Dr. T's performances hitherto He hath omitted the proper Science for his purpose Metaphysicks I suppose because it sometimes uses those hard words Potentiality and Actuality which his delicate Ears cannot brook and has secluded Morality Physicks and the Knowledge we have of the Nature which grounds all Humane Authority and Christian Faith from being Sciences allowing it onely to the Mathematicks which would make one verily think the VVorld were perversly order'd and odly disproportion'd to the nature and good of Mankind for which we Christians agree it was created that greater Evidence and Certainty and consequently Power to act aright should be found in those things which are of far less import than in those which are of a Concern incomparably higher Yet it matters less some may think as long as we are not bound to assent to any of those Conclusions in those respectâ—ve Subjects the absolute Certainty of whâ—ch Dr. T's Discourse calls into question or rather denies whence iâ— we have in these and such as thesâ— knowledge enough to determine us to act Exteriourly it may seem to suffice But now when We come to FAITH where We are Oblig'd to Assent or to hold Fâ—rmly and verily judge the Thing True and where Exteriour Acting will not do the Work or carry a Soul to Bliss but Interiour Acts of a Firm Faith a Vigorous Hope built on that Faith and an Ardent and Over-powering Love of Unseen Gooâ—s springing out of both These are Absolutely Necessary to Fit Us for an Union with our Infinitely-Blissful Object and the Strength of all These is Fundamentally built on the SECURENEâ—S of the Ground of Faith In this Case I say a Rational Considerer wouâ—d think it very requiâ—â—â—e that the Reasons of so Hearty an Assâ—nt but especially for that most Fundamental Point of the Existence of a Deity it being of an infinitely-higher nature and import should be fâ—ll as Evident as the most Evident of those Inferiour Concerns and in comparison Trâ—fling Curiosities And not that the World should be manag'd on such a fashion as if Mankinâ— were onely made to study Mathematicks since absolute Evidence his best natural Perfection is according to Dr. T. onely found in These Whence we see that Mathematicians are infinitely beholding to him but Philosophers not at all and I fear Christians as little Now these two points are according to my way of discoursing for this very reason taken from the End and Use of Faith and the Obligation lying on us to hold and profess it True Self-evident Practically to the Generality of the Vulgar and demonstrable to the Learned Let us see what strong Grounds of such an immovably-firm Assent Dr. T. will afford the World for that first and most Fundamental Point of all Religion the Tenet of a Deity of which if we cannot be assur'd all else that belongs to Faith is not worth heeding DISCOURSE V. Dr. T's Firm
would believe him That my Principles do plainly exclude from Salvation at one blow Excommunicate Vnchristian all that do not believe upon my Grounds And nothing is easier than to prove it in his way 'T is but mistaking again the Notion of School-Divines for the Notion of Faithful and School for Church as he did lately and the deed is done immediately without any more trouble He is the happiest man in his First Principles and his Method that I ever met with the parts of the former need not hang together at all but are allow'd to be Incoherent and the later is a building upon false pretences and wrong Suppositions and then what may not he prove or what Conquest cannot he obtain by such powerful Stratagems He sayes he has proov'd at large in the Answer to Sure-Footing that the Council of Trent did not make Oral Tradition the sole Rule of her Faith Possibly I am not so lucky as to light on this large Proof of his all I can finde with an ordinary search is four or five lines Rule of Faith pag. 280. where after a commonly-Objected often-answer'd Citation from the Council of Trent declaring that Christian Faith and Discipline are contain'd in written Books unwritten Traditions therefore that they receive honor the Books of Scripture also Traditions with equal pious affection and reverence He adds which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith Now I had put this very Objection against my self Sure-f pag. 346. and proceeded to clear it to the end of pag. 150. particularly pag. 147.149 upon this Reason because taking the Scripture interpreted by Tradition as the Council expresses it self to do and forbids any man to interpret it otherwise it has the full Authority of Gods Word and so equally to be reverenced Whereas taking it interpreted by private heads which only will serve Dr T's turn 't is nothing less as not engaging the Divine Authority at all But now to the Notion of a Rule there is more required as Dr. T. himself grants and contends 't is found in Scripture viz. that it be so evident that every sensible may understand it as to matters of Faith and this building on the Council of Trents Authority and Judgment I deny to be found in the bare Letter of Scripture and hence say 't is no Rule I omit the repeating very many Arguments from the Council for that point deduc't from pag. 141. to pag. 146. never toucht nor so much as taken notice of in that Mock-Answer of his § 16. But that he may not mistake me I shall not stick to declare whom I exclude from Salvation at least from the way to it whom not and upon what Grounds speaking of the ordinary course of Gods Providence as I declare my self to do throughout this whole Treatise I make account that perfect Charity or Love of God above and in all things is the Immediate Disposition to Bliss or Vnitive of a Soul to God Also that this Virtue cannot with a due heartiness be connaturally or rationally wrought in Souls if the Tenet of a Deity 's Existence and of Christian Faith be held possible to be a Ly. Hence I am oblig'd by my Reason to hold that those who judge there are no absolueely-Conclusive Reasons for the Existence of a Deity nor for the Truth of Christian Faith are as such out of the Road of Salvation On the other side those who hold the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truths they profess Infallible and by Consequence their Faith Impossible to be False as all Catholikes do though as Divines they fail in making out how and by what particular means it comes to be Infallible yet through the virtue of this firm and steady Adhesion to such Principles as are because they are Truths apt to beget solid and well-grounded that is indeed True Virtues such as are a vigorous Hope and a fervent and all-ovre-powering Charity hence they possess the Connatural Means or are in the right way to Heaven And for this Reason I esteem Dr. T 's way of discoursing concerning a Deity and Faith in his Sermons most pestilent and mischievous to Souls as being apt of its own Nature to incline them if they have wit to discern its shallowness first to a kind of Scepticism in Religion and at next to Carelesness Irreligion and Atheism though truly I think 't is not his Intention to do so but that his shortness in Understanding the Nature and Grounds of Christianity makes him conceit he does excellently even to admiration all the while he commits such well-meaning Follies Nor do I think the Church of England will upon second thoughts think fit to Patronize Principles so destructive to the Nature of Faith found in the breast of every Protestant I ever yet met with who all with one mouth will own that 't is absolutely Impossible Christian Faith should be a Lye and abhor the contrary Position as wicked and damnable How Dr. T. may have season'd some of his own Auditors by preaching Controversy to them which he extremely affects I cannot tell 't is according as they incline to believe him more than the Generality of the Christian World whose Sentiments he opposes in his Discourses about the Ground of Faith DISCOURSE VIII With what Art Dr. T. answers my METHOD A Present made to his Credulous Friends shewing how solidly he confuted SVRE-FOOTING by readily granting the main of the Book What is meant by Tradition That J. S. is not singular in his way of discoursing of the Grounds of Faith § 1. HE makes a pass or two at my METHOD and that I conceive must serve for an Answer to it for an Answer I heard was threatned would appear very shortly but this pleasant Preface was the only thing which appeared and all that appears like Answer in it is that he would make it believ'd he ought not answer at all And this he does very neatly and like a Master For let no man think I have a mean Opinion of Dr. T. but every one is not good at all things some are good at proving some at disproving some at shifting of the Question without either proving or disproving every one in his way and in his way I know no man living a greater Master nor so great as the Dr. Two things he does and both of them strange ones First he affirms that Discourse is founded on the self-evident Infallibility of ora◠Tradition Next that He has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Surefooting The first of them would make the Reader apprehend I there suppos'd Oral Tradition self-evidently Infallible and then run on all the way upon that supposition which if it obtain belief as from his Credit he hopes it may since every Scholar knows all Discourses must be founded either on first Principles or at least on such as are granted by those against whom we
argue he sees I must needs be held the most ridiculous Discourser that ever spoke or writ to build a whole Treatise upon a Supposition unprov'd and which begs the whole Question Now whatever I concluded in that short Discourse I deduced step by step and made the foregoing Proposition draw still after it by undeniable Consequence the following one He concealing all mention of Proof or endeavour of it calls my Conclusions Principles and then who would think but that I had laid them to build that Discourse upon them and deserted my usual way of beginning with the known Natures of the Things in hand as I there did with those of Rule and Faith and from them proceeded minutely to whatever I concluded Had his Friend Dr. St. taken the same course his Principles would have evidently discovered their own weakness of themselves and had excus'd others the unnecessary trouble of answering them Next he makes me say that the Infallibility of this Rule is evident to common Sense and says himself that the Foundation of this Method is the self-evident infallibility of Oral Tradition by which words an honest Reader would verily think I suppos'd it gratis to be sâ—lf-evident to common Sense and never troubled my self to prove it whereas though I indeed hold 't is practically self-evident of which I have elsewhere given account yet I proceeded as if I did not but proved § 8. out of the Natures of Rule and Faith that the Rule of Faith whatever it be must be Infallible § 10. that therefore Scripture's Letter is not that Rule and § 11. that Tradition is The Reader being thus questionless well dispos'd to think it very unnecessary he should consider as he calls it or answer any passage of a thing made up of unprov'd Principles or built on an unprov'd Supposition he tels him farther that he has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Sure-footing whence he is not concern'd to take notice of it at present And so the business is done for why should he take pains to give answer to that which deserves none or if it did is answered This Reason though by the way is a little open For in case I did bring any Arguments in my Method to make good that Tradition is an Infallible Rule of Faith and this after I had seen and perhaps sufficiently consider'd too what he replies to Surefooting for any thing appears I may either have amended the Reasons given in Surefooting or produc't better in my Method and so whatever he has said to Surefooting it might have been proper to have considered and said something to the Method too unless he could say with truth that he had already answered the veâ—y Reasons urg'd in It which I do not remember he has nor am confident himself neither § 2. But yet â—o instance in this one passage how rare a piece his cry'd-up Rule of Faith is and how excellently it answers Surefooting let us â— little reflect what this sufficient consideration of his â—mounts to Surefooting was divided into two parts The first from the Properties of a Rule of Faith proved that Tradition was that Rule and this was the business of that Book from the beginning to pag. 57. and particularly of the 5 th Discourse whose Title was Of the Notion of Tradition and that all the Properties of the Rule of Faith do clearly agree to it The 2 d. part begins Discourse 6. and endeavors to demonstrate the Indefectiveness of Tradition or that it has hitherto ever been followed The Confutation of my first part ends in his Rule of Faith pag. 150 the Answer to my 2 d. begins pag. 151. or these two the former was in a manner the whole concern of my Book For if it were prov'd that Tradition was the Rule of Faith that is the only Conveyer of Christs Doctrine hitherto it must either be said by those against whom I argue that it hath not been hitherto convey'd to us at all and so that there are no Christians in the world which they will not say or else that those who proceed upon Tradition for their Rule are the right Christians Whence the later part was only ex abundanti not of absolute necessity especially in case I argu'd ad hominem This being so let Dr. T's Friends and mine when they hap to discourse about us please to send for his Book and mine and with aâ— equal partiality distrusting us both rely upon Sir Tho. Moors pair of honest unbyass'd witnesses Their own Eyes They will find that his Rule of Faith undertakes pag. 146. to answer my 5 th Disc. which pretended to shew that all the properties of the Rule of Faith do clearly agree to Tradition and thence concluded Tradition The Rule of Faith and accordingly quotes pag 41. where that Discourse began in Surefooting They will see the Title of his Sect. 6. which he uses to put in the Margin is That the Properties of a Rule of Faith do not belong to Oral Tradition Now I assigned seven such Properties Surefoot pag. 11 and 12. He was pleas'd to make but two Part. 2. Sect. 1. Sufficiently plain sufficiently certain Coming then at the bottom of pag. 148. to confute that whole Discourse which was the most substantial part of my Book and contained the most pressing Arguments to my main purpose he compleats his answer to it in one single page viz. 149. nay in one piece of that Page This would seem strange and something difficult if any thing were so to Dr. T. and his singular Method of answering Books All sayes he that he pretends to prove in this Discourse is that if this Rule hath been followed and kept to all along the Christian Doctrine neither has nor can have received any change 'T is all indeed I pretended and all I desired to prove for certainly if it can preserve Christian Doctrine unchanged it has in it the Nature of a Rule and what has in it the Nature of a Rule is I conceive a Rule whether it have been followed or not which is a Question I had not then examined but reserved to my following Discourses To this then after his sufficient consideration What sayes the Dr. All this sayes he is readily granted him For my part I have no reason to except against that answer for all my Writing aims at is that people should see the Truâ—h and acknowledge it and since he readily grants all I pretend to prove I were very unreasonable if I should not be contented Though if I were dispos'd to be cross this word readily is something liable to exception After he has employ'd a good part of his Book in preparing to speak to the main Question in dividing and subdividing and playing all the tricks which may make it look like an Answer and when he comes to the Question to grant it because he could do no other is indeed to grant it but not very readily People will not think he was very ready to
safe expression though for had he said sufficiently answer'd or confuted or opposed so much as by a bare-denial or even attempted to do any of these All this is readily granted would have been a filthy stumbling block in his way But those safe easy words sufficiently considered are very choice and may signify any thing or nothing which you please for one may sufficiently consider a thing in his mind and upon sufficient consideration finde it best to let it alone and say never a syllable to it or one may grant or deny or do any thing with it and these pliable words will fit whatever he does Those who are a little straitned and find â—mpartial Reason not so favourable to them as they wish should by all means learn this gentile insignificant way of Expression which may happen to do them more service than a great deal of crabbed knowledge which is of a stubborn nature and does veâ—y well where Truth is of the party but is quite out and signifies nothing against it whereas this like those easy pliable things Probabilities the matter which best fits this pliant manner of expressing is wonderful complaisant and if you happen to change sides will be as serviceable to falshood And I would particularly commend this phrase sufficiently considered for a pattern to those who study the Art and need it § 5. People will not expect from me to give a Reason of this unexpected kindness of the Dr. for they are sufficiently assured I am not of his Council But I think he granted no more than what he knew not how to deny For whoever reads Suref p. 48. 55. will find the Self-evidence of Tradition so explained that supposing it sufficiently plain intelligible which I there proved and he here grants its Ruling power is as plainly made out as this Identical Proposition that the same is the same with it self and particularly in my Method pag. 16. and 17. which kind of Propositions a man may be angry at but cannot so handsomly deny for if he could I suppose he rather would have done â—t than yielded the very point in Controversie and which is besides so favourable to Catholicks and destructive to his Cause This possibly is the Cause of his Resentment against Identical Propositions of which he would â—evenge himself for the injury they have done him and therefore in his Prefacâ— very politickly bids opens defiance to all the whole Tribe of such ill-condition'd Principles In the mean time the beginning and end of that sixth Section are very observable The Title is that the properties of a Rule of Faith do not belong to Tradition and this signifies that it is not the Rule of Faith coming to make good this undertaking he granted that 't is plain and intelligible and can if people stick to it preserve Christian Doctrine from change and this signifies that the properties of a Rule do belong to it and that it is the Rule For I do not remember he ever pretended there were two Rules of Faith wherefore since Tradition hath power to do what a Rule should do viz. preserve Faith uncorrupted and unchanged Tradition certainly is the Rule and so he expresly calls it p. 49. But that this Rule hath alwayes been followed c. and may for any thing appears here hold perhaps that Scripture is not the Rule And yet all this while his Title is that Tradition had not the properties of a Rule or is no Rule But the Conclusion is every jot as remarkable for he had no sooner readily granted all I pretended to prove but he as readily diverts the Reader from reflecting upon it by these words But that this Rule has alwayes been followed nay that 't is impossible there should have been any deviation from it as he pretends this we deny not only as untrue but as one of the most absurd Propositions that ever pretended to demonstrative evidence Would any Reader suspect this serious clutter of words should be both untrue and nothing to purpose besides For it plainly speaks of a Question which is not the Question in that place but reserv'd for another and which he should have let alone till its time come Yet I was to blame to say it was nothing to purpose For t is to great purpose and the Transition is so nimble and delicate that the Reader ceases to reflect upon the import of his concession and begins to think me a man of confidence and strange confidence too who can hold such palpable Nonsense But pray where did I ever pretend 't is unpossible there should have been any deviation from Tradition Sure 't was in my sleep and the Dr. has taken me napping Otherwise as far as I am acquainted with my self and mine own actions I am so far from having writ or said or so much as thought that there never was nor could be any deviation from it that on the contrary I have alwayes thought and have said and writ that there have been many deviations from it and as many as there have been Heresies in God's Church Nay as far as I remember I have not said so much as that I had absolutely demonstrated there had or could be no total defection from it Indeed I endeavour'd to demonstrate there could not but I pretended no more but to endeavour it and the Titles of the sixth and eighth Discourse in Surefooting will bear me witness But I know not under what unlucky Planet the Dr. wrote this Discourse where nothing will fadge and every thing he says proves against hâ—mself This untrue and absurd Proposition as he calls it and as it is indeed that 't is impossible there should have been any deviation from Tradition implies at least thus much that this deviation is extrinsecal to the Nature of a Rule for else Scripture could not be said to be a Rule from which 't is plain that many both can and do deviate Wherefore the Proposition as absurd as it is not more absurd than it is to urge it against Tradition which whatever become of the Proposition is never a whit less a Rule And indeed the true difference and true poinâ— of Controversie betwixt us stands thus I say and prove and himself by granting all my 5th Discourse and that Tradition is plain grants that Tradition is so excellently qualifi'd for a Rule that let men but endeavor to follow it still to their power it will bring down the same uncorrupted Faith to the Worlds end whereas 't is known and evident that multitudes of men have follow'd and do follâ—â— Scripture to their power and differ enormously in their Tenets and that as far as contradiction will let them go as far as There is a Trinity and there is not a Trinity Christ is God â—nd Christ is not God than which as none can be more wide so execepting the Tenet of the Deity it self none can be more Fundamental or have greater influence upon Christian life § 6 Reflecting then
by some Natural and therefore more easily-known Assistances belonging to the Church those out of her are brought to the knowledge that she is Supernaturally assisted This is the Method I take in resolving Faith If any man can show me any other that is either more solid more orderly more connatural and agreeable to the nature of Faith or more honourable to Gods Church I shall as willingly and easily quit it as I now out of long and serious consideration embrace and firmly adhere to it But it appears plain to me that whoever contradicts this especially as to that point which occasion'd this Discourse must withal contradict a Maxim on which all Science is principally built namely that The Definition is more known than the Notion defin'd which I take to be understood not onely of the Whole Definition but of each single part of it for if any one part be more obscure than the thing defin'd the whole Definition as having that obscure part in it must necessarily be more obscure likewise Wherefore the Definition of a Church being Coetus Fidelium c. A Congregation of Faithful c. the notion of Faithful and consequently of Faith must either be more Known and Knowable than that of Church and consequently antecedent to it in right method of Discourse or the Definition would be obscurer than the Thing defin'd which if it be said I must confess I know not to what end Definitions are or why they do not rather conduce to Ignorance than to Science Add that True Faith being most Intrinsecal and Essential to a Church 't is by consequence a more forcible and demonstrative Argument to convince inevitably that such a Body in which 't is found is the True Church than is any Extrinsecal Mark whatsoever And if it be objected that Extrinsecal Marks are more easily Knowable I doubt not but in those who are led away by superficial Appearances there is some show of Reason in this Objection but I utterly deny that if we go to the bottom to settle the Absolute Certainty of any of these Marks any of them can be known at all much less more easily known if the Certainty of Tradition in visible and practical matters of Fact be questionable and that neither Scripture Fathers Councils Histories Monuments or any thing else of that nature can pretend to Absolute Certainty if Tradition be Uncertain or can pretend to be known unless Tradition be first that is more known as is shown particularly in the Corollaries to Sure-footing § 11. Hence is seen that the word Tradition is taken in a threefold sence For the Way of Tradition or Delivery taken at large For the Humane or Natural Authority of the Church as delivering And lastly for its Divinely-assisted or Supernatural Authority call'd properly Christian. When 't is taken in one fence when in another the nature of the matter in hand and the concomitant circumstances will evidently determine Onely we must note that these three Notions are not adequately contradistinct the later still including the former as Length Breadth and Depth do in Continu'd Quantity For The Humane Authority of the Church includes Tradition taken at large and adds to it the best Assistances of Nature as is shown Sure-f p. 82 83. The Supernatural Authority includes all found in the other two and adds to it the best Assistances of Grace as is particularly declared there from p. 84. to p. 93. So that all the Perfection of Tradition that is imaginable is to be found in that which we call Christian or in the Testifying Authority of Christs Church § 12. But because 't is still D. T 's best play to make use of Extrinsecal Exceptions so to divert the Readers Eye and avoid answering my Intrinsecal Reasons taken from the nature of the Things with which he is loth to grapple and since amongst the rest he is very frequent at this Impertinent Topick of my discoursing the Grounds of Faith after a different manner than other Divines do it were not amiss omitting many pregnant Instances which might be collected out of Dr. Stratford the Learned Author of Protestancy without Principles and many others to the same purpose to show how far he mistakes in this point by instancing in one Controvertist of eminent both Fame and Learning as any in his time one who writ before Rushworth's Dialogues appeared or perhaps were thought of and so cannot be suspected a Follower of that New Way as Dr. T. call it I mean Mr. Fisher. This able Controvertist in his Censure of Dr. White 's Reply p. 83 84 maintains that VNWRITTEN that is Oral and Practical TRADITION is the PRIME GROVND OF FAITH more Fundamental than Scripture and shows how his Adversary Mr. White the Minister grants in effect the same In his Answer to the nine Points p. 27. he concludes strongly that Scriptures are not the Prime Principles of Faith supposed before Faith which Infidels seeing to be True resolve to believe the Mysteries of Faith but onely are secondary Truths dark and obscure in themselves believed upon the Prime Principles of Faith Which words as amply and fully express that Scripture is not the express Rule of Faith as can be imagin'd For how should that have in it self the nature of an Intellectual Rule which in it self is dark and obscure Or how can that which is believed upon the Prime Principles that is partly at least upon the Ground or Rule of Faith be any part of that Rule since what 's believ'd is the Object of Faith and so presupposes the Rule of Faith Also in the beginning of his Argument he makes the Prim◠Principles of Faith or Vnwritten Tradition as he elsewhere calls it that is the same we mean by Oral and Practical evident in it self And p. 40. he puts the Question between us and Protestants to be what is the external Infallible Ground unto which Divine Inspiration moveth men to adhere that they may be settled in the true saving Faith Where first besides Gods grace moving us to every good Act which all Catholicks hold to be necessary there is requisite according to him an External Infallible Ground next that without such a Ground a man cannot be settled in true saving Faith Again p. 38 coming to lay the ground of knowing any Doctrine to be Apostolical he mentions none but onely Publick Catholick Tradition taught unanimously and perpetually by Pastors which p. 37. he calls a Rule Infallible and says that onely Hereticks charge it to be Fallible where also he explains the meaning of his Principle that The Apostolical Doctrine is the Catholick after this manner The Doctrine which is deliver'd from the Apostles by the Tradition of whole Christian Worlds of Fathers unto whole Christian Worlds of Children c. Of this Tradition which by the words now cited appears to be evidently the same I defend he affirms p. 38. that 't is prov'd to be simply Infallible by the very nature thereof and quotes Suarez to
say that 't is the highest degree of humane Certitude of which it may simply or absolutely be said Non posse illi falsum subesse that 't is IMPOSSIBLE IT SHOULD BE FALSE Can any thing be produc'd more expresly abetting my way of Discoursing the Grounds of Faith Nothing certainly unless it be that which immediately follows containing the reason why Tradition is by the very nature of it simply Infallible For says he Tradition being full Report about what was EVIDENT UNTO SENSE to wit what Doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publickly deliver'd unto the World it is IMPOSSIBLE it should be FALSE Worlds of Men CANNOT be uniformly mistaken and deceiv'd about a matter Evident to Sense and not being deceiv'd being so many in number so divided in place of so different affections and conditions IT IS IMPOSSIBLE they should so have agreed in their Tale had they so maliciously resolv'd to deceive the World Observe here 1. That he alledges onely Natural Motives or speaks onely of Tradition as it signifies the Humane Authority of the Church that is as taken in the same sense wherein I took it in my Method 2. He goes about to show out of its very nature that is to demonstrate 't is absolutely Infallible 3. He makes this Tradition or Humane Authority of the Church an Infallible Deriver down or Ascertainer that what is now held upon that tenure is the Apostles Doctrine or the first-taught Faith which once known those who are yet Unbelievers may infallibly know that Body that proceeds upon it to possess the true Faith and consequently infallibly know the true Church which being the very way I took in my Method and other Tâ—eatises it may hence be discern'd with how little reason Dr. T. excepts against it as so superlatively singular But to proceed Hence p. 40. he avers that the proof of Tradition is so full and sufficient that it convinceth Infidels that is those who have onely natural Reason to guide themselves by For though saith he they be blind not to see the Doctrine of the Apostles to be Divine yet are they not so void of common sense impudent and obstinate as to deny the Doctrine of Christian Catholick Tradition to be truly Christian and Apostolical And p. 41. The ONELY MEANS whereby men succeeding the Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures and Doctrines they deliver'd to the Primitive Catholick Church is the Catholick Tradition by Worlds of Christian Fathers and Pastors unto Worlds of Christian Children and Faithful People Which words as fully express that Tradition is the ONELY or SOLE Rule of Faith as can be imagin'd And whereas some hold that an Inward working of God's Spirit supplies the Conclusiveness of the Motive this Learned Writer p. 46 on the contrary affirms that Inward Assurance without any EXTERNAL INFALLIBLE Ground to assure men of TRVTH is proper unto the Prophets and the first Publishers of Christian Religion And lastly to omit others p. 47. he discourses thus If any object that the Senses of men in this Search may be deceiv'd through natural invincible Fallibility of their Organs and so no Ground of Faith that is altogether Infallible I answer that Evidence had by Sense being but the private of one man is naturally and physically Infallible but when the same is also Publick and Catholick that is when a whole World of men concur with him then his Evidence is ALTOGETHER INFALLIBLE And now I would gladly know what there is in any of my Books touching the Ground of Faith which is not either the self-same or else necessarily consequent or at least very consonant to what I have here cited from this Judicious Author and Great Champion of Truth in his Days whose Coincidency with other Divines into the same manner of Explication argues strongly that it was onely the same unanimous Notion and Conceit of Faith and of true Catholick Grounds which could breed this conspiring into the same way of discoursing and almost the self-same words § 13. Hence is seen how justly D. T. when he wanted something else to say still taxed me with singularity in accepting of nothing but Infallibility built on absolutely-conclusive Motives with talking such Paradoxes as he doubts whether ever they enter'd into any other mans mind that all mankind excepting J. S have hitherto granted that no Humane Vnderstanding is secur'd from possibility of Mistake from its own nature that my Grounds exclude from Salvation and excommunicate the Generality of our own Church that no man before J. S. was so hardy as to maintain that the Testimony of Fallible men which word Fallible is of his own adding mine being of Mankind relying on Sensations is Infallible that this is a new way and twenty such insignificant Cavils But the thing which breeds his vexation is that as my Reason inclines me I joyn with those who are the most solid and Intelligent Party of Divines that is indeed I stick to and pursue and explain and endeavour to advance farther those Grounds which I see are built on the natures of the Things Would I onely talk of Moral Certainty Probabilities and such wise stuff when I am settling Faith I doubt not but he would like me exceedingly for then his own side might be probable too which sandy Foundation is enough for such a Mercurial Faith as nothing but Interest is apt to fix DISCOURSE VIII In what manner Dr. T. Answers my Letter of Thanks His Attempt to clear Objected Faults by committing New Ones § 1. MY Confuter has at length done with my Faith Vindicated and my Methed and has not he done well think you and approv'd himself an excellent Confuter He onely broke his Jests upon every passage he took notice of in the former except one without ever heeding or considering much less attempting to Answer any one single Reason of those many there alledg'd and as for that one passage in which he seem'd serious viz. how the Faithful are held by me Infallible in their Faith he quite mistook it throughout Again as for my Method he first gave a wrong Character of it and next pretended it wholly to rely upon a point which he had sufficiently considered that is which he had readily granted but offer'd not one syllable of Answer to any one Reason in It neither My Letter of Thanks is to be overthrown next And First he says he will wholly pass by the Passion of it and I assure the Reader so he does the Reason of it too for he speaks not a word to any one piece of it Next he complains of the ill-Language which he says proceeded from a gall'd and uneasie mind He says partly true For nothing can be more uneasie to me than when I expected a Sober and Scholar-like Answer to find onely a prettily-worded Fardle of Drollery and Insincerity I wonder what gall'd him when he lavish'd out so much ill-language in Answer to Sure footing in which Treatise there was not one passionaâ—e word not one syllable
of and that what 's according to our Right Nature or True Reason deserves to be judg'd Right or Good that is thought well of and withal that Virtue is a Dispositiâ—n to act according to Right Reason it comes to appear that Virtue and Laudable have in theâ—r Notions something that is formally Identical and that this Proposition Virtue is Laudable is as Certain as that what 's according to Right Reason or Humane Nature is according to Right Reason which seen the thing is concluded and all further disquisition surceases § 22. This is my method which I observe to my power whenever I profess to demonstrate Onely because we are not discoursing in severe Logical Form I endeavour to engage at the very First Identical Propositions or the First Principles to avoid all possible cavil which uses to take occasion from a Definitions being too large or too narrow to confound and obscure the Discourse Which being so I challenge Dr. T. before our Peers as he pretends to be held a Scholar and an honest man to declare why in his Preface p. 26. he tells his Readers without any the least proof that Certainly the sacred Names of Principles and Demonstration were never so profan'd by any man before Let him I say state the Natures of Principles and Demonstration and then make out in what my way of discoursing wrongs either of them This done let him show what his has in it elevating it beyond meer superficial Talk Till he does this I accuse him of Affected Ignorance in Himself and Unjust Calumny towards Me and that he stands hooting or as himself elsewhere call'd it whooping aloof with Flams and Jeers but dares not for his Credit come close to the Point as judging it his Interest and Safety to avoid by all means the settling any Conclusive Method of Discoursing lest his loose Drollery which now is the onely Stickler and domineers so briskly come then to be quite out of countenance and hang its head very sorrily being by that means discovered to be perfectly Insignificant and good for just nothing at all DISCOURSE IV. How Dr. T. advances to prove a Deity by denying the absolute Certainty of all Sciences but Mathematicks § 1. WE have seen how unfortunate Dr. T. has been in impugning my First Principles and Method of Discoursing It comes next to be examined how successful he is in settling his own But ere I come close to that matter I must say something to his Impertinent Drolleries because he thinks them rare things and as appears by his carriage all along places most of his confidence in those Trifles nay which in my mind is no very wise Project he would have his Readers think those Feathers weighty because they are gay Besides these are my onely Confuters and so 't is in a manner my duty not to neglect them § 2. He challenges me p. 4. to have threatned never to leave following on my blow till I had either brought Dr. St. and Him to lay Principles that would bear the Test or it was evident to all the World they had none And I conceive I performed this in my Inferences at the end of Faith Vindicated and had done more but for certain Reasons which I gave in my Preface But this was no such great Threat I knew them prone enough of their own Genius to do voluntarily things of this nature and now both of them have like true Friends conspir'd to do me that favour of their own accord For Dr. T. declares here to no fewer than all the World That he neither has any Principles nor will have any if there be no other but Identical Propositions as speaking of First Principles I have prov'd there are not and Dr. Still has laid such Principles of late as would make any Understanding Man that reads them swear he is as far from having any as his Friend Excellent ones indeed he puts at first but the mischief is they make nothing at all for his purpose Some fumbling Propositions there are that make for his purpose but the ill luck is they are so far from having the least semblance of Principles that no wit of man shall ever make them look like good Conclusions And to put it to the trial if out of any Principle forelaid there he can infer that main and in a manner onely Point viz. That Scripture's Letter is the Rule of Faith and put it in a Conclusive Syllogism or two I promise him upon the sight of it to become of his perswasion But my Friend tells me here he perceives Great Minds are merciful and do sometimes content themselves to Threaten when they could Destroy and in return I tell him I am sorry to find by these words that a certain Person not unknown to him is far from having a GREAT MIND who immediately upon the publishing my Letter of thanks fought to destroy me without Threatning § 3. I charg'd him formerly and now charge him again to make the Rule of Christian Faith and consequently Faith it self to be False Also I charg'd the same Position in equivalent Terms upon a Sermon of his and that as to the Chiefest and most Fundamental Point the Tenet of a Deity and still am ready to maintain that Charge But first 't is observable that on this occasion my Friend is grown much out of humour and from the merry conceited Vein of Wit and Drollery falls into down-right Scolding with He knew in his Conscience he durst not cite c. notorious falsehood groundless Calumny he durst not refer to the place c. This is the Man it would make any other man sufficiently ashamed He may blush to acknowledge c. Why what 's the matter Surely there is something more than ordinary in the business that makes a man of mirth of late so pleasant on a sudden thus pettish He says I durst not cite the words of his Book or Sermon How I Durst not I will not be so rude as to use Dr. T's words here p. 35. Certainly one would think that this man has either no eyes or no forehead but I must say that all who have Eyes may see and all who have any degree of Sincerity will acknowledge that I did cite those words out of his Book in Faith Vindicated p. 171. where I fastened that Position on Him Dr. St. his Abetter and their Adherents And as for the words of his Sermon it was no Proper Place to cite or confute them there It was enough there to add as I did after my Charge these words as may perhaps more particularly be shown hereafter relating to a future examination of it intended in another Treatise I use not to confute Books in Prefaces as is the late mode of Answering Witness Dr. Pierce against Mr. Cressy the Dissuader against the Discovery and Dr. T. here against three of mine which as his Friend sayes well is like Rats gnawing the corners of Books or as Dr. T. himself expresses it here manfully
the Grounds of it even while he goes about to defend it These were my words then and I am sorry he would needs dare and provoke me to make them good In which if I have justified my self too particularly let him blame himself All this while I seriously declare that I am far from thinking that Dr. T. himself is not assur'd that there is a GOD and farther yet from imagining that already holding one he should hold it possible afterwards GOD should cease to be which ridiculous folly constant to his prevaricating humour he puts upon me p. 8. What I affirm is That his ill Principles do equivalently confess it possible there neither is nor ever was a GOD and this I have abundantly shown out of his own words Yet I doubt not but himself through GOD's Goodness has by Practical Self-evidence in the same manner the Vulgar who are no Speculaters or Scholars also have it absolute Certainty of the Existence of a Deity in despight of his weak Speculations nay that in this very Sermon he hath one or two Proofs which have in them the force of a Demonstration though his not understanding and so ill-managing of them and then calling them Probabilities has endeavour'd all that may be to render them good for nothing I end with some of his own words Pref. p. 37. That if Dr. T. did in truth believe that the Existence of a Deity or a Creation are as he says Serm. p. 20 so evident that they can hardly be made plainer than they are of themselves he should by all means have let them alone for they were in a very good condition to shift for themselvs but his blind and Sceptical way of proving them is enough to cast a mist about the clearest Truths in the world And I must take the liberty to admonish him that it lies not in the power of all the Enemies of Christianity in the world to do it half that Mischief as one Christian Divine may who by his earnestness manifests a desire to do the best he can by the vogue he bears seems able to do the best that may be done yet produces not any one proof which he vouches to be absolutely conclusive of the Truth either of Christianity or a Deity but rather by his carriage denies there are any such while he talks of Likelihood Probability more Credible Opinion Moral Certainty and such-like whose very names ought not to be heard or endur'd in a discourse aiming to settle the Grounds of Faith or the Tenet of a Deity Let him consider that he must take his measure of the Certainty of Grounds from the Object or Thing not from our freedom from doubt and such-like for these may be light and silly whereas the Grounds of Faith being â—aid by GOD must necessarily be wise and solid and so when look'd into Absolutely-Conclusive of the thing Let us then who hold a GOD leaving Creatures to their weaknesses vindicate our Maker from the scandalous Imputation of governing Mankind tyrannically by commanding us to assent thâ—t a thing is which at the same time we see may not be so obliging us to hold contrary to the Light of Nature and the very First Principles which Himself had ingrafted in us that what is is at the same time possible not to be and to profess a point True nay dy to attest its Truth which may perhaps be shown False to morrow nay which our selves see may be now False He tells us here in common p. 90 and he tels us truly that which way soever we turn our selvs we are incountred with Clear Evidences and sensible Demonstrations of a Deity Why does he then coming to make out that point say the nature of the thing will not bear clear Demonstration and that onely Mathematical matters are capable of it Why pursues he not such Proofs as these and makes them out and stands by them and reduces them to First Principles and so obliges Humane Nature to assent to them under evident forfeiture of their Sincerity and even Manhood Is he afraid clear Evidences and sensible Demonstrations will not necessarily conclude Why does he put Suppositions that the thing were and then argue thus blindly that since supposing it were it would give no more light of it self than it does therefore it is Is there any necessity for such a ridiculous perplexing and inconclusive method when we may vouch we have Clear Evidences and Demonstrations Lastly Why does he distrust the Objects strength and explain our Assurance of a Deity and Faith by Moral Certainty or such as will satisfie prudent men in humane Affairs Probabilities amassed together not doubting and other such-like feeble diminutive expressions Are not Clear Evidences and Sensible Demonstrations that is Demonstrations à posteriori in point of Certainty incomparably beyond such quivering Grounds and such dwindling Adhesions I wish Dr. T. would take these things into his better thoughts and at least by amending his Expressions and Reasons hereafter make some tolerable satisfaction for this intolerable Injury done to Faith and GOD's Church DISCOURSE VI. That Dr. T. makes all the Grounds of Christian Faith Possible to be False Of Infallibility Demonstration and Moral Certainty § 1. THus much to justifie my first Charge that Dr. T. made that Fundamental Tenet of a Deity and consequently all Religion Possible to be False My second Charge is that he particularly makes all Christian Faith possible to be false and 't is found Faith Vindicated p. 171. where I put down his own words which concern that purpose though he who presuming on the Partiality of his Friends takes the Liberty to say any thing which even Eye-sight may Confute assures his Reader pag. 5. that I durst not Cite them I laid my Charge in this Tenor 'T is necessarily consequent from the foregoing Paragraphs that if I have Discours't right in this small Treatise of mine and have proved that Faith and consequently its Grounds must be Impossible to be False then Mr. T.'s Confession p. 118. to which Mr. St.'s Doctrine is Consonant that It is possible to be otherwise that is to be False that any Book is so Antient as it pretends to be or that it was Written by him whose Name it bears or that this is the sence of such and such Passages in it is a clear Conviction that neither is the book-Book-Rule he maintains the True Rule of Faith § 3. Nor have he and his Friends True Faith § 4. And consequently there being no other Rule owned taking away Private Spirit but Tradition that Tradition is the only-True Rule of Faith § 6. and so the main of Sure-Footing stands yet firm And lastly 't is evinc't that his own Book which opposes it opposes the only-True because the only Impossible-to-be-False Ground of Faith that is he is convinc't in that Supposition to go about to undermine all Christian Faith Whence the Title of his Probable-natur'd Book Rule of Faith is manifested to be an improper Nickname
and the Book it self to merit no Reply You see here Gentlemen how great stress I lay upon Dr. T.'s confession that the Ground of his Faith and consequently his Faith it self is possible to be False And really if he clears himself of it I must acknowledg I suffer a very great Defeat because I so much Build upon it If he does not he is utterly overthrown as to all intents and purposes either of being a good Writer or a solid Christian Divine and he will owe the World satisfaction for the Injury done to Faith and the Souls of those whom his Doctrine has perverted by turning their Faith which ought to be an Assent whose Grounds and consequently it self are Impossible to be an Error or False into Opinion whose Grounds and by consequence it self are possible to be such and lastly unless he Avoids or Râ—â—ants this Error objected all he has Written 〈◊〉 â—â—nvinc't without any more ado to be againâ—â—â—ith and its true Grounds and so it will be quite overthrown in the Esteem of all those who have the Nature of Faith writ in their hearts and that 't is Impossible an Act of right Faith that is an Asseâ—â— built on those Grounds God has left in the Church for Mankind to embrace Faith and commanded them to believe upon those Grounds whether Scripture's Letter or the Churches Voice should be an Error or the Profession of it a Lye which all sober Protestants Presbyterians nay almost all Sects except some few witty men inclining much by reading such Authours to Scepticism that is inclining to be nothing at all perhaps some Socinians reject abhominate and hate with all their hearts The Charge is laid and the Case is put now let us come to the Trial Which ere we do I desire those Readers who have Dr. T.'s Preface by them to read his 9 th page or else his whole page 118. in his Rule of Faith lest either of us may injure him by a wrong Apprehension I discourse thus § 2. First 't is Evident that he who makes the Ground and Rule of Faith possible to be False makes Faith it self such likewise since nothing is or can be stronger than the Grounds it stands on Next the Rule of Faith to Dr. T. is the Scripture's Letter and consequently that what he conceives the Sense of the Scripture is God's Sense or Faith Lastly that in the place now Cited and Related by him he speaks of the Authority of the Book of Scripture and of its Sence as he acknowledges here page 15. These things thus premised I put him this Dilâ—mma Either he holds what he conceives to to be the Sence of Scripture that is his Faith True or he does not If he holds it not to be True then 't is unavoidable he must hold it at least possible to be False if not actually such But if he says he holds it to be True then since after he had spoke of the security he had or had not of the Book and Sense of Scripture he immediately subjoyns these very words It is possible all this â—ay be otherwise He as evidently says that what he conceives the Book of Scripture and Sence of such or such passages in it that is his Faith is possible to be False as 't is that what 's OTHERWISE THAN TRVE is False I do not know how Dr. T. could possibly speak more plainly what I charge him with than he has done in those words unless he should use the word False which too Candid and Rude expression would expose him openly to the dislike of all Sober mâ—n and therefore he disguiz'd it in its more moderate Equivalent otherwise I say Equivalent And if it be not I would gladly know of him what the word otherwise relates to Human Language forbids that any thing can be said to be otherwise unless it be otherwise than something I ask then otherwise than what does he mean when being in the Circumstance of Discoursing what security he had of the Antiquity Writers and Sence of Scripture he told us It is possible to may be otherwise Is it not as evident as words can express he must mean It is possible the Book of Scripture is not so antiâ—nt as the Apostles time It is possible it was not Writ by the Apostles and Evangelists It is possible this is not the Sence of it in such passages as concern Faith for to these and these only our Discourse and the Nature and Title of his Book determin'd it which amounts to this that none has absolute Certainty of either Letter or Sence of Scripture nor consequently of his Faith in case it be solely grounded upon that as he professes See Reader how all Truths even the most Sacred ones go to wrack when men fram'd only for fine Talk undertake to prove and how parallel his defence of the Ground of all Christian Faith is to that he gave us lately of the Existence of a Deity He so prov'd a God that he granted it possible there might be none and now he so proves Scripture to be a Rule that he grants it possible it may be no Rule since common Sence tells us that can never be an Intellectual Rule which followed may lead into Errour By which we see Dr. T. needed here the Blessing as he calls it of that Identical Proposition A Rule 's a Rule else he would not write a Book to prove Scripture a Rule and then ever and anon in equivalent Language tell us 't is none I wish he would now and then reflect upon such Evident Truths and not out of an openly-declar'd Feud against those First Principles fall thus perpetually into manifest Contradictions § 3. But how does Dr. T. clear himself of this Charge of mine or how comes he off from his own words First he again puts down those very words which say over and over what I charge upon him and then asks very confidently where he says any such thing which is just as wise a craft as Children use when they hoodwink themselves and then tell the By-standers they shall not see them Next he tells us that All he sayes is that we are not Infallible in judging of the Antiquity of a Book or the sence of it meaning that we cannot demonstrate these things so as to to shew the contrary necessarily involves a contradiction but yet c. Is this all he sayes What then is become of those famous words It is possible all this may be otherwise which were onely objected But let us examine what he does acknowledge Whether he be Infallibly certain or no it matters not but it should be shewn why if Scripture be the sole Ground of Faith some at least in the World who are to Govern and Instruct the Church should not be thus certain of both in case we be bound to assent and as we questionless are dy to attest the Points of our Faith to be absolutely-certain Truths Again if Dr. T. be not Infallibly certain
the Motives laid by God for Mankind or his Church to embrace Faith are possible to be False As if the simplest could not nay were not most likely of all other to believe upon weak and incompetent Motives which therefore could never have been laid by God for his Church to embrace her Faith upon Or as if the most Simple that are could not rationally believe the Church and so become Infallible in their Assents by adhering to her though their weak understandings do not penetrate or comprehend how the Church or themselves come to be so nay perhaps have not a clear sight of what the word Infallible means till some Discourse awaken the apprehension of it in them § 10. Having thus acted the Disputant Exit Theologus intrat Scuâ—ra and pag. 13.14 plays the old Tricks of Legerdemain over again that is leaves out half an Argument of mine and playâ— upon the other half with all the disingenuous craft a wit bent that way could invent In Faith Vindicated pag. 89. and 90. I discours't thus The profound Mysteries of Faith will seem to a Heathen Impossible to be True therefore the Motives must at least seem Impossible to be False but Dr. T. confesses both Letter and Sence of Scripture which are his Rule of Faith possible to be False nor it being an Object proportion'd to humane Reason is there any thing to make it seem better than it is that is to make it seem Impossible to be False therefore were there no better Grounds than his it would be against all Reason to believe Having view'd my Discourse I desire the Reader to peruse the Answer here given by my Confuter He names the word Argument says two pretty words upon it that 't is pleasant and surprizing leaves out better half of it conceals perfectly all that part of it which concludes strongly against his own insufficient Grounds catches at a word and would make my Discouse and Argument aim to prove Faith Impossible to be False because the Motives are only seemingly such Whereas every Page in that Book and its whole Design shews I meant and prov'd them to be actually really and indeed such Had I a mind to evade such petty Cavils I could alledg that both may seem Impossible to be False yet one more seem so than the other But the Truth is advancing to confute him I argu'd ad hominem and contended that against a seeming Impossibility to be True nothing but Motives seemingly Impossible to be False can with any show of Reason be held convictive but he had no Motives even seemingly Impossible to be False but confessedly Possible to be such therefore they had no imaginable show of Convictiveness I grant then 't is a drawn Match as he calls it between equally-seeming Impossibilities and because 't is so therefore a seeming Impossibility to be True in the Object is by much an overmatch to what 's less than a seeming Impossibility to be False in the Motives or Grounds but both Letter and Sence of Scripture his Grounds of Faith are confessedly possible to be otherwise that is False and so are less than seemingly even to himself impossible to be False therefore his Motives to believe are incomparably overmatcht by the difficulty of the Mysteries to be believed and so there could be rationally according to his Grounds no Faith at all This is my true Argument which perhaps might be surprizing to him which made him thus start aside from putting or answering it though we may perceive by his carriage he esteems not it and others such like very pleasant Indeed he still puts on a pleasant Look when he should be Sober and is ever most Merry when it becomes him to be the most Serious but this is long since understood to be a necessary Policy not a Genuine effect of Nature He tells us that Transubstantiation is evidently Impossible to be True If so then it implies some Contradiction which if he shows me in any thing held of Faith by Catholicks in that Point I will become Dr. T's Convert and obedient Auditor But alas How will he prove any thing to be a Contradiction Since those Faulty Propositions are as was prov'd Disc. 2.3 therefore such because they are Opposite to Identical ones or the First Principles as hath been prov'd Seeing then Dr. T. has long since renounc't all those from being First Principles for any thing I can discern he must either hold there are no Contradictions at all or else which comes to the same hold that Contradictions are Truths § 11. But he goes forwards amain in confuting a Point which no man living ever maintain'd viz. that every single Christian must be Infallible that is as Dr. T. will needs take it must so penetrate his Grounds and what relates to them as to see clearly he cannot be deceivâ—d in judging his Grounds of Faith Conclusive Whereas my Tenet is that let any man though of the Acutest Understanding and greatest Learning that may be entertain any Tenet as Faith oâ— Reveal'd by God upon any other Motive than what God has lost to his Church this man however thus Endow'd not only may but in likelihood will be deceiv'd not for want of Wit but for want of Grounds ascertaining and infallibly engaging the Divine Revelation On the other side let the Simplest and Weakest Understanding that is happen to embrace Faith upon the Motives laid by God and left in his Church he is Infallibly secure from being in an Errour not through the strength of his Understanding perfectly discerning and penetrating the Conclusive nature of his Grounds but though the strength of those Grounds themselves or of the Causes laid by Gods Providence to plant and continue right Faith in the Church by means of which what he has thus more by the peculiar disposition of God's gracious Providence than any reach of his own Wit or Judgment fortunately embrac't is preserv'd impossible to False and consequently his Assent to it impossible to be an Errour because the Churches Authority upon which he receiv'd it is Infallible And surely 't is but fitting that all who believe upon that Rule God has left and commanded us to follow should be thus secur'd from possibility of Mistake for otherwise since a Power is relative to its proper Act what 's possible to be False may actually be so and so we might come to be led actually into Errour by obeying God's Commands which is impossible To apply thâ—s If Dr. T. therefore makes Scripture's Letter the Rule of Faith left by God for Mankind to receive their Faith upon and by doing so has commanded them to believe it he must either say that its Sence and Letter taking them as he builds his Faith on them have no Possibility of Falshood or besides the many absurdities already mentioned grant that our All-wise and Good God can possibly lead men into actual Errour nay command them to profess and die for a Ly than which nothing can be imagin'd
right that is both sides of the Contradiction must be True if Dr. T's Faith be True built only on moral Certainty which would utterly destroy his enemies Identical Propositions I would gladly know at least why these two equally matcht Moral Certainties shall not make a drawn battel of it or how it shall be determin'd on whose side the Certain Truth stands I doubt it will be the hardest task that ever was for him to make it even morally Certain there is a Trinity for this cannot be done but by manifesting the Letter of Scripture bears no shadow of Reason on the Socinians side otherwise that seeming Reason may be a just cause for a Protestant to suspend perhaps doubt of it and so not be morally-Certain § 15. The meaning then of these word Moral Certainty being so Indeterminate that Dr. T. himself cannot tell what to make of it no wonder our Divines cannot agree about it If he says he understands it very well I desire to put it to the Trial by producing any one Proposition held by him to be but morally-Certain and shew us Logically Art being the Test of Nature how or by virtue of what it's Terms hang together or to make out according to his own notion of Moral Certainty that not one Prudent man in the world does or can be dissatisfi'd with it What I conceive is meant generally by Moral Certainty is a high Probability or some great Likelihood which being an insufficient Ground for Faith for we are to profess and dy for the Truth of our Faith and not for its Likelyhood onely â— judge the name of it ought not to be heard when we speak of the Certainty due to Faith and itâ— Grounds unless it be signifi'd at the same time that 't is us'd Catachrestically or abusively to mean Absolute Certainty § 16. I expect D. T. will instead of making out the nature of this Chimeâ—ical Certainty run to Instances for example that of our being morally certain of the Sun 's rising to morrow and such like But first I contend he is not Certain of this his own Instance If he be let him give his Grounds of Certainty for it and go about to prove or conclude the night before that it will I doubt much he will when he comes to try it find himself gravel'd and confess with me that 't is only highly Likely 'T is well he did not live in Joshuah's or Ezekiah's time and tell them the day before that Moses his Law was only as Certain as that the Sun would not stand still or go backwards the next day for if so I doubt much those who had heard and believ'd him would have taken a just scandal at their Faith seeing Points held equally Certain as it prove actually False Again what more Certainty has he now of the Suns rising again within 18 hours after his setting than they in those days were the day before that it would not go back or stand still and yet we see they were not Certain of it for we know they had been mistaken in it and that Judgment an Error By which we see that D. T's moral Certainty means such a Certainty w ch as appear'd by this Event was Vncertain or such a Certainty as was Certain peradventure Now this nonsence has no harm in it but that 't is opposite to an Identical Proposition What 's Certain is Certain which weighs not with Dr. T. who has renounc't all First Principles In a word our B. Saviour has beforehand prevented all such Instances by â—elling us that Heaven and Earth shall fail but his Words shall not fail Intimating that the whole Fabrick of the World much more some one great part of it is tottering and unstable in comparison of the unchangeable nature of Truth and such all good Christians are to profess their Faith and be ready to dy to attest it § 17. Having thus done more than Miracle and establisht MORAL CERTAINTY which were not its self were it not unestablisht â—e procceeds p. 18. to overthrow Infallibility alledging that the Vnderstanding cannot be absolutely secur'd from all possibility of mistake but either by the perfection of its own nature which he thinks all Mankind but Mr. S. have hitherto granted that it could not or by supernatural Assistance I desire he would not stretch my Tenet beyond the bounds my self give it I never said that Human Understandingâ— could not possibly be mistaken in any thing at all but only in Knowledges built on Sensations in Knowing the Truth of First Principles in Knowing while left to Nature till Speculation for which they are too weak put them into a puzzle by Practical Self-evidence confusedly and in common something belonging to some natures daily converst with and lastly some Learned men in diverse deductions of Evident Reason for example in diverse Propositions in Euclid But that which our Subject restrains it to being about the Infallible Conveyance down of Faith is the First of those viz. Infallibility of our Sensations for once putting this Tradition is an Infallible Rule Speaking then of this which is all my present purpose requires I am so far from being the only man who holds it that Dr. T. excepting Scepticks if perhaps he be not one of that Sect is I think the only man that ever deny'd it Are not both of us infallibly certain that we Eat Drink Write and Live or did any but a mad-man ever think seriously that sober Mankind abstracting from Disease in some particulars might possibly be deceiv'd in such Knowledges as these Are not our Senses contriv'd naturally as apt to convey Impressions from the Objects to the Knowing Power I speak not of the different degrees of perfection necessarily annext to each but as to the main so as to be sufficient for use and needful Speculation as any other Causes in Nature are to do their proper Effects Have they not also as little Contingency in them and that Contingency as easily discoverable by the Standard of circumstant Mankind with whom they converse as in Iâ—terical Persons and such like This being so I affirm that the Basis on which our Rule of Faith is built viz. Natural Knowledges is more secure than any part of Nature since naturally 't is Impossible Mankind can err in these and whereas we are not Certain but it may in some Conjuncture become God's Infinite Wisdom and Goodness to exert his Divine Omnipotence and alter the course of Nature even in considerable portions of it as in the Instances given of the Sun 's standing still and going back the Universal Deluge and such like yet in our case 't is Impossible beeausâ— the altering Nature's course in such as these were directly to create False Judgments or Errour in Mankind of which 't is Impossible Essential Wisdom Goodness and Truth should be the Immediate and peculiar Cause Naturally therefore it cannot happen nor yet Supernaturally For though taking the proportion between Gods Omnipotence singly considered and the
Object 't is possible or within the compass of Gods power to make all Mankind err yet taking in his other Attributes which determin his Omnipoence to do only what 's Wise and Good and according to Truth it cannot be God should either will or do it and so it cannot be effectively done at all § 18. He objects that the Church of Rome challenges Infallibility upon no other account but that of Supernatural Assistance I answer the Church had her Rule of Faith left to her hand by Jesus Châ—ist who founded and constituted her and found it not out by Speculative Reason Whence 't is not the proper Concern of a Church to discourse very particularly about the manner and nature of the Rule of Faith but of Speculative Divines who look into the natures of things and there find the Reasons of those Truths God has barely told us Next 't is only of Faith that Christ has promis'd to assist his Church but whether Supernaturally only or also by Natural means is no where defin'd my Tenet is that he assists his Church both ways as I at large defend in Surefooting and that the best strength of Nature and Grace are both of them exerted to their utmost to ascertain the Infallible Authority on whose Testimony we receive our Faith But with this difference that the Supernatural Assistance exceedingly comforts Faith in those who are True Believers already and the Natural Assistance as far as concerns the due Satisfaction of Reason informs the Understanding of those who yet discern no Supernatâ—rality at all in the Church and have nothing but their Natural Reason to guide themselves by without which I see not how either a Circle is avoidable or rational Satisfaction to such men possible for were not a Natural Assistance admitted to introduce the knowledge of the other Supernaturals would be the way to Supernaturals and Faith the means to arrive at Faith which would confound the Means with the End I wish Dr. T. would leave off this new way of confuting by telling me still I am the only man or first man that said he should have said proov'd such or such a thing which cavil if he answer not my Argument as he seldome thinks of that duty signifies either nothing at all or else a high Commendation to me as improving Knowledge to some degree But more of this point when I come to defend my Method § 19. Hitherto then Dr. T. has given us no Absolute Certainty either of the Existence of a Deity oâ— of Christian Faith as far as it depends on the Letter of Scripture but onely such miscall'd Certainty as means Vncertainty whence his pretended Certainty of its Sence falls to the Ground But let us see how he vindicates the Certainty of Faith and himself not to hold it possible to be false by ascertaining at least the Sense of it supposing the Letter were right He tells us pag. 20. That as for the Sense of Books 't is plainly impossible any thing should be delivered in such clear and Certain words as are absolutely incapable of any other Sense And what 's the natural Sequel of this appli'd to Scripture but that 't is plainly Impossible Faith built on thaâ— Sense or rather which is that Sense should not be possible to be False and consequently the Letter can never be a competent Rule of Faith whereas in this way of conveying iâ— down by Living Voice and Practise of the Church that is â—y Cateâ—hizing publike Preaching private Discoursing consonant Living 't is made so manifest to the Generality what was held in each year immemediately before that no prejudice can make them all so mad as either to mistake or misrepresent it as 't is for Example in England for the Generality of Protestants to err or impose this this year upon the Belief of England that last year they held and practic'd Prayer for the Dead or assisting at the Christian Sacrifice By which 't will be easily seen whether of us two makes better provision for the Certainty of Faith He proceeds Yet notwithstanding this the meaning of them may be so plain as that any unprejudic'd and reasonable man may certainly understand them Let him apply this to Scripture the discourse stands thus All men are unreasonable and prejudic't who take not Scripture in my sense If this be not the meaning of his words let him tell us by what other Maxims he guides himself in judging who are such when he tells us any unprejudic't and rersonable man may certainly understand the Sense of Scripture If he can assign no other reason of those mens Faultiness but their disagreeing with him in the meaning of Scripture I doubt his Readers will scarce believe him that all Socinians and other Sects who differ from him in main Points are Passionate and Prejudic't If an indifferent man stood by while D. T. and a Socinian disputed and heard one of them cite place after place compare one place to another and use all the means he could to make out the right sense of the words and the other use the self-same Method and yet nothing concluded decisively as it never was in this way of managing disputes I fear he would be little the nearer satisfaction and embracing Dr. T's Tenet upon his saying that his Adversary was passionate and prejudic't He parallels the Certainty of Scripture Sence to that of Euclids Definitions and Axioms in the sense of which men are universally agreed and think themselves undoubtedly Certain of it and yet the words in which they are exprest may possibly bear another sence He trifles Let him show me the Generality of Scripturists as unanimously agreeing in the sense of Scripture as Geometricians do in those Axioms and Definitions or let him leave of bringing such disagreeing Parallels importing that there are not men of all Sides and Sects as willing to see Truth in things belonging to their eternal Salvation as to see the Truth in Mathematicks How many Interpretations are there of This is my Body and of those many Texts which signifie Christ to be true God Both of main Concern the understanding them wrong being on one side Idolatry on the other Blasphemy Yet we have Eminent Learned men Acute Wits Excellent Linguists Good Logicians and Historians and lastly very great Scripturists who compare also place to place yet all this notwithstanding nothing is decided finally still they Debate Write Quote Interpret and will do while this Method is taken to the Worlds End Does Dr. T. find such a disagreement amongst men Learned in the Mathematicks in the understanding the Axioms and Definitions of Euclid Add that those men in other matters are not Passionate or Prejudic't but are held Prudenâ— and Sober by great portions of Mankind nor do they lose their Repute amongst Indifferent Judges as renouncing their Manhood or perfectly deserting Reason that is they are not held Madmen for not adhering to such a determinate Sense of those places which argues
evidently that they renounce not Evidence and that the Scriptures Letter thus manag'd is not apt to ascertain them at all and so no Rule Yet he gives us one great Reason as he calls it why men do not agree in the Sense of Scripture as well as in the others because their Interests and Lusts and Passions are more concern'd So that according to Dr. T. a man who is to be guided by his Pastors and Teachers cannot be Certain of the Sense of Scripture nor consequently of Faith unless he can look into the hearts of men which is proper to God alone and discern who are Passionate prejudic'd Interessed and Lustful Again this Reason is found on either side to a great degree for were not those Axioms and Definitions so Evident that absurd men would incur the shame of Mankind to deny them there wants no temptation of Interest and passion to make Authors go about to control and contradict the Writings of others to gain themselves applause and credit But if this be one great Reason of disagreement in the Sense of Scripture I would gladly know what are the other great Reasons But of these we hear nothing and there is good Reason why for since his one great Reason is the ill-disposedness of the persons the other great Reason must be the defectiveness of the Thing that is the Inability of Scripture's Letter by reason of its Inevidence to private Understandings to make them agree in one Sense of it which manifestly makes it unfit to be a Rule of Faith § 20. To Conclude the Summe of Dr. T's Vindication of himself from making according to his Grounds Faith possible to be False amounts to this He produces words to disprove it which manifoldly confess it he endeavours all along to shew that Infallible Certainty cannot be had of either Scripture's Letter or Sense that is he grants that the whole world may be deceiv'd though all the Causes be put to secure them in the Ground of Faith or denies that absolutely speaking Faith is Certainly-True Again loath to speak out to that point candidly he shuffles about and puts upon his Adversary divers odd and ridiculous acceptions of the word Faith omitting the right one which was given to his hand Lastly being to give account what kind of Certainty he allow'd to Faith he gives such a Notion of it as signifies nothing and has all the Marks of Vncertainty imaginable taking his measure of Certainty which ought to proceed from the Object or Proof from the Subject's perswasion or adhesion to it which common Experience testifies may indifferently be found in Truths and Falshoods and Common sense confutes Nature telling every man that my Assent is not therefore Certain because I do not doubt it see not the least cause of doubt am fully perswaded and verily think so but because the Thing is seen indeed to be so or because the Proof is Conclusive Either then let him bring such Proofs and own and shew them to be such or he leaves his Cause in the lurch and his Credit which he is here defending unclear'd by yielding Faith possible to be absolutely False that is for any thing any man living knows actually such DISCOURSE VII In what manner Dr. T. replies to FAITH VINDICATED § 1. DR T. has no Fellow nor his way of Confute any parallel Not to provoke the peevishness of malice too far and yet follow home my blow more fully and yet withal to uphold the Efficacie of Faith grounded on the just Conceit of its Absolute Certainty I writ a a Book call'd Faith Vindicated in behalf of Christian Faith in Common shewing the absolute Certainty or Security from Error of that kind of Assent provided it be grounded on those Motives God had left to settle his Church and by it Mankind in Faith as I declared my self in my Introduction It pretended Demonstration from the beginning to the end and had not one drollish or unsober expression in it Take a Map of it in a few words I conceiv'd my self debtor both Sapientibus and Insipientibus and hence the Concern being common to all Christians amongst the rest to Speculative Divines I resolv'd to prove it by Arguments sutable to every Capacity To the more Intelligent to the end of the Third Eviction to the Middle or Prudential sort to the end of the Fifth· and to them of the lowest Capacity in the last every one being enabled by Tradition or Education to comprehend what the common Language and Practice of Christianity teaches them as to Speechees and Carriages appertaining to Faith I begun after I had put two Postulatum granted by all Christians with Logical Arguments which I pursu'd at large because as 't is a common Trick in Sophisters and half Logicians to abuse that Excellent Art to elude the clearest Evidendences so it became a more necessary Duty in me to prevent by the closest Proofs fetch 't from almost all Heads imaginable that belong'd to that skill any misusages of its Maxims to patronize Falshood This could be no other than very Speculative and accordingly I declar'd in my Introduction what my Reader was to expect in Discourses of that kind nor will any man indu'd with common Sense wonder that I should use Logical Expressions when I make Logical Discourses or Terms of Art when I speak to Scholars These things reflected on let us see now what a dextrous way our Learned Confuter takes to answer that whole Book for he manifests here an intention to give it no other and to overthrow so many Demonstrations § 2. His first way of Confute is to pick out a leaf or two of the most Speculative part of that Treatise only intended for Scholars and apply it to the Understandings of those who are onely Sermon-pitch to whom because such Discourses are unsutable and withal too hard for him to answer hence he very politickly both gratifies the Fancies of those Readers and avoids himself the difficult task of answering the pressing Reason in it by playing the Wit when 't was dangerous to act the Scholar and making use of his constant Friend at a dead lift Drollery in stead of relying on the Patronage of Reason which as he experiences so often betrays and exposes hss weakness He runs on therefore a whole leaf or two in this jovial Career ere he can recover himself till even his own Friends who are not aware of the necessity admire at his endless Raillery and true to his Method neglects wholly the Sense and excepts mightily against five or six hard words namely potentiality actuality actuation determinative supervene and subsume which it seems puzzle him exceedingly for he professes to think them Mystical He calls the Discourse jargon Foolish and Nonsense which two last words he is ever most free of when his Reason is most at a loss He likens it to the Coptick and Slavonian Language talks of Astrology Palmistry Chymistry and what not and with such kind of stuff confutes it
both passes my Imagination and I am confident every man's living who considers well what he says 'T is Evident then from Dr. T's whole Carriage in this business that unless perhaps the natural force of Tradition work a Practical-self evidence in him of those points in which they who hold to Tradition and He agree which he is not aware of Dr. T. does not hold his Faith absolutely but morally True which is a very strong piece of Nonsence as was shown in Faith Vindicated and will be seen hereafter and therefore it was but â—itting and necessary that I should clear the word Truth from a ridiculous Equivocation or impertinent Distinction put upon it by such Sceptical pretenders to Christianity and manifest that the word Truth in those Propositions which express the An est of a thing speaks Being and so necessarily involves Impossibility of not being or Impossibility of Falshood in its notion or which is all one materially though formally 't is different that what 's True must be Impossible to be False § 11. Hence will appear the reason why I affirm'd that discourse more than Mathematically-demonstrative because it was immediately built on that First Principle in Metaphysicks 'T is impossible the same thing should be and not be at once Which is Superiour to and clearer than any Mathematical Principle since the verity of all the Maxims of This depend on the Truth of the Other Or to explain my self more fully because 't is intirely built on the notion or nature of Being which is more Evident than any Mathematical one If he denies it he is desir'd to produce any Mathematical notion which is of equal clearness which done a little reflexion will teach him that that Mathematical notion whatever it is can bear a Definition that is can be represented or made clearer than it was while exprest by that single word defin'd whereas the notion of Being cannot possibly bear any but while we go about to explicate it better we are forc't to put its own notion in its definition and other notions besides less Evident than it self and so while we go about to explicate it better we explain it worse whence it will appear evidently by our defeat when we attempt to clear it better that 't is the clearest notion that is or clearer than Mathematical ones and consequently the discourses grounded on the Nature of Being are more than Mathematically demonstrative But I pardon this mistake to Dr. T. whom I verily judg to be sincerely Ignorant in such kind of speculations and not affectedly only as he discovers himself to be in multitudes of others Hence by the way is seen also how strangely the World is mistaken in Metaphysicks esteeming that highest Science intolerably obscure and impenetrably difficult whereas its Object being those notions that concern Being all its Obscurity and Hardness to one whom right Logick hath taught accurately to distinguish and steadily to keep distinct his notions consist only in this that 't is too Luminous and Intelligible in the same manner as the Sun is hard to be seen at Noon-day whence it happens that because we are inur'd by custome to make Definitions or Explications of what we are discoursing about and here the Subject not needing nor bearing it we can make none of Being which is the Principal Object in that Science hence being put out of our road we are at a puzzle and seem to have lost our way through too much light But 't is time now to return to his Confutation of Faith Vindicated § 12. His next Answer is that in asserting Infallibility to be necessary to the true nature of Faith I have the Generality of my own Church my professed Adversaries That is Dr. T. will say any thing Let him show me I will not say the Generality or any great number but even any one particular Catholick professing either that he relies not on the Church for his Faith or that the Church he relies on is not Infallible and I here declare that he is no Catholick and doubt not but â—ll good Sons of the Church will joyn with me in looking upon him as such I hope those Readers who are Scholars will by the way reflect how solid a Method Dr. T. still takes to confute my Discourse which is to let all my Proofs or Premises alone untoucht and fall to combat my Conclusion with Extrinsecal Mediums Next he tells â—s the Church of Rome pretends only to Infallibility founded on Christs Promise to secure the Church from Errour by a Supernatural Assistance which is evidently different from Mr. S ' s. Rational Infallibility of Tradition In which discourse are almost as many faults as words For 1. It supposes the Church excludes the concurrence of natural means to her Infallibility which he shall never show Next it supposes I exclude Supernatural Assistance and admit only Natural whereas I expresly include and openly vouch it in Sure footing from pag. 85. to pag. 93. And 3 ly He supposes that Supernatural and Rational are Inconsistent whereas in the place now cited and never spoke to in his much applauded Rule of Faith I all a long prove the Supernatural means to be very Rational and have so good an Opinion of God's Government of the World as to make account that Supernatural things have far more excellent Reason for them than Natural ones and that God does not enviously hide from us the sight of those Reasons but permits and wills they should be seen and penetrated by those who are disposed and capable by the antecedent Illumination of Faith assisted by other Natural Knowledges to look into them § 13. After this he tells us That the Divines of our Church before this new way was found out did generally resolve Faith into the Infallible Testimony of the Church and this into our Saviours promise and the Evidence of the â—rue Church into motives onely Prudential So that what he lately put upon our Church is now come to signifie Divines of oâ—a Church which gives us to understand Dr. T. makes account that Faith and School-Divinity Church and Schools Humane deduction and Divine Revelation signifie one and the same thing Next he â—cquaints us that this new way of ours was the old way in case the Divines did generally before this new way was found out resolve Faith into the Infallible Testimony of the Church For nothing is more Evident than that all the late Explicaters of Tradition make it the same with the Attestation or Testimony of the Church In that which follows I partly agree with that other sort of Divines partly I dissent from them I agree with them that our Saviour promist Infallibility to his Church as also that the knowledge of this Promise had by Faith is an excellent satisfaction to those who are already Faithful but I say withal that being a Point of Faith it can be no part of the Rule of Faith for so the same thing would in the same respect be
before and after it self as also that for the same Reason it can have no force upon one not yet arriv'd at Faith as the Rule of Faith ought to have because 't is as yet unknown to him § 14. Again I agree with them that there are ought to be many several Prudential Reasons suted to men of several Capacities and Circumstances moving them to disquisition and inclining them to embrace the right Faith and joyn themselves to the true Church but I say withal that 't is one thing to move a man to enquire and incline him to Assent another thing to settle him in a most firm Assent to such and such Points as absolutely Certain Truths which is requisit to Faith Hereupon I affirm that this later Effect cannot be wrought rationally without Grounds truly Evident and absolutely Conclusive of the thing and Knowable either by Practical Self-evidence to men of all sorts or also to the Learned by a certainly concluding Proof which I call a Demonstration I affirm moreover with due respect to those Divines that Motives onely Prudential seem improper to be named in this Case and that they must be Principia Sapientiae and not Prudentiae which can rationally make us absolutely Certain of the being or not-being of any thing that is of its Truth or Falshood the Object of Prudence being Agibilia and not Intelligibilia as such and its proper Exercise and Use being to determine a man to act exteriorly or to act thus in Circumstances where Contingency and hazard is found and not to act interiorly or meddle in the affair of Intellectual Certainty or Truth depending solely on the Principles of our Vnderstanding which are Impossible to be False and therefore plac't beyond all Contingency and Hazard In a word I shall not fear to be thought singular in my Principles while I ground my self on the nature of Faith which both all Catholicks and the Generality of those who are call'd Christians hold and St. Thomas of Aquin the Prince of School-Divines asserts as I shew'd Faith Vindicated pag. 130. § 14. As for all Objections of this nature once more I request Dr. T. to make good this Consequence that my Discourse cannot be true unless all our Divines even of the same way in common agree with me and I promise him this done to reply distinctly to all his Extrinsecal and Impertinent Exceptions which waving in the mean time my Premises he so constantly lelevels against my Conclusions And whereas he sayes I cannot reasonably charge him with those things till I have vindicated our own Divines I desire him to consider that I could not were I their Adversary charge them with what I can justly charge him They all to a man hold the Catholick Church on which they rely Infallible and hold this more firmly than they do any of their Speculations and consequently they hold their Faith Impossible to be False and so preserve the true Nature of Faith Inviolate whereas what he is to hold to most firmly according to his Principles is his own private Interpretation of Scripture which he himself and all the world besides see and hold to be Fallible and so he must say that all his Faith built upon it is possible to be a Ly for any thing he knows by which means he destroyes the nature of Faith as far as Gods Goodness will give him leave in himself and others and corrupts it into Opinion They produce Motives which though they call them Prudential are indeed some of them Demonstrative and coincident in part with Tradition whereas Dr. T. has nothing at all in his Grounds taking him as opposing Catholicks or standing to his own Rule of Faith which rightly stated has even the least shâ—w of Prudential to an unbyast man much less of Demonstrative Lastly were it a proper place to handle the point at large it were easy to shew they differ onely in a word but Dr. T. errs in the whole Thing though indeed in most of our Divines here cited he mistakes them and not they the main point whatever he pretends for however they make Prudential Motives sufficient to find the Church yet not one of them but makes the Authority of the Church when found on which they ground their Faith of far greater weight than such an Evidence as does ordinarily satisfie prudent men in humane affairs since they all hold it Infallible which is vastly more than Dr. T. holds to ground his Faith § 15. His third Answer is that this Principle of mine makes every true Believer Infallible in matters of Faith which sayes he is such a Paradox as I doubt whether ever it enter'd into any other mens mind Now this Charge of his joyn'd with my true Tenet that true Believers are those who rely on the Motives or Means left by God in his Church to light mankind in their way to Faith signifies thus much that 't is a wonderful and strange Paradox that those that follow and rely on the Motives laid by Gods Providence to direct them to Truth should in so doing not possibly be led into Error that is 't is a most absurd Paradox to say that Essential Truth should not be the Immediate and Proper Cause of Falshood But he discourses still upon this point as if I had held that the Vulgar are preserv'd from possibility of Errour or are Infallible not through the Goodness of the Grounds left by God to preserve them from Erring but from the strength of their own Vnderstanding which I do not remember I ever thought or said even of the most Learned He asks If this be true what need then of my Infallibility of Pope or Council And I ask him what need Governors when people know their Duty or Judges seeing the main of the Common Law is Traditionary to men verst in such affairs Self-known practically Let him but assure the world that no Upstart shall have an humour to rebel and innovate but that all Christians shall practice and hold to what they know evidently was practic'd and held by the immediately foregoing Church and I will assure him there will need no Infallible Desiner not any at all as to such points But Dr. T. discourses still as if there were no difference between the rude dim degree of Knowledge in the Vulgar and the accurate exact and oft-reflâ—cting Knowledge of those who by their great Learning their Education their Posture and Office are particularly verst and most deeply insighted into the affairs of Faith and all that belongs to the right explaining or wording it thence declaring it authentickly so to keep its distinct Sense clear in the minds of the Faithful which the Equivocating Witty Heretick endeavours to render confus'd and obscure I wish he would study our Tenets a while and understand them ere he undertakes to confute us He is very raw in things of this nature § 16. His next Errour is worse than the former He would fain perswade Catholicks if any
Reason against Raillery OR A Full Answer TO Dr. TILLOTSON's PREFACE Against J. S. With a farther EXAMINATION Of His Grounds of Religion The gravest Book that ever was written may be made ridiculous by applying the Sayings of it to a foolish purpose Dr. Tillot Serm. p. 121. Anno Dom. MDCLXXII Advertisement IT being the general Temper of Mankind to call any thing by an odious Name which themselves dislike and particularly the Humour of the Times to call every thing Popery which comes cross to their Interest I cannot expect my present Adversary whose Zeal as will appear by the perusal of this Treatise carries him much farther than his Reason should be exempt from a Failing so Epidemical and withal so Necessary for his Purpose For nothing more easily solves all Arguments or more readily Answers any Book with the Vulgar than this short Method Inure them to a hideous apprehension of Popery then call any Production by that Name and all farther Confute is needless With the Vulgar I say for I shall presume that whoever reads this Treatise will judge it Incredible Dr. T. should hereafter attempt to write to such as are truly Learned till he thinks fit to settle and pursue some Conclusive Method of Discoursing which I am sure he will not because his Cause will not bear it I am to expect then from the Disingenuity of my Opposers that this Piece will be branded for Popery thence the publishing it made an Insolence and to lay on more load strain'd to an Immodest Abuse of the late Merciful Indulgence I am forc'd therefore to stop the Reader at the very Entrance and to declare to him before-hand that in perusing this Treatise he shall find that the Points at present maintained by me are onely these That Christian Faith and the Tenet of a Deity are Absolutely Certain If this be Popery all the Sober and Well-meaning Protestants Presbyterians and almost all England nay all True Christians are Papists for not one of them who uses or discourses of the word FAITH but râ—tains in his natural thoughts unless bad Speculation have corrupted Nature this hearty conceit of it that 't is absolutely Impossible to be all a Ly for any thing any man living knows and abhor the contrary Tenet that is they are all on my side If then Dr. T. does not in discoursing here the Grounds of Faith sustain this contrary Tenet and so violate the Nature of Faith I have at present no quarrel with him but he a very grievous one with me for wronging him and I must acknowledge I owe him Satisfaction as publick as the Injury If he does all Protestants Presbyterians c. have the same Quarrel with him I have and so ought to joyn with me against him and he will owe Satisfaction to them all as well as to Catholicks for corrupting the Nature of Faith which we all acknowledge necessary to Salvation into Opinion and so quite enervating its force and influence towards bringing Souls to Heaven as will be shewn hereafter I could alledge to justifie my Writing at present the earnest and daring provocations of Dr. T. and his Friend publickly in their late Books also that this Treatise was near Printed ere His Majesties Gracious Declaration was Published But I shall make use of no other Justification but the nature of my Cause which is the Common Concern of all good Christians and can never be unseasonable to defend or be offensive to any who is heartily a Friend to Christianity to see it defended And if any Clamours be rais'd against me for so doing 't is abundantly satisfactory to me that the World before-hand understands how worthy the Cause is for the maintaining of which I suffer this reproach TO The Knowing Candid WITS of This Nation Especially Those who are an Ornament To the UNIVERSITIES And other Learned SOCIETIES GENTLEMEN I Know not to whom all Attempts to advance Truth in any kind can more properly belong than to You to whom Knowledge gives Ability to discern the profest study of Truth Candour and Sincerity to own what You discern and both together a perfect Qualification to be Iudges in Affairs of this Nature The Enemies to Learning are Ignorance and Passion and I take you to be as much above the later as the World will witness you are free from all suspicion of the former I have great reason to believe I am not mistaken in the judgment I make of You and that few Nations can produce an equal number of Men so Acute to discover the Truth so Wise to judge of it and speaking generally so Unbyass'd to acknowledge it This consideration gives me a high esteem for your Authority and that Esteem the Confidence to make choice of You for my Umpires The wise Iustice of this Nation has provided that all differences betwixt contending Parties be try'd by their Peers and though your dissenting from me in some particular Points might possibly cause Iealousie in one who was not well assured of his own Cause or your Integrity yet the Interests of Learning are common to us both and of the Right or Injury done to That you are the Best and peradventure Onely Iudges and for that Point I confidently appeal to You. Having made my Address give me leave in the next place to declare my Case I had observed with much grief the Swarms of new Sects not to mention the declining of many good Wits towards Atheism which pester our Country and looking into the Causes of such sad Effects it needed no great reach to discover that the Fancies of men being both by Nature and Circumstances fram'd to great variety it could not be expected but they should take their several Plies and sway mens Thoughts and Actions accordingly unless some Principle Evident in a manner to all should oblige the Judgment of the Wiser at least to adhere unanimously to the same Profession of Faith and satisfie by Motives within their own ken and even forestall by the way of Nature the irregular deviations to which weaker Fancies must of necessity be subject Nor could I nor indeed can any man think but that as GOD the Author of every perfect Gift settled Faith most firmly at first in the hearts of the Primitive Believers by Evident Miracles so he intended and ordered as far as was on His part that it should continue all along the same or that his Church should persevere in Unity of Faith and consequently that he settled such a Rule to convey the knowledge of it to us as was of a nature able to establish it and satisfie according to their several capacities both the Wise and the Unwise Whence necessarily follows that all division about Faith is to be refunded into the faulty unwariness of men who deflect from that Rule not into want of fore-sight in the All-wise Founder of the Church in leaving us such a Rule of Faith as should set us all on wrangling instead of keeping us at Unity These considerations
earnestly with me to surcease They alledged that unpassionate Examiners might easily discover by what had been done already how frivolous and insignificant the whole way was which my Adversary took and that another and more convictive Reply might possibly heighten the anger to fatal extremities That if I were less sensible of my own safety I should yet have regard to my Friends and all Catholicks that it was to be feared that an exception against a particular person might in that Iuncture be enhanc'd to a Crime of the Whole and the crossing the humour or interest of that implacable Party raise the storm of the Great Diana of the Ephesians and give the Gospel-Trumpeters occasion to sound out aloud Papa ad Portas To this was joyned for why should I be ashamed to acknowledge my Poverty into which that Persecution had driven me that I had written more then I was able to print In fine Authority and Reason and Necessity prevail'd with me and I forbore to finish what I had begun and to publish what I had finish'd But yet the desire I had to be instrumental in settling so important a Truth suggested to me a middle way which as I hoped would be incapable to be wrested into offence so I saw plainly would be much more beneficial to the world and to the Learned more satisfactory I had observ'd in the Sermon which Dr. T. call'd the Wisdom of being Religious a Concession which amounted to this that the very Tenet of a Deity might possibly be false I saw the same sence often imply'd in his Rule of Faith and p. 1â—8 plainly own'd I perceiv'd and knew all men of insight must needs perceive with me that as this was the onely material so 't was a full Answer to my Book and rendred the disquisition whether this or that be the Rule of Faith very superfluous if it might be maintained It had no Rule at all nor was capable of any For a Rule speaking of an Intellectual Rule as both of us do being a means to make us certainly know something to be a Truth He who says that thing may possibly be false or not be a Truth says it neither has nor can have any Rule I resolved therefore to write a Treatise in behalf of Christian Faith in common in which I endeavoured to demonstrate from all Heads I could invent that the Generality of Christians or those who rely on the common Motives left by God to the Church as I exprest my self in my Introduction the assent called Faith must be Impossible to be False or Erroneous And applying this to Dr. T. and his Adherents who as I shew'd from his own words granted his Assent built on that which he esteems his onely Rule of Faith possible to be false I concluded them beyond all possibility of evasion not to have true Faith nor be truly Faithful And this I conceive was to follow on my blow as I had promised it being unimaginable how the Controversie could be prest more home than to conclude my Adversary and his whole Cause from the very An Est of Faith the Subject of our Dispute nor how his whole Book which he calls the Rule of Faith can be more fundamentally overthrown than by shewing from his own words and the Nature of the Thing that his mis-called Faith has no Rule at all nor can have any I conceiv'd too that this was to make good the engagement into which I had enter'd to force them either to lay Principles which would bear the Test or let all the world see they had none For in case they did manifest their Faith Impossible to be False they must of necessity build it upon such Grounds as would sustain such a Building if they did not the World must needs judge by their silence that they had none and that they knew and confest they could not evidence themselves truly Faithful and right Christians I saw besides that this method permitted me to pursue a rational close way of Discourse without the continual interruption which the insisting upon my Adversaries mistakes must needs occasion which as it was more satisfactory to me and more creditable to my Cause so I judg'd it more beneficial to the intelligent Reader for a particular Answer must of necessity be made up for the greatest part of accusations where the Answerer thinks it his best play to mistake all along instead of direct confuting I cannot say I am in the right but I must say likewise that who says otherwise is in the wrong and that he either misunderstands or misrepresents and this either ignorantly or wilfully to show which is a task no more pleasant to the Reader than the Writer People being of opinion and I think they have great reason that the time and pains spent in such wranglings might with much more advantage be employ'd in convincing the Truth in question Lastly my aim was from the beginning to bring Controversies to a Conclusion in order to which I had proposed a Conclusive Method my Adversary neither accepted of mine nor proposed any other of his own as I had desired And I saw that by proceeding with him in his talking fashion the Point might come to be lost in a Wilderness of Unconnected Words Wherefore I judg'd it better to pursue my design more closely and by the bare stating the Nature of Christian Faith to reduce all Disputes to this short Period Either produce and vouch such Grounds for your Faith as are Impossible to be False or 't is evident you have none It seemed by the Event the way I took was not ill chosen Dr. T. being still able to boast his Book was not particularly answer'd and so uphold his Credit with those who look not deeply into Things seem'd by his silence well-appay'd and I heard of no more extraordinary Anger against me And for my part I was contented that superficial People should judge as their wit serv'd them it being abundant satisfaction to my Labours that Intelligent and Insighted Persons might perceive by them how matters stood and into how narrow a compass Controversie was reduced And of this I have ample experience from the most Iudicious of our Nation who unanimously assur'd me that it was impossible to carry things farther or bring Controversie to a shorter Method since now the whole Cause depended upon one single Proposition by the sole examination of which it was to be decided Thus stood the Controversie and thus for some years it rested For the future I intended when it might be seasonable to write onely such Grounds as I judged might be a solid Foundation for Union which as I have always look'd upon as the best of Works so I know 't is Impossible till order be first taken to secure the Absolute and Immoveable Certainty of Faith it self which I think is not otherwise to be done then by shewing how and which way it comes to be Certain In this Calm I heard several reports that the
this Tradition in the matter of Tradition or matter of Fact before our time is self-evident to all those who can need the knowledge of such things that is to all Mankind who use Common Reason that is self-evident Practically or by ordinary converse with the world See Sure f. Disc. 1. § 12. it being impossible to conceive that those words all Mankind who use Common Reason should mean Speculaters And it seems very consonant to Reason that if the Vulgar must rely on and use Attestation as 't is manifest they must they should since they are not Scholâ—ars know by a natural means that 't is to be rely'd on The fair Admonition which he speaks of for these two Faults of mine is found Rule of Faith p. 47. where I am soberly warn'd to take heed how I go about to demonstrate First and Self-evident Principles Which first is no fair return to a Scholar to fall to exhort him with Fatherly Admonitions not to hold his Conclusion I mean that which is suppos'd his Conclusion without speaking at all to his Premises Next 't is far from fair in another regard which I am loth to mention to pick out of those two Propositions now mentioned those two words First Principle and Self-evident so closely woven there with other words to make up that one notion call'd the Predicate in either of them by this means making the Readers apprehend that I made Tradition not first IN WAY OF AUTHORITY onely as I had exprest my self but one of those Principles which are the very first of all or as himself expresses it such as have nothing before them as also that I made Tradition or the Attestation of a visible matter of Fact by so great multitudes as nothing can be imaginable to have byass'd them as I had often exprest my meaning not self-known Practically but Speculatively that is of the self-same nature with the very First Principles of all such as are 'T is impossible the same thing should be and not be A whole is greater than a part and such-like Observe next I beseech you that all his confute is intirely built on his carriage here laid open for he attempts not to shew that Tradition is not that which Principles Grounds or which is all one Authenticates all other Authority or that 't is not self-known practically but all the Cry and Irony is spent upon my ridiculousness in proving First and self-evident Principles and this because they have nothing before them and need no evidencing How NOTHING before them Does not every Scholar who ever read or studied the Subordination of Sciences know very well that what is a First Principle to the Inferiour Science is a Conclusion to the Superiour Does not all Mankind know that Maxims of Reason are before Authority and that No Authority deserves Assent farther than Right Reason gives it to deserve Does not the meanest Speculater know that most of the employment of learned men is to make out speculatively by looking into Proper Causes what is naturally or practically known to the Vulgar An old Wife knows by practice that such an herb cures such a malady are Naturalists therefore forbid to make out according to the nature of Causes how or by what virtue it performs that effect The vulgar have a rude yet true knowledge of what is meant by Hot and Cold Moist and Dry Is it needless therefore for Philosophers to define them artificially and so gain a more express notion of their natures Is it needless for Picture-drawers to delineate with curiosity and exactness because some Country-fellow can draw a rude yet right resemblance of a face upon a wall with a piece of charcoal Or for learned men to polish their knowledge and make it accurate and distinct because the vulgar know the same thing bluntly confusedly and in gross Lastly Is Are needless because there is Nature Yet this is the very case The vulgar know practically that there was such a one as K. James yet 't is not needless for one who is treating of the nature of Authority to make out speculatively that their knowledge is rightly grounded on the nature of Mankind and how this assurance is wrought in them out of the practically-instill'd knowledge of that nature § 3. But what I most complain of because which I am loth to say it argues a perfect wilfulness of Insincerity is this that after I had in my Letter of Thanks p. 10. offered my Proof that First Principles were Identical Propositions and could be no other Also after that p. 24 25. I had shown that things practically self-evident may be demonstrated and produc'd divers instances as that the vulgar know the Diameter of the Square is a nearer way than to go by the two sides that things seen afar off are not so little as they seem which yet Mathematicians demonstrate and none apprehends them to do a needless action Dr. T. not so much as attempts to answer either my Instances or my Reasons but perfectly conceals them from his Reader and bears himself all along triumphantly as if I had produc'd none at all barely says over again his own raw sayings a little more merrily and there 's an end I beseech you Gentlemen would this be held a competent Answer in the University-Schools First to admonish the Defendant to relinquish his Conclusion instead of beating him from it by Reason then to combat the Conclusion instead of invalidating the Premises on which 't is built next to pick a word or two out of those Conclusions which taken alone alter their whole sence and then confute onely that new sence his designed alteration had given them and lastly when he was told of it his mistakes rectified Reasons and Instances brought to make good the true point to neglect them all say over again barely what he had said before break a jest or two upon a ridiculous point meerly invented by himself and then cry victory Certainly though such performances may serve a Prevaricator or a Terrae Filius yet some wiser kinde of return ought in reason to be expected from a Scholar and a sober man As for that point which he most confutes with laughter viz. That First Principles are Identical Propositions though something has been produc'd in my Letter of Thanks in the place cited and not yet answered and so no farther proof is due or needful yet because the clearing this point fundamentally conduces to settle the way to Science therefore for their sakes who are truly learned and aim at solid improvement of their minds by exact knowledge more than at pleasing their ears by pretty expressions I shall treat the point more accurately The stating the nature of First Principles must needs be Speculative therefore those Readers who pretend not to Science may please to pass over these two Discourses and go on to what follows though I shall endeavour as well as the matter will bear to deliver it so that a good natural Wit may in
a Conclusion of a Syllogism that is they can be concluded or admit of Proof Wherefore since 't is a contradiction to say that the Prime Verities can admit Proof their Terms must be farthest from having any Middle Term coming between them that is imaginable that is must be of the self-same notion and so they must be Identical Propositions The former of these Discourses was put down by me Letter of Thanks p. 10 11 12. which one would think it became a Logician to speak to But my Adversary is of another metal not the very same but near akin to aes sonans aut cymbalum tinniens He never meddles willingly with Premisses or Proofs but denies the Conclusion stoutly never acknowledging what was said in its behalf and tinkles a little Rhetorick against it which done who would think it immediately as with some Charm the Terms unconnect of themselves and miraculously fly asunder and though before it look'd like good honest Reason yet by his giving it a Disguise instead of a Confute 't is turn'd perfect Nonsence But to return to our Argument § 5. Logick tells us moreover that whatever accidental considerations may enhance Opposition 't is agreed by all that a Contradiction is formally and intrinsecally the greatest or First of Falshoods also that a Contradiction is An affirming and denying the same of the same according to all the same respects wherefore the very First Principles being the First of Truths ought to be diametrically opposite to Those that is an Affirming or denying the same of the same according to all the same respects which is impossible to be exprest but by an Identical Proposition § 6. Add that since Contradiction is Faulty and all Fault is a Privation of the opposite Good which it violates it follows that a Contradiction were innocent did it not violate some opposite Truth Since then the Light of Nature teaches every Reflecter that 't is impossible to assign any Truth Opposite to a Contradiction but an Identical Proposition it follows that First Truths or First Principles must be Identical Propositions § 7. To explain this better we shall find by reflexion that two Contradictory Propositions are comprisable into One equivalent to both whose Subject and Predicate contradict one another as Peter here and now runs Peter here and now runs not are necessarily equivalent to this What here and now runs here and now runs not So likewise Scripture's Letter is a Rule Scripture's Letter is not a Rule is equivalent to this Something which is a Rule is not a Rule and so of the rest By which 't is easie to discern how clear a Truth it is that Identical Propositions are the proper opposites to Contradictions or the Truths they directly and immediately violate and consequently First Principles Since 't is impossible mans wit rack'd to its utmost can invent any Opposite to What runs runs not but What runs runs or to What is a Rule is not a Rule but What is a Rule is a Rule Lastly The nature of Contradiction in common puts a thing to be and not be at once and consequently puts this Proposition What is not is to which the onely opposite Truth is What is is which is therefore the First Standard of all Truth and all other First Principles as A Rule is a Rule A Man a Man c. are but particulars subsuming under it and partaking in the most perfect manner of its clearest Light § 8. Farther 't is observable that the more remote the Terms of a Proposition are from Formal Identity the less evident they are and the more proof they require as also that they still grow nearer and nearer to evidence according to the degree of their approach toward the said Identity Wherefore since all Approach of distant things if pursu'd ends in a conjoyning and centering in the same 't is manifest that all distance in notion amongst Terms ends in their being the same in notion that is in an Identical Proposition as also that such Propositions are for the reason given the most evident that may be and so in both regards the very First Principles § 9. Farther All Propositions which are capable of proof or all Conclusions must have their Terms materially Identical that is what corresponds to both their notions must be found in the same Thing else they could not be True nor capable to be proved wherefore the Terms in First Principles must be formally such nay the most formally that is possible but nothing is or can be more formally Identical than to have the Predicate and Subject every way the same such therefore the very First Principles ought necessarily to be § 10. There is also in Logick a way of arguing by bringing one to an Absurdity or Contradiction And this is performed two manner of ways One by forcing the Defendant to contradict himself The other by obliging him to contradict the nature of the Subject in question The former of these is available as an Argument ad hominem but the latter attempt if brought to effect is a perfect Conquest And why but because it puts the Defendant to violate the nature of the Thing under debate that is to thwart this First Principle The same is the same with it self for example to make Quantity not to be Quantity a Rule not to be a Rule Faith not to be Faith as shall be shewn hereafter more clearly when we come to see the use of the First Principles in particular Instances § 11. Moreover if it be well examin'd 't will be found that all Efficiency and Passiveness that is all kind of Operation is nothing but the existence of such a Nature exerting or as it were imprinting it self upon the Subject in which it works its Effect For example when a Brass Seal makes an Impression upon soft Wax no account can be given of this Effect abstracting from Motion which is caus'd by a Nature superiour to Body but onely this that the Agent is of such a degree of Density or Hardness as if mov'd or apply'd to that matter is apt to alter the figure of its parts according to its own mould and the Patient of such a yielding nature in comparison of the other as to receive its Impression and yet not to that degree Rare as to lose it again by the Action of the common Causes in Nature till some more particular Agent comes to efface it 'T is manifest then that all Causality essentially depends on and is finally resolv'd into this Truth that Things are such as they are which is their being in part what they are All knowledge then of Cause and Effect and consequently all Demonstration is ultimately refunded that is primarily built on those Propositions which express Things being what they are that is into Identical Ones § 12. Lastly He who is Essential Wisdom and Truth it self has propos'd to us an Identical Proposition in those words I am what I am which is the First Increated Truth as
which he can never be driven which signifies that such Truths as these are the Principles which naturally determin and fix him in an immovable adherence to the Point as the ultimate resort and reason of his persuasion that is they are to him First Principles 'T is observable also that they are never more serious than when they are put to express themselves in this positive kind of blunt manner nor would any By-stander perhaps not Dr. T. himself though he be the merriest man living when any talk is of Principles and Demonstrations fall a laughing at them as ridiculous for their adhering finally to Identical Propositions Which evidences that he has a conceit that First Principles are some fine elaborate Inventions of Wit and that they are to tell a man something he knew not before whereas they are such Truths as no man can possibly be ignorant of as appears in those in Euclid and other such-like which seem at first blush full as ridiculous as those he so laughs at Lastly 'T is observable that those witty half-Speculaters who scorn to follow Nature in their Grounds when they come to lay any themselves propose meer Whimsies for First Principles of which Dr. T. is a pleasant Instance as shall be seen hereafter DISCOURSE III. That First Principles are Identical Propositions proved by many Instances and their Right Use shown § 1. THus far we have discours'd the nature of First Principles from Logick and Metaphysick within whose Confines that Matter was plac'd Which no Intelligent Reader could expect to be less Speculatively deliver'd considering the nature of that Subject For common Reason tells any competent Judge in such affairs that if any Sublunary Matter can require high Speculation certainly a Discourse which states the nature of the Supreme Verities must forcibly exact it Wherefore to make it more intelligible I shall for my Readers sake do three things First instance in some particular Identical Propositions granted by all the World to be First Principles in their respective Sciences Next show the Use of these First Principles which my ignorant Adversary so miserably mistakes And now and then by the way apply them to the present Controversie about Tradition § 2. As for the First I show'd Dr. T. Letter of Thanks p. 25. an Example of one First Principle granted to be such by all who treat of the nature of Quantity though he out of a constancy to his 〈◊〉 humour never heeds to take notice of it 'T is this A Whole is more than a Part Nor perhaps will so profound a man at superficial Talk deny this to be a First Principle in regard the Subject and Predicate of that Proposition by reason of the different manner of expressing only which he minds not the Sence seem disparate in their notion and so not Identical or too closely connected which he hath a most special Antipathy against in First Principles as is seen by his impugning it in mine and will more amply appear when he comes to put his own Nay the great difference in the sounds of the Subject and Predicate will make it to one who looks not much farther to bear the face of a certain kind of distance and disagreement in sence between them which will no doubt please him hugely Yet I must contest that that Proposition is Self-evident and that its Self-evidence consists in this that its Subject and Predicate consider'd Logically and not Grammatically are perfectly Identical that is to Dr. T. are fully as Ridiculous as A Rule is a Rule Faith is Faith Which I thus shew The Subject of that Proposition A who le is defin'd to be That which consists of Parts or since a Thing is that of which it consists it 's equivalent in sence is in reality A Whole is Parts Now the word Parts being plural necessarily and formally imports more than one Part wherefore this Proposition A Whole is more than a Part is perfectly the self same in sence with this That which is more than one Part is more than one Part which is directly Identical § 3. Moreover some late Philosophers build their Physicks on this Principle Corpus est quantum in which the Subject and Predicate differ indeed Grammatically one being Substantively the other Adjectively exprest but if we rifle the words to clear the inward sence as is the duty of Scholars or Philosophers we shall find that since all the Essential difference we know between a Body and a Spirit is this that this is Indivisible the other Divisible as also that Quantity and Divisibility is the same notion it will appear evidently that this Proposition Body is Quantitative is aâ—cording to them perfectly equivalent in sence to this What is Divisible is Divisible which is manifestly Identical § 4. Again all the Learned World hitherto have held that we have Certain Maxims ingrafted in us by Nature I mean imbuing our Mind by the first impressions on our Understanding without our contributing to their generation in the least more than by having an Intelligent Nature passively receiving those Impressions and these they call Principia Intellectus which generally concern the nature of Being that Conception being the most Luminous and by means of which striking the Eye of our Soul all our Intellectual Sight is produc'd as will appear to any one who attentively considers that all our Discourses consist of Judgments exprest by Propositions and those essentially depend on the notion of Being wherefore unless this be known antecedently 't is impossible either to judge think or discourse Hence follows that the First of our Knowledges is of the self-discovering nature or notion of Being and the most obvious knowledge of Being is this that it formally excludes or is extreamly opposite to Not-Being and therefore inconsistent with it in the same Subject which we use to express by this Proposition Impossibile est idem esse non esse 'T is impossible the same thing should be and not be This therefore hath ever been deservedly held a First Principle in Metaphysicks establishing all our Discourses that concern the actual Being of Things and grounding in a manner all Logick And yet 't is plain to the meanest Speculater that this Proposition is the self-same in sence with this What is is Which is most formally and supremely Identical The impossibility mention'd in the former lighting onely on this that actual Being and Not Being should agree to the same Subject or which is all one that the Subject and Predicate in this later Proposition should not be connected § 5. But it may be the Principles of Mathematicks will better rellish to our fastidious age which neglecting to consider what 't is that makes Geometry a Science think there is no Demonstration but in Lines and Numbers To them then let 's go and at first entrance into Euclid we are met with these famous and useful Principles Those which are Equal to the same are Equal to one another If Equals be added to Equals
the Wholes are Equal If Equals be taken away from Equals the Remainders are Equal Those which are twice as big as the same are Equal Those which are Halfs of the same are Equal Besides others of the same strain and amongst the rest A Whole is greater than a Part of it self of which we lately discours'd Now I contend that all these are in effect Identical Propositions and in the common sence of every Intelligent man amount meerly to as much as this Aequale est aequale sibi An Equal is equal to it self or else suppose it necessarily as the very First Principle upon whose most evident Verity their 's depends For example this Proposition If Equals be added to Equals the Wholes are Equal is clearly made up of the now mentioned Identical Proposition thrice as it were repeated and is plainly as much as to say The two suppos'd Equals are Equal to one another the two Equals added are Equal to one another and so the two Wholes made up of both those Equals that is the Equal Wholes are Equal to one another And the same may be said of all the rest of that kind Which were it not that men expect rigour of discourse in the Subject of Geometry and have entertain'd a conceit that 't is not to be expected nor had in other matters would look full as Ridiculous by reason of their seemingly too great Plainness and Evidence as a Rule is a Rule or Faith is Faith § 6 I come now to perform the second thing I promis'd which is to show what use is to be made of First Principles and how In which hard point my Friend Dr. T. is at his wits end And first he tells you soberly Pref. p. 38. if you will take his word that the mischief is they are good for nothing Which were I confess a mischief with a witness for without these no man living could either know judge or discourse § 7. Next he quotes Aristotle against me as disliking a Proposition of the very same stamp with â—y First Principles To which my answer is and I desire it may serve for his objecting all other mock-Authorities of this nature that though I value and honour Aristotle exceedingly yet neither he nor any man living taken as a Reasoner or in things which are the Proper Object of Humane Discourse has any the least Authority over my Understanding but by virtue of the Reasons he produces Let him then make use of Aristotles Reasons and the like I say of School-Divines against me as much as he will since those if Convictive may subdue my Understanding to assent iâ— I be Intelligent and Candid or else expose me to the Disesteem of Learned men if I be either so ignorant as not to understand their force or so insincerely obstinate as not to admit them though I see they conclude Otherwise to neglect to alledge their Reasons and think to combat and overthrow me by objecting their bare Sayings is so senceless a conceit as onely could enter into the head of such a puny Logician In a word let him either prove this a necessary consequence Aristotle School-Divines or other Discoursers say such a thing ergo 't is True or else desist from such an insignificant method of confuting Add that he puts me by his indistinct citing the place to find out one half line perhaps in a large Treatise otherwise I should not doubt to show that Great Man not so opposite to my Doctrine as Dr. T. would perswade his Readers § 8. After this he assures us that by ten thousand of these Identical Propositions a man shall not be able to advance one step in knowledge because they produce no Conclusion but themselves By which he gives us very learnedly to understand that he either never knew or else hath quite forgot that there ought to be two Premâ—sses to infer a Conclusion and three Terms in every legitimate Syllogism and not one Premiss and one or at most two Terms onely And lest you should think I abuse him in putting upon him such an absurdity as never Junior Sophister yet was guilty of he pursues the acknowledgement of it home and to convince me forsooth of the Foolery of these Principles he will needs try what can be done with them either in a Categorical or Hypothetical Syllogism thus A Rule is a Rule but Tradition is a Rule Ergo Tradition is a Rule Again If a Rule be a Rule then a Rule is a Rule but a Rule is a Rule Ergo. And when he hath done he asks if any man be the wiser for all this I answer not a jot but I know a certain person much foolisher for it Yet he says it may be Mr. S. may make better work with them and manage them more dextrously And truly I hope so too else he would deserve to be as ridiculous as himself that manag'd them so childishly In the mean time 't is observable what a Scholar-like way he takes to confute and what a high conceit he has of his Jests Was Drollery ever till now held a Convictive or a Jeer a Demonstration Alas poor Trifler § 9. To make way towards the declaring the proper use of First Painciples I am first to remove Dr. T.'s misconceit and to instruct his ignorance that the very First Principles or Identical Propositions cannot be the Premisses in any Syllogism To do which he may please to know or rather to reflect that every Legitimate Syllogism has three distinct Terms of which the Proposition which is to be prov'd or to be the Conclusion affords us Two the Third or Middle Term is to be sought for and taken from the nature of the Subject in hand or from what 's intrinsecally or at least necessarily connected with it in case we would conclude the Thing Certain This Middle Term in that Figure which is the onely natural and proper one joyn'd with the Predicate of that Proposition which was in question or to be concluded makes the Major the same with the Subject of the said Proposition makes the Minor Whence is seen that each Proposition in a legitimate Syllogism has two Terms formally distinct that is two which are not formally the same or Identical and consequently that the very First Principles can never be Premisses in an exact Syllogism speaking as he does of those which are every way Identical § 10. To show then their Proper Use I explain my self thus All solid Discourse concerning any Subject ought to be grounded upon the nature of the Thing under debate and to endeavour all what may be to hold firmly to that Nature which if it does 't is rightly made and Demonstrative if not 't is absurd and Contradictory Wherefore he who discourses right guides himself all along by the Thing 's being such that is by being what it is which is rooted in his Judgement keeps a steady eye upon that Point lest in discourse he deviate and swerve from its nature On the other
same with the other Which being impossible in regard every thing is precisely what it is or the same with it self it follows likewise that 't is impossible that a Conclusion thus deduc'd should not be true or which is all one that the Extreams of it should not be the self-same as far as concerns verifying or justifying the Truth of the Propositions For example in this Syllogism Virtue is laudable Courtesie is a Virtue Therefore Courtesie is laudable The two first Propositions being true and the Copula is expressing Identity of the Extreams we see that Laudable and Courtesie must needs be the same with Virtue wherefore also either they must forcibly be the same in the Conclusion or else Virtue must be not one but two that is must involve in its self two dis-agreeing natures according to one of which 't is the same with Laudable and according to the other with Courtesie by which means Courtesie and Laudable become not the same in the Conclusion But 't is impossible Virtue should have Intrinsecal Disagreement or Division within its own self or not be the same with its own self or which is all one be not-it-self Wherefore 't is Impossible those two Terms truly exprest to be the same with Virtue in the Premises should not be the same with one another in the Conclusion or which is all one 't is impossible that the Conclusion should not be True § 15. Hence is seen that the Light of Reason or that Light by which we draw new Knowledges out of fore-going ones is that very Light which shines in thâ—s self-evident Proposition The same is the same with it self Which would make one think verily this Identical Proposition were neither Ridiculous nor good for nothing as also which our Great Doctor will wonder at that if the Terms be freed from ambiguity and a Middle Term be rightly chosen a man who understands Logick may come to be infallibly assur'd of his Conclusision for the same reason a Mathematician may be infallibly certain that omne Triangulum habet tres angulos aequales duobus rectis and upon this assuranâ—e given him by these Ridiculous First Principles as our Ridiculous Logician calls them grow so hard hearted in holding to his Conclusion thus demonstratively deduc'd that he will not forgo it though two admirable Vndemonstrating DOCTORS OF NO PRINCIPLES Dr. St. and Dr. T. break Jest after Jest which my Friend calls here fair Admonitions upon Principles Demonstration Rule c. and upon me for holding them even so far as to make good Dr. T. quite despair of convincing me as he here soberly and sadly complains to his Reader Pref. p. 3. § 16. Lastly Hence is seen in what way we make use of this First Principle The same is the same with it self and the like is to be â—aid of others of this nature to wit thus that if the Discourse be so fram'd as necessarily to engage the Verity of that First Principle it must most inevitably and infallibly be Certain and Demonstrative but if the Discourse clash with it and thwart it 't is as Certainly Contradictory Absurd and False § 17. I foresee this First Principle now spoken of which grounds all Reason will even for that regard incur Dr. T's high dis-favour as well as its Fellows for a very small stock of Reason will serve to Set Up a Talking Divine and too much will quite Break him and therefore I have a great desire to reconcile them by letting him see that himself through the goodness of Nature is forc'd to guide himself by those First Principles though he strive all he can to pervert Nature and slight them nay that himself must grant that Identical Propositions deserve to be call'd and esteem'd First Principles after all this ranting and swaggering noise against them To do this I will put them on his side hoping his own Interest Passion and Partiality to whâ—ch his Reason seems a sworn Slave will invite him to see that Truth which in other circumstances he was not capable of In his Rule of Faith p. 183 184. he combates Sure footing as making Moral Motives and Arguments necessarily produce their Effect upon a free Agent the Will of Man and argues pretty well against it if he were not mistaken all the while out of the nature of Man as Free and certainly he must see 't is his own best and closest play to contend that I subvert the nature of a Free Agent as such by my Discourse and what means this but that my Discourse makes that which is Free to be Not-Free and is not this as plainly to say that I wrong that Principle What 's free is free as man can speak If he say 'T is not I ask him what First Truth or Principle I wrong by making that which is Free to be Not Free If I wrong no Principle my Discourse would be unblameable if any the Wit of man can assign none but that Identical Proposition What 's free is free this and onely this beâ—ng formally oppos'd to that other in which he must contend my Discourse is faulty namely the sustaining that What is free is not free Again as was said a Contradiction is the Chief of Falsehoods and being faulty in point of Truth and all Fault or Defect being as such a Negative or Privative its malice can onely be known by the Positive Good which it violates or excludes that is in our case by the Opposite Truth which it destroys But the proper Opposite to a Contradiction is an Identical Proposition as hath been shown also it s proper Opposite it being a Chief Falshood is a Chief Truâ—h or First Principle therefore not onely all First Principles are Identical Propositions but in case those were not establish'd first Contradictions would be harmless innocent Fools hurting no Truth or Principle in the World and even though they be establish'd Dr. T. tells us very seriously Pref. p. 38. They are good for nothing and so still he pleads for the Innocency of Contradictions and disgraces their Enemies First Principles one would guess he hath far more of those on his side than of these as it will appear when his Answer to Sure footing comes to be scann'd and particularly in that passage I lately cited where though it be the most plausible part of his Book yet it shall be shown partly hereafter in this Treatise partly more in the next that he mistakes the natures of Necessity Liberty Will and even Manhood or else when he haps to hit right mis-applies his Objections to the wrong parts of my Discourse § 18. If after all this Dr. T. cannot conceive that The First Principles are Identical Propositions let him imagine a man divested of the knowledge of all Identical Propositions and then let him tell me how or in virtue of what such a man could either judge know or discourse or let him show me what could hâ—nder such a Soul from taking direct Contradictions to be First Principles
properly a Science for this Abstraction or manner of being in our mind frees the notion or nature thus abstracted that is the thing as thus conceiv'd by us from Vncertainty nay indeed fixes it in a kind of Immutability whereas were it consider'd as found in the World there would be no firm Ground at all for any Discourse For example perhaps by reason of the perpetual turmoil of things in Nature there is not to be found in the World any one Body either mathematically Straight Circular or Triangular yet because the nature of Body conceiv'd as in Rest bears it we can abstract from Motion and so consider quantitative Things according to what they can bear in themselves taken as not moving or in Rest therefore we can make such steady notions and when we have done discourse them and ground a long train of new Conclusions which we call a particular Science upon such a Nature thus conceiv'd § 9. And for that reason I would gladly know why Ethicks or Morality is not equally demonstrable as Mathematicks For we can equally abstract those Moral Notions of Virtues and Vices and consider them apart as we can do those Mathematical ones of Lines and Numbers I know 't is grown a common humour in the World taken up I know not how by course and continu'd none knows why to think otherwise But I must confess I never could discern any reason for it and shall be thankful to that man who can show me any that convinces In the mean time I give mine for the Affirmative which is this That the same reason holds for Ethicks as for Mathematicks since all the perquisits for Demonstration are found in the one as in the other To put it to the Test let 's consider what Euclid does when he demonstrates and by virtue of what We see he puts his Definitions and some common Maxims peculiar to that Subject and then by his Reason connecting the first Deductions with his Principles and the following Deductions with the foregoing onâ—â— weaves them into a Science And is it not evident that we can as well know what 's meant by those words which express Virtues and Vices and so as well define them as we can those other Also that the Common Maxims of Morality are as self-evident to Humane Nature as any First Principles in the World I admire then what should hinder Ethicks to be as perfect a Science as the clearest piece of Mathematicks since we can equally abstract the several notions handled in it from matter equally define them and consequently assisted by Common Maxims equally-evident with equal clearness discourse them which is all that is requir'd § 10. If it be said that particular Moral Actions are liable to Contingency 't is answer'd that this hinders not but the Speculative part of Morality is a true Science Even Mathematical Demonstrations when reduc'd to practice and put in matter are subject also to Contingency as we experience daily in Mechanicks and yet the Speculative part which abstracts from matter is never the less Scientifical § 11. The greatest difficulty is in that Cardinal Virtue call'd Prudence and I confess that because the exercise of this Virtue is surrounded with an incomprehensible number of Accidents and way-laid as it were with all the Ambushes and Stratagems of Fortune and consequently to make its Success Certain we must be put to fathom the natures of many several things nay more their Combinations or Joynt-actings with their several circumstances and especially of those things which are the Common Causes of the World as the influences of the Sun Moon and other Stars if they have any that is considerable and lastly of the Elements which 't is impossible for our short-sighted Knowledge to reach hence Prudence in its Execution or put in matter is liable to more Contingency by far than any piece of the Mathematicks where we have but one or two single notions or natures to grapple with and weild Yet notwithstanding all these difficulties I must still contest that the Maxims of Prudence upon which its Dictamens are chiefly grounded are self-evident practically and to the Learned Demonstrable viz. That we ought to sow and plant in their proper seasons that 't is best for Merchants to hazard though they be insecure of the Event and a thousand such-like § 12. I expect Dr. T. will object the fickle nature of the Will which renders all Contingent where this perpetually-changing Planet has any Influence But yet there 's a way for all that to fix this volatil Mercurial Power and make it act with a constancy as great as any other thing in Nature To conceive how this may be effected we are to consider that the Will too has a peculiar nature of its own which it can no more forgo than the most constant Piece found in Nature can do Its that is The Will can no more leave off being a Will than a Rule can not-be a Rule Faith not-be Faith or any other of those ridiculous Identical Propositions as Dr. T. calls them not be true Now the Will being a Power and Powers taking their several Natures from their Objects or as the Schools express it being specify'd by them and the Object of the Will as distinguish'd from the Understanding being Good and this propos'd to It by that Knowing Power that is Good at least appearing such if it can be made evident that such a thing can never appear a Good to the Subject thus circumstanc'd 't is demonstrable the Will cannot will it nay as evident as 't is that A Will is a Will § 13. To apply this to particulars In case there be a Trade or Profession of Merchants and it be evident to all the Followers of that sole Employment that Themselves Wives and Children must starve unless they venture to Sea the notventuring can never appear to them thus circumstanc'd that is addicted to that onely way of Livelihood as is suppos'd a Good and so 't is demonstrable that abstracting from Madness or Exorbitant Passion which is not our Case they can never will not-to-venture Or if a great multitude of men have embrac'd no Profession but that of the Law and as we 'll suppose have no other Livelihood but That so that it becomes evident it can never appear a Good to them not to take Fees 't is as Certain they will not refuse them as 't is that a Thing is it Self or that a Will is a Will because a Will is a Power whose Essence 't is to have such an Object as is appearingly Good § 14. To come closer to our purpose Suppose Innumerable multitudes of Fathers or Immediate Predecessors in any Age had an inclination to deceive their Children or immediate Successors in the World and consequently that the Immediate End they propos'd to themselves were to make them believe such Points of Faith were received by them from Forefathers which were indeed newly invented these men I say in case they must see
the small strength they have when they do their utmost is not earnestly and heartily engag'd neither in the Patronage of our Cause or in proving it probable there 's a GOD but onely incline favourably towards us rather than the other Besides those who are of moderate tempers use to be favourable to every Body and there is not in the whole World such sweet soft-natur'd melting pliable tender-hearted compassionate and indulgent things as these same Probabilities They are ever at hand to lend their weak help to any body that wants a good Argument and will fit any Cause in the World good or bad Yet for all their kind and gentle behaviour in obliging none to assent to them or say as they do as your rude Demonstrations use I have notwithstanding a kind of prejudice against them which is that they are False hearted and use to play Jack-a-both-sides most egregiously for scarce was there ever any Tenet in the world so absurd but when not one good Reason durst appear for it this tatling Gossip Dame Probability would for all that undertake it and let her have but her neat Chamber-maid Rhetorick to trick her up with Laces Spangles Curles Patches and other such pretty Baubles she will dare to incounter with any Truth in the World or maintain the most absurd Paradox imaginable as Dr. T. and his Friend well know else they would be out of heart ever to write more And this is the Reason I conceive why p. 22. he calls them FAIR saying If FAIR Probabilities of Reason concur with Testimony and no less than thrice in the same page he makes mention of FAIR Proofs He says not GOOD Proofs or CONCLVSIVE that the Thing is TRVE or that there 's a GOD no take heed of that this would quite take the business out of the hand of Probability which a Rhetorical Divine ought not to do for nothing suits with Rhetorick's humour so well as Probabiâ—ity does and Demonstration cares not one straw for her But he gives them their just due and calls them onely Fair Proofs and Fair Probabilities that is Pretty Plausible and Taking and if they were not so of themselves what is there which a little daubing with Rhetorical Varnish will not make FAIR But the Upshot oâ— Sum Total of his Proofs is the best sport if it were not most pernicious 't is this That these Fair Probabilities taken together and in their united force have a great deal of Conviction in them Which amounts to this plain Confession though couch'd in wary Terms that there is not one good Proof amongst them all yet many bad ones put together will make a good one I know indeed that a concurrence of many Likelihoods renders a thing more Probable and encourages us to Outward Action but to think that many Probabilities will reach that Indivisible Point in which Truth and consequently our Assent to any thing as a Truth is found is quite to mistake the nature of Truth and Assent too which consist in Is or Is not and since to convince rationally is to conclude the thing is I desire Dr. T's Logick to inform the World how since a Probable Proof is that which onely concludes the thing Probable and consequently many probable ones are terminated in rendring it MORE Probable how I say many Proofs onely Probable can conclude the thing to be MORE THAN PROBABLE that is to be CERTAINLY or convince the Understanding that 't is unless they happen to engage some Nature or other and consequentâ—y some Identical Proposition which Dr. T. neither pretends nor goes about to show but on the other side declares himself an utter Enemy to such Principles and consequently to such a way of Discourse § 12. In a word Dr. T's Positive Proofs of a Godhead are reducible to these two Heads Humane Testimony and Probabilities of Reason as appears by his own words Serm. p. 22 23. and Testimony which p. 22. he tells us is the Principal Argument in a thing of this nature he divides into Vniversal Tradition and Written History Now Written History is not therefore True because 't is writ but depends upon Living Authority or Tradition to authenticate it and how ridiculous he would make the Certainty of Tradition even that which is confessedly grounded on the Sensations of great multitudes which is vastly above this here spoken of is seen in hâ—s Rule of Faith and here again he tells us Pref. p. 16. All Humane Testimony is Fallible and so all built on it is possible to be False for this plain reason because all men are Fallible Wherefore according to his Grounds 't is concluded there may possibly be No GOD for any thing Humane Testimony says to the Point And 't is as evident from the very word that Probabilities of Reason though never such Fair ones conclude as little Lastly he tells us Serm. p 22. that Fair Probabilities of Reason concurring with Testimony this Argument has all the strength it can have and thus Dr. T. instead of proving there is a GOD has endeavour'd to make out very learnedly that it may be there 's no such Thing and that neither Reason nor Authority can evince the Truth of the Point § 13. I omit his abusing the word Testimony which is built on Sensations in alledging it to prove a Creation which neither was nor could be subject to the Senses of the first Mankind nor consequently could the persuasion of future Deliverers and Writers have for its Source Attestation or Testimony I omit also his negâ—ecting to make use of Testimony to prove Miracles GOD's proper Effect which are subject to Sense and which both Christians Jews and Heathens of all Nations and Times both unanimously have and the first Seers could properly attest I suppose his Confidence in his Rhetorick made him chuse the worser Arguments to show how prettily he could make them look or perhaps the Genius of Things lie so that the slightest Arguments most need and so best suit with Rhetorical Discoursers § 14. By this time I suppose Gentlemen there will appear just reason for that moderate and civil hint I gave Dr. T. in my Introduction to Faith Vindicated of the weakness of his Grounds in these words In which Sermon under the Title of the Wisdom of being Religious and a great many seeming shows and I heartily think very real Intentions of impugning Atheism by an ill-principled and in that circumstance imprudent and unnecessary Confession in equivalent Terms of the possible Falsehood of Faith nay even as to the Chiefest and most Fundamental Point the Tenet of a Deity Religioâ— receives a deep wound and Atheism an especial advantage as may perhaps be more particularly shown hereafter After which I give his Sermon all its due Commendations and then subjoyn Onely I could wish he had right Principles to ground his discourse without which he can never make a Controvertist but must needs undermine the solid Foundation of Christianity if he undertake to meddle with
whatever is good in those Acts of Faith is refunded into God the Author of every good Gift as its Original Cause what Defective into the Limitedness and Imperfection of Creatures § 5. This Tenet of Infallibility which unprejudic'd Nature teaches even the rudest in things subject to Sense and common Reason and Learned men in things provable by exact Art the Adversaries of true Certainty our Scepticks in Religion endeavour to render ridiculous and cast a mist about it by the most unreasonable pretence that ever was invented which is to affirm that a man cannot be Infallible in one thing but he must be so in all As if I could not infallibly know what 's done in my Chamber or practic'd openly amongst those I converse with but I must be likewise infallible in knowing what is done in the Moon And Dr. T. is one of these for Contradiction is as natural to him as 't is to a fish to swim who tells us here pag. 19. That Omniscience within a determinate Sphere is an Infinite within a finite Sphere as if it were very evident that to know All in such a matter is to know Infinit or all things in the World or so hard to comprehend that one may know all the money in ones Purse without knowing all the money that is extant or all the men in the room without knowing all Mankind I wish Dr. T. would shew us why knowing all in such a particular matter must needs argue an Infinit knowledg or why the knowing all things in a determinate Sphere which last words when he came to answer that is break his Jests our Prevaricator prudently omitted may not consist with an ignorance of many things out of that Sphere Must the word All in such a matter needs signifie Infinit or did the commonest Reason ever thus go wrack I suppose my Friends resolute hazard against Identical Propositions made him fall into this more than childish mistake For this plain Truth What 's all but in one matter onely is all but in one matter onely had preserv'd him from this Nonsense but he took this for his Ground to proceed upon that All in one matter onely 〈◊〉 All in every matter or which is more is Infinit and so still he continues most learnedly to lay Contradictions for his First Principles because their Interest and his are inseparably linkâ— against the Common Enemy Identical Propositions This I must confess is a very smart and ingâ—nious kind of reasoning and proper to Dr. T. unless perhaps his sworn Brother at hating First Principles and Papists put in for a share It appears by a certain Paper called Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet he is a strong pretender and will cry halfs But 't is time now to return to examine his Answer § 6. It is not necessary indeed to Truth that every one should demonstrate a thing so as to shew that the contrary necessarily involves â— Contradiction for the same thing may be known also through Practical Self-evidence to those who cannot demonstrate but yet the thing must be demonstrable else 't is not Knowable or Ascertainable For Demonstrable is a plain honest word what game soever Dr. T. and his Friend make at it and imports no more abstracting from subtle quirks but only Capable to be known or Intellectually seen by way of Proof whence a Learned man who goes about to prove any thing by strength of severe Reason ought either to demonstrate it or he falls short of his Dâ—â—y Once more I desire Dr. T. to take me right and to reflect that when I say The Thing is Demonstrable or pretend to demonstrate I do not take the word Demonstration with all those many subtleties and perquisits the Schools require I as little love niceties as any man living and can as easily dispense with them so the solid part be well provided for and the Truth of the Thing establisht which if it be not done I make account nothing is done in these cases in which Assent dying to attest things to be Truths are required I onely mean then by Demonstration such a Proof as is taken not from any Exrinsecal consideration as is Authority which grounds Belief but from the intrinsecal Nature of the Thing or Subject in Dispute and such a Proof as necessarily concludes the Thing to be which cannot be possibly done without engaging finally some Identical Proposition or that Things being what it is on which all is built Now this being evidently so and if it be not let Dr. T. shew the contrary I would ask our verbal Divine why he ought not to demonstrate that is prove by necessary concluding Argument both the Letter and Sence of Scripture if he would have men assent most firmly to Faith built according to him solely upon their Certainty Is it not his intent in his Discourses to Conclude what he speaks of How can he do this unless he shews the Conclusion necessarily follows Again does he not intend to conclude 't is a Truth that this is the Letter and Sence of Scripture He must do so or else he can never pretend that Faith built upon it is Truth And if he proves it Truâ— must he not at the same time prove it's Contradictory False And is any thing False but what says a Thing is so when indeed 't is not so or is not so when indeed 't is so which is a direct Contradiction Wherefore Dr. T. can never Conclude a thing to be True unless he brings a Proof necessarily engaging the Nature of the Thing that is unless according to my sence of the Word he both Demonstrates and also shews the contrary necessarily to involve a Contradiction Both these satisfactory Certainties my Grounds attribute to Scriptures Letter and Sence See Surâ—f pag. 116 117 in points appertaining to Faith and he here denies both pag. 10. whence is seen which of us two has more real Honour and Respect for Scripture He who makes neither its Letter or Sence to have any Grounds able to ascertain them that is as to our purpose makes them good for nothing or I who grant and prove both § 7. I suppose Dr. T will say again as he did in that point of a Deity that the nature of the Thing will not bear a Certainty of Scriptures Letter or Sence that so he may be true to his firm Principle and make all Faith alike uncertain I answer the more blame will fall to their share who take away the Certainty of that which is the first Principle in way of Authority or First Authority namely TRADITION which and onely which can Authenticate Books and the thing being of high Concern Practically carry down the same Doctrine and so easily preserve the Book significative of the same Sence Noâ— doubt I but 't is demonstrable that the Practice of England and the Concern of the thing joyn'd with the necessary Evidence of any Alteration in a matter daily so nicely Canvast and continually Us'd can and
tell him the firmness of a Rational Assent ought to be taken from Principles or the Object not from the Subject's firmly adhering to it and admonish him that this later sort of Firmness without the other signifies nothing but an Irrational Resolution to hold a thing right or wrong he cuts you off short and blames the Grounds of Christian Faith telling you the nature of the Things will bear no more At which if your Reason repines and begins to despair of satisfaction he tells you smartly that you contradict a First and Firm Principle that to have as much Assurance as the thing affords you is to be Certain of it Prodigious folly not to distinguish between these two most evident Notions I am fully perswaded and the Thing is certainly so And alledging our not doubting or strong adhesion to a thing for an competent Explication of that Certainty which ought to be the greatest in the whole world since more Sacred Concerns than any the world can shew are built upon it which adhesion also as Nature teaches us is very frequently an effect of Passion Common Experience manifesting it to be a fault annext to the very Nature of Man that his Uâ—derstanding is liable to be byast by his Will where his very Essence is not concern'd so as not to make the least doubt of may more oftentimes to hold firmly whatever habitual Prejudice Affection to Friends precipitate hast or fullen Ignorance has once addicted him to All I can imagine in Dr. T's behalf is this that he must alledge he conceives this Assurance or Firm Adhesion is a proper Effect of the Object working it in his Understanding and that therefore he could not have this firm Assurance or Adhesion to it unless the Thing were indeed such in it self This every Intelligent man sees is his only way to come off but this he neither has attempted to do nor ever shall be in the least able to compass till he retract his costly anger against First Principles his drollish Abuses against Demonstration his Accusing the things of Invisibleness instead of blaming his own bad Eyes and lastly his miscall'd Firm Principle which makes all built upon it no better than empty Contradiction Yet if he pleases to shew us that the Object doth rationally assure him the thing is so by affording such proofs as of their own nature are able to make us assent firmly to it as a Truth and not only incline us towards it as a Likelihood let him go to work Logically that being the proper Science in this case and shew us how and by what virtue any proof of his is able to effect this and I promise him faithfully to respect and treat him with a great deal of Honour though his performance comes off never so short But I foresee three Insuperable difficulties lie in his way first that he sees his Cause cannot bear it for which he still blames the Nature of the Thing Next that the deep Study or the most Learned Science of Elegant Expressions so totally possesses his Mind it will not let Logick have any part in his thought And lastly if it does yet he may hap to meet there with some unelegant Terms of Art which will quite fright him from his business and make him forswear the most evident Truths in the world § 9. But he hath only skirmish'd hitherto now â—he comes to close Dispute and will prove that take Faith how I will he does not in these words avow the possible falshood of Faith and that he may not fail to hit right on my meaning of the word Faith he divides the Text and gives us many Senses of that word those as ridiculous as he could imagine which would make the unexamining Reader judg verily that I were out of my Wits to take the word Faith in such absurd meanings and then hold it Impossible to be False This done he shews himself a most Victorious Conquerour and Confutes me powerfully from pag. 10. to pag. 13. At least would not Dr. T's best Friend so he were but any thing Ingenuous think he might safely swear that either he did not know what I meant by the word Faith when I say Faith is impossible to be False or else candidly acknowledg that he is strangely Insincere to counterfeit so many Imaginary Tenets and then one by one confute them Read them here from the middle of pag. 10. to pag. 12. and then reflect on my words found in my Introduction to Faith Vindicated pag. 17 which are these To ask then if Faith can possibly be False is to ask whether the Motives laid by Gods Providence for Mankind or his Church to embrace Christian Faith must be such as of their own Nature cannot fail to conclude those Points True and to affirm that Faith is not possible to be False is equivalently to assert that those Motives or the Rule of Faith must be thus absolutely Conclusive Firm and Immovable Hence is seen that I concern not my self in this Discourse with how perfectly or imperfectly divers Persons penetrate those Motives or how they satisfie or dissatisfie some particular Persons since I only speak of the Nature of those Motives in themselves and as laid in second Causes by Gods Providence to light Mankind in their way to Faith To which the dimness of Eye-sight neglect to look at all or looking the wrong way even in many particular men is Extrinsecal and Contingent Observe Gentlemen what exquisite Care I took to declare my meaning so perfectly that the common regard to Readers and his own Reputation might restrain Dr. T. from imposing wilfully a wrong sence to which habitual fault I knew he had otherwise most strong Inclinations Observe next that all his confute is wholly built on this known mistake Hence his objecting the weak Understandings of some Believers which is both forestal'd by the woâ—ds now cited declaring that I only speak of the Motives to light Mankind or the Church to Faith and what they are of their own Nature or in themselves not how perfectly or imperfectly others penetrate them besides I put this very Objection against my self Faith Vindicated p. 164. and answer it which he never acknowledging it was mine puts here as his own against me without taking the least notice of my Answer there given The last meaning he gives of the word Faith which is the Means and Motives to Faith is nearest to mine But because he leaves out the consideration of their being ordained by God for his Church as also of what they are in their own Nature or by virtue of the Object and speaks of them only as in the worst Subject viz. in weak Persons which penetrate them very little he misses wholly my Sense and so impugns me nor at all but skirmishes with his own shadow For what kind of consequence is this St. Austin says Some Persons are sav'd not by the quickness of their Vnderstandings but by the Simplicity of their Belief Therefore
more blasphemous against Essential Truth and Goodness Farther I declare 't is my Tenet that notwithstanding this failure in some particulars yet I hold that the Generality of the Faithful are so familiarly acquainted with the nature of Testifying Authority as to know grosly and confusedly by means of Practical Self-evidence that 't is a certain Rule to proceed upon and thence either discern themselves if they be very prudential or else are capable to be made discern who proceed upon that Rule who not Hence also I hold that Tradition or Testifying Authority is the best provision that could be made for all Mankind to receive Faith upon it being the most familiarly and most obviously knowable and penetrable by all sorts that can be imagin'd and far more than Languages Translations Transcriptions on which the Letter-Rule depends Lastly I hold that what is thus practically self-evident that is known in gross and confusedly by the Vulgar is demonstrable to the Learned who scan with exact Art the nature of those Causes which wrought constantly that certifying Effect in the Generality and find out according to what precisely they had that Certifying Virtue which found it will be the proper Medium to demonstrate the Certainty of that Authority by This is my true Tenet which my Prevaricating Adversary perpetually mistakes because he will do it and he therefore will do it because it must be done In mala causa as St. Austin sayes non possunt aliter § 12. He goes about to argue pag. 15. from the End of Faith and alledges that a freedome from seeing just cause of doubting the Authority and Sense of Scripture may make one believe or really assent to the Doctrine of it live accordingly and be saved By which I conceive he judges a Christians life consists in moving ones Legs Arms or Hands for 't is enough to stir us up to External Action that the motive be onely Probable but if a Christian's life be Spiritual consisting in interiour Acts of the Understanding and Will as a vigorous Hope and a fervent Love of unseen and unconceiveable Goods with other Virtues subservient to these and all these depend on Faith as their Basis and Faith depends for its Truth which gives it all its efficacie on the Rule of Faith I doubt it will scarce suffice to work these Effects heartily if Learned men speak out candidly and tell the Christians they are to govern that notwithstanding all they can discern they cannot see absolutely speaking that Christian Faith is a certain Truth but only a high likelihood a more Credible Opinion or a fair Probability It must therefore be beyond all these and so impossible to be false The main point then that Dr. T. ever misses in is this that he still omits to state what certainty is due to Christian Faith and its Grounds per se loquendo or according to its own Nature and the interiour Acts it must produce and the difficulties it must struggle through and overcome even in the Wisest and most Rational persons who are to be satisfied of its verity and so embrace it and considers it perpetually according to what per accidens that is not Essentially belongs to it but Accidentally may consist with it without utterly destroying its Nature that is he considers it not as found in those Subjects where it is in its true and perfect state or freed from all alloy of Irrationality but as in those where 't is found most defectively and imperfectly or as it most deviates from its right nature And this he is forc'd to do because he sees that should he treat of it as it ought to be or according to what it would be by virtue of the Motives laid by the Giver of every perfect Gift to bring mankind to Faith singly and solely consider'd without mingling the Imperfection of Creatures with his otherwise most powerful and wise Efficiency the Grounds of Christian Faith must be able to subdue to a hearty Assent the most Learned and wisest portions of Mankind which they could never do while they are seen by them to be Possible to be False § 13. He argues that Infallibility is not necessary to the Nature of Faith because this admits of Degrees that being the highest degree of Assent of none Besides Infallibility is an absolute Impossibility of being deceived and there are no degrees in absolute Impossibilities I answer that let a thousand Intellectual Creatures Angels or Men know and that Infallibly too the self-same-Object yet they all know it in different degrees of perfection not by means of knowing more in the Object for we will suppose it one single point but intensively or better on the Subjects side because of the different perfection of their understanding Power penetrating more clearly the self-same-Object To conceive this better let us reflect that the self-same thing may be corporally seen by several men and each infallibly know what it is by means of that sight yet because one of them has better Eyes than another one sees more clearly what 't is the other less Also the Blessed Saints and Angels in Heaven differ from one another in glory or in greater and lesser degrees of the blissful Vision that is one sees the Divine Essence better another not so well yet the Object being one Indivisible formality one cannot see more than another wherefore their great degree of Glory consists in this that one penetrates it better and as it were sinks it deeper in the knowing Power than another does which springs out of the several dispositions of the Subject or the antecedent Love of God which when 't is greater it more intimately and closely applies the Divine Object to the ferventlyâ—addicted Power Again on the Objects side there may be in some senses several degrees even of Absolute Impossibilities First because of the greater disproportion of the Object to the Power As put case it be Impossible that twenty men should lift such a weight 't is good sense to say if twenty men cannot lift it much less can two or if ten men cannot possibly resist the force of five hundred much less can they resist ten thousand of equal strength Next because one of the Impossibles depends upon another aâ— if be impossible the Conclusion should be False 't is more Impossible the Premisses should be so and yet more that the very First Principles should or thus 't is Impossible 2 and 3 should not make â— yet 't is more impossible God who is Self-existence should not be because in these the later Impossibility which depends on the formeâ— is onely Impossible by Consequence though still absolutely such that is were not at all Impossible if that which grounds it were not so Whence is seen that unless Dr. T. will say that all Created Understandings are of the self-same pitch of Excellence he must say that even supposing â—he self-same Object or Motive apt to assure Infallibly one may better penetrate it and so be more
do that which before he comes to he makes such a pother and still hangs back and pretends to hold the contrary even there where he grants it as is seen in his Title But I am not so peevish and so the Truth be agreed mean not to fall out about the words let him use what he pleases in God's Name Marry I suspect his Friends will not so easily be satisfied perhaps be apt to think that this is a more speedy way of answering than a good way of confuting for in truth 't is an odd way of shewing That the Properties of a Rule of 〈◊〉 do not belong to Oral Tradition which he undertook in his Title to grant c. that it can do what a Rule should do that is has all the Properties of a Rule of Faith All I have to complain of is he recals his grant and will not stand to his word given publickly and after sufficient consideration but after he has acknowledged the Truth continues still to contradict it and bear others in hand that he has sufficiently answered what he has plainly granted This cross proceeding is a thing which as well as he has deserv'd of Truth and me I cannot approve and I heartily wish for his own and the worlds sake he would stedily own at least his own concessions In the mean time let us see if the thing be not as plain as plain may be In stead of sâ—ven Properties prov'd in my Discourse to belong to Tradition he puts two of his own First that it be plain and intelligible and this he grants here pag. 149. is found in Tradition His Second is that we must be sufficiently assured That the Doctrine delivered down by Oral Tradition hath receiv'd no corruption or change in the conveyance And here he sayes is the difficulty Where good Dr We are inquiring which is the Rule must we before we can find it be assured of the Doctrine when the Rule is the very thing which gives us this assurance If we must before-hand be assured of the Doctrine we need a Rule no more for the business is done already or if we did it is impossible to find one for Assurance of the Doctrâ—ne being the effect of the Rule we make the Rule the effect of this Assurance and so can have no Assurance till we have a Rule and no Rule till we have this Assurance This indeed is a Dâ—fficulty and I think an Insuperable one But all proceeds from his jâ—mbling two distinct Questions and confounding the First which alone I treat and he pretends to answer there namely which is the Rule of Faith with the other which I treat afterwards and examine Whether it have been alwayes followed For nothing can be more plain than that the two ways by which Christiâ—â— Doctrine may have received corruption or change are these either a defect of power or aptitude in the Rule to convey it or defect of will in the Persons who were to have been guided by it and make use of the power it has And 't is no less plain that in case we be sufficiently assured that Tradition has power and is apt to convey it uncorrupted down we are sufficiently assured that it has all that is requisite to a Rule And since Dr. T. grants 't is plain and intelligible he must grant the Persons and not the Thing or Tradition is to blame if it have not done what 't is qualified to doe To have a will to follow Tradition is the Property of the Persons or good Christians and not of the Thing they are to follow or of the Rule which if it be plain they might have followed it if they would A Sword is a Sword whether men cut with it or no and a Pen is a Pen though no man write with it Distinguishing then the Properties of of a Rule from the properties of the Persons who are to use it 't is plain that his Second Qualification sufficiently certain agrees no less to Tradition than his First sufficiently plain For what can sufficiently certain signifie more than that in case it have been used Christian Doctrine neither has nor can have received any change Both these he grants and plainly and readily and these two are all himself requires Wherefore 't is as plain as can be that there is no difficulty about the point I there treated Whether Tradition have all the properties belonging to a Rule of Faith Dr. T. his difficulty is this Whether 〈◊〉 have been followed which belongs to the Persons who should be guided by it and is wholly extrinsecal to the Nature and Constitution of a Rule § 3. The Dr. then had good Reason to say her was not concern'd to take notice of this point so when a thing is granted there is in truth little more to be said to it I for my part finde some difficulty how to reconcile his difficulty and his ready grant and make them hang together with Sense The difficulty is sayes he Whether we have sufficient assurance that the Doctrine delivered down by Oral Tradition hath received no corruption or change in its conveyance He puts it then delivered by Tradition that is he puts this Rule has been followed and before he sayes that if this Rule has been follow'd Christian Doctrine neither has nor can have received any change and then makes a difficulty whether there have been a change where there neither is nor can be any This I must confess is something difficult to apprehend Otherwise there is no difficulty at all in conceiving that if there have been any change in Christian Doctrine this must have happened not by defect of the Rule which if follow'd he sayes leaves not so much as a possibility of it but of the Persons who were deficient in their Duty and would not follow it He may perhaps say that by Delivered down he meant no more but pretended to be delivered down but to omit that by delivered to mean not delivered is something uncouth this is plainly to fasten the difficulty upon the Doctrine not the Rule and â—o doubt whether it have been follow'd not whether it be a Rule And so we have sufficient assurance at least as far as the Dr. can give it us that Tradition is as well sufficiently certain as sufficiently plain since he assures us that if it be follow'd no change in the Doctrine either is or can be which being all the Certainty can possibly be expected from or desired in a Rule his difficulty such as it is belongs to another place where 't is expresly treated And this is Dr. T's sufficient consideration of the point § 4. What pretty fantastical things these words are and how apt they are to trapan a man who looks not narrowly into their Sense One would have thought I imagine the Dr. intended men should think that his sufficiently consider'd meant sufficiently confuted When alas they signify plainly and readily granted 'T was a neat and a
that I never said or thought it was self-evident that Tradition had alwayes been followed but only that it is of own nature 〈◊〉 evidently infallible Rule abstracting from being followed his answer to my Method is this I have not spoken to the point before and therefore am not concern'd to speak to it now for why should people expect more from me here than elsewhere or rather I have granted the point already and thereforâ— am not concern'd to say more to it And I for my part think he is in the right because it seems a little unreasonable to require the same thing should be done twice I think it best to leave him to his sufficient-consideration and go on to the next Onely I desire the Reader to reflect how empty a brag 't is in the Drs. how partial in their Friends to magnify this peece as Vnanswerable Yet in one Sense 't is such for a Ready Grant of what 's Evident Truth can never be answer'd or refuted § 7. His next Pretence is that my METHOD excludes from Salvation the far greatest part of our own Church To which though enough hath been said already yet because the clearing this will at once give account of what I mean when I affirm Faith must be known antecedently to Church which bears a shew as if I held we are not to rely on the Church for our Faith I shall be something larger in declaring this Point To perform which more satisfactorily I note 1. That those who are actually from their Child-hood in the Church have Faith instill'd into them after a different manner from those who were educated in another Profession and after come to embrace the right Faith The formâ—â— are imbu'd after a natural way with the Churches Doctrine and are educated in a high Esteem and Veneration of the Church it self Whereas the Later are to acquire Faith by considering and looking into its Grounds and are educated rather in a hatred against the true Church than in any good opinion of her The former therefore have the full weight of the Churches Authority both as to Naturals and Supernaturals actually apply'd to them and working its effect upon them Practical self-evidence both of the Credit due to so Grave Learned Ample and Sacred an Authority as also of the Holiness the Morality or Agreeableness of her Doctrine to Right Reason which they actually experience rendring in the mean time their Assent Connatural that is Rational or Virtuous The later Fancy nothing Supernatural in her nor experience the Goodness of her Doctrine but have it represented to them as Wicked and Abhominable In a word the Former have both Faith and the Reasons for it practically instill'd into them in a manner at the same time and growing together daily to new degrees of Perfection whereas the Later must have Reasons antecedently to Faith and apprehending as yet nothing Supernatural in the Church must begin with something Natural or meerly Humane which may be the Object of an unelevated Reason and withal such as may be of its own nature able to satisfie rationally that haesitation and disquisitive doubt wherewith they are perpleâ—â— and settle them in a firm Belief 2. My Discourse in that Treatise as appears by the Title is intended for those who are yet to arrive at satisfaction in Religion that is for those who are not yet of the Church and so I am to speak to their natural Reason by proposing something which is an Object proper and proportion'd to it and as it were leading them by the hand step by step to the Church though all the while they walk upon their own Legs and see with their own Eyes that is proceed upon plain Maxims of Humane Reason every step they take 3. Though I use the Abstract word TRADITION yet I conceive no wise man will imagine I mean by it some Idea Platonica or separated Formalility hovering in the Air without any Subject but that the Thing I indeed meant to signifie by it is the Church as DELIVERING or as Testifying and taking it as apply'd to those who are not yet capable to discern any Supernaturality in the Church the Natural or Humane Authority of the Church or the Church Testifying she receiv'd this Faith uninterruptedly from the beginning So that Tradition differs from Church as a man consider'd precisely as speaking and acting differs from Himself consider'd and exprest as such a Person which known by Speech and Carriage or by himself as speaking and acting other considerations also belonging to him which before lay hid and are involv'd or as the Schools express it confounded in the Subject or Suppositum become known likewise So the Churches Humane Testimony or Tradition which as was shown Sure f. p. 81 82 83. is the greatest and most powerfully supported even naturally of any in the World is a proper and proportion'd object to their Reason who yet believe not the Church but it being known thence that the Body who proceeds on that Ground possesses the first-deliver'd that is Right Faith and so is the true Church immediately all those Prerogatives and Supernatural Endowments apprehended by all who understand the nature of Faith to spring out of it or attend on it are known to appertain and to have ever appertain'd to the True Church and amongst the rest Goodness or Sanctity the proper Gift of the H. Ghost with all the Means to it which with an incomparable Efficacy strengthens the Souls of the Faithful as to the Delivery of Right Faith whence she is justly held and believ'd by the new-converted Faithful to be assisted by the H. Ghost which till some Motive meerly Humane had first introduc'd it into their Understandings that this was the True Church they could not possibly apprehend § 8. In this way then of discoursing the Church is still the onely Ascertainer of Faith either taken in her whole Latitude as in those who are already Faithful or consider'd in part onely that is as delivering by way of naturally Testifying which I here call Tradition in order to those who are yet to embrace Faith Whence appears the perfect groundlesness of Dr. T's Objection and how he wholly misunderstands my Doctrine in this point when he says the Discourse in my Method does Vnchristian the far greatest part of our own Church For first he mistakes the Ground of Believing to those actually in the Church for that which is the Ground for those who are yet out of the Church to find which is the Church Next since all Believers actually in the Church even to a Man rely on the Church both naturally and supernaturally assisted and I am diseoursing onely about the Natural means for those who are out of the Church to come to the Knowledge of it his Discourse amounts to this that because those who are yet coming to Faith rely onely on the Humane Testimony of the Church therefore they who are in the Church and rely upon the Church both humanely
and divinely assisted are no Christians In a word this way of Divinity or Resolution of Faith which I take makes every man both those in the Church and those out of it rely on the Churches Authority or Testimony diversly consider'd in order to their respective capacities and so still makes the Church THE PILLAR AND GROVND OF TRVTH which all Catholicks in the World not so much as any one School-Divine excepted hold the securest way that can be imagined And should any one dislike it I see not what he can with any show pretend He must allow some Natural Motive antecedent to Faith and what is known by means of it that is he must grant some Motive antecedent to the Knowledge of Supernatural Assistance and where he will find in the whole World any such Motive stronger than is the Humane Authority of the Church as to matters of Faith I profess I know not nor I am confident can any man living imagine If this then be absolutely speaking the securest way that is 't is securer or firmer than is the way of proceeding upon Motives of Credibility and incomparably more secure than is that of resolving Faith into Motives onely Prudential Though indeed things rightly stated and understood the Motives of Credibility are some of them Coincident with Tradition and the rest which can lay just claim to Certainty depend on it taken at large as their Ground as hath been prov'd in the Corollaries to Sure-footing It may be ask'd Why since Tradition and Church are one and the same Thing I did not chuse to say that the CHVRCH gives us Knowledge of the first deliver'd Faith rather than that TRADITION does so seeing none could have scrupled or excepted against the former manner of Expression whereas this gives occasion of mis-apprehension to some unattentive Readers I answer I us'd on that occasion the word Tradition rather than the word Church for the same reason the Geometricians use the words Line or Surface when they have a mind to express Body as Long or Broad for these are in reality the same thing with Body but in regard Body is the Subject of many other Considerations as well as these and these speak Body precisely according to the Considerations of Length and Breadth to which onely it was Intended to speak hence it was better both for Succinctness of Expression and Exactness of Science which is built on the perfect distinction of our Conceptions to use the Abstract or Distinguishing words Line and Surface rather than the Concrete or Confused word Body which involves much more than the Discourser in that circumstance intended to consider or speak to Now this being the very method observed in that Science which bears the name for the greatest Exactness in Discourse I much fear the Objecters mistake proceeds from not reflecting that whoever pretends to an Accurate and Connected way of Discourse and rigorously to conclude what he intends must either follow that best of Methods or he falls short of his Duty and wrongs his Cause § 9. To clear this a little better and withal to apply it I shall make choice of another familiar Instance We use to say in Common Speech that the Countenance or Carriage of a Man makes known his Genius Now all these three viz. Countenance Carriage and Genius are in reality most evidently the same Thing with the Man himself onely they differ from it in the manner of Expression the word Man nominating the Whole or Intire Thing which is the Subject of all these and innumerable other Considerabilities confusedly imply'd in that word The other three are more distinct indeed in their manner of signifying but they fall exceedingly short of the others vast extent and express Man but in part or onely a few Respects found in that Subject whereof some are less known some more and so a Means to know others Whence it comes to pass that Countenance signifying Man as Looking or according to the outward Appearance of that part in him call'd the Face also Carriage signifying him as bearing or demeaning himself and lastly Genius as having such a peculiarity of Humour or Nature in him hence these words The Speech Countenance and Carriage of a Man discover his Genius amount to this the Man according to his Speech Countenance or Carriage which are visible and more Intelligible Considerations belonging to him is a means to notifie himself to us according to something in him which is latent and less manifest viz. his Genius This I say is the plain Sense of the other words onely this later manner of speaking is prolix and troublesome the other short and yet fully expressive of the Speakers Intention Again the other manner of Expression is Proper and Apt whereas should one put it thus The Man makes known the Man besides the confusedness of the expression since Man signifies the whole Intire Thing without distinguishing any particular Respects it would make the whole or the self-same thing abstracting from all different Respects to be before and after more known and less known than it sel◠which is a direct Contradiction § 10. Applying then this Discourse The word Church being a Congregation of Men answers in its way of expressing to the word Man in the Example now given and involves confusedly in its notion innumerable Considerations belonging to that Body of which True Faith which is as it were the Genius or Nature of the True Church is of it self latent unknown and far from self-discoverable Others such as is the Humane Testimony of the Church meant in those Circumstances by the word Tradition in regard it depends on Testifying Authority is more known and being Oral and Practical fitly corresponds to Speech Countenance Carriage and such-like It being known then by this means that such a Body has in it the first-deliver'd or True Faith 't is known immediately that having in it the Genius or Nature of a True Church 't is indeed the True Church Again it being known likewise and conceived by all who understand what is meant by that word that True Faith is a firm Adhesion to Christs Doctrine also it being apprehended by those against whom we dispute nay demonstrable out of the nature of that Doctrine that 't is a means to love God above all things hence 't is justly concluded that there is in the Generality or in great Multitudes of this Body a due love of Heaven call'd Sanctity or Charity which is the Gift peculiarly attributed to the H. Ghost and it being known and experienc'd by those already in the Church that this Love of Heaven or Sanctity gives the Faithful a particular Strength and Power to perform all good Duties and this of preserving uncorrupted the deliver'd Faith being one and that a most concerning one hence they come to know that the Church is assisted by the H. Ghost as in all other good Duties so especially in this of delivering and continually proposing Right Faith So that as Reason requires
of Irony or any thing in the least of an impertinent nature but a serious pursuâ—t of the Point by way of Reason from the beginning to the end It seems there being in it no show of Passion it was the Reason of it which gall'd and was so uneasie to him What need was there to fall into such down right Rudeness as to call a Proposition of mine for which I offer'd my Reasons most impudent as did Dr. T. Rule of Faith p. 173. and in forty other places to make the Droll supply the Divine Was it not enough to answer the Reasons and let the World judge If he can show any such rude Language in my Letter of Thanks I here blame my self for it though it be responsum non dictum The worst word I use is charging hâ—m with falsifying my words and sense and it seems to me but hard Law if he may take the liberty to commit such Faults frequently and I may not so much as name his Faults when 't is my Duty as his Answerer to discover them § 2. He would clear himself of some Faults objected to do which he summons together all his best Arts First he picks out generally what can best bear a show of Reply Next he counterfeits a wrong Objection and lastly conceals in what manner and for what Reasons it was prest against him and by this means he hopes to escape blame § 3. First he would justifie himself for saying I went about to explain words because my self said I would examine well what is meant by them which seems equivalent to explaining them but he conceals what kind of explications I deny'd my self to mean and what he unjustly imputed twice in one page p. 3. namely Definitions he conceals how he would needs make me intend to define and yet most disingenuously put down himself at the same time my very words in which I disclaim'd any pretence to define but onely to reflect on some Attributes Predicates or Properties of what was meant by those words that is some pertinent and true Sayings concerning Rule and Faith which though they in part explicate them which I never deny'd yet they are far from looking like those compleat Explications call'd Definitions or even like those less artificial ones call'd Descriptions or like those Explications industriously compil'd which was the word I us'd to adequate the intire notion of the word under consideration For example Faith being there taken for Believing I come to discover it imports some kind of knowledge and then argue from it as such § 8. Again I affirm § 12. that the notion of the word Faith bears that 't is a Perfection of the Soul or a Virtue and thence discourse from it as it imports a Virtue Also § 16. I affirm that Faith mainly conduces to Bliss or Salvation c. and thereupon frame such a Discourse as is apt to spring out of such a Consideration Now all these in part explicate the Thing that is disclose or say some Truth that belongs to its nature yet not one of those sayings looks like an Explication of the word FAITH for this speaks an Intireness and an Adequateness to the notion explicated which 't is evident not one of these particular Affirmations or Sayings have the least show of He conceals also what was aâ—ledg'd Letter of Thanks p. 6. for indeed 't was not creditable that candid Scholars should reflect on it viz. that the word Faith being Equivocal and sometimes signifying Conscience sometimes Fidelity or Honesty c. I was necessarily to explain my self in what sense I understood it there and to declare that I took it for Belief and accordingly said Faith is the same with Believing which no sooner done but my pleasant Confuter will needs have that expressing or clearing its distinct sense in one single word to be a Definition too and plays upon it p. 3. with such affected Raillery as would make any sober man unacquainted with the Arts he uses to escape the duty of replying justly wonder But I shall easily satisfie our Readers what 's the true reason of this Carriage He thought it not fit to give one word of a sober and solid Reply to any one of thoâ—e many Reasons in that first discourse of mine built all upon those Affirmations or Predications now spoken of though this be the substantialest part of my Book and the Foundation of the rest on whâ—ch I ground rhe Properties of a Rule of Faith importing its Absolute Certainty but neglecting all my Premisses and Proofs he falls to deny my Conclusion and talk something against it in his own way So that 't is evident these Jests were to divert the Reader from the Point and so serve instead of a Confute to that whole Discourse A rare Method signifying thus much if candidâ—y and plainâ—y laid open and brought to Termâ— of Reason Because I can pretend any thing and play upon it with Ironies prettily exprest therefore my kind unexamining friends being inur'd to believe all I say to be Gospel let my Adversary say what he will he shall never be held to discourse solidly I charge him then afresh with an affected Disingenuity design'd to palliate hâ—s â—eglect of answering and let him know that as 't is manifest out of my Book I built not there those seven Properties of the Rule of Faith â—he Reasons for which he no where refutes on the Exactness Intireness or Goodness of any falsely-pretended Definition or Explication but on the Truth of those Propositions or the Agreement of those Attributes or Properties to the respective natures of Rule and Faith as their Subjects Also he may please to reflect that these being involv'd in the signification of those words by discovering and then dilating upon each of those singly I declare by consequence what is meant by those words as far as concerns my present purpose without compiling Explications or framing Definitions which onely were the Things I deny'd Lastly I charge this Insincerity far more home upon him now than ever that whereas in my Letter of Thanks from p. 5. to p 9. I had at large refuted these ridiculous Exceptions of his he in this very place where he pretends to speak particularly to my Letter of Thanks never takes notice of any one word there alledg'd but conceals all that had been produc'd to answer those Exceptions and bears himself as if no such Answers had been given This I must confess falls much short of either nibbling or gnawing and I am forc'd to declare that this constant carriage of his discovering too openly a perfect disregard of Truth abates in me much of that respect which otherwise his good Endowments would naturally give me § 4. His second Remembrance of my Letter of Thanks for though he says here p. 32. he must not forget it yet he haâ— been perfectly unmindful of it hitherto is that I say My Testimonies were not intended against the Protestants whereas my Book was writ
against them and I declar'd the design of my Testimonies to be to second by Authority what I had before establish'd by Reason All this is well were there not I fear two mistakes in it One that I writ that Book against Protestants particularly whereas it equally oppugns all that hold Christ and his Apostles to have taught true Doctrine bâ—t deny the Churches Living Voice and Practice to be the means of conveying it down hitherto of what denomination soever they be His second Mistake is his not considering that the whole substance of a Book may be writ against such or such a sort of men and yet the whole way of managing it not be against or different from them but from some particular Divines who as I conceiv'd would better rellish my Reasons if they saw all the several Conclusions deduc'd from them seconded by Authority And this was the true Case But Dr. T. is not to understand this till he be willing to acknowledge the Distinction between the Church and the Schools which he is resolved he never will lest it spoil his writing Controversie § 5. But what I complain of is That he objects I do this because I am conscious of the weakness of those Testimonies By which words his partial Friends will easily conclude he had so weakened those Testimonies that I was not able to uphold them whereas Letter of Thanks from p. 106. to p. 122. I very particularly reply'd to all he had alledg'd against them in his Rule of Faith and gave an account of his performances in these words p. 120. This Sir is the upâ—hot of your Skill in Note-Book Learning The three first Testimonies from Scripture you answered not mistaking what they were brought for the fourth you omitted you have given pitiful Answers to eight from the Fathers as I there shewed and shuffled off nine more without Answer c. Which Charge as to every Branch of it I there make good particularly and he no where clears here or attempts to clear more than by barely saying that I am conscious of the weakness of my Testimonies I think 't is best for me to take the same Method and say Dr. T. is conscious of the weakness of all he has written and so in a â—rice confute all he has writ and with far better Reason than he can pretend to seeing any Feather will serve to sweep down such Cobweb stuff as his Fair Probabilities Now Gentlemen did Dr. T. let his Readers understand this Performance of mine and this Neglect of his it would not appear his Answers to these Testimones had been so strong that my self had any cause to be conscious of their weakness therefore contrary to his promise they were to be quite forgotten it was but fitting and needful Well there have been perhaps many others equally-excellent in the Art of Memory but certainly in that raâ—e and useful Art of Oblivion he bears away the Bell from all Writers extant By virtue of this and the Assistance of that Fallacy in Logick call'd non causa pro causâ he obtains all his imaginary Victories § 6. He comes next to clear himself of False Citations and to let the Reader see how little I am to be trusted he will instance in two or three and I heartily desire I may be no otherwise trusted than as it shall appear upon severe examination of what we both alledge that he is culpable and my self Innocent Now in culling out and managing his Instances we may be sure he favours himself as much as he can handsomely the two first of them being trifles in comparison of many others omitted ond neither of them charged by me as false Citations whatever he pretends meaning thereby adding diminishing or altering the words of the Author Also the very first of these is the easiest to bear a tolerable explication of any one objected in the Book In examining which I request our respective Friends to be severely impartial and attentive to what was imputed by me and what answer'd by him in doing which Eye-sight is to be their best Guide And If I have to any degree wrong'd him I shall not think it a jot prejudicial to my credit to declare that upon second thoughts I ought to mitigate or retract my words accordding to the just degree the Truth of the thing shall require § 7. I charg'd him with a notorious abuse of the Preface to Rushworths Dialogues in citing the Author of it to say what he makes others say and condemns them for saying it To go securely to work we are to put down first the words of the Prefacer which are these This Term Moral Certainty every one explicated not alike but some understood by it such a Certainty as makes the Cause always work the same Effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherways others call'd that a Moral Certainty which c. A third Explication of that word is c. Of these three says the Prefacer who having related the opinions of others now begins to speak his own sense the first ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true Certainty and the Authors consider'd as mistaken in undervaluing it Am not I sure I shall never repeat in the same order all the words I have spoken this last year Yet these men will say I am onely Morally Certain Now the Question is whether I did well or no in blaming Dr. T. for imposing on the Prefacer to say that what consists with possibility of working otherwise is true Certainty whereas that Author avows that to be true Certainty which others said took not away the possibility of working otherwise What I affirm is that he annexes noâ— those words though it take not away the possibility of working otherwise to True Certainty but onely adds them as explicating the Conceit of others And that those words when the Cause always works the same Effect contain the just notion of what he allows there for True Certainty Dr. T. thinks the Contrary and that he allows or approves that for True Certainty which did not take away the possibility of working otherwise To state the Case clearly that we may see on whose side the fault lies let us consider what was imputed by me what reply'd by him My Charge is two fold one blaming his Manner of putting it directly upon the Prefacer by leaving out the words Some understood c. and so far is Evident See the words of the Preface SOME UNDERSTOOD by Moral Certainty c. See Dr. T. Rule of Faith p. 132 Lastly Mr. Wh. doth MOST EXPRESSLY contradict this Principle of M. S's in these following passages In his Preface to Mr. Rushworth HE SAYS that such a Certainty as makes the Cause always work the same Effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherwise ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true Certainty and those Authors are mistaken who undervalue it Now though one who cites
take him to mean but also when it takes not away the possibility of working otherwise in which sence Dr. T. understands him But I must avow that 't is Impossible any rational deliberate man who endeavours to looke into the sence of words can justly frame even hence any such imagination For which I offer these Reasons 1. That though the distinct Limits of Moral Certainty be unknown yet in the general Conceit of those who use that word particularly those alluded to here Moral Certainâ—y is that which consists with a possibility of being otherwise wherefore True Certainty which is here counterpos'd to Moral must be counterpos'd also to that which constitutes Moral Certainty namely to a Possibility to be otherwise 2. Since Absolute Certainty is that kind of Certainty which is oppos'd to the Moral one the True Certainty here mention'd must mean the same with Absolute Certainty which is also avow'd and requâ—r'd by that Author p. 6. now cited But 't is acknowledg'd that Absolute Certainty excludes all possibility of Falsehood therefore the True Certainty allow'd and approv'd here by the Prefacer is that which has no Possibility of being False 3. These things being so viz. Moral Certainty being that which has annext to it possibility of Falsehood and Absolute or True Certainty being confessedly inconsistent with it 't is unimaginable that he who blameâ— any man for mistaking or undervaluing a thing for Morally Certain should not also blame him for mistaking and undervaluing it as possible to be False since this is annext in the conceit of those blame-worthy persons to Moral Certainty as its proper Constitutive and Equivalent Also 't is unconceiveable that he who approves a thing as Truly or Absolutely Certain should not also mean it Impossible to be False this being the proper Constitutive and conâ—equently Equivalent of True or Absolute Certainty 'T is evident then that Authors sence can be no other than this that when the Cause always works the same Effect 't is True or Absolute Certainty and not Moral Certainty onely and consequently that 't is Impossible to be false and that those words which he added in their names expressing it onely Morally Certain though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherways are utterly disapproved by him in his disapproving their calling it Moral Certainty which is of the self-same notion My Charge then is justify'd to a tittle viz. that Dr. T. left out the words Some understood and put upon the Prefacer to say it most expresly whereas the Sense he imposes is contrary to express words of his in divers places nay to the whole intention and drift of that Preface and necessarily opposite to the sence of those words in that very particular place he cites for it This is manifestly Dr. T's Fault mine if any is this that I might have mitigated the phrase Notorious Abuse c and have been so wise as to consider that Dr. T. does not use to look so narrowly into the Sense of words as I still expect from him nor regards the Antecedents or Consequents as candid Adverâ—aries use but contents himself with the first countenance they bear right or wrong especially if it make for his Interest and hereupon I ought to have been more merciful to habâ—tual Imperfections I have been larger in clearing thâ—s Point because I hear his Friends apprehend he has gain'd a notable advantaâ—e against me in this particular and I dare even submit it to their Judgment if Friendship will permit them to examine it with any degree of impartiality I hope this will serve for an Instance how Dr. T. still misunderstands our Dâ—viâ—es when he objects them against me as also how far I have been from imposing any thing unjustly upon him in the least God be praised I do stand in need of such petty Crafts § 11. In clearing himself of the next Fault objected he is still himself and I wish he did not still grow worse and worse The Fallacy caâ—l'd non causa pro causa or pretending a wrong Reason which runs through half his performances was never more needful than in this present conjuncture I invite then even his best Friend Dr. St. himself to judge of the case and desire him having first read the p. 65. in my Letter of Thanks to determine the point in Controversie In that place I represented Dr. T. as quoting from Rushworths Dialogues after himself had preambled Rule of Faith p. 144. that probably it was prudent to cast in a few good words concerning Scripture for the Satisfaction of Indifferent men who have been brought up in this verbal and apparent respect of the Scriptures and then adding as a kind of Comment upon those words who it SEEMS are not yet arriv'd to that degree of Catholick Piety and Fortitude as to endure patiently the Word of God should be reviled or slighted Now this Preamble Comment introduc'd by it seems that is from those words he had cited did put upon that Author and by him on Catholicks so unworthy and Invidious a meaning that it oblig'd me to put down the rest of the words immediately following in the Dialogues and omitted by Dr. T. that so I might clear the sober meaning and intention of that Author from what he had so unhandsomely impos'd and not troubling my self to repeat over again what he had newly said I introduc'd them thus Whereas in the place you cite he onely expresses it would be a Satisfaction to indifferent men to see the Positions one would induce them to embrace maintainable by Scripture Which done I added as the Result of my whole Charge Which is so different from the Invidious MEANING your malice puts upon it and so innocent and inoffensive in it self that one would wonder with what Conscience you could thus WREST and PERVERT it Whence 't is evident that my total Charge was of impâ—sing an Invidious MEANING of Wresting and Perverting an innocent and inoffensive meaning that he onely exprest which words I immediaâ—ely subjoyned after the Doctors Comment and not after Rushworths words it would be a Satisfaction c. to see those Positions maintainable by Scripture nor was there in the whole Charge any Controversie about the right or wrong perfectly or imperfectly quoting the WORDS This being evident as it will be to any ordinary Understanding that guides it self by Eye-sight and Common Sense let us see what disingenuous ways Dr. T. uses to escape blame 1. He never in the least mention'd his imposing upon those words an Invidious Meaning or of wresting an innocent and unoffensive Intention which was solely objected whence he is so far from clearing himself from the Fault imputed that out of an over-tender kind-heartedness to his own Credit he not so much as names it or takes notice of it Next instead of that he substitutes a False Charge never dream't on by any man but himself namely that I deny'd those Words who have been brought up in this verbal and
contradict what he sayes elsewhere it is no new or strange thing For this is not elsewhere or another place but the same place and the very next words to my Principles as is seen Sureâ—â— p. 60. The badness of which excuse shows he is inexcusable But this is not all that discourse ends not there but goes on at least two Leaves farther clearing that very point and in the process of it these words are found p. 63. To say it preserves None good is to question Christs wisdome c. A GREAT PART therefore would be virtuous c. A BODY of Traditionary Christians would still be continued p. 64. All which wayes and Objects thus easily and strongly appliable were frequently and efficaciously apply'd by the Education of Parents and the discipline and Oeconomy of the Church which brings those speculations to practice was ever and must needs reach the GENERALITY p. 65. must still continue in SOME GREAT MVLTITVDE All these expressions in the self-same Discourse and on the self-same Subject perfectly explicated my sense to be that that Plural word Believers did not reach all not one excepted This then is Dr. T 's habitual imperfection which runs through all his Mock-Answer to Sure footing He has no patience to take any intire Discourse of mine into his Consideration or grapple with the full import of it but he catches at some word at the beginning or by the way which seems easiest to be misinterpreted and whereas any candid man would guide himself by the annext or concomitant words and the whole scope of the Discourse Dr. T. is got beyond those too-ingenuous considerations and knowing very well as he exprest it Serm. p. 121. that nothing is so easie as to take particular Phrases and Expressions out of the best Book in the world and abuse them by forcing an odd and ridiculous sence upon them he exactly observes that method and abuses some Expression or word by forcing in despight of all the concomitant circumstances conspiring to rectifie him an odd and ridiculous sence upon it and then lest those rectifying passages annext should rise up in judgment against him and accuse him to the candid Reader of imposing a sense never intended by the Author 't is but accusing that Author of contradictâ—ng himself and all 's well Thus he us'd the Prefacer p. 30. me in this very place in these words If it contradict what he sayes elsewhere 't is no new or strange thing and Sure-footing in most of those places which he wilfully misconstrued throughout his Rule of Faith By this rare Stratagem gaining two notable Advantages against any Author whereas not so much as one was offered First making him talk ridiculously next making him contradict himself Both of them built upon another of Dr. T 's firm Principles which is this No Author shall be allow'd to interpret his own meaning but that shall be his sense which I please to put upon any particular Expression of his by adding words to it or otherwise glossing it as seems best for my advantage and if he offers to be so wary as to annex other words which would interpret his meaning to be otherwise he is a Fool and contradict himself Now though this Principle which grounds this Procedure be an odd one yet Dr. T. holds faithfully to what he has once espoused and were it now seasonable I durst undertake to reckon up twenty places in his Rule of Faith where he vaunts himself thus doubly victorious by making use of this one Artifice § 13. But in case that plural word had seem'd to him to infer an Vniversality why could he not content himself with giving his reason why it seem'd to follow thence Had he done this none could have accus'd him of falsifying for every one has liberty to offer his conceit and the reason why he judges so without meriting or incurring any harsher note than that of a mis-reasoner Whereas now his carriage exposes him justly to these Exceptions First That he went not about to infer or gather what he imposes but Rule of Faith p. 163. he makes me in express terms and directly say that greatest hopes and fears are strongly apply'd to the minds of ALL Christians whereas in my words put down by himself p. 162. no such thing as all is found annext to those words Next that the word all which he added was put in the same Italick Letter in an even tenor with those other words which were indeed mine as may be seen in the place now cited Thirdly that his whole Attempt in that place is meerly to confute that word All which himself had inserted as may be seen Letter of thanks p. 77. where I instanc'd in nine or ten places in which he combated that single word of his own adding and nothing else and as I there shew'd from p. 78. to p. 86. went forwards to make out that pretence by falsifying evidently my sense and sometimes my words too in three or four places more Fourthly That Rule of Faith p. 165. l. 3. he tells the Reader I SAY EXPRESSLY those Causes are put in ALL the Faithful actually causing by this means endeavouring to perswade the Reader 't is not his own interpretation or deduction from some words of mine but my own express words which is a most express falsification Lastly he neglects to take notice of any of those words which manifoldly and expresly show'd my Tenet to be quite contrary to what he impos'd This is my total charge against him of which we hear very little or rather nothing in this Preface where he goes about to clear it onely he sayes that those First Believers to whom those Hopes and Fears were strongly apply'd must by the tenour of my words mean all the Faithful disperst over several parts of the world and so all the Christians of that Age and for the same reason of the following ones which is the very thing I deny and have given lately my reasons why they could not Besides every Scholar knows that Authors first speak short and in common and afterwards when they come to explain themselves more particularly and had he been pleas'd to contain his rare gift of misinterpreting till the very next line to my Principles woven in the tenour of the same Discourse which he pretends to build his mistake upon he had found the express contrary to his Additional All viz A Great number or Body of the first Believers and after-Faithful the direct sense of which words is not all but some onely § 14. Again what if I us'd the word Faithful first and put to it the word All joyned with such words as would â—ear that universal Expression must it needs follow that when I name the same word Plurally afterwards I must needs mean all or the universality again even though I joyn it this second time with words of a quite different Sense Imagine I had said that All Historians write of matters of Fact and then had subjoyn'd a
little after that Historians write of King Pepin must I needs mean by Historians onely plurally exprest when I come to name them the second time All Historians noâ— one excepted write of King Pepin What Logick but Dr. T's who defies all Principles could ever stumble upon such a Paradox § 15. To conclude this matter All these particularities here related being well examin'd by Eye-sight and weigh'd by Reason 't is impossible any Candid Considerer however he may favourably judge Dr. T. mistaken in words which at first sight bore such a semblance to one who read but half the Discourse can for all that excuse him from great Rashness and strong Inclinations to draw every thing in his Adversary to a sinister sence and to take him up before he is down But I must farther say that the Constancy he shews in this kind of Carriage and the Interest which evidently accrues by it to his Cause and himself as a Writer which is at once to make his Adversary talk like a Madman and Self-Contradictor both and divert the Readers Attention from the true Point and by that means avoâ—d the duty of Answering discover too palpably 't is a willing and designed Mistake What that signifies let others judge without putting me still to name it I am heartily weary of such Drudgery § 16. And so I take my leave of this pretty Preface which has not one word of Reason in it but built on Mistake nor one good Excuse for so many bad Faults· But pretends to speak to three Treatises of mine without taking notice candidly of so much as one Argument in any of them and is a meer Endeavour by multitudes of impertinent and insignificant Scoffs to make some plausible show of an Answer for those merrily-conceited Readers to sport at who fancy such frothy Talk far above solid Reasoning In which pleasant strain consists also his Friend Dr. St's greatest Talent Whence the Comedian in their performances supplies the Divine and Plautus with his fellows is by far more propitious useful and influential to their Imaginary Victories than Aristotle and all the Learned Authors in the world who write Sence or Logick And as these Comick Controvertists affect the same Manner of writing which those Stagers did so their End and Aym is the same too viz. not to propose any thing like exact Knowledge to men truly Learned but meerly Populo â—t placerent quas fecissent Fabulas The Conclusion Containing The AUTHOR'S REQUEST To the Knowing Candid WITS of This Nation THis being the Genius of my Adversary such his Method of Answering my Books and yet his numerous Party hazarding to over-bear Reason with Noise at least in the Esteem of vulgar Scholars making up the Generality who are not able to weigh either the Strength of the Arguments or the Worth of the Authorities engag'd for either Party but onely to number them or scan their Multitude I am forc'd to Appeal to You our Learned Umpires offering You these few Proposals with my humble Request that if You find them reasonable and agreeable to the Maxims of Learning or the clearing of Truth Mankinds best Interest You would be pleas'd in all handsome occasions to use your Power with Dr. T. and his Friends and sollicit a due compliance with them 1. That this Extrinsecal and Ignoble way of answering Arguments with Persecution and Railing may be left off and that when the Reason too much presses it may not be held Supplemental to the Duty of Replying to cry out POPERY Particularly that they would please to consider how improper this Carriage were on this occasion in case it had been otherwise laudable in it self seeing the onely Point maintain'd by me here is this That Christian Faith is Absolutely or Truly Certain 2. That when the Point depends intirely on Reason and not on the miscall'd Authority of Speculaters it may not be held a just Disproof of my Arguments to alledge the different Sentiment of some Speculative Divines since that Carriage supposes as its Maxim the Truth of this Proposition That cannot be True which all School-Divines do not agree to Wherefore unless he first makes out this to be a Truth to be proceeded and rely'd on this way of arguing which takes up no small part of Dr. T's Controversial Writings is convinc'd to be alâ—â—gether Impertinent 3. That Dr. T. would himself please to follow that Doctrine which in his Sermons he so oft and so pressingly inculcates to others and that in handling this grave and important Point all Raillery Drollery Irony Scoffs Ieers rude and bitter Sarcasms breaking of Iests and such-like Attempts of vain and frothy Wit or splendid Efforts of peevish Zeal which so abound in his Rule of Faith and in a manner wholly compose this Preface be totally superseded and onely Serious Reason made use of To oblige him to which Sober Demand I promise on my part That though these being here my onely Confuters I was forc'd at present to give them sometimes their proper Answers by retorting now and then his own Language onely better apply'd yet in my future Writings I shall seriously pursue the Proof of the Point without minding at all his Impertinencies that is I shall rigorously observe the same sober Strain which as my own Inclinations lead me I follow'd in Sure-footing Faith Vindicated and my Method till Dr. T. seeing it his Interest to avoid Answering in a solid manner or closing by way of rigorous Discourse with my Arguments thought it his best play to bring the Controversie 〈◊〉 of the Way of Reason into that of Burlesque Also that all Childish Cavilling at Inelegancies or hard Words at want of Rhetorick in a circumstance where none was intended or needful at my being the first that said he should have said prov'd this or that be for the same Reason laid aside as Things pâ—rfectly Useless towards the Clearing of Truth As likewise that it be not held and imputed as Confidence to maintain Faiths Absolute Certainty or any Point else for which I offer my Reasons nor to pretend to Self Evident Principles and Absolutely-Conclusive Proofs or Demonstrations whenas the Circumstance and Matter to be prov'd nay the very Name of a Scholar renders it shameful to pretend or produce any thing of an Inferiour Strength in case I aym'd at winning others to assent to my sayings But above all I request that none of these trifling ways be made use of to supply the want of pertinent Reason or make up the Whole Confute as is practis'd throughout this Preface but that Reason where-ever it is found may have its due and proper Return Reason 4. That while he goes about to reply to my Arguments he would please to use my words and not insert others of his own and then combat them instead of me Or if he undertakes to speak to my Reasons themselves that he would take the full import of them and not still catch at and then play upon some word or two which
he can most easily seem to misunderstand so to divert the Discourse A Method so constantly observ'd in his Reply to Sure-footing where he made Witty Dexterity still supply the place of Pertinent Solidity that instead of Rule of Faith it ought more justly have been entitled Sure-footing Travesty 5. And since all Discourse is ineffectual which is not grounded on some Certain Truth and consequently not onely he who settles or builds but also he who aims to overthrow or the Objecter must ground his Discourse on some Certain Principle if he intends to convince the others Teneâ— of Falsehood that Dr. T. would therefore esteem it his Duty even when he objects to ground his Opposition upon some Firm Principle And since no pretended Principle can be Firm but by virtue of some First Principle and that Dr. T. has disclaim'd here Identical Propositions to be such 't is requisite that he either confute my Discourses produc'd in this Treatise proving First Principles to be of that nature and show some other way by which the Terms of those he assigns for such do better cohere or he is convinc'd to have none at all and so all he writes or discourses must be Groundless and Insignificant 6. Thus much in common for the Manner of his Writing As for his Matter I request he would not in the subject of this present Discourse about the Certainty of a Deity and Christian Faith hover with ambiguous Glosses between Certainty and Uncertainty that is between Is and Is not but speak out Categorically and plainly declare whether he holds those Points absolutely True that is whether they be absolutely True to us or whether any man in the world can with reason say he sees they are True or has any Reason or Argument to conclude them True If not then â—et him show how 't is avoidable but all the World must with Truth say Both these may be False for any thing they can discern than which nothing sounds more horrid and blasphemous to a Christian Ear. If he says there are such Reasons extant but he has them not then let him leave off attempting to settle those Tenets or writing on those Subjects since he confesses himself unqualify'd and unfurnish'd with means to manage them If he says there are such Proofs and that he has them let him produce them and stand by them and not blame the nature of Things for bearing no more and others for saying they have more and that the Things do bear more To express my self closer and more particularly Let him speak out ingenuously and candidly to these Queries Whether be holds that God's Church or any man in the World is furnish'd with better Grounds for the Tenet of a Deity or for Christian Faith or any stronger Reasons to prove these Points True than those in Joshua's and Hezekiah's time had or could have the day before that the Sun should not stand still or go back the next day than that Person who threw a Glass on the Ground which broke not had or could have that it would not break â—han the Inhabitants of divers Houses had that they would not suddenly fall which yet did so or lastly to use his own words than those Reasons are which satisfie Prudent Men in Humane Affairs in which notwithstanding they experience themselves often mistaken If he say he has let him produce them and heartily maintain them and endeavour to make them out and I shall hereafter express as much Honour for him as I have done here of Resentment and Dislike for advancing the contrary Position But if he profess he has no better or that the nature of the thing not bearing it there can no better be given then 't is unavoidable first that the most Sacred Tenets of a Deity 's Existence and all the Points of Christian Faith may be now actually False since Points which had Reasons for them of Equivalent strength did prove actually such Next that no man in the world is in true Speech Certain there is a God or that the least word of Christian Religion is True since 't is Nonsence to say any of those Persons in those former Instances of equivalent strength were or could be truly Certain of Points which prov'd actually False and in which themselves were mistaken In a word I would have him without disguise let the world know whether as there was Contingency in those Causes and so the imagin'd or hoped Effects in the former Instances miscarried and prov'd otherwise than was expected so there be not also Contingency in the Motives for those two most Sacred Tenets upon whose Certainty the Eternal Good of Mankind depends so as they may perhaps not conclude and so both those Tenets may perhaps be really and actually otherwise than we Christians now hold If he professes to embrace this wicked Tenet and his words are too express for it ever to be deny'd though upon second thoughts I hope they may be retracted he owes me an Answer to my Faith Vindicated which hitherto he has shuffled off without any at all and to my Reasons alledg'd in this Treatise for the same Point FAITH's ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY Now Gentlemen since nothing conduces more to Knowledge in any kind than that the Matter of the Dispute be unambiguously stated and clearly understood and that a solid Method be observ'd in the managing it I become a humble Petitioner to your Selves as you tender that Excellent Concern of Mankind and that most Sacred One of Christianity to use your best Interest with Dr. T. that he would please to yield to these Duties here exprest and I oblige my self inviolably to observe the same Carriage towards him which I here propose and press he would use towards me which if he refuse I declare I shall leave him to the Censure of all truly-Learned and Ingenuous Persons however he triumphs amongst Those who are great Admirers of Pretty Expressions resting assur'd that your selves will not onely hold me Unblameable but also highly Commendable for noâ— losing my precious time in reciprocating his trifling and insignificant Drollery Your True Honourer and Humble Servant J. S. FINIS AMENDMENTS PAge 1. line 21. read that both first p. 47. l. 3. self possible to p. 50. l. 20. solid p. 101. l. 6 7. possible all this may p. 115 l. 12 Judgment in which it is l. 25. can never p. 118. l. 26. resolute hatred p. 121. l. 23. did equivalently p. 124. l. 21. 28. Speculaters p. 127. l. 17. nay more p. 135. l. 7. to be p. 139. l. 18. greater degree p. 142. l. 2. is not true or not to dare p. 146. l. 14. Chimerical p 157. l. 16. Fourth Eviction l. 18. of the Sixth p. 162. l. 16. Sermons equally p. 163. l 27. Parallelepiped p. 166. l. 30. Predicate p. 176. l. ult all good p. 183. l. 28 sensible man may p. 184. l. 2. deduc'd there p. 186. l. 12. of discoursing the p. 199. l. 25. it is is not more p. 200. l. 16. of its own p. 212. l. 24. not the Rule dele express p. 218. DISCOURSE IX p. 219 l 13 14. Reason in it p 229. l. 28 29. the Authors mistaken in undervaluing it p. 234. l. 17. I do non stand p. 239. l. 5. apply'd l. 6. I had