your own Concessions For if the ground of Certainty be resolved into the Agreement and Disagreement of the Ideas as expressed in any Proposition is it not natural enough from hence to infer that from whencesoever this Proposition comes I must judge of it by the Agreement or Disagreement of the Ideas contained in it You make a Distinction between the Certainty of Truth and the Certainty of Knowledge The former you say Is when Words are so put together in Propositions as exactly to express the Agreement or Disagreement of the Ideas they stand for and the latter When we perceive the Agreement or Disagreement of Ideas as expressed in any Proposition But our question about Certainty must relate to what we perceive and the means we have to judge of the Truth and Falshood of Things as they are expressed to us which you tell us Is by the Agreement or Disagreement of the Ideas in the Proposition And in another place Where-ever we perceive the Agreement or Disagreement of any of our Ideas there is certain Knowledge and when-ever we are sure those Ideas agree with the Reality of Things there is certain real Knowledge and then conclude I think I have shewn wherein it is that Certainty real Certainty consists which what-ever it was to others was I confess to me heretofore one of those Desiderata which I found great want of So that here is plainly a new Method of Certainty owned and that placed in the Agreement and Disagreement of Ideas But the Author already mention'd professes to go upon the same grounds and therefore it was necessary for me to examine them He saith That the simple and distinct Ideas we receive by Sensation and Reflection are the sole Matter and Foundation of all our Reasoning and that our Knowledge is in Effect nothing else but the Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of our Ideas And that where our Perception is not immediate our Certainty comes from the clear and visible Connexion of Ideas For he saith That if the Connexion of all the intermediate Ideas be not indubitable we can have no Certainty Wherein now do his grounds of Certainty differ from yours But he applies them to other Purposes I grant he doth so and that was it which I had said for your Vindication But the question now is whether your general expression had not given him too much occasion for it It is true that Ch 3. he distinguishes the means of Information from the ground of Perswasion and he reckons all Authority Divine as well as Human among the means of Information and the ground of Perswasion he makes to be nothing but Evidence and this Evidence he saith lies in our Ideas Ch. 4. in the Agreement or Disagreement of them p. 19. and he places Certainty in our clear Perceptions of this Agreement or Disagreement which you call clear and visible Connexion of Ideas And wherein then lies the difference as to the grounds of Certainty But his design is to overthrow the Mysteries of Faith This is too true But upon what grounds Is it not upon this Principle that our Certainty depends upon the clear Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of Ideas in any Proposition Now let the Proposition come to us either by Human or Divine Authority If our Certainty depends upon this we can be no more certain than we have clear Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of the Ideas contained in it and so he thought he had reason to reject all Mysteries of Faith which are contained in Propositions upon your grounds of Certainty But you say you own the infallible Truth of the Scriptures and that where you want the Evidence of Things there is ground enough for you to believe because God hath said it I do verily believe you because I have a far greater Opinion of your Sincerity and Integrity than I see reason for as to the other Person who pretends mightily to own the Authority of Scripture at the same time when he undermines it For his Words are The Authority of God or Divine Revelation is the Manifestation of Truth by Truth it self to whom it is impossible to lye p. 16. But when he comes to state the point how far we are to believe upon Divine Revelation he hath these Words Sect. 2. ch 1. n. 10. The natural Result of what hath been said is That to believe the Divinity of Scripture or the Sense of any Passage thereof without rational Proofs and an evident Consistency is a blameable Credulity and a temerarian Opinion ordinarily grounded upon an ignorant and wilfull Disposition And in the next Chapter he saith That Revelation is not a necessitating Motive but a mean of Information Not the bare Authority of him that speaks but the clear Conception I form of what he says is the ground of my Perswasion And again Whoever reveals any thing his words must be intelligible and the matter possible This rule holds good let God or Man be the Revealer As for unintelligible Relations we can no more believe them from the Revelation of God than from that of Man Sect. 2. ch 2. n. 16. p. 42. But what are all these things to you who own That where you want the Evidence of things the Authority of Revelation is ground enough for you to believe I do not impute them to you but I must say that he alledges no ground for his sayings but your ground of Certainty For in the same Page he saith That the conceived Ideas of things are the only subjects of Believing Denying Approving and every other act of the understanding All the difference we see is that he applies that to Propositions in Scripture which you affirm'd of Propositions in general viz. that our Certainty depends upon the clear Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of the Ideas contained in them But I shall do you all the Right I can as to this matter by shewing what Reason I had to say that your Notions were turn'd to other purposes than you intended them and that I shall make appear from several passages in the same Book 1. You own the great Defects of Humane Knowledge notwithstanding the simple Ideas we have by Sensation or Reflection And from these things 1. The Paucity and Imperfection of our Ideas in general because our Sensation and Reflection goes so little a way in respect of the vast extent of the Universe and the infinite Power and Wisdom of the Creator of it So that what we see in the intellectual and sensible World holds no proportion to what we see not and whatever we can reach with our Eyes or our Thoughts of either of them is but a point almost nothing in comparison of the rest 2. The want of Ideas which we are capable of because although we have Ideas in general of Bulk Figure and Motion yet we are to seek as to the particulars of them in the greatest part of the Bodies of the Universe
Pythagoreans but what they Mystically called Numbers he called Ideas But Idea in its original Sense from the Etymology of it is derived from Seeing and so the natural Sense of it is something Visible from thence it came to signifie the Impression made in us from our Senses and thence it was carried to the general Notion of a thing and from thence by Metaphysical and abstracted Speculations to the Original Exemplars of particular Essences which were Simple and Vniform and not liable to those Changes which visible Objects are subject to So Cicero tells us Plato formed his Notion of Idea which he would by no means allow to any Representation made by our Senses which are dull heavy uncertain and imperfect either by the Minuteness or Distance or Mutability of the Objects thence the Philosophers of his School denied any true grounds of Certainty to be laid in the Ideas we have by our Senses which can only afford ground for Probability not as to the bare Objects but as to the Notions we take from them But all Knowledge and Certainty was placed in the acts of the Mind Scientiam nusquam esse censebant nisi in animi notionibus atque rationibus i. e. in examining and comparing not the bare Ideas but the Definitions of things and from these judging of the Truth and Certainty of them And if our Ideas of things be so few so superficial and so imperfect as you confess them to be if we are so much to seek as to the Connexion of Ideas and the finding out proper intermediate Ideas I am afraid this way of Certainty by Ideas will come to very little at last And so this Agreement and Disagreement of Ideas will have the Fate of the Stoicks Criterion of Truth which only multiplied Disputes but ended none Never any men talked more of Certainty than they and they boasted of their Discoveries of the true grounds of it and the question then was not about a Criterion of the bare Existence of things about which they allow'd the Judgment of the Senses to be sufficient and the Ideas from them to be true Nor was it about a Criterion for the Actions of Life for which they thought Probability or Opinion sufficient but it was about finding out such a mark of truth in the Ideas of our Minds as could not agree to a Falshood i. e. such an Impression or Signature as Cicero expresses it as appear'd in that which was which could not be found in that which was not And this was called Visum or a true Idea his words are Quale igitur visum quod ex eo quod esset sicut esset impressum est signatum effectum The Greeks called it a Comprehensive Idea which they compared to Light which discovers it self as well as other Things But when they came to be pinched with particular difficulties about the Natures of Things they were never able to make out that infallible mark of Truth in their Idea and yet this was a more likely way to have found it than to place the grounds of Certainty in the comparing the Agreement and Disagreement of Ideas unless it could be made out that we have a full stock of Ideas and are able to discern and make out the Connexion of them with one another For if we fail in either of these the talking of Ideas and comparing those which we have will do us little service in finding out of Truth But I confess the design in general is so good that it's pity that it should lie open to so many Objections and much more that it should be abused to very bad purposes But my joyning your words with another's Application is that which hath given you so much Offence as to make you think it necessary to publish this Letter for your Vindication 2. I come therefore now to shew the Care I took to prevent being mis-understood which will best appear by my own Words I must do that right to the Ingenious Author of the Essay of Humane Vnderstanding from whence these Notions are borrow'd to serve other purposes than he intended them that he makes the case of Spiritual and Corporeal Substances to be alike It was too plain that the bold Writer against the Mysteries of our Faith took his Notions and Expressions from thence and what could be said more for your Vindication than that he turned them to other purposes than the Author intended them And the true Reason why the Plural Number was so often used by me was because he built upon those which he imagin'd had been your grounds and my business was to shew that those Expressions of yours which seemed most to countenance his method of Proceeding could not give any reasonable Satisfaction But you say You do not place Certainty only in clear and distinct Ideas but in the clear and visible Connection of any of our Ideas And Certainty of Knowledge you tell us is to perceive the Agreement or Disagreement of Ideas as expressed in any Proposition Whether this be a true account of the Certainty of Knowledge or not will be presently consider'd But it is very possible he might mistake or misapply your Notions but there is too much reason to believe he thought them the same and we have no reason to be sorry that he hath given you this occasion for the explaining your Meaning and for the Vindication of your self in the matters you apprehend I had charged you with And if your Answer doth not come fully up in all things to what I could wish yet I am glad to find that in general you own the Mysteries of the Christian Faith and the Scriptures to be the Foundation and Rule of it For thus you conclude your Book in the last Paragraph of the Postscript The Holy Scripture is to me and always will be the constant Guide of my Assent and I shall always hearken to it as containing infallible Truth relating to things of the highest Concernment And I wish I could say there were no Mysteries in it I acknowledge there are to me and I fear always will be But where I want the Evidence of things there yet is ground enough for me to believe because God hath said it And I shall presently condemn and quit any Opinion of mine as soon as I am shewn that it is contrary to any Revelation in the Holy Scripture Which Words seem to express so much of a Christian Spirit and Temper that I cannot believe you intended to give any advantage to the Enemies of the Christian Faith but whether there hath not been too just occasion for them to apply them in that manner is a thing very fit for you to consider For in an age wherein the Mysteries of Faith are so much exposed by the Promoters of Scepticism and Infidelity it is a thing of dangerous consequence to start such new methods of Certainty as are apt to leave mens minds more doubtfull than before as will soon appear from
down Gen. 20.21 and he tells us There are but 18 Verses in that Chapter but a Man of common Ingenuity would suspect an Error in the Press in such a case and if he had pleased to have look'd on Gen. 28.21 he might have have found 22 Verses and the Words in the 21. Therefore saith he so much for Chaldee and Cabala despised by all learned Men Iews as well as Christians and never used but when the People are to be gulled with noisy Nothings One would hardly think it possible such mean stuff as this should pass for an answer among any that pretend to Sense or Knowledge For how can he deny the sense of the Chaldee Paraphrast when Philo the Alexandrian Iew concurs in that Interpretation as is evident by multitudes of places in him Did I not expresly mention his Testimony as concurring with the other Why not a word said to it Did I not add the Consent of Eusebius concerning the Jews owning the Divinity of the Messias till they fell off from it in opposition to the Christians And are these but noisy Nothings to gull People with Let what will become of the Dispute between the Pharisaical Jews and the Karaites those who know any thing of these Matters do know that I went upon other grounds viz. whether the Israelites did receive from God an Oral Law which they are bound to observe as much as the written Law and to interpret the written Law and the force of its obligation by it And this I never mention'd or intended to plead for it And as to the 13 ways of Cabalistical Interpretations I look on them as groundless and frivolous things but the thing I aimed at was only this There are certainly places of the Old Testament which speak of the Messias as the Son of God Thou art my Son c. and call him Lord The Lord said unto my Lord. The question is what the Sense of these places was and how they are to be applied to Christ Now if it appear that the most ancient Jews did understand them in such a manner as to apply them to a Second Subsistence in the Divinity we have great reason to follow that Sense which is so agreeable to the New Testament and about this we have no manner of Reason to despise the Sense of the ancient Jews and especially of the Chaldee Paraphrast who asserts a second and a third Subsistence in the Divinity And this he could not but find without any danger to his Iaws was the only thing I intended The next thing in point of Antiquity which he contests is about the Nazarenes That Name I said was at first common to all Christians as is plain from Act. 24.5 afterwards it was applied to the Jewish Christians at Pella and Decapolis and to such as admitted no Gentiles to their Communion but kept to the Ceremonies of the Law and of these I said they might be all Ebionites but I utterly denied it of such as were Members of the Catholick Christian Church as it was made up of Iews and Gentiles This Distinction he calls a pure figment but answers not one of the Reasons I brought for it although I proved from uncontroulable Evidence that they made two different Bodies had different Rules of Faith and that the Church of Ierusalem did hold the Divinity and Pre-existence of our Saviour And is all this Cabala too and only to be used when People are to be gulled with noisy Nothings i. e. with empty Pleroma's and silent Thunder-claps The Alogians were theirs for any thing I know in all respects and I will give them Theodotion and Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus But I think not much to their comfort the two latter were most certainly condemned by the Christian Church and whether the former were a mere Iewish Proselyte or an Ebionite is not worth contending about since S. Ierom makes him to translate the places about our Saviour like a Jew and Aquila like a Christian which shews how mean an opinion he had of his Sincerity I proved the condemning Paulus Samosatenus while they were under the power of Zenobia to be a plain evidence of the sense of the Christian Church against his Doctrine at a time when no interest could be supposed to sway them To this he gives a twofold Answer 1. That be sure it is false that they were then under the power of Zenobia But how can we be sure it is false when I brought proof it was true and he answers nothing at all to it But it seems all is Cabala and noisy Nothings that stand in his way 2. He saith They were all Hereticks A very short Answer But how is this proved For a little proof looks well sometimes and a man must not always say be sure it is so Well here is a plain proof they differ'd from the Council of Nice about Homoousios But I had before given a full Answer to that p. 42. to which he gives not the least reply viz. that they took it in two different Senses As to Lucian I leave it to the Readers Judgment if he compares what I have said and what he answers together and whether he thinks it probable that the Arians should forge a Creed under his Name at Antioch if he continued in the Doctrine of Paulus Samosatenus which was contrary to it This is all he saith that seems considerable in point of Antiquity and whether he hath said any thing really considerable about it let the Reader judge Come we now to the point of Scripture which is the main point in the case For I had declared p. 112. that our Faith as to the Trinity is built upon that and that there are many places of Scripture of which no tolerable Sense can be given without it And therefore I examined the Sense the Vnitarians gave of the most remarkable Places and shew'd the Weakness and Inconsistency of it and then in an entire Chapter proved our Doctrine from the Form of Baptism delivered by our Saviour as it was always understood in the Christian Church This I think was a very plain and easie Method of proving our Doctrine And what now saith our Vnitarian to all this Truely I have met with few Answers like it In short he saith That for his part he is enough perswaded without further arguing the Matter that I have spent my Breath against a Rock This is just the Popish way of answering by Infallibility and super hanc Petram But in neither case can I see the least ground for such mighty Confidence Alas for them they say That if we write against their Interpretations of Scripture they are not at leisure to wipe off every small Soil that may happen to be scatter'd in their Books Not at Leisure Whence have come all those Swarms of pestilent Books which have come abroad of late Years among us to spread their infectious Doctrine over the Nation And now are they not at Leisure to defend them And
so much for the clearing of this both in the Preface and the Book it self that I need not to add one Word about it unless he had suggested some new demonstrative Reason to prove it Which he is far enough from All that he saith is That they must be called Fools as well as Sabellius if they asserted Relative Properties or any Properties that were in no Essence But the Author of the Discourse of Real and Nominal Trinitarians to whom he is no Stranger had said That the Sabellians held that the Father Son and Spirit are but only three Names of God given to him in Scripture by occasion of so many several Dispensations towards the Creature and so he is but one subsisting Person and three Relative Persons If this be true here are Relative Properties indeed relating to a Divine Essence but how not as to any Internal Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost but as to External Dispensations which are another kind of Relative Properties This is all that I can find in this last Effort that relates to my self As to what concerns others they are very able to defend themselves and particularly as to Dr. S. and Dr. Sh. I must still say I think them much his Superiours as to Wit and Learning for of them I spake without the least Respect to my self however he makes it a Complement to my self and them I know not for what Reason unless it be that I speak of those against whom they had written with Insolence and Scorn But I hope they will shew themselves so much his Superiours too in Wisdom and Discretion as not to renew their Quarrels upon his Provocations for he doth what in him lies to inflame them and he thought it and I do not blame him for it the best service he could do to his sinking Cause WORCESTER April 26 1697. E. W. FINIS ERRATA Pag. 3.1 an Answer P. 42. l. 4. for Temerarian r. temerarious P. 63. l. 22. for diceret r. doceret P. 82. l. 17. for Preception r. Perception Books published by the Right Reverend Father in God Edw. L. Bishop of Worcester and sold by H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard A Rational account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. C. 2d Edit Fol. Origines Britannicae or the Antiquities of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in Vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph Fol. Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches Wounds 4 to Origines Sacrae or a Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scripture and the matters therein contained 4 to A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it 8 vo An Answer to several late Treatises occasion'd by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it Part I. 8 vo A Second Discourse in Vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church 8 vo An Answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle apologetical to a Person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet 8 vo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a Book entituled Catholicks no Idolaters 8 vo Several Conferences between a Roman Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of England being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. 8 vo A Discourse concerning Bonds of Resignation of Benefices in Point of Law and Conscience 8 vo A Discourse concerning the Illegality of the Ecclesiastical Commission in Answer to the Vindication and Defence of it wherein the true notion of the Legal Supremacy is clear'd and an Account is given of the Nature Original and Mischief of the dispensing Power The Unreasonableness of Separation or an Impartial Account of the History Nature and Pleas of the present Separation from the Communion of the Church of England 4 to The Grand Question concerning the Bishops Right to vote in Parliament in Cases Capital stated and argued from the Parliament Rolls and the History of former times with an enquiry into their Peerage and the Three Estates in Parliament 8 vo A Discourse concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction or the true Reasons of his Sufferings with an Answer to the Socinian Objections To which is added A Sermon concerning the Mysteries of the Christian Faith Preached April 7. 1691. With a Preface concerning the true state of the Controversie about Christ's Satisfaction 8 vo Twelve Sermons preached on several Occasions by the Right Reverend Father in God Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester The first Volume 8 vo A Second Volume will speedily be publish'd The Effigies of the Right Reverend Father in God Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester Engraven on a Copper-plate by Robert White Price 6 d. P. 6. P. 7. P. 8. P. 9. Book 2. Ch. 13. Sect. 19. P. 14. Ch. 23. Sect. 2. P. 11. P. 12 P. 22. P. 35. P. 25. P. 38. P. 28 29. P. 32. Book 2. ch 23. Sect. 6. P. 32. P. 33. P 40. P. 18 23 24 36 37. P. 8. Essay B. 2. ch 8. Sect. 25. Ch. 9. Sect. 8 9 10. P. 7 8 10 30. P. 6. P. 8. B 2. ch 23. Sect. 1. Sect. 2 3 4. P. 22. P. 40. P. 40. B. 2. Ch. 24. Sect. 16. P. 43. P. 44. Voss. Etymol in V. Sto. Thucyd. l. 6. p. 392. Ed. Ox. l. 3. p. 184 Acad. l. 1.8 Cicer. in Lucul c. 6. C. 24. P. 57. P. 226. Book 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 18. Christianity not Myst. p. 10. P. 12. P. 13. B. 4. ch 3. Sect. 23. Sect. 24 c. Sect 28. Sect. 30. Book 4. Ch. 17. Sect. 1. Sect. 9. Sect. 10. Sect. 11. Sect. 12. B. 4. ch 17. 1. Sect. 23. B. 4. ch 18. Sect. 2. P. 59. P. 62. P. 65. P. 66. Id. p. 74.82 B. 2. Ch. 23. Sect. 15. Sect. 17. Sect. 22. Sect. 30. Sect. 31. P. 67. P. 68. Leviath ch 34. Leviath ch 38. Vindicat. of Leviath p. 90 91. P. 69 P. 71. P. 72. P. 73. P. 74. P. 75. P. 81. P. 81. Book 4. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. Book 2. ch 23. Sect. 6.14 Sect. 7. Sect. 8. Sect. 12. Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 18. B. 3. ch 10. Sect. 15. B 2. ch 23. Sect. 17. B. 2. ch 23. Sect. 15. B. 2 ch 21. Sect. 8. Sect. 13. B. 2. ch 8. Sect. 11. Sect 10. B. 2. ch 27. Sect 9. B. 2. ch 11. Sect. 9. Sect. 10. Letter p. 27. De Immort Animae c. 9. Let. p. 139. P. 73. P. 66. P. 87. P. 88. P. 101. P. 103. P. 106. P. 107. Ib. P. 107. P. 110 P. 113. P. 114. B. 1. Ch. 4 Sect 8. Ch. 4. Sect. 12. P. 119. P. 123. P. 125. P. 121. P. 120 P. 128. P. 127. P. 132. P. 145. P. 136. P. 137. Cum enim duo sint genera rerum quae sciuntur unum earum quae per sensus corporis percipit animus alterum earum quae per scipsum multa illi Philosophi garrierunt contra corporis sensus animi autem quasdam firmissimas per seipsum perceptiones rerum verarum quale est illud Scio me vivere nequaquam in dubium vocare potuerunt De Trin. l. 15. c. 12. P. 139. P. 142 P. 157. P. 165. P. 216. P. 217. â— 2. ch 1. Sect. 5. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. Sect. 2. Ch. 11. Sect. 9 Ch. 12. Sect. 1. Sect. 3. Sect. 6 Ch â—â— Sect. 3. Sect. 6 14 Sect. 33. B 3. ch 3. Sect. 2. Sect. 6. Sect. 9. Sect. 11. Sect. 12. Sect. 14. Sect. 15. Sect. 16. Leviath ch 4. B. 2. ch 17. Sect. 1. P. 169 P. 170. P. 171. B. 2. ch 8. Sect. 10 15 17 23. Sect. 25. P. 174. P. 176. P. 178. P. 181. P. 190. P. 191. P. 193. P. 195. P. 197. P. 198. P. 199. P. 201. P. 20â— P. 203. P. 210. P. 212. Book 4. Ch. 1. Sect. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 23. Sect. 27. Sect. 24 Sect. 26. Sect. 27. Sect. 25. Sect. 28. B. 4. ch 2. Sect. 2. Sect. 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 14 â—â—â—â— Sect. 1. Sect. 2.