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
Principle examin'd Of Suspence and Assent Of Great Likelihood Freedom from Actual Doubt Fair Probabilities and other Mock-Certainties § 1. HE introduces his Discourse thus So that this is to be entertain'd as a Firm Principle by all those who pretend to be Certain of any thing at all that when any thing is prov'd by as good Arguments as that thing is capable of and we have as great assurance that it is as we could possibly have supposing it were we ought not in reason to make any doubt of the Existence of that Thing This is Dr. T's FIRM PRINCIPLE and it should be a kind of FIRST PRINCIPLE too being so universally necessary that without admitting this no man can be Certain of any Thing at all nor any Thing at all be Certain to any man You see Gentlemen how much depends upon it and I conceive you will easily conclude it ought to be as Evident and as Firm as any First Principle extant since according to his way of Discourse all Truths even the most precious Concerns in the world particularly the possibility of proving a Deity must run its Fate and be establish'd or ruin'd by its standing or falling Now my Judgment of it is this That 't is the most ridiculous piece of Folly and the most pernicious abstract of pithy Nonsence that ever was laid down since Mankind was Mankind by any sober man for such a Principle without which no Certainty at all can be had no not even that there is a God I charge it therefore with four Faults First that 't is Unprov'd next 't is Unevident of it self and so no Principle thirdly that were it evident 't is Impertinent to the end 't is produc'd for and lastly it betrays all Religion into the possibility of being a Lye instead of establishing it § 2. And first it appears that he intends it as a Conclusion by his introducing it with So that c. after his former Discourse But as I have already confuted That so I discern not any title it has to be Sequel from those Premisses in case they were True For what a mad consequence is this Diverse things bear diverse kinds of Proofs some weaker some stronger therefore when we have the best the Object can afford us we are to rest satisfi'd the thing is How I say does this follow unless he had first maâ—e out or at least supposâ—d that the least of those Proofs was satisfactory or that there is no Object in the world but is capable of yielding light enough to satisfie which Position every days experience convinces of Falshood Indeed if he meant by these words that upon our seeing the Thing is capable of no Conclusive Proof it is wisdom in us to sit down satisfy'd that no more is to be had and so surcease our farther quest I understand him very well but that I should be satisfy'd the thing is so or acquiesce to its Truth as he must mean to make it 〈◊〉 for his purpose not from the Conclusiveness of the Grounds it stands under or the prevalence of the Object upon my Understanding subduing it to Assent but because that Object is capable to bear no more or to discover it self no better to my sight is in plain terms to say that because the Objâ—ct affords me no certain light to know whether it be or no therefore I will hold my self well appay'd and think 't is Certain or thus Though I see absolutely speaking 't is Uncertain yet as long as I see withal the Object can bear no more or cannot be made absoluâ—ely Certain I will therefore rest satâ—sfy'd or judge 't is absolutely Certain If this be not his meaning I desire himself to inform me better 'T is evident to me it can be no other if he mean anythâ—ng at all His Intent is to evince a Deity and I declare heartily I have that good opinion of him as to hope that settled perhaps in that Assent by Practical Self-evidence as are the Vulgar and not by Skill or Principles as Scholars are for his Speculation makes it absolutely Uncertain he judges it to be absolutely Certain Either then he judges his Motives he has to evince it Conclusive or no If Conclusive there needs no running about the Bush to tell us of several kinds of Proofs or laying such whimsical Principles fit for nothing but to make the witty Atheist laugh at Christianity but it had been enough to stand to it heartily that the Thing must be so because the Arguments he brings conclude it to be so But in case he fear'd his Motives were not absolutely Conclusive or able to evince the Truth of the Point and that this is his Sentiment appears by his blaming me here p. 20. for pretending to such to ground Faith then indeed it was but good Policy or rather plain Necessity to lay some Principles by means of which he might compound the business between the Object and the Understanding after the same manner though this seems but an odd method of proving as Friends take up differences between good natur'd Creditors and the Debtor when he that owes is williâ—â— to do his utmost but yet is not solvent and 〈◊〉 was said before so to accord the business to avoid rigorous Disputes that though the Understanding sees absolutely speaking the Thing is Vncertain and more Lighâ— if it could be had is in reality due ere it can be satisfy'd of its absolute Certainty yet because the Object is able to afford no more 't is awarded by their Umpire Dr. T. that the kind-hearted Understanding is to be content to rest appay'd and hold it notwithstanding to be absolutely Certain which is the same as to say that though I do not see the Thing to be so yet because the thing it self cannot be seen to be so I will fancy strongly or judge I see it to be so Let us parallel it by Analogy to our Corporal Sight and the Discourse stands thus Though I see not the Wall to be white because 't is so far distant or the Air dusky yet because I can see it no better the Wall thus circumstanc'd not being able to inform my Eye clearly therefore despairing of the Walls affording me any better sight of it self I will piece out that degree of obscurity in the Object with a strong bending my Eyes till I fancy verily I see it to be white or rather out of a civil compliance with it's defect of visibleness I will verily judge and conclude it to be indeed of such a colour and then if any object folly to me for assenting upon infirm Grounds I will tell him he is ill-natur'd and unmerciful the poor Wall has done alas all it can and who can in reason desire more § 3. I expect Dr. T. will pretend degrees of Intellectual Sight and that by a less degree of Evidence he sees the Thing to be though 't is not manifested to him by the greatest but 't is impossible and even contradictory
the Grounds of it even while he goes about to defend it These were my words then and I am sorry he would needs dare and provoke me to make them good In which if I have justified my self too particularly let him blame himself All this while I seriously declare that I am far from thinking that Dr. T. himself is not assur'd that there is a GOD and farther yet from imagining that already holding one he should hold it possible afterwards GOD should cease to be which ridiculous folly constant to his prevaricating humour he puts upon me p. 8. What I affirm is That his ill Principles do equivalently confess it possible there neither is nor ever was a GOD and this I have abundantly shown out of his own words Yet I doubt not but himself through GOD's Goodness has by Practical Self-evidence in the same manner the Vulgar who are no Speculaters or Scholars also have it absolute Certainty of the Existence of a Deity in despight of his weak Speculations nay that in this very Sermon he hath one or two Proofs which have in them the force of a Demonstration though his not understanding and so ill-managing of them and then calling them Probabilities has endeavour'd all that may be to render them good for nothing I end with some of his own words Pref. p. 37. That if Dr. T. did in truth believe that the Existence of a Deity or a Creation are as he says Serm. p. 20 so evident that they can hardly be made plainer than they are of themselves he should by all means have let them alone for they were in a very good condition to shift for themselvs but his blind and Sceptical way of proving them is enough to cast a mist about the clearest Truths in the world And I must take the liberty to admonish him that it lies not in the power of all the Enemies of Christianity in the world to do it half that Mischief as one Christian Divine may who by his earnestness manifests a desire to do the best he can by the vogue he bears seems able to do the best that may be done yet produces not any one proof which he vouches to be absolutely conclusive of the Truth either of Christianity or a Deity but rather by his carriage denies there are any such while he talks of Likelihood Probability more Credible Opinion Moral Certainty and such-like whose very names ought not to be heard or endur'd in a discourse aiming to settle the Grounds of Faith or the Tenet of a Deity Let him consider that he must take his measure of the Certainty of Grounds from the Object or Thing not from our freedom from doubt and such-like for these may be light and silly whereas the Grounds of Faith being â—aid by GOD must necessarily be wise and solid and so when look'd into Absolutely-Conclusive of the thing Let us then who hold a GOD leaving Creatures to their weaknesses vindicate our Maker from the scandalous Imputation of governing Mankind tyrannically by commanding us to assent thâ—t a thing is which at the same time we see may not be so obliging us to hold contrary to the Light of Nature and the very First Principles which Himself had ingrafted in us that what is is at the same time possible not to be and to profess a point True nay dy to attest its Truth which may perhaps be shown False to morrow nay which our selves see may be now False He tells us here in common p. 90 and he tels us truly that which way soever we turn our selvs we are incountred with Clear Evidences and sensible Demonstrations of a Deity Why does he then coming to make out that point say the nature of the thing will not bear clear Demonstration and that onely Mathematical matters are capable of it Why pursues he not such Proofs as these and makes them out and stands by them and reduces them to First Principles and so obliges Humane Nature to assent to them under evident forfeiture of their Sincerity and even Manhood Is he afraid clear Evidences and sensible Demonstrations will not necessarily conclude Why does he put Suppositions that the thing were and then argue thus blindly that since supposing it were it would give no more light of it self than it does therefore it is Is there any necessity for such a ridiculous perplexing and inconclusive method when we may vouch we have Clear Evidences and Demonstrations Lastly Why does he distrust the Objects strength and explain our Assurance of a Deity and Faith by Moral Certainty or such as will satisfie prudent men in humane Affairs Probabilities amassed together not doubting and other such-like feeble diminutive expressions Are not Clear Evidences and Sensible Demonstrations that is Demonstrations à posteriori in point of Certainty incomparably beyond such quivering Grounds and such dwindling Adhesions I wish Dr. T. would take these things into his better thoughts and at least by amending his Expressions and Reasons hereafter make some tolerable satisfaction for this intolerable Injury done to Faith and GOD's Church DISCOURSE VI. That Dr. T. makes all the Grounds of Christian Faith Possible to be False Of Infallibility Demonstration and Moral Certainty § 1. THus much to justifie my first Charge that Dr. T. made that Fundamental Tenet of a Deity and consequently all Religion Possible to be False My second Charge is that he particularly makes all Christian Faith possible to be false and 't is found Faith Vindicated p. 171. where I put down his own words which concern that purpose though he who presuming on the Partiality of his Friends takes the Liberty to say any thing which even Eye-sight may Confute assures his Reader pag. 5. that I durst not Cite them I laid my Charge in this Tenor 'T is necessarily consequent from the foregoing Paragraphs that if I have Discours't right in this small Treatise of mine and have proved that Faith and consequently its Grounds must be Impossible to be False then Mr. T.'s Confession p. 118. to which Mr. St.'s Doctrine is Consonant that It is possible to be otherwise that is to be False that any Book is so Antient as it pretends to be or that it was Written by him whose Name it bears or that this is the sence of such and such Passages in it is a clear Conviction that neither is the Book-Rule he maintains the True Rule of Faith § 3. Nor have he and his Friends True Faith § 4. And consequently there being no other Rule owned taking away Private Spirit but Tradition that Tradition is the only-True Rule of Faith § 6. and so the main of Sure-Footing stands yet firm And lastly 't is evinc't that his own Book which opposes it opposes the only-True because the only Impossible-to-be-False Ground of Faith that is he is convinc't in that Supposition to go about to undermine all Christian Faith Whence the Title of his Probable-natur'd Book Rule of Faith is manifested to be an improper Nickname
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
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
of these things then let him say he is fallibly certain of it which done Nature will shew him how perfect Nonsence he speaks whence the same Nature will tell him with a little reflexion that since the word Infallibly can with good sence be joyn'd with the word Certain either 't is adeqaate to that word and extends its sence as far as the others and then there is no Certainty where there is not Infallibility or it does not extend as far as the word Certain and then we may be Certain of some things yet not-Infallibly Certain which since not-Infallibly means Fallibly signifies clearly we may be fallibly certain of those things But common sence teaches us how ridiculous 't is to say we are fallibly certain of any thing 'T is most evident therefore and demonstrable that there is no Certainty but where there is Infallibility and that we can never be said to be truly Certain of any thing till all circumstances consider'd we see our selves out of possibility of being deceived hic nunc in that very thing Whence Dr. T. denying Infallible assurance of both Letter and Sence of Scripture is convinc'd to deny all true Certainty of either and so to render all Faith built upon it Uncertain that is possible to be false and could he with sense take the other part of the distinction and say he is fallibly certain of it yet the guilt of the same Position will still remain with him This Logical Demonstration I produc'd in Faith Vindicated pag. 37. of which Dr T. takes notice here pag. 17 thus Mr. S. is plâ—as'd to say that Certainty and Infallibility are all one concealing thus from his Reader I had ever prov'd it lest he should be oblig'd â—o speak to my Proofs which he neither likes nor uses and bears himself as if I had only said it which suppos'd then indeed his bare saying the contrary was a competent Answer This done he confutes it manfully with telling his Readers I am the first man that evâ—r said it and that 't is foolish I beseech you Gentlemen is it the fashion in the Univeesities to solve Arguments on this manner That is to neglect the Premisses call the Conclusion foolish and think to overthrow the Reason in the Opinion of his Readers because 't is not some hackney Argument brought into play perhaps an hundred times over and ninety nine times answer'd but now produc'd first Certainly one would think in reason that what has been many times alledg'd should rather be slighted because it may have received already many Answers and not such Pcoofs as first appear because 't is certain they never yet had any at all nor do I conceive that the Noble and Learned Virtuosi of the ROYAL SOCIETY use to reject any Production because the Author of it is the first that invented it but they allow it Examination and if it hold the Trial approve it and commend the Author § 4. I shall endeavour to give him another Argument of the Necessity of admitting Infallibility though I have good reason to fear he will afford it again no other Answer but only this that I am the first man that ever produc'd it 'T is this Taking the word False or Falsus subjectively or as in the Subject that is as making the Jugment False or Erroneous 't is a Participle of the Verb Fallor and signifies deceived actually to which corresponds as its proper Power Fallible or capable to be deceived Now the contrary to False thus understood is True taken also subjectively or as making the Judgment which in it is True or Un-erroneous in that its Act. Wherefore the proper Power corresponding to that Act must necessarily be that which is oppos'd to Fallible that is Infallible Again taking the word False Objectively or as found in the Proposition which is the Object or Cause of our Judgment as 't is false or actually deceived It s proper Power corresponding to it is Capable to deceive Wherefore also taking its Opposit Truth Objectively or for the Object of our Judgment when 't is True the proper Power corresponding to it must be Incapable to deceive 'T is concluded then from both these Considerations that we can neither affirm Points or Propositiont of Faith which are the Objects of such Acts True but we must affirm withal that they are Incapable to make us judge erroneously while we assent to them nor that our Judgment or Act of Faith can be True or Un-erroneous but we must be Infallible in so judging Thus far concerning the necessity of admitting Infallibility if we once put our Assents or Acts of Faith to be true Judgments From which 't is a different Question to ask how we become thus Infallible onely 't is Evident that in case the former Proposition be put viz that we must affirm our Acts of Faith True Infallible we must be or Impossible to be in an Errour when we make those Acts. But now to this Infallibility in those Acts God's Providence leads men diversly according to their several degrees of Capacity Those who are arriv'd to a great pitch of Learning come to it by absolutely-concluding proofs call'd Demonstrations that is by penetrating the nature of the Authority on which it is built and such men can make out clearly and distinctly to their own Thoughts the Certainty of that Authority by discoursing it to themselves others they can resolve it into its Grounds meet with and answer Objections and in a word see themselves to be Infallibly Certain of it In these men therefore though the Truth of their Tenet be indeed taken from the Object as 't is always yet the Clearness Distinctness and firm Strength of it springs from the Perfection of their well-cultivated Understanding Those who are of a weak pitch are led to it by Practical Self-evidence of the nature of Authority and of the way in common by which they receive Faith which dim rude sight even in the simplest serves to carry them on to act according to right nature when they assent but they cannot discourse their thoughts nor resolve them into Principles nor answer Objections nor see themselves clearly to be infallibly Certain Nay more the greatest part of these especially if very simple do by some lucky chance or rather by a particular disposition of Gods good Providence light upon this right way more than by any strength of their own wit looking into Grounds but being in it once they find that which satisfies them according to knowledges familiariz'd to them by converse with the World and which are of themselves solid and satisfactory In a word it became Gods goodness so to order things that the Acts of all the Faithful might be as much as was possible in men of every pitch and capacity Rational or Virtuous whatever Contingency may happen in some particulars Original Sin and by it Passion Ignorance or Interest sometimes byassing them and making them act with precipitancy In which case
will with Infallible Certainty bring down the Letter of Magna Charta the Statute Book and some Acts of Parliament the self-same from year to year at least in matters of high Consequence and by means of the Sense writ Traditionally in some mens heaâ—ts correct the Letter if Printers or Copiers should mistake If Dr. T. asks how I prove it I would tell him that the Nature of the Thing must make it Notorious if altered be cause great multitudes are conversant in it and it being esteemed of a kind of Sacred Nature weigh every tittle of it warily especially those passages that immediately touch some weighty Point whence should some whose Interest 't is to alter it go about such an Action it cannot appear a Good to the Generality whose Concerns are highly violated by that alteration to conceal and permit the Letter to remain Uncorrected and if it could not appear a Good to the Generality to consent to alter it nor become a Motive to the rest to attempt a seen Impossiblity neither one nor the other could will to alter it much less both conspire to do it and should they attempt it their will must either have no Object and then 't is a Power to nothing that is no Power or else act without an appearing Good and in both cases the Will would be no Will. This short hint will let the Reader see the Grounds I go upon 't is not now a proper place to pursue such Arguments close or press them home I wish I might see some return of the like nature from our two undemonstrating Adversaries who think it their best play to laugh at Principles and Demonstration because they know in their Consciences they are perfect Strangers to both § 8. Well but though Dr. T. denies any Infallible Certainty of the Ground of all Christian Faith let 's see at least what other Certainty he affords us And at the first sight any honest man might safely swear it must be if any a Fallible Certainty that is a very fair piece of Nonsense for 't is evident to all Mankind the Abhorrers of First Principles always excepted that if any Certainty be Infallible and there be any other besides this it must needs be a Fallible one since there can be no middle between Contradictaries So that Dr. T. is put to this hard choice either to bring such a Certainty for the Ground of all Christianity which is no Certainty or else such an one as is perfect Nonsense if it be named by its proper Name Lâ—t's see what choice he makes We are not sayes he Infallibly Certain that any Book c. But yet observe now the Opposit kind of Certainty delivered here pag. 9. We have a firm Assurance concerning these matters so as not to make the least doubt of them I marry this is a rare Certainty indeed We have not Infallible Certainty sayes Dr. T. of either Letter or Sense of Scripture but onely such an one as keeps us from making the least doubt of them Now since a very easie reflexion teaches us that we have no doubt of many things being True nay more have strong Hopes they are True and yet for all that hold them notwithstanding possible to be false 't is a strange Argument to prove he avows not the possible Falshood of Faith to alledge that he declared himself he had onely such an Assurance as not at all to doubt it For not to doubt a thing signifies no more but not to incline to think it False which a man may do and yet not at all hope 't is True seeing he who suspends indifferently from both sides and inclines to neither does not at all doubt a Thing or fear 't is False having no imaginable reason to ground the least degree of any such Fear more than he has to ground any Hope of its Truth Again those Speculators who attend not to Principles are oftentimes in a perplex'd case and through the Goodness of Nature hold a thing absolutely True while they attend to such motives as connaturally breed that perswasion which thing notwithstanding coming to make it out as Scholars and unable to perform it hereupon consider'd as Speculators they must hold possible to be False for any thing they know and this I conceive is Dr. T's condition Regarding the nature of Faith and the common Conceit of Christianity he cannot but see he must if he will be a Christian profess Faith impossible to be False and doublesly he will avow it such as long as he speaks Nature and avoids reflecting on his Speculative Thoughts but coming once to consider the points of Faith as standing under such proofs as his Unskilful Art affords him and conscious to himself as he needs must who sleights first Principles and all Methods to Knowledge that he hath never an Argument that is absolutely or truly Conclusive he is forc'd again taking in these unlucky circumstances to avow Faiths Ground and consequently its self to be Possible to be otherwise or False being willing to lay the blame on the Grounds of Faith and to say they cannot bear Absolutely-Conclusive Proofs rather than on the defectiveness of his own Skill and to represent them as unworthy to have the name of stable Grounds rather than he will lose a tittle of the Fame of being an able Divine Yet I will not say but the Christian in Dr. T. might overcome the Speculator at least ballance him in an equal suspence or beget in him a pretty good conceit of Faith's Impossibility to be False but then when he once reflects that this cannot be maintain'd without admitting Infallibility which is the word the abhominable Papists use nor made out without using First Principles or Identical Propositions which that malignant Man I. S. pretends to build on immediately the byass prevails and the Idea of Popery once stirred up which haunts his and his Friends fancy day and night in a thousand hideous shapes â— he runs in a fright so far from Impossibility of Falshood in Faith that he comes to a very easie Possibility of its being all a plain Imposture or Ly for any thing he absolutely knows since Grounds prevailing onely to make him not doubâ— of it can raise it no higher Moreover if this be a good Argument I declar'd my self so assur'd as not to make the least doubt of a thing therefore I could not avow it possible to be False it must be allow'd Argumentative to say I am so assured as not in the least to doubt of it therefore 't is not possible to be False Dull Universities that had not the wit to light all this while on Dr. T's Principles and way of arguing They ascertain all things at the first dash without more adoe I have a firm Assurance so as not to doubt of the Grounds of Christian Faith the Letter and Sense of Scripture therefore by this new Logick they are concluded Certain and Impossible to be False In opposition to which if you
more blasphemous against Essential Truth and Goodness Farther I declare 't is my Tenet that notwithstanding this failure in some particulars yet I hold that the Generality of the Faithful are so familiarly acquainted with the nature of Testifying Authority as to know grosly and confusedly by means of Practical Self-evidence that 't is a certain Rule to proceed upon and thence either discern themselves if they be very prudential or else are capable to be made discern who proceed upon that Rule who not Hence also I hold that Tradition or Testifying Authority is the best provision that could be made for all Mankind to receive Faith upon it being the most familiarly and most obviously knowable and penetrable by all sorts that can be imagin'd and far more than Languages Translations Transcriptions on which the Letter-Rule depends Lastly I hold that what is thus practically self-evident that is known in gross and confusedly by the Vulgar is demonstrable to the Learned who scan with exact Art the nature of those Causes which wrought constantly that certifying Effect in the Generality and find out according to what precisely they had that Certifying Virtue which found it will be the proper Medium to demonstrate the Certainty of that Authority by This is my true Tenet which my Prevaricating Adversary perpetually mistakes because he will do it and he therefore will do it because it must be done In mala causa as St. Austin sayes non possunt aliter § 12. He goes about to argue pag. 15. from the End of Faith and alledges that a freedome from seeing just cause of doubting the Authority and Sense of Scripture may make one believe or really assent to the Doctrine of it live accordingly and be saved By which I conceive he judges a Christians life consists in moving ones Legs Arms or Hands for 't is enough to stir us up to External Action that the motive be onely Probable but if a Christian's life be Spiritual consisting in interiour Acts of the Understanding and Will as a vigorous Hope and a fervent Love of unseen and unconceiveable Goods with other Virtues subservient to these and all these depend on Faith as their Basis and Faith depends for its Truth which gives it all its efficacie on the Rule of Faith I doubt it will scarce suffice to work these Effects heartily if Learned men speak out candidly and tell the Christians they are to govern that notwithstanding all they can discern they cannot see absolutely speaking that Christian Faith is a certain Truth but only a high likelihood a more Credible Opinion or a fair Probability It must therefore be beyond all these and so impossible to be false The main point then that Dr. T. ever misses in is this that he still omits to state what certainty is due to Christian Faith and its Grounds per se loquendo or according to its own Nature and the interiour Acts it must produce and the difficulties it must struggle through and overcome even in the Wisest and most Rational persons who are to be satisfied of its verity and so embrace it and considers it perpetually according to what per accidens that is not Essentially belongs to it but Accidentally may consist with it without utterly destroying its Nature that is he considers it not as found in those Subjects where it is in its true and perfect state or freed from all alloy of Irrationality but as in those where 't is found most defectively and imperfectly or as it most deviates from its right nature And this he is forc'd to do because he sees that should he treat of it as it ought to be or according to what it would be by virtue of the Motives laid by the Giver of every perfect Gift to bring mankind to Faith singly and solely consider'd without mingling the Imperfection of Creatures with his otherwise most powerful and wise Efficiency the Grounds of Christian Faith must be able to subdue to a hearty Assent the most Learned and wisest portions of Mankind which they could never do while they are seen by them to be Possible to be False § 13. He argues that Infallibility is not necessary to the Nature of Faith because this admits of Degrees that being the highest degree of Assent of none Besides Infallibility is an absolute Impossibility of being deceived and there are no degrees in absolute Impossibilities I answer that let a thousand Intellectual Creatures Angels or Men know and that Infallibly too the self-same-Object yet they all know it in different degrees of perfection not by means of knowing more in the Object for we will suppose it one single point but intensively or better on the Subjects side because of the different perfection of their understanding Power penetrating more clearly the self-same-Object To conceive this better let us reflect that the self-same thing may be corporally seen by several men and each infallibly know what it is by means of that sight yet because one of them has better Eyes than another one sees more clearly what 't is the other less Also the Blessed Saints and Angels in Heaven differ from one another in glory or in greater and lesser degrees of the blissful Vision that is one sees the Divine Essence better another not so well yet the Object being one Indivisible formality one cannot see more than another wherefore their great degree of Glory consists in this that one penetrates it better and as it were sinks it deeper in the knowing Power than another does which springs out of the several dispositions of the Subject or the antecedent Love of God which when 't is greater it more intimately and closely applies the Divine Object to the ferventlyâ—addicted Power Again on the Objects side there may be in some senses several degrees even of Absolute Impossibilities First because of the greater disproportion of the Object to the Power As put case it be Impossible that twenty men should lift such a weight 't is good sense to say if twenty men cannot lift it much less can two or if ten men cannot possibly resist the force of five hundred much less can they resist ten thousand of equal strength Next because one of the Impossibles depends upon another aâ— if be impossible the Conclusion should be False 't is more Impossible the Premisses should be so and yet more that the very First Principles should or thus 't is Impossible 2 and 3 should not make â— yet 't is more impossible God who is Self-existence should not be because in these the later Impossibility which depends on the formeâ— is onely Impossible by Consequence though still absolutely such that is were not at all Impossible if that which grounds it were not so Whence is seen that unless Dr. T. will say that all Created Understandings are of the self-same pitch of Excellence he must say that even supposing â—he self-same Object or Motive apt to assure Infallibly one may better penetrate it and so be more
Infallibly Certain on the Subjects side than another And thus in the same Person his Faith may be come more Lively than formerly according as he renders it more Express to his Thoughts and better dinted or imprinted in them which is done two manner of ways Habitually by often thinking on the Points which way is Proper to the Vulgar or Knowingly by penetrating it's Grounds still better and better and so making those Judgments solider and firmer 'T is seen also that one Object maybe justly said to be more Impossible to be false than another because that other is not at all such but by virtue of it and dependence on it according to that Axiom Quod per se est tale est magis tale What is so of it self is more or more perfectly such than what is such by means of another and with good reason for being impossible to be false solely by dependence on another 't is consequently of it self possible to â—e false Yet this Possibility can never be reduc'd into Act because that Object or Truth is never found unconnected with that other on which it depends but ever most intimately united with it and so engaging it's verity § 14. Pag. 18. Dr. T. endeavours to acquaint us with the Notion of Moral Certainty which I should be glad to learn for I am not ashamed to own that I never understood it perfectly in my life Some mean one thing by it another means another thing as their Fancy leads them now I for my part declare that I have no distinct notion or knowledge of any thing that I cannot define nor can I define that the limits or bounds of whose Nature I see not nor I am confident any man living I wish Dr. T. better success Moral Certainty says he is sometimes taken for a high degree of Probability which can onely produce a doubtful Assent He means I suppose such an Assent as is a Doubt or Suspending of Assent that is such an Assent as is no Assent I wish Dr. T. would go to School a while to honest Dame Nature and learn his Hoâ—n-book of First Principles and not thus ever and anon commit such bangers To doubt signifies to fear a thing is not true or not not to dare to assent to it that is not to assent and so a doubtful Assent is not Assenting Assent that is an Assent which is not an Assent He proceeds Yet it is also frequently us'd for a firm and undoubted Assent to a thing upon such Grounds as are fit fully to satisfie a prudent man Here are many things worth remark if one had leasure And first what means an undoubted Assent 'T is the Thing properly speaking is undoubted or not-doubted of and not the Assent But that 's but a slip of word I conceive by the word yet which introduces it he means an undoubtful Assent onely he fear'd the Inelegancy of the word in opposition to the doubtful Assent here spoken of and because speaking properly the opposit to Doubt is Hope an Vndoubtful Assent means a Hopeful Assent which since Doubting speaks a Disinclining to assent or judge the thing so and Hoping an inclining to it very fairly gives us a second dish of an Assent which is no Assent for Inclining only to be is not being such and so Inclining to Assent how strong soever it be is in reality no Assent Well Dr. T's resolution against Identical Propositions was certainly the most fatal bolt that ever was shot making him discourse like the man that said he had three Lights in him a great Light a little Light and no Light at all Next I would know what grounds are fully fit to satisfy a prudent man One man likes some Grounds others like others A sleight proof from Scripture likes some man better than the Practice of the Church the Consent of Mankind or the clearest Demonstration another I mean the Atheist likes a plausible Reason that sutes with and takes fancy better than all of them together A third likes Nonsense prettily exprest better than the clearest Truths unelegantly deliver'd A fourth values nothing that is produc'd to ground Assent but what when examin'd subsists by engaging First Principles and bears the Test of right Logick My Friend on the other side bids defiance to First Principles and Logick too and is all for Likelihoods more Credible Proofs Fair Probabilities Doubtful or rather Hopeful Assents Yet there want note now in the world esteem'd sober Persons who judge all these to be Prudent Men. Where then is this Prudent Man that we may take measure of his pitch and fit him with Grounds for any thing yet appears 't is as easie to fit the Moon with a Coat There are many prudent men among the Protestants who judge the Scripture's Letter interpreted by private Wit is a competent Ground for Faith There are other prudent men among Catholicks who judge the Contrary Nay more there are questionless amongst Turks and even Heathens divers men of grert Natural Prudence and we can only mean such a Prudence antecedently to the Illumination of Faith and they too have Grounds fit fully to satisfie them for they doe actually satisfie them so that they see not the least Reason to doubt of what they profess and so according to Dr. T's discourse these too have moral Certainty of what they hold Wherefore unless we could state what 's meant by a prudent man we can never come to understand what is meant by Dr. T's moral Certainty nor consequently when Faith is Certain when not nay which is worse if moral Certainty be that which he appoints as sufficient for Faith and for any thing appears by his words Turks Heathens and all Hereticks have the same since they have such Grounds as do fully satisfie prudent men it will follow that they may have as good Grounds as Christians have at least that no man can tell who have right Grounds of Faith who not since this notion of what is fit fully to satisfie a Prudent man has no determinate limits to state the nature of this mock-Certainty Besides 't is common in the course of the world and I have divers times observ'd it my self that two persons may contest about some passage even in humane affairs as when any thing is by a strange surprize or forgetfulness lost or to seek each of them may seriously protest they are morally Certain of it each may alledge Reasons they may be both prudent men too and both be fully satisfi'd with their Reasons and yet the plain discovery of the thing may shew afterwards that one of them prov'd to be in the wrong Now if this happen in a Controversie for example between a prudent Socinian and a prudent Protestant how must it be decided Both alledge Scripture each sees no Reason to doubt of his own Interpretation and both are fully satisfi'd that is both have Dr. T's moral Certainty and so both must be in the right if his Grounds be in the
that I never said or thought it was self-evident that Tradition had alwayes been followed but only that it is of own nature 〈◊〉 evidently infallible Rule abstracting from being followed his answer to my Method is this I have not spoken to the point before and therefore am not concern'd to speak to it now for why should people expect more from me here than elsewhere or rather I have granted the point already and thereforâ— am not concern'd to say more to it And I for my part think he is in the right because it seems a little unreasonable to require the same thing should be done twice I think it best to leave him to his sufficient-consideration and go on to the next Onely I desire the Reader to reflect how empty a brag 't is in the Drs. how partial in their Friends to magnify this peece as Vnanswerable Yet in one Sense 't is such for a Ready Grant of what 's Evident Truth can never be answer'd or refuted § 7. His next Pretence is that my METHOD excludes from Salvation the far greatest part of our own Church To which though enough hath been said already yet because the clearing this will at once give account of what I mean when I affirm Faith must be known antecedently to Church which bears a shew as if I held we are not to rely on the Church for our Faith I shall be something larger in declaring this Point To perform which more satisfactorily I note 1. That those who are actually from their Child-hood in the Church have Faith instill'd into them after a different manner from those who were educated in another Profession and after come to embrace the right Faith The formâ—â— are imbu'd after a natural way with the Churches Doctrine and are educated in a high Esteem and Veneration of the Church it self Whereas the Later are to acquire Faith by considering and looking into its Grounds and are educated rather in a hatred against the true Church than in any good opinion of her The former therefore have the full weight of the Churches Authority both as to Naturals and Supernaturals actually apply'd to them and working its effect upon them Practical self-evidence both of the Credit due to so Grave Learned Ample and Sacred an Authority as also of the Holiness the Morality or Agreeableness of her Doctrine to Right Reason which they actually experience rendring in the mean time their Assent Connatural that is Rational or Virtuous The later Fancy nothing Supernatural in her nor experience the Goodness of her Doctrine but have it represented to them as Wicked and Abhominable In a word the Former have both Faith and the Reasons for it practically instill'd into them in a manner at the same time and growing together daily to new degrees of Perfection whereas the Later must have Reasons antecedently to Faith and apprehending as yet nothing Supernatural in the Church must begin with something Natural or meerly Humane which may be the Object of an unelevated Reason and withal such as may be of its own nature able to satisfie rationally that haesitation and disquisitive doubt wherewith they are perpleâ—â— and settle them in a firm Belief 2. My Discourse in that Treatise as appears by the Title is intended for those who are yet to arrive at satisfaction in Religion that is for those who are not yet of the Church and so I am to speak to their natural Reason by proposing something which is an Object proper and proportion'd to it and as it were leading them by the hand step by step to the Church though all the while they walk upon their own Legs and see with their own Eyes that is proceed upon plain Maxims of Humane Reason every step they take 3. Though I use the Abstract word TRADITION yet I conceive no wise man will imagine I mean by it some Idea Platonica or separated Formalility hovering in the Air without any Subject but that the Thing I indeed meant to signifie by it is the Church as DELIVERING or as Testifying and taking it as apply'd to those who are not yet capable to discern any Supernaturality in the Church the Natural or Humane Authority of the Church or the Church Testifying she receiv'd this Faith uninterruptedly from the beginning So that Tradition differs from Church as a man consider'd precisely as speaking and acting differs from Himself consider'd and exprest as such a Person which known by Speech and Carriage or by himself as speaking and acting other considerations also belonging to him which before lay hid and are involv'd or as the Schools express it confounded in the Subject or Suppositum become known likewise So the Churches Humane Testimony or Tradition which as was shown Sure f. p. 81 82 83. is the greatest and most powerfully supported even naturally of any in the World is a proper and proportion'd object to their Reason who yet believe not the Church but it being known thence that the Body who proceeds on that Ground possesses the first-deliver'd that is Right Faith and so is the true Church immediately all those Prerogatives and Supernatural Endowments apprehended by all who understand the nature of Faith to spring out of it or attend on it are known to appertain and to have ever appertain'd to the True Church and amongst the rest Goodness or Sanctity the proper Gift of the H. Ghost with all the Means to it which with an incomparable Efficacy strengthens the Souls of the Faithful as to the Delivery of Right Faith whence she is justly held and believ'd by the new-converted Faithful to be assisted by the H. Ghost which till some Motive meerly Humane had first introduc'd it into their Understandings that this was the True Church they could not possibly apprehend § 8. In this way then of discoursing the Church is still the onely Ascertainer of Faith either taken in her whole Latitude as in those who are already Faithful or consider'd in part onely that is as delivering by way of naturally Testifying which I here call Tradition in order to those who are yet to embrace Faith Whence appears the perfect groundlesness of Dr. T's Objection and how he wholly misunderstands my Doctrine in this point when he says the Discourse in my Method does Vnchristian the far greatest part of our own Church For first he mistakes the Ground of Believing to those actually in the Church for that which is the Ground for those who are yet out of the Church to find which is the Church Next since all Believers actually in the Church even to a Man rely on the Church both naturally and supernaturally assisted and I am diseoursing onely about the Natural means for those who are out of the Church to come to the Knowledge of it his Discourse amounts to this that because those who are yet coming to Faith rely onely on the Humane Testimony of the Church therefore they who are in the Church and rely upon the Church both humanely
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
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