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
and divinely assisted are no Christians In a word this way of Divinity or Resolution of Faith which I take makes every man both those in the Church and those out of it rely on the Churches Authority or Testimony diversly consider'd in order to their respective capacities and so still makes the Church THE PILLAR AND GROVND OF TRVTH which all Catholicks in the World not so much as any one School-Divine excepted hold the securest way that can be imagined And should any one dislike it I see not what he can with any show pretend He must allow some Natural Motive antecedent to Faith and what is known by means of it that is he must grant some Motive antecedent to the Knowledge of Supernatural Assistance and where he will find in the whole World any such Motive stronger than is the Humane Authority of the Church as to matters of Faith I profess I know not nor I am confident can any man living imagine If this then be absolutely speaking the securest way that is 't is securer or firmer than is the way of proceeding upon Motives of Credibility and incomparably more secure than is that of resolving Faith into Motives onely Prudential Though indeed things rightly stated and understood the Motives of Credibility are some of them Coincident with Tradition and the rest which can lay just claim to Certainty depend on it taken at large as their Ground as hath been prov'd in the Corollaries to Sure-footing It may be ask'd Why since Tradition and Church are one and the same Thing I did not chuse to say that the CHVRCH gives us Knowledge of the first deliver'd Faith rather than that TRADITION does so seeing none could have scrupled or excepted against the former manner of Expression whereas this gives occasion of mis-apprehension to some unattentive Readers I answer I us'd on that occasion the word Tradition rather than the word Church for the same reason the Geometricians use the words Line or Surface when they have a mind to express Body as Long or Broad for these are in reality the same thing with Body but in regard Body is the Subject of many other Considerations as well as these and these speak Body precisely according to the Considerations of Length and Breadth to which onely it was Intended to speak hence it was better both for Succinctness of Expression and Exactness of Science which is built on the perfect distinction of our Conceptions to use the Abstract or Distinguishing words Line and Surface rather than the Concrete or Confused word Body which involves much more than the Discourser in that circumstance intended to consider or speak to Now this being the very method observed in that Science which bears the name for the greatest Exactness in Discourse I much fear the Objecters mistake proceeds from not reflecting that whoever pretends to an Accurate and Connected way of Discourse and rigorously to conclude what he intends must either follow that best of Methods or he falls short of his Duty and wrongs his Cause § 9. To clear this a little better and withal to apply it I shall make choice of another familiar Instance We use to say in Common Speech that the Countenance or Carriage of a Man makes known his Genius Now all these three viz. Countenance Carriage and Genius are in reality most evidently the same Thing with the Man himself onely they differ from it in the manner of Expression the word Man nominating the Whole or Intire Thing which is the Subject of all these and innumerable other Considerabilities confusedly imply'd in that word The other three are more distinct indeed in their manner of signifying but they fall exceedingly short of the others vast extent and express Man but in part or onely a few Respects found in that Subject whereof some are less known some more and so a Means to know others Whence it comes to pass that Countenance signifying Man as Looking or according to the outward Appearance of that part in him call'd the Face also Carriage signifying him as bearing or demeaning himself and lastly Genius as having such a peculiarity of Humour or Nature in him hence these words The Speech Countenance and Carriage of a Man discover his Genius amount to this the Man according to his Speech Countenance or Carriage which are visible and more Intelligible Considerations belonging to him is a means to notifie himself to us according to something in him which is latent and less manifest viz. his Genius This I say is the plain Sense of the other words onely this later manner of speaking is prolix and troublesome the other short and yet fully expressive of the Speakers Intention Again the other manner of Expression is Proper and Apt whereas should one put it thus The Man makes known the Man besides the confusedness of the expression since Man signifies the whole Intire Thing without distinguishing any particular Respects it would make the whole or the self-same thing abstracting from all different Respects to be before and after more known and less known than it sel◠which is a direct Contradiction § 10. Applying then this Discourse The word Church being a Congregation of Men answers in its way of expressing to the word Man in the Example now given and involves confusedly in its notion innumerable Considerations belonging to that Body of which True Faith which is as it were the Genius or Nature of the True Church is of it self latent unknown and far from self-discoverable Others such as is the Humane Testimony of the Church meant in those Circumstances by the word Tradition in regard it depends on Testifying Authority is more known and being Oral and Practical fitly corresponds to Speech Countenance Carriage and such-like It being known then by this means that such a Body has in it the first-deliver'd or True Faith 't is known immediately that having in it the Genius or Nature of a True Church 't is indeed the True Church Again it being known likewise and conceived by all who understand what is meant by that word that True Faith is a firm Adhesion to Christs Doctrine also it being apprehended by those against whom we dispute nay demonstrable out of the nature of that Doctrine that 't is a means to love God above all things hence 't is justly concluded that there is in the Generality or in great Multitudes of this Body a due love of Heaven call'd Sanctity or Charity which is the Gift peculiarly attributed to the H. Ghost and it being known and experienc'd by those already in the Church that this Love of Heaven or Sanctity gives the Faithful a particular Strength and Power to perform all good Duties and this of preserving uncorrupted the deliver'd Faith being one and that a most concerning one hence they come to know that the Church is assisted by the H. Ghost as in all other good Duties so especially in this of delivering and continually proposing Right Faith So that as Reason requires
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
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
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
before and after it self as also that for the same Reason it can have no force upon one not yet arriv'd at Faith as the Rule of Faith ought to have because 't is as yet unknown to him § 14. Again I agree with them that there are ought to be many several Prudential Reasons suted to men of several Capacities and Circumstances moving them to disquisition and inclining them to embrace the right Faith and joyn themselves to the true Church but I say withal that 't is one thing to move a man to enquire and incline him to Assent another thing to settle him in a most firm Assent to such and such Points as absolutely Certain Truths which is requisit to Faith Hereupon I affirm that this later Effect cannot be wrought rationally without Grounds truly Evident and absolutely Conclusive of the thing and Knowable either by Practical Self-evidence to men of all sorts or also to the Learned by a certainly concluding Proof which I call a Demonstration I affirm moreover with due respect to those Divines that Motives onely Prudential seem improper to be named in this Case and that they must be Principia Sapientiae and not Prudentiae which can rationally make us absolutely Certain of the being or not-being of any thing that is of its Truth or Falshood the Object of Prudence being Agibilia and not Intelligibilia as such and its proper Exercise and Use being to determine a man to act exteriorly or to act thus in Circumstances where Contingency and hazard is found and not to act interiorly or meddle in the affair of Intellectual Certainty or Truth depending solely on the Principles of our Vnderstanding which are Impossible to be False and therefore plac't beyond all Contingency and Hazard In a word I shall not fear to be thought singular in my Principles while I ground my self on the nature of Faith which both all Catholicks and the Generality of those who are call'd Christians hold and St. Thomas of Aquin the Prince of School-Divines asserts as I shew'd Faith Vindicated pag. 130. § 14. As for all Objections of this nature once more I request Dr. T. to make good this Consequence that my Discourse cannot be true unless all our Divines even of the same way in common agree with me and I promise him this done to reply distinctly to all his Extrinsecal and Impertinent Exceptions which waving in the mean time my Premises he so constantly lelevels against my Conclusions And whereas he sayes I cannot reasonably charge him with those things till I have vindicated our own Divines I desire him to consider that I could not were I their Adversary charge them with what I can justly charge him They all to a man hold the Catholick Church on which they rely Infallible and hold this more firmly than they do any of their Speculations and consequently they hold their Faith Impossible to be False and so preserve the true Nature of Faith Inviolate whereas what he is to hold to most firmly according to his Principles is his own private Interpretation of Scripture which he himself and all the world besides see and hold to be Fallible and so he must say that all his Faith built upon it is possible to be a Ly for any thing he knows by which means he destroyes the nature of Faith as far as Gods Goodness will give him leave in himself and others and corrupts it into Opinion They produce Motives which though they call them Prudential are indeed some of them Demonstrative and coincident in part with Tradition whereas Dr. T. has nothing at all in his Grounds taking him as opposing Catholicks or standing to his own Rule of Faith which rightly stated has even the least shâ—w of Prudential to an unbyast man much less of Demonstrative Lastly were it a proper place to handle the point at large it were easy to shew they differ onely in a word but Dr. T. errs in the whole Thing though indeed in most of our Divines here cited he mistakes them and not they the main point whatever he pretends for however they make Prudential Motives sufficient to find the Church yet not one of them but makes the Authority of the Church when found on which they ground their Faith of far greater weight than such an Evidence as does ordinarily satisfie prudent men in humane affairs since they all hold it Infallible which is vastly more than Dr. T. holds to ground his Faith § 15. His third Answer is that this Principle of mine makes every true Believer Infallible in matters of Faith which sayes he is such a Paradox as I doubt whether ever it enter'd into any other mens mind Now this Charge of his joyn'd with my true Tenet that true Believers are those who rely on the Motives or Means left by God in his Church to light mankind in their way to Faith signifies thus much that 't is a wonderful and strange Paradox that those that follow and rely on the Motives laid by Gods Providence to direct them to Truth should in so doing not possibly be led into Error that is 't is a most absurd Paradox to say that Essential Truth should not be the Immediate and Proper Cause of Falshood But he discourses still upon this point as if I had held that the Vulgar are preserv'd from possibility of Errour or are Infallible not through the Goodness of the Grounds left by God to preserve them from Erring but from the strength of their own Vnderstanding which I do not remember I ever thought or said even of the most Learned He asks If this be true what need then of my Infallibility of Pope or Council And I ask him what need Governors when people know their Duty or Judges seeing the main of the Common Law is Traditionary to men verst in such affairs Self-known practically Let him but assure the world that no Upstart shall have an humour to rebel and innovate but that all Christians shall practice and hold to what they know evidently was practic'd and held by the immediately foregoing Church and I will assure him there will need no Infallible Desiner not any at all as to such points But Dr. T. discourses still as if there were no difference between the rude dim degree of Knowledge in the Vulgar and the accurate exact and oft-reflâ—cting Knowledge of those who by their great Learning their Education their Posture and Office are particularly verst and most deeply insighted into the affairs of Faith and all that belongs to the right explaining or wording it thence declaring it authentickly so to keep its distinct Sense clear in the minds of the Faithful which the Equivocating Witty Heretick endeavours to render confus'd and obscure I wish he would study our Tenets a while and understand them ere he undertakes to confute us He is very raw in things of this nature § 16. His next Errour is worse than the former He would fain perswade Catholicks if any
he can most easily seem to misunderstand so to divert the Discourse A Method so constantly observ'd in his Reply to Sure-footing where he made Witty Dexterity still supply the place of Pertinent Solidity that instead of Rule of Faith it ought more justly have been entitled Sure-footing Travesty 5. And since all Discourse is ineffectual which is not grounded on some Certain Truth and consequently not onely he who settles or builds but also he who aims to overthrow or the Objecter must ground his Discourse on some Certain Principle if he intends to convince the others Teneâ— of Falsehood that Dr. T. would therefore esteem it his Duty even when he objects to ground his Opposition upon some Firm Principle And since no pretended Principle can be Firm but by virtue of some First Principle and that Dr. T. has disclaim'd here Identical Propositions to be such 't is requisite that he either confute my Discourses produc'd in this Treatise proving First Principles to be of that nature and show some other way by which the Terms of those he assigns for such do better cohere or he is convinc'd to have none at all and so all he writes or discourses must be Groundless and Insignificant 6. Thus much in common for the Manner of his Writing As for his Matter I request he would not in the subject of this present Discourse about the Certainty of a Deity and Christian Faith hover with ambiguous Glosses between Certainty and Uncertainty that is between Is and Is not but speak out Categorically and plainly declare whether he holds those Points absolutely True that is whether they be absolutely True to us or whether any man in the world can with reason say he sees they are True or has any Reason or Argument to conclude them True If not then â—et him show how 't is avoidable but all the World must with Truth say Both these may be False for any thing they can discern than which nothing sounds more horrid and blasphemous to a Christian Ear. If he says there are such Reasons extant but he has them not then let him leave off attempting to settle those Tenets or writing on those Subjects since he confesses himself unqualify'd and unfurnish'd with means to manage them If he says there are such Proofs and that he has them let him produce them and stand by them and not blame the nature of Things for bearing no more and others for saying they have more and that the Things do bear more To express my self closer and more particularly Let him speak out ingenuously and candidly to these Queries Whether be holds that God's Church or any man in the World is furnish'd with better Grounds for the Tenet of a Deity or for Christian Faith or any stronger Reasons to prove these Points True than those in Joshua's and Hezekiah's time had or could have the day before that the Sun should not stand still or go back the next day than that Person who threw a Glass on the Ground which broke not had or could have that it would not break â—han the Inhabitants of divers Houses had that they would not suddenly fall which yet did so or lastly to use his own words than those Reasons are which satisfie Prudent Men in Humane Affairs in which notwithstanding they experience themselves often mistaken If he say he has let him produce them and heartily maintain them and endeavour to make them out and I shall hereafter express as much Honour for him as I have done here of Resentment and Dislike for advancing the contrary Position But if he profess he has no better or that the nature of the thing not bearing it there can no better be given then 't is unavoidable first that the most Sacred Tenets of a Deity 's Existence and all the Points of Christian Faith may be now actually False since Points which had Reasons for them of Equivalent strength did prove actually such Next that no man in the world is in true Speech Certain there is a God or that the least word of Christian Religion is True since 't is Nonsence to say any of those Persons in those former Instances of equivalent strength were or could be truly Certain of Points which prov'd actually False and in which themselves were mistaken In a word I would have him without disguise let the world know whether as there was Contingency in those Causes and so the imagin'd or hoped Effects in the former Instances miscarried and prov'd otherwise than was expected so there be not also Contingency in the Motives for those two most Sacred Tenets upon whose Certainty the Eternal Good of Mankind depends so as they may perhaps not conclude and so both those Tenets may perhaps be really and actually otherwise than we Christians now hold If he professes to embrace this wicked Tenet and his words are too express for it ever to be deny'd though upon second thoughts I hope they may be retracted he owes me an Answer to my Faith Vindicated which hitherto he has shuffled off without any at all and to my Reasons alledg'd in this Treatise for the same Point FAITH's ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY Now Gentlemen since nothing conduces more to Knowledge in any kind than that the Matter of the Dispute be unambiguously stated and clearly understood and that a solid Method be observ'd in the managing it I become a humble Petitioner to your Selves as you tender that Excellent Concern of Mankind and that most Sacred One of Christianity to use your best Interest with Dr. T. that he would please to yield to these Duties here exprest and I oblige my self inviolably to observe the same Carriage towards him which I here propose and press he would use towards me which if he refuse I declare I shall leave him to the Censure of all truly-Learned and Ingenuous Persons however he triumphs amongst Those who are great Admirers of Pretty Expressions resting assur'd that your selves will not onely hold me Unblameable but also highly Commendable for noâ— losing my precious time in reciprocating his trifling and insignificant Drollery Your True Honourer and Humble Servant J. S. FINIS AMENDMENTS PAge 1. line 21. read that both first p. 47. l. 3. self possible to p. 50. l. 20. solid p. 101. l. 6 7. possible all this may p. 115 l. 12 Judgment in which it is l. 25. can never p. 118. l. 26. resolute hatred p. 121. l. 23. did equivalently p. 124. l. 21. 28. Speculaters p. 127. l. 17. nay more p. 135. l. 7. to be p. 139. l. 18. greater degree p. 142. l. 2. is not true or not to dare p. 146. l. 14. Chimerical p 157. l. 16. Fourth Eviction l. 18. of the Sixth p. 162. l. 16. Sermons equally p. 163. l 27. Parallelepiped p. 166. l. 30. Predicate p. 176. l. ult all good p. 183. l. 28 sensible man may p. 184. l. 2. deduc'd there p. 186. l. 12. of discoursing the p. 199. l. 25. it is is not more p. 200. l. 16. of its own p. 212. l. 24. not the Rule dele express p. 218. DISCOURSE IX p. 219 l 13 14. Reason in it p 229. l. 28 29. the Authors mistaken in undervaluing it p. 234. l. 17. I do non stand p. 239. l. 5. apply'd l. 6. I had