Christianity yet for any thing we know or these crafty common words inform us they have still all that is needfull to save them that is though they go wrong all their lives they are still all the while in the way to Heaven But I suppose Dr. St. means that no more is necessary for any ones salvation than just as much as he can understand in Scripture Which I wish he would once begin to set himself to prove make out by some convincing argument I am heartily weary of speaking still to his unprov'd and voluntary Assertions 14. To suppose the Books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any things necessary to be believed or practised are not contained in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the Writers with Insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first Ages with folly in believing the Fulness and Perfection of the Scriptures in order to salvation As far as I apprehend the foregoing Principle was intended to shew that Scripture was sufficirntly Intelligible to be the Rule of Faith and this under examination is to prove it to be the measure of Faith as he calls it Princ. 28. and all he contends here is that it CONTAINS all that is necessary TO BE BELIEV'D and practic'd And that we may not multiply disputes I grant those Holy Books contain all he pretends some way or other either Implicitly or Explicitly either in Exprest words or by necessary conâ—equence But that those Books contain or signifie for they are the same all that is to be believed and practiced so evidently that all persons who sincerely endeavor to know their meaning and this for all future Ages may thence alone as his discourse aims to evince that is without the Churches interpretation arrive to know what 's necessary for their salvation with such a Certainty as is requisite for the Nature and Ends of Faith and the Obligations annext to it I absolutely deny and if he means this by the word Perfection which he adds to Fulness I deny also that either the first Author can be charg'd with Fraud since he promis'd no such thing or the Writers with Insincerity since they were not commanded nor did intend thus to express it nor as far as appears had any order from God to set down his whole mind but only writ the several pieces of it occasionally nor did the Christian Church in the first Ages ever attribute to Scriptures such an Intelligibleness as that private persons should ground their Faith upon their Evidence without needing the Churches Interpretation if we speak of all points necessary to Mankinds salvation as he seems and ought to do And here I desire to enter this declaration to all the world that I attribute not the least Imperfection to the Holy Scriptures Every thing has all the Perfection it ought to have if it can do what it was intended to do and in the manner it was Intended Treatises of deep Philosophy are not Imperfect if they be not as plain as plainest Narrative Histories no not if they be ita editi ut non sint editi in case they were meant as a matter for the Author to explain and dilate upon to his Scholars nor are the Laws Imperfect though they often need Learned Judges to interpret them Nor are we to expect that the Prophecy of Isaiah should be as plain as the Law of Moses The Immediate End of writing each piece as far as appears to us was occasional St. Pauls Epistles were evidently so nor can I doubt but they were perfect in their kind and apt to signify competently to those to whom he writ what he intended so that if they had any farther doubt they might send to ask him or do it viva voce and yet we see that even in those days when the complexion of all the Circumstances was fresher and neerer then now some unlearned persons err'd damnably in mistaking and misconceiving them that is while they went about to frame their Faith out of them 'T is questionless also they rely'd upon them as Gods Word or dictated by the Holy Ghost else they had not so built upon them or adher'd to them They might sincerely endeavour too to know their meaning yet if the Writings were disproportion'd to their pitch they migh Erre damnably for all that What farther End God intended the H. Scriptures for appears not by any Expresse either promise or declaration of our Saviour but out of the knowledge that they were writ by persons divinely inspir'd and the Experience the Church had of their Vsefulness towards Instruction and Good Life joyn'd with the Common Knowledg we have that all Goods that come to the Church happen through the ordering of Gods Providence hence we justly conclude as Dr. St. well says that they were intended and writ also for the Benefit of future Ages And from their Vsefulness and the success of their Use we may gather how God intended them for the Church The Learned and stable sons of the Church read them with much fruit to excite their wills to Goodness The Pastore of the Church make excellent use of them in exhorting preaching catchising c. and in many other uses of this sort they are excellently beneficial which are so many that were it now seasonable for me to lay them open at large as I truly hold them none would think I had little Reverence for Scriptures but in deciding Controversies or finally silencing Hereticks as the Rule of Faith ought to do by the unavoidable evidence of the Text to private persons no use was ever made of them alone with any success as the Fathers also complain Unless the the Churches Authority going along animated the dead Letter in dogmatical passages and shew'd the sense of the places to have been perpetually held from the beginning and so give It the Sense Majesty Authority and Force of Gods VVord elevating it thus above the repute of being some private Conceit or Production of Skill and Wit interpreting the Letter Scripture then is perfect or has all due to the nature God intended it if duly made use of as the Churches best Instrument it be able to work those Effectâ— spoken of though it be not so Evident or self-authoriz'd as to be the Rule of Faith We give it absolute Pre-eminence in its kind that is above all other Writings that ever appear'd in the world but we prefer before it Tradition or Gods Church which is the Spouse of Christ the Pillar and Ground of Truth and consisting of the Living Temples of the H. Ghost for whose sole Good as its Final End Scripture it self was intended and written 15. These Writings being owned as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly reveal'd that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation there can be no necessity supposed of any Infallible society of men either
particularly whence each Deduction follows we may be better enabled to discover the Goodness of his Consequences and thence discern clearly the Truth of those Conclusions which we are to suppose his Intention in making those Discourses 6. In the last place we are to weigh very well what is meant by that signal and particularizing word Protestants for 't is the Faith of these and these only which he undertakes here to reduce to Principles And I will have the kindness for him as to suppose he so much zeals the Purity of the Protestant Church as not to defile her with the mixture of Anabaptists Independents Quakers and such like much less the most abominable Socinians who deny the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. Therefore these being secluded from the notion and name of Protestants we are encouraged by this Title to expect such a Discourse as is not proper for Socinians or any of those other Sects to alledge for themselves otherwise it might and ought with as much right be entitled The Faith of Socinians Quakers c. as the Faith of Protestants reduc'd to Principles The sum then of what we are by this Title to expect from Dr. St. is this viz. to shew us such Grounds for our Assent to Points as divinely reveal'd as are Impossible to be Erroneous and such as are not competent Allegations for Socinians Arians c. but proper to Protestants only Also that these Grounds or Principles are such as are either self-evident or made evident And this he is oblig'd necessarily to do unless he will sustain either that Socinians Fift-Monarchists c. are Protestants or that the Faith of Protestants is but Opinion or that there can be any Principles which are neither evident of themselves nor by means of others that is no ways evident or not evident at all Or lastly that he can show us any Conclusion reduc'd to Principles or deduc'd from them without shewing us that it is connected with them This then is what Dr. St's words bid us expect from him let us see now how he answers this expectation Second Examen Six Principles agreed on by both sides examin'd and their Import and Vse weigh'd 1. HE begins with laying down six Principles agreed on by both sides and they are as to the main all of them very True and granted by us if rightly understood wherefore in case any ambiguous word do occur I am to explain it that so our perfect concurrence with him in admitting them may be rightly apprehended and the discourse more unoffensively proceed in case these Principles should come hereafter to be made use of They are these 1. That there is a God from whom Man and all other Creatures had their Being 2. That the notion of God doth imply that he is a Being absolutely perfect and therefore Iustice Goodness Wisdome and Truth must be in him to the highest degree of perfection These two first are rigorously and literally true and worded very exactly 3. That man receiving his Being from God is thereby bound to obey his will and consequently is liable to punishment in case of Disobedience This Proposition is also most true yet that it may more throughly be penetrated and rightly apprehended it were not amiss to note that though the word obey generally amongst us signifies doing some outward action will'd by another yet in this occasion 't is to signifie also nay principally the exercising Interiour Acts of our soul viz. of Faith Hope and Charity in which kind of Acts consists our Spiritual Life as we are Christians That then this Principle may be better understood I discourse it thus that Because God as far as concerns his own Inclination or rather Nature precisely out of his over-flowing Goodness will all Good and amongst the rest the Means to Eternal Happiness to his Creatures and the Believing in Him Hoping all good from Him and Loving him are such Virtues or Perfections of the Soul as are apt and connatural means to raise and dispose it towards the attainment of Bliss or Fruition of the Deity hence he wills that man should believe on him hope in him and love him whence are apt to follow the outward observances of his Law and if they follow not out of these motives they are not properly virtues or truly Perfective of the soul in order to its Last end nor available in the least to the attainment of Bliss nor Acts of Obedience to God's will nor in true speech the keeping his Commandments God therefore willing us Happiness to be attain'd through the proper means to it it follows that those who disobey this Holy will of his that is those who do not cultivate their minds with the said Virtues of Faith Hope and Charity become liable by such their disobedience to eternal misery as wanting through this neglect the Proper Means which is to elevate them to the capacity of attaining Heaven 4. That in order to Man's obeying the Will of God it is necessary he know what it is for which some manifestation of the Will of God is necessary both that Man may know what he hath to do and that God may justly punish him if he do it not 5. Whatever God reveals to Man is infallibly true and being intended for the Rule of Man's obedience may be certainly known to be his Will I approve very wel of these two Principles And to this end I make it my request to the Proposer of them that the word manifestation and certainly known may be understood in their proper signification for that which is True or Absolute Certainty and not be taken abusively as Dr. T. still takes it for such a Certainty as is indeed Incertainty as is shown at large in Reason against Raillery and Faith vindicated Again that we may know whether this be a Principle agreed to by both sides as Dr. St. pretends I shall first put down our Tenet which is that at least the Pastors of the Church who are to teach the Faithful convert Unbelievers amongst whom are many acute wits as also to defend their Faith and make out the Truth of it may nay must have Infallible Grounds and so be Infallibly or Knowingly Certain of what God revealed to Man that is of their Faith If then Dr. St. grants the wisest portion in Gods Church to be thus Infallibly Certain of their Faith we agree with him in this Proposition but if he denies this kind of Certainty to them and consequently there being no middle between Infallible and Fallible says they and so the whole Church is only Fallibly-Certain of what they believe he both speaks non-sense and lays for a Principle agreed on by both sides that which is absolutely deny'd by us and indeed the main point in Controversy between us 6. God cannot act contrary to those Essential Attributes of Iustice Wisdom Goodness and Truth in any way which he makes choice of to make known his Will unto man by This Principle is absolutely granted having
he can go to work more Logically and exactly in finding out the true nature and notion of a Rule and show me I take it improperly I shall heartily thank him and acknowledge my mistake But I never yet discern'd any such Attempt nor do I see any reason to fear any such performance And I much doubt should any Catholick Divine out of a Charitable Intention of Union which I shall ever commend and heartily approve trusting to the Equivocalness of the word say Scripture is the Rule or a Rule I much doubt I say that when the thing comes to be examin'd to the bottom it will scarce tend to any solid good for however Words may bend yet the true Grounds of Catholick Faith are Inflexible and we must take heed lest while we yield them the Word they expect not as they may justly having such occasion that we should grant the Thing properly signify'd by that Word which if they do we must either recede or else forgo Catholick Grounds But now the difference between me and Dr. St's party is in the very Thing it self and this as wide as Contradiction can distance us For Dr. T. whom he still abetts makes it possible that he has neither True Letter nor True sense of Scripture that is makes his Rule of Faith and consequently his Faith built solely on It possible to be False And all that go that Way fall unavoidably into that precipice while they admit no Grounds but what are Fallible as I have shown at large in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery Whereas I still bear up to the Impossibility that Christian Faith should be a Ly and consequently I maintain that the Rule of Faith which engages the Divine Authority on which its Truth solely depends and without engaging which it might be all False must be Impossible to be False or Infallibly certain And hence taking my rise from the Nature of Faith in which all Protestants and indeed all that have the name of Christians except some few speculators agree with me viz. that taking it as built on those Motives left by God for his Church to embrace Faith that is taking it as it ought to be taken 't is above Opinion and Impossible to be False hence I say building on this mutual Agreement I pursue a solid Union which I declare my self most heartily to zeal Hoping that this point once distinctly clear'd against the Sophisms and blinding Crafts of some weak Heterodox Writers it will quickly appear that 't is every mans Concern who is of Capacity to look after such Grounds that the Divine Authority on which the Truth of all Faith depends is engag'd for the Points he holds as are absolutely Certain or Impossible to be False And I make account that were this quest heartily pursu'd it would quickly appear both by others Confessing the possible Falsehood of theirs as also by inforcing Reasons nay by Dr. Tillitsons yielding to the sufficiency of this Rule even when he was to impugn it that nothing but Tradition or the Testimony of the Church can be such a Ground Perhaps also it might be shown that both more learned and more sober Protestant Authors have own'd the admitting Tradition and a reliance on the Churches Authority for their Faith and for the true sense of Scripture in order to the attaining true Faith than those are who have maintain'd this private-spirited way so zealously advanc'd by Dr. St. of leaving it to be interpreted by every vulgar head to the utter destruction of Church and Church-Government This is and shall be my way of endeavouring Vnion which beginning at the bottom and with our mutual Agreement in so main a point that it bears all along with it viz. the Absolute Certainty of Faith is hopeful to be solid and well built and so Effectual if it please God to inspire some Eminent and Good Men to pursue home a Principle which themselves have already heartily embrac'd If not I have this satisfaction that I have done a due right and honor to Christian Faith and given it that advantage by asserting its perfect security from error as Gods Grace assisting is apt to make it work more efficaciously both interiourly and exteriourly in those who already possess it Fourth Examen Sifting the the ten following Principles concerning the Letter-Rule and Living Rule of Faith THe right nature of the Rule of Faith being thus stated 't is high time to address to our Examen how Dr. St. from Principles settles us such a Rule beginning from his tenth 10. If the Will of God cannot be sufficiently declar'd to men by Writing it must either be because no Writing can be Intelligible enough for that end or that it can never be known to be written by men Infallibly assisted The former is repugnant to common sense for words are equally capable of being understood spoken or written the later overthrows the possibility of the Scriptures being known to be the word of God I have already said and in divers books manifoldly prov'd that no declaration of God's will or which is all one in our case no Rule of Faith is sufficient conâ—â—dering the Nature and Ends of Faith 〈◊〉 obligations arising from it but 〈…〉 to be false and built on Infallible Grounds This premised we are to inquire whether Writing be the best Way for thus assuring it in all Ages to the end of the world To come then closer to our Answer We are first to reflect again what Dr. St. means by the Will of God at least what he ought to mean by it For these words at the first sight seem to signifie onely some External Actions commanded by God to be performed or avoided and it is the Dr's Interest they should be taken onely in this sense for such a will is more easie to be signifi'd by Writing than some other things of a more abstruse spiritual and dogmatical nature which yet are of absolute Necessity to be believ'd by the Church such as are the points of the Trinity Incarnation and Godhead of Christ who dy'd for us since then Gods Will extends not only to aim at Mankinds Attainment of his Last End or True Happiness but also to provide for the best means to it or to give us knowledg of those Motives which are apt to create in man a hearty Love of Heaven above all things the best Condition of Mans Happiness or Immediate disposition to it it follows that the holding all those Tenets which contain in themselves such Motives do all come within the compass of the Will of God To omit many others I will instance in two Points of main Concern and Influence towards Christian Life namely the Godhead of Christ and the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament Now who sees not how wonderful an Ascendent both these if verify'd must needs have over Christian hearts Can any Amulet of Love be so charming or apt to elevate to the Love of God above all things as
to be ascertain'd that he who was really GOD Infinite in all his Attributes and Infinitely happy in himself should purely out of his overflowing Goodness toward miserable mankind take his nature upon him become his Brother Friend Physician Master nay suffer for his sake many hardships during his life and at length buffeting scourging crowning with thorns and a most cruel death on the Cross and to keep the remembrance of these many Benefits warm in our hearts to give us after a wonderful manner his most precious Body and Bloud in a Sacrament instituted for that end by this means not only reviving the memory of the former incomparable love-motive but also adding new Incitements to that best of virtues by our apprehending lively that he so dearly embreasts and embosoms himself with us by his uniting himself to us through his corporal presence that so our souls may by means of the Love springing from this consideration feed on and be united to him Spiritually On the other side if these be not Truths but that the Church may perhaps erre in embracing them who sees not that the Church it self is Idolatrous at least materially in giving True Divine Honor which is Proper only to the Creator to a Creature Each of these two Points then is of that High concern as to Christian Life and Practice that it must needs be of its own nature either a most wicked and damnable Heresy to deny or else to assert it Wherefore 't is the highest Impiety to imagin that God has left no Way to ascertain Mankind whether these two Points omitting many others be True or False since 't is unavoidable they are if True the greatest and most efficacious helps to Christian Devotion that can be If False the greatest Hindrances to the same as corrupting the best Devotions of those Christians into Idolatrous worship The Knowing then the truth of these and such like being most certainly will'd by God we are to expect such a Rule of Faith as is declarative of these and such as these with Absolute Certainty Let us now consider whether Writing be the best means for such an end which if it be not it may certainly be concluded from Gods Wisdome Goodness c. that it hath not been made choice of or intended by God for it But 't is observable that Dr. St. perpetually waves any Discourse of this nature and chuses rather to argue from Gods Power which though I have already shown how Incompetent and Absurd it is let us examine at least what works he makes of it If says he the will of God cannot be sufficiently declared to men by writing it must either be c. I must distinguish the words cannot be declared by writing as I did formerly and affirm that they may either mean that the Way of Writing as taken in the whole latitude of its nature and standing under Gods Infinite Power ordering it with all possible Advantage to the end intended cannot sufficiently declare Gods will as to such Points or they may mean that Gods Revelation of his Will by Writing so qualifi'd as it is now actually found in the Scripture cannot sufficiently or with absolute Certainty declare Gods Will as to the Points aforesaid to men of all capacities in all future Ages Taking them in the former sense I deny the Proposition and say that Gods will as to such Points can be sufficiently declar'd by Writing For 't is absolutely within the compass of Gods Power to contrive a Book on that manner as might define exactly or else explicate at large in what precise sense every word that expresses each point of Faith is to be taken and to provide that it should never be taken in that book in more than that one sense or if in more to notifie to us in which places 't is taken in a different meaning He could also have laid it so that a hundred or two of Originals of these Books might be preserv'd publickly in several distant Countries from the Beginning which might by their perfect Agreement bear Testimony to one another and so assure us the Text was kept hitherto inviolate even to a tittle and also remain a Standard to correct all the multitudes of Diverse Readings which as experience shows us is apt otherwise to set the Copies at variance with one another He could also have so order'd it that the Original Languages might have been as well understood by the Generality of the Church as their own is so have avoided the Uncertainty of Translations Again lest crafty Hereticks should at any time for the future by wittily alluding places or playing upon words or other Sophistries pervert the sense Gods Power could have caus'd a Book to be written after the manner of a large Prophecy foretelling that in such a time 〈◊〉 place such and such a Heretick should arise perverting such and such a Point and forewarn men of his Sophisms and Errours This and much more might have been effected by Gods Power to establish Writing such an absolutely Certain and Intelligible Way which why his Wisdome should not have done in case Faith be an Assent which while it relies on the Ground God has left for Mankind cannot be an error as it may be if none can be absolutely certain both of the Text and sense of Scriptures I would gladly be informed Especially since Dr. St. tells us here Princ. 15. there is no need of an Infallible society of men either to attest or explain them and all that is Fallible as common sense tells us falls short of elevating it above possibility of being an Errour whence follows that there being no means on foot in the world Tradition of the Church failing or being set aside to secure us absolutely of this it can only be had by the Extraordinary Operation of Gods Power securing the Letter of such writings and rendering those VVritings themselves perfectly Intelligible in the manners assign'd in case VVriting be indeed the RULE OF FAITH VVriting then can be the Rule of Faith or able thus to ascertain Faith to us if Gods Infinit Power undertakes the framing it such as I have express'd but because experience tells us 't is not so order'd let us leave this Platonick way of considering how thing should be in that supposition and following the Aristotelian consider things as they are and accordingly examin how Gâ—ds Wisdome has thought fit to order such Writings actually and thence gather whether however 't is agreed between us they be most excellent for other uses and ends they were ever intended by the same Wisdome for a Rule of Faith To evince the contrary of which not to repeat those many Arguments I have brought elsewhere I fartner offer these Reasons First If the Writings of men divinely inspir'd were meant for a Rule of Faith then either all such Writings as such are therefore to belong to that Rule or some onely If all then since some Writings granted to have been written by
learnt at School but being either inbred or by an ordinary converse with the world instil'd into them nothing is easier then for the wiser sort of them to fall into the account of it of themselves occasion being given as also to awaken as it were those dormant Knowledges in the Vulgar and make them reflect and see not with a clear and distinct sight as do the wiser portion of the Church but with a grâ—sse and confused yet solid Knowledge and suitable to their pitch that a Rule of such a nature is Certain and so those who professedly own and proceed upon it are in the truth they who reject it in an Errour Whereas yet they are utterly Incapable by any Maxims in their rude Understandings either to know that the Letter of the Scripture on the rightness of which all depends was preserv'd from Errour among so many Translatious and Transcriptions or that the Sense is necessarily such as they conceive it to be amidst such multitudes of Commentators and Sects wrangling about the meaning of that Letter nor yet are they competent Judges of the skill of all those several Sects and sorts of men whom they see and hear differ about the sense of it Tradition then of the Church being thus prov'd the Rule of Faith 't is both farther shown how Unreasonable Unnatural and Unsafe Dr. St's private-spirited Rule of Faith is and also even hence demonstrated against him here that Tradition of the Church is Infallible since being by this moans prov'd to be the Rule appointed by God to light Mankinde to their Faith 't is impossible that those who rely and proceed upon it should be led into Errour and also Impossible that Faith it self thus grounded should be False But I needed not have gone thus far to confute D. St's four Principles now under hand The four first Notes had abundantly given them their Answer and 't is time we now begin to apply them to that purpose Whereas then he grounds them all on our Tenet That No Divine Faith can be without an Infallible Assent he may please to know that we only mean by those words there materially Infallible or so as cannot possibly be an Errour and in this sense we own the Position and so must he too unlesse he will speak open blasphemy For Divine Faith being a believing upon the Divine Authority and as we both suppose upon some Means laid by God himself by which he proposes to us what we are to beleeve by telling us he has said it in case an Assent thus Grounded could possibly be an Errouâ— it would follow necessarily that God himself would be the Cause of that Errour The Substance then of Faith could be preserved and the Chief End of Faith our Salvation on some fashion attained were there no more than this that is though never a man in the whole world did know or could come to know that the Rule of Faith were Infallible provided none in the Church did speculate and so looking into the Grounds of his Faith and finding them as far as he could see Inconclusive did begin to suspect the Truth of it nor any out of the Church did oppose Faith For the Faithfull would in that case be in actual possession of those Excellent Truths call'd Points of Faith firmly assented to by their Understandings which were apt to produce thoâ—e Good Dispositions of their Wills call'd Virtues in the same sort though not in the same degree as they do now and by means of them they might arrive at Heaven Thus the Dr. may see that all he builds on is a pure mistake and that all the Faithfull may be thus Infallible in their Assent and thus Infallible in judging the Proposer does not nay cannot deceive us nay Infallible in judging thus of the matters propos'd to us to beleeve and yet not one man be Infallibly sure by way of Evident Knowledge that the Church is Infallible because all this proceeds not in the least in this supposition from the reach of any man's Intellective Faculty but purely from the Goodnesse and Conclusivenesse of the Grounds laid by God and his good Providence which led those men to embrace them though they neither penetrate nor went about to discourse them but simply to believe them on the same manner as our ruder unreflecting vulgar are led now But in this case were all the World no wiser the wisest in the Church would be no wiser then the weakest and rudest vulgar now mention'd wherefore both for that reason and many others ' assign'd in my 3d and 4th Note it was absolutely requisite to the Church and so becoming God's Providence to order that it should be otherwise and that the Conclusiveness of those Infallible Grounds on which God has founded our Faith should be penetrable by those who set themselves to such speculations or fall into doubts concerning them according as the exigencies of the Church shall be found to need such helps If this will not serve Dr. St. I am sure it will serve to defeat all his Arguments I shall farther tell him that the Generality or main Body in the Church is formally Infallible in judging the Church to be such in delivering down the First-taught Faith as I have prov'd in my 6th and 7th note and elsewhere Besides my reasons given there and in other places I must desire him and the rest of my Readers that in conceiving how this may be they would take their measures from the Absolute Certainty such people are capable of in Parallell matters and not from their Ability to explain or defend this absolute Certainty or their Constancy in adhering to it if combated by plausible reasons for he is a very mean Reflecter upon Nature who observes not that the Vulgar have Absolute Natural evidence of many Truths which yet they can neither give reason for declare defend nor perhaps through levity incident to such weak souls do very firmly adhere to and no wonder since so great a man as Sextus Empiricus speculated himself out of the Conceit of the Certainty of his Senses of which yet none doubts but Nature till he began to pervert it by wrong speculations had given him as Infallible Certainty as to any other Also they are to reflect how Infallibility or which is all one Certainty may be in a thousand different degrees according to the greater or lesser Capacity of the subject which they will best comprehend by reflecting with how different a Clearness many things appear to us now we are at Age and how dimly when we were young which yet we were absolutely Certain of at that time Nor yet does one of those Infallibilities spoken of render the other Vseless for they may either be about different Objects as if the Church Officers were formally Infallible in knowing what particular Points came down from Christ's time and penetratâ—ng the distinct Limits of each point and those other Particular persons be only Infallible in judging the Church to
be so as it happens in many Controvertists who are well instructed in the Grounds of their Faith yet not so well verst in the nature of particular points but believe them only by Implicit Faith or else one of their knowledges may be more Clear and distinct than the others and so serve to perfect and advance it in the same manner as Art does Nature Least of all can it follow that the Infallibility of the Church Representative is needless for This is not intended to teach the Faithfull their Faith at first nor do I remember ever to have seen a Generall Council cited in a Catechism but this is performed by the Church Diffusive by her Practise and Language and by her Pastors in their Catechisms and Instructions But it 's use is to secure and preserve Faith already taught and known from receiving any taint by the Equivocating Heretick and to recommend it more Authoritatively to the Faithfull when clear'd And whoever reads my 4th Note will see so many particularities in the Members which compound a Representative Church above others who are purely Parts of Ecclesia Credens that he cannot in any Reason judge them Vseless though those others be in an Inferiour degree Certain of their Faith too For all this while the word Infallible which seems to have so loud a sound and is made such a monstrous peece of business by the Deniers of it is in plain Terms no more but just barely Certain as I have prov'd Faith Vind. p. 37. 38. and Reason against Rail p. 113. To come closer up then to my Adversary His 20th Principle which speaks of Assent in common is wholly built upon a False supposition that it can only be Grounded upon Evidence For however indeed in perfect Reflecters that are unbyast Evidence of the Object or of the Credibleness of the Authority is alwayes requisit to breed Assent yet Experience teaches us that Assent in weak and unreâ—lecting persons is frequently built on a great Probability sometimes a very little one and sometimes men Assent upon little or no reason at all their Passion or Interest byassing their wills and by it their Understandings and this many times even against such reason as would be Evident to another Again matteriall Infallibility which is enough to that Assent we speak of precisely and solely consider'd depends solely at least Principally on the Object contrary to what is there asserted And whereas he says Princ. 29. that the Infallibility of every Particular person is not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church he sees by this discourse it both is and must be Asserted and that we maintain that every particular person must be materially Infallible or incapable of erring while he relies on the Grounds laid and recommended by God that is while he believes the Church which yet is far from rendring the Formal Infallibility of the Church useless unless he will say that because it suffices for the pitch of weak people whose duty 't is not to maintain and make out the Truth of their Faith that they be simply in the right or void of Errour and that they see after a gross manner that the thing is so though they cannot defend it therefore there is no need that those whose duty 't is to do so should be able to penetrate the Grounds of Faith and so explicate prove and maintain it to be True Nor will it follow that though the Generality were after a rude and gross manner formally Infallible in their belief that the Church is Infallible and therefore that the Points she proposes are all likewise Infallibly-true it will not follow I say hence that a greater and clearer and more penetrative degree of Formal Infallibility is useless in Church-Governours for as appears by my 4th Note there are many other things to be done by them of absolute necessity for the Church which far exceed the pitch and posture of those dull Knowers of the lowest Class which is the next degree above Ignorance and are unauthoriz'd to meddle in such affairs Unless he will say that Art is needless because there is Nature or that there needs no Iudges to decide such Cases in which the Law seems plain And thus much for the clearing this concerning Point In the rest of his Principles I shall be briefer But I must not pass over his Transition to them which is this We are further to enquire what Certainty men may have in matters of Faith supposing no External Proponent to be Infallible And he need not go far to satisfie his Enquiry For it being most evident by the Disputes between the Protestants and Socinians that Scripture needs some External Proposer of it's true meaning in such kinde of Points as also some External Proposer or Attester that this is the true Text of it on which all is built Also it being evident that Dr. St. Princ. 15. denies any Infallible Proposers of either of these and that here again he pursues close the same doctrin Lastly this Proposer being such that however we can have Certainty without It that the Divine Authority is to be believed yet we must depend on It for the Knowledge when and where 't is engag'd that is we must depend on It for the Certainty of our Faith It follows that in case this Proponent be not Infallible it can never be made out with Infallible Certainty that the Divine Authority stands engag'd for the Truth of any one Point of Faith and consequently that the Certainty men have in matters of Faith is not an Infallilible one And if it be not an Infallible Certainty which Faith has as he no where challenges but very laboriously disproves it he need not go far to enquire or learn what Certainty it must have for Common Sense tels him and every man who has the least spark of Natural Logick that if Faith must have Certainty as he grants and have not Infallible Certainty it must either have Fallible Certainty or none at all there being no Middle between them and so we must make account that because it overstrains D. St's weak Grounds to assert Faith to be Infallibly Certain therefore his next Attempt must be to overstrain Common Sense and to the inestimable Honour of Christian Religion maintain that all Christian Faith is Fallibly-Certain But he must do it smoothly and warily and however he nam'd the word Infallible loud enough and oft enough when he was confuting it yet he must take heed how he names the word Fallible Certainty when he is asserting it lest it breed laughter or dislike though it be evident out of the very Terms that he who confutes Infallible Certainty must maintain Fallible Certainty sf he maintains any But now he begins his defence of Faiths Fallible Certainty and 't is fit we should listen Monstrous things use to challenge and even force Attention from the most unconcern'd 24. There are different degrees of Certainty to be attained according to the
make it more a Certainty or a better Certainty which makes the Conclusiveness or Evidence had from the Object needless to create a Certainty and signifies thus much in plain Terms Think or imagine what you will so you imagine it strongly and hold it stifly you are as Certain of it as may be Had he said A Christian is or may be thus Certain by such a Proof had from the Object as was truly Conclusive of the Thing how Genuin Coherent Clear had his Expression been which now is forc't Incongruous and Obscure how Agreeable to Reason and the nature of Certainty as all Mankind understands it which now is most Irrational and Unsuitable to the same Nature How Honourable and Creditable had it been to his Cause and to himself too as a Writer But men that have not Truth on their side and consequently are quite destitnte of found Principles and true Grounds must not dare to speak Sense Himself told us Princ. 20. that the nature of Assent is agreeable to the Evidence we have of it in our Minds let him remember then that the highest degree of a firm Assent requires in reason the highest gree of Clear Evidence to beget it which yet he lately deny'd to be had from Moral things and attributed it peculiarly to the Mathematicks So that all is Incoherent all is Common and big words hollow and so of a loud and high Sound but without any determinate Sense Again how does it follow that because a Christian is thus Certain that the Scriptures are the Word of God that therefore his Faith is thereby resolved into the Scriptures as into the Rule and Measure of what he is to believe There is not the least show of consequence for this unless he had first prov'd that God had intended to speak so clear in the Scripture as every private Understanding should not sail of being secur'd from mistake while it rely'd upon It as also that God had spoken to us no other way but by the written Word which he has no where prov'd nor can ever prove And if the former of these as experience tels us 't is be wanting 't is not a Rule to those Persons if the latter 't is not necessarily the Measure of what they are to believe 29. No Christian can be oblig'd under any pretence of Infallibility to believe any thing as a matter of Faith but what was revealed by God himself in that Book wherein he believes his Will to be contained and consequently is bound to reject whatsoever is offer'd to be imposed upon his Faith which has no foundation in Scripture or is contrary thereto which Rejection is no making Negative Articles of Faith but only applying the general Grounds of Faith to particular Instances as because I believe nothing necessary to Salvation but what is contain'd in Scripture therefore no such particular things which neither are there nor can be deduc't thence If Christians were bound to hold that God had reveal'd his whole Will in that Book and this so clearly that all or most Chriâ—tians could not miss of understanding it right so as thereby to be absolutely Certain of their Faith then indeed the first half of his Principle here runs very currently and smoothly but these rubs lying still in the way which Dr. St. has not in the least removâ—d they being also satisfy'd by the General Conceit of Christianity and by the Nature and Genius of Christian Faith that it cannot possibly be an Errour or Lye and consequently muâ—t have such Grounds as cannot possibly permit all the world to be in an Errour while they rely on them that is Grounds which are Infallibly secure and on the other side observing both by experience and Reason that Scripture is not such a Ground as that private Understandings applying to it are thereby perserv'd from possibility of erring as Dr. St. also confesses in his next Principle hence they are invited strongly to conceive that God has left some Persons on earth easily to be found who may supply what is wanting of Clearness to Scriptures Letter in the highest Points of Faith and that God will some way or other perserve them from erring and that while thus protected by God's signal Providence whether this be performed Naturally Supernaturally or both wayes they cannot Erre in that Affair or in acquainting us with right Faith So that unless Dr. St. make out solidly that Scripture has in it the true nature of the Rule of Faith of it self and without needing any Church he must expect in reason that the very nature of Faith will necessarily incline all sincere persons who have due care of their souls and of finding out true Faith to beleeve the Infallibility of the Church And whereas he says that their rejection of such Points which have no Foundation in Scripture or are contrary thereto is no making New Articles of Faith but only applying the General Grounds of Faith to particular Instances he discourses therein very consonantly to his own Grounds were they worth any thing Yet I have one thing to propose to his Consideration which is that to justify his Reformers he must produce Grounds full as good or rather better for the Rejection of those Points as for his Faith or to speak more distinctly he must have as perfect or rather perfecter Certainty for these two Propositions Nothing it to be beleeved which has no Foundation in Scripture and This or that rejected Point has no Foundation in Scripture as he has for any point of Christian Faith For since upon the Evidence they had of these two Propositions they disobey'd and rebell'd against their then lawful Superiours and Church Pastors and broke Church-Union which was evidently forbidden by God's Law and so the preserving Union obeying them is a point of Faith and which themselves confess is such and binds them as such in case the reasons for their imposing New points be not valid that is if these two Propositions on whose Evidence they rely'd when they alledged they were wrongfully impos'd and thence rejected them be not True it follows that they must at least have equal Evidence nay more for bare Equality would only Balance them in a doubtful suspence berween either side that those Propositions on which they grounds their Rejection of those Articles and disobedience to their Pastours aad Superiours are True as they have for their Faith And if the Grounds of this Rejection ought to be more Certain then the Grounds of their Faith there is either some thing wrong in the pretended Grounds of their Faith or else their Negative Articles ought to be allow'd the honour of being Points of Faith too since their greater Certainty gives them fair and equal Title to it if not Absolute Preeminâ—nce 30. There can be no better way to prevent mens mistakes in the sense of Scripture which men being Fallible are subject to than the considering the consequence of mistaking in a matter wherein their salvation
that those things he bragg'd of and rely'd on as Principles are in Reality but so many Paradoxes or Impertinences I hope we may sâ—â—cease our Fears and turn them into a more pleasant humour Though the Prognostick be very obvious what he can do in this case yet who knows but for once he may work an Impossibility who as will appear in the ensuing Treatise has told us so many Contradictions In the mean time if he thinks fit to attempt any Reply 't is Evident from the former Discourse what he is to do unless he will strangely Prevaricate from his Duty viz. either to disallow my settling here the nature of Principles and state them better that is either to deny that they are to have any Evidence or Influence at all or else if he allows it to make out that his pretended Principles have those Qualifications which is best done by resolving them into First Principles and connecting them distinctly with their respective Consequences And let him remember that till he does this he neither defends Himself against my present Answer nor gives a home Reply to Protestancy without Principles whatever gay things or things he sayes to particular passages in it since himself acknowledges these Principles of his were intended an Answer to that Book and out of the nature of both Treatises they appear to be the proper Return to it I have no occasion nor is it my intent here to write against the Church of England or any of her Legitimate Sons rather I must declare that in case they all hold as M. Thorndike a Man of Eminent Learning Esteem amongst them declares himself to do Just weights p. 159. that the Scripture interpreted by the perpetual Practice of God's Church is the Ground of Faith which implies that Practical Tradition is that which gives them Christs Sense or Faith and so is their Rule I must heartily applaud their joyning with Catholicks in the main Point of all and which settled is apt to unite us in all the rest What I impugn then here is a pestilent Tenet destructive to all Episcopacy and the very Essence of Church making Church-Governors Useless in their main Duty of Teaching Faith to their Flock and Lame in that of Government For if every private man is to rely on his own Interpretation he ought neither believe nor Obey the Church when the contrary seems to his Fancy to be grounded in Scripture and if that man do but alledge he judges in clear in Scripture and consequently that the Church is corrupt and errs I see not with what Iustice according to these Principles the Church can either excommunicate him or bind him to his Duty I expect Dr. St. will object that I deny divers of his Principles which some of ours have granted for his Friend Dr. T. and he abound in such sleight Topicks To which though I could answer that unusquisque in sensu suo abundat in productions of Human Reason yet I need only alledge Dr. St's ambi-dextrous and ambiguâ—us way of contriving his Principles to look so with different faces that even the same man may sometimes apprehend them to mean thus sometimes otherwise Besides all his Confuters aym nâ—t at one End Mr. E. W. intending only to shew they conclude not the Point they pretend and which is superscribed to them Mr. N. O. to shew their Destructiveness to Government while I take for my task to discover their Oppositness to all Logick True Learning and Common Rationality and that there is nothing at all in him of what was pretended neither Principles Consequences Connexion Conclusions Reduction Influence nor End Nor must he think that every thing that is granted by any for dispute sâ—ke is allowed for good by the Respondent 't is frequent to express we grant things which we only pass as nothing to the main Point which is to be concluded nor can Dr. St. pretend with any reason that others have yeelded them to be Principles whereas I deny it The Authour of Reason and Religion p. 650. has pithily declared his 〈◊〉 of them and their true merit in 〈◊〉 words Whether the fore-mentioned Principles be True False Controverted or Obscure no Verity peculiar to 〈…〉 be deduc't from them which expresses their want of Clear Evidence and so quite degrades them from the Dignity of Principles If any think the Title prefixt to this Book forestals immodestly the Readers Iudgment my Reply usust be that I hope for Readers of more Prudence then to receive Prejudice from so easie an Occasion A Counterfeit Modesty sprung from Sceptical Despair or Disregard of Truth will naturally dislike such Expressions but those who heartily hold there is such a thing as Truth and intirely love It will esteem the open avowing her compleat victoriousness both Fitting and Necessary and that she conquers at present I have all the best Maxims of Rational Nature engag'd for my Security INDEX ABsolute Certainty of Faith asserted p. 21. 22. 50. 51. Attributes of God not engaged to preserve private Interpreters of Scripture from damnable Errours p. 81. to 85. Not to be argu'd from alone p. 32. 33. much less from Power alone p. 33. 34. Certainty how abusively taken p. 164. 165. 166. 168. 173. 174. 179. 180. True Certainty asserted and from its deepest Grounds explain'd p. 167. 168. Moral Certainty in Faith discust p. 176. 177. 178. A Christian Life Spiritual p. 8. 9. 54. 55. 191. to 195. The Church turn'd with the heels upward by Dr. St. p. 96. 97. His six Conclusions examin'd p. 211. the nature of Conclusions laid open p. 222. Faith in Catholicks Rational p. 29. Infallibility requisit to Faith p. 92. to 96. 104. 158. 159. 162. how found in the vulgar how in others p. 133. to 157. Mankind how Infallible and in what p. 186. to 189. Necessary to the being of a Church p. 232. 233. 234. Principles agreed to by both sides examin'd p. 7. 8. c. shown to be two-fold p. 12. Principles not agreed to examin'd The 1st p. 20. the 2d p. 22. the 3d. p. 23. the 4th p. 24. the 5th p. 26. the 6th p. 30. the 7th p. 31. the 8th p. 35. the 9th p. 38. the 10th p. 53. the 11th p. 72. the 12th p. 73. the 13th p. 81. the 14th p. 85. the 15th p. 90. the 16th p. 96. the 17th p. 104. the 18th p. 106. the 19th p. 114. the 20th p. 128. the 21th 22th 23th p. 130. the 24th p. 159. the 25th p. 163. the 26th p. 171. the 27th p. 173. the 28th p. 179. the 29th p. 181. the 30th p. 185. Rule of Faith distinctly clear'd p 44. 45. 49. 54. 55. c. Vnanimously held by Catholicks p. 45. 46. How held by the Council of Trent p. 47. 48. Scripture not the Rule p. 60. to 69. p. 79. 80. How perfect p. 86. 87. c. 109. to 113. Sophistry in Dr. St. laid open p. 25. 26. 27. 28. 30. 31. 74. 75. 131. 132. 161. 164. 165. Ignorance in
Divinity p. 191. 192. In Logick p. 228. 236. 237. His Performances reduc't to their proper Principles Contradictions p. 236. Tradition the Rule of Faith p. 45. 46. 141. 142. Vnion how to be hoped p. 51. 52. Writing how capable to be the Rule of Faith p. 36. 37. 38. Errata PAge 2. line 4. receive p. 11. l. 21. perfectly p. 15. l 2. disparate p. 32. l. 1â— then we can p. 45. l. 12. Again p. 67. l. 27. dele and this as far c. to the end of the 4th line after p. 81. l. 29. dele of p. 84. l. 2. Endeavorers l. 29. Endeavorers p. 104. l. 4. dele we p. 10â— l. 5. his p. 124. l. 5. and. p. 131. l. 30. dele in the. p. â— 2. l. 11. infallibly l. 23. then p. 834. l. 17. be False l. 20. about p. 159. l. 22. if p. 1â—0 l. 14. as l. 15. dele be p. 167. l. 11. dele if p 173. l. 18. to a higher degree p. 177. l. 23. which are p. 181. l. 2. degree p. 184. l. 24. ground p. 185. l. 15. reason given l. 18. keep men p. 187. l. 14. is p. 188. l. 14. dissatisfaction l. 21. some p. 192. l. 5. conformable l. 16. it l. 26. by her all p. 193. l. 17. our p. 198. l. 2. receiv'd p. 199. l. 14. in wisemen in this point p. 202. l. ult The 5th and 6th p. 214. l. 3. dele to p. 216. l. 12. its p 221. l. 18. Dr. St. p. 234. l. 18. applying it p. 235. l. 23. produc't one p. 250. l. 9. not THE FIRST EXAMEN CONCERNING Dr. Stillingfleet's Design in this Discourse as exprest in his TITLE 1. IN the first place the Title superscribed to this Discourse and signifying to us the Nature and Design of it is to be well weighed that so we may make a right Conceit of what we are justly to expect from Dr. St. in this occasion 'T is this The Faith of Protestants reduc'd to Principles 2. Now Principles as we have discours'd in the Preface must either be Evident to both Parties or at least held and granted by both else no discourse can proceed for want of Agreement in that on which all Rational Process is grounded Also they must be Proper for the End intended or Influential upon the Conclusion which the Arguer aims to evince otherwise if the thing in question deceive not its Evidence and Truth from them though those Propositions be never so evident in themselves yet they cannot be to It or in this Circumstance a Principle whatever they may be in others Wherefore to make good this Title Dr. St. is to produce nothing for a Principle but what is either granted at first by both Parties or else is of so open and undeniable an Evidence as all the World must see and acknowledge it such as are either first Principles or those which immediatly depend upon them and are comprehended under them or if he builds on any Propositions as Principles which are not thus evident but need Proof he is at least to render them evident ere he builds upon them And lastly he is to apply them close to that which he professes to conclude from them otherwise he can never show them to be Principles in this occasion any more than one can be a Father who has no Off-spring or than any thing can be a Ground which has no Superstructures 3. Next we are to consider what Dr. St. means by the word Faith in this place And I hope he will not think I injure him in supposing he has so good thoughts of the Faith of Protestants as to hold 't is more than a bare Opinion whose Grounds may all be false For if so the Assent of Protestants as Faithful may possibly be an Error and all the Tenets they profess to be Truths and hope to be sav'd by believing them liable to be prov'd nothing perhaps in reality but a company of Lies If then as in this supposition he must he holâ—s the 〈◊〉 of Protestants Impossible to be Faâ—â—e he is 〈◊〉 to reduce it into 〈◊〉 Grounds and Principles as are likewâ—â—e Impossible to be False and consequently if it relies on Authority he is to bring Infallible Authority for it all that is Fallible as Common sense teaches admitting Possibility of Falshood in whatever is grounded on it Such Grounds then or Principles he is oblig'd to produce for the Faith of Protestants in case he holds it may not perhaps be an Error for any thing he or his Church knows But in case he judges this Assent or Belief of Protestants may be True Faith though the Grounds of it may be False then he ows me an answer to Faith Vindicated where the contrary is prov'd by multitudes of Arguments not one of which has yet receiv'd one word of sober Reply from him or Dr. Tillotson though as appears by the Inferences at the end of that Book it most highly concerns them both to speak to the several Reasons it contains 4. In the third place we are to reflect what may be meant by the word reduc'd in the said Title And since all Truths not self-evident nor known by immediate impression on sense are at first deriv'd or deduc'd from Principles this word reduc'd having a signification directly contrary to the other intimates to us that Dr. St. makes account he has begun by putting the Faith of Protestants which is the Conclusion and brought it back for so the word reduc'd imports to Principles whereas 't is Evident to every Scholar he proceeds in a way quite contrary to what he here pretends First laying six Principles agreed on then thirty others which since they go before his Conclusions we are to think he meant for Principles too and thence drawing in the Close six Inferences or Sequels which is most manifestly to deduce from Principles not to reduce to them 5. But however it be blameable in one who owns himself a Scholar especially pretending the rigorous and learned way of proceeding by Principles not to understand the nature of the Way himself takes yet let us kindly suppose that Dr. St. out of an unwariness only made use by chance of an improper word which being but a human lapse is more easily pardonable especially since the Method he here undertakes viz. to begin with Principles is if rightly manag'd and perform'd the most honorable for a Scholar and the most satisfactory that may be and so deserving to make amends for many greater faults Let him then by reduc'd to Principles mean deduc'd from Principles yet since both reducing and deducing imply the showing a Connexion between those Principles and what 's pretended to be drawn from them and this either Immediate as to every particular Conclusion or Mediate We are to expect Dr. St. should still show us this Connexion which is best and most clearly done by relating each of his six Conclusions to their respective Premisses or Principles that so by this distinct proceeding and owning
be so the not appearing to be otherwise will avail nothing to conclude it so All it can effect is to make us maintain our liberty of suspence and Indifferency that so we may be void of forestalment or prejudice and free to believe it when competent or conclusive Reasons shall appear to evince it What then Dr. St. is to do is to produce Conclusive Reasons to evince that the Letter of Scripture has such a perspicuity and other Perfections belonging to such a Rule as must ground that most Firm Vnalterable and if rightly grounded Inerrable Assent call'd CHRISTIAN FAITH and this considering the Nature of Faith the Effects which are to proceed from Faith and Obligations issuing from it and Incumbent on the Faithful as such But in stead of performing this necessary Duty of his to argue as if though the Reasons he brings conclude it not yet it must needs be so because we have no Evidence 't is not so is so pleasant and new invented a way of arguing that he must find the VVorld a new Logick and Mankind it self a new nature ere he will arrive by means of such Discourse at any Conclusion And whereas he seems to build much on the word Equal alledging that we must for the reasons there given hold the Scriptures the Rule of Faith unless it appear they are defective with an Evidence Equal to that whereby we believe those books to be the word of God 'T is absolutely deny'd not only for the reason lately given in common that none can be bound in reason to hold or own any unprov'd Position but particularly because of the peculiar nature of the thing we are discoursing of For the Rule of Faith being that which is to tell us God said such or such things or engages the Divine Authority for their Verity if we should happen to misuse Scriptures Letter by letting loose people of all capacities to rely on it as their Rule of Faith then in case it should peradventure not have been intended by God for this end but for some others we expose our selves and others to the desperate danger of running into Endless Errors by this misusage of Scripture and of adhering to those Errors as firmly as if God himself had spoke them that is we hazard erring irrecoverably in matters which ate the proper means of salvation and blaspheming God daily in making him the Patron of Lies In this case then there is particular caution to be used and so if upon sincere and strict Examination it be but any thing dubious that Scripture was never intended by God for a Rule of Faith we can never be obliged to hold or own it for such especially not having any Certain Argument to conclude it such much less must we be oblig'd to hold it to be such unless we have EQVAL Evidence of its Unfitness to that whereby we believe those Books to be the word of God unless Dr. St. will say that nothing ought to restrain a man from hazarding the greatest mischiefs in the world but perfect Evidence that no harm will come of it So that still his main business and without which he does nothing at all remains yet to be done which is to bring solid convincing Proofs that God intended Scripture or his Written Word for the Rule of Faith that is for such a Rule as people of all sorts relying on it should be Infallibly or absolutely-secur'd from Error by so doing In making good which concerning Point he hath hitherto trifled exceedingly Nay himself here is afraid to own the Goodness of his own Proof otherwise he would never have thought it fit to annex those words Vnless it appear with an Evidence equal to that whereby we believe those books to be the word of God that they were never intended for that End because of their obscurity or imperfection For the Evidence whereby it appears those Books are the word of God must be conclusive else according to his Grounds we can never conclude one word of Faith True and so an Evidence equal to it must be Conclusive likewise If then he had thought his reasons to prove Scripture the Rule of Faith were Good and Conclusive Common sense would have forbid him to add these cautious words Vnless it appears with an equal evidence c. for Common sense tells us no Conclusive reason can possibly be brought for the Negative if Conclusive Reasons be once produc'd or be producible for the Affirmative It appears then by this behaviour of his on this occasion that he distrusts that either he has produc'd any Conclusive reason for that main Point of Scriptures being intended for the Rule of Faith or that any can be produc'd Lastly That we may give perfect satisfaction to this Fundamental Principle of his though perhaps there is not Evidence Scriptures Letter was never intended for the Rule of Faith equal to that whereby we believe those Books to be the Word of God in regard we believe this upon the Authority of Gods Church which is supported with the whole strength of Best Nature and Supernaturals yet we have rigorous and Conclusive Evidence that it is not penn'd in the very best way imaginable to avoid all ambiguity of words and forestall mistakes as being immediately inspir'd by God whose works are perfect if it had been intended by him to be our Rule of Faith it ought to be And I shall presume I have already brought Conclusive Evidences both à priori and also à posteriori in my answer to his 10th Principle to evince that it has not in it the nature of such a Rule nor consequently was it intended by God to be such a Rule How incomparably excellent soever it be for other Ends for which it was indeed and solely intended But omitting all the rest at present I remind him of one which I cannot too often repeat and enforce it upon him thus He cannot deny but the Points of a Trinity and Christs Godhead are most Fundamental Points of Faith he cannot deny but both Protestants and Socinians rely on the Letter of Scripture for the sole Rule of their Faith and sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them which is all he requires on the Persons side He cannot deny but that notwithstanding this one party holds There is no Trinity and that Christ is not God the other that there is a Trinity and that Christ is God and so one side erres most Fundamentally He cannot deny but Error being a Defect there must be a fault somewhere to beget this Error that is either in the Persons judging of what the Rule of Faith tells them or else in judging that to be a Rule which is not the Rule for in case they erre in neither of these 't is impossible they should erre or misconceive at all in matters of Faith He cannot deny in any reason but the persons on both sides being such acute men and excellently well vers'd in the Letter of Scripture have both Capacity
to attest or explain these Writings among Christians any more than there was for some Ages before Christ of such a Body of men among the Iews to attest or explain to them the VVritings of Moses or the Prophets He that owns this must own it without reason for any thing appears yet for Dr. St. has afforded us hitherto nothing to prove this point but a few words craftily laid together which when look'd into have not a jot of reason in them And the like empty inside we find in this present Principle For if the whole will of God be plainly reveal'd in Scripture then in case nothing else be requisit to understand Gods will but the disposition of soberly enquiring as he puts no other it must follow that no sober Enquirer can miss of knowing there the whole will of God and since every Article of Faith is part of Gods VVill it would follow hence that every sober Enquirer may understand all Faith in Scripture which yet the Dr. is not dispos'd to say as appears by his avoiding to put down what the tenour of his discourse requir'd namely that the whole will of God is so plainly reveal'd in Scripture that no sober Enquirer can miss of knowing his whole will there and instead of it substituting that the whole will of God is so plainly reveal'd in Scripture that no sober Inquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation which words may be true though they fall far short of knowing the whole will of God by that means Next it is very material and it would be very requisiâ—e to know how a man must be qualify'd to be a sober Enquirer In order to which we may reflect that as was said before it ought in reason be judged Gods will that we should know whether Christ be God and whether his Body and consequently Himself be really in the Sacrament lest we either want the best Incitements to Devotion if he be and we judge he is not or else commit material Idolatry by judging him to be so when he is not so Now I would have him clearly show clearly I say for all depends upon it according to his Grounds in what either the Roman Catholicks or the Socinians fall short in point of being sober enquirers for 't is plain they must both fall short of being such if the whole will of God be clearly reveal'd in Scripture since the former holds Christ is really in the Sacrament the other that he is not God the contrary to both which I suppose Dr. St. holds to be the true sense of Scripture Farther if there can be no necessity of any Infallible society of men either to attest or explain those Writings 't is Evident there can be no need of a Fallible society of men for those Ends. For if Writings which are attested or explained by a Fallible Society of men be the Rule of Faith or the Grounds God has left us to build our Faith on and it be evident that a Fallible Attestation or Explication may possibly lead us into nothing but Errour it would follow that God himself may possibly have led all Christians hitherto and still leads them to the end of the world into actual Errour since a reliance on Fallible means of knowing the Letter and Sense cannot possibly raise any Assent beyond possibility of being Erroneous There needs therefore by Dr. St's discourse neither Infallible nor Fallible Societies and so according to his Principles farewell all Church both Catholick and Protestant as far as concerns these two main Duties on which all else depends Again though all this were true and that the Scriptures were own'd as containing in them the whole VVill of God so plainly reveal'd that no sober Enquirer can miss of what 's necessary to salvation and that therefore there needed no Church to explain them Yet 't is a strange Consequence that therefore there can be no necessity of any Infallible society of men to ATTEST them or to witness that the Letter of Scripture is right This is so far from following out of the former part of his Discâ—â—â—se that the contrary ought to follow 〈…〉 prejudicing his own pretence that 〈◊〉 conduces exceedingly to it for certainâ—y his sober Enquirer would less be in doubt to miss of what is necessary to salvation in case the Letter on which all depends be well attested than if it be not and most certainly an Infallible society of men can better attest that Letter than a Fallible one and those Writings can with better show of reason be owned to contain in them the VVill of God if their Letter be attested beyond possibility of being wrong than if left in a possibility of being such for if the Letter be wrong all is wrong in this case It might seem wonderful then what it is that thus byasses Dr. St. against his own Interest And I wish I had reason to think it were not a kind of Innate Antipathy against not onely our Church but Church in Common and a desire to attribute as little to it as he can possibly though he hazzard some prejudice to his own Cause and even all Christian Faith into the bargain His whole way of discourse here bends strongly towards the taking away all divine Institution of Pastors for this would oblige the people to hear them and levelling all into a Fanatick Anarcâ—y I would gladly interpret him otherwise and imagine that perhaps he means that since 't is own'd the Scriptures thus contain Gods will therefore there needs not be supposed any Infallible society of men either to attest or explain them but I cannot conceive he should think Scriptures Letter must be own'd to be right without some either Fallible or Infallible Authority to attest it to be such or that however he may sceptically dread no Authority can be Infallible yet that he will deny but that it were good there were such an Authority to attest Scriptures Letter nay needful too in case he heartily held that Christian Faith built according to his Grounds solely on that Letter may not possibly all be a Ly which common sense tells us it may be in case we may all be deceiv'd in the Truth of the Letter Lastly That for some Ages before Christ there was no Necessity of such a Body of men among the Iews to attest or explain to them the VVritings of Moses and the Prophets is first not prov'd and yet Dr. St. builds upon it as confidently as if it were evidently concluded or else Self-evident Next what mean those words for some Ages before Christ If the whole time of the Moâ—aiâ—al Law then 't is evidently false since Deut. 17. v. 10 11 c. God commanded upon pain of death to do according as some persons he had appointed for that end should explain the Writings belonging to that Law and if these men had not some way or other been secured from Errour God by commanding the subject Laity under so heavy a penalty to
act as they adjudg'd had both led them into actual Errour and punisht them thus grievously in that case for adhering to Truth which are too horrid blasphemies to be heard or imagin'd But if they mean onely for some time of that Law or some Ages immediately before Christ when the Synagogue was most corrupt this implies a Confession that such a Society was necessary in the Ages foregoing and then Dr. St. is to show us why it was not equally necessary in the later as in the former and not suppose it gratis Nor was the Synagogue ever more corrupt than in our Saviour's days and yet we see how severely he enjoins the Jews of that time to obey the Scribes and Pharisees because they sate in Moses his Chair which it were blasphemy to say Christ could do if he had not secur'd their Doctrine from being Erroneous that is preserv'd them Inerrable in that Affair Add that were all granted yet there is far more necessity of explaining the Scriptures now than at that time For the Law was in a manner all of it either matters of Fact to be done or Moral Duties and so agreeable to nature whence both of these were far more easily expressible in proper language and consequently Intelligible than the sublime spiritual and mysterious Tenets of the Law of Grace which are more hard to be exprest in per words and being more removed from our knowledg the natures of the Things are more hard to be penetrated and so those words more difficult to be rightly comprehended and understood without an Interpreter than were those other 16. There can be no more intolerable usurpation upon the Faith of Christians than for any person or society of men to pretend to an Assistance as Infallible in what they propose as was in Christ or his Apostles without giving an equal degree of Evidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did viz. by miracles as great publick and convincing as theirs were by which I mean such as are wrought by those very persons who challenge this Infallibility and with a design for the Conviction of those who do not believe it Thus the Dr. makes sure work against the Infallibility of any Church which overthrown his single self nay any private man or woman that has but self-conceit and confidence enough to proceed openly upon these Principles of his is upon even ground with the best nay all the Churches in the World at the main point of understanding and determining what 's Faith what not Nay more may defie all the Governours of all Churches in the World if he or she be but conscious to themselves that they sincerely endeavour and soberly enquire for the true meaning of the divine writings for these being their Rule of Faith and being assuâ—ed by Dr. St. that they cannot miss if they soberly enquire of what is necessary for salvation and being inform'd by common Reason that 't is a point very necessary to the salvation of a Christian or one who is to follow and adore Christ to know whether he be God and so may without fear of Idolatry have Divine Honour given him or no these things being so in case it should seem to the best judgement of such a man and let him be for example one brought up in the Church of England and newly turn'd Socinian that Christ is not God he ought not to relinquish his Rule of Faith at any rate nor what he judges the Scriptures sense of it this being his Faith but maintain it boldly against all his Pastors talk and quote Scripture as briskly as the best of them all desy them to their faces nay dye in defence of his interpretation of it and be a special Martyr though he take his death upon it that all his lawful Pastors and the whole Church of which he is a member are most hainons Idolaters for giving the worship proper to God to a man In this case 't is plain the Church cannot pretend to oblige him to believe her interpretation of Scriptuâ—e Alas all such power is quite taken out of her hands by these new principles not to act exteriourly as she does for that were to oblige him to deny his Faith in his Actions and carriage and this in so hainous a point as committing flat Idolatry and which his Rule of Faith tells him is such Nor to acquiesce so far as to hold his tongue and not contradict the Church for 't is both ingratitude to God who has so plainly reveal'd it to him in Scripture not to stand up for his honour so wickedly violated by the Church and withall most uncharitable to his neighbour not to communicate to him the light he has receiv'd by such plain Revelation from God's word and to endeavour his reducement from so grievous an Idolatry especially if this man be a Minister of the Church of England whose Office and Duty 't is to hold forth or preach what he judges God's word Nay though it were a Lay-man or a Lay-woman all 's a case why may they not with as much reason make known so concerning a truth plainly reveal'd to them as Aquila and Priscilla did of old As for all power of the Church to restrain them that 's quite thrown out of doors Humane commands can have no force when the best duties to God and man are neglected by obeying and the more the Church is obstinate and opposes this private man or woman by so much greater is the necessity of his or her informing the Church right and standing up for the Truth Hereafter more of this at present let us see how he destroyes infallibility in the Church which is his chief design and indeed it makes very much for his purpose for I so far concurr with him that if it be but fallible in attesting or explaining Scripture 't is little available to the grounding Christian Faith so that if infallibility be but overthrown and these Principles setled in its stead every private man is a Church which our corrupt nature loving liberty will no doubt be very taking and please the rabble exceedingly He is so earnest at his work that he stumbles for hast For first who did ever pretend to an infallibility equal to what was in Christ or his Apostles as his words import Christ was essentially infallible the Apostles by Immediate Inspiration from God The Church pretends indeed to be infallibly assisted but that she pretends to have it either essentially as God has it or by way of immediate inspiration as the Apostles had it is a thing I never yet learnt 'T is enough to justify her constant claim of infallible assistance that she have it mediately or by means of the ordinary working of natural and supernatural causes so shee but have it And to have it this way seems far more agreeable to reason than the other of immediate inspiration as to have by way of immediate inspiration was far more fitting for the Apostles For
neither was it in their dayes accepted by a great portion of the world that Christ was God or his Doctrine truth that so they might receive it transmitted from the foregoing divinely assisted Church that these and these doctrines were His but they were the First that were to propagate this doctrine and publish and make out the Truth of it not could their own testimony avail to the end inâ—ended for what could they testify That Christ said thus and did such and such miracles to testify the truth of his doctrine or that the H. Ghost inspir'd them The latter was latent and the hearers had but their own words for it the other was patent indeed and so fully Convictive to those who knew and convers'd with them and were acquainted with the Circumstances but to remote nations whither two or three of them were to go and Preach it signifi'd little and depended upon their bare words Hence Miracles were at first and shall till the end of the world in like cases be absolutely necessary to make such unheard of Tenets enter and sink into the hearts of great multitudes how circumstanc't soever But when afterwards a World or vast Body of men were by those Extraordinary Means settled unanimously in a firm beleif that Christ was God or at least that his doctrine was true there could need no more but to know it was continu'd down all along the same to make deserters of his Church against whom we dispute at present accept it and it being visible audible and practical and so subject to sense hence Attestation of the foregoing Age to the Age succeeding was the most Proper way to continue it down and perfectly Certain being now grown so Ample and Vast and the Attesters being Intelligent Persons and having the sense of Christ's Law written in their heart could deliver and explain themselves pertinently to all arising difficulties and clear all possible misunderstandings which the dead Letter could not and so this Living rule is perfectly Intelligible too I omit here the Supernatural assistances which those who comprehend what most effectual means of Sanctity there is in the Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline of the Church and consequently as appears by divers excellent effects of it the Product also of those means or Holiness in great multitudes of the Faithful will see and acknowledge do incomparably strengthen the Authority of the Church in delivering down right Faith Hence appears our Dâ—s unreasonableness intimated to us in this principle That though Connatural and Ordinary means be now laid in the world to continue Christ's doctrine from ouâ— time forwards and were laid in the first Age to continue it along hitherto Though Common Reason and as I remember St. Austin have taught him that into the place of Miracles succeeded the consent of Countries Nations though Mr. Baxter whom perhaps he holds as Holy a Father as great a Saint and as eminent a Scholar as St. Austin himself have told him in his More Reasons for the Christian Religion c. p. 32. That humane testimony may be so circumstanc't as amounts to a natural infallible certainty instancing in the existence of King Iames and our Laws being made by King and Parliament which how Dr. T. his Schollar will like I know not and so the Churches infallibility in Faith to the end of the world might descend down to us by testimony to have been the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles without needing New miracles done still to evince it Nay though himselâ— in correspondency to both these Doctors does in his Rational account p. 205. make Tradition of the same use to us now which our Eyes and Ears had been if we had been actually present when Christ delivered his Doctrine and wrought his miracles and so could as well certify us of the first taught doctrine as if we had seen and heard it and consequently of the Infallibility of the Church in case that were a point of Doctrin taught at first yet now one of his principles must be that no Argument though never so strong and convictive no Tradition how well qualifi'd soever it be nor any Plea in the world though never so legal and evident shall acquit the Church from a most intolerable Usurpation if she challenge Infallibility but down right Miracles full as great observe his â—igour publick and convincing as were those of Christ and his Apostles and wrought by those very persons that challenge this infallibility nay and wrought with a design too for the conviction of those who do not beleeve it How shrewdly sure this Romeâ—destroying Principle is laid But if one should ask seriously whether a Convincing reason to prove this infallibility I mean such a one as evidently concluded the point might not do without a miracle I know no rational man that ever would deny his assent upon such a condition nor would Dr. St. perhaps in another occasion but here oh here 't is another case His hatred against the Church of Rome's Infallibility is so vigorous that he professes to desy Demonstration it self that is renounce Humane Nature rather than admit it nothing but Miracle with all the nice cautions imaginable shall serve the turn A notable resolution and only parallel to his whom nothing would satisfy of the truth of Christianity but the miraculous appearance of his Angel Guardian but the Miracle not being granted him he dy'd an Atheist In a word if the Church ever usurpt't the pretence of Infallibility I hope she first invaded it at one time or other Now since as long ago as St. Paul's time she we was called by that good man Columna Firmamentum veritatis The Pillar and Ground of Truth which words ill consist with a Fallible proposer of such truths as belong to her sphear oâ— points of Faith he ought to shew and make out when the Church lost that Title and preheminence otherwise since she is found claiming it now and actually holding and possessing it upon the tenure of Tradition as promis'd her by Christ we have very good reason to hold she never usurp'd it at all but inherited it by a continued line of Succession from the beginning of Christianity to this very day Nor has it ever seem'd Intolerable to any but to those whom nothing would content but new fangled Innovation and altering the long-establish'd doctrine of Christ deliverd down perpetually from his time 17. Nothing can be more absurd then to pretend the necessity of such an infallible Commission and Assistance to assure us of the truth of these writings and to interpret them and at the same time to prove that Commission from those writings from which we are told nothing can be certainly deduc'd such an assurance not being supposed or to pretend that infallibility in a Body of men is not at liable to doubts and disputes as in those books from whence only they derive their Infalliblity The first part of this Principle is granted as to the Absurdity of the
different degrees of Evidence and measure of Divine Assistance but every Christian by the use of his reason and Common Helps of Grace may attain to so great a degree of Certainty from the Convincing Arguments of the Christian Religion and Authority of the Scriptures that on the same Ground on which men doubt of the Truth of them they may as well doubt of the Truth of those things which they judge to be most Evident to Sence Reason I wish D. S. had explain'd himself here what he means by different degrees of Evidence whether some Glances or likely Appearances of Truth call'd greater or lesser Probabilities or such Intelleâ—tual Sights at the least of them discovers the thâ—ng thâ—â— evidenc't to â—e be indeed so or True I suspect much he means the former because thâ—se are the most proper Grounds for Fallible Certainty which he is now going to establish whereas the Latter sort of Evidences would hazard to carry too far and to beget Infallible Certainty which would quite spoil his most excellent design of setling the Fallible Certainty of Faith for those Evidences which show the thing to be True show it at the same time to be Impossible to be False whence 't is a thousand to one that such Evidences as these would utterly destroy his beloved Fallible Certainty and endanger to introduce again by necessary and enforcing consequence that Popish Doctrine of Infallibility which he had newly discarded When he adds that every Christian may by the means here assigned attain to so great a degree of Certainty c. I had thought he had meant Certainty of the Points of his Faith but my hopes were much defeated when coming to the Point he flyes off to his Christians not doubting the Truth of the convincing Arguments of Christian Religion and of the Authority of the Scriptures For this is far wide of our purpose and his Promise which was to reduce the Faith of Protestants to Principles whereas these words signify no more but not to doubt of Christianity being the True Religion or Scriptures being God's word but reaches not to what are those points of Christianity or determinate sense of Scripture in particular which constitutes Protestantism and only concerns our debate Now 't is evident that the Roman-Catholicks profess not to doubt of the convincing Grounds of Christianity nor yet of Scripture but to hold that Christianity is the only-Trâ—e Religion and that the Scriptures are Holy and God's word and yet we differ so much from Protestants that he thinks us Idolaters What we are then in reason to expect from Dr. St. is that he would bring us Grounds for the Certainty of his Faith as to determinate Points viz. Christ's God-head a Trinity Reality or not-Reality of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and such like and those so certain as that we may as well doubt of what we judge to be most evident to sense and Reason as doubt of them as he here pretends and not put us off with Common words in stead of particular Satisfaction concerning his Faith and the Certainty thereof I would ask him then how it comes to pass that the Socinian whom he will not deny to have both use of his reason and common helps of Grace and both the convincing Arguments of the Christian Religion and Authority of Scriptures to make use of how I say he comes so to fall short of Evidence and consequently Certainty springing from that evidence concerning Christ's God-Head which is a Fundamental Point of Christian Faith that he doubts it nay utterly denies it whereas yet the Protestant having the same means to work with judges he has evidence and Certainty grounded on that evidence that Christ is God yet all this while they dissent not at all in things most evident to Sense or Reason I much fear our Drs. big words concerning his degrees of Evidence and the Certainty of his Faith built on those degrees will when examin'd amount to a very obscure evidence and a Problematical kind of Assuredness much like those comfortable lights which both parties have when they lay even wagers at Cock-fighting such games giving good hopes to both sides but good Security to neither But so it ought to be if the Grounds of Faith be not Infallibly but only Fallibly-Certain which is all he is bent to prove 25. No man who firmly Assents to any thing as True can at the same time entertain any suspicion of the falshood of it for that were to make him certain and uncertain of the same thing It is therefore absurd to say that these who are Certain of what they believe may at the same time not know but it may be False which is an apparent Contradiction and overthrows any Faculty in us of judging of Truth and Falshood This Principle and the next were I conceive intended to preserve the Dr's and his Friends Credit against the Inference at the end of Faith vindicated and diverse other Passages shewing them either to be far from good Christians in holding that all Christian Faith may possibly be an Errour and Lying Imposture or else very bad Discoursers of their own Thoughts whilst they equivalently exprest themselves in divers places to be possibly in an Errour in all they believe nay more all Christians in the whole world to be in the same condition This if justified cannot but reflect on them being so concerning a Lapse and I have at Dr. St's brisk instigation charg'd it home in Reason against Raillery though I still expres't my self to incline to the more Civil and more Charitable side and rather lay the blame on their Understandings then on their Wills and Intentions Which Book had Dr. St. seen when he writ this he would have discern'd the triflingness of these weak excuses But let 's see what he says His Firâ—t part is built on a most gross and senseless Errour which is that he who firmly assents to a thing as True is Certain of it as appears by those words for this were to make him Certain and Vncertain of the same thing I wonder exceedingly where the Dr. â—earn't this notion of Certainty Not from Mankinde I am sure at least not from those who had the use of their Reason For all these already know it to be Evident that a man may firmly assent to a thing as True and yet that thing be False must that man therefore be Certain of that Falshood and that it is though in reality it be not We experience that opposite parties firmly assent to contrary Tenets as True for example the Socinians firmly assent that Christ is not God We and the Protestants that Christ is God Catholicks assent firmly that they are not Idolaters when they make use of Holy Images in Divine Worship D. St. firmly assents they are at least he would perswade his 〈◊〉 by his Books he does so Are all these opposite sides Certain of their several Tenets because each side firmly assents to them as True
the Church may in the Grounds of their Faith if Infallibility be denied Or lastly how will their Evidence be Clear if the nature of Mâ—ral Things will not bear so clear an Evidence or afford us so much light of themselves as by it to conclude absolutely the Thing is so as when it comes to the point I foresee both these profound Admirers of Morall Certainty will heartily maintain and Dr. T. in his Prefaâ—e to his Sermons p. 29. in express terms blames me for expecting in the Grounds of Faith And whereas he says 't is absurd to say that thâ—se who are Certain of what they believe may at the same time not know but it may be False I grant it absurd nay more I affirm that in case they be truly Certain that is in case their Certainty be taken from the Thing or Object then not only they may not knâ—w at the same time but it may be False but not at any time ever afterwards unless the thing it self hap to be in that regard Alterable For true Certainty is built on the thing 's being as it is and nothing can ever be truly known to be otherwise than it is But if he takes Certainty in a wrong sense for a Firm Assent to a Thing as True however that Assent be grounded then though upon supposition he firmly Assents he cannot at the very same time be shaken in that Assent or not firmly Assent yet he is far in that case from any Knowledge or Intellectual Certainty one way or other because he regards not the Thing or Object whence only true Knowledge can be had whatever he deems or imagines concerning the truth of that which he firmly assents to Laâ—tly these Excuses are quite besides the purposex I never accused their thoughts They are beyond the reach of my sight but their Discourse and Writings I can see and discover that they make Faith possible to oâ— False as I have shown at large in Reason against Raâ—llâ—ry I meddle not then with what they assent to or whether or no they can or do hold the contrary what I objected was that their words in their books imported the possible Falshood of Faith for which they yet owe satisâ—action to all Christians for the common Injury done to Faith and as yet they have given none at all 26. Whatever necessarily proves a thing to be true does at the same time prâ—ve it Impâ—ssible to be False because 't is Impossible the same thing should be True and False at the same time Therefore they who assent firmly to the Doctrin of the Gospel as true do thereby declare their belief of the Impossibility of the Falshood of it The first part I easily grant and the reason for it to be most valid And for the same reason I expect he will in counterchange grant me this Proposition that whatever words say prove or imply a thing possible to be False do at the same time say prove or imply that 't is not necessarily true And then Dr. T. must consider how he will avoid the force of it who makes Scripture the sole Rule of Faith or the only means for Mankind to be assur'd of their Faith and yet Rule of Faith p. 118. professes that both the Letter and Sense of it are possible to be otherwise than the Protestants take them to be which in case they take their sense of Scripture or Faith to be True must mean possible to be otherwise than True that is possible to be False Whether his own contrary Positions hang together or no is not my Concern As for his Inference I deny that assenting being an Interiour Act is declaring ones belief But I suppose he meant it thus Therefore they who declare they assent firmly to the doctrin of the Gospel as True do thereby declare their belief of the Impossibility of the Falshood of it and thus this is readily also granted only in requital I expect he should for I am sure he must grant me this counter-proposition that therefore they who declare their belief of the possibility of Falshâ—od in Faith and it's Grounds or of the Letter and Sense of the Gospel do thereby declare they do not assent firmly to the doctrin of the Gospel as true Which done let Dr. St. and his Friend look to the Consequences of it It lies still very heavy upon their Credit as Writers and ever must till they retract it No sincere Protestant who loves his Faith more then their Writings will ever be brought to endure it if he once set himself seriously to consider it 27. The Nature of Certainty doth receive several Names either according to the nature of the proof or the degrees of the Assent Thus Moral Certainty may be so called either as it is opposed to Mathematical Evidence but implying a firm Assent upon the highest Evidence that Moral things can receive Or as it is opposed to higher degrees of Certainty in the same kind So Moral Certainty implyes only greater Probabilities of one side than the other In the former sense we assert the Certainty of Christian Faith to be moral but not only in the latter This Principle is pernicious to Human Nature as well as to Faith and destructive to all Principles in the world that are true ones and not like it self First it designs to give us the several Names which the nature of Certainty doth receive but it does indeed acquaint us with some species or kinds of Certainty unless he will say that the moral Certainty he assignes to Faith is of the same kind with Probability which I perceive he is loath to own Next to what purpose is it to discourse of one or more sorts of Certainty or to distinguish it's Notion unless we firâ—t knew the Common notion of Certainty it self The word Moral which is one of it's Differences and chiefly intended to be explained here is hard enough of it self alone but when to this shall be added a new difficulty of not knowing what Certainty which is the Genus means we are like to make a wise business of it Now all the Knowledge we have hitherto gain'd of Certainty in a discourse purposely intended to make us underâ—tand the Certainty of Faith is this that 't is a firm Assent to a thing as true and that there may be a Fallible Certainty both manifestly imply'd in his discourse where all that we can gather of the Nature of Certainty by the former is that perhaps 't is a fixing or resting in some Tenet without any ground and by the later that 't is a Chimaera or Nonsense Thirdly he distinguishes Certainty according to the nature of the Proof or the degree of the Assent but I vehemently deny it as the most absurd Position imaginable that there can be any kind of Certainty taken from the degrees â—f the Assent in contradistinction to the nature of the Proof for this would make as if the Subject's or person's assenting more or less did constitute
the Authour and Finisher of our Faith is the true reason why I with so much zeal and Earnestness oppose him and his Friend for advancing Vncertainty and consequently Scepticism in Faith however they and their angry passionate party are pleas'd to apprehend me I perceive Dr. St. will hope to evade by saying that Christian virtue may be upheld by the Certainty we have of some Points of Faith though others be Vncertain which Points to make his Uncertainty of Faith go down the better he cals here Opinions But if he means by Opinions the Tenets of a Trinity Christs Godhead and Presence in the B. Sacrament all most highly concerning Christian Life one way or other in which we discern great parties differing who all â—dmit the Scripture and use the best means to interpret it as far as we can perceive nay and consider the consequence of mistaking too which he makes the very best means of all If I say these and such as these be the Opinions he speaks of and counterposes them to means to keep men from sin in their lives and that the Rule of Faith he assigns leaves whol Bodies of Reliers on it in actual Errour in such Fundamental Points of Faith and of most high concernment to good life as has been shown even while they proceed upon it 't is evident 't is not the Rule God intended his Church and mankinde to build their Faith on and so none can presume of security of mistake by relying purely upon it but all of Concern not known before by some other means that is all which it alone holds forth may be also liable to be a mistake likewise unless some other Authority more ascertainable to us then it abets it's Letter in such passages as are plain because they are either meerly Moral or Narrative or explain it's sense in others which are more spiritual and supernatural and so more peculiar and Fundamental to Christianity Recapitulation To meet with the absurd Positions exprest or else imply'd in the Doctrin deliver'd here by Dr. St. in these last Eleven Principles of his I take leave to remind the Reader of these few opposit Truths establisht in my former Discourse 1. That Assent call'd Faith taken as built on the Motives left by God to light Mankind to the Knowledge of his Will that is taken as it ought to be taken and as 't is found in the Generality is for that Reason Absolutely that is more then morally Certain or Impossible to be False 2. Though the Nature of Assent depend immediatly on the Evidence we have of it in our minds when 't is Rational yet in case it be True as the Assent of Faith ought to be it must necessarily be built and depend fundamentally on the nature of the Thing since without dependance on It this Evidence it self cannot possibly be had 3. A man may be materially Infallible or out of possibility of being actually deceiv'd in judging the divine Authority is engag'd by adhering to another's Iudgment who is Infallible or in the right in thus judging though he penetrate not the reason why that other man comes to be Infallible Also he who is thus Infallible being in possession of those Truths reliev'd upon the Divine Authority as the Formal motive of believing them which Truths as Principles beget those good Affections in him in which consist our Christian Life such a man I say has consequently enough speaking abstractedly for the Essence of Saving Faith though he be not Formally or knowingly Infallible by penetrating the Conclusiveness of the Grounds of Faith 4. To be thus materially Infallible or thus in the right in judging the Divine Authority is engag'd is requisite and necessary for the Essence of Faith otherwise the believing upon the Divin Authority when 't is not engag'd and so perhaps the believing and holding firmly to abominable Errours and Hereticall Tenets might be an Act of Faith to assert which is both absurd and most impious 5. 'T is requisite to the Perfection of Faith to be formally or Knowingly Infallible that the Divine Authority is engag'd For since it hazards Heresy and Errour to judge that the Divine Authority is engag'd for any point when 't is not it ought to breed suspence and caution in Reflecters till they see it engag'd consequently the better they see this the more heâ—rtily they are apt to assent to the point upon the Divine Authâ—rity So that the Absolute Certainty of the Grounds which conclude the Divine Authority engag'd betters and strengthens the Act of Faith 6. However it be enough for the Faith of those whose downright rudeness lets them not reflect at all to be only Materially Infallible that God's Authority is engag'd yet 't is besides of Absolute necessity to Reflecters who raise doubts especially for those who are very acute to discern some reason which cannot deceive them or to be formally or knowingly Infallible that 't is indeed actually engag'd for those points Otherwise it would follow that provision enough had been made by God to satisfy or cause saving Faith in Fools and none at all to breed Faith wise men which without satisfaction in this in point is in possible to be expected in such through-sighted Reflecters The same Formal Infallibility is necessary for the wisest sort of men in the Church both to deâ—end Faith and establish it's Grounds in a Scholar-like way as also for their Profession of the Truth of Faith and other Obligations incumbent on them as Faithfull and lastly for the Effects which are to be bred in them by Faith's Certainty 7. Though then the Rule of Faith needs not to be actually penetrated by all the Faithfull while they proceed unreflectingly yet it ought to be so qualifi'd that it may satisfy all who are apt to reflect and so to doubt of their Faith that is it 's Ruling power ought to be penetrable or evidenceable to them if they come to doubt and also so connatural and suitable to the unelevated and unreflecting thoughts of men of all sorts that it be the most apt that maybe to establish the Faithfull in the mean time and preserve them from doubting of their Faith Both these are found in Tradition or Testifying Authority and not in Scripture's Letter That therefore and not This is the Rule of Faith 8. Infallible Certainty of Faith being rejected the Moral Certainâ—y he substitutes must either be a Fallible Certainty or none this later is Impious the former is non-sense Wherefore all Dr. St's Discourse of Faith while he rejects Infallibility must forcibly have the one or the other of these Qualifications 9. A firm Assent to a thing as True renders no man Certain of what he thus assents to for so Hereticks might be truly Certain of all the pestilent Errours they hold so they but firmly assent they are True 10. Faith being the Basis of all Christian Virtues on which all our spiritual Edifice is built and from whence we derive all the
gratis this position that nothing but Miracle ought to serve whether there be other Means laid or no Or that no Proof but Miracle can possibly be sufficient to satisfy mens Reasons in a thing Subject to Reason For the Natural Assistance of the Church is such of it self and the Suppernatural supposing the knowledge of Sanctity in the Church is as plain Reason as that the greatest motives to Goodness and Interiour Goodness caus'd by those motives will make those good men who have it act as good men ought and are apt to do The 17th proceeds wholly upon a False Imputation laid on our Church and on his confounding most absurdly the notion of the Church with that of the Schools or rather taking a few speculative Divines and those the weakest to be the Church The 18th is again built on an unprov'd Supposition of which kind of Grounds he is still very free and on a falsely pretended promise from God so to secure any private-spirited Contemner of the Church that he shall be in the way to Salvation whether he Err◠or no though as common sense and the Order of the world gives it he forfeit both his Reason and his Virtue by not hearing his Lawfull and Learned Pastors rather than his self-conceited Ignorant self The 19th has the same Faults with the former and is wholly False even though his own Supposition mention'd in the close were freely granted him which 't is not The four Principles following are made up of these Errours 1. That we hold that no man can have a True and saving Faith unless he sees and knows that the Proponent is Infallible 2. That the nature of Assent when rational depends not on the Object 3. That one cannot have an Infallible Assent in Faith without Infallible Assistance to judge of the Points of Faith themselves 4. That there is no middle between no particular person and every particular person being formally Infallible whereas my Tenet is that some must be so most may be so and all need not be so 5. That because all must be materially Infallible or in the true Faith but know not how they are so therefore 't is useless that any should know how to make out those Grounds to settle explain and defend Faith and it's Certainty These with his self-contradiction are the jarring Elements which compound these four terrible Principles with which he hopes to undermine and blow up the Churches Infalibility and the absolute Certainty of all Christian Faith The 24th gives good words in common of Certainty and Evidence but he means by the former Fallible Certainty by the Later only some Probability or Improbability so it but appears so to the Subject And is a total prevarication from Settling the Truth of Faith to not doubting the Truth of the Scripture of which there is no question The 25th holds forth a most wicked and gross Absurdity destructive of all Certainty Evidence Faith Christianity and even Man-hood viz. that to Assent firmly to any thing as True is to be Certain of it And intimates two others viz. that a man who is now Certain of a thing may at another time know that thing to be False though not at the same time as also that such a Certainty is competent for Belief or Faith The 26. speaks Evident Truth in the beginning of it but is nothing available to his cause but rather against him The Inference thence is False being defectively exprest and when rectify'd is also a clear Truth but highly prejudices himself The 27. is utterly 〈◊〉 of common Sense Certainty Faith and Christianity The 28. Principle is a weak and inconsistent Discourse The 29. supposes Scriptures Intelligible enough in all Points of Faith without the Church and to contain expresly God's whole will o◠every Article of Faith or at least with such a Ground of it there as that 't is deducible thence by private understandings with a Certainty competent for Faith none of which he has at all prov'd nor ever will The 30th and last confesses all men liable to Errour in Faith though relying on the Means left by God to secure them from it which evidently makes that means to be none and assigns a way for their best security which all Erring Sects in the world as far as we can discern take and yet still erre And lastly for an Upshot he makes account like a Solid Divine that our Christian Life is not at all Interiour but only Exteriour and consequently that Faith is no part of a Christian's Life nor the means to the other parts of it nor Infidelity and Heresy a Sin or Vice and then all 's safe and his Principles stand firm for then 't is evident that every private man may reject the Church at pleasure and be sure to understand as much in Scripture as is necessary to Salvation for if these be no sins and so do not damn a man either immediatly or mediatly there is nothing that will But indeed in Dr. St's kind of Reformation they are rather to be accounted Cardinal and Fundamental Virtues Such Sensless Principles ought to produce no better Fruit for this sutes their Practice and his Principles Rebel against God's Church break the most Sacred Order of the World and do but talk stoutly and with a bold grace and a pretty way of Expression of Scripture and God's Word and then all is Holy and Good Reflecting then back on the nature of Principles and considering that to deserve that name they must necessarily have in them two Qualifications viz. Evidence in themselves and Influence upon some other Propositions which are to derive their Evidence from them and it being manifest both out of this short Review and much more out of the full Replies to each of them that not one of those which D. St. here cals Principles but is either Vnevident and False or if True Impertinent and void of any the least Influence upon the Point he aym'd to prove by them They are clearly convinc't to have nothing in them like Principles or entitling them to the honour of that name and that he might with far more reason have call'd them Conceits Paradoxes Quodlibets or Crotchets And I know no better way for him to vindicate them but to entreat his Fellow-Hater of Infallibility Dr. T. who has a special gift at* putting Principles into Categorical and Hypothetical Syllogisms to undertake these that so the world may see the rare consequences that arise from them to which lest he should fail his Friend we now address The Sixth Examen of Dr. St's Six Conclusions ANY man who had either heard of Logick or reflected a little upon Nature would verily have thought that such obscure Principles should necessarily have produc't more obscure Conclusions since the Evidence of the Later being deriv'd only from the former and participated from them must needs be found in a lesser degree of Perfection in these than is the Evidence of those former from whence 't
Church-Authority and if she had none her self 't is evident she could give none whence will follow that the Reformed Churches deriv'd nothing which was Constitutive of a Church from any foregoing one but were wholly erected anew and then I would know what Authority under that of Iesus Christ who constituted the Church at first had power to constitute it anew But if Dr. St. says that the Church of Rome rely'd on the Means left by God to ascertâ—â— Faith then 't is manifest that doing so she could not erre in Faith and so is as sound as may be whatever our Talking Disputant says Since then there is no middle between relying on the Means left by God to ascertain Faith and not relying on it and so that Body in Communion with the Roman Church must necessarily do one of them and if she does rely on it she must needs have all true Faith and so be very healthfull or sound if she does not she mâ—st needs have no True Faith at all and so not only lose her Health but her Essence too which by consequence un-churches the Reformers also it were good Dr. St. would consider the point over again and not talk thus any thing at random without proof As for his saying for saying things craftily and prettily is his only Talent that the Church of Rome by which I presume he means as we do those Churches in Communion with the Roman is not the Catholick Church this will be best decided by settling the Certain Rule of Faith and then by applying of it to consider whether any body out of her Communion have not deserted that Rule which if they have they will be prov'd thence to have no Faith nor consequently to have in them the Essence of a Church and so if this defect appear in them all they can be in true speech no parts of the Church in which case it must necessâ—â—ily follow that those in Communion with the Roman are the Catholick Church Let us begin with Grounds and pursue them by close discoursing and things will easily be decided but this Talking Voluntaries this countersfeitiâ—g and pretending to Principles and Conclusions when there is in reality neither the one nor the other is good for nothing but empty show These excellent performances having emboldend this man of Confidence to conceit he has done wonders he sounds the Triumph of his own Victory in these words This may suffice to shew the validity of the Principles on which the Faith of Protestants stands and the weakness of those of the Church of Rome These words give us occasion to reflect back on his Promise and his Performances His Promise was to reduce the Faith of Protestants to Principles What he has perform'd is this He has not yet laid one Proposition which is to him a Principle that is which he makes use of to conclude what he designs but what is both Obscure and False He has settled no Faith at all but brought all into Opinion by discarding Infallible and maintaining only Fallible Certainty And had he indeed settled any Faith yet he has not produc't own word to settle the Faith of Protestants in particular but all will equally fit a Socinian or a Quaker and his way of managing his Rule will much better sute with a Quaker or any Fanatick than with a Protestant Also in stead of reducing to Principles he at first begins to deduce from Principles and in the process of his discourse he puts Conclusions for Principles and Principles for Conclusions and so reduces and deduces that is draws backwards and forwards blows and sups both at once In a word the Total sum of his Heroick Atchievments amounts to this He has layd thirty Principles which wanting either evidence or else necessary Influence upon what he pretends to prove are no Principles He hath so reduc't to those Principles that he makes six Conclusions follow that is he deduces from them and so he has so reduc't to principles that he has not reduc't to them He has put that for a Rule which wanting power to direct aright those who are ro rely on it is evidently no Rule He has attributed such a Certainty to his Faith as is a Fallible one that is no Certainty but a Chimaera and consequently he has so Principl'd Faith as makes it no Faith but Opinion only He has made six Propositions so follow out the thirty which for want of necessary coherence with them do not follow Lastly he has made those to be Conclusions which for want of Premisses and by reason of their greater Evidence than is fonnd in his Prinâ—iples and for many other regards are not Conclusions but rather Principles All which is shown in their proper places So that his perplexing Intricacy in contriving and posturing his words oddly being once unravell'd their affected ambiguity clear'd and his Insignificances and Incoherences layd open the Common Light of nature will inform any Attentive and Intelligent Reader that Dr. St. has not reduc't the Faith of Protestants to Principles but that his whole discourse attempting it is reduc't to Contradictions Yet in confidence of his vast performances he ventures upon this grand Conclusion that shall strike all dead From all which it follows that it can be nothing but wilfull Ignorance weakness of Iudgment strength of prejudice or some sinful passion which makes any one forsake the Communion of the Church of England to embrace that of the Church of Rome But with how much greater reason may I conclude that in case the Church of England owns his way of discoursing herâ— and holds not that the Tradition Practice and Sense of Gods Church is to give us that assurance of the meaning of Scripture as to build Faith on it but that 't is to be left to every privâ—te mans Fancy to be his own Iudge in that affair nothing but either an Invincibly-weak Ignorance or the wicked Sin of Spiritual Pride making private men scorn to submit their Judgments to persons wiser than themselves or to be taught by their lawfull Pastors whom God has appointed for that end can make any man remain in the Communion of the Church of England and not unite himself to the Communion of the Church of Rome Especially since they all hold that Faith cannot possibly be False so must hold that the means to Faith cannot possibly lead the reliers on it into errour and yet if but meanly verst in the world they must needs experience that those who do rely on their own sense of Scripture differ in most Fundamental points of Christianity and so oneside necessarily erre in so doing FINIS TRANSITION TO THE Following Discourse HAving thus totally defeated Dr. St's Attempt to reduce his Faith to Principles and shown that in stead of performing this all the most substantiall parts of his Discourse are reduc't to so many Contradictious it may perhaps be expected I should assert the Truth of my own by showing that 't is built on
such Firm and Evident Grounds But I presume I have already perform'd this in my Sure-footing and its Corollaries as also in Faith Vindicated and its Inferences and if it shall appear needfull or be requir'd of me by Learned Men it may perhaps hereafter be brought into a closer and more rigorous Form Yet that it may be seen how easily our Discourses concerning the Certainty and Ground of Faith are resolvable into Evident Principles I shall annex for an Instance a small Peace of mine whiâ—h though it was never pretended to be a severe Process by way of Principles but only meant for a connected Discourse yet I doubt not but I shall show that each main Ioynt of it where it speaks assertively has a Firm and Evident Principle at the Bottom giving it Stability and Evidence and through vertue of these Qualifications rendering it Solidly and Absolutely Convictiveâ— THE METHOD To Arrive at SATISFACTION IN RELIGION 1. SInce all Superstructures mnâ—t needs be weak whose foundation is not surely laid He who desires to be satisfy'd in Religion ought to begin with searching out and establishing the Ground on which Religion is built that is the First Principle into which the several Points of Faith are resolv'd and on which their Certainty as to us depends 2. To do this 't is to be consider'd that a Church is a Congregation of Faithful and Faithful are those who have true Faith Wherefore till it be known which is the true Faith it cannot be known which is the true Church Again A Council is a Representative A Father an Eminent Member of the Church and a Witness of her Doctrin Wherefore till it be known which is the true Church it cannot be known which is a Council or who a Father Lastly Since we cannot know which is Scripture but by the Testimony of those who recommend it And of Hereticks we can have no security that they have not corrupted it in favour of their false Tenets neither can we be secure which is Scripture till we be satisfy'd who are the truly Faithful on whose Testimony we may safely rely in this affair 3. Wherefore he who sincerely aims at Satisfaction in Religion ought first of all to find out and establish some assured Means or Rule by which he may be secured which is true Faith For till this be done He cannot be secure either of Scripture Church Council or Father but having once done this is in a ready way to Judge certainly of all Whereas if he begin with any of the other or indeed argue from them at all till the Rule of Faith be first settled he takes a wrong Method and breaks the Laws of discourse by beginning with what is less cortain and indeed to him as yet uncertain and in effect puts the Conclusion before the Premisses unless he argue Ad Hominem or against the personal Tenets of his Adversary which is a good way to Confute but not to Satisfie 4. And because the Rule of Faith must be known before Faith can be known and Faith before Scripture Church Councils and Fathers it appears that to the finding out this Rule no assistance of Books will be requisite for every one who needs Faith is not capable to reade and understand Books There is left then only Reason to use in this Inquiry And since People of all Capacities are to be saved much sharpness and depth of wit will not be requisite but plain Nâ—tural Reason rightly directed will suffice 5. This being so the Method of seeking satisfaction in Religion is become strangely both more short and easie For here will need no tedious turning over Libraries nor learning Languages nor endless comparing voluminous Quotations nor so much as the skill to read English all being reduc'd to the considering one single Point but such an one as bears all along with it and this too comprehensible as will appear to a mean understanding Again the large debating particular Points in a controversiall way is by this means avoided For when the Right Rule of Faith is certainly known then as certainly as there is any faith in the world all that is received on that Rule is certain and of faith Not but that 't is of excellent use too to cherish and strengthen the faith especially of Young Believers by shewing each particular Point agreeable to right Reason and Christian Principles and recorded expresly in or deduced by consequence from the Divinely-inspired Books 6. Lastly This Method is particularly suitable to the Nature of sincere Inquirers who if they want the liberty of their own Native Indifferency and be aw'd by any Authority whatever before that Authority be made out cannot but remain unsatisfy'd and inwardly feel they proceed not according to Nature and the conduct of unbyast Reason Whereas when the Authority is once made evident Reason will clearly inform them that it becomes their Nature to assent to it 7. But how will it appear that 't is so easily determinable by common Reason which is the right Rule of Faith Very evidently But first we must observe the Assent called Faith depends upon two Propositions What God hath said is true and God hath said this out of which two necessarily follows the Conclusion that this or that in particular is true Of these two we are concerned only in the later For to examin Why God is to be believed when he has said any thing which they call the formal Motive of faith is not a Task for those who own Christianity But all we have to do is to finde out What God hath said or which in our case is all one What Christ has taught and that whatever it be which acqnaints us with this we call THE RVLE OF FAITH as that which Regulates our belief concerning Christs Doctrine or the Principles of Religion Now I affirm iâ— may be obvious Reason be discover'd which this Rule is and that by looking into the Nature of it or considering what kinde of thing it ought to be which is no more than attentively to reflect what is meant by those two ordinary words RULE FAITH 8. And both of them acquaint us that the Rule of Faith must be the means to assure us infallibly what Christ taught For in case a Rule though we apply it to our power and swerve not from it leave us still deceivable in those points in which it should regulate us we need another Rule to secure us that we be not actually deceiv'd and so this other and not the former is our Rule Next Faith speaking of Christian Faith differs â—rom Opinion in this that Opinion may be false but Faith cannot Wherefore the Rule of faith both as 't is a Rule and as it grounds Faith doubly involves Infallibility in its Notion 9. Let us apply this to Scripture and Tradition for setting aside the Light of the private Spirit grounding Phanaticism there are no more which claim to be Rules of faith see to which of them this
agreed to by all the World at what time all Deserters of our Church of what name soever broke from us as also who were the Authors and Abettors and who the Impugners of such New Doctrins besides in what places they first begun and were thence propagated to others but no such thing is known of us even by our Adversaries whom it concerns to be most diligent Searchers after it seeing they are in a hundred mindes about the Time when and the Persons who introduc'd these pretended New Doctrins of ours which they say vary from Scripture as may be seen by their own words in several Books and amongst others one call'd The Progeny of Protestants and this for every point in which they pretend we have innovated 't is plain that when we charge them with deserttng the known Doctrin of the former Church and the Rule of Faith we speak open and acknowledg'd evidence when they accuse us of the same their charge is obscure and unknown even to the very Accusers nay plainly prov'd false by the necessity of the things being notorious if it happen'd and the constant disagreement of those who alledge it when or how it happen'd 16. I say Notorious for since Points of Faith which ground all Christian practise are the most concerning Truths in the World it cannot be but the denyal of such Truths must needs raise great commotions before the opposite Truths could be nniversally spread and the change of Christian Practise and Manners which depend on those Truths must be wonderfully manifest and known to every body wherefore had we been guilty of such a change and introduc'd New Tenets and propagated them over the Christian world as is pretended it must needs be manifestly and universally known that we did so neither is it possible the change should be so Insensible and invisible that our very Adversaries cannot find it out especially this alone making their Victory over us so certain and perfect For seeing we own TRADITION as an Infallible Rule We are irrecoverably overthrown if they make out that we ever deserted It and surely nothing should be more easie than to make out That than which if True nothing can possibly be more Notorious 17. Moreover since it cannot be that Multitudes of men should profess to hold points both infinitely concerning and strangely difficult to believe and yet own no ground upon which they hold them if we ever as 't is said we have deserted Tradition we must till the time we took it up again have proceeded upon some other Ground or Rule of Faith And because none ever charged â—s with proceeding upon the Letter of Scripture or Phanaticism and besides thâ—se there is no other but Tradition 't is plain we never deserted but always stuck to Tradition 18. Besides 't is impossible that that Body of Men whiâ—h claim for their Rule of Faith an uninterrupted Tradition from the Apoâ—â—les days should not have held to that Rule of Faith from the beginning For otherwise they must have taken it up at some tim◠〈◊〉 other and by doing so profess to the 〈◊〉 that Nothing is to be held of Faith but what descended by an uninterrnpted delivery from the beginning and yet at the same time acknowledge that all they then held was not so descended but received by another Rule this of Tradition or uninterrupted Delivery being then newly taken up which is so palpable a Contradiction that as Humane Nature could not fall into it so if it could the very pretence would have overthrown it self and needed no other confutation 19. Add to this that none of tbose many Sects who from time to time have deserted our Church's Faith and Discipline and so become her Adversaries ever yet pretended to assign the time when we took up this Rule of Tradition and yet a change in that on which we profess to build all the rest must needs be of all changes the most visible and most apt to justifie the carriage of those Revolters Wherefore 't is demonstrably evident on all sides that as this present Body of men call'd the Roman-Catholick Church does now hold to Tradition so their Predecessors uninterruptedly from the Apostles days did the same that is did hold to it ever And since 't is shown before § 11. that this Rule if held to will certainly convey down the true Faith unchang'd to all after Ages 't is likewise demonstrable that they have the true Faith and are the truly Faithful or true Church 20. And hence by the way is clearly seen what is meant by VNIVERSAL TRADITION and where 't is to be look'd for and found which puzzles many men otherwise very judicious and sincere who profess a readiness nay a duty to follow Vniversal Tradition but they are at a loss how we may certainly know which is Ie. For since 't is evident that to compleat the notion of the Vniversality of Mankind for example it were absurd to think we must take in brutes too which are of an opposite nature to Mankind but 't is sufficient to include all in whom the nature of Mankind is found so to make np the notion of Vniversal Tradition it were equally absurd to think we ought to take in those in whom the nature of Tradition is not found but its Opposit that is Deserters of Tradition or their Followers but 't is sufficient to include those in whom Tradition is found as in its Subject that is Adherers to Traedition or Traditionary Christians All therefore that have at any time deserted the Teoching and Practise of the immediately fore-going Church how numerous and of what name soever they behave no show of Title to be parts of Vniversal Tradition and only they who themselves do and whose Ancestors did ever adhere to it how few soever they seem are the only persons who can with any sense pretend to be those of whom as Parts Vniversal Tradition consists Whence also that Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis directing us to hold that which is believ'd in all places all times and by all which is so mis-apprehended by our Modern Dissenters is clearly understood viz. by taking it with Restriction to all those who hold to Tradition For otherwise should we not restrain it to those only who have adher'd to the Rule of Faith but enlarge it to the utmost extent of the words so as to comprehend also those who have deserted that Rule nothing could possibly be held of Faith whlch any Heretick had ever deny'd and so in stead of being a Rule to distâ—nguish or know what we are to believe it would by thus confounding right Faith with all the Heresies in the world render it utterly Impossible ever to know what 's Faith what not or discern Christ's true Doctrin from Diabolical Errours But to return whence we digrest 21. It follows from the former discourse that those men who stick to Tradition can by applying that their Rule certainly know who have true Faith and which body of men is
the true Church likewise that a Representative of that Body is a true Council and that an Eminent Member of it delivering down to the next Age the Doctrine believ'd in his whether by expresly avouching it the Chnrches sense or confuting Hereticks is a true Father Lastly they can have Infallible Certainty both of the Letter and Sense of Scripture as far as concerns Faith For if any fault which shocks their Faith whether of Translator or Transcriber creep into any passage or if the Text be indeed right but yet ambiguous they can rectifie the Letter according to the Law of God written in their hearts and assign it a sense agreeable to the Faith which they find there between which and that of the Holy Writers they are sure there can be no disagreement as being both inspir'd by the same unerring Light 22. Contrariwise those that follow not this Rule and so are out of this Church of what denomination soever First can have no true Faith themselves 'T is possible indeed and usual that some and not seldom many of the Points to which they assent are True and the same the truly Faithful assent to yet their Assent to them is not Faith for Faith speaking of Christian Faith is an Assent which cannot possibly be false and not only the Points assented to but the Assent it self must have that distance from Falshood as is prov'd at large in Faith vindicated else 't is not Faith but degenerates into a lower Act and is call'd Opinion Now the strength of an Assent rationally made depends upon the strength of its Grounds all Grounds of that Assent call'd Faith I mean such Grounds as tell us what Christ taught besides Tradition are proved § 10. weak and none Without It therefore there can be no true faith Next for want of that only Infallble Ground they cannot have Certainty which is true Faith who truly Faithful which the true Church which a true Council who a true Father nor lastly which is either the Letter or Sense of Scripture in Dogmatical passages that concern Faith And since they have no Certainty of these things they have no right nor ought in a Discourse about Faith be admitted to quote any of them but are Themselves and the whole Cause concluded in this single Inquiry Who have a Competent that is an impossible to be false or Infallible Rule to arrive at Faith 23. The solid Satisfaction therefore of those who inquire after true Faith is onely to be gain'd by examining who has or who has not such a Rule This METHOD is short and easie and yet alone goes to the Bottom All others till this be had are superficial tedious and for want of Grounds Insignificant The Former Discourse Reduc't to Principles TO shew the precedent Discourse built on most Firm and most Evident Principles and such as I have describ'd in my Preface I request the Reader to look back with attentive Consideration upon it's several parts and he will discern that § 1. The First Paragraph is only a Descant upon this Proposition The Ground is to be laid before the superstructures or which comes to the same that He who builds must build upon something or to put it in more Immediate Terms What 's First is to be begun with that is What 's First is to be First which is resolv'd finally into this Proposition supremely Identical A thing is to be what it is § 2. The Second relies on that famous Maxim of Logicians that The Definition is more known then the Thing defin'd which is self-evident speculatively For the words once understood it comes to this that what clears another thing must be clearer it self that What explains must explain The latter part of it implies that in plain things depending on Authority Honest men are to be trusted before Knaves which is self-evident practically § 3. The third is but an Inference from the two fore-going ones and manifestly depends on the same self-evident Principles § 4. The Fourth is a farther Deduction and since to satisfy rationally is to make men know one way or other plainly amounts to this What 's to be known by all must be possible to be known by all which is as self-evident as 't is that That cannot or is impossible to be done which is Impossible to be â—tne § 5. The Fifth is only a short Descant upon the fore-going parts of this Discourse and so is reduc't into the same Grounds with them § 6. The Sixth is as evident as 't is that Men are not to Assent upon Authority or believe if there be no Reason for it or that Rational Agents are to act rationally § 7. The Seventh states the Question concerning the Right Rule of Faith and shows the way to look after it by vertue of this plain Truth The Meaning of the word signifying any natune is the nature signify'd by that word or which is the very same What 's meant by any word is meant by that word § 8. The former part of the 8th is resumed into this clearest Truth What leaves us in need of a Rule is not a Rule or A Rule is able to regulate which is perfectly equivalent to this A Rule is a Rule The Second Part averrs that Faith taking it for an Assent upon the Motives laid by God which cannot leade into Errour is not it's opposit Opinion which is equivalent to this Faith is Faith § 9. The Ninth only directs our Application of the two preceding Paragraphs to the same purpose § 10. The former part of the Tenth is full as Evident as 't is that Those who are not Scholars as the Generality of the Faithfull are not cannot be satisfy d rationally in those things which require Scholarship which since to be satisfy'd rationally signifies to know imports thus much that Those who cannot know cannot know And the second part is as clear as 't is that That is not the Way which multitudes take yet go wrong which since a Way is that which is to carry one right is as palpably self-evident as 't is that A Way is a Way § 11. The Eleventh which contains the main and in a manner the only point has two parts One that Mankind cannot be Ignorant of what they see and hear and do For since both Reason and Experience tels us that Senses in Men are Conveyers of Outward Impressions to the Knowing Power should Impressions upon those parts not be conveyed thither they would in that case not be Sensitive or Animals and so no Men And did they not perceive when such Impressions are convey'd as they ought they would be destitute of a Power receiving Knowledge by Senses and so again no Men. So that this first part is as evident as 't is that Mankind is Mankind And the Second part of this § directly engages this Identical Proposition The same is the same with it's self that is both of them are self-evident or immediatly implying what is so § 12.