by some Natural and therefore more easily-known Assistances belonging to the Church those out of her are brought to the knowledge that she is Supernaturally assisted This is the Method I take in resolving Faith If any man can show me any other that is either more solid more orderly more connatural and agreeable to the nature of Faith or more honourable to Gods Church I shall as willingly and easily quit it as I now out of long and serious consideration embrace and firmly adhere to it But it appears plain to me that whoever contradicts this especially as to that point which occasion'd this Discourse must withal contradict a Maxim on which all Science is principally built namely that The Definition is more known than the Notion defin'd which I take to be understood not onely of the Whole Definition but of each single part of it for if any one part be more obscure than the thing defin'd the whole Definition as having that obscure part in it must necessarily be more obscure likewise Wherefore the Definition of a Church being Coetus Fidelium c. A Congregation of Faithful c. the notion of Faithful and consequently of Faith must either be more Known and Knowable than that of Church and consequently antecedent to it in right method of Discourse or the Definition would be obscurer than the Thing defin'd which if it be said I must confess I know not to what end Definitions are or why they do not rather conduce to Ignorance than to Science Add that True Faith being most Intrinsecal and Essential to a Church 't is by consequence a more forcible and demonstrative Argument to convince inevitably that such a Body in which 't is found is the True Church than is any Extrinsecal Mark whatsoever And if it be objected that Extrinsecal Marks are more easily Knowable I doubt not but in those who are led away by superficial Appearances there is some show of Reason in this Objection but I utterly deny that if we go to the bottom to settle the Absolute Certainty of any of these Marks any of them can be known at all much less more easily known if the Certainty of Tradition in visible and practical matters of Fact be questionable and that neither Scripture Fathers Councils Histories Monuments or any thing else of that nature can pretend to Absolute Certainty if Tradition be Uncertain or can pretend to be known unless Tradition be first that is more known as is shown particularly in the Corollaries to Sure-footing § 11. Hence is seen that the word Tradition is taken in a threefold sence For the Way of Tradition or Delivery taken at large For the Humane or Natural Authority of the Church as delivering And lastly for its Divinely-assisted or Supernatural Authority call'd properly Christian. When 't is taken in one fence when in another the nature of the matter in hand and the concomitant circumstances will evidently determine Onely we must note that these three Notions are not adequately contradistinct the later still including the former as Length Breadth and Depth do in Continu'd Quantity For The Humane Authority of the Church includes Tradition taken at large and adds to it the best Assistances of Nature as is shown Sure-f p. 82 83. The Supernatural Authority includes all found in the other two and adds to it the best Assistances of Grace as is particularly declared there from p. 84. to p. 93. So that all the Perfection of Tradition that is imaginable is to be found in that which we call Christian or in the Testifying Authority of Christs Church § 12. But because 't is still D. T 's best play to make use of Extrinsecal Exceptions so to divert the Readers Eye and avoid answering my Intrinsecal Reasons taken from the nature of the Things with which he is loth to grapple and since amongst the rest he is very frequent at this Impertinent Topick of my discoursing the Grounds of Faith after a different manner than other Divines do it were not amiss omitting many pregnant Instances which might be collected out of Dr. Stratford the Learned Author of Protestancy without Principles and many others to the same purpose to show how far he mistakes in this point by instancing in one Controvertist of eminent both Fame and Learning as any in his time one who writ before Rushworth's Dialogues appeared or perhaps were thought of and so cannot be suspected a Follower of that New Way as Dr. T. call it I mean Mr. Fisher. This able Controvertist in his Censure of Dr. White 's Reply p. 83 84 maintains that VNWRITTEN that is Oral and Practical TRADITION is the PRIME GROVND OF FAITH more Fundamental than Scripture and shows how his Adversary Mr. White the Minister grants in effect the same In his Answer to the nine Points p. 27. he concludes strongly that Scriptures are not the Prime Principles of Faith supposed before Faith which Infidels seeing to be True resolve to believe the Mysteries of Faith but onely are secondary Truths dark and obscure in themselves believed upon the Prime Principles of Faith Which words as amply and fully express that Scripture is not the express Rule of Faith as can be imagin'd For how should that have in it self the nature of an Intellectual Rule which in it self is dark and obscure Or how can that which is believed upon the Prime Principles that is partly at least upon the Ground or Rule of Faith be any part of that Rule since what 's believ'd is the Object of Faith and so presupposes the Rule of Faith Also in the beginning of his Argument he makes the Prim◠Principles of Faith or Vnwritten Tradition as he elsewhere calls it that is the same we mean by Oral and Practical evident in it self And p. 40. he puts the Question between us and Protestants to be what is the external Infallible Ground unto which Divine Inspiration moveth men to adhere that they may be settled in the true saving Faith Where first besides Gods grace moving us to every good Act which all Catholicks hold to be necessary there is requisite according to him an External Infallible Ground next that without such a Ground a man cannot be settled in true saving Faith Again p. 38 coming to lay the ground of knowing any Doctrine to be Apostolical he mentions none but onely Publick Catholick Tradition taught unanimously and perpetually by Pastors which p. 37. he calls a Rule Infallible and says that onely Hereticks charge it to be Fallible where also he explains the meaning of his Principle that The Apostolical Doctrine is the Catholick after this manner The Doctrine which is deliver'd from the Apostles by the Tradition of whole Christian Worlds of Fathers unto whole Christian Worlds of Children c. Of this Tradition which by the words now cited appears to be evidently the same I defend he affirms p. 38. that 't is prov'd to be simply Infallible by the very nature thereof and quotes Suarez to
all hapt to be a Lye that they proceeded on all their Religion for all this was wicked and the the most zealous Devotion to Dame Juno and the rest nay dying for their sakes was notwithstanding their good meaning in common Dr. T's Moral Certainty and Firm Principle a diabolical and mischievous Action not a jot better as to the effect of gaining Heaven than the making their Children pass through the Fire to Moloch perverting and destroying the Soul that perform'd it nay dy'd for it by addicting it to what was not its true last End or Eternal Good and all this because there wanted Truth at the bottom to render those Actions and Sufferings Virtuous Wherefore unless Dr. T. produces some immoveable Grounds to establish Christianity to be most certainly True especially the Existence of a Deity which enfeâ—bled all the rest falls down to the Ground he can never convince that either Acting or Suffering for it is a Virtue any more than it was in Heathenism when the same was done for their False Gods and so he can never with reason persuade his Auditory to it but having once prov'd that it matters less whether all the Assenters penetrate the full force of the motive or no for if once it be put to be True all Actions and Sufferings proceeding from those Truths shall connaturally addict those Souls to their True Last End and dispose them for it though their Understandings be never so imperfect and their good or well-meaning will certainly bring them to Heaven but 't is because their Will and its Affections were Good which they could not be as is prov'd were they not built upon some Truth § 9. Again Dr. T. discourses all along as if all were well when one is free from all doubt but I would desire his Friends seriously to ask him one question which is whether though his Grounds exclude all doubt from his mind at present yet he sees any certain Reason why he may not perhaps come to doubt of all his Faith and even of a Godhead too to morrow If he says He sees not but he may he must say withal that he sees it not and consequently holds it not to be True for if he once saw it to be Truth he could not hold it possible ever to be doubted of with reason If he affirms that he sees he can never come with reason to doubt of it then he sees his Grounds for holding it cannot possibly be shown False else it might both be doubted and what is more deny'd and if he hold his Grounds cannot possibly be made out to be False then he must say they are Impossible to be False and if they be Humane Authority Infallible which yet he stifly denies But the plain Truth is he holds not by virtue of any Grounds he lays his Faith to be True but onely a plausible Likelihood else Common Sence would force him to acknowledge and stand to it that the Grounds on which he builds his Assent are Impossible to be False and not to palliate his Uncertainty of it with such raw Principles and petty Crafts to avoid an honest down-right procedure which is to say plainly My Grounds cannot fail of Concluding the Thing absolutely True I will justifie them to be such and here they are But he is so far from this that the best word he affords them who do this right to Christianity is to call them vapouring and swaggering men with all the disgraceful Ironies he can put upon them § 10. By this time my last Charge that this Firm Principle of his betrays all Religion into the Possibility I might have said Likelihood of being a Lye instead of establishing it is already made good and needs onely a short Rehearsal For 1. He Asserts that we cannot be Certain of a Deity unless we entertain his Firm Principle which is so full stuft with Nonsence and Folly that unlesâ— it be in Bedlam I know no place in England where 't is like to find Entertainment That the Evidence or Visibleness of an Object begets Certainty in us is that which the Light of Nature ever taught me and all Mankind hitherto but that the Obscurity of an Object or its affording us no True Evidence grounding our Absolute Certainty of it nay that even its Incapableness to afford us any in our Circumstances and consequently our Despair of seeing any such Evidence for it should contribute to make us Certain of it nay more that this must be entertain'd as a Firm Principle and which is yet more be obtruded upon all Mankind under such an unmerciful Penalty that unless they entertain this as honourably as a Firm Principle not any man shall be Certain of any thing no not so much as that there 's a God is such a super-transcendent Absurdity as surpasses all Belief or even Imagination but a Rhetorician may say any thing when talking pretty Plausibilities is onely in vogue and a melodious Gingle to please the Ear is more modish than solid Reasons to satisfie the Understanding Next he vouches not any Reason he brings to be absolutely Conclusive and consequently owns not any Point of Faith no not the Existence of a Deity to be absolutely Certain which not to assert but as has been shown from his Firm Principle equivalently to deny even then when he is maintaining it is an Intolerable Prejudice to that Weighty and Excellent Cause he hath undertaken and so is engag'd to defend 3. He waves the Conclusiveness of his Reasons that the Thing is True and contents himself that it keeps us free from actual doubt which reaches not Assent for to doubt a thing is to incline to think it False and so not to doubt is barely not to incline to think it False which is far short of holding it True and consequently from making a man a Christian Besides our not doubting may be in many regards Faulty and spring from Surprize Passion and Ignorance as well as from Ignorance as hath been prov'd but a good Reason cannot be faulty Wherefore to relinquish the patronage of the Goodness and Validity that is absolute Conclusiveness of Christian Proofs of which there are good store for this point defending onely their Plausibility and instead of that victorious way of convincing the Understanding into Assent requiring onely a feeble not doubting is in plain terms to betray his Cause and tacitly or rather indeed too openly to accuse Christianity of an Infirmity in its Grounds as being incapable to effect what they ought a Firm Assent to the Points of Christian Doctrine as to absolutely certain Truths 4. By making our Certainty of it or the adequate effect of its Motives consist meerly in our not doubting of it he makes its Effect and consequently the Efficacy of those Motives themselves no better than those which Heathens Turks and Hereticks have for these also exclude Actual Doubt from the Minds of the Generality of these respective Sects If he says Christians have no just reason
and the Book it self to merit no Reply You see here Gentlemen how great stress I lay upon Dr. T.'s confession that the Ground of his Faith and consequently his Faith it self is possible to be False And really if he clears himself of it I must acknowledg I suffer a very great Defeat because I so much Build upon it If he does not he is utterly overthrown as to all intents and purposes either of being a good Writer or a solid Christian Divine and he will owe the World satisfaction for the Injury done to Faith and the Souls of those whom his Doctrine has perverted by turning their Faith which ought to be an Assent whose Grounds and consequently it self are Impossible to be an Error or False into Opinion whose Grounds and by consequence it self are possible to be such and lastly unless he Avoids or Râ—â—ants this Error objected all he has Written 〈◊〉 â—â—nvinc't without any more ado to be againâ—â—â—ith and its true Grounds and so it will be quite overthrown in the Esteem of all those who have the Nature of Faith writ in their hearts and that 't is Impossible an Act of right Faith that is an Asseâ—â— built on those Grounds God has left in the Church for Mankind to embrace Faith and commanded them to believe upon those Grounds whether Scripture's Letter or the Churches Voice should be an Error or the Profession of it a Lye which all sober Protestants Presbyterians nay almost all Sects except some few witty men inclining much by reading such Authours to Scepticism that is inclining to be nothing at all perhaps some Socinians reject abhominate and hate with all their hearts The Charge is laid and the Case is put now let us come to the Trial Which ere we do I desire those Readers who have Dr. T.'s Preface by them to read his 9 th page or else his whole page 118. in his Rule of Faith lest either of us may injure him by a wrong Apprehension I discourse thus § 2. First 't is Evident that he who makes the Ground and Rule of Faith possible to be False makes Faith it self such likewise since nothing is or can be stronger than the Grounds it stands on Next the Rule of Faith to Dr. T. is the Scripture's Letter and consequently that what he conceives the Sense of the Scripture is God's Sense or Faith Lastly that in the place now Cited and Related by him he speaks of the Authority of the Book of Scripture and of its Sence as he acknowledges here page 15. These things thus premised I put him this Dilâ—mma Either he holds what he conceives to to be the Sence of Scripture that is his Faith True or he does not If he holds it not to be True then 't is unavoidable he must hold it at least possible to be False if not actually such But if he says he holds it to be True then since after he had spoke of the security he had or had not of the Book and Sense of Scripture he immediately subjoyns these very words It is possible all this â—ay be otherwise He as evidently says that what he conceives the Book of Scripture and Sence of such or such passages in it that is his Faith is possible to be False as 't is that what 's OTHERWISE THAN TRVE is False I do not know how Dr. T. could possibly speak more plainly what I charge him with than he has done in those words unless he should use the word False which too Candid and Rude expression would expose him openly to the dislike of all Sober mâ—n and therefore he disguiz'd it in its more moderate Equivalent otherwise I say Equivalent And if it be not I would gladly know of him what the word otherwise relates to Human Language forbids that any thing can be said to be otherwise unless it be otherwise than something I ask then otherwise than what does he mean when being in the Circumstance of Discoursing what security he had of the Antiquity Writers and Sence of Scripture he told us It is possible to may be otherwise Is it not as evident as words can express he must mean It is possible the Book of Scripture is not so antiâ—nt as the Apostles time It is possible it was not Writ by the Apostles and Evangelists It is possible this is not the Sence of it in such passages as concern Faith for to these and these only our Discourse and the Nature and Title of his Book determin'd it which amounts to this that none has absolute Certainty of either Letter or Sence of Scripture nor consequently of his Faith in case it be solely grounded upon that as he professes See Reader how all Truths even the most Sacred ones go to wrack when men fram'd only for fine Talk undertake to prove and how parallel his defence of the Ground of all Christian Faith is to that he gave us lately of the Existence of a Deity He so prov'd a God that he granted it possible there might be none and now he so proves Scripture to be a Rule that he grants it possible it may be no Rule since common Sence tells us that can never be an Intellectual Rule which followed may lead into Errour By which we see Dr. T. needed here the Blessing as he calls it of that Identical Proposition A Rule 's a Rule else he would not write a Book to prove Scripture a Rule and then ever and anon in equivalent Language tell us 't is none I wish he would now and then reflect upon such Evident Truths and not out of an openly-declar'd Feud against those First Principles fall thus perpetually into manifest Contradictions § 3. But how does Dr. T. clear himself of this Charge of mine or how comes he off from his own words First he again puts down those very words which say over and over what I charge upon him and then asks very confidently where he says any such thing which is just as wise a craft as Children use when they hoodwink themselves and then tell the By-standers they shall not see them Next he tells us that All he sayes is that we are not Infallible in judging of the Antiquity of a Book or the sence of it meaning that we cannot demonstrate these things so as to to shew the contrary necessarily involves a contradiction but yet c. Is this all he sayes What then is become of those famous words It is possible all this may be otherwise which were onely objected But let us examine what he does acknowledge Whether he be Infallibly certain or no it matters not but it should be shewn why if Scripture be the sole Ground of Faith some at least in the World who are to Govern and Instruct the Church should not be thus certain of both in case we be bound to assent and as we questionless are dy to attest the Points of our Faith to be absolutely-certain Truths Again if Dr. T. be not Infallibly certain
the Motives laid by God for Mankind or his Church to embrace Faith are possible to be False As if the simplest could not nay were not most likely of all other to believe upon weak and incompetent Motives which therefore could never have been laid by God for his Church to embrace her Faith upon Or as if the most Simple that are could not rationally believe the Church and so become Infallible in their Assents by adhering to her though their weak understandings do not penetrate or comprehend how the Church or themselves come to be so nay perhaps have not a clear sight of what the word Infallible means till some Discourse awaken the apprehension of it in them § 10. Having thus acted the Disputant Exit Theologus intrat Scuâ—ra and pag. 13.14 plays the old Tricks of Legerdemain over again that is leaves out half an Argument of mine and playâ— upon the other half with all the disingenuous craft a wit bent that way could invent In Faith Vindicated pag. 89. and 90. I discours't thus The profound Mysteries of Faith will seem to a Heathen Impossible to be True therefore the Motives must at least seem Impossible to be False but Dr. T. confesses both Letter and Sence of Scripture which are his Rule of Faith possible to be False nor it being an Object proportion'd to humane Reason is there any thing to make it seem better than it is that is to make it seem Impossible to be False therefore were there no better Grounds than his it would be against all Reason to believe Having view'd my Discourse I desire the Reader to peruse the Answer here given by my Confuter He names the word Argument says two pretty words upon it that 't is pleasant and surprizing leaves out better half of it conceals perfectly all that part of it which concludes strongly against his own insufficient Grounds catches at a word and would make my Discouse and Argument aim to prove Faith Impossible to be False because the Motives are only seemingly such Whereas every Page in that Book and its whole Design shews I meant and prov'd them to be actually really and indeed such Had I a mind to evade such petty Cavils I could alledg that both may seem Impossible to be False yet one more seem so than the other But the Truth is advancing to confute him I argu'd ad hominem and contended that against a seeming Impossibility to be True nothing but Motives seemingly Impossible to be False can with any show of Reason be held convictive but he had no Motives even seemingly Impossible to be False but confessedly Possible to be such therefore they had no imaginable show of Convictiveness I grant then 't is a drawn Match as he calls it between equally-seeming Impossibilities and because 't is so therefore a seeming Impossibility to be True in the Object is by much an overmatch to what 's less than a seeming Impossibility to be False in the Motives or Grounds but both Letter and Sence of Scripture his Grounds of Faith are confessedly possible to be otherwise that is False and so are less than seemingly even to himself impossible to be False therefore his Motives to believe are incomparably overmatcht by the difficulty of the Mysteries to be believed and so there could be rationally according to his Grounds no Faith at all This is my true Argument which perhaps might be surprizing to him which made him thus start aside from putting or answering it though we may perceive by his carriage he esteems not it and others such like very pleasant Indeed he still puts on a pleasant Look when he should be Sober and is ever most Merry when it becomes him to be the most Serious but this is long since understood to be a necessary Policy not a Genuine effect of Nature He tells us that Transubstantiation is evidently Impossible to be True If so then it implies some Contradiction which if he shows me in any thing held of Faith by Catholicks in that Point I will become Dr. T's Convert and obedient Auditor But alas How will he prove any thing to be a Contradiction Since those Faulty Propositions are as was prov'd Disc. 2.3 therefore such because they are Opposite to Identical ones or the First Principles as hath been prov'd Seeing then Dr. T. has long since renounc't all those from being First Principles for any thing I can discern he must either hold there are no Contradictions at all or else which comes to the same hold that Contradictions are Truths § 11. But he goes forwards amain in confuting a Point which no man living ever maintain'd viz. that every single Christian must be Infallible that is as Dr. T. will needs take it must so penetrate his Grounds and what relates to them as to see clearly he cannot be deceivâ—d in judging his Grounds of Faith Conclusive Whereas my Tenet is that let any man though of the Acutest Understanding and greatest Learning that may be entertain any Tenet as Faith oâ— Reveal'd by God upon any other Motive than what God has lost to his Church this man however thus Endow'd not only may but in likelihood will be deceiv'd not for want of Wit but for want of Grounds ascertaining and infallibly engaging the Divine Revelation On the other side let the Simplest and Weakest Understanding that is happen to embrace Faith upon the Motives laid by God and left in his Church he is Infallibly secure from being in an Errour not through the strength of his Understanding perfectly discerning and penetrating the Conclusive nature of his Grounds but though the strength of those Grounds themselves or of the Causes laid by Gods Providence to plant and continue right Faith in the Church by means of which what he has thus more by the peculiar disposition of God's gracious Providence than any reach of his own Wit or Judgment fortunately embrac't is preserv'd impossible to False and consequently his Assent to it impossible to be an Errour because the Churches Authority upon which he receiv'd it is Infallible And surely 't is but fitting that all who believe upon that Rule God has left and commanded us to follow should be thus secur'd from possibility of Mistake for otherwise since a Power is relative to its proper Act what 's possible to be False may actually be so and so we might come to be led actually into Errour by obeying God's Commands which is impossible To apply thâ—s If Dr. T. therefore makes Scripture's Letter the Rule of Faith left by God for Mankind to receive their Faith upon and by doing so has commanded them to believe it he must either say that its Sence and Letter taking them as he builds his Faith on them have no Possibility of Falshood or besides the many absurdities already mentioned grant that our All-wise and Good God can possibly lead men into actual Errour nay command them to profess and die for a Ly than which nothing can be imagin'd
evidently that they renounce not Evidence and that the Scriptures Letter thus manag'd is not apt to ascertain them at all and so no Rule Yet he gives us one great Reason as he calls it why men do not agree in the Sense of Scripture as well as in the others because their Interests and Lusts and Passions are more concern'd So that according to Dr. T. a man who is to be guided by his Pastors and Teachers cannot be Certain of the Sense of Scripture nor consequently of Faith unless he can look into the hearts of men which is proper to God alone and discern who are Passionate prejudic'd Interessed and Lustful Again this Reason is found on either side to a great degree for were not those Axioms and Definitions so Evident that absurd men would incur the shame of Mankind to deny them there wants no temptation of Interest and passion to make Authors go about to control and contradict the Writings of others to gain themselves applause and credit But if this be one great Reason of disagreement in the Sense of Scripture I would gladly know what are the other great Reasons But of these we hear nothing and there is good Reason why for since his one great Reason is the ill-disposedness of the persons the other great Reason must be the defectiveness of the Thing that is the Inability of Scripture's Letter by reason of its Inevidence to private Understandings to make them agree in one Sense of it which manifestly makes it unfit to be a Rule of Faith § 20. To Conclude the Summe of Dr. T's Vindication of himself from making according to his Grounds Faith possible to be False amounts to this He produces words to disprove it which manifoldly confess it he endeavours all along to shew that Infallible Certainty cannot be had of either Scripture's Letter or Sense that is he grants that the whole world may be deceiv'd though all the Causes be put to secure them in the Ground of Faith or denies that absolutely speaking Faith is Certainly-True Again loath to speak out to that point candidly he shuffles about and puts upon his Adversary divers odd and ridiculous acceptions of the word Faith omitting the right one which was given to his hand Lastly being to give account what kind of Certainty he allow'd to Faith he gives such a Notion of it as signifies nothing and has all the Marks of Vncertainty imaginable taking his measure of Certainty which ought to proceed from the Object or Proof from the Subject's perswasion or adhesion to it which common Experience testifies may indifferently be found in Truths and Falshoods and Common sense confutes Nature telling every man that my Assent is not therefore Certain because I do not doubt it see not the least cause of doubt am fully perswaded and verily think so but because the Thing is seen indeed to be so or because the Proof is Conclusive Either then let him bring such Proofs and own and shew them to be such or he leaves his Cause in the lurch and his Credit which he is here defending unclear'd by yielding Faith possible to be absolutely False that is for any thing any man living knows actually such DISCOURSE VII In what manner Dr. T. replies to FAITH VINDICATED § 1. DR T. has no Fellow nor his way of Confute any parallel Not to provoke the peevishness of malice too far and yet follow home my blow more fully and yet withal to uphold the Efficacie of Faith grounded on the just Conceit of its Absolute Certainty I writ a a Book call'd Faith Vindicated in behalf of Christian Faith in Common shewing the absolute Certainty or Security from Error of that kind of Assent provided it be grounded on those Motives God had left to settle his Church and by it Mankind in Faith as I declared my self in my Introduction It pretended Demonstration from the beginning to the end and had not one drollish or unsober expression in it Take a Map of it in a few words I conceiv'd my self debtor both Sapientibus and Insipientibus and hence the Concern being common to all Christians amongst the rest to Speculative Divines I resolv'd to prove it by Arguments sutable to every Capacity To the more Intelligent to the end of the Third Eviction to the Middle or Prudential sort to the end of the Fifth· and to them of the lowest Capacity in the last every one being enabled by Tradition or Education to comprehend what the common Language and Practice of Christianity teaches them as to Speechees and Carriages appertaining to Faith I begun after I had put two Postulatum granted by all Christians with Logical Arguments which I pursu'd at large because as 't is a common Trick in Sophisters and half Logicians to abuse that Excellent Art to elude the clearest Evidendences so it became a more necessary Duty in me to prevent by the closest Proofs fetch 't from almost all Heads imaginable that belong'd to that skill any misusages of its Maxims to patronize Falshood This could be no other than very Speculative and accordingly I declar'd in my Introduction what my Reader was to expect in Discourses of that kind nor will any man indu'd with common Sense wonder that I should use Logical Expressions when I make Logical Discourses or Terms of Art when I speak to Scholars These things reflected on let us see now what a dextrous way our Learned Confuter takes to answer that whole Book for he manifests here an intention to give it no other and to overthrow so many Demonstrations § 2. His first way of Confute is to pick out a leaf or two of the most Speculative part of that Treatise only intended for Scholars and apply it to the Understandings of those who are onely Sermon-pitch to whom because such Discourses are unsutable and withal too hard for him to answer hence he very politickly both gratifies the Fancies of those Readers and avoids himself the difficult task of answering the pressing Reason in it by playing the Wit when 't was dangerous to act the Scholar and making use of his constant Friend at a dead lift Drollery in stead of relying on the Patronage of Reason which as he experiences so often betrays and exposes hss weakness He runs on therefore a whole leaf or two in this jovial Career ere he can recover himself till even his own Friends who are not aware of the necessity admire at his endless Raillery and true to his Method neglects wholly the Sense and excepts mightily against five or six hard words namely potentiality actuality actuation determinative supervene and subsume which it seems puzzle him exceedingly for he professes to think them Mystical He calls the Discourse jargon Foolish and Nonsense which two last words he is ever most free of when his Reason is most at a loss He likens it to the Coptick and Slavonian Language talks of Astrology Palmistry Chymistry and what not and with such kind of stuff confutes it
before and after it self as also that for the same Reason it can have no force upon one not yet arriv'd at Faith as the Rule of Faith ought to have because 't is as yet unknown to him § 14. Again I agree with them that there are ought to be many several Prudential Reasons suted to men of several Capacities and Circumstances moving them to disquisition and inclining them to embrace the right Faith and joyn themselves to the true Church but I say withal that 't is one thing to move a man to enquire and incline him to Assent another thing to settle him in a most firm Assent to such and such Points as absolutely Certain Truths which is requisit to Faith Hereupon I affirm that this later Effect cannot be wrought rationally without Grounds truly Evident and absolutely Conclusive of the thing and Knowable either by Practical Self-evidence to men of all sorts or also to the Learned by a certainly concluding Proof which I call a Demonstration I affirm moreover with due respect to those Divines that Motives onely Prudential seem improper to be named in this Case and that they must be Principia Sapientiae and not Prudentiae which can rationally make us absolutely Certain of the being or not-being of any thing that is of its Truth or Falshood the Object of Prudence being Agibilia and not Intelligibilia as such and its proper Exercise and Use being to determine a man to act exteriorly or to act thus in Circumstances where Contingency and hazard is found and not to act interiorly or meddle in the affair of Intellectual Certainty or Truth depending solely on the Principles of our Vnderstanding which are Impossible to be False and therefore plac't beyond all Contingency and Hazard In a word I shall not fear to be thought singular in my Principles while I ground my self on the nature of Faith which both all Catholicks and the Generality of those who are call'd Christians hold and St. Thomas of Aquin the Prince of School-Divines asserts as I shew'd Faith Vindicated pag. 130. § 14. As for all Objections of this nature once more I request Dr. T. to make good this Consequence that my Discourse cannot be true unless all our Divines even of the same way in common agree with me and I promise him this done to reply distinctly to all his Extrinsecal and Impertinent Exceptions which waving in the mean time my Premises he so constantly lelevels against my Conclusions And whereas he sayes I cannot reasonably charge him with those things till I have vindicated our own Divines I desire him to consider that I could not were I their Adversary charge them with what I can justly charge him They all to a man hold the Catholick Church on which they rely Infallible and hold this more firmly than they do any of their Speculations and consequently they hold their Faith Impossible to be False and so preserve the true Nature of Faith Inviolate whereas what he is to hold to most firmly according to his Principles is his own private Interpretation of Scripture which he himself and all the world besides see and hold to be Fallible and so he must say that all his Faith built upon it is possible to be a Ly for any thing he knows by which means he destroyes the nature of Faith as far as Gods Goodness will give him leave in himself and others and corrupts it into Opinion They produce Motives which though they call them Prudential are indeed some of them Demonstrative and coincident in part with Tradition whereas Dr. T. has nothing at all in his Grounds taking him as opposing Catholicks or standing to his own Rule of Faith which rightly stated has even the least shâ—w of Prudential to an unbyast man much less of Demonstrative Lastly were it a proper place to handle the point at large it were easy to shew they differ onely in a word but Dr. T. errs in the whole Thing though indeed in most of our Divines here cited he mistakes them and not they the main point whatever he pretends for however they make Prudential Motives sufficient to find the Church yet not one of them but makes the Authority of the Church when found on which they ground their Faith of far greater weight than such an Evidence as does ordinarily satisfie prudent men in humane affairs since they all hold it Infallible which is vastly more than Dr. T. holds to ground his Faith § 15. His third Answer is that this Principle of mine makes every true Believer Infallible in matters of Faith which sayes he is such a Paradox as I doubt whether ever it enter'd into any other mens mind Now this Charge of his joyn'd with my true Tenet that true Believers are those who rely on the Motives or Means left by God in his Church to light mankind in their way to Faith signifies thus much that 't is a wonderful and strange Paradox that those that follow and rely on the Motives laid by Gods Providence to direct them to Truth should in so doing not possibly be led into Error that is 't is a most absurd Paradox to say that Essential Truth should not be the Immediate and Proper Cause of Falshood But he discourses still upon this point as if I had held that the Vulgar are preserv'd from possibility of Errour or are Infallible not through the Goodness of the Grounds left by God to preserve them from Erring but from the strength of their own Vnderstanding which I do not remember I ever thought or said even of the most Learned He asks If this be true what need then of my Infallibility of Pope or Council And I ask him what need Governors when people know their Duty or Judges seeing the main of the Common Law is Traditionary to men verst in such affairs Self-known practically Let him but assure the world that no Upstart shall have an humour to rebel and innovate but that all Christians shall practice and hold to what they know evidently was practic'd and held by the immediately foregoing Church and I will assure him there will need no Infallible Desiner not any at all as to such points But Dr. T. discourses still as if there were no difference between the rude dim degree of Knowledge in the Vulgar and the accurate exact and oft-reflâ—cting Knowledge of those who by their great Learning their Education their Posture and Office are particularly verst and most deeply insighted into the affairs of Faith and all that belongs to the right explaining or wording it thence declaring it authentickly so to keep its distinct Sense clear in the minds of the Faithful which the Equivocating Witty Heretick endeavours to render confus'd and obscure I wish he would study our Tenets a while and understand them ere he undertakes to confute us He is very raw in things of this nature § 16. His next Errour is worse than the former He would fain perswade Catholicks if any
would believe him That my Principles do plainly exclude from Salvation at one blow Excommunicate Vnchristian all that do not believe upon my Grounds And nothing is easier than to prove it in his way 'T is but mistaking again the Notion of School-Divines for the Notion of Faithful and School for Church as he did lately and the deed is done immediately without any more trouble He is the happiest man in his First Principles and his Method that I ever met with the parts of the former need not hang together at all but are allow'd to be Incoherent and the later is a building upon false pretences and wrong Suppositions and then what may not he prove or what Conquest cannot he obtain by such powerful Stratagems He sayes he has proov'd at large in the Answer to Sure-Footing that the Council of Trent did not make Oral Tradition the sole Rule of her Faith Possibly I am not so lucky as to light on this large Proof of his all I can finde with an ordinary search is four or five lines Rule of Faith pag. 280. where after a commonly-Objected often-answer'd Citation from the Council of Trent declaring that Christian Faith and Discipline are contain'd in written Books unwritten Traditions therefore that they receive honor the Books of Scripture also Traditions with equal pious affection and reverence He adds which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith Now I had put this very Objection against my self Sure-f pag. 346. and proceeded to clear it to the end of pag. 150. particularly pag. 147.149 upon this Reason because taking the Scripture interpreted by Tradition as the Council expresses it self to do and forbids any man to interpret it otherwise it has the full Authority of Gods Word and so equally to be reverenced Whereas taking it interpreted by private heads which only will serve Dr T's turn 't is nothing less as not engaging the Divine Authority at all But now to the Notion of a Rule there is more required as Dr. T. himself grants and contends 't is found in Scripture viz. that it be so evident that every sensible may understand it as to matters of Faith and this building on the Council of Trents Authority and Judgment I deny to be found in the bare Letter of Scripture and hence say 't is no Rule I omit the repeating very many Arguments from the Council for that point deduc't from pag. 141. to pag. 146. never toucht nor so much as taken notice of in that Mock-Answer of his § 16. But that he may not mistake me I shall not stick to declare whom I exclude from Salvation at least from the way to it whom not and upon what Grounds speaking of the ordinary course of Gods Providence as I declare my self to do throughout this whole Treatise I make account that perfect Charity or Love of God above and in all things is the Immediate Disposition to Bliss or Vnitive of a Soul to God Also that this Virtue cannot with a due heartiness be connaturally or rationally wrought in Souls if the Tenet of a Deity 's Existence and of Christian Faith be held possible to be a Ly. Hence I am oblig'd by my Reason to hold that those who judge there are no absolueely-Conclusive Reasons for the Existence of a Deity nor for the Truth of Christian Faith are as such out of the Road of Salvation On the other side those who hold the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truths they profess Infallible and by Consequence their Faith Impossible to be False as all Catholikes do though as Divines they fail in making out how and by what particular means it comes to be Infallible yet through the virtue of this firm and steady Adhesion to such Principles as are because they are Truths apt to beget solid and well-grounded that is indeed True Virtues such as are a vigorous Hope and a fervent and all-ovre-powering Charity hence they possess the Connatural Means or are in the right way to Heaven And for this Reason I esteem Dr. T 's way of discoursing concerning a Deity and Faith in his Sermons most pestilent and mischievous to Souls as being apt of its own Nature to incline them if they have wit to discern its shallowness first to a kind of Scepticism in Religion and at next to Carelesness Irreligion and Atheism though truly I think 't is not his Intention to do so but that his shortness in Understanding the Nature and Grounds of Christianity makes him conceit he does excellently even to admiration all the while he commits such well-meaning Follies Nor do I think the Church of England will upon second thoughts think fit to Patronize Principles so destructive to the Nature of Faith found in the breast of every Protestant I ever yet met with who all with one mouth will own that 't is absolutely Impossible Christian Faith should be a Lye and abhor the contrary Position as wicked and damnable How Dr. T. may have season'd some of his own Auditors by preaching Controversy to them which he extremely affects I cannot tell 't is according as they incline to believe him more than the Generality of the Christian World whose Sentiments he opposes in his Discourses about the Ground of Faith DISCOURSE VIII With what Art Dr. T. answers my METHOD A Present made to his Credulous Friends shewing how solidly he confuted SVRE-FOOTING by readily granting the main of the Book What is meant by Tradition That J. S. is not singular in his way of discoursing of the Grounds of Faith § 1. HE makes a pass or two at my METHOD and that I conceive must serve for an Answer to it for an Answer I heard was threatned would appear very shortly but this pleasant Preface was the only thing which appeared and all that appears like Answer in it is that he would make it believ'd he ought not answer at all And this he does very neatly and like a Master For let no man think I have a mean Opinion of Dr. T. but every one is not good at all things some are good at proving some at disproving some at shifting of the Question without either proving or disproving every one in his way and in his way I know no man living a greater Master nor so great as the Dr. Two things he does and both of them strange ones First he affirms that Discourse is founded on the self-evident Infallibility of ora◠Tradition Next that He has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Surefooting The first of them would make the Reader apprehend I there suppos'd Oral Tradition self-evidently Infallible and then run on all the way upon that supposition which if it obtain belief as from his Credit he hopes it may since every Scholar knows all Discourses must be founded either on first Principles or at least on such as are granted by those against whom we
say that 't is the highest degree of humane Certitude of which it may simply or absolutely be said Non posse illi falsum subesse that 't is IMPOSSIBLE IT SHOULD BE FALSE Can any thing be produc'd more expresly abetting my way of Discoursing the Grounds of Faith Nothing certainly unless it be that which immediately follows containing the reason why Tradition is by the very nature of it simply Infallible For says he Tradition being full Report about what was EVIDENT UNTO SENSE to wit what Doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publickly deliver'd unto the World it is IMPOSSIBLE it should be FALSE Worlds of Men CANNOT be uniformly mistaken and deceiv'd about a matter Evident to Sense and not being deceiv'd being so many in number so divided in place of so different affections and conditions IT IS IMPOSSIBLE they should so have agreed in their Tale had they so maliciously resolv'd to deceive the World Observe here 1. That he alledges onely Natural Motives or speaks onely of Tradition as it signifies the Humane Authority of the Church that is as taken in the same sense wherein I took it in my Method 2. He goes about to show out of its very nature that is to demonstrate 't is absolutely Infallible 3. He makes this Tradition or Humane Authority of the Church an Infallible Deriver down or Ascertainer that what is now held upon that tenure is the Apostles Doctrine or the first-taught Faith which once known those who are yet Unbelievers may infallibly know that Body that proceeds upon it to possess the true Faith and consequently infallibly know the true Church which being the very way I took in my Method and other Tâ—eatises it may hence be discern'd with how little reason Dr. T. excepts against it as so superlatively singular But to proceed Hence p. 40. he avers that the proof of Tradition is so full and sufficient that it convinceth Infidels that is those who have onely natural Reason to guide themselves by For though saith he they be blind not to see the Doctrine of the Apostles to be Divine yet are they not so void of common sense impudent and obstinate as to deny the Doctrine of Christian Catholick Tradition to be truly Christian and Apostolical And p. 41. The ONELY MEANS whereby men succeeding the Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures and Doctrines they deliver'd to the Primitive Catholick Church is the Catholick Tradition by Worlds of Christian Fathers and Pastors unto Worlds of Christian Children and Faithful People Which words as fully express that Tradition is the ONELY or SOLE Rule of Faith as can be imagin'd And whereas some hold that an Inward working of God's Spirit supplies the Conclusiveness of the Motive this Learned Writer p. 46 on the contrary affirms that Inward Assurance without any EXTERNAL INFALLIBLE Ground to assure men of TRVTH is proper unto the Prophets and the first Publishers of Christian Religion And lastly to omit others p. 47. he discourses thus If any object that the Senses of men in this Search may be deceiv'd through natural invincible Fallibility of their Organs and so no Ground of Faith that is altogether Infallible I answer that Evidence had by Sense being but the private of one man is naturally and physically Infallible but when the same is also Publick and Catholick that is when a whole World of men concur with him then his Evidence is ALTOGETHER INFALLIBLE And now I would gladly know what there is in any of my Books touching the Ground of Faith which is not either the self-same or else necessarily consequent or at least very consonant to what I have here cited from this Judicious Author and Great Champion of Truth in his Days whose Coincidency with other Divines into the same manner of Explication argues strongly that it was onely the same unanimous Notion and Conceit of Faith and of true Catholick Grounds which could breed this conspiring into the same way of discoursing and almost the self-same words § 13. Hence is seen how justly D. T. when he wanted something else to say still taxed me with singularity in accepting of nothing but Infallibility built on absolutely-conclusive Motives with talking such Paradoxes as he doubts whether ever they enter'd into any other mans mind that all mankind excepting J. S have hitherto granted that no Humane Vnderstanding is secur'd from possibility of Mistake from its own nature that my Grounds exclude from Salvation and excommunicate the Generality of our own Church that no man before J. S. was so hardy as to maintain that the Testimony of Fallible men which word Fallible is of his own adding mine being of Mankind relying on Sensations is Infallible that this is a new way and twenty such insignificant Cavils But the thing which breeds his vexation is that as my Reason inclines me I joyn with those who are the most solid and Intelligent Party of Divines that is indeed I stick to and pursue and explain and endeavour to advance farther those Grounds which I see are built on the natures of the Things Would I onely talk of Moral Certainty Probabilities and such wise stuff when I am settling Faith I doubt not but he would like me exceedingly for then his own side might be probable too which sandy Foundation is enough for such a Mercurial Faith as nothing but Interest is apt to fix DISCOURSE VIII In what manner Dr. T. Answers my Letter of Thanks His Attempt to clear Objected Faults by committing New Ones § 1. MY Confuter has at length done with my Faith Vindicated and my Methed and has not he done well think you and approv'd himself an excellent Confuter He onely broke his Jests upon every passage he took notice of in the former except one without ever heeding or considering much less attempting to Answer any one single Reason of those many there alledg'd and as for that one passage in which he seem'd serious viz. how the Faithful are held by me Infallible in their Faith he quite mistook it throughout Again as for my Method he first gave a wrong Character of it and next pretended it wholly to rely upon a point which he had sufficiently considered that is which he had readily granted but offer'd not one syllable of Answer to any one Reason in It neither My Letter of Thanks is to be overthrown next And First he says he will wholly pass by the Passion of it and I assure the Reader so he does the Reason of it too for he speaks not a word to any one piece of it Next he complains of the ill-Language which he says proceeded from a gall'd and uneasie mind He says partly true For nothing can be more uneasie to me than when I expected a Sober and Scholar-like Answer to find onely a prettily-worded Fardle of Drollery and Insincerity I wonder what gall'd him when he lavish'd out so much ill-language in Answer to Sure footing in which Treatise there was not one passionaâ—e word not one syllable