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
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
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