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
to Infallible Assent that every particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be beleev'd And the 22d in consonancy to it mentions the Infallibility of particular persons in the Assent they give to matters proposed by others to them which clearly signify that Faith cannot be Infallible unless we have Infallibility or Infallible Knowledge of the Points of Faith for what can matters propos'd to us to be beleev'd signify else On the other side in the 21st Princ. he seems only to aim at proving there must be Infallibility in us that the Proponent is Infallible Also Princ. 22. he concludes that to our Infallible Assurance there is required equal Infallibility in our selves in the belief of the Churches Infallibility And lastly Princ. 23. he concludes the Infallibility of the Church of no effect if every person be not Infallible in the beleef of it Which expressions are of quite different sense from the former and require not Inâ—â—llibility in the in the matters propos'd to beleeved as did the other but only in knowing the Proponent to be Infallible Now because I have no mind to cavill but am heartily glad when he gives me occasion to handle any good point I will not take him as his former words sounded it being perfect Nonsense to require evidence of the Points Propos'd ere we can be certain of the Authority that Proposes them for what need can there be either of any Proposer or of knowing him Infallible if we be Infallible certain antecedently of the Points themselves but I shall willingly pass by those expressions as effects either of a strange Unwariness or of a crafty Preparing for future Evasion and discourse of the Later Thesis For in truth it hints at a very excellent difficulty though he proposes it but ill and pursues it worse I will therefore clear his discourse from his contradictory expressions and put it home and close as well as I can and so as I hope himself will not say I at all wrong it He seems them to argue thus Objective Infallibility in another viz. the Proponent avails nothing to make my Faith or Assent Infallible unles I be also Infallibly certain that the Proponent is Infallible wherefore in case Infallibility be requisit to Faith every one of the Faithfull must be also Infallible But this renders both these Infallibilities useles and Insignificâ—nt for the Infallibility of the Church is of no effect if every person be not Infallible and if every person be Infallible what need any Church Representative or Councill be so Therefore this Doctrine of an Infallible Proponent is frivolous and Inconsistent To make way towards the clearing this considerable difficulty I premise these few Notes 1. That a man may be Infallible or out of the power of being deceiv'd in some particular thing two manner of wayes Either from his penetrating the reasons which conclude the thing to be as he judges that is from his knowledge that the Thing is so which we may fitly term Formally Infallible Or else by adhering not through Knowledge but accidentally as it were to some thing which is a reall Truth though he penetrate not the Grounds why it is True or by adhering to the Judgment of another person in some thing or Tenet whose Judgment is indeed well grounded and Certain as to that Thing though he see not 't is so And such a man may fitly be said to be materially Infallible Both of them are absolutely secur'd from Errour or Infallible Fundamentally by the Thing 's being such as they judge it to be that is in our case by relying on a Proponent which is Infallible and they differ only in the wayes by which they come to rely upon that Proponent the one being led to it by perfect Sight that the thing must be so or that the Proponent must be Infallible the other perhaps blindly at best not out of clear discernment embracing that Judgment yet as long as he adheres to the Judgment of another man who cannot be deceiv'd or in an Errour as to that thing himself is actually secur'd from possibility of erring and so Infallible or Incapable to be in an Errour likewise To this difficulty I had regard in my Faith vindicated when I distinguish't between Faith's being True in us and True to us For the blindest Assenter that is though he stumble upon a Truth yet if he really hold it his Judgment is truly and really conformable to the Thing or Object and consequently True or Impossible to False and so himself undeceivable or uncapable to be in an Errour in holding thus yet if we go abut to relate that Truth which is in him to evident reasons or Grounds in his mind connaturally breeding that Conformity of his Judgment to the Thing there is no such thing perhaps to be found whence 't is not True to him or evident to him 't is True since he sees not or knows not that 't is True yet still as I said before he is Infallible or Impossible to be in an Errour while he adheres to it as True because that Judgment of his is in reality comformable to the thing 2. 'T is requisit and necessary that the Assent of Faith in every particular Beleeyer be at least materially Infallible provided it be built as it ought upon the means laid by God for Mankind to embrace Faith that is upon the Right Rule of Faith For omitting many other mischiefs and Inonveniencies otherwise as was lately prov'd it would follow that God who is essential Truth did lead Mankind into Errour in case relying sincerely on what God order'd them to rely on their Judgment by so doing did become Erroneous 3. 'T is requisit and necessary that the Assent of Faith in diverse particular Beleevers be formally Infallible or that those persons be Infallibly certain by Evident Reason that the Authority or Rule of Faith they rely on cannot herein deceive them Else Great Witts and acute Reflecters whose piercing understandings require Convictive Grounds for their Faith would remain for ever unsatisfy'd nor could the wisest Christians sincerely and heartily Assent to nor with Honesty profess the truth of their Faith nor could any prove it True to establish Rational doubters in it or convert men of exact knowledge to it or convince Hereticks calling the Truth of it in question Nor could Governours and Leading Persons with any Conscience or Credit propose and Preach the Truth of Faith to the Generality Also it 's Truth being otherwise unmaintainable the best vigour of Faith and it's efficacy to work through Charity must needs be exceedingly enfeebled deaded 'T is necessary then that the Grounds of Faith be both Conclusive of it's Truth and also penetrable by those whose Proper work it is to make deep Inspection into them whence they will become formally or knowingly-Infallible that the Authority they rely on for Faith's Conveyance cannot possibly deceive them 4. Besides these men who are to
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