and grounding upon them Hope and this all-over-powering Love of Heaven the main part of our Obedience are True or Impossible to be False If then Dr. St. takes the word know in this signification this Principle is granted if in any other or for a great Hope only that they are True as I fear when it comes to the point he intends no more I must for the Reasons here given and many more alledg'd in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery deny that no other way of Revelation is necessary and put him to prove it which he neither has done nor can do 2. Man being fram'd a rational Creature capable of reflecting upon himself may antecedently to any External Revelation certainly know the Being of God and his dependance upon him and those things which are naturally pleasing unto him else there could be no such thing as a Law of Nature or any Principles of Natural Religion I suppose he means by the word God the True God and then 't is not so evident that every Man in the state of corrupt Nature may arrive to know him however some few may and in the State of Right Nature All. And in case he takes the words certainly know in their proper signification then he may consider how ill his Friend Dr. Tillotson discourses who professes not to have even with the assistance of Christianity that Certain Knowledge of the Being of God which as Dr. Still says was attainable by the meer Light of Natural Reason 3. All Supernatural and External Revelation must suppose the truth of Natural Religion for unless we be antecedently certain that there is a God and that we are capable of knowing him it is impossible to be certain that God hath reveal'd his will to us by any supernatural means If he means here Priority of Nature 't is to be granted for this Proposition God has reveal'd implies and presupposes as its basis God is But if he understands it of priority of Time as I conceive he does then I both deny the Proposition and the validity of the Reason given for it For 't is Evident both by Reason and Experience that manifest and Convictive Miracles which are supernatural and external Revelations done before the Heathens who yet know not the true God in Testimony of Christianty at once or at the same time made it certain that he whom we adore is the True God and also that God reveal'd his will by supernatural means and so 't is not Impossible as Dr. St. here affirms to be certain of such a Revelation without knowing any time before hand that there is a God nor must All Supernatural and External Revelation needs suppose the Truth of Natural Religion that is of the Knowledge of the True God as he pretends since such a Revelation may cause that Knowledge and so antecede it not be antecedent to it 4 Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the Certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently suppos'd to all Divine Revelation For that were to overthrow the means whereby we are to judge concerning the Truth of any Divine Revelation This Discourse seems at the first show to carry so clear an evidence with it that nothing appears so Irrational as to doubt or dispute it And indeed 't is no less if the words in which it is couch'd be not equivocally taken but still be meant in the same sence To prevent then the growth of a witty piece of Sophistry which I foresee creeping in under the disguise of an ambiguous word I am to provide against it with a distinction both pertinent and necessary to the present matter These words Divine Revelation may either mean the way or Act of Revealing or else they may mean the Thing divinely reveal'd that is the Point of Faith which differ as showing and thing shown or as an Action and it's Effect In the same manner as the word Tradition is sometimes taken for the Way of Delivery sometimes for the Thing or Point delivered When they are taken for the one when for the other partly the circumstances and the aim of the discourse determin partly some annext particle or variation of the word so that if they be taken for the Thing reveal'd or deliver'd and be express'd singularly 't is call'd A Divine Revelation or A Tradition If plurally Divine Revelations or Traditions Now it seems something doubtful in whether sense it be taken here for § 1. he speaks of the Way of Revelation which can onely mean Revealing and in the two following ones 't is taken in the same sense as appears by the words God hath reveal'd found in the Third But this matters not much so it be here taken in the same sense throughout which I fear 't is not For the word Revelation is here made use of thrice and in the first and last place it seems plainly to mean the Points revealed in the middle the Way or Act of Revealing yet the two following Principles incline the doubtfulness of the Expression to mean the Points of Faith themselves Though this be to speak moderately by far the more preposterous and absurd Tenet as shall hereafter be shown But I am to provide for both parts since I am to skirmish with such an ambidextrous Adversary and therefore applying this discourse to his Proposition I distinguish thus and grant that Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation taking those words to signifie the Act of Revealing which overthrows the Certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to the Act of Revealing Also I grant that nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation taking those words to signifie Points of Faith revealed which overthrows the Certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently suppos'd to those Points This is candid and clear dealing and far from that sophistical and equivocating ambiguity which contrary to the Genius of Truth he so constantly and so industriously affects 5. There can be no other means imagin'd whereby we are to judge of the Truth of Divine Revelation but a Faculty in us of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to our Belief which if we do not exercise in judging the Truth of Divine Revelation we must be impos'd upon by every thing which pretends to be so Here are many quaint things to be considered For if Dr. St. means that we cannot judge of Truth without a Faculty to judge of Truth 't is a 〈…〉 Principle though very littâ—◠〈◊〉 his purpose But 't is most 〈◊〉 paraâ—oxical to say that no other means can be imagin'd to judge of Divine Revelation but such a Faculty For if there can be no other means imagin'd but this Faculty then This is all the means and so those Knowledges which are to inform and direct this Faculty are no means at all whence all motives to Faith Rule of Faith all Teaching nay Scripture it self are to no purpose For none of these are our Faculty of
discerning Truth and Falshood Again what is meant here by Divine Revelation If it be meant of the formal Act of Revealing then 't is False that there can be no other means to judge of its Truth but a Faculty in us of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to our Belief For these Matters are Points of Faith and 't is a madness to think we must begin with examining their Truth ere we can know that God has truly or indeed reveal'd them since the Knowledge that God has reveal'd or spoken is had ordinarily by natural means antecedent even to the Revelation it self much more antecedent to those Points viz. by the Rule of Faith which shows the Divine Authority engag'd for their Truth But if he means by Divine Revelation the things or Points divinely reveal'd and as appears by those words matters propos'd to our belief he bends strongly that way then the sense is evidently this that we must judge the truth of the Points of Faith by exercising a Faculty of judging of the Truth of those Points And since to judge is to exercise our Faculty of judging it amounts plainly to this that we must judge of the truth of Points of Faith by judging of the truth of points of Faith which is an Identical Proposition and perfectly true but not at all to his purpose Yet it is too for 't is creditable now and then to speak clear Evidences however in reality they prove Impertinencies But if Dr. St. means nothing but that we must use our Faculty of discerning Truth and Falshood that is indeed our Reason even in Assenting to things above Reason or to Mysteries of Faith he says very right For 't is most Rational to believe that to be True which God who is essential Verity has said and exceedingly Rational to believe God has said it or which is all one in our case that Christ and his Apostles have taught it upon an Authority Inerrable in that affair And thus my Faith may be most Rational without exercising my Reason in scanning and debating the Truth or Falshood of the matters propos'd to my Belief or examining the Points of Faith themselves Nay more this Method of his is most preposterous and absurd For the Mysteries or Points of Faith being elevated above the pitch of our ordinary Natural Reason and such for the most part in which Gods Infinity most exerts as we may say It 's utmost but the Knowledge of the Rule of Faith which is to ascertain to us the Divine Revelation or that God has told us them lying level to our Reason as inform'd by natural Knowledges hence to relinquish the method of examining the Truth of Divine Revelation by those Knowledges which lie within our own ken and to begin with those which are most elevated above it as it is to comprehend the extent of Gods Infinite Power is both against all Art and Common sense Both which tell us we must begin with what 's more easily knowable and thence proceed to what is less Knowable Nor is there any danger of being impos'd upon by everything that pretends to be Divine Revelation as the Dr. scruples as long as we are Certain that God cannot lie and that God has said this for these put the thing is most certainly True 6. The pretence of Infallibility in any person or Society of men must be judged in the same way that the Truth of a Divine Revelation is for that Infallibility being challeng'd by virtue of a supernatural Assistance and for that end to assure men what the will of God is the same means must be us'd for the trial of that as for any other supernatural way of God's making known his Will to men Here the words A Divine Revelation which he now first uses give us to understand that Dr. St. means a Point of Faith and not Gods Revealing it or Divine Revelation which words he us'd formerly And this is farther confirm'd by his saying that that Infallibility which is challeng'd by vertue of a supernatural Assistance must be judg'd in the same way that the Truth of a Divine Revelation is For such an Infallibility through supernatural Assistance of the Holy Ghost consists in the Sanctity of the Church which is a Point of Faith and so the words A Divine Revelation which he joyns and parallels to it must mean a Point of Faith also Whence is discern'd what marvellous dexterity Dr. St. hath us'd to gain a notable Point against us and how smoothly he hath slided from Gods revealing Faith to us or the Act call'd Revelation to the Points of Faith reveal'd In hope by this confounding one with another to perswade his unattentive Reader that because 't is the only right way of procedure to begin with the using our natural Reason so to judge whether God hath Revealed such a point or no therefore 't is fit to begin with the same Method in examining the Points of Faith themselves which pretend to be reveal'd and thence conclude whether they be indeed divinely reveal'd or no which how absurd it is hath lately been shown But to come closer and apply this to his present Discourse The Pretence of Infallibility by virtue of supernatural Assistance must indeed be judged in the same way that the truth of a Divine Revelation is for both of them being Points of Faith must be judged by the same way all other points of Faith are viz. by the Evidence there is that the Divine Authority cannot deceive and that it stands engaged for those Points 7. It being in the power of God to make choice of several ways of revealing 〈◊〉 Will to us we ought not to dispute from the Attributes of God the necessity of one particular wâ—y to the Exclusion of all others but we ought to enquire what way God himself hath chosen and whatever he hath done we are sure cannot be repugnant to Infinite Iustice Wisdome Goodness and Truth I do not remember to have heard that any man living ever went about to dispute from the Attributes of God alone the necessity of one particular way to the Exclusion of all others nor does it appear how 't is possible to do it without considering also the Nature of those several ways of Revealing in doing which if we come to discover that only one is as things stand of it self sufficient for that End and all others pretended to by those against whom we dispute depend on It for their Certainty then they can safely argue from the Attributes of God particularly his Wisdome that none but this could have been actually chosen by him So that Dr. St. seems here to counterfeit an imaginary Adversary having never a Real one This will better appear if we attempt to frame a Discourse from Gods Attributes alone In endeavouring which it will appear that all we can argue from that single Head is this that What 's disagreeable to Gods infinite Iustice Wisdome Goodness and Truth cannot be will'd
Christianity yet for any thing we know or these crafty common words inform us they have still all that is needfull to save them that is though they go wrong all their lives they are still all the while in the way to Heaven But I suppose Dr. St. means that no more is necessary for any ones salvation than just as much as he can understand in Scripture Which I wish he would once begin to set himself to prove make out by some convincing argument I am heartily weary of speaking still to his unprov'd and voluntary Assertions 14. To suppose the Books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any things necessary to be believed or practised are not contained in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the Writers with Insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first Ages with folly in believing the Fulness and Perfection of the Scriptures in order to salvation As far as I apprehend the foregoing Principle was intended to shew that Scripture was sufficirntly Intelligible to be the Rule of Faith and this under examination is to prove it to be the measure of Faith as he calls it Princ. 28. and all he contends here is that it CONTAINS all that is necessary TO BE BELIEV'D and practic'd And that we may not multiply disputes I grant those Holy Books contain all he pretends some way or other either Implicitly or Explicitly either in Exprest words or by necessary conâ—equence But that those Books contain or signifie for they are the same all that is to be believed and practiced so evidently that all persons who sincerely endeavor to know their meaning and this for all future Ages may thence alone as his discourse aims to evince that is without the Churches interpretation arrive to know what 's necessary for their salvation with such a Certainty as is requisite for the Nature and Ends of Faith and the Obligations annext to it I absolutely deny and if he means this by the word Perfection which he adds to Fulness I deny also that either the first Author can be charg'd with Fraud since he promis'd no such thing or the Writers with Insincerity since they were not commanded nor did intend thus to express it nor as far as appears had any order from God to set down his whole mind but only writ the several pieces of it occasionally nor did the Christian Church in the first Ages ever attribute to Scriptures such an Intelligibleness as that private persons should ground their Faith upon their Evidence without needing the Churches Interpretation if we speak of all points necessary to Mankinds salvation as he seems and ought to do And here I desire to enter this declaration to all the world that I attribute not the least Imperfection to the Holy Scriptures Every thing has all the Perfection it ought to have if it can do what it was intended to do and in the manner it was Intended Treatises of deep Philosophy are not Imperfect if they be not as plain as plainest Narrative Histories no not if they be ita editi ut non sint editi in case they were meant as a matter for the Author to explain and dilate upon to his Scholars nor are the Laws Imperfect though they often need Learned Judges to interpret them Nor are we to expect that the Prophecy of Isaiah should be as plain as the Law of Moses The Immediate End of writing each piece as far as appears to us was occasional St. Pauls Epistles were evidently so nor can I doubt but they were perfect in their kind and apt to signify competently to those to whom he writ what he intended so that if they had any farther doubt they might send to ask him or do it viva voce and yet we see that even in those days when the complexion of all the Circumstances was fresher and neerer then now some unlearned persons err'd damnably in mistaking and misconceiving them that is while they went about to frame their Faith out of them 'T is questionless also they rely'd upon them as Gods Word or dictated by the Holy Ghost else they had not so built upon them or adher'd to them They might sincerely endeavour too to know their meaning yet if the Writings were disproportion'd to their pitch they migh Erre damnably for all that What farther End God intended the H. Scriptures for appears not by any Expresse either promise or declaration of our Saviour but out of the knowledge that they were writ by persons divinely inspir'd and the Experience the Church had of their Vsefulness towards Instruction and Good Life joyn'd with the Common Knowledg we have that all Goods that come to the Church happen through the ordering of Gods Providence hence we justly conclude as Dr. St. well says that they were intended and writ also for the Benefit of future Ages And from their Vsefulness and the success of their Use we may gather how God intended them for the Church The Learned and stable sons of the Church read them with much fruit to excite their wills to Goodness The Pastore of the Church make excellent use of them in exhorting preaching catchising c. and in many other uses of this sort they are excellently beneficial which are so many that were it now seasonable for me to lay them open at large as I truly hold them none would think I had little Reverence for Scriptures but in deciding Controversies or finally silencing Hereticks as the Rule of Faith ought to do by the unavoidable evidence of the Text to private persons no use was ever made of them alone with any success as the Fathers also complain Unless the the Churches Authority going along animated the dead Letter in dogmatical passages and shew'd the sense of the places to have been perpetually held from the beginning and so give It the Sense Majesty Authority and Force of Gods VVord elevating it thus above the repute of being some private Conceit or Production of Skill and Wit interpreting the Letter Scripture then is perfect or has all due to the nature God intended it if duly made use of as the Churches best Instrument it be able to work those Effectâ— spoken of though it be not so Evident or self-authoriz'd as to be the Rule of Faith We give it absolute Pre-eminence in its kind that is above all other Writings that ever appear'd in the world but we prefer before it Tradition or Gods Church which is the Spouse of Christ the Pillar and Ground of Truth and consisting of the Living Temples of the H. Ghost for whose sole Good as its Final End Scripture it self was intended and written 15. These Writings being owned as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly reveal'd that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation there can be no necessity supposed of any Infallible society of men either
ought they will as God's command the Order of the World and common Reason obliges them be rather willing to trust their Pastors who are better qualifi'd for such Knowledge and whom God hath set over them to instruct them what is the sense of Scriptures than trust their own private shallow judgments And 't is observable that Dr. St's discourse all along concerning this point is a plain begging the Question For if God have left a Church and commanded the Faithfull to hear it and conform to it's Faith and consequently to receive the sense of Scripture as to Points of Faith from it then there is no necessity of Scripture's being intended to be plain to all Capacities of it self nor of thinking men may sincerely desire to know God's will in Scriptures and use due means to understand it without making use of the Churches Judgment in that affair upon which false supposition Dr. St. wholly builds his otherwise perfectly ruinous discourse Wherefore his supposition being deny'd I must reply that those who sincerely desire to know Gods wisl have a certain virtue in them called Humility and this teaches them not to overween in their own opinion but to think that their Pastors appointed by God to teach them are generally wiser then those who are to be taught and that those who are wiser know better than those who are lesse wise A little of this plain honest rational Humility would quite spoil all Dr. St's discourse and convince all his Principles to be a plausible piece of Sedition and licentious presumption tending of its own nature utterly to destroy all Church and Church-Government and if applied to that Subject Temporal too I should be glad to know what means the word such in the last line if he means Infallible and that the Church pretending to Infallibility must have Infallible Assurance that she is Infallible t is asserted by us and his supposition that she is not is absolutely deny'd For the Church is Infallibly certain that Christ's promise to her shall not fail and also Infallibly certain by constant Tradition and the beleef of good Christians in all Ages that Christ has promis'd her this Security or Immunity from Errour in Faith none questioning it but those who have rebel'd and revolted from her In a word this whole Principle is Faulty being built on a False and unprov'd Supposition and were the Supposition granted and that the Church were Fallible still it were false that his Faithfull would have greater Assurance of their Faith than ours as hath been partly now shown and more amply in my Reply to the foregoing Principle Recapitulation The Sum then of Dr. St's Performances in these ten Principles of his which most Fundamentally concern his Faith and the pretended Reduction of it to Principles is briefly this that he hath not brought so much as one single Argument proving either that Scripture's Letter is the Rule of Faith nor that Tradition or the Infallible Testimony of Gods Church is not it And as for the particular Maxims or Sayings of his on which he chiefly relies they have been one by one disprov'd and the opposite Truths establish't As 1. That Faith being such an Assent as when built as it ought to be on the means left by God for mankinde to rely ou is impossible to be False and so that Means or the Rule of Faith being necessarily such as while men rely upon it is impossible they should erre These things I say being so as I have largely prov'd in Faith Vindicated and the Introductory Discourse to this present Examin Dr. St. has not so much as made an offer or attempt to show that Scripture is the Rule of Faith 2. That since 't is agreed God can contrive Writings sufficiently Intelligible for that End or sufficiently clear to ascertain those who rely upon them of their Faith and yet on the other side 't is evident God has not de facto done this or contriv'd such Methods and ways as our Reason tels us evidently are proper means to keep those Writings call'd the Scriptures from being thus mis-understood by severall Parties even in Fundamental Points as we experience they are it follows hence most manifestly that God never intended the way of writing for the Rule of Faith 3. Since several Parties of excellent capacities in understanding words aright and both owning Scripture for their Rule and applying themselves with greatest diligence to know the true sence of it do notwithstanding differ in those Fundamental Points of a Trinity and the God-head of Christ 't is manifest that Scripture is not able so secure those who rely on it to their power of the Truth of their Faith and so is not the Rule of Faith 4. Again since in passages that concern Faith the knowing whether the words be taken properly or improperly is that which determines what is Faith what not and this knowledge is not had from Scripture it follows that Scripture is not the Rule of Faith 5. God has no where promis'd that he will still assist those who sincerely endeavour to compass an end in case they take a way disproportion'd to attain that end and which way was consequently never intended by him for such an end for this were to engage himself to do perpetual Miracles when ever any one should act irrationally Wherefore unless it be first solidly prov'd that Scripture is the Rule of Faith or apt of its own nature to give those who rely on it Inerrable security of the Truth of their Faith while they thus rely on it and consequently that it was intended by God for such an end none can justly lay claim to God's assistance or tax his Justice or Veracity if they fall into Errour Much lesse if they neglect those Duties which Nature makes evident to them and common Christianity teaches viz. to obey and hear their Governours Pastors and Teachers ordain'd by God and rely on their own private Wit or God's Immediate Assistance to their single selves rather than to those Publick Officers of the Church God had appointed to govern and direct them for this intolerable spiritual Pride is so odious and pernicious that it most justly entitles them to delusion Errour and Heresie 6. Hence since God has left some means for Faith and 't is Blasphemy to say that those who rely according to their utmost power on the means left and Intended by God to lead Men into Truth can while they do so run into Errour which yet private understandings as was seen may relying on the Written Word it follows 〈◊〉 unavoidably that some other way is left which is not Writing to secure the Relyers on it from Errour in Faith or to be to them the Rule of Faith 7. Scripture not being the Rule and Christ's Doctrine being once settled and accepted in the Christian part of the World by means of Miracles there needed no more but to derive it down to future Ages and this Doctrine being Practicall and so objected
the Church may in the Grounds of their Faith if Infallibility be denied Or lastly how will their Evidence be Clear if the nature of Mâ—ral Things will not bear so clear an Evidence or afford us so much light of themselves as by it to conclude absolutely the Thing is so as when it comes to the point I foresee both these profound Admirers of Morall Certainty will heartily maintain and Dr. T. in his Prefaâ—e to his Sermons p. 29. in express terms blames me for expecting in the Grounds of Faith And whereas he says 't is absurd to say that thâ—se who are Certain of what they believe may at the same time not know but it may be False I grant it absurd nay more I affirm that in case they be truly Certain that is in case their Certainty be taken from the Thing or Object then not only they may not knâ—w at the same time but it may be False but not at any time ever afterwards unless the thing it self hap to be in that regard Alterable For true Certainty is built on the thing 's being as it is and nothing can ever be truly known to be otherwise than it is But if he takes Certainty in a wrong sense for a Firm Assent to a Thing as True however that Assent be grounded then though upon supposition he firmly Assents he cannot at the very same time be shaken in that Assent or not firmly Assent yet he is far in that case from any Knowledge or Intellectual Certainty one way or other because he regards not the Thing or Object whence only true Knowledge can be had whatever he deems or imagines concerning the truth of that which he firmly assents to Laâ—tly these Excuses are quite besides the purposex I never accused their thoughts They are beyond the reach of my sight but their Discourse and Writings I can see and discover that they make Faith possible to oâ— False as I have shown at large in Reason against Raâ—llâ—ry I meddle not then with what they assent to or whether or no they can or do hold the contrary what I objected was that their words in their books imported the possible Falshood of Faith for which they yet owe satisâ—action to all Christians for the common Injury done to Faith and as yet they have given none at all 26. Whatever necessarily proves a thing to be true does at the same time prâ—ve it Impâ—ssible to be False because 't is Impossible the same thing should be True and False at the same time Therefore they who assent firmly to the Doctrin of the Gospel as true do thereby declare their belief of the Impossibility of the Falshood of it The first part I easily grant and the reason for it to be most valid And for the same reason I expect he will in counterchange grant me this Proposition that whatever words say prove or imply a thing possible to be False do at the same time say prove or imply that 't is not necessarily true And then Dr. T. must consider how he will avoid the force of it who makes Scripture the sole Rule of Faith or the only means for Mankind to be assur'd of their Faith and yet Rule of Faith p. 118. professes that both the Letter and Sense of it are possible to be otherwise than the Protestants take them to be which in case they take their sense of Scripture or Faith to be True must mean possible to be otherwise than True that is possible to be False Whether his own contrary Positions hang together or no is not my Concern As for his Inference I deny that assenting being an Interiour Act is declaring ones belief But I suppose he meant it thus Therefore they who declare they assent firmly to the doctrin of the Gospel as True do thereby declare their belief of the Impossibility of the Falshood of it and thus this is readily also granted only in requital I expect he should for I am sure he must grant me this counter-proposition that therefore they who declare their belief of the possibility of Falshâ—od in Faith and it's Grounds or of the Letter and Sense of the Gospel do thereby declare they do not assent firmly to the doctrin of the Gospel as true Which done let Dr. St. and his Friend look to the Consequences of it It lies still very heavy upon their Credit as Writers and ever must till they retract it No sincere Protestant who loves his Faith more then their Writings will ever be brought to endure it if he once set himself seriously to consider it 27. The Nature of Certainty doth receive several Names either according to the nature of the proof or the degrees of the Assent Thus Moral Certainty may be so called either as it is opposed to Mathematical Evidence but implying a firm Assent upon the highest Evidence that Moral things can receive Or as it is opposed to higher degrees of Certainty in the same kind So Moral Certainty implyes only greater Probabilities of one side than the other In the former sense we assert the Certainty of Christian Faith to be moral but not only in the latter This Principle is pernicious to Human Nature as well as to Faith and destructive to all Principles in the world that are true ones and not like it self First it designs to give us the several Names which the nature of Certainty doth receive but it does indeed acquaint us with some species or kinds of Certainty unless he will say that the moral Certainty he assignes to Faith is of the same kind with Probability which I perceive he is loath to own Next to what purpose is it to discourse of one or more sorts of Certainty or to distinguish it's Notion unless we firâ—t knew the Common notion of Certainty it self The word Moral which is one of it's Differences and chiefly intended to be explained here is hard enough of it self alone but when to this shall be added a new difficulty of not knowing what Certainty which is the Genus means we are like to make a wise business of it Now all the Knowledge we have hitherto gain'd of Certainty in a discourse purposely intended to make us underâ—tand the Certainty of Faith is this that 't is a firm Assent to a thing as true and that there may be a Fallible Certainty both manifestly imply'd in his discourse where all that we can gather of the Nature of Certainty by the former is that perhaps 't is a fixing or resting in some Tenet without any ground and by the later that 't is a Chimaera or Nonsense Thirdly he distinguishes Certainty according to the nature of the Proof or the degree of the Assent but I vehemently deny it as the most absurd Position imaginable that there can be any kind of Certainty taken from the degrees â—f the Assent in contradistinction to the nature of the Proof for this would make as if the Subject's or person's assenting more or less did constitute
the true Church likewise that a Representative of that Body is a true Council and that an Eminent Member of it delivering down to the next Age the Doctrine believ'd in his whether by expresly avouching it the Chnrches sense or confuting Hereticks is a true Father Lastly they can have Infallible Certainty both of the Letter and Sense of Scripture as far as concerns Faith For if any fault which shocks their Faith whether of Translator or Transcriber creep into any passage or if the Text be indeed right but yet ambiguous they can rectifie the Letter according to the Law of God written in their hearts and assign it a sense agreeable to the Faith which they find there between which and that of the Holy Writers they are sure there can be no disagreement as being both inspir'd by the same unerring Light 22. Contrariwise those that follow not this Rule and so are out of this Church of what denomination soever First can have no true Faith themselves 'T is possible indeed and usual that some and not seldom many of the Points to which they assent are True and the same the truly Faithful assent to yet their Assent to them is not Faith for Faith speaking of Christian Faith is an Assent which cannot possibly be false and not only the Points assented to but the Assent it self must have that distance from Falshood as is prov'd at large in Faith vindicated else 't is not Faith but degenerates into a lower Act and is call'd Opinion Now the strength of an Assent rationally made depends upon the strength of its Grounds all Grounds of that Assent call'd Faith I mean such Grounds as tell us what Christ taught besides Tradition are proved § 10. weak and none Without It therefore there can be no true faith Next for want of that only Infallble Ground they cannot have Certainty which is true Faith who truly Faithful which the true Church which a true Council who a true Father nor lastly which is either the Letter or Sense of Scripture in Dogmatical passages that concern Faith And since they have no Certainty of these things they have no right nor ought in a Discourse about Faith be admitted to quote any of them but are Themselves and the whole Cause concluded in this single Inquiry Who have a Competent that is an impossible to be false or Infallible Rule to arrive at Faith 23. The solid Satisfaction therefore of those who inquire after true Faith is onely to be gain'd by examining who has or who has not such a Rule This METHOD is short and easie and yet alone goes to the Bottom All others till this be had are superficial tedious and for want of Grounds Insignificant The Former Discourse Reduc't to Principles TO shew the precedent Discourse built on most Firm and most Evident Principles and such as I have describ'd in my Preface I request the Reader to look back with attentive Consideration upon it's several parts and he will discern that § 1. The First Paragraph is only a Descant upon this Proposition The Ground is to be laid before the superstructures or which comes to the same that He who builds must build upon something or to put it in more Immediate Terms What 's First is to be begun with that is What 's First is to be First which is resolv'd finally into this Proposition supremely Identical A thing is to be what it is § 2. The Second relies on that famous Maxim of Logicians that The Definition is more known then the Thing defin'd which is self-evident speculatively For the words once understood it comes to this that what clears another thing must be clearer it self that What explains must explain The latter part of it implies that in plain things depending on Authority Honest men are to be trusted before Knaves which is self-evident practically § 3. The third is but an Inference from the two fore-going ones and manifestly depends on the same self-evident Principles § 4. The Fourth is a farther Deduction and since to satisfy rationally is to make men know one way or other plainly amounts to this What 's to be known by all must be possible to be known by all which is as self-evident as 't is that That cannot or is impossible to be done which is Impossible to be â—tne § 5. The Fifth is only a short Descant upon the fore-going parts of this Discourse and so is reduc't into the same Grounds with them § 6. The Sixth is as evident as 't is that Men are not to Assent upon Authority or believe if there be no Reason for it or that Rational Agents are to act rationally § 7. The Seventh states the Question concerning the Right Rule of Faith and shows the way to look after it by vertue of this plain Truth The Meaning of the word signifying any natune is the nature signify'd by that word or which is the very same What 's meant by any word is meant by that word § 8. The former part of the 8th is resumed into this clearest Truth What leaves us in need of a Rule is not a Rule or A Rule is able to regulate which is perfectly equivalent to this A Rule is a Rule The Second Part averrs that Faith taking it for an Assent upon the Motives laid by God which cannot leade into Errour is not it's opposit Opinion which is equivalent to this Faith is Faith § 9. The Ninth only directs our Application of the two preceding Paragraphs to the same purpose § 10. The former part of the Tenth is full as Evident as 't is that Those who are not Scholars as the Generality of the Faithfull are not cannot be satisfy d rationally in those things which require Scholarship which since to be satisfy'd rationally signifies to know imports thus much that Those who cannot know cannot know And the second part is as clear as 't is that That is not the Way which multitudes take yet go wrong which since a Way is that which is to carry one right is as palpably self-evident as 't is that A Way is a Way § 11. The Eleventh which contains the main and in a manner the only point has two parts One that Mankind cannot be Ignorant of what they see and hear and do For since both Reason and Experience tels us that Senses in Men are Conveyers of Outward Impressions to the Knowing Power should Impressions upon those parts not be conveyed thither they would in that case not be Sensitive or Animals and so no Men And did they not perceive when such Impressions are convey'd as they ought they would be destitute of a Power receiving Knowledge by Senses and so again no Men. So that this first part is as evident as 't is that Mankind is Mankind And the Second part of this § directly engages this Identical Proposition The same is the same with it's self that is both of them are self-evident or immediatly implying what is so § 12.
if they do not 't is their own fault they shall be sure to be sav'd And as for such points as a Trinity Christ's Godhead Real Presence and such like the knowledge of them even in case they are truths is not of necessity to salvation since none doubts but tis absolutely speaking possible to be sav'd without knowledge of them since many have been actually sav'd who never heard of any such points Having impartially said in short the best I could in Dr. Sts. behalf and much more than he has said for himself let us see now what ought to be reply'd in behalf of Truth To make way to it I premise these Maxims 1. That according to the Ordinary course of God's Providence men are sav'd by means 2. That All points of Faith are to some degree Means of salvation 3. That according to the several Circumstances and Exigencies of particular persons one needs more Means than another 4. That therefore it must be said some have miscarry'd because they had no more of those means of salvation apply'd to them who might yet have been sav'd had they had more This being so how great a presumption and madness it is to affirm that every man who reads the Scripture shall be sure to understand there so much as is sufficient means for His salvation or motives to work up his soul to a disposition for Heaven considering his Exigencies without needing the knowledge of other Points which contain other Motives ten times more forcible perhaps to move and excite him to true interior goodness Is it not manifest that considering mens several capacities which 't is a perfect Phrenzy to think they must needs be perfectly adjusted to their spiritual necessities one may as well say that every one who throws a Die upon a Fortune book shall most certainly light on his own Lot as that every one who reads Scripture shall let his exigencies be what they will find motives sufficient for his salvation If Dr. St. sayes that some one or two Points have prov'd sufficient for some few therefore they might have serv'd All if they would and that God's goodness towards Christians obliges him to no more I reply First That he speaks against nature since t is evident some temptations require greater Motives to overcome them than others and no man can assure us that those who have fewest motives shall not have the strongest temptations And if it were but rightly comprehended that t is Love of God which unites us to him and so saves us and that 't is for want of this those miscarry who do miscarry it would be easily understood that many excellent and incomparable motives as the Godhead of Christ and such like are lost to weak souls and consequently Heaven by their not understanding them and not only so but by the necessary connexion of truths with one another while they misunderstand the Scripture and so by their holding opposite to such great truths oppose in their thoughts other points of Faith those also lose their motive force whence their souls become tainted with multitudes of erroneous Maxims and Practices Secondly this answer takes away the necessity of all other points of faith but of such a few of them only which have hapt by the very especial assistance of God's preventing and assisting grace to have accidentally as it were suffic'd to have sav'd some few If he sayes that proceeding on this manner none can hold an error for they are to hold nothing but what they see to be evidently there and in all other things which they see not they are to suspend I would know what should hinder them from thinking they see that to be evidently there which is not evidently there since 't is acknowledg'd the vulgar or Generality are but bad judges and distinguishers of a true Evidence from a Counterfeit one besides there are in the open Letter as it lyes many Heresies and if they know these to be such how can they be sure of any thing they read there to be True since nothing is plainer in the letter than are those Heresies unless it be said that natural or moral Maxims taught them these places are to be literally understood and did not tell them so of the other and then they are beholding to those Maxims and not to Scripture for their faith since in that case It has taught them no more than they knew before Again may not an acute wit make out to the generality of D. Sts. Faithfull that to know the meaning of Scripture right they must compare one place with another and then by doing so dexterously make them beleeve a thousand Errours to be pure Scripture and God's Word which are not Much more might be said on this occasion but I only make one reflexion on this Principle and so proceed His intent in it is to shew which Party runs greater hazard The Adherers to Scripture us'd on his fashion or those who hear the Church and he would run us down by vertue of an unprov'd Supposition that the Church is not Infallible To offer him fair play let us grant him all the advantages he pretends to in Scripture and let him grant us all we pretend to secure us in the Church and then compare the two hazards together nay more let us condescend as much as himself can imagine even so as to abate the Infallibility of the Church and to grant that she is Fallible and yet the very light of Nature will stand on the side of our Faithfull against his For this teaching them that Superiours are to be obey'd and their Teachers to be heard and believ'd in things not known to be against God's Command and experience telling them that Scripture is oft times liable to dispute in passages that to both sides seem clear both Humility Prudence Obedience and the due care of their Salvation and all Virtues that can be concern'd in this kind of action incline them strongly rather to adhere to what Persons wiser then themselves or their Pastors conceive to be the meaning of Scripture than to what seems so to themselves in opposition to the same Pastors and Multitudes of other Christians who are evidently of greater knowledge and as far as they can be inform'd of equall sincerity 19. The Assistance which God hath promis't to those who sincerely desire to know his will may give them greater assurance of the Truth of what is contain'd in the Books of Scripture than it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other Persons to do supposing they have not such assurance of their Infallibility God hath promis't no Assistance that those should arrive at their end who take a way disproportion'd to that end otherwise God should oblige himself to work constant Miracles as oft as well-meaning people out of weakness should act imprudently Next if men desire sincerely to know Gods will and be humble and if they be not 't is doubtfull their desire is not sincere as is