to to our Sences Testimony was sufficient to do it so it were sufficiently qualify'd that is the best and on the best manner supported that any ordinary means can be such was the Testimony of the Church or Tradition which besides what is found in humane Testimony has also the whole body joynt force of supernaturall motives to preserve the Testifiers Attentive and Veracious Thus the Church or the Christian Society of Men being establish't Infallible in delivering down Faith needs not prove her Infallibility by Miracles but 't is sufficient the Faithfull beleeve that Christ promis't to protect her from Errour and consequently to beleeve the An est of her Infallibility or that she is infallible upon the same Rule they beleeve all their Faith and the Scriptures too viz. upon Tradition and that her Controversiall Divines who are to defend Faith by way of Reason or Argument prove the Quid est of this Infallibility or make out in what it consists or in what second Causes this ordinary and constant Assistance is founded and consequently prove it's force by such Maxims as ground the Certainty of Humane Testimony and if the Reader comprehends them by the strange efficacy of supernaturall motives also conspiring to strengthen Nature as to that effect of rightly testifying the Doctrine received and beleeved to be Christ's 8. There is no Necessity then of proving this Infallibility meerly by Scripture interpreted by virtue of this Infallibility Nor do the Faithfull or the Church commit a Circle in beleeving that the Church is Infallible upon Tradition For first taking them as Faithfull precisely they are meerly Beleevers not Reasoners or such as put one proposition artificially before or after another Next they beleeve only the supernaturall Infallibility built on the Assistance of the Holy Ghost that is on the Churches Sanctity and this is prov'd by the Human Testimony of the Church to have been ever held since the beginning and the force of the Human Testimony of the Church is prov'd by Maxims of meer Reason Add that the Certainty of such a vaâ—t Testimony is self-evident practically in the same manner as 't is self-evident that the Testimony of all England cannot deceive us in telling us there was such a man as King Iames whence no Circle can possibly be committed if it be beleeved for it's own sake or rather known by its own light though there would be if discoursing it rationally we should put the same Proposition to be before and after it self 9. Since those who have the least capacity of penetrating Scripture and consequently according to Dr. St. have the fewest Motives of good life applyed to them may frequently live amongst greatest Temptations that is in circumstances of needing the most 'T is a blind Undertaking and no securer nor wiser than idle Fortune-telling to bear men in hand that persons of all capacities who sincerely Endeavour shall understand Scripture in all such things as are necessary for their Salvation 10. Since 't is most evident that private Iudgments may err in understanding Scripture but not evident that Christ has not promis'd his Church Security from erring in Faith they run the greater hazard by far who rely on their private sense of Scripture then those do who rely on the Church especially since the Church denyes not Scripture but professes to go according to it and so in common reason is likely to comprehend its meaning far better than private men but most especially since our Moderns when they first began to rely on their own Judgments of Scripture for their Faith revolted from hearing the Church and rebell'd against Pastours and lawfull Superiours which both Gods Law and the light of Nature taught them they were to follow and submit to Thus our new Apostle of the private spirit of Gifts and new Light hath endeavour'd to pull down the Church and subvert the Foundation laid by Christ and instead thereof to set up as many Churches as there are private and proud Fancies in the world Each of which may by this devillish Doctrine defy the Church for Teaching him his Faith or for governing him as as a Church that is governing him as one of the Faithfull for she can bind never a subject in conscience to any thing but what her self and each man judges to be True and Sound wherefore if any or each private person understands Scripture another way then she does he is enfranchis'd by his Rule of Faith which he ought not relinquish from her Authority she may in that case wish him well and pity him as every old wife may also do and he in return may wish well to the Church end pity her She may endeavour to admonish and instruct him better so to pluck him out of his Errour and he in requital that he may not be behind-hand with the Church in Courtesy may with equal nay better Title admonish the Church of her failing and endeavour to pull her out of her Errour or as the new phrase is reform her for being conscious to himself that he reads the Scripture and sincerely indeavours to know the meaning of it he has all the security of his Faith and consequently of the Churches being in an Errour that may be Nor can he being thus gifted want Power to preach to her and others For certainly the World would be most perversly ordered if they who are in Errour should have Licence and Power to propagate their Errours and those who follow Truth should have no leave to propagate Truth Thus the Church has lost all power that is has lost her self being able neither to lead nor drive her equally-gifted Subjects so that her exercising Jurisdiction over them would by this wicked Doctrine be a most Tyrannical persecution and every such private man's refractory Disobedience see the wonderful gifts of the private spirit would become a most Glorious Confession of Christian Faith and every Rebell acting against the Church so he be but so self-conceited as to judge he knows more of God's mind in the Scripture then all the Church besides would by this Doctrine in case the Secular power should think fit to curb his Insolence be a most blessed Martyr such no doubt as John Fox'es were The Fifth Examen Sifting the Eleven remaining Principles which seem Chiefly to concern the nature of Faith WHoever hath perus'd the foregoing Examin and reflected well upon what a sandy Foundation Dr. St. has built his Faith will doubtless expect that he will assigne it such a nature as is of no exceeding great strength for fear lest his weak Grounds ' should not support his Superstructures nor his Proofs carry home to his Conclusions Now the Conceit which the Generality of Christians have of Faith importing it's true Nature is that 't is such an Assent as is impossible to be an Errour or False Whence follows that its Grounds are likewise such And indeed since all hold That Faith is an Immoveable and Unalterable Assent which is to
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
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
act as they adjudg'd had both led them into actual Errour and punisht them thus grievously in that case for adhering to Truth which are too horrid blasphemies to be heard or imagin'd But if they mean onely for some time of that Law or some Ages immediately before Christ when the Synagogue was most corrupt this implies a Confession that such a Society was necessary in the Ages foregoing and then Dr. St. is to show us why it was not equally necessary in the later as in the former and not suppose it gratis Nor was the Synagogue ever more corrupt than in our Saviour's days and yet we see how severely he enjoins the Jews of that time to obey the Scribes and Pharisees because they sate in Moses his Chair which it were blasphemy to say Christ could do if he had not secur'd their Doctrine from being Erroneous that is preserv'd them Inerrable in that Affair Add that were all granted yet there is far more necessity of explaining the Scriptures now than at that time For the Law was in a manner all of it either matters of Fact to be done or Moral Duties and so agreeable to nature whence both of these were far more easily expressible in proper language and consequently Intelligible than the sublime spiritual and mysterious Tenets of the Law of Grace which are more hard to be exprest in per words and being more removed from our knowledg the natures of the Things are more hard to be penetrated and so those words more difficult to be rightly comprehended and understood without an Interpreter than were those other 16. There can be no more intolerable usurpation upon the Faith of Christians than for any person or society of men to pretend to an Assistance as Infallible in what they propose as was in Christ or his Apostles without giving an equal degree of Evidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did viz. by miracles as great publick and convincing as theirs were by which I mean such as are wrought by those very persons who challenge this Infallibility and with a design for the Conviction of those who do not believe it Thus the Dr. makes sure work against the Infallibility of any Church which overthrown his single self nay any private man or woman that has but self-conceit and confidence enough to proceed openly upon these Principles of his is upon even ground with the best nay all the Churches in the World at the main point of understanding and determining what 's Faith what not Nay more may defie all the Governours of all Churches in the World if he or she be but conscious to themselves that they sincerely endeavour and soberly enquire for the true meaning of the divine writings for these being their Rule of Faith and being assuâ—ed by Dr. St. that they cannot miss if they soberly enquire of what is necessary for salvation and being inform'd by common Reason that 't is a point very necessary to the salvation of a Christian or one who is to follow and adore Christ to know whether he be God and so may without fear of Idolatry have Divine Honour given him or no these things being so in case it should seem to the best judgement of such a man and let him be for example one brought up in the Church of England and newly turn'd Socinian that Christ is not God he ought not to relinquish his Rule of Faith at any rate nor what he judges the Scriptures sense of it this being his Faith but maintain it boldly against all his Pastors talk and quote Scripture as briskly as the best of them all desy them to their faces nay dye in defence of his interpretation of it and be a special Martyr though he take his death upon it that all his lawful Pastors and the whole Church of which he is a member are most hainons Idolaters for giving the worship proper to God to a man In this case 't is plain the Church cannot pretend to oblige him to believe her interpretation of Scriptuâ—e Alas all such power is quite taken out of her hands by these new principles not to act exteriourly as she does for that were to oblige him to deny his Faith in his Actions and carriage and this in so hainous a point as committing flat Idolatry and which his Rule of Faith tells him is such Nor to acquiesce so far as to hold his tongue and not contradict the Church for 't is both ingratitude to God who has so plainly reveal'd it to him in Scripture not to stand up for his honour so wickedly violated by the Church and withall most uncharitable to his neighbour not to communicate to him the light he has receiv'd by such plain Revelation from God's word and to endeavour his reducement from so grievous an Idolatry especially if this man be a Minister of the Church of England whose Office and Duty 't is to hold forth or preach what he judges God's word Nay though it were a Lay-man or a Lay-woman all 's a case why may they not with as much reason make known so concerning a truth plainly reveal'd to them as Aquila and Priscilla did of old As for all power of the Church to restrain them that 's quite thrown out of doors Humane commands can have no force when the best duties to God and man are neglected by obeying and the more the Church is obstinate and opposes this private man or woman by so much greater is the necessity of his or her informing the Church right and standing up for the Truth Hereafter more of this at present let us see how he destroyes infallibility in the Church which is his chief design and indeed it makes very much for his purpose for I so far concurr with him that if it be but fallible in attesting or explaining Scripture 't is little available to the grounding Christian Faith so that if infallibility be but overthrown and these Principles setled in its stead every private man is a Church which our corrupt nature loving liberty will no doubt be very taking and please the rabble exceedingly He is so earnest at his work that he stumbles for hast For first who did ever pretend to an infallibility equal to what was in Christ or his Apostles as his words import Christ was essentially infallible the Apostles by Immediate Inspiration from God The Church pretends indeed to be infallibly assisted but that she pretends to have it either essentially as God has it or by way of immediate inspiration as the Apostles had it is a thing I never yet learnt 'T is enough to justify her constant claim of infallible assistance that she have it mediately or by means of the ordinary working of natural and supernatural causes so shee but have it And to have it this way seems far more agreeable to reason than the other of immediate inspiration as to have by way of immediate inspiration was far more fitting for the Apostles For
some Certainties without any kind of nature of Proof that is without any regard had to the Object After this he acquaints us with one kind of Morâ—l Certainty Watch he says is oppos'd to Mathematical Evidence Now I neither discern how Moral and Mathematical come to be opposite to one another more then Moral or Physical and Metaphysical or Theological less do I see how Certainty anâ— Evidence have such an Opposition and Aâ—tipathy I thought they might have been both on the same side but I conceive that the goodness of Natural Reason made him at unawares joyn Certainty to Moral and Evidence to Mathematical thereby confessâ—ng that this Moral Certainty as he apprehends it is indeed the Issue of no kind of Evidence at all but of meer Obscurity or at best of some conjectural glance of Likelihood But he describes or gives us some distinct Knowledge of this Moral Certainty telling us that it implies a firm Assent upon the highest Evidence that Moral things can receive and this he assigns to Christian Faith Where first I would know whether this Moral Certainty here mention'd be an Infallible Certainty or a Fallible one and I presume he will answer 't is a Fallible one for Infallible and Moral Certainty are opposite which is a fair beginnâ—ng towards the ascertaning Faith Next I would desire him to speak out candidly and tell me whether this Moral Certainty put Faith absolutely out of possibility of being False or whether notwithstanding this Certainty it may with Truth be said that still absolutely speaking all Christian Faith may be an Errour or Mistake of the world I presume he will not say 't is absolutely Impossible it should be all a Mistake because 't is so protected by this Moral Certainty for he makes this a less degree of Certainty than Mathematical Certainty is and Dr. T. has told us there can be no degrees in Absolute Impossibilities besides I see not how a Fallible Certainty can establish any Tenet Impossible to be False for an Infallible Certainty which is incomparably above that can do no more And yet for all that 't is dangerous to his Credit for 't is indeed blasphemous to say that all Christian Faith may possibly be a lying Imposture for any thing any man living knows or that all the Christians in the world though relying and proceeding to their power on the Means God has appointed to establish them in True Faith may notwithstanding be possibly in an Errour I suppose then he will recurr to his late excuse and tell us that no man who firmly assents to any thing as true can at the same time entertain any suspicion of it's Falshood But this is nothing to our purpose 'T is not his Iudgment but his Doctrin which stands impeach't not his Thoughts but his Words and Discourses let him clear those to the world and I am to remit secret things to God and his own Conscience I leave then him and his Frâ—end to shuffâ—le about for better Evasions which I am sure can never be candid and Scholar-like but some learned quirks and Jeers and address my self to a farther examination of this worthy Principle 3ly then I would ask whether the Firmness of this Assent which he says here Moral Certainty implies be taken from the Object or from the Subject I suppose he will say here from the Object because he says 't is upon the highest Evidence Moral things can receive but I perceive him dispos'd even while he says so to blame the Things for receiving no more I doubt he should rather blame himself for receiving no more from those Moral Objects who are both as able and as ready to afford him perfect Evidence as perhaps any other things in Nature did he dispose himself to receive it For are not Moral things as firmly establisht in their respective determinate natures as Natural and Mathematical things from which Establishment all our Science is taken Is not a will as Certainly a will and Liberty as necessarily Liberty as a Triangle is a Triangle Again are not Voluntary Liberty Virtue Vice and such like very Intelligible words aud consequently the Natures of Moral things Knowable as well as others in other Sciences I wonder then why the Evidences of Moral things cannot be as high as that of Mathematical things since the natures of both are equally Firm both natures can be known and so engaged in our discourses of them and from them and all science or Evidence springs from engaging the Natures of things The Sum then is Dr. St. hath given Faith excellent good words in telling us it's Moral Certainty implys a firm Assent upon the highest Evidence Moral things can receive but looking to the bottom of his meaning he intends it only a Fallible Certainty or such as may still permit it to be False and so the right descant upon his fine words is in true construction this He allows Faith such a Certainty as is Vncertain such a Firmness as may both bow and break such an Evidence in it's Grounds as is Obscure and consequently makes it such an Assent as is Irrational All which and much more must needs follow from this rejecting Infallible Certainty in the Gronnds of Faith If he thinks I wrong him let us put it to the test Let him take the best of those Evidences or Proofs which ground his Moral Certainty and put it with the help of a little Logick into a Syllogism or two and then tell me whether it does necessarily conclude the Truth of Faith or no. If it concludes why does he not say Faith is absolutely Certain but mince it with Moral If it concludes not how can all the world avoid but his pretended Evidence is Obscure his pretended Certainty built on that Evidence Vncertain the Firmness of that Assent Infirm and the Assent it self to a Conclusion thus unprov'd and no ways Evident in a man capable to comprehend what ought in due of Right Reason cause Assent privatively Irrational or Faulty 28. A Christian being thus Certain to the highest degree of a firm Assent that the Scriptures are the Word of God his Faith is thereby resolved into the Scriptures as into the Rule and Measure of what he is to believe as it is into tht veracity of God as the Ground of his believing what is therein contained A Christian who is no better Certain then thus that is by Grounds allowing only such a Certainty as is not absolutely or truly Conclusive of the Truth of Faith as Dr. St. intends no more by his Moral Certainty is not Certain at all As appears farther by the next words Certain to the highest degree of a firm Assent the meaning of which must be that this highest degree of a firm Assent either is the same with the Certainty he intends his Faith according to his former doctrin and constitutes or explicates it or else that at least it helps to make up this Certainty that is perfect it within it's notion and
make it more a Certainty or a better Certainty which makes the Conclusiveness or Evidence had from the Object needless to create a Certainty and signifies thus much in plain Terms Think or imagine what you will so you imagine it strongly and hold it stifly you are as Certain of it as may be Had he said A Christian is or may be thus Certain by such a Proof had from the Object as was truly Conclusive of the Thing how Genuin Coherent Clear had his Expression been which now is forc't Incongruous and Obscure how Agreeable to Reason and the nature of Certainty as all Mankind understands it which now is most Irrational and Unsuitable to the same Nature How Honourable and Creditable had it been to his Cause and to himself too as a Writer But men that have not Truth on their side and consequently are quite destitnte of found Principles and true Grounds must not dare to speak Sense Himself told us Princ. 20. that the nature of Assent is agreeable to the Evidence we have of it in our Minds let him remember then that the highest degree of a firm Assent requires in reason the highest gree of Clear Evidence to beget it which yet he lately deny'd to be had from Moral things and attributed it peculiarly to the Mathematicks So that all is Incoherent all is Common and big words hollow and so of a loud and high Sound but without any determinate Sense Again how does it follow that because a Christian is thus Certain that the Scriptures are the Word of God that therefore his Faith is thereby resolved into the Scriptures as into the Rule and Measure of what he is to believe There is not the least show of consequence for this unless he had first prov'd that God had intended to speak so clear in the Scripture as every private Understanding should not sail of being secur'd from mistake while it rely'd upon It as also that God had spoken to us no other way but by the written Word which he has no where prov'd nor can ever prove And if the former of these as experience tels us 't is be wanting 't is not a Rule to those Persons if the latter 't is not necessarily the Measure of what they are to believe 29. No Christian can be oblig'd under any pretence of Infallibility to believe any thing as a matter of Faith but what was revealed by God himself in that Book wherein he believes his Will to be contained and consequently is bound to reject whatsoever is offer'd to be imposed upon his Faith which has no foundation in Scripture or is contrary thereto which Rejection is no making Negative Articles of Faith but only applying the general Grounds of Faith to particular Instances as because I believe nothing necessary to Salvation but what is contain'd in Scripture therefore no such particular things which neither are there nor can be deduc't thence If Christians were bound to hold that God had reveal'd his whole Will in that Book and this so clearly that all or most Chriâ—tians could not miss of understanding it right so as thereby to be absolutely Certain of their Faith then indeed the first half of his Principle here runs very currently and smoothly but these rubs lying still in the way which Dr. St. has not in the least removâ—d they being also satisfy'd by the General Conceit of Christianity and by the Nature and Genius of Christian Faith that it cannot possibly be an Errour or Lye and consequently muâ—t have such Grounds as cannot possibly permit all the world to be in an Errour while they rely on them that is Grounds which are Infallibly secure and on the other side observing both by experience and Reason that Scripture is not such a Ground as that private Understandings applying to it are thereby perserv'd from possibility of erring as Dr. St. also confesses in his next Principle hence they are invited strongly to conceive that God has left some Persons on earth easily to be found who may supply what is wanting of Clearness to Scriptures Letter in the highest Points of Faith and that God will some way or other perserve them from erring and that while thus protected by God's signal Providence whether this be performed Naturally Supernaturally or both wayes they cannot Erre in that Affair or in acquainting us with right Faith So that unless Dr. St. make out solidly that Scripture has in it the true nature of the Rule of Faith of it self and without needing any Church he must expect in reason that the very nature of Faith will necessarily incline all sincere persons who have due care of their souls and of finding out true Faith to beleeve the Infallibility of the Church And whereas he says that their rejection of such Points which have no Foundation in Scripture or are contrary thereto is no making New Articles of Faith but only applying the General Grounds of Faith to particular Instances he discourses therein very consonantly to his own Grounds were they worth any thing Yet I have one thing to propose to his Consideration which is that to justify his Reformers he must produce Grounds full as good or rather better for the Rejection of those Points as for his Faith or to speak more distinctly he must have as perfect or rather perfecter Certainty for these two Propositions Nothing it to be beleeved which has no Foundation in Scripture and This or that rejected Point has no Foundation in Scripture as he has for any point of Christian Faith For since upon the Evidence they had of these two Propositions they disobey'd and rebell'd against their then lawful Superiours and Church Pastors and broke Church-Union which was evidently forbidden by God's Law and so the preserving Union obeying them is a point of Faith and which themselves confess is such and binds them as such in case the reasons for their imposing New points be not valid that is if these two Propositions on whose Evidence they rely'd when they alledged they were wrongfully impos'd and thence rejected them be not True it follows that they must at least have equal Evidence nay more for bare Equality would only Balance them in a doubtful suspence berween either side that those Propositions on which they grounds their Rejection of those Articles and disobedience to their Pastours aad Superiours are True as they have for their Faith And if the Grounds of this Rejection ought to be more Certain then the Grounds of their Faith there is either some thing wrong in the pretended Grounds of their Faith or else their Negative Articles ought to be allow'd the honour of being Points of Faith too since their greater Certainty gives them fair and equal Title to it if not Absolute Preeminâ—nce 30. There can be no better way to prevent mens mistakes in the sense of Scripture which men being Fallible are subject to than the considering the consequence of mistaking in a matter wherein their salvation