say that 't is the highest degree of humane Certitude of which it may simply or absolutely be said Non posse illi falsum subesse that 't is IMPOSSIBLE IT SHOULD BE FALSE Can any thing be produc'd more expresly abetting my way of Discoursing the Grounds of Faith Nothing certainly unless it be that which immediately follows containing the reason why Tradition is by the very nature of it simply Infallible For says he Tradition being full Report about what was EVIDENT UNTO SENSE to wit what Doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publickly deliver'd unto the World it is IMPOSSIBLE it should be FALSE Worlds of Men CANNOT be uniformly mistaken and deceiv'd about a matter Evident to Sense and not being deceiv'd being so many in number so divided in place of so different affections and conditions IT IS IMPOSSIBLE they should so have agreed in their Tale had they so maliciously resolv'd to deceive the World Observe here 1. That he alledges onely Natural Motives or speaks onely of Tradition as it signifies the Humane Authority of the Church that is as taken in the same sense wherein I took it in my Method 2. He goes about to show out of its very nature that is to demonstrate 't is absolutely Infallible 3. He makes this Tradition or Humane Authority of the Church an Infallible Deriver down or Ascertainer that what is now held upon that tenure is the Apostles Doctrine or the first-taught Faith which once known those who are yet Unbelievers may infallibly know that Body that proceeds upon it to possess the true Faith and consequently infallibly know the true Church which being the very way I took in my Method and other Tâ—eatises it may hence be discern'd with how little reason Dr. T. excepts against it as so superlatively singular But to proceed Hence p. 40. he avers that the proof of Tradition is so full and sufficient that it convinceth Infidels that is those who have onely natural Reason to guide themselves by For though saith he they be blind not to see the Doctrine of the Apostles to be Divine yet are they not so void of common sense impudent and obstinate as to deny the Doctrine of Christian Catholick Tradition to be truly Christian and Apostolical And p. 41. The ONELY MEANS whereby men succeeding the Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures and Doctrines they deliver'd to the Primitive Catholick Church is the Catholick Tradition by Worlds of Christian Fathers and Pastors unto Worlds of Christian Children and Faithful People Which words as fully express that Tradition is the ONELY or SOLE Rule of Faith as can be imagin'd And whereas some hold that an Inward working of God's Spirit supplies the Conclusiveness of the Motive this Learned Writer p. 46 on the contrary affirms that Inward Assurance without any EXTERNAL INFALLIBLE Ground to assure men of TRVTH is proper unto the Prophets and the first Publishers of Christian Religion And lastly to omit others p. 47. he discourses thus If any object that the Senses of men in this Search may be deceiv'd through natural invincible Fallibility of their Organs and so no Ground of Faith that is altogether Infallible I answer that Evidence had by Sense being but the private of one man is naturally and physically Infallible but when the same is also Publick and Catholick that is when a whole World of men concur with him then his Evidence is ALTOGETHER INFALLIBLE And now I would gladly know what there is in any of my Books touching the Ground of Faith which is not either the self-same or else necessarily consequent or at least very consonant to what I have here cited from this Judicious Author and Great Champion of Truth in his Days whose Coincidency with other Divines into the same manner of Explication argues strongly that it was onely the same unanimous Notion and Conceit of Faith and of true Catholick Grounds which could breed this conspiring into the same way of discoursing and almost the self-same words § 13. Hence is seen how justly D. T. when he wanted something else to say still taxed me with singularity in accepting of nothing but Infallibility built on absolutely-conclusive Motives with talking such Paradoxes as he doubts whether ever they enter'd into any other mans mind that all mankind excepting J. S have hitherto granted that no Humane Vnderstanding is secur'd from possibility of Mistake from its own nature that my Grounds exclude from Salvation and excommunicate the Generality of our own Church that no man before J. S. was so hardy as to maintain that the Testimony of Fallible men which word Fallible is of his own adding mine being of Mankind relying on Sensations is Infallible that this is a new way and twenty such insignificant Cavils But the thing which breeds his vexation is that as my Reason inclines me I joyn with those who are the most solid and Intelligent Party of Divines that is indeed I stick to and pursue and explain and endeavour to advance farther those Grounds which I see are built on the natures of the Things Would I onely talk of Moral Certainty Probabilities and such wise stuff when I am settling Faith I doubt not but he would like me exceedingly for then his own side might be probable too which sandy Foundation is enough for such a Mercurial Faith as nothing but Interest is apt to fix DISCOURSE VIII In what manner Dr. T. Answers my Letter of Thanks His Attempt to clear Objected Faults by committing New Ones § 1. MY Confuter has at length done with my Faith Vindicated and my Methed and has not he done well think you and approv'd himself an excellent Confuter He onely broke his Jests upon every passage he took notice of in the former except one without ever heeding or considering much less attempting to Answer any one single Reason of those many there alledg'd and as for that one passage in which he seem'd serious viz. how the Faithful are held by me Infallible in their Faith he quite mistook it throughout Again as for my Method he first gave a wrong Character of it and next pretended it wholly to rely upon a point which he had sufficiently considered that is which he had readily granted but offer'd not one syllable of Answer to any one Reason in It neither My Letter of Thanks is to be overthrown next And First he says he will wholly pass by the Passion of it and I assure the Reader so he does the Reason of it too for he speaks not a word to any one piece of it Next he complains of the ill-Language which he says proceeded from a gall'd and uneasie mind He says partly true For nothing can be more uneasie to me than when I expected a Sober and Scholar-like Answer to find onely a prettily-worded Fardle of Drollery and Insincerity I wonder what gall'd him when he lavish'd out so much ill-language in Answer to Sure footing in which Treatise there was not one passionaâ—e word not one syllable
and so we may call them Moral Christians which Epithet being opposite to Absolute signifies they are not absolutely Christians and since nothing is indeed that which 't is not absolutely it 's true sence is that they are indeed no Christians yet since they like the word Moral so extremely well when they are to express the certainty due to Faith 't is but fitting they should wear it when we express them as Faithful Though then The Hopeful seems very well to represent their humour yet 't is but fitting they should have the Priviledge of naming themselves and Moral Christians let them be Against these Moral Christians and Them onely I discourse in this present Treatise But what have I to do with the Persons I doubt not but Gods Goodness the Method of whose Gracious Providence is to support the Failings of his Creatures as far as the Natures of Particular Things and the Order of the World will permit very often supplies the Defects of Mens Speculations with Connatural ways of Knowledge fixing them thus in a strong Adherence to the most Concerning Truths by ways which even their unreflecting selves are not aware of Whence I am the farthest from judging any Mans Person perhaps of any living and endeavour all I can to retain a Charitable Opinion even of Dr. T's Personal Intentions in common and excuse him diverse times in this very Treatise where I write against him as far as Evidence of the contrary will give me leave 'T is this wicked Tenet then and It onely which I combat at present and which I see plainly so unsettles unhinges and renders useless and ineffectual all Christianity that I ought to declare an utter and irreconcileable Enmity against It and that I shall through GOD's Assistance prosecute it home to the very doors of Scepticism the Bane of all Humane Science as well as Faith in whose gloomy Grott situate in the Confines of dark Ignorance Mankind's Natural Hell they first saw the twilight or rather indeed were born blind Yet it cannot be expected that declaring as I do a just Indignation against this wicked Tenet I should treat a Writer favourably considering him precisely as a Maintainer of it or bear my self respectfully to those insincere and unhandsome Methods and Ways which he makes use of to abet It and prejudice the Sacred Truth it opposes whether those ways be Sophisms in Reasoning or else Scurrility supplying the place of Reason the main Engine employ'd in this Preface I shall then take a little of that much liberty he uses to give them the Entertainment and Return due in Iustice to their Demerits Yet that I may avoid all just occasion of offence I shall endeavour for the most part to use his own words omitting still the rudest hoping he will have less Reason to be angry at his own Eccho since if he had not Originiz'd it it had not reflected And if he assum'd to himself the freedom to abound so with Irony and wholly neglect speaking to my Reasons of which whatever they be none can deny but that I use to have good store in my Writings I hope it will not be indecent if now and then I speak to those plausible Ironies themselves there being nothing else to refute otherwise since according to Dr. T's Method of Disputing these are my onely Confuters and full of Brag and Triumph he and his Friends would most certainly have pretended as they did formerly on the like occasion that Inability to reply had caus'd my desistance I come then to examine this spruce Preface in doing which I must be forc'd to lay open at large his knack of answering Books that so I may have just Title to make some Requests to You our Umpires in behalf of the Rights proper to Learning Declaring before-hand that where-ever I am large in any Discourse becoming a Scholar 't is not a Duty paid to his Preface which has nothing like a show of solid Scholarship in it but a Respect due to You our Learned Iudges to whom I Appeal INDEX ASsent Dissent and Suspense pag. 81 82 c. Catholick Divines vindicated p. 18 179. Certainty of Scriptures Letter and Sense deny'd by Dr. T. p. 120 121 151. asserted by J. S. p. 121 122. Definitions of General Councils why necessary p. 181 182. Demonstration p. 41 42 43 119 120 174. found in Ethicks and Physicks p. 57. to 63. First Principles Identical Propositions p. 7. to 41. Dr. T 's Firm Principle shown weak p. 71 72 c. Freedom from doubt not sufficient for Faith p. 84. to 94. p. 124. to 128. Infallibility asserted p. 64. to 67.112 to 116. requisite to Assent and Faith p. 68 69. In what sence it admits of degrees p. 138. to â— 141. Unlearned Believers how Infallible p. 134 135 136 181. Moral Certainty p. 141. to 147. Objections from Catholick Divines refuted p. 175. to 179. Practical Self-evidence p. 4 5 6 116 117. Prudential Grounds incompetent for Faith p. 142 to 146. Scriptures Letter no Rule Pref. p. 5 6 7.199 200. Tradition the Rule of Faith p. 32 33 183. Granted to be such by Dr. T. p. 192. to p. 200. Held by other Catholick Divines in J. S. his sense p. 212. to 216. Explained p. 202. to 212. It s Certainty how a First Principle and Self-evident p. 3 4. A Full Answer to Dr. T's Preface with an Examination of his Grounds of Religion DISCOURSE I. Clearing the way to the following ones by manifesting his two Fundamental Exceptions to be perfectly Injust and voluntarily Insincere § 1. HIs Preface begins p. 3. with two Charges viz. That I still persist to maintain after so fair an Admonition that first and self evident Principles are fit to be demonstrated to which he addes a Third that I make Identical Propositions to be First Principles in the matter under dispute He argues too against the two former imaginary Assertions of mine which in this Preface is a rare thing thus p. 37. There can be nothing to make First Principles more Evident because there is nothing before them to demonstrate them by And I acknowledge the reason given to be as victorious as any passage in his Rule of Faith where he has multitudes of such wrong-aim'd Arguments intended I conceive to shew how far his Reason can carry when it shoots at rovers for 't is levell'd at no mark But observe I beseech you Gentlemen how I am dealt with and let these two leading Cases discovering his way of Confute obtain a just suspence of your Judgments concerning all his other performances till you see them examined § 2. In Sure footing p. 114. 2d Edit which I stâ—ll quote I deduc'd two Propositions the former that Tradition is the First Principle IN WAY OF AVTHORITY as it engages for matter of Fact long ago past or as in other places I therefore name it FIRST AUTHORITY because 't is manifest that the Authentication of Books and Monuments all depend upon Tradition The other was
whatever is good in those Acts of Faith is refunded into God the Author of every good Gift as its Original Cause what Defective into the Limitedness and Imperfection of Creatures § 5. This Tenet of Infallibility which unprejudic'd Nature teaches even the rudest in things subject to Sense and common Reason and Learned men in things provable by exact Art the Adversaries of true Certainty our Scepticks in Religion endeavour to render ridiculous and cast a mist about it by the most unreasonable pretence that ever was invented which is to affirm that a man cannot be Infallible in one thing but he must be so in all As if I could not infallibly know what 's done in my Chamber or practic'd openly amongst those I converse with but I must be likewise infallible in knowing what is done in the Moon And Dr. T. is one of these for Contradiction is as natural to him as 't is to a fish to swim who tells us here pag. 19. That Omniscience within a determinate Sphere is an Infinite within a finite Sphere as if it were very evident that to know All in such a matter is to know Infinit or all things in the World or so hard to comprehend that one may know all the money in ones Purse without knowing all the money that is extant or all the men in the room without knowing all Mankind I wish Dr. T. would shew us why knowing all in such a particular matter must needs argue an Infinit knowledg or why the knowing all things in a determinate Sphere which last words when he came to answer that is break his Jests our Prevaricator prudently omitted may not consist with an ignorance of many things out of that Sphere Must the word All in such a matter needs signifie Infinit or did the commonest Reason ever thus go wrack I suppose my Friends resolute hazard against Identical Propositions made him fall into this more than childish mistake For this plain Truth What 's all but in one matter onely is all but in one matter onely had preserv'd him from this Nonsense but he took this for his Ground to proceed upon that All in one matter onely 〈◊〉 All in every matter or which is more is Infinit and so still he continues most learnedly to lay Contradictions for his First Principles because their Interest and his are inseparably linkâ— against the Common Enemy Identical Propositions This I must confess is a very smart and ingâ—nious kind of reasoning and proper to Dr. T. unless perhaps his sworn Brother at hating First Principles and Papists put in for a share It appears by a certain Paper called Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet he is a strong pretender and will cry halfs But 't is time now to return to examine his Answer § 6. It is not necessary indeed to Truth that every one should demonstrate a thing so as to shew that the contrary necessarily involves â— Contradiction for the same thing may be known also through Practical Self-evidence to those who cannot demonstrate but yet the thing must be demonstrable else 't is not Knowable or Ascertainable For Demonstrable is a plain honest word what game soever Dr. T. and his Friend make at it and imports no more abstracting from subtle quirks but only Capable to be known or Intellectually seen by way of Proof whence a Learned man who goes about to prove any thing by strength of severe Reason ought either to demonstrate it or he falls short of his Dâ—â—y Once more I desire Dr. T. to take me right and to reflect that when I say The Thing is Demonstrable or pretend to demonstrate I do not take the word Demonstration with all those many subtleties and perquisits the Schools require I as little love niceties as any man living and can as easily dispense with them so the solid part be well provided for and the Truth of the Thing establisht which if it be not done I make account nothing is done in these cases in which Assent dying to attest things to be Truths are required I onely mean then by Demonstration such a Proof as is taken not from any Exrinsecal consideration as is Authority which grounds Belief but from the intrinsecal Nature of the Thing or Subject in Dispute and such a Proof as necessarily concludes the Thing to be which cannot be possibly done without engaging finally some Identical Proposition or that Things being what it is on which all is built Now this being evidently so and if it be not let Dr. T. shew the contrary I would ask our verbal Divine why he ought not to demonstrate that is prove by necessary concluding Argument both the Letter and Sence of Scripture if he would have men assent most firmly to Faith built according to him solely upon their Certainty Is it not his intent in his Discourses to Conclude what he speaks of How can he do this unless he shews the Conclusion necessarily follows Again does he not intend to conclude 't is a Truth that this is the Letter and Sence of Scripture He must do so or else he can never pretend that Faith built upon it is Truth And if he proves it Truâ— must he not at the same time prove it's Contradictory False And is any thing False but what says a Thing is so when indeed 't is not so or is not so when indeed 't is so which is a direct Contradiction Wherefore Dr. T. can never Conclude a thing to be True unless he brings a Proof necessarily engaging the Nature of the Thing that is unless according to my sence of the Word he both Demonstrates and also shews the contrary necessarily to involve a Contradiction Both these satisfactory Certainties my Grounds attribute to Scriptures Letter and Sence See Surâ—f pag. 116 117 in points appertaining to Faith and he here denies both pag. 10. whence is seen which of us two has more real Honour and Respect for Scripture He who makes neither its Letter or Sence to have any Grounds able to ascertain them that is as to our purpose makes them good for nothing or I who grant and prove both § 7. I suppose Dr. T will say again as he did in that point of a Deity that the nature of the Thing will not bear a Certainty of Scriptures Letter or Sence that so he may be true to his firm Principle and make all Faith alike uncertain I answer the more blame will fall to their share who take away the Certainty of that which is the first Principle in way of Authority or First Authority namely TRADITION which and onely which can Authenticate Books and the thing being of high Concern Practically carry down the same Doctrine and so easily preserve the Book significative of the same Sence Noâ— doubt I but 't is demonstrable that the Practice of England and the Concern of the thing joyn'd with the necessary Evidence of any Alteration in a matter daily so nicely Canvast and continually Us'd can and
would believe him That my Principles do plainly exclude from Salvation at one blow Excommunicate Vnchristian all that do not believe upon my Grounds And nothing is easier than to prove it in his way 'T is but mistaking again the Notion of School-Divines for the Notion of Faithful and School for Church as he did lately and the deed is done immediately without any more trouble He is the happiest man in his First Principles and his Method that I ever met with the parts of the former need not hang together at all but are allow'd to be Incoherent and the later is a building upon false pretences and wrong Suppositions and then what may not he prove or what Conquest cannot he obtain by such powerful Stratagems He sayes he has proov'd at large in the Answer to Sure-Footing that the Council of Trent did not make Oral Tradition the sole Rule of her Faith Possibly I am not so lucky as to light on this large Proof of his all I can finde with an ordinary search is four or five lines Rule of Faith pag. 280. where after a commonly-Objected often-answer'd Citation from the Council of Trent declaring that Christian Faith and Discipline are contain'd in written Books unwritten Traditions therefore that they receive honor the Books of Scripture also Traditions with equal pious affection and reverence He adds which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith Now I had put this very Objection against my self Sure-f pag. 346. and proceeded to clear it to the end of pag. 150. particularly pag. 147.149 upon this Reason because taking the Scripture interpreted by Tradition as the Council expresses it self to do and forbids any man to interpret it otherwise it has the full Authority of Gods Word and so equally to be reverenced Whereas taking it interpreted by private heads which only will serve Dr T's turn 't is nothing less as not engaging the Divine Authority at all But now to the Notion of a Rule there is more required as Dr. T. himself grants and contends 't is found in Scripture viz. that it be so evident that every sensible may understand it as to matters of Faith and this building on the Council of Trents Authority and Judgment I deny to be found in the bare Letter of Scripture and hence say 't is no Rule I omit the repeating very many Arguments from the Council for that point deduc't from pag. 141. to pag. 146. never toucht nor so much as taken notice of in that Mock-Answer of his § 16. But that he may not mistake me I shall not stick to declare whom I exclude from Salvation at least from the way to it whom not and upon what Grounds speaking of the ordinary course of Gods Providence as I declare my self to do throughout this whole Treatise I make account that perfect Charity or Love of God above and in all things is the Immediate Disposition to Bliss or Vnitive of a Soul to God Also that this Virtue cannot with a due heartiness be connaturally or rationally wrought in Souls if the Tenet of a Deity 's Existence and of Christian Faith be held possible to be a Ly. Hence I am oblig'd by my Reason to hold that those who judge there are no absolueely-Conclusive Reasons for the Existence of a Deity nor for the Truth of Christian Faith are as such out of the Road of Salvation On the other side those who hold the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truths they profess Infallible and by Consequence their Faith Impossible to be False as all Catholikes do though as Divines they fail in making out how and by what particular means it comes to be Infallible yet through the virtue of this firm and steady Adhesion to such Principles as are because they are Truths apt to beget solid and well-grounded that is indeed True Virtues such as are a vigorous Hope and a fervent and all-ovre-powering Charity hence they possess the Connatural Means or are in the right way to Heaven And for this Reason I esteem Dr. T 's way of discoursing concerning a Deity and Faith in his Sermons most pestilent and mischievous to Souls as being apt of its own Nature to incline them if they have wit to discern its shallowness first to a kind of Scepticism in Religion and at next to Carelesness Irreligion and Atheism though truly I think 't is not his Intention to do so but that his shortness in Understanding the Nature and Grounds of Christianity makes him conceit he does excellently even to admiration all the while he commits such well-meaning Follies Nor do I think the Church of England will upon second thoughts think fit to Patronize Principles so destructive to the Nature of Faith found in the breast of every Protestant I ever yet met with who all with one mouth will own that 't is absolutely Impossible Christian Faith should be a Lye and abhor the contrary Position as wicked and damnable How Dr. T. may have season'd some of his own Auditors by preaching Controversy to them which he extremely affects I cannot tell 't is according as they incline to believe him more than the Generality of the Christian World whose Sentiments he opposes in his Discourses about the Ground of Faith DISCOURSE VIII With what Art Dr. T. answers my METHOD A Present made to his Credulous Friends shewing how solidly he confuted SVRE-FOOTING by readily granting the main of the Book What is meant by Tradition That J. S. is not singular in his way of discoursing of the Grounds of Faith § 1. HE makes a pass or two at my METHOD and that I conceive must serve for an Answer to it for an Answer I heard was threatned would appear very shortly but this pleasant Preface was the only thing which appeared and all that appears like Answer in it is that he would make it believ'd he ought not answer at all And this he does very neatly and like a Master For let no man think I have a mean Opinion of Dr. T. but every one is not good at all things some are good at proving some at disproving some at shifting of the Question without either proving or disproving every one in his way and in his way I know no man living a greater Master nor so great as the Dr. Two things he does and both of them strange ones First he affirms that Discourse is founded on the self-evident Infallibility of ora◠Tradition Next that He has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Surefooting The first of them would make the Reader apprehend I there suppos'd Oral Tradition self-evidently Infallible and then run on all the way upon that supposition which if it obtain belief as from his Credit he hopes it may since every Scholar knows all Discourses must be founded either on first Principles or at least on such as are granted by those against whom we
argue he sees I must needs be held the most ridiculous Discourser that ever spoke or writ to build a whole Treatise upon a Supposition unprov'd and which begs the whole Question Now whatever I concluded in that short Discourse I deduced step by step and made the foregoing Proposition draw still after it by undeniable Consequence the following one He concealing all mention of Proof or endeavour of it calls my Conclusions Principles and then who would think but that I had laid them to build that Discourse upon them and deserted my usual way of beginning with the known Natures of the Things in hand as I there did with those of Rule and Faith and from them proceeded minutely to whatever I concluded Had his Friend Dr. St. taken the same course his Principles would have evidently discovered their own weakness of themselves and had excus'd others the unnecessary trouble of answering them Next he makes me say that the Infallibility of this Rule is evident to common Sense and says himself that the Foundation of this Method is the self-evident infallibility of Oral Tradition by which words an honest Reader would verily think I suppos'd it gratis to be sâ—lf-evident to common Sense and never troubled my self to prove it whereas though I indeed hold 't is practically self-evident of which I have elsewhere given account yet I proceeded as if I did not but proved § 8. out of the Natures of Rule and Faith that the Rule of Faith whatever it be must be Infallible § 10. that therefore Scripture's Letter is not that Rule and § 11. that Tradition is The Reader being thus questionless well dispos'd to think it very unnecessary he should consider as he calls it or answer any passage of a thing made up of unprov'd Principles or built on an unprov'd Supposition he tels him farther that he has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Sure-footing whence he is not concern'd to take notice of it at present And so the business is done for why should he take pains to give answer to that which deserves none or if it did is answered This Reason though by the way is a little open For in case I did bring any Arguments in my Method to make good that Tradition is an Infallible Rule of Faith and this after I had seen and perhaps sufficiently consider'd too what he replies to Surefooting for any thing appears I may either have amended the Reasons given in Surefooting or produc't better in my Method and so whatever he has said to Surefooting it might have been proper to have considered and said something to the Method too unless he could say with truth that he had already answered the veâ—y Reasons urg'd in It which I do not remember he has nor am confident himself neither § 2. But yet â—o instance in this one passage how rare a piece his cry'd-up Rule of Faith is and how excellently it answers Surefooting let us â— little reflect what this sufficient consideration of his â—mounts to Surefooting was divided into two parts The first from the Properties of a Rule of Faith proved that Tradition was that Rule and this was the business of that Book from the beginning to pag. 57. and particularly of the 5 th Discourse whose Title was Of the Notion of Tradition and that all the Properties of the Rule of Faith do clearly agree to it The 2 d. part begins Discourse 6. and endeavors to demonstrate the Indefectiveness of Tradition or that it has hitherto ever been followed The Confutation of my first part ends in his Rule of Faith pag. 150 the Answer to my 2 d. begins pag. 151. or these two the former was in a manner the whole concern of my Book For if it were prov'd that Tradition was the Rule of Faith that is the only Conveyer of Christs Doctrine hitherto it must either be said by those against whom I argue that it hath not been hitherto convey'd to us at all and so that there are no Christians in the world which they will not say or else that those who proceed upon Tradition for their Rule are the right Christians Whence the later part was only ex abundanti not of absolute necessity especially in case I argu'd ad hominem This being so let Dr. T's Friends and mine when they hap to discourse about us please to send for his Book and mine and with aâ— equal partiality distrusting us both rely upon Sir Tho. Moors pair of honest unbyass'd witnesses Their own Eyes They will find that his Rule of Faith undertakes pag. 146. to answer my 5 th Disc. which pretended to shew that all the properties of the Rule of Faith do clearly agree to Tradition and thence concluded Tradition The Rule of Faith and accordingly quotes pag 41. where that Discourse began in Surefooting They will see the Title of his Sect. 6. which he uses to put in the Margin is That the Properties of a Rule of Faith do not belong to Oral Tradition Now I assigned seven such Properties Surefoot pag. 11 and 12. He was pleas'd to make but two Part. 2. Sect. 1. Sufficiently plain sufficiently certain Coming then at the bottom of pag. 148. to confute that whole Discourse which was the most substantial part of my Book and contained the most pressing Arguments to my main purpose he compleats his answer to it in one single page viz. 149. nay in one piece of that Page This would seem strange and something difficult if any thing were so to Dr. T. and his singular Method of answering Books All sayes he that he pretends to prove in this Discourse is that if this Rule hath been followed and kept to all along the Christian Doctrine neither has nor can have received any change 'T is all indeed I pretended and all I desired to prove for certainly if it can preserve Christian Doctrine unchanged it has in it the Nature of a Rule and what has in it the Nature of a Rule is I conceive a Rule whether it have been followed or not which is a Question I had not then examined but reserved to my following Discourses To this then after his sufficient consideration What sayes the Dr. All this sayes he is readily granted him For my part I have no reason to except against that answer for all my Writing aims at is that people should see the Truâ—h and acknowledge it and since he readily grants all I pretend to prove I were very unreasonable if I should not be contented Though if I were dispos'd to be cross this word readily is something liable to exception After he has employ'd a good part of his Book in preparing to speak to the main Question in dividing and subdividing and playing all the tricks which may make it look like an Answer and when he comes to the Question to grant it because he could do no other is indeed to grant it but not very readily People will not think he was very ready to
safe expression though for had he said sufficiently answer'd or confuted or opposed so much as by a bare-denial or even attempted to do any of these All this is readily granted would have been a filthy stumbling block in his way But those safe easy words sufficiently considered are very choice and may signify any thing or nothing which you please for one may sufficiently consider a thing in his mind and upon sufficient consideration finde it best to let it alone and say never a syllable to it or one may grant or deny or do any thing with it and these pliable words will fit whatever he does Those who are a little straitned and find â—mpartial Reason not so favourable to them as they wish should by all means learn this gentile insignificant way of Expression which may happen to do them more service than a great deal of crabbed knowledge which is of a stubborn nature and does veâ—y well where Truth is of the party but is quite out and signifies nothing against it whereas this like those easy pliable things Probabilities the matter which best fits this pliant manner of expressing is wonderful complaisant and if you happen to change sides will be as serviceable to falshood And I would particularly commend this phrase sufficiently considered for a pattern to those who study the Art and need it § 5. People will not expect from me to give a Reason of this unexpected kindness of the Dr. for they are sufficiently assured I am not of his Council But I think he granted no more than what he knew not how to deny For whoever reads Suref p. 48. 55. will find the Self-evidence of Tradition so explained that supposing it sufficiently plain intelligible which I there proved and he here grants its Ruling power is as plainly made out as this Identical Proposition that the same is the same with it self and particularly in my Method pag. 16. and 17. which kind of Propositions a man may be angry at but cannot so handsomly deny for if he could I suppose he rather would have done â—t than yielded the very point in Controversie and which is besides so favourable to Catholicks and destructive to his Cause This possibly is the Cause of his Resentment against Identical Propositions of which he would â—evenge himself for the injury they have done him and therefore in his Prefacâ— very politickly bids opens defiance to all the whole Tribe of such ill-condition'd Principles In the mean time the beginning and end of that sixth Section are very observable The Title is that the properties of a Rule of Faith do not belong to Tradition and this signifies that it is not the Rule of Faith coming to make good this undertaking he granted that 't is plain and intelligible and can if people stick to it preserve Christian Doctrine from change and this signifies that the properties of a Rule do belong to it and that it is the Rule For I do not remember he ever pretended there were two Rules of Faith wherefore since Tradition hath power to do what a Rule should do viz. preserve Faith uncorrupted and unchanged Tradition certainly is the Rule and so he expresly calls it p. 49. But that this Rule hath alwayes been followed c. and may for any thing appears here hold perhaps that Scripture is not the Rule And yet all this while his Title is that Tradition had not the properties of a Rule or is no Rule But the Conclusion is every jot as remarkable for he had no sooner readily granted all I pretended to prove but he as readily diverts the Reader from reflecting upon it by these words But that this Rule has alwayes been followed nay that 't is impossible there should have been any deviation from it as he pretends this we deny not only as untrue but as one of the most absurd Propositions that ever pretended to demonstrative evidence Would any Reader suspect this serious clutter of words should be both untrue and nothing to purpose besides For it plainly speaks of a Question which is not the Question in that place but reserv'd for another and which he should have let alone till its time come Yet I was to blame to say it was nothing to purpose For t is to great purpose and the Transition is so nimble and delicate that the Reader ceases to reflect upon the import of his concession and begins to think me a man of confidence and strange confidence too who can hold such palpable Nonsense But pray where did I ever pretend 't is unpossible there should have been any deviation from Tradition Sure 't was in my sleep and the Dr. has taken me napping Otherwise as far as I am acquainted with my self and mine own actions I am so far from having writ or said or so much as thought that there never was nor could be any deviation from it that on the contrary I have alwayes thought and have said and writ that there have been many deviations from it and as many as there have been Heresies in God's Church Nay as far as I remember I have not said so much as that I had absolutely demonstrated there had or could be no total defection from it Indeed I endeavour'd to demonstrate there could not but I pretended no more but to endeavour it and the Titles of the sixth and eighth Discourse in Surefooting will bear me witness But I know not under what unlucky Planet the Dr. wrote this Discourse where nothing will fadge and every thing he says proves against hâ—mself This untrue and absurd Proposition as he calls it and as it is indeed that 't is impossible there should have been any deviation from Tradition implies at least thus much that this deviation is extrinsecal to the Nature of a Rule for else Scripture could not be said to be a Rule from which 't is plain that many both can and do deviate Wherefore the Proposition as absurd as it is not more absurd than it is to urge it against Tradition which whatever become of the Proposition is never a whit less a Rule And indeed the true difference and true poinâ— of Controversie betwixt us stands thus I say and prove and himself by granting all my 5th Discourse and that Tradition is plain grants that Tradition is so excellently qualifi'd for a Rule that let men but endeavor to follow it still to their power it will bring down the same uncorrupted Faith to the Worlds end whereas 't is known and evident that multitudes of men have follow'd and do follâ—â— Scripture to their power and differ enormously in their Tenets and that as far as contradiction will let them go as far as There is a Trinity and there is not a Trinity Christ is God â—nd Christ is not God than which as none can be more wide so execepting the Tenet of the Deity it self none can be more Fundamental or have greater influence upon Christian life § 6 Reflecting then
by some Natural and therefore more easily-known Assistances belonging to the Church those out of her are brought to the knowledge that she is Supernaturally assisted This is the Method I take in resolving Faith If any man can show me any other that is either more solid more orderly more connatural and agreeable to the nature of Faith or more honourable to Gods Church I shall as willingly and easily quit it as I now out of long and serious consideration embrace and firmly adhere to it But it appears plain to me that whoever contradicts this especially as to that point which occasion'd this Discourse must withal contradict a Maxim on which all Science is principally built namely that The Definition is more known than the Notion defin'd which I take to be understood not onely of the Whole Definition but of each single part of it for if any one part be more obscure than the thing defin'd the whole Definition as having that obscure part in it must necessarily be more obscure likewise Wherefore the Definition of a Church being Coetus Fidelium c. A Congregation of Faithful c. the notion of Faithful and consequently of Faith must either be more Known and Knowable than that of Church and consequently antecedent to it in right method of Discourse or the Definition would be obscurer than the Thing defin'd which if it be said I must confess I know not to what end Definitions are or why they do not rather conduce to Ignorance than to Science Add that True Faith being most Intrinsecal and Essential to a Church 't is by consequence a more forcible and demonstrative Argument to convince inevitably that such a Body in which 't is found is the True Church than is any Extrinsecal Mark whatsoever And if it be objected that Extrinsecal Marks are more easily Knowable I doubt not but in those who are led away by superficial Appearances there is some show of Reason in this Objection but I utterly deny that if we go to the bottom to settle the Absolute Certainty of any of these Marks any of them can be known at all much less more easily known if the Certainty of Tradition in visible and practical matters of Fact be questionable and that neither Scripture Fathers Councils Histories Monuments or any thing else of that nature can pretend to Absolute Certainty if Tradition be Uncertain or can pretend to be known unless Tradition be first that is more known as is shown particularly in the Corollaries to Sure-footing § 11. Hence is seen that the word Tradition is taken in a threefold sence For the Way of Tradition or Delivery taken at large For the Humane or Natural Authority of the Church as delivering And lastly for its Divinely-assisted or Supernatural Authority call'd properly Christian. When 't is taken in one fence when in another the nature of the matter in hand and the concomitant circumstances will evidently determine Onely we must note that these three Notions are not adequately contradistinct the later still including the former as Length Breadth and Depth do in Continu'd Quantity For The Humane Authority of the Church includes Tradition taken at large and adds to it the best Assistances of Nature as is shown Sure-f p. 82 83. The Supernatural Authority includes all found in the other two and adds to it the best Assistances of Grace as is particularly declared there from p. 84. to p. 93. So that all the Perfection of Tradition that is imaginable is to be found in that which we call Christian or in the Testifying Authority of Christs Church § 12. But because 't is still D. T 's best play to make use of Extrinsecal Exceptions so to divert the Readers Eye and avoid answering my Intrinsecal Reasons taken from the nature of the Things with which he is loth to grapple and since amongst the rest he is very frequent at this Impertinent Topick of my discoursing the Grounds of Faith after a different manner than other Divines do it were not amiss omitting many pregnant Instances which might be collected out of Dr. Stratford the Learned Author of Protestancy without Principles and many others to the same purpose to show how far he mistakes in this point by instancing in one Controvertist of eminent both Fame and Learning as any in his time one who writ before Rushworth's Dialogues appeared or perhaps were thought of and so cannot be suspected a Follower of that New Way as Dr. T. call it I mean Mr. Fisher. This able Controvertist in his Censure of Dr. White 's Reply p. 83 84 maintains that VNWRITTEN that is Oral and Practical TRADITION is the PRIME GROVND OF FAITH more Fundamental than Scripture and shows how his Adversary Mr. White the Minister grants in effect the same In his Answer to the nine Points p. 27. he concludes strongly that Scriptures are not the Prime Principles of Faith supposed before Faith which Infidels seeing to be True resolve to believe the Mysteries of Faith but onely are secondary Truths dark and obscure in themselves believed upon the Prime Principles of Faith Which words as amply and fully express that Scripture is not the express Rule of Faith as can be imagin'd For how should that have in it self the nature of an Intellectual Rule which in it self is dark and obscure Or how can that which is believed upon the Prime Principles that is partly at least upon the Ground or Rule of Faith be any part of that Rule since what 's believ'd is the Object of Faith and so presupposes the Rule of Faith Also in the beginning of his Argument he makes the Prim◠Principles of Faith or Vnwritten Tradition as he elsewhere calls it that is the same we mean by Oral and Practical evident in it self And p. 40. he puts the Question between us and Protestants to be what is the external Infallible Ground unto which Divine Inspiration moveth men to adhere that they may be settled in the true saving Faith Where first besides Gods grace moving us to every good Act which all Catholicks hold to be necessary there is requisite according to him an External Infallible Ground next that without such a Ground a man cannot be settled in true saving Faith Again p. 38 coming to lay the ground of knowing any Doctrine to be Apostolical he mentions none but onely Publick Catholick Tradition taught unanimously and perpetually by Pastors which p. 37. he calls a Rule Infallible and says that onely Hereticks charge it to be Fallible where also he explains the meaning of his Principle that The Apostolical Doctrine is the Catholick after this manner The Doctrine which is deliver'd from the Apostles by the Tradition of whole Christian Worlds of Fathers unto whole Christian Worlds of Children c. Of this Tradition which by the words now cited appears to be evidently the same I defend he affirms p. 38. that 't is prov'd to be simply Infallible by the very nature thereof and quotes Suarez to