to attest or explain these Writings among Christians any more than there was for some Ages before Christ of such a Body of men among the Iews to attest or explain to them the VVritings of Moses or the Prophets He that owns this must own it without reason for any thing appears yet for Dr. St. has afforded us hitherto nothing to prove this point but a few words craftily laid together which when look'd into have not a jot of reason in them And the like empty inside we find in this present Principle For if the whole will of God be plainly reveal'd in Scripture then in case nothing else be requisit to understand Gods will but the disposition of soberly enquiring as he puts no other it must follow that no sober Enquirer can miss of knowing there the whole will of God and since every Article of Faith is part of Gods VVill it would follow hence that every sober Enquirer may understand all Faith in Scripture which yet the Dr. is not dispos'd to say as appears by his avoiding to put down what the tenour of his discourse requir'd namely that the whole will of God is so plainly reveal'd in Scripture that no sober Enquirer can miss of knowing his whole will there and instead of it substituting that the whole will of God is so plainly reveal'd in Scripture that no sober Inquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation which words may be true though they fall far short of knowing the whole will of God by that means Next it is very material and it would be very requisiâ—e to know how a man must be qualify'd to be a sober Enquirer In order to which we may reflect that as was said before it ought in reason be judged Gods will that we should know whether Christ be God and whether his Body and consequently Himself be really in the Sacrament lest we either want the best Incitements to Devotion if he be and we judge he is not or else commit material Idolatry by judging him to be so when he is not so Now I would have him clearly show clearly I say for all depends upon it according to his Grounds in what either the Roman Catholicks or the Socinians fall short in point of being sober enquirers for 't is plain they must both fall short of being such if the whole will of God be clearly reveal'd in Scripture since the former holds Christ is really in the Sacrament the other that he is not God the contrary to both which I suppose Dr. St. holds to be the true sense of Scripture Farther if there can be no necessity of any Infallible society of men either to attest or explain those Writings 't is Evident there can be no need of a Fallible society of men for those Ends. For if Writings which are attested or explained by a Fallible Society of men be the Rule of Faith or the Grounds God has left us to build our Faith on and it be evident that a Fallible Attestation or Explication may possibly lead us into nothing but Errour it would follow that God himself may possibly have led all Christians hitherto and still leads them to the end of the world into actual Errour since a reliance on Fallible means of knowing the Letter and Sense cannot possibly raise any Assent beyond possibility of being Erroneous There needs therefore by Dr. St's discourse neither Infallible nor Fallible Societies and so according to his Principles farewell all Church both Catholick and Protestant as far as concerns these two main Duties on which all else depends Again though all this were true and that the Scriptures were own'd as containing in them the whole VVill of God so plainly reveal'd that no sober Enquirer can miss of what 's necessary to salvation and that therefore there needed no Church to explain them Yet 't is a strange Consequence that therefore there can be no necessity of any Infallible society of men to ATTEST them or to witness that the Letter of Scripture is right This is so far from following out of the former part of his Discâ—â—â—se that the contrary ought to follow 〈…〉 prejudicing his own pretence that 〈◊〉 conduces exceedingly to it for certainâ—y his sober Enquirer would less be in doubt to miss of what is necessary to salvation in case the Letter on which all depends be well attested than if it be not and most certainly an Infallible society of men can better attest that Letter than a Fallible one and those Writings can with better show of reason be owned to contain in them the VVill of God if their Letter be attested beyond possibility of being wrong than if left in a possibility of being such for if the Letter be wrong all is wrong in this case It might seem wonderful then what it is that thus byasses Dr. St. against his own Interest And I wish I had reason to think it were not a kind of Innate Antipathy against not onely our Church but Church in Common and a desire to attribute as little to it as he can possibly though he hazzard some prejudice to his own Cause and even all Christian Faith into the bargain His whole way of discourse here bends strongly towards the taking away all divine Institution of Pastors for this would oblige the people to hear them and levelling all into a Fanatick Anarcâ—y I would gladly interpret him otherwise and imagine that perhaps he means that since 't is own'd the Scriptures thus contain Gods will therefore there needs not be supposed any Infallible society of men either to attest or explain them but I cannot conceive he should think Scriptures Letter must be own'd to be right without some either Fallible or Infallible Authority to attest it to be such or that however he may sceptically dread no Authority can be Infallible yet that he will deny but that it were good there were such an Authority to attest Scriptures Letter nay needful too in case he heartily held that Christian Faith built according to his Grounds solely on that Letter may not possibly all be a Ly which common sense tells us it may be in case we may all be deceiv'd in the Truth of the Letter Lastly That for some Ages before Christ there was no Necessity of such a Body of men among the Iews to attest or explain to them the VVritings of Moses and the Prophets is first not prov'd and yet Dr. St. builds upon it as confidently as if it were evidently concluded or else Self-evident Next what mean those words for some Ages before Christ If the whole time of the Moâ—aiâ—al Law then 't is evidently false since Deut. 17. v. 10 11 c. God commanded upon pain of death to do according as some persons he had appointed for that end should explain the Writings belonging to that Law and if these men had not some way or other been secured from Errour God by commanding the subject Laity under so heavy a penalty to
is borrow'd and caus'd But herein consists Dr. St's Masterpiece that though his Principles be never so dark his Conclusions are yet as light as Noon-day But I mâ—st not forestall the Reader 's mirth What I am to do is to declare in short what kind of things Conclusions ought to be in doing which I will say no more than all men of Art in the world and all who understand common reason will yeeld to be evident A Conclusion then 1. Is a Proposition which follows out of Premisses which are it's Principles 2. The Knowledge of it's Verity depends on our knowing that the Premisses it's Prinples are True 3. Therefore the verity of these Premisses must be more known to him whom we intend to convince of the Truth of the Conclusion than is the Truth of the Conclusion it self otherwise 't is in vain to endeavour to convince him of this by the other 4. The Consequence or Following of the Conclusion out of the Premisses or the Conâ—uxion between them must be made known for if by vertue of this Coherence it follow not thence it may be perhaps a great Truth but 't is not at all a Conclusion 5. To do this 't is requisite that each particular Conclusion should either be put immediatly after itâ—s particular Premisses or else be related to them otherwise how shall any one be able to judge whether they cohere or no if he know not what things are to cohere Lastly the Conclusion must be such as that in the granting it the victory of the Opponent consists and so it must come home and close to the very point in difference between the two disputing parties These short Notes duely reflected on we advance to a nearer view of his pretended Conclusions They are introduc't with these three dry words It follows that And here is our first defeat The Consequences are Six the Principles Thirty and yet no light is thought fit to be given us which Conclusion follows out of which Principles but we are left to grope in the dark and guess at a thing which as shall be seen hereafter no Sphynx or Oâ—dipus can ever make any probable nor even possible conjecture of I wonder to what end he with such exact care noted all both Principles and Consequences in due Order with numbring Figures was it only to give us a sleeveless notice that there were just Thirty Principles and just Six Conclusions I see no such great Mystery or Remarkableness in that observation as should deserve such a Caution or Care He should then either have omitted these or else to shew them usefull have afforded us a few Figures more relating each Conclusion to to it 's respective Premisses or Principles But the reason of this Carriage is manifest For had he done this we might have examin'd what coherence each Conclusion had with it's Premisses and whether it follow'd from them by necessary consequence or no Also whether the Premisses were more Evident then it self was and all those other Properties of a Conclusion lately noted without which 't is the height of Non-sense to call any saying a Conclusion Had these considerations come to the Test his Consequences had come off as ill or worse than his Principles Let themselves tell us whether I wrong them or no. It follows that 1. There is no necessity at all or use of an Infallible Society of men to assure men of the Truth of those things which they may be Certain of without and cannot have any greater assurance supposing such Infallibility to be in them This Proposition is so far from being a Conclusion from any Principles much less from his that 't is self-known to all men of common sense and amounts indeed to a first Principle For an Infallible Society of men so circumstanc't as he describes is most evidently needless and to no purpose and so this Conclusion amounts in plain Terms to this Identical Proposition only paraphras'd a little What 's needless is needless Or 't is to no purpose to put that which is of no purpose when put or of no purpose to be put Which are known by the Light of Nature and so cannot admit Proof Is not this a rare man who first lays such obscure Principles as need Proof and so ought to be call'd Conclusions and then pretends to infer such Conclusions as cannot possibly need proving being self-evident and so ought rather to be call'd First Principles What I desire at present is that he would please to acquaint us out of which of his â—o Principles it follows that what needs not needs not If out of none this is no Conclusion though it be a most Evident Truth 2. The Infallibility of that Society of men who call themselves the Catholick Church must be examin'd by the same Faculties in man the same Rules of triall the same motives by which the Infallibility of any divine Revelation is This is of the same nature with the foregoing For the former part which says that this Infallibility must be examin'd by the same Faculties in man is as plain as 't is that nothing can be examin'd without a Faculty or Power to examin or that nothing can examin but what can examin which is Evident beyond all possibility of Proof Or was ever any man in this world so silly as to imagin that whereas we must use our Reasoning Faculty in judging the Infallibility of any Divine Revelation yet perhaps we are to make use not of the same Faculty but of our Loco-motive expulsive or Retentive Faculty in examining the Infallibility of the Church As for the rest of it if he means by Rules of Trial and Motives the maxims and Reasons we have for holding the Truth of any thing as he can mean no other then 't is manifest that taking Divine Revelation for a point of Faith reveal'd 't is Infallibility is to be examin'd by the same means other Points of Faith are and so 't is to be concluded Infallibly True as other points of Faith also are because the Divine Authority is shown to be engag'd for the Truth of it Again taking those words to signify the Act or way of Revealing which goes before Faith and so is the Object of meer natural Reason 't is evident its Infallibility is to be examin'd by the same Maxims as the Infallibility of other Human Authorities also are or rather thus taken the Infallibility of the Church testifying deliver'd Faith and the Infallibility of the Divine Revelation are one and the same thing So that Distinguishing his words to clear his sense his Conclusion plainly amounts to this that Points of Faith are to be examin'd in the same manner as Points of Faith are to be examin'd or else That Things of such a nature Subject to Human Reason are to be examin'd in the same manner as things of that nature Subject to Human Reason are to be examin'd Or rather which will fit both of them that Things of any nature are to be
only in the Word It being agreed then amongst us all that what Christ and his Apostles taught is Gods Word or his Will and the Means to Salvation all that is to be done by us as to matters of Faith is to know with Absolute Certainty what was the first taught Doctrine or Christs sense and whatever can thus assure us of that is deservedly call'd the Rule of Faith Now the word Rule made use of to mean a Spiritual or Intellectual Direction is Metaphorical or translated from some Material thing as most words that express Spiritual Notions are and 't is one of those kind of Metaphors which are transferr'd from one thing to another for some Proportion or Resemblance between them For as a Material Rule is such a thing as if one endeavour to go according to it and decline not from it preserves one from going crooked so this Intellectual Rule call'd the Rule of Faith is of that Nature that if one go according to it and swerve not from it it preserves one from going wrong or from erring in his knowledge of what is True or First-deliver'd Faith and Faith being intended for persons of all sorts or Capacities the Rule of Faith must be able to preserve even those of the meanest Capacity from Erring in Faith while they relie upon It. Agian this being the Proper and Primary Effect of the Rule of Faith and every Nature that is having essentially in it self a Power to produce of its self and without the Assistance of any other its Primary Effect or rather being it self that Power as man to discourse Fire to burn c. it follows that since to preserve all that relie on it in right Faith is the Proper effect of the Rule of Faith what has not in it self the Power to do this and this of its self independently on any thing else but on God who establishes the Natures of all things to be Certain Powers to produce their Proper Effect is not in true speech a Rule of Faith Since then not one Catholick in the World holds that Scriptures Letter of it self and independently on something else viz thâ— Church's Tradition attesting the Truth of the same Letter and Interpreting it has in it self Power thus to certifie persons of all capacities of Christian Faith without possibility of Erring nor any one but holds the Churches Authority is able alone to do this Effect since 't is known and confest it actually perform'd this in the beginning there is not one Catholick that I know of who holds either that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith taking the words in this sense or that any thing but the Churches living voice and Practice or Tradition is It and so taking the words properly as I do they all agree with me On the other side taking those words the Rule of Faith for any thing that contains Faith or that may signify it with absolute Certainty to people of all sorts not of it self but meerly by vertue of another whose Power of Asserting the Truth of the Letter in those Passages at least that concern Christian Faith and of unerringly Interpreting it lends it to be thus certainly significative of Gods Will taking I say Rule of Faith in this sense as some of ours do I grant with them that Scripture is a Rule of Faith So that still I agree with them in the Thing only I dissent from them in the word and judge that this Container of Christs Doctrin as now describ'd is but improperly call'd a Rule of Faith as not having in it self the nature of such a Rule that is not having a Power in it self and of its self thus to ascertain Faith by absolutely engaging the Divine Authority This Distinction now given I learned from the Council of Trent which no where says that Scripture is a Rule of Faith as it does expresly of Tradition Sess. 5. but only that it contains Faith as also Tradition does but whether it contains it in such a manner that all those who are to have Faith by relying on it may by so doing be absolutely secur'd from erring which is requisite over and above to make it in true speech deserve the name of a Rule the Council says nothing I am sure it is far from saying that people of all sorts reading the Scriptures and attending solely to the Letter as interpreted and understood by their private selves shall be sure never to erre in right Faith nay it engages not for their security from erring so much as in any one point which yet ought to be said if Scripture in it self and of it self have the power of regulating them in their Faith or be a Rule Rather the Council by its Carriage says the direct contrary for though being about to define against Hereticks it professes to follow in its definitions the written word yet 't is observable that it no where builds on any place of Scripture but it professes at the same time to build its Interpretation of that place on Tradition which evidently argues that though Scripture in the Judgment of the Council contain'd the Point yet that which indeed regulated the Council in its Definitions was the Tradition of the Church as it also expresly declares where ever it defines And I dare say that there is not one Catholick in the world who thinks the Council knew not both what and how to define against Luther and Calvin at that time without needing to seek its Faith anew in Texts of Scripture which plainly concludes that the Council was not regulated by It or look'd upon it as her Rule but only consider'd it as of a sacred Authority and available against Hereticks professing to rely on Scripture and accusing the Church for going contrary to the Word of God Nay the Council defines that none should dare to interpret Scripture contrary to the sense which our H. Mother the Catholick Church hath held and does hold which clearly takes it out of private hands and makes the sense of the Church ever held the only Interpreter of Scripture especially in matters of Faith and extends to all Scripture which unavoidably makes it no Rule of Faith I am sure the Distinction now given shows my sentiment consistent if not perfectly agreeing with that Common Opinion of our Divines that Scripture is a Partial Rule or that Scripture and Tradition integrate one compleat Rule For they clearly mean by those words that Faith is partly contain'd in Scripture partly in the Tradition of the Church So that what they had an eye to in so doing was not the Evidence requisit to a Rule but only the degree of Extent of Scripture to the matter contain'd in it whence 't is evident they meant onely that Scripture contain'd some part of Faith which I perfectly allow to it and perhaps more This is my Judgment concerning the notioâ— of the Rule of Faith and what is such a Rule and these my Reasons for that Judgment If any one thinks
he can go to work more Logically and exactly in finding out the true nature and notion of a Rule and show me I take it improperly I shall heartily thank him and acknowledge my mistake But I never yet discern'd any such Attempt nor do I see any reason to fear any such performance And I much doubt should any Catholick Divine out of a Charitable Intention of Union which I shall ever commend and heartily approve trusting to the Equivocalness of the word say Scripture is the Rule or a Rule I much doubt I say that when the thing comes to be examin'd to the bottom it will scarce tend to any solid good for however Words may bend yet the true Grounds of Catholick Faith are Inflexible and we must take heed lest while we yield them the Word they expect not as they may justly having such occasion that we should grant the Thing properly signify'd by that Word which if they do we must either recede or else forgo Catholick Grounds But now the difference between me and Dr. St's party is in the very Thing it self and this as wide as Contradiction can distance us For Dr. T. whom he still abetts makes it possible that he has neither True Letter nor True sense of Scripture that is makes his Rule of Faith and consequently his Faith built solely on It possible to be False And all that go that Way fall unavoidably into that precipice while they admit no Grounds but what are Fallible as I have shown at large in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery Whereas I still bear up to the Impossibility that Christian Faith should be a Ly and consequently I maintain that the Rule of Faith which engages the Divine Authority on which its Truth solely depends and without engaging which it might be all False must be Impossible to be False or Infallibly certain And hence taking my rise from the Nature of Faith in which all Protestants and indeed all that have the name of Christians except some few speculators agree with me viz. that taking it as built on those Motives left by God for his Church to embrace Faith that is taking it as it ought to be taken 't is above Opinion and Impossible to be False hence I say building on this mutual Agreement I pursue a solid Union which I declare my self most heartily to zeal Hoping that this point once distinctly clear'd against the Sophisms and blinding Crafts of some weak Heterodox Writers it will quickly appear that 't is every mans Concern who is of Capacity to look after such Grounds that the Divine Authority on which the Truth of all Faith depends is engag'd for the Points he holds as are absolutely Certain or Impossible to be False And I make account that were this quest heartily pursu'd it would quickly appear both by others Confessing the possible Falsehood of theirs as also by inforcing Reasons nay by Dr. Tillitsons yielding to the sufficiency of this Rule even when he was to impugn it that nothing but Tradition or the Testimony of the Church can be such a Ground Perhaps also it might be shown that both more learned and more sober Protestant Authors have own'd the admitting Tradition and a reliance on the Churches Authority for their Faith and for the true sense of Scripture in order to the attaining true Faith than those are who have maintain'd this private-spirited way so zealously advanc'd by Dr. St. of leaving it to be interpreted by every vulgar head to the utter destruction of Church and Church-Government This is and shall be my way of endeavouring Vnion which beginning at the bottom and with our mutual Agreement in so main a point that it bears all along with it viz. the Absolute Certainty of Faith is hopeful to be solid and well built and so Effectual if it please God to inspire some Eminent and Good Men to pursue home a Principle which themselves have already heartily embrac'd If not I have this satisfaction that I have done a due right and honor to Christian Faith and given it that advantage by asserting its perfect security from error as Gods Grace assisting is apt to make it work more efficaciously both interiourly and exteriourly in those who already possess it Fourth Examen Sifting the the ten following Principles concerning the Letter-Rule and Living Rule of Faith THe right nature of the Rule of Faith being thus stated 't is high time to address to our Examen how Dr. St. from Principles settles us such a Rule beginning from his tenth 10. If the Will of God cannot be sufficiently declar'd to men by Writing it must either be because no Writing can be Intelligible enough for that end or that it can never be known to be written by men Infallibly assisted The former is repugnant to common sense for words are equally capable of being understood spoken or written the later overthrows the possibility of the Scriptures being known to be the word of God I have already said and in divers books manifoldly prov'd that no declaration of God's will or which is all one in our case no Rule of Faith is sufficient conâ—â—dering the Nature and Ends of Faith 〈◊〉 obligations arising from it but 〈…〉 to be false and built on Infallible Grounds This premised we are to inquire whether Writing be the best Way for thus assuring it in all Ages to the end of the world To come then closer to our Answer We are first to reflect again what Dr. St. means by the Will of God at least what he ought to mean by it For these words at the first sight seem to signifie onely some External Actions commanded by God to be performed or avoided and it is the Dr's Interest they should be taken onely in this sense for such a will is more easie to be signifi'd by Writing than some other things of a more abstruse spiritual and dogmatical nature which yet are of absolute Necessity to be believ'd by the Church such as are the points of the Trinity Incarnation and Godhead of Christ who dy'd for us since then Gods Will extends not only to aim at Mankinds Attainment of his Last End or True Happiness but also to provide for the best means to it or to give us knowledg of those Motives which are apt to create in man a hearty Love of Heaven above all things the best Condition of Mans Happiness or Immediate disposition to it it follows that the holding all those Tenets which contain in themselves such Motives do all come within the compass of the Will of God To omit many others I will instance in two Points of main Concern and Influence towards Christian Life namely the Godhead of Christ and the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament Now who sees not how wonderful an Ascendent both these if verify'd must needs have over Christian hearts Can any Amulet of Love be so charming or apt to elevate to the Love of God above all things as
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
be Formally Infallible in the Grounds of Faith and so able to discourse of those Grounds and make out their Absolute Certainty by way of Skill or Art there ought to be moreover another sort of men in the Church Formally-Infallible in discerning the True and distinct notion of each Point of Faith and this is the proper work of the Governours of the Church For these by reason of their State of Life which is to meditate on God's Law day and night their perpetual Converse with the Affair of Faith by Preaching Teaching Catechizing Exhorting their Concern to overlook their Flock lest any Innovatour should infect them with Novelties their Constant Addiction to observe exactly their Rule Tradition the Standard by which they govern themselves in distinguishing the true Faithfull from revolting Apostats or Hereticks their Duty to be well vers't in the Doctrine of Fathers and Acts of former Councils and according to these soberly and gravely not quirkingly and with witty tricks to understand and interpret Holy Scripture These Eminent Personages and Chief Magistrates and Mâ—sters of the Faithfull being tâ—us furnisht with all requisite endowments to give them a most distâ—nct and exact knowledge of the doctrine descended to them by Tradition and of the sense of the Church in case any Heretick revolts openly from the formerly deliverâ—d Faith these Men I say are by the Majesty and sway of their moâ—t venerable and most ample Authority to quash and subdue his petty party newly sprung up and either reduce him to his duty by wholsome advice and discipline or if he persists in his Obstinacy to cut him off solemnly from the Church by Excommunication that so the sounder Faithfull may look upon him according to our Saviours command as on a Heathen or a Publicanâ— it being thus made evident that he stands against all his Superiâ—urs and rebels against the most sacred Authority upon Earth Or in case that Heretick cloak his poisonous doctrine in aâ—biguous expressions or goes about to pervert the words used formerly by the Church by drawing them to a sinister sense never intended by Her They being perfectly acquainted with the language and sense of the Church are to invent and assign proper words to express the Churches sence and such as are pertinent and effectual for the present juncture and exigency to defeat the crafty Attempts of those quibbling Underminers of Faith or else they are to clear the true sence of the former words us'd by the Church by declaring in what meaning the Church takes and ever took them And sometimes too beating the Heretick at his own weapon Scripture's Letter by avowing this to be the sence in which the Church ever took such and such places Hence they are said to define Faith that is to expresse in distinct words it 's precise Limits and bounds that so no leaven of Errour may possibly intermingle it self and to seal and recommend their Acts by stamping on them the most Grave most Venerable and most Sacred Authority in the whole Christian world Now that this Authority of the Church Representative is Infallible in knowing the Points of Faith and that on the best manner is prov'd hence because if such a Learned Body consisting of the most Eminent and Knowing Personages in the world can be deceiv'd while they rely on the Means left by God to preserve mankinde from errour in understanding the Points of Faith 't is evident no man in the world can be â—â—cur'd thereby from Errour and so the Means would be no Means to arrive at Truth but rather a Means to leade men into Errour since they err'd relying solely on that which it being supposed to have been intended by God for a Contrary end is absolutely Impossible 5. Though the Substance or Essence of Faith consists in believing what is True upon the Divine Authority certainly engag'd for those Truths which is the Formal Motive of Believing and therefore 't is enough for trne Faith that the â—Generality of the Church or the Vulgar be materially Infallible in their Faith yet it addes evidently a great perfection to Faith that they be Formally Infallible and that the Faithfull see with Infallible Certainty that the Divine Authority is actually engag'd when they believe First because Faith is an Intellectual Virtue and so to proceed knowingly upon it's Grounds makes it more Agreeable to the Understanding and Perfective of it 2. Because the more evident 't is that the Divine Authority is engag'd the more heartily those who reverence it are dispos'd to submit their Iudgments by believing whence Faith in such Persons is more lively firm and Immoveable also more Efficacious and if other Considerations be equal more apt to work through Charity than it is in others Moreover such Faithful are incomparably more able to satisfy and convert others being able as is supposed to make â—ut evidently the Grounds of their Faith Wherefore every thing being then in it's perfectest state when 't is able to produce it's like or another of it 's own kinde 't is a signe that Faith in such men is Ripe Manly and Perfect since 't is able to propagate it sâ—lf to others or as S. Paul phrases it gignere in Evangelio Whence those who are to convert souls and propagate Faith are oblig'd to labour all that may be to accomplish themselves in this particular lest they fall short of this Perfection which seems properly and peculiarly due to their state For 't is not so opprobrious to the Layity to be unable to perform this but 't is highly so to them because they are lame without it 6. Notwithstanding this 't is God's Will that all the Faithfull should be formally Infallible in their Faith or know Infallibly the Grounds of Faith cannot be False as far as they are capable For this being as was lately shown a Perfection in Faith and God who is Essential Goodness not being Envious but desirous his Creatures should have all the Good they are capable to receive especially such goods as tend to the bettering their souls and promoting them towards Heaven it follows that he wills them this Perfection in Faith as far as it can stand with the Universal Order of the World or the particular natures of Things that is as far as they are capable to receive it 7. He hath therefore ordain'd such a Means by which to know his Will as far as concerns our Belief or what he would have us believe that is he has constituted such a Rule of Faith that it's Certainty may be most easily penetrable by all degrees and sorts of the Faithfull Whence follows most evidently that Tradition and not Scripture is that Rule For of all ways of Knowing and Ascertaining imaginable nothing is more easie to be comprehended or to satisfy people of all sorts then is that of Witnessing Authority as we experience in their perfect belief of K. Iames or K. H. 8ths existence and such like The Grounds of which Truths not needing to be
learnt at School but being either inbred or by an ordinary converse with the world instil'd into them nothing is easier then for the wiser sort of them to fall into the account of it of themselves occasion being given as also to awaken as it were those dormant Knowledges in the Vulgar and make them reflect and see not with a clear and distinct sight as do the wiser portion of the Church but with a grâ—sse and confused yet solid Knowledge and suitable to their pitch that a Rule of such a nature is Certain and so those who professedly own and proceed upon it are in the truth they who reject it in an Errour Whereas yet they are utterly Incapable by any Maxims in their rude Understandings either to know that the Letter of the Scripture on the rightness of which all depends was preserv'd from Errour among so many Translatious and Transcriptions or that the Sense is necessarily such as they conceive it to be amidst such multitudes of Commentators and Sects wrangling about the meaning of that Letter nor yet are they competent Judges of the skill of all those several Sects and sorts of men whom they see and hear differ about the sense of it Tradition then of the Church being thus prov'd the Rule of Faith 't is both farther shown how Unreasonable Unnatural and Unsafe Dr. St's private-spirited Rule of Faith is and also even hence demonstrated against him here that Tradition of the Church is Infallible since being by this moans prov'd to be the Rule appointed by God to light Mankinde to their Faith 't is impossible that those who rely and proceed upon it should be led into Errour and also Impossible that Faith it self thus grounded should be False But I needed not have gone thus far to confute D. St's four Principles now under hand The four first Notes had abundantly given them their Answer and 't is time we now begin to apply them to that purpose Whereas then he grounds them all on our Tenet That No Divine Faith can be without an Infallible Assent he may please to know that we only mean by those words there materially Infallible or so as cannot possibly be an Errour and in this sense we own the Position and so must he too unlesse he will speak open blasphemy For Divine Faith being a believing upon the Divine Authority and as we both suppose upon some Means laid by God himself by which he proposes to us what we are to beleeve by telling us he has said it in case an Assent thus Grounded could possibly be an Errouâ— it would follow necessarily that God himself would be the Cause of that Errour The Substance then of Faith could be preserved and the Chief End of Faith our Salvation on some fashion attained were there no more than this that is though never a man in the whole world did know or could come to know that the Rule of Faith were Infallible provided none in the Church did speculate and so looking into the Grounds of his Faith and finding them as far as he could see Inconclusive did begin to suspect the Truth of it nor any out of the Church did oppose Faith For the Faithfull would in that case be in actual possession of those Excellent Truths call'd Points of Faith firmly assented to by their Understandings which were apt to produce thoâ—e Good Dispositions of their Wills call'd Virtues in the same sort though not in the same degree as they do now and by means of them they might arrive at Heaven Thus the Dr. may see that all he builds on is a pure mistake and that all the Faithfull may be thus Infallible in their Assent and thus Infallible in judging the Proposer does not nay cannot deceive us nay Infallible in judging thus of the matters propos'd to us to beleeve and yet not one man be Infallibly sure by way of Evident Knowledge that the Church is Infallible because all this proceeds not in the least in this supposition from the reach of any man's Intellective Faculty but purely from the Goodnesse and Conclusivenesse of the Grounds laid by God and his good Providence which led those men to embrace them though they neither penetrate nor went about to discourse them but simply to believe them on the same manner as our ruder unreflecting vulgar are led now But in this case were all the World no wiser the wisest in the Church would be no wiser then the weakest and rudest vulgar now mention'd wherefore both for that reason and many others ' assign'd in my 3d and 4th Note it was absolutely requisite to the Church and so becoming God's Providence to order that it should be otherwise and that the Conclusiveness of those Infallible Grounds on which God has founded our Faith should be penetrable by those who set themselves to such speculations or fall into doubts concerning them according as the exigencies of the Church shall be found to need such helps If this will not serve Dr. St. I am sure it will serve to defeat all his Arguments I shall farther tell him that the Generality or main Body in the Church is formally Infallible in judging the Church to be such in delivering down the First-taught Faith as I have prov'd in my 6th and 7th note and elsewhere Besides my reasons given there and in other places I must desire him and the rest of my Readers that in conceiving how this may be they would take their measures from the Absolute Certainty such people are capable of in Parallell matters and not from their Ability to explain or defend this absolute Certainty or their Constancy in adhering to it if combated by plausible reasons for he is a very mean Reflecter upon Nature who observes not that the Vulgar have Absolute Natural evidence of many Truths which yet they can neither give reason for declare defend nor perhaps through levity incident to such weak souls do very firmly adhere to and no wonder since so great a man as Sextus Empiricus speculated himself out of the Conceit of the Certainty of his Senses of which yet none doubts but Nature till he began to pervert it by wrong speculations had given him as Infallible Certainty as to any other Also they are to reflect how Infallibility or which is all one Certainty may be in a thousand different degrees according to the greater or lesser Capacity of the subject which they will best comprehend by reflecting with how different a Clearness many things appear to us now we are at Age and how dimly when we were young which yet we were absolutely Certain of at that time Nor yet does one of those Infallibilities spoken of render the other Vseless for they may either be about different Objects as if the Church Officers were formally Infallible in knowing what particular Points came down from Christ's time and penetratâ—ng the distinct Limits of each point and those other Particular persons be only Infallible in judging the Church to
as well as a private man to consider the consequence of mistaking also I am sure it as much concerns her and so the Church or as he cals it a Society of men may also be Infallible in understanding and explaining Scripture and by this means we are come about again to an Infallible Proponent which we have so zealously labour'd to avoid In a word after he has put all Means left by God to be Certain of our Faith and all the diligence and care possible to be used by man to lay hold on those means let him either acknowledge that any particular man in the world and so a fortiori God's Church or any Sâ—ciety of men exactly following relying on those Means to arrive at right Faith is by so doing Infallible in that thing or in interpreting Scripture and by consequence that Christian Faith is Infallibly Certain or else confess that notwithstanding all means us'd all Christian Faith is still either not Certain at all or else Fallibly Certain which is a peece of most profound Nonsense and were it sense signifies plain all may be False The later half of this Principle is still more admirable Nonsense than the former and shows how meanly he is verst in solid Divinity he conterposes there the Certainty in matters of Faith to that which God has made use of as the means to keep men from Sin in their lives as if Faith were not intended by God to make men Virtuous and the Certainty of Faith the most effectual part of those means But because I see Dr. St. though he have a very good witt yet by reason of his sole Application to verbal Divinity which never reaches the Ground or Bottom of any thing it talks of is very Ignorant of what is meant by Christian Life and it's opposite Vice or Sin I will take a little pains to inform him better He may please then to know that it suting best with God's Wisdom to govern the world by way of Causes and Effects he carries on the course of his Ordinary Providence even in Supernaturalls by means of Dispositions The whole design then of his Goodness is to plant those dispositions in our Soul by means of Religion as may make us most comfortable to himself that so Ascensiones in corde nostro disponendo asceendamus de virtute in virtutem donec videatur Deus Deorum in Sion That is by Ordering those rising Steps in our heart we may ascend from Virtue to Virtue till the God of Gods be seen in Sion Hence the life of a Chriâ—tian as such is spiritual and the Proper way for him to worship God is in spirit that is by Spiritual Acts or Habits to perfect his Soul or that part in us which is Spiritual and dispose is for Heaven But Errour is also spiritual and yet is far from perfecting our Soul therefore Truth must go along with it and so we are to worship God in spirit and Truth Hence the first of virtues in priority of Nature is true Knowledge of God and of the motives or means to attain him and the only way for the Generality to arrive at these is by beleeving his Divine Authority upon some way of Revelation which gives his Church and by her and all others Absolute Certainty 't is engaged by which means we are perfectly secure that what we proceed upon is God's sense or Truth which is the Basis of all our Spiritual building Out of these Knowledges are apt to spring Adoration Reverence Hope and Love of him above all things in Christian Language call'd Charity the Queen of all Virtues major autem horuni Charitas says St. Paul and out of this Love of God above all things Love of our Neighbour as our self in the heartiness of which or the having that Rational disposition in our hearts to do as we would be done to consists the keeping all the Commandments of the Second Table which is also our good for so more undisturb'd by Passion or vexation from the Exteriour World whose order we violate in transgressing against these we are more free to practice those other vertues which are to elevate us towards Heaven and fit us according to the measure of out pitch appointed by God for the Attainment of Bliss Hence is seen what is meant by sin or vice For this being formally a defect is only a want of the opposit good Disposition or Virtue The chief Vice then is Hatred of God or a very sleighting and perfectly deliberate dis-regard Posthabition of his Incomparable self our Final Bliss to a Creature next Despair Irreverence Infidelity totally as in Heathenism or in some particular as Turâ—ism Iudaism Heresy In the last place comes the want of that due Love of our Neighbour for God's sake as leaves our Will dispos'd as far as that motive carries us to do him any injury for our own temporal Convenience in which consists the violation of the Commandments of the Second Table Insomuch as though a man commits not one of those Acts there forbidden out of the motive of Worldly Honour Civility Fear or any other such like yet if he wants that rightly-grounded Interiour Love of his Neighbour and builds not his Avoidance of harming him on that motive that is if he be dispos'd to commit them all for any thing that motive would hinder him however in the sight of man or Exteriourly he keeps those Commandments yet is he guilty of them all Interiourly or in the sight of God To apply this then to our present purpose 'T is seen hence that Faith is the Basis of all virtuous Life and consequently the want of it the ruin of all virtue and the ready way to all Vice and sin For external Acting or Avoiding are nothing to Christian virtue unless they spring from a Christian motive and 't is only Faith which gives us those Motives and the stability well-groundedness or Truth of Faith which renders those Motives effectual Wherefore unless the Faithful be materially Infallible while they believe God has revealed such and fuch things that is unless God did indeed reveal them and so their Faith be really True all Gods worship and Good life is ill-built ruinous and fals to the Ground And unless some of them or those who are capable to understand it to be True be formally Infallible it would work less effectually in all those who should reâ—lect that they saw not but it might be False or be made so reflect by others who were enemies to Faith nor could the Truth of Christian Faith be defended or made out or be Justifiably recommended to others as True nor with Wisdom and Honesty be profest True by those who judge themselves capable to look through it's Grounds and yet see nothing Conclusive of Truth in them Wherefore this Fallible Certainty of his destroys all Efficacy all Defence and even Essence of Faith and consequently radically subverts and overthrows all Christian Virtue and all true Goodness Which I attest
multitudes of exceptions as hath been shown in the proper Answers to each 4ly and 5ly The Consequence Connexion or Following of these pretended Conclusions out of their Premisses is not so much as attempted to be shown nor any one of them related to any Principle or Principles but all the Figures which distinguish both the one and the others stand for Cypherâ— and are useless Lastly were all these Conclusions granted him yet still he is never the nearer having prov'd or compas't what he intended For suppose we granted that there can be no necessity of an Infallible Society of men to do that which can be done as well without them What if the supernatural Infallibility of the Church must be examin'd by the fame Faculty and the same ways Points of Faith are or it 's Natural Infallibility the same way it 's Natural or Human Authority is examin'd What if we have less Reason to believe it if it's Miracles be less convincing it's Marks more doubtfull and it's sence more Obscure and greater reason to reject it the more absurd it's opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason What if to disown such Doctrines be not to question God's Veracity What I say if all these were granted by us as they would have been very readily at the first though he had never skirmish't and flourish't and kept this pother with laying so formally six Principles agreed on by both sides and then thirty other of his own yet he is not one jot the nearer the reducing the Faith of Protestants to Principles which was promis't us at the beginning and so we ought to expect the performance of it when he had deduc't his Conclusions which use to infer the Intent propos'd to himself by the disputant and to come home to the very point the Arguer would be at Indeed if he could show us solidly that Infallibility in a Church were useless that examin'd by such ways and means as it ought it would be overthrown and could not stand the trial that it's Miracles were Unconvincing it's Marks Doubtfull it 's Sense declar'd by it Obscure or that it's Opinions were indeed Absurd and Repugnant to the First Principles of Sense and Reason very great matters had indeed in that case been done against our Church and Faith yet still nothing at all to the establishment of his own A Catholick might in that case have indeed lost his own Faith and be to seek for another but never find any meerly by means of these destructive Positions alone unless Dr. St. can settle him some other Ground built on better Principles and such as are competent to settle Faith on which Fallible Certainty were it sense will never reach So that were all his Conclusions hitherto freely granted he is still as far from having attain'd what he propos'd to himself and promis't others as at the beginning Nor can it be imagined why he makes us this mock-shew of Consequences but only that as at the beginning he put down most undeniable and most sacred Principles agreed on both sides so to make his Readers apprehend before-hand he must needs conquer who had such sure Cards to play though by his shynesse to make use of them and apply them home it appear'd he had no Title to them so now he puts five undeniable Propositions for Conclusions to make weak nnattentive Readers imagine he had actually conquer'd for nothing sounds a more compleat Victory that to inâ—ferr evident Conclusions But the ill luck is not one of them is a Conclusion not has that kind of Evidence in it which is peculiar to such Propositions viz. Evidence-had by means of Proof but they are all evident of themselves or self-evident and so a good plot is unluckily spoil'd I have yet one thing more to say to them that they have all of them evidently the Nature of Premisses in them and would do extraordinary service to his Cause taken in that capacity as far I mean as he ayms to overthrow the Catholick Church if the badness of it would let him pursue them and stand by them and apply them To show which I will put them down in a clear method that it may be seen where the point sticks The First Conclusion then has in it the Nature of a Major Proposition and put in a Discourse stands thus That Infallibility without which men may be Certain of Faith and cannot have greater Assurance of Faith were it put is not necessary to be put But suoh is the Infallibility of the Church of Rome Therefore the Infallibility of the Church of Rome is not to be put The second stands thus if it can at all concern the purpose That Infallibility which is to be examin'd by the same Faculties Rules of Trial and Motives by which the Infallibility of any Divine Revelation is cannot bear the test but must be overthrown But the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church is to be thus examin'd Therefore it cannot stand the test but must be overthrown The Third stands thus That Church whose Miracles are less convincing marks more doubtfull sense more obscure has less reason to be beleev'd But such is the Church of Rome Therefore she has less reason to be beleev'd The Fourth thus The Infallibility of that Church whose Opinions are absurd and repugnant to the First Principles of sense and reason has great reason to be rejected as a Grand Imposture But the Infallibility of the Church of Rome is the Infallibility of such a Church whose Opinions are absurd and repugnant to the First Principles of Sense and Reason Therefore it 's Infallibility ought to be rejected as a Grand Imposture The Fifth thus They who disown Doctrins thus absurd and repugnant to the First Principles of Sense and Reason do own and not question therein the veracity of God But we in disowning the Roman Church disown such doctrins Therefore We in so doing own or do not question the Veracity of God By which discourses 't is evidently seen that the natural posture and place for these five Propositions in an attempt to overthrow the Roman Churches Infallibility and to excuse the Protestants for not obeying her as is here intended for they are nothing at all to the reducing the Faith of Protestants to Principles which they were pretendedly brought for is to make them the Major Propositions where the Chief Principles to all Conclusions use and ought to be placed 'T is evident also that these Premisses or Principles stand firm in their own undeniable Verity and the only Thing for him to do is to make good all the Minor Propositions which done all the Conclusions must necessarily follow and so his work is done as indeed it always ought to be when the Conclusion is inferr'd Whereas making these Major Propositions the Conclusions 't is manifeâ— he is to begin again and argue from them when he had concluded and so was at an end oâ— his discourse So that 't is most
of his ever had from the Church which argues it's perfect Conformity to the Churches Sense in setling and stating the Right Rule of Faith I transcribe then from this Ancient and Learned Father his whole Second Chapter in his Treatise Entitled Against the profane Innovations of Heresy which is this Hic for sit an requirat aliquis c. Here perhaps some may ask since the Canon of the Scriptures is perfect and enough nay more thâ—â— enough suffices to it self for all things what need is there that the Authority of the Churches Sense should be joyn'd to it Because all men do not take the Holy Scripture by reason of its depth in one and the same meaning but divers men interpret it's sayings diversly so that as many Opinions in a manner as there are men seem possible to be drawn thence For Novatian expounds it one way Photinus another Sabellius another and Donatus another Arius Eunomius Macedonius take it in one sense Apollinaris Priscillianus in another sense Jovinian Pelagius Coelestius understand it thus and lastly Nestorius otherwise And therefore it is very necessary by reason of so great windings of so various Error that the Line of the Prophetical and Apostolical Interpretation may be directed according to the Rule of the Ecclesiastical and Catholick Sense From which place we may Note 1. That though he allows the Canon of Scripture perfect and sufficient for all things yet by showing it Interpretable divers ways and this by Great and Learned men and so that they fall into multitudes of Errors by those Inerpretations and thence requiring the Authority of the Churches Sense as necessary to understand it right so as to build Faith on it he plainly shows that Scripture alone is not sufficient for this End since it needs another to atchieve it And hence it is not said simply it suffices for all things but Sufficit sibi adâ—omnia It is sufficient to it self for all things which can only mean that it has all the Perfection due to it 's own nature as I shew'd above p. 87 88 89. or is sufficient for the ends God intended it for reckon'd up by S. Paul to Timothy amongst which no such thing is found as sufficiency of Clearness to every sober Enquirer so as to build his Faith on his private Interpretation of it without the direction of the Churches Sense only which will come to Dr. St's purpose Since then I allow Scripture all Sufficiency and Perfection but this of being sufficiently clear to private Understandings so as to build their Faith on their own Interpretations of it I allow it all this Learned Father or the Ancient Church ever did 2. 'T is observable that he puts not the fault in the Persons but gives for the reason of their misunderstanding it the depth or deep sense of the Scriptures which argues that though some few out of wickedness wilfully mistake yet the General reason of the miscarriage is the disproportion of the Seripture to private Vnderstandings in Dogmatical Points of Christianity as I constantly maintain 3. He cals the Interpretation of it a Line which is Flexible and Dirigible and the sense of the Catholick Church the Rule which lies firm as apt to direct another and so with me he makes the sense of the Catholick Church the only Rule of Faith 4. This Sense of he Church is intimated to be Antecedent to all Interpretation of Scripture and therefore the Church must have had this Sense or Knowledge of Faith by Tradition there being no other way becoming Gods Ordinary Providence but these two 5. These things being so 't is most Evident that when in the former Chapter he mentions the Authority of the Divine Law meaning the Scripture and the Tradition of the Catholick Church he meant them jointly as appears expresly by the very next words beginning this present Chapter nor did he speak there of the means of bringing men to Faith as the Rule of Faith ought to do but of keeping them in Faith or preserving them from sliding into Heresie and since he attributes in this Chapter Convictiveness of what 's Faith only to the Churches Sense 't is manifest all that remains to be attributed to Scripture is Agreeableness of it's Letter if a good Pastor expound it to the present Faith of the Church to see which exceedingly comforts Faith in the hearts of the already-Faithful who must need 's have a high Reverence for the Holy Scriptures Authority The whole strain then of my Discourses here against Dr. St. concerning the Rule of Faith is perfectly consonant to this Learned Father of the Church and to all Antiquity Only our frequent and close Contests with our acute Modern Dissenters have obliged us to a more Scholar-like way of distinguishing our Notions exactly which the Ancients did not and Faith being contain'd in two things the Scriptures and the Breast of the Church of determining which of them is the Proper Ascertainer of Faith to all the Faithful and those which are to be converted and so in true and exact Speech the Rule of Faith and both this Father and Evident Reason give it to be the Church What then Dr. St. is to do in this Point if he makes any such Attempt is to alledge Convincing Testimonies that the Ancient Fathers held Scripture so plain to every Sober Enquirer as to give him such Certainty that he may safely build his Faith on his own Interpretation thereof without needing the Churches when he produces such Testimonies as come home to this or an Equivalent sense he will work wonders and unless he does this he does just nothing But I foresee two unlucky difficulties one that he will not find one Testimony of any Authority which excludes the Church from this Office as himself directly does next that could he produce thousands he would spoil them all at the next word and render them Inconclusive that is Insignificant with telling us very soberly they are all Fallible as to that effect and consequently were perhaps in an Error in all they say FINIS * See Sure Footing 2d Ed. p. 145 146. * Rule of Faith p. 118. Rule of Faith p. 153. Reason against Raillery p. 190 191 c. * Rule of Faith p. 118. See his Preface to his Sermons p. last
Divinity p. 191. 192. In Logick p. 228. 236. 237. His Performances reduc't to their proper Principles Contradictions p. 236. Tradition the Rule of Faith p. 45. 46. 141. 142. Vnion how to be hoped p. 51. 52. Writing how capable to be the Rule of Faith p. 36. 37. 38. Errata PAge 2. line 4. receive p. 11. l. 21. perfectly p. 15. l 2. disparate p. 32. l. 1â— then we can p. 45. l. 12. Again p. 67. l. 27. dele and this as far c. to the end of the 4th line after p. 81. l. 29. dele of p. 84. l. 2. Endeavorers l. 29. Endeavorers p. 104. l. 4. dele we p. 10â— l. 5. his p. 124. l. 5. and. p. 131. l. 30. dele in the. p. â— 2. l. 11. infallibly l. 23. then p. 834. l. 17. be False l. 20. about p. 159. l. 22. if p. 1â—0 l. 14. as l. 15. dele be p. 167. l. 11. dele if p 173. l. 18. to a higher degree p. 177. l. 23. which are p. 181. l. 2. degree p. 184. l. 24. ground p. 185. l. 15. reason given l. 18. keep men p. 187. l. 14. is p. 188. l. 14. dissatisfaction l. 21. some p. 192. l. 5. conformable l. 16. it l. 26. by her all p. 193. l. 17. our p. 198. l. 2. receiv'd p. 199. l. 14. in wisemen in this point p. 202. l. ult The 5th and 6th p. 214. l. 3. dele to p. 216. l. 12. its p 221. l. 18. Dr. St. p. 234. l. 18. applying it p. 235. l. 23. produc't one p. 250. l. 9. not THE FIRST EXAMEN CONCERNING Dr. Stillingfleet's Design in this Discourse as exprest in his TITLE 1. IN the first place the Title superscribed to this Discourse and signifying to us the Nature and Design of it is to be well weighed that so we may make a right Conceit of what we are justly to expect from Dr. St. in this occasion 'T is this The Faith of Protestants reduc'd to Principles 2. Now Principles as we have discours'd in the Preface must either be Evident to both Parties or at least held and granted by both else no discourse can proceed for want of Agreement in that on which all Rational Process is grounded Also they must be Proper for the End intended or Influential upon the Conclusion which the Arguer aims to evince otherwise if the thing in question deceive not its Evidence and Truth from them though those Propositions be never so evident in themselves yet they cannot be to It or in this Circumstance a Principle whatever they may be in others Wherefore to make good this Title Dr. St. is to produce nothing for a Principle but what is either granted at first by both Parties or else is of so open and undeniable an Evidence as all the World must see and acknowledge it such as are either first Principles or those which immediatly depend upon them and are comprehended under them or if he builds on any Propositions as Principles which are not thus evident but need Proof he is at least to render them evident ere he builds upon them And lastly he is to apply them close to that which he professes to conclude from them otherwise he can never show them to be Principles in this occasion any more than one can be a Father who has no Off-spring or than any thing can be a Ground which has no Superstructures 3. Next we are to consider what Dr. St. means by the word Faith in this place And I hope he will not think I injure him in supposing he has so good thoughts of the Faith of Protestants as to hold 't is more than a bare Opinion whose Grounds may all be false For if so the Assent of Protestants as Faithful may possibly be an Error and all the Tenets they profess to be Truths and hope to be sav'd by believing them liable to be prov'd nothing perhaps in reality but a company of Lies If then as in this supposition he must he holâ—s the 〈◊〉 of Protestants Impossible to be Faâ—â—e he is 〈◊〉 to reduce it into 〈◊〉 Grounds and Principles as are likewâ—â—e Impossible to be False and consequently if it relies on Authority he is to bring Infallible Authority for it all that is Fallible as Common sense teaches admitting Possibility of Falshood in whatever is grounded on it Such Grounds then or Principles he is oblig'd to produce for the Faith of Protestants in case he holds it may not perhaps be an Error for any thing he or his Church knows But in case he judges this Assent or Belief of Protestants may be True Faith though the Grounds of it may be False then he ows me an answer to Faith Vindicated where the contrary is prov'd by multitudes of Arguments not one of which has yet receiv'd one word of sober Reply from him or Dr. Tillotson though as appears by the Inferences at the end of that Book it most highly concerns them both to speak to the several Reasons it contains 4. In the third place we are to reflect what may be meant by the word reduc'd in the said Title And since all Truths not self-evident nor known by immediate impression on sense are at first deriv'd or deduc'd from Principles this word reduc'd having a signification directly contrary to the other intimates to us that Dr. St. makes account he has begun by putting the Faith of Protestants which is the Conclusion and brought it back for so the word reduc'd imports to Principles whereas 't is Evident to every Scholar he proceeds in a way quite contrary to what he here pretends First laying six Principles agreed on then thirty others which since they go before his Conclusions we are to think he meant for Principles too and thence drawing in the Close six Inferences or Sequels which is most manifestly to deduce from Principles not to reduce to them 5. But however it be blameable in one who owns himself a Scholar especially pretending the rigorous and learned way of proceeding by Principles not to understand the nature of the Way himself takes yet let us kindly suppose that Dr. St. out of an unwariness only made use by chance of an improper word which being but a human lapse is more easily pardonable especially since the Method he here undertakes viz. to begin with Principles is if rightly manag'd and perform'd the most honorable for a Scholar and the most satisfactory that may be and so deserving to make amends for many greater faults Let him then by reduc'd to Principles mean deduc'd from Principles yet since both reducing and deducing imply the showing a Connexion between those Principles and what 's pretended to be drawn from them and this either Immediate as to every particular Conclusion or Mediate We are to expect Dr. St. should still show us this Connexion which is best and most clearly done by relating each of his six Conclusions to their respective Premisses or Principles that so by this distinct proceeding and owning
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
to be ascertain'd that he who was really GOD Infinite in all his Attributes and Infinitely happy in himself should purely out of his overflowing Goodness toward miserable mankind take his nature upon him become his Brother Friend Physician Master nay suffer for his sake many hardships during his life and at length buffeting scourging crowning with thorns and a most cruel death on the Cross and to keep the remembrance of these many Benefits warm in our hearts to give us after a wonderful manner his most precious Body and Bloud in a Sacrament instituted for that end by this means not only reviving the memory of the former incomparable love-motive but also adding new Incitements to that best of virtues by our apprehending lively that he so dearly embreasts and embosoms himself with us by his uniting himself to us through his corporal presence that so our souls may by means of the Love springing from this consideration feed on and be united to him Spiritually On the other side if these be not Truths but that the Church may perhaps erre in embracing them who sees not that the Church it self is Idolatrous at least materially in giving True Divine Honor which is Proper only to the Creator to a Creature Each of these two Points then is of that High concern as to Christian Life and Practice that it must needs be of its own nature either a most wicked and damnable Heresy to deny or else to assert it Wherefore 't is the highest Impiety to imagin that God has left no Way to ascertain Mankind whether these two Points omitting many others be True or False since 't is unavoidable they are if True the greatest and most efficacious helps to Christian Devotion that can be If False the greatest Hindrances to the same as corrupting the best Devotions of those Christians into Idolatrous worship The Knowing then the truth of these and such like being most certainly will'd by God we are to expect such a Rule of Faith as is declarative of these and such as these with Absolute Certainty Let us now consider whether Writing be the best means for such an end which if it be not it may certainly be concluded from Gods Wisdome Goodness c. that it hath not been made choice of or intended by God for it But 't is observable that Dr. St. perpetually waves any Discourse of this nature and chuses rather to argue from Gods Power which though I have already shown how Incompetent and Absurd it is let us examine at least what works he makes of it If says he the will of God cannot be sufficiently declared to men by writing it must either be c. I must distinguish the words cannot be declared by writing as I did formerly and affirm that they may either mean that the Way of Writing as taken in the whole latitude of its nature and standing under Gods Infinite Power ordering it with all possible Advantage to the end intended cannot sufficiently declare Gods will as to such Points or they may mean that Gods Revelation of his Will by Writing so qualifi'd as it is now actually found in the Scripture cannot sufficiently or with absolute Certainty declare Gods Will as to the Points aforesaid to men of all capacities in all future Ages Taking them in the former sense I deny the Proposition and say that Gods will as to such Points can be sufficiently declar'd by Writing For 't is absolutely within the compass of Gods Power to contrive a Book on that manner as might define exactly or else explicate at large in what precise sense every word that expresses each point of Faith is to be taken and to provide that it should never be taken in that book in more than that one sense or if in more to notifie to us in which places 't is taken in a different meaning He could also have laid it so that a hundred or two of Originals of these Books might be preserv'd publickly in several distant Countries from the Beginning which might by their perfect Agreement bear Testimony to one another and so assure us the Text was kept hitherto inviolate even to a tittle and also remain a Standard to correct all the multitudes of Diverse Readings which as experience shows us is apt otherwise to set the Copies at variance with one another He could also have so order'd it that the Original Languages might have been as well understood by the Generality of the Church as their own is so have avoided the Uncertainty of Translations Again lest crafty Hereticks should at any time for the future by wittily alluding places or playing upon words or other Sophistries pervert the sense Gods Power could have caus'd a Book to be written after the manner of a large Prophecy foretelling that in such a time 〈◊〉 place such and such a Heretick should arise perverting such and such a Point and forewarn men of his Sophisms and Errours This and much more might have been effected by Gods Power to establish Writing such an absolutely Certain and Intelligible Way which why his Wisdome should not have done in case Faith be an Assent which while it relies on the Ground God has left for Mankind cannot be an error as it may be if none can be absolutely certain both of the Text and sense of Scriptures I would gladly be informed Especially since Dr. St. tells us here Princ. 15. there is no need of an Infallible society of men either to attest or explain them and all that is Fallible as common sense tells us falls short of elevating it above possibility of being an Errour whence follows that there being no means on foot in the world Tradition of the Church failing or being set aside to secure us absolutely of this it can only be had by the Extraordinary Operation of Gods Power securing the Letter of such writings and rendering those VVritings themselves perfectly Intelligible in the manners assign'd in case VVriting be indeed the RULE OF FAITH VVriting then can be the Rule of Faith or able thus to ascertain Faith to us if Gods Infinit Power undertakes the framing it such as I have express'd but because experience tells us 't is not so order'd let us leave this Platonick way of considering how thing should be in that supposition and following the Aristotelian consider things as they are and accordingly examin how Gâ—ds Wisdome has thought fit to order such Writings actually and thence gather whether however 't is agreed between us they be most excellent for other uses and ends they were ever intended by the same Wisdome for a Rule of Faith To evince the contrary of which not to repeat those many Arguments I have brought elsewhere I fartner offer these Reasons First If the Writings of men divinely inspir'd were meant for a Rule of Faith then either all such Writings as such are therefore to belong to that Rule or some onely If all then since some Writings granted to have been written by
which places each word is to be taken thus or thus nor can it justifie with absolute or Infallible Certainty either its Text or Copy to be substantially like the Original nor if we may trust Dr. St. here Princ. 15. can any Authority on Earth supply that necessary duty for it nor it being requisite to compare one place to another so to find out the sense does it tell us which place is to be compar'd to another as its proper Explainer nor of the two alluding places which is to stand firm and be taken as the Letter lies which to bend its signification in correspondency to that other without fore-knowledg of which 't is pure folly to think to avail our selves by comparing Places None of these things I say are found in the Scriptures Letter as it lies which notwithstanding and perhaps many other such like it had been agreeable to Gods Wisdome and Goodness to have given it in case it had been intended by him for a Rule of Faith or such a Direction by relying on which people of all capacities might have so well-grounded an Assent to those Points as is impossible to be an Errour while they thus relie on it which Assent in Christian Language we call Faith On the other side 't is evident that of some Points it gives onely accidental hints here and there without insisting upon them amply or explaining them fully and that Book which was most designedly intended to assert Christs Divinity was yet so far from putting it out of all dispute or preserving it from being oppos'd and call'd in question that never yet did Heresie prevail so much against Gods Church as did the Arians who deny'd that very Point of Faith But what needs more to evince this Point than these two Arguments one à priori the other à posteriori All words are either Proper or Improper and Metaphorical of which Proper ones express that the Thing is indeed or in reality so but Improper ones that 't is not indeed or in reality so whence it happens that in matters of so exact Truth as Points of Faith especially when the Points are of main Concern it imports a plain Heresie either to take a Proper word for an Improper or an improper one for a Proper For example those Texts expressing that God has hands feet repents grieves is mov'd by our Prayers c. are if taken properly wicked Heresies and destroy the Spiritual and unchangeable nature of the Godhead Also to take those words Christ is man suffer'd dy'd rose again c. improperly are wicked Heresies too and take away the main supports of our salvation This being so it follows that the absolutely-certain Knowledg when the words of Scripture are taken properly when not being determinative of what 's true Faith what Heresie it must be had from the Rule of Faith it self and so from the Letter of Scripture if that be indeed the Rule But this Knowledge is not had from the Scriptures Letter for this must either be done by that Letters signifying in each place expresly or equivalently that the words are properly or Improperly there taken which is Impossible to be shown nor was ever pretended or else by signifying the contrary Point in another place and this as far as the bare Letter carries or abstracting from all Interpretation can onely signifie that the Letter in one place seems to contradict it self in another place and this as far as the bare Letter carries or abstracting from all Interpretation can onely signifie that the Letter in one place seems to contradict it self in another place which is far short of giving us an unerring security which side is Truth Or if it be said the Letter alone gives us not this security without some Interpretation then this Interpretation performs what the Letter if it be a Rule ought but could not and determines with Absolute Certainty when the words are taken properly when not that is gives us our Faith and consequently that Light or Knowledge whatever it was which the Interpreter brought with him and had it not from the Letter gave us the right sense of Scripture and so It not the Scripture was the True Rule of Faith From the Effect or à posteriori I argue thus We experience that Great Bodies of men of divers sects with equal earnestness as far as appears to us go about to find their Faith in the Scriptures Letter and equally profess to rely upon Gods Assistance to that end wherefore either we must be forced to judge that none of those several sects do sincerely desire to find True Faith in the Scriptures and so by Dr. St's Principles no sort of men in the whole world has right Faith which quite takes away all Christianity or else we must think all of them truly desire to find right Faith in the Scripture and rely on Gods help to assist them In which case since the fault is not in them taken as applying themselves to their Rule and relying on it and yet 't is maniâ—eâ—t they differ that is one side errs in most Fundamental Points as in the Trinity Divinity of Christ Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament c. it follows unavoidably that the Faulâ— is in those persons in holding it their Rule for in case they err'd not in holding it to be a Rule that is in case it were indeed apt to ascertain them absolutely if they apply'd it and that they did actually apply it it is impossible they should have ever err'd Scriptures Letter then is far from securing men of all sorts while they rely on it from Errour since whole Bodies of men and amongst those multitudes of great Scholars and learned Scripturists erre grievously and that in most Fundamental Points even while they rely upon it Which if it destroy not the nature of a Rule I know not what does This Discourse being forelaid we shall be able to make shorter work with his Principles to which we now address Whereas then in his tenth Principle he contend that the will of God can be sufficiently declar'd to men by writing I answer That by Extraordinary Contrivances and Actings of Gods Wisdome and Power it may but that this will avail him little since 't is evident that de facto God has not thus exerted his Wisdome and Power in making Scriptures Letter fit for that End whence we conclude that it was never meant for a Rule and whereas he says that words are equally capable of being understood spoken or written I deny it absolutely for nature teaches us that the countenance and Carriage of the Speaker the Accent of the voice the giving a due and living Emphasis to the words with the whole Complexion of Circumstances in which the Speaker is found and which generally are not unknown to the person to whom he speaks and amongst these principally his applying himself pertinently to the present exigency Thoughts and Expectation of the Hearer All these I say and
to Infallible Assent that every particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be beleev'd And the 22d in consonancy to it mentions the Infallibility of particular persons in the Assent they give to matters proposed by others to them which clearly signify that Faith cannot be Infallible unless we have Infallibility or Infallible Knowledge of the Points of Faith for what can matters propos'd to us to be beleev'd signify else On the other side in the 21st Princ. he seems only to aim at proving there must be Infallibility in us that the Proponent is Infallible Also Princ. 22. he concludes that to our Infallible Assurance there is required equal Infallibility in our selves in the belief of the Churches Infallibility And lastly Princ. 23. he concludes the Infallibility of the Church of no effect if every person be not Infallible in the beleef of it Which expressions are of quite different sense from the former and require not Inâ—â—llibility in the in the matters propos'd to beleeved as did the other but only in knowing the Proponent to be Infallible Now because I have no mind to cavill but am heartily glad when he gives me occasion to handle any good point I will not take him as his former words sounded it being perfect Nonsense to require evidence of the Points Propos'd ere we can be certain of the Authority that Proposes them for what need can there be either of any Proposer or of knowing him Infallible if we be Infallible certain antecedently of the Points themselves but I shall willingly pass by those expressions as effects either of a strange Unwariness or of a crafty Preparing for future Evasion and discourse of the Later Thesis For in truth it hints at a very excellent difficulty though he proposes it but ill and pursues it worse I will therefore clear his discourse from his contradictory expressions and put it home and close as well as I can and so as I hope himself will not say I at all wrong it He seems them to argue thus Objective Infallibility in another viz. the Proponent avails nothing to make my Faith or Assent Infallible unles I be also Infallibly certain that the Proponent is Infallible wherefore in case Infallibility be requisit to Faith every one of the Faithfull must be also Infallible But this renders both these Infallibilities useles and Insignificâ—nt for the Infallibility of the Church is of no effect if every person be not Infallible and if every person be Infallible what need any Church Representative or Councill be so Therefore this Doctrine of an Infallible Proponent is frivolous and Inconsistent To make way towards the clearing this considerable difficulty I premise these few Notes 1. That a man may be Infallible or out of the power of being deceiv'd in some particular thing two manner of wayes Either from his penetrating the reasons which conclude the thing to be as he judges that is from his knowledge that the Thing is so which we may fitly term Formally Infallible Or else by adhering not through Knowledge but accidentally as it were to some thing which is a reall Truth though he penetrate not the Grounds why it is True or by adhering to the Judgment of another person in some thing or Tenet whose Judgment is indeed well grounded and Certain as to that Thing though he see not 't is so And such a man may fitly be said to be materially Infallible Both of them are absolutely secur'd from Errour or Infallible Fundamentally by the Thing 's being such as they judge it to be that is in our case by relying on a Proponent which is Infallible and they differ only in the wayes by which they come to rely upon that Proponent the one being led to it by perfect Sight that the thing must be so or that the Proponent must be Infallible the other perhaps blindly at best not out of clear discernment embracing that Judgment yet as long as he adheres to the Judgment of another man who cannot be deceiv'd or in an Errour as to that thing himself is actually secur'd from possibility of erring and so Infallible or Incapable to be in an Errour likewise To this difficulty I had regard in my Faith vindicated when I distinguish't between Faith's being True in us and True to us For the blindest Assenter that is though he stumble upon a Truth yet if he really hold it his Judgment is truly and really conformable to the Thing or Object and consequently True or Impossible to False and so himself undeceivable or uncapable to be in an Errour in holding thus yet if we go abut to relate that Truth which is in him to evident reasons or Grounds in his mind connaturally breeding that Conformity of his Judgment to the Thing there is no such thing perhaps to be found whence 't is not True to him or evident to him 't is True since he sees not or knows not that 't is True yet still as I said before he is Infallible or Impossible to be in an Errour while he adheres to it as True because that Judgment of his is in reality comformable to the thing 2. 'T is requisit and necessary that the Assent of Faith in every particular Beleeyer be at least materially Infallible provided it be built as it ought upon the means laid by God for Mankind to embrace Faith that is upon the Right Rule of Faith For omitting many other mischiefs and Inonveniencies otherwise as was lately prov'd it would follow that God who is essential Truth did lead Mankind into Errour in case relying sincerely on what God order'd them to rely on their Judgment by so doing did become Erroneous 3. 'T is requisit and necessary that the Assent of Faith in diverse particular Beleevers be formally Infallible or that those persons be Infallibly certain by Evident Reason that the Authority or Rule of Faith they rely on cannot herein deceive them Else Great Witts and acute Reflecters whose piercing understandings require Convictive Grounds for their Faith would remain for ever unsatisfy'd nor could the wisest Christians sincerely and heartily Assent to nor with Honesty profess the truth of their Faith nor could any prove it True to establish Rational doubters in it or convert men of exact knowledge to it or convince Hereticks calling the Truth of it in question Nor could Governours and Leading Persons with any Conscience or Credit propose and Preach the Truth of Faith to the Generality Also it 's Truth being otherwise unmaintainable the best vigour of Faith and it's efficacy to work through Charity must needs be exceedingly enfeebled deaded 'T is necessary then that the Grounds of Faith be both Conclusive of it's Truth and also penetrable by those whose Proper work it is to make deep Inspection into them whence they will become formally or knowingly-Infallible that the Authority they rely on for Faith's Conveyance cannot possibly deceive them 4. Besides these men who are to
be so as it happens in many Controvertists who are well instructed in the Grounds of their Faith yet not so well verst in the nature of particular points but believe them only by Implicit Faith or else one of their knowledges may be more Clear and distinct than the others and so serve to perfect and advance it in the same manner as Art does Nature Least of all can it follow that the Infallibility of the Church Representative is needless for This is not intended to teach the Faithfull their Faith at first nor do I remember ever to have seen a Generall Council cited in a Catechism but this is performed by the Church Diffusive by her Practise and Language and by her Pastors in their Catechisms and Instructions But it 's use is to secure and preserve Faith already taught and known from receiving any taint by the Equivocating Heretick and to recommend it more Authoritatively to the Faithfull when clear'd And whoever reads my 4th Note will see so many particularities in the Members which compound a Representative Church above others who are purely Parts of Ecclesia Credens that he cannot in any Reason judge them Vseless though those others be in an Inferiour degree Certain of their Faith too For all this while the word Infallible which seems to have so loud a sound and is made such a monstrous peece of business by the Deniers of it is in plain Terms no more but just barely Certain as I have prov'd Faith Vind. p. 37. 38. and Reason against Rail p. 113. To come closer up then to my Adversary His 20th Principle which speaks of Assent in common is wholly built upon a False supposition that it can only be Grounded upon Evidence For however indeed in perfect Reflecters that are unbyast Evidence of the Object or of the Credibleness of the Authority is alwayes requisit to breed Assent yet Experience teaches us that Assent in weak and unreâ—lecting persons is frequently built on a great Probability sometimes a very little one and sometimes men Assent upon little or no reason at all their Passion or Interest byassing their wills and by it their Understandings and this many times even against such reason as would be Evident to another Again matteriall Infallibility which is enough to that Assent we speak of precisely and solely consider'd depends solely at least Principally on the Object contrary to what is there asserted And whereas he says Princ. 29. that the Infallibility of every Particular person is not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church he sees by this discourse it both is and must be Asserted and that we maintain that every particular person must be materially Infallible or incapable of erring while he relies on the Grounds laid and recommended by God that is while he believes the Church which yet is far from rendring the Formal Infallibility of the Church useless unless he will say that because it suffices for the pitch of weak people whose duty 't is not to maintain and make out the Truth of their Faith that they be simply in the right or void of Errour and that they see after a gross manner that the thing is so though they cannot defend it therefore there is no need that those whose duty 't is to do so should be able to penetrate the Grounds of Faith and so explicate prove and maintain it to be True Nor will it follow that though the Generality were after a rude and gross manner formally Infallible in their belief that the Church is Infallible and therefore that the Points she proposes are all likewise Infallibly-true it will not follow I say hence that a greater and clearer and more penetrative degree of Formal Infallibility is useless in Church-Governours for as appears by my 4th Note there are many other things to be done by them of absolute necessity for the Church which far exceed the pitch and posture of those dull Knowers of the lowest Class which is the next degree above Ignorance and are unauthoriz'd to meddle in such affairs Unless he will say that Art is needless because there is Nature or that there needs no Iudges to decide such Cases in which the Law seems plain And thus much for the clearing this concerning Point In the rest of his Principles I shall be briefer But I must not pass over his Transition to them which is this We are further to enquire what Certainty men may have in matters of Faith supposing no External Proponent to be Infallible And he need not go far to satisfie his Enquiry For it being most evident by the Disputes between the Protestants and Socinians that Scripture needs some External Proposer of it's true meaning in such kinde of Points as also some External Proposer or Attester that this is the true Text of it on which all is built Also it being evident that Dr. St. Princ. 15. denies any Infallible Proposers of either of these and that here again he pursues close the same doctrin Lastly this Proposer being such that however we can have Certainty without It that the Divine Authority is to be believed yet we must depend on It for the Knowledge when and where 't is engag'd that is we must depend on It for the Certainty of our Faith It follows that in case this Proponent be not Infallible it can never be made out with Infallible Certainty that the Divine Authority stands engag'd for the Truth of any one Point of Faith and consequently that the Certainty men have in matters of Faith is not an Infallilible one And if it be not an Infallible Certainty which Faith has as he no where challenges but very laboriously disproves it he need not go far to enquire or learn what Certainty it must have for Common Sense tels him and every man who has the least spark of Natural Logick that if Faith must have Certainty as he grants and have not Infallible Certainty it must either have Fallible Certainty or none at all there being no Middle between them and so we must make account that because it overstrains D. St's weak Grounds to assert Faith to be Infallibly Certain therefore his next Attempt must be to overstrain Common Sense and to the inestimable Honour of Christian Religion maintain that all Christian Faith is Fallibly-Certain But he must do it smoothly and warily and however he nam'd the word Infallible loud enough and oft enough when he was confuting it yet he must take heed how he names the word Fallible Certainty when he is asserting it lest it breed laughter or dislike though it be evident out of the very Terms that he who confutes Infallible Certainty must maintain Fallible Certainty sf he maintains any But now he begins his defence of Faiths Fallible Certainty and 't is fit we should listen Monstrous things use to challenge and even force Attention from the most unconcern'd 24. There are different degrees of Certainty to be attained according to the
different degrees of Evidence and measure of Divine Assistance but every Christian by the use of his reason and Common Helps of Grace may attain to so great a degree of Certainty from the Convincing Arguments of the Christian Religion and Authority of the Scriptures that on the same Ground on which men doubt of the Truth of them they may as well doubt of the Truth of those things which they judge to be most Evident to Sence Reason I wish D. S. had explain'd himself here what he means by different degrees of Evidence whether some Glances or likely Appearances of Truth call'd greater or lesser Probabilities or such Intelleâ—tual Sights at the least of them discovers the thâ—ng thâ—â— evidenc't to â—e be indeed so or True I suspect much he means the former because thâ—se are the most proper Grounds for Fallible Certainty which he is now going to establish whereas the Latter sort of Evidences would hazard to carry too far and to beget Infallible Certainty which would quite spoil his most excellent design of setling the Fallible Certainty of Faith for those Evidences which show the thing to be True show it at the same time to be Impossible to be False whence 't is a thousand to one that such Evidences as these would utterly destroy his beloved Fallible Certainty and endanger to introduce again by necessary and enforcing consequence that Popish Doctrine of Infallibility which he had newly discarded When he adds that every Christian may by the means here assigned attain to so great a degree of Certainty c. I had thought he had meant Certainty of the Points of his Faith but my hopes were much defeated when coming to the Point he flyes off to his Christians not doubting the Truth of the convincing Arguments of Christian Religion and of the Authority of the Scriptures For this is far wide of our purpose and his Promise which was to reduce the Faith of Protestants to Principles whereas these words signify no more but not to doubt of Christianity being the True Religion or Scriptures being God's word but reaches not to what are those points of Christianity or determinate sense of Scripture in particular which constitutes Protestantism and only concerns our debate Now 't is evident that the Roman-Catholicks profess not to doubt of the convincing Grounds of Christianity nor yet of Scripture but to hold that Christianity is the only-Trâ—e Religion and that the Scriptures are Holy and God's word and yet we differ so much from Protestants that he thinks us Idolaters What we are then in reason to expect from Dr. St. is that he would bring us Grounds for the Certainty of his Faith as to determinate Points viz. Christ's God-head a Trinity Reality or not-Reality of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and such like and those so certain as that we may as well doubt of what we judge to be most evident to sense and Reason as doubt of them as he here pretends and not put us off with Common words in stead of particular Satisfaction concerning his Faith and the Certainty thereof I would ask him then how it comes to pass that the Socinian whom he will not deny to have both use of his reason and common helps of Grace and both the convincing Arguments of the Christian Religion and Authority of Scriptures to make use of how I say he comes so to fall short of Evidence and consequently Certainty springing from that evidence concerning Christ's God-Head which is a Fundamental Point of Christian Faith that he doubts it nay utterly denies it whereas yet the Protestant having the same means to work with judges he has evidence and Certainty grounded on that evidence that Christ is God yet all this while they dissent not at all in things most evident to Sense or Reason I much fear our Drs. big words concerning his degrees of Evidence and the Certainty of his Faith built on those degrees will when examin'd amount to a very obscure evidence and a Problematical kind of Assuredness much like those comfortable lights which both parties have when they lay even wagers at Cock-fighting such games giving good hopes to both sides but good Security to neither But so it ought to be if the Grounds of Faith be not Infallibly but only Fallibly-Certain which is all he is bent to prove 25. No man who firmly Assents to any thing as True can at the same time entertain any suspicion of the falshood of it for that were to make him certain and uncertain of the same thing It is therefore absurd to say that these who are Certain of what they believe may at the same time not know but it may be False which is an apparent Contradiction and overthrows any Faculty in us of judging of Truth and Falshood This Principle and the next were I conceive intended to preserve the Dr's and his Friends Credit against the Inference at the end of Faith vindicated and diverse other Passages shewing them either to be far from good Christians in holding that all Christian Faith may possibly be an Errour and Lying Imposture or else very bad Discoursers of their own Thoughts whilst they equivalently exprest themselves in divers places to be possibly in an Errour in all they believe nay more all Christians in the whole world to be in the same condition This if justified cannot but reflect on them being so concerning a Lapse and I have at Dr. St's brisk instigation charg'd it home in Reason against Raillery though I still expres't my self to incline to the more Civil and more Charitable side and rather lay the blame on their Understandings then on their Wills and Intentions Which Book had Dr. St. seen when he writ this he would have discern'd the triflingness of these weak excuses But let 's see what he says His Firâ—t part is built on a most gross and senseless Errour which is that he who firmly assents to a thing as True is Certain of it as appears by those words for this were to make him Certain and Vncertain of the same thing I wonder exceedingly where the Dr. â—earn't this notion of Certainty Not from Mankinde I am sure at least not from those who had the use of their Reason For all these already know it to be Evident that a man may firmly assent to a thing as True and yet that thing be False must that man therefore be Certain of that Falshood and that it is though in reality it be not We experience that opposite parties firmly assent to contrary Tenets as True for example the Socinians firmly assent that Christ is not God We and the Protestants that Christ is God Catholicks assent firmly that they are not Idolaters when they make use of Holy Images in Divine Worship D. St. firmly assents they are at least he would perswade his 〈◊〉 by his Books he does so Are all these opposite sides Certain of their several Tenets because each side firmly assents to them as True
is concern'd and there can be no sufficient reason why that may not serve in matters of Faith which God himself hath made use of as the means to keep them from Sin in their lives Vnless any imagine that Errours in Opinion are far more dangerous to mens souls then a vicious life is and therefore God is bound to take more care to prevent the one then the other The Dr. being conscious to himself that he had notwithstanding all his promises to reduce Faith to Principles and to prove it's Certainty left it still Vncertain thought it his best Expedient to close his blinde Principles with a speeding one which to the shame of all Principles should maintain that it need not be Certain though he couches this sense warily as it behooves him He seems to ground his Sceptical Discourse on this that Men are Fallible and so subject to mistake the sence of the Scriptures I wish he would speak out once in his life and tell us plainly whether all Mankinde be Fallible in every thing or only in some things and in some Circumstances Again whether he means that men are naturally Fallible or supernaturally that is by means of God's Infinite Power if it should set it â—elf to deceive them If the later 't is not nor ought to be our Question for no man who has any Reverence for God or his Attributes will ever think that he will do Miracles still to leade Mankind into Errour but rather judge it becomes his Goodness to provide in case the Good of the world or the Church should require that some extraordinary thing be done that Mankind should have notice of it by some Certain way to prevent his Erring as it happens in the case of the Eucharist Taking him then to mean that man is naturally Fallible we enquire further Is all Mankind however one sence or another accidentally may be insincere in one or another particular yet is all Mankind naturally Fallible in their daily Sensations or which is all one are the Senses of all Mankind so fram'd as to convey wrong Impressions into his Knowing Power If not they cannot erre naturally nor do I think Dr. St. will say our Senses thus and in this are Fallible If he does I know not what to say of him which is that he is a perfect Pyrrhonian and unworthy of Mankind's Conversation or Discourse with him for to what end should men discourse with him if all his Senses being Fallible himself knows not whether they discourse or no I ask still further Are men naturally Fallible in some things not had immediately from sense for example in knowing that the world was on foot a year before we were born or in First Principles as Aequale est aequale sibi An Equal equal to it self Or in a Conclusion immediately depending on such Principles as that therefore three lines drawn from the Center to the Circumference are equal and such like I think he will not say it We see then Men are capable of Infallibility or Certainty of their own nature wherefore they can aim at it and desire it especially in Faith which is of so high a Concern to their Souls and the basis of all their Spiritual Building therefore both for that Reason and very many others recounted and inforced by me in Faith Vindicated and elsewhere they ought to have this Certainty especially since the Truth of Faith is neither Proveable Maintainable nor professible without it in case such a Certainty be not in it self Impossible and that 't is not so I have said something both in my Reason against Raillery p. 64. to 67. and p. 112. to p. 116. as also in this present Treatise in my Answer to the 27. Principle But setting this aside we will proceed and demand still farther Are men deceivable in knowing what one another means in ordinary Conversation or domestick affairs Can the Maâ—â—er and the Man the Mistress and her Maid understand one another Or in case some ambiguous Expression intermingle it self cannot the Speaker upon the other 's signifying his dissatisfaction absolutely clear his doubt and make himself be throughly understood Experience tels us they can and that they may as easily be mistaken in their Sensations as in such kinde of Expressions We see then Men are Infallible in many things and even in understanding words aright in same cases If then they be Fallible in understanding Scriptures and this in the main and Fundamental Points of Christianity as was shown above 't is evident this Fallibility is not to be refunded totally into the Subject or Man since he is capable of Infallible Certainty in other things but into the want of Clearness in the Letter of Scripture as to such Points in proportion to private Understandings and consequently that it was never intended by God for their Rule of Faith since though both sides rely on this yet one even while doing thus is still in an Errour and such an Errour as is a Heresie Since then what we hold is that men are Infallible in affairs belonging to Faith and this while they rely on the Grounds left by God for them to embrace Faith I would ask him in a word whether he holds all men may be deceived in that very affair even while they do this to the best of their power If he says they can 't is unavoidable all the Christian world may possibly be now in an Errour and all Christian Faith be a meer lye As also 't is evident that in that case God would have left no ordinary means to secure his Church or any man in it from Errour lastly that God leads men into Errour sâ—nce they acting to the best of their Power as is supposed their Errour cannot be refunded into them but into the deâ—ectiveness of those Means that is their want of Perspicuity or sufficient Plainness to their addicted and faithfully-endeavouring Understandings even as to those main Points Thus much to show how craftily Dr. St. to avoid reflexion on the Unfitness of the Rule he assigns puts it only upon men's being Fallible and how unreasonably he behaves himself in so doing Let us now see how he provides against this Fallibility lest otherwise all Mankind should erre in their Faith He tels us that there can be no better way to prevent men's 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 is concern'd Well put this Consideration in men are any of them by vertue thereof yet Infallible or secur'd from erring in understanding Scripture If not all mankind may yet according to his Grounds be in an Errour in matters belonging to Faith and so all Christian Faith may still possibly be False notwithstanding all the Provision put by him to secure them and It. But if this render them absolutely secure from Erring then we may hope God's Church too may have the grace given her by God
the Authour and Finisher of our Faith is the true reason why I with so much zeal and Earnestness oppose him and his Friend for advancing Vncertainty and consequently Scepticism in Faith however they and their angry passionate party are pleas'd to apprehend me I perceive Dr. St. will hope to evade by saying that Christian virtue may be upheld by the Certainty we have of some Points of Faith though others be Vncertain which Points to make his Uncertainty of Faith go down the better he cals here Opinions But if he means by Opinions the Tenets of a Trinity Christs Godhead and Presence in the B. Sacrament all most highly concerning Christian Life one way or other in which we discern great parties differing who all â—dmit the Scripture and use the best means to interpret it as far as we can perceive nay and consider the consequence of mistaking too which he makes the very best means of all If I say these and such as these be the Opinions he speaks of and counterposes them to means to keep men from sin in their lives and that the Rule of Faith he assigns leaves whol Bodies of Reliers on it in actual Errour in such Fundamental Points of Faith and of most high concernment to good life as has been shown even while they proceed upon it 't is evident 't is not the Rule God intended his Church and mankinde to build their Faith on and so none can presume of security of mistake by relying purely upon it but all of Concern not known before by some other means that is all which it alone holds forth may be also liable to be a mistake likewise unless some other Authority more ascertainable to us then it abets it's Letter in such passages as are plain because they are either meerly Moral or Narrative or explain it's sense in others which are more spiritual and supernatural and so more peculiar and Fundamental to Christianity Recapitulation To meet with the absurd Positions exprest or else imply'd in the Doctrin deliver'd here by Dr. St. in these last Eleven Principles of his I take leave to remind the Reader of these few opposit Truths establisht in my former Discourse 1. That Assent call'd Faith taken as built on the Motives left by God to light Mankind to the Knowledge of his Will that is taken as it ought to be taken and as 't is found in the Generality is for that Reason Absolutely that is more then morally Certain or Impossible to be False 2. Though the Nature of Assent depend immediatly on the Evidence we have of it in our minds when 't is Rational yet in case it be True as the Assent of Faith ought to be it must necessarily be built and depend fundamentally on the nature of the Thing since without dependance on It this Evidence it self cannot possibly be had 3. A man may be materially Infallible or out of possibility of being actually deceiv'd in judging the divine Authority is engag'd by adhering to another's Iudgment who is Infallible or in the right in thus judging though he penetrate not the reason why that other man comes to be Infallible Also he who is thus Infallible being in possession of those Truths reliev'd upon the Divine Authority as the Formal motive of believing them which Truths as Principles beget those good Affections in him in which consist our Christian Life such a man I say has consequently enough speaking abstractedly for the Essence of Saving Faith though he be not Formally or knowingly Infallible by penetrating the Conclusiveness of the Grounds of Faith 4. To be thus materially Infallible or thus in the right in judging the Divine Authority is engag'd is requisite and necessary for the Essence of Faith otherwise the believing upon the Divin Authority when 't is not engag'd and so perhaps the believing and holding firmly to abominable Errours and Hereticall Tenets might be an Act of Faith to assert which is both absurd and most impious 5. 'T is requisite to the Perfection of Faith to be formally or Knowingly Infallible that the Divine Authority is engag'd For since it hazards Heresy and Errour to judge that the Divine Authority is engag'd for any point when 't is not it ought to breed suspence and caution in Reflecters till they see it engag'd consequently the better they see this the more heâ—rtily they are apt to assent to the point upon the Divine Authâ—rity So that the Absolute Certainty of the Grounds which conclude the Divine Authority engag'd betters and strengthens the Act of Faith 6. However it be enough for the Faith of those whose downright rudeness lets them not reflect at all to be only Materially Infallible that God's Authority is engag'd yet 't is besides of Absolute necessity to Reflecters who raise doubts especially for those who are very acute to discern some reason which cannot deceive them or to be formally or knowingly Infallible that 't is indeed actually engag'd for those points Otherwise it would follow that provision enough had been made by God to satisfy or cause saving Faith in Fools and none at all to breed Faith wise men which without satisfaction in this in point is in possible to be expected in such through-sighted Reflecters The same Formal Infallibility is necessary for the wisest sort of men in the Church both to deâ—end Faith and establish it's Grounds in a Scholar-like way as also for their Profession of the Truth of Faith and other Obligations incumbent on them as Faithfull and lastly for the Effects which are to be bred in them by Faith's Certainty 7. Though then the Rule of Faith needs not to be actually penetrated by all the Faithfull while they proceed unreflectingly yet it ought to be so qualifi'd that it may satisfy all who are apt to reflect and so to doubt of their Faith that is it 's Ruling power ought to be penetrable or evidenceable to them if they come to doubt and also so connatural and suitable to the unelevated and unreflecting thoughts of men of all sorts that it be the most apt that maybe to establish the Faithfull in the mean time and preserve them from doubting of their Faith Both these are found in Tradition or Testifying Authority and not in Scripture's Letter That therefore and not This is the Rule of Faith 8. Infallible Certainty of Faith being rejected the Moral Certainâ—y he substitutes must either be a Fallible Certainty or none this later is Impious the former is non-sense Wherefore all Dr. St's Discourse of Faith while he rejects Infallibility must forcibly have the one or the other of these Qualifications 9. A firm Assent to a thing as True renders no man Certain of what he thus assents to for so Hereticks might be truly Certain of all the pestilent Errours they hold so they but firmly assent they are True 10. Faith being the Basis of all Christian Virtues on which all our spiritual Edifice is built and from whence we derive all the
Certainty we have of all that concerns it ought by consequence be better grounded and firmer then any or all it's superstructures Also 't is ill Divinity to counterpâ—se matters of Faith to the Means to keep men from sin in their lives since Matters of Faith or Christ's doctrin is the very best of those Means or to pretend that Errours in Opinion I suppose he means in Faith that being the point are not more dangerous to mens Souls than a vicious life for this supposes Faith no part of a Christian Life nor Infidelily Heresy Iudaism or Turcism to be vices which by consequence degrades Christian Faith from being a virtue contrary to the Sentiment of all Christianity since the beginning of the Church I shall hope from any impartial and Intelligent Reader who is a Christian that he will acknowledge these Posiâ—ions of mine bear a clear Evidence either in theâ— sâ—lves or in their Prâ—ofs and consequently that the opposite ones advanc't either Explicitely or Implicitly by Dr. St. are both Obscure and which is worse Vntrue The Total Account of Dr. St's Principles THus have I spoken distinctly and fully to Dr. St's Principles It were not amiss to sum up their merits in brief and give a short character of them that so it may be seen how infinitly short they fall of deserving so Honorable a Name But first we are to speak a word or two to the Principles agreed on by both sides of which the First and Third are great Truths and the word God and Obedience due to God now then barely nam'd but no kind of Conclusions are drawn from those two particular Propositions influential to the End intended viz. to reduce the Faith of the Protestants to Principles whence though they are most Certain Truths yet as standing here they are no Principles The 2d and 4th which concern God's Attributes are not at all us'd neither For he cannot use them alone to evince Scripture's Letter is the Rule unless he first prove that Scripture's Letter is the fittest for that End and that therefore it become Gods's Attributes to chuse it which he no where does and whereas he would argue thus Princ. 7. God hath chosen it for a Rule therefore 't is agreeable to his Attributes 't is both Frivolous because all is already concluded between us if he proves God has chosen Scripture for that end for then 't is granted by all it must be agreeable to his Attributes and also Preposterous for he makes that the Conclusion which should be in case he argu'd from God's Attributes the Principle For his Argument ought in that case to run thus Gods Wisdom and Goodness has chosen that for a Rule which is wisest and best to be chosen but Scriptures Letter is such therefore he has chosen it for a Rule The 4th and 5th are either never made use of by him as Principles or else they make directly against himself For Fallible Certainty only which having discarded that which is Infallible he sustains can never make any one know what is God's will This is an ill beginning and a very slender Success hitherto let us see next whether he has better luck with his own Principles The first taking the words literally and Properly as they ought to be taken in Principles is against himself for he confesses there that such a way of Revelation is in it self neccessary to our Intire Obedience to God's will as may make us know what the will of God is but common sense tells us that Fallible Certainty which only having rejected Infallible Certainty he can maintain is farr from making us Know This Principle therefore is either against himself or if he means to go less by the word Know than what is apt absolutely and truly to ascertain 't is nothing to his purpose for so it can only settle Opinion and not Faith The second is Useless Impertinent and in part False The Third is False and Impertinent to boot The Fourth is Ambiguous and taken in that sense when distinguish't which he seems to aym at 't is absolutely False The 5th is Absurâ—d Preposterous and against all Art in putting us to argue from what 's less known to what 's more known and withal totally False The 6th is Sophiâ—tically Ambiguous and in great part False The 7th builds on a groundless pretence and contains a notorious 〈…〉 The 8th is to no purpose or sinâ—â— as appears in the Process of his discourse he means by the words Certainly and Know only Fallible Certainty which is none at all he cannot possibly advance by such a discourse towards the settling us a Certain Rule of Faith Besides he either supposes Scripture as it now stands Sufficient which is to beg the Question or else he confounds God's Ordinary Power working with the Causes now on foot in the world which only concern'd the present point with his Extraordinary or what he can possibly effect by his Divine Omnipitence The 9th only Enumerates the several ways how God may be conceiv'd to make known his will and in doing so either minces or else quite leaves out the Tradition of Gods Church as if it were Vnconceivable God should speak to men by their Lawfull Pastors in the Church whereas yet himself must confess that in the beginning of the Church Faith either was signify'd and certify'd by that or no way The 10th goes upon a False Supposition and includes two Fallaces call'd by Logicians non causa pro causa or assigning a wrong Cause and omitting the True one Also 't is in part False in saying words are equally oapable of being understood spoken or written and lastly it confounds again God's Ordinary Power with his Extraordinary The 11th makes account there is no benefit of Divine Writings but in being the Rule of Faith which is against Common sense and daily Experience The 12th comes home to the point but 't is perfectly Groundless Unprov'd False and as full of Absurdities of severall sorts as it can well â—old The 13th begins with a False Position proceeds with a False and unprov'd Supposition and endeavours to induce a most Extravagant Conclusion only from Premisses granted kindly by himself to himself without the least Proof The 14tb contains three False and unprov'd Suppositions viz. that God promis't his Church to deliver his whole will in Writings or that the Writers of Scripture had any order from God to write his whole will explicitly or that the primitive Church beleev'd it to have such a perfection as to signify without needing the Church all saving Truth to every sincere Reader with such a Certainty as is requisit to Faith The 15th begins again with a False and unprov'd Supposition and draws thence a consequence not contain'd in the Proof and in part against the interest of his own Tenet and Lastly brings in confirmation of it an Instance which makes against himself The 16th putts upon Catholicks a Tenet they never held and is wholly False Irrational and Absurd assuming
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.