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
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
examin'd as things of that nature are to be examin'd which is so evident to all men of common sense that it cannot need Proof and can scarce admit any I am sure is never prov'd by him That is 't is no Conclusion drawn from any of his Principles but putting in stead of the same Rules of tryal and Motives these words the same way which includes them both equivalently 't is only a Repetition of his 5th and 6th Principle and continues the same affected ambiguity in the word Revelation as he us'd formerly nay and is the same nonsense too in case he takes Revelation in either place for a point of Faith reveal'd and the Infallibility of the Church for that only which is built on Natural Assistance that is for it 's Human Testimony for so 't is most manifest the same motives neither are nor can be common to both For Points of Faith are receiv'd upon Authority as their proper Motive and are Relative to That and the Human Authority of the Church depends on Maxims of meer natural Reason and not at all on Authority which evidence they depend upon different motives and so must be examin'd by motives which are not the same This pretended Conclusion then is no new Proposition from his Premisses as a Conclusion ought to be but the self same with them and is either self-evident or else a meer peece of Folly and Nonsense that is the Terms of it being clear'd both False and unprov'd and so again no Conclusion which must be made evident or Prov'd 3. The less convincing the Miracles the more doubtfull the marks the more obscure the sense of either what is call'd the Catholick Church or declar'd by it the less reason hath any Christian to beleeve upon the account of any who call themselves by the name of the Catholick Church No man in his wits could any more doubt of this then of what 's most Evident by the Light of Nature for Convincingness of Miracles Evidence of the Marks and Sense of the Church being evidently Means or Reasons to believe this Conclusion putting less of 〈◊〉 these Reasons amounts in plain Terms to this Indentical Proposition Where there is less reason to believe there is less reason to believe which is Dr. St. can show possible to follow out of any of his Principles as Premisses as he here pretends he will do more then Miracle For he hath not there prov'd in the least that our Miracles are less convâ—ncing our Marks doubtful our sense obscure nor so much as mention'd those points much lesse gone about to confute our pretence of their Convincingnesse and Evidence and without doing this to pretend this is a Conclusion and that it follows from his Principles whereas it is incomparably more evident then the best of those he makes use of is to abuse the common regard due to his Readers and to declare he makes account they never knew what belong'd to ordinary Natural Logick or the Common Light of Reason 4. The more absurd any Opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason which any Church obtrudes upon the Faith of men the greater reason men shill have to reject the pretence of Infallibility in that Church as a grand Imposture This is just such another as the former For it being self-evident that Absurdities and Contradictions are not to be held and self-evident likewise that that which recommends such things to our belief 〈◊〉 to be rejected this pretended Conclusion amounts to this plain Truth that What has more reason to be rejected has greater or more reason to be rejected which is an Identical Proposition so plain that it cannot need or admit Proof and if it did or could there is not the least semblance of any thing offer'd in his Principles to prove it by nor any sentence or clause in them concerning that matter which has the tenth part of the â—lear Evidence that shines in this Proposition which he pretends follows from them as a Conclusion 5. To disown what is so taught by such a Church is not to question the veracity of God but so firmly to adhere to that in what he hath revealed in Scriptures that men dare not out of love to their souls reject what is so taught The first part of this is of the same nature with the former For the words such a Church and so taught meaning absurdly and repugnantly to First Principles the Truth of it is full as self-evident to all Christians who hold God the Authour of Truth as 't is that The Authour of Truth is not the Authour of Lies The rest of it which would seem to put the opposite to the foregoing part and tels us that to disown what is so taught by such a Church is firmly to adhere to what 's revealed in Scripture c. is absolutely False for to disown what is so taught by such a Church amounts to no more but to hold to the First Principles of Sense and Reason in points conrrary to those Principles obtruded by that Church which a man may do and yet be an Athiest for any thing Dr. St. has brought to make him adhere to Scripture for I much doubt that a profest Fallible Certainty for such wonderful extraordinary Points as he will be bound to believe if he becomes a Christian will scarce be able to give him full satisfaction of their Truth if he guide himself by the First Principles of Reason as Dr. St. pretends he should Nor is it in Dr. St's love of his Soul as he like a Saint pretends here but Humour and Interest to adhere so firmly to his private Interpretation of Scripture for his Rule of Faith which he cannot but see has not in it the nature of such a Rule nor consequently was ever intended by God for such an end since renouncing Infallibility in men he must confess that all possible means being used to finde out Truth by Interpretations of Scripture no better grounded it still leaves all the Reliers on it in a possibility of being mistaken as himself also confesses Princ. 30. that is Insecure that their Faith is True or only Fallibly Certain of their Faith Before I proceed to his sixth and last Conclusion it were not amiss to examine these according to the Noâ—es put down formerly containing some Qualifications necessarily belonging to all Conclusions and to show by their want of all those how utterly unlike these five last are to what they pretended to be And first not one of them follows out of his Principles as from their Premisses as I show'd in each of them 2. Their Verity is known and evident to all Mankind independently on those Principles of his 3. Their Verity is more known than is that of those Principles For speaking of the main import and weight of them abstracting from some particular words and phrasing his notions they are all in a manner self-evident and Unexceptionable whereas his thirty Principles are liable to
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
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