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
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
Insignificant word Inquiry 'T is so very safe that 't is absolutely Inconfutable Had he said candidly and plainly Here follow the Principles not agreed on voluntarily which therefore I will make Evident that my Adversary's Reason may be forc'd to acknowledg their verity and by that means my discourse proceed and way be made towards some Conclusion he had offer'd me some play for then I might possibly have discover'd the weakness or Inevidence of his Principles or the slackness of his Consequences but now all my Attempts are defeated by this one pretty word Inquiry for though I should hap to confute every line in all the thirty Paragraphs yet still after all this none can deny but he has inquir'd into the Point in hand whether he have produc'd one word to evince it or no Thus Dr. T. in his late Preface got rid of the hardest and mainly concerning passage in Sure-footing by vertue of two insignificant words alledging that he had sufficiently consider'd it in his Rule of Faith which words were perfectly verify'd though as appears in Reason against Raillery Disc. 8th he readily granted all I contended for as to that point Once more I desire our Learned Readers to reflect on the different manner in which I and my Adversaries bear our selves towards one another I candidly avow my Grounds to be Evident Principles my Consequences to be necessary my Arguments to be absolutely Conclusive or demonstrative and by so doing I offer them all the fair play imaginable and trusting to the invincible force of Truth expose my self freely for them to lay hold of my discourse where they see it their best Advantage They on the other side make a show indeed of bringing their Faith to Principles because the very pretence is honorable but when it comes to performance are so far from owning the Principles they proceed on for such that except in those six agreed on which as shall be shown are not one jot influential to the point they are aim'd to evince they not so much as name the word Principle nor vouch any Argument Conclusive or any Consequence to be Necessary much less candidly affirm such in particular to be thus qualifi'd but hide and obscure all these in one dow-bak'd slippery word Inquiry by which means none can tell where to take any sure hold of any part of their Discourse 4. Notwithstanding that Dr. St. is thus shy to name these thirty Paragraphs Principles in regard they are so monstrously unlike those Clear and Evident Truths which use and ought to bear that sacred name yet 't is manifest by his carriage he meant them for such and would have them thought such too for they immediately follow after the six Principles voluntarily agreed on as if they were the other sort of Principles not voluntarily agreed to and all of them antecede his six Conclusions or Sequels which he puts immediately to follow out of them Again the Running Title superscrib'd to them is The Faith of Protestants reduc'd to Principles All which manifests to us beyond Evasion that he makes use of and relies on them as Principles though he be something bashful to call them so directly Wherefore in compliance with his Intention we will for once strain a word to the highest Catachresis that may be and by a strange Antiphrasis call Black White and all these Paragraphs Principles 5. Yet though there be nothing of candid and clear and consonant to any maxims even of Natural Logick in this Discourse yet I must allow that there is as much cunning and slight and Sophistry in it as could well be stufft into so narrow a room Wherefore that I may not be like him I shall openly profess before hand what I undertake viz. to show plainly that he hath not spoke one efficacious word to the purpose he intended that is he has not produc'd any one Principle one Reason one Argument either settling in the least the Faith of Protestants nor unsetling that of Catholicks This will be seen by our Examination of each particular Principle in order and the Answer to them To which I now address 1. An entire Obedience to the Will of God being agreed to be the condition of mans happiness no other way of Revelation is in it self necessary to that end than such whereby man may know what the Will of God is Love of God above all things and of our Neighbour for his sake being the Fulfilling of the Law does by consequence include in it self eminently an Intire Obedience to the Will of God and is agreed to be the Condition of mans Happiness Yet this Love or Charity presupposing Hope and both Hope and Love presupposing Faith as their Basis both of these do by consequence come within the compass of Obeying the Will of God and are in their several manners and according to their several natures Conditions of mans Happiness as I doubt not but all sober Protestants will grant Again Faith being part of our Obedience to the Will of God and so commanded by him and it being against those Attributes of God agreed on by both sides to command Man to act contrary to the right Nature himself had given him and establish'd it Essential to him that is contrary to true Reason Also Faith being a Virtue and so agreeable to right Nature nay more a supernatural Virtue and so perfecting and elevating Right Nature or True Reason not debasing or destroying it it follows from these and many other Reasons alledg'd in Faith Vindicated that this part of our Obedience call'd Faith must be rationabile obsequium a Reasonable Obedience and that our Assent call'd Belief taking it as impos'd by God is conformable to Maxims of Right Reason and that it perfects and not in the least perverts Human Nature But it is directly opposit to Human Nature as given us by God or to Right Reason to assent and profess that Points of Faith are True as the Nature of Christianity settled by our Saviour enjoyns us in case we are to rely solely on the Divine Authority for the formal Motive of this our believing or holding them such and yet when we come to doubt concerning their Truth cannot possibly arrive to see any Grounds absolutely Certain that the Divine Authority is indeed engag'd for the Truth of the said Points Also 't is quite opposite to Human Nature to love Heaven above all things in case there be not Grounds absolutely certain that God has told us there is such a thing as Heaven or such a Blissful state attaiâ—â—ble by us in the sight of Him wherefore when Dr. St. says no other way of Revelation is in it self necessary to this end or to the Entire Obedience to Gods Will than such whereby man may know what the Will of God is we are to mean by the word know that at least the governing part of Gods Church or Ecclesia docens may be absolutly-certain that the Points of Faith the assenting to and professing which
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
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
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 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
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
agreed to by all the World at what time all Deserters of our Church of what name soever broke from us as also who were the Authors and Abettors and who the Impugners of such New Doctrins besides in what places they first begun and were thence propagated to others but no such thing is known of us even by our Adversaries whom it concerns to be most diligent Searchers after it seeing they are in a hundred mindes about the Time when and the Persons who introduc'd these pretended New Doctrins of ours which they say vary from Scripture as may be seen by their own words in several Books and amongst others one call'd The Progeny of Protestants and this for every point in which they pretend we have innovated 't is plain that when we charge them with deserttng the known Doctrin of the former Church and the Rule of Faith we speak open and acknowledg'd evidence when they accuse us of the same their charge is obscure and unknown even to the very Accusers nay plainly prov'd false by the necessity of the things being notorious if it happen'd and the constant disagreement of those who alledge it when or how it happen'd 16. I say Notorious for since Points of Faith which ground all Christian practise are the most concerning Truths in the World it cannot be but the denyal of such Truths must needs raise great commotions before the opposite Truths could be nniversally spread and the change of Christian Practise and Manners which depend on those Truths must be wonderfully manifest and known to every body wherefore had we been guilty of such a change and introduc'd New Tenets and propagated them over the Christian world as is pretended it must needs be manifestly and universally known that we did so neither is it possible the change should be so Insensible and invisible that our very Adversaries cannot find it out especially this alone making their Victory over us so certain and perfect For seeing we own TRADITION as an Infallible Rule We are irrecoverably overthrown if they make out that we ever deserted It and surely nothing should be more easie than to make out That than which if True nothing can possibly be more Notorious 17. Moreover since it cannot be that Multitudes of men should profess to hold points both infinitely concerning and strangely difficult to believe and yet own no ground upon which they hold them if we ever as 't is said we have deserted Tradition we must till the time we took it up again have proceeded upon some other Ground or Rule of Faith And because none ever charged â—s with proceeding upon the Letter of Scripture or Phanaticism and besides thâ—se there is no other but Tradition 't is plain we never deserted but always stuck to Tradition 18. Besides 't is impossible that that Body of Men whiâ—h claim for their Rule of Faith an uninterrupted Tradition from the Apoâ—â—les days should not have held to that Rule of Faith from the beginning For otherwise they must have taken it up at some tim◠〈◊〉 other and by doing so profess to the 〈◊〉 that Nothing is to be held of Faith but what descended by an uninterrnpted delivery from the beginning and yet at the same time acknowledge that all they then held was not so descended but received by another Rule this of Tradition or uninterrupted Delivery being then newly taken up which is so palpable a Contradiction that as Humane Nature could not fall into it so if it could the very pretence would have overthrown it self and needed no other confutation 19. Add to this that none of tbose many Sects who from time to time have deserted our Church's Faith and Discipline and so become her Adversaries ever yet pretended to assign the time when we took up this Rule of Tradition and yet a change in that on which we profess to build all the rest must needs be of all changes the most visible and most apt to justifie the carriage of those Revolters Wherefore 't is demonstrably evident on all sides that as this present Body of men call'd the Roman-Catholick Church does now hold to Tradition so their Predecessors uninterruptedly from the Apostles days did the same that is did hold to it ever And since 't is shown before § 11. that this Rule if held to will certainly convey down the true Faith unchang'd to all after Ages 't is likewise demonstrable that they have the true Faith and are the truly Faithful or true Church 20. And hence by the way is clearly seen what is meant by VNIVERSAL TRADITION and where 't is to be look'd for and found which puzzles many men otherwise very judicious and sincere who profess a readiness nay a duty to follow Vniversal Tradition but they are at a loss how we may certainly know which is Ie. For since 't is evident that to compleat the notion of the Vniversality of Mankind for example it were absurd to think we must take in brutes too which are of an opposite nature to Mankind but 't is sufficient to include all in whom the nature of Mankind is found so to make np the notion of Vniversal Tradition it were equally absurd to think we ought to take in those in whom the nature of Tradition is not found but its Opposit that is Deserters of Tradition or their Followers but 't is sufficient to include those in whom Tradition is found as in its Subject that is Adherers to Traedition or Traditionary Christians All therefore that have at any time deserted the Teoching and Practise of the immediately fore-going Church how numerous and of what name soever they behave no show of Title to be parts of Vniversal Tradition and only they who themselves do and whose Ancestors did ever adhere to it how few soever they seem are the only persons who can with any sense pretend to be those of whom as Parts Vniversal Tradition consists Whence also that Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis directing us to hold that which is believ'd in all places all times and by all which is so mis-apprehended by our Modern Dissenters is clearly understood viz. by taking it with Restriction to all those who hold to Tradition For otherwise should we not restrain it to those only who have adher'd to the Rule of Faith but enlarge it to the utmost extent of the words so as to comprehend also those who have deserted that Rule nothing could possibly be held of Faith whlch any Heretick had ever deny'd and so in stead of being a Rule to distâ—nguish or know what we are to believe it would by thus confounding right Faith with all the Heresies in the world render it utterly Impossible ever to know what 's Faith what not or discern Christ's true Doctrin from Diabolical Errours But to return whence we digrest 21. It follows from the former discourse that those men who stick to Tradition can by applying that their Rule certainly know who have true Faith and which body of men is
The Twelfth has nothing new but what is built on this Manifest Truth None can be assur'd without Means to assure which since Means speaks that by virtue of which as a necessary requisit an End s to be compas't that is without which it cannot be compas't amounts to this self-evident Truth That cannot be done which cannot be done § 13. The Thirteenth has for it's Basis this undeniable Verity 'T is presumable that they who constantly maintain a Tenet do hold the same Tenet and judge it available to their Cause or for their purpose and that They who write against it and vilifie it do not hold it in their hearts nor judge it to be available to their Cause Both which are perfectly the same with this Proposition which Practice makes self-evident Men not Frantick or in some high Passion will not act directly against their own Interest or to their own overthrow or to this which is self-evident speculatively Rational Agents left to their nature will act as they are that is rationally The rest of this § is shown to be self-evident in our Discussion of the 11th § 14. The Fourteenth supposing the Evidence of the 11th 13th and 10th is reduc't to this clear Truth They act irrationally and unjustifiably who relinquish a Rule Infallibly-Certain upon Vncertain Grounds or that 'T is better to proceed upon Certainty than Vncertainty which Nature teaches all Mankind § 15. The Fifteenth contains these two Truths for it's supporters both of them self-evident practically That charge is Irrational which is grounded on a Thing unknown to the Accusers and that Rational which is grounded on matter of Fact notorious to the whole Christian world § 16. The Sixteenth subsists by vertue of this Evident Truth An Vniversal Change in matters both manifest to sense and most concerning must needs be Notorious which engages that Principle Man is Sensitive or an Animal Whence this being a direct part of the Definition of Man 't is consequently Self-evident § 17. The Seventeenth is reduc't to this plain Proposition Men of Reason cannot hold and own themselves and propose to others Points most difficult to believe upon pretence that they came from Christ and yet yield nor own any reason why they held they came from Christ or thus Men either have or else yeeld no Reason where there is most need of both which comes to this that A pressing Necessity which is the most violent of Causes which in our case strains Humane Nature if it act nor frustrates it of it's end has no Effect at all which destroys all Causality and consequently all Science in the World § 18. The Eighteenth is as plain as it is that Mankind amongst which were in all Ages persons of great Wit Goodness in matters of highest moment and which require the best and surest Ground can continue to hold such things and yet confess the Ground on which they hold it naught and Insufficient or upon second Thoughts going about to settle a better palpably and directly contradict their own pretence which is to say Where there is most need of reason men do not use it at all And since Effects are not done without Causes which in our case are Motives and the greatest Necessity is the most powerful of Motives or Causes if that move them not to act rationally nothing will do it and so it implies by consequence the contradictory to this Identical Proposition Rational Agents are capable to act rationally § 19. The Nineteenth has the same Basis with the 16th and 17th § 20. The 20th is meerly this Identical Proposition dilated All in any kind are the Vniversality or All in that kind § 21 The Twenty First and Second are Grounded on those Evident Truths Those who have Means to arrive at an End can arrive at that End and those who have not means cannot And since Means speaks that which makes an End compassable they amount to this That whâ—â—â—câ—â— be done can be done and that which cannot cannot § 22. The last Paragraph supposing the fore-going ones True is of the same strain and full as evident as it is that None can arrive at an End without what 's Necessary to arrive at that End or that That cannot be done which is Impossible to be done Postscript Having thus attempted to reduce the main Parts of my Discourse concerning the Ground of my Faith to First Principles it is required of Dr. St. that in maintaining his he would not decline the same Test This if he thinks it safe to undertake it will quickly and evidently appear on whose side Truth stands And this is mainfestly his Task who pretends to Principles For he must either vouch those he produces to be First Principles or reducible to the First else he must confess them to be none at all I have little hopes he will think it fit to expose his Discourses to this Noon-day-Evidence nor indeed will the Genius of Errour endure such a Triall as the going about to connect it with First and Self-evident Truths for what Communication can that Darkness have with this Clearest Light and I conceive it was Clearness of Style that is a Grammatical or Rhetorical Clearness and not a Logical or Rational one which consists in resolving his Discourse into First Principles that Dr. Tillotson boastingly attributed to him in his Sermon-Preface for himself as is evident by his whole way of writing never dream't of any other 'T is more to Dr. St's purpose which is to keep things from being understood to avoid by all means this discovering Method and all arguing from the nature of the Thing whence he foresees no small danger of too great Evidence is likely to spring and to leade his Reader into a Wilderness of Words whole Libraries of Authors where by his way of managing Citations which is by Criticising upon ambiguous words and phrases they may dance in the Maze till they be weary I hear he is about this stratagem and that he ayms out of some high Expressions of the Fathers concerning the Excellency and Self-sufficiency of the Scriptures to prove the Vselesness of the Church to ascertain Faith But alas how he will be defeated Not one Testimony of any Authority will be found which comes home to his purpose or proves that private men need not the Churches Interpretation ere they can securely build their Faith on it To save him therefore the labour of collecting and Printing multitudes of these to no purpose and his Readers from the fruitless toil of troubling themselves with Impertinences I produce him one out of Vincentius Lirinensis worth thousands for it speaks with as high Reverence of Scripture and of it's Fulness Perfection and Self-sufficiency as any perhaps more and so he cannot not with any reason except against it and being intended purposely to speak to this Point must needs be the most apposit decider of the Question that can be not to add the Acceptation and Esteem that Excellent Treatise
particularly whence each Deduction follows we may be better enabled to discover the Goodness of his Consequences and thence discern clearly the Truth of those Conclusions which we are to suppose his Intention in making those Discourses 6. In the last place we are to weigh very well what is meant by that signal and particularizing word Protestants for 't is the Faith of these and these only which he undertakes here to reduce to Principles And I will have the kindness for him as to suppose he so much zeals the Purity of the Protestant Church as not to defile her with the mixture of Anabaptists Independents Quakers and such like much less the most abominable Socinians who deny the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. Therefore these being secluded from the notion and name of Protestants we are encouraged by this Title to expect such a Discourse as is not proper for Socinians or any of those other Sects to alledge for themselves otherwise it might and ought with as much right be entitled The Faith of Socinians Quakers c. as the Faith of Protestants reduc'd to Principles The sum then of what we are by this Title to expect from Dr. St. is this viz. to shew us such Grounds for our Assent to Points as divinely reveal'd as are Impossible to be Erroneous and such as are not competent Allegations for Socinians Arians c. but proper to Protestants only Also that these Grounds or Principles are such as are either self-evident or made evident And this he is oblig'd necessarily to do unless he will sustain either that Socinians Fift-Monarchists c. are Protestants or that the Faith of Protestants is but Opinion or that there can be any Principles which are neither evident of themselves nor by means of others that is no ways evident or not evident at all Or lastly that he can show us any Conclusion reduc'd to Principles or deduc'd from them without shewing us that it is connected with them This then is what Dr. St's words bid us expect from him let us see now how he answers this expectation Second Examen Six Principles agreed on by both sides examin'd and their Import and Vse weigh'd 1. HE begins with laying down six Principles agreed on by both sides and they are as to the main all of them very True and granted by us if rightly understood wherefore in case any ambiguous word do occur I am to explain it that so our perfect concurrence with him in admitting them may be rightly apprehended and the discourse more unoffensively proceed in case these Principles should come hereafter to be made use of They are these 1. That there is a God from whom Man and all other Creatures had their Being 2. That the notion of God doth imply that he is a Being absolutely perfect and therefore Iustice Goodness Wisdome and Truth must be in him to the highest degree of perfection These two first are rigorously and literally true and worded very exactly 3. That man receiving his Being from God is thereby bound to obey his will and consequently is liable to punishment in case of Disobedience This Proposition is also most true yet that it may more throughly be penetrated and rightly apprehended it were not amiss to note that though the word obey generally amongst us signifies doing some outward action will'd by another yet in this occasion 't is to signifie also nay principally the exercising Interiour Acts of our soul viz. of Faith Hope and Charity in which kind of Acts consists our Spiritual Life as we are Christians That then this Principle may be better understood I discourse it thus that Because God as far as concerns his own Inclination or rather Nature precisely out of his over-flowing Goodness will all Good and amongst the rest the Means to Eternal Happiness to his Creatures and the Believing in Him Hoping all good from Him and Loving him are such Virtues or Perfections of the Soul as are apt and connatural means to raise and dispose it towards the attainment of Bliss or Fruition of the Deity hence he wills that man should believe on him hope in him and love him whence are apt to follow the outward observances of his Law and if they follow not out of these motives they are not properly virtues or truly Perfective of the soul in order to its Last end nor available in the least to the attainment of Bliss nor Acts of Obedience to God's will nor in true speech the keeping his Commandments God therefore willing us Happiness to be attain'd through the proper means to it it follows that those who disobey this Holy will of his that is those who do not cultivate their minds with the said Virtues of Faith Hope and Charity become liable by such their disobedience to eternal misery as wanting through this neglect the Proper Means which is to elevate them to the capacity of attaining Heaven 4. That in order to Man's obeying the Will of God it is necessary he know what it is for which some manifestation of the Will of God is necessary both that Man may know what he hath to do and that God may justly punish him if he do it not 5. Whatever God reveals to Man is infallibly true and being intended for the Rule of Man's obedience may be certainly known to be his Will I approve very wel of these two Principles And to this end I make it my request to the Proposer of them that the word manifestation and certainly known may be understood in their proper signification for that which is True or Absolute Certainty and not be taken abusively as Dr. T. still takes it for such a Certainty as is indeed Incertainty as is shown at large in Reason against Raillery and Faith vindicated Again that we may know whether this be a Principle agreed to by both sides as Dr. St. pretends I shall first put down our Tenet which is that at least the Pastors of the Church who are to teach the Faithful convert Unbelievers amongst whom are many acute wits as also to defend their Faith and make out the Truth of it may nay must have Infallible Grounds and so be Infallibly or Knowingly Certain of what God revealed to Man that is of their Faith If then Dr. St. grants the wisest portion in Gods Church to be thus Infallibly Certain of their Faith we agree with him in this Proposition but if he denies this kind of Certainty to them and consequently there being no middle between Infallible and Fallible says they and so the whole Church is only Fallibly-Certain of what they believe he both speaks non-sense and lays for a Principle agreed on by both sides that which is absolutely deny'd by us and indeed the main point in Controversy between us 6. God cannot act contrary to those Essential Attributes of Iustice Wisdom Goodness and Truth in any way which he makes choice of to make known his Will unto man by This Principle is absolutely granted having
no Fault in it but that it expresses not all the Truth it ought for God not only cannot act contrary to those Essential Attributes but he is oblig'd by his very Nature to act perfectly according to them in making choice of such a Way or Rule to make known his Will unto man by as shall be all things consider'd most proper for Mankind that is most suitable to the respective Capacities of those who are to be led by it that so their Acts of Faith as far as they spring from the Provision of motives laid by God may be pefectly rational and also most effectual to the end for which God intended that Rule and Faith which depends on it These are the six Principles Dr. St. proposes as agreed to by both sides which in the main and thus understood are of so universal a Nature and such sacred Truths that if he draws any necessary consequences from them to the establishing the Faith of Protestants or overthrowing that of Catholicks which latter seems chiefly intended his Victory is likely to be very compleat If he does not but rather makes no use at all of them in concluding from them what he pretends and his Title imports it must needs be understood that they were only produc'd to make a plausible show and to prepare the Readers mind to Apprehend he must necessarily conquer all before him having such sacred Principles engag'd in his Patronage One thing more I am to add on this occasion which is that no discourse at all can proceed unless all the Principles be agreed to by both sides for if the Person against whom we argue deny our Principles 't is a folly to hope by means of them to force him to admit of the Conclusion depending solely on those Principles for its Truth and Evidence But we are to reflect that an Adversary may two manner of ways grant us our Principles either voluntarily and of his own accord or else forcibly that is convinc'd by strength of Argument if the Principles be subordinate ones and so can admit Proof or for fear of shame from Human Nature if they either be First Principles or that the Controversy by discourse be reduc'd to that most Evident Test. Since then Dr. St. makes account we yeild him but these six voluntarily we are to expect from him such manifest proofs for the other thirty as may make us by the clearness of their Evidence or under the penalty of having Mankind our Enemy for deserting Rational Nature assent to their verity otherwise there is no hopes for him to conclude any thing at all while we are at liberty to deny every thing he builds on But alas how far is it from such Talking Disputants even to think of such performances though the necessity of his duty if he pretends to Principles obliges him unavoidably to it Third Examen Sifting the first nine Principles that seem to concern the Nature of Divine Revelation in Common and its several ways AFter these six Principles agreed on follow thirty other Paragraphs or whatever else we may guess it fit to call them and they are introduc'd by this Transition These things being agreed on both sides we are now to inquire into the particular ways which God hath made choice of for revealing his Will to mankind I expected that since Dr. St. had promis'd us to reduce the Faith of Protestants to Principles he would after he had put down the Principles voluntarily agreed to by both sides have pursu'd the Method himself had made choice of and have produc'd next the Principles made use of by him in this particular matter which we are not voluntarily agreed on and either have maintain'd them to be First Principles and so self-evident or else subordinate ones and deriving their Evidence from those First and therefore have shown us their derivation from them or Connection with them This had been a Method becoming a man pretending to ground himself on Principles especially in a discourse where this and this only was pretended for by this means it might as reason requires have been examin'd first whether those Principles had subsisted or no in themselves which if they had then only the Consequences had needed Examination and so the Business of Truth had been quickly decided 2. But instead of this candid and clear and Methodical proceeding thirty odd kind of Sentences Sections Paragraphs or I know not what come hudling in one after another of such uncouth fashions such desperate and disagreeing natures so void of coherence with one another that none knows well what to call them not even Dr. St. himself as appears by the Carriage of the matter Some of them seem deductions from the Principles agreed on Others seem to contain Intire discourses of themselves The Illative particle therefore or its Equivalent which necessarily Ushers in all Conclusions is so rarely heard of here that one would verily think they were all Premisses or Principles but this Conceit is again thwarted because divers of them are meerly Hypothetical Propositions involving sometimes such a condition as never was put others are bare voluntary Assertions and False into the bargain Some few of them pretend modestly to own themselves deductions from some other Paragraphs but yet onely hint it afar off as it were not speak it out plainly as if they fear'd some danger Others pretend to draw a Consequence in their Close not at all following from the part foregoing Lastly the whole mass of them hang together like a rope of â—and for want of declaring their Relation to others and though now and then they counterfeit a semblance of some sleight coherence yet their whole Frame is loose and ill-built for want of an orderly and visible dependance of one part on another Now this odd variety in their Complexions puts an attentive Considerer at some loss what to name them no Apellation fitting the thirty but that which is common to such Quantities of matter or Multitudes of lines whether it be sense or non-sense such as are Paragraphs Sections and such like since their motly nature will neither let us call them Deductions nor Conclusions nor Principles nor Propositions nor Discourses nor Inferences nor Postulatums nor Axioms nor Maxims nor Proofs nor any thing of any such nature and yet all this while the superscription is The Faith of Protestants reduc'd to principles 3. It were not amiss for all that to consider what Dr. St. himself calls them and to hope thence for some better knowledge of their nature than we could attain to by our own Consideration But he is at variance with himself about the point no one common name being capable to fit them all where the things to be named are of so many Parishes or Families All he does as appears by his Transition to make them all taken together amount to an Inquiry into the particular ways which God had made choice of for revealing his Will to mankind I do not by any means like this
and grounding upon them Hope and this all-over-powering Love of Heaven the main part of our Obedience are True or Impossible to be False If then Dr. St. takes the word know in this signification this Principle is granted if in any other or for a great Hope only that they are True as I fear when it comes to the point he intends no more I must for the Reasons here given and many more alledg'd in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery deny that no other way of Revelation is necessary and put him to prove it which he neither has done nor can do 2. Man being fram'd a rational Creature capable of reflecting upon himself may antecedently to any External Revelation certainly know the Being of God and his dependance upon him and those things which are naturally pleasing unto him else there could be no such thing as a Law of Nature or any Principles of Natural Religion I suppose he means by the word God the True God and then 't is not so evident that every Man in the state of corrupt Nature may arrive to know him however some few may and in the State of Right Nature All. And in case he takes the words certainly know in their proper signification then he may consider how ill his Friend Dr. Tillotson discourses who professes not to have even with the assistance of Christianity that Certain Knowledge of the Being of God which as Dr. Still says was attainable by the meer Light of Natural Reason 3. All Supernatural and External Revelation must suppose the truth of Natural Religion for unless we be antecedently certain that there is a God and that we are capable of knowing him it is impossible to be certain that God hath reveal'd his will to us by any supernatural means If he means here Priority of Nature 't is to be granted for this Proposition God has reveal'd implies and presupposes as its basis God is But if he understands it of priority of Time as I conceive he does then I both deny the Proposition and the validity of the Reason given for it For 't is Evident both by Reason and Experience that manifest and Convictive Miracles which are supernatural and external Revelations done before the Heathens who yet know not the true God in Testimony of Christianty at once or at the same time made it certain that he whom we adore is the True God and also that God reveal'd his will by supernatural means and so 't is not Impossible as Dr. St. here affirms to be certain of such a Revelation without knowing any time before hand that there is a God nor must All Supernatural and External Revelation needs suppose the Truth of Natural Religion that is of the Knowledge of the True God as he pretends since such a Revelation may cause that Knowledge and so antecede it not be antecedent to it 4 Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the Certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently suppos'd to all Divine Revelation For that were to overthrow the means whereby we are to judge concerning the Truth of any Divine Revelation This Discourse seems at the first show to carry so clear an evidence with it that nothing appears so Irrational as to doubt or dispute it And indeed 't is no less if the words in which it is couch'd be not equivocally taken but still be meant in the same sence To prevent then the growth of a witty piece of Sophistry which I foresee creeping in under the disguise of an ambiguous word I am to provide against it with a distinction both pertinent and necessary to the present matter These words Divine Revelation may either mean the way or Act of Revealing or else they may mean the Thing divinely reveal'd that is the Point of Faith which differ as showing and thing shown or as an Action and it's Effect In the same manner as the word Tradition is sometimes taken for the Way of Delivery sometimes for the Thing or Point delivered When they are taken for the one when for the other partly the circumstances and the aim of the discourse determin partly some annext particle or variation of the word so that if they be taken for the Thing reveal'd or deliver'd and be express'd singularly 't is call'd A Divine Revelation or A Tradition If plurally Divine Revelations or Traditions Now it seems something doubtful in whether sense it be taken here for § 1. he speaks of the Way of Revelation which can onely mean Revealing and in the two following ones 't is taken in the same sense as appears by the words God hath reveal'd found in the Third But this matters not much so it be here taken in the same sense throughout which I fear 't is not For the word Revelation is here made use of thrice and in the first and last place it seems plainly to mean the Points revealed in the middle the Way or Act of Revealing yet the two following Principles incline the doubtfulness of the Expression to mean the Points of Faith themselves Though this be to speak moderately by far the more preposterous and absurd Tenet as shall hereafter be shown But I am to provide for both parts since I am to skirmish with such an ambidextrous Adversary and therefore applying this discourse to his Proposition I distinguish thus and grant that Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation taking those words to signifie the Act of Revealing which overthrows the Certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to the Act of Revealing Also I grant that nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation taking those words to signifie Points of Faith revealed which overthrows the Certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently suppos'd to those Points This is candid and clear dealing and far from that sophistical and equivocating ambiguity which contrary to the Genius of Truth he so constantly and so industriously affects 5. There can be no other means imagin'd whereby we are to judge of the Truth of Divine Revelation but a Faculty in us of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to our Belief which if we do not exercise in judging the Truth of Divine Revelation we must be impos'd upon by every thing which pretends to be so Here are many quaint things to be considered For if Dr. St. means that we cannot judge of Truth without a Faculty to judge of Truth 't is a 〈…〉 Principle though very littâ—◠〈◊〉 his purpose But 't is most 〈◊〉 paraâ—oxical to say that no other means can be imagin'd to judge of Divine Revelation but such a Faculty For if there can be no other means imagin'd but this Faculty then This is all the means and so those Knowledges which are to inform and direct this Faculty are no means at all whence all motives to Faith Rule of Faith all Teaching nay Scripture it self are to no purpose For none of these are our Faculty of
discerning Truth and Falshood Again what is meant here by Divine Revelation If it be meant of the formal Act of Revealing then 't is False that there can be no other means to judge of its Truth but a Faculty in us of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to our Belief For these Matters are Points of Faith and 't is a madness to think we must begin with examining their Truth ere we can know that God has truly or indeed reveal'd them since the Knowledge that God has reveal'd or spoken is had ordinarily by natural means antecedent even to the Revelation it self much more antecedent to those Points viz. by the Rule of Faith which shows the Divine Authority engag'd for their Truth But if he means by Divine Revelation the things or Points divinely reveal'd and as appears by those words matters propos'd to our belief he bends strongly that way then the sense is evidently this that we must judge the truth of the Points of Faith by exercising a Faculty of judging of the Truth of those Points And since to judge is to exercise our Faculty of judging it amounts plainly to this that we must judge of the truth of Points of Faith by judging of the truth of points of Faith which is an Identical Proposition and perfectly true but not at all to his purpose Yet it is too for 't is creditable now and then to speak clear Evidences however in reality they prove Impertinencies But if Dr. St. means nothing but that we must use our Faculty of discerning Truth and Falshood that is indeed our Reason even in Assenting to things above Reason or to Mysteries of Faith he says very right For 't is most Rational to believe that to be True which God who is essential Verity has said and exceedingly Rational to believe God has said it or which is all one in our case that Christ and his Apostles have taught it upon an Authority Inerrable in that affair And thus my Faith may be most Rational without exercising my Reason in scanning and debating the Truth or Falshood of the matters propos'd to my Belief or examining the Points of Faith themselves Nay more this Method of his is most preposterous and absurd For the Mysteries or Points of Faith being elevated above the pitch of our ordinary Natural Reason and such for the most part in which Gods Infinity most exerts as we may say It 's utmost but the Knowledge of the Rule of Faith which is to ascertain to us the Divine Revelation or that God has told us them lying level to our Reason as inform'd by natural Knowledges hence to relinquish the method of examining the Truth of Divine Revelation by those Knowledges which lie within our own ken and to begin with those which are most elevated above it as it is to comprehend the extent of Gods Infinite Power is both against all Art and Common sense Both which tell us we must begin with what 's more easily knowable and thence proceed to what is less Knowable Nor is there any danger of being impos'd upon by everything that pretends to be Divine Revelation as the Dr. scruples as long as we are Certain that God cannot lie and that God has said this for these put the thing is most certainly True 6. The pretence of Infallibility in any person or Society of men must be judged in the same way that the Truth of a Divine Revelation is for that Infallibility being challeng'd by virtue of a supernatural Assistance and for that end to assure men what the will of God is the same means must be us'd for the trial of that as for any other supernatural way of God's making known his Will to men Here the words A Divine Revelation which he now first uses give us to understand that Dr. St. means a Point of Faith and not Gods Revealing it or Divine Revelation which words he us'd formerly And this is farther confirm'd by his saying that that Infallibility which is challeng'd by vertue of a supernatural Assistance must be judg'd in the same way that the Truth of a Divine Revelation is For such an Infallibility through supernatural Assistance of the Holy Ghost consists in the Sanctity of the Church which is a Point of Faith and so the words A Divine Revelation which he joyns and parallels to it must mean a Point of Faith also Whence is discern'd what marvellous dexterity Dr. St. hath us'd to gain a notable Point against us and how smoothly he hath slided from Gods revealing Faith to us or the Act call'd Revelation to the Points of Faith reveal'd In hope by this confounding one with another to perswade his unattentive Reader that because 't is the only right way of procedure to begin with the using our natural Reason so to judge whether God hath Revealed such a point or no therefore 't is fit to begin with the same Method in examining the Points of Faith themselves which pretend to be reveal'd and thence conclude whether they be indeed divinely reveal'd or no which how absurd it is hath lately been shown But to come closer and apply this to his present Discourse The Pretence of Infallibility by virtue of supernatural Assistance must indeed be judged in the same way that the truth of a Divine Revelation is for both of them being Points of Faith must be judged by the same way all other points of Faith are viz. by the Evidence there is that the Divine Authority cannot deceive and that it stands engaged for those Points 7. It being in the power of God to make choice of several ways of revealing 〈◊〉 Will to us we ought not to dispute from the Attributes of God the necessity of one particular wâ—y to the Exclusion of all others but we ought to enquire what way God himself hath chosen and whatever he hath done we are sure cannot be repugnant to Infinite Iustice Wisdome Goodness and Truth I do not remember to have heard that any man living ever went about to dispute from the Attributes of God alone the necessity of one particular way to the Exclusion of all others nor does it appear how 't is possible to do it without considering also the Nature of those several ways of Revealing in doing which if we come to discover that only one is as things stand of it self sufficient for that End and all others pretended to by those against whom we dispute depend on It for their Certainty then they can safely argue from the Attributes of God particularly his Wisdome that none but this could have been actually chosen by him So that Dr. St. seems here to counterfeit an imaginary Adversary having never a Real one This will better appear if we attempt to frame a Discourse from Gods Attributes alone In endeavouring which it will appear that all we can argue from that single Head is this that What 's disagreeable to Gods infinite Iustice Wisdome Goodness and Truth cannot be will'd
by him and what 's agreeable can Now who sees not that this signifies nothing either to the Exclusion or Admission of any particular Way unless we subsume thus But this or that is most agreeable or disagreeable to the said Attributes whence follows therefore it is to be admitted or rejected by him Whence 't is clearly seen that no Argument can be drawn from those Attributes alone without taking in the consideration of the nature of the Way it self and its sufficiency or insufficiency as Dr. St. himself confesses in common at the end of the 8th Principle though he perpetually avoids to examin the particular nature of his Way and its Fitness of mankind to build Faith upon its evidence Yet let us see at least though it be so plain a point how weakly he proves that we are not to argue from those Attributes It being says he in the power of God to make choice of several ways c. we ought not to dispute from the Attributes of God the necessity of one particular c. so that the Argument stands thus Because 't is within the extent of Gods Power therefore it crosses not but agrees with all those other Attributes otherwise if it did we could with good reason argue from them against Gods having made choice of such a way Now this reason of his is so palpably absurd that I admire the meanest Divine living could stumble upon it For what man who holds God Omnipotent can doubt but that his Power can reach to reveal his Will to every single man by hourly Apparitions the flying of Birds nocturnal Dreams or throwing of Dice upon a Fortune-book yet no wise man will doubt but were we to inquire what is the way fit for God to reveal his Will to mankind by we should reject these as misbecoming Gods Wisdom c. and for the same reason all others but one in case noneX but that one were of it self qualified to do that Effect as it ought and so befitting Gods Wisdome to make choice of it and yet notwithstanding all this it might lie within the the compass of the Power of God to chuse several others It follows but we ought to enquire what way God himself hath chosen and whatever he hath done we are sure cannot be repugnant to Infinit Iustice Wisdom Goodness and Truth All this is yeilded to unless he means this to be the only way of arguing from Gods Attributes as he would seem which I must deny and demand of him why 't is not equally Argumentative to say This way of Revealing or Rule of Faith as both Experience and Reason shows is evidently incompetent to give Faith that Certainty which its Nature and the many Effects to be produc'd by it and Obligations incumbent on it require it should have therefore I am sure 't is repugnant to Gods Justice Wisdom Goodness and Truth and so can never have been chosen by him Or thus God is infinitly Wise Good Iust and True therefore he hath not chosen a way so Incompetent to those Ends. In the same manner as out of the known Incapacity of a sieve to draw water or to ferry one over the Sea to the Indies we may conclude demonstratively that 't is unbeseeming Gods Infinite Wisdome Goodness Justice and Truth to assign that for a Means to attain that End Or if God in some extraordinary case intends such a Miracle 't is necessary all those who are to use those means be absolutely assur'd of this wonderful Assistance otherwise if they compass not that End but perish in the Sea they may blame their own presumptuous rashness which would needs tempt God for their miscarriage and not God who never bound himself by promise in frequent and ordinary transactions to bring about Effects miraculously by Imcompetent Causes How weakly Dr. St. presumes rather than proves that God has chosen Scriptures Letter to be the Rule of Faith will be seen hereafter 8. Whatever way is capable of certainly conveying the Will of God to us may be made choice of by him for the means of making known his Will in order to the happiness of Mankind So that no Argument can be sufficient à priori to prove that God cannot chuse any particular way to reveal his mind by but such which evidently proves the Insufficiency of that means for conveying the Will of God to us First Taking the words certain conveying to mean Absolute Certainty as I prov'd before in this and in divers Treatises of mine to be requisit I am next to distinguish the word capable which may either mean that the Way in common may possibly bear it in case it shall please God to use his best Power to improve it and make up its defects with all the Assistances it can need Or it may mean that such a way or manner as it stands now on foot in the world for example the Scriptures Letter as 't is now contriv'd is of it self capable of conveying the will of God to us with absolute Certainty without needing any other Thing to regulate us in the understanding it Whatever is capable in the later sense I grant may be made choice of by God for the means of making known his will For this being suppos'd to have in it self actually all that is requisite for such an effect is fitting to be made use of by God whose Wisdome and Goodness it becomes when he acts not miraculously to use every thing as it is or according to its nature establish'd by the same Wisdome But I deny that what is capable in the former sense may alwaies be thus made choice of by God For however such a way in common may be made capable to do that effect if it should please God to exert his Power to support its natural defectiveness as is exemplifi'd before in Dreams Apparitions and those other odd methods there mention'd yet 't is unsuitable to Gods Wisdome Goodness or other Attributes to show himself so extraordinarily in things which reach the Generality of Mankind and this for a perpetuity and so ought to be allow'd onely his ordinary Concourse especially if other means be already plac'd in the world able to perform this with a constant orderly and connatural assistance If then we can prove the Insufficiency of any Particular means taking it alone as 't is now found extant belonging to such a way in Common for example of the Scriptures Letter as it now is to give Mankind Absolute Certainty of Gods sense or Faith then however the way of Writing in Common can possibly be supported by Gods Infinit Power so as to be able to work the Effect of thus Certifying us of its sense yet not being such of its own nature taking it as it stands now thus contriv'd 't is not a fitting Instrument for Gods ordinary Providence to make use of for such a general Effect as is the Certifying all sorts of people of their Faith 9 There are several ways conceivable by us how
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
such persons are known to be lost it may be doubted nay it ought to be granted that the present Written Rule is defective in the nature of a Rule unless it be well made out that those divinely-inspir'd Writings which were lost were of another Nature then these extant and therefore that they had no part in being a Rule The Proofs for which point ought to be very pregnant and convincing otherwise it may be question'd whether any Books writ by men divinely inspir'd had in them the nature of a Rule or were intended for that end by God And this is particularly inforc'd because Dr. Sâ— here Princ. 28. makes Scripture the Rule and Measure of what we are to believe and if the Measure fall short 't is to be fear'd the thing measur'd or Faith will fall short likewise But if he says onely some of those divinely-inspir'd Writings were sufficient 't is very necessary it should be made out how many are needful that so it might be throughly understood what are the precise Grounds of Christian Faith concerning which yet there is much difference in opinion amongst those who hold the Letter-Rule which signifies that none of them know distinctly what themselves assign or hold to be that Rule Or if he says that onely those which Gods Providence has preserv'd are that Rule then he must either say that Gods Providence therefore preserv'd these because they contain'd holy Doctrin and were writ by men divinely-inspir'd or were apt to benefit future mankind and then by the same Reason those which perish'd should have been preserv'd too or else that God preserv'd these in particular because these which remain are besides those qualifications Proper and Sufficient to be the Rule of Faith And then he begs the Question and supposes his own Tenet true even while he is proving it so Nexâ— supposing the Originals of these Books now extant to have been once the Rule of Faith it was requisite the Church in the beginning shouâ—d have look'd upon them as such and consequently have made account for the first 300 years till when they were not collected or universally propos'd it had no Absolute Certainty or Entire Body of their Faith But of this we hear not that any had the least Jealousie or that they lookt after Books of Scripture as Things without which the Church was not either absolutely Certain of its Faith or had not all its Faith Again had those Books been then the Rule of Faith as considering that some of them were unacknowledg'd one scatter'd here another there accidentally is sensless to imagin Yet how can we â—ow or future Ages hereafter have Absolute Certainty that some substantial word or other is not alter'd omitted or inserted in those places that concern the main Points of Faith for example the Godhead of Christ or the Real Presence in case there be no Infallible Authority to attest the Truth of it which Dr. St. denies here Princ. 15. It is not evident he must say that none of these can be made out with Absolute Certainty and consequently confess with Dr. T. that all this may be otherwise unless he have recourse to Gods Extraordinary Assistance to the multitudes of Transcribers and Translators because of the Necessity the Letter should be thus preserv'd still unchang'd in regard otherwise none could say his Faith is True which again begs the Question and supposes it the Rule of Faith instead of proving it so Farther Let the Letter be suppos'd exactly like the Original how will that Letter secure from all possible Error all that rely on it as the Rule of Faith ought or to use Dr. St's words Princ. 15. reveal so plainly the whole will of God that no sober Enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation Now if they cannot miss of what 's necessary for salvation they must needs hit on it and so are in a manner Infallible as to that point while they rely thereon To put it to the Tryal let us consider what Disputes there are out of Scriptures Letter between Socinians and their Opposers about a Trinity and the Godhead of Christ and what between Catholicks and their Adversaries about the Real Presence How many Interpretations of This is my Body How many Allusions of one place to another in both those Points to hammer out the Truth and these agitated on both sides by Bodies of eminent men excellent Scholars Acute Scripturists Must every sober Enquirer and every private ignorant person who sincerely endeavours needs hit on the right and judge better of these Points than all those Learned men Or must we needs conclude that all those learned Enquirers found in each of those vast different parties are mad or Insincere I wish he would prove this 'T is his best Interest and would give his Argument some likelihood which till then has none for the Fact being so notorious how earnestly they all endeavour to find out the Truth of these points by the Letter none will judge but that if their Heads or Hearts be not strangely disorder'd by Folly or Insincerity the Letter which shouâ—d inform them is strangely incompetent for that end But 't is remarkable how neatly Dr. St. skips aside from the Point He undertakes not to give us any Assurance that his sober or sincere Enquirers shall by vertue of this his Rule of Faith find out that any one point of his Faith is an Absolutely Certain Truth but only that he shall not miss of what is necessary for salvation that he shall not erre or at least not be damn'd for it So that for any thing appears by his discourse let him but read the Scripture though he holds nothing but Error by so doing yet he is still in the way to salvation by the very Reading and Running into Errour But this deserves a particular reflexion hereafter Lastly the very nature and Genius of the Scripture as it now is shows that however it be excellently Vseful for perfecting the Lives of the Faithful in many regards yet it was never intended for the Rule of Faith For to omit innumerable other reasons frequently alledg'd by our Authors Its several parts were evidently writ on several emergent occasions and have not the least semblance as if the whole had been purposely compil'd to deliver an intire Body of Faith Nor does it observe any method tending to clear each several Point For it neither begins with defineing or explaining every word made use of in signifying those Points which is the best means to avoid Equivocation the Ground of all mistake nor does it pursue home the evidencing any one Point by making us aware of the sinister senses in which each word expressing that Point might seem to be taken nor does it put objections against each Tenet and establish us in the right Apprehension of it by solving them nor distinguish by laying common Rules to know when the words are to be taken properly when Metaphorically much less tell us particularly in
Position abating the Degree of it for I take it to be equally or more absurd not to assent to the Infallibilty of a great body of men which is all that is pretended whatever Reason or Tradition appear for it without an evident Miracle The second part is likewise granted in case it suppose as it seems to do the knowledge of their Infallibility deriv'd only from those very books which they recommend and in passages which they are to explicate ere they can be sure of such an infallibility Otherwise 't is possible a book obscure in multitudes of other passages may be clear in that one which relates them to the Church or that body which they are to hear and obey as to the proper interpreters of the Scriptures in Dogmatical and controverted passages which belong to Faith But the Dr. should do well to shew us any society of men or Church that pretends to build her Infallibility only on the Scriptures interpreted by that very Infallibility Otherwise it will not touch our Church who claimes the Supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost upon her Rule of Faith Tradition and as for her being naturally supported from errour in attesting former doctrines 't is grounded by those who discourse of that point upon Humane nature as to its infallible Sensations and on its Rationality which renders it incapable to do any thing without a motive as they must do should they transmit a not-deliver'd that is an evidently-new doctrine for an old or deliver'd one 18. There can be no hazard to any person in mistaking the meaning of any particular place in those books supposing he use the best means for understanding them comparable to that which every one runs who beleeves any person or society of men to be infallible who are not for in this later he runs unavoidably into one great error and by that may be led into a thousand but in the former God hath promis'd either he shall not erre or he shall not be damn'd for it This whole Paragraph is built on a false and unprov'd supposition viz. that any Adversary of his beleeves any society of men to be Infallible which is not Other faults there are in it and that good store as granting in effect here what he lately deny'd that a man using the best means for understanding Scripture may mistake the meaning of any particular place though not with a hazard incomparable to that of the other whereas if Scripture be the Rule of Faith as he contended 't is impossible that a man relying and proceeding upon it and using that means in the best manner he can possibly should come to erre in his Faith for in this case the man having done all that can be done by him as to the understanding the Rule the fault must needs be in his judging that to be a Rule which is none But this main and fundamental error is coucht in the last words in the former God hath promis'd he shall not erre or shall not be damn'd for it what mean in the former case c. This certainly and nothing but this if we may trust his own words in mistaking the meaning of any particular place in thâ—se books supposing he use the best means for understanding them Now 't is a strange thing to me that God should promise that a man mistaking the meaning of these books should not erre in so doing But omitting this slip of Dr. St's Reason or memory I ask what means this disjunctive promise either of not erring or not being damn'd for it Why it means that Dr. St. knows not well himself what to say to the point or whether he should stand to it or no that a man using the best means for understanding Scripture that is according to him the best means lest by God for him to arrive at Faith should not erre and therefore he warily subjoyn'd or he shall not be damn'd for it and then he thinks himself secure enough from confute it being a hard thing to conclude of any particular wellâ— meaning man when he is damn'd when not whereas it might perhaps be no such hard matter to prove whether what he held was true or not I could ask him whence or how he comes to this assurance of God's disjunctive promise here so confidently asserted on the truth of which the salvation of so many souls necessarily depends Not by Tradition For this would make him rely on a society of men or a Church which he hates with all his heart not by Scripture for this would make the same thing be the proof to it self not by Reason for we are to suppose he has done his best in that already and yet as is shown has effected nothing But I would demand of him seriously did God ever promise that if one takes such a way as for want of a due intelligibleness in proportion to his capacity is not able to secure him from error he shall not erre or that if he will needs be wiser than his Pastors and chuse a Means for such an end which God never intended for that end he shall yet be sure to arrive at that end by that means or that if by relying on it and erring he shall happen to fall short of sufficient means he shall notwithstanding miraculously be sav'd without sufficient means These are the points he is to consider well and speak to and not thus confidently call every thing a Principle which he thinks fit to say on his own head though never so extravagant In a word let him prove Scripture to have in it the nature of a Rule of Faith or which will fall into the same to have been intended by God for that end that is to be of it self such to people of all capacities that soberly enquire as secures them from erring in Faith while they rely on it and this of it self without needing any society of Men or Church to attest or explain it and then I shall yeild his discourse to run as currently as his own heart can wish but in proving this he hitherto hath and ever must fall short most miserably He hath often as I noted formerly instead of saying his Rule of Faith should preserve those who endeavour to follow it from error or from missing of truth substituted those words cannot miss of what is necessary for their salvation and such like The examination of which words I have reserved till now and that I may do him all right imaginable I will press his Argument or rather indeed bare saying in behalf of Scripture as far as my reason can carry it None can deny but that the knowledge of a very few points are sufficient for well-meaning particular persons as appears by the Ieweâ— that were sav'd and many silly and weak Christians since nor can it be deny'd but every one that reads Scripture or hears it read by one they dare trust may understand some few good things to which if they live up heartily and
ought they will as God's command the Order of the World and common Reason obliges them be rather willing to trust their Pastors who are better qualifi'd for such Knowledge and whom God hath set over them to instruct them what is the sense of Scriptures than trust their own private shallow judgments And 't is observable that Dr. St's discourse all along concerning this point is a plain begging the Question For if God have left a Church and commanded the Faithfull to hear it and conform to it's Faith and consequently to receive the sense of Scripture as to Points of Faith from it then there is no necessity of Scripture's being intended to be plain to all Capacities of it self nor of thinking men may sincerely desire to know God's will in Scriptures and use due means to understand it without making use of the Churches Judgment in that affair upon which false supposition Dr. St. wholly builds his otherwise perfectly ruinous discourse Wherefore his supposition being deny'd I must reply that those who sincerely desire to know Gods wisl have a certain virtue in them called Humility and this teaches them not to overween in their own opinion but to think that their Pastors appointed by God to teach them are generally wiser then those who are to be taught and that those who are wiser know better than those who are lesse wise A little of this plain honest rational Humility would quite spoil all Dr. St's discourse and convince all his Principles to be a plausible piece of Sedition and licentious presumption tending of its own nature utterly to destroy all Church and Church-Government and if applied to that Subject Temporal too I should be glad to know what means the word such in the last line if he means Infallible and that the Church pretending to Infallibility must have Infallible Assurance that she is Infallible t is asserted by us and his supposition that she is not is absolutely deny'd For the Church is Infallibly certain that Christ's promise to her shall not fail and also Infallibly certain by constant Tradition and the beleef of good Christians in all Ages that Christ has promis'd her this Security or Immunity from Errour in Faith none questioning it but those who have rebel'd and revolted from her In a word this whole Principle is Faulty being built on a False and unprov'd Supposition and were the Supposition granted and that the Church were Fallible still it were false that his Faithfull would have greater Assurance of their Faith than ours as hath been partly now shown and more amply in my Reply to the foregoing Principle Recapitulation The Sum then of Dr. St's Performances in these ten Principles of his which most Fundamentally concern his Faith and the pretended Reduction of it to Principles is briefly this that he hath not brought so much as one single Argument proving either that Scripture's Letter is the Rule of Faith nor that Tradition or the Infallible Testimony of Gods Church is not it And as for the particular Maxims or Sayings of his on which he chiefly relies they have been one by one disprov'd and the opposite Truths establish't As 1. That Faith being such an Assent as when built as it ought to be on the means left by God for mankinde to rely ou is impossible to be False and so that Means or the Rule of Faith being necessarily such as while men rely upon it is impossible they should erre These things I say being so as I have largely prov'd in Faith Vindicated and the Introductory Discourse to this present Examin Dr. St. has not so much as made an offer or attempt to show that Scripture is the Rule of Faith 2. That since 't is agreed God can contrive Writings sufficiently Intelligible for that End or sufficiently clear to ascertain those who rely upon them of their Faith and yet on the other side 't is evident God has not de facto done this or contriv'd such Methods and ways as our Reason tels us evidently are proper means to keep those Writings call'd the Scriptures from being thus mis-understood by severall Parties even in Fundamental Points as we experience they are it follows hence most manifestly that God never intended the way of writing for the Rule of Faith 3. Since several Parties of excellent capacities in understanding words aright and both owning Scripture for their Rule and applying themselves with greatest diligence to know the true sence of it do notwithstanding differ in those Fundamental Points of a Trinity and the God-head of Christ 't is manifest that Scripture is not able so secure those who rely on it to their power of the Truth of their Faith and so is not the Rule of Faith 4. Again since in passages that concern Faith the knowing whether the words be taken properly or improperly is that which determines what is Faith what not and this knowledge is not had from Scripture it follows that Scripture is not the Rule of Faith 5. God has no where promis'd that he will still assist those who sincerely endeavour to compass an end in case they take a way disproportion'd to attain that end and which way was consequently never intended by him for such an end for this were to engage himself to do perpetual Miracles when ever any one should act irrationally Wherefore unless it be first solidly prov'd that Scripture is the Rule of Faith or apt of its own nature to give those who rely on it Inerrable security of the Truth of their Faith while they thus rely on it and consequently that it was intended by God for such an end none can justly lay claim to God's assistance or tax his Justice or Veracity if they fall into Errour Much lesse if they neglect those Duties which Nature makes evident to them and common Christianity teaches viz. to obey and hear their Governours Pastors and Teachers ordain'd by God and rely on their own private Wit or God's Immediate Assistance to their single selves rather than to those Publick Officers of the Church God had appointed to govern and direct them for this intolerable spiritual Pride is so odious and pernicious that it most justly entitles them to delusion Errour and Heresie 6. Hence since God has left some means for Faith and 't is Blasphemy to say that those who rely according to their utmost power on the means left and Intended by God to lead Men into Truth can while they do so run into Errour which yet private understandings as was seen may relying on the Written Word it follows 〈◊〉 unavoidably that some other way is left which is not Writing to secure the Relyers on it from Errour in Faith or to be to them the Rule of Faith 7. Scripture not being the Rule and Christ's Doctrine being once settled and accepted in the Christian part of the World by means of Miracles there needed no more but to derive it down to future Ages and this Doctrine being Practicall and so objected
bide by us and we by it all our whole lives till we arrive at our future state the Region of Light where we shall see facie ad faciem who sees not that it must be held and so since there can be no Necessity to hold a thing to be what 't is not must be Impossible to be false for otherwise were we to hold it that is were it self possible to be False it ought to be held Alterable when ever more Light should appear discovering it to be an Errour To evince this Truth I have produc't multitudes of Arguments in Faith vindicated none of which has been thought fit to be reply'd to though mine and Faith's opposers still craftily persist to insinuate the contrary Errour But I will at present make use only of one which will I conceive best conclude the Point between us For Dr. St. makes Scripture the Rule of Faith and so speaks of Faith as standing under what he conceives the firmest and clearest Ground and which was left by God for Mankind to embrace Faith I do the same when I assert the Churches Testimony or Tradition to be the Rule So that neither of us speak of the particular odd ways by which some persons casually come to have Faith nor of Faith as had by such means but of the common road-way left by God for Mankind to attain to Faith and of Faith as standing under such a Means or Rule Upon this Agreement if we joyn issue and proceed it seems that nothing but evident Obstinacy against manifest Truth can hinder us from agreeing in our Conclusion For since if we may be deceiv'd in beleeving even while we follow the direction of that Rule which God himself has appointed to light us to Faith it would follow that there is no means imaginable likely to do that effect as also that God himself had deceived us which is both Blasphemous and Impossible it must follow That Faith built upon the Rule left by God whether Scripture or Tradition must be Impossible to be an Errour and consequently its Ground or Rule must be Impossible to be False or Erroneous Wherefore Dr. St. is oblig'd as well as I am to hold heartily this double Conclusion and if he attempts to discourse of that point to make it out that the Rule he assignes is such as cannot leave us in Errour and our Infinitely-perfect God in the blame How far short he hath fallen hitherto of making out his pretended Rule of Faith viz. Scripture as standing under the Judgement of every private person to be Impossible to suffer men to err while adhering to that way is already shown How heartily now he asserts Faith it self built on the Means or Rule left by God to be Impossible to be Erroneous or False comes next to be examined 20. No mans Faith can therefore be Infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be Infallible because the nature of Assent doth not depend upon the objective Infallibility of any thing without us but is agreeable to the Evidence we have of it in our mindâ—s for Assent is not built on the nature of things but their Evidence to us This Principle begins with a Fallacy of non causa pro causa For what man in his Witts ever said or held that Faith must therefore be Infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be Infallible must a meer saying that is a saying neither self-evident nor prov'd be held a competent Ground to build the Existence of any thing upon But let us suppose that Dr. St. by the words is said to be meant is or prov'd to be as is indeed our true Tenet let 's see how he confutes us Our Tenet is that in case the Proposer of Faith be Infallible all that rely on It for that particular are by so doing Infallible likewise He argues against us from the nature of Assent which he sayes depends not on the Objective Infallibility of any thing without us but is agreeable to the evidence we have of it in our minds If he means by the words depends not such a dependence as is Immediate I grant it For our Assent being an effect wrought in our Soul and a Result of some foregoing knowledges notions or natures of things within us which produce that Assent if it be a Conclusion or compound it if a First Principle 't is impossible any thing without us and staying there without evidencing it self to our minds or breeding some Interiour discovery of itâ—elf there should beget any Assent at all concerning it But if he means by those words that our Assent depends not mediately or depends not at all on the Object without us as his large Expression seems to signify then 't is absolutely deny'd For the Evidence of the Thing in us is an Effect of the nature of the Thing without us nor could evidence of the Thing in us cause Assent without such dependence on the Object or Thing without us for unless by means of the Object and dependence on it this Evidence it self could not be The last words For Assent is not built on the nature of things but their evidence to us is but a Tautology or short rehearsall of the reason lately given and so needs no new Answer Yet however D. St. for want of Logick expresses himself ill confusedly there is notwithstanding a kind of knot in in his discourse and I shall lend my best Assistance to loose it but first it will be necessary to put down his three next Principles since they all seem to club into one Dilemma against Infallibility 〈◊〉 Proponent 21. It is therefore necessary in order to an 〈◊〉 Assent that every particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be beleeved so that the Ground on which a necessity of some Externall Infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make every particular person Infallible if no Divin Faith can be without an Infallible Assent and so renders any other Infallibility useless 22. If no particular person be Infallible in the Assent he gives to matters proposed by others to him then no man can be Infallibly sure that the Church is Infallible and so the Churches Infallibility can signify nothing to our Infallible Assurance without an equal Infallibility in our selves in the belief of it 23. The Infallibility of every particular person being not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church and the one rendring the other useless for if every person be Infallible what need any representative Church to be so and the Infallibility of a Church being of no effect if every person be not Infallible in the belief of it we are farther to inquire what certainty men may have in matters of Faith supposing no externall Proponent to be Infallible Ere I begin my Discourse I am to note Dr. St's shuffling way of contriving his Sentences here or of penning his Principles as he call's them His 21st contends 't is necessary
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
It were an excellent world for Hereticks if this notion of Certainty would take For these being â—bstâ—nate in their Errours no men more firmly assent to Falshoods then they and questionleâ—s the Generality of them judg'd what they held True too nay they must all do so if they once be put firmly assenting as in our case for to assent to a thing is to judge it to be indeed True By which means all Hereticks in the world are Certain of their Errours and if they be Certain of them Common Sense tels them they ought to hold what they are Certain of Again â—light Probabilities make many weak people firmly assent so does Passion and Interest yet they are all by this new doctrin Certain of what they hold and so all 's well 'T is now come to light what kinde of Certainty D. St. intended to prâ—scribe for Faith after he had rejected Infallibility namely such a Certainty as one might have whether the Thing be True or no meerly by vertue of firmly assenting to it as True And in this sense I think I may say he is Certain of his Faith and I hope he will be so civil as to requite me with maintaining that I am certain of my Faith too for we â—oth firmly assent to them as Truths and so we are both very good friends and by the same method so are Turks and Jews atton'd to Christians Nothing is so proper to reconcile Contradictions as a Chimaera viz. a Fallible certainty or such a certainty as is none Identical Propositions are meer toys to them or as Dr. T. says good for nothing But Fallible certainty or Certainties that are no Certainties can work wonders and even do more then miracle Ridiculous Folly not to see that when any one says I am certain af such a thing all mankind understands him to mean he has such Grounds as infer that thing is as he says and not only that he has a Firm Assent to it as True without intending that he has any Grounds to enforce the Truth of it This is what I often reflected upon in Dr. T. Reason against Railery that his discourse still aim'd to take the business of Certainty out of the hands of the Object and put it constantly upon the Subject and to make account he was sure the thing was so because he verily judg'd it or did not doubt it to be so And Dr. St. is here carrying on the same wise plot to which he begun to make way in his 20th Princip where he told us that Assent is not built on the nature of things but their Evidence to us ' Indeed if he speak of an Assent which it matters not whether it be True or False or rather which is or may be False 't is meerly built on our own Fancies and Conceits which I suppose he must mean there by the word Evidence But if the Assent we speak of and to which himself applies it be that of Faith which must necessarily be True both It and the Evidence which immediately breeds it must forcibly either be built on the nature of things or else on nothing and so both the pretended Evidence is a False Light and the Assent it self False and Chimerical On the other side in case if the Evidence and consequently the Assent be built on the Nature of things which are Footsteps of Gods Infinite Wisdom in which he has imprinted all Created Truths and establisht them under penalty of the highest Folly and Contradiction to be inerrably what they are it follows that in case the Evidence had from those things be indeed a true Evidence or a right Knowledge of their natures our understanding Power will be the same within as they are without and so Inerrable in it's Assent and It's Certainty built on those natures so that as their Metaphysical verity immediately depending on God is fixt by that Essentially Unchangeable Being in a participated but yet absolute unchangeableness in being what they are so Formal Verity or Truth in us being an Immediate effect of those Natures thus establisht working upon our Understanding transfuses into It that is into our Knowledge and consequently our Assent anâ— Certainty such a proper effect of themselves as sutes with the Subject in which 't is received viz. an Intellectual Unchangeableness or an Unchangeableness built on Knowledge of those Natures that is an Infallibleness No wonder then both our Drs. in their weak discourses fly off so from depending for their Assents or Faith on the Objects or Natures of things and recurr still to the Subject for by this means Common Sense is driven out of the world and Non-sense and Contradiction grow in great request And first Infallibility or true Certainty is radically destroyed which otherwise according to the discourse now made must forcibly be admitted then Fallible Certainty comes into great Credit or such a Certainty as is firmly assenting to a thing as True whether â—t be true or no that is such Certainties as are no Certainties but Wilful Adhesions such a Faith as is no Faith but Fancy such a Religion as is no Religion but Folly or Interest and such Truths as are no Truths but possible Falshoods In a word the Object set aside and the dependence of our Assents upon things without us as the Dr. would have it the subjects are at Liberty to hold and say what best likes the spirit within them or their voluntary Fancy in which consists the glorious Liberty of D. St's Blessed Reformation I grant him then â—hat no man who firmly assents to any thing as true can at the same time entertain any suspicion of it's Falshood But I deny that this plea will either acquit him or Dr. T. from the imputation of making Christian Faith possible to be False which was objected for why may not this man who firmly assents to a thing as true now or to day both suspect and see it to be False to morrow unless he can shew that that Assent of his depends on the Object or is built on the unchangeably-fixt natures of Things which Dr. St. denies in express terms Princ. 20. or what can establish him in his Assent of Faith if that do not Is it not evident he may change if he may see true Reason may be brought against it What would do him credit in this case is to offer to make it out that Assent requiring Evidence and so Firm Assent Clear Evidence he has this Clear Evidence from the Object to ground this Firm Assent for then we may be sure his Assent will be Unalterable and solidly-grounded or Impossible to be False as becomes Faith not desultory Inconstant and weakly-built as is the nature of Opinion But this my two Adversaries must not do For how can they pretend to an Unalterable Assent if Assent be not built on the nature of Things only which are Unchangeable or how to Clear Evidence if they may notwithstanding that Evidence be still deceiv'd as they must say all
some Certainties without any kind of nature of Proof that is without any regard had to the Object After this he acquaints us with one kind of Morâ—l Certainty Watch he says is oppos'd to Mathematical Evidence Now I neither discern how Moral and Mathematical come to be opposite to one another more then Moral or Physical and Metaphysical or Theological less do I see how Certainty anâ— Evidence have such an Opposition and Aâ—tipathy I thought they might have been both on the same side but I conceive that the goodness of Natural Reason made him at unawares joyn Certainty to Moral and Evidence to Mathematical thereby confessâ—ng that this Moral Certainty as he apprehends it is indeed the Issue of no kind of Evidence at all but of meer Obscurity or at best of some conjectural glance of Likelihood But he describes or gives us some distinct Knowledge of this Moral Certainty telling us that it implies a firm Assent upon the highest Evidence that Moral things can receive and this he assigns to Christian Faith Where first I would know whether this Moral Certainty here mention'd be an Infallible Certainty or a Fallible one and I presume he will answer 't is a Fallible one for Infallible and Moral Certainty are opposite which is a fair beginnâ—ng towards the ascertaning Faith Next I would desire him to speak out candidly and tell me whether this Moral Certainty put Faith absolutely out of possibility of being False or whether notwithstanding this Certainty it may with Truth be said that still absolutely speaking all Christian Faith may be an Errour or Mistake of the world I presume he will not say 't is absolutely Impossible it should be all a Mistake because 't is so protected by this Moral Certainty for he makes this a less degree of Certainty than Mathematical Certainty is and Dr. T. has told us there can be no degrees in Absolute Impossibilities besides I see not how a Fallible Certainty can establish any Tenet Impossible to be False for an Infallible Certainty which is incomparably above that can do no more And yet for all that 't is dangerous to his Credit for 't is indeed blasphemous to say that all Christian Faith may possibly be a lying Imposture for any thing any man living knows or that all the Christians in the world though relying and proceeding to their power on the Means God has appointed to establish them in True Faith may notwithstanding be possibly in an Errour I suppose then he will recurr to his late excuse and tell us that no man who firmly assents to any thing as true can at the same time entertain any suspicion of it's Falshood But this is nothing to our purpose 'T is not his Iudgment but his Doctrin which stands impeach't not his Thoughts but his Words and Discourses let him clear those to the world and I am to remit secret things to God and his own Conscience I leave then him and his Frâ—end to shuffâ—le about for better Evasions which I am sure can never be candid and Scholar-like but some learned quirks and Jeers and address my self to a farther examination of this worthy Principle 3ly then I would ask whether the Firmness of this Assent which he says here Moral Certainty implies be taken from the Object or from the Subject I suppose he will say here from the Object because he says 't is upon the highest Evidence Moral things can receive but I perceive him dispos'd even while he says so to blame the Things for receiving no more I doubt he should rather blame himself for receiving no more from those Moral Objects who are both as able and as ready to afford him perfect Evidence as perhaps any other things in Nature did he dispose himself to receive it For are not Moral things as firmly establisht in their respective determinate natures as Natural and Mathematical things from which Establishment all our Science is taken Is not a will as Certainly a will and Liberty as necessarily Liberty as a Triangle is a Triangle Again are not Voluntary Liberty Virtue Vice and such like very Intelligible words aud consequently the Natures of Moral things Knowable as well as others in other Sciences I wonder then why the Evidences of Moral things cannot be as high as that of Mathematical things since the natures of both are equally Firm both natures can be known and so engaged in our discourses of them and from them and all science or Evidence springs from engaging the Natures of things The Sum then is Dr. St. hath given Faith excellent good words in telling us it's Moral Certainty implys a firm Assent upon the highest Evidence Moral things can receive but looking to the bottom of his meaning he intends it only a Fallible Certainty or such as may still permit it to be False and so the right descant upon his fine words is in true construction this He allows Faith such a Certainty as is Vncertain such a Firmness as may both bow and break such an Evidence in it's Grounds as is Obscure and consequently makes it such an Assent as is Irrational All which and much more must needs follow from this rejecting Infallible Certainty in the Gronnds of Faith If he thinks I wrong him let us put it to the test Let him take the best of those Evidences or Proofs which ground his Moral Certainty and put it with the help of a little Logick into a Syllogism or two and then tell me whether it does necessarily conclude the Truth of Faith or no. If it concludes why does he not say Faith is absolutely Certain but mince it with Moral If it concludes not how can all the world avoid but his pretended Evidence is Obscure his pretended Certainty built on that Evidence Vncertain the Firmness of that Assent Infirm and the Assent it self to a Conclusion thus unprov'd and no ways Evident in a man capable to comprehend what ought in due of Right Reason cause Assent privatively Irrational or Faulty 28. A Christian being thus Certain to the highest degree of a firm Assent that the Scriptures are the Word of God his Faith is thereby resolved into the Scriptures as into the Rule and Measure of what he is to believe as it is into tht veracity of God as the Ground of his believing what is therein contained A Christian who is no better Certain then thus that is by Grounds allowing only such a Certainty as is not absolutely or truly Conclusive of the Truth of Faith as Dr. St. intends no more by his Moral Certainty is not Certain at all As appears farther by the next words Certain to the highest degree of a firm Assent the meaning of which must be that this highest degree of a firm Assent either is the same with the Certainty he intends his Faith according to his former doctrin and constitutes or explicates it or else that at least it helps to make up this Certainty that is perfect it within it's notion and
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
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
gratis this position that nothing but Miracle ought to serve whether there be other Means laid or no Or that no Proof but Miracle can possibly be sufficient to satisfy mens Reasons in a thing Subject to Reason For the Natural Assistance of the Church is such of it self and the Suppernatural supposing the knowledge of Sanctity in the Church is as plain Reason as that the greatest motives to Goodness and Interiour Goodness caus'd by those motives will make those good men who have it act as good men ought and are apt to do The 17th proceeds wholly upon a False Imputation laid on our Church and on his confounding most absurdly the notion of the Church with that of the Schools or rather taking a few speculative Divines and those the weakest to be the Church The 18th is again built on an unprov'd Supposition of which kind of Grounds he is still very free and on a falsely pretended promise from God so to secure any private-spirited Contemner of the Church that he shall be in the way to Salvation whether he Err◠or no though as common sense and the Order of the world gives it he forfeit both his Reason and his Virtue by not hearing his Lawfull and Learned Pastors rather than his self-conceited Ignorant self The 19th has the same Faults with the former and is wholly False even though his own Supposition mention'd in the close were freely granted him which 't is not The four Principles following are made up of these Errours 1. That we hold that no man can have a True and saving Faith unless he sees and knows that the Proponent is Infallible 2. That the nature of Assent when rational depends not on the Object 3. That one cannot have an Infallible Assent in Faith without Infallible Assistance to judge of the Points of Faith themselves 4. That there is no middle between no particular person and every particular person being formally Infallible whereas my Tenet is that some must be so most may be so and all need not be so 5. That because all must be materially Infallible or in the true Faith but know not how they are so therefore 't is useless that any should know how to make out those Grounds to settle explain and defend Faith and it's Certainty These with his self-contradiction are the jarring Elements which compound these four terrible Principles with which he hopes to undermine and blow up the Churches Infalibility and the absolute Certainty of all Christian Faith The 24th gives good words in common of Certainty and Evidence but he means by the former Fallible Certainty by the Later only some Probability or Improbability so it but appears so to the Subject And is a total prevarication from Settling the Truth of Faith to not doubting the Truth of the Scripture of which there is no question The 25th holds forth a most wicked and gross Absurdity destructive of all Certainty Evidence Faith Christianity and even Man-hood viz. that to Assent firmly to any thing as True is to be Certain of it And intimates two others viz. that a man who is now Certain of a thing may at another time know that thing to be False though not at the same time as also that such a Certainty is competent for Belief or Faith The 26. speaks Evident Truth in the beginning of it but is nothing available to his cause but rather against him The Inference thence is False being defectively exprest and when rectify'd is also a clear Truth but highly prejudices himself The 27. is utterly 〈◊〉 of common Sense Certainty Faith and Christianity The 28. Principle is a weak and inconsistent Discourse The 29. supposes Scriptures Intelligible enough in all Points of Faith without the Church and to contain expresly God's whole will o◠every Article of Faith or at least with such a Ground of it there as that 't is deducible thence by private understandings with a Certainty competent for Faith none of which he has at all prov'd nor ever will The 30th and last confesses all men liable to Errour in Faith though relying on the Means left by God to secure them from it which evidently makes that means to be none and assigns a way for their best security which all Erring Sects in the world as far as we can discern take and yet still erre And lastly for an Upshot he makes account like a Solid Divine that our Christian Life is not at all Interiour but only Exteriour and consequently that Faith is no part of a Christian's Life nor the means to the other parts of it nor Infidelity and Heresy a Sin or Vice and then all 's safe and his Principles stand firm for then 't is evident that every private man may reject the Church at pleasure and be sure to understand as much in Scripture as is necessary to Salvation for if these be no sins and so do not damn a man either immediatly or mediatly there is nothing that will But indeed in Dr. St's kind of Reformation they are rather to be accounted Cardinal and Fundamental Virtues Such Sensless Principles ought to produce no better Fruit for this sutes their Practice and his Principles Rebel against God's Church break the most Sacred Order of the World and do but talk stoutly and with a bold grace and a pretty way of Expression of Scripture and God's Word and then all is Holy and Good Reflecting then back on the nature of Principles and considering that to deserve that name they must necessarily have in them two Qualifications viz. Evidence in themselves and Influence upon some other Propositions which are to derive their Evidence from them and it being manifest both out of this short Review and much more out of the full Replies to each of them that not one of those which D. St. here cals Principles but is either Vnevident and False or if True Impertinent and void of any the least Influence upon the Point he aym'd to prove by them They are clearly convinc't to have nothing in them like Principles or entitling them to the honour of that name and that he might with far more reason have call'd them Conceits Paradoxes Quodlibets or Crotchets And I know no better way for him to vindicate them but to entreat his Fellow-Hater of Infallibility Dr. T. who has a special gift at* putting Principles into Categorical and Hypothetical Syllogisms to undertake these that so the world may see the rare consequences that arise from them to which lest he should fail his Friend we now address The Sixth Examen of Dr. St's Six Conclusions ANY man who had either heard of Logick or reflected a little upon Nature would verily have thought that such obscure Principles should necessarily have produc't more obscure Conclusions since the Evidence of the Later being deriv'd only from the former and participated from them must needs be found in a lesser degree of Perfection in these than is the Evidence of those former from whence 't
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
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
Church-Authority and if she had none her self 't is evident she could give none whence will follow that the Reformed Churches deriv'd nothing which was Constitutive of a Church from any foregoing one but were wholly erected anew and then I would know what Authority under that of Iesus Christ who constituted the Church at first had power to constitute it anew But if Dr. St. says that the Church of Rome rely'd on the Means left by God to ascertâ—â— Faith then 't is manifest that doing so she could not erre in Faith and so is as sound as may be whatever our Talking Disputant says Since then there is no middle between relying on the Means left by God to ascertain Faith and not relying on it and so that Body in Communion with the Roman Church must necessarily do one of them and if she does rely on it she must needs have all true Faith and so be very healthfull or sound if she does not she mâ—st needs have no True Faith at all and so not only lose her Health but her Essence too which by consequence un-churches the Reformers also it were good Dr. St. would consider the point over again and not talk thus any thing at random without proof As for his saying for saying things craftily and prettily is his only Talent that the Church of Rome by which I presume he means as we do those Churches in Communion with the Roman is not the Catholick Church this will be best decided by settling the Certain Rule of Faith and then by applying of it to consider whether any body out of her Communion have not deserted that Rule which if they have they will be prov'd thence to have no Faith nor consequently to have in them the Essence of a Church and so if this defect appear in them all they can be in true speech no parts of the Church in which case it must necessâ—â—ily follow that those in Communion with the Roman are the Catholick Church Let us begin with Grounds and pursue them by close discoursing and things will easily be decided but this Talking Voluntaries this countersfeitiâ—g and pretending to Principles and Conclusions when there is in reality neither the one nor the other is good for nothing but empty show These excellent performances having emboldend this man of Confidence to conceit he has done wonders he sounds the Triumph of his own Victory in these words This may suffice to shew the validity of the Principles on which the Faith of Protestants stands and the weakness of those of the Church of Rome These words give us occasion to reflect back on his Promise and his Performances His Promise was to reduce the Faith of Protestants to Principles What he has perform'd is this He has not yet laid one Proposition which is to him a Principle that is which he makes use of to conclude what he designs but what is both Obscure and False He has settled no Faith at all but brought all into Opinion by discarding Infallible and maintaining only Fallible Certainty And had he indeed settled any Faith yet he has not produc't own word to settle the Faith of Protestants in particular but all will equally fit a Socinian or a Quaker and his way of managing his Rule will much better sute with a Quaker or any Fanatick than with a Protestant Also in stead of reducing to Principles he at first begins to deduce from Principles and in the process of his discourse he puts Conclusions for Principles and Principles for Conclusions and so reduces and deduces that is draws backwards and forwards blows and sups both at once In a word the Total sum of his Heroick Atchievments amounts to this He has layd thirty Principles which wanting either evidence or else necessary Influence upon what he pretends to prove are no Principles He hath so reduc't to those Principles that he makes six Conclusions follow that is he deduces from them and so he has so reduc't to principles that he has not reduc't to them He has put that for a Rule which wanting power to direct aright those who are ro rely on it is evidently no Rule He has attributed such a Certainty to his Faith as is a Fallible one that is no Certainty but a Chimaera and consequently he has so Principl'd Faith as makes it no Faith but Opinion only He has made six Propositions so follow out the thirty which for want of necessary coherence with them do not follow Lastly he has made those to be Conclusions which for want of Premisses and by reason of their greater Evidence than is fonnd in his Prinâ—iples and for many other regards are not Conclusions but rather Principles All which is shown in their proper places So that his perplexing Intricacy in contriving and posturing his words oddly being once unravell'd their affected ambiguity clear'd and his Insignificances and Incoherences layd open the Common Light of nature will inform any Attentive and Intelligent Reader that Dr. St. has not reduc't the Faith of Protestants to Principles but that his whole discourse attempting it is reduc't to Contradictions Yet in confidence of his vast performances he ventures upon this grand Conclusion that shall strike all dead From all which it follows that it can be nothing but wilfull Ignorance weakness of Iudgment strength of prejudice or some sinful passion which makes any one forsake the Communion of the Church of England to embrace that of the Church of Rome But with how much greater reason may I conclude that in case the Church of England owns his way of discoursing herâ— and holds not that the Tradition Practice and Sense of Gods Church is to give us that assurance of the meaning of Scripture as to build Faith on it but that 't is to be left to every privâ—te mans Fancy to be his own Iudge in that affair nothing but either an Invincibly-weak Ignorance or the wicked Sin of Spiritual Pride making private men scorn to submit their Judgments to persons wiser than themselves or to be taught by their lawfull Pastors whom God has appointed for that end can make any man remain in the Communion of the Church of England and not unite himself to the Communion of the Church of Rome Especially since they all hold that Faith cannot possibly be False so must hold that the means to Faith cannot possibly lead the reliers on it into errour and yet if but meanly verst in the world they must needs experience that those who do rely on their own sense of Scripture differ in most Fundamental points of Christianity and so oneside necessarily erre in so doing FINIS TRANSITION TO THE Following Discourse HAving thus totally defeated Dr. St's Attempt to reduce his Faith to Principles and shown that in stead of performing this all the most substantiall parts of his Discourse are reduc't to so many Contradictious it may perhaps be expected I should assert the Truth of my own by showing that 't is built on
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.