be so the not appearing to be otherwise will avail nothing to conclude it so All it can effect is to make us maintain our liberty of suspence and Indifferency that so we may be void of forestalment or prejudice and free to believe it when competent or conclusive Reasons shall appear to evince it What then Dr. St. is to do is to produce Conclusive Reasons to evince that the Letter of Scripture has such a perspicuity and other Perfections belonging to such a Rule as must ground that most Firm Vnalterable and if rightly grounded Inerrable Assent call'd CHRISTIAN FAITH and this considering the Nature of Faith the Effects which are to proceed from Faith and Obligations issuing from it and Incumbent on the Faithful as such But in stead of performing this necessary Duty of his to argue as if though the Reasons he brings conclude it not yet it must needs be so because we have no Evidence 't is not so is so pleasant and new invented a way of arguing that he must find the VVorld a new Logick and Mankind it self a new nature ere he will arrive by means of such Discourse at any Conclusion And whereas he seems to build much on the word Equal alledging that we must for the reasons there given hold the Scriptures the Rule of Faith unless it appear they are defective with an Evidence Equal to that whereby we believe those books to be the word of God 'T is absolutely deny'd not only for the reason lately given in common that none can be bound in reason to hold or own any unprov'd Position but particularly because of the peculiar nature of the thing we are discoursing of For the Rule of Faith being that which is to tell us God said such or such things or engages the Divine Authority for their Verity if we should happen to misuse Scriptures Letter by letting loose people of all capacities to rely on it as their Rule of Faith then in case it should peradventure not have been intended by God for this end but for some others we expose our selves and others to the desperate danger of running into Endless Errors by this misusage of Scripture and of adhering to those Errors as firmly as if God himself had spoke them that is we hazard erring irrecoverably in matters which ate the proper means of salvation and blaspheming God daily in making him the Patron of Lies In this case then there is particular caution to be used and so if upon sincere and strict Examination it be but any thing dubious that Scripture was never intended by God for a Rule of Faith we can never be obliged to hold or own it for such especially not having any Certain Argument to conclude it such much less must we be oblig'd to hold it to be such unless we have EQVAL Evidence of its Unfitness to that whereby we believe those Books to be the word of God unless Dr. St. will say that nothing ought to restrain a man from hazarding the greatest mischiefs in the world but perfect Evidence that no harm will come of it So that still his main business and without which he does nothing at all remains yet to be done which is to bring solid convincing Proofs that God intended Scripture or his Written Word for the Rule of Faith that is for such a Rule as people of all sorts relying on it should be Infallibly or absolutely-secur'd from Error by so doing In making good which concerning Point he hath hitherto trifled exceedingly Nay himself here is afraid to own the Goodness of his own Proof otherwise he would never have thought it fit to annex those words Vnless it appear with an Evidence equal to that whereby we believe those books to be the word of God that they were never intended for that End because of their obscurity or imperfection For the Evidence whereby it appears those Books are the word of God must be conclusive else according to his Grounds we can never conclude one word of Faith True and so an Evidence equal to it must be Conclusive likewise If then he had thought his reasons to prove Scripture the Rule of Faith were Good and Conclusive Common sense would have forbid him to add these cautious words Vnless it appears with an equal evidence c. for Common sense tells us no Conclusive reason can possibly be brought for the Negative if Conclusive Reasons be once produc'd or be producible for the Affirmative It appears then by this behaviour of his on this occasion that he distrusts that either he has produc'd any Conclusive reason for that main Point of Scriptures being intended for the Rule of Faith or that any can be produc'd Lastly That we may give perfect satisfaction to this Fundamental Principle of his though perhaps there is not Evidence Scriptures Letter was never intended for the Rule of Faith equal to that whereby we believe those Books to be the Word of God in regard we believe this upon the Authority of Gods Church which is supported with the whole strength of Best Nature and Supernaturals yet we have rigorous and Conclusive Evidence that it is not penn'd in the very best way imaginable to avoid all ambiguity of words and forestall mistakes as being immediately inspir'd by God whose works are perfect if it had been intended by him to be our Rule of Faith it ought to be And I shall presume I have already brought Conclusive Evidences both à priori and also à posteriori in my answer to his 10th Principle to evince that it has not in it the nature of such a Rule nor consequently was it intended by God to be such a Rule How incomparably excellent soever it be for other Ends for which it was indeed and solely intended But omitting all the rest at present I remind him of one which I cannot too often repeat and enforce it upon him thus He cannot deny but the Points of a Trinity and Christs Godhead are most Fundamental Points of Faith he cannot deny but both Protestants and Socinians rely on the Letter of Scripture for the sole Rule of their Faith and sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them which is all he requires on the Persons side He cannot deny but that notwithstanding this one party holds There is no Trinity and that Christ is not God the other that there is a Trinity and that Christ is God and so one side erres most Fundamentally He cannot deny but Error being a Defect there must be a fault somewhere to beget this Error that is either in the Persons judging of what the Rule of Faith tells them or else in judging that to be a Rule which is not the Rule for in case they erre in neither of these 't is impossible they should erre or misconceive at all in matters of Faith He cannot deny in any reason but the persons on both sides being such acute men and excellently well vers'd in the Letter of Scripture have both Capacity
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
Christianity yet for any thing we know or these crafty common words inform us they have still all that is needfull to save them that is though they go wrong all their lives they are still all the while in the way to Heaven But I suppose Dr. St. means that no more is necessary for any ones salvation than just as much as he can understand in Scripture Which I wish he would once begin to set himself to prove make out by some convincing argument I am heartily weary of speaking still to his unprov'd and voluntary Assertions 14. To suppose the Books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any things necessary to be believed or practised are not contained in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the Writers with Insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first Ages with folly in believing the Fulness and Perfection of the Scriptures in order to salvation As far as I apprehend the foregoing Principle was intended to shew that Scripture was sufficirntly Intelligible to be the Rule of Faith and this under examination is to prove it to be the measure of Faith as he calls it Princ. 28. and all he contends here is that it CONTAINS all that is necessary TO BE BELIEV'D and practic'd And that we may not multiply disputes I grant those Holy Books contain all he pretends some way or other either Implicitly or Explicitly either in Exprest words or by necessary conâ—equence But that those Books contain or signifie for they are the same all that is to be believed and practiced so evidently that all persons who sincerely endeavor to know their meaning and this for all future Ages may thence alone as his discourse aims to evince that is without the Churches interpretation arrive to know what 's necessary for their salvation with such a Certainty as is requisite for the Nature and Ends of Faith and the Obligations annext to it I absolutely deny and if he means this by the word Perfection which he adds to Fulness I deny also that either the first Author can be charg'd with Fraud since he promis'd no such thing or the Writers with Insincerity since they were not commanded nor did intend thus to express it nor as far as appears had any order from God to set down his whole mind but only writ the several pieces of it occasionally nor did the Christian Church in the first Ages ever attribute to Scriptures such an Intelligibleness as that private persons should ground their Faith upon their Evidence without needing the Churches Interpretation if we speak of all points necessary to Mankinds salvation as he seems and ought to do And here I desire to enter this declaration to all the world that I attribute not the least Imperfection to the Holy Scriptures Every thing has all the Perfection it ought to have if it can do what it was intended to do and in the manner it was Intended Treatises of deep Philosophy are not Imperfect if they be not as plain as plainest Narrative Histories no not if they be ita editi ut non sint editi in case they were meant as a matter for the Author to explain and dilate upon to his Scholars nor are the Laws Imperfect though they often need Learned Judges to interpret them Nor are we to expect that the Prophecy of Isaiah should be as plain as the Law of Moses The Immediate End of writing each piece as far as appears to us was occasional St. Pauls Epistles were evidently so nor can I doubt but they were perfect in their kind and apt to signify competently to those to whom he writ what he intended so that if they had any farther doubt they might send to ask him or do it viva voce and yet we see that even in those days when the complexion of all the Circumstances was fresher and neerer then now some unlearned persons err'd damnably in mistaking and misconceiving them that is while they went about to frame their Faith out of them 'T is questionless also they rely'd upon them as Gods Word or dictated by the Holy Ghost else they had not so built upon them or adher'd to them They might sincerely endeavour too to know their meaning yet if the Writings were disproportion'd to their pitch they migh Erre damnably for all that What farther End God intended the H. Scriptures for appears not by any Expresse either promise or declaration of our Saviour but out of the knowledge that they were writ by persons divinely inspir'd and the Experience the Church had of their Vsefulness towards Instruction and Good Life joyn'd with the Common Knowledg we have that all Goods that come to the Church happen through the ordering of Gods Providence hence we justly conclude as Dr. St. well says that they were intended and writ also for the Benefit of future Ages And from their Vsefulness and the success of their Use we may gather how God intended them for the Church The Learned and stable sons of the Church read them with much fruit to excite their wills to Goodness The Pastore of the Church make excellent use of them in exhorting preaching catchising c. and in many other uses of this sort they are excellently beneficial which are so many that were it now seasonable for me to lay them open at large as I truly hold them none would think I had little Reverence for Scriptures but in deciding Controversies or finally silencing Hereticks as the Rule of Faith ought to do by the unavoidable evidence of the Text to private persons no use was ever made of them alone with any success as the Fathers also complain Unless the the Churches Authority going along animated the dead Letter in dogmatical passages and shew'd the sense of the places to have been perpetually held from the beginning and so give It the Sense Majesty Authority and Force of Gods VVord elevating it thus above the repute of being some private Conceit or Production of Skill and Wit interpreting the Letter Scripture then is perfect or has all due to the nature God intended it if duly made use of as the Churches best Instrument it be able to work those Effectâ— spoken of though it be not so Evident or self-authoriz'd as to be the Rule of Faith We give it absolute Pre-eminence in its kind that is above all other Writings that ever appear'd in the world but we prefer before it Tradition or Gods Church which is the Spouse of Christ the Pillar and Ground of Truth and consisting of the Living Temples of the H. Ghost for whose sole Good as its Final End Scripture it self was intended and written 15. These Writings being owned as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly reveal'd that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation there can be no necessity supposed of any Infallible society of men either
be Formally Infallible in the Grounds of Faith and so able to discourse of those Grounds and make out their Absolute Certainty by way of Skill or Art there ought to be moreover another sort of men in the Church Formally-Infallible in discerning the True and distinct notion of each Point of Faith and this is the proper work of the Governours of the Church For these by reason of their State of Life which is to meditate on God's Law day and night their perpetual Converse with the Affair of Faith by Preaching Teaching Catechizing Exhorting their Concern to overlook their Flock lest any Innovatour should infect them with Novelties their Constant Addiction to observe exactly their Rule Tradition the Standard by which they govern themselves in distinguishing the true Faithfull from revolting Apostats or Hereticks their Duty to be well vers't in the Doctrine of Fathers and Acts of former Councils and according to these soberly and gravely not quirkingly and with witty tricks to understand and interpret Holy Scripture These Eminent Personages and Chief Magistrates and Mâ—sters of the Faithfull being tâ—us furnisht with all requisite endowments to give them a most distâ—nct and exact knowledge of the doctrine descended to them by Tradition and of the sense of the Church in case any Heretick revolts openly from the formerly deliverâ—d Faith these Men I say are by the Majesty and sway of their moâ—t venerable and most ample Authority to quash and subdue his petty party newly sprung up and either reduce him to his duty by wholsome advice and discipline or if he persists in his Obstinacy to cut him off solemnly from the Church by Excommunication that so the sounder Faithfull may look upon him according to our Saviours command as on a Heathen or a Publicanâ— it being thus made evident that he stands against all his Superiâ—urs and rebels against the most sacred Authority upon Earth Or in case that Heretick cloak his poisonous doctrine in aâ—biguous expressions or goes about to pervert the words used formerly by the Church by drawing them to a sinister sense never intended by Her They being perfectly acquainted with the language and sense of the Church are to invent and assign proper words to express the Churches sence and such as are pertinent and effectual for the present juncture and exigency to defeat the crafty Attempts of those quibbling Underminers of Faith or else they are to clear the true sence of the former words us'd by the Church by declaring in what meaning the Church takes and ever took them And sometimes too beating the Heretick at his own weapon Scripture's Letter by avowing this to be the sence in which the Church ever took such and such places Hence they are said to define Faith that is to expresse in distinct words it 's precise Limits and bounds that so no leaven of Errour may possibly intermingle it self and to seal and recommend their Acts by stamping on them the most Grave most Venerable and most Sacred Authority in the whole Christian world Now that this Authority of the Church Representative is Infallible in knowing the Points of Faith and that on the best manner is prov'd hence because if such a Learned Body consisting of the most Eminent and Knowing Personages in the world can be deceiv'd while they rely on the Means left by God to preserve mankinde from errour in understanding the Points of Faith 't is evident no man in the world can be â—â—cur'd thereby from Errour and so the Means would be no Means to arrive at Truth but rather a Means to leade men into Errour since they err'd relying solely on that which it being supposed to have been intended by God for a Contrary end is absolutely Impossible 5. Though the Substance or Essence of Faith consists in believing what is True upon the Divine Authority certainly engag'd for those Truths which is the Formal Motive of Believing and therefore 't is enough for trne Faith that the â—Generality of the Church or the Vulgar be materially Infallible in their Faith yet it addes evidently a great perfection to Faith that they be Formally Infallible and that the Faithfull see with Infallible Certainty that the Divine Authority is actually engag'd when they believe First because Faith is an Intellectual Virtue and so to proceed knowingly upon it's Grounds makes it more Agreeable to the Understanding and Perfective of it 2. Because the more evident 't is that the Divine Authority is engag'd the more heartily those who reverence it are dispos'd to submit their Iudgments by believing whence Faith in such Persons is more lively firm and Immoveable also more Efficacious and if other Considerations be equal more apt to work through Charity than it is in others Moreover such Faithful are incomparably more able to satisfy and convert others being able as is supposed to make â—ut evidently the Grounds of their Faith Wherefore every thing being then in it's perfectest state when 't is able to produce it's like or another of it 's own kinde 't is a signe that Faith in such men is Ripe Manly and Perfect since 't is able to propagate it sâ—lf to others or as S. Paul phrases it gignere in Evangelio Whence those who are to convert souls and propagate Faith are oblig'd to labour all that may be to accomplish themselves in this particular lest they fall short of this Perfection which seems properly and peculiarly due to their state For 't is not so opprobrious to the Layity to be unable to perform this but 't is highly so to them because they are lame without it 6. Notwithstanding this 't is God's Will that all the Faithfull should be formally Infallible in their Faith or know Infallibly the Grounds of Faith cannot be False as far as they are capable For this being as was lately shown a Perfection in Faith and God who is Essential Goodness not being Envious but desirous his Creatures should have all the Good they are capable to receive especially such goods as tend to the bettering their souls and promoting them towards Heaven it follows that he wills them this Perfection in Faith as far as it can stand with the Universal Order of the World or the particular natures of Things that is as far as they are capable to receive it 7. He hath therefore ordain'd such a Means by which to know his Will as far as concerns our Belief or what he would have us believe that is he has constituted such a Rule of Faith that it's Certainty may be most easily penetrable by all degrees and sorts of the Faithfull Whence follows most evidently that Tradition and not Scripture is that Rule For of all ways of Knowing and Ascertaining imaginable nothing is more easie to be comprehended or to satisfy people of all sorts then is that of Witnessing Authority as we experience in their perfect belief of K. Iames or K. H. 8ths existence and such like The Grounds of which Truths not needing to be
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
of his ever had from the Church which argues it's perfect Conformity to the Churches Sense in setling and stating the Right Rule of Faith I transcribe then from this Ancient and Learned Father his whole Second Chapter in his Treatise Entitled Against the profane Innovations of Heresy which is this Hic for sit an requirat aliquis c. Here perhaps some may ask since the Canon of the Scriptures is perfect and enough nay more thâ—â— enough suffices to it self for all things what need is there that the Authority of the Churches Sense should be joyn'd to it Because all men do not take the Holy Scripture by reason of its depth in one and the same meaning but divers men interpret it's sayings diversly so that as many Opinions in a manner as there are men seem possible to be drawn thence For Novatian expounds it one way Photinus another Sabellius another and Donatus another Arius Eunomius Macedonius take it in one sense Apollinaris Priscillianus in another sense Jovinian Pelagius Coelestius understand it thus and lastly Nestorius otherwise And therefore it is very necessary by reason of so great windings of so various Error that the Line of the Prophetical and Apostolical Interpretation may be directed according to the Rule of the Ecclesiastical and Catholick Sense From which place we may Note 1. That though he allows the Canon of Scripture perfect and sufficient for all things yet by showing it Interpretable divers ways and this by Great and Learned men and so that they fall into multitudes of Errors by those Inerpretations and thence requiring the Authority of the Churches Sense as necessary to understand it right so as to build Faith on it he plainly shows that Scripture alone is not sufficient for this End since it needs another to atchieve it And hence it is not said simply it suffices for all things but Sufficit sibi adâ—omnia It is sufficient to it self for all things which can only mean that it has all the Perfection due to it 's own nature as I shew'd above p. 87 88 89. or is sufficient for the ends God intended it for reckon'd up by S. Paul to Timothy amongst which no such thing is found as sufficiency of Clearness to every sober Enquirer so as to build his Faith on his private Interpretation of it without the direction of the Churches Sense only which will come to Dr. St's purpose Since then I allow Scripture all Sufficiency and Perfection but this of being sufficiently clear to private Understandings so as to build their Faith on their own Interpretations of it I allow it all this Learned Father or the Ancient Church ever did 2. 'T is observable that he puts not the fault in the Persons but gives for the reason of their misunderstanding it the depth or deep sense of the Scriptures which argues that though some few out of wickedness wilfully mistake yet the General reason of the miscarriage is the disproportion of the Seripture to private Vnderstandings in Dogmatical Points of Christianity as I constantly maintain 3. He cals the Interpretation of it a Line which is Flexible and Dirigible and the sense of the Catholick Church the Rule which lies firm as apt to direct another and so with me he makes the sense of the Catholick Church the only Rule of Faith 4. This Sense of he Church is intimated to be Antecedent to all Interpretation of Scripture and therefore the Church must have had this Sense or Knowledge of Faith by Tradition there being no other way becoming Gods Ordinary Providence but these two 5. These things being so 't is most Evident that when in the former Chapter he mentions the Authority of the Divine Law meaning the Scripture and the Tradition of the Catholick Church he meant them jointly as appears expresly by the very next words beginning this present Chapter nor did he speak there of the means of bringing men to Faith as the Rule of Faith ought to do but of keeping them in Faith or preserving them from sliding into Heresie and since he attributes in this Chapter Convictiveness of what 's Faith only to the Churches Sense 't is manifest all that remains to be attributed to Scripture is Agreeableness of it's Letter if a good Pastor expound it to the present Faith of the Church to see which exceedingly comforts Faith in the hearts of the already-Faithful who must need 's have a high Reverence for the Holy Scriptures Authority The whole strain then of my Discourses here against Dr. St. concerning the Rule of Faith is perfectly consonant to this Learned Father of the Church and to all Antiquity Only our frequent and close Contests with our acute Modern Dissenters have obliged us to a more Scholar-like way of distinguishing our Notions exactly which the Ancients did not and Faith being contain'd in two things the Scriptures and the Breast of the Church of determining which of them is the Proper Ascertainer of Faith to all the Faithful and those which are to be converted and so in true and exact Speech the Rule of Faith and both this Father and Evident Reason give it to be the Church What then Dr. St. is to do in this Point if he makes any such Attempt is to alledge Convincing Testimonies that the Ancient Fathers held Scripture so plain to every Sober Enquirer as to give him such Certainty that he may safely build his Faith on his own Interpretation thereof without needing the Churches when he produces such Testimonies as come home to this or an Equivalent sense he will work wonders and unless he does this he does just nothing But I foresee two unlucky difficulties one that he will not find one Testimony of any Authority which excludes the Church from this Office as himself directly does next that could he produce thousands he would spoil them all at the next word and render them Inconclusive that is Insignificant with telling us very soberly they are all Fallible as to that effect and consequently were perhaps in an Error in all they say FINIS * See Sure Footing 2d Ed. p. 145 146. * Rule of Faith p. 118. Rule of Faith p. 153. Reason against Raillery p. 190 191 c. * Rule of Faith p. 118. See his Preface to his Sermons p. last
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
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
such Firm and Evident Grounds But I presume I have already perform'd this in my Sure-footing and its Corollaries as also in Faith Vindicated and its Inferences and if it shall appear needfull or be requir'd of me by Learned Men it may perhaps hereafter be brought into a closer and more rigorous Form Yet that it may be seen how easily our Discourses concerning the Certainty and Ground of Faith are resolvable into Evident Principles I shall annex for an Instance a small Peace of mine whiâ—h though it was never pretended to be a severe Process by way of Principles but only meant for a connected Discourse yet I doubt not but I shall show that each main Ioynt of it where it speaks assertively has a Firm and Evident Principle at the Bottom giving it Stability and Evidence and through vertue of these Qualifications rendering it Solidly and Absolutely Convictiveâ— THE METHOD To Arrive at SATISFACTION IN RELIGION 1. SInce all Superstructures mnâ—t needs be weak whose foundation is not surely laid He who desires to be satisfy'd in Religion ought to begin with searching out and establishing the Ground on which Religion is built that is the First Principle into which the several Points of Faith are resolv'd and on which their Certainty as to us depends 2. To do this 't is to be consider'd that a Church is a Congregation of Faithful and Faithful are those who have true Faith Wherefore till it be known which is the true Faith it cannot be known which is the true Church Again A Council is a Representative A Father an Eminent Member of the Church and a Witness of her Doctrin Wherefore till it be known which is the true Church it cannot be known which is a Council or who a Father Lastly Since we cannot know which is Scripture but by the Testimony of those who recommend it And of Hereticks we can have no security that they have not corrupted it in favour of their false Tenets neither can we be secure which is Scripture till we be satisfy'd who are the truly Faithful on whose Testimony we may safely rely in this affair 3. Wherefore he who sincerely aims at Satisfaction in Religion ought first of all to find out and establish some assured Means or Rule by which he may be secured which is true Faith For till this be done He cannot be secure either of Scripture Church Council or Father but having once done this is in a ready way to Judge certainly of all Whereas if he begin with any of the other or indeed argue from them at all till the Rule of Faith be first settled he takes a wrong Method and breaks the Laws of discourse by beginning with what is less cortain and indeed to him as yet uncertain and in effect puts the Conclusion before the Premisses unless he argue Ad Hominem or against the personal Tenets of his Adversary which is a good way to Confute but not to Satisfie 4. And because the Rule of Faith must be known before Faith can be known and Faith before Scripture Church Councils and Fathers it appears that to the finding out this Rule no assistance of Books will be requisite for every one who needs Faith is not capable to reade and understand Books There is left then only Reason to use in this Inquiry And since People of all Capacities are to be saved much sharpness and depth of wit will not be requisite but plain Nâ—tural Reason rightly directed will suffice 5. This being so the Method of seeking satisfaction in Religion is become strangely both more short and easie For here will need no tedious turning over Libraries nor learning Languages nor endless comparing voluminous Quotations nor so much as the skill to read English all being reduc'd to the considering one single Point but such an one as bears all along with it and this too comprehensible as will appear to a mean understanding Again the large debating particular Points in a controversiall way is by this means avoided For when the Right Rule of Faith is certainly known then as certainly as there is any faith in the world all that is received on that Rule is certain and of faith Not but that 't is of excellent use too to cherish and strengthen the faith especially of Young Believers by shewing each particular Point agreeable to right Reason and Christian Principles and recorded expresly in or deduced by consequence from the Divinely-inspired Books 6. Lastly This Method is particularly suitable to the Nature of sincere Inquirers who if they want the liberty of their own Native Indifferency and be aw'd by any Authority whatever before that Authority be made out cannot but remain unsatisfy'd and inwardly feel they proceed not according to Nature and the conduct of unbyast Reason Whereas when the Authority is once made evident Reason will clearly inform them that it becomes their Nature to assent to it 7. But how will it appear that 't is so easily determinable by common Reason which is the right Rule of Faith Very evidently But first we must observe the Assent called Faith depends upon two Propositions What God hath said is true and God hath said this out of which two necessarily follows the Conclusion that this or that in particular is true Of these two we are concerned only in the later For to examin Why God is to be believed when he has said any thing which they call the formal Motive of faith is not a Task for those who own Christianity But all we have to do is to finde out What God hath said or which in our case is all one What Christ has taught and that whatever it be which acqnaints us with this we call THE RVLE OF FAITH as that which Regulates our belief concerning Christs Doctrine or the Principles of Religion Now I affirm iâ— may be obvious Reason be discover'd which this Rule is and that by looking into the Nature of it or considering what kinde of thing it ought to be which is no more than attentively to reflect what is meant by those two ordinary words RULE FAITH 8. And both of them acquaint us that the Rule of Faith must be the means to assure us infallibly what Christ taught For in case a Rule though we apply it to our power and swerve not from it leave us still deceivable in those points in which it should regulate us we need another Rule to secure us that we be not actually deceiv'd and so this other and not the former is our Rule Next Faith speaking of Christian Faith differs â—rom Opinion in this that Opinion may be false but Faith cannot Wherefore the Rule of faith both as 't is a Rule and as it grounds Faith doubly involves Infallibility in its Notion 9. Let us apply this to Scripture and Tradition for setting aside the Light of the private Spirit grounding Phanaticism there are no more which claim to be Rules of faith see to which of them this
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.