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
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
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
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
Notion fits that is whic hath trnly the Nature of the Rule of faith And this is perform'd by examining which of them is of its own Nature if apply'd and held to able to assure us infallibly that Christ taugbt thus and thus 10. And for the Letter of Scripture not to insist that if it be deny'd as many if not all the parts of the New Testament have been by some or other or mention that those who receive the Boâ—ks do often and always may doubt of almost any particular Text alledged whether some fault through Malice Negligence or Weakness be not crept into it in which Cases the Letter cannot evidence it self but needs another Rule to establish it I say not to insist upon these things which yet are undeniable We see by experience Multitudes of Sects differing from one another and some in most fundamental Points as the Trinity and Godhead of Christ yet all agreeing in the outward Letter And it is not onely Uncharitable but even Impossible to imagin that none among so vâ—st Multitudes do intend to follow the Letter to their power while they all proâ—ess to reverence it as much as any read it frequently study it diligently quote it constantly and zealously defend the sense which they conceive of it fo far that many are even ready to die for it Wherfore it cannot be suspected but they follow it to their power and yet 't is so far from infallibly teaching them the Doctrine of Christ that all this notwithstanding they contradict one another and that in most fundamental points The bare Letter then is not the Rule of Faith as not being of its own Nature able to assure us infallibly though we follow it to our power what Christ has taught I would not be mistaken to have less Veneration than I ought for the Divine Books whose Excellence and Vsefulness as it is beyond man to express so peradventure among men there are not many who conceit this deeper than my self and I am sure not one amongst those who take the confidence to charge us with such irreverent thoughts But we are now about another Question They are the Word of God and their true Sense is Faith We are enquiring out the Rule of Faith whose office t is not to satisfy us that we ought to believe what God has said which none doubts of but What it is which God has said And I affirm That the Letter alone is not a sufficient means to assure us infallibly of this and the experience of so many erring Thousands is a lamentable but convincing proof of it 11. On the other side there needs but common sense to discern That TRADITION is able if follow'd to ones power to bring infallibly down to after Ages what Christ and his Apostles taught at first For since it means no more but delivery of Faith by daily Teaching and Practise of Immediate Forefathers to their respective Children and it is not possible that men should be ignorant of that to which they were educated of that which they daily saw and heard and did let this Rule be follow'd to ones power that is let Children resolve still to believe and practise themselves what they are taught by and practis'd with their Fathers and this from Age to Age and it is impossible but all succeeding Children which follow this Rule must needs from the Apostles time to the end of the World be of the same Faith which was taught at first For while they do thus there is no change and if there be no change 't is the same Tradition then thus understood has in it the Nature of the Rule of Faith as being able if held to to bring down infallibly what Christ and his Apostles taught 12. We have found the Rule of Faith there remains to find which body of men in the World have ever and still do follow this Rule For those and onely those can be infallibly assured of what Christ taught that is can onely have true Faith Whereas all the rest since they have but Fallible grounds or a Rule for their Faith which may deceive them cannot have right Faith but Opinion onely which may be false whereas Faith cannot 13. And first 't is a strong presumption that those many particular Churches in communion with the Roman which for that reason are called Roman-Catholicks do hold their Doctrine by this infallible Tenure since they alone own Tradition to be an Infallible Rule whereas the Deserters of that Church write whole Books to disgrace and vilify it And since no man in his wits will go about to weaken a Tenure by which he holds his Estate 't is a manifest sign that the Deserters of that Church hold not their Faith by the Tenure of Tradition but rather acknowledge by their carriage that Tradition stands against them and that 't is their Interest to renounce it lest it should overthrow their Cause Wherefore since Tradition § 11. is the only means to derive Christs Doctrin infallibly down to after Ages they by renouncing it renounce the only means of conveying the Docttine of Faith certainly to us and are convinc'd to have no Faith but only Opinion And not only so but even to oppose and go point-blank against it since they oppose the only-sure Method by which it can with certainty come down to us 14 Besides since Tradition which I always understand as formerly explicated to be the Teaching the Faith of immediate Forefathers by words and practise hath been proved the only infallible Rule of Faith those who in the days of K. Henry VIII and since have deserted it ought to have had infallible certainty that we receded from it formerly for if we did not but still cleav'd to it it could not chuse but preserve the true Faith to us and if they be not sure we did not they know not but we have the true faith and manifestly condemn themselves in deserting a Faith which for ought they know was the true one But Infallible Certainty that we had deserted this Rule they can have none since they neither hold the Fathers Infallible nor their own Interpretation of Scripture and therefore unavoidably shipwaack themselves upon that desperat Rock Which is aggravated by this Consideration that they built not their Reformation upon a zealous care of righting Tradition which we had formerly violated nor so much as Testimonial Evidence as shall be shown presently that we had deserted It but all their pretence was that we had deserted Scripture and because they assign no other certain means to know the sense of the Holy Books but the Words and those are shown to be no certain means § 10. 't is plain the Reformers regarded not at all the right Rule of Faith but built their Reformation upon a weak Foundation and incompetent to sustain such a building Whence neither had the first Reformers nor have their Followers Faith at all but only Opinion 15. On the contrary since 't is known and