before and after it self as also that for the same Reason it can have no force upon one not yet arriv'd at Faith as the Rule of Faith ought to have because 't is as yet unknown to him § 14. Again I agree with them that there are ought to be many several Prudential Reasons suted to men of several Capacities and Circumstances moving them to disquisition and inclining them to embrace the right Faith and joyn themselves to the true Church but I say withal that 't is one thing to move a man to enquire and incline him to Assent another thing to settle him in a most firm Assent to such and such Points as absolutely Certain Truths which is requisit to Faith Hereupon I affirm that this later Effect cannot be wrought rationally without Grounds truly Evident and absolutely Conclusive of the thing and Knowable either by Practical Self-evidence to men of all sorts or also to the Learned by a certainly concluding Proof which I call a Demonstration I affirm moreover with due respect to those Divines that Motives onely Prudential seem improper to be named in this Case and that they must be Principia Sapientiae and not Prudentiae which can rationally make us absolutely Certain of the being or not-being of any thing that is of its Truth or Falshood the Object of Prudence being Agibilia and not Intelligibilia as such and its proper Exercise and Use being to determine a man to act exteriorly or to act thus in Circumstances where Contingency and hazard is found and not to act interiorly or meddle in the affair of Intellectual Certainty or Truth depending solely on the Principles of our Vnderstanding which are Impossible to be False and therefore plac't beyond all Contingency and Hazard In a word I shall not fear to be thought singular in my Principles while I ground my self on the nature of Faith which both all Catholicks and the Generality of those who are call'd Christians hold and St. Thomas of Aquin the Prince of School-Divines asserts as I shew'd Faith Vindicated pag. 130. § 14. As for all Objections of this nature once more I request Dr. T. to make good this Consequence that my Discourse cannot be true unless all our Divines even of the same way in common agree with me and I promise him this done to reply distinctly to all his Extrinsecal and Impertinent Exceptions which waving in the mean time my Premises he so constantly lelevels against my Conclusions And whereas he sayes I cannot reasonably charge him with those things till I have vindicated our own Divines I desire him to consider that I could not were I their Adversary charge them with what I can justly charge him They all to a man hold the Catholick Church on which they rely Infallible and hold this more firmly than they do any of their Speculations and consequently they hold their Faith Impossible to be False and so preserve the true Nature of Faith Inviolate whereas what he is to hold to most firmly according to his Principles is his own private Interpretation of Scripture which he himself and all the world besides see and hold to be Fallible and so he must say that all his Faith built upon it is possible to be a Ly for any thing he knows by which means he destroyes the nature of Faith as far as Gods Goodness will give him leave in himself and others and corrupts it into Opinion They produce Motives which though they call them Prudential are indeed some of them Demonstrative and coincident in part with Tradition whereas Dr. T. has nothing at all in his Grounds taking him as opposing Catholicks or standing to his own Rule of Faith which rightly stated has even the least shâ—w of Prudential to an unbyast man much less of Demonstrative Lastly were it a proper place to handle the point at large it were easy to shew they differ onely in a word but Dr. T. errs in the whole Thing though indeed in most of our Divines here cited he mistakes them and not they the main point whatever he pretends for however they make Prudential Motives sufficient to find the Church yet not one of them but makes the Authority of the Church when found on which they ground their Faith of far greater weight than such an Evidence as does ordinarily satisfie prudent men in humane affairs since they all hold it Infallible which is vastly more than Dr. T. holds to ground his Faith § 15. His third Answer is that this Principle of mine makes every true Believer Infallible in matters of Faith which sayes he is such a Paradox as I doubt whether ever it enter'd into any other mens mind Now this Charge of his joyn'd with my true Tenet that true Believers are those who rely on the Motives or Means left by God in his Church to light mankind in their way to Faith signifies thus much that 't is a wonderful and strange Paradox that those that follow and rely on the Motives laid by Gods Providence to direct them to Truth should in so doing not possibly be led into Error that is 't is a most absurd Paradox to say that Essential Truth should not be the Immediate and Proper Cause of Falshood But he discourses still upon this point as if I had held that the Vulgar are preserv'd from possibility of Errour or are Infallible not through the Goodness of the Grounds left by God to preserve them from Erring but from the strength of their own Vnderstanding which I do not remember I ever thought or said even of the most Learned He asks If this be true what need then of my Infallibility of Pope or Council And I ask him what need Governors when people know their Duty or Judges seeing the main of the Common Law is Traditionary to men verst in such affairs Self-known practically Let him but assure the world that no Upstart shall have an humour to rebel and innovate but that all Christians shall practice and hold to what they know evidently was practic'd and held by the immediately foregoing Church and I will assure him there will need no Infallible Desiner not any at all as to such points But Dr. T. discourses still as if there were no difference between the rude dim degree of Knowledge in the Vulgar and the accurate exact and oft-reflâ—cting Knowledge of those who by their great Learning their Education their Posture and Office are particularly verst and most deeply insighted into the affairs of Faith and all that belongs to the right explaining or wording it thence declaring it authentickly so to keep its distinct Sense clear in the minds of the Faithful which the Equivocating Witty Heretick endeavours to render confus'd and obscure I wish he would study our Tenets a while and understand them ere he undertakes to confute us He is very raw in things of this nature § 16. His next Errour is worse than the former He would fain perswade Catholicks if any
and divinely assisted are no Christians In a word this way of Divinity or Resolution of Faith which I take makes every man both those in the Church and those out of it rely on the Churches Authority or Testimony diversly consider'd in order to their respective capacities and so still makes the Church THE PILLAR AND GROVND OF TRVTH which all Catholicks in the World not so much as any one School-Divine excepted hold the securest way that can be imagined And should any one dislike it I see not what he can with any show pretend He must allow some Natural Motive antecedent to Faith and what is known by means of it that is he must grant some Motive antecedent to the Knowledge of Supernatural Assistance and where he will find in the whole World any such Motive stronger than is the Humane Authority of the Church as to matters of Faith I profess I know not nor I am confident can any man living imagine If this then be absolutely speaking the securest way that is 't is securer or firmer than is the way of proceeding upon Motives of Credibility and incomparably more secure than is that of resolving Faith into Motives onely Prudential Though indeed things rightly stated and understood the Motives of Credibility are some of them Coincident with Tradition and the rest which can lay just claim to Certainty depend on it taken at large as their Ground as hath been prov'd in the Corollaries to Sure-footing It may be ask'd Why since Tradition and Church are one and the same Thing I did not chuse to say that the CHVRCH gives us Knowledge of the first deliver'd Faith rather than that TRADITION does so seeing none could have scrupled or excepted against the former manner of Expression whereas this gives occasion of mis-apprehension to some unattentive Readers I answer I us'd on that occasion the word Tradition rather than the word Church for the same reason the Geometricians use the words Line or Surface when they have a mind to express Body as Long or Broad for these are in reality the same thing with Body but in regard Body is the Subject of many other Considerations as well as these and these speak Body precisely according to the Considerations of Length and Breadth to which onely it was Intended to speak hence it was better both for Succinctness of Expression and Exactness of Science which is built on the perfect distinction of our Conceptions to use the Abstract or Distinguishing words Line and Surface rather than the Concrete or Confused word Body which involves much more than the Discourser in that circumstance intended to consider or speak to Now this being the very method observed in that Science which bears the name for the greatest Exactness in Discourse I much fear the Objecters mistake proceeds from not reflecting that whoever pretends to an Accurate and Connected way of Discourse and rigorously to conclude what he intends must either follow that best of Methods or he falls short of his Duty and wrongs his Cause § 9. To clear this a little better and withal to apply it I shall make choice of another familiar Instance We use to say in Common Speech that the Countenance or Carriage of a Man makes known his Genius Now all these three viz. Countenance Carriage and Genius are in reality most evidently the same Thing with the Man himself onely they differ from it in the manner of Expression the word Man nominating the Whole or Intire Thing which is the Subject of all these and innumerable other Considerabilities confusedly imply'd in that word The other three are more distinct indeed in their manner of signifying but they fall exceedingly short of the others vast extent and express Man but in part or onely a few Respects found in that Subject whereof some are less known some more and so a Means to know others Whence it comes to pass that Countenance signifying Man as Looking or according to the outward Appearance of that part in him call'd the Face also Carriage signifying him as bearing or demeaning himself and lastly Genius as having such a peculiarity of Humour or Nature in him hence these words The Speech Countenance and Carriage of a Man discover his Genius amount to this the Man according to his Speech Countenance or Carriage which are visible and more Intelligible Considerations belonging to him is a means to notifie himself to us according to something in him which is latent and less manifest viz. his Genius This I say is the plain Sense of the other words onely this later manner of speaking is prolix and troublesome the other short and yet fully expressive of the Speakers Intention Again the other manner of Expression is Proper and Apt whereas should one put it thus The Man makes known the Man besides the confusedness of the expression since Man signifies the whole Intire Thing without distinguishing any particular Respects it would make the whole or the self-same thing abstracting from all different Respects to be before and after more known and less known than it sel◠which is a direct Contradiction § 10. Applying then this Discourse The word Church being a Congregation of Men answers in its way of expressing to the word Man in the Example now given and involves confusedly in its notion innumerable Considerations belonging to that Body of which True Faith which is as it were the Genius or Nature of the True Church is of it self latent unknown and far from self-discoverable Others such as is the Humane Testimony of the Church meant in those Circumstances by the word Tradition in regard it depends on Testifying Authority is more known and being Oral and Practical fitly corresponds to Speech Countenance Carriage and such-like It being known then by this means that such a Body has in it the first-deliver'd or True Faith 't is known immediately that having in it the Genius or Nature of a True Church 't is indeed the True Church Again it being known likewise and conceived by all who understand what is meant by that word that True Faith is a firm Adhesion to Christs Doctrine also it being apprehended by those against whom we dispute nay demonstrable out of the nature of that Doctrine that 't is a means to love God above all things hence 't is justly concluded that there is in the Generality or in great Multitudes of this Body a due love of Heaven call'd Sanctity or Charity which is the Gift peculiarly attributed to the H. Ghost and it being known and experienc'd by those already in the Church that this Love of Heaven or Sanctity gives the Faithful a particular Strength and Power to perform all good Duties and this of preserving uncorrupted the deliver'd Faith being one and that a most concerning one hence they come to know that the Church is assisted by the H. Ghost as in all other good Duties so especially in this of delivering and continually proposing Right Faith So that as Reason requires
and Demonstration that is at all absolutely-Certain Grounds and Conclusions which if they can bring into disgrace and contempt as they hope they may because such reflexions are unusual and unsuitable to the Fancies of the Generality they see plainly their work is done and that all Infallibility and Absolute Certainty which stands against them because they can with no show of Reason pretend to it must be quite overthrown The next way they take is to abuse with Ironies any man who offers or attempts to settle Faith on immovably Certain Grounds as Confident Swaggering men or vapouring Dogmatists as if it were such a piece of Confidence to say and go about to maintain that Christian Faith cannot possibly be a lying Imposture or that God cannot deceive us in the Grounds he has laid for his Church to embrace Faith A third means they use is to abuse and baffle the nature of True Certainty by clapping to it the Epithet of Moral and then proposing that to the World dilating upon it and fitting it to Faith as well as they are able which conception being suitable to the Fancies even of the weakest they hope it will take with those who reflect not that the Basis of Mankind's Salvation must be incomparably more secure than that which we usually have for the attainment of a Bag of Money a Place at Court Merchandise from the Indies and such like trivial Concerns Fourthly they avoid by all means looking narrowly into the Natures of Faith Truth Assent Demonstration Principles or shewing the necessity of Consequence for any thing they produce and above all settling themselves or yielding to any Conclusive Method of Discoursing propos'd by others or any other things equivalent to these and in their stead they are given to talk much of Probabilities Fair Proofs Great Likelihoods More Credible Opinions Prudential Reasons or such as are fit to satisfie prudent men in Humane Affairs of not-doubting seeing no just cause of doubt and such-like bashful and feeble expressions which they dress up plausibly and talk prettily and doubt not but by this means to find Understandings enow so shallow as to admire their superficial gayness This is the Character of this dangerous Sect of which what opinion we are to have or by what name to to call them this short Discourse will inform us If we know any thing of Christianity or have any notion of what is meant by that word 't is questionless this that 't is a means to attain Bliss or Heaven by nor does any Christian doubt but that it performs this by raising us to a vigorous Hope of it as a thing attainable and to an ardent and over powering Love of it in Christian Language call'd Charity as also that both these excellent Virtues are built upon the Basis of Faith this being as S. Paul calls it the substance of things to be hoped for the Argument that is the Conviction of things unseen Again common Reason informs us that the Assent of Faith depends on its Grounds and consequently cannot be stronger than They are These things understood let us consider how Impossible 't is that any one should have an efficacious Hope and a Love of Heaven while he judges himself capable to understand all the Grounds of it as to our knowledge and yet sees they may be all False and consequently that perhaps there is no such thing as this thing call'd Heaven Can any one that is not Frantick connaturally hope for and love effectually a thing which he sees perhaps is not or has not absolute Certainty of its Existence A Merchant hopes and desires Wealth from the Indies but then he holds it absolutely True that there is in Nature such a Thing as Wealth and that it is not a Chimera else he were mad either to hope or desire it and stark mad to love it above all things as we must do Heaven even above the dearest Goods he at present sees experiences possesses and actually enjoys Wherefore to omit diverse Arguments produc'd for this point in Faith vindicated from p. 144. to p. 164. 't is concluded that the denying any Grounds for Faith but what we see are onely-morally Certain that is possible to be false is unable to breed that disposition in the Soul as fits it for Heaven and so as far as is on its part destroys the nature of Christianity or the means to carry Souls to Heaven in those men who see that what they are to love above all things is perhaps a Chimera wherefore being by this means destitute of the nature of Faith and Christianity they are concluded taking them precisely as holding this Tenet of Faiths possible Falsehood to be in reality no Christians though they should profess all the points of Faith that are How Catholicks that Speculate amiss become not liable to this Note I have shown in Faith Vindicated p. 129 130. and elsewhere in this present Treatise If these men then be not indeed or in True Speech Christians what must we call them Seekers No For these though they judge they have not yet found out certainly what is Truth yet they hold 't is to be found and thence continue to enquire after it Whereas these men are doubly Irrational First in resting satisfied when as they see they have not yet found out certainly that what they hold to is Truth and which is much worse equivalently say that it cannot be found out to be Truth by saying the nature of the thing cannot bear it Atheists or Iews they are not because they deny not the Tenet of a Deity or Christianity though they do not hold them absolutely Certain Nor yet are they taken under this notion Hereticks For those deny still some point of Faith or other whereas these men may deny none but hold all and yet be what they are their Errour consisting in a wrong apprehension concerning the Grounds or Certainty of Faith which renders all the Points of Faith Ineffectual for for what they were intended Whence the malice of this Tenet is something above that of Heresie as not destroying some one or a few Points but quite enervating all Faith Nor yet are they meer Scepticks in Religion or hovering indifferently between the opposite sides of the Contradiction but they bend strongly towards thinking it True They are therefore certain Incliners to Christianity or Deemers that 't is True and not of the FAITHFUL that is Holders of a Deity or Christs-Doctrine but rather of the HOPEFUL For whereas Faith being a firm Belief or Assent that Christs Doctrine is True and so settles the existence of of it and particularly of a Heaven in our minds antecedently to Hope of attaining Heaven these men substitute Hope to Faith and onely Hope those Points are true or in all likelihood may be true Whence though this be a good name I must not say to Christen them but to call them by yet perhaps their own dear word Moral will best suit with their Genius
all hapt to be a Lye that they proceeded on all their Religion for all this was wicked and the the most zealous Devotion to Dame Juno and the rest nay dying for their sakes was notwithstanding their good meaning in common Dr. T's Moral Certainty and Firm Principle a diabolical and mischievous Action not a jot better as to the effect of gaining Heaven than the making their Children pass through the Fire to Moloch perverting and destroying the Soul that perform'd it nay dy'd for it by addicting it to what was not its true last End or Eternal Good and all this because there wanted Truth at the bottom to render those Actions and Sufferings Virtuous Wherefore unless Dr. T. produces some immoveable Grounds to establish Christianity to be most certainly True especially the Existence of a Deity which enfeâ—bled all the rest falls down to the Ground he can never convince that either Acting or Suffering for it is a Virtue any more than it was in Heathenism when the same was done for their False Gods and so he can never with reason persuade his Auditory to it but having once prov'd that it matters less whether all the Assenters penetrate the full force of the motive or no for if once it be put to be True all Actions and Sufferings proceeding from those Truths shall connaturally addict those Souls to their True Last End and dispose them for it though their Understandings be never so imperfect and their good or well-meaning will certainly bring them to Heaven but 't is because their Will and its Affections were Good which they could not be as is prov'd were they not built upon some Truth § 9. Again Dr. T. discourses all along as if all were well when one is free from all doubt but I would desire his Friends seriously to ask him one question which is whether though his Grounds exclude all doubt from his mind at present yet he sees any certain Reason why he may not perhaps come to doubt of all his Faith and even of a Godhead too to morrow If he says He sees not but he may he must say withal that he sees it not and consequently holds it not to be True for if he once saw it to be Truth he could not hold it possible ever to be doubted of with reason If he affirms that he sees he can never come with reason to doubt of it then he sees his Grounds for holding it cannot possibly be shown False else it might both be doubted and what is more deny'd and if he hold his Grounds cannot possibly be made out to be False then he must say they are Impossible to be False and if they be Humane Authority Infallible which yet he stifly denies But the plain Truth is he holds not by virtue of any Grounds he lays his Faith to be True but onely a plausible Likelihood else Common Sence would force him to acknowledge and stand to it that the Grounds on which he builds his Assent are Impossible to be False and not to palliate his Uncertainty of it with such raw Principles and petty Crafts to avoid an honest down-right procedure which is to say plainly My Grounds cannot fail of Concluding the Thing absolutely True I will justifie them to be such and here they are But he is so far from this that the best word he affords them who do this right to Christianity is to call them vapouring and swaggering men with all the disgraceful Ironies he can put upon them § 10. By this time my last Charge that this Firm Principle of his betrays all Religion into the Possibility I might have said Likelihood of being a Lye instead of establishing it is already made good and needs onely a short Rehearsal For 1. He Asserts that we cannot be Certain of a Deity unless we entertain his Firm Principle which is so full stuft with Nonsence and Folly that unlesâ— it be in Bedlam I know no place in England where 't is like to find Entertainment That the Evidence or Visibleness of an Object begets Certainty in us is that which the Light of Nature ever taught me and all Mankind hitherto but that the Obscurity of an Object or its affording us no True Evidence grounding our Absolute Certainty of it nay that even its Incapableness to afford us any in our Circumstances and consequently our Despair of seeing any such Evidence for it should contribute to make us Certain of it nay more that this must be entertain'd as a Firm Principle and which is yet more be obtruded upon all Mankind under such an unmerciful Penalty that unless they entertain this as honourably as a Firm Principle not any man shall be Certain of any thing no not so much as that there 's a God is such a super-transcendent Absurdity as surpasses all Belief or even Imagination but a Rhetorician may say any thing when talking pretty Plausibilities is onely in vogue and a melodious Gingle to please the Ear is more modish than solid Reasons to satisfie the Understanding Next he vouches not any Reason he brings to be absolutely Conclusive and consequently owns not any Point of Faith no not the Existence of a Deity to be absolutely Certain which not to assert but as has been shown from his Firm Principle equivalently to deny even then when he is maintaining it is an Intolerable Prejudice to that Weighty and Excellent Cause he hath undertaken and so is engag'd to defend 3. He waves the Conclusiveness of his Reasons that the Thing is True and contents himself that it keeps us free from actual doubt which reaches not Assent for to doubt a thing is to incline to think it False and so not to doubt is barely not to incline to think it False which is far short of holding it True and consequently from making a man a Christian Besides our not doubting may be in many regards Faulty and spring from Surprize Passion and Ignorance as well as from Ignorance as hath been prov'd but a good Reason cannot be faulty Wherefore to relinquish the patronage of the Goodness and Validity that is absolute Conclusiveness of Christian Proofs of which there are good store for this point defending onely their Plausibility and instead of that victorious way of convincing the Understanding into Assent requiring onely a feeble not doubting is in plain terms to betray his Cause and tacitly or rather indeed too openly to accuse Christianity of an Infirmity in its Grounds as being incapable to effect what they ought a Firm Assent to the Points of Christian Doctrine as to absolutely certain Truths 4. By making our Certainty of it or the adequate effect of its Motives consist meerly in our not doubting of it he makes its Effect and consequently the Efficacy of those Motives themselves no better than those which Heathens Turks and Hereticks have for these also exclude Actual Doubt from the Minds of the Generality of these respective Sects If he says Christians have no just reason
the Grounds of it even while he goes about to defend it These were my words then and I am sorry he would needs dare and provoke me to make them good In which if I have justified my self too particularly let him blame himself All this while I seriously declare that I am far from thinking that Dr. T. himself is not assur'd that there is a GOD and farther yet from imagining that already holding one he should hold it possible afterwards GOD should cease to be which ridiculous folly constant to his prevaricating humour he puts upon me p. 8. What I affirm is That his ill Principles do equivalently confess it possible there neither is nor ever was a GOD and this I have abundantly shown out of his own words Yet I doubt not but himself through GOD's Goodness has by Practical Self-evidence in the same manner the Vulgar who are no Speculaters or Scholars also have it absolute Certainty of the Existence of a Deity in despight of his weak Speculations nay that in this very Sermon he hath one or two Proofs which have in them the force of a Demonstration though his not understanding and so ill-managing of them and then calling them Probabilities has endeavour'd all that may be to render them good for nothing I end with some of his own words Pref. p. 37. That if Dr. T. did in truth believe that the Existence of a Deity or a Creation are as he says Serm. p. 20 so evident that they can hardly be made plainer than they are of themselves he should by all means have let them alone for they were in a very good condition to shift for themselvs but his blind and Sceptical way of proving them is enough to cast a mist about the clearest Truths in the world And I must take the liberty to admonish him that it lies not in the power of all the Enemies of Christianity in the world to do it half that Mischief as one Christian Divine may who by his earnestness manifests a desire to do the best he can by the vogue he bears seems able to do the best that may be done yet produces not any one proof which he vouches to be absolutely conclusive of the Truth either of Christianity or a Deity but rather by his carriage denies there are any such while he talks of Likelihood Probability more Credible Opinion Moral Certainty and such-like whose very names ought not to be heard or endur'd in a discourse aiming to settle the Grounds of Faith or the Tenet of a Deity Let him consider that he must take his measure of the Certainty of Grounds from the Object or Thing not from our freedom from doubt and such-like for these may be light and silly whereas the Grounds of Faith being â—aid by GOD must necessarily be wise and solid and so when look'd into Absolutely-Conclusive of the thing Let us then who hold a GOD leaving Creatures to their weaknesses vindicate our Maker from the scandalous Imputation of governing Mankind tyrannically by commanding us to assent thâ—t a thing is which at the same time we see may not be so obliging us to hold contrary to the Light of Nature and the very First Principles which Himself had ingrafted in us that what is is at the same time possible not to be and to profess a point True nay dy to attest its Truth which may perhaps be shown False to morrow nay which our selves see may be now False He tells us here in common p. 90 and he tels us truly that which way soever we turn our selvs we are incountred with Clear Evidences and sensible Demonstrations of a Deity Why does he then coming to make out that point say the nature of the thing will not bear clear Demonstration and that onely Mathematical matters are capable of it Why pursues he not such Proofs as these and makes them out and stands by them and reduces them to First Principles and so obliges Humane Nature to assent to them under evident forfeiture of their Sincerity and even Manhood Is he afraid clear Evidences and sensible Demonstrations will not necessarily conclude Why does he put Suppositions that the thing were and then argue thus blindly that since supposing it were it would give no more light of it self than it does therefore it is Is there any necessity for such a ridiculous perplexing and inconclusive method when we may vouch we have Clear Evidences and Demonstrations Lastly Why does he distrust the Objects strength and explain our Assurance of a Deity and Faith by Moral Certainty or such as will satisfie prudent men in humane Affairs Probabilities amassed together not doubting and other such-like feeble diminutive expressions Are not Clear Evidences and Sensible Demonstrations that is Demonstrations à posteriori in point of Certainty incomparably beyond such quivering Grounds and such dwindling Adhesions I wish Dr. T. would take these things into his better thoughts and at least by amending his Expressions and Reasons hereafter make some tolerable satisfaction for this intolerable Injury done to Faith and GOD's Church DISCOURSE VI. That Dr. T. makes all the Grounds of Christian Faith Possible to be False Of Infallibility Demonstration and Moral Certainty § 1. THus much to justifie my first Charge that Dr. T. made that Fundamental Tenet of a Deity and consequently all Religion Possible to be False My second Charge is that he particularly makes all Christian Faith possible to be false and 't is found Faith Vindicated p. 171. where I put down his own words which concern that purpose though he who presuming on the Partiality of his Friends takes the Liberty to say any thing which even Eye-sight may Confute assures his Reader pag. 5. that I durst not Cite them I laid my Charge in this Tenor 'T is necessarily consequent from the foregoing Paragraphs that if I have Discours't right in this small Treatise of mine and have proved that Faith and consequently its Grounds must be Impossible to be False then Mr. T.'s Confession p. 118. to which Mr. St.'s Doctrine is Consonant that It is possible to be otherwise that is to be False that any Book is so Antient as it pretends to be or that it was Written by him whose Name it bears or that this is the sence of such and such Passages in it is a clear Conviction that neither is the Book-Rule he maintains the True Rule of Faith § 3. Nor have he and his Friends True Faith § 4. And consequently there being no other Rule owned taking away Private Spirit but Tradition that Tradition is the only-True Rule of Faith § 6. and so the main of Sure-Footing stands yet firm And lastly 't is evinc't that his own Book which opposes it opposes the only-True because the only Impossible-to-be-False Ground of Faith that is he is convinc't in that Supposition to go about to undermine all Christian Faith Whence the Title of his Probable-natur'd Book Rule of Faith is manifested to be an improper Nickname
and the Book it self to merit no Reply You see here Gentlemen how great stress I lay upon Dr. T.'s confession that the Ground of his Faith and consequently his Faith it self is possible to be False And really if he clears himself of it I must acknowledg I suffer a very great Defeat because I so much Build upon it If he does not he is utterly overthrown as to all intents and purposes either of being a good Writer or a solid Christian Divine and he will owe the World satisfaction for the Injury done to Faith and the Souls of those whom his Doctrine has perverted by turning their Faith which ought to be an Assent whose Grounds and consequently it self are Impossible to be an Error or False into Opinion whose Grounds and by consequence it self are possible to be such and lastly unless he Avoids or Râ—â—ants this Error objected all he has Written 〈◊〉 â—â—nvinc't without any more ado to be againâ—â—â—ith and its true Grounds and so it will be quite overthrown in the Esteem of all those who have the Nature of Faith writ in their hearts and that 't is Impossible an Act of right Faith that is an Asseâ—â— built on those Grounds God has left in the Church for Mankind to embrace Faith and commanded them to believe upon those Grounds whether Scripture's Letter or the Churches Voice should be an Error or the Profession of it a Lye which all sober Protestants Presbyterians nay almost all Sects except some few witty men inclining much by reading such Authours to Scepticism that is inclining to be nothing at all perhaps some Socinians reject abhominate and hate with all their hearts The Charge is laid and the Case is put now let us come to the Trial Which ere we do I desire those Readers who have Dr. T.'s Preface by them to read his 9 th page or else his whole page 118. in his Rule of Faith lest either of us may injure him by a wrong Apprehension I discourse thus § 2. First 't is Evident that he who makes the Ground and Rule of Faith possible to be False makes Faith it self such likewise since nothing is or can be stronger than the Grounds it stands on Next the Rule of Faith to Dr. T. is the Scripture's Letter and consequently that what he conceives the Sense of the Scripture is God's Sense or Faith Lastly that in the place now Cited and Related by him he speaks of the Authority of the Book of Scripture and of its Sence as he acknowledges here page 15. These things thus premised I put him this Dilâ—mma Either he holds what he conceives to to be the Sence of Scripture that is his Faith True or he does not If he holds it not to be True then 't is unavoidable he must hold it at least possible to be False if not actually such But if he says he holds it to be True then since after he had spoke of the security he had or had not of the Book and Sense of Scripture he immediately subjoyns these very words It is possible all this â—ay be otherwise He as evidently says that what he conceives the Book of Scripture and Sence of such or such passages in it that is his Faith is possible to be False as 't is that what 's OTHERWISE THAN TRVE is False I do not know how Dr. T. could possibly speak more plainly what I charge him with than he has done in those words unless he should use the word False which too Candid and Rude expression would expose him openly to the dislike of all Sober mâ—n and therefore he disguiz'd it in its more moderate Equivalent otherwise I say Equivalent And if it be not I would gladly know of him what the word otherwise relates to Human Language forbids that any thing can be said to be otherwise unless it be otherwise than something I ask then otherwise than what does he mean when being in the Circumstance of Discoursing what security he had of the Antiquity Writers and Sence of Scripture he told us It is possible to may be otherwise Is it not as evident as words can express he must mean It is possible the Book of Scripture is not so antiâ—nt as the Apostles time It is possible it was not Writ by the Apostles and Evangelists It is possible this is not the Sence of it in such passages as concern Faith for to these and these only our Discourse and the Nature and Title of his Book determin'd it which amounts to this that none has absolute Certainty of either Letter or Sence of Scripture nor consequently of his Faith in case it be solely grounded upon that as he professes See Reader how all Truths even the most Sacred ones go to wrack when men fram'd only for fine Talk undertake to prove and how parallel his defence of the Ground of all Christian Faith is to that he gave us lately of the Existence of a Deity He so prov'd a God that he granted it possible there might be none and now he so proves Scripture to be a Rule that he grants it possible it may be no Rule since common Sence tells us that can never be an Intellectual Rule which followed may lead into Errour By which we see Dr. T. needed here the Blessing as he calls it of that Identical Proposition A Rule 's a Rule else he would not write a Book to prove Scripture a Rule and then ever and anon in equivalent Language tell us 't is none I wish he would now and then reflect upon such Evident Truths and not out of an openly-declar'd Feud against those First Principles fall thus perpetually into manifest Contradictions § 3. But how does Dr. T. clear himself of this Charge of mine or how comes he off from his own words First he again puts down those very words which say over and over what I charge upon him and then asks very confidently where he says any such thing which is just as wise a craft as Children use when they hoodwink themselves and then tell the By-standers they shall not see them Next he tells us that All he sayes is that we are not Infallible in judging of the Antiquity of a Book or the sence of it meaning that we cannot demonstrate these things so as to to shew the contrary necessarily involves a contradiction but yet c. Is this all he sayes What then is become of those famous words It is possible all this may be otherwise which were onely objected But let us examine what he does acknowledge Whether he be Infallibly certain or no it matters not but it should be shewn why if Scripture be the sole Ground of Faith some at least in the World who are to Govern and Instruct the Church should not be thus certain of both in case we be bound to assent and as we questionless are dy to attest the Points of our Faith to be absolutely-certain Truths Again if Dr. T. be not Infallibly certain
whatever is good in those Acts of Faith is refunded into God the Author of every good Gift as its Original Cause what Defective into the Limitedness and Imperfection of Creatures § 5. This Tenet of Infallibility which unprejudic'd Nature teaches even the rudest in things subject to Sense and common Reason and Learned men in things provable by exact Art the Adversaries of true Certainty our Scepticks in Religion endeavour to render ridiculous and cast a mist about it by the most unreasonable pretence that ever was invented which is to affirm that a man cannot be Infallible in one thing but he must be so in all As if I could not infallibly know what 's done in my Chamber or practic'd openly amongst those I converse with but I must be likewise infallible in knowing what is done in the Moon And Dr. T. is one of these for Contradiction is as natural to him as 't is to a fish to swim who tells us here pag. 19. That Omniscience within a determinate Sphere is an Infinite within a finite Sphere as if it were very evident that to know All in such a matter is to know Infinit or all things in the World or so hard to comprehend that one may know all the money in ones Purse without knowing all the money that is extant or all the men in the room without knowing all Mankind I wish Dr. T. would shew us why knowing all in such a particular matter must needs argue an Infinit knowledg or why the knowing all things in a determinate Sphere which last words when he came to answer that is break his Jests our Prevaricator prudently omitted may not consist with an ignorance of many things out of that Sphere Must the word All in such a matter needs signifie Infinit or did the commonest Reason ever thus go wrack I suppose my Friends resolute hazard against Identical Propositions made him fall into this more than childish mistake For this plain Truth What 's all but in one matter onely is all but in one matter onely had preserv'd him from this Nonsense but he took this for his Ground to proceed upon that All in one matter onely 〈◊〉 All in every matter or which is more is Infinit and so still he continues most learnedly to lay Contradictions for his First Principles because their Interest and his are inseparably linkâ— against the Common Enemy Identical Propositions This I must confess is a very smart and ingâ—nious kind of reasoning and proper to Dr. T. unless perhaps his sworn Brother at hating First Principles and Papists put in for a share It appears by a certain Paper called Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet he is a strong pretender and will cry halfs But 't is time now to return to examine his Answer § 6. It is not necessary indeed to Truth that every one should demonstrate a thing so as to shew that the contrary necessarily involves â— Contradiction for the same thing may be known also through Practical Self-evidence to those who cannot demonstrate but yet the thing must be demonstrable else 't is not Knowable or Ascertainable For Demonstrable is a plain honest word what game soever Dr. T. and his Friend make at it and imports no more abstracting from subtle quirks but only Capable to be known or Intellectually seen by way of Proof whence a Learned man who goes about to prove any thing by strength of severe Reason ought either to demonstrate it or he falls short of his Dâ—â—y Once more I desire Dr. T. to take me right and to reflect that when I say The Thing is Demonstrable or pretend to demonstrate I do not take the word Demonstration with all those many subtleties and perquisits the Schools require I as little love niceties as any man living and can as easily dispense with them so the solid part be well provided for and the Truth of the Thing establisht which if it be not done I make account nothing is done in these cases in which Assent dying to attest things to be Truths are required I onely mean then by Demonstration such a Proof as is taken not from any Exrinsecal consideration as is Authority which grounds Belief but from the intrinsecal Nature of the Thing or Subject in Dispute and such a Proof as necessarily concludes the Thing to be which cannot be possibly done without engaging finally some Identical Proposition or that Things being what it is on which all is built Now this being evidently so and if it be not let Dr. T. shew the contrary I would ask our verbal Divine why he ought not to demonstrate that is prove by necessary concluding Argument both the Letter and Sence of Scripture if he would have men assent most firmly to Faith built according to him solely upon their Certainty Is it not his intent in his Discourses to Conclude what he speaks of How can he do this unless he shews the Conclusion necessarily follows Again does he not intend to conclude 't is a Truth that this is the Letter and Sence of Scripture He must do so or else he can never pretend that Faith built upon it is Truth And if he proves it Truâ— must he not at the same time prove it's Contradictory False And is any thing False but what says a Thing is so when indeed 't is not so or is not so when indeed 't is so which is a direct Contradiction Wherefore Dr. T. can never Conclude a thing to be True unless he brings a Proof necessarily engaging the Nature of the Thing that is unless according to my sence of the Word he both Demonstrates and also shews the contrary necessarily to involve a Contradiction Both these satisfactory Certainties my Grounds attribute to Scriptures Letter and Sence See Surâ—f pag. 116 117 in points appertaining to Faith and he here denies both pag. 10. whence is seen which of us two has more real Honour and Respect for Scripture He who makes neither its Letter or Sence to have any Grounds able to ascertain them that is as to our purpose makes them good for nothing or I who grant and prove both § 7. I suppose Dr. T will say again as he did in that point of a Deity that the nature of the Thing will not bear a Certainty of Scriptures Letter or Sence that so he may be true to his firm Principle and make all Faith alike uncertain I answer the more blame will fall to their share who take away the Certainty of that which is the first Principle in way of Authority or First Authority namely TRADITION which and onely which can Authenticate Books and the thing being of high Concern Practically carry down the same Doctrine and so easily preserve the Book significative of the same Sence Noâ— doubt I but 't is demonstrable that the Practice of England and the Concern of the thing joyn'd with the necessary Evidence of any Alteration in a matter daily so nicely Canvast and continually Us'd can and
the Motives laid by God for Mankind or his Church to embrace Faith are possible to be False As if the simplest could not nay were not most likely of all other to believe upon weak and incompetent Motives which therefore could never have been laid by God for his Church to embrace her Faith upon Or as if the most Simple that are could not rationally believe the Church and so become Infallible in their Assents by adhering to her though their weak understandings do not penetrate or comprehend how the Church or themselves come to be so nay perhaps have not a clear sight of what the word Infallible means till some Discourse awaken the apprehension of it in them § 10. Having thus acted the Disputant Exit Theologus intrat Scuâ—ra and pag. 13.14 plays the old Tricks of Legerdemain over again that is leaves out half an Argument of mine and playâ— upon the other half with all the disingenuous craft a wit bent that way could invent In Faith Vindicated pag. 89. and 90. I discours't thus The profound Mysteries of Faith will seem to a Heathen Impossible to be True therefore the Motives must at least seem Impossible to be False but Dr. T. confesses both Letter and Sence of Scripture which are his Rule of Faith possible to be False nor it being an Object proportion'd to humane Reason is there any thing to make it seem better than it is that is to make it seem Impossible to be False therefore were there no better Grounds than his it would be against all Reason to believe Having view'd my Discourse I desire the Reader to peruse the Answer here given by my Confuter He names the word Argument says two pretty words upon it that 't is pleasant and surprizing leaves out better half of it conceals perfectly all that part of it which concludes strongly against his own insufficient Grounds catches at a word and would make my Discouse and Argument aim to prove Faith Impossible to be False because the Motives are only seemingly such Whereas every Page in that Book and its whole Design shews I meant and prov'd them to be actually really and indeed such Had I a mind to evade such petty Cavils I could alledg that both may seem Impossible to be False yet one more seem so than the other But the Truth is advancing to confute him I argu'd ad hominem and contended that against a seeming Impossibility to be True nothing but Motives seemingly Impossible to be False can with any show of Reason be held convictive but he had no Motives even seemingly Impossible to be False but confessedly Possible to be such therefore they had no imaginable show of Convictiveness I grant then 't is a drawn Match as he calls it between equally-seeming Impossibilities and because 't is so therefore a seeming Impossibility to be True in the Object is by much an overmatch to what 's less than a seeming Impossibility to be False in the Motives or Grounds but both Letter and Sence of Scripture his Grounds of Faith are confessedly possible to be otherwise that is False and so are less than seemingly even to himself impossible to be False therefore his Motives to believe are incomparably overmatcht by the difficulty of the Mysteries to be believed and so there could be rationally according to his Grounds no Faith at all This is my true Argument which perhaps might be surprizing to him which made him thus start aside from putting or answering it though we may perceive by his carriage he esteems not it and others such like very pleasant Indeed he still puts on a pleasant Look when he should be Sober and is ever most Merry when it becomes him to be the most Serious but this is long since understood to be a necessary Policy not a Genuine effect of Nature He tells us that Transubstantiation is evidently Impossible to be True If so then it implies some Contradiction which if he shows me in any thing held of Faith by Catholicks in that Point I will become Dr. T's Convert and obedient Auditor But alas How will he prove any thing to be a Contradiction Since those Faulty Propositions are as was prov'd Disc. 2.3 therefore such because they are Opposite to Identical ones or the First Principles as hath been prov'd Seeing then Dr. T. has long since renounc't all those from being First Principles for any thing I can discern he must either hold there are no Contradictions at all or else which comes to the same hold that Contradictions are Truths § 11. But he goes forwards amain in confuting a Point which no man living ever maintain'd viz. that every single Christian must be Infallible that is as Dr. T. will needs take it must so penetrate his Grounds and what relates to them as to see clearly he cannot be deceivâ—d in judging his Grounds of Faith Conclusive Whereas my Tenet is that let any man though of the Acutest Understanding and greatest Learning that may be entertain any Tenet as Faith oâ— Reveal'd by God upon any other Motive than what God has lost to his Church this man however thus Endow'd not only may but in likelihood will be deceiv'd not for want of Wit but for want of Grounds ascertaining and infallibly engaging the Divine Revelation On the other side let the Simplest and Weakest Understanding that is happen to embrace Faith upon the Motives laid by God and left in his Church he is Infallibly secure from being in an Errour not through the strength of his Understanding perfectly discerning and penetrating the Conclusive nature of his Grounds but though the strength of those Grounds themselves or of the Causes laid by Gods Providence to plant and continue right Faith in the Church by means of which what he has thus more by the peculiar disposition of God's gracious Providence than any reach of his own Wit or Judgment fortunately embrac't is preserv'd impossible to False and consequently his Assent to it impossible to be an Errour because the Churches Authority upon which he receiv'd it is Infallible And surely 't is but fitting that all who believe upon that Rule God has left and commanded us to follow should be thus secur'd from possibility of Mistake for otherwise since a Power is relative to its proper Act what 's possible to be False may actually be so and so we might come to be led actually into Errour by obeying God's Commands which is impossible To apply thâ—s If Dr. T. therefore makes Scripture's Letter the Rule of Faith left by God for Mankind to receive their Faith upon and by doing so has commanded them to believe it he must either say that its Sence and Letter taking them as he builds his Faith on them have no Possibility of Falshood or besides the many absurdities already mentioned grant that our All-wise and Good God can possibly lead men into actual Errour nay command them to profess and die for a Ly than which nothing can be imagin'd
would believe him That my Principles do plainly exclude from Salvation at one blow Excommunicate Vnchristian all that do not believe upon my Grounds And nothing is easier than to prove it in his way 'T is but mistaking again the Notion of School-Divines for the Notion of Faithful and School for Church as he did lately and the deed is done immediately without any more trouble He is the happiest man in his First Principles and his Method that I ever met with the parts of the former need not hang together at all but are allow'd to be Incoherent and the later is a building upon false pretences and wrong Suppositions and then what may not he prove or what Conquest cannot he obtain by such powerful Stratagems He sayes he has proov'd at large in the Answer to Sure-Footing that the Council of Trent did not make Oral Tradition the sole Rule of her Faith Possibly I am not so lucky as to light on this large Proof of his all I can finde with an ordinary search is four or five lines Rule of Faith pag. 280. where after a commonly-Objected often-answer'd Citation from the Council of Trent declaring that Christian Faith and Discipline are contain'd in written Books unwritten Traditions therefore that they receive honor the Books of Scripture also Traditions with equal pious affection and reverence He adds which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith Now I had put this very Objection against my self Sure-f pag. 346. and proceeded to clear it to the end of pag. 150. particularly pag. 147.149 upon this Reason because taking the Scripture interpreted by Tradition as the Council expresses it self to do and forbids any man to interpret it otherwise it has the full Authority of Gods Word and so equally to be reverenced Whereas taking it interpreted by private heads which only will serve Dr T's turn 't is nothing less as not engaging the Divine Authority at all But now to the Notion of a Rule there is more required as Dr. T. himself grants and contends 't is found in Scripture viz. that it be so evident that every sensible may understand it as to matters of Faith and this building on the Council of Trents Authority and Judgment I deny to be found in the bare Letter of Scripture and hence say 't is no Rule I omit the repeating very many Arguments from the Council for that point deduc't from pag. 141. to pag. 146. never toucht nor so much as taken notice of in that Mock-Answer of his § 16. But that he may not mistake me I shall not stick to declare whom I exclude from Salvation at least from the way to it whom not and upon what Grounds speaking of the ordinary course of Gods Providence as I declare my self to do throughout this whole Treatise I make account that perfect Charity or Love of God above and in all things is the Immediate Disposition to Bliss or Vnitive of a Soul to God Also that this Virtue cannot with a due heartiness be connaturally or rationally wrought in Souls if the Tenet of a Deity 's Existence and of Christian Faith be held possible to be a Ly. Hence I am oblig'd by my Reason to hold that those who judge there are no absolueely-Conclusive Reasons for the Existence of a Deity nor for the Truth of Christian Faith are as such out of the Road of Salvation On the other side those who hold the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truths they profess Infallible and by Consequence their Faith Impossible to be False as all Catholikes do though as Divines they fail in making out how and by what particular means it comes to be Infallible yet through the virtue of this firm and steady Adhesion to such Principles as are because they are Truths apt to beget solid and well-grounded that is indeed True Virtues such as are a vigorous Hope and a fervent and all-ovre-powering Charity hence they possess the Connatural Means or are in the right way to Heaven And for this Reason I esteem Dr. T 's way of discoursing concerning a Deity and Faith in his Sermons most pestilent and mischievous to Souls as being apt of its own Nature to incline them if they have wit to discern its shallowness first to a kind of Scepticism in Religion and at next to Carelesness Irreligion and Atheism though truly I think 't is not his Intention to do so but that his shortness in Understanding the Nature and Grounds of Christianity makes him conceit he does excellently even to admiration all the while he commits such well-meaning Follies Nor do I think the Church of England will upon second thoughts think fit to Patronize Principles so destructive to the Nature of Faith found in the breast of every Protestant I ever yet met with who all with one mouth will own that 't is absolutely Impossible Christian Faith should be a Lye and abhor the contrary Position as wicked and damnable How Dr. T. may have season'd some of his own Auditors by preaching Controversy to them which he extremely affects I cannot tell 't is according as they incline to believe him more than the Generality of the Christian World whose Sentiments he opposes in his Discourses about the Ground of Faith DISCOURSE VIII With what Art Dr. T. answers my METHOD A Present made to his Credulous Friends shewing how solidly he confuted SVRE-FOOTING by readily granting the main of the Book What is meant by Tradition That J. S. is not singular in his way of discoursing of the Grounds of Faith § 1. HE makes a pass or two at my METHOD and that I conceive must serve for an Answer to it for an Answer I heard was threatned would appear very shortly but this pleasant Preface was the only thing which appeared and all that appears like Answer in it is that he would make it believ'd he ought not answer at all And this he does very neatly and like a Master For let no man think I have a mean Opinion of Dr. T. but every one is not good at all things some are good at proving some at disproving some at shifting of the Question without either proving or disproving every one in his way and in his way I know no man living a greater Master nor so great as the Dr. Two things he does and both of them strange ones First he affirms that Discourse is founded on the self-evident Infallibility of ora◠Tradition Next that He has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Surefooting The first of them would make the Reader apprehend I there suppos'd Oral Tradition self-evidently Infallible and then run on all the way upon that supposition which if it obtain belief as from his Credit he hopes it may since every Scholar knows all Discourses must be founded either on first Principles or at least on such as are granted by those against whom we
that I never said or thought it was self-evident that Tradition had alwayes been followed but only that it is of own nature 〈◊〉 evidently infallible Rule abstracting from being followed his answer to my Method is this I have not spoken to the point before and therefore am not concern'd to speak to it now for why should people expect more from me here than elsewhere or rather I have granted the point already and thereforâ— am not concern'd to say more to it And I for my part think he is in the right because it seems a little unreasonable to require the same thing should be done twice I think it best to leave him to his sufficient-consideration and go on to the next Onely I desire the Reader to reflect how empty a brag 't is in the Drs. how partial in their Friends to magnify this peece as Vnanswerable Yet in one Sense 't is such for a Ready Grant of what 's Evident Truth can never be answer'd or refuted § 7. His next Pretence is that my METHOD excludes from Salvation the far greatest part of our own Church To which though enough hath been said already yet because the clearing this will at once give account of what I mean when I affirm Faith must be known antecedently to Church which bears a shew as if I held we are not to rely on the Church for our Faith I shall be something larger in declaring this Point To perform which more satisfactorily I note 1. That those who are actually from their Child-hood in the Church have Faith instill'd into them after a different manner from those who were educated in another Profession and after come to embrace the right Faith The formâ—â— are imbu'd after a natural way with the Churches Doctrine and are educated in a high Esteem and Veneration of the Church it self Whereas the Later are to acquire Faith by considering and looking into its Grounds and are educated rather in a hatred against the true Church than in any good opinion of her The former therefore have the full weight of the Churches Authority both as to Naturals and Supernaturals actually apply'd to them and working its effect upon them Practical self-evidence both of the Credit due to so Grave Learned Ample and Sacred an Authority as also of the Holiness the Morality or Agreeableness of her Doctrine to Right Reason which they actually experience rendring in the mean time their Assent Connatural that is Rational or Virtuous The later Fancy nothing Supernatural in her nor experience the Goodness of her Doctrine but have it represented to them as Wicked and Abhominable In a word the Former have both Faith and the Reasons for it practically instill'd into them in a manner at the same time and growing together daily to new degrees of Perfection whereas the Later must have Reasons antecedently to Faith and apprehending as yet nothing Supernatural in the Church must begin with something Natural or meerly Humane which may be the Object of an unelevated Reason and withal such as may be of its own nature able to satisfie rationally that haesitation and disquisitive doubt wherewith they are perpleâ—â— and settle them in a firm Belief 2. My Discourse in that Treatise as appears by the Title is intended for those who are yet to arrive at satisfaction in Religion that is for those who are not yet of the Church and so I am to speak to their natural Reason by proposing something which is an Object proper and proportion'd to it and as it were leading them by the hand step by step to the Church though all the while they walk upon their own Legs and see with their own Eyes that is proceed upon plain Maxims of Humane Reason every step they take 3. Though I use the Abstract word TRADITION yet I conceive no wise man will imagine I mean by it some Idea Platonica or separated Formalility hovering in the Air without any Subject but that the Thing I indeed meant to signifie by it is the Church as DELIVERING or as Testifying and taking it as apply'd to those who are not yet capable to discern any Supernaturality in the Church the Natural or Humane Authority of the Church or the Church Testifying she receiv'd this Faith uninterruptedly from the beginning So that Tradition differs from Church as a man consider'd precisely as speaking and acting differs from Himself consider'd and exprest as such a Person which known by Speech and Carriage or by himself as speaking and acting other considerations also belonging to him which before lay hid and are involv'd or as the Schools express it confounded in the Subject or Suppositum become known likewise So the Churches Humane Testimony or Tradition which as was shown Sure f. p. 81 82 83. is the greatest and most powerfully supported even naturally of any in the World is a proper and proportion'd object to their Reason who yet believe not the Church but it being known thence that the Body who proceeds on that Ground possesses the first-deliver'd that is Right Faith and so is the true Church immediately all those Prerogatives and Supernatural Endowments apprehended by all who understand the nature of Faith to spring out of it or attend on it are known to appertain and to have ever appertain'd to the True Church and amongst the rest Goodness or Sanctity the proper Gift of the H. Ghost with all the Means to it which with an incomparable Efficacy strengthens the Souls of the Faithful as to the Delivery of Right Faith whence she is justly held and believ'd by the new-converted Faithful to be assisted by the H. Ghost which till some Motive meerly Humane had first introduc'd it into their Understandings that this was the True Church they could not possibly apprehend § 8. In this way then of discoursing the Church is still the onely Ascertainer of Faith either taken in her whole Latitude as in those who are already Faithful or consider'd in part onely that is as delivering by way of naturally Testifying which I here call Tradition in order to those who are yet to embrace Faith Whence appears the perfect groundlesness of Dr. T's Objection and how he wholly misunderstands my Doctrine in this point when he says the Discourse in my Method does Vnchristian the far greatest part of our own Church For first he mistakes the Ground of Believing to those actually in the Church for that which is the Ground for those who are yet out of the Church to find which is the Church Next since all Believers actually in the Church even to a Man rely on the Church both naturally and supernaturally assisted and I am diseoursing onely about the Natural means for those who are out of the Church to come to the Knowledge of it his Discourse amounts to this that because those who are yet coming to Faith rely onely on the Humane Testimony of the Church therefore they who are in the Church and rely upon the Church both humanely
Reason against Raillery OR A Full Answer TO Dr. TILLOTSON's PREFACE Against J. S. With a farther EXAMINATION Of His Grounds of Religion The gravest Book that ever was written may be made ridiculous by applying the Sayings of it to a foolish purpose Dr. Tillot Serm. p. 121. Anno Dom. MDCLXXII Advertisement IT being the general Temper of Mankind to call any thing by an odious Name which themselves dislike and particularly the Humour of the Times to call every thing Popery which comes cross to their Interest I cannot expect my present Adversary whose Zeal as will appear by the perusal of this Treatise carries him much farther than his Reason should be exempt from a Failing so Epidemical and withal so Necessary for his Purpose For nothing more easily solves all Arguments or more readily Answers any Book with the Vulgar than this short Method Inure them to a hideous apprehension of Popery then call any Production by that Name and all farther Confute is needless With the Vulgar I say for I shall presume that whoever reads this Treatise will judge it Incredible Dr. T. should hereafter attempt to write to such as are truly Learned till he thinks fit to settle and pursue some Conclusive Method of Discoursing which I am sure he will not because his Cause will not bear it I am to expect then from the Disingenuity of my Opposers that this Piece will be branded for Popery thence the publishing it made an Insolence and to lay on more load strain'd to an Immodest Abuse of the late Merciful Indulgence I am forc'd therefore to stop the Reader at the very Entrance and to declare to him before-hand that in perusing this Treatise he shall find that the Points at present maintained by me are onely these That Christian Faith and the Tenet of a Deity are Absolutely Certain If this be Popery all the Sober and Well-meaning Protestants Presbyterians and almost all England nay all True Christians are Papists for not one of them who uses or discourses of the word FAITH but râ—tains in his natural thoughts unless bad Speculation have corrupted Nature this hearty conceit of it that 't is absolutely Impossible to be all a Ly for any thing any man living knows and abhor the contrary Tenet that is they are all on my side If then Dr. T. does not in discoursing here the Grounds of Faith sustain this contrary Tenet and so violate the Nature of Faith I have at present no quarrel with him but he a very grievous one with me for wronging him and I must acknowledge I owe him Satisfaction as publick as the Injury If he does all Protestants Presbyterians c. have the same Quarrel with him I have and so ought to joyn with me against him and he will owe Satisfaction to them all as well as to Catholicks for corrupting the Nature of Faith which we all acknowledge necessary to Salvation into Opinion and so quite enervating its force and influence towards bringing Souls to Heaven as will be shewn hereafter I could alledge to justifie my Writing at present the earnest and daring provocations of Dr. T. and his Friend publickly in their late Books also that this Treatise was near Printed ere His Majesties Gracious Declaration was Published But I shall make use of no other Justification but the nature of my Cause which is the Common Concern of all good Christians and can never be unseasonable to defend or be offensive to any who is heartily a Friend to Christianity to see it defended And if any Clamours be rais'd against me for so doing 't is abundantly satisfactory to me that the World before-hand understands how worthy the Cause is for the maintaining of which I suffer this reproach TO The Knowing Candid WITS of This Nation Especially Those who are an Ornament To the UNIVERSITIES And other Learned SOCIETIES GENTLEMEN I Know not to whom all Attempts to advance Truth in any kind can more properly belong than to You to whom Knowledge gives Ability to discern the profest study of Truth Candour and Sincerity to own what You discern and both together a perfect Qualification to be Iudges in Affairs of this Nature The Enemies to Learning are Ignorance and Passion and I take you to be as much above the later as the World will witness you are free from all suspicion of the former I have great reason to believe I am not mistaken in the judgment I make of You and that few Nations can produce an equal number of Men so Acute to discover the Truth so Wise to judge of it and speaking generally so Unbyass'd to acknowledge it This consideration gives me a high esteem for your Authority and that Esteem the Confidence to make choice of You for my Umpires The wise Iustice of this Nation has provided that all differences betwixt contending Parties be try'd by their Peers and though your dissenting from me in some particular Points might possibly cause Iealousie in one who was not well assured of his own Cause or your Integrity yet the Interests of Learning are common to us both and of the Right or Injury done to That you are the Best and peradventure Onely Iudges and for that Point I confidently appeal to You. Having made my Address give me leave in the next place to declare my Case I had observed with much grief the Swarms of new Sects not to mention the declining of many good Wits towards Atheism which pester our Country and looking into the Causes of such sad Effects it needed no great reach to discover that the Fancies of men being both by Nature and Circumstances fram'd to great variety it could not be expected but they should take their several Plies and sway mens Thoughts and Actions accordingly unless some Principle Evident in a manner to all should oblige the Judgment of the Wiser at least to adhere unanimously to the same Profession of Faith and satisfie by Motives within their own ken and even forestall by the way of Nature the irregular deviations to which weaker Fancies must of necessity be subject Nor could I nor indeed can any man think but that as GOD the Author of every perfect Gift settled Faith most firmly at first in the hearts of the Primitive Believers by Evident Miracles so he intended and ordered as far as was on His part that it should continue all along the same or that his Church should persevere in Unity of Faith and consequently that he settled such a Rule to convey the knowledge of it to us as was of a nature able to establish it and satisfie according to their several capacities both the Wise and the Unwise Whence necessarily follows that all division about Faith is to be refunded into the faulty unwariness of men who deflect from that Rule not into want of fore-sight in the All-wise Founder of the Church in leaving us such a Rule of Faith as should set us all on wrangling instead of keeping us at Unity These considerations
earnestly with me to surcease They alledged that unpassionate Examiners might easily discover by what had been done already how frivolous and insignificant the whole way was which my Adversary took and that another and more convictive Reply might possibly heighten the anger to fatal extremities That if I were less sensible of my own safety I should yet have regard to my Friends and all Catholicks that it was to be feared that an exception against a particular person might in that Iuncture be enhanc'd to a Crime of the Whole and the crossing the humour or interest of that implacable Party raise the storm of the Great Diana of the Ephesians and give the Gospel-Trumpeters occasion to sound out aloud Papa ad Portas To this was joyned for why should I be ashamed to acknowledge my Poverty into which that Persecution had driven me that I had written more then I was able to print In fine Authority and Reason and Necessity prevail'd with me and I forbore to finish what I had begun and to publish what I had finish'd But yet the desire I had to be instrumental in settling so important a Truth suggested to me a middle way which as I hoped would be incapable to be wrested into offence so I saw plainly would be much more beneficial to the world and to the Learned more satisfactory I had observ'd in the Sermon which Dr. T. call'd the Wisdom of being Religious a Concession which amounted to this that the very Tenet of a Deity might possibly be false I saw the same sence often imply'd in his Rule of Faith and p. 1â—8 plainly own'd I perceiv'd and knew all men of insight must needs perceive with me that as this was the onely material so 't was a full Answer to my Book and rendred the disquisition whether this or that be the Rule of Faith very superfluous if it might be maintained It had no Rule at all nor was capable of any For a Rule speaking of an Intellectual Rule as both of us do being a means to make us certainly know something to be a Truth He who says that thing may possibly be false or not be a Truth says it neither has nor can have any Rule I resolved therefore to write a Treatise in behalf of Christian Faith in common in which I endeavoured to demonstrate from all Heads I could invent that the Generality of Christians or those who rely on the common Motives left by God to the Church as I exprest my self in my Introduction the assent called Faith must be Impossible to be False or Erroneous And applying this to Dr. T. and his Adherents who as I shew'd from his own words granted his Assent built on that which he esteems his onely Rule of Faith possible to be false I concluded them beyond all possibility of evasion not to have true Faith nor be truly Faithful And this I conceive was to follow on my blow as I had promised it being unimaginable how the Controversie could be prest more home than to conclude my Adversary and his whole Cause from the very An Est of Faith the Subject of our Dispute nor how his whole Book which he calls the Rule of Faith can be more fundamentally overthrown than by shewing from his own words and the Nature of the Thing that his mis-called Faith has no Rule at all nor can have any I conceiv'd too that this was to make good the engagement into which I had enter'd to force them either to lay Principles which would bear the Test or let all the world see they had none For in case they did manifest their Faith Impossible to be False they must of necessity build it upon such Grounds as would sustain such a Building if they did not the World must needs judge by their silence that they had none and that they knew and confest they could not evidence themselves truly Faithful and right Christians I saw besides that this method permitted me to pursue a rational close way of Discourse without the continual interruption which the insisting upon my Adversaries mistakes must needs occasion which as it was more satisfactory to me and more creditable to my Cause so I judg'd it more beneficial to the intelligent Reader for a particular Answer must of necessity be made up for the greatest part of accusations where the Answerer thinks it his best play to mistake all along instead of direct confuting I cannot say I am in the right but I must say likewise that who says otherwise is in the wrong and that he either misunderstands or misrepresents and this either ignorantly or wilfully to show which is a task no more pleasant to the Reader than the Writer People being of opinion and I think they have great reason that the time and pains spent in such wranglings might with much more advantage be employ'd in convincing the Truth in question Lastly my aim was from the beginning to bring Controversies to a Conclusion in order to which I had proposed a Conclusive Method my Adversary neither accepted of mine nor proposed any other of his own as I had desired And I saw that by proceeding with him in his talking fashion the Point might come to be lost in a Wilderness of Unconnected Words Wherefore I judg'd it better to pursue my design more closely and by the bare stating the Nature of Christian Faith to reduce all Disputes to this short Period Either produce and vouch such Grounds for your Faith as are Impossible to be False or 't is evident you have none It seemed by the Event the way I took was not ill chosen Dr. T. being still able to boast his Book was not particularly answer'd and so uphold his Credit with those who look not deeply into Things seem'd by his silence well-appay'd and I heard of no more extraordinary Anger against me And for my part I was contented that superficial People should judge as their wit serv'd them it being abundant satisfaction to my Labours that Intelligent and Insighted Persons might perceive by them how matters stood and into how narrow a compass Controversie was reduced And of this I have ample experience from the most Iudicious of our Nation who unanimously assur'd me that it was impossible to carry things farther or bring Controversie to a shorter Method since now the whole Cause depended upon one single Proposition by the sole examination of which it was to be decided Thus stood the Controversie and thus for some years it rested For the future I intended when it might be seasonable to write onely such Grounds as I judged might be a solid Foundation for Union which as I have always look'd upon as the best of Works so I know 't is Impossible till order be first taken to secure the Absolute and Immoveable Certainty of Faith it self which I think is not otherwise to be done then by shewing how and which way it comes to be Certain In this Calm I heard several reports that the
and so we may call them Moral Christians which Epithet being opposite to Absolute signifies they are not absolutely Christians and since nothing is indeed that which 't is not absolutely it 's true sence is that they are indeed no Christians yet since they like the word Moral so extremely well when they are to express the certainty due to Faith 't is but fitting they should wear it when we express them as Faithful Though then The Hopeful seems very well to represent their humour yet 't is but fitting they should have the Priviledge of naming themselves and Moral Christians let them be Against these Moral Christians and Them onely I discourse in this present Treatise But what have I to do with the Persons I doubt not but Gods Goodness the Method of whose Gracious Providence is to support the Failings of his Creatures as far as the Natures of Particular Things and the Order of the World will permit very often supplies the Defects of Mens Speculations with Connatural ways of Knowledge fixing them thus in a strong Adherence to the most Concerning Truths by ways which even their unreflecting selves are not aware of Whence I am the farthest from judging any Mans Person perhaps of any living and endeavour all I can to retain a Charitable Opinion even of Dr. T's Personal Intentions in common and excuse him diverse times in this very Treatise where I write against him as far as Evidence of the contrary will give me leave 'T is this wicked Tenet then and It onely which I combat at present and which I see plainly so unsettles unhinges and renders useless and ineffectual all Christianity that I ought to declare an utter and irreconcileable Enmity against It and that I shall through GOD's Assistance prosecute it home to the very doors of Scepticism the Bane of all Humane Science as well as Faith in whose gloomy Grott situate in the Confines of dark Ignorance Mankind's Natural Hell they first saw the twilight or rather indeed were born blind Yet it cannot be expected that declaring as I do a just Indignation against this wicked Tenet I should treat a Writer favourably considering him precisely as a Maintainer of it or bear my self respectfully to those insincere and unhandsome Methods and Ways which he makes use of to abet It and prejudice the Sacred Truth it opposes whether those ways be Sophisms in Reasoning or else Scurrility supplying the place of Reason the main Engine employ'd in this Preface I shall then take a little of that much liberty he uses to give them the Entertainment and Return due in Iustice to their Demerits Yet that I may avoid all just occasion of offence I shall endeavour for the most part to use his own words omitting still the rudest hoping he will have less Reason to be angry at his own Eccho since if he had not Originiz'd it it had not reflected And if he assum'd to himself the freedom to abound so with Irony and wholly neglect speaking to my Reasons of which whatever they be none can deny but that I use to have good store in my Writings I hope it will not be indecent if now and then I speak to those plausible Ironies themselves there being nothing else to refute otherwise since according to Dr. T's Method of Disputing these are my onely Confuters and full of Brag and Triumph he and his Friends would most certainly have pretended as they did formerly on the like occasion that Inability to reply had caus'd my desistance I come then to examine this spruce Preface in doing which I must be forc'd to lay open at large his knack of answering Books that so I may have just Title to make some Requests to You our Umpires in behalf of the Rights proper to Learning Declaring before-hand that where-ever I am large in any Discourse becoming a Scholar 't is not a Duty paid to his Preface which has nothing like a show of solid Scholarship in it but a Respect due to You our Learned Iudges to whom I Appeal INDEX ASsent Dissent and Suspense pag. 81 82 c. Catholick Divines vindicated p. 18 179. Certainty of Scriptures Letter and Sense deny'd by Dr. T. p. 120 121 151. asserted by J. S. p. 121 122. Definitions of General Councils why necessary p. 181 182. Demonstration p. 41 42 43 119 120 174. found in Ethicks and Physicks p. 57. to 63. First Principles Identical Propositions p. 7. to 41. Dr. T 's Firm Principle shown weak p. 71 72 c. Freedom from doubt not sufficient for Faith p. 84. to 94. p. 124. to 128. Infallibility asserted p. 64. to 67.112 to 116. requisite to Assent and Faith p. 68 69. In what sence it admits of degrees p. 138. to â— 141. Unlearned Believers how Infallible p. 134 135 136 181. Moral Certainty p. 141. to 147. Objections from Catholick Divines refuted p. 175. to 179. Practical Self-evidence p. 4 5 6 116 117. Prudential Grounds incompetent for Faith p. 142 to 146. Scriptures Letter no Rule Pref. p. 5 6 7.199 200. Tradition the Rule of Faith p. 32 33 183. Granted to be such by Dr. T. p. 192. to p. 200. Held by other Catholick Divines in J. S. his sense p. 212. to 216. Explained p. 202. to 212. It s Certainty how a First Principle and Self-evident p. 3 4. A Full Answer to Dr. T's Preface with an Examination of his Grounds of Religion DISCOURSE I. Clearing the way to the following ones by manifesting his two Fundamental Exceptions to be perfectly Injust and voluntarily Insincere § 1. HIs Preface begins p. 3. with two Charges viz. That I still persist to maintain after so fair an Admonition that first and self evident Principles are fit to be demonstrated to which he addes a Third that I make Identical Propositions to be First Principles in the matter under dispute He argues too against the two former imaginary Assertions of mine which in this Preface is a rare thing thus p. 37. There can be nothing to make First Principles more Evident because there is nothing before them to demonstrate them by And I acknowledge the reason given to be as victorious as any passage in his Rule of Faith where he has multitudes of such wrong-aim'd Arguments intended I conceive to shew how far his Reason can carry when it shoots at rovers for 't is levell'd at no mark But observe I beseech you Gentlemen how I am dealt with and let these two leading Cases discovering his way of Confute obtain a just suspence of your Judgments concerning all his other performances till you see them examined § 2. In Sure footing p. 114. 2d Edit which I stâ—ll quote I deduc'd two Propositions the former that Tradition is the First Principle IN WAY OF AVTHORITY as it engages for matter of Fact long ago past or as in other places I therefore name it FIRST AUTHORITY because 't is manifest that the Authentication of Books and Monuments all depend upon Tradition The other was
nibbling § 4. But I may blush he says and what 's the Crime Why to acknowledge that ever I have read my Lord Falkland Mr. Chillingworth and Doctor Stillingfleet and have no better a style and way of reasoning whom he praises for Persons of admirable strength and clearness in their Writings What would he have I freely confess and ever did that they are Persons of much Wit and a clear Expression yet I never understood till now that men us'd to read their Books to learn a good style and methods of Discoursing As for their admirable strength I could never find it The strength of a Discourse as I imagine consists in its Grounds not in witty Plausibilities and and fine Language Though I know Dr. T. who seems never to have aym'd at any higher pitch thinks verily such ingenious Knacks make a Discourse stronger than all the Principles in the world And for them all put together if Dr. T. can show me any one Principle in any of them which they heartily stand to able to put Christian Faith beyond Possibility of Falsehood I promise to yield all I have writ for false and accordingly renounce it § 5. As for their Clearness and Dr. T's too whom I rank with them in that Quality having really a disposition to do him all just honour he makes himself capable to receive I acknowledge 't is found in them to a fair degree of Excellence But I must distinguish Clearness into two sorts one that clears their own thoughts by means of Language the other that clears the Truth of the Point in dispute which is done by means of Principles The former makes the Reader understand Them the latter makes him understand Truth The one renders it clear that they say thus the other makes it clear that they say right when they say thus In the first sort of Clearness they have not many Fellows In the latter they are like other Mortals or rather indeed they are quite destitute of it For being utterly void of Grounds they leave the Point unseen to be true that is obscure and far from Clear And if Dr. T. thinks I wrong them I desire him to show me either in any of them or in himself any Principle he can justly call theirs or his and then go to work Logically and make out how and by virtue of what its Terms hang together and if he can do this I shall acknowledge publickly my Errour and make them all honourable satisfaction the very next Piece I print In a word they are pretty dextrous at pulling down or bringing all things to Incertainty as becomes Men of Wit and Fancy and what easier than to raise a thousand wild Objections at rovers without ever heeding the natures of the Things but aâ— Building which requires a Judgment made steady by Grounds and Principles they ever did and ever will and so must all who follow their steps fall infinitely short § 6. As for my style I declare that I regard it no further than it serves to express my thoughts especially not intending to perswade the Vulgar Rhetorically by advantage of Language but to prove severely the point to Scholars by the connectedness of my Sence I am of St. Austin's mind that in this circumstance an Iron-Key is as good as a Golden one where no more is requisite but aperire quod clausum erat to open what was before conceal'd or shut In my younger years and spring time of my life I apply'd my self much to those flourishes of Poetry and Rhetorick but I am now in my Autumn and my riper thoughts applying themselves to study Knowledge the Flowers fell off when the Fruit-time was come I endeavour as far as I am able to fill my mind with grounded and sollid Reasons for the point in hand and then let my Sence give me my Style and not frame my Sence to my Words or make my Words supply the want of Sence as gay Discoursers use Besides no mans Attention is infinite and so should I mind my Style too much in all likelihood I should mind Sence which I a thousand times more value less and I take this to be one Reason why Dr. T. for otherwise the man has a very good wit heeding his Style and Words so extreamly much scarce attends at all to his Sence or as an Ingenious Person reading this Preface exprest it had rather be guilty of ten Errours than one Incongruity Lastly how does Dr. T. know my Style were I to make a Sermon Does not every Oratour know that the Style due to a Sermon and a strict Discourse of close Reason are the most different imaginable I will not say Dr. T. has no good Judgment in Words for this would make him good for little but I must say he was very rash in concluding absolutely of my Style from seeing it in one kind of matter onely and this the most Incompetent of any in the world to show what Language one is Master of Now to his Sermon and let him remember 't is himself forces me to lay open the weakness of his Discourses by his frequent and scornful Provocations Which I was very loth to do in this Circumstance lest it might wrong the Common Cause of Christianity against Atheism But I consider'd that should Christian Divines acquiesce and seem to consent by their Carriage that they judge such quivering Grounds competent to build their Faith and the Tenet of a Deity upon it would be a far juster Scandal to Atheists than 't is to disclaim from them and avow in the name of the rest the absolute Certainty of those Maxims which ground our Persuasions as Christians Add that it was my Duty to those who yet are firmly persuaded of their Faith not to permit them to slide into a less hearty Conceit of it than the nature of Faith and the Obligations springing from it do require at their hands These Considerations justifying me fully to the World and Dr. T's daring Provocations particularly to hâ—s Friends I resolv'd to answer his Challenge though I foresee my Discovering the Weakness of his Discourses upon this Subject engages me to make better of my own in confâ—tation of that Irreligious Sect of which I here acknowledge my self a Debtor to my Readers and shall perform that Obligation as soon as I have done with those Pretenders to Christianity who make Faith and its Grounds Uncertain â—nward Ulcers are far more dangerous and require speedier cure than those which are without § 7. His intent in his First Sermon was to show the Vnreasonableness of ATHEISM upon this account because it requires more Evidence for Things than they are capable of But let us Christians take heed that we give not scandal to Atheists and obstruct their Conversion by exacting of them what is opposite to the true Nature God has given them or Right Reason and requiring of them Impossibilities And for this end let us impartially consider what 't is we invite and perswade them
virtue of the plain Evidence of this one Paradox to overthrow the Certainty of Tradition nay the Certainty of all Natural Sciences to boot for these according to him are solely built upon Induction which depends on Sensations and These if we may trust him are all possible to be deceiv'd § 19. And is not Faith it self by these Grounds left in the same pickle It s Rule whether it be Tradition or Scriptures Letter evidently depends upon Humane Authority and this says he is all Fallible and what 's built on a Fallible Authority says Common Sence may possibly be an Errour or False therefore 't is most unavoidable from his Principles that all Faith may Possibly be False however the shame of owning so Unchristian and half-Atheistical a Tenet makes him very stifly and angrily deny the Conclusion but he shall never show why 't is not a most necessary and genuine Consequence from his Position of all Humane Authority being Fallible I expect that instead of a direct Answer to the force of my Argument he will tinkle a little Rhetorick against my Conclusion or start aside to a Logical Possibility that men may be deceiv'd and affirm that 't is not a Contradiction in Terms and so may be effected by the Divine Omnipotence But that 's not our point We are discoursing what will follow out of the ordinary Course of Causes the Conduct of which is the work of the Worlds all-wise Governour whence if those Portions of Nature or Mankind cannot be deceiv'd without Miracle and 't is most vnbeseeming GOD to do a Miracle which reaches in a manner a whole Species as that no Fire in the World should burn no Water wet especially if it be most absurd to conceive that GOD the Author of all Truth nay Essential Truth it self should do such a stupendious and never-yet-heard-of Miracle to lead Men into Errour as is our case 't is most manifestly consequent it cannot be effected at all that Mankind should be Fallible in Knowledges built on their constant Sensations § 20. It follows And though none of these be strict Demonstration yet have we an undoubted Assurance of them when they are prov'd by the best Arguments that the nature and quality of the Thing will bear To this we will speak when we come to examine his Firm Principle He proceeds None can demonstrate to me that there is such an Island in America as Jamaica yet upon the Testimony of credible Persons and Authors who have writ of it I am as free from all doubt concerning it as from doubting of the clearest Mathematical Demonstration True none can demonstrate there is either Jamaica or any such Place Yet I see not why they may not demonstrate the Knowledge of the Attesters from the Visibility of the Object and their Veracity from the Impossibility they should all conspire to act or say so without some appearing Good for their Object or intend to deceive in such a matter and so circumstanc'd when 't is evidently Impossible they should compass their intended end As for his affirming that he is as free from all doubt concerning it as he is from doubting of the clearest Mathematical Demonstration I answer that a man may 〈…〉 yet not hold the Thing True as shall presently be shown And if Dr. T. pleâ—se to look into his own Thoughts he shall find instill'd through the goodness of Nature by Practical Self-evidence more than a bare freedom from doubt viz. such a firm Assent Adherence to it as a Certain Truth that he would deem him a Madman or a Deserter of Humane Nature who could doubt of it and in a word as firm an Assent as to any Mathematical Demonstration which why he should according to Maxims of right Reason have unless he had a Demonstration of it or at least saw it by Practical Self-evidence impossible that Authority should hic nunc be deceiv'd or conspire to deceive and so held the Authority Infallible as to this point I expect his Logick should inform me § 21. We are now come to take a View of Dr. T's performances hitherto He hath omitted the proper Science for his purpose Metaphysicks I suppose because it sometimes uses those hard words Potentiality and Actuality which his delicate Ears cannot brook and has secluded Morality Physicks and the Knowledge we have of the Nature which grounds all Humane Authority and Christian Faith from being Sciences allowing it onely to the Mathematicks which would make one verily think the VVorld were perversly order'd and odly disproportion'd to the nature and good of Mankind for which we Christians agree it was created that greater Evidence and Certainty and consequently Power to act aright should be found in those things which are of far less import than in those which are of a Concern incomparably higher Yet it matters less some may think as long as we are not bound to assent to any of those Conclusions in those respectâ—ve Subjects the absolute Certainty of whâ—ch Dr. T's Discourse calls into question or rather denies whence iâ— we have in these and such as thesâ— knowledge enough to determine us to act Exteriourly it may seem to suffice But now when We come to FAITH where We are Oblig'd to Assent or to hold Fâ—rmly and verily judge the Thing True and where Exteriour Acting will not do the Work or carry a Soul to Bliss but Interiour Acts of a Firm Faith a Vigorous Hope built on that Faith and an Ardent and Over-powering Love of Unseen Gooâ—s springing out of both These are Absolutely Necessary to Fit Us for an Union with our Infinitely-Blissful Object and the Strength of all These is Fundamentally built on the SECURENEâ—S of the Ground of Faith In this Case I say a Rational Considerer wouâ—d think it very requiâ—â—â—e that the Reasons of so Hearty an Assâ—nt but especially for that most Fundamental Point of the Existence of a Deity it being of an infinitely-higher nature and import should be fâ—ll as Evident as the most Evident of those Inferiour Concerns and in comparison Trâ—fling Curiosities And not that the World should be manag'd on such a fashion as if Mankinâ— were onely made to study Mathematicks since absolute Evidence his best natural Perfection is according to Dr. T. onely found in These Whence we see that Mathematicians are infinitely beholding to him but Philosophers not at all and I fear Christians as little Now these two points are according to my way of discoursing for this very reason taken from the End and Use of Faith and the Obligation lying on us to hold and profess it True Self-evident Practically to the Generality of the Vulgar and demonstrable to the Learned Let us see what strong Grounds of such an immovably-firm Assent Dr. T. will afford the World for that first and most Fundamental Point of all Religion the Tenet of a Deity of which if we cannot be assur'd all else that belongs to Faith is not worth heeding DISCOURSE V. Dr. T's Firm
Principle examin'd Of Suspence and Assent Of Great Likelihood Freedom from Actual Doubt Fair Probabilities and other Mock-Certainties § 1. HE introduces his Discourse thus So that this is to be entertain'd as a Firm Principle by all those who pretend to be Certain of any thing at all that when any thing is prov'd by as good Arguments as that thing is capable of and we have as great assurance that it is as we could possibly have supposing it were we ought not in reason to make any doubt of the Existence of that Thing This is Dr. T's FIRM PRINCIPLE and it should be a kind of FIRST PRINCIPLE too being so universally necessary that without admitting this no man can be Certain of any Thing at all nor any Thing at all be Certain to any man You see Gentlemen how much depends upon it and I conceive you will easily conclude it ought to be as Evident and as Firm as any First Principle extant since according to his way of Discourse all Truths even the most precious Concerns in the world particularly the possibility of proving a Deity must run its Fate and be establish'd or ruin'd by its standing or falling Now my Judgment of it is this That 't is the most ridiculous piece of Folly and the most pernicious abstract of pithy Nonsence that ever was laid down since Mankind was Mankind by any sober man for such a Principle without which no Certainty at all can be had no not even that there is a God I charge it therefore with four Faults First that 't is Unprov'd next 't is Unevident of it self and so no Principle thirdly that were it evident 't is Impertinent to the end 't is produc'd for and lastly it betrays all Religion into the possibility of being a Lye instead of establishing it § 2. And first it appears that he intends it as a Conclusion by his introducing it with So that c. after his former Discourse But as I have already confuted That so I discern not any title it has to be Sequel from those Premisses in case they were True For what a mad consequence is this Diverse things bear diverse kinds of Proofs some weaker some stronger therefore when we have the best the Object can afford us we are to rest satisfi'd the thing is How I say does this follow unless he had first maâ—e out or at least supposâ—d that the least of those Proofs was satisfactory or that there is no Object in the world but is capable of yielding light enough to satisfie which Position every days experience convinces of Falshood Indeed if he meant by these words that upon our seeing the Thing is capable of no Conclusive Proof it is wisdom in us to sit down satisfy'd that no more is to be had and so surcease our farther quest I understand him very well but that I should be satisfy'd the thing is so or acquiesce to its Truth as he must mean to make it 〈◊〉 for his purpose not from the Conclusiveness of the Grounds it stands under or the prevalence of the Object upon my Understanding subduing it to Assent but because that Object is capable to bear no more or to discover it self no better to my sight is in plain terms to say that because the Objâ—ct affords me no certain light to know whether it be or no therefore I will hold my self well appay'd and think 't is Certain or thus Though I see absolutely speaking 't is Uncertain yet as long as I see withal the Object can bear no more or cannot be made absoluâ—ely Certain I will therefore rest satâ—sfy'd or judge 't is absolutely Certain If this be not his meaning I desire himself to inform me better 'T is evident to me it can be no other if he mean anythâ—ng at all His Intent is to evince a Deity and I declare heartily I have that good opinion of him as to hope that settled perhaps in that Assent by Practical Self-evidence as are the Vulgar and not by Skill or Principles as Scholars are for his Speculation makes it absolutely Uncertain he judges it to be absolutely Certain Either then he judges his Motives he has to evince it Conclusive or no If Conclusive there needs no running about the Bush to tell us of several kinds of Proofs or laying such whimsical Principles fit for nothing but to make the witty Atheist laugh at Christianity but it had been enough to stand to it heartily that the Thing must be so because the Arguments he brings conclude it to be so But in case he fear'd his Motives were not absolutely Conclusive or able to evince the Truth of the Point and that this is his Sentiment appears by his blaming me here p. 20. for pretending to such to ground Faith then indeed it was but good Policy or rather plain Necessity to lay some Principles by means of which he might compound the business between the Object and the Understanding after the same manner though this seems but an odd method of proving as Friends take up differences between good natur'd Creditors and the Debtor when he that owes is williâ—â— to do his utmost but yet is not solvent and 〈◊〉 was said before so to accord the business to avoid rigorous Disputes that though the Understanding sees absolutely speaking the Thing is Vncertain and more Lighâ— if it could be had is in reality due ere it can be satisfy'd of its absolute Certainty yet because the Object is able to afford no more 't is awarded by their Umpire Dr. T. that the kind-hearted Understanding is to be content to rest appay'd and hold it notwithstanding to be absolutely Certain which is the same as to say that though I do not see the Thing to be so yet because the thing it self cannot be seen to be so I will fancy strongly or judge I see it to be so Let us parallel it by Analogy to our Corporal Sight and the Discourse stands thus Though I see not the Wall to be white because 't is so far distant or the Air dusky yet because I can see it no better the Wall thus circumstanc'd not being able to inform my Eye clearly therefore despairing of the Walls affording me any better sight of it self I will piece out that degree of obscurity in the Object with a strong bending my Eyes till I fancy verily I see it to be white or rather out of a civil compliance with it's defect of visibleness I will verily judge and conclude it to be indeed of such a colour and then if any object folly to me for assenting upon infirm Grounds I will tell him he is ill-natur'd and unmerciful the poor Wall has done alas all it can and who can in reason desire more § 3. I expect Dr. T. will pretend degrees of Intellectual Sight and that by a less degree of Evidence he sees the Thing to be though 't is not manifested to him by the greatest but 't is impossible and even contradictory
Gods holy disposition than they would have had had they kept awake that degree of Suspense in their minds which Right Reason the nature God had given them requir'd they should § 8. 'T is time now to apply this discourse to Dr. T's Performances It appears hence that one may have no reason to doubt of a thing and yet withall have no reason in the world to assent firmly to it as a most Certain Truth which onely is to his purpose And this may be done two ways either by perfectly suspending and inclining to neither side as we experience our Understanding now bears it self in order to the Stars being Even or Odd Or by strongly hoping or inclining to Assent the Thing is True as when we expect a Friend such a time at London who never us'd to break his word which expectation though one may have very great ground to hope will not deceive us yet it were a mad thing to assent to it as firmly as I do to my Faith or that there is a GOD. But what I most admire is that Dr. T. can think an Actual not doubting or seeing no just cause to doubt is a competent assurance of the Grounds for Christian Faith as he all over inculcates For not to repeat over again what hath been lately prov'd that a bare not doubting is not sufficient to make a man a Christianâ— 't is evident first that Turks Jews and Heathens the Generality at least are fully perswaded what they hold is â—rue and see no just cause to doubt it whence by this kind of arguing if it be sufficient for Christian Faith to have such Grounds as exclude Doubt in its Adherents Turcism Judaism and perhaps Paganism too may claim to be true Religions by the same Title and if the Certainty or Security of Christian Religion be no more but a freedom from doubt all those wicked Sects have good reason to be held Certain too and so both sides of the Contradiction may become Certain by which stratagem Dr. T. is as compleatly revenged of his Enemies Identical Propositions as his own heart could wish and rewards his dear Friends and faithful Abetters direct Contradictions very honourably advancing them to be First Principles and even as Certain as Faith it self Secondly Passion and Vice can breed in a man a full persuasion that an Errour is True and such an apprehension as shall take away all Actual Doubt nay the more Passion a man is in and the more obstinate he is in that passion the less still he doubts so that by Dr. T's Logick no man can tell whether Christianity be indeed Rationally-wise or passionately-foolish in caâ—e the Test of its Certainty or the Adequate Effect of its Grounds be not a steady Assent that 't is True that is if the Motives to embrace it be not Conclusive of the Truth of its Doctrine but oneâ—y Exclusive of Doubt Thirdly Ignorance and dull Rudeneâ—s is easily appay'd with any silly Reason and so a most excellent way to be void of Actual Doubt nay of all men in the world those who are perfectly ignorant see the least cause of doubting being least able to raise any wherefore if being free from seeing any just cause of doubt be the utmost Effect of Christian Grounds let all Christians be but grosly ignorant and they shall immediately without more ado become as Free from Actual Doubt as may be and by that means be the best Christians in the world and consequently Ignorance be fundamentally establish'd by Dr. T. the Mother of all True Devotion Fourthly Though out of a stupid carelesness men use to take many things for granted upon slight Grounds while 't is cheap to admit them and no danger accrues upon the owning them yet experience teaches us that when any great Inconvenience presses as the loss of Friends Livelihood or Life Reason our true Nature teaches men to study their careless thoughts over again by which means they begin now to Doubt of that which before they took for granted if they have not Certain Motives to establish them in the Truth of what they profess and to ascertain to them some equivalent Good at least to what they are in danger to forego In which case I fear it will yield small strength to a man put in such a strong Temptation to find upon review of his Grounds that they were onely able to make him let them pass for good ones while the Concern was remoter and less but that notwithstanding all these he sees they may perhaps be False and himself a great Fool for holding them True without Reasons convincing them to be so and consequently foolish perhaps wicked to boot for suffering so deeply to attest them If Dr. T. reply That such men dying for what they conceiv'd Truth meant well and consequently acted virtuously I must ask him how he knows that or can make them know it unless he propose Motives to conclude those Tenets True For as Errour is the Parent and Origin of all Vice so is Truth of all Virtue nor is Virtue any thing but a Disposition of the Will to follow Reason or Truth Whence if we cannot be abâ—olutely Certain any Tenet we follow is Truth we cannot be absolutely-Certain any Action is Virtuous and 't is not enough to make a man Virtuous to mean well in common or intend to do his Duty and be onely free from doubt all the while unless they have some substantial Truth to proceed upon which renders their meaning and particular Action Good as to the main by directing it to that which is mans true Happiness For 't is questionless that the Generality of the Heathens who worship'd Juno Venus Vulcan and the rest of that Rabble meant well in Common were free from actual doubt nay had Dr. T's Moral Certainty too that is had a firm and undoubted Assent upon such Grounds as would fully satisfie a Prudent man for many of them were men of great Natural Prudence and were actually satisfy'd with the Motives they had for Polytheism Lastly they had Dr. T's Firm Principle too on their side for they had as far as they could discern the Judgment of the whole World round about them that is as much as the nature of the thing could give them though it were for had there been indeed such Gods and Goddesses yet being in Heaven they could have no more light concerning them than by Authority of others relating also as doubtlesly they did many wonderful things conceived to be done by their means and on the other side they had all the Authority extant at that time for them and what doubts soever a few Speculative and Learned men rais'd concerning them yet the Generality who were unacquainted with their thoughts had no occasion to raise any at all These advantages I say the Heathens had parallel within a very little if not altogether to Dr. T's Grounds and Principles that is able to produce an equal Effect viz. Not-doubting Yet because
the small strength they have when they do their utmost is not earnestly and heartily engag'd neither in the Patronage of our Cause or in proving it probable there 's a GOD but onely incline favourably towards us rather than the other Besides those who are of moderate tempers use to be favourable to every Body and there is not in the whole World such sweet soft-natur'd melting pliable tender-hearted compassionate and indulgent things as these same Probabilities They are ever at hand to lend their weak help to any body that wants a good Argument and will fit any Cause in the World good or bad Yet for all their kind and gentle behaviour in obliging none to assent to them or say as they do as your rude Demonstrations use I have notwithstanding a kind of prejudice against them which is that they are False hearted and use to play Jack-a-both-sides most egregiously for scarce was there ever any Tenet in the world so absurd but when not one good Reason durst appear for it this tatling Gossip Dame Probability would for all that undertake it and let her have but her neat Chamber-maid Rhetorick to trick her up with Laces Spangles Curles Patches and other such pretty Baubles she will dare to incounter with any Truth in the World or maintain the most absurd Paradox imaginable as Dr. T. and his Friend well know else they would be out of heart ever to write more And this is the Reason I conceive why p. 22. he calls them FAIR saying If FAIR Probabilities of Reason concur with Testimony and no less than thrice in the same page he makes mention of FAIR Proofs He says not GOOD Proofs or CONCLVSIVE that the Thing is TRVE or that there 's a GOD no take heed of that this would quite take the business out of the hand of Probability which a Rhetorical Divine ought not to do for nothing suits with Rhetorick's humour so well as Probabiâ—ity does and Demonstration cares not one straw for her But he gives them their just due and calls them onely Fair Proofs and Fair Probabilities that is Pretty Plausible and Taking and if they were not so of themselves what is there which a little daubing with Rhetorical Varnish will not make FAIR But the Upshot oâ— Sum Total of his Proofs is the best sport if it were not most pernicious 't is this That these Fair Probabilities taken together and in their united force have a great deal of Conviction in them Which amounts to this plain Confession though couch'd in wary Terms that there is not one good Proof amongst them all yet many bad ones put together will make a good one I know indeed that a concurrence of many Likelihoods renders a thing more Probable and encourages us to Outward Action but to think that many Probabilities will reach that Indivisible Point in which Truth and consequently our Assent to any thing as a Truth is found is quite to mistake the nature of Truth and Assent too which consist in Is or Is not and since to convince rationally is to conclude the thing is I desire Dr. T's Logick to inform the World how since a Probable Proof is that which onely concludes the thing Probable and consequently many probable ones are terminated in rendring it MORE Probable how I say many Proofs onely Probable can conclude the thing to be MORE THAN PROBABLE that is to be CERTAINLY or convince the Understanding that 't is unless they happen to engage some Nature or other and consequentâ—y some Identical Proposition which Dr. T. neither pretends nor goes about to show but on the other side declares himself an utter Enemy to such Principles and consequently to such a way of Discourse § 12. In a word Dr. T's Positive Proofs of a Godhead are reducible to these two Heads Humane Testimony and Probabilities of Reason as appears by his own words Serm. p. 22 23. and Testimony which p. 22. he tells us is the Principal Argument in a thing of this nature he divides into Vniversal Tradition and Written History Now Written History is not therefore True because 't is writ but depends upon Living Authority or Tradition to authenticate it and how ridiculous he would make the Certainty of Tradition even that which is confessedly grounded on the Sensations of great multitudes which is vastly above this here spoken of is seen in hâ—s Rule of Faith and here again he tells us Pref. p. 16. All Humane Testimony is Fallible and so all built on it is possible to be False for this plain reason because all men are Fallible Wherefore according to his Grounds 't is concluded there may possibly be No GOD for any thing Humane Testimony says to the Point And 't is as evident from the very word that Probabilities of Reason though never such Fair ones conclude as little Lastly he tells us Serm. p 22. that Fair Probabilities of Reason concurring with Testimony this Argument has all the strength it can have and thus Dr. T. instead of proving there is a GOD has endeavour'd to make out very learnedly that it may be there 's no such Thing and that neither Reason nor Authority can evince the Truth of the Point § 13. I omit his abusing the word Testimony which is built on Sensations in alledging it to prove a Creation which neither was nor could be subject to the Senses of the first Mankind nor consequently could the persuasion of future Deliverers and Writers have for its Source Attestation or Testimony I omit also his negâ—ecting to make use of Testimony to prove Miracles GOD's proper Effect which are subject to Sense and which both Christians Jews and Heathens of all Nations and Times both unanimously have and the first Seers could properly attest I suppose his Confidence in his Rhetorick made him chuse the worser Arguments to show how prettily he could make them look or perhaps the Genius of Things lie so that the slightest Arguments most need and so best suit with Rhetorical Discoursers § 14. By this time I suppose Gentlemen there will appear just reason for that moderate and civil hint I gave Dr. T. in my Introduction to Faith Vindicated of the weakness of his Grounds in these words In which Sermon under the Title of the Wisdom of being Religious and a great many seeming shows and I heartily think very real Intentions of impugning Atheism by an ill-principled and in that circumstance imprudent and unnecessary Confession in equivalent Terms of the possible Falsehood of Faith nay even as to the Chiefest and most Fundamental Point the Tenet of a Deity Religioâ— receives a deep wound and Atheism an especial advantage as may perhaps be more particularly shown hereafter After which I give his Sermon all its due Commendations and then subjoyn Onely I could wish he had right Principles to ground his discourse without which he can never make a Controvertist but must needs undermine the solid Foundation of Christianity if he undertake to meddle with
of these things then let him say he is fallibly certain of it which done Nature will shew him how perfect Nonsence he speaks whence the same Nature will tell him with a little reflexion that since the word Infallibly can with good sence be joyn'd with the word Certain either 't is adeqaate to that word and extends its sence as far as the others and then there is no Certainty where there is not Infallibility or it does not extend as far as the word Certain and then we may be Certain of some things yet not-Infallibly Certain which since not-Infallibly means Fallibly signifies clearly we may be fallibly certain of those things But common sence teaches us how ridiculous 't is to say we are fallibly certain of any thing 'T is most evident therefore and demonstrable that there is no Certainty but where there is Infallibility and that we can never be said to be truly Certain of any thing till all circumstances consider'd we see our selves out of possibility of being deceived hic nunc in that very thing Whence Dr. T. denying Infallible assurance of both Letter and Sence of Scripture is convinc'd to deny all true Certainty of either and so to render all Faith built upon it Uncertain that is possible to be false and could he with sense take the other part of the distinction and say he is fallibly certain of it yet the guilt of the same Position will still remain with him This Logical Demonstration I produc'd in Faith Vindicated pag. 37. of which Dr T. takes notice here pag. 17 thus Mr. S. is plâ—as'd to say that Certainty and Infallibility are all one concealing thus from his Reader I had ever prov'd it lest he should be oblig'd â—o speak to my Proofs which he neither likes nor uses and bears himself as if I had only said it which suppos'd then indeed his bare saying the contrary was a competent Answer This done he confutes it manfully with telling his Readers I am the first man that evâ—r said it and that 't is foolish I beseech you Gentlemen is it the fashion in the Univeesities to solve Arguments on this manner That is to neglect the Premisses call the Conclusion foolish and think to overthrow the Reason in the Opinion of his Readers because 't is not some hackney Argument brought into play perhaps an hundred times over and ninety nine times answer'd but now produc'd first Certainly one would think in reason that what has been many times alledg'd should rather be slighted because it may have received already many Answers and not such Pcoofs as first appear because 't is certain they never yet had any at all nor do I conceive that the Noble and Learned Virtuosi of the ROYAL SOCIETY use to reject any Production because the Author of it is the first that invented it but they allow it Examination and if it hold the Trial approve it and commend the Author § 4. I shall endeavour to give him another Argument of the Necessity of admitting Infallibility though I have good reason to fear he will afford it again no other Answer but only this that I am the first man that ever produc'd it 'T is this Taking the word False or Falsus subjectively or as in the Subject that is as making the Jugment False or Erroneous 't is a Participle of the Verb Fallor and signifies deceived actually to which corresponds as its proper Power Fallible or capable to be deceived Now the contrary to False thus understood is True taken also subjectively or as making the Judgment which in it is True or Un-erroneous in that its Act. Wherefore the proper Power corresponding to that Act must necessarily be that which is oppos'd to Fallible that is Infallible Again taking the word False Objectively or as found in the Proposition which is the Object or Cause of our Judgment as 't is false or actually deceived It s proper Power corresponding to it is Capable to deceive Wherefore also taking its Opposit Truth Objectively or for the Object of our Judgment when 't is True the proper Power corresponding to it must be Incapable to deceive 'T is concluded then from both these Considerations that we can neither affirm Points or Propositiont of Faith which are the Objects of such Acts True but we must affirm withal that they are Incapable to make us judge erroneously while we assent to them nor that our Judgment or Act of Faith can be True or Un-erroneous but we must be Infallible in so judging Thus far concerning the necessity of admitting Infallibility if we once put our Assents or Acts of Faith to be true Judgments From which 't is a different Question to ask how we become thus Infallible onely 't is Evident that in case the former Proposition be put viz that we must affirm our Acts of Faith True Infallible we must be or Impossible to be in an Errour when we make those Acts. But now to this Infallibility in those Acts God's Providence leads men diversly according to their several degrees of Capacity Those who are arriv'd to a great pitch of Learning come to it by absolutely-concluding proofs call'd Demonstrations that is by penetrating the nature of the Authority on which it is built and such men can make out clearly and distinctly to their own Thoughts the Certainty of that Authority by discoursing it to themselves others they can resolve it into its Grounds meet with and answer Objections and in a word see themselves to be Infallibly Certain of it In these men therefore though the Truth of their Tenet be indeed taken from the Object as 't is always yet the Clearness Distinctness and firm Strength of it springs from the Perfection of their well-cultivated Understanding Those who are of a weak pitch are led to it by Practical Self-evidence of the nature of Authority and of the way in common by which they receive Faith which dim rude sight even in the simplest serves to carry them on to act according to right nature when they assent but they cannot discourse their thoughts nor resolve them into Principles nor answer Objections nor see themselves clearly to be infallibly Certain Nay more the greatest part of these especially if very simple do by some lucky chance or rather by a particular disposition of Gods good Providence light upon this right way more than by any strength of their own wit looking into Grounds but being in it once they find that which satisfies them according to knowledges familiariz'd to them by converse with the World and which are of themselves solid and satisfactory In a word it became Gods goodness so to order things that the Acts of all the Faithful might be as much as was possible in men of every pitch and capacity Rational or Virtuous whatever Contingency may happen in some particulars Original Sin and by it Passion Ignorance or Interest sometimes byassing them and making them act with precipitancy In which case
will with Infallible Certainty bring down the Letter of Magna Charta the Statute Book and some Acts of Parliament the self-same from year to year at least in matters of high Consequence and by means of the Sense writ Traditionally in some mens heaâ—ts correct the Letter if Printers or Copiers should mistake If Dr. T. asks how I prove it I would tell him that the Nature of the Thing must make it Notorious if altered be cause great multitudes are conversant in it and it being esteemed of a kind of Sacred Nature weigh every tittle of it warily especially those passages that immediately touch some weighty Point whence should some whose Interest 't is to alter it go about such an Action it cannot appear a Good to the Generality whose Concerns are highly violated by that alteration to conceal and permit the Letter to remain Uncorrected and if it could not appear a Good to the Generality to consent to alter it nor become a Motive to the rest to attempt a seen Impossiblity neither one nor the other could will to alter it much less both conspire to do it and should they attempt it their will must either have no Object and then 't is a Power to nothing that is no Power or else act without an appearing Good and in both cases the Will would be no Will. This short hint will let the Reader see the Grounds I go upon 't is not now a proper place to pursue such Arguments close or press them home I wish I might see some return of the like nature from our two undemonstrating Adversaries who think it their best play to laugh at Principles and Demonstration because they know in their Consciences they are perfect Strangers to both § 8. Well but though Dr. T. denies any Infallible Certainty of the Ground of all Christian Faith let 's see at least what other Certainty he affords us And at the first sight any honest man might safely swear it must be if any a Fallible Certainty that is a very fair piece of Nonsense for 't is evident to all Mankind the Abhorrers of First Principles always excepted that if any Certainty be Infallible and there be any other besides this it must needs be a Fallible one since there can be no middle between Contradictaries So that Dr. T. is put to this hard choice either to bring such a Certainty for the Ground of all Christianity which is no Certainty or else such an one as is perfect Nonsense if it be named by its proper Name Lâ—t's see what choice he makes We are not sayes he Infallibly Certain that any Book c. But yet observe now the Opposit kind of Certainty delivered here pag. 9. We have a firm Assurance concerning these matters so as not to make the least doubt of them I marry this is a rare Certainty indeed We have not Infallible Certainty sayes Dr. T. of either Letter or Sense of Scripture but onely such an one as keeps us from making the least doubt of them Now since a very easie reflexion teaches us that we have no doubt of many things being True nay more have strong Hopes they are True and yet for all that hold them notwithstanding possible to be false 't is a strange Argument to prove he avows not the possible Falshood of Faith to alledge that he declared himself he had onely such an Assurance as not at all to doubt it For not to doubt a thing signifies no more but not to incline to think it False which a man may do and yet not at all hope 't is True seeing he who suspends indifferently from both sides and inclines to neither does not at all doubt a Thing or fear 't is False having no imaginable reason to ground the least degree of any such Fear more than he has to ground any Hope of its Truth Again those Speculators who attend not to Principles are oftentimes in a perplex'd case and through the Goodness of Nature hold a thing absolutely True while they attend to such motives as connaturally breed that perswasion which thing notwithstanding coming to make it out as Scholars and unable to perform it hereupon consider'd as Speculators they must hold possible to be False for any thing they know and this I conceive is Dr. T's condition Regarding the nature of Faith and the common Conceit of Christianity he cannot but see he must if he will be a Christian profess Faith impossible to be False and doublesly he will avow it such as long as he speaks Nature and avoids reflecting on his Speculative Thoughts but coming once to consider the points of Faith as standing under such proofs as his Unskilful Art affords him and conscious to himself as he needs must who sleights first Principles and all Methods to Knowledge that he hath never an Argument that is absolutely or truly Conclusive he is forc'd again taking in these unlucky circumstances to avow Faiths Ground and consequently its self to be Possible to be otherwise or False being willing to lay the blame on the Grounds of Faith and to say they cannot bear Absolutely-Conclusive Proofs rather than on the defectiveness of his own Skill and to represent them as unworthy to have the name of stable Grounds rather than he will lose a tittle of the Fame of being an able Divine Yet I will not say but the Christian in Dr. T. might overcome the Speculator at least ballance him in an equal suspence or beget in him a pretty good conceit of Faith's Impossibility to be False but then when he once reflects that this cannot be maintain'd without admitting Infallibility which is the word the abhominable Papists use nor made out without using First Principles or Identical Propositions which that malignant Man I. S. pretends to build on immediately the byass prevails and the Idea of Popery once stirred up which haunts his and his Friends fancy day and night in a thousand hideous shapes â— he runs in a fright so far from Impossibility of Falshood in Faith that he comes to a very easie Possibility of its being all a plain Imposture or Ly for any thing he absolutely knows since Grounds prevailing onely to make him not doubâ— of it can raise it no higher Moreover if this be a good Argument I declar'd my self so assur'd as not to make the least doubt of a thing therefore I could not avow it possible to be False it must be allow'd Argumentative to say I am so assured as not in the least to doubt of it therefore 't is not possible to be False Dull Universities that had not the wit to light all this while on Dr. T's Principles and way of arguing They ascertain all things at the first dash without more adoe I have a firm Assurance so as not to doubt of the Grounds of Christian Faith the Letter and Sense of Scripture therefore by this new Logick they are concluded Certain and Impossible to be False In opposition to which if you
tell him the firmness of a Rational Assent ought to be taken from Principles or the Object not from the Subject's firmly adhering to it and admonish him that this later sort of Firmness without the other signifies nothing but an Irrational Resolution to hold a thing right or wrong he cuts you off short and blames the Grounds of Christian Faith telling you the nature of the Things will bear no more At which if your Reason repines and begins to despair of satisfaction he tells you smartly that you contradict a First and Firm Principle that to have as much Assurance as the thing affords you is to be Certain of it Prodigious folly not to distinguish between these two most evident Notions I am fully perswaded and the Thing is certainly so And alledging our not doubting or strong adhesion to a thing for an competent Explication of that Certainty which ought to be the greatest in the whole world since more Sacred Concerns than any the world can shew are built upon it which adhesion also as Nature teaches us is very frequently an effect of Passion Common Experience manifesting it to be a fault annext to the very Nature of Man that his Uâ—derstanding is liable to be byast by his Will where his very Essence is not concern'd so as not to make the least doubt of may more oftentimes to hold firmly whatever habitual Prejudice Affection to Friends precipitate hast or fullen Ignorance has once addicted him to All I can imagine in Dr. T's behalf is this that he must alledge he conceives this Assurance or Firm Adhesion is a proper Effect of the Object working it in his Understanding and that therefore he could not have this firm Assurance or Adhesion to it unless the Thing were indeed such in it self This every Intelligent man sees is his only way to come off but this he neither has attempted to do nor ever shall be in the least able to compass till he retract his costly anger against First Principles his drollish Abuses against Demonstration his Accusing the things of Invisibleness instead of blaming his own bad Eyes and lastly his miscall'd Firm Principle which makes all built upon it no better than empty Contradiction Yet if he pleases to shew us that the Object doth rationally assure him the thing is so by affording such proofs as of their own nature are able to make us assent firmly to it as a Truth and not only incline us towards it as a Likelihood let him go to work Logically that being the proper Science in this case and shew us how and by what virtue any proof of his is able to effect this and I promise him faithfully to respect and treat him with a great deal of Honour though his performance comes off never so short But I foresee three Insuperable difficulties lie in his way first that he sees his Cause cannot bear it for which he still blames the Nature of the Thing Next that the deep Study or the most Learned Science of Elegant Expressions so totally possesses his Mind it will not let Logick have any part in his thought And lastly if it does yet he may hap to meet there with some unelegant Terms of Art which will quite fright him from his business and make him forswear the most evident Truths in the world § 9. But he hath only skirmish'd hitherto now â—he comes to close Dispute and will prove that take Faith how I will he does not in these words avow the possible falshood of Faith and that he may not fail to hit right on my meaning of the word Faith he divides the Text and gives us many Senses of that word those as ridiculous as he could imagine which would make the unexamining Reader judg verily that I were out of my Wits to take the word Faith in such absurd meanings and then hold it Impossible to be False This done he shews himself a most Victorious Conquerour and Confutes me powerfully from pag. 10. to pag. 13. At least would not Dr. T's best Friend so he were but any thing Ingenuous think he might safely swear that either he did not know what I meant by the word Faith when I say Faith is impossible to be False or else candidly acknowledg that he is strangely Insincere to counterfeit so many Imaginary Tenets and then one by one confute them Read them here from the middle of pag. 10. to pag. 12. and then reflect on my words found in my Introduction to Faith Vindicated pag. 17 which are these To ask then if Faith can possibly be False is to ask whether the Motives laid by Gods Providence for Mankind or his Church to embrace Christian Faith must be such as of their own Nature cannot fail to conclude those Points True and to affirm that Faith is not possible to be False is equivalently to assert that those Motives or the Rule of Faith must be thus absolutely Conclusive Firm and Immovable Hence is seen that I concern not my self in this Discourse with how perfectly or imperfectly divers Persons penetrate those Motives or how they satisfie or dissatisfie some particular Persons since I only speak of the Nature of those Motives in themselves and as laid in second Causes by Gods Providence to light Mankind in their way to Faith To which the dimness of Eye-sight neglect to look at all or looking the wrong way even in many particular men is Extrinsecal and Contingent Observe Gentlemen what exquisite Care I took to declare my meaning so perfectly that the common regard to Readers and his own Reputation might restrain Dr. T. from imposing wilfully a wrong sence to which habitual fault I knew he had otherwise most strong Inclinations Observe next that all his confute is wholly built on this known mistake Hence his objecting the weak Understandings of some Believers which is both forestal'd by the woâ—ds now cited declaring that I only speak of the Motives to light Mankind or the Church to Faith and what they are of their own Nature or in themselves not how perfectly or imperfectly others penetrate them besides I put this very Objection against my self Faith Vindicated p. 164. and answer it which he never acknowledging it was mine puts here as his own against me without taking the least notice of my Answer there given The last meaning he gives of the word Faith which is the Means and Motives to Faith is nearest to mine But because he leaves out the consideration of their being ordained by God for his Church as also of what they are in their own Nature or by virtue of the Object and speaks of them only as in the worst Subject viz. in weak Persons which penetrate them very little he misses wholly my Sense and so impugns me nor at all but skirmishes with his own shadow For what kind of consequence is this St. Austin says Some Persons are sav'd not by the quickness of their Vnderstandings but by the Simplicity of their Belief Therefore
more blasphemous against Essential Truth and Goodness Farther I declare 't is my Tenet that notwithstanding this failure in some particulars yet I hold that the Generality of the Faithful are so familiarly acquainted with the nature of Testifying Authority as to know grosly and confusedly by means of Practical Self-evidence that 't is a certain Rule to proceed upon and thence either discern themselves if they be very prudential or else are capable to be made discern who proceed upon that Rule who not Hence also I hold that Tradition or Testifying Authority is the best provision that could be made for all Mankind to receive Faith upon it being the most familiarly and most obviously knowable and penetrable by all sorts that can be imagin'd and far more than Languages Translations Transcriptions on which the Letter-Rule depends Lastly I hold that what is thus practically self-evident that is known in gross and confusedly by the Vulgar is demonstrable to the Learned who scan with exact Art the nature of those Causes which wrought constantly that certifying Effect in the Generality and find out according to what precisely they had that Certifying Virtue which found it will be the proper Medium to demonstrate the Certainty of that Authority by This is my true Tenet which my Prevaricating Adversary perpetually mistakes because he will do it and he therefore will do it because it must be done In mala causa as St. Austin sayes non possunt aliter § 12. He goes about to argue pag. 15. from the End of Faith and alledges that a freedome from seeing just cause of doubting the Authority and Sense of Scripture may make one believe or really assent to the Doctrine of it live accordingly and be saved By which I conceive he judges a Christians life consists in moving ones Legs Arms or Hands for 't is enough to stir us up to External Action that the motive be onely Probable but if a Christian's life be Spiritual consisting in interiour Acts of the Understanding and Will as a vigorous Hope and a fervent Love of unseen and unconceiveable Goods with other Virtues subservient to these and all these depend on Faith as their Basis and Faith depends for its Truth which gives it all its efficacie on the Rule of Faith I doubt it will scarce suffice to work these Effects heartily if Learned men speak out candidly and tell the Christians they are to govern that notwithstanding all they can discern they cannot see absolutely speaking that Christian Faith is a certain Truth but only a high likelihood a more Credible Opinion or a fair Probability It must therefore be beyond all these and so impossible to be false The main point then that Dr. T. ever misses in is this that he still omits to state what certainty is due to Christian Faith and its Grounds per se loquendo or according to its own Nature and the interiour Acts it must produce and the difficulties it must struggle through and overcome even in the Wisest and most Rational persons who are to be satisfied of its verity and so embrace it and considers it perpetually according to what per accidens that is not Essentially belongs to it but Accidentally may consist with it without utterly destroying its Nature that is he considers it not as found in those Subjects where it is in its true and perfect state or freed from all alloy of Irrationality but as in those where 't is found most defectively and imperfectly or as it most deviates from its right nature And this he is forc'd to do because he sees that should he treat of it as it ought to be or according to what it would be by virtue of the Motives laid by the Giver of every perfect Gift to bring mankind to Faith singly and solely consider'd without mingling the Imperfection of Creatures with his otherwise most powerful and wise Efficiency the Grounds of Christian Faith must be able to subdue to a hearty Assent the most Learned and wisest portions of Mankind which they could never do while they are seen by them to be Possible to be False § 13. He argues that Infallibility is not necessary to the Nature of Faith because this admits of Degrees that being the highest degree of Assent of none Besides Infallibility is an absolute Impossibility of being deceived and there are no degrees in absolute Impossibilities I answer that let a thousand Intellectual Creatures Angels or Men know and that Infallibly too the self-same-Object yet they all know it in different degrees of perfection not by means of knowing more in the Object for we will suppose it one single point but intensively or better on the Subjects side because of the different perfection of their understanding Power penetrating more clearly the self-same-Object To conceive this better let us reflect that the self-same thing may be corporally seen by several men and each infallibly know what it is by means of that sight yet because one of them has better Eyes than another one sees more clearly what 't is the other less Also the Blessed Saints and Angels in Heaven differ from one another in glory or in greater and lesser degrees of the blissful Vision that is one sees the Divine Essence better another not so well yet the Object being one Indivisible formality one cannot see more than another wherefore their great degree of Glory consists in this that one penetrates it better and as it were sinks it deeper in the knowing Power than another does which springs out of the several dispositions of the Subject or the antecedent Love of God which when 't is greater it more intimately and closely applies the Divine Object to the ferventlyâ—addicted Power Again on the Objects side there may be in some senses several degrees even of Absolute Impossibilities First because of the greater disproportion of the Object to the Power As put case it be Impossible that twenty men should lift such a weight 't is good sense to say if twenty men cannot lift it much less can two or if ten men cannot possibly resist the force of five hundred much less can they resist ten thousand of equal strength Next because one of the Impossibles depends upon another aâ— if be impossible the Conclusion should be False 't is more Impossible the Premisses should be so and yet more that the very First Principles should or thus 't is Impossible 2 and 3 should not make â— yet 't is more impossible God who is Self-existence should not be because in these the later Impossibility which depends on the formeâ— is onely Impossible by Consequence though still absolutely such that is were not at all Impossible if that which grounds it were not so Whence is seen that unless Dr. T. will say that all Created Understandings are of the self-same pitch of Excellence he must say that even supposing â—he self-same Object or Motive apt to assure Infallibly one may better penetrate it and so be more
Infallibly Certain on the Subjects side than another And thus in the same Person his Faith may be come more Lively than formerly according as he renders it more Express to his Thoughts and better dinted or imprinted in them which is done two manner of ways Habitually by often thinking on the Points which way is Proper to the Vulgar or Knowingly by penetrating it's Grounds still better and better and so making those Judgments solider and firmer 'T is seen also that one Object maybe justly said to be more Impossible to be false than another because that other is not at all such but by virtue of it and dependence on it according to that Axiom Quod per se est tale est magis tale What is so of it self is more or more perfectly such than what is such by means of another and with good reason for being impossible to be false solely by dependence on another 't is consequently of it self possible to â—e false Yet this Possibility can never be reduc'd into Act because that Object or Truth is never found unconnected with that other on which it depends but ever most intimately united with it and so engaging it's verity § 14. Pag. 18. Dr. T. endeavours to acquaint us with the Notion of Moral Certainty which I should be glad to learn for I am not ashamed to own that I never understood it perfectly in my life Some mean one thing by it another means another thing as their Fancy leads them now I for my part declare that I have no distinct notion or knowledge of any thing that I cannot define nor can I define that the limits or bounds of whose Nature I see not nor I am confident any man living I wish Dr. T. better success Moral Certainty says he is sometimes taken for a high degree of Probability which can onely produce a doubtful Assent He means I suppose such an Assent as is a Doubt or Suspending of Assent that is such an Assent as is no Assent I wish Dr. T. would go to School a while to honest Dame Nature and learn his Hoâ—n-book of First Principles and not thus ever and anon commit such bangers To doubt signifies to fear a thing is not true or not not to dare to assent to it that is not to assent and so a doubtful Assent is not Assenting Assent that is an Assent which is not an Assent He proceeds Yet it is also frequently us'd for a firm and undoubted Assent to a thing upon such Grounds as are fit fully to satisfie a prudent man Here are many things worth remark if one had leasure And first what means an undoubted Assent 'T is the Thing properly speaking is undoubted or not-doubted of and not the Assent But that 's but a slip of word I conceive by the word yet which introduces it he means an undoubtful Assent onely he fear'd the Inelegancy of the word in opposition to the doubtful Assent here spoken of and because speaking properly the opposit to Doubt is Hope an Vndoubtful Assent means a Hopeful Assent which since Doubting speaks a Disinclining to assent or judge the thing so and Hoping an inclining to it very fairly gives us a second dish of an Assent which is no Assent for Inclining only to be is not being such and so Inclining to Assent how strong soever it be is in reality no Assent Well Dr. T's resolution against Identical Propositions was certainly the most fatal bolt that ever was shot making him discourse like the man that said he had three Lights in him a great Light a little Light and no Light at all Next I would know what grounds are fully fit to satisfy a prudent man One man likes some Grounds others like others A sleight proof from Scripture likes some man better than the Practice of the Church the Consent of Mankind or the clearest Demonstration another I mean the Atheist likes a plausible Reason that sutes with and takes fancy better than all of them together A third likes Nonsense prettily exprest better than the clearest Truths unelegantly deliver'd A fourth values nothing that is produc'd to ground Assent but what when examin'd subsists by engaging First Principles and bears the Test of right Logick My Friend on the other side bids defiance to First Principles and Logick too and is all for Likelihoods more Credible Proofs Fair Probabilities Doubtful or rather Hopeful Assents Yet there want note now in the world esteem'd sober Persons who judge all these to be Prudent Men. Where then is this Prudent Man that we may take measure of his pitch and fit him with Grounds for any thing yet appears 't is as easie to fit the Moon with a Coat There are many prudent men among the Protestants who judge the Scripture's Letter interpreted by private Wit is a competent Ground for Faith There are other prudent men among Catholicks who judge the Contrary Nay more there are questionless amongst Turks and even Heathens divers men of grert Natural Prudence and we can only mean such a Prudence antecedently to the Illumination of Faith and they too have Grounds fit fully to satisfie them for they doe actually satisfie them so that they see not the least Reason to doubt of what they profess and so according to Dr. T's discourse these too have moral Certainty of what they hold Wherefore unless we could state what 's meant by a prudent man we can never come to understand what is meant by Dr. T's moral Certainty nor consequently when Faith is Certain when not nay which is worse if moral Certainty be that which he appoints as sufficient for Faith and for any thing appears by his words Turks Heathens and all Hereticks have the same since they have such Grounds as do fully satisfie prudent men it will follow that they may have as good Grounds as Christians have at least that no man can tell who have right Grounds of Faith who not since this notion of what is fit fully to satisfie a Prudent man has no determinate limits to state the nature of this mock-Certainty Besides 't is common in the course of the world and I have divers times observ'd it my self that two persons may contest about some passage even in humane affairs as when any thing is by a strange surprize or forgetfulness lost or to seek each of them may seriously protest they are morally Certain of it each may alledge Reasons they may be both prudent men too and both be fully satisfi'd with their Reasons and yet the plain discovery of the thing may shew afterwards that one of them prov'd to be in the wrong Now if this happen in a Controversie for example between a prudent Socinian and a prudent Protestant how must it be decided Both alledge Scripture each sees no Reason to doubt of his own Interpretation and both are fully satisfi'd that is both have Dr. T's moral Certainty and so both must be in the right if his Grounds be in the
right that is both sides of the Contradiction must be True if Dr. T's Faith be True built only on moral Certainty which would utterly destroy his enemies Identical Propositions I would gladly know at least why these two equally matcht Moral Certainties shall not make a drawn battel of it or how it shall be determin'd on whose side the Certain Truth stands I doubt it will be the hardest task that ever was for him to make it even morally Certain there is a Trinity for this cannot be done but by manifesting the Letter of Scripture bears no shadow of Reason on the Socinians side otherwise that seeming Reason may be a just cause for a Protestant to suspend perhaps doubt of it and so not be morally-Certain § 15. The meaning then of these word Moral Certainty being so Indeterminate that Dr. T. himself cannot tell what to make of it no wonder our Divines cannot agree about it If he says he understands it very well I desire to put it to the Trial by producing any one Proposition held by him to be but morally-Certain and shew us Logically Art being the Test of Nature how or by virtue of what it's Terms hang together or to make out according to his own notion of Moral Certainty that not one Prudent man in the world does or can be dissatisfi'd with it What I conceive is meant generally by Moral Certainty is a high Probability or some great Likelihood which being an insufficient Ground for Faith for we are to profess and dy for the Truth of our Faith and not for its Likelyhood onely â— judge the name of it ought not to be heard when we speak of the Certainty due to Faith and itâ— Grounds unless it be signifi'd at the same time that 't is us'd Catachrestically or abusively to mean Absolute Certainty § 16. I expect D. T. will instead of making out the nature of this Chimeâ—ical Certainty run to Instances for example that of our being morally certain of the Sun 's rising to morrow and such like But first I contend he is not Certain of this his own Instance If he be let him give his Grounds of Certainty for it and go about to prove or conclude the night before that it will I doubt much he will when he comes to try it find himself gravel'd and confess with me that 't is only highly Likely 'T is well he did not live in Joshuah's or Ezekiah's time and tell them the day before that Moses his Law was only as Certain as that the Sun would not stand still or go backwards the next day for if so I doubt much those who had heard and believ'd him would have taken a just scandal at their Faith seeing Points held equally Certain as it prove actually False Again what more Certainty has he now of the Suns rising again within 18 hours after his setting than they in those days were the day before that it would not go back or stand still and yet we see they were not Certain of it for we know they had been mistaken in it and that Judgment an Error By which we see that D. T's moral Certainty means such a Certainty w ch as appear'd by this Event was Vncertain or such a Certainty as was Certain peradventure Now this nonsence has no harm in it but that 't is opposite to an Identical Proposition What 's Certain is Certain which weighs not with Dr. T. who has renounc't all First Principles In a word our B. Saviour has beforehand prevented all such Instances by â—elling us that Heaven and Earth shall fail but his Words shall not fail Intimating that the whole Fabrick of the World much more some one great part of it is tottering and unstable in comparison of the unchangeable nature of Truth and such all good Christians are to profess their Faith and be ready to dy to attest it § 17. Having thus done more than Miracle and establisht MORAL CERTAINTY which were not its self were it not unestablisht â—e procceeds p. 18. to overthrow Infallibility alledging that the Vnderstanding cannot be absolutely secur'd from all possibility of mistake but either by the perfection of its own nature which he thinks all Mankind but Mr. S. have hitherto granted that it could not or by supernatural Assistance I desire he would not stretch my Tenet beyond the bounds my self give it I never said that Human Understandingâ— could not possibly be mistaken in any thing at all but only in Knowledges built on Sensations in Knowing the Truth of First Principles in Knowing while left to Nature till Speculation for which they are too weak put them into a puzzle by Practical Self-evidence confusedly and in common something belonging to some natures daily converst with and lastly some Learned men in diverse deductions of Evident Reason for example in diverse Propositions in Euclid But that which our Subject restrains it to being about the Infallible Conveyance down of Faith is the First of those viz. Infallibility of our Sensations for once putting this Tradition is an Infallible Rule Speaking then of this which is all my present purpose requires I am so far from being the only man who holds it that Dr. T. excepting Scepticks if perhaps he be not one of that Sect is I think the only man that ever deny'd it Are not both of us infallibly certain that we Eat Drink Write and Live or did any but a mad-man ever think seriously that sober Mankind abstracting from Disease in some particulars might possibly be deceiv'd in such Knowledges as these Are not our Senses contriv'd naturally as apt to convey Impressions from the Objects to the Knowing Power I speak not of the different degrees of perfection necessarily annext to each but as to the main so as to be sufficient for use and needful Speculation as any other Causes in Nature are to do their proper Effects Have they not also as little Contingency in them and that Contingency as easily discoverable by the Standard of circumstant Mankind with whom they converse as in Iâ—terical Persons and such like This being so I affirm that the Basis on which our Rule of Faith is built viz. Natural Knowledges is more secure than any part of Nature since naturally 't is Impossible Mankind can err in these and whereas we are not Certain but it may in some Conjuncture become God's Infinite Wisdom and Goodness to exert his Divine Omnipotence and alter the course of Nature even in considerable portions of it as in the Instances given of the Sun 's standing still and going back the Universal Deluge and such like yet in our case 't is Impossible beeausâ— the altering Nature's course in such as these were directly to create False Judgments or Errour in Mankind of which 't is Impossible Essential Wisdom Goodness and Truth should be the Immediate and peculiar Cause Naturally therefore it cannot happen nor yet Supernaturally For though taking the proportion between Gods Omnipotence singly considered and the
Object 't is possible or within the compass of Gods power to make all Mankind err yet taking in his other Attributes which determin his Omnipoence to do only what 's Wise and Good and according to Truth it cannot be God should either will or do it and so it cannot be effectively done at all § 18. He objects that the Church of Rome challenges Infallibility upon no other account but that of Supernatural Assistance I answer the Church had her Rule of Faith left to her hand by Jesus Châ—ist who founded and constituted her and found it not out by Speculative Reason Whence 't is not the proper Concern of a Church to discourse very particularly about the manner and nature of the Rule of Faith but of Speculative Divines who look into the natures of things and there find the Reasons of those Truths God has barely told us Next 't is only of Faith that Christ has promis'd to assist his Church but whether Supernaturally only or also by Natural means is no where defin'd my Tenet is that he assists his Church both ways as I at large defend in Surefooting and that the best strength of Nature and Grace are both of them exerted to their utmost to ascertain the Infallible Authority on whose Testimony we receive our Faith But with this difference that the Supernatural Assistance exceedingly comforts Faith in those who are True Believers already and the Natural Assistance as far as concerns the due Satisfaction of Reason informs the Understanding of those who yet discern no Supernatâ—rality at all in the Church and have nothing but their Natural Reason to guide themselves by without which I see not how either a Circle is avoidable or rational Satisfaction to such men possible for were not a Natural Assistance admitted to introduce the knowledge of the other Supernaturals would be the way to Supernaturals and Faith the means to arrive at Faith which would confound the Means with the End I wish Dr. T. would leave off this new way of confuting by telling me still I am the only man or first man that said he should have said proov'd such or such a thing which cavil if he answer not my Argument as he seldome thinks of that duty signifies either nothing at all or else a high Commendation to me as improving Knowledge to some degree But more of this point when I come to defend my Method § 19. Hitherto then Dr. T. has given us no Absolute Certainty either of the Existence of a Deity oâ— of Christian Faith as far as it depends on the Letter of Scripture but onely such miscall'd Certainty as means Vncertainty whence his pretended Certainty of its Sence falls to the Ground But let us see how he vindicates the Certainty of Faith and himself not to hold it possible to be false by ascertaining at least the Sense of it supposing the Letter were right He tells us pag. 20. That as for the Sense of Books 't is plainly impossible any thing should be delivered in such clear and Certain words as are absolutely incapable of any other Sense And what 's the natural Sequel of this appli'd to Scripture but that 't is plainly Impossible Faith built on thaâ— Sense or rather which is that Sense should not be possible to be False and consequently the Letter can never be a competent Rule of Faith whereas in this way of conveying iâ— down by Living Voice and Practise of the Church that is â—y Cateâ—hizing publike Preaching private Discoursing consonant Living 't is made so manifest to the Generality what was held in each year immemediately before that no prejudice can make them all so mad as either to mistake or misrepresent it as 't is for Example in England for the Generality of Protestants to err or impose this this year upon the Belief of England that last year they held and practic'd Prayer for the Dead or assisting at the Christian Sacrifice By which 't will be easily seen whether of us two makes better provision for the Certainty of Faith He proceeds Yet notwithstanding this the meaning of them may be so plain as that any unprejudic'd and reasonable man may certainly understand them Let him apply this to Scripture the discourse stands thus All men are unreasonable and prejudic't who take not Scripture in my sense If this be not the meaning of his words let him tell us by what other Maxims he guides himself in judging who are such when he tells us any unprejudic't and rersonable man may certainly understand the Sense of Scripture If he can assign no other reason of those mens Faultiness but their disagreeing with him in the meaning of Scripture I doubt his Readers will scarce believe him that all Socinians and other Sects who differ from him in main Points are Passionate and Prejudic't If an indifferent man stood by while D. T. and a Socinian disputed and heard one of them cite place after place compare one place to another and use all the means he could to make out the right sense of the words and the other use the self-same Method and yet nothing concluded decisively as it never was in this way of managing disputes I fear he would be little the nearer satisfaction and embracing Dr. T's Tenet upon his saying that his Adversary was passionate and prejudic't He parallels the Certainty of Scripture Sence to that of Euclids Definitions and Axioms in the sense of which men are universally agreed and think themselves undoubtedly Certain of it and yet the words in which they are exprest may possibly bear another sence He trifles Let him show me the Generality of Scripturists as unanimously agreeing in the sense of Scripture as Geometricians do in those Axioms and Definitions or let him leave of bringing such disagreeing Parallels importing that there are not men of all Sides and Sects as willing to see Truth in things belonging to their eternal Salvation as to see the Truth in Mathematicks How many Interpretations are there of This is my Body and of those many Texts which signifie Christ to be true God Both of main Concern the understanding them wrong being on one side Idolatry on the other Blasphemy Yet we have Eminent Learned men Acute Wits Excellent Linguists Good Logicians and Historians and lastly very great Scripturists who compare also place to place yet all this notwithstanding nothing is decided finally still they Debate Write Quote Interpret and will do while this Method is taken to the Worlds End Does Dr. T. find such a disagreement amongst men Learned in the Mathematicks in the understanding the Axioms and Definitions of Euclid Add that those men in other matters are not Passionate or Prejudic't but are held Prudenâ— and Sober by great portions of Mankind nor do they lose their Repute amongst Indifferent Judges as renouncing their Manhood or perfectly deserting Reason that is they are not held Madmen for not adhering to such a determinate Sense of those places which argues
evidently that they renounce not Evidence and that the Scriptures Letter thus manag'd is not apt to ascertain them at all and so no Rule Yet he gives us one great Reason as he calls it why men do not agree in the Sense of Scripture as well as in the others because their Interests and Lusts and Passions are more concern'd So that according to Dr. T. a man who is to be guided by his Pastors and Teachers cannot be Certain of the Sense of Scripture nor consequently of Faith unless he can look into the hearts of men which is proper to God alone and discern who are Passionate prejudic'd Interessed and Lustful Again this Reason is found on either side to a great degree for were not those Axioms and Definitions so Evident that absurd men would incur the shame of Mankind to deny them there wants no temptation of Interest and passion to make Authors go about to control and contradict the Writings of others to gain themselves applause and credit But if this be one great Reason of disagreement in the Sense of Scripture I would gladly know what are the other great Reasons But of these we hear nothing and there is good Reason why for since his one great Reason is the ill-disposedness of the persons the other great Reason must be the defectiveness of the Thing that is the Inability of Scripture's Letter by reason of its Inevidence to private Understandings to make them agree in one Sense of it which manifestly makes it unfit to be a Rule of Faith § 20. To Conclude the Summe of Dr. T's Vindication of himself from making according to his Grounds Faith possible to be False amounts to this He produces words to disprove it which manifoldly confess it he endeavours all along to shew that Infallible Certainty cannot be had of either Scripture's Letter or Sense that is he grants that the whole world may be deceiv'd though all the Causes be put to secure them in the Ground of Faith or denies that absolutely speaking Faith is Certainly-True Again loath to speak out to that point candidly he shuffles about and puts upon his Adversary divers odd and ridiculous acceptions of the word Faith omitting the right one which was given to his hand Lastly being to give account what kind of Certainty he allow'd to Faith he gives such a Notion of it as signifies nothing and has all the Marks of Vncertainty imaginable taking his measure of Certainty which ought to proceed from the Object or Proof from the Subject's perswasion or adhesion to it which common Experience testifies may indifferently be found in Truths and Falshoods and Common sense confutes Nature telling every man that my Assent is not therefore Certain because I do not doubt it see not the least cause of doubt am fully perswaded and verily think so but because the Thing is seen indeed to be so or because the Proof is Conclusive Either then let him bring such Proofs and own and shew them to be such or he leaves his Cause in the lurch and his Credit which he is here defending unclear'd by yielding Faith possible to be absolutely False that is for any thing any man living knows actually such DISCOURSE VII In what manner Dr. T. replies to FAITH VINDICATED § 1. DR T. has no Fellow nor his way of Confute any parallel Not to provoke the peevishness of malice too far and yet follow home my blow more fully and yet withal to uphold the Efficacie of Faith grounded on the just Conceit of its Absolute Certainty I writ a a Book call'd Faith Vindicated in behalf of Christian Faith in Common shewing the absolute Certainty or Security from Error of that kind of Assent provided it be grounded on those Motives God had left to settle his Church and by it Mankind in Faith as I declared my self in my Introduction It pretended Demonstration from the beginning to the end and had not one drollish or unsober expression in it Take a Map of it in a few words I conceiv'd my self debtor both Sapientibus and Insipientibus and hence the Concern being common to all Christians amongst the rest to Speculative Divines I resolv'd to prove it by Arguments sutable to every Capacity To the more Intelligent to the end of the Third Eviction to the Middle or Prudential sort to the end of the Fifth· and to them of the lowest Capacity in the last every one being enabled by Tradition or Education to comprehend what the common Language and Practice of Christianity teaches them as to Speechees and Carriages appertaining to Faith I begun after I had put two Postulatum granted by all Christians with Logical Arguments which I pursu'd at large because as 't is a common Trick in Sophisters and half Logicians to abuse that Excellent Art to elude the clearest Evidendences so it became a more necessary Duty in me to prevent by the closest Proofs fetch 't from almost all Heads imaginable that belong'd to that skill any misusages of its Maxims to patronize Falshood This could be no other than very Speculative and accordingly I declar'd in my Introduction what my Reader was to expect in Discourses of that kind nor will any man indu'd with common Sense wonder that I should use Logical Expressions when I make Logical Discourses or Terms of Art when I speak to Scholars These things reflected on let us see now what a dextrous way our Learned Confuter takes to answer that whole Book for he manifests here an intention to give it no other and to overthrow so many Demonstrations § 2. His first way of Confute is to pick out a leaf or two of the most Speculative part of that Treatise only intended for Scholars and apply it to the Understandings of those who are onely Sermon-pitch to whom because such Discourses are unsutable and withal too hard for him to answer hence he very politickly both gratifies the Fancies of those Readers and avoids himself the difficult task of answering the pressing Reason in it by playing the Wit when 't was dangerous to act the Scholar and making use of his constant Friend at a dead lift Drollery in stead of relying on the Patronage of Reason which as he experiences so often betrays and exposes hss weakness He runs on therefore a whole leaf or two in this jovial Career ere he can recover himself till even his own Friends who are not aware of the necessity admire at his endless Raillery and true to his Method neglects wholly the Sense and excepts mightily against five or six hard words namely potentiality actuality actuation determinative supervene and subsume which it seems puzzle him exceedingly for he professes to think them Mystical He calls the Discourse jargon Foolish and Nonsense which two last words he is ever most free of when his Reason is most at a loss He likens it to the Coptick and Slavonian Language talks of Astrology Palmistry Chymistry and what not and with such kind of stuff confutes it
Conjurers cry up He might proceed to confute him on this manner I have here Reader presented thee with a discourse which if we may believe Euclid is mathematically demonstrable A rare sight indeed Certainly the sacred names of Principles and Demonstrations were never so prophan'd by any man before Might not any one write a Book of such Jargon and call it Demonstration If he intended this stuff for satisfaction of the people as it seem'd by his writing it in Greek the vulgar Tongue he did he might as well have writ it in the Coptick or Sclavonian Language Yet I cannot deny but this is very sutable to the Principles of the Roman Church For why should not their Science as well as their Service be in an unknown Tongue Certainly his Talent does not lie for Science Learned men are less apt to admire Nonsense than the common people Neither Harphius nor Rusbrochius Dr. Faustus Frier Bungy nor the profound Mother Juliana or Mother Shipton ever spoke any thing charm more sensless and obscure He hath a style peculiarly fitted for Mysticks Magick For even in this parcel of stuff there are five or six words such as Isosceles Patallelograms Parallâ—lepiped Diameter Cylinder Eicasoedron which if they were but well mingled and discreetly ordered would half set up a man in that way and â—nable him to write as Mystical Magical a Discouâ—se as any man or the Devil himself would wish Thus Reader thou seest how true 'tis that Dr. T's method of Talking is none since I dare undertake take that let him and his Fellow-Conspirators in malice against Catholicks but resolve to Preach and Write as earnestly that Mathematicians are Conjurers as they do that Catholicks are Idolaters which of the two is the far easier to prove and the Method he observes in this Preface of his would equally serve to confute Euclid as it does me And the like force it would have against any Logical Metaphysical Natural Medicinal Rhetorical Poetical or even Grammatical Discourse Each have their Terms of Art proper to themselves which look odd and uncouth to the Vulgar and so are equally liable to be abus'd and rendred ridiculous to men whose practice is to read Sermons § 5. But can Dr. T. seriously think these words to be indeed so hard as he pretends The word Potential was familiar to us both when we were in our Accidence and talkt of the Potential Mood Also Actual and determin are very obvious I suppose then 't is their ending in those common Terminations ty tion and tiue which makes potentiality actuality actuation and determinative so insuperably hard As for Supervene and Subsume it may justly be wondred whether the difficulty lies in knowing what 's the signification of the Verbs Venio and Sumo or the Prepositions Super and Sub. But he means they are not trim and Elegant enough Alas good Gentleman I doubt there are some who complain of the Tenderness of their Ears when the true Reason is the Softness of their Heads But enough of this § 6. Let us now proceed to examine the true force of one of these Demonstrations which he most opposes with Drollery we shall see that it was both his concern to answer it and withal Impossible he should which joyn'd no wonder he endeavoured to evade thus it being the best shift he had All Logicians know that the Respondent by bringing a pertinent distinction evades granting the whole Proposition and is licâ—nc't to admit it but in part that is indeed to deny the former Proposition as it stood under an undistinguisht manner of expression Also that amongst Human Notions some are more potential that is more General than others and that those General Notions are divided or distinguisht into more particular ones by certain Inâ—eriour notions Adjectively exprest call'd Differences 'T is Evident likewise that since 't is Impossible there should be a House or a Man in Common only Individuals can exist that is only these have a Capacity or Power to Existence and consequently that Existence is related to them as their proper Act. All determining notions therefore that can belong to any nature or to that which has such a Nature in it or the Thing are presuppos'd to Existence and so it can admit no further Determination or any Differences and consequently the Predecate Existent can never be pertinently distinguisht wherefore it being Impossible to distinguish the Copula in case the Subject can be distinguisht as little as the other which I there prov'd it must follow that those Propositions which have in them such a Predicate must be admitted in their whole Latitude and simply as the words lie Seeing then Christians are bound to profess their Faith True as to those Points of a Trinity for example or Incarnation or that a Trinity or Incarnation Exist and the Predicate Existent can bear no Distinction dividing its simplest notion such as are morally hopefully in great Likelihood or such dwindling kind of Sceptical or half-Atheistical expressions it follows that it must be affirm'd and held that a Trinity or Incarnation absolutely is and consequently that 't is Impossible not to be whence follows that it being Blasphemy to say that God has made a rational Nature or a Nature to assent upon motives and then commanded it to be not-rational that is to assent beyond the Motive whieh is as to that degree of Assent which is beyond without a Motive we must conclude that however Created understandings fall short in penetrating them or Miscarry in discoursing them the Grounds of our holding thus as laid by God must be absolutely Conclusive or impossible not to conclude the thing is and not only morally Conclusive morally Certain great Likelihoods Fair Probabilitys freeing only from Actual doubt and such like Wherefore if Dr. T. would approve himself worthy to Write or Discourse concerning the Grounds of Faith he ought to profess and produce such since nothing else reaches the nature of Faith or can rationally ground the the Obligation impos'd by God himself of professing and holding that the Thing absolutely is But he was conscious to himself he had none such or absolutely Conclusive therefore he was forc't to play the Droll and mock at the close Reasons that would oblige him to it instead of answering them § 7. This is the Argument which our great Divine who is still most merry when he should be most serious likens to Astrology Palmistry and Chymistry and sayes that Arguments from these could not have been more ridiculous than to argue that what is True is Imprssible to be False from the Nature of Subject Predicate and Copula For sayes he be the Propositions True or False these are of the same Nature in both that is they are Subject Predicate and Copula Which learned Answer is built on two manifest Falsifications of that whole Discourse One that I am meerly proving or concluding there that what is True is Impossible to be False whereas my ultimate Intent in
the former Proof as put down by himself here pag. 24. is to conclude it Impossible that THESE Points of Faith should be False that is SVCH points as express only the An est of a thing and so have for their Predicate Existent as I exprest my self in that Argument And my Conclusion of the 2 d. Proof is this as put down by himself here pag. 25. 'T is impossible therefore that what is thus affirm'd to be True that is in such words as can bear no pertinent distinction should in any regard be affirm'd possible to be False the impossibility of distinguishing the Predicate pertinent ly excluding here all possibility of diverse respects Is this barely to go about to prove that what 's True is Impossible to be False or rather that no different regards or respects can in such Faith-propositions as these be made use of to elude or diminish the granting their Intire Truth The Proposition An Ethiopian is black is but in part True because it can bear diverse respects or regards to distinguish it pertinently viz. according to his Teeth and his Skin But in those Propositions which have Existent for their predicate no imaginable regards can be found appliable to it so to distinguish it pertinently The next Falsification of my Intention is to pretend that I argue barely out of the nature of Subject Copula and Predicate whereas by my whole Discourse 't is most evident that I argue precisely from their being such Subjects and Predicates that is such as could bear no pertinent Distinction diminishing the Integrity of their Truth In a word the Question was about the Truth or which is all one Impossibility of Falshood in Faith-Propositions and I was there treating it Logically I would gladly then have any sober and Intelligent man inform me why it was not as proper and pertinent for me to argue out of the nature of Propositions in which only Truth is found and particularly out of the nature of such Propositions that is those who have such Subjects such Predicates in them as it is for a Mathematician writing a Discourse of Trigonometry to argue out of the nature of such a kind of Angle or a Triangular Figure Or why in so doing I can justly be thought to have deflected from the Rules or Method of exactest Art § 8. In a word had I in a Christian English Sermon stood very gravely repeating Sixteen verses out of a Heathenish Latin Poet or had I after I had so often mock't at others for bumbast Rhetorick and so indirectly extoll'd my self for my smooth style talkt of persons of a PROFLIGATE TEMPER as did Dr. T. here pag. 33. and pag. 163. Some idle Wit who had nothing else to do might perhaps have taken just occasion to sport himself with my imperfection But to mock at a Writer for using the Terms proper to the Art he is discoursing in seems to argue a very Profligate temper of Levity at least that I may say no worse § 9. Thus much for his first Answer to faith Vindicated consisting wholly of Drollery Neglects and other worse Faults His second is that the main of that Book being to prove that what 's True is Impossible to be False I oppose no body that â—e knows of in this matter I answer whoever pleases to run over the several Heads from which I argue in Faith Vindicated hinted briefly in the Margent will see that that which he pretends in a manner the only point is but once designedly made use of and very rarely toucht at in other places and that there are near forty Proofs of another nature though sometimes all Truths being connected they happen to be partly coincident into the same Sometimes also I suppose it but it bears no show of reason that most of my Book is spent in proving it But is it so clear that I oppose no body he knows of in proving that what is True is Impossible to be False Does not he know one Dr. T. That same person I suppose will tell us soberly that he can prove his Faith True relying on what he conceives to be the Letter and Sense of Scripture and yet speaking of the Certainty he had of both these he told us expresly Rale of Faith pag. 118. All this may possibly be otherwise that is that possibly he has neither right Letter nor right Sense of Scripture and consequently that what he affirms to be his Faith and True is notwithstanding Possible to be False The same man being to vindicate himself in this Pref. pag. 10. explain'd his meaning to be that he could not demonstrate those things so as to shew that the Contrary necessarily involves a Contradiction Now if he cannot prove that the Contrary to any thing involves a Contradiction he can never prove that contrary to be False nothing being False which clashes not by consequence at least with some First Principle or involves a Contradiction and as long as he cannot prove it False 't is possible to be True for any thing he knows and if the Contrary to Faith be affirm'd possible to be True Faith it self must be possible to be False and yet though his discourses make it Possible to be False the obligation incumbent on him as a Christian forces him 〈◊〉 affiâ—m that 't is notwithstanding True So that the Goodness of Christianity joyn'd with the Badness of his Grounds oblige him to grant equivalently though he be warier than to do it directly that what is True is possible to be False § 10. Now because 't is against the very grain of Rational nature to admir of such a palpable Contradiction if the word Truth be rightly and properly understood hence I am Certain he and such as he are provided with a dâ—stinction at the bottom of their hearts and only hold that their Faith is morally True that is some great Likelihood or as True as many things are of which we judg our selves morally Certain and did not in the least doubt of them yet oftentimes upon clearer Information have found our selves deceiv'd in our Opinion of them and the Thing to be False And that this is Dr. T's sentiment in this matter appears farther besides what hath been now said from his owning such a moral Certainty only for the Grounds of his Faith as frees one from doubt from his feeble and dwindlings Expressions of his Certainty of a Godhead and lastly from his blaming me pag. 29. for râ—sting contented with no less Certain Grounds than such as are absolutely Conclusive of the thing And how one who relies on his Speculative Proofs for the Renouncers of Tradition can have no claim to Practical Self-evidence can be thought to hold Faith absolutely True and yet disclaim himself and blame in others the pretending to such Motives as absolutely conclude or prove it to be True or how a man can with honesty affirm a thing is absolutely True and yet deny he is absolutely Certain of it I must confess
by some Natural and therefore more easily-known Assistances belonging to the Church those out of her are brought to the knowledge that she is Supernaturally assisted This is the Method I take in resolving Faith If any man can show me any other that is either more solid more orderly more connatural and agreeable to the nature of Faith or more honourable to Gods Church I shall as willingly and easily quit it as I now out of long and serious consideration embrace and firmly adhere to it But it appears plain to me that whoever contradicts this especially as to that point which occasion'd this Discourse must withal contradict a Maxim on which all Science is principally built namely that The Definition is more known than the Notion defin'd which I take to be understood not onely of the Whole Definition but of each single part of it for if any one part be more obscure than the thing defin'd the whole Definition as having that obscure part in it must necessarily be more obscure likewise Wherefore the Definition of a Church being Coetus Fidelium c. A Congregation of Faithful c. the notion of Faithful and consequently of Faith must either be more Known and Knowable than that of Church and consequently antecedent to it in right method of Discourse or the Definition would be obscurer than the Thing defin'd which if it be said I must confess I know not to what end Definitions are or why they do not rather conduce to Ignorance than to Science Add that True Faith being most Intrinsecal and Essential to a Church 't is by consequence a more forcible and demonstrative Argument to convince inevitably that such a Body in which 't is found is the True Church than is any Extrinsecal Mark whatsoever And if it be objected that Extrinsecal Marks are more easily Knowable I doubt not but in those who are led away by superficial Appearances there is some show of Reason in this Objection but I utterly deny that if we go to the bottom to settle the Absolute Certainty of any of these Marks any of them can be known at all much less more easily known if the Certainty of Tradition in visible and practical matters of Fact be questionable and that neither Scripture Fathers Councils Histories Monuments or any thing else of that nature can pretend to Absolute Certainty if Tradition be Uncertain or can pretend to be known unless Tradition be first that is more known as is shown particularly in the Corollaries to Sure-footing § 11. Hence is seen that the word Tradition is taken in a threefold sence For the Way of Tradition or Delivery taken at large For the Humane or Natural Authority of the Church as delivering And lastly for its Divinely-assisted or Supernatural Authority call'd properly Christian. When 't is taken in one fence when in another the nature of the matter in hand and the concomitant circumstances will evidently determine Onely we must note that these three Notions are not adequately contradistinct the later still including the former as Length Breadth and Depth do in Continu'd Quantity For The Humane Authority of the Church includes Tradition taken at large and adds to it the best Assistances of Nature as is shown Sure-f p. 82 83. The Supernatural Authority includes all found in the other two and adds to it the best Assistances of Grace as is particularly declared there from p. 84. to p. 93. So that all the Perfection of Tradition that is imaginable is to be found in that which we call Christian or in the Testifying Authority of Christs Church § 12. But because 't is still D. T 's best play to make use of Extrinsecal Exceptions so to divert the Readers Eye and avoid answering my Intrinsecal Reasons taken from the nature of the Things with which he is loth to grapple and since amongst the rest he is very frequent at this Impertinent Topick of my discoursing the Grounds of Faith after a different manner than other Divines do it were not amiss omitting many pregnant Instances which might be collected out of Dr. Stratford the Learned Author of Protestancy without Principles and many others to the same purpose to show how far he mistakes in this point by instancing in one Controvertist of eminent both Fame and Learning as any in his time one who writ before Rushworth's Dialogues appeared or perhaps were thought of and so cannot be suspected a Follower of that New Way as Dr. T. call it I mean Mr. Fisher. This able Controvertist in his Censure of Dr. White 's Reply p. 83 84 maintains that VNWRITTEN that is Oral and Practical TRADITION is the PRIME GROVND OF FAITH more Fundamental than Scripture and shows how his Adversary Mr. White the Minister grants in effect the same In his Answer to the nine Points p. 27. he concludes strongly that Scriptures are not the Prime Principles of Faith supposed before Faith which Infidels seeing to be True resolve to believe the Mysteries of Faith but onely are secondary Truths dark and obscure in themselves believed upon the Prime Principles of Faith Which words as amply and fully express that Scripture is not the express Rule of Faith as can be imagin'd For how should that have in it self the nature of an Intellectual Rule which in it self is dark and obscure Or how can that which is believed upon the Prime Principles that is partly at least upon the Ground or Rule of Faith be any part of that Rule since what 's believ'd is the Object of Faith and so presupposes the Rule of Faith Also in the beginning of his Argument he makes the Prim◠Principles of Faith or Vnwritten Tradition as he elsewhere calls it that is the same we mean by Oral and Practical evident in it self And p. 40. he puts the Question between us and Protestants to be what is the external Infallible Ground unto which Divine Inspiration moveth men to adhere that they may be settled in the true saving Faith Where first besides Gods grace moving us to every good Act which all Catholicks hold to be necessary there is requisite according to him an External Infallible Ground next that without such a Ground a man cannot be settled in true saving Faith Again p. 38 coming to lay the ground of knowing any Doctrine to be Apostolical he mentions none but onely Publick Catholick Tradition taught unanimously and perpetually by Pastors which p. 37. he calls a Rule Infallible and says that onely Hereticks charge it to be Fallible where also he explains the meaning of his Principle that The Apostolical Doctrine is the Catholick after this manner The Doctrine which is deliver'd from the Apostles by the Tradition of whole Christian Worlds of Fathers unto whole Christian Worlds of Children c. Of this Tradition which by the words now cited appears to be evidently the same I defend he affirms p. 38. that 't is prov'd to be simply Infallible by the very nature thereof and quotes Suarez to
say that 't is the highest degree of humane Certitude of which it may simply or absolutely be said Non posse illi falsum subesse that 't is IMPOSSIBLE IT SHOULD BE FALSE Can any thing be produc'd more expresly abetting my way of Discoursing the Grounds of Faith Nothing certainly unless it be that which immediately follows containing the reason why Tradition is by the very nature of it simply Infallible For says he Tradition being full Report about what was EVIDENT UNTO SENSE to wit what Doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publickly deliver'd unto the World it is IMPOSSIBLE it should be FALSE Worlds of Men CANNOT be uniformly mistaken and deceiv'd about a matter Evident to Sense and not being deceiv'd being so many in number so divided in place of so different affections and conditions IT IS IMPOSSIBLE they should so have agreed in their Tale had they so maliciously resolv'd to deceive the World Observe here 1. That he alledges onely Natural Motives or speaks onely of Tradition as it signifies the Humane Authority of the Church that is as taken in the same sense wherein I took it in my Method 2. He goes about to show out of its very nature that is to demonstrate 't is absolutely Infallible 3. He makes this Tradition or Humane Authority of the Church an Infallible Deriver down or Ascertainer that what is now held upon that tenure is the Apostles Doctrine or the first-taught Faith which once known those who are yet Unbelievers may infallibly know that Body that proceeds upon it to possess the true Faith and consequently infallibly know the true Church which being the very way I took in my Method and other Tâ—eatises it may hence be discern'd with how little reason Dr. T. excepts against it as so superlatively singular But to proceed Hence p. 40. he avers that the proof of Tradition is so full and sufficient that it convinceth Infidels that is those who have onely natural Reason to guide themselves by For though saith he they be blind not to see the Doctrine of the Apostles to be Divine yet are they not so void of common sense impudent and obstinate as to deny the Doctrine of Christian Catholick Tradition to be truly Christian and Apostolical And p. 41. The ONELY MEANS whereby men succeeding the Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures and Doctrines they deliver'd to the Primitive Catholick Church is the Catholick Tradition by Worlds of Christian Fathers and Pastors unto Worlds of Christian Children and Faithful People Which words as fully express that Tradition is the ONELY or SOLE Rule of Faith as can be imagin'd And whereas some hold that an Inward working of God's Spirit supplies the Conclusiveness of the Motive this Learned Writer p. 46 on the contrary affirms that Inward Assurance without any EXTERNAL INFALLIBLE Ground to assure men of TRVTH is proper unto the Prophets and the first Publishers of Christian Religion And lastly to omit others p. 47. he discourses thus If any object that the Senses of men in this Search may be deceiv'd through natural invincible Fallibility of their Organs and so no Ground of Faith that is altogether Infallible I answer that Evidence had by Sense being but the private of one man is naturally and physically Infallible but when the same is also Publick and Catholick that is when a whole World of men concur with him then his Evidence is ALTOGETHER INFALLIBLE And now I would gladly know what there is in any of my Books touching the Ground of Faith which is not either the self-same or else necessarily consequent or at least very consonant to what I have here cited from this Judicious Author and Great Champion of Truth in his Days whose Coincidency with other Divines into the same manner of Explication argues strongly that it was onely the same unanimous Notion and Conceit of Faith and of true Catholick Grounds which could breed this conspiring into the same way of discoursing and almost the self-same words § 13. Hence is seen how justly D. T. when he wanted something else to say still taxed me with singularity in accepting of nothing but Infallibility built on absolutely-conclusive Motives with talking such Paradoxes as he doubts whether ever they enter'd into any other mans mind that all mankind excepting J. S have hitherto granted that no Humane Vnderstanding is secur'd from possibility of Mistake from its own nature that my Grounds exclude from Salvation and excommunicate the Generality of our own Church that no man before J. S. was so hardy as to maintain that the Testimony of Fallible men which word Fallible is of his own adding mine being of Mankind relying on Sensations is Infallible that this is a new way and twenty such insignificant Cavils But the thing which breeds his vexation is that as my Reason inclines me I joyn with those who are the most solid and Intelligent Party of Divines that is indeed I stick to and pursue and explain and endeavour to advance farther those Grounds which I see are built on the natures of the Things Would I onely talk of Moral Certainty Probabilities and such wise stuff when I am settling Faith I doubt not but he would like me exceedingly for then his own side might be probable too which sandy Foundation is enough for such a Mercurial Faith as nothing but Interest is apt to fix DISCOURSE VIII In what manner Dr. T. Answers my Letter of Thanks His Attempt to clear Objected Faults by committing New Ones § 1. MY Confuter has at length done with my Faith Vindicated and my Methed and has not he done well think you and approv'd himself an excellent Confuter He onely broke his Jests upon every passage he took notice of in the former except one without ever heeding or considering much less attempting to Answer any one single Reason of those many there alledg'd and as for that one passage in which he seem'd serious viz. how the Faithful are held by me Infallible in their Faith he quite mistook it throughout Again as for my Method he first gave a wrong Character of it and next pretended it wholly to rely upon a point which he had sufficiently considered that is which he had readily granted but offer'd not one syllable of Answer to any one Reason in It neither My Letter of Thanks is to be overthrown next And First he says he will wholly pass by the Passion of it and I assure the Reader so he does the Reason of it too for he speaks not a word to any one piece of it Next he complains of the ill-Language which he says proceeded from a gall'd and uneasie mind He says partly true For nothing can be more uneasie to me than when I expected a Sober and Scholar-like Answer to find onely a prettily-worded Fardle of Drollery and Insincerity I wonder what gall'd him when he lavish'd out so much ill-language in Answer to Sure footing in which Treatise there was not one passionaâ—e word not one syllable
of Irony or any thing in the least of an impertinent nature but a serious pursuâ—t of the Point by way of Reason from the beginning to the end It seems there being in it no show of Passion it was the Reason of it which gall'd and was so uneasie to him What need was there to fall into such down right Rudeness as to call a Proposition of mine for which I offer'd my Reasons most impudent as did Dr. T. Rule of Faith p. 173. and in forty other places to make the Droll supply the Divine Was it not enough to answer the Reasons and let the World judge If he can show any such rude Language in my Letter of Thanks I here blame my self for it though it be responsum non dictum The worst word I use is charging hâ—m with falsifying my words and sense and it seems to me but hard Law if he may take the liberty to commit such Faults frequently and I may not so much as name his Faults when 't is my Duty as his Answerer to discover them § 2. He would clear himself of some Faults objected to do which he summons together all his best Arts First he picks out generally what can best bear a show of Reply Next he counterfeits a wrong Objection and lastly conceals in what manner and for what Reasons it was prest against him and by this means he hopes to escape blame § 3. First he would justifie himself for saying I went about to explain words because my self said I would examine well what is meant by them which seems equivalent to explaining them but he conceals what kind of explications I deny'd my self to mean and what he unjustly imputed twice in one page p. 3. namely Definitions he conceals how he would needs make me intend to define and yet most disingenuously put down himself at the same time my very words in which I disclaim'd any pretence to define but onely to reflect on some Attributes Predicates or Properties of what was meant by those words that is some pertinent and true Sayings concerning Rule and Faith which though they in part explicate them which I never deny'd yet they are far from looking like those compleat Explications call'd Definitions or even like those less artificial ones call'd Descriptions or like those Explications industriously compil'd which was the word I us'd to adequate the intire notion of the word under consideration For example Faith being there taken for Believing I come to discover it imports some kind of knowledge and then argue from it as such § 8. Again I affirm § 12. that the notion of the word Faith bears that 't is a Perfection of the Soul or a Virtue and thence discourse from it as it imports a Virtue Also § 16. I affirm that Faith mainly conduces to Bliss or Salvation c. and thereupon frame such a Discourse as is apt to spring out of such a Consideration Now all these in part explicate the Thing that is disclose or say some Truth that belongs to its nature yet not one of those sayings looks like an Explication of the word FAITH for this speaks an Intireness and an Adequateness to the notion explicated which 't is evident not one of these particular Affirmations or Sayings have the least show of He conceals also what was aâ—ledg'd Letter of Thanks p. 6. for indeed 't was not creditable that candid Scholars should reflect on it viz. that the word Faith being Equivocal and sometimes signifying Conscience sometimes Fidelity or Honesty c. I was necessarily to explain my self in what sense I understood it there and to declare that I took it for Belief and accordingly said Faith is the same with Believing which no sooner done but my pleasant Confuter will needs have that expressing or clearing its distinct sense in one single word to be a Definition too and plays upon it p. 3. with such affected Raillery as would make any sober man unacquainted with the Arts he uses to escape the duty of replying justly wonder But I shall easily satisfie our Readers what 's the true reason of this Carriage He thought it not fit to give one word of a sober and solid Reply to any one of thoâ—e many Reasons in that first discourse of mine built all upon those Affirmations or Predications now spoken of though this be the substantialest part of my Book and the Foundation of the rest on whâ—ch I ground rhe Properties of a Rule of Faith importing its Absolute Certainty but neglecting all my Premisses and Proofs he falls to deny my Conclusion and talk something against it in his own way So that 't is evident these Jests were to divert the Reader from the Point and so serve instead of a Confute to that whole Discourse A rare Method signifying thus much if candidâ—y and plainâ—y laid open and brought to Termâ— of Reason Because I can pretend any thing and play upon it with Ironies prettily exprest therefore my kind unexamining friends being inur'd to believe all I say to be Gospel let my Adversary say what he will he shall never be held to discourse solidly I charge him then afresh with an affected Disingenuity design'd to palliate hâ—s â—eglect of answering and let him know that as 't is manifest out of my Book I built not there those seven Properties of the Rule of Faith â—he Reasons for which he no where refutes on the Exactness Intireness or Goodness of any falsely-pretended Definition or Explication but on the Truth of those Propositions or the Agreement of those Attributes or Properties to the respective natures of Rule and Faith as their Subjects Also he may please to reflect that these being involv'd in the signification of those words by discovering and then dilating upon each of those singly I declare by consequence what is meant by those words as far as concerns my present purpose without compiling Explications or framing Definitions which onely were the Things I deny'd Lastly I charge this Insincerity far more home upon him now than ever that whereas in my Letter of Thanks from p. 5. to p 9. I had at large refuted these ridiculous Exceptions of his he in this very place where he pretends to speak particularly to my Letter of Thanks never takes notice of any one word there alledg'd but conceals all that had been produc'd to answer those Exceptions and bears himself as if no such Answers had been given This I must confess falls much short of either nibbling or gnawing and I am forc'd to declare that this constant carriage of his discovering too openly a perfect disregard of Truth abates in me much of that respect which otherwise his good Endowments would naturally give me § 4. His second Remembrance of my Letter of Thanks for though he says here p. 32. he must not forget it yet he haâ— been perfectly unmindful of it hitherto is that I say My Testimonies were not intended against the Protestants whereas my Book was writ
another ought to be allow'd the liberty of taking those words which express his Sentiments without putting them always in the very method and posture in which they are found in the Author while there is no ambiguity or doubt of the Authors sense in that place yet where 't is at least doubtful that the sence is otherwise as is manifest to any one who reads that Preface which as I alledg'd though Dr. T. never takes notice of it was wholly intended to evince the Absolute Certainty of Faith 't is not so fairly and clearly candid to introduce it as a most express saying of an Author and putting it directly upon him as his Saying whereas there at least needs a Discourse and the drawing some Consequences to prove it his Sense and Doctrine as will appear shortly and on the other side 't is opposite to the whole strain and scope of the Treatise in which 't is found Thus far then I conceive my self in rigorous Truth justifiable namely for imputing to Dr. T. that he left out the words Some understood for he did so and by so doing put that saying directly upon the Prefacer himself and expresâ— not that himself onely gather'd it by consequence from his words § 8. The chief and main part of the Charge is That the imputed Tenet is not the sence of the Prefacers words in that place and since he does not directly say it but 't is inferr'd onely from his approving an others Tenet either in whole or in part the Point is to be decided by such Reflexions as give us best Light of his Sense In order to which I alledge 1. That the whole Scope of that Treatise is aim'd to prove the quite contrary Position which Consideration being confessedly the best Interpreter of any Author to neglect that and catch at any little semblance in two or three particular words and then force upon that Author a Tenet perfectly contrary to what his whole Discourse is bent to prove favours too strong of a Wit resolv'd to cavil This I objected in my Letter of Thanks and this Dr. T. thought it his best play not to take notice of here for it was unanswerable and too evidently concluded him Injurious to the Prefacer First then I desire the Reader to reflect that there is not any show of relating the possibility there spoken of to the Divine Omnipotence but onely to the natures of Second Causes next that since every thing is what 't is made to be if those Causes can possibly work otherwise the thing may be otherwise These due Reflexions made and settled to those who have not leasure to read the whole Preface I offer these particularities P. 6. he blames those who bring not an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY or COACTIVE of the Vnderstanding and at the end of that § he presses those who say those Moral Motives are such as all are oblig'd to yield to to show how all can be bound to believe that which they evidently see MAY BE FALSE And which is remarkable these Expressions are found in the § immediately before the Citation D.T. so misrepresents whence 't is likely he could not but see and reflect on them Again p. 10. Else you will be forc'd to say that the very way God Himself has shewn to Heaven MAY POSSIBLY lead to Hell P. 13. The formal part of our Action unless it carry EVIDENCE and Certainty with it cannot be ventur'd on vvithout reproach Now as appears p. 12 he ayms this discourse at Actions belonging to Faith and answers that is opposes those who say the Reason or Ground of our Action need be no more but a high Probability or Contingent as a Thousand to One c. P. 14. This necessity binds God to put an INEVITABLE CERTITUDE in the Motives of Faith P. 16. There is NOTHING advanc'd towards the TRUTH of the ASSENT since this remains known that the Position MAY BE FALSE c. And to omit others p. 20. he puts the Question whether a desultory Assent which so agrees to this side that the Believer sees it FALLIBLE be sufficient for Christian Life and Action and coming in the next § to answer it he calls this an INCERTITUDE or defect of Certitude and declares that it makes a Religion either absolutely NONE or not a RATIONAL one but a MEER FOLLY These Citations duely reflected on it will appear very strange to any ingenuous man that Dr. T. could easily imagine an Author never noted till now to be given to contradict himself who so expresly in such and so many signal passages and in the whole Tenour of that Discourse nay the very immediately foregoing § manifests himâ—elf to hold that the Grounds of Faith cannot possibly lead men the wrong way that they must be Evident and Inevitably Certain that if it may be False we cannot assent to it at all as a Truth that if the Believer sees 't is Fallible 't is Irrational a meer Folly to hold it or else destructive of Religion 'T is strange I say to imagin that a Writer who is any thing in his wits should put forth a Treatise purposeâ—y to evince the Absolute Certainty or Impossibility of Falsehood in the Grounds and Motives to Faith and in it so often and so particularly avow it and yet in the same Treatise confess that what 's possible to be false is True Certainty and so a competent Ground to establish Faith on that is maintain the contrary Position to what he intended or pretended § 9. Having thus amply made good this part of my charge laid against Dr. T. Letter of Thanks p. 63. viz. That 't is the plain tenour of the Prefacers Discourse and the whole scope of that Preface to force the direct contrary Position to what Dr. T. would so disingenuously have put upon him of which he here takes no notice nor gives account why he hapt not to mind or regard that best way of interpreting an Authors words or not to see so many clear Expressions against his Interest rather than one obscure one seemingly for it we come next to consider the particular words in the place cited and see whaâ— strong temptation they could give Dr. T. to take him in a sense never intended notwithstanding so many pregnant Evidences to the Contrary § 10. The Prefacer said that Some understood by Moral Certainty such a Certainty as makes the Cause always work the same Effect though it take not away the Absolute Possibility of working otherways He adds afterwards that this ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true Certainty and the Authors considered as mistaken in undervaluing it And I must confess that to one who lights by accident on this single passage taken abstractedly from the rest and could reach no deeper than the Grammar or superficial placing of words it bears at first sight a show as if the Prefacer had approv'd that to be a True Certainty not onely when the Cause always works the same Effect as I
contradict what he sayes elsewhere it is no new or strange thing For this is not elsewhere or another place but the same place and the very next words to my Principles as is seen Sureâ—â— p. 60. The badness of which excuse shows he is inexcusable But this is not all that discourse ends not there but goes on at least two Leaves farther clearing that very point and in the process of it these words are found p. 63. To say it preserves None good is to question Christs wisdome c. A GREAT PART therefore would be virtuous c. A BODY of Traditionary Christians would still be continued p. 64. All which wayes and Objects thus easily and strongly appliable were frequently and efficaciously apply'd by the Education of Parents and the discipline and Oeconomy of the Church which brings those speculations to practice was ever and must needs reach the GENERALITY p. 65. must still continue in SOME GREAT MVLTITVDE All these expressions in the self-same Discourse and on the self-same Subject perfectly explicated my sense to be that that Plural word Believers did not reach all not one excepted This then is Dr. T 's habitual imperfection which runs through all his Mock-Answer to Sure footing He has no patience to take any intire Discourse of mine into his Consideration or grapple with the full import of it but he catches at some word at the beginning or by the way which seems easiest to be misinterpreted and whereas any candid man would guide himself by the annext or concomitant words and the whole scope of the Discourse Dr. T. is got beyond those too-ingenuous considerations and knowing very well as he exprest it Serm. p. 121. that nothing is so easie as to take particular Phrases and Expressions out of the best Book in the world and abuse them by forcing an odd and ridiculous sence upon them he exactly observes that method and abuses some Expression or word by forcing in despight of all the concomitant circumstances conspiring to rectifie him an odd and ridiculous sence upon it and then lest those rectifying passages annext should rise up in judgment against him and accuse him to the candid Reader of imposing a sense never intended by the Author 't is but accusing that Author of contradictâ—ng himself and all 's well Thus he us'd the Prefacer p. 30. me in this very place in these words If it contradict what he sayes elsewhere 't is no new or strange thing and Sure-footing in most of those places which he wilfully misconstrued throughout his Rule of Faith By this rare Stratagem gaining two notable Advantages against any Author whereas not so much as one was offered First making him talk ridiculously next making him contradict himself Both of them built upon another of Dr. T 's firm Principles which is this No Author shall be allow'd to interpret his own meaning but that shall be his sense which I please to put upon any particular Expression of his by adding words to it or otherwise glossing it as seems best for my advantage and if he offers to be so wary as to annex other words which would interpret his meaning to be otherwise he is a Fool and contradict himself Now though this Principle which grounds this Procedure be an odd one yet Dr. T. holds faithfully to what he has once espoused and were it now seasonable I durst undertake to reckon up twenty places in his Rule of Faith where he vaunts himself thus doubly victorious by making use of this one Artifice § 13. But in case that plural word had seem'd to him to infer an Vniversality why could he not content himself with giving his reason why it seem'd to follow thence Had he done this none could have accus'd him of falsifying for every one has liberty to offer his conceit and the reason why he judges so without meriting or incurring any harsher note than that of a mis-reasoner Whereas now his carriage exposes him justly to these Exceptions First That he went not about to infer or gather what he imposes but Rule of Faith p. 163. he makes me in express terms and directly say that greatest hopes and fears are strongly apply'd to the minds of ALL Christians whereas in my words put down by himself p. 162. no such thing as all is found annext to those words Next that the word all which he added was put in the same Italick Letter in an even tenor with those other words which were indeed mine as may be seen in the place now cited Thirdly that his whole Attempt in that place is meerly to confute that word All which himself had inserted as may be seen Letter of thanks p. 77. where I instanc'd in nine or ten places in which he combated that single word of his own adding and nothing else and as I there shew'd from p. 78. to p. 86. went forwards to make out that pretence by falsifying evidently my sense and sometimes my words too in three or four places more Fourthly That Rule of Faith p. 165. l. 3. he tells the Reader I SAY EXPRESSLY those Causes are put in ALL the Faithful actually causing by this means endeavouring to perswade the Reader 't is not his own interpretation or deduction from some words of mine but my own express words which is a most express falsification Lastly he neglects to take notice of any of those words which manifoldly and expresly show'd my Tenet to be quite contrary to what he impos'd This is my total charge against him of which we hear very little or rather nothing in this Preface where he goes about to clear it onely he sayes that those First Believers to whom those Hopes and Fears were strongly apply'd must by the tenour of my words mean all the Faithful disperst over several parts of the world and so all the Christians of that Age and for the same reason of the following ones which is the very thing I deny and have given lately my reasons why they could not Besides every Scholar knows that Authors first speak short and in common and afterwards when they come to explain themselves more particularly and had he been pleas'd to contain his rare gift of misinterpreting till the very next line to my Principles woven in the tenour of the same Discourse which he pretends to build his mistake upon he had found the express contrary to his Additional All viz A Great number or Body of the first Believers and after-Faithful the direct sense of which words is not all but some onely § 14. Again what if I us'd the word Faithful first and put to it the word All joyned with such words as would â—ear that universal Expression must it needs follow that when I name the same word Plurally afterwards I must needs mean all or the universality again even though I joyn it this second time with words of a quite different Sense Imagine I had said that All Historians write of matters of Fact and then had subjoyn'd a
he can most easily seem to misunderstand so to divert the Discourse A Method so constantly observ'd in his Reply to Sure-footing where he made Witty Dexterity still supply the place of Pertinent Solidity that instead of Rule of Faith it ought more justly have been entitled Sure-footing Travesty 5. And since all Discourse is ineffectual which is not grounded on some Certain Truth and consequently not onely he who settles or builds but also he who aims to overthrow or the Objecter must ground his Discourse on some Certain Principle if he intends to convince the others Teneâ— of Falsehood that Dr. T. would therefore esteem it his Duty even when he objects to ground his Opposition upon some Firm Principle And since no pretended Principle can be Firm but by virtue of some First Principle and that Dr. T. has disclaim'd here Identical Propositions to be such 't is requisite that he either confute my Discourses produc'd in this Treatise proving First Principles to be of that nature and show some other way by which the Terms of those he assigns for such do better cohere or he is convinc'd to have none at all and so all he writes or discourses must be Groundless and Insignificant 6. Thus much in common for the Manner of his Writing As for his Matter I request he would not in the subject of this present Discourse about the Certainty of a Deity and Christian Faith hover with ambiguous Glosses between Certainty and Uncertainty that is between Is and Is not but speak out Categorically and plainly declare whether he holds those Points absolutely True that is whether they be absolutely True to us or whether any man in the world can with reason say he sees they are True or has any Reason or Argument to conclude them True If not then â—et him show how 't is avoidable but all the World must with Truth say Both these may be False for any thing they can discern than which nothing sounds more horrid and blasphemous to a Christian Ear. If he says there are such Reasons extant but he has them not then let him leave off attempting to settle those Tenets or writing on those Subjects since he confesses himself unqualify'd and unfurnish'd with means to manage them If he says there are such Proofs and that he has them let him produce them and stand by them and not blame the nature of Things for bearing no more and others for saying they have more and that the Things do bear more To express my self closer and more particularly Let him speak out ingenuously and candidly to these Queries Whether be holds that God's Church or any man in the World is furnish'd with better Grounds for the Tenet of a Deity or for Christian Faith or any stronger Reasons to prove these Points True than those in Joshua's and Hezekiah's time had or could have the day before that the Sun should not stand still or go back the next day than that Person who threw a Glass on the Ground which broke not had or could have that it would not break â—han the Inhabitants of divers Houses had that they would not suddenly fall which yet did so or lastly to use his own words than those Reasons are which satisfie Prudent Men in Humane Affairs in which notwithstanding they experience themselves often mistaken If he say he has let him produce them and heartily maintain them and endeavour to make them out and I shall hereafter express as much Honour for him as I have done here of Resentment and Dislike for advancing the contrary Position But if he profess he has no better or that the nature of the thing not bearing it there can no better be given then 't is unavoidable first that the most Sacred Tenets of a Deity 's Existence and all the Points of Christian Faith may be now actually False since Points which had Reasons for them of Equivalent strength did prove actually such Next that no man in the world is in true Speech Certain there is a God or that the least word of Christian Religion is True since 't is Nonsence to say any of those Persons in those former Instances of equivalent strength were or could be truly Certain of Points which prov'd actually False and in which themselves were mistaken In a word I would have him without disguise let the world know whether as there was Contingency in those Causes and so the imagin'd or hoped Effects in the former Instances miscarried and prov'd otherwise than was expected so there be not also Contingency in the Motives for those two most Sacred Tenets upon whose Certainty the Eternal Good of Mankind depends so as they may perhaps not conclude and so both those Tenets may perhaps be really and actually otherwise than we Christians now hold If he professes to embrace this wicked Tenet and his words are too express for it ever to be deny'd though upon second thoughts I hope they may be retracted he owes me an Answer to my Faith Vindicated which hitherto he has shuffled off without any at all and to my Reasons alledg'd in this Treatise for the same Point FAITH's ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY Now Gentlemen since nothing conduces more to Knowledge in any kind than that the Matter of the Dispute be unambiguously stated and clearly understood and that a solid Method be observ'd in the managing it I become a humble Petitioner to your Selves as you tender that Excellent Concern of Mankind and that most Sacred One of Christianity to use your best Interest with Dr. T. that he would please to yield to these Duties here exprest and I oblige my self inviolably to observe the same Carriage towards him which I here propose and press he would use towards me which if he refuse I declare I shall leave him to the Censure of all truly-Learned and Ingenuous Persons however he triumphs amongst Those who are great Admirers of Pretty Expressions resting assur'd that your selves will not onely hold me Unblameable but also highly Commendable for noâ— losing my precious time in reciprocating his trifling and insignificant Drollery Your True Honourer and Humble Servant J. S. FINIS AMENDMENTS PAge 1. line 21. read that both first p. 47. l. 3. self possible to p. 50. l. 20. solid p. 101. l. 6 7. possible all this may p. 115 l. 12 Judgment in which it is l. 25. can never p. 118. l. 26. resolute hatred p. 121. l. 23. did equivalently p. 124. l. 21. 28. Speculaters p. 127. l. 17. nay more p. 135. l. 7. to be p. 139. l. 18. greater degree p. 142. l. 2. is not true or not to dare p. 146. l. 14. Chimerical p 157. l. 16. Fourth Eviction l. 18. of the Sixth p. 162. l. 16. Sermons equally p. 163. l 27. Parallelepiped p. 166. l. 30. Predicate p. 176. l. ult all good p. 183. l. 28 sensible man may p. 184. l. 2. deduc'd there p. 186. l. 12. of discoursing the p. 199. l. 25. it is is not more p. 200. l. 16. of its own p. 212. l. 24. not the Rule dele express p. 218. DISCOURSE IX p. 219 l 13 14. Reason in it p 229. l. 28 29. the Authors mistaken in undervaluing it p. 234. l. 17. I do non stand p. 239. l. 5. apply'd l. 6. I had