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
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
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
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
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
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
side he who discourses ill violates the nature of the Thing and runs into contradictions absurdities and what means violating the nature of the Thing or speaking contradiction but the making the Thing not be what it is and so falsifying by his discourse that Principle which was diametrically opposite in this circumstance to the Contradiction he sustain'd which was that Things being what it is For example Dr. T. puts Scripture's Letter to be a Rule of Faith and yet unless he will be strangely uncharitable must grant convinc'd by experience in the Socinians and others that many follow it to their power and yet judge not right concerning what 's True Faith what not which destroyes the nature of a Rule or makes a Rule not to be a Rule contrary to the very First Principle in that affair For he puts it to be a Rule ex suppositâ—one and yet puts it to be no Rule because the Followers of it to their power are misled which argues there being in this case no fault in Them the want of a Regulative Virtue in It and that 't is no Rule § 11. Hence is easily understood what use is to be made of the very First Principles viz. not to make that which is the First Principle in such an affair one of the Premisses in a Syllogism much less to make that one single Identical Proposition both the Premisses or two Propositions as our shallow Logician in his wild rant of Drollery would perswade the Reader But the very First Principles have a far more Soveraign Influence over the Discourse than any of those Particular Propositions decisively as it were abetting or dis-approving the Whole 'T is therefore to stand fixt in the mind of the Discourser and be heedfully attended to so to give a steadiness to all his ratiocination 'T is its office to be the Test or Touchstone of Truth and Falshood or a Rule which is a Measure of what 's Right what crooked oblique or deviating from true nature If in Dispute one hold firmly to that it authenticates his Discourse to be the solid Gold of Truth If any plausible Talk make a mock-show of Connexion or Truth it discovers the cheat showing by its own most Evident Connexion the unconnectedness or loosness of the others empty Babble and demonstrates it to be the meer Dross of Falshood how fair soever it appear to the Eye at first and how prettily soever it be superficially gilded with sophisticate Rhetorick or other artificial Tricks of counterfeit Truth 'T is like an immoveable Basis that sustains all the Superstructures of Truth though it self rise not above its own firm level or like a Rock which by its rigid hardness dashes asunder into Contradiction and Folly the ill-coherent and weak Productions of Witty Ignorance No wonder then Dr. T. abuses so the First Principles as good for nothing for he perceives them dispos'd to abuse him by shewing all his Discourses to be nothing but well-clad Nonsence and though his way of Discourse or his Cause not bearing it he cannot work with them yet if I be not much mistaken they will make work with him ere it be long But to return to our Instances § 12. Faith meaning by it a Believing upon Motives left by God in his Church to light Mankind to his Truth as I exprest my self in my Preface to Faith vindicated and elsewhere is an Assent Impossible to be False and this is found in its Definition as its Difference essentially distinguishing it from Opinion which is possible to be False and is prov'd by more than forty Demonstrations in Faith Vindicated not one of which has yet been in the least reply'd to Wherefore being a direct part of the Definition it engages that First Verity on which the Definition it self is grounded that is if Faith be not Impossible to be False Faith is not Faith Wherefore Dr. T. who for all his shuffling makes Faith thus understood possible to be False is convinc't to clash with that self-evident Identical Proposition by making Faith to be not Faith and if the pretended Demonstrations in Faith Vindicated or any of them stand he and his Friend Dr. St. if they truly say what they think are as certainly concluded to be none of the Faithful as 't is that Faith is Faith § 13. Also Tradition being a delivery of the Faith and Sence of immediate Forefathers to their Children or to those of the next Age by Living Voice and Practice that is by Câ—techising Preaching Conversing Practising and all the ways thâ—t can be possibly found in Education it follows that if Mankind cannot express what they have in their thoughts to others at long run as we use to say so as to make Generality at least the wisest understand them we have lost Mankind since to do this requires little more than Eyes Ears Power of Speaking and Common Sence Wherefore let this way of Tradition be follow'd and it will convey the first-taught Faith or the Doctrine of the First Christians that is True Faith to the end of the World Therefore it hath in it all that belongs intrinsecally to the Rule of Faith that is if men be not wanting to themselves but follow it to their power it will infallibly derive down the First that is Right Faâ—th Since then every thing is what it is by its having such a nature in it Tradition having in it the nature of a Rule is indeed a Rule Wherefore he who denies that Tradition has in it the nature of a Rule denies by consequence that Mankind is Mankind and he who denies It having in it all that is requisite to the nature of a Rule to be a Rule denies by consequence a Rule to be a Rule § 14 My last Instance showing withal more amply the Use of First Principles shall be of that Identical Proposition which grounds the whole nature of Discourse and 't is this The same is the same with it self Which is thus made use of The Copula is expresses the Identity or as we may say the sameness of the Subject and Predicate which it connects and 't is the aim of Reason to prove these two Terms identify'd in the Concsusion or which is all one that that Proposition we call the Conclusion is True But how shall this be prov'd A Third Term is sought for which is the same with those Two others and thence ' tâ—s evinc'd that those two are the same with one another in the Conclusion and why Because otherwise that Third Term would not be the same with its own self or be what it is if it were truly the same thing with two others and yet those two were not the same thing with one another but it would have Division in its very nature or not be its self being in that case distracted into more essential natures that is being Chimerical and consequently two Things according to one of which 't is the same with one of those Terms according to the other the
same with the other Which being impossible in regard every thing is precisely what it is or the same with it self it follows likewise that 't is impossible that a Conclusion thus deduc'd should not be true or which is all one that the Extreams of it should not be the self-same as far as concerns verifying or justifying the Truth of the Propositions For example in this Syllogism Virtue is laudable Courtesie is a Virtue Therefore Courtesie is laudable The two first Propositions being true and the Copula is expressing Identity of the Extreams we see that Laudable and Courtesie must needs be the same with Virtue wherefore also either they must forcibly be the same in the Conclusion or else Virtue must be not one but two that is must involve in its self two dis-agreeing natures according to one of which 't is the same with Laudable and according to the other with Courtesie by which means Courtesie and Laudable become not the same in the Conclusion But 't is impossible Virtue should have Intrinsecal Disagreement or Division within its own self or not be the same with its own self or which is all one be not-it-self Wherefore 't is Impossible those two Terms truly exprest to be the same with Virtue in the Premises should not be the same with one another in the Conclusion or which is all one 't is impossible that the Conclusion should not be True § 15. Hence is seen that the Light of Reason or that Light by which we draw new Knowledges out of fore-going ones is that very Light which shines in thâ—s self-evident Proposition The same is the same with it self Which would make one think verily this Identical Proposition were neither Ridiculous nor good for nothing as also which our Great Doctor will wonder at that if the Terms be freed from ambiguity and a Middle Term be rightly chosen a man who understands Logick may come to be infallibly assur'd of his Conclusision for the same reason a Mathematician may be infallibly certain that omne Triangulum habet tres angulos aequales duobus rectis and upon this assuranâ—e given him by these Ridiculous First Principles as our Ridiculous Logician calls them grow so hard hearted in holding to his Conclusion thus demonstratively deduc'd that he will not forgo it though two admirable Vndemonstrating DOCTORS OF NO PRINCIPLES Dr. St. and Dr. T. break Jest after Jest which my Friend calls here fair Admonitions upon Principles Demonstration Rule c. and upon me for holding them even so far as to make good Dr. T. quite despair of convincing me as he here soberly and sadly complains to his Reader Pref. p. 3. § 16. Lastly Hence is seen in what way we make use of this First Principle The same is the same with it self and the like is to be â—aid of others of this nature to wit thus that if the Discourse be so fram'd as necessarily to engage the Verity of that First Principle it must most inevitably and infallibly be Certain and Demonstrative but if the Discourse clash with it and thwart it 't is as Certainly Contradictory Absurd and False § 17. I foresee this First Principle now spoken of which grounds all Reason will even for that regard incur Dr. T's high dis-favour as well as its Fellows for a very small stock of Reason will serve to Set Up a Talking Divine and too much will quite Break him and therefore I have a great desire to reconcile them by letting him see that himself through the goodness of Nature is forc'd to guide himself by those First Principles though he strive all he can to pervert Nature and slight them nay that himself must grant that Identical Propositions deserve to be call'd and esteem'd First Principles after all this ranting and swaggering noise against them To do this I will put them on his side hoping his own Interest Passion and Partiality to whâ—ch his Reason seems a sworn Slave will invite him to see that Truth which in other circumstances he was not capable of In his Rule of Faith p. 183 184. he combates Sure footing as making Moral Motives and Arguments necessarily produce their Effect upon a free Agent the Will of Man and argues pretty well against it if he were not mistaken all the while out of the nature of Man as Free and certainly he must see 't is his own best and closest play to contend that I subvert the nature of a Free Agent as such by my Discourse and what means this but that my Discourse makes that which is Free to be Not-Free and is not this as plainly to say that I wrong that Principle What 's free is free as man can speak If he say 'T is not I ask him what First Truth or Principle I wrong by making that which is Free to be Not Free If I wrong no Principle my Discourse would be unblameable if any the Wit of man can assign none but that Identical Proposition What 's free is free this and onely this beâ—ng formally oppos'd to that other in which he must contend my Discourse is faulty namely the sustaining that What is free is not free Again as was said a Contradiction is the Chief of Falsehoods and being faulty in point of Truth and all Fault or Defect being as such a Negative or Privative its malice can onely be known by the Positive Good which it violates or excludes that is in our case by the Opposite Truth which it destroys But the proper Opposite to a Contradiction is an Identical Proposition as hath been shown also it s proper Opposite it being a Chief Falshood is a Chief Truâ—h or First Principle therefore not onely all First Principles are Identical Propositions but in case those were not establish'd first Contradictions would be harmless innocent Fools hurting no Truth or Principle in the World and even though they be establish'd Dr. T. tells us very seriously Pref. p. 38. They are good for nothing and so still he pleads for the Innocency of Contradictions and disgraces their Enemies First Principles one would guess he hath far more of those on his side than of these as it will appear when his Answer to Sure footing comes to be scann'd and particularly in that passage I lately cited where though it be the most plausible part of his Book yet it shall be shown partly hereafter in this Treatise partly more in the next that he mistakes the natures of Necessity Liberty Will and even Manhood or else when he haps to hit right mis-applies his Objections to the wrong parts of my Discourse § 18. If after all this Dr. T. cannot conceive that The First Principles are Identical Propositions let him imagine a man divested of the knowledge of all Identical Propositions and then let him tell me how or in virtue of what such a man could either judge know or discourse or let him show me what could hâ—nder such a Soul from taking direct Contradictions to be First Principles
to viz. to Assent to the Existence of a Deity and other Points of Faith as Certain Truths nay lay down their lâ—ves upon occasion to Attest they are such And what is it to Assent 'T is to say interiourly or judge verily that the thing is so And can a Motive or Reason possible to be False ever induce in true Reason such an Obligation or work rationally such an Effect How should it be Since in that case a man must on the one side judge the thing Impossible to be False because he is to assent to it as a Truth and yet must at the same tâ—me necessarily judge it Possible to be False because he sees the Motives he has offer'd him raise it no higher that is he must hold both sides of the Contradiction which is absolutely impossible Now true Evidence that the thing is so takes away all possibility of Falsehood and so obliges to Assent and if Dr. T. produces such proofs as make the point truly Evident an Atheist is unreasonable and obstinate if he do not Assent to it But if by those words Atheism is unreasonable because it requires more Evidence than the things are capable of he means that the Things afford no true Evidence at all and judges Atheists unreasonable for not assenting without true Evidence because the Things afford none he in effect tells them they must forfeit their Manhood ere they can be Christians than which nothing can more reflect on the Profession of Christianity or be more unworthy a Christian Divine to propose Let us â—ee how far Dr. T. is blameable in this Particular He discourses thus and since he so earnestly presses it we will take his words in order § 8. Aristotle says he hath long since observed how unreasonable 't is to expect the same kind of Proof for every thing which we have for same things Aristotle said very well For speaking of Proofs in common and at large those we have for Success in our Exteriour Actions on the Hopes of which we proceed to Act are for the most Part but Probable but this reaches not our present business about a Deity in order to which this Preamble is fram'd where Exteriour Acting will not serve the turn but an Interiour Act of Assenting to the Existence of such a Soveraign Being is necessarily requir'd The Question then is Whether Aristotle did or could with any reason say that a Rational Creature that is a Creature whose nature 't is to deduce Conclusions by Discourse from Premisses or build the certain Truth of Those upon the certain Truth of These could be oblig'd in true Reason or acting according to Right Nature to assent judge or conclude a Thing True without such Motives or Proofs which did conclude it True or that what concluded a Thing True did not also conclude it impossible to be otherwise or to be False 'T is granted then that in our Exteriour Operations exercised upon Particulars where Contingency rules we must rest contented with Probabilities of the Event and proceed to act upon them the necessity of acting obliging us for should all the world surcease from Action till they were assur'd of the good success of it all Commerce and Negotiation must be left off nay all the means of Living must be laid aside but then we are not bound to assent or judge absolutely that the thing will succeed well because we have no Certain Grounds or Conclusive Reasons for it but onely that 't is best to act though upon Uncertain Grounds of the Success for which assent also we have absolute Evidence from the Necessity of actâ—ng now spoken of Whereas on the other side where the whole business of our Christian Life which as such is spiritual is to worship God in Spirit and Truth or approach to him by ascending from Virtue to Virtue that is from Faith to Hope from Hope to Charity the Top of all Perfection the whole interiour Fabrick is built on a Firm Assent to the Truth of the Points which ground our Profession Wherefore if the Foundation for this Assent be not well laid all the Superstructures of Religion are ruinous Now Nature having fram'd things so and the Maxims of our Understanding giving it that those who guide themselves by perfect Reason that is the strongest and wisest Souls are unapt to assent but upon Evidence whereas the weaker sort as experience teaches us are apt to assent upon any silly Probability hence unless such men see Proofs absolutely concluding those points True they are unapt to be drawn to yield to them and embrace them as Certain Truths especially there being no necessity at all to assent as there was to act outwardly in regard Nature has furnish'd us with a Faculty of Suspending which nothing can subdue rationally in such men at least but True Evidence had from the Object working this clear sight in them either by it self or else by Effects or Causes necessarily connected with It. Other Evidences I know none It may be Dr. T. does Let us see § 8. Mathematical things says he being of an abstracted nature are onely capable of clear Demonstration But Conclusions in Natural Philosophy are to be proved by a sufficient Induction of Experiments Things of a Moral Nature by Moral Arguments and matters of Fact by Credible Testimony And though none of these be strict Demonstration yet have we an Vndoubted Assurance of them when they are proved by the best Arguments that the nature and quality of the thing will bear This Discourse deserves deep Consideration And first it would be askâ— why Metaphysicks are omitted here which of all others ought to have been mentioned and that in the first place since its proper Subject is those Notions which concern Being and to give Being or Create is the Proper Effect of Him who is Essential Being whence it seems the Properest Science that is to demonstrate a Deity in case Metaphysical things be demonstrable and that they are such Dr. T. himself cannot deny for if as he says here things are therefore demonstrable because they are of an abstracted nature the Object of Metaphysicks which is Being is far more abstracted from matter and so from Motion and its necessary Concomitant Vncertainty or Contingency than is Quantity the subject of Mathematicks for this primary Affection of Body is the Ground and Proper Cause of of all Variation and Unsteadiness since all natural Motion or Mutation arises from Divisibility Yet because all Science is taken from the Things as standing under our notion or Conception and not according as they exist in themselves where thousands of Considerabilities are confusedly jumbled into one Common Stock of Existence or one Thing also because we can abstract by our Consideration the notion or nature of Quantity nay consider the same Quantity meerly as affecting Body as it were steadily or extending it without considering the same Quantity as the Proper Cause or Source of Motion hence the Mathematicks have Title to be truly and
properly a Science for this Abstraction or manner of being in our mind frees the notion or nature thus abstracted that is the thing as thus conceiv'd by us from Vncertainty nay indeed fixes it in a kind of Immutability whereas were it consider'd as found in the World there would be no firm Ground at all for any Discourse For example perhaps by reason of the perpetual turmoil of things in Nature there is not to be found in the World any one Body either mathematically Straight Circular or Triangular yet because the nature of Body conceiv'd as in Rest bears it we can abstract from Motion and so consider quantitative Things according to what they can bear in themselves taken as not moving or in Rest therefore we can make such steady notions and when we have done discourse them and ground a long train of new Conclusions which we call a particular Science upon such a Nature thus conceiv'd § 9. And for that reason I would gladly know why Ethicks or Morality is not equally demonstrable as Mathematicks For we can equally abstract those Moral Notions of Virtues and Vices and consider them apart as we can do those Mathematical ones of Lines and Numbers I know 't is grown a common humour in the World taken up I know not how by course and continu'd none knows why to think otherwise But I must confess I never could discern any reason for it and shall be thankful to that man who can show me any that convinces In the mean time I give mine for the Affirmative which is this That the same reason holds for Ethicks as for Mathematicks since all the perquisits for Demonstration are found in the one as in the other To put it to the Test let 's consider what Euclid does when he demonstrates and by virtue of what We see he puts his Definitions and some common Maxims peculiar to that Subject and then by his Reason connecting the first Deductions with his Principles and the following Deductions with the foregoing onâ—â— weaves them into a Science And is it not evident that we can as well know what 's meant by those words which express Virtues and Vices and so as well define them as we can those other Also that the Common Maxims of Morality are as self-evident to Humane Nature as any First Principles in the World I admire then what should hinder Ethicks to be as perfect a Science as the clearest piece of Mathematicks since we can equally abstract the several notions handled in it from matter equally define them and consequently assisted by Common Maxims equally-evident with equal clearness discourse them which is all that is requir'd § 10. If it be said that particular Moral Actions are liable to Contingency 't is answer'd that this hinders not but the Speculative part of Morality is a true Science Even Mathematical Demonstrations when reduc'd to practice and put in matter are subject also to Contingency as we experience daily in Mechanicks and yet the Speculative part which abstracts from matter is never the less Scientifical § 11. The greatest difficulty is in that Cardinal Virtue call'd Prudence and I confess that because the exercise of this Virtue is surrounded with an incomprehensible number of Accidents and way-laid as it were with all the Ambushes and Stratagems of Fortune and consequently to make its Success Certain we must be put to fathom the natures of many several things nay more their Combinations or Joynt-actings with their several circumstances and especially of those things which are the Common Causes of the World as the influences of the Sun Moon and other Stars if they have any that is considerable and lastly of the Elements which 't is impossible for our short-sighted Knowledge to reach hence Prudence in its Execution or put in matter is liable to more Contingency by far than any piece of the Mathematicks where we have but one or two single notions or natures to grapple with and weild Yet notwithstanding all these difficulties I must still contest that the Maxims of Prudence upon which its Dictamens are chiefly grounded are self-evident practically and to the Learned Demonstrable viz. That we ought to sow and plant in their proper seasons that 't is best for Merchants to hazard though they be insecure of the Event and a thousand such-like § 12. I expect Dr. T. will object the fickle nature of the Will which renders all Contingent where this perpetually-changing Planet has any Influence But yet there 's a way for all that to fix this volatil Mercurial Power and make it act with a constancy as great as any other thing in Nature To conceive how this may be effected we are to consider that the Will too has a peculiar nature of its own which it can no more forgo than the most constant Piece found in Nature can do Its that is The Will can no more leave off being a Will than a Rule can not-be a Rule Faith not-be Faith or any other of those ridiculous Identical Propositions as Dr. T. calls them not be true Now the Will being a Power and Powers taking their several Natures from their Objects or as the Schools express it being specify'd by them and the Object of the Will as distinguish'd from the Understanding being Good and this propos'd to It by that Knowing Power that is Good at least appearing such if it can be made evident that such a thing can never appear a Good to the Subject thus circumstanc'd 't is demonstrable the Will cannot will it nay as evident as 't is that A Will is a Will § 13. To apply this to particulars In case there be a Trade or Profession of Merchants and it be evident to all the Followers of that sole Employment that Themselves Wives and Children must starve unless they venture to Sea the notventuring can never appear to them thus circumstanc'd that is addicted to that onely way of Livelihood as is suppos'd a Good and so 't is demonstrable that abstracting from Madness or Exorbitant Passion which is not our Case they can never will not-to-venture Or if a great multitude of men have embrac'd no Profession but that of the Law and as we 'll suppose have no other Livelihood but That so that it becomes evident it can never appear a Good to them not to take Fees 't is as Certain they will not refuse them as 't is that a Thing is it Self or that a Will is a Will because a Will is a Power whose Essence 't is to have such an Object as is appearingly Good § 14. To come closer to our purpose Suppose Innumerable multitudes of Fathers or Immediate Predecessors in any Age had an inclination to deceive their Children or immediate Successors in the World and consequently that the Immediate End they propos'd to themselves were to make them believe such Points of Faith were received by them from Forefathers which were indeed newly invented these men I say in case they must see
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
to doubt I ask him how he will prove that it must needs exclude all reason of Actual Doubt from the Minds even of the wisest Christians unless he can prove those Grounds cannot possibly be doubted of with reason for otherwise if those men may possibly doubt with reason 't is ten to one they will do so actually at one time or other He ought then to say those Motives exclude all possible doubt or are undoubtable of their own nature and so take it out of the Subjects strength or weakness and put it upon the Objects But this he is loth to say dreading the Consequence which is this that he who affirms a Thing can never be possibly doubted of in true reason must affirm withal that he has Motives concluding it absolutely True that is absolutely Impossible to be False and if it depends on Authority Infallible Testimony for it which his superficial Reason fully resolved against First Principles or Identical Propositions can never reach It remains then that he must hold to Actual Not-doubting on the Subjects side that is he must say the Motives are onely such as preservâ— prudent persons from doubt and then he must either make out that Christians have more Natural Prudence than those in those other Sects Natural I say for all Motives Antecedent to Faith must be Objects of our Natural Parts or Endowments or else confess that he knows no difference between the Reasons for those other Sects and those for Christianity according to the Grounds deliver'd by him here Both exclude Actual Doubt in persons as far as appears to us equal in prudence as to other things neither of them exclude possible Rational Doubt each one had as much Evidence of their Deities they ador'd as they could have in their circumstances supposing those Deities were and no True or absolutely Conclusive Evidence appear'd on either side both had as good Proofs as the thing afforded supposing it were and such as excluded Doubting therefore according to Dr. T's Doctrine both had Certainty and all is parallel and so farewel Christianity Religion and First Principles too that is farewel Common Sence and all possibility of knowing any thing All Truth and Goodness must needs go to wrack when Principles naturally self-evident and establish'd by GOD himself the Founder of Nature are relinquish'd and others made up of meer Fancy and Air are taken up in their stead § 10. I know Dr. T. will sweat and fume and bestir all his knacks of Rhetorick to avoid these Consequences of his Doctrine I expect he will pelt me with Ironies and bitter Jeers cavil at unelegant words tell me what some Divines of ours say and perhaps mistake them all the while stoutly deny all my Conclusions instead of answering my discourse nay fall into another peevish fit of the Spleen and say I have no forehead for driving on his Principles to such Conclusions as he who was too busie at Words to mind or amend his Reasons never dream't of Therefore to defend my forehead it were not amiss to make use of some Phylacteries containing such expressions taken out of his First Sermon as best discover to us his thoughts as to the Certainty and Uncertainty of his Positive Proofs and the Point it self as prov'd by them I mean the Existence of a Deity or a Creation Such as are Serm. p. 19. A Being suppos'd of Infinite Goodness and Wisdom and Power is a very LIKELY Cause of these things What more LIKELY to make this Vast World c. What more LIKELY to communicate Being What more LIKELY to contrive this admirable Frame of the World This seems NO UNREASONABLE Account P. 21. The Controversie between Vs and this sort of Atheists comes to this Which is the MORE CREDIBLE OPINION That the World was never made c. or that there was from all Eternity such a Being as we conceive GOD to be Now COMPARING the PROBABILITIES of things that we may know ON WHICH SIDE THE ADVANTAGE LIES c. P. 22. The Question whether the World was created or not can onely be decided by TESTIMONY and PROBABILITIES of Reason Testimony is the PRINCIPAL Argument in a thing of this nature and if FAIR PROBABILITIES of Reason concur with it c. P. 29. The PROBABILITIES of REASON do all likewise FAVOUR the Beginning of the World P. 32. Another PROBABILITY is c. P. 34. These are the CHIEF PROBABILITIES on Our Side which being taken together and in their united sence have A GREAT DEAL of CONVICTION in them § 11. Upon these Words and Expressions of his I make these Reflexions 1. That as appears by his own stating the Point p. 21. he makes it amount to the same Question as indeed it does Whether there were a Creation or a First Being creating the World whom we call GOD so that all his Proofs are indifferently to be taken as aim'd to evince one as well as the other 2. That this being so he stands not heartily to any one Argument he brings as able to conclude the Truth of a Deity 's or Creator's Existence 3. That his words which are expressive of the Evidence of his Gâ—ounds and the Certainty of the Point viz. that there is a GOD manifest too plainly that he judges according to his Speculative Thoughts at least he has neither one nor the other For if it be but Likely though it be exceedingly such yet as common Experience teaches us it may notwithstanding be False If the account he gives of a Deity creating the World be onely no unreasonable one this signifies onely that it has some Reason or other for it and every man knows that seldom or never did two Wits discourse contrary Positions or Lawyers plead for contrary Causes or Preachers preach for contrary Opinions but there was some Reasons produc'd by them for either side and so for any thing he has said the Atheist may come to give no unreasonable account too that there is no Deity though it be something less reasonable than that for a Deity And if the Controversie between Atheists and us be onely this Whether is the MORE CREDIBLE OPINION then the other Opinion viz. that there was no Creation or is no GOD is yielded to be Credible too though not SO Credible as that there is Also if we ought to COMPARE the PROBABILITIES of things that we may know on which side the ADVANTAGE LIES 't is intimated to us and granted that 't is Probable there is no GOD though it be more Probable there is and while 't is but Probable though it be very much more yet it may very easily be False as every days experience teaches us in a thousand Instances wherein our selves were mistaken through the whole course of our lives which commonly happen'd when the far more probable side prov'd False else we had not inclin'd to think it true and by that means been mistaken Again if the PROBABILITIES of Reason do but FAVOUR our side 't is a sign that
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
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