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
and divinely assisted are no Christians In a word this way of Divinity or Resolution of Faith which I take makes every man both those in the Church and those out of it rely on the Churches Authority or Testimony diversly consider'd in order to their respective capacities and so still makes the Church THE PILLAR AND GROVND OF TRVTH which all Catholicks in the World not so much as any one school-School-Divine excepted hold the securest way that can be imagined And should any one dislike it I see not what he can with any show pretend He must allow some Natural Motive antecedent to Faith and what is known by means of it that is he must grant some Motive antecedent to the Knowledge of Supernatural Assistance and where he will find in the whole World any such Motive stronger than is the Humane Authority of the Church as to matters of Faith I profess I know not nor I am confident can any man living imagine If this then be absolutely speaking the securest way that is 't is securer or firmer than is the way of proceeding upon Motives of Credibility and incomparably more secure than is that of resolving Faith into Motives onely Prudential Though indeed things rightly stated and understood the Motives of Credibility are some of them Coincident with Tradition and the rest which can lay just claim to Certainty depend on it taken at large as their Ground as hath been prov'd in the Corollaries to Sure-footing It may be ask'd Why since Tradition and Church are one and the same Thing I did not chuse to say that the CHVRCH gives us Knowledge of the first deliver'd Faith rather than that TRADITION does so seeing none could have scrupled or excepted against the former manner of Expression whereas this gives occasion of mis-apprehension to some unattentive Readers I answer I us'd on that occasion the word Tradition rather than the word Church for the same reason the Geometricians use the words Line or Surface when they have a mind to express Body as Long or Broad for these are in reality the same thing with Body but in regard Body is the Subject of many other Considerations as well as these and these speak Body precisely according to the Considerations of Length and Breadth to which onely it was Intended to speak hence it was better both for Succinctness of Expression and Exactness of Science which is built on the perfect distinction of our Conceptions to use the Abstract or Distinguishing words Line and Surface rather than the Concrete or Confused word Body which involves much more than the Discourser in that circumstance intended to consider or speak to Now this being the very method observed in that Science which bears the name for the greatest Exactness in Discourse I much fear the Objecters mistake proceeds from not reflecting that whoever pretends to an Accurate and Connected way of Discourse and rigorously to conclude what he intends must either follow that best of Methods or he falls short of his Duty and wrongs his Cause § 9. To clear this a little better and withal to apply it I shall make choice of another familiar Instance We use to say in Common Speech that the Countenance or Carriage of a Man makes known his Genius Now all these three viz. Countenance Carriage and Genius are in reality most evidently the same Thing with the Man himself onely they differ from it in the manner of Expression the word Man nominating the Whole or Intire Thing which is the Subject of all these and innumerable other Considerabilities confusedly imply'd in that word The other three are more distinct indeed in their manner of signifying but they fall exceedingly short of the others vast extent and express Man but in part or onely a few Respects found in that Subject whereof some are less known some more and so a Means to know others Whence it comes to pass that Countenance signifying Man as Looking or according to the outward Appearance of that part in him call'd the Face also Carriage signifying him as bearing or demeaning himself and lastly Genius as having such a peculiarity of Humour or Nature in him hence these words The Speech Countenance and Carriage of a Man discover his Genius amount to this the Man according to his Speech Countenance or Carriage which are visible and more Intelligible Considerations belonging to him is a means to notifie himself to us according to something in him which is latent and less manifest viz. his Genius This I say is the plain Sense of the other words onely this later manner of speaking is prolix and troublesome the other short and yet fully expressive of the Speakers Intention Again the other manner of Expression is Proper and Apt whereas should one put it thus The Man makes known the Man besides the confusedness of the expression since Man signifies the whole Intire Thing without distinguishing any particular Respects it would make the whole or the self-same thing abstracting from all different Respects to be before and after more known and less known than it sel◠which is a direct Contradiction § 10. Applying then this Discourse The word Church being a Congregation of Men answers in its way of expressing to the word Man in the Example now given and involves confusedly in its notion innumerable Considerations belonging to that Body of which True Faith which is as it were the Genius or Nature of the True Church is of it self latent unknown and far from self-discoverable Others such as is the Humane Testimony of the Church meant in those Circumstances by the word Tradition in regard it depends on Testifying Authority is more known and being Oral and Practical fitly corresponds to Speech Countenance Carriage and such-like It being known then by this means that such a Body has in it the first-deliver'd or True Faith 't is known immediately that having in it the Genius or Nature of a True Church 't is indeed the True Church Again it being known likewise and conceived by all who understand what is meant by that word that True Faith is a firm Adhesion to Christs Doctrine also it being apprehended by those against whom we dispute nay demonstrable out of the nature of that Doctrine that 't is a means to love God above all things hence 't is justly concluded that there is in the Generality or in great Multitudes of this Body a due love of Heaven call'd Sanctity or Charity which is the Gift peculiarly attributed to the H. Ghost and it being known and experienc'd by those already in the Church that this Love of Heaven or Sanctity gives the Faithful a particular Strength and Power to perform all good Duties and this of preserving uncorrupted the deliver'd Faith being one and that a most concerning one hence they come to know that the Church is assisted by the H. Ghost as in all other good Duties so especially in this of delivering and continually proposing Right Faith So that as Reason requires
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 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
right that is both sides of the Contradiction must be True if Dr. T's Faith be True built only on moral Certainty which would utterly destroy his enemies Identical Propositions I would gladly know at least why these two equally matcht Moral Certainties shall not make a drawn battel of it or how it shall be determin'd on whose side the Certain Truth stands I doubt it will be the hardest task that ever was for him to make it even morally Certain there is a Trinity for this cannot be done but by manifesting the Letter of Scripture bears no shadow of Reason on the Socinians side otherwise that seeming Reason may be a just cause for a Protestant to suspend perhaps doubt of it and so not be morally-Certain § 15. The meaning then of these word Moral Certainty being so Indeterminate that Dr. T. himself cannot tell what to make of it no wonder our Divines cannot agree about it If he says he understands it very well I desire to put it to the Trial by producing any one Proposition held by him to be but morally-Certain and shew us Logically Art being the Test of Nature how or by virtue of what it's Terms hang together or to make out according to his own notion of Moral Certainty that not one Prudent man in the world does or can be dissatisfi'd with it What I conceive is meant generally by Moral Certainty is a high Probability or some great Likelihood which being an insufficient Ground for Faith for we are to profess and dy for the Truth of our Faith and not for its Likelyhood onely â— judge the name of it ought not to be heard when we speak of the Certainty due to Faith and itâ— Grounds unless it be signifi'd at the same time that 't is us'd Catachrestically or abusively to mean Absolute Certainty § 16. I expect D. T. will instead of making out the nature of this Chimeâ—ical Certainty run to Instances for example that of our being morally certain of the Sun 's rising to morrow and such like But first I contend he is not Certain of this his own Instance If he be let him give his Grounds of Certainty for it and go about to prove or conclude the night before that it will I doubt much he will when he comes to try it find himself gravel'd and confess with me that 't is only highly Likely 'T is well he did not live in Joshuah's or Ezekiah's time and tell them the day before that Moses his Law was only as Certain as that the Sun would not stand still or go backwards the next day for if so I doubt much those who had heard and believ'd him would have taken a just scandal at their Faith seeing Points held equally Certain as it prove actually False Again what more Certainty has he now of the Suns rising again within 18 hours after his setting than they in those days were the day before that it would not go back or stand still and yet we see they were not Certain of it for we know they had been mistaken in it and that Judgment an Error By which we see that D. T's moral Certainty means such a Certainty w ch as appear'd by this Event was Vncertain or such a Certainty as was Certain peradventure Now this nonsence has no harm in it but that 't is opposite to an Identical Proposition What 's Certain is Certain which weighs not with Dr. T. who has renounc't all First Principles In a word our B. Saviour has beforehand prevented all such Instances by â—elling us that Heaven and Earth shall fail but his Words shall not fail Intimating that the whole Fabrick of the World much more some one great part of it is tottering and unstable in comparison of the unchangeable nature of Truth and such all good Christians are to profess their Faith and be ready to dy to attest it § 17. Having thus done more than Miracle and establisht MORAL CERTAINTY which were not its self were it not unestablisht â—e procceeds p. 18. to overthrow Infallibility alledging that the Vnderstanding cannot be absolutely secur'd from all possibility of mistake but either by the perfection of its own nature which he thinks all Mankind but Mr. S. have hitherto granted that it could not or by supernatural Assistance I desire he would not stretch my Tenet beyond the bounds my self give it I never said that Human Understandingâ— could not possibly be mistaken in any thing at all but only in Knowledges built on Sensations in Knowing the Truth of First Principles in Knowing while left to Nature till Speculation for which they are too weak put them into a puzzle by Practical Self-evidence confusedly and in common something belonging to some natures daily converst with and lastly some Learned men in diverse deductions of Evident Reason for example in diverse Propositions in Euclid But that which our Subject restrains it to being about the Infallible Conveyance down of Faith is the First of those viz. Infallibility of our Sensations for once putting this Tradition is an Infallible Rule Speaking then of this which is all my present purpose requires I am so far from being the only man who holds it that Dr. T. excepting Scepticks if perhaps he be not one of that Sect is I think the only man that ever deny'd it Are not both of us infallibly certain that we Eat Drink Write and Live or did any but a mad-man ever think seriously that sober Mankind abstracting from Disease in some particulars might possibly be deceiv'd in such Knowledges as these Are not our Senses contriv'd naturally as apt to convey Impressions from the Objects to the Knowing Power I speak not of the different degrees of perfection necessarily annext to each but as to the main so as to be sufficient for use and needful Speculation as any other Causes in Nature are to do their proper Effects Have they not also as little Contingency in them and that Contingency as easily discoverable by the Standard of circumstant Mankind with whom they converse as in Iâ—terical Persons and such like This being so I affirm that the Basis on which our Rule of Faith is built viz. Natural Knowledges is more secure than any part of Nature since naturally 't is Impossible Mankind can err in these and whereas we are not Certain but it may in some Conjuncture become God's Infinite Wisdom and Goodness to exert his Divine Omnipotence and alter the course of Nature even in considerable portions of it as in the Instances given of the Sun 's standing still and going back the Universal Deluge and such like yet in our case 't is Impossible beeausâ— the altering Nature's course in such as these were directly to create False Judgments or Errour in Mankind of which 't is Impossible Essential Wisdom Goodness and Truth should be the Immediate and peculiar Cause Naturally therefore it cannot happen nor yet Supernaturally For though taking the proportion between Gods Omnipotence singly considered and the
would believe him That my Principles do plainly exclude from Salvation at one blow Excommunicate Vnchristian all that do not believe upon my Grounds And nothing is easier than to prove it in his way 'T is but mistaking again the Notion of School-Divines for the Notion of Faithful and School for Church as he did lately and the deed is done immediately without any more trouble He is the happiest man in his First Principles and his Method that I ever met with the parts of the former need not hang together at all but are allow'd to be Incoherent and the later is a building upon false pretences and wrong Suppositions and then what may not he prove or what Conquest cannot he obtain by such powerful Stratagems He sayes he has proov'd at large in the Answer to Sure-Footing that the Council of Trent did not make Oral Tradition the sole Rule of her Faith Possibly I am not so lucky as to light on this large Proof of his all I can finde with an ordinary search is four or five lines Rule of Faith pag. 280. where after a commonly-Objected often-answer'd Citation from the Council of Trent declaring that Christian Faith and Discipline are contain'd in written Books unwritten Traditions therefore that they receive honor the Books of Scripture also Traditions with equal pious affection and reverence He adds which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith Now I had put this very Objection against my self Sure-f pag. 346. and proceeded to clear it to the end of pag. 150. particularly pag. 147.149 upon this Reason because taking the Scripture interpreted by Tradition as the Council expresses it self to do and forbids any man to interpret it otherwise it has the full Authority of Gods Word and so equally to be reverenced Whereas taking it interpreted by private heads which only will serve Dr T's turn 't is nothing less as not engaging the Divine Authority at all But now to the Notion of a Rule there is more required as Dr. T. himself grants and contends 't is found in Scripture viz. that it be so evident that every sensible may understand it as to matters of Faith and this building on the Council of Trents Authority and Judgment I deny to be found in the bare Letter of Scripture and hence say 't is no Rule I omit the repeating very many Arguments from the Council for that point deduc't from pag. 141. to pag. 146. never toucht nor so much as taken notice of in that Mock-Answer of his § 16. But that he may not mistake me I shall not stick to declare whom I exclude from Salvation at least from the way to it whom not and upon what Grounds speaking of the ordinary course of Gods Providence as I declare my self to do throughout this whole Treatise I make account that perfect Charity or Love of God above and in all things is the Immediate Disposition to Bliss or Vnitive of a Soul to God Also that this Virtue cannot with a due heartiness be connaturally or rationally wrought in Souls if the Tenet of a Deity 's Existence and of Christian Faith be held possible to be a Ly. Hence I am oblig'd by my Reason to hold that those who judge there are no absolueely-Conclusive Reasons for the Existence of a Deity nor for the Truth of Christian Faith are as such out of the Road of Salvation On the other side those who hold the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truths they profess Infallible and by Consequence their Faith Impossible to be False as all Catholikes do though as Divines they fail in making out how and by what particular means it comes to be Infallible yet through the virtue of this firm and steady Adhesion to such Principles as are because they are Truths apt to beget solid and well-grounded that is indeed True Virtues such as are a vigorous Hope and a fervent and all-ovre-powering Charity hence they possess the Connatural Means or are in the right way to Heaven And for this Reason I esteem Dr. T 's way of discoursing concerning a Deity and Faith in his Sermons most pestilent and mischievous to Souls as being apt of its own Nature to incline them if they have wit to discern its shallowness first to a kind of Scepticism in Religion and at next to Carelesness Irreligion and Atheism though truly I think 't is not his Intention to do so but that his shortness in Understanding the Nature and Grounds of Christianity makes him conceit he does excellently even to admiration all the while he commits such well-meaning Follies Nor do I think the Church of England will upon second thoughts think fit to Patronize Principles so destructive to the Nature of Faith found in the breast of every Protestant I ever yet met with who all with one mouth will own that 't is absolutely Impossible Christian Faith should be a Lye and abhor the contrary Position as wicked and damnable How Dr. T. may have season'd some of his own Auditors by preaching Controversy to them which he extremely affects I cannot tell 't is according as they incline to believe him more than the Generality of the Christian World whose Sentiments he opposes in his Discourses about the Ground of Faith DISCOURSE VIII With what Art Dr. T. answers my METHOD A Present made to his Credulous Friends shewing how solidly he confuted SVRE-FOOTING by readily granting the main of the Book What is meant by Tradition That J. S. is not singular in his way of discoursing of the Grounds of Faith § 1. HE makes a pass or two at my METHOD and that I conceive must serve for an Answer to it for an Answer I heard was threatned would appear very shortly but this pleasant Preface was the only thing which appeared and all that appears like Answer in it is that he would make it believ'd he ought not answer at all And this he does very neatly and like a Master For let no man think I have a mean Opinion of Dr. T. but every one is not good at all things some are good at proving some at disproving some at shifting of the Question without either proving or disproving every one in his way and in his way I know no man living a greater Master nor so great as the Dr. Two things he does and both of them strange ones First he affirms that Discourse is founded on the self-evident Infallibility of ora◠Tradition Next that He has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Surefooting The first of them would make the Reader apprehend I there suppos'd Oral Tradition self-evidently Infallible and then run on all the way upon that supposition which if it obtain belief as from his Credit he hopes it may since every Scholar knows all Discourses must be founded either on first Principles or at least on such as are granted by those against whom we
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
another ought to be allow'd the liberty of taking those words which express his Sentiments without putting them always in the very method and posture in which they are found in the Author while there is no ambiguity or doubt of the Authors sense in that place yet where 't is at least doubtful that the sence is otherwise as is manifest to any one who reads that Preface which as I alledg'd though Dr. T. never takes notice of it was wholly intended to evince the Absolute Certainty of Faith 't is not so fairly and clearly candid to introduce it as a most express saying of an Author and putting it directly upon him as his Saying whereas there at least needs a Discourse and the drawing some Consequences to prove it his Sense and Doctrine as will appear shortly and on the other side 't is opposite to the whole strain and scope of the Treatise in which 't is found Thus far then I conceive my self in rigorous Truth justifiable namely for imputing to Dr. T. that he left out the words Some understood for he did so and by so doing put that saying directly upon the Prefacer himself and expresâ— not that himself onely gather'd it by consequence from his words § 8. The chief and main part of the Charge is That the imputed Tenet is not the sence of the Prefacers words in that place and since he does not directly say it but 't is inferr'd onely from his approving an others Tenet either in whole or in part the Point is to be decided by such Reflexions as give us best Light of his Sense In order to which I alledge 1. That the whole Scope of that Treatise is aim'd to prove the quite contrary Position which Consideration being confessedly the best Interpreter of any Author to neglect that and catch at any little semblance in two or three particular words and then force upon that Author a Tenet perfectly contrary to what his whole Discourse is bent to prove favours too strong of a Wit resolv'd to cavil This I objected in my Letter of Thanks and this Dr. T. thought it his best play not to take notice of here for it was unanswerable and too evidently concluded him Injurious to the Prefacer First then I desire the Reader to reflect that there is not any show of relating the possibility there spoken of to the Divine Omnipotence but onely to the natures of Second Causes next that since every thing is what 't is made to be if those Causes can possibly work otherwise the thing may be otherwise These due Reflexions made and settled to those who have not leasure to read the whole Preface I offer these particularities P. 6. he blames those who bring not an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY or COACTIVE of the Vnderstanding and at the end of that § he presses those who say those Moral Motives are such as all are oblig'd to yield to to show how all can be bound to believe that which they evidently see MAY BE FALSE And which is remarkable these Expressions are found in the § immediately before the Citation D.T. so misrepresents whence 't is likely he could not but see and reflect on them Again p. 10. Else you will be forc'd to say that the very way God Himself has shewn to Heaven MAY POSSIBLY lead to Hell P. 13. The formal part of our Action unless it carry EVIDENCE and Certainty with it cannot be ventur'd on vvithout reproach Now as appears p. 12 he ayms this discourse at Actions belonging to Faith and answers that is opposes those who say the Reason or Ground of our Action need be no more but a high Probability or Contingent as a Thousand to One c. P. 14. This necessity binds God to put an INEVITABLE CERTITUDE in the Motives of Faith P. 16. There is NOTHING advanc'd towards the TRUTH of the ASSENT since this remains known that the Position MAY BE FALSE c. And to omit others p. 20. he puts the Question whether a desultory Assent which so agrees to this side that the Believer sees it FALLIBLE be sufficient for Christian Life and Action and coming in the next § to answer it he calls this an INCERTITUDE or defect of Certitude and declares that it makes a Religion either absolutely NONE or not a RATIONAL one but a MEER FOLLY These Citations duely reflected on it will appear very strange to any ingenuous man that Dr. T. could easily imagine an Author never noted till now to be given to contradict himself who so expresly in such and so many signal passages and in the whole Tenour of that Discourse nay the very immediately foregoing § manifests himâ—elf to hold that the Grounds of Faith cannot possibly lead men the wrong way that they must be Evident and Inevitably Certain that if it may be False we cannot assent to it at all as a Truth that if the Believer sees 't is Fallible 't is Irrational a meer Folly to hold it or else destructive of Religion 'T is strange I say to imagin that a Writer who is any thing in his wits should put forth a Treatise purposeâ—y to evince the Absolute Certainty or Impossibility of Falsehood in the Grounds and Motives to Faith and in it so often and so particularly avow it and yet in the same Treatise confess that what 's possible to be false is True Certainty and so a competent Ground to establish Faith on that is maintain the contrary Position to what he intended or pretended § 9. Having thus amply made good this part of my charge laid against Dr. T. Letter of Thanks p. 63. viz. That 't is the plain tenour of the Prefacers Discourse and the whole scope of that Preface to force the direct contrary Position to what Dr. T. would so disingenuously have put upon him of which he here takes no notice nor gives account why he hapt not to mind or regard that best way of interpreting an Authors words or not to see so many clear Expressions against his Interest rather than one obscure one seemingly for it we come next to consider the particular words in the place cited and see whaâ— strong temptation they could give Dr. T. to take him in a sense never intended notwithstanding so many pregnant Evidences to the Contrary § 10. The Prefacer said that Some understood by Moral Certainty such a Certainty as makes the Cause always work the same Effect though it take not away the Absolute Possibility of working otherways He adds afterwards that this ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true Certainty and the Authors considered as mistaken in undervaluing it And I must confess that to one who lights by accident on this single passage taken abstractedly from the rest and could reach no deeper than the Grammar or superficial placing of words it bears at first sight a show as if the Prefacer had approv'd that to be a True Certainty not onely when the Cause always works the same Effect as I
great part comprehend it DISCOURSE II. Shewing by Reason that every First Principle is an Identical Proposition THe great Architect of the Universe knew in Himself or saw clearly and distinctly in his own Divine Understanding what he intended to make and this to the least thing in Nature as is granted by all who hold such a Soveraign Being Also there being nothing able to check or cross his omnipotent Efficiency we cannot doubt but they flow'd from that First Source of all Essence and Being without any Errour Mistake or as we may say monstrous Abortion but perfectly adjusted and proportion'd according to their several degrees of Being to the Idea's in the Divine Understanding of their Creator Hence each of them gain an Establishment in their Peculiar Natures or the respective Portions of Being assign'd them or rather which they essentially are and a kind of participated Immutability and Eternity by their Conformity Proportion or Essential Relation to those Divine Ideas Wherefore since all our Knowledge is either taken from the Things or else proportion'd to them also since there neither is nor can be any consideration in things so primary so fundamental or immoveably grounded as is this 't is manifest that the First most firm and most deeply grounded Truth which can be conceived or spoken of any thing is that 't is establisht thus immutably in its proper Nature by this Soveraign Relation to what 's essentially Immutable Wherefore if the First Principles of all must be the most Primary most Fundamental and most immoveably-grounded Truths of all other 't is most evidently concluded that the very First Principles can be no other but those Propositions which express the establishment of Things in their very natures or their being what they are which can no other way be exprest but by Identical Propositions § 2. Also a Definition being granted by all the learned world a chief Instrument to Science if any thing could maintain a competition with Identical Propositions to be â—he very first Principles certainly Definitions of all other seem to have the best claim But what I contend is that there is some consideration taken from things antecedent to their Definitions viz. their Capableness or Possibility of being defin'd Common sence teaching us that the Power to be such naturally goes before Actually being such To declare this I desire the nature of a Definition may be look'd into which is to assign by way of expression the certain bounds and limits of such a Nature that so way may be made to Science But in case the Thing could bear two disparate Definitions first a Contradiction would follow for neither of these two imagin'd Definitions would be in reality any at all since neither of them would describe the certain limits of that nature Next if the Thing could bear more Definitions than one the Discourser about it would be never the nearer to Science but in a perfect Confusion now considering it thus now not thus but otherwise so that no Discourse could proceed for want of a steady Basis to ground it and make its several parts center in one point or tend to one end Wherefore the Thing must be antecedently establish'd to be incapable to bear more Definitions than one else no right Definition could be made of it nor any thing be known concerning it Now that which establishes the Thing in an Impossibility to bear but one true Definition is its Metaphysical Verity and Vnity or its being what it is which frees its nature from Chimericalness and Division in its self whence it becomes intelligible or capable to be known exprest defin'd and discours'd of Wherefore the Things being what it is is that which not onely Grounds all Definitions but even all Possibility of defining and this it participates as was said from its Essential Relation and Dependance on the Immutable Ideas or Forms in his Divine Understanding who is Unchangeable Truth it self 'T is concluded therefore that Identical Propositions which express a Things being what it is are antecedent in priority of nature to Definitions and consequently the very bottom Principles of all Science Nay Definitions themselves which all the world admits for Principles of our Discourses about the thing defined are in reality nothing else setting apart the manner of expression but Identical Propositions for 't is the self-same sence to say A Man is a Rational Creature as to say A Man is a Man nor were the Definition as it should be if it were not Identical in sence So that if he quarrel with First Principles for being Identical or for having a Subject and Predicate which are of the same notion and not for being worded alike the reason of which shall be given anon he must deny the use of Definitions too and by so doing oppose all the learned men in the world § 3. Thus far Metaphysicks Let us see next what Logick says to the Point To Conclude is to show evidently that two notions we call the Subject and Predicate are identify'd or truly connected in that Proposition we call the Conclusion To do this we find a Third notion call'd a Middle Term to be identify'd with those two in the Premisses whence we infer them to be the same with one another and consequently assert the Truth of the Conclusion But how shall we know that third notion to be tâ—uly connected with those two others that is how shall we know the Major and Minor Propositions to be true By finding if they need proof another Medium connected with the two Terms found in each of Them And how far must this go on Endlesly or no If endlesly then since every following Connexion is proved by some foregoing ones in case we cannot come to see some First Connexion or First Principle we could conclude or evidence nothing And how must we evidence the Connexion of the Terms or of the Subject and Predicate in these First Principles By another Antecedent Connexion of their Terms with a Third No for these are suppos'd the First Connexions Wherefore since they cannot be evidenc'd by any thing out of themselves and yet must be evident else nothing could be evidenc'd by them it follows that they must be evident of themselves or self-evident And in what consists this self-evidence Manifestly in this that no Middle Term can come between the notions of their Subject and Predicate which devolves finally into this that the Subject and Predicate are the self-same notion or that the Proposition is Identical and this not onely materially or found in the same Thing for so are the Terms of every Remote Conclusion if it be True but Formally and this either simply in notion onely as are the Definition and the Thing defin'd or else most formally and in expression also as in those I alledg'd § 4. Again we experience that the most immediate notions if they in the least differ such are Proper Causes and Effects can be connected with the Subject to which they belong in
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
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
of these things then let him say he is fallibly certain of it which done Nature will shew him how perfect Nonsence he speaks whence the same Nature will tell him with a little reflexion that since the word Infallibly can with good sence be joyn'd with the word Certain either 't is adeqaate to that word and extends its sence as far as the others and then there is no Certainty where there is not Infallibility or it does not extend as far as the word Certain and then we may be Certain of some things yet not-Infallibly Certain which since not-Infallibly means Fallibly signifies clearly we may be fallibly certain of those things But common sence teaches us how ridiculous 't is to say we are fallibly certain of any thing 'T is most evident therefore and demonstrable that there is no Certainty but where there is Infallibility and that we can never be said to be truly Certain of any thing till all circumstances consider'd we see our selves out of possibility of being deceived hic nunc in that very thing Whence Dr. T. denying Infallible assurance of both Letter and Sence of Scripture is convinc'd to deny all true Certainty of either and so to render all Faith built upon it Uncertain that is possible to be false and could he with sense take the other part of the distinction and say he is fallibly certain of it yet the guilt of the same Position will still remain with him This Logical Demonstration I produc'd in Faith Vindicated pag. 37. of which Dr T. takes notice here pag. 17 thus Mr. S. is plâ—as'd to say that Certainty and Infallibility are all one concealing thus from his Reader I had ever prov'd it lest he should be oblig'd â—o speak to my Proofs which he neither likes nor uses and bears himself as if I had only said it which suppos'd then indeed his bare saying the contrary was a competent Answer This done he confutes it manfully with telling his Readers I am the first man that evâ—r said it and that 't is foolish I beseech you Gentlemen is it the fashion in the Univeesities to solve Arguments on this manner That is to neglect the Premisses call the Conclusion foolish and think to overthrow the Reason in the Opinion of his Readers because 't is not some hackney Argument brought into play perhaps an hundred times over and ninety nine times answer'd but now produc'd first Certainly one would think in reason that what has been many times alledg'd should rather be slighted because it may have received already many Answers and not such Pcoofs as first appear because 't is certain they never yet had any at all nor do I conceive that the Noble and Learned Virtuosi of the ROYAL SOCIETY use to reject any Production because the Author of it is the first that invented it but they allow it Examination and if it hold the Trial approve it and commend the Author § 4. I shall endeavour to give him another Argument of the Necessity of admitting Infallibility though I have good reason to fear he will afford it again no other Answer but only this that I am the first man that ever produc'd it 'T is this Taking the word False or Falsus subjectively or as in the Subject that is as making the Jugment False or Erroneous 't is a Participle of the Verb Fallor and signifies deceived actually to which corresponds as its proper Power Fallible or capable to be deceived Now the contrary to False thus understood is True taken also subjectively or as making the Judgment which in it is True or Un-erroneous in that its Act. Wherefore the proper Power corresponding to that Act must necessarily be that which is oppos'd to Fallible that is Infallible Again taking the word False Objectively or as found in the Proposition which is the Object or Cause of our Judgment as 't is false or actually deceived It s proper Power corresponding to it is Capable to deceive Wherefore also taking its Opposit Truth Objectively or for the Object of our Judgment when 't is True the proper Power corresponding to it must be Incapable to deceive 'T is concluded then from both these Considerations that we can neither affirm Points or Propositiont of Faith which are the Objects of such Acts True but we must affirm withal that they are Incapable to make us judge erroneously while we assent to them nor that our Judgment or Act of Faith can be True or Un-erroneous but we must be Infallible in so judging Thus far concerning the necessity of admitting Infallibility if we once put our Assents or Acts of Faith to be true Judgments From which 't is a different Question to ask how we become thus Infallible onely 't is Evident that in case the former Proposition be put viz that we must affirm our Acts of Faith True Infallible we must be or Impossible to be in an Errour when we make those Acts. But now to this Infallibility in those Acts God's Providence leads men diversly according to their several degrees of Capacity Those who are arriv'd to a great pitch of Learning come to it by absolutely-concluding proofs call'd Demonstrations that is by penetrating the nature of the Authority on which it is built and such men can make out clearly and distinctly to their own Thoughts the Certainty of that Authority by discoursing it to themselves others they can resolve it into its Grounds meet with and answer Objections and in a word see themselves to be Infallibly Certain of it In these men therefore though the Truth of their Tenet be indeed taken from the Object as 't is always yet the Clearness Distinctness and firm Strength of it springs from the Perfection of their well-cultivated Understanding Those who are of a weak pitch are led to it by Practical Self-evidence of the nature of Authority and of the way in common by which they receive Faith which dim rude sight even in the simplest serves to carry them on to act according to right nature when they assent but they cannot discourse their thoughts nor resolve them into Principles nor answer Objections nor see themselves clearly to be infallibly Certain Nay more the greatest part of these especially if very simple do by some lucky chance or rather by a particular disposition of Gods good Providence light upon this right way more than by any strength of their own wit looking into Grounds but being in it once they find that which satisfies them according to knowledges familiariz'd to them by converse with the World and which are of themselves solid and satisfactory In a word it became Gods goodness so to order things that the Acts of all the Faithful might be as much as was possible in men of every pitch and capacity Rational or Virtuous whatever Contingency may happen in some particulars Original Sin and by it Passion Ignorance or Interest sometimes byassing them and making them act with precipitancy In which case
will with Infallible Certainty bring down the Letter of Magna Charta the Statute Book and some Acts of Parliament the self-same from year to year at least in matters of high Consequence and by means of the Sense writ Traditionally in some mens heaâ—ts correct the Letter if Printers or Copiers should mistake If Dr. T. asks how I prove it I would tell him that the Nature of the Thing must make it Notorious if altered be cause great multitudes are conversant in it and it being esteemed of a kind of Sacred Nature weigh every tittle of it warily especially those passages that immediately touch some weighty Point whence should some whose Interest 't is to alter it go about such an Action it cannot appear a Good to the Generality whose Concerns are highly violated by that alteration to conceal and permit the Letter to remain Uncorrected and if it could not appear a Good to the Generality to consent to alter it nor become a Motive to the rest to attempt a seen Impossiblity neither one nor the other could will to alter it much less both conspire to do it and should they attempt it their will must either have no Object and then 't is a Power to nothing that is no Power or else act without an appearing Good and in both cases the Will would be no Will. This short hint will let the Reader see the Grounds I go upon 't is not now a proper place to pursue such Arguments close or press them home I wish I might see some return of the like nature from our two undemonstrating Adversaries who think it their best play to laugh at Principles and Demonstration because they know in their Consciences they are perfect Strangers to both § 8. Well but though Dr. T. denies any Infallible Certainty of the Ground of all Christian Faith let 's see at least what other Certainty he affords us And at the first sight any honest man might safely swear it must be if any a Fallible Certainty that is a very fair piece of Nonsense for 't is evident to all Mankind the Abhorrers of First Principles always excepted that if any Certainty be Infallible and there be any other besides this it must needs be a Fallible one since there can be no middle between Contradictaries So that Dr. T. is put to this hard choice either to bring such a Certainty for the Ground of all Christianity which is no Certainty or else such an one as is perfect Nonsense if it be named by its proper Name Lâ—t's see what choice he makes We are not sayes he Infallibly Certain that any Book c. But yet observe now the Opposit kind of Certainty delivered here pag. 9. We have a firm Assurance concerning these matters so as not to make the least doubt of them I marry this is a rare Certainty indeed We have not Infallible Certainty sayes Dr. T. of either Letter or Sense of Scripture but onely such an one as keeps us from making the least doubt of them Now since a very easie reflexion teaches us that we have no doubt of many things being True nay more have strong Hopes they are True and yet for all that hold them notwithstanding possible to be false 't is a strange Argument to prove he avows not the possible Falshood of Faith to alledge that he declared himself he had onely such an Assurance as not at all to doubt it For not to doubt a thing signifies no more but not to incline to think it False which a man may do and yet not at all hope 't is True seeing he who suspends indifferently from both sides and inclines to neither does not at all doubt a Thing or fear 't is False having no imaginable reason to ground the least degree of any such Fear more than he has to ground any Hope of its Truth Again those Speculators who attend not to Principles are oftentimes in a perplex'd case and through the Goodness of Nature hold a thing absolutely True while they attend to such motives as connaturally breed that perswasion which thing notwithstanding coming to make it out as Scholars and unable to perform it hereupon consider'd as Speculators they must hold possible to be False for any thing they know and this I conceive is Dr. T's condition Regarding the nature of Faith and the common Conceit of Christianity he cannot but see he must if he will be a Christian profess Faith impossible to be False and doublesly he will avow it such as long as he speaks Nature and avoids reflecting on his Speculative Thoughts but coming once to consider the points of Faith as standing under such proofs as his Unskilful Art affords him and conscious to himself as he needs must who sleights first Principles and all Methods to Knowledge that he hath never an Argument that is absolutely or truly Conclusive he is forc'd again taking in these unlucky circumstances to avow Faiths Ground and consequently its self to be Possible to be otherwise or False being willing to lay the blame on the Grounds of Faith and to say they cannot bear Absolutely-Conclusive Proofs rather than on the defectiveness of his own Skill and to represent them as unworthy to have the name of stable Grounds rather than he will lose a tittle of the Fame of being an able Divine Yet I will not say but the Christian in Dr. T. might overcome the Speculator at least ballance him in an equal suspence or beget in him a pretty good conceit of Faith's Impossibility to be False but then when he once reflects that this cannot be maintain'd without admitting Infallibility which is the word the abhominable Papists use nor made out without using First Principles or Identical Propositions which that malignant Man I. S. pretends to build on immediately the byass prevails and the Idea of Popery once stirred up which haunts his and his Friends fancy day and night in a thousand hideous shapes â— he runs in a fright so far from Impossibility of Falshood in Faith that he comes to a very easie Possibility of its being all a plain Imposture or Ly for any thing he absolutely knows since Grounds prevailing onely to make him not doubâ— of it can raise it no higher Moreover if this be a good Argument I declar'd my self so assur'd as not to make the least doubt of a thing therefore I could not avow it possible to be False it must be allow'd Argumentative to say I am so assured as not in the least to doubt of it therefore 't is not possible to be False Dull Universities that had not the wit to light all this while on Dr. T's Principles and way of arguing They ascertain all things at the first dash without more adoe I have a firm Assurance so as not to doubt of the Grounds of Christian Faith the Letter and Sense of Scripture therefore by this new Logick they are concluded Certain and Impossible to be False In opposition to which if you
the former Proof as put down by himself here pag. 24. is to conclude it Impossible that THESE Points of Faith should be False that is SVCH points as express only the An est of a thing and so have for their Predicate Existent as I exprest my self in that Argument And my Conclusion of the 2 d. Proof is this as put down by himself here pag. 25. 'T is impossible therefore that what is thus affirm'd to be True that is in such words as can bear no pertinent distinction should in any regard be affirm'd possible to be False the impossibility of distinguishing the Predicate pertinent ly excluding here all possibility of diverse respects Is this barely to go about to prove that what 's True is Impossible to be False or rather that no different regards or respects can in such Faith-propositions as these be made use of to elude or diminish the granting their Intire Truth The Proposition An Ethiopian is black is but in part True because it can bear diverse respects or regards to distinguish it pertinently viz. according to his Teeth and his Skin But in those Propositions which have Existent for their predicate no imaginable regards can be found appliable to it so to distinguish it pertinently The next Falsification of my Intention is to pretend that I argue barely out of the nature of Subject Copula and Predicate whereas by my whole Discourse 't is most evident that I argue precisely from their being such Subjects and Predicates that is such as could bear no pertinent Distinction diminishing the Integrity of their Truth In a word the Question was about the Truth or which is all one Impossibility of Falshood in Faith-Propositions and I was there treating it Logically I would gladly then have any sober and Intelligent man inform me why it was not as proper and pertinent for me to argue out of the nature of Propositions in which only Truth is found and particularly out of the nature of such Propositions that is those who have such Subjects such Predicates in them as it is for a Mathematician writing a Discourse of Trigonometry to argue out of the nature of such a kind of Angle or a Triangular Figure Or why in so doing I can justly be thought to have deflected from the Rules or Method of exactest Art § 8. In a word had I in a Christian English Sermon stood very gravely repeating Sixteen verses out of a Heathenish Latin Poet or had I after I had so often mock't at others for bumbast Rhetorick and so indirectly extoll'd my self for my smooth style talkt of persons of a PROFLIGATE TEMPER as did Dr. T. here pag. 33. and pag. 163. Some idle Wit who had nothing else to do might perhaps have taken just occasion to sport himself with my imperfection But to mock at a Writer for using the Terms proper to the Art he is discoursing in seems to argue a very Profligate temper of Levity at least that I may say no worse § 9. Thus much for his first Answer to faith Vindicated consisting wholly of Drollery Neglects and other worse Faults His second is that the main of that Book being to prove that what 's True is Impossible to be False I oppose no body that â—e knows of in this matter I answer whoever pleases to run over the several Heads from which I argue in Faith Vindicated hinted briefly in the Margent will see that that which he pretends in a manner the only point is but once designedly made use of and very rarely toucht at in other places and that there are near forty Proofs of another nature though sometimes all Truths being connected they happen to be partly coincident into the same Sometimes also I suppose it but it bears no show of reason that most of my Book is spent in proving it But is it so clear that I oppose no body he knows of in proving that what is True is Impossible to be False Does not he know one Dr. T. That same person I suppose will tell us soberly that he can prove his Faith True relying on what he conceives to be the Letter and Sense of Scripture and yet speaking of the Certainty he had of both these he told us expresly Rale of Faith pag. 118. All this may possibly be otherwise that is that possibly he has neither right Letter nor right Sense of Scripture and consequently that what he affirms to be his Faith and True is notwithstanding Possible to be False The same man being to vindicate himself in this Pref. pag. 10. explain'd his meaning to be that he could not demonstrate those things so as to shew that the Contrary necessarily involves a Contradiction Now if he cannot prove that the Contrary to any thing involves a Contradiction he can never prove that contrary to be False nothing being False which clashes not by consequence at least with some First Principle or involves a Contradiction and as long as he cannot prove it False 't is possible to be True for any thing he knows and if the Contrary to Faith be affirm'd possible to be True Faith it self must be possible to be False and yet though his discourses make it Possible to be False the obligation incumbent on him as a Christian forces him 〈◊〉 affiâ—m that 't is notwithstanding True So that the Goodness of Christianity joyn'd with the Badness of his Grounds oblige him to grant equivalently though he be warier than to do it directly that what is True is possible to be False § 10. Now because 't is against the very grain of Rational nature to admir of such a palpable Contradiction if the word Truth be rightly and properly understood hence I am Certain he and such as he are provided with a dâ—stinction at the bottom of their hearts and only hold that their Faith is morally True that is some great Likelihood or as True as many things are of which we judg our selves morally Certain and did not in the least doubt of them yet oftentimes upon clearer Information have found our selves deceiv'd in our Opinion of them and the Thing to be False And that this is Dr. T's sentiment in this matter appears farther besides what hath been now said from his owning such a moral Certainty only for the Grounds of his Faith as frees one from doubt from his feeble and dwindlings Expressions of his Certainty of a Godhead and lastly from his blaming me pag. 29. for râ—sting contented with no less Certain Grounds than such as are absolutely Conclusive of the thing And how one who relies on his Speculative Proofs for the Renouncers of Tradition can have no claim to Practical Self-evidence can be thought to hold Faith absolutely True and yet disclaim himself and blame in others the pretending to such Motives as absolutely conclude or prove it to be True or how a man can with honesty affirm a thing is absolutely True and yet deny he is absolutely Certain of it I must confess