different degrees of Evidence and measure of Divine Assistance but every Christian by the use of his reason and Common Helps of Grace may attain to so great a degree of Certainty from the Convincing Arguments of the Christian Religion and Authority of the Scriptures that on the same Ground on which men doubt of the Truth of them they may as well doubt of the Truth of those things which they judge to be most Evident to Sence Reason I wish D. S. had explain'd himself here what he means by different degrees of Evidence whether some Glances or likely Appearances of Truth call'd greater or lesser Probabilities or such Intelleâ—tual Sights at the least of them discovers the thâ—ng thâ—â— evidenc't to â—e be indeed so or True I suspect much he means the former because thâ—se are the most proper Grounds for Fallible Certainty which he is now going to establish whereas the Latter sort of Evidences would hazard to carry too far and to beget Infallible Certainty which would quite spoil his most excellent design of setling the Fallible Certainty of Faith for those Evidences which show the thing to be True show it at the same time to be Impossible to be False whence 't is a thousand to one that such Evidences as these would utterly destroy his beloved Fallible Certainty and endanger to introduce again by necessary and enforcing consequence that Popish Doctrine of Infallibility which he had newly discarded When he adds that every Christian may by the means here assigned attain to so great a degree of Certainty c. I had thought he had meant Certainty of the Points of his Faith but my hopes were much defeated when coming to the Point he flyes off to his Christians not doubting the Truth of the convincing Arguments of Christian Religion and of the Authority of the Scriptures For this is far wide of our purpose and his Promise which was to reduce the Faith of Protestants to Principles whereas these words signify no more but not to doubt of Christianity being the True Religion or Scriptures being God's word but reaches not to what are those points of Christianity or determinate sense of Scripture in particular which constitutes Protestantism and only concerns our debate Now 't is evident that the Roman-Catholicks profess not to doubt of the convincing Grounds of Christianity nor yet of Scripture but to hold that Christianity is the only-only-Trâ—e Religion and that the Scriptures are Holy and God's word and yet we differ so much from Protestants that he thinks us Idolaters What we are then in reason to expect from Dr. St. is that he would bring us Grounds for the Certainty of his Faith as to determinate Points viz. Christ's God-head a Trinity Reality or not-Reality of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and such like and those so certain as that we may as well doubt of what we judge to be most evident to sense and Reason as doubt of them as he here pretends and not put us off with Common words in stead of particular Satisfaction concerning his Faith and the Certainty thereof I would ask him then how it comes to pass that the Socinian whom he will not deny to have both use of his reason and common helps of Grace and both the convincing Arguments of the Christian Religion and Authority of Scriptures to make use of how I say he comes so to fall short of Evidence and consequently Certainty springing from that evidence concerning Christ's God-Head which is a Fundamental Point of Christian Faith that he doubts it nay utterly denies it whereas yet the Protestant having the same means to work with judges he has evidence and Certainty grounded on that evidence that Christ is God yet all this while they dissent not at all in things most evident to Sense or Reason I much fear our Drs. big words concerning his degrees of Evidence and the Certainty of his Faith built on those degrees will when examin'd amount to a very obscure evidence and a Problematical kind of Assuredness much like those comfortable lights which both parties have when they lay even wagers at Cock-fighting such games giving good hopes to both sides but good Security to neither But so it ought to be if the Grounds of Faith be not Infallibly but only Fallibly-Certain which is all he is bent to prove 25. No man who firmly Assents to any thing as True can at the same time entertain any suspicion of the falshood of it for that were to make him certain and uncertain of the same thing It is therefore absurd to say that these who are Certain of what they believe may at the same time not know but it may be False which is an apparent Contradiction and overthrows any Faculty in us of judging of Truth and Falshood This Principle and the next were I conceive intended to preserve the Dr's and his Friends Credit against the Inference at the end of Faith vindicated and diverse other Passages shewing them either to be far from good Christians in holding that all Christian Faith may possibly be an Errour and Lying Imposture or else very bad Discoursers of their own Thoughts whilst they equivalently exprest themselves in divers places to be possibly in an Errour in all they believe nay more all Christians in the whole world to be in the same condition This if justified cannot but reflect on them being so concerning a Lapse and I have at Dr. St's brisk instigation charg'd it home in Reason against Raillery though I still expres't my self to incline to the more Civil and more Charitable side and rather lay the blame on their Understandings then on their Wills and Intentions Which Book had Dr. St. seen when he writ this he would have discern'd the triflingness of these weak excuses But let 's see what he says His Firâ—t part is built on a most gross and senseless Errour which is that he who firmly assents to a thing as True is Certain of it as appears by those words for this were to make him Certain and Vncertain of the same thing I wonder exceedingly where the Dr. â—earn't this notion of Certainty Not from Mankinde I am sure at least not from those who had the use of their Reason For all these already know it to be Evident that a man may firmly assent to a thing as True and yet that thing be False must that man therefore be Certain of that Falshood and that it is though in reality it be not We experience that opposite parties firmly assent to contrary Tenets as True for example the Socinians firmly assent that Christ is not God We and the Protestants that Christ is God Catholicks assent firmly that they are not Idolaters when they make use of Holy Images in Divine Worship D. St. firmly assents they are at least he would perswade his 〈◊〉 by his Books he does so Are all these opposite sides Certain of their several Tenets because each side firmly assents to them as True
such Firm and Evident Grounds But I presume I have already perform'd this in my Sure-footing and its Corollaries as also in Faith Vindicated and its Inferences and if it shall appear needfull or be requir'd of me by Learned Men it may perhaps hereafter be brought into a closer and more rigorous Form Yet that it may be seen how easily our Discourses concerning the Certainty and Ground of Faith are resolvable into Evident Principles I shall annex for an Instance a small Peace of mine whiâ—h though it was never pretended to be a severe Process by way of Principles but only meant for a connected Discourse yet I doubt not but I shall show that each main Ioynt of it where it speaks assertively has a Firm and Evident Principle at the Bottom giving it Stability and Evidence and through vertue of these Qualifications rendering it Solidly and Absolutely Convictiveâ— THE METHOD To Arrive at SATISFACTION IN RELIGION 1. SInce all Superstructures mnâ—t needs be weak whose foundation is not surely laid He who desires to be satisfy'd in Religion ought to begin with searching out and establishing the Ground on which Religion is built that is the First Principle into which the several Points of Faith are resolv'd and on which their Certainty as to us depends 2. To do this 't is to be consider'd that a Church is a Congregation of Faithful and Faithful are those who have true Faith Wherefore till it be known which is the true Faith it cannot be known which is the true Church Again A Council is a Representative A Father an Eminent Member of the Church and a Witness of her Doctrin Wherefore till it be known which is the true Church it cannot be known which is a Council or who a Father Lastly Since we cannot know which is Scripture but by the Testimony of those who recommend it And of Hereticks we can have no security that they have not corrupted it in favour of their false Tenets neither can we be secure which is Scripture till we be satisfy'd who are the truly Faithful on whose Testimony we may safely rely in this affair 3. Wherefore he who sincerely aims at Satisfaction in Religion ought first of all to find out and establish some assured Means or Rule by which he may be secured which is true Faith For till this be done He cannot be secure either of Scripture Church Council or Father but having once done this is in a ready way to Judge certainly of all Whereas if he begin with any of the other or indeed argue from them at all till the Rule of Faith be first settled he takes a wrong Method and breaks the Laws of discourse by beginning with what is less cortain and indeed to him as yet uncertain and in effect puts the Conclusion before the Premisses unless he argue Ad Hominem or against the personal Tenets of his Adversary which is a good way to Confute but not to Satisfie 4. And because the Rule of Faith must be known before Faith can be known and Faith before Scripture Church Councils and Fathers it appears that to the finding out this Rule no assistance of Books will be requisite for every one who needs Faith is not capable to reade and understand Books There is left then only Reason to use in this Inquiry And since People of all Capacities are to be saved much sharpness and depth of wit will not be requisite but plain Nâ—tural Reason rightly directed will suffice 5. This being so the Method of seeking satisfaction in Religion is become strangely both more short and easie For here will need no tedious turning over Libraries nor learning Languages nor endless comparing voluminous Quotations nor so much as the skill to read English all being reduc'd to the considering one single Point but such an one as bears all along with it and this too comprehensible as will appear to a mean understanding Again the large debating particular Points in a controversiall way is by this means avoided For when the Right Rule of Faith is certainly known then as certainly as there is any faith in the world all that is received on that Rule is certain and of faith Not but that 't is of excellent use too to cherish and strengthen the faith especially of Young Believers by shewing each particular Point agreeable to right Reason and Christian Principles and recorded expresly in or deduced by consequence from the Divinely-inspired Books 6. Lastly This Method is particularly suitable to the Nature of sincere Inquirers who if they want the liberty of their own Native Indifferency and be aw'd by any Authority whatever before that Authority be made out cannot but remain unsatisfy'd and inwardly feel they proceed not according to Nature and the conduct of unbyast Reason Whereas when the Authority is once made evident Reason will clearly inform them that it becomes their Nature to assent to it 7. But how will it appear that 't is so easily determinable by common Reason which is the right Rule of Faith Very evidently But first we must observe the Assent called Faith depends upon two Propositions What God hath said is true and God hath said this out of which two necessarily follows the Conclusion that this or that in particular is true Of these two we are concerned only in the later For to examin Why God is to be believed when he has said any thing which they call the formal Motive of faith is not a Task for those who own Christianity But all we have to do is to finde out What God hath said or which in our case is all one What Christ has taught and that whatever it be which acqnaints us with this we call THE RVLE OF FAITH as that which Regulates our belief concerning Christs Doctrine or the Principles of Religion Now I affirm iâ— may be obvious Reason be discover'd which this Rule is and that by looking into the Nature of it or considering what kinde of thing it ought to be which is no more than attentively to reflect what is meant by those two ordinary words RULE FAITH 8. And both of them acquaint us that the Rule of Faith must be the means to assure us infallibly what Christ taught For in case a Rule though we apply it to our power and swerve not from it leave us still deceivable in those points in which it should regulate us we need another Rule to secure us that we be not actually deceiv'd and so this other and not the former is our Rule Next Faith speaking of Christian Faith differs â—rom Opinion in this that Opinion may be false but Faith cannot Wherefore the Rule of faith both as 't is a Rule and as it grounds Faith doubly involves Infallibility in its Notion 9. Let us apply this to Scripture and Tradition for setting aside the Light of the private Spirit grounding Phanaticism there are no more which claim to be Rules of faith see to which of them this
that those things he bragg'd of and rely'd on as Principles are in Reality but so many Paradoxes or Impertinences I hope we may sâ—â—cease our Fears and turn them into a more pleasant humour Though the Prognostick be very obvious what he can do in this case yet who knows but for once he may work an Impossibility who as will appear in the ensuing Treatise has told us so many Contradictions In the mean time if he thinks fit to attempt any Reply 't is Evident from the former Discourse what he is to do unless he will strangely Prevaricate from his Duty viz. either to disallow my settling here the nature of Principles and state them better that is either to deny that they are to have any Evidence or Influence at all or else if he allows it to make out that his pretended Principles have those Qualifications which is best done by resolving them into First Principles and connecting them distinctly with their respective Consequences And let him remember that till he does this he neither defends Himself against my present Answer nor gives a home Reply to Protestancy without Principles whatever gay things or things he sayes to particular passages in it since himself acknowledges these Principles of his were intended an Answer to that Book and out of the nature of both Treatises they appear to be the proper Return to it I have no occasion nor is it my intent here to write against the Church of England or any of her Legitimate Sons rather I must declare that in case they all hold as M. Thorndike a Man of Eminent Learning Esteem amongst them declares himself to do Just weights p. 159. that the Scripture interpreted by the perpetual Practice of God's Church is the Ground of Faith which implies that Practical Tradition is that which gives them Christs Sense or Faith and so is their Rule I must heartily applaud their joyning with Catholicks in the main Point of all and which settled is apt to unite us in all the rest What I impugn then here is a pestilent Tenet destructive to all Episcopacy and the very Essence of Church making Church-Governors Useless in their main Duty of Teaching Faith to their Flock and Lame in that of Government For if every private man is to rely on his own Interpretation he ought neither believe nor Obey the Church when the contrary seems to his Fancy to be grounded in Scripture and if that man do but alledge he judges in clear in Scripture and consequently that the Church is corrupt and errs I see not with what Iustice according to these Principles the Church can either excommunicate him or bind him to his Duty I expect Dr. St. will object that I deny divers of his Principles which some of ours have granted for his Friend Dr. T. and he abound in such sleight Topicks To which though I could answer that unusquisque in sensu suo abundat in productions of Human Reason yet I need only alledge Dr. St's ambi-dextrous and ambiguâ—us way of contriving his Principles to look so with different faces that even the same man may sometimes apprehend them to mean thus sometimes otherwise Besides all his Confuters aym nâ—t at one End Mr. E. W. intending only to shew they conclude not the Point they pretend and which is superscribed to them Mr. N. O. to shew their Destructiveness to Government while I take for my task to discover their Oppositness to all Logick True Learning and Common Rationality and that there is nothing at all in him of what was pretended neither Principles Consequences Connexion Conclusions Reduction Influence nor End Nor must he think that every thing that is granted by any for dispute sâ—ke is allowed for good by the Respondent 't is frequent to express we grant things which we only pass as nothing to the main Point which is to be concluded nor can Dr. St. pretend with any reason that others have yeelded them to be Principles whereas I deny it The Authour of Reason and Religion p. 650. has pithily declared his 〈◊〉 of them and their true merit in 〈◊〉 words Whether the fore-mentioned Principles be True False Controverted or Obscure no Verity peculiar to 〈…〉 be deduc't from them which expresses their want of Clear Evidence and so quite degrades them from the Dignity of Principles If any think the Title prefixt to this Book forestals immodestly the Readers Iudgment my Reply usust be that I hope for Readers of more Prudence then to receive Prejudice from so easie an Occasion A Counterfeit Modesty sprung from Sceptical Despair or Disregard of Truth will naturally dislike such Expressions but those who heartily hold there is such a thing as Truth and intirely love It will esteem the open avowing her compleat victoriousness both Fitting and Necessary and that she conquers at present I have all the best Maxims of Rational Nature engag'd for my Security INDEX ABsolute Certainty of Faith asserted p. 21. 22. 50. 51. Attributes of God not engaged to preserve private Interpreters of Scripture from damnable Errours p. 81. to 85. Not to be argu'd from alone p. 32. 33. much less from Power alone p. 33. 34. Certainty how abusively taken p. 164. 165. 166. 168. 173. 174. 179. 180. True Certainty asserted and from its deepest Grounds explain'd p. 167. 168. Moral Certainty in Faith discust p. 176. 177. 178. A Christian Life Spiritual p. 8. 9. 54. 55. 191. to 195. The Church turn'd with the heels upward by Dr. St. p. 96. 97. His six Conclusions examin'd p. 211. the nature of Conclusions laid open p. 222. Faith in Catholicks Rational p. 29. Infallibility requisit to Faith p. 92. to 96. 104. 158. 159. 162. how found in the vulgar how in others p. 133. to 157. Mankind how Infallible and in what p. 186. to 189. Necessary to the being of a Church p. 232. 233. 234. Principles agreed to by both sides examin'd p. 7. 8. c. shown to be two-fold p. 12. Principles not agreed to examin'd The 1st p. 20. the 2d p. 22. the 3d. p. 23. the 4th p. 24. the 5th p. 26. the 6th p. 30. the 7th p. 31. the 8th p. 35. the 9th p. 38. the 10th p. 53. the 11th p. 72. the 12th p. 73. the 13th p. 81. the 14th p. 85. the 15th p. 90. the 16th p. 96. the 17th p. 104. the 18th p. 106. the 19th p. 114. the 20th p. 128. the 21th 22th 23th p. 130. the 24th p. 159. the 25th p. 163. the 26th p. 171. the 27th p. 173. the 28th p. 179. the 29th p. 181. the 30th p. 185. Rule of Faith distinctly clear'd p 44. 45. 49. 54. 55. c. Vnanimously held by Catholicks p. 45. 46. How held by the Council of Trent p. 47. 48. Scripture not the Rule p. 60. to 69. p. 79. 80. How perfect p. 86. 87. c. 109. to 113. Sophistry in Dr. St. laid open p. 25. 26. 27. 28. 30. 31. 74. 75. 131. 132. 161. 164. 165. Ignorance in
and grounding upon them Hope and this all-over-powering Love of Heaven the main part of our Obedience are True or Impossible to be False If then Dr. St. takes the word know in this signification this Principle is granted if in any other or for a great Hope only that they are True as I fear when it comes to the point he intends no more I must for the Reasons here given and many more alledg'd in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery deny that no other way of Revelation is necessary and put him to prove it which he neither has done nor can do 2. Man being fram'd a rational Creature capable of reflecting upon himself may antecedently to any External Revelation certainly know the Being of God and his dependance upon him and those things which are naturally pleasing unto him else there could be no such thing as a Law of Nature or any Principles of Natural Religion I suppose he means by the word God the True God and then 't is not so evident that every Man in the state of corrupt Nature may arrive to know him however some few may and in the State of Right Nature All. And in case he takes the words certainly know in their proper signification then he may consider how ill his Friend Dr. Tillotson discourses who professes not to have even with the assistance of Christianity that Certain Knowledge of the Being of God which as Dr. Still says was attainable by the meer Light of Natural Reason 3. All Supernatural and External Revelation must suppose the truth of Natural Religion for unless we be antecedently certain that there is a God and that we are capable of knowing him it is impossible to be certain that God hath reveal'd his will to us by any supernatural means If he means here Priority of Nature 't is to be granted for this Proposition God has reveal'd implies and presupposes as its basis God is But if he understands it of priority of Time as I conceive he does then I both deny the Proposition and the validity of the Reason given for it For 't is Evident both by Reason and Experience that manifest and Convictive Miracles which are supernatural and external Revelations done before the Heathens who yet know not the true God in Testimony of Christianty at once or at the same time made it certain that he whom we adore is the True God and also that God reveal'd his will by supernatural means and so 't is not Impossible as Dr. St. here affirms to be certain of such a Revelation without knowing any time before hand that there is a God nor must All Supernatural and External Revelation needs suppose the Truth of Natural Religion that is of the Knowledge of the True God as he pretends since such a Revelation may cause that Knowledge and so antecede it not be antecedent to it 4 Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the Certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently suppos'd to all Divine Revelation For that were to overthrow the means whereby we are to judge concerning the Truth of any Divine Revelation This Discourse seems at the first show to carry so clear an evidence with it that nothing appears so Irrational as to doubt or dispute it And indeed 't is no less if the words in which it is couch'd be not equivocally taken but still be meant in the same sence To prevent then the growth of a witty piece of Sophistry which I foresee creeping in under the disguise of an ambiguous word I am to provide against it with a distinction both pertinent and necessary to the present matter These words Divine Revelation may either mean the way or Act of Revealing or else they may mean the Thing divinely reveal'd that is the Point of Faith which differ as showing and thing shown or as an Action and it's Effect In the same manner as the word Tradition is sometimes taken for the Way of Delivery sometimes for the Thing or Point delivered When they are taken for the one when for the other partly the circumstances and the aim of the discourse determin partly some annext particle or variation of the word so that if they be taken for the Thing reveal'd or deliver'd and be express'd singularly 't is call'd A Divine Revelation or A Tradition If plurally Divine Revelations or Traditions Now it seems something doubtful in whether sense it be taken here for § 1. he speaks of the Way of Revelation which can onely mean Revealing and in the two following ones 't is taken in the same sense as appears by the words God hath reveal'd found in the Third But this matters not much so it be here taken in the same sense throughout which I fear 't is not For the word Revelation is here made use of thrice and in the first and last place it seems plainly to mean the Points revealed in the middle the Way or Act of Revealing yet the two following Principles incline the doubtfulness of the Expression to mean the Points of Faith themselves Though this be to speak moderately by far the more preposterous and absurd Tenet as shall hereafter be shown But I am to provide for both parts since I am to skirmish with such an ambidextrous Adversary and therefore applying this discourse to his Proposition I distinguish thus and grant that Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation taking those words to signifie the Act of Revealing which overthrows the Certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to the Act of Revealing Also I grant that nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation taking those words to signifie Points of Faith revealed which overthrows the Certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently suppos'd to those Points This is candid and clear dealing and far from that sophistical and equivocating ambiguity which contrary to the Genius of Truth he so constantly and so industriously affects 5. There can be no other means imagin'd whereby we are to judge of the Truth of Divine Revelation but a Faculty in us of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to our Belief which if we do not exercise in judging the Truth of Divine Revelation we must be impos'd upon by every thing which pretends to be so Here are many quaint things to be considered For if Dr. St. means that we cannot judge of Truth without a Faculty to judge of Truth 't is a 〈…〉 Principle though very littâ—◠〈◊〉 his purpose But 't is most 〈◊〉 paraâ—oxical to say that no other means can be imagin'd to judge of Divine Revelation but such a Faculty For if there can be no other means imagin'd but this Faculty then This is all the means and so those Knowledges which are to inform and direct this Faculty are no means at all whence all motives to Faith Rule of Faith all Teaching nay Scripture it self are to no purpose For none of these are our Faculty of
be so as it happens in many Controvertists who are well instructed in the Grounds of their Faith yet not so well verst in the nature of particular points but believe them only by Implicit Faith or else one of their knowledges may be more Clear and distinct than the others and so serve to perfect and advance it in the same manner as Art does Nature Least of all can it follow that the Infallibility of the Church Representative is needless for This is not intended to teach the Faithfull their Faith at first nor do I remember ever to have seen a Generall Council cited in a Catechism but this is performed by the Church Diffusive by her Practise and Language and by her Pastors in their Catechisms and Instructions But it 's use is to secure and preserve Faith already taught and known from receiving any taint by the Equivocating Heretick and to recommend it more Authoritatively to the Faithfull when clear'd And whoever reads my 4th Note will see so many particularities in the Members which compound a Representative Church above others who are purely Parts of Ecclesia Credens that he cannot in any Reason judge them Vseless though those others be in an Inferiour degree Certain of their Faith too For all this while the word Infallible which seems to have so loud a sound and is made such a monstrous peece of business by the Deniers of it is in plain Terms no more but just barely Certain as I have prov'd Faith Vind. p. 37. 38. and Reason against Rail p. 113. To come closer up then to my Adversary His 20th Principle which speaks of Assent in common is wholly built upon a False supposition that it can only be Grounded upon Evidence For however indeed in perfect Reflecters that are unbyast Evidence of the Object or of the Credibleness of the Authority is alwayes requisit to breed Assent yet Experience teaches us that Assent in weak and unreâ—lecting persons is frequently built on a great Probability sometimes a very little one and sometimes men Assent upon little or no reason at all their Passion or Interest byassing their wills and by it their Understandings and this many times even against such reason as would be Evident to another Again matteriall Infallibility which is enough to that Assent we speak of precisely and solely consider'd depends solely at least Principally on the Object contrary to what is there asserted And whereas he says Princ. 29. that the Infallibility of every Particular person is not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church he sees by this discourse it both is and must be Asserted and that we maintain that every particular person must be materially Infallible or incapable of erring while he relies on the Grounds laid and recommended by God that is while he believes the Church which yet is far from rendring the Formal Infallibility of the Church useless unless he will say that because it suffices for the pitch of weak people whose duty 't is not to maintain and make out the Truth of their Faith that they be simply in the right or void of Errour and that they see after a gross manner that the thing is so though they cannot defend it therefore there is no need that those whose duty 't is to do so should be able to penetrate the Grounds of Faith and so explicate prove and maintain it to be True Nor will it follow that though the Generality were after a rude and gross manner formally Infallible in their belief that the Church is Infallible and therefore that the Points she proposes are all likewise Infallibly-true it will not follow I say hence that a greater and clearer and more penetrative degree of Formal Infallibility is useless in Church-Governours for as appears by my 4th Note there are many other things to be done by them of absolute necessity for the Church which far exceed the pitch and posture of those dull Knowers of the lowest Class which is the next degree above Ignorance and are unauthoriz'd to meddle in such affairs Unless he will say that Art is needless because there is Nature or that there needs no Iudges to decide such Cases in which the Law seems plain And thus much for the clearing this concerning Point In the rest of his Principles I shall be briefer But I must not pass over his Transition to them which is this We are further to enquire what Certainty men may have in matters of Faith supposing no External Proponent to be Infallible And he need not go far to satisfie his Enquiry For it being most evident by the Disputes between the Protestants and Socinians that Scripture needs some External Proposer of it's true meaning in such kinde of Points as also some External Proposer or Attester that this is the true Text of it on which all is built Also it being evident that Dr. St. Princ. 15. denies any Infallible Proposers of either of these and that here again he pursues close the same doctrin Lastly this Proposer being such that however we can have Certainty without It that the Divine Authority is to be believed yet we must depend on It for the Knowledge when and where 't is engag'd that is we must depend on It for the Certainty of our Faith It follows that in case this Proponent be not Infallible it can never be made out with Infallible Certainty that the Divine Authority stands engag'd for the Truth of any one Point of Faith and consequently that the Certainty men have in matters of Faith is not an Infallilible one And if it be not an Infallible Certainty which Faith has as he no where challenges but very laboriously disproves it he need not go far to enquire or learn what Certainty it must have for Common Sense tels him and every man who has the least spark of Natural Logick that if Faith must have Certainty as he grants and have not Infallible Certainty it must either have Fallible Certainty or none at all there being no Middle between them and so we must make account that because it overstrains D. St's weak Grounds to assert Faith to be Infallibly Certain therefore his next Attempt must be to overstrain Common Sense and to the inestimable Honour of Christian Religion maintain that all Christian Faith is Fallibly-Certain But he must do it smoothly and warily and however he nam'd the word Infallible loud enough and oft enough when he was confuting it yet he must take heed how he names the word Fallible Certainty when he is asserting it lest it breed laughter or dislike though it be evident out of the very Terms that he who confutes Infallible Certainty must maintain Fallible Certainty sf he maintains any But now he begins his defence of Faiths Fallible Certainty and 't is fit we should listen Monstrous things use to challenge and even force Attention from the most unconcern'd 24. There are different degrees of Certainty to be attained according to the
It were an excellent world for Hereticks if this notion of Certainty would take For these being â—bstâ—nate in their Errours no men more firmly assent to Falshoods then they and questionleâ—s the Generality of them judg'd what they held True too nay they must all do so if they once be put firmly assenting as in our case for to assent to a thing is to judge it to be indeed True By which means all Hereticks in the world are Certain of their Errours and if they be Certain of them Common Sense tels them they ought to hold what they are Certain of Again â—light Probabilities make many weak people firmly assent so does Passion and Interest yet they are all by this new doctrin Certain of what they hold and so all 's well 'T is now come to light what kinde of Certainty D. St. intended to prâ—scribe for Faith after he had rejected Infallibility namely such a Certainty as one might have whether the Thing be True or no meerly by vertue of firmly assenting to it as True And in this sense I think I may say he is Certain of his Faith and I hope he will be so civil as to requite me with maintaining that I am certain of my Faith too for we â—oth firmly assent to them as Truths and so we are both very good friends and by the same method so are Turks and Jews atton'd to Christians Nothing is so proper to reconcile Contradictions as a Chimaera viz. a Fallible certainty or such a certainty as is none Identical Propositions are meer toys to them or as Dr. T. says good for nothing But Fallible certainty or Certainties that are no Certainties can work wonders and even do more then miracle Ridiculous Folly not to see that when any one says I am certain af such a thing all mankind understands him to mean he has such Grounds as infer that thing is as he says and not only that he has a Firm Assent to it as True without intending that he has any Grounds to enforce the Truth of it This is what I often reflected upon in Dr. T. Reason against Railery that his discourse still aim'd to take the business of Certainty out of the hands of the Object and put it constantly upon the Subject and to make account he was sure the thing was so because he verily judg'd it or did not doubt it to be so And Dr. St. is here carrying on the same wise plot to which he begun to make way in his 20th Princip where he told us that Assent is not built on the nature of things but their Evidence to us ' Indeed if he speak of an Assent which it matters not whether it be True or False or rather which is or may be False 't is meerly built on our own Fancies and Conceits which I suppose he must mean there by the word Evidence But if the Assent we speak of and to which himself applies it be that of Faith which must necessarily be True both It and the Evidence which immediately breeds it must forcibly either be built on the nature of things or else on nothing and so both the pretended Evidence is a False Light and the Assent it self False and Chimerical On the other side in case if the Evidence and consequently the Assent be built on the Nature of things which are Footsteps of Gods Infinite Wisdom in which he has imprinted all Created Truths and establisht them under penalty of the highest Folly and Contradiction to be inerrably what they are it follows that in case the Evidence had from those things be indeed a true Evidence or a right Knowledge of their natures our understanding Power will be the same within as they are without and so Inerrable in it's Assent and It's Certainty built on those natures so that as their Metaphysical verity immediately depending on God is fixt by that Essentially Unchangeable Being in a participated but yet absolute unchangeableness in being what they are so Formal Verity or Truth in us being an Immediate effect of those Natures thus establisht working upon our Understanding transfuses into It that is into our Knowledge and consequently our Assent anâ— Certainty such a proper effect of themselves as sutes with the Subject in which 't is received viz. an Intellectual Unchangeableness or an Unchangeableness built on Knowledge of those Natures that is an Infallibleness No wonder then both our Drs. in their weak discourses fly off so from depending for their Assents or Faith on the Objects or Natures of things and recurr still to the Subject for by this means Common Sense is driven out of the world and Non-sense and Contradiction grow in great request And first Infallibility or true Certainty is radically destroyed which otherwise according to the discourse now made must forcibly be admitted then Fallible Certainty comes into great Credit or such a Certainty as is firmly assenting to a thing as True whether â—t be true or no that is such Certainties as are no Certainties but Wilful Adhesions such a Faith as is no Faith but Fancy such a Religion as is no Religion but Folly or Interest and such Truths as are no Truths but possible Falshoods In a word the Object set aside and the dependence of our Assents upon things without us as the Dr. would have it the subjects are at Liberty to hold and say what best likes the spirit within them or their voluntary Fancy in which consists the glorious Liberty of D. St's Blessed Reformation I grant him then â—hat no man who firmly assents to any thing as true can at the same time entertain any suspicion of it's Falshood But I deny that this plea will either acquit him or Dr. T. from the imputation of making Christian Faith possible to be False which was objected for why may not this man who firmly assents to a thing as true now or to day both suspect and see it to be False to morrow unless he can shew that that Assent of his depends on the Object or is built on the unchangeably-fixt natures of Things which Dr. St. denies in express terms Princ. 20. or what can establish him in his Assent of Faith if that do not Is it not evident he may change if he may see true Reason may be brought against it What would do him credit in this case is to offer to make it out that Assent requiring Evidence and so Firm Assent Clear Evidence he has this Clear Evidence from the Object to ground this Firm Assent for then we may be sure his Assent will be Unalterable and solidly-grounded or Impossible to be False as becomes Faith not desultory Inconstant and weakly-built as is the nature of Opinion But this my two Adversaries must not do For how can they pretend to an Unalterable Assent if Assent be not built on the nature of Things only which are Unchangeable or how to Clear Evidence if they may notwithstanding that Evidence be still deceiv'd as they must say all