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
discover'd to me that I could not bestow my pains better on any subject than in making known what was the Right Rule of Faith and evidencing to men Capable of Evidence out of the Nature of the Thing in hand that It had indeed the qualities proper to a Rule of Faith that is Virtue or Power to acquaint us that live now without the least danger of Errour what Christ and his Apostles taught at first To this end I shew'd first in Sure-footing that the Letter of Scripture had not this Virtue and by consequence could not be the Rule intended and left us by Christ. Many Arguments I us'd from p. 1. to p. 41. though these two short Discourses are sufficient to evince the point to any who is not before-hand resolv'd he will not be convinc'd First that that can never be a Rule or Way to Faith which many follow to their power yet are misled and this in most Fundamental Points as we experience in the Socinians and others For I see not how it can consist with Charity or even with Humanity to think that none amongst the Socinians or other erring Sects endeavour to find out the true sence of Scripture as far as they are able nor how it can be made out that all without exception either wilfully or negligently pervert it and yet unless it be shewn rational to believe this it can never be rational to believe that the Letter of Scripture as useful and as excellent as it is in other respects is the Rule of Faith for if They be not all wanting to themselves and their Rule 't is unavoidable that their Rule is wanting to them Next They who affirm the Letter is the Rule must either say that the bare Letter as it lies antecedently to and abstracting from all Interpretation whatsoever is the Rule and this cannot be with any sence maintained for so God must be held to have Hands Feet Passions c. Or else that the Letter alone is not sufficient to give as Assurance of Gods sence in Dogmatical Points of high concern as the Trinity Incarnation c. without the Assistance of some Interpretation and to say this is to say as expresly as can be said that the Letter of Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith since it gives not the Certain Sence of Christ without that Interpretation adjoyned Nay more since 't is the nature of Interpretation to give the Sence of words and the nature of the Rule of Faith to give us the Sence of Christ this Interpretation manifestly is the Rule of Faith and the Revelation to us who live now of what is Christs Doctrine I know it is sometimes said that the Letter may be interpreted by it self a clear place affording light to one more obscure but taking the Letter as Antecedent to all Interpretation as in this case it ought I can see no reason for this Pretence For let us take two such places e. g. It repented God that he had made man and God is not as man that he should repent abstract from all interpretation and let him tell me that can of the two places taken alone which is the clear and which is the obscure one Atheists will be apt to take such pretences to reject the Scripture and impiously accuse it of Contradiction but how that method can assist a sincere man who hopes by the meer Letter to find his Faith and hinder the Obscure place from darkning the Clear place as much as the Clear one enlightens the Obscure one I understand not In fine It exposes a man to the Scandal and Temptation of thinking there is no Truth in Scripture but Absolute assurance of Truth it gives no man Besides the former of the Reasons Lately given returns again For the Socinians compare place to place as well as others other Sects do so too and yet all err and some in most fundamental Points Wherefore it must be either presum'd they all err wilfully or the Way cannot be presumed a Right Way Farther it may be ask'd when one pitches upon a determinate sence of any place beyond what the Letter inforces by what light he guides himself in that determination and then shewn that that Light whatever it is and not the Letter is indeed the Formal Revealer or Rule of Faith Much more might be said on this occasion but my business now is to state my Case not to plead it The Letter Rule secluded I advanc'd to prove that Tradition or that Body call'd the Church which Christ by himself and his Apostles constituted taken as delivering her thoughts by a constant Tenor of living Voice and Practise visible to the whole World is the absolutely-certain way of conveying down the Doctrine taught at first from Age to Age nay Year to Year and so to our time which is in other Terms to say that Pastors and Fathers and the conversant Faithful by discoursing preaching teaching and catechising and living and practising could from the very first and so all along better and more certainly make their thoughts or Christs Doctrine be understood by those whom they instruct than a Book which lies before them and cannot accommodate it self to the arising Difficulties of the Reader I am not here to repeat my Reasons they are contain'd in my Book which I called Sure footing in Christianity And because I observ'd our improving Age had in this last half Century exceedingly ripen'd and advanc'd in manly Reason straining towards Perfect Satisfaction and unwillingly resting on any thing in which appear'd a possibility to be otherwise or to express the same in other words bent their thoughts and hopeful endeavours to perfect Science I endeavoured in that Treatise rigorously to pursue the way of Science both in disproving the Letter-Rule and proving the Living Rule of Faith beginning with some plain Attributes belonging to the natures of Rule and Faith and building my whole discourse upon them with care not to swerve from them in the least And being conscious to my self that I had as I proposed to do closely held to the natures of the Things in hand I had good reason to hold my first five Discourses demonstrative which is all I needed have done as appears p. 57 and 58. the rest that follow'd being added ex abundanti and exprest by me An endeavour to demonstrate as by the Titles of the Sixth and Eighth Discourse is manifest though I do not perceive by the opposition of my Answerers why I should not have better thoughts of them than at first I pretended This is the matter of Fact concerning that Book as far as it related to me and a true account why I writ on that Subject and in that manner What thoughts I had of its usefulness and hopes it might prove serviceable towards composing the differences in Religion of which the World has so long complained though from the long and deep meditation I must necessarily have made upon those Principles I may reasonably be judg'd to
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