whatever is good in those Acts of Faith is refunded into God the Author of every good Gift as its Original Cause what Defective into the Limitedness and Imperfection of Creatures § 5. This Tenet of Infallibility which unprejudic'd Nature teaches even the rudest in things subject to Sense and common Reason and Learned men in things provable by exact Art the Adversaries of true Certainty our Scepticks in Religion endeavour to render ridiculous and cast a mist about it by the most unreasonable pretence that ever was invented which is to affirm that a man cannot be Infallible in one thing but he must be so in all As if I could not infallibly know what 's done in my Chamber or practic'd openly amongst those I converse with but I must be likewise infallible in knowing what is done in the Moon And Dr. T. is one of these for Contradiction is as natural to him as 't is to a fish to swim who tells us here pag. 19. That Omniscience within a determinate Sphere is an Infinite within a finite Sphere as if it were very evident that to know All in such a matter is to know Infinit or all things in the World or so hard to comprehend that one may know all the money in ones Purse without knowing all the money that is extant or all the men in the room without knowing all Mankind I wish Dr. T. would shew us why knowing all in such a particular matter must needs argue an Infinit knowledg or why the knowing all things in a determinate Sphere which last words when he came to answer that is break his Jests our Prevaricator prudently omitted may not consist with an ignorance of many things out of that Sphere Must the word All in such a matter needs signifie Infinit or did the commonest Reason ever thus go wrack I suppose my Friends resolute hazard against Identical Propositions made him fall into this more than childish mistake For this plain Truth What 's all but in one matter onely is all but in one matter onely had preserv'd him from this Nonsense but he took this for his Ground to proceed upon that All in one matter onely 〈◊〉 All in every matter or which is more is Infinit and so still he continues most learnedly to lay Contradictions for his First Principles because their Interest and his are inseparably linkâ— against the Common Enemy Identical Propositions This I must confess is a very smart and ingâ—nious kind of reasoning and proper to Dr. T. unless perhaps his sworn Brother at hating First Principles and Papists put in for a share It appears by a certain Paper called Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet he is a strong pretender and will cry halfs But 't is time now to return to examine his Answer § 6. It is not necessary indeed to Truth that every one should demonstrate a thing so as to shew that the contrary necessarily involves â— Contradiction for the same thing may be known also through Practical Self-evidence to those who cannot demonstrate but yet the thing must be demonstrable else 't is not Knowable or Ascertainable For Demonstrable is a plain honest word what game soever Dr. T. and his Friend make at it and imports no more abstracting from subtle quirks but only Capable to be known or Intellectually seen by way of Proof whence a Learned man who goes about to prove any thing by strength of severe Reason ought either to demonstrate it or he falls short of his Dâ—â—y Once more I desire Dr. T. to take me right and to reflect that when I say The Thing is Demonstrable or pretend to demonstrate I do not take the word Demonstration with all those many subtleties and perquisits the Schools require I as little love niceties as any man living and can as easily dispense with them so the solid part be well provided for and the Truth of the Thing establisht which if it be not done I make account nothing is done in these cases in which Assent dying to attest things to be Truths are required I onely mean then by Demonstration such a Proof as is taken not from any Exrinsecal consideration as is Authority which grounds Belief but from the intrinsecal Nature of the Thing or Subject in Dispute and such a Proof as necessarily concludes the Thing to be which cannot be possibly done without engaging finally some Identical Proposition or that Things being what it is on which all is built Now this being evidently so and if it be not let Dr. T. shew the contrary I would ask our verbal Divine why he ought not to demonstrate that is prove by necessary concluding Argument both the Letter and Sence of Scripture if he would have men assent most firmly to Faith built according to him solely upon their Certainty Is it not his intent in his Discourses to Conclude what he speaks of How can he do this unless he shews the Conclusion necessarily follows Again does he not intend to conclude 't is a Truth that this is the Letter and Sence of Scripture He must do so or else he can never pretend that Faith built upon it is Truth And if he proves it Truâ— must he not at the same time prove it's Contradictory False And is any thing False but what says a Thing is so when indeed 't is not so or is not so when indeed 't is so which is a direct Contradiction Wherefore Dr. T. can never Conclude a thing to be True unless he brings a Proof necessarily engaging the Nature of the Thing that is unless according to my sence of the Word he both Demonstrates and also shews the contrary necessarily to involve a Contradiction Both these satisfactory Certainties my Grounds attribute to Scriptures Letter and Sence See Surâ—f pag. 116 117 in points appertaining to Faith and he here denies both pag. 10. whence is seen which of us two has more real Honour and Respect for Scripture He who makes neither its Letter or Sence to have any Grounds able to ascertain them that is as to our purpose makes them good for nothing or I who grant and prove both § 7. I suppose Dr. T will say again as he did in that point of a Deity that the nature of the Thing will not bear a Certainty of Scriptures Letter or Sence that so he may be true to his firm Principle and make all Faith alike uncertain I answer the more blame will fall to their share who take away the Certainty of that which is the first Principle in way of Authority or First Authority namely TRADITION which and onely which can Authenticate Books and the thing being of high Concern Practically carry down the same Doctrine and so easily preserve the Book significative of the same Sence Noâ— doubt I but 't is demonstrable that the Practice of England and the Concern of the thing joyn'd with the necessary Evidence of any Alteration in a matter daily so nicely Canvast and continually Us'd can and
evidently that they renounce not Evidence and that the Scriptures Letter thus manag'd is not apt to ascertain them at all and so no Rule Yet he gives us one great Reason as he calls it why men do not agree in the Sense of Scripture as well as in the others because their Interests and Lusts and Passions are more concern'd So that according to Dr. T. a man who is to be guided by his Pastors and Teachers cannot be Certain of the Sense of Scripture nor consequently of Faith unless he can look into the hearts of men which is proper to God alone and discern who are Passionate prejudic'd Interessed and Lustful Again this Reason is found on either side to a great degree for were not those Axioms and Definitions so Evident that absurd men would incur the shame of Mankind to deny them there wants no temptation of Interest and passion to make Authors go about to control and contradict the Writings of others to gain themselves applause and credit But if this be one great Reason of disagreement in the Sense of Scripture I would gladly know what are the other great Reasons But of these we hear nothing and there is good Reason why for since his one great Reason is the ill-disposedness of the persons the other great Reason must be the defectiveness of the Thing that is the Inability of Scripture's Letter by reason of its Inevidence to private Understandings to make them agree in one Sense of it which manifestly makes it unfit to be a Rule of Faith § 20. To Conclude the Summe of Dr. T's Vindication of himself from making according to his Grounds Faith possible to be False amounts to this He produces words to disprove it which manifoldly confess it he endeavours all along to shew that Infallible Certainty cannot be had of either Scripture's Letter or Sense that is he grants that the whole world may be deceiv'd though all the Causes be put to secure them in the Ground of Faith or denies that absolutely speaking Faith is Certainly-True Again loath to speak out to that point candidly he shuffles about and puts upon his Adversary divers odd and ridiculous acceptions of the word Faith omitting the right one which was given to his hand Lastly being to give account what kind of Certainty he allow'd to Faith he gives such a Notion of it as signifies nothing and has all the Marks of Vncertainty imaginable taking his measure of Certainty which ought to proceed from the Object or Proof from the Subject's perswasion or adhesion to it which common Experience testifies may indifferently be found in Truths and Falshoods and Common sense confutes Nature telling every man that my Assent is not therefore Certain because I do not doubt it see not the least cause of doubt am fully perswaded and verily think so but because the Thing is seen indeed to be so or because the Proof is Conclusive Either then let him bring such Proofs and own and shew them to be such or he leaves his Cause in the lurch and his Credit which he is here defending unclear'd by yielding Faith possible to be absolutely False that is for any thing any man living knows actually such DISCOURSE VII In what manner Dr. T. replies to FAITH VINDICATED § 1. DR T. has no Fellow nor his way of Confute any parallel Not to provoke the peevishness of malice too far and yet follow home my blow more fully and yet withal to uphold the Efficacie of Faith grounded on the just Conceit of its Absolute Certainty I writ a a Book call'd Faith Vindicated in behalf of Christian Faith in Common shewing the absolute Certainty or Security from Error of that kind of Assent provided it be grounded on those Motives God had left to settle his Church and by it Mankind in Faith as I declared my self in my Introduction It pretended Demonstration from the beginning to the end and had not one drollish or unsober expression in it Take a Map of it in a few words I conceiv'd my self debtor both Sapientibus and Insipientibus and hence the Concern being common to all Christians amongst the rest to Speculative Divines I resolv'd to prove it by Arguments sutable to every Capacity To the more Intelligent to the end of the Third Eviction to the Middle or Prudential sort to the end of the Fifth· and to them of the lowest Capacity in the last every one being enabled by Tradition or Education to comprehend what the common Language and Practice of Christianity teaches them as to Speechees and Carriages appertaining to Faith I begun after I had put two Postulatum granted by all Christians with Logical Arguments which I pursu'd at large because as 't is a common Trick in Sophisters and half Logicians to abuse that Excellent Art to elude the clearest Evidendences so it became a more necessary Duty in me to prevent by the closest Proofs fetch 't from almost all Heads imaginable that belong'd to that skill any misusages of its Maxims to patronize Falshood This could be no other than very Speculative and accordingly I declar'd in my Introduction what my Reader was to expect in Discourses of that kind nor will any man indu'd with common Sense wonder that I should use Logical Expressions when I make Logical Discourses or Terms of Art when I speak to Scholars These things reflected on let us see now what a dextrous way our Learned Confuter takes to answer that whole Book for he manifests here an intention to give it no other and to overthrow so many Demonstrations § 2. His first way of Confute is to pick out a leaf or two of the most Speculative part of that Treatise only intended for Scholars and apply it to the Understandings of those who are onely Sermon-pitch to whom because such Discourses are unsutable and withal too hard for him to answer hence he very politickly both gratifies the Fancies of those Readers and avoids himself the difficult task of answering the pressing Reason in it by playing the Wit when 't was dangerous to act the Scholar and making use of his constant Friend at a dead lift Drollery in stead of relying on the Patronage of Reason which as he experiences so often betrays and exposes hss weakness He runs on therefore a whole leaf or two in this jovial Career ere he can recover himself till even his own Friends who are not aware of the necessity admire at his endless Raillery and true to his Method neglects wholly the Sense and excepts mightily against five or six hard words namely potentiality actuality actuation determinative supervene and subsume which it seems puzzle him exceedingly for he professes to think them Mystical He calls the Discourse jargon Foolish and Nonsense which two last words he is ever most free of when his Reason is most at a loss He likens it to the Coptick and Slavonian Language talks of Astrology Palmistry Chymistry and what not and with such kind of stuff confutes it
and divinely assisted are no Christians In a word this way of Divinity or Resolution of Faith which I take makes every man both those in the Church and those out of it rely on the Churches Authority or Testimony diversly consider'd in order to their respective capacities and so still makes the Church THE PILLAR AND GROVND OF TRVTH which all Catholicks in the World not so much as any one School-Divine excepted hold the securest way that can be imagined And should any one dislike it I see not what he can with any show pretend He must allow some Natural Motive antecedent to Faith and what is known by means of it that is he must grant some Motive antecedent to the Knowledge of Supernatural Assistance and where he will find in the whole World any such Motive stronger than is the Humane Authority of the Church as to matters of Faith I profess I know not nor I am confident can any man living imagine If this then be absolutely speaking the securest way that is 't is securer or firmer than is the way of proceeding upon Motives of Credibility and incomparably more secure than is that of resolving Faith into Motives onely Prudential Though indeed things rightly stated and understood the Motives of Credibility are some of them Coincident with Tradition and the rest which can lay just claim to Certainty depend on it taken at large as their Ground as hath been prov'd in the Corollaries to Sure-footing It may be ask'd Why since Tradition and Church are one and the same Thing I did not chuse to say that the CHVRCH gives us Knowledge of the first deliver'd Faith rather than that TRADITION does so seeing none could have scrupled or excepted against the former manner of Expression whereas this gives occasion of mis-apprehension to some unattentive Readers I answer I us'd on that occasion the word Tradition rather than the word Church for the same reason the Geometricians use the words Line or Surface when they have a mind to express Body as Long or Broad for these are in reality the same thing with Body but in regard Body is the Subject of many other Considerations as well as these and these speak Body precisely according to the Considerations of Length and Breadth to which onely it was Intended to speak hence it was better both for Succinctness of Expression and Exactness of Science which is built on the perfect distinction of our Conceptions to use the Abstract or Distinguishing words Line and Surface rather than the Concrete or Confused word Body which involves much more than the Discourser in that circumstance intended to consider or speak to Now this being the very method observed in that Science which bears the name for the greatest Exactness in Discourse I much fear the Objecters mistake proceeds from not reflecting that whoever pretends to an Accurate and Connected way of Discourse and rigorously to conclude what he intends must either follow that best of Methods or he falls short of his Duty and wrongs his Cause § 9. To clear this a little better and withal to apply it I shall make choice of another familiar Instance We use to say in Common Speech that the Countenance or Carriage of a Man makes known his Genius Now all these three viz. Countenance Carriage and Genius are in reality most evidently the same Thing with the Man himself onely they differ from it in the manner of Expression the word Man nominating the Whole or Intire Thing which is the Subject of all these and innumerable other Considerabilities confusedly imply'd in that word The other three are more distinct indeed in their manner of signifying but they fall exceedingly short of the others vast extent and express Man but in part or onely a few Respects found in that Subject whereof some are less known some more and so a Means to know others Whence it comes to pass that Countenance signifying Man as Looking or according to the outward Appearance of that part in him call'd the Face also Carriage signifying him as bearing or demeaning himself and lastly Genius as having such a peculiarity of Humour or Nature in him hence these words The Speech Countenance and Carriage of a Man discover his Genius amount to this the Man according to his Speech Countenance or Carriage which are visible and more Intelligible Considerations belonging to him is a means to notifie himself to us according to something in him which is latent and less manifest viz. his Genius This I say is the plain Sense of the other words onely this later manner of speaking is prolix and troublesome the other short and yet fully expressive of the Speakers Intention Again the other manner of Expression is Proper and Apt whereas should one put it thus The Man makes known the Man besides the confusedness of the expression since Man signifies the whole Intire Thing without distinguishing any particular Respects it would make the whole or the self-same thing abstracting from all different Respects to be before and after more known and less known than it sel◠which is a direct Contradiction § 10. Applying then this Discourse The word Church being a Congregation of Men answers in its way of expressing to the word Man in the Example now given and involves confusedly in its notion innumerable Considerations belonging to that Body of which True Faith which is as it were the Genius or Nature of the True Church is of it self latent unknown and far from self-discoverable Others such as is the Humane Testimony of the Church meant in those Circumstances by the word Tradition in regard it depends on Testifying Authority is more known and being Oral and Practical fitly corresponds to Speech Countenance Carriage and such-like It being known then by this means that such a Body has in it the first-deliver'd or True Faith 't is known immediately that having in it the Genius or Nature of a True Church 't is indeed the True Church Again it being known likewise and conceived by all who understand what is meant by that word that True Faith is a firm Adhesion to Christs Doctrine also it being apprehended by those against whom we dispute nay demonstrable out of the nature of that Doctrine that 't is a means to love God above all things hence 't is justly concluded that there is in the Generality or in great Multitudes of this Body a due love of Heaven call'd Sanctity or Charity which is the Gift peculiarly attributed to the H. Ghost and it being known and experienc'd by those already in the Church that this Love of Heaven or Sanctity gives the Faithful a particular Strength and Power to perform all good Duties and this of preserving uncorrupted the deliver'd Faith being one and that a most concerning one hence they come to know that the Church is assisted by the H. Ghost as in all other good Duties so especially in this of delivering and continually proposing Right Faith So that as Reason requires
to doubt I ask him how he will prove that it must needs exclude all reason of Actual Doubt from the Minds even of the wisest Christians unless he can prove those Grounds cannot possibly be doubted of with reason for otherwise if those men may possibly doubt with reason 't is ten to one they will do so actually at one time or other He ought then to say those Motives exclude all possible doubt or are undoubtable of their own nature and so take it out of the Subjects strength or weakness and put it upon the Objects But this he is loth to say dreading the Consequence which is this that he who affirms a Thing can never be possibly doubted of in true reason must affirm withal that he has Motives concluding it absolutely True that is absolutely Impossible to be False and if it depends on Authority Infallible Testimony for it which his superficial Reason fully resolved against First Principles or Identical Propositions can never reach It remains then that he must hold to Actual Not-doubting on the Subjects side that is he must say the Motives are onely such as preservâ— prudent persons from doubt and then he must either make out that Christians have more Natural Prudence than those in those other Sects Natural I say for all Motives Antecedent to Faith must be Objects of our Natural Parts or Endowments or else confess that he knows no difference between the Reasons for those other Sects and those for Christianity according to the Grounds deliver'd by him here Both exclude Actual Doubt in persons as far as appears to us equal in prudence as to other things neither of them exclude possible Rational Doubt each one had as much Evidence of their Deities they ador'd as they could have in their circumstances supposing those Deities were and no True or absolutely Conclusive Evidence appear'd on either side both had as good Proofs as the thing afforded supposing it were and such as excluded Doubting therefore according to Dr. T's Doctrine both had Certainty and all is parallel and so farewel Christianity Religion and First Principles too that is farewel Common Sence and all possibility of knowing any thing All Truth and Goodness must needs go to wrack when Principles naturally self-evident and establish'd by GOD himself the Founder of Nature are relinquish'd and others made up of meer Fancy and Air are taken up in their stead § 10. I know Dr. T. will sweat and fume and bestir all his knacks of Rhetorick to avoid these Consequences of his Doctrine I expect he will pelt me with Ironies and bitter Jeers cavil at unelegant words tell me what some Divines of ours say and perhaps mistake them all the while stoutly deny all my Conclusions instead of answering my discourse nay fall into another peevish fit of the Spleen and say I have no forehead for driving on his Principles to such Conclusions as he who was too busie at Words to mind or amend his Reasons never dream't of Therefore to defend my forehead it were not amiss to make use of some Phylacteries containing such expressions taken out of his First Sermon as best discover to us his thoughts as to the Certainty and Uncertainty of his Positive Proofs and the Point it self as prov'd by them I mean the Existence of a Deity or a Creation Such as are Serm. p. 19. A Being suppos'd of Infinite Goodness and Wisdom and Power is a very LIKELY Cause of these things What more LIKELY to make this Vast World c. What more LIKELY to communicate Being What more LIKELY to contrive this admirable Frame of the World This seems NO UNREASONABLE Account P. 21. The Controversie between Vs and this sort of Atheists comes to this Which is the MORE CREDIBLE OPINION That the World was never made c. or that there was from all Eternity such a Being as we conceive GOD to be Now COMPARING the PROBABILITIES of things that we may know ON WHICH SIDE THE ADVANTAGE LIES c. P. 22. The Question whether the World was created or not can onely be decided by TESTIMONY and PROBABILITIES of Reason Testimony is the PRINCIPAL Argument in a thing of this nature and if FAIR PROBABILITIES of Reason concur with it c. P. 29. The PROBABILITIES of REASON do all likewise FAVOUR the Beginning of the World P. 32. Another PROBABILITY is c. P. 34. These are the CHIEF PROBABILITIES on Our Side which being taken together and in their united sence have A GREAT DEAL of CONVICTION in them § 11. Upon these Words and Expressions of his I make these Reflexions 1. That as appears by his own stating the Point p. 21. he makes it amount to the same Question as indeed it does Whether there were a Creation or a First Being creating the World whom we call GOD so that all his Proofs are indifferently to be taken as aim'd to evince one as well as the other 2. That this being so he stands not heartily to any one Argument he brings as able to conclude the Truth of a Deity 's or Creator's Existence 3. That his words which are expressive of the Evidence of his Gâ—ounds and the Certainty of the Point viz. that there is a GOD manifest too plainly that he judges according to his Speculative Thoughts at least he has neither one nor the other For if it be but Likely though it be exceedingly such yet as common Experience teaches us it may notwithstanding be False If the account he gives of a Deity creating the World be onely no unreasonable one this signifies onely that it has some Reason or other for it and every man knows that seldom or never did two Wits discourse contrary Positions or Lawyers plead for contrary Causes or Preachers preach for contrary Opinions but there was some Reasons produc'd by them for either side and so for any thing he has said the Atheist may come to give no unreasonable account too that there is no Deity though it be something less reasonable than that for a Deity And if the Controversie between Atheists and us be onely this Whether is the MORE CREDIBLE OPINION then the other Opinion viz. that there was no Creation or is no GOD is yielded to be Credible too though not SO Credible as that there is Also if we ought to COMPARE the PROBABILITIES of things that we may know on which side the ADVANTAGE LIES 't is intimated to us and granted that 't is Probable there is no GOD though it be more Probable there is and while 't is but Probable though it be very much more yet it may very easily be False as every days experience teaches us in a thousand Instances wherein our selves were mistaken through the whole course of our lives which commonly happen'd when the far more probable side prov'd False else we had not inclin'd to think it true and by that means been mistaken Again if the PROBABILITIES of Reason do but FAVOUR our side 't is a sign that
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
against them and I declar'd the design of my Testimonies to be to second by Authority what I had before establish'd by Reason All this is well were there not I fear two mistakes in it One that I writ that Book against Protestants particularly whereas it equally oppugns all that hold Christ and his Apostles to have taught true Doctrine bâ—t deny the Churches Living Voice and Practice to be the means of conveying it down hitherto of what denomination soever they be His second Mistake is his not considering that the whole substance of a Book may be writ against such or such a sort of men and yet the whole way of managing it not be against or different from them but from some particular Divines who as I conceiv'd would better rellish my Reasons if they saw all the several Conclusions deduc'd from them seconded by Authority And this was the true Case But Dr. T. is not to understand this till he be willing to acknowledge the Distinction between the Church and the Schools which he is resolved he never will lest it spoil his writing Controversie § 5. But what I complain of is That he objects I do this because I am conscious of the weakness of those Testimonies By which words his partial Friends will easily conclude he had so weakened those Testimonies that I was not able to uphold them whereas Letter of Thanks from p. 106. to p. 122. I very particularly reply'd to all he had alledg'd against them in his Rule of Faith and gave an account of his performances in these words p. 120. This Sir is the upâ—hot of your Skill in Note-Book Learning The three first Testimonies from Scripture you answered not mistaking what they were brought for the fourth you omitted you have given pitiful Answers to eight from the Fathers as I there shewed and shuffled off nine more without Answer c. Which Charge as to every Branch of it I there make good particularly and he no where clears here or attempts to clear more than by barely saying that I am conscious of the weakness of my Testimonies I think 't is best for me to take the same Method and say Dr. T. is conscious of the weakness of all he has written and so in a â—rice confute all he has writ and with far better Reason than he can pretend to seeing any Feather will serve to sweep down such Cobweb stuff as his Fair Probabilities Now Gentlemen did Dr. T. let his Readers understand this Performance of mine and this Neglect of his it would not appear his Answers to these Testimones had been so strong that my self had any cause to be conscious of their weakness therefore contrary to his promise they were to be quite forgotten it was but fitting and needful Well there have been perhaps many others equally-excellent in the Art of Memory but certainly in that raâ—e and useful Art of Oblivion he bears away the Bell from all Writers extant By virtue of this and the Assistance of that Fallacy in Logick call'd non causa pro causâ he obtains all his imaginary Victories § 6. He comes next to clear himself of False Citations and to let the Reader see how little I am to be trusted he will instance in two or three and I heartily desire I may be no otherwise trusted than as it shall appear upon severe examination of what we both alledge that he is culpable and my self Innocent Now in culling out and managing his Instances we may be sure he favours himself as much as he can handsomely the two first of them being trifles in comparison of many others omitted ond neither of them charged by me as false Citations whatever he pretends meaning thereby adding diminishing or altering the words of the Author Also the very first of these is the easiest to bear a tolerable explication of any one objected in the Book In examining which I request our respective Friends to be severely impartial and attentive to what was imputed by me and what answer'd by him in doing which Eye-sight is to be their best Guide And If I have to any degree wrong'd him I shall not think it a jot prejudicial to my credit to declare that upon second thoughts I ought to mitigate or retract my words accordding to the just degree the Truth of the thing shall require § 7. I charg'd him with a notorious abuse of the Preface to Rushworths Dialogues in citing the Author of it to say what he makes others say and condemns them for saying it To go securely to work we are to put down first the words of the Prefacer which are these This Term Moral Certainty every one explicated not alike but some understood by it such a Certainty as makes the Cause always work the same Effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherways others call'd that a Moral Certainty which c. A third Explication of that word is c. Of these three says the Prefacer who having related the opinions of others now begins to speak his own sense the first ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true Certainty and the Authors consider'd as mistaken in undervaluing it Am not I sure I shall never repeat in the same order all the words I have spoken this last year Yet these men will say I am onely Morally Certain Now the Question is whether I did well or no in blaming Dr. T. for imposing on the Prefacer to say that what consists with possibility of working otherwise is true Certainty whereas that Author avows that to be true Certainty which others said took not away the possibility of working otherwise What I affirm is that he annexes noâ— those words though it take not away the possibility of working otherwise to True Certainty but onely adds them as explicating the Conceit of others And that those words when the Cause always works the same Effect contain the just notion of what he allows there for True Certainty Dr. T. thinks the Contrary and that he allows or approves that for True Certainty which did not take away the possibility of working otherwise To state the Case clearly that we may see on whose side the fault lies let us consider what was imputed by me what reply'd by him My Charge is two fold one blaming his Manner of putting it directly upon the Prefacer by leaving out the words Some understood c. and so far is Evident See the words of the Preface SOME UNDERSTOOD by Moral Certainty c. See Dr. T. Rule of Faith p. 132 Lastly Mr. Wh. doth MOST EXPRESSLY contradict this Principle of M. S's in these following passages In his Preface to Mr. Rushworth HE SAYS that such a Certainty as makes the Cause always work the same Effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherwise ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true Certainty and those Authors are mistaken who undervalue it Now though one who cites
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
my Discourse and picks out here and there something from its fellows perverts and makes it fit to be laugh'd at and then laughs exquisitely at it As if any degree of wit will not serve to abuse and find fault and a little wit furnish a man for Satyr as he has since taught the World himself Serm. p. 123. 'T is common with him to deny the Conclusion and alledge some pretty plausible thing against It and never take notice of the Premises or attempt the Proof on which 't is built a method against which Euclid himself has said nothing strong enough to be secure Neer three parts of his Book impose wrong Tenets on me changing constantly my Sence and sometimes my Words And whereas in things subject to Reason no Scholar is bound to defend more than himself maintains He often puts me to defend the Reasonings of other men As for Omissions and dextrous waving the Principal Difficulty they are endless And these and some other Prevarications of the like strain are the Ingredients of that highly-applauded Book The rest of its commendations are a delicate Style a fair Print and good Paper whereof as the two last are of credit with the Vulgar so I wonder to see the number of those who are carried away with the first Yet it suits well with a prudential pitch and such who are not much used to the strength of Reason especially being accompanied with the advantage of being truly victorious over counterfeit Tenets for in truth what he sets up most artificially he pulls down most irrecoverably I was griev'd to see my well-meaning and the pains I had taken for the benefit of my Country so crosly checkt and the more to perceive by the loud applause given to such a Piece that the peevishness whether of humour or faction was either more numerous or more active than the sincerity of those who meant well I thought fit to give a stop to this wild carreer of Passion and Partiality and not being then in circumstances to make a full answer principally for want of health which was then so bad that I thought I should soon have ended this Dispute with my Life I cursorily noted some few of its defects in a little Treatise which as Dr. Stillingfleet had advis'd me I call'd a Letter of Thanks In that I laid open in some signal passages of universal concern that he quite mistook the question and so insincerely mis-represented in a manner the Whole that his much-applauded Endeavours were indeed no better than a well-worded Prevarication and in short by instancing in several particulars I made good that charge of divers faults which I have here laid against his Book And being then in the heat of my first Resentments and not judging it due to him who had provok'd me without occasion to conceal or diminish the faults of his Writing I could not restrain the inclination of my Genius which leads me to shew little respect to Those who shew none for Truth but call'd his faults by their own course though true names But I had soon occasion to be sorry my nature was not fram'd to more wariness For letting my Book alone an Argument ad hominem was us'd of a temper much stronger than those which are forg'd in the Schools I know not by what suggestions but I know without other demerit more than I have here express'd an Order was procur'd by his best Friends to seiz upon my person and my Friends were inform'd by some Great Men that if I were apprehended it was not possible to save my life To inforce this Project besides divers extravagant Calumnies Information was given to Magistrates making me Guilty of doing more Good than it was almost possible any one single man should commit I cannot accuse Dr. T. of having a particular hand in this unhandsome malice onely I can with truth aver that the laying open in my Letter of Thanks his Faults as a Writer was as appears by the circumstance the immediate occasion of it and that about that time I was told by an honest Protestant who convers'd with all three that he judg'd in his conscience D. W. was civiler than to take such ungentile ways and Dr. St. soberer or warier but that I should have a care of Dr. T. for it was easie to discern by his words that if it lay in his power to ruine me he would do it To the belief of which Information his known Genius and Humour contributes too much which is poor man to be a great Papist-hater so that had Rome but one Neck I know no man living more fit to be the Executioner and strike a speeding blow Against this Storm I had no shelter but a lurking hole into which I retir'd the second time and plac'd stricter Centinels of Care upon my Security In this Confinement I began to write a very particular Answer to Dr. T's Book intending when the conjuncture was more seasonable and my ability sufficient to publish it But no favourable Crisis of this Morbus Animi appear'd Time had not its usual influence upon Spirits implacably exulcerated and the motion continued very violent though the first Impulse were long past When my Person appeared not my Friends were found out and a Family with which 't was suspected I conversed design'd for ruine So exemplary virtuous and in all respects worthy that should I speak what I know I might perhaps be thought to flatter Against these while the rest of the Nation sat quiet in the undisturbed comfort of the general Mercy the severity of the Law was prosecuted and urged almost to the extremity before they could find out the reason of the partiality us'd to them for they were very far from giving particular offence At last upon strict inquiry they found that all this Anger sprung from my being seen at their House though that was both a very little space and long before and that the same was intended against all who should entertain me The apprehension of the like inconvenience drove me from the circumstances in which I was and which were all my Livelihood nor could I easily find admittance any where I understood this to signifie I was to be aw'd at least by the apprehension of my Friends danger if I were more careless of my self from printing the Answer I had promised was preparing and was expected However I proceeded in it though I must confess I found the Task sufficiently troublesome For there being few passages in which my sence was not voluntarily perverted and not one in which the nature of the thing in debate was rightly stated and solidly prosecuted my business still was by frequent repetition of my own words to set the discourse right again which had been so industriously disordered An employment which how wearisom and distasteful it is those know who have been condemn'd to the like drudgery My Papers were grown pretty bulky when divers of my most Iudicious Friends solicitous of my Safety dealt
and so we may call them Moral Christians which Epithet being opposite to Absolute signifies they are not absolutely Christians and since nothing is indeed that which 't is not absolutely it 's true sence is that they are indeed no Christians yet since they like the word Moral so extremely well when they are to express the certainty due to Faith 't is but fitting they should wear it when we express them as Faithful Though then The Hopeful seems very well to represent their humour yet 't is but fitting they should have the Priviledge of naming themselves and Moral Christians let them be Against these Moral Christians and Them onely I discourse in this present Treatise But what have I to do with the Persons I doubt not but Gods Goodness the Method of whose Gracious Providence is to support the Failings of his Creatures as far as the Natures of Particular Things and the Order of the World will permit very often supplies the Defects of Mens Speculations with Connatural ways of Knowledge fixing them thus in a strong Adherence to the most Concerning Truths by ways which even their unreflecting selves are not aware of Whence I am the farthest from judging any Mans Person perhaps of any living and endeavour all I can to retain a Charitable Opinion even of Dr. T's Personal Intentions in common and excuse him diverse times in this very Treatise where I write against him as far as Evidence of the contrary will give me leave 'T is this wicked Tenet then and It onely which I combat at present and which I see plainly so unsettles unhinges and renders useless and ineffectual all Christianity that I ought to declare an utter and irreconcileable Enmity against It and that I shall through GOD's Assistance prosecute it home to the very doors of Scepticism the Bane of all Humane Science as well as Faith in whose gloomy Grott situate in the Confines of dark Ignorance Mankind's Natural Hell they first saw the twilight or rather indeed were born blind Yet it cannot be expected that declaring as I do a just Indignation against this wicked Tenet I should treat a Writer favourably considering him precisely as a Maintainer of it or bear my self respectfully to those insincere and unhandsome Methods and Ways which he makes use of to abet It and prejudice the Sacred Truth it opposes whether those ways be Sophisms in Reasoning or else Scurrility supplying the place of Reason the main Engine employ'd in this Preface I shall then take a little of that much liberty he uses to give them the Entertainment and Return due in Iustice to their Demerits Yet that I may avoid all just occasion of offence I shall endeavour for the most part to use his own words omitting still the rudest hoping he will have less Reason to be angry at his own Eccho since if he had not Originiz'd it it had not reflected And if he assum'd to himself the freedom to abound so with Irony and wholly neglect speaking to my Reasons of which whatever they be none can deny but that I use to have good store in my Writings I hope it will not be indecent if now and then I speak to those plausible Ironies themselves there being nothing else to refute otherwise since according to Dr. T's Method of Disputing these are my onely Confuters and full of Brag and Triumph he and his Friends would most certainly have pretended as they did formerly on the like occasion that Inability to reply had caus'd my desistance I come then to examine this spruce Preface in doing which I must be forc'd to lay open at large his knack of answering Books that so I may have just Title to make some Requests to You our Umpires in behalf of the Rights proper to Learning Declaring before-hand that where-ever I am large in any Discourse becoming a Scholar 't is not a Duty paid to his Preface which has nothing like a show of solid Scholarship in it but a Respect due to You our Learned Iudges to whom I Appeal INDEX ASsent Dissent and Suspense pag. 81 82 c. Catholick Divines vindicated p. 18 179. Certainty of Scriptures Letter and Sense deny'd by Dr. T. p. 120 121 151. asserted by J. S. p. 121 122. Definitions of General Councils why necessary p. 181 182. Demonstration p. 41 42 43 119 120 174. found in Ethicks and Physicks p. 57. to 63. First Principles Identical Propositions p. 7. to 41. Dr. T 's Firm Principle shown weak p. 71 72 c. Freedom from doubt not sufficient for Faith p. 84. to 94. p. 124. to 128. Infallibility asserted p. 64. to 67.112 to 116. requisite to Assent and Faith p. 68 69. In what sence it admits of degrees p. 138. to â— 141. Unlearned Believers how Infallible p. 134 135 136 181. Moral Certainty p. 141. to 147. Objections from Catholick Divines refuted p. 175. to 179. Practical Self-evidence p. 4 5 6 116 117. Prudential Grounds incompetent for Faith p. 142 to 146. Scriptures Letter no Rule Pref. p. 5 6 7.199 200. Tradition the Rule of Faith p. 32 33 183. Granted to be such by Dr. T. p. 192. to p. 200. Held by other Catholick Divines in J. S. his sense p. 212. to 216. Explained p. 202. to 212. It s Certainty how a First Principle and Self-evident p. 3 4. A Full Answer to Dr. T's Preface with an Examination of his Grounds of Religion DISCOURSE I. Clearing the way to the following ones by manifesting his two Fundamental Exceptions to be perfectly Injust and voluntarily Insincere § 1. HIs Preface begins p. 3. with two Charges viz. That I still persist to maintain after so fair an Admonition that first and self evident Principles are fit to be demonstrated to which he addes a Third that I make Identical Propositions to be First Principles in the matter under dispute He argues too against the two former imaginary Assertions of mine which in this Preface is a rare thing thus p. 37. There can be nothing to make First Principles more Evident because there is nothing before them to demonstrate them by And I acknowledge the reason given to be as victorious as any passage in his Rule of Faith where he has multitudes of such wrong-aim'd Arguments intended I conceive to shew how far his Reason can carry when it shoots at rovers for 't is levell'd at no mark But observe I beseech you Gentlemen how I am dealt with and let these two leading Cases discovering his way of Confute obtain a just suspence of your Judgments concerning all his other performances till you see them examined § 2. In Sure footing p. 114. 2d Edit which I stâ—ll quote I deduc'd two Propositions the former that Tradition is the First Principle IN WAY OF AVTHORITY as it engages for matter of Fact long ago past or as in other places I therefore name it FIRST AUTHORITY because 't is manifest that the Authentication of Books and Monuments all depend upon Tradition The other was
't is the first Created one or the First Principle in discoursing about Creatures as to their Natures or Essâ—nces that Every Thing is what it is which is therefore True because God is what He is or because Self-existence is Self-existence as was explicated above § 1. 2. which I hope Dr. T's Goodness will so much prevail above his Ignorance as not to judge ridiculous whatever he thinks of the first Created Truths which immediately depend on the Other § 13. But why must First Principles be necessarily exprest with that most perfectly-formal Identity Or the Subject and Predicate be put in the self-same words Is it not enough the Sence be the same as is found in Definitions but the Words must be the same also Which bears a show of ridiculousness and seems to admit of no possibility of advance towards new Knowledges Why cannot then the Definition serve to principle all our Discourses about the Thing defin'd without recurring to such Propositions as appear little better than flâ—t and insignificant as to that purpose I answer The Objection in great part demands what Use can be made of First Principles which shall be spoken to in the next Discourse But that Definitions are not the very Prime Verities of all appears evidently already because those Propositions which express the Things Possibility to be defin'd must necessarily antecede the Definition And the same will be farther clear'd by these following Considerations 1. That Definitions are often liable to dispute but Identical Propositions never I have heard a certain learned and ingenuous person disallow A Rational Creature to be a right definition of a Man and discourse very soberly how proud a thing Mankind was to arrogate all the Reason to himself whereas diverse Birds and Beasts in their several spheres have as much or more Reason than He. And yet I dare say the same Gentleman would heartily allow the Truth of this Proposition A man is a man Nay indeed all the Scepticks in the world admit Identical Propositions to be True yet the same men quarrel every Definition extant Since then 't is directly against the nature of the very first Principles to be dlsputable 't is evident that Definitions cannot be the very First Principles of all 2. First Principles ought to be Principia Intellectus and naturally ingrafted in us that so they may oblige all under forfeiture of their nature to acquiesce to their verity whereas Definitions are not such but acquir'd by Practical self-evidence For example by a long course of observation heedfuâ—ly attending to the actions of men as men and thence by means of some First Principle evidencing so constant a hitting in so many particulars to be beyond Chance or Accident gathering his primary and proper Operation we come to know the Definition of Man none of which needs to know the Truth of this nature-taught Proposition A Man is a Man or A Rational Creature is a Rational Creature Moreover Definitions generally need some skill of Art to make them and all Art presupposes some First Principles whence 't is impossible Definitions should be the First Principles of all 3. Experience teaches us that words being liable to Equivocation where there are fewer words there is less room for Equivocating wherefore since First Principles ought to be the câ—earest and consequently the most unequivocal that can be imagin'd Definitions which explicate the notion in more words afford more room for Equivocation and consequently are even in this regard less fit to be First Principles 4. Lastly Logical tricks of nicely distinguishing sometimes elude the Truth of a Proposition at least darken it from which Inconveniences First Principles ought to be the most Free that may be Now Definitions yielding more room for Equivocaâ—ness do by consequence give more occasion of distinguishing whereas Identical Propositions afford not the least For example this Proposition A Man is a Rational Creature bears this distinction A man is rational in some things as in discoursing those notions that concern Quantity but not in others e. g. those which concern Being or Rational that is capable to discourse right the nature of some Bodies but not of Spirits Is it not evident hence that this Definition of Man is by this means render'd in show ambiguous And I wish there were not too many in the world who out of their ignorance of the true Method to Science think this distinction both well-grounded and very pertinent Now this being so who sees not that the true limits of the definition of Man become doubtful by such kind of distinctions and consequently the sence of the Definition it self unknown whereas nothing of this can possibly happen in that Identical Proposition A Man is a Man since whatever distinction affects the Predicate must also affect the Subject and so the Proposition remains still intirely Identical and perfectly true and not in part onely as it happens in the other 'T is concluded then from all imaginable considerations that can belong to this peculiar matter that the very First Principles neither are nor can be any thing else but Identical Propositions § 14. As for their seeming ridiculous to some persons the reason is because those men of mirth being led much by Fancy and inur'd all their lives to pretty plausibilities and seldom or never reflecting on or discoursing orderly from such Grounds are hence apt to imagine that First Principles aâ—e Certain great Rarities or Productions of some extraordinary height of Wit when therefore they come to hear Identical Propositions alledged for First Principles seeing their high expectations so strangely disappointed they hereupon grow pleasant at the defeat of their Fancy never considering that because First Principles ground all possible discourse of what nature soever and therefore are common to all Mankind even the rudest in the world and inbred in them they must therefore be the farthest from being the effect of Wit and the most plain down right sayings that can be conceiv'd Whence they are better learn'd from the Vulgar than they are from great Scholars and therefore the most learned men that are if they would go to work solidly ought in such things as are the Results of pure Natural Knowledge attend to such as speak meer nature rather than to those who mingle and perhaps corrupt it with airy speculations which have not that firm Basis to ground their Discourses Now 't is obvious to observe that the nature-instructed Vulgar are apt to deliver themselves in such kind of plain Speeches in due occasions and make use of them as Truths which fix their Judgments in an Unalterableness For example if a man would force one of them to forgo what 's very evident he will stick firmly to the point and tell you soberly that Truth is Truth or that he 's sure a Spade is a Spade or that he knows what he knows or if it be in a point belonging to Justice that Right is Right and brings in these as Evidences from
which he can never be driven which signifies that such Truths as these are the Principles which naturally determin and fix him in an immovable adherence to the Point as the ultimate resort and reason of his persuasion that is they are to him First Principles 'T is observable also that they are never more serious than when they are put to express themselves in this positive kind of blunt manner nor would any By-stander perhaps not Dr. T. himself though he be the merriest man living when any talk is of Principles and Demonstrations fall a laughing at them as ridiculous for their adhering finally to Identical Propositions Which evidences that he has a conceit that First Principles are some fine elaborate Inventions of Wit and that they are to tell a man something he knew not before whereas they are such Truths as no man can possibly be ignorant of as appears in those in Euclid and other such-like which seem at first blush full as ridiculous as those he so laughs at Lastly 'T is observable that those witty half-Speculaters who scorn to follow Nature in their Grounds when they come to lay any themselves propose meer Whimsies for First Principles of which Dr. T. is a pleasant Instance as shall be seen hereafter DISCOURSE III. That First Principles are Identical Propositions proved by many Instances and their Right Use shown § 1. THus far we have discours'd the nature of First Principles from Logick and Metaphysick within whose Confines that Matter was plac'd Which no Intelligent Reader could expect to be less Speculatively deliver'd considering the nature of that Subject For common Reason tells any competent Judge in such affairs that if any Sublunary Matter can require high Speculation certainly a Discourse which states the nature of the Supreme Verities must forcibly exact it Wherefore to make it more intelligible I shall for my Readers sake do three things First instance in some particular Identical Propositions granted by all the World to be First Principles in their respective Sciences Next show the Use of these First Principles which my ignorant Adversary so miserably mistakes And now and then by the way apply them to the present Controversie about Tradition § 2. As for the First I show'd Dr. T. Letter of Thanks p. 25. an Example of one First Principle granted to be such by all who treat of the nature of Quantity though he out of a constancy to his 〈◊〉 humour never heeds to take notice of it 'T is this A Whole is more than a Part Nor perhaps will so profound a man at superficial Talk deny this to be a First Principle in regard the Subject and Predicate of that Proposition by reason of the different manner of expressing only which he minds not the Sence seem disparate in their notion and so not Identical or too closely connected which he hath a most special Antipathy against in First Principles as is seen by his impugning it in mine and will more amply appear when he comes to put his own Nay the great difference in the sounds of the Subject and Predicate will make it to one who looks not much farther to bear the face of a certain kind of distance and disagreement in sence between them which will no doubt please him hugely Yet I must contest that that Proposition is Self-evident and that its Self-evidence consists in this that its Subject and Predicate consider'd Logically and not Grammatically are perfectly Identical that is to Dr. T. are fully as Ridiculous as A Rule is a Rule Faith is Faith Which I thus shew The Subject of that Proposition A who le is defin'd to be That which consists of Parts or since a Thing is that of which it consists it 's equivalent in sence is in reality A Whole is Parts Now the word Parts being plural necessarily and formally imports more than one Part wherefore this Proposition A Whole is more than a Part is perfectly the self same in sence with this That which is more than one Part is more than one Part which is directly Identical § 3. Moreover some late Philosophers build their Physicks on this Principle Corpus est quantum in which the Subject and Predicate differ indeed Grammatically one being Substantively the other Adjectively exprest but if we rifle the words to clear the inward sence as is the duty of Scholars or Philosophers we shall find that since all the Essential difference we know between a Body and a Spirit is this that this is Indivisible the other Divisible as also that Quantity and Divisibility is the same notion it will appear evidently that this Proposition Body is Quantitative is aâ—cording to them perfectly equivalent in sence to this What is Divisible is Divisible which is manifestly Identical § 4. Again all the Learned World hitherto have held that we have Certain Maxims ingrafted in us by Nature I mean imbuing our Mind by the first impressions on our Understanding without our contributing to their generation in the least more than by having an Intelligent Nature passively receiving those Impressions and these they call Principia Intellectus which generally concern the nature of Being that Conception being the most Luminous and by means of which striking the Eye of our Soul all our Intellectual Sight is produc'd as will appear to any one who attentively considers that all our Discourses consist of Judgments exprest by Propositions and those essentially depend on the notion of Being wherefore unless this be known antecedently 't is impossible either to judge think or discourse Hence follows that the First of our Knowledges is of the self-discovering nature or notion of Being and the most obvious knowledge of Being is this that it formally excludes or is extreamly opposite to Not-Being and therefore inconsistent with it in the same Subject which we use to express by this Proposition Impossibile est idem esse non esse 'T is impossible the same thing should be and not be This therefore hath ever been deservedly held a First Principle in Metaphysicks establishing all our Discourses that concern the actual Being of Things and grounding in a manner all Logick And yet 't is plain to the meanest Speculater that this Proposition is the self-same in sence with this What is is Which is most formally and supremely Identical The impossibility mention'd in the former lighting onely on this that actual Being and Not Being should agree to the same Subject or which is all one that the Subject and Predicate in this later Proposition should not be connected § 5. But it may be the Principles of Mathematicks will better rellish to our fastidious age which neglecting to consider what 't is that makes Geometry a Science think there is no Demonstration but in Lines and Numbers To them then let 's go and at first entrance into Euclid we are met with these famous and useful Principles Those which are Equal to the same are Equal to one another If Equals be added to Equals
and adhering to them as such Since on the one side they are of a large extent as Principles use to be and on the other side he sees no Principle they are opposite to and so ought to take them for Truâ—hs When Dr. T. gives the World â—atâ—sfaction in this point I will follow his Nonsensical Admonition and renounce all Prâ—nciples as far as God and Nature will give me leave for in that case Nonsence would be the best Sence and Contradictions the perfectest Truths But till he does this he must remain in his despair of convincing me I cannot for my heart help it § 19. I shall adde one word more to the truly Learned Reader Our imperfect manner of knowing in rhis state obliges us to detail or as it were divide the Object we would know into many abstracted inadequate or partial Conceptions which we use to rank orderly in the ten Predicaments and then to compound those single Conceptions into Propositions and those into Discourses Whereas separated Substances when they know any Object neither compound nor divide at all but with one Intuitive View see the Whole to be as it is Wherefore there is nothing in all our knowledges that in the manner of it comes so near their way of operating as our Act of knowing Identical Propositions It divides as little as is possible for our state for it predicates the Whole of the Whole for which very reason it as little compounds again and did not our Condition here forcibly exact oâ— us to frame a Proposition or connect together inadequate notions by a Copula when we would express a Truth it would be a kind of Intuitive seeing the Thing as it is and so indeed after a sort it is but confused all Clearness here arising from a perfect distinguishing our notions yet it resembles not a little in its absolute Evidence immovable Firmness and its nearest approach possible to Simple Intuition Whence it hints to a Soul deâ—irous of Truth the glorious satisfaction it will enjoy when the Screen of our Body is taken away to have at one Prospect all the whole Creation and each single thing in it presented to her ravish'd Understanding and seen to be what they are with a far greater Evidence possest and held with an incomparably greater Firmness and penetrated by a transcendently more excellent and Simple manner of knowing than whâ—t we now experience here in those weak yet best resemblances our knowledges of the First Principles And indeed ' â—is but fitting that those supreme Knowledges which ground both our Definitions the Matter and all force of consequence the Form of our inferiour way of Knowledge by Reasoning should be nearest ally'd to the manner of Knowing proper to those Higher sort of Intellectual Creatures that so as the wisest order of the World requires the Supremum Infimi may touch or immediately confine upon that which is Infimum Supremi § 20. By this time I hope those Learned and Intelligent Persons to whom I address this Discourse will discern I had some Reason to hold Identical Propositions to be First Principles I beseech them to review all Dr. T. hath said against them either here or in any other place and when they have discover'd it all to be meer empty Drollery they will justly wonder at his Confidence that dare appear before Scholars in Print and think to carry it off with soppish Jests as if his Readers had onely Risibility in them and no Rationality Yet in reliance on these unfailing Grounds he ends with a Declaration to all the World That if there be no other Principles but such as these meaning Identical Propositions he neither has any Principles nor will have any An excellent Resolution and hard to keep Yet I 'll wager ten to one on his head that in despight of both Art and Nature he shall hold it as well as any man living and that when he comes to lay any Principles of his own the Terms shall be so far from Identical that all the Wit of man shall not make them hang together at all § 21. The Sum of thâ—s whole Discourse about Principles is this All Science à Priori is thus originiz'd The First Being is what He is that is Self-Existence is Self-Existence and so Essentially Unchangeable Wherefore the Essences of Things depending solely on the Relation they have to what is in in GOD that is to what is GOD are Unchangeable likewise or are establisht in their own Being that is fixt in their own particular and distinct Natures which we fitly express by Identical Propositions affirming them to be what they are Hence they become capable of having the determinate bounds of their natures described in certain Forms of Speech call'd Definitions which are nothing else but expressions of their Distinction from all other Things in the World The way to make these Definitions is two-fold One by collecting the natural Sayings of the Generality of Mankind about that thing as such and then observing in what notion those several Sayings of theirs do center the distinct Expression of which must needs be the Definition For they knowing through Practical Self-evidence the distinction of one Thing from another by a perpetual converse wâ—th them have the right notion or nature of the Thing in theâ—r Minds and those Sayings genuinely deliver'd are the Proper Effects of that Notion imprinted there by the teaching of Nature The otâ—er way is by sorting all our Notions under certain distinct Heads and then dividing the highest or most General Notion in such a Head by iâ—trinsecal differences till by descending they light on that difference which constitutes and joyn'd with the Genus which it divides defines that Nature The Definition had that is a diâ—â—inct Knowledge being gain'd of what 't is in which any nature agâ—ees with others and in what it differs from them Reason has more room to stir her self in or more matter to work upon in order to bring things to a further distinction and clearness And first by a due consideration and reflexion Practical Self-evidence still assisting for the Greatest Men of Art must nâ—t leave off being Children of Nature nay perhaps 't is their best Title the Proper Causes and Effects of such a nature begin to appear and thence Middle Terms for Demonstrative Syllogisms disclose themselves and Science begins to spread it self and advance Or if two Notions are to be shown connected which seem'd remote the Notions which directly compounded their Definitions are to be resolv'd farther and their resolution pursu'd till something appears in both of them which is formally Identical that is till some Identical Proposition comes to be engag'd For example if one would prove that Virtue is Laudable he will find that Laudable is deserving to be spoken well of and Practical Self-evidence as well as Reason telling us that our Speech being fram'd naturally to express our Thoughts that thing deserves to be spoken well of which deserves to be thought well
nibbling § 4. But I may blush he says and what 's the Crime Why to acknowledge that ever I have read my Lord Falkland Mr. Chillingworth and Doctor Stillingfleet and have no better a style and way of reasoning whom he praises for Persons of admirable strength and clearness in their Writings What would he have I freely confess and ever did that they are Persons of much Wit and a clear Expression yet I never understood till now that men us'd to read their Books to learn a good style and methods of Discoursing As for their admirable strength I could never find it The strength of a Discourse as I imagine consists in its Grounds not in witty Plausibilities and and fine Language Though I know Dr. T. who seems never to have aym'd at any higher pitch thinks verily such ingenious Knacks make a Discourse stronger than all the Principles in the world And for them all put together if Dr. T. can show me any one Principle in any of them which they heartily stand to able to put Christian Faith beyond Possibility of Falsehood I promise to yield all I have writ for false and accordingly renounce it § 5. As for their Clearness and Dr. T's too whom I rank with them in that Quality having really a disposition to do him all just honour he makes himself capable to receive I acknowledge 't is found in them to a fair degree of Excellence But I must distinguish Clearness into two sorts one that clears their own thoughts by means of Language the other that clears the Truth of the Point in dispute which is done by means of Principles The former makes the Reader understand Them the latter makes him understand Truth The one renders it clear that they say thus the other makes it clear that they say right when they say thus In the first sort of Clearness they have not many Fellows In the latter they are like other Mortals or rather indeed they are quite destitute of it For being utterly void of Grounds they leave the Point unseen to be true that is obscure and far from Clear And if Dr. T. thinks I wrong them I desire him to show me either in any of them or in himself any Principle he can justly call theirs or his and then go to work Logically and make out how and by virtue of what its Terms hang together and if he can do this I shall acknowledge publickly my Errour and make them all honourable satisfaction the very next Piece I print In a word they are pretty dextrous at pulling down or bringing all things to Incertainty as becomes Men of Wit and Fancy and what easier than to raise a thousand wild Objections at rovers without ever heeding the natures of the Things but aâ— Building which requires a Judgment made steady by Grounds and Principles they ever did and ever will and so must all who follow their steps fall infinitely short § 6. As for my style I declare that I regard it no further than it serves to express my thoughts especially not intending to perswade the Vulgar Rhetorically by advantage of Language but to prove severely the point to Scholars by the connectedness of my Sence I am of St. Austin's mind that in this circumstance an Iron-Key is as good as a Golden one where no more is requisite but aperire quod clausum erat to open what was before conceal'd or shut In my younger years and spring time of my life I apply'd my self much to those flourishes of Poetry and Rhetorick but I am now in my Autumn and my riper thoughts applying themselves to study Knowledge the Flowers fell off when the Fruit-time was come I endeavour as far as I am able to fill my mind with grounded and sollid Reasons for the point in hand and then let my Sence give me my Style and not frame my Sence to my Words or make my Words supply the want of Sence as gay Discoursers use Besides no mans Attention is infinite and so should I mind my Style too much in all likelihood I should mind Sence which I a thousand times more value less and I take this to be one Reason why Dr. T. for otherwise the man has a very good wit heeding his Style and Words so extreamly much scarce attends at all to his Sence or as an Ingenious Person reading this Preface exprest it had rather be guilty of ten Errours than one Incongruity Lastly how does Dr. T. know my Style were I to make a Sermon Does not every Oratour know that the Style due to a Sermon and a strict Discourse of close Reason are the most different imaginable I will not say Dr. T. has no good Judgment in Words for this would make him good for little but I must say he was very rash in concluding absolutely of my Style from seeing it in one kind of matter onely and this the most Incompetent of any in the world to show what Language one is Master of Now to his Sermon and let him remember 't is himself forces me to lay open the weakness of his Discourses by his frequent and scornful Provocations Which I was very loth to do in this Circumstance lest it might wrong the Common Cause of Christianity against Atheism But I consider'd that should Christian Divines acquiesce and seem to consent by their Carriage that they judge such quivering Grounds competent to build their Faith and the Tenet of a Deity upon it would be a far juster Scandal to Atheists than 't is to disclaim from them and avow in the name of the rest the absolute Certainty of those Maxims which ground our Persuasions as Christians Add that it was my Duty to those who yet are firmly persuaded of their Faith not to permit them to slide into a less hearty Conceit of it than the nature of Faith and the Obligations springing from it do require at their hands These Considerations justifying me fully to the World and Dr. T's daring Provocations particularly to hâ—s Friends I resolv'd to answer his Challenge though I foresee my Discovering the Weakness of his Discourses upon this Subject engages me to make better of my own in confâ—tation of that Irreligious Sect of which I here acknowledge my self a Debtor to my Readers and shall perform that Obligation as soon as I have done with those Pretenders to Christianity who make Faith and its Grounds Uncertain â—nward Ulcers are far more dangerous and require speedier cure than those which are without § 7. His intent in his First Sermon was to show the Vnreasonableness of ATHEISM upon this account because it requires more Evidence for Things than they are capable of But let us Christians take heed that we give not scandal to Atheists and obstruct their Conversion by exacting of them what is opposite to the true Nature God has given them or Right Reason and requiring of them Impossibilities And for this end let us impartially consider what 't is we invite and perswade them
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
tell him the firmness of a Rational Assent ought to be taken from Principles or the Object not from the Subject's firmly adhering to it and admonish him that this later sort of Firmness without the other signifies nothing but an Irrational Resolution to hold a thing right or wrong he cuts you off short and blames the Grounds of Christian Faith telling you the nature of the Things will bear no more At which if your Reason repines and begins to despair of satisfaction he tells you smartly that you contradict a First and Firm Principle that to have as much Assurance as the thing affords you is to be Certain of it Prodigious folly not to distinguish between these two most evident Notions I am fully perswaded and the Thing is certainly so And alledging our not doubting or strong adhesion to a thing for an competent Explication of that Certainty which ought to be the greatest in the whole world since more Sacred Concerns than any the world can shew are built upon it which adhesion also as Nature teaches us is very frequently an effect of Passion Common Experience manifesting it to be a fault annext to the very Nature of Man that his Uâ—derstanding is liable to be byast by his Will where his very Essence is not concern'd so as not to make the least doubt of may more oftentimes to hold firmly whatever habitual Prejudice Affection to Friends precipitate hast or fullen Ignorance has once addicted him to All I can imagine in Dr. T's behalf is this that he must alledge he conceives this Assurance or Firm Adhesion is a proper Effect of the Object working it in his Understanding and that therefore he could not have this firm Assurance or Adhesion to it unless the Thing were indeed such in it self This every Intelligent man sees is his only way to come off but this he neither has attempted to do nor ever shall be in the least able to compass till he retract his costly anger against First Principles his drollish Abuses against Demonstration his Accusing the things of Invisibleness instead of blaming his own bad Eyes and lastly his miscall'd Firm Principle which makes all built upon it no better than empty Contradiction Yet if he pleases to shew us that the Object doth rationally assure him the thing is so by affording such proofs as of their own nature are able to make us assent firmly to it as a Truth and not only incline us towards it as a Likelihood let him go to work Logically that being the proper Science in this case and shew us how and by what virtue any proof of his is able to effect this and I promise him faithfully to respect and treat him with a great deal of Honour though his performance comes off never so short But I foresee three Insuperable difficulties lie in his way first that he sees his Cause cannot bear it for which he still blames the Nature of the Thing Next that the deep Study or the most Learned Science of Elegant Expressions so totally possesses his Mind it will not let Logick have any part in his thought And lastly if it does yet he may hap to meet there with some unelegant Terms of Art which will quite fright him from his business and make him forswear the most evident Truths in the world § 9. But he hath only skirmish'd hitherto now â—he comes to close Dispute and will prove that take Faith how I will he does not in these words avow the possible falshood of Faith and that he may not fail to hit right on my meaning of the word Faith he divides the Text and gives us many Senses of that word those as ridiculous as he could imagine which would make the unexamining Reader judg verily that I were out of my Wits to take the word Faith in such absurd meanings and then hold it Impossible to be False This done he shews himself a most Victorious Conquerour and Confutes me powerfully from pag. 10. to pag. 13. At least would not Dr. T's best Friend so he were but any thing Ingenuous think he might safely swear that either he did not know what I meant by the word Faith when I say Faith is impossible to be False or else candidly acknowledg that he is strangely Insincere to counterfeit so many Imaginary Tenets and then one by one confute them Read them here from the middle of pag. 10. to pag. 12. and then reflect on my words found in my Introduction to Faith Vindicated pag. 17 which are these To ask then if Faith can possibly be False is to ask whether the Motives laid by Gods Providence for Mankind or his Church to embrace Christian Faith must be such as of their own Nature cannot fail to conclude those Points True and to affirm that Faith is not possible to be False is equivalently to assert that those Motives or the Rule of Faith must be thus absolutely Conclusive Firm and Immovable Hence is seen that I concern not my self in this Discourse with how perfectly or imperfectly divers Persons penetrate those Motives or how they satisfie or dissatisfie some particular Persons since I only speak of the Nature of those Motives in themselves and as laid in second Causes by Gods Providence to light Mankind in their way to Faith To which the dimness of Eye-sight neglect to look at all or looking the wrong way even in many particular men is Extrinsecal and Contingent Observe Gentlemen what exquisite Care I took to declare my meaning so perfectly that the common regard to Readers and his own Reputation might restrain Dr. T. from imposing wilfully a wrong sence to which habitual fault I knew he had otherwise most strong Inclinations Observe next that all his confute is wholly built on this known mistake Hence his objecting the weak Understandings of some Believers which is both forestal'd by the woâ—ds now cited declaring that I only speak of the Motives to light Mankind or the Church to Faith and what they are of their own Nature or in themselves not how perfectly or imperfectly others penetrate them besides I put this very Objection against my self Faith Vindicated p. 164. and answer it which he never acknowledging it was mine puts here as his own against me without taking the least notice of my Answer there given The last meaning he gives of the word Faith which is the Means and Motives to Faith is nearest to mine But because he leaves out the consideration of their being ordained by God for his Church as also of what they are in their own Nature or by virtue of the Object and speaks of them only as in the worst Subject viz. in weak Persons which penetrate them very little he misses wholly my Sense and so impugns me nor at all but skirmishes with his own shadow For what kind of consequence is this St. Austin says Some Persons are sav'd not by the quickness of their Vnderstandings but by the Simplicity of their Belief Therefore
Object 't is possible or within the compass of Gods power to make all Mankind err yet taking in his other Attributes which determin his Omnipoence to do only what 's Wise and Good and according to Truth it cannot be God should either will or do it and so it cannot be effectively done at all § 18. He objects that the Church of Rome challenges Infallibility upon no other account but that of Supernatural Assistance I answer the Church had her Rule of Faith left to her hand by Jesus Châ—ist who founded and constituted her and found it not out by Speculative Reason Whence 't is not the proper Concern of a Church to discourse very particularly about the manner and nature of the Rule of Faith but of Speculative Divines who look into the natures of things and there find the Reasons of those Truths God has barely told us Next 't is only of Faith that Christ has promis'd to assist his Church but whether Supernaturally only or also by Natural means is no where defin'd my Tenet is that he assists his Church both ways as I at large defend in Surefooting and that the best strength of Nature and Grace are both of them exerted to their utmost to ascertain the Infallible Authority on whose Testimony we receive our Faith But with this difference that the Supernatural Assistance exceedingly comforts Faith in those who are True Believers already and the Natural Assistance as far as concerns the due Satisfaction of Reason informs the Understanding of those who yet discern no Supernatâ—rality at all in the Church and have nothing but their Natural Reason to guide themselves by without which I see not how either a Circle is avoidable or rational Satisfaction to such men possible for were not a Natural Assistance admitted to introduce the knowledge of the other Supernaturals would be the way to Supernaturals and Faith the means to arrive at Faith which would confound the Means with the End I wish Dr. T. would leave off this new way of confuting by telling me still I am the only man or first man that said he should have said proov'd such or such a thing which cavil if he answer not my Argument as he seldome thinks of that duty signifies either nothing at all or else a high Commendation to me as improving Knowledge to some degree But more of this point when I come to defend my Method § 19. Hitherto then Dr. T. has given us no Absolute Certainty either of the Existence of a Deity oâ— of Christian Faith as far as it depends on the Letter of Scripture but onely such miscall'd Certainty as means Vncertainty whence his pretended Certainty of its Sence falls to the Ground But let us see how he vindicates the Certainty of Faith and himself not to hold it possible to be false by ascertaining at least the Sense of it supposing the Letter were right He tells us pag. 20. That as for the Sense of Books 't is plainly impossible any thing should be delivered in such clear and Certain words as are absolutely incapable of any other Sense And what 's the natural Sequel of this appli'd to Scripture but that 't is plainly Impossible Faith built on thaâ— Sense or rather which is that Sense should not be possible to be False and consequently the Letter can never be a competent Rule of Faith whereas in this way of conveying iâ— down by Living Voice and Practise of the Church that is â—y Cateâ—hizing publike Preaching private Discoursing consonant Living 't is made so manifest to the Generality what was held in each year immemediately before that no prejudice can make them all so mad as either to mistake or misrepresent it as 't is for Example in England for the Generality of Protestants to err or impose this this year upon the Belief of England that last year they held and practic'd Prayer for the Dead or assisting at the Christian Sacrifice By which 't will be easily seen whether of us two makes better provision for the Certainty of Faith He proceeds Yet notwithstanding this the meaning of them may be so plain as that any unprejudic'd and reasonable man may certainly understand them Let him apply this to Scripture the discourse stands thus All men are unreasonable and prejudic't who take not Scripture in my sense If this be not the meaning of his words let him tell us by what other Maxims he guides himself in judging who are such when he tells us any unprejudic't and rersonable man may certainly understand the Sense of Scripture If he can assign no other reason of those mens Faultiness but their disagreeing with him in the meaning of Scripture I doubt his Readers will scarce believe him that all Socinians and other Sects who differ from him in main Points are Passionate and Prejudic't If an indifferent man stood by while D. T. and a Socinian disputed and heard one of them cite place after place compare one place to another and use all the means he could to make out the right sense of the words and the other use the self-same Method and yet nothing concluded decisively as it never was in this way of managing disputes I fear he would be little the nearer satisfaction and embracing Dr. T's Tenet upon his saying that his Adversary was passionate and prejudic't He parallels the Certainty of Scripture Sence to that of Euclids Definitions and Axioms in the sense of which men are universally agreed and think themselves undoubtedly Certain of it and yet the words in which they are exprest may possibly bear another sence He trifles Let him show me the Generality of Scripturists as unanimously agreeing in the sense of Scripture as Geometricians do in those Axioms and Definitions or let him leave of bringing such disagreeing Parallels importing that there are not men of all Sides and Sects as willing to see Truth in things belonging to their eternal Salvation as to see the Truth in Mathematicks How many Interpretations are there of This is my Body and of those many Texts which signifie Christ to be true God Both of main Concern the understanding them wrong being on one side Idolatry on the other Blasphemy Yet we have Eminent Learned men Acute Wits Excellent Linguists Good Logicians and Historians and lastly very great Scripturists who compare also place to place yet all this notwithstanding nothing is decided finally still they Debate Write Quote Interpret and will do while this Method is taken to the Worlds End Does Dr. T. find such a disagreement amongst men Learned in the Mathematicks in the understanding the Axioms and Definitions of Euclid Add that those men in other matters are not Passionate or Prejudic't but are held Prudenâ— and Sober by great portions of Mankind nor do they lose their Repute amongst Indifferent Judges as renouncing their Manhood or perfectly deserting Reason that is they are not held Madmen for not adhering to such a determinate Sense of those places which argues
argue he sees I must needs be held the most ridiculous Discourser that ever spoke or writ to build a whole Treatise upon a Supposition unprov'd and which begs the whole Question Now whatever I concluded in that short Discourse I deduced step by step and made the foregoing Proposition draw still after it by undeniable Consequence the following one He concealing all mention of Proof or endeavour of it calls my Conclusions Principles and then who would think but that I had laid them to build that Discourse upon them and deserted my usual way of beginning with the known Natures of the Things in hand as I there did with those of Rule and Faith and from them proceeded minutely to whatever I concluded Had his Friend Dr. St. taken the same course his Principles would have evidently discovered their own weakness of themselves and had excus'd others the unnecessary trouble of answering them Next he makes me say that the Infallibility of this Rule is evident to common Sense and says himself that the Foundation of this Method is the self-evident infallibility of Oral Tradition by which words an honest Reader would verily think I suppos'd it gratis to be sâ—lf-evident to common Sense and never troubled my self to prove it whereas though I indeed hold 't is practically self-evident of which I have elsewhere given account yet I proceeded as if I did not but proved § 8. out of the Natures of Rule and Faith that the Rule of Faith whatever it be must be Infallible § 10. that therefore Scripture's Letter is not that Rule and § 11. that Tradition is The Reader being thus questionless well dispos'd to think it very unnecessary he should consider as he calls it or answer any passage of a thing made up of unprov'd Principles or built on an unprov'd Supposition he tels him farther that he has sufficiently considered that point in the Answer to Sure-footing whence he is not concern'd to take notice of it at present And so the business is done for why should he take pains to give answer to that which deserves none or if it did is answered This Reason though by the way is a little open For in case I did bring any Arguments in my Method to make good that Tradition is an Infallible Rule of Faith and this after I had seen and perhaps sufficiently consider'd too what he replies to Surefooting for any thing appears I may either have amended the Reasons given in Surefooting or produc't better in my Method and so whatever he has said to Surefooting it might have been proper to have considered and said something to the Method too unless he could say with truth that he had already answered the veâ—y Reasons urg'd in It which I do not remember he has nor am confident himself neither § 2. But yet â—o instance in this one passage how rare a piece his cry'd-up Rule of Faith is and how excellently it answers Surefooting let us â— little reflect what this sufficient consideration of his â—mounts to Surefooting was divided into two parts The first from the Properties of a Rule of Faith proved that Tradition was that Rule and this was the business of that Book from the beginning to pag. 57. and particularly of the 5 th Discourse whose Title was Of the Notion of Tradition and that all the Properties of the Rule of Faith do clearly agree to it The 2 d. part begins Discourse 6. and endeavors to demonstrate the Indefectiveness of Tradition or that it has hitherto ever been followed The Confutation of my first part ends in his Rule of Faith pag. 150 the Answer to my 2 d. begins pag. 151. or these two the former was in a manner the whole concern of my Book For if it were prov'd that Tradition was the Rule of Faith that is the only Conveyer of Christs Doctrine hitherto it must either be said by those against whom I argue that it hath not been hitherto convey'd to us at all and so that there are no Christians in the world which they will not say or else that those who proceed upon Tradition for their Rule are the right Christians Whence the later part was only ex abundanti not of absolute necessity especially in case I argu'd ad hominem This being so let Dr. T's Friends and mine when they hap to discourse about us please to send for his Book and mine and with aâ— equal partiality distrusting us both rely upon Sir Tho. Moors pair of honest unbyass'd witnesses Their own Eyes They will find that his Rule of Faith undertakes pag. 146. to answer my 5 th Disc. which pretended to shew that all the properties of the Rule of Faith do clearly agree to Tradition and thence concluded Tradition The Rule of Faith and accordingly quotes pag 41. where that Discourse began in Surefooting They will see the Title of his Sect. 6. which he uses to put in the Margin is That the Properties of a Rule of Faith do not belong to Oral Tradition Now I assigned seven such Properties Surefoot pag. 11 and 12. He was pleas'd to make but two Part. 2. Sect. 1. Sufficiently plain sufficiently certain Coming then at the bottom of pag. 148. to confute that whole Discourse which was the most substantial part of my Book and contained the most pressing Arguments to my main purpose he compleats his answer to it in one single page viz. 149. nay in one piece of that Page This would seem strange and something difficult if any thing were so to Dr. T. and his singular Method of answering Books All sayes he that he pretends to prove in this Discourse is that if this Rule hath been followed and kept to all along the Christian Doctrine neither has nor can have received any change 'T is all indeed I pretended and all I desired to prove for certainly if it can preserve Christian Doctrine unchanged it has in it the Nature of a Rule and what has in it the Nature of a Rule is I conceive a Rule whether it have been followed or not which is a Question I had not then examined but reserved to my following Discourses To this then after his sufficient consideration What sayes the Dr. All this sayes he is readily granted him For my part I have no reason to except against that answer for all my Writing aims at is that people should see the Truâ—h and acknowledge it and since he readily grants all I pretend to prove I were very unreasonable if I should not be contented Though if I were dispos'd to be cross this word readily is something liable to exception After he has employ'd a good part of his Book in preparing to speak to the main Question in dividing and subdividing and playing all the tricks which may make it look like an Answer and when he comes to the Question to grant it because he could do no other is indeed to grant it but not very readily People will not think he was very ready to
of Irony or any thing in the least of an impertinent nature but a serious pursuâ—t of the Point by way of Reason from the beginning to the end It seems there being in it no show of Passion it was the Reason of it which gall'd and was so uneasie to him What need was there to fall into such down right Rudeness as to call a Proposition of mine for which I offer'd my Reasons most impudent as did Dr. T. Rule of Faith p. 173. and in forty other places to make the Droll supply the Divine Was it not enough to answer the Reasons and let the World judge If he can show any such rude Language in my Letter of Thanks I here blame my self for it though it be responsum non dictum The worst word I use is charging hâ—m with falsifying my words and sense and it seems to me but hard Law if he may take the liberty to commit such Faults frequently and I may not so much as name his Faults when 't is my Duty as his Answerer to discover them § 2. He would clear himself of some Faults objected to do which he summons together all his best Arts First he picks out generally what can best bear a show of Reply Next he counterfeits a wrong Objection and lastly conceals in what manner and for what Reasons it was prest against him and by this means he hopes to escape blame § 3. First he would justifie himself for saying I went about to explain words because my self said I would examine well what is meant by them which seems equivalent to explaining them but he conceals what kind of explications I deny'd my self to mean and what he unjustly imputed twice in one page p. 3. namely Definitions he conceals how he would needs make me intend to define and yet most disingenuously put down himself at the same time my very words in which I disclaim'd any pretence to define but onely to reflect on some Attributes Predicates or Properties of what was meant by those words that is some pertinent and true Sayings concerning Rule and Faith which though they in part explicate them which I never deny'd yet they are far from looking like those compleat Explications call'd Definitions or even like those less artificial ones call'd Descriptions or like those Explications industriously compil'd which was the word I us'd to adequate the intire notion of the word under consideration For example Faith being there taken for Believing I come to discover it imports some kind of knowledge and then argue from it as such § 8. Again I affirm § 12. that the notion of the word Faith bears that 't is a Perfection of the Soul or a Virtue and thence discourse from it as it imports a Virtue Also § 16. I affirm that Faith mainly conduces to Bliss or Salvation c. and thereupon frame such a Discourse as is apt to spring out of such a Consideration Now all these in part explicate the Thing that is disclose or say some Truth that belongs to its nature yet not one of those sayings looks like an Explication of the word FAITH for this speaks an Intireness and an Adequateness to the notion explicated which 't is evident not one of these particular Affirmations or Sayings have the least show of He conceals also what was aâ—ledg'd Letter of Thanks p. 6. for indeed 't was not creditable that candid Scholars should reflect on it viz. that the word Faith being Equivocal and sometimes signifying Conscience sometimes Fidelity or Honesty c. I was necessarily to explain my self in what sense I understood it there and to declare that I took it for Belief and accordingly said Faith is the same with Believing which no sooner done but my pleasant Confuter will needs have that expressing or clearing its distinct sense in one single word to be a Definition too and plays upon it p. 3. with such affected Raillery as would make any sober man unacquainted with the Arts he uses to escape the duty of replying justly wonder But I shall easily satisfie our Readers what 's the true reason of this Carriage He thought it not fit to give one word of a sober and solid Reply to any one of thoâ—e many Reasons in that first discourse of mine built all upon those Affirmations or Predications now spoken of though this be the substantialest part of my Book and the Foundation of the rest on whâ—ch I ground rhe Properties of a Rule of Faith importing its Absolute Certainty but neglecting all my Premisses and Proofs he falls to deny my Conclusion and talk something against it in his own way So that 't is evident these Jests were to divert the Reader from the Point and so serve instead of a Confute to that whole Discourse A rare Method signifying thus much if candidâ—y and plainâ—y laid open and brought to Termâ— of Reason Because I can pretend any thing and play upon it with Ironies prettily exprest therefore my kind unexamining friends being inur'd to believe all I say to be Gospel let my Adversary say what he will he shall never be held to discourse solidly I charge him then afresh with an affected Disingenuity design'd to palliate hâ—s â—eglect of answering and let him know that as 't is manifest out of my Book I built not there those seven Properties of the Rule of Faith â—he Reasons for which he no where refutes on the Exactness Intireness or Goodness of any falsely-pretended Definition or Explication but on the Truth of those Propositions or the Agreement of those Attributes or Properties to the respective natures of Rule and Faith as their Subjects Also he may please to reflect that these being involv'd in the signification of those words by discovering and then dilating upon each of those singly I declare by consequence what is meant by those words as far as concerns my present purpose without compiling Explications or framing Definitions which onely were the Things I deny'd Lastly I charge this Insincerity far more home upon him now than ever that whereas in my Letter of Thanks from p. 5. to p 9. I had at large refuted these ridiculous Exceptions of his he in this very place where he pretends to speak particularly to my Letter of Thanks never takes notice of any one word there alledg'd but conceals all that had been produc'd to answer those Exceptions and bears himself as if no such Answers had been given This I must confess falls much short of either nibbling or gnawing and I am forc'd to declare that this constant carriage of his discovering too openly a perfect disregard of Truth abates in me much of that respect which otherwise his good Endowments would naturally give me § 4. His second Remembrance of my Letter of Thanks for though he says here p. 32. he must not forget it yet he haâ— been perfectly unmindful of it hitherto is that I say My Testimonies were not intended against the Protestants whereas my Book was writ
another ought to be allow'd the liberty of taking those words which express his Sentiments without putting them always in the very method and posture in which they are found in the Author while there is no ambiguity or doubt of the Authors sense in that place yet where 't is at least doubtful that the sence is otherwise as is manifest to any one who reads that Preface which as I alledg'd though Dr. T. never takes notice of it was wholly intended to evince the Absolute Certainty of Faith 't is not so fairly and clearly candid to introduce it as a most express saying of an Author and putting it directly upon him as his Saying whereas there at least needs a Discourse and the drawing some Consequences to prove it his Sense and Doctrine as will appear shortly and on the other side 't is opposite to the whole strain and scope of the Treatise in which 't is found Thus far then I conceive my self in rigorous Truth justifiable namely for imputing to Dr. T. that he left out the words Some understood for he did so and by so doing put that saying directly upon the Prefacer himself and expresâ— not that himself onely gather'd it by consequence from his words § 8. The chief and main part of the Charge is That the imputed Tenet is not the sence of the Prefacers words in that place and since he does not directly say it but 't is inferr'd onely from his approving an others Tenet either in whole or in part the Point is to be decided by such Reflexions as give us best Light of his Sense In order to which I alledge 1. That the whole Scope of that Treatise is aim'd to prove the quite contrary Position which Consideration being confessedly the best Interpreter of any Author to neglect that and catch at any little semblance in two or three particular words and then force upon that Author a Tenet perfectly contrary to what his whole Discourse is bent to prove favours too strong of a Wit resolv'd to cavil This I objected in my Letter of Thanks and this Dr. T. thought it his best play not to take notice of here for it was unanswerable and too evidently concluded him Injurious to the Prefacer First then I desire the Reader to reflect that there is not any show of relating the possibility there spoken of to the Divine Omnipotence but onely to the natures of Second Causes next that since every thing is what 't is made to be if those Causes can possibly work otherwise the thing may be otherwise These due Reflexions made and settled to those who have not leasure to read the whole Preface I offer these particularities P. 6. he blames those who bring not an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY or COACTIVE of the Vnderstanding and at the end of that § he presses those who say those Moral Motives are such as all are oblig'd to yield to to show how all can be bound to believe that which they evidently see MAY BE FALSE And which is remarkable these Expressions are found in the § immediately before the Citation D.T. so misrepresents whence 't is likely he could not but see and reflect on them Again p. 10. Else you will be forc'd to say that the very way God Himself has shewn to Heaven MAY POSSIBLY lead to Hell P. 13. The formal part of our Action unless it carry EVIDENCE and Certainty with it cannot be ventur'd on vvithout reproach Now as appears p. 12 he ayms this discourse at Actions belonging to Faith and answers that is opposes those who say the Reason or Ground of our Action need be no more but a high Probability or Contingent as a Thousand to One c. P. 14. This necessity binds God to put an INEVITABLE CERTITUDE in the Motives of Faith P. 16. There is NOTHING advanc'd towards the TRUTH of the ASSENT since this remains known that the Position MAY BE FALSE c. And to omit others p. 20. he puts the Question whether a desultory Assent which so agrees to this side that the Believer sees it FALLIBLE be sufficient for Christian Life and Action and coming in the next § to answer it he calls this an INCERTITUDE or defect of Certitude and declares that it makes a Religion either absolutely NONE or not a RATIONAL one but a MEER FOLLY These Citations duely reflected on it will appear very strange to any ingenuous man that Dr. T. could easily imagine an Author never noted till now to be given to contradict himself who so expresly in such and so many signal passages and in the whole Tenour of that Discourse nay the very immediately foregoing § manifests himâ—elf to hold that the Grounds of Faith cannot possibly lead men the wrong way that they must be Evident and Inevitably Certain that if it may be False we cannot assent to it at all as a Truth that if the Believer sees 't is Fallible 't is Irrational a meer Folly to hold it or else destructive of Religion 'T is strange I say to imagin that a Writer who is any thing in his wits should put forth a Treatise purposeâ—y to evince the Absolute Certainty or Impossibility of Falsehood in the Grounds and Motives to Faith and in it so often and so particularly avow it and yet in the same Treatise confess that what 's possible to be false is True Certainty and so a competent Ground to establish Faith on that is maintain the contrary Position to what he intended or pretended § 9. Having thus amply made good this part of my charge laid against Dr. T. Letter of Thanks p. 63. viz. That 't is the plain tenour of the Prefacers Discourse and the whole scope of that Preface to force the direct contrary Position to what Dr. T. would so disingenuously have put upon him of which he here takes no notice nor gives account why he hapt not to mind or regard that best way of interpreting an Authors words or not to see so many clear Expressions against his Interest rather than one obscure one seemingly for it we come next to consider the particular words in the place cited and see whaâ— strong temptation they could give Dr. T. to take him in a sense never intended notwithstanding so many pregnant Evidences to the Contrary § 10. The Prefacer said that Some understood by Moral Certainty such a Certainty as makes the Cause always work the same Effect though it take not away the Absolute Possibility of working otherways He adds afterwards that this ought absolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true Certainty and the Authors considered as mistaken in undervaluing it And I must confess that to one who lights by accident on this single passage taken abstractedly from the rest and could reach no deeper than the Grammar or superficial placing of words it bears at first sight a show as if the Prefacer had approv'd that to be a True Certainty not onely when the Cause always works the same Effect as I
take him to mean but also when it takes not away the possibility of working otherwise in which sence Dr. T. understands him But I must avow that 't is Impossible any rational deliberate man who endeavours to looke into the sence of words can justly frame even hence any such imagination For which I offer these Reasons 1. That though the distinct Limits of Moral Certainty be unknown yet in the general Conceit of those who use that word particularly those alluded to here Moral Certainâ—y is that which consists with a possibility of being otherwise wherefore True Certainty which is here counterpos'd to Moral must be counterpos'd also to that which constitutes Moral Certainty namely to a Possibility to be otherwise 2. Since Absolute Certainty is that kind of Certainty which is oppos'd to the Moral one the True Certainty here mention'd must mean the same with Absolute Certainty which is also avow'd and requâ—r'd by that Author p. 6. now cited But 't is acknowledg'd that Absolute Certainty excludes all possibility of Falsehood therefore the True Certainty allow'd and approv'd here by the Prefacer is that which has no Possibility of being False 3. These things being so viz. Moral Certainty being that which has annext to it possibility of Falsehood and Absolute or True Certainty being confessedly inconsistent with it 't is unimaginable that he who blameâ— any man for mistaking or undervaluing a thing for Morally Certain should not also blame him for mistaking and undervaluing it as possible to be False since this is annext in the conceit of those blame-worthy persons to Moral Certainty as its proper Constitutive and Equivalent Also 't is unconceiveable that he who approves a thing as Truly or Absolutely Certain should not also mean it Impossible to be False this being the proper Constitutive and conâ—equently Equivalent of True or Absolute Certainty 'T is evident then that Authors sence can be no other than this that when the Cause always works the same Effect 't is True or Absolute Certainty and not Moral Certainty onely and consequently that 't is Impossible to be false and that those words which he added in their names expressing it onely Morally Certain though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherways are utterly disapproved by him in his disapproving their calling it Moral Certainty which is of the self-same notion My Charge then is justify'd to a tittle viz. that Dr. T. left out the words Some understood and put upon the Prefacer to say it most expresly whereas the Sense he imposes is contrary to express words of his in divers places nay to the whole intention and drift of that Preface and necessarily opposite to the sence of those words in that very particular place he cites for it This is manifestly Dr. T's Fault mine if any is this that I might have mitigated the phrase Notorious Abuse c and have been so wise as to consider that Dr. T. does not use to look so narrowly into the Sense of words as I still expect from him nor regards the Antecedents or Consequents as candid Adverâ—aries use but contents himself with the first countenance they bear right or wrong especially if it make for his Interest and hereupon I ought to have been more merciful to habâ—tual Imperfections I have been larger in clearing thâ—s Point because I hear his Friends apprehend he has gain'd a notable advantaâ—e against me in this particular and I dare even submit it to their Judgment if Friendship will permit them to examine it with any degree of impartiality I hope this will serve for an Instance how Dr. T. still misunderstands our Dâ—viâ—es when he objects them against me as also how far I have been from imposing any thing unjustly upon him in the least God be praised I do stand in need of such petty Crafts § 11. In clearing himself of the next Fault objected he is still himself and I wish he did not still grow worse and worse The Fallacy caâ—l'd non causa pro causa or pretending a wrong Reason which runs through half his performances was never more needful than in this present conjuncture I invite then even his best Friend Dr. St. himself to judge of the case and desire him having first read the p. 65. in my Letter of Thanks to determine the point in Controversie In that place I represented Dr. T. as quoting from Rushworths Dialogues after himself had preambled Rule of Faith p. 144. that probably it was prudent to cast in a few good words concerning Scripture for the Satisfaction of Indifferent men who have been brought up in this verbal and apparent respect of the Scriptures and then adding as a kind of Comment upon those words who it SEEMS are not yet arriv'd to that degree of Catholick Piety and Fortitude as to endure patiently the Word of God should be reviled or slighted Now this Preamble Comment introduc'd by it seems that is from those words he had cited did put upon that Author and by him on Catholicks so unworthy and Invidious a meaning that it oblig'd me to put down the rest of the words immediately following in the Dialogues and omitted by Dr. T. that so I might clear the sober meaning and intention of that Author from what he had so unhandsomely impos'd and not troubling my self to repeat over again what he had newly said I introduc'd them thus Whereas in the place you cite he onely expresses it would be a Satisfaction to indifferent men to see the Positions one would induce them to embrace maintainable by Scripture Which done I added as the Result of my whole Charge Which is so different from the Invidious MEANING your malice puts upon it and so innocent and inoffensive in it self that one would wonder with what Conscience you could thus WREST and PERVERT it Whence 't is evident that my total Charge was of impâ—sing an Invidious MEANING of Wresting and Perverting an innocent and inoffensive meaning that he onely exprest which words I immediaâ—ely subjoyned after the Doctors Comment and not after Rushworths words it would be a Satisfaction c. to see those Positions maintainable by Scripture nor was there in the whole Charge any Controversie about the right or wrong perfectly or imperfectly quoting the WORDS This being evident as it will be to any ordinary Understanding that guides it self by Eye-sight and Common Sense let us see what disingenuous ways Dr. T. uses to escape blame 1. He never in the least mention'd his imposing upon those words an Invidious Meaning or of wresting an innocent and unoffensive Intention which was solely objected whence he is so far from clearing himself from the Fault imputed that out of an over-tender kind-heartedness to his own Credit he not so much as names it or takes notice of it Next instead of that he substitutes a False Charge never dream't on by any man but himself namely that I deny'd those Words who have been brought up in this verbal and
apparent respect of Scripture to be found in Rushworth whereas there is not a syllable to that purpose in my Book Thirdly to give Countenance to this False Charge those words of mine whereas in the place you cite he onely expresses which in me were immediately subjoyned to his Comment and were evidently design'd to restrain that Authors words to a Sense different from what he had impos'd he here joyns immediatly after the very Woâ—ds themselves though there were three or four lines between one and the other By this stratagem making the Reader apprehend the word onely was exclusive or negative of more words found in Rushworth whereas by the whoâ—e tenour of the Charge by all the words which express it and lastly by the placing those words he onely exprest immediately after his unhandsome Comment 't is most manifest they onely excluded any Ground or occasion of so strange a misconstruction and aim'd not in the least at denying any other words but onely at clearing that this was that Authors sole Intention Yet in confidence of these blinding Crafts and that his unexamining Readers will believe all he says he sounds the triumph of his own Victory in this rude and confident manner Certainly one would think that either this man has no Eyes or no Forehead I will not say as Dr. T. does here in a Sermon preach'd against himself p. 123. that a little wit and a great deal of ill-nature will furnish a man for Satyr onely I must say that the tenth part of this Rudeness in another though justly occasion'd too would have been call'd Passion and ill Language But I see what 's a most horrid Sin in the abominable Papist is still a great Virtue in the Saints On this occasion since he is so hot and Rustick I must be serious with him and demand of him publickly in the face of the World Satisfaction for this Unjust Calumny and that I may not be too rigorous with him I will yield him innocent in all the rest if he clears himself of this one passage in which he counterfeits the greatest Triumph and Victory Of this Fault I say which he has newly committed even then when he went about to clear himsellf of a former § 12. His last Attempt is to give an account why he added that large senc'd Monosyllable All to my words which is the onely False Citation be hath yet offer'd to Examination the former two not being objected as such whatever he pretends Now the Advantage he gains by adding it is manifestly this that if that word be added and that I indeed say The greatest Hopes and Fears are strongly apply'd to the minds of ALL Christians it would follow that no one Christian in the world could apostatize or be a bad man which being the most ridiculous position that ever was advanc'd and confutable by every days experience his imposing this Tenet on me by virtue of this Addition iâ— as he well expresses it Serm. p. 87. putting me in a Fools Coat for every Body to laugh at I appeal'd Letter of Thanks p. 66 67. to Eye-sight that no such word was ever annext to the words now cited and thence charg'd him with falsifying He would clear himself in doing which he denies not that he added the word All this was too evident to be cloak'd but he gives his reason why he added it on this manner He alledges my words that Christian Doctrine was at first unanimously settled in the minds of the Faithful c. and firmly believ'd by all those Faithful to be the vvay to Heaven Therefore infers Dr. T. since in the pursuit of the Dâ—scourse 't is added that the greatest Hopes and Fears vvere strongly apply'd to the minds of the First Believers those First Believers must mean ALL those Faithful spoken of before and the same is to be said of the Christians in after Ages This is the full force of his Plea My Reply is That I had particular reason to add the word All in the former part where I said that That Doctrine vvas firmly believ'd by ALL those faithful for they had not been Faithful had they not firmly believed it and yet had equal reason to omit it when I came to that passage the greatest motives were strongly aprly'd to the minds of the first Believers because I have learn'd of our B. Saviour that many receive the word that is believe and gladly too yet the thorny cares of this world to which I add Passions and ill Affections springing from Original Sin choak the Divine Seed and hinder it from fructifying whereas had it had the full and due effect which its nature requir'd it had born Fruit abundantly Now since those Motives are of themselves able to produce it in all and oftentimes convert the most indispos'd that is the most wicked Sinners I conceive this happens for want of due Application making the Motives sink deep into the Understanding Power so as to make it conceit them heartily which vigorous Apprehension we use to call Lively Faith nothing else being required to any effect but the Agents Power over the Patients indisposition and a close Application of the Power to the Matter t is to work upon Which kind of Application being evidently not made to All there was no show of reason why I should put that word in that place and much less that Dr. T. should put it for me I was forc't indeed to name the word Believers because it was impossible to conceive that those Motives should be strongly apply'd to the Minds of Jews or Heathens Again I was forc't to express it plurally since no sober man can doubt but the doctrine of Faith sunk deep into the hearts or wills of more than some one and thence wrought in them through Charity but that I should mean by that word onely plurally exprest a Number of Believers having those Motives strongly applyed to them Equal to those who firmly believed or were Faithful is unconceivable by any man who looks into the sense of words this being the same as to apprehend that all who believe speculatively lay to heart those Motives to good Life which Faith teaches them a thing our daily Experience confutes Moreover I endeavoured to prevent any such Apprehension in my very next words after my Principles which were these This put it follows as certainly that a GREAT NVMBER of the first Believers and after faithful would continue c. Now these words a Great number of the first Believers having most evidently a Partitive sense that is signifying onely a Part or some of them it might seem strange to any Man that knows not Dr. T 's might in such performances and that nothing is Impossible for him to mistake who will do it because he must do it that he could interpret those very same words First Believers to mean all not one excepted 'T is a trifling Evasion then to hope to come off by saying as he does here p. 36. If it
contradict what he sayes elsewhere it is no new or strange thing For this is not elsewhere or another place but the same place and the very next words to my Principles as is seen Sureâ—â— p. 60. The badness of which excuse shows he is inexcusable But this is not all that discourse ends not there but goes on at least two Leaves farther clearing that very point and in the process of it these words are found p. 63. To say it preserves None good is to question Christs wisdome c. A GREAT PART therefore would be virtuous c. A BODY of Traditionary Christians would still be continued p. 64. All which wayes and Objects thus easily and strongly appliable were frequently and efficaciously apply'd by the Education of Parents and the discipline and Oeconomy of the Church which brings those speculations to practice was ever and must needs reach the GENERALITY p. 65. must still continue in SOME GREAT MVLTITVDE All these expressions in the self-same Discourse and on the self-same Subject perfectly explicated my sense to be that that Plural word Believers did not reach all not one excepted This then is Dr. T 's habitual imperfection which runs through all his Mock-Answer to Sure footing He has no patience to take any intire Discourse of mine into his Consideration or grapple with the full import of it but he catches at some word at the beginning or by the way which seems easiest to be misinterpreted and whereas any candid man would guide himself by the annext or concomitant words and the whole scope of the Discourse Dr. T. is got beyond those too-ingenuous considerations and knowing very well as he exprest it Serm. p. 121. that nothing is so easie as to take particular Phrases and Expressions out of the best Book in the world and abuse them by forcing an odd and ridiculous sence upon them he exactly observes that method and abuses some Expression or word by forcing in despight of all the concomitant circumstances conspiring to rectifie him an odd and ridiculous sence upon it and then lest those rectifying passages annext should rise up in judgment against him and accuse him to the candid Reader of imposing a sense never intended by the Author 't is but accusing that Author of contradictâ—ng himself and all 's well Thus he us'd the Prefacer p. 30. me in this very place in these words If it contradict what he sayes elsewhere 't is no new or strange thing and Sure-footing in most of those places which he wilfully misconstrued throughout his Rule of Faith By this rare Stratagem gaining two notable Advantages against any Author whereas not so much as one was offered First making him talk ridiculously next making him contradict himself Both of them built upon another of Dr. T 's firm Principles which is this No Author shall be allow'd to interpret his own meaning but that shall be his sense which I please to put upon any particular Expression of his by adding words to it or otherwise glossing it as seems best for my advantage and if he offers to be so wary as to annex other words which would interpret his meaning to be otherwise he is a Fool and contradict himself Now though this Principle which grounds this Procedure be an odd one yet Dr. T. holds faithfully to what he has once espoused and were it now seasonable I durst undertake to reckon up twenty places in his Rule of Faith where he vaunts himself thus doubly victorious by making use of this one Artifice § 13. But in case that plural word had seem'd to him to infer an Vniversality why could he not content himself with giving his reason why it seem'd to follow thence Had he done this none could have accus'd him of falsifying for every one has liberty to offer his conceit and the reason why he judges so without meriting or incurring any harsher note than that of a mis-reasoner Whereas now his carriage exposes him justly to these Exceptions First That he went not about to infer or gather what he imposes but Rule of Faith p. 163. he makes me in express terms and directly say that greatest hopes and fears are strongly apply'd to the minds of ALL Christians whereas in my words put down by himself p. 162. no such thing as all is found annext to those words Next that the word all which he added was put in the same Italick Letter in an even tenor with those other words which were indeed mine as may be seen in the place now cited Thirdly that his whole Attempt in that place is meerly to confute that word All which himself had inserted as may be seen Letter of thanks p. 77. where I instanc'd in nine or ten places in which he combated that single word of his own adding and nothing else and as I there shew'd from p. 78. to p. 86. went forwards to make out that pretence by falsifying evidently my sense and sometimes my words too in three or four places more Fourthly That Rule of Faith p. 165. l. 3. he tells the Reader I SAY EXPRESSLY those Causes are put in ALL the Faithful actually causing by this means endeavouring to perswade the Reader 't is not his own interpretation or deduction from some words of mine but my own express words which is a most express falsification Lastly he neglects to take notice of any of those words which manifoldly and expresly show'd my Tenet to be quite contrary to what he impos'd This is my total charge against him of which we hear very little or rather nothing in this Preface where he goes about to clear it onely he sayes that those First Believers to whom those Hopes and Fears were strongly apply'd must by the tenour of my words mean all the Faithful disperst over several parts of the world and so all the Christians of that Age and for the same reason of the following ones which is the very thing I deny and have given lately my reasons why they could not Besides every Scholar knows that Authors first speak short and in common and afterwards when they come to explain themselves more particularly and had he been pleas'd to contain his rare gift of misinterpreting till the very next line to my Principles woven in the tenour of the same Discourse which he pretends to build his mistake upon he had found the express contrary to his Additional All viz A Great number or Body of the first Believers and after-Faithful the direct sense of which words is not all but some onely § 14. Again what if I us'd the word Faithful first and put to it the word All joyned with such words as would â—ear that universal Expression must it needs follow that when I name the same word Plurally afterwards I must needs mean all or the universality again even though I joyn it this second time with words of a quite different Sense Imagine I had said that All Historians write of matters of Fact and then had subjoyn'd a