be Formally Infallible in the Grounds of Faith and so able to discourse of those Grounds and make out their Absolute Certainty by way of Skill or Art there ought to be moreover another sort of men in the Church Formally-Infallible in discerning the True and distinct notion of each Point of Faith and this is the proper work of the Governours of the Church For these by reason of their State of Life which is to meditate on God's Law day and night their perpetual Converse with the Affair of Faith by Preaching Teaching Catechizing Exhorting their Concern to overlook their Flock lest any Innovatour should infect them with Novelties their Constant Addiction to observe exactly their Rule Tradition the Standard by which they govern themselves in distinguishing the true Faithfull from revolting Apostats or Hereticks their Duty to be well vers't in the Doctrine of Fathers and Acts of former Councils and according to these soberly and gravely not quirkingly and with witty tricks to understand and interpret Holy Scripture These Eminent Personages and Chief Magistrates and Mâ—sters of the Faithfull being tâ—us furnisht with all requisite endowments to give them a most distâ—nct and exact knowledge of the doctrine descended to them by Tradition and of the sense of the Church in case any Heretick revolts openly from the formerly deliverâ—d Faith these Men I say are by the Majesty and sway of their moâ—t venerable and most ample Authority to quash and subdue his petty party newly sprung up and either reduce him to his duty by wholsome advice and discipline or if he persists in his Obstinacy to cut him off solemnly from the Church by Excommunication that so the sounder Faithfull may look upon him according to our Saviours command as on a Heathen or a Publicanâ— it being thus made evident that he stands against all his Superiâ—urs and rebels against the most sacred Authority upon Earth Or in case that Heretick cloak his poisonous doctrine in aâ—biguous expressions or goes about to pervert the words used formerly by the Church by drawing them to a sinister sense never intended by Her They being perfectly acquainted with the language and sense of the Church are to invent and assign proper words to express the Churches sence and such as are pertinent and effectual for the present juncture and exigency to defeat the crafty Attempts of those quibbling Underminers of Faith or else they are to clear the true sence of the former words us'd by the Church by declaring in what meaning the Church takes and ever took them And sometimes too beating the Heretick at his own weapon Scripture's Letter by avowing this to be the sence in which the Church ever took such and such places Hence they are said to define Faith that is to expresse in distinct words it 's precise Limits and bounds that so no leaven of Errour may possibly intermingle it self and to seal and recommend their Acts by stamping on them the most Grave most Venerable and most Sacred Authority in the whole Christian world Now that this Authority of the Church Representative is Infallible in knowing the Points of Faith and that on the best manner is prov'd hence because if such a Learned Body consisting of the most Eminent and Knowing Personages in the world can be deceiv'd while they rely on the Means left by God to preserve mankinde from errour in understanding the Points of Faith 't is evident no man in the world can be â—â—cur'd thereby from Errour and so the Means would be no Means to arrive at Truth but rather a Means to leade men into Errour since they err'd relying solely on that which it being supposed to have been intended by God for a Contrary end is absolutely Impossible 5. Though the Substance or Essence of Faith consists in believing what is True upon the Divine Authority certainly engag'd for those Truths which is the Formal Motive of Believing and therefore 't is enough for trne Faith that the â—Generality of the Church or the Vulgar be materially Infallible in their Faith yet it addes evidently a great perfection to Faith that they be Formally Infallible and that the Faithfull see with Infallible Certainty that the Divine Authority is actually engag'd when they believe First because Faith is an Intellectual Virtue and so to proceed knowingly upon it's Grounds makes it more Agreeable to the Understanding and Perfective of it 2. Because the more evident 't is that the Divine Authority is engag'd the more heartily those who reverence it are dispos'd to submit their Iudgments by believing whence Faith in such Persons is more lively firm and Immoveable also more Efficacious and if other Considerations be equal more apt to work through Charity than it is in others Moreover such Faithful are incomparably more able to satisfy and convert others being able as is supposed to make â—ut evidently the Grounds of their Faith Wherefore every thing being then in it's perfectest state when 't is able to produce it's like or another of it 's own kinde 't is a signe that Faith in such men is Ripe Manly and Perfect since 't is able to propagate it sâ—lf to others or as S. Paul phrases it gignere in Evangelio Whence those who are to convert souls and propagate Faith are oblig'd to labour all that may be to accomplish themselves in this particular lest they fall short of this Perfection which seems properly and peculiarly due to their state For 't is not so opprobrious to the Layity to be unable to perform this but 't is highly so to them because they are lame without it 6. Notwithstanding this 't is God's Will that all the Faithfull should be formally Infallible in their Faith or know Infallibly the Grounds of Faith cannot be False as far as they are capable For this being as was lately shown a Perfection in Faith and God who is Essential Goodness not being Envious but desirous his Creatures should have all the Good they are capable to receive especially such goods as tend to the bettering their souls and promoting them towards Heaven it follows that he wills them this Perfection in Faith as far as it can stand with the Universal Order of the World or the particular natures of Things that is as far as they are capable to receive it 7. He hath therefore ordain'd such a Means by which to know his Will as far as concerns our Belief or what he would have us believe that is he has constituted such a Rule of Faith that it's Certainty may be most easily penetrable by all degrees and sorts of the Faithfull Whence follows most evidently that Tradition and not Scripture is that Rule For of all ways of Knowing and Ascertaining imaginable nothing is more easie to be comprehended or to satisfy people of all sorts then is that of Witnessing Authority as we experience in their perfect belief of K. Iames or K. H. 8ths existence and such like The Grounds of which Truths not needing to be
different degrees of Evidence and measure of Divine Assistance but every Christian by the use of his reason and Common Helps of Grace may attain to so great a degree of Certainty from the Convincing Arguments of the Christian Religion and Authority of the Scriptures that on the same Ground on which men doubt of the Truth of them they may as well doubt of the Truth of those things which they judge to be most Evident to Sence Reason I wish D. S. had explain'd himself here what he means by different degrees of Evidence whether some Glances or likely Appearances of Truth call'd greater or lesser Probabilities or such Intelleâ—tual Sights at the least of them discovers the thâ—ng thâ—â— evidenc't to â—e be indeed so or True I suspect much he means the former because thâ—se are the most proper Grounds for Fallible Certainty which he is now going to establish whereas the Latter sort of Evidences would hazard to carry too far and to beget Infallible Certainty which would quite spoil his most excellent design of setling the Fallible Certainty of Faith for those Evidences which show the thing to be True show it at the same time to be Impossible to be False whence 't is a thousand to one that such Evidences as these would utterly destroy his beloved Fallible Certainty and endanger to introduce again by necessary and enforcing consequence that Popish Doctrine of Infallibility which he had newly discarded When he adds that every Christian may by the means here assigned attain to so great a degree of Certainty c. I had thought he had meant Certainty of the Points of his Faith but my hopes were much defeated when coming to the Point he flyes off to his Christians not doubting the Truth of the convincing Arguments of Christian Religion and of the Authority of the Scriptures For this is far wide of our purpose and his Promise which was to reduce the Faith of Protestants to Principles whereas these words signify no more but not to doubt of Christianity being the True Religion or Scriptures being God's word but reaches not to what are those points of Christianity or determinate sense of Scripture in particular which constitutes Protestantism and only concerns our debate Now 't is evident that the Roman-Catholicks profess not to doubt of the convincing Grounds of Christianity nor yet of Scripture but to hold that Christianity is the only-only-Trâ—e Religion and that the Scriptures are Holy and God's word and yet we differ so much from Protestants that he thinks us Idolaters What we are then in reason to expect from Dr. St. is that he would bring us Grounds for the Certainty of his Faith as to determinate Points viz. Christ's God-head a Trinity Reality or not-Reality of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and such like and those so certain as that we may as well doubt of what we judge to be most evident to sense and Reason as doubt of them as he here pretends and not put us off with Common words in stead of particular Satisfaction concerning his Faith and the Certainty thereof I would ask him then how it comes to pass that the Socinian whom he will not deny to have both use of his reason and common helps of Grace and both the convincing Arguments of the Christian Religion and Authority of Scriptures to make use of how I say he comes so to fall short of Evidence and consequently Certainty springing from that evidence concerning Christ's God-Head which is a Fundamental Point of Christian Faith that he doubts it nay utterly denies it whereas yet the Protestant having the same means to work with judges he has evidence and Certainty grounded on that evidence that Christ is God yet all this while they dissent not at all in things most evident to Sense or Reason I much fear our Drs. big words concerning his degrees of Evidence and the Certainty of his Faith built on those degrees will when examin'd amount to a very obscure evidence and a Problematical kind of Assuredness much like those comfortable lights which both parties have when they lay even wagers at Cock-fighting such games giving good hopes to both sides but good Security to neither But so it ought to be if the Grounds of Faith be not Infallibly but only Fallibly-Certain which is all he is bent to prove 25. No man who firmly Assents to any thing as True can at the same time entertain any suspicion of the falshood of it for that were to make him certain and uncertain of the same thing It is therefore absurd to say that these who are Certain of what they believe may at the same time not know but it may be False which is an apparent Contradiction and overthrows any Faculty in us of judging of Truth and Falshood This Principle and the next were I conceive intended to preserve the Dr's and his Friends Credit against the Inference at the end of Faith vindicated and diverse other Passages shewing them either to be far from good Christians in holding that all Christian Faith may possibly be an Errour and Lying Imposture or else very bad Discoursers of their own Thoughts whilst they equivalently exprest themselves in divers places to be possibly in an Errour in all they believe nay more all Christians in the whole world to be in the same condition This if justified cannot but reflect on them being so concerning a Lapse and I have at Dr. St's brisk instigation charg'd it home in Reason against Raillery though I still expres't my self to incline to the more Civil and more Charitable side and rather lay the blame on their Understandings then on their Wills and Intentions Which Book had Dr. St. seen when he writ this he would have discern'd the triflingness of these weak excuses But let 's see what he says His Firâ—t part is built on a most gross and senseless Errour which is that he who firmly assents to a thing as True is Certain of it as appears by those words for this were to make him Certain and Vncertain of the same thing I wonder exceedingly where the Dr. â—earn't this notion of Certainty Not from Mankinde I am sure at least not from those who had the use of their Reason For all these already know it to be Evident that a man may firmly assent to a thing as True and yet that thing be False must that man therefore be Certain of that Falshood and that it is though in reality it be not We experience that opposite parties firmly assent to contrary Tenets as True for example the Socinians firmly assent that Christ is not God We and the Protestants that Christ is God Catholicks assent firmly that they are not Idolaters when they make use of Holy Images in Divine Worship D. St. firmly assents they are at least he would perswade his 〈◊〉 by his Books he does so Are all these opposite sides Certain of their several Tenets because each side firmly assents to them as True
Divinity p. 191. 192. In Logick p. 228. 236. 237. His Performances reduc't to their proper Principles Contradictions p. 236. Tradition the Rule of Faith p. 45. 46. 141. 142. Vnion how to be hoped p. 51. 52. Writing how capable to be the Rule of Faith p. 36. 37. 38. Errata PAge 2. line 4. receive p. 11. l. 21. perfectly p. 15. l 2. disparate p. 32. l. 1â— then we can p. 45. l. 12. Again p. 67. l. 27. dele and this as far c. to the end of the 4th line after p. 81. l. 29. dele of p. 84. l. 2. Endeavorers l. 29. Endeavorers p. 104. l. 4. dele we p. 10â— l. 5. his p. 124. l. 5. and. p. 131. l. 30. dele in the. p. â— 2. l. 11. infallibly l. 23. then p. 834. l. 17. be False l. 20. about p. 159. l. 22. if p. 1â—0 l. 14. as l. 15. dele be p. 167. l. 11. dele if p 173. l. 18. to a higher degree p. 177. l. 23. which are p. 181. l. 2. degree p. 184. l. 24. ground p. 185. l. 15. reason given l. 18. keep men p. 187. l. 14. is p. 188. l. 14. dissatisfaction l. 21. some p. 192. l. 5. conformable l. 16. it l. 26. by her all p. 193. l. 17. our p. 198. l. 2. receiv'd p. 199. l. 14. in wisemen in this point p. 202. l. ult The 5th and 6th p. 214. l. 3. dele to p. 216. l. 12. its p 221. l. 18. Dr. St. p. 234. l. 18. applying it p. 235. l. 23. produc't one p. 250. l. 9. not THE FIRST EXAMEN CONCERNING Dr. Stillingfleet's Design in this Discourse as exprest in his TITLE 1. IN the first place the Title superscribed to this Discourse and signifying to us the Nature and Design of it is to be well weighed that so we may make a right Conceit of what we are justly to expect from Dr. St. in this occasion 'T is this The Faith of Protestants reduc'd to Principles 2. Now Principles as we have discours'd in the Preface must either be Evident to both Parties or at least held and granted by both else no discourse can proceed for want of Agreement in that on which all Rational Process is grounded Also they must be Proper for the End intended or Influential upon the Conclusion which the Arguer aims to evince otherwise if the thing in question deceive not its Evidence and Truth from them though those Propositions be never so evident in themselves yet they cannot be to It or in this Circumstance a Principle whatever they may be in others Wherefore to make good this Title Dr. St. is to produce nothing for a Principle but what is either granted at first by both Parties or else is of so open and undeniable an Evidence as all the World must see and acknowledge it such as are either first Principles or those which immediatly depend upon them and are comprehended under them or if he builds on any Propositions as Principles which are not thus evident but need Proof he is at least to render them evident ere he builds upon them And lastly he is to apply them close to that which he professes to conclude from them otherwise he can never show them to be Principles in this occasion any more than one can be a Father who has no Off-spring or than any thing can be a Ground which has no Superstructures 3. Next we are to consider what Dr. St. means by the word Faith in this place And I hope he will not think I injure him in supposing he has so good thoughts of the Faith of Protestants as to hold 't is more than a bare Opinion whose Grounds may all be false For if so the Assent of Protestants as Faithful may possibly be an Error and all the Tenets they profess to be Truths and hope to be sav'd by believing them liable to be prov'd nothing perhaps in reality but a company of Lies If then as in this supposition he must he holâ—s the 〈◊〉 of Protestants Impossible to be Faâ—â—e he is 〈◊〉 to reduce it into 〈◊〉 Grounds and Principles as are likewâ—â—e Impossible to be False and consequently if it relies on Authority he is to bring Infallible Authority for it all that is Fallible as Common sense teaches admitting Possibility of Falshood in whatever is grounded on it Such Grounds then or Principles he is oblig'd to produce for the Faith of Protestants in case he holds it may not perhaps be an Error for any thing he or his Church knows But in case he judges this Assent or Belief of Protestants may be True Faith though the Grounds of it may be False then he ows me an answer to Faith Vindicated where the contrary is prov'd by multitudes of Arguments not one of which has yet receiv'd one word of sober Reply from him or Dr. Tillotson though as appears by the Inferences at the end of that Book it most highly concerns them both to speak to the several Reasons it contains 4. In the third place we are to reflect what may be meant by the word reduc'd in the said Title And since all Truths not self-evident nor known by immediate impression on sense are at first deriv'd or deduc'd from Principles this word reduc'd having a signification directly contrary to the other intimates to us that Dr. St. makes account he has begun by putting the Faith of Protestants which is the Conclusion and brought it back for so the word reduc'd imports to Principles whereas 't is Evident to every Scholar he proceeds in a way quite contrary to what he here pretends First laying six Principles agreed on then thirty others which since they go before his Conclusions we are to think he meant for Principles too and thence drawing in the Close six Inferences or Sequels which is most manifestly to deduce from Principles not to reduce to them 5. But however it be blameable in one who owns himself a Scholar especially pretending the rigorous and learned way of proceeding by Principles not to understand the nature of the Way himself takes yet let us kindly suppose that Dr. St. out of an unwariness only made use by chance of an improper word which being but a human lapse is more easily pardonable especially since the Method he here undertakes viz. to begin with Principles is if rightly manag'd and perform'd the most honorable for a Scholar and the most satisfactory that may be and so deserving to make amends for many greater faults Let him then by reduc'd to Principles mean deduc'd from Principles yet since both reducing and deducing imply the showing a Connexion between those Principles and what 's pretended to be drawn from them and this either Immediate as to every particular Conclusion or Mediate We are to expect Dr. St. should still show us this Connexion which is best and most clearly done by relating each of his six Conclusions to their respective Premisses or Principles that so by this distinct proceeding and owning
and grounding upon them Hope and this all-over-powering Love of Heaven the main part of our Obedience are True or Impossible to be False If then Dr. St. takes the word know in this signification this Principle is granted if in any other or for a great Hope only that they are True as I fear when it comes to the point he intends no more I must for the Reasons here given and many more alledg'd in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery deny that no other way of Revelation is necessary and put him to prove it which he neither has done nor can do 2. Man being fram'd a rational Creature capable of reflecting upon himself may antecedently to any External Revelation certainly know the Being of God and his dependance upon him and those things which are naturally pleasing unto him else there could be no such thing as a Law of Nature or any Principles of Natural Religion I suppose he means by the word God the True God and then 't is not so evident that every Man in the state of corrupt Nature may arrive to know him however some few may and in the State of Right Nature All. And in case he takes the words certainly know in their proper signification then he may consider how ill his Friend Dr. Tillotson discourses who professes not to have even with the assistance of Christianity that Certain Knowledge of the Being of God which as Dr. Still says was attainable by the meer Light of Natural Reason 3. All Supernatural and External Revelation must suppose the truth of Natural Religion for unless we be antecedently certain that there is a God and that we are capable of knowing him it is impossible to be certain that God hath reveal'd his will to us by any supernatural means If he means here Priority of Nature 't is to be granted for this Proposition God has reveal'd implies and presupposes as its basis God is But if he understands it of priority of Time as I conceive he does then I both deny the Proposition and the validity of the Reason given for it For 't is Evident both by Reason and Experience that manifest and Convictive Miracles which are supernatural and external Revelations done before the Heathens who yet know not the true God in Testimony of Christianty at once or at the same time made it certain that he whom we adore is the True God and also that God reveal'd his will by supernatural means and so 't is not Impossible as Dr. St. here affirms to be certain of such a Revelation without knowing any time before hand that there is a God nor must All Supernatural and External Revelation needs suppose the Truth of Natural Religion that is of the Knowledge of the True God as he pretends since such a Revelation may cause that Knowledge and so antecede it not be antecedent to it 4 Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the Certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently suppos'd to all Divine Revelation For that were to overthrow the means whereby we are to judge concerning the Truth of any Divine Revelation This Discourse seems at the first show to carry so clear an evidence with it that nothing appears so Irrational as to doubt or dispute it And indeed 't is no less if the words in which it is couch'd be not equivocally taken but still be meant in the same sence To prevent then the growth of a witty piece of Sophistry which I foresee creeping in under the disguise of an ambiguous word I am to provide against it with a distinction both pertinent and necessary to the present matter These words Divine Revelation may either mean the way or Act of Revealing or else they may mean the Thing divinely reveal'd that is the Point of Faith which differ as showing and thing shown or as an Action and it's Effect In the same manner as the word Tradition is sometimes taken for the Way of Delivery sometimes for the Thing or Point delivered When they are taken for the one when for the other partly the circumstances and the aim of the discourse determin partly some annext particle or variation of the word so that if they be taken for the Thing reveal'd or deliver'd and be express'd singularly 't is call'd A Divine Revelation or A Tradition If plurally Divine Revelations or Traditions Now it seems something doubtful in whether sense it be taken here for § 1. he speaks of the Way of Revelation which can onely mean Revealing and in the two following ones 't is taken in the same sense as appears by the words God hath reveal'd found in the Third But this matters not much so it be here taken in the same sense throughout which I fear 't is not For the word Revelation is here made use of thrice and in the first and last place it seems plainly to mean the Points revealed in the middle the Way or Act of Revealing yet the two following Principles incline the doubtfulness of the Expression to mean the Points of Faith themselves Though this be to speak moderately by far the more preposterous and absurd Tenet as shall hereafter be shown But I am to provide for both parts since I am to skirmish with such an ambidextrous Adversary and therefore applying this discourse to his Proposition I distinguish thus and grant that Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation taking those words to signifie the Act of Revealing which overthrows the Certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to the Act of Revealing Also I grant that nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation taking those words to signifie Points of Faith revealed which overthrows the Certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently suppos'd to those Points This is candid and clear dealing and far from that sophistical and equivocating ambiguity which contrary to the Genius of Truth he so constantly and so industriously affects 5. There can be no other means imagin'd whereby we are to judge of the Truth of Divine Revelation but a Faculty in us of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to our Belief which if we do not exercise in judging the Truth of Divine Revelation we must be impos'd upon by every thing which pretends to be so Here are many quaint things to be considered For if Dr. St. means that we cannot judge of Truth without a Faculty to judge of Truth 't is a 〈…〉 Principle though very littâ—◠〈◊〉 his purpose But 't is most 〈◊〉 paraâ—oxical to say that no other means can be imagin'd to judge of Divine Revelation but such a Faculty For if there can be no other means imagin'd but this Faculty then This is all the means and so those Knowledges which are to inform and direct this Faculty are no means at all whence all motives to Faith Rule of Faith all Teaching nay Scripture it self are to no purpose For none of these are our Faculty of
only in the Word It being agreed then amongst us all that what Christ and his Apostles taught is Gods Word or his Will and the Means to Salvation all that is to be done by us as to matters of Faith is to know with Absolute Certainty what was the first taught Doctrine or Christs sense and whatever can thus assure us of that is deservedly call'd the Rule of Faith Now the word Rule made use of to mean a Spiritual or Intellectual Direction is Metaphorical or translated from some Material thing as most words that express Spiritual Notions are and 't is one of those kind of Metaphors which are transferr'd from one thing to another for some Proportion or Resemblance between them For as a Material Rule is such a thing as if one endeavour to go according to it and decline not from it preserves one from going crooked so this Intellectual Rule call'd the Rule of Faith is of that Nature that if one go according to it and swerve not from it it preserves one from going wrong or from erring in his knowledge of what is True or First-deliver'd Faith and Faith being intended for persons of all sorts or Capacities the Rule of Faith must be able to preserve even those of the meanest Capacity from Erring in Faith while they relie upon It. Agian this being the Proper and Primary Effect of the Rule of Faith and every Nature that is having essentially in it self a Power to produce of its self and without the Assistance of any other its Primary Effect or rather being it self that Power as man to discourse Fire to burn c. it follows that since to preserve all that relie on it in right Faith is the Proper effect of the Rule of Faith what has not in it self the Power to do this and this of its self independently on any thing else but on God who establishes the Natures of all things to be Certain Powers to produce their Proper Effect is not in true speech a Rule of Faith Since then not one Catholick in the World holds that Scriptures Letter of it self and independently on something else viz thâ— Church's Tradition attesting the Truth of the same Letter and Interpreting it has in it self Power thus to certifie persons of all capacities of Christian Faith without possibility of Erring nor any one but holds the Churches Authority is able alone to do this Effect since 't is known and confest it actually perform'd this in the beginning there is not one Catholick that I know of who holds either that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith taking the words in this sense or that any thing but the Churches living voice and Practice or Tradition is It and so taking the words properly as I do they all agree with me On the other side taking those words the Rule of Faith for any thing that contains Faith or that may signify it with absolute Certainty to people of all sorts not of it self but meerly by vertue of another whose Power of Asserting the Truth of the Letter in those Passages at least that concern Christian Faith and of unerringly Interpreting it lends it to be thus certainly significative of Gods Will taking I say Rule of Faith in this sense as some of ours do I grant with them that Scripture is a Rule of Faith So that still I agree with them in the Thing only I dissent from them in the word and judge that this Container of Christs Doctrin as now describ'd is but improperly call'd a Rule of Faith as not having in it self the nature of such a Rule that is not having a Power in it self and of its self thus to ascertain Faith by absolutely engaging the Divine Authority This Distinction now given I learned from the Council of Trent which no where says that Scripture is a Rule of Faith as it does expresly of Tradition Sess. 5. but only that it contains Faith as also Tradition does but whether it contains it in such a manner that all those who are to have Faith by relying on it may by so doing be absolutely secur'd from erring which is requisite over and above to make it in true speech deserve the name of a Rule the Council says nothing I am sure it is far from saying that people of all sorts reading the Scriptures and attending solely to the Letter as interpreted and understood by their private selves shall be sure never to erre in right Faith nay it engages not for their security from erring so much as in any one point which yet ought to be said if Scripture in it self and of it self have the power of regulating them in their Faith or be a Rule Rather the Council by its Carriage says the direct contrary for though being about to define against Hereticks it professes to follow in its definitions the written word yet 't is observable that it no where builds on any place of Scripture but it professes at the same time to build its Interpretation of that place on Tradition which evidently argues that though Scripture in the Judgment of the Council contain'd the Point yet that which indeed regulated the Council in its Definitions was the Tradition of the Church as it also expresly declares where ever it defines And I dare say that there is not one Catholick in the world who thinks the Council knew not both what and how to define against Luther and Calvin at that time without needing to seek its Faith anew in Texts of Scripture which plainly concludes that the Council was not regulated by It or look'd upon it as her Rule but only consider'd it as of a sacred Authority and available against Hereticks professing to rely on Scripture and accusing the Church for going contrary to the Word of God Nay the Council defines that none should dare to interpret Scripture contrary to the sense which our H. Mother the Catholick Church hath held and does hold which clearly takes it out of private hands and makes the sense of the Church ever held the only Interpreter of Scripture especially in matters of Faith and extends to all Scripture which unavoidably makes it no Rule of Faith I am sure the Distinction now given shows my sentiment consistent if not perfectly agreeing with that Common Opinion of our Divines that Scripture is a Partial Rule or that Scripture and Tradition integrate one compleat Rule For they clearly mean by those words that Faith is partly contain'd in Scripture partly in the Tradition of the Church So that what they had an eye to in so doing was not the Evidence requisit to a Rule but only the degree of Extent of Scripture to the matter contain'd in it whence 't is evident they meant onely that Scripture contain'd some part of Faith which I perfectly allow to it and perhaps more This is my Judgment concerning the notioâ— of the Rule of Faith and what is such a Rule and these my Reasons for that Judgment If any one thinks
he can go to work more Logically and exactly in finding out the true nature and notion of a Rule and show me I take it improperly I shall heartily thank him and acknowledge my mistake But I never yet discern'd any such Attempt nor do I see any reason to fear any such performance And I much doubt should any Catholick Divine out of a Charitable Intention of Union which I shall ever commend and heartily approve trusting to the Equivocalness of the word say Scripture is the Rule or a Rule I much doubt I say that when the thing comes to be examin'd to the bottom it will scarce tend to any solid good for however Words may bend yet the true Grounds of Catholick Faith are Inflexible and we must take heed lest while we yield them the Word they expect not as they may justly having such occasion that we should grant the Thing properly signify'd by that Word which if they do we must either recede or else forgo Catholick Grounds But now the difference between me and Dr. St's party is in the very Thing it self and this as wide as Contradiction can distance us For Dr. T. whom he still abetts makes it possible that he has neither True Letter nor True sense of Scripture that is makes his Rule of Faith and consequently his Faith built solely on It possible to be False And all that go that Way fall unavoidably into that precipice while they admit no Grounds but what are Fallible as I have shown at large in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery Whereas I still bear up to the Impossibility that Christian Faith should be a Ly and consequently I maintain that the Rule of Faith which engages the Divine Authority on which its Truth solely depends and without engaging which it might be all False must be Impossible to be False or Infallibly certain And hence taking my rise from the Nature of Faith in which all Protestants and indeed all that have the name of Christians except some few speculators agree with me viz. that taking it as built on those Motives left by God for his Church to embrace Faith that is taking it as it ought to be taken 't is above Opinion and Impossible to be False hence I say building on this mutual Agreement I pursue a solid Union which I declare my self most heartily to zeal Hoping that this point once distinctly clear'd against the Sophisms and blinding Crafts of some weak Heterodox Writers it will quickly appear that 't is every mans Concern who is of Capacity to look after such Grounds that the Divine Authority on which the Truth of all Faith depends is engag'd for the Points he holds as are absolutely Certain or Impossible to be False And I make account that were this quest heartily pursu'd it would quickly appear both by others Confessing the possible Falsehood of theirs as also by inforcing Reasons nay by Dr. Tillitsons yielding to the sufficiency of this Rule even when he was to impugn it that nothing but Tradition or the Testimony of the Church can be such a Ground Perhaps also it might be shown that both more learned and more sober Protestant Authors have own'd the admitting Tradition and a reliance on the Churches Authority for their Faith and for the true sense of Scripture in order to the attaining true Faith than those are who have maintain'd this private-spirited way so zealously advanc'd by Dr. St. of leaving it to be interpreted by every vulgar head to the utter destruction of Church and Church-Government This is and shall be my way of endeavouring Vnion which beginning at the bottom and with our mutual Agreement in so main a point that it bears all along with it viz. the Absolute Certainty of Faith is hopeful to be solid and well built and so Effectual if it please God to inspire some Eminent and Good Men to pursue home a Principle which themselves have already heartily embrac'd If not I have this satisfaction that I have done a due right and honor to Christian Faith and given it that advantage by asserting its perfect security from error as Gods Grace assisting is apt to make it work more efficaciously both interiourly and exteriourly in those who already possess it Fourth Examen Sifting the the ten following Principles concerning the Letter-Rule and Living Rule of Faith THe right nature of the Rule of Faith being thus stated 't is high time to address to our Examen how Dr. St. from Principles settles us such a Rule beginning from his tenth 10. If the Will of God cannot be sufficiently declar'd to men by Writing it must either be because no Writing can be Intelligible enough for that end or that it can never be known to be written by men Infallibly assisted The former is repugnant to common sense for words are equally capable of being understood spoken or written the later overthrows the possibility of the Scriptures being known to be the word of God I have already said and in divers books manifoldly prov'd that no declaration of God's will or which is all one in our case no Rule of Faith is sufficient conâ—â—dering the Nature and Ends of Faith 〈◊〉 obligations arising from it but 〈…〉 to be false and built on Infallible Grounds This premised we are to inquire whether Writing be the best Way for thus assuring it in all Ages to the end of the world To come then closer to our Answer We are first to reflect again what Dr. St. means by the Will of God at least what he ought to mean by it For these words at the first sight seem to signifie onely some External Actions commanded by God to be performed or avoided and it is the Dr's Interest they should be taken onely in this sense for such a will is more easie to be signifi'd by Writing than some other things of a more abstruse spiritual and dogmatical nature which yet are of absolute Necessity to be believ'd by the Church such as are the points of the Trinity Incarnation and Godhead of Christ who dy'd for us since then Gods Will extends not only to aim at Mankinds Attainment of his Last End or True Happiness but also to provide for the best means to it or to give us knowledg of those Motives which are apt to create in man a hearty Love of Heaven above all things the best Condition of Mans Happiness or Immediate disposition to it it follows that the holding all those Tenets which contain in themselves such Motives do all come within the compass of the Will of God To omit many others I will instance in two Points of main Concern and Influence towards Christian Life namely the Godhead of Christ and the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament Now who sees not how wonderful an Ascendent both these if verify'd must needs have over Christian hearts Can any Amulet of Love be so charming or apt to elevate to the Love of God above all things as
to be ascertain'd that he who was really GOD Infinite in all his Attributes and Infinitely happy in himself should purely out of his overflowing Goodness toward miserable mankind take his nature upon him become his Brother Friend Physician Master nay suffer for his sake many hardships during his life and at length buffeting scourging crowning with thorns and a most cruel death on the Cross and to keep the remembrance of these many Benefits warm in our hearts to give us after a wonderful manner his most precious Body and Bloud in a Sacrament instituted for that end by this means not only reviving the memory of the former incomparable love-motive but also adding new Incitements to that best of virtues by our apprehending lively that he so dearly embreasts and embosoms himself with us by his uniting himself to us through his corporal presence that so our souls may by means of the Love springing from this consideration feed on and be united to him Spiritually On the other side if these be not Truths but that the Church may perhaps erre in embracing them who sees not that the Church it self is Idolatrous at least materially in giving True Divine Honor which is Proper only to the Creator to a Creature Each of these two Points then is of that High concern as to Christian Life and Practice that it must needs be of its own nature either a most wicked and damnable Heresy to deny or else to assert it Wherefore 't is the highest Impiety to imagin that God has left no Way to ascertain Mankind whether these two Points omitting many others be True or False since 't is unavoidable they are if True the greatest and most efficacious helps to Christian Devotion that can be If False the greatest Hindrances to the same as corrupting the best Devotions of those Christians into Idolatrous worship The Knowing then the truth of these and such like being most certainly will'd by God we are to expect such a Rule of Faith as is declarative of these and such as these with Absolute Certainty Let us now consider whether Writing be the best means for such an end which if it be not it may certainly be concluded from Gods Wisdome Goodness c. that it hath not been made choice of or intended by God for it But 't is observable that Dr. St. perpetually waves any Discourse of this nature and chuses rather to argue from Gods Power which though I have already shown how Incompetent and Absurd it is let us examine at least what works he makes of it If says he the will of God cannot be sufficiently declared to men by writing it must either be c. I must distinguish the words cannot be declared by writing as I did formerly and affirm that they may either mean that the Way of Writing as taken in the whole latitude of its nature and standing under Gods Infinite Power ordering it with all possible Advantage to the end intended cannot sufficiently declare Gods will as to such Points or they may mean that Gods Revelation of his Will by Writing so qualifi'd as it is now actually found in the Scripture cannot sufficiently or with absolute Certainty declare Gods Will as to the Points aforesaid to men of all capacities in all future Ages Taking them in the former sense I deny the Proposition and say that Gods will as to such Points can be sufficiently declar'd by Writing For 't is absolutely within the compass of Gods Power to contrive a Book on that manner as might define exactly or else explicate at large in what precise sense every word that expresses each point of Faith is to be taken and to provide that it should never be taken in that book in more than that one sense or if in more to notifie to us in which places 't is taken in a different meaning He could also have laid it so that a hundred or two of Originals of these Books might be preserv'd publickly in several distant Countries from the Beginning which might by their perfect Agreement bear Testimony to one another and so assure us the Text was kept hitherto inviolate even to a tittle and also remain a Standard to correct all the multitudes of Diverse Readings which as experience shows us is apt otherwise to set the Copies at variance with one another He could also have so order'd it that the Original Languages might have been as well understood by the Generality of the Church as their own is so have avoided the Uncertainty of Translations Again lest crafty Hereticks should at any time for the future by wittily alluding places or playing upon words or other Sophistries pervert the sense Gods Power could have caus'd a Book to be written after the manner of a large Prophecy foretelling that in such a time 〈◊〉 place such and such a Heretick should arise perverting such and such a Point and forewarn men of his Sophisms and Errours This and much more might have been effected by Gods Power to establish Writing such an absolutely Certain and Intelligible Way which why his Wisdome should not have done in case Faith be an Assent which while it relies on the Ground God has left for Mankind cannot be an error as it may be if none can be absolutely certain both of the Text and sense of Scriptures I would gladly be informed Especially since Dr. St. tells us here Princ. 15. there is no need of an Infallible society of men either to attest or explain them and all that is Fallible as common sense tells us falls short of elevating it above possibility of being an Errour whence follows that there being no means on foot in the world Tradition of the Church failing or being set aside to secure us absolutely of this it can only be had by the Extraordinary Operation of Gods Power securing the Letter of such writings and rendering those VVritings themselves perfectly Intelligible in the manners assign'd in case VVriting be indeed the RULE OF FAITH VVriting then can be the Rule of Faith or able thus to ascertain Faith to us if Gods Infinit Power undertakes the framing it such as I have express'd but because experience tells us 't is not so order'd let us leave this Platonick way of considering how thing should be in that supposition and following the Aristotelian consider things as they are and accordingly examin how Gâ—ds Wisdome has thought fit to order such Writings actually and thence gather whether however 't is agreed between us they be most excellent for other uses and ends they were ever intended by the same Wisdome for a Rule of Faith To evince the contrary of which not to repeat those many Arguments I have brought elsewhere I fartner offer these Reasons First If the Writings of men divinely inspir'd were meant for a Rule of Faith then either all such Writings as such are therefore to belong to that Rule or some onely If all then since some Writings granted to have been written by
such persons are known to be lost it may be doubted nay it ought to be granted that the present Written Rule is defective in the nature of a Rule unless it be well made out that those divinely-inspir'd Writings which were lost were of another Nature then these extant and therefore that they had no part in being a Rule The Proofs for which point ought to be very pregnant and convincing otherwise it may be question'd whether any Books writ by men divinely inspir'd had in them the nature of a Rule or were intended for that end by God And this is particularly inforc'd because Dr. Sâ— here Princ. 28. makes Scripture the Rule and Measure of what we are to believe and if the Measure fall short 't is to be fear'd the thing measur'd or Faith will fall short likewise But if he says onely some of those divinely-inspir'd Writings were sufficient 't is very necessary it should be made out how many are needful that so it might be throughly understood what are the precise Grounds of Christian Faith concerning which yet there is much difference in opinion amongst those who hold the Letter-Rule which signifies that none of them know distinctly what themselves assign or hold to be that Rule Or if he says that onely those which Gods Providence has preserv'd are that Rule then he must either say that Gods Providence therefore preserv'd these because they contain'd holy Doctrin and were writ by men divinely-inspir'd or were apt to benefit future mankind and then by the same Reason those which perish'd should have been preserv'd too or else that God preserv'd these in particular because these which remain are besides those qualifications Proper and Sufficient to be the Rule of Faith And then he begs the Question and supposes his own Tenet true even while he is proving it so Nexâ— supposing the Originals of these Books now extant to have been once the Rule of Faith it was requisite the Church in the beginning shouâ—d have look'd upon them as such and consequently have made account for the first 300 years till when they were not collected or universally propos'd it had no Absolute Certainty or Entire Body of their Faith But of this we hear not that any had the least Jealousie or that they lookt after Books of Scripture as Things without which the Church was not either absolutely Certain of its Faith or had not all its Faith Again had those Books been then the Rule of Faith as considering that some of them were unacknowledg'd one scatter'd here another there accidentally is sensless to imagin Yet how can we â—ow or future Ages hereafter have Absolute Certainty that some substantial word or other is not alter'd omitted or inserted in those places that concern the main Points of Faith for example the Godhead of Christ or the Real Presence in case there be no Infallible Authority to attest the Truth of it which Dr. St. denies here Princ. 15. It is not evident he must say that none of these can be made out with Absolute Certainty and consequently confess with Dr. T. that all this may be otherwise unless he have recourse to Gods Extraordinary Assistance to the multitudes of Transcribers and Translators because of the Necessity the Letter should be thus preserv'd still unchang'd in regard otherwise none could say his Faith is True which again begs the Question and supposes it the Rule of Faith instead of proving it so Farther Let the Letter be suppos'd exactly like the Original how will that Letter secure from all possible Error all that rely on it as the Rule of Faith ought or to use Dr. St's words Princ. 15. reveal so plainly the whole will of God that no sober Enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation Now if they cannot miss of what 's necessary for salvation they must needs hit on it and so are in a manner Infallible as to that point while they rely thereon To put it to the Tryal let us consider what Disputes there are out of Scriptures Letter between Socinians and their Opposers about a Trinity and the Godhead of Christ and what between Catholicks and their Adversaries about the Real Presence How many Interpretations of This is my Body How many Allusions of one place to another in both those Points to hammer out the Truth and these agitated on both sides by Bodies of eminent men excellent Scholars Acute Scripturists Must every sober Enquirer and every private ignorant person who sincerely endeavours needs hit on the right and judge better of these Points than all those Learned men Or must we needs conclude that all those learned Enquirers found in each of those vast different parties are mad or Insincere I wish he would prove this 'T is his best Interest and would give his Argument some likelihood which till then has none for the Fact being so notorious how earnestly they all endeavour to find out the Truth of these points by the Letter none will judge but that if their Heads or Hearts be not strangely disorder'd by Folly or Insincerity the Letter which shouâ—d inform them is strangely incompetent for that end But 't is remarkable how neatly Dr. St. skips aside from the Point He undertakes not to give us any Assurance that his sober or sincere Enquirers shall by vertue of this his Rule of Faith find out that any one point of his Faith is an Absolutely Certain Truth but only that he shall not miss of what is necessary for salvation that he shall not erre or at least not be damn'd for it So that for any thing appears by his discourse let him but read the Scripture though he holds nothing but Error by so doing yet he is still in the way to salvation by the very Reading and Running into Errour But this deserves a particular reflexion hereafter Lastly the very nature and Genius of the Scripture as it now is shows that however it be excellently Vseful for perfecting the Lives of the Faithful in many regards yet it was never intended for the Rule of Faith For to omit innumerable other reasons frequently alledg'd by our Authors Its several parts were evidently writ on several emergent occasions and have not the least semblance as if the whole had been purposely compil'd to deliver an intire Body of Faith Nor does it observe any method tending to clear each several Point For it neither begins with defineing or explaining every word made use of in signifying those Points which is the best means to avoid Equivocation the Ground of all mistake nor does it pursue home the evidencing any one Point by making us aware of the sinister senses in which each word expressing that Point might seem to be taken nor does it put objections against each Tenet and establish us in the right Apprehension of it by solving them nor distinguish by laying common Rules to know when the words are to be taken properly when Metaphorically much less tell us particularly in
be so the not appearing to be otherwise will avail nothing to conclude it so All it can effect is to make us maintain our liberty of suspence and Indifferency that so we may be void of forestalment or prejudice and free to believe it when competent or conclusive Reasons shall appear to evince it What then Dr. St. is to do is to produce Conclusive Reasons to evince that the Letter of Scripture has such a perspicuity and other Perfections belonging to such a Rule as must ground that most Firm Vnalterable and if rightly grounded Inerrable Assent call'd CHRISTIAN FAITH and this considering the Nature of Faith the Effects which are to proceed from Faith and Obligations issuing from it and Incumbent on the Faithful as such But in stead of performing this necessary Duty of his to argue as if though the Reasons he brings conclude it not yet it must needs be so because we have no Evidence 't is not so is so pleasant and new invented a way of arguing that he must find the VVorld a new Logick and Mankind it self a new nature ere he will arrive by means of such Discourse at any Conclusion And whereas he seems to build much on the word Equal alledging that we must for the reasons there given hold the Scriptures the Rule of Faith unless it appear they are defective with an Evidence Equal to that whereby we believe those books to be the word of God 'T is absolutely deny'd not only for the reason lately given in common that none can be bound in reason to hold or own any unprov'd Position but particularly because of the peculiar nature of the thing we are discoursing of For the Rule of Faith being that which is to tell us God said such or such things or engages the Divine Authority for their Verity if we should happen to misuse Scriptures Letter by letting loose people of all capacities to rely on it as their Rule of Faith then in case it should peradventure not have been intended by God for this end but for some others we expose our selves and others to the desperate danger of running into Endless Errors by this misusage of Scripture and of adhering to those Errors as firmly as if God himself had spoke them that is we hazard erring irrecoverably in matters which ate the proper means of salvation and blaspheming God daily in making him the Patron of Lies In this case then there is particular caution to be used and so if upon sincere and strict Examination it be but any thing dubious that Scripture was never intended by God for a Rule of Faith we can never be obliged to hold or own it for such especially not having any Certain Argument to conclude it such much less must we be oblig'd to hold it to be such unless we have EQVAL Evidence of its Unfitness to that whereby we believe those Books to be the word of God unless Dr. St. will say that nothing ought to restrain a man from hazarding the greatest mischiefs in the world but perfect Evidence that no harm will come of it So that still his main business and without which he does nothing at all remains yet to be done which is to bring solid convincing Proofs that God intended Scripture or his Written Word for the Rule of Faith that is for such a Rule as people of all sorts relying on it should be Infallibly or absolutely-secur'd from Error by so doing In making good which concerning Point he hath hitherto trifled exceedingly Nay himself here is afraid to own the Goodness of his own Proof otherwise he would never have thought it fit to annex those words Vnless it appear with an Evidence equal to that whereby we believe those books to be the word of God that they were never intended for that End because of their obscurity or imperfection For the Evidence whereby it appears those Books are the word of God must be conclusive else according to his Grounds we can never conclude one word of Faith True and so an Evidence equal to it must be Conclusive likewise If then he had thought his reasons to prove Scripture the Rule of Faith were Good and Conclusive Common sense would have forbid him to add these cautious words Vnless it appears with an equal evidence c. for Common sense tells us no Conclusive reason can possibly be brought for the Negative if Conclusive Reasons be once produc'd or be producible for the Affirmative It appears then by this behaviour of his on this occasion that he distrusts that either he has produc'd any Conclusive reason for that main Point of Scriptures being intended for the Rule of Faith or that any can be produc'd Lastly That we may give perfect satisfaction to this Fundamental Principle of his though perhaps there is not Evidence Scriptures Letter was never intended for the Rule of Faith equal to that whereby we believe those Books to be the Word of God in regard we believe this upon the Authority of Gods Church which is supported with the whole strength of Best Nature and Supernaturals yet we have rigorous and Conclusive Evidence that it is not penn'd in the very best way imaginable to avoid all ambiguity of words and forestall mistakes as being immediately inspir'd by God whose works are perfect if it had been intended by him to be our Rule of Faith it ought to be And I shall presume I have already brought Conclusive Evidences both à priori and also à posteriori in my answer to his 10th Principle to evince that it has not in it the nature of such a Rule nor consequently was it intended by God to be such a Rule How incomparably excellent soever it be for other Ends for which it was indeed and solely intended But omitting all the rest at present I remind him of one which I cannot too often repeat and enforce it upon him thus He cannot deny but the Points of a Trinity and Christs Godhead are most Fundamental Points of Faith he cannot deny but both Protestants and Socinians rely on the Letter of Scripture for the sole Rule of their Faith and sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them which is all he requires on the Persons side He cannot deny but that notwithstanding this one party holds There is no Trinity and that Christ is not God the other that there is a Trinity and that Christ is God and so one side erres most Fundamentally He cannot deny but Error being a Defect there must be a fault somewhere to beget this Error that is either in the Persons judging of what the Rule of Faith tells them or else in judging that to be a Rule which is not the Rule for in case they erre in neither of these 't is impossible they should erre or misconceive at all in matters of Faith He cannot deny in any reason but the persons on both sides being such acute men and excellently well vers'd in the Letter of Scripture have both Capacity
enough and apply that Capacity to their power by as great a Diligence as any nor can he in Charity deny but they sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of it in such points Therefore he cannot deny but the persons attending to the Rule are faultless either in understanding Scripture in these points if it be to private Understandings clearly intelligible or VVill to understand it if they could and indeed 't is Incredible they should not will or desire this since they use such exact diligence in it and solemnly profess to rely on the Letter alone or that did they indeed sleight the Letter or purposely decline relying on it their byass should not manifestly appear in so long time and they be branded for Evident Insincerity He cannot deny then but the Persons are faultless as to their Capacity and Will to understand the Rule therefore unless he will renounce his Reason he cannot deny but the Fault must be in the same Persons judging that to be the Rule which is not and consequently that the Letter of Scripture is not alone and of it self clear and Intelligible enough to preserve private men both capable and diligent and relying solely on It from possibility of Error no not from actually Erring in most Fundamental Points of Faith nor consequently has it in it the true nature of the Rule of Faith and so since God never intends any thing should do what its Nature reaches not to do that is should do what it cannot do 't is manifest Scriptures Letter was never intended by God for that End or to be such a Rule 13. Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such away as writing being made choce of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the design and the Wisdome and Goodness â—f God to give infallible assurance to persons in writing his Will for the benefit of Mankind if those Writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation It is not yet prov'd nor ever will that God hath made choice of the Way of writing for a Rule of Faith nor design'd it for that end nor that the benefit he meant Mankind by such Writings was to Ground their Faith on what appear'd to their private Judgments to be the sense of the Letter therefore 't is no wonder if all persons stould hap to misunderstand it even in such things as are necessary for their salvation notwithstanding their sincere endeavour to know the meaning of them since God has never promis'd that any who takes a way never intended by him for such an End shall infallibly arrive at that End by such a Way nor is the Wisdome and Godness of God at all concern'd in preserving any from Error if they take such a Way especially if we reflect upon these following Considerations First That God hath no where engaged his word to secure every single or private man from Error who shall sincerely endeavour to find his Faith in the Scripture in case he rely on his own private Judgment neglect to hear his Pastors whence if such private persons rely on Gods promis'd Assistance to such an End they rely on what neither is nor ever was and so no wonder their hopes fail them if those Hopes be groundless Secondly They cannot but know if but meanly vers'd in the world that whole Bodies of men and amongst them divers of great learning interpret Scripture several ways in very concerning points of Faith and it must needs favour of a proud self-conceit in any person to think God regards his single self more than he does whole Bodies and Great Multitudes Again it cannot without a strange Unreasonableness Uncharitableness be imagin'd or judg'd that not one person of those many who adhere to the opposite Tenet as clear to them in Scripture according to their best Judgment does sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of these Sacred Books and if they do then Common sense tells this private person that the whole Foundation on which his Hope is built is unsound and that more is requisite than the Letter of Scripture and a sincere endeavour to understand it and that if these suffice to direct him right they ought for the same reason be sufficient to direct another and so he ought to doubt whether himself or those others proceeding on the same Grounds and having the same Means be in the right that is he ought to doubt of his Faith no better grounded Lastly This private man belongs to some particular Church and so has Pastors and Governors set over him to teach and instruct him and those too as wee 'l suppose read and rely on the Scriptures Also he must judg this Church sincerely endeavours to know the meaning of Scriptures for this being the requisit condition to find right Faith without this his Church has no right Faith and so is no Church now for a private man who is subject to such a Church and ought to be taught by the Pastors of that Church not to submit to the Judgment of that Church and his Lawful Pastors as to the Sense of Scriptures or his Faith even though they be sincere endeavours as well as he but to adhere to that for his Faith which appears to his private self to be in the Scriptures though he contradict and defy all the Church he his a member of in so doing which he ought to do if he proceed on this Principle that Scriptures may be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all things necessary for his salvatiou for he ought not for any mans sake relinquish his Faith or its Rule I say to behave himself thus as in that supposition he ought is such an intolerable ma apert Presumption so Sensless and Unnatural and Self-condemning a Rebellion and such a Fanatick Spiritual Pride as I much doubt will give a man but small title to hope for Especial Assistance from Gods Wisdom and Goodness At present I onely remarke the Faults of this Principle which are these First That it supposes God has made choice of or designd the Scriptures to be this Rule of Faith for private persons Next that Gods Wisdome and Goodness is Engag'd that it be thus Intelligible to every sinâ—ere Eadeavourer Neither of which is in the least prov'd or proveable Lastly when he comes to the close instead of making it so intelligible as that all sincere Endeavors might therby be absolutely secur'd from erring as to the Truth of their Faith which is the Duty of the Rule of Faith seeing very well these slight Grounds were not able to carry so far he substitutes in their room these waty words in all such things as shall be necessary for their salvation so that though they erre in all the main points of
Christianity yet for any thing we know or these crafty common words inform us they have still all that is needfull to save them that is though they go wrong all their lives they are still all the while in the way to Heaven But I suppose Dr. St. means that no more is necessary for any ones salvation than just as much as he can understand in Scripture Which I wish he would once begin to set himself to prove make out by some convincing argument I am heartily weary of speaking still to his unprov'd and voluntary Assertions 14. To suppose the Books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any things necessary to be believed or practised are not contained in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the Writers with Insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first Ages with folly in believing the Fulness and Perfection of the Scriptures in order to salvation As far as I apprehend the foregoing Principle was intended to shew that Scripture was sufficirntly Intelligible to be the Rule of Faith and this under examination is to prove it to be the measure of Faith as he calls it Princ. 28. and all he contends here is that it CONTAINS all that is necessary TO BE BELIEV'D and practic'd And that we may not multiply disputes I grant those Holy Books contain all he pretends some way or other either Implicitly or Explicitly either in Exprest words or by necessary conâ—equence But that those Books contain or signifie for they are the same all that is to be believed and practiced so evidently that all persons who sincerely endeavor to know their meaning and this for all future Ages may thence alone as his discourse aims to evince that is without the Churches interpretation arrive to know what 's necessary for their salvation with such a Certainty as is requisite for the Nature and Ends of Faith and the Obligations annext to it I absolutely deny and if he means this by the word Perfection which he adds to Fulness I deny also that either the first Author can be charg'd with Fraud since he promis'd no such thing or the Writers with Insincerity since they were not commanded nor did intend thus to express it nor as far as appears had any order from God to set down his whole mind but only writ the several pieces of it occasionally nor did the Christian Church in the first Ages ever attribute to Scriptures such an Intelligibleness as that private persons should ground their Faith upon their Evidence without needing the Churches Interpretation if we speak of all points necessary to Mankinds salvation as he seems and ought to do And here I desire to enter this declaration to all the world that I attribute not the least Imperfection to the Holy Scriptures Every thing has all the Perfection it ought to have if it can do what it was intended to do and in the manner it was Intended Treatises of deep Philosophy are not Imperfect if they be not as plain as plainest Narrative Histories no not if they be ita editi ut non sint editi in case they were meant as a matter for the Author to explain and dilate upon to his Scholars nor are the Laws Imperfect though they often need Learned Judges to interpret them Nor are we to expect that the Prophecy of Isaiah should be as plain as the Law of Moses The Immediate End of writing each piece as far as appears to us was occasional St. Pauls Epistles were evidently so nor can I doubt but they were perfect in their kind and apt to signify competently to those to whom he writ what he intended so that if they had any farther doubt they might send to ask him or do it viva voce and yet we see that even in those days when the complexion of all the Circumstances was fresher and neerer then now some unlearned persons err'd damnably in mistaking and misconceiving them that is while they went about to frame their Faith out of them 'T is questionless also they rely'd upon them as Gods Word or dictated by the Holy Ghost else they had not so built upon them or adher'd to them They might sincerely endeavour too to know their meaning yet if the Writings were disproportion'd to their pitch they migh Erre damnably for all that What farther End God intended the H. Scriptures for appears not by any Expresse either promise or declaration of our Saviour but out of the knowledge that they were writ by persons divinely inspir'd and the Experience the Church had of their Vsefulness towards Instruction and Good Life joyn'd with the Common Knowledg we have that all Goods that come to the Church happen through the ordering of Gods Providence hence we justly conclude as Dr. St. well says that they were intended and writ also for the Benefit of future Ages And from their Vsefulness and the success of their Use we may gather how God intended them for the Church The Learned and stable sons of the Church read them with much fruit to excite their wills to Goodness The Pastore of the Church make excellent use of them in exhorting preaching catchising c. and in many other uses of this sort they are excellently beneficial which are so many that were it now seasonable for me to lay them open at large as I truly hold them none would think I had little Reverence for Scriptures but in deciding Controversies or finally silencing Hereticks as the Rule of Faith ought to do by the unavoidable evidence of the Text to private persons no use was ever made of them alone with any success as the Fathers also complain Unless the the Churches Authority going along animated the dead Letter in dogmatical passages and shew'd the sense of the places to have been perpetually held from the beginning and so give It the Sense Majesty Authority and Force of Gods VVord elevating it thus above the repute of being some private Conceit or Production of Skill and Wit interpreting the Letter Scripture then is perfect or has all due to the nature God intended it if duly made use of as the Churches best Instrument it be able to work those Effectâ— spoken of though it be not so Evident or self-authoriz'd as to be the Rule of Faith We give it absolute Pre-eminence in its kind that is above all other Writings that ever appear'd in the world but we prefer before it Tradition or Gods Church which is the Spouse of Christ the Pillar and Ground of Truth and consisting of the Living Temples of the H. Ghost for whose sole Good as its Final End Scripture it self was intended and written 15. These Writings being owned as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly reveal'd that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation there can be no necessity supposed of any Infallible society of men either
learnt at School but being either inbred or by an ordinary converse with the world instil'd into them nothing is easier then for the wiser sort of them to fall into the account of it of themselves occasion being given as also to awaken as it were those dormant Knowledges in the Vulgar and make them reflect and see not with a clear and distinct sight as do the wiser portion of the Church but with a grâ—sse and confused yet solid Knowledge and suitable to their pitch that a Rule of such a nature is Certain and so those who professedly own and proceed upon it are in the truth they who reject it in an Errour Whereas yet they are utterly Incapable by any Maxims in their rude Understandings either to know that the Letter of the Scripture on the rightness of which all depends was preserv'd from Errour among so many Translatious and Transcriptions or that the Sense is necessarily such as they conceive it to be amidst such multitudes of Commentators and Sects wrangling about the meaning of that Letter nor yet are they competent Judges of the skill of all those several Sects and sorts of men whom they see and hear differ about the sense of it Tradition then of the Church being thus prov'd the Rule of Faith 't is both farther shown how Unreasonable Unnatural and Unsafe Dr. St's private-spirited Rule of Faith is and also even hence demonstrated against him here that Tradition of the Church is Infallible since being by this moans prov'd to be the Rule appointed by God to light Mankinde to their Faith 't is impossible that those who rely and proceed upon it should be led into Errour and also Impossible that Faith it self thus grounded should be False But I needed not have gone thus far to confute D. St's four Principles now under hand The four first Notes had abundantly given them their Answer and 't is time we now begin to apply them to that purpose Whereas then he grounds them all on our Tenet That No Divine Faith can be without an Infallible Assent he may please to know that we only mean by those words there materially Infallible or so as cannot possibly be an Errour and in this sense we own the Position and so must he too unlesse he will speak open blasphemy For Divine Faith being a believing upon the Divine Authority and as we both suppose upon some Means laid by God himself by which he proposes to us what we are to beleeve by telling us he has said it in case an Assent thus Grounded could possibly be an Errouâ— it would follow necessarily that God himself would be the Cause of that Errour The Substance then of Faith could be preserved and the Chief End of Faith our Salvation on some fashion attained were there no more than this that is though never a man in the whole world did know or could come to know that the Rule of Faith were Infallible provided none in the Church did speculate and so looking into the Grounds of his Faith and finding them as far as he could see Inconclusive did begin to suspect the Truth of it nor any out of the Church did oppose Faith For the Faithfull would in that case be in actual possession of those Excellent Truths call'd Points of Faith firmly assented to by their Understandings which were apt to produce thoâ—e Good Dispositions of their Wills call'd Virtues in the same sort though not in the same degree as they do now and by means of them they might arrive at Heaven Thus the Dr. may see that all he builds on is a pure mistake and that all the Faithfull may be thus Infallible in their Assent and thus Infallible in judging the Proposer does not nay cannot deceive us nay Infallible in judging thus of the matters propos'd to us to beleeve and yet not one man be Infallibly sure by way of Evident Knowledge that the Church is Infallible because all this proceeds not in the least in this supposition from the reach of any man's Intellective Faculty but purely from the Goodnesse and Conclusivenesse of the Grounds laid by God and his good Providence which led those men to embrace them though they neither penetrate nor went about to discourse them but simply to believe them on the same manner as our ruder unreflecting vulgar are led now But in this case were all the World no wiser the wisest in the Church would be no wiser then the weakest and rudest vulgar now mention'd wherefore both for that reason and many others ' assign'd in my 3d and 4th Note it was absolutely requisite to the Church and so becoming God's Providence to order that it should be otherwise and that the Conclusiveness of those Infallible Grounds on which God has founded our Faith should be penetrable by those who set themselves to such speculations or fall into doubts concerning them according as the exigencies of the Church shall be found to need such helps If this will not serve Dr. St. I am sure it will serve to defeat all his Arguments I shall farther tell him that the Generality or main Body in the Church is formally Infallible in judging the Church to be such in delivering down the First-taught Faith as I have prov'd in my 6th and 7th note and elsewhere Besides my reasons given there and in other places I must desire him and the rest of my Readers that in conceiving how this may be they would take their measures from the Absolute Certainty such people are capable of in Parallell matters and not from their Ability to explain or defend this absolute Certainty or their Constancy in adhering to it if combated by plausible reasons for he is a very mean Reflecter upon Nature who observes not that the Vulgar have Absolute Natural evidence of many Truths which yet they can neither give reason for declare defend nor perhaps through levity incident to such weak souls do very firmly adhere to and no wonder since so great a man as Sextus Empiricus speculated himself out of the Conceit of the Certainty of his Senses of which yet none doubts but Nature till he began to pervert it by wrong speculations had given him as Infallible Certainty as to any other Also they are to reflect how Infallibility or which is all one Certainty may be in a thousand different degrees according to the greater or lesser Capacity of the subject which they will best comprehend by reflecting with how different a Clearness many things appear to us now we are at Age and how dimly when we were young which yet we were absolutely Certain of at that time Nor yet does one of those Infallibilities spoken of render the other Vseless for they may either be about different Objects as if the Church Officers were formally Infallible in knowing what particular Points came down from Christ's time and penetratâ—ng the distinct Limits of each point and those other Particular persons be only Infallible in judging the Church to
be so as it happens in many Controvertists who are well instructed in the Grounds of their Faith yet not so well verst in the nature of particular points but believe them only by Implicit Faith or else one of their knowledges may be more Clear and distinct than the others and so serve to perfect and advance it in the same manner as Art does Nature Least of all can it follow that the Infallibility of the Church Representative is needless for This is not intended to teach the Faithfull their Faith at first nor do I remember ever to have seen a Generall Council cited in a Catechism but this is performed by the Church Diffusive by her Practise and Language and by her Pastors in their Catechisms and Instructions But it 's use is to secure and preserve Faith already taught and known from receiving any taint by the Equivocating Heretick and to recommend it more Authoritatively to the Faithfull when clear'd And whoever reads my 4th Note will see so many particularities in the Members which compound a Representative Church above others who are purely Parts of Ecclesia Credens that he cannot in any Reason judge them Vseless though those others be in an Inferiour degree Certain of their Faith too For all this while the word Infallible which seems to have so loud a sound and is made such a monstrous peece of business by the Deniers of it is in plain Terms no more but just barely Certain as I have prov'd Faith Vind. p. 37. 38. and Reason against Rail p. 113. To come closer up then to my Adversary His 20th Principle which speaks of Assent in common is wholly built upon a False supposition that it can only be Grounded upon Evidence For however indeed in perfect Reflecters that are unbyast Evidence of the Object or of the Credibleness of the Authority is alwayes requisit to breed Assent yet Experience teaches us that Assent in weak and unreâ—lecting persons is frequently built on a great Probability sometimes a very little one and sometimes men Assent upon little or no reason at all their Passion or Interest byassing their wills and by it their Understandings and this many times even against such reason as would be Evident to another Again matteriall Infallibility which is enough to that Assent we speak of precisely and solely consider'd depends solely at least Principally on the Object contrary to what is there asserted And whereas he says Princ. 29. that the Infallibility of every Particular person is not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church he sees by this discourse it both is and must be Asserted and that we maintain that every particular person must be materially Infallible or incapable of erring while he relies on the Grounds laid and recommended by God that is while he believes the Church which yet is far from rendring the Formal Infallibility of the Church useless unless he will say that because it suffices for the pitch of weak people whose duty 't is not to maintain and make out the Truth of their Faith that they be simply in the right or void of Errour and that they see after a gross manner that the thing is so though they cannot defend it therefore there is no need that those whose duty 't is to do so should be able to penetrate the Grounds of Faith and so explicate prove and maintain it to be True Nor will it follow that though the Generality were after a rude and gross manner formally Infallible in their belief that the Church is Infallible and therefore that the Points she proposes are all likewise Infallibly-true it will not follow I say hence that a greater and clearer and more penetrative degree of Formal Infallibility is useless in Church-Governours for as appears by my 4th Note there are many other things to be done by them of absolute necessity for the Church which far exceed the pitch and posture of those dull Knowers of the lowest Class which is the next degree above Ignorance and are unauthoriz'd to meddle in such affairs Unless he will say that Art is needless because there is Nature or that there needs no Iudges to decide such Cases in which the Law seems plain And thus much for the clearing this concerning Point In the rest of his Principles I shall be briefer But I must not pass over his Transition to them which is this We are further to enquire what Certainty men may have in matters of Faith supposing no External Proponent to be Infallible And he need not go far to satisfie his Enquiry For it being most evident by the Disputes between the Protestants and Socinians that Scripture needs some External Proposer of it's true meaning in such kinde of Points as also some External Proposer or Attester that this is the true Text of it on which all is built Also it being evident that Dr. St. Princ. 15. denies any Infallible Proposers of either of these and that here again he pursues close the same doctrin Lastly this Proposer being such that however we can have Certainty without It that the Divine Authority is to be believed yet we must depend on It for the Knowledge when and where 't is engag'd that is we must depend on It for the Certainty of our Faith It follows that in case this Proponent be not Infallible it can never be made out with Infallible Certainty that the Divine Authority stands engag'd for the Truth of any one Point of Faith and consequently that the Certainty men have in matters of Faith is not an Infallilible one And if it be not an Infallible Certainty which Faith has as he no where challenges but very laboriously disproves it he need not go far to enquire or learn what Certainty it must have for Common Sense tels him and every man who has the least spark of Natural Logick that if Faith must have Certainty as he grants and have not Infallible Certainty it must either have Fallible Certainty or none at all there being no Middle between them and so we must make account that because it overstrains D. St's weak Grounds to assert Faith to be Infallibly Certain therefore his next Attempt must be to overstrain Common Sense and to the inestimable Honour of Christian Religion maintain that all Christian Faith is Fallibly-Certain But he must do it smoothly and warily and however he nam'd the word Infallible loud enough and oft enough when he was confuting it yet he must take heed how he names the word Fallible Certainty when he is asserting it lest it breed laughter or dislike though it be evident out of the very Terms that he who confutes Infallible Certainty must maintain Fallible Certainty sf he maintains any But now he begins his defence of Faiths Fallible Certainty and 't is fit we should listen Monstrous things use to challenge and even force Attention from the most unconcern'd 24. There are different degrees of Certainty to be attained according to the
make it more a Certainty or a better Certainty which makes the Conclusiveness or Evidence had from the Object needless to create a Certainty and signifies thus much in plain Terms Think or imagine what you will so you imagine it strongly and hold it stifly you are as Certain of it as may be Had he said A Christian is or may be thus Certain by such a Proof had from the Object as was truly Conclusive of the Thing how Genuin Coherent Clear had his Expression been which now is forc't Incongruous and Obscure how Agreeable to Reason and the nature of Certainty as all Mankind understands it which now is most Irrational and Unsuitable to the same Nature How Honourable and Creditable had it been to his Cause and to himself too as a Writer But men that have not Truth on their side and consequently are quite destitnte of found Principles and true Grounds must not dare to speak Sense Himself told us Princ. 20. that the nature of Assent is agreeable to the Evidence we have of it in our Minds let him remember then that the highest degree of a firm Assent requires in reason the highest gree of Clear Evidence to beget it which yet he lately deny'd to be had from Moral things and attributed it peculiarly to the Mathematicks So that all is Incoherent all is Common and big words hollow and so of a loud and high Sound but without any determinate Sense Again how does it follow that because a Christian is thus Certain that the Scriptures are the Word of God that therefore his Faith is thereby resolved into the Scriptures as into the Rule and Measure of what he is to believe There is not the least show of consequence for this unless he had first prov'd that God had intended to speak so clear in the Scripture as every private Understanding should not sail of being secur'd from mistake while it rely'd upon It as also that God had spoken to us no other way but by the written Word which he has no where prov'd nor can ever prove And if the former of these as experience tels us 't is be wanting 't is not a Rule to those Persons if the latter 't is not necessarily the Measure of what they are to believe 29. No Christian can be oblig'd under any pretence of Infallibility to believe any thing as a matter of Faith but what was revealed by God himself in that Book wherein he believes his Will to be contained and consequently is bound to reject whatsoever is offer'd to be imposed upon his Faith which has no foundation in Scripture or is contrary thereto which Rejection is no making Negative Articles of Faith but only applying the general Grounds of Faith to particular Instances as because I believe nothing necessary to Salvation but what is contain'd in Scripture therefore no such particular things which neither are there nor can be deduc't thence If Christians were bound to hold that God had reveal'd his whole Will in that Book and this so clearly that all or most Chriâ—tians could not miss of understanding it right so as thereby to be absolutely Certain of their Faith then indeed the first half of his Principle here runs very currently and smoothly but these rubs lying still in the way which Dr. St. has not in the least removâ—d they being also satisfy'd by the General Conceit of Christianity and by the Nature and Genius of Christian Faith that it cannot possibly be an Errour or Lye and consequently muâ—t have such Grounds as cannot possibly permit all the world to be in an Errour while they rely on them that is Grounds which are Infallibly secure and on the other side observing both by experience and Reason that Scripture is not such a Ground as that private Understandings applying to it are thereby perserv'd from possibility of erring as Dr. St. also confesses in his next Principle hence they are invited strongly to conceive that God has left some Persons on earth easily to be found who may supply what is wanting of Clearness to Scriptures Letter in the highest Points of Faith and that God will some way or other perserve them from erring and that while thus protected by God's signal Providence whether this be performed Naturally Supernaturally or both wayes they cannot Erre in that Affair or in acquainting us with right Faith So that unless Dr. St. make out solidly that Scripture has in it the true nature of the Rule of Faith of it self and without needing any Church he must expect in reason that the very nature of Faith will necessarily incline all sincere persons who have due care of their souls and of finding out true Faith to beleeve the Infallibility of the Church And whereas he says that their rejection of such Points which have no Foundation in Scripture or are contrary thereto is no making New Articles of Faith but only applying the General Grounds of Faith to particular Instances he discourses therein very consonantly to his own Grounds were they worth any thing Yet I have one thing to propose to his Consideration which is that to justify his Reformers he must produce Grounds full as good or rather better for the Rejection of those Points as for his Faith or to speak more distinctly he must have as perfect or rather perfecter Certainty for these two Propositions Nothing it to be beleeved which has no Foundation in Scripture and This or that rejected Point has no Foundation in Scripture as he has for any point of Christian Faith For since upon the Evidence they had of these two Propositions they disobey'd and rebell'd against their then lawful Superiours and Church Pastors and broke Church-Union which was evidently forbidden by God's Law and so the preserving Union obeying them is a point of Faith and which themselves confess is such and binds them as such in case the reasons for their imposing New points be not valid that is if these two Propositions on whose Evidence they rely'd when they alledged they were wrongfully impos'd and thence rejected them be not True it follows that they must at least have equal Evidence nay more for bare Equality would only Balance them in a doubtful suspence berween either side that those Propositions on which they grounds their Rejection of those Articles and disobedience to their Pastours aad Superiours are True as they have for their Faith And if the Grounds of this Rejection ought to be more Certain then the Grounds of their Faith there is either some thing wrong in the pretended Grounds of their Faith or else their Negative Articles ought to be allow'd the honour of being Points of Faith too since their greater Certainty gives them fair and equal Title to it if not Absolute Preeminâ—nce 30. There can be no better way to prevent mens mistakes in the sense of Scripture which men being Fallible are subject to than the considering the consequence of mistaking in a matter wherein their salvation
Certainty we have of all that concerns it ought by consequence be better grounded and firmer then any or all it's superstructures Also 't is ill Divinity to counterpâ—se matters of Faith to the Means to keep men from sin in their lives since Matters of Faith or Christ's doctrin is the very best of those Means or to pretend that Errours in Opinion I suppose he means in Faith that being the point are not more dangerous to mens Souls than a vicious life for this supposes Faith no part of a Christian Life nor Infidelily Heresy Iudaism or Turcism to be vices which by consequence degrades Christian Faith from being a virtue contrary to the Sentiment of all Christianity since the beginning of the Church I shall hope from any impartial and Intelligent Reader who is a Christian that he will acknowledge these Posiâ—ions of mine bear a clear Evidence either in theâ— sâ—lves or in their Prâ—ofs and consequently that the opposite ones advanc't either Explicitely or Implicitly by Dr. St. are both Obscure and which is worse Vntrue The Total Account of Dr. St's Principles THus have I spoken distinctly and fully to Dr. St's Principles It were not amiss to sum up their merits in brief and give a short character of them that so it may be seen how infinitly short they fall of deserving so Honorable a Name But first we are to speak a word or two to the Principles agreed on by both sides of which the First and Third are great Truths and the word God and Obedience due to God now then barely nam'd but no kind of Conclusions are drawn from those two particular Propositions influential to the End intended viz. to reduce the Faith of the Protestants to Principles whence though they are most Certain Truths yet as standing here they are no Principles The 2d and 4th which concern God's Attributes are not at all us'd neither For he cannot use them alone to evince Scripture's Letter is the Rule unless he first prove that Scripture's Letter is the fittest for that End and that therefore it become Gods's Attributes to chuse it which he no where does and whereas he would argue thus Princ. 7. God hath chosen it for a Rule therefore 't is agreeable to his Attributes 't is both Frivolous because all is already concluded between us if he proves God has chosen Scripture for that end for then 't is granted by all it must be agreeable to his Attributes and also Preposterous for he makes that the Conclusion which should be in case he argu'd from God's Attributes the Principle For his Argument ought in that case to run thus Gods Wisdom and Goodness has chosen that for a Rule which is wisest and best to be chosen but Scriptures Letter is such therefore he has chosen it for a Rule The 4th and 5th are either never made use of by him as Principles or else they make directly against himself For Fallible Certainty only which having discarded that which is Infallible he sustains can never make any one know what is God's will This is an ill beginning and a very slender Success hitherto let us see next whether he has better luck with his own Principles The first taking the words literally and Properly as they ought to be taken in Principles is against himself for he confesses there that such a way of Revelation is in it self neccessary to our Intire Obedience to God's will as may make us know what the will of God is but common sense tells us that Fallible Certainty which only having rejected Infallible Certainty he can maintain is farr from making us Know This Principle therefore is either against himself or if he means to go less by the word Know than what is apt absolutely and truly to ascertain 't is nothing to his purpose for so it can only settle Opinion and not Faith The second is Useless Impertinent and in part False The Third is False and Impertinent to boot The Fourth is Ambiguous and taken in that sense when distinguish't which he seems to aym at 't is absolutely False The 5th is Absurâ—d Preposterous and against all Art in putting us to argue from what 's less known to what 's more known and withal totally False The 6th is Sophiâ—tically Ambiguous and in great part False The 7th builds on a groundless pretence and contains a notorious 〈…〉 The 8th is to no purpose or sinâ—â— as appears in the Process of his discourse he means by the words Certainly and Know only Fallible Certainty which is none at all he cannot possibly advance by such a discourse towards the settling us a Certain Rule of Faith Besides he either supposes Scripture as it now stands Sufficient which is to beg the Question or else he confounds God's Ordinary Power working with the Causes now on foot in the world which only concern'd the present point with his Extraordinary or what he can possibly effect by his Divine Omnipitence The 9th only Enumerates the several ways how God may be conceiv'd to make known his will and in doing so either minces or else quite leaves out the Tradition of Gods Church as if it were Vnconceivable God should speak to men by their Lawfull Pastors in the Church whereas yet himself must confess that in the beginning of the Church Faith either was signify'd and certify'd by that or no way The 10th goes upon a False Supposition and includes two Fallaces call'd by Logicians non causa pro causa or assigning a wrong Cause and omitting the True one Also 't is in part False in saying words are equally oapable of being understood spoken or written and lastly it confounds again God's Ordinary Power with his Extraordinary The 11th makes account there is no benefit of Divine Writings but in being the Rule of Faith which is against Common sense and daily Experience The 12th comes home to the point but 't is perfectly Groundless Unprov'd False and as full of Absurdities of severall sorts as it can well â—old The 13th begins with a False Position proceeds with a False and unprov'd Supposition and endeavours to induce a most Extravagant Conclusion only from Premisses granted kindly by himself to himself without the least Proof The 14tb contains three False and unprov'd Suppositions viz. that God promis't his Church to deliver his whole will in Writings or that the Writers of Scripture had any order from God to write his whole will explicitly or that the primitive Church beleev'd it to have such a perfection as to signify without needing the Church all saving Truth to every sincere Reader with such a Certainty as is requisit to Faith The 15th begins again with a False and unprov'd Supposition and draws thence a consequence not contain'd in the Proof and in part against the interest of his own Tenet and Lastly brings in confirmation of it an Instance which makes against himself The 16th putts upon Catholicks a Tenet they never held and is wholly False Irrational and Absurd assuming
examin'd as things of that nature are to be examin'd which is so evident to all men of common sense that it cannot need Proof and can scarce admit any I am sure is never prov'd by him That is 't is no Conclusion drawn from any of his Principles but putting in stead of the same Rules of tryal and Motives these words the same way which includes them both equivalently 't is only a Repetition of his 5th and 6th Principle and continues the same affected ambiguity in the word Revelation as he us'd formerly nay and is the same nonsense too in case he takes Revelation in either place for a point of Faith reveal'd and the Infallibility of the Church for that only which is built on Natural Assistance that is for it 's Human Testimony for so 't is most manifest the same motives neither are nor can be common to both For Points of Faith are receiv'd upon Authority as their proper Motive and are Relative to That and the Human Authority of the Church depends on Maxims of meer natural Reason and not at all on Authority which evidence they depend upon different motives and so must be examin'd by motives which are not the same This pretended Conclusion then is no new Proposition from his Premisses as a Conclusion ought to be but the self same with them and is either self-evident or else a meer peece of Folly and Nonsense that is the Terms of it being clear'd both False and unprov'd and so again no Conclusion which must be made evident or Prov'd 3. The less convincing the Miracles the more doubtfull the marks the more obscure the sense of either what is call'd the Catholick Church or declar'd by it the less reason hath any Christian to beleeve upon the account of any who call themselves by the name of the Catholick Church No man in his wits could any more doubt of this then of what 's most Evident by the Light of Nature for Convincingness of Miracles Evidence of the Marks and Sense of the Church being evidently Means or Reasons to believe this Conclusion putting less of 〈◊〉 these Reasons amounts in plain Terms to this Indentical Proposition Where there is less reason to believe there is less reason to believe which is Dr. St. can show possible to follow out of any of his Principles as Premisses as he here pretends he will do more then Miracle For he hath not there prov'd in the least that our Miracles are less convâ—ncing our Marks doubtful our sense obscure nor so much as mention'd those points much lesse gone about to confute our pretence of their Convincingnesse and Evidence and without doing this to pretend this is a Conclusion and that it follows from his Principles whereas it is incomparably more evident then the best of those he makes use of is to abuse the common regard due to his Readers and to declare he makes account they never knew what belong'd to ordinary Natural Logick or the Common Light of Reason 4. The more absurd any Opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason which any Church obtrudes upon the Faith of men the greater reason men shill have to reject the pretence of Infallibility in that Church as a grand Imposture This is just such another as the former For it being self-evident that Absurdities and Contradictions are not to be held and self-evident likewise that that which recommends such things to our belief 〈◊〉 to be rejected this pretended Conclusion amounts to this plain Truth that What has more reason to be rejected has greater or more reason to be rejected which is an Identical Proposition so plain that it cannot need or admit Proof and if it did or could there is not the least semblance of any thing offer'd in his Principles to prove it by nor any sentence or clause in them concerning that matter which has the tenth part of the â—lear Evidence that shines in this Proposition which he pretends follows from them as a Conclusion 5. To disown what is so taught by such a Church is not to question the veracity of God but so firmly to adhere to that in what he hath revealed in Scriptures that men dare not out of love to their souls reject what is so taught The first part of this is of the same nature with the former For the words such a Church and so taught meaning absurdly and repugnantly to First Principles the Truth of it is full as self-evident to all Christians who hold God the Authour of Truth as 't is that The Authour of Truth is not the Authour of Lies The rest of it which would seem to put the opposite to the foregoing part and tels us that to disown what is so taught by such a Church is firmly to adhere to what 's revealed in Scripture c. is absolutely False for to disown what is so taught by such a Church amounts to no more but to hold to the First Principles of Sense and Reason in points conrrary to those Principles obtruded by that Church which a man may do and yet be an Athiest for any thing Dr. St. has brought to make him adhere to Scripture for I much doubt that a profest Fallible Certainty for such wonderful extraordinary Points as he will be bound to believe if he becomes a Christian will scarce be able to give him full satisfaction of their Truth if he guide himself by the First Principles of Reason as Dr. St. pretends he should Nor is it in Dr. St's love of his Soul as he like a Saint pretends here but Humour and Interest to adhere so firmly to his private Interpretation of Scripture for his Rule of Faith which he cannot but see has not in it the nature of such a Rule nor consequently was ever intended by God for such an end since renouncing Infallibility in men he must confess that all possible means being used to finde out Truth by Interpretations of Scripture no better grounded it still leaves all the Reliers on it in a possibility of being mistaken as himself also confesses Princ. 30. that is Insecure that their Faith is True or only Fallibly Certain of their Faith Before I proceed to his sixth and last Conclusion it were not amiss to examine these according to the Noâ—es put down formerly containing some Qualifications necessarily belonging to all Conclusions and to show by their want of all those how utterly unlike these five last are to what they pretended to be And first not one of them follows out of his Principles as from their Premisses as I show'd in each of them 2. Their Verity is known and evident to all Mankind independently on those Principles of his 3. Their Verity is more known than is that of those Principles For speaking of the main import and weight of them abstracting from some particular words and phrasing his notions they are all in a manner self-evident and Unexceptionable whereas his thirty Principles are liable to
Notion fits that is whic hath trnly the Nature of the Rule of faith And this is perform'd by examining which of them is of its own Nature if apply'd and held to able to assure us infallibly that Christ taugbt thus and thus 10. And for the Letter of Scripture not to insist that if it be deny'd as many if not all the parts of the New Testament have been by some or other or mention that those who receive the Boâ—ks do often and always may doubt of almost any particular Text alledged whether some fault through Malice Negligence or Weakness be not crept into it in which Cases the Letter cannot evidence it self but needs another Rule to establish it I say not to insist upon these things which yet are undeniable We see by experience Multitudes of Sects differing from one another and some in most fundamental Points as the Trinity and Godhead of Christ yet all agreeing in the outward Letter And it is not onely Uncharitable but even Impossible to imagin that none among so vâ—st Multitudes do intend to follow the Letter to their power while they all proâ—ess to reverence it as much as any read it frequently study it diligently quote it constantly and zealously defend the sense which they conceive of it fo far that many are even ready to die for it Wherfore it cannot be suspected but they follow it to their power and yet 't is so far from infallibly teaching them the Doctrine of Christ that all this notwithstanding they contradict one another and that in most fundamental points The bare Letter then is not the Rule of Faith as not being of its own Nature able to assure us infallibly though we follow it to our power what Christ has taught I would not be mistaken to have less Veneration than I ought for the Divine Books whose Excellence and Vsefulness as it is beyond man to express so peradventure among men there are not many who conceit this deeper than my self and I am sure not one amongst those who take the confidence to charge us with such irreverent thoughts But we are now about another Question They are the Word of God and their true Sense is Faith We are enquiring out the Rule of Faith whose office t is not to satisfy us that we ought to believe what God has said which none doubts of but What it is which God has said And I affirm That the Letter alone is not a sufficient means to assure us infallibly of this and the experience of so many erring Thousands is a lamentable but convincing proof of it 11. On the other side there needs but common sense to discern That TRADITION is able if follow'd to ones power to bring infallibly down to after Ages what Christ and his Apostles taught at first For since it means no more but delivery of Faith by daily Teaching and Practise of Immediate Forefathers to their respective Children and it is not possible that men should be ignorant of that to which they were educated of that which they daily saw and heard and did let this Rule be follow'd to ones power that is let Children resolve still to believe and practise themselves what they are taught by and practis'd with their Fathers and this from Age to Age and it is impossible but all succeeding Children which follow this Rule must needs from the Apostles time to the end of the World be of the same Faith which was taught at first For while they do thus there is no change and if there be no change 't is the same Tradition then thus understood has in it the Nature of the Rule of Faith as being able if held to to bring down infallibly what Christ and his Apostles taught 12. We have found the Rule of Faith there remains to find which body of men in the World have ever and still do follow this Rule For those and onely those can be infallibly assured of what Christ taught that is can onely have true Faith Whereas all the rest since they have but Fallible grounds or a Rule for their Faith which may deceive them cannot have right Faith but Opinion onely which may be false whereas Faith cannot 13. And first 't is a strong presumption that those many particular Churches in communion with the Roman which for that reason are called Roman-Catholicks do hold their Doctrine by this infallible Tenure since they alone own Tradition to be an Infallible Rule whereas the Deserters of that Church write whole Books to disgrace and vilify it And since no man in his wits will go about to weaken a Tenure by which he holds his Estate 't is a manifest sign that the Deserters of that Church hold not their Faith by the Tenure of Tradition but rather acknowledge by their carriage that Tradition stands against them and that 't is their Interest to renounce it lest it should overthrow their Cause Wherefore since Tradition § 11. is the only means to derive Christs Doctrin infallibly down to after Ages they by renouncing it renounce the only means of conveying the Docttine of Faith certainly to us and are convinc'd to have no Faith but only Opinion And not only so but even to oppose and go point-blank against it since they oppose the only-sure Method by which it can with certainty come down to us 14 Besides since Tradition which I always understand as formerly explicated to be the Teaching the Faith of immediate Forefathers by words and practise hath been proved the only infallible Rule of Faith those who in the days of K. Henry VIII and since have deserted it ought to have had infallible certainty that we receded from it formerly for if we did not but still cleav'd to it it could not chuse but preserve the true Faith to us and if they be not sure we did not they know not but we have the true faith and manifestly condemn themselves in deserting a Faith which for ought they know was the true one But Infallible Certainty that we had deserted this Rule they can have none since they neither hold the Fathers Infallible nor their own Interpretation of Scripture and therefore unavoidably shipwaack themselves upon that desperat Rock Which is aggravated by this Consideration that they built not their Reformation upon a zealous care of righting Tradition which we had formerly violated nor so much as Testimonial Evidence as shall be shown presently that we had deserted It but all their pretence was that we had deserted Scripture and because they assign no other certain means to know the sense of the Holy Books but the Words and those are shown to be no certain means § 10. 't is plain the Reformers regarded not at all the right Rule of Faith but built their Reformation upon a weak Foundation and incompetent to sustain such a building Whence neither had the first Reformers nor have their Followers Faith at all but only Opinion 15. On the contrary since 't is known and
of his ever had from the Church which argues it's perfect Conformity to the Churches Sense in setling and stating the Right Rule of Faith I transcribe then from this Ancient and Learned Father his whole Second Chapter in his Treatise Entitled Against the profane Innovations of Heresy which is this Hic for sit an requirat aliquis c. Here perhaps some may ask since the Canon of the Scriptures is perfect and enough nay more thâ—â— enough suffices to it self for all things what need is there that the Authority of the Churches Sense should be joyn'd to it Because all men do not take the Holy Scripture by reason of its depth in one and the same meaning but divers men interpret it's sayings diversly so that as many Opinions in a manner as there are men seem possible to be drawn thence For Novatian expounds it one way Photinus another Sabellius another and Donatus another Arius Eunomius Macedonius take it in one sense Apollinaris Priscillianus in another sense Jovinian Pelagius Coelestius understand it thus and lastly Nestorius otherwise And therefore it is very necessary by reason of so great windings of so various Error that the Line of the Prophetical and Apostolical Interpretation may be directed according to the Rule of the Ecclesiastical and Catholick Sense From which place we may Note 1. That though he allows the Canon of Scripture perfect and sufficient for all things yet by showing it Interpretable divers ways and this by Great and Learned men and so that they fall into multitudes of Errors by those Inerpretations and thence requiring the Authority of the Churches Sense as necessary to understand it right so as to build Faith on it he plainly shows that Scripture alone is not sufficient for this End since it needs another to atchieve it And hence it is not said simply it suffices for all things but Sufficit sibi adâ—omnia It is sufficient to it self for all things which can only mean that it has all the Perfection due to it 's own nature as I shew'd above p. 87 88 89. or is sufficient for the ends God intended it for reckon'd up by S. Paul to Timothy amongst which no such thing is found as sufficiency of Clearness to every sober Enquirer so as to build his Faith on his private Interpretation of it without the direction of the Churches Sense only which will come to Dr. St's purpose Since then I allow Scripture all Sufficiency and Perfection but this of being sufficiently clear to private Understandings so as to build their Faith on their own Interpretations of it I allow it all this Learned Father or the Ancient Church ever did 2. 'T is observable that he puts not the fault in the Persons but gives for the reason of their misunderstanding it the depth or deep sense of the Scriptures which argues that though some few out of wickedness wilfully mistake yet the General reason of the miscarriage is the disproportion of the Seripture to private Vnderstandings in Dogmatical Points of Christianity as I constantly maintain 3. He cals the Interpretation of it a Line which is Flexible and Dirigible and the sense of the Catholick Church the Rule which lies firm as apt to direct another and so with me he makes the sense of the Catholick Church the only Rule of Faith 4. This Sense of he Church is intimated to be Antecedent to all Interpretation of Scripture and therefore the Church must have had this Sense or Knowledge of Faith by Tradition there being no other way becoming Gods Ordinary Providence but these two 5. These things being so 't is most Evident that when in the former Chapter he mentions the Authority of the Divine Law meaning the Scripture and the Tradition of the Catholick Church he meant them jointly as appears expresly by the very next words beginning this present Chapter nor did he speak there of the means of bringing men to Faith as the Rule of Faith ought to do but of keeping them in Faith or preserving them from sliding into Heresie and since he attributes in this Chapter Convictiveness of what 's Faith only to the Churches Sense 't is manifest all that remains to be attributed to Scripture is Agreeableness of it's Letter if a good Pastor expound it to the present Faith of the Church to see which exceedingly comforts Faith in the hearts of the already-Faithful who must need 's have a high Reverence for the Holy Scriptures Authority The whole strain then of my Discourses here against Dr. St. concerning the Rule of Faith is perfectly consonant to this Learned Father of the Church and to all Antiquity Only our frequent and close Contests with our acute Modern Dissenters have obliged us to a more Scholar-like way of distinguishing our Notions exactly which the Ancients did not and Faith being contain'd in two things the Scriptures and the Breast of the Church of determining which of them is the Proper Ascertainer of Faith to all the Faithful and those which are to be converted and so in true and exact Speech the Rule of Faith and both this Father and Evident Reason give it to be the Church What then Dr. St. is to do in this Point if he makes any such Attempt is to alledge Convincing Testimonies that the Ancient Fathers held Scripture so plain to every Sober Enquirer as to give him such Certainty that he may safely build his Faith on his own Interpretation thereof without needing the Churches when he produces such Testimonies as come home to this or an Equivalent sense he will work wonders and unless he does this he does just nothing But I foresee two unlucky difficulties one that he will not find one Testimony of any Authority which excludes the Church from this Office as himself directly does next that could he produce thousands he would spoil them all at the next word and render them Inconclusive that is Insignificant with telling us very soberly they are all Fallible as to that effect and consequently were perhaps in an Error in all they say FINIS * See Sure Footing 2d Ed. p. 145 146. * Rule of Faith p. 118. Rule of Faith p. 153. Reason against Raillery p. 190 191 c. * Rule of Faith p. 118. See his Preface to his Sermons p. last