4. That Mr S. by his principles does plainly exclude from falvation the generality of his own church, that is, all that do not believe upon his grounds. And this is the neceffary confequence of his reafoning in a late treatife, intitled, The method to arrive at fatisfaction in religion. The principles whereof are thefe: "That "the church is a congregation of faithful; The faith"ful are those who have true faith; That, till it be "known which is the true faith, it cannot be known

which is the true church; That which is the true ́ “faith, can only be known by the true rule of faith, "which is oral tradition; and, That the infallibility of "this rule is evident to common fenfe." And from these principles he concludes, (§ 21.) "that thofe who "follow not this rule, and fo are out of this church, "can have no true faith; and that though many of "the points to which they affent are true, yet their af"fent is not faith: for faith (fpeaking of Chriftian "faith) is an affent which cannot poffibly be falfe." So that the foundation of this method is the self-evident` infallibility of oral tradition, which hath been fufficiently confidered in the Answer to Sure footing, which yet* remains unanswered. That which I am now concerned to take notice of, is, the confequence of this method, which does at one blow excommunicate and unchriftian the far greatest part of his own church. For if all who do not follow oral tradition as their only rule of faith are out of the church, and can have no true faith, then all who follow the council of Trent are ipfo facto not Christians. For nothing is plainer, than that that council did not make oral tradition the fole rule of their" faith, nor rely upon it as fuch; which hath been proved at large in the Anfwer to Sure footing.

But why is Mr S. fo zealous in this matter of infallibility? There is a plain reafon for it. He finds that confidence, how weakly foever it be grounded, hath fome effect upon the common and ignorant people; who are apt to think there is fomething more than ordinary in a fwaggering man, that talks of nothing but principles and demonftration. And fo we fee it in fome other profeffions. There are a fort of people very well known,

who

who find, that the most effectual way to cheat the peo-ple, is always to pretend to infallible cures.. I have now done with his infallibility. But I muft not forget his Letter of thanks. I fhall wholly pafs by the paffion and ill language of it, which a man may plainly fee to have proceeded from a galled and uneafy mind. He would fain put on fome pleasantness, but was not able to conceal his vexation. Nor fhall I infift upon his palpable fhuffling about the explication of the terms rule and faith. He was convinced, that he had explained them very untowardly, and therefore would gladly come off by faying, (p. 7.), that he did not in. tend explication, but only to predicate or affirm fome. thing of them. And yet the whole defign of the first page of Sure footing, is, to fhew the neceffity of beginning with the meaning of those words which express the thing under debate. And this method he tells us he will apply to his prefent purpofe, and will examine well what is meant by thofe words which exprefs the thing he was to difcufs, namely, the rule of faith. Now, if to examine well what is meant by words, be not to go about to explain them, I must confefs myself to be in a great error. Of the fame kind is his apology for his teftimonies, as if they were (p. 105.) not intended against the Proteftants; whereas his book was writ against the Proteftants; and when he comes to his teftimonies, (Sure footing, p. 126.), he declares the defign of them to be, to fecond by authority, what he had before established by reafon. So that if the rational part of his book was intended against the Proteftants, and the teftimonies were defigned to fecond it, I cannot understand why he should fay one was lefs intended against them than the other. But it feems he is fo confcious of the weakness of those testimonies, that he does not think them fit to fatisfy any but those who believe him already.

As to his charge of falfe citations, it is but the common artifice of the Roman controvertists, when they have nothing else to fay. However, that the world may fee how little he is to be trufted, I fhall inftance in two or three, about which he makes the loudest clamour, and leave it to the reader to judge by these of his fincerity in the rest

He

He fays, I notoriously abuse the preface to Rufhworth's dialogues, in citing the author of it, [vol. iii. 7.316.], to fay, that "fuch certainty as makes the "caufe always to work the fame effect, though it take "not away the abfolute poffibility of working other"wife, ought abfolutely to be reckoned in the degree "of true certainty;" whereas (fays Mr S.) he only tells us there, p. 7. that " by moral certainty fome underStood fuch a certainty as makes the caufe," &c. To vindicate myself in this, I fhall only fet the author's words before the reader's eyes. They are these : "This term "moral certainty, every one explicated not alike; but fome "understood by it fuch a certainty as makes the cause "always work the fame effect, though it take not away "the abfolute poffibility of working otherwife. Others "called that a moral certainty which proceeds from, "&c. A third explication of this word is, &c. Of "these three the firft ought abfolutely to be reckoned "in the degree of true certainty, and the authors con"fidered as mistaken in undervaluing it." Is this only to tell us, that by moral certainty fome understood, &c.? Does not the prefacer alfo exprefsly affirm, that what thefe fome understood by moral certainty, ought abfolutely to be reckoned in the degree of true certainty? which is the very thing I cited him for.

Another heavy charge is, that, according to my ufuat fincerity, I quote Rushworth's nephew to fay, [vol. iii. p. 322.], that a few good words are to be caft in concerning fcripture," for the fatisfaction of indifferent "men who have been brought up in this vérbal and

66

apparent refpect of the fcripture," whereas (fays Mr S.) in the place you cite, he only expreffes," it would "be a fatisfaction to indifferent men to fee the pofitions 66 one would induce them to embrace, maintainable by fcripture." Does he only fay fo? let the reader judge. The words in Mr Rufhworth, p. 76. 77. are thefe : "Yet this I must tell ye, that it were a great "fatisfaction for indifferent men, that have been "brought up in this verbal and apparent refpect of the

66

fcripture, to fee that the pofitions you would induce "them unto, can be, and are maintained by fcripture, and that they are grounded therein." Certain

ly

ly one would think, that either this man has no eyes,

or no forehead.

ans,"

66

But the greatest outcry of all is, that I abuse his first demonftration, by virtue of a direct falfification both of his words and fenfe, by cogging in the word all, making his principle run thus, that "the greatest hopes "and fears are applied to the minds of [all] ChriftiThis indeed I make to be his principle, grounded upon his words which I had cited a little be fore, [vol. iii. p. 330]. And they are thefe: I.- That "Chriftian doctrine was at firft unanimoufly fettled by "the Apoftles in the hearts of the faithful, difperfed in great multitudes over feveral parts of the world. 2. That this doctrine was firmly believed by ALL "thofe faithful to be the way to heaven, and the contradicting or deferting of it to be the way to damnation: fo that the greatest hopes and fears imaginable were, by engaging the divine authority, ftrongly ap"plied to the minds of the first believers," &c. Now, if thefe first believers, to whom he fays thefe hopes and fears were ftrongly applied, be all thofe faithful he fpoke of before, which were difperfed over feveral parts of the world, as the tenor of his words plainly fhews, what are thefe lefs than all the Chriftians of that age? And he himself a little after tells us, there is the fame reafon of the following ages: So that I made his principle run no otherwife than he himself had laid it. And if it contradict what he fays elsewhere, it is no new or ftrange thing. I wonder more at his confidence in charging fuch falfifications upon me, as every man's eyes will presently confute him in. Methinks, though a man had all fcience, and all principles; yet it might not be amifs to have fome confcience.

I thall only speak a few words to the two folid points, · as I may call them, of his Letter, and I have done.

I had charged him, that he makes traditious certainty a first and felf evident principle, and yet that he goes about to demonstrate it, which I faid was impoffible to be done; and if it could be done, was needlefs. To avoid this inconvenience, which he found himself forely preffed withal, he diftinguishes between fpeculative and practical felf-evidence; and fays, that things which''

are

are practically felf-evident may be demonftrated, but thofe that are fpeculatively fo, cannot. But he must not think to shelter himself from fo palpable an abfurdity by this impertinent diftinction. For, let things be evident how they will, fpeculatively or practically, it is plain, that if they be principfes evident of themselves; they need nothing to evidence them; and if they be first principles, there can be nothing to make them more evident, because there is nothing before them to demonftrate them by. Now, if Mr S. had in truth believed that the certainty of tradition was a first and selfevident principle, he fhould by all means have let it a lone; for it was in a very good condition to fhift for itself; but his blind way of demonstration is enough to caft a mist about the clearest truth in the world. But perhaps, by the felf-evident certainty of tradition, Mr S. only means that it is evident to himself; for I dare fay it is fo to no body else. And if that be his meaning, he did well enough to endeavour to demonftrate it;. it was no more than needed.

The other point is about his first principles, fuch as thefe: A rule is a rule, faith is faith, &c. which he fays, p. II. "must principle all that can be folidly con

cluded either about rule or faith." Of thefe he hath mighty ftore, and bleffeth himself in it, as the rich man in the gofpel did in his full barns, Soul, take thine eafe, thou haft principles laid up for many years; and out of an excess of good nature pities my cafe, p. 74. who did "undertake to write a difcourfe about the ground of "faith, without fo much as one principle to bless my. "felf with." But the mischief is, that after all this ftir about them, they are good for nothing, and of the very fame ftamp with that frivolous one Ariftotle (Anayt. Pofter. 1. 7.) speaks of, If a thing be, it is, which he rejects as a vain and ridiculous propofition. Such are Mr S.'s first principles, furfeited of too much truth, (as an ingenious writer of his own church fays of them), and ready to burst with felf-evidence; and yet by ten. thousand of them a man fhall not be able to advance one step in knowledge, because they produce no conclu. fion but themselves; whereas it is of the nature of principles to yield a conclufion different from themfelves.

And