"truth breaks forth, and the dim twilights of may-not"bees vanish and disappear."

I have here, reader, prefented thee with a difcourfe which (if we may believe Mr. S.) "is more than mathe"matically demonftrative." A rare fight indeed! And is not this a pleafant man, and of good affurance? I now find it true, which he fays elfewhere, (Letter of thanks, p. 1.), that "principles are of an inflexible genius, and "felf-confident too; and that they love naturally to express "themfelves with an affuredness." But certainly the facred names of principles and demonftration were never fo profaned by any man before. Might not any one write a book of fuch jargon, and call it demonftration? And would it not equally ferve to prove or confute? If he intended this Stuff for the fatisfaction of the people, he might as well have writ in the Coptick or Sclavonian language: yet I cannot deny, but that it is very fuitable to the principles of the Roman church; for why should not their feience, as well as their fervice, be in an unknown tongue; that the one may be as fit to improve their knowledge, as the other is to raife their devotion? But if he defigned this for the learned, nothing could be more improper; for they are far less apt to admire nonfenfe than the common people and I defire that no man (how learned fever he may think himself) would be over-confident, that this is fenfe. I do verily believe, that neither Harphius nor Rufbrochius, nor the profound mother Fuliana, have any thing in their writings more fenfelefs and obfcure than this difcourfe of his, which he affirms to be more than mathematically demonftrative." So that, if I were worthy to advise Mr. S. he should give over this pretence to fcience; for whatever he may think, his talent certainly does not lie that way; but he feems to be as well made for a myftical divine, as any man I know. And methinks his fuperiors fhould be fenfible of this, and employ him to write about the deiform fund of the foul, the fuper-effential life, the method of felf-annihilation, and the paffive unions of nothing with nothing. Thefe are profound fubjects, and he hath a style peculiarly fitted for them. For even in this parcel of stuff which I have now cited, there are five or fix words, fuch as, may-notbees, potentiality, actuality, actuation, determinative, fuperveen, and fubfume, which (if they were but well

C 2

:

mingled

mingled and difcreetly ordered, and brought in now and then with a that is, to explain one another) would half fet up a man in that way, and enable him to write as myftical a difcourfe as a man would wish. But enough of this. And I have trefpassed not a little upon mine own difpofition in faying thus much, though out of a juft indignation at confident nonfenfe.

It is time now to draw towards a conclufion of this debate. I fhall only leave with the reader a few obfervations concerning this book of Mr. S.'s, and his doctrine of infal libility.

1. That the main drift of his book being to prove, that what is true is impoffible to be falfe, he oppofes no body that I know of in this matter.

2. That in afferting infallibility to be necessary to the true nature of faith, he hath the generality of his own church his profeffed adverfaries. The church of Rome never arrogated to herfelf any other infallibility but what he pretends to be founded upon Chrift's promife to fecure his church always from error by a fupernatural affiftance; which is widely different from Mr. S.'s rational infallibility of oral tradition. Mr. S. furely cannot be ignorant, that the divines of their church (till Mr. Rufhworth and Mr. White found out this new way) did generally refolve faith into the infallible teftimony of the church; and the infallibi lity of their church, into our Saviour's promife; and the evidence of the true church, into the marks of the church, or the motives of credibility; which motives are acknowledged to be only prudential, and not demonftrative. Bellarmine fays, (1. 4. de ecclef.), that the marks of the church do not make it evidently true, which is the true church, but only evidently credible; "and that (fays he) is faid to be evidently "credible, which is neither feen in itself, nor in its prin

ciples; but yet hath fo many and fo weighty teftimonies, "that every wife man hath reason to believe it." Becanus (Sum. tom. 2. partic. de fide, c. 1.) to the fame purpose, that "the motives of credibility are only the foundation of "a prudent, but not of an infallible affent." I know very well that Mr Knott, and fome others, would fain perfuade us, that an affent in fome fort infallible may be built upon prudential motives; which is as abfurd as it is poffible: but if it were true, yet Mr.S. would not accept of this fort

of

of infallibility; nothing lefs will ferve him than demonftrative motives, and fuch as are abfolutely conclufive of the thing. Stapleton (as Mr. Crefy tells us) expressly fays, that fuch an infallible certitude of means is not now neceffary to the paftors of the church, as was necessary to the Apoftles, who were the firft founders of the church. So that, according to thefe authors, there may be true faith where neither the means nor the motives of it are fuch as to raise our affent to the degree of infallibility. And this is as much to the full as any Proteftant (that I know of) ever faid. Nay, even his friends of the tradition, Mr. Rushworth, Mr. White, and Mr. Crefy, are guilty of the fame damnable and fundamental error, as Mr. S. calls it, (Letter to his anfwerer, p. 5.). For they grant lefs affurance than that which is infallible, to be Sufficient to Chriftian faith, and that we are justly condemned if we refufe to believe upon fuch evidence as does ordinarily fatisfy prudent men in human affairs. And particularly Mr. White makes a question, whether human nature be capable of infallibility? as I have fhewn at large, by clear and full teftimonies out of each of thefe authors, in the Anfwer to Sure footing, [vol. 3. p. 309. & feqq.]. Of which teftimonies, though Mr. S. has not thought fit to take the leaft notice throughout his book; yet I cannot but think it a reafonable request, to defire him to vindicate the divines of his own church (especially thofe of his own way) from thefe things, before he charge us any farther with them.

3. That Mr. S. by this principle, That infallibility is neceffary to the true nature of faith, makes every true believer infallible in matters of faith; which is fuch a paradox, as I doubt whether ever it entered into any other man's mind. But if it be true, what need then of any infallibility in Pope or council? And if this infallibility be grounded upon the nature of oral tradition, what need of Supernatural affiftance? I doubt Mr. S. would be loth to preach this doctrine at Rome; I have often heard, that there is an old tefty Gentleman lives there, who would take it very ill that any one befides himself should pretend to be infallible.

4. That Mr. S. by his principles does plainly exclude from falvation the generality of his own church, that is,

c 3

all

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 con"gregation of faithful; The faithful are those who have "true faith; That, till it be known which is the true 66 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 thefe principles he concludes, (§ 21.) "that

66

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 "affent is not faith: for faith (Speaking of Chriftian "faith) is an affent which cannot poffibly be falfe." So that the foundation of this method is the felf-evident infal libility of oral tradition, which hath been fufficiently confidered in the Anfwer 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 no Chriftians. 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 bath 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 afwaggering 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 find, that the most effectual way to cheat the people, is always to pretend to infallible

sures.

I have now done with his infallibility. But I must not forget his Letter of thanks. I shall wholly pass by the paffion and ill language of it, which a man may plainly fee

to

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 Shuffling 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 saying, (p. 7.), that he did not intend explication, but only to predicate or affirm fomething 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 thofe words which exprefs the thing under debate. And this method he tells us he will apply to his prefent purpose, and will examine well what is meant by thofe words which express 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 bis 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 eftablished by reafon. So that if the rational part of his book was intended against the Proteftants, and the testimonies were defigned to fecond it, I cannot understand why he fhould fay one was lefs intended against them than the other. But it feems he is fo confcious of the weakness of those teftimonies, that he does not think them fit to fatisfy any but thofe who believe him already.

As to his charge of falfe citations, it is but the common artifice of the Roman controvertifts, when they have nothing elfe 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 loudeft clamour, and leave it to the reader to judge by thefe, of his fincerity in the rest.

He fays, I notoriously abuse the preface to Rushworth's dialogues, in citing the author of it, [vol. 3. p. 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 otherwise, 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

66