Testimony is God's own Testimony and ground my faith upon it Se more of this subiect Reas. and Relig Disc 3. C. 6. n. 26. 3 We have another quarel P. 367. Where I am told if all the necessity of the Churches Proposition be no more then to convey the Divine Testimony to us and the Dr who cites my 3. Disc c. 4. n. 18. wishes me to take pains à little better in proving that Such à condition must have Infallibility belonging to it I answer Mr Dr misrelates my Doctrin for I speak not in that place of the Churches Proposition but of her Motives whereby the Divine Testimony whether God speak's by Scripture or the Church is applyed to us Let him therefore take the pains to cite more exactly or surcease to charge me with that I never taught From this very gross errour proceed's another Infallibility saith he is then only necessary when it is relied upon and is the ground of believing and not where it is à meer condition of understanding In real truth there is nothing here but à want of understanding in Mr Dr. Pray Courteous Reader peruse what I have Disc 3. C. 6. n. 18. 19. where I say the Churches Testimony is not à meer extrinsical condition disposing to believe upon the Divine Testimony in Scripture but a ioynt Motive with it which compleat's the ancient Revelation in order to the beliefe of our Christian Mysteries Therefore when I believe the Church to be infallible because S. Paul teaches She is the Pillar and ground of truth and believe it also because God speak's that very truth by the Church I no way separate the ancient Revelation from the Churches Testimony but by one Indivisible act of Faith be-lieve both at once Hereof I have given à clear Instance in the Chapter now cited n. 22. 23. And constantly find by experience that to evacuate the Dr ' s Arguments no more is necessary but only to point at what is noted in my former Treatises 4 P. 369. He first pretend's to tell us VVhat these Motives of Credibility are 2 How far they are necessary to Faith 3. VVhat influence they have vpon the assent of Faith Had he followed these particulars closely according to his own opinion he might well have given no little advantage against himself but in lieu of doing so he wisely start's aside and for two or three pages only relates what Suares Cardinal Lugo and other great Divines say of these Motives and though all of them speak much to my sence and in things material have nothing contrary to me Yet P. 375. He blames me because I must say that the proofs taken from these Motives do not perswade men to believe or which is all one have no Influence vpon the act of Faith Would to God this Dr would either not write evident untruths or consider better what he writes Pray you reflect Do not I say Protest without Princ. Disc 1. c. 5. n. 11. That the Motives to Faith manifestly point out that true Society of Christians wherein Gods Verities are taught and make it discernable from all heretical Communities Do not I say n. 12. That if Gods goodness could permit these Motives like false Charms to delude the world all might with just reason exclaim as Rich. de S. Vict once did If we believe an errour it is you o God who have deceived us Do not I say n. 14. That without Motives never any since Christianity began rightly believed in Christ our Lord in Apostle or Church Have I not Reas. and Relig. Disc 2 through two whole Chapters laid down the Efficacy of these Motives and shewed what influence they have upon Reason and Faith also Have I not proved them c. 7. n. 3. 4. to be God's own Language or publick way of speaking The Dri unjust Cavils to the world And. c. 16. n. 30. plainly assert that to separate the lustre of Motives from Christ and his Church implies à subversion of Christian Religion And yet with me saith our worthy Dr they perswade not to believe nor have influence upon the act of Faith though I say Faith never was or can be without them 5 But from whence comes this gross mistake of the Dr Marry from hence because I say that the act of Faith as Faith wholly relies upon other Principles Good Mr Dr cannot you conceive how one indivisible act where in there are no separable parts wholly relies or depend's upon several Principles though with à different respect Take One act of Faith Necessarily depend's upon several Principles for example à Conclusion deduced out of well ordered Premises as à vital operation it wholly depend's upon the intellectual faculty that produces it As à thing in being it wholly depends upon Gods general concurse which gives existence to every creature yet as à Conclusion it wholly relies on the Premises The whole influence of one of these different Principles abates nothing but is well consistent with the whole influence of their other associated causes Iust thus it is in an act of Faith As vital it wholly depend's on the Intellectual power as supernatural wholly on the infused habit or something equivalent For its Being it depend's on Gods universal concurse whereby every thing exist's but as à rational operation it wholly depend's on the Motives inducing to Faith not that the motives considered meerly as inducements concurr by way of efficiency to that act any more then premises to à conclusion but because the judgement of Credibility which actually inform's the mind in the very instant à Believer first elicit's Faith illuminates his intellectual power and manifestly shew's what he is ready to believe is evidently Credible or worthy à most certain assent because God speak's by his own Oracle O! but the act of Faith precisely fix't upon the Divine Revelation reasons not and consequently saith our Dr seem's unreasonable or hath no ground to rely on 6 This difficulty I have both proposed in express terms and solved Reas. Relig Disc 3. C. 16. n. 25. and say there an act of Faith may be considered two wayes First as it is à prudent reasonable submission to what ever God reveals 2. as terminated upon the Revelation proposed by the Church or any other infallible Oracle Under the first notion of à prudent submission it either necessarily implies or presupposes the rational prudent judgment of credibility set fast on such Motives as converted the world which judgement rightly denominat's Faith à reasonable Obsequiousness But again consider the act in it self I mean as it precisely tend's upon the Revelation and à Mystery not evidently seen it where an Act of Faith reasons not cannot reason at all nor more prove or Scientifically know its obiect as it rest's there than Science as science believe Thus I then answered and though the Doctor hitherto never took the least notice of my reply yet we shall find him hereafter when his rational Evidence of Christian Religion comes
this fundamental Mystery for ought any man living can know may be à Lye 3. That all Christ's Doctrin as it is now believed by Faith may be both fallible and false 4. That God obliges the whole Christian world to believe that as an infallible truth which really may be à falshood Lastly that all the glorious Martyrs in forgoing Ages were bound to maintain that with the losse of their lives to be à truth which only apparently was so and might in reallity be no truth If the Dr subscrib's to these consequences he has not one drachm of true Faith in his heart Now one word more with the Dr CHAP. VI. Dr Still grant's that Faith transcend's the certainty of those Motives which induce to believe Independently of his Concession that verity is proved and the ground thereof firmly setled How necessary it is to distinguish between the Credibility of à Mystery and the infallible believing it true Obiections answered Other difficulties proposed 1 Dr Still in his Account Part. 1. c. 7. P. 207. Speak's thus Moral certainty yeilds sufficient assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true and he proves the Assertion because moral certainty may evidently shew us the Credibility of Christian Religion and that from the credibility of it the infallible truth of it may be proved will appear by these two things 1. That where there is evident Credibility in the matter propounded there doth arise upon men an obligation to believe And that is proved ...... from What the Dr teaches Gods intention in giving such Motives which was to perswade them to believe as appears by multitudes of places of Scripture and withall though the meer credibility of the Motives might at first suppose some doubts concerning the Infallibility of the Doctrin yet it is not consistent with any doubt as to the obligation to believe because there can be no other reason assigned of those Motives of credibility than the induceing on men an obligation to Faith 2. That where there is such an obligation to believe we have the greatest assurance that the matter to be believed is infallibly true which depend's on this manifest proof that God cannot oblige men to believe à lye it being repugnant to all our conceptions of the veracity and Goodnes of God to Imagin that God should require of men on the pain of eternal damnation to believe something infallibly true which is really false Thus the Dr. Reflect courteous Reader Is it so that from the Credibility of Christian Religion the Infallible truth of it may be proved There is then no doubt at all but if it be Advantage given by the Dr's own Doctrin proved infallibly true it may be also believed as it is infallibly true Doth the Dr concede that from the Evident Credibility of Christian Doctrin there arises in all men an Obligation to believe it and that this obligation is not consistent with any doubt as to the obligation of believing it I wish no more from an Adversary having enough to make good all I say concerning the Infallibility of Divine Faith Doth he finally assert that where there is such an obligation we have the greatest assurance that the matter believed is infallibly true because God cannot require of men to believe that as infallibly true which is really false I wholly agree with him thus farr yet withall affirm that he plainly contradict's his own Doctrin For if when there is such an obligation to believe we have the greatest assurance that is infallible assurance or nothing that the matter believed is infallible true it is undisputably clear that Faith which has that greatest assurance goes far beyond the certainty of the Motives which is only moral and not so infallible certain as the very act of Faith is Hence it followes that the Dr contradict's himself in all he teaches concerning the moral certainty of Faith and must while he hold's Faith infallibly certain grant that as terminated upon the truth of à Revelation it rises higher and goes beyond the strength of the motives which only afford moral certainty and not greater But of this more presently 2 In the mean time I wish the Dr would make what he saies here to agree with some odd expressions in his precedent page 206. There we are told that certainty implies the taking away all suspicion of doubt but in moral things all suspicion of doubt is removed upon moral evidence and here he saith Though the meer Credibility of the Motives only morally certain might at first suppose some doubt concerning the Infallibility of the Doctrin yet it is not consistent with any doubt as to the obligation to believe I Say contrary if it may at first suppose some doubt it must ever suppose it for this moral certainty grounded on the Miracles internal to Scripture as the Dr teaches growes not less nor more perswasive in time but is alwaies the same and therefore cannot remove all doubt from a Believers mind 3 Hence I argue This moral certainty at first capable of doubt comes in time to be infallible certainty or still retain's some doubt In case it be improved and grow up to infallible certainty it yeilds not in certainty to the very act of Faith where unto it perswades and so the Dr's distinction between moral certainty and An Argument proposed his term's Infallibly true becomes frivolous Moral certainty saith he yeilds us sufficient assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true Say now that this moral certainty is still consistent with some suspicion of doubt it must either derive that doubt into the very act of Faith and make that doubtful or it ought to be granted that Faith rises higher and goes beyond the strength of that moral doubtful certainty contrary to the Dr's Principles I wish also he had explaind him self better in this other dark Proposition Moral certainty may be as great as Mathematical and Phisical supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their natures as in Mathematical and Phisical as to theirs These words Supposing as little reason to doubt spoil all he saies for if moral certainty ever supposes some suspicion of doubt how can that be as great as Mathematical or Physical which supposes none But enough of this jangling 4 We now come to the main point and shall endeavour to shew that although the Motives were only Morally certain and not as I hold infallibly connected with Divine Revelation yet the act of Faith it self is infallibly certain and consequently rises above that weaker light of the Motives This I say to vindicate the absolute infallibility of Faith from all iust exceptions while Divines vary about the connexion of the Motives with the Divine Revelation 5 The proof of my Assertion stands firm upon two Principles laid down Prot. without Prin. Disc 1. C. 5. n. 6. 7. And Reas and Relig. Disc 3. C. 8. n. 16. In the first place I say and it s à Maxim known by the
the vision in Mount Thabor The Apostles saw there our Saviour all in glory yet knew not evidently what it meant They heard those words This is my most Dear Son Mark 9. 7. and understood their obvious sence yet had no evidence of the Truth signified by those words Finally they received that command Ipsum audite Hear and believe all that this dear Son deliver's to you but were yet far from having the truth of that command or any thing he spake laid out evidently before them Notwithstanding they believed the very truth of those words and Command also and thus their Faith led on by clear signs admirable works sacred words and an express command transcended the certainty of what ever they saw or heard 17 From what you have already noted it followes That if by Faith we believe the very truth of a Revelation and not only its Credibility the act of Faith cannot but be of à higher certainty than all the exteriour Signs and Motives as known by sense can perswade to The reason now given is clear All these outward Signs and Motives manifested to the world are reduced to the admirable works miracles for example Neither the Apostolical words nor Works can evidence the truth of Divine Revelation done by Christ his Apostles and the Church as also to the plain signification of words these Oracles spake But neither the works which Christ shewed nor the words he spake though plainly significant made the truth of his Revelation evident as is now proved but only evidently credible therefore if by Faith we believe the very truth of à Revelation which all grant and rest not only upon its Credibility we goe Eo ipso beyond the certainty of that judgement whereby we know it to be evidently credible though not shewed evidently true Hence I said Prot without Prin. Disc 1. c. 5. n. 6. that all the power in Heaven cannot separate Infallibility from an act of Faith setled upon the Truth of God's Revelation though Divines yet question whether by the absolute power of God all these outward Signs we se or hear of might not have been the very same in appearance as they are now had God never revealed any thing 18 Some less skilful may reply The words the Apostles heard on Mount Tabor and understood were plain and significant enough what need Truth is not alwaies Spoken by words most significant is there of more A simple objection Are I beseech you all significant words true Grant this and no man can tell à Lye or à false story for in such cases words are very significant yet far from truth Now the Apostles did not only know the signification of that voice heard but also believed its Truth though not made evident to them This is ever to be reflected on 19 You will say again Those words and all other written in Scripture are either evidently Credible or evidently true Answ Words evidently Credible in this place imply à piece of nonsence when by themselves they are evidently heard and their open signification If clear evidently known without any more light Speak therefore thus properly The true signification of words in Scripture is made evidently Credible and when clear believed true by Faith yet are not known evidently or Scientifically true and the obiection becomes forceles Here I expect that such an Adversary as Dr Still may obiect 3. From this discourse it followes Though one read Scripture à hundred times over and add to that the interpretation of the Church yet after all he cannot know that Christ our Saviour is God and the true Messias I Answer none can know these truths Scientifically or vpon clear evident Principles I grant it None can infallibly believe them by virtue of God's Revelation made evidently credible by clear signs I deny it After all this trifling 20 Followes another obiection much to this sence There seem's an open contest between these Signs or the Motives inducing to Faith on the one side and God's express command whereby we are obliged to believe the truth of his Revelation on the other The Motives draw one way and licence us not to goe one step further than to assent to what they shew which is only to acknowledge God's Revelation evidently Credible but not infallibly true God's Command pushes further and will have all to believe the Truth of à Revelation though we se no reason to go so high by Faith This obiection contain's nothing but what is solved already I therefore answer An obiection taken from the Motives and Gods Command solved in a word We se no reason to goe so high while we rest upon the Motives only I grant it we se no reason to goe so high if we attend to God's command manifested by clear signs I deny what is assumed For this command and the Majesty of the commander is both reason and à law more prevalent than all Motives are solely considered or as known by sense Therefore unless the weaknes of these Motives can as it were abate or infringe the strength of God's Command and make me to judge he command's none to believe without evidence had of his Revelation I both can and will captivate my understanding in obsequium fidei and say absolutely what ever you my God speak made evidently credible by clear signes is not only Credible but infallibly true And this is to proceed rationally for if I ought to believe à Mortal man reputed honest and sincere when he speak's though I have no evidence of what he interiourly judges because he may deceive much more am I obliged by captivating my understanding to believe God who cannot deceive when I have the greatest moral Assurance imaginable that he speak's to me and for my Salvation 21 Now here enter's that other Principle hinted at above I mean the pious affection of the will in every Believer which power when once enlightned by the previous judgement of Credibility grounded upon rational Motives for nihil volitum quin praecognitum hath from that judgement assurance that no assent of the mind is or can be of greater concern than an humble submission to what ever God speak's and command's though no evidence of his speaking be drawn from the Motives inducing to believe The reason hereof is clear because upon this assent eternal Salvation depend's and the omission of it brings with it eternal misery Besides the great confidence all have of pleasing God who command's us to believe and the fear we may justly apprehend of wronging his Divine Majesty in case we demurr or boggle when we are thus incited to believe cannot but drive the VVill forward with all the force it hath to move the intellectual Faculty to à most firm and infallible assent of Faith Hence it is as S. Bonaventure observes cited Reas and Relig Disc 3 c. 8. n. 15. VVhat power the will hath to â—lieiâ—â— Faith that men truly prudent and apprehensive of their eternal good are not drawn
and other Motives and layd open to the understanding of primitive Believers who saw Christs wonders the Will thereby enlightned could easily with her pious affection move the Intellectual power to elicit à most firm assent of Faith because God speak's or command's Beliefe which assent if ultimately resolved we shall find securely fixed both upon the Truth of the Revelation as also upon the real Truth of the Motives also joyntly believed And thus the Motives which were only inducements to Believers solely considered that is as they constituted à Revelation and themselves evidently credible can under the notion of Truths conjoyned with the Divine Revelation terminate à certain and infallible assent of Faith 27 Perhaps some half Scholars in speculative learning will esteem all now said confused stuff and very likely as Halfe Scholars talk not valved the Dr expresses himself P. 427 desire the Reader to try his faculty upon it whether it be intelligible No great matter for that say I. Let Smatterers talke I appeal to the judgement of such as have been long versed in Schools and hope to enlighten the unlearned by this one clear Instance 28 Had Christ our Lord after his raysing Lazarus from the dead said only thus much to the then present Spectators You have seen this one great wonder my Disciples and others have been Eye-witnesses of many more An Instance gives light to my Assention wrought by me I speak now to you in the words which my Evangelist shall hereafter register in the Gospel Iohn 10. 25. The works that I do in my Fathers name they give Testimony of me and withall declare that I am truly God and the Messias sent into the world Believe me induced to assent by the works you and others have seen and moreover believe that these seen wonders are not counterfeited but true Miraculous works In this case it is clear that the same Miracles first known by sense or as they apply'd the Divine Revelation to the Believers understanding made themselves together with the Revelation no more but evidently credible and therefore forced none to believe but left that free yet they imposed an obligation upon all rational men of believing the real truth of these Miracles and the Truth of the Revelation whereof neither those primitive Christians nor we ever yet had any Evidence This is to say in plainer terms and mark well the distinction Miracles and all other exteriour Motives as seen or known move to à beliefe of themselves under the notion of Truths though not evidently seen or known as Truths but believed so 29 The whole discourse in this Chapter goes upon à supposition that the Motives of credibility are not essentially connected with the Divine Revelation though if that essential connexion be admitted which is true Doctrin and much avail's to raise Faith above the strength of all exteriour Motives An act of Faith terminated upon the Revelation and the truth of the Motives more certain than humane knowledge yet the act of Faith terminated upon the Revelation and the Truth of the Motives far surpasses in certainty the knowledge which any in this life can have of that connexion for the knowledge of that Connexion is only got by natural discourse whereas the assent of Faith it self rest's upon the most supream Verity I mean God speaking to the world And thus in all opinions the certainty of Faith is defensible As à rational assent Faith depend's upon the Motives of Credibility because God speak's by such Signs As purely Divine it rest's upon the Divine Revelation applyed by rational Motives whereunto I add the lumen fidei which represent's the Truth of the Motives and the Revelation more clearly and immediatly then any natural discourse can do and upon that account much conduces to the Infallible certainty of Faith as is largely declared Reas. and Relig Disc 3. c. 9. n. 6 The last certainty comes from the pious affection of the will as is already declared Having said thus much I desire Dr Still to weaken any one of these Principles upon Good Authority or solid reason CHAP. VII Reflections made upon the Doctors following Discourse Of his Mistakes concerning the Churches Testimony and the obscurity of Faith 1 I Am forced courteous Reader to passe by many impertinent excursions of the Dr his ill language also with other lesser faults for fear of making this Treatise too bulky which may displease him neither do I need to enlarge my self much upon his obiections from P. 365. to P. 400. For they are all solved in my two former Treatises Some few particulars I shall add more to satisfy others in this speculative matter of our Analysis than to answer the Dr who in very deed hath his full Answer already 2 In the. P. now cited he complain's of my shuffling because he hear's no more of the Churches infallible Testimony whereby men believe the Scripture to be the word of God I stand astonish't at this clamorous Adversary Where were his Eyes where was his attention if ever he read my Treatises The very chief aime whereof is to shew not only to Christians but to Iewes and Gentils also that the first known ground of true Religion is à Church manifested by Supernatural Motives proceeding from an infinit power and wisdom This Church I have amply proved to be God's own assured Oracle The Primum credible or first believed Teacher in this present state and that God speak's as immediatly and infallibly by it now as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle As therefore those whom the blessed Apostles taught having seen the Apostolical Signs immediatly believed upon their word So with as great reason may we having penetrated the Churches glorious Marks assent immediatly upon Her word and believe all She obliges Christians to believe But to have assurance of the Scriptures Divine inspiration as likewise of its true infallible sence are believed Articles grounded upon the Churches Infallible Testimony or rather upon God speaking by this Oracle and here we must rest or can believe Nothing The Churches Testimony God's own Testimony I must therefore once more blame the Doctor who forsooth thinks the Faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed ought to have such à Divine Testimony and so à process in Infinitum or à Circle will unavoydably follow Such à Divine Testimony Mr Dr you understand not what I teach I say expresly that the Churches Testimony is God's own Testimony as immediatly assented to upon Church Authority for he that hear's the Church hear's God as ever Doctrin was believed upon any Apostles word Thus much supposed and largely proved what need have we of another Testimony distinct from that of the Church Out of all I concluded that as there was neither vicious Circle nor process in Infinitum in those who terminated their faith upon S. Paul's preaching for example so there is neither the one nor other fault in me when I assent to this truth The Churches
to à trial much born down with this very difficulty 7 In the mean while to give some hints at what I shall then say I ask when the Dr who talks much of Faiths evidence believes the Mystery of the Incarnation upon this sole ground that God reveals it in Scripture what rational evidence can he derive into his Faith if you precisely consider it as fixed upon the Revelation and Mystery together None arises from the nature of these things purely believed unless he stoutly affirm and he is as like to do it as any man living that he evidently see 's by his new eyes of Faith the intrinsick infallible truth of the Revelation in it self as also the two natures in Christ Humane and Divine I say by virtue of that act as it is precisely terminated upon the obiect believed which if I rightly understand him P. 387. fine he acknowledges to be obscure and upon that account unmeet to ground Evidence What then is to be done O saith the Dr I will fetch my Evidence not from the Nature of the things believed for they are remote and dark but from the evidence of sense as to the Miracles wrought by Christ from the Testimony of those who saw Christ our Lord and have delivered his Doctrin to us and given the greatest Evidence of their fidelity c. Se his pages 387 and 416. Very good let all yet be as he pleases 8 Hence it followes first That the Dr ' s act of Faith as it tend's upon the Revelation not evidently seen and an obscure Mystery together is so far blind yea and like a Mole working without light They are his own words P. 353 as that Faith is which he would impugn The Dr own 's Faith both clear and obscure and this I chiefly insist upon at present It followes 2. That his one indivisible act of Faith is both clear and obscure as fixed upon his supposed evident Motives it is clear and under another respect obscure as it adheres to an obscure obiect believed For so he speak's P. 387. I had rather thought saith he the more obscure the obiect had been for its little better then Non-sence to call an act of Faith obscure the greater necessity there had been of strong evidence to perswade c. One word Mr Dr by the way I think it far greater Nonsence to call obiects à parte rei obscure if we use proper language A pore blind man stumbles at à stone is the stone therefore obscure while another sees it clearly and stumbles not Thus all obiects obscure to our weak Capacities are clear and evident to God and Angels Clarity and obscurity Mr Dr as I have often noted but you never mend your faults when told of them are inseparable proprieties of vital operations and belong not to Things in rigour of speech though in à vulgar way with à respect to our acts the language may pass Again shift all you will if the obiect in your sence be obscure your act of Faith as it is fixed upon that clouded verity cannot but under that notion and respect be obscure also 9 It followes 3. That had the Dr pitch't on the true Evidence of Credibility which is not done I have all that for my Faith with much more to boot taken from the Churches long continuance Her Miracles Sanctity Conversions and other Motives Whereof see Reas and Relig. Disc 2. C. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Now if the Evidence of Credibility once established necessary in the Church be ever prerequired as an inducement to believe as all confess it little import's Christianity whether it be discovered by the very act of Faith or the Iudgement previous to Faith supposing as I said above that this judgement inform's and illuminat's the understanding chiefly at every mans first Conversion Did I come short of the where the Evidence of Credibility is found Dr in the evidence of Credibility he might justly blame me but when in reallity he has none as we shall se hereafter and I introduce such an Evidence as converted the world Say I beseech you wherein am I faulty Marry in this may the Dr reply that I allow not evidence to the very act of Faith but only to the previous judgement of Credibility No hurt at all while the mind has the evidence of Credibility laid open and the Dr ' s very act of Faith such an one as it is is partly clear partly obscure 10 But to quiet the Dr I can without prejudice to my Opinion much less to Christian Religion grant with many learned Divines that one indivisible act of Faith rest's both upon the Motives and the revealed Mystery together Nay more I do hold that the Motives are God's own language whereby he speak's to the world not imitable by any Enemy for etiam factis loquitur Deus as S. Austin often cited affirm's Se Reas Relig Disc 3. I say 3. The The obligation of believing arises from the Motives obligation of believing first arises from the light of these Motives for no man saies he believes because he believes but therefore believes because antecedently to his Faith he judges it most reasonable note the rational ground upon God's command to believe what is revealed The Revelation therefore obscurely proposed to us cannot as obscure be the rational ground of our firm assenting to it and for this reason to avoyd confusion in the Analysis I attribute Evidence to the previous judgement of Credibility and not to the very act of Faith Though I scruple nothing to grant that I believe also for the Motives which as I now said have their influence upon Faith and therefore the Dr flatly calumniat's when he tell 's me over and over that I believe without reason without grounds and Motives That I have Motives and evident Motives P. 382 yet after all this Evidence believing hath nothing to do with them Iust as if à man should say P. 384. there is à particular way of seing with ones eyes shut He might better have said his intellectual Eyes were darkened when he read my The Dr's cavil groundless Treatise for no Author ever gave greater strength and efficacy to the Motives then I have done when I say not only Faith but Christ also the Church Scripture and all true Religion goes to wrack without them I further assert that à Believers mind is so far from being in à state of darkness in the instant it elicits Faith that even then it is environed with the light of these Motives clearly represented by the judgement of credibility the lustre whereof is so great that as many Divines teach they make Faith evident in Attestance This opinion I could maintain and yet defend the obscurity of Faith in order to its Material obiect as the Dr withall his pretended Evidence must do whereof more presently 11 P. 376. He seem's some what resty ruminates again his old difficulty and ask's whether in requiring an Infallible assent of
Faith to the Churches infallibility upon Motives confessedly fallible an assent be not required beyond all proportion and degree of evidence First Who tells you Mr Dr that the Motives are confessedly fallible The Church never defined so I with others expressly say they are Metaphysically certain and have infallible connexion with the Divine Revelation It is true some Divines hold them fallible but it is only an opinion and therefore too weak to support your stout expression confessedly fallible or to make the contrary opinion improbable But suppose them fallible I have notwithstanding shewed how the act of Faith is most certain and infallible and shall here for the better satisfaction of à less learned Reader upon this hint given by the Dr apply all I have said above to the Catholick Church Thus I discourse 12 God an eternal Truth who perfectly comprehend's all things intuitively Seing himself one Essence and Though the Motives to Faith were fallible Faith yet stand's firm three distinct Persons reveal's that Verity and to the end all may assent to it by Faith He adorn's his own Oracle the Catholick Church with the Royal Signs of his Power and wisdom The Church thus illustrated speaking in the name of God or which is all one God speaking by Her proposes that high Mystery and obliges all to believe it The Signs or Motives whereby he speaks to reason manifest in the Church make it evidently credible that eternal Truth speak's and in order to Faith are the only exteriour rational lights we have in this present State from whence Faith takes it rise and whereupon it necessarily depend's But the highest measure of certainty these motives considered as rational inducements can give any is only as I say to make the Mystery evidently credible not evidently true Yet on the other side when we prudently reflect upon God's powerfull speaking by Signs and Motives and withall ponder the weight of his Command which obliges us to assent not only to the Credibility of à Mystery but to its very Truth à pious will both can and is bound to move the understanding to passe as it were above that Credibility and to believe the Infallible truth of the Revelation which revealed truth by help of other Principles mentioned in the foregoing Chapter advances Faith to infallible certainty and therefore farr transcends that intellectual light rising from the Motives and also goes beyond the plainest signification of words Christ ever spake because Faith as Faith ultimately relies not upon the bare signification of words or on the exteriour sight of Miracles but upon the real Truth of Gods Revelation pointed at by words and works though by such outward Signs not eviâ—vidently proved true And thus you se first what the obscurity of Faith implies or wherein it consist's It consist's in this that through Obedience to God's Command we raise our selves above the force of all Motives inducing to Faith and firmly believe upon anothers Authority I mean God's Divine Testimony that to be infallibly true though we neither se the Testimony nor the thing attested evidently true You se 2. That our Dr ' s long Tattle of Faith transcending the Motives of Credibility serves only to amuse an unwary Reader or rather to tell the learned that he shamefully mistakes and handles one difficulty in place of another for according to his promise he should either have proved that Faith it self or the Church is fallible but all this while he run's astray and never meddles with that main Question contenting himself to impugn and most weakly à School opinion only 13 And here by the way I cannot but wonder at our Dr ' s simplicity who cites Doctour Holden saying That no assent of Divine Faith can have any greater true and rational certainty then the assent of the Medium hath by which the obiect of Faith is applyed to the understanding First What if Dr Holden differ from others in explicating the certainty of Faith doth he therefore hold it fallible or only morally certain This followes not 2. Dr Still should here have told us what is meant by those words The assent of the medium by which c For if the Catholick Doctour teach that the Medium now spoken of is the Divine Revelation applyed by Motives Metaphysically certain he may well assert that Faith as true and rational mark the words can have no greater certainty then that medium known by natural discourse gives yet this hinders not that higher certainty grounded on the Revealers Authority believed and upon God's command as is already explained 14 Dr Still from his P. 376 to P. 400. besides endless Tautologies all tending to shew Faith unreasonable for want of Motives already answered and much ill language not worth answering gives me little to reflect on Yet his 383 P. must not passe wholly unexamined where got into à Dungeon he cryes out against the obscure tendency of Faith upon its own obiect though he knowes or should know that old Maxim Fides est credere quod non vides The truth is grounded vpon our Saviours words to S. Thomas Blessed are those who believe and have not seen It s grounded on S. Peters words 2. Epist 1. 19. A light shining in à dark place upon S. Austin's Doctrin Epist 85. Faith hath its eyes wherewith after some manner quodammodo All Authors ascribe an obscure tendency to Faith it may se that to be true which yet it sees not and the Authority of many other Fathers Therefore S. Thomas rightly conclud's 2. 2. q. 5. a. 2. corp That the Intellectual power assents to à matter believed not because it see 's it either in it selfe or by any resolution made into the first Principles Seen but because it is convinced by the Divine Authority to assent to things Quae non videt which it see 's not Hence also Catholick Divines inferr that the very act of Faith purely considered as Faith see 's not by any evidence the Truth of what we believe otherwise to se evidently and to believe would be the same thing contrary to Christ words which annex happines to believing without seeing or clear evidence had of that obiect yet in darkness never to be perfectly dispelled untill we se God in the next life 15 But saith Dr Still The great things we believe are received upon the Authority of the Revealer yet so that we assert we have as great evidence that these things were revealed by God as the matter is capable of Here is no man knowes what hudled up in this dark expression As the matter is capable of Let us therefore proceed plainly You Sr believe the Mysterious Trinity because as you think God reveal's it in Scripture Have you by your act of Faith for here we speak not of the previous rational Evidence of Credibility Evidence that such à Revelation which was and is yet God's free act and might not have been doth now really exist Have you evidence of the true Sence
these as inducements lead to it but upon God's speaking by the Church as is now declared 5 Having thus cleared the first act of Faith from all danger of à Circle because it ultimately rest's upon God's speaking by the Church made by it self immediatly credible without recourse to Scripture yet not known to be Divine or God's infallible word I add moreover N 9. If we speak of another distinct consequent and more explicit act of Faith whereby we believe the Churches Infallibility evidenced null and forceless when this Oracle declares the Scriptures true Sence which proves her Infallible there is no difficulty at all because this interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon Scripture and the Churches Infallible exposition together for thus ioyntly taken they ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles as if we first believed the Scriptures sence independently of the Churches interpretation and then again believed the Churches exposition to be infallible because the sence of Scripture known without any dependance on Church Authority saith She is Infallible Our good Dr set's down these words more at large and desires the Reader to try his faculty upon them what tolerable sence he can make of them I answer more learned faculties in Speculative matters then the Doctor 's is have made sence of them and that 's enough to ward off his weak blow of contempt Now I am to discover his fallacious and more then simple way of Arguing against me 6 The whole difficulty is brought at last to the true decision of this Question Whether one Infallible Oracle while it explicates the darker Sence of another The difficulty concerning à vicious Circle proposed likewise Infallble cannot be believed for it self without à vicious Circle One or two Instances will clear my meaning The Prophet Ioel. 2. 28. long before S. Peter lived Prophesyed of the effusion of God's divine Spirit upon all flesh which words dark in themselves that great Apostle Acts. 2. 16. interpret's as spoken of the pouring out of Gods Spirit upon the Apostles in the feast of Pentecost This is that saith S. Peter which was said or foretold by the Prophet Ioel. Observe well S. Peter was proved an Infallible Oracle before he interpreted this Passage of an Infallible Prophet so is the Church proved Infallible before She interpret's any words in Scripture S. Peter used or exercised his Power of interpreting infallibly not first proved infallible by his Interpretation but upon other grounds wholly independent of that Sence he gives to the Prophet So is the Church first proved infallible independently of all and every Interpretation She gives of Scripture Finally as that darker Sence of the Prophet made clear by the Apostles Infallible Interpretation indivisibly concurred to the Faith of the Primitive Christians so also the darker Sence of Scripture cleared by the Churches interpretation indivisibly concur's to the Faith of Believers now 7 Ponder well the force of this Instance and you will soon se through the Dr ' s trivial Obiections I say in à word An Instance worth reflection Had S. Peter proved himself in the first place Infallible by the Sence of that Scripture he then interpreted the Circle would have been Manifest because the thing proved which is the infallible explication of Ioel is assumed again or first made use of to prove S. Peter and his explication infallible But when the Apostles Infallibility in every Doctrin of Faith stood firm upon other grounds though he had never written Scripture nor interpreted any Prophet that man must be quicker sighted than Aristotle who find's à Circle in it This is our case as to the Church She is in à general way supposed and proved infallible in every Catholick Doctrin independently of this or that particular taught by her one particular is the true Interpretation of Scripture more rightly called the exercise and use of her infallible Assistance then the proof The use of the Churches power destroies not â—â—er power of it but evinces not herselfe in the first place to be infallible because She interpret's for that is antecedently proved upon other grounds therefore unless the use of Her power wherewith She is indued to interpret infallibly destroy that power it is impossible to catch her in à Circle while she interpret's 8 Thus much premised You shall se the Dr ' s Obiection melt like wax before the fire Iudge Reader saith he P. The Dr's own words 428 whether here be not à plain Circle Because they believe the Church infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith she is so and again they believe this to be the infallible sence of Scripture because the infallible Church saith so Judge Reader say I whether one plain distinction overthrowes not this feeble fallacy and thus it is We first believe the Church infallible because the true Sence of Scripture saith she is infallible I deny it for that first act of Faith is not at all founded on Scripture We believe the Church infallible by à second more distinct and explicit Faith indivisibly fixed on Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together I grant that most willingly Now this second act of Faith must if we make à right Analysis be at last resolved into this other general Truth VVhat ever God speak's by the Church is certain and infallible which general Truth stand's firm without recourse to Scripture at all The reason is Whatever Argument proved the Church God's infallible Oracle in all She taught before Scripture was written proves Her also without depending on Scripture the same Infallible Oracle still 9 The other part following in the Dr ' s discourse is wholly as lame VVe believe again this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so I answer we believe so indeed but by à second more explicit act of Faith which The Dr's absurd fallacy unravelled supposes the Church proved infallible antecedently to her Interpretation where there is no shadow of à Circle for if the Church be owned infallible in every matter of Christian Faith thus much only followes that when She interpret's the same God that once spake obscurely in Scripture declares his meaning more clearly by his own Oracle the Church 10 One example where you shall have the Dr ' s circle as round as à hoop will yet give more light Imagin those words of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. 15. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth to be as Sectaries will have them obscure or not openly significant for the Churches Infallibility Suppose again that S. Paul or any other infallible Apostle had delivered in clearer terms the true Sence of them nay suppose he had told us the true meaning of those words The Pillar and ground of truth is just so as Catholicks now believe Could Mr Dr or any man living have found à vicious Circle here had S. Paul been owned
from the Antecedent of mans being intellectual Should I prove that Consequence upon other grounds either by Authority or manifest experience because we se men freely eschew Evil and embrace Good should I from thence inferr that he is Intellectual the Inference now guarded by other proofs barely subsist's not upon the strength of its Antecedent but is à Verity known aliunde and therefore is rightly called Regressus utilis à rational profitable Regress free from The difference between a Circle and à profitable way of Arguing all vicious Circulation For as Philosophers teach grounding their discourse vpon Aristotle now cited A vicious Circle is à Regress or going back ab eodem ad Idem per eandem viam from the same thing to the same again and by the same way as appeares in the Instance proposed where the Antecedent assuming Intellectual proves Liberty and Liberty not known as I said upon any other proof but by that Medium Intellestual return's again and by the very same way proves Intellectuallity This is to say the Consequence as known by the Antecedent offer 's to prove at once both it self and the Antecedent together Had Dr St well reflected upon what is here noted he might easily have spared his lost labour spent upon à vicious Circle and it is à wonder be wanted reflection because Sextus Empiricus cited by him in the short discourse he has of that he calls à Diallel gives every one light enough to se what the Dr it seems saw not though Sextus be none of the clearest Authors 19 Thus much premised we proceed to the matter now in hand and Assert If any one should in the first place either believe or prove the Sence of Scripture to be true by the Churches Interpretation not otherwise believed Infallible or proved true but barely by her Interpretation and should again goe about to prove her Interpretation true by nothing but her own Interpretation which explains that true Sence the Circle would be manifest because the true Sence of Scripture interpreted by the Church is again assumed An application made to the matter now in hand as the only Medium to prove her Interpretation true which way of Arguing essentially implies à vicious Regress from the very same thing to the same thing again and by the very same way But if I first prove the Churches Infallibility in all She teaches upon other Grounds without any recourse at all either to the words or Sence of Scripture as is shewed above and from thence both prove and believe her Interpretation to be infallibly true that man who holds this way of Arguing Circular knowes no more what à Circle is than Doctor Stillingfleet A little touch upon the Dr ' s weak Obiections will yet give more clarity 20 Is not that à Circle saith he P. 428. when the Argument made use to prove another The Dr's Obiections answered thing by must it self be proved by that very thing which it is made use of to prove Very good Sr these general Terms hurt no body to your Application therefore in the next page The thing to be proved Say you is the Churches Infallibility the Argument to prove it by is the Infallible Sence of Scripture Answ I flatly deny the first proof of the Churches Infallibility to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture for the first Argument is taken from that general Truth whereby She is owned and proved God's Infallible Oracle in every thing She teaches concerning Faith and this independently of Scripture Here I say more It is impossible to prove her first Infallible by the Sence she gives of Scripture because that Sence is not known before She interpret's and no body goes about to prove any thing by meer insignificant Characters without their Sence Can the Dr who hold's the Church Fallible and must if he ever evince that prove it by Scripture probably take his Proof from Scripture not senced It is plain Dotage to do so He goes on But if the Infallible Sence of Scripture can be proved by nothing but by thē Churches infallible Interpretation then it is plain that is assumed as an Argument to prove Infallibility by which cannot be otherwise known than by this Infallibility What To argue from Scripture not Senced is Non-sense Infallibility doth the Dr speak of in these last ambiguous words If he say we prove the Infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches infallible Interpretation I grant it Jf contrarywise he thinks we prove in the first place the Churches Infallibility by her own infallible Interpretation of Scripture he err's grosly as is already made manifest and therefore proves nothing 21 In à word either the Sence of Scripture is known by the Churches Interpretation or is clear by it self If known upon the Churches Interpretation the Sence is one and the same with that of the Scripture for these two Oracles can never clash or differ If known by it selfe as it is in many Passages relating to manners no more is required but that the Church ascertain us of the Scriptures Divine Inspiration So that still we depend upon the Church alwaies for the assurance of Scripture being Divine or from God and in the greatest Mysteries of Faith we rely on it also for the true Sence 22 A second obiection It is à little strange that there should be no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose Sence could not infallibly be known without the Supposal of that Infallibility which is proved by them Answ It s more than à little strange that the Dr cannot distinguish between the first general act of Faith whereby the Church is believed Infallible without depending on Scripture and à second more explicit and Consequent act which wholly relies upon Her interpretation and Scripture together It is also strange if God pleases to speak obscurely as he certainly doth in many Passages of Holy Writ that another Infallible Oracle cannot tell us with he mean's without Two Strange Mistakes in the Dr. à vicious Circle The Substance of all he obiects here only amount's to thus much We prove or believe the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose sence cannot be infallibly known without the supposal of that Infallibility If he mean's as he must by supposal and that Infallibility the Churches Infallibility I have answered the Church is not only supposed but proved also infallible before Scripture was written and before She ever went about to interpret that Divine Book 23 A third Obiection is the like Tautologie over again and therefore requires no other but the same Solution If saith he the Infallible sence of Scripture be resolved into and believed upon the same infallible Authority of the Church then I still enquire how this infallible Authority of the Church comes to be proved by this exposition of Scripture the Infallibility of which doth suppose the thing to be proved Viz. the Churches
Infallibility To what purpose Should we lose time Have not I answered that the Churches Infallibility stand's firm upon other grounds before Scripture be either owned Divine or the Sence of its difficult passages can be known Have not I moreover said that that general Truth of the Churches Infallibility must necessarily be proved and supposed antecedently to the belief of this or that particular Interpretation For who can fix his Faith upon the exposition of any Divine Oracle without being first ascertained it is God that speak's by it The Instances given above most clearly evince what is here asserted Please to make use either of our Saviours interpreting his own Parable Luke 8. concerning the Sower and seed or of S. Peters exposition given to the Prophet Joel They are one and the same in order to my present Intent We prove or believe that to be the true Sence of our Saviours Parable because eternal Truth interpreted it so but do we again first prove or believe him to be eternal Truth because he then delivered the true Sence of that Parable to his Disciples No. For by this lame way of arguing we should prove the Sence of the Parable to be true upon our Saviour Interpretation and again prove him à true Interpreter because he interpreted Mark well the Dr's confusion We Catholicks saith he believe the Church to be infallible because the true The Dr's Confused Doctrin Clearly driven back vpon himselfe Sence of Scripture saith she is so And you Sr believe our Saviours Interpretation upon that Parable to be true that Parable is now Scripture because our Saviour interpreted it so Again we believe this to be the Infallible sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so And you Mr Dr believe this to be the Infallible Sence of that Parable because Christ said so Here Sr you have your own Circle in express Terms Judge whether it stand's not something awry What must be done then to get out of this Confusion All must answer Though we believe our Saviours Interpretation by an Infallible act of Faith yet we first prove him not infallible because he interprets but suppose his Infallibility made out and proved upon other grounds independently of his explication And this is our Answer also as to the Church whereof enough is said already and more than ever the Dr will or can Answer 24 P. 430. the Doctor once more run's on with the same Tautologie and because I said the Scripture and Churches interpretation indivisibly Concur to that latter act of Faith whereby we believe the Sence of Scripture explained by the Church he tells me This indivisible concurrence Seem's to him an odd piece of Mystical Divinity I Answer no great matter for that as odd as it is he must own it if he believes S. Peters infallible Interpretation upon the Prophet or the exposition given to the Royal Prophets Testimony Psal 131. 11. Foreseing saith the Apostle His Tautologies and ill words he spake of Christs Resurrection Acts. 2. 31. Se more of this indivisible concurrence Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 11. n. 10. The rest our Dr hath to his page 433. is either the like Tautologie VVe prove the Churches Infallibility by the Infallible Sence of Scripture and the infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches Infallibility Or most uncivil language or finally a foul ending with à gross mistake for he thinks our Faith rest's upon no Infallible Authority because we have none to rely on but Motives Confessedly fallible It is à perverse errour already refuted 25 To end this Controversy about à vicious Circle wherein the Dr. P. 431. account's me à Conjurer and one that speak's things which neither he nor any one els can understand I have right me thinks to enquire by what means or upon what grounded Motive can the Dr come to à certainty of the Scriptures true Sence In proposing this Question I might easily retaliate and tell him Though he Conjure cheat and shuffle his whole life long he shall never yet clear this one difficulty without recourse to an Infallible Church The proof of my Assertion stand's sure upon this most undoubted principle The true Sence of A difficulty proposed and the Dr is desired to Answer Scripture in many passages relating to Necessaries for Salvation is no Selfe-evidence nor can it be certainly known by that endless Search or mispent industry of private men as appear's by those many most opposit and plain contradictory Interpretations which the learned of different Religions give to these and the like Expressions in God's word I and my Father are one The word is made flesh There are three that give Testimony in Heaven c. Not one of these Passages though pondered and compared with other Texts in Holy Writ doth Evidence its own true Sence Therefore the means whereby it is discovered or the Oracle which infallibly ascertain's it must necessarily be both distinct from the dark words now cited and also more clear and plainly significant than the yet concealed Sence is we seek for Now further Neither Calvins private Spirit nor the Dr's rational Evidence nor Tradition without nor Grace within as Bishop Lawd speaks in the Dr ' s Account P. 186. n. 15 nor finally any other Medium which is not Scripture can infallibly declare this Sence as is largely proved both in this Treatise and the last Therefore an Infallible Church must either do God and man this good Service and certainly tell us what Scripture Speak's in these Necessaries for Salvation Or the true meaning of God's Word will be just like Some useless airy nicity not worth knowing still matter of debate ever disputable but never known Thus much said in answer to the Dr's Speculative part we passe in the next Discourse to à serious view of his long Drollery and simple exceptions made against the glorious Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church and Shall God willing evince that in this Treatise where he thought to triumph most he is foiled and hath disgraced none but himselfe An end of the first Part. A DISCOVRSE CONCERNING MIRACLES WROUGHT in the Roman CATHOLICK CHVRCH in vindication of their Truth against Doctor Stillingfleets unjust Cavils VVHERE The Miraculous Translation of the Holy House OF LORETO is Asserted and proved an undeniable Verity BY E. W. The second Part. ANTWERP Printed by MICHAEL CNOBBAERT at the Sign of S. Peter in the Year 1674. Dr Stillingfleet in his second Discourse Chap. 3. P. 434 makes an Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church I follow him as he goes along and lay open the ill Success our Inquifitive man hath had in his Search which will I hope appear to every one after à full view taken of what is proposed in the ensuing Treatise Peruse and judge Courteous Reader CHAP. I. How I formerly argued in behalfe of our Churches Miracles The Dr in his Enquiry waves my Arguments Of the difference between Christ's Miracles and those wrought by