made flesh This is my body c. But how is any man wiser for that How is our knowledge or faith improved by such à maimed or half perfect Tradition While no man can certainly tell us what the true meaning of those sacred words is No man can determine the debates which arise among Christians the Arians and you that draw plain Contradictions out of these words now cited Such à conveyance or tradition as could end these long strifes would be to your purpose and comfort Mr Dr but you have none of it because you slight the Tradition and Authority of an Infallible Church Though therefore you tell us twenty times over you believe all truths expressed in Scripture yet while you cannot assure us upon tradition or any other sound Principle what those necessary truths are which Faith in necessaries is determinately to pitch upon you only trifle away your time and cheat your Reader in seeming to discover great How the Dr Cheat's his Reader matters whereas in real truth you speak not one word to the purpose If to solve the difficulty here briefly touched you run up to your own discerning faculty permit the Arian to keep you company and blame him not if he trust to his discerning faculty quite contrary to yours Se more hereof above Chap. 4. n. 10. Thus much premised 27 To answer the Dr I say first Fallible Tradition which may be false Our Answer to the Dr. the Dr own 's none Infallible gives not so great certainty of Miracles Supposed true in Scripture as Eye-sight did to those who beheld them The reason is Fallible Tradition in the Dr ' s Principles easily alters in time and may tell one Story for another whereof more presently If therefore that Tradition conveyed by hearing altered as I shall shew most shamefully and if fallible no wonder at the change what certainty have Fallible tradition worth little in Divine matters we now in this present Age either of the Miracles or of the Doctrin recorded in Scripture by virtue of it Or how can the Dr parallel the certainty of à Miracle conveyed down by fallible Tradition with the sight of it This must needs be à lame Parallel For when I se à Miracle I need not to prove the outward appearance of it evidently seen but when that appearance passes down Age after Age upon Hearsay or à faultering Tradition which may change the Story from what it once was I must either prove that Tradition true or cannot prudently rely on it chiefly in this present case while we dispute against Iewes and Gentils who utterly deny those Miracles to have ever been truly wrought by Christ The ancient Jewes all know said Christ cast out Divels by the help of Beelzebub and these modern men of the Synagogue calumniate as boldly to this day 28 I say 2. Those ancient Miracles if saith à Jew ever any such were together with the Doctrin which is thought to be proved either true or evidently credible by such wonders can be no more certain now than the fallible Tradition is which conveighs them to us But this Tradition gives no man so much as moral certainty either of the Miracles or Doctrin I prove the Minor That The reason why worthless in the Dr's Principles ancient Tradition say Sectaries notoriously changed not long after the Apostles dayes when à universal deluge of errours spread it selfe the whole Christian world over and the efficacy of Christs true Doctrin together with its old Tradition was blotted out of mens memory when the Roman Catholick The Dr charges this Idolatry upon the Roman Church Church once confessedly Orthodox unluckily began Her universal Apostacy and professed open Idolatry when the Arians denyed the Mystery of the Incarnation and Trinity Others the two VVills in Christ others his Sacred Humanity others the Resurrection of the dead others the necessity of Divine Grace and others finally professed yet more horrid Doctrins In so much that the whole Christian word part of it one way part another erred most grosly in the very fundamentals of Faith In those dismal dayes say I when all Christian Societies nameable and the Roman Church with them became so infatuated as to change the first received truths taught by Christ and his Apostles the ancient true Tradition could not but change and faile also therefore at this day Tradition is worthless and unualvable because no man can know upon any sure Principle what it anciently was 29 The Dr may reply All called Christians own the Bible and the Miracles there related of Christ and his Apostles which are sufficient to prove Christs Doctrin true so far at least Tradition never failed Small Comfort God knowes to have Tradition of the Scriptures bare letter which yet is not had in our Sectaries Principles Se Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 6. n. 2. If the Christian world long since cheated out of their ancient Faith bequeathed to posterity à false Doctrin in Lieu of that which The Arians and all hereticks lay as great claime to Christs Miracles as the Dr or any other doth Christ and his Apostles taught and with that à false Tradition also Moreover were those Miracles with their Tradition proved most true the Arians will as well lay claim to them for à proof their Doctrin as the Dr can do for that Religion he professes and the like may all others pretend if called Christians though of à quite different belief in the very Essentials of Faith unless this consequence utterly false be good Christ our Lord wrought such and such Miracles Ergo Protestancy is à better Religion then Arianism Pelagianism is better then Nestorianism and so of the rest The Dr therefore must either make this out that Christ and his Apostles wrought their Miracles to confirm all the erroneous Sects in the world or he speaks nothing to the purpose when he tells us in his Account What the Dr is obliged to clear P. 205. That the Motives of Faith both to them the ancient Christians and to us are the same only the manner of conveyance is different those Primitive Believers Saw them we hear of them by Tradition In saying this he either thinks that such Motives prove the truth of all Religions called Christian which is horridly false or only prove the true Christian Religion among so many dissenting Sects Grant this and we are in as much darkness after the supposed Truth of these Miracles and the Dr ' s long discourse as we were before and can never know by his Motives only which is the true Religion I earnestly desire the Dr would please to solve this one difficulty which I judge cannot be Solved 30 By all hitherto clearly laid down we se 1. The Dr ' s rational Evidence so much talked of brought to nothing but empty words for his whole proofs are meer unproved Suppositions He endeavours to evince by Miracles internal to Scripture the Divinity of the book which
to remain to the worlds end the Prophets ceased to prophesy of His appearing in flesh and had no longer that Infallible gift Answearable hereunto one might assert were it needful that the High Priests infallible power in judging fail'd also at that time though the Dr will have à heard task to prove that Caiphas's Judgement was erroneous in case he ponder well S. Iohns words c. 11. 50. You know nothing neither do you what he repeat's to little purpose hath been Solved consider that it is expedient for us that one man dy for the people and that the whole nation perish not And this he said not of himself but being the High Priest of that year he Prophecyed That Iesus should dy for the Nation and not only for the Nation c. Observe well It was expedient that Christ should dy and though à wicked man spake the words yet the Spirit of truth which guided his tongue for he spake not of himself erred not And this proves that God often preserves truth as well by an unworthy Prelate as by one really worthy where Order and Office is to be regarded and not the dignity or Indignity of the person Now whether all the subordinate Judges of the Sanhedrin were infallible is à new question not pertinent to the matter in hand It is more satisfaction then I owe the Dr to shew that the Supream Judge of the Sanhedrin who ever presided over the rest much less the whole Church of the Iewes erred not Witness S. Joseph of Arimathaea Nicodemus and innumerable others dispersed all Jury over who all were faithful and free from errour 10 Concerning the other Question hinted at None I think can doubt but that the High Priests in all grand Judicatures were infallible which Priviledge Moses certainly enjoyed and Amarias also 2. Paralip 19. 11. Moses induced by Iethro his Counsel Exod. 18. 13 made Choice of some others to Judge in causes of lesser importance reserving greater matters to himself Num. 11. 16. God commanded Moses to call together seventy of the Elders in Israel for his assistance appointed to bear the burthen with him and at their election had the Spirit of Prophesy After Moses death the Prophets Iosue Samuel David Elias Eliseus c succeeded and these certainly were Infallible But there is no need of staying longer upon this point being as I said not pertinent to our present Enquiry relating to the Infallibility of our Christian Church 11 The Dr P. 408. err's not à little while he supposes the Infallibility of the Roman Church to be lodged in the Supream Ecclesiastical Iudges and no where els To this I answered directly Reas. and Relig Disc 3. C. 12. n. 14. much wonder it is the Dr ' s eyes saw it not and said when we resolve Faith into the Churches Infallible Authority we understand by the Church the whole diffused body of Orthodox Christians made manifest by Supernatural Motives and not in the first place the Representative in General Councils For that more explicite Beliefe had of General Councils connaturally presupposes when à right Analysis is made the other general Truth assented to Viz. This manifested Society of Christians is God's own Church and the only way to Salvation Hence all Catholicks avouch that the whole Catholick Body consisting of Pastors to teach and Hearers to learn cannot totally err or swerve from truth whereunto properly belong those promises of the Gospel Hell gates shall not prevail against the Church The spirit of truth abides with Her for ever She is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. 12 The Dr err's again in his next An other Errour of the Dr. page where he demand's why the concurrent Testimony of all Christians may not afford as sufficient à ground to believe the books of the new Testament without an Ecclesiastical Senate as those Jewes who no more believed Christ Infallible than the Sanhedrin did might have à sufficient ground to believe that the Prophesies came not in old time by the will of God This I take to be the sence of the Dr ' s Querie which after his manner he spin's out to à tedious length I answer though the Jewes had sufficient ground to believe that those ancient Prophesies were not from man but God yet the concurrent Testimony of Christians in the Dr's Principles is no certain ground to believe the Authority of the books of the new Testament First because all that Testimony with him is fallible and may be false and if the Jewes The Churches Tradition is infallible had no surer Ground to believe the old Prophesies they could not assent to them by Divine Faith In our Catholick Principles there is no difficulty at all because we hold the Tradition of the Church infallible Yet as I noted in the last Treatise the first consent of Christians owning these books Divine presupposed them taken as Divine upon the Authority of an Infallible Oracle and first made them not accepted as Divine for no man will say Scripture is first owned as à book Divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost because Christians Say so but contrary wise therefore they say so and agree in that truth because God antecedently to the universal consent assured all by an Infallible Oracle that they were of Divine Inspiration 13 P. 410. we have fearful Doings about à man of clouts where the Dr sadly complain's that I fall unmercifully to work with this man of Clouts He means himself that I throw him first down and trample upon him then I set him up again to make him capable of more valour being shown upon him then I kick him afresh and beat him of on side then on the other and so terribly triumph over him that the poor man of Clouts blesseth himself that he is not made of flesh and bones for if he had it might have The Dr's more than rediculous Complaints cost him some aches and wounds What in the name of God put the Dr into this strange trembling fit Wil not every one that read's these Threnes judge that I have dealt most rudely with à Doctor and deem my crime horrid one surely of the first magnitude to be wash't away with teares and sorrow Please to hear it Marry I said Disc 2. c. 3. n. 9 and the Dr cites my words That I verily thought Mr Still mistook one obiection for an other And is this all Not one syllable more I assure you that can give offence unless he be angry with me for not calling him Doctor when I knew nothing of his Doctorship 14 P. 411. He ask's how those believed Infallibly who only heard of Christs Miracles but saw them not I answered n. 15. Every immediate Conveyer or Propounder of Christ's Doctrin needs not to be Infallible though before those Hearers whether Barbartans or others believe Every one that proposes faith need 's not to be infallible an Infallible Oracle must be known and relyed on Se more hereof n. 16.
Fathers cited in that Chapter yeilded up their reason notwithstanding that strong insinuation of sense to the Contrary And must not the Dr do so also had he either seen our Lord Iesus à little Infant in Bethlem or those Angels that appeared to Lot Genesis 19 He would certainly have judged upon the suggestion of what he saw that Christ our Lord was only man and not God and that those Angels were mortal men and not Angels yet had he then known by Divine Revelation that Christ was truly God and that those Angels were only men in appearance as the Eucharist is seemingly bread would he not think ye forthwith have rejected that fallacious suggestion of his sight and firmly assented to the Divine Revelation Nay more doth not the Dr tell us in his Account P. 574. that we are not to look on bread and wine as naked Signs but as Signa efficacia and that there is à real Presence of Christ in and with those signs to the Souls of the Believers This unexplicated Presence of Christ in and with bread be it what you will is as much contrary to Sence as Christs real Presence is under the accidents of bread I prove my assertion These outward Accidents of bread either essentially exclude the presence of all other things from being there or permit that God may by his omnipotent power put unde◠them annother Substance In case they be essentially incompatible with any other Substance but bread how dare D◠Still tell us so asseverantly that there is in and with bread to the souls of Believers à real presence of Christ such Souls I suppose believe not meer phansies Now if the Accidents essentially exclude not another substance I hope Christ's sacred body may be as well present with them as that real presence is which the Dr assert's O! but we Catholicks destroy the substance of bread That is not at all pertinent to Protestants boggle not at the possibility of the change our present purpose neither doth the truth hereof belong to the judgement of sense but only to Gods omnipotent power For here is the only difficulty whether God by his absolute power can conceil the real presence of our Saviours sacred body under the Accidents of bread The Divel more skilful in natural things then the Dr perswaded himself Matt 4. that our Saviour could turn stones into bread Why therefore may not we believe upon the greatest Authority I mean God's own express word that he changed bread into flesh The learnedest Protestants that ever writ boggle not at the possibility of this change but only Question the matter of fact whether God has done as we believe Wherein most certainly we have the upper hand if plain Scripture the general consent of Fathers and the Authority of all Orthodox Churches cited in the last Treatise may plead our cause and be admitted as sound Principles against the errour of à few Sectaries Thus much premised we goe on and will examin more of the Dr's strange Discourse laid forth in his Account Part. 1. c. 5. P. 118. It is worth some reflection though I think never Dr rambled on like him 3 The whole substance comes to this Sense is sometimes deceived or to speak properly reason upon the suggestion of sense err's Ergo it may alwaies err and be deceived in its proper obiect Or thus Those of Sodom judged Angels appearing like men to be really men and not Angels Ergo they might rationally think that all they met with in the Streets were Angels concealed under the outward shape of men Why so Because forsooth after that one Illusion they were in reason never to make use of their senses afterward upon any other obiect for fear of the like deceipt Herein lies the whole strength of the Dr's weak talk If saith he what I se and all others se to be bread be not really bread by The whole Strength of the Dr's weak discourse what means can our faculties difference truth from falshood I answer most easily For although it be à truth that that which appear's bread in the Holy Eucharist be not really bread yet it is à meer dream to inferr from thence that every mountain I cast my eyes upon is not really à Mountain but in appearance only and consequently in the Dr ' s judgement à falshood for what Consequence is this God wrought à Miraculous change upon bread therefore He doth the like all the world over and perhaps changes whole Castles whole Towns yea the whole Ocean into other substances at least there is no security to the contrary and therefore we may all justly question whether we inhabit real Houses and doubt whether the fair City of London be raised to the great splendour it hath upon real Materials as wood and stones but rather upon such Materials in appearance A mad discourse if ever any was which more ruin's all the Cities in the world then the last dismal fire destroyed noble London 4 Mark well Courteous Reader the force of my Argument I do not by What is to be noted in my Argument what is hitherto said goe about to prove the Conversion of bread into Christ's sacred body that is cleared upon other grounds but only proceed upon à Supposition and assert if our Saviour wrought that Conversion and changed bread into his body The Dr ' s Discourse is worse then Nonsence who out of one Miraculous change where he thinks our senses are beguiled will force upon us an illusion so universal that no man hereafter ought to trust his eyes and tast when he eates his Diner Herein lies his gross mistake which yet to his no little disgrace he run's on with in the following Instances 5 Tell me saith he what assurance could The Dr's Instances the Apostles have of the Resurrection of Christ's individual body from the grave but the judgement of Sense Or had S. Thomas believed Transubstantiation might he not have thought our Saviour some invisible Spirit hid under those external accidents of his body because Hoc est corpus meum had told him and the other Disciples that the external accidents might remain where the substance is changed I passe by his Catacresis judgement of sense for sense makes no Judgement and say had the Disciples been so childish as to have argued like the Dr our wise Saviour would have soon vanquished that senceless plea and told them My good Disciples I assured you at my last supper that the bread I took into my hands I changed into my body this must be supposed or Dr Still Argument becomes forceles but did I ever yet tell you that the body you now behold with your Eyes is only à Spectre or an apparition of my body No upon what ground then or by what Authority can you rationally infer out of my working one miracle upon bread that How Christ might have rebuked his Disciples had they pleaded like the Dr. I must do the like now upon
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
and proved an Infallible Teacher independently of his clearer interpretation It is impossible while we believe S. Paul speaking obscurely for S. Paul delivering the Sence of his own words more clearly 11 Now Sr look upon your own pretty Circle VVe believe say you the The D's Circle retorted upon himselfe Church to be infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith so And you believe the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth because the true sence of S. Paul's words explicated by Apostolical Authority saith so Moreover Say you VVe believe this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so and could not you Sr have believed such à Sence of the words now cited had S. Paul delivered it because either he or some other infallible Apostle said so This is only to assert in plainer Terms that the darker sence written in Scripture by one Infallible Oracle can be cleared by the Interpretation of the very same or any other Infallible Oracle which lead's no man into the least danger of à vicious Circle 12 Pray tell me Mr Dr when you in your Account interpret our Saviours words This is my body according to the Sence you judge true do you intangle your Reader in à vicious Circle By your new way of Arguing it's plain you do For those who read or hear your interpretation assent to it as true because the true Sence of Scripture saith so And again they believe this to be the true Sence of Scripture because you say so Your Interpretation has some influence upon the assent of those that believe it be it Condition Cause or what you will otherwise it signifies nothing but And yet made more Clear stand's like an useless cypher in your book This granted your Circle is manifestly vieious for you run in à round from your supposed true interpretation of Scripture to the true Sence of Scripture and back again from the true Sence of Scripture to your supposed true Interpretation Mark well Your Interpretation is proved or believed true by the true sence of Scripture here is your only ground and the true Sence of Scripture is again proved or believed true by your supposed true explication Hence it followes that either your interpretation is not according to the true Sence of Scripture God forbid say you or that the true Sence of Scripture correspond's not to your supposed true explication or finally this must be granted that you run round in à Circle and prove the one by the other 13 Perhaps to avoid à Circle it will be said you prove not your Interpretation true by the true sence of Scripture but evince that upon other grounds distinct from Scripture Viz. by the Authority of Fathers your often alleged sence and reason and God knowes what Is it so indeed Dare you Sr most shamefully quit the only main prop you rely on which is Scripture when you stand most in need of it whereof more presently and yet charge on me à vicious Circle while I believe the true Sence of Scripture because an infallible Church declares that Sence Cannot I more rationally would I seek Subterfugies evince the Infallibility of the Church by other proofs drawn from Fathers Church authority and reason and plead as you do to avoid à Circle were it necessary But I like no such Shuffling I positively assert the Sence of Scripture is therefore proved and believed true because the Infallible Church saith so though if questioned further I must bring in my reason why I believe this Oracle Infallible yet the immediate ground of my beliefe is the Churches Interpretation given upon Christs words now cited and I rest upon her Authority by Faith though this Interpretation be not the first ground why I believe her Infallible but that other more general received Truth that proves Her Gods own Oracle in all she delivers as matter of Faith which general Truth observe it well is most rationally evinced without any recourse to or dependance on Scripture And this is only to say that à Divine Oracle first proved Infallible can interpret Scripture without danger of à vicious Circle 14 What I here assert is undeniable for had any Apostle explained those words in the Gospel I and my Father are one answerable to the Sence now believed in the Church Viz. That Christ our Lord is the eternal Son of God consubstantial with his Father could not the primitive Christians have as firmly fixed their beliefe upon those words Infallibly interpreted as the Disciples fixed their Beliefe upon our Saviours Interpretation when Luke 8. 9. he fully explained the Sence of that Parable concerning the Sower and Seed These and the like Interpretations are believeable matters of Faith upon this Principle that every Interpreter whether Christ or Apostle was supposed and proved Infallible independently of that Sence they gave to God's sacred words and so is the Church as is already declared 15 The Dr ' s Confusion and whole mistake lies here that he has not yet got perfectly into his head the right notion of à vicious Circle and therefore P. 428. wishes I had told him the Secret I will do it briefly and then make his errour more known 16 A vicious Circle Mr Dr ever implies two Propositions or in à Circular What à Vicious Circle implies discourse two Syllogisms Here we will insist upon Propositions being more plain and easy then to proceed by long Syllogisms Know therefore when any first Proposition is assumed to prove the second and this second is made use of without further light to prove the first again or that very thing which is asserted by the first the Circle is notoriously vicious For example One endeavours to prove man to have Free-will because he is indowed with an intellectual Faculty then return's again and proves him intellectual because he hath Free-will the second Proposition implies à Circle because the thing proved which is Liberty or Free will not otherwise evinced but by mans being intellectual is made use of to prove that Power and so in effect Liberty or Free-will becomes à Medium to prove it self by 17 Observe well This vicious consequence whereby man seem's evinced à free Agent or indowed with liberty takes all the force it hath from the Antecedent of his being intellectual and wholly relies on that Medium If therefore as it here fall's out that Consequence whereby Liberty is asserted without any more light or further proof be again assumed as the only Medium to prove man intellectual Liberty or Free-will by its proving man intellectual proves it self and thus hic nune is both Antecedent and Consequent Antecedent as it is the Medium to prove man Intellectual and Consequent as it is the thing proved by Intellectuality which flaw is ever manifest in all vicious Circles as Aristotle notes well Lib. 1. Post cap. 3. 18 Now on the other side should I take this Consequence concerning Liberty which is deduced
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
without all hope of bettering it The Assertion stand's firm upon this ground No man can rationally charge errour upon à whole Church never censured by any in former Ages but known and condemned Hereticks without Principles more convincing vveighty and ponderous than the Churches Sole Authority is But there are no Principles in Being powerful enough to uphold any such discourse and not to make long vvork about à manifest Truth pray tell me vvhither can the Dr goe for Principles vvhereby the Church is proved so much as liable to errour Will he take recourse to the unanimous consent of Fathers The attempt is desperate while they generally teach quite contrary Doctrin as is amply proved in my two last Treatises Nay more can the Dr produce Se Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 14. n. 10. â—1 one ancient Father who saies plainly the Roman Catholick Church can err I will return him hearty thanks if he point out one but suppose which is false one or two glance at any such thing have their doubtful words thinke ye force enough to Counterpoise the Authority of So renowned an Oracle as this Church is Say I beseech you what if one or two English Dr's should boldly tell us that the nine and thirty Articles are matters of Divine Faith and that all vvho teach the Doctrin are by Divine Assistance made Infallible Oracles is this sufficient to overthrow the Sentiment of the vvhole English Church vvhich hold's Herselfe fallible in delivering the Doctrin She maintains No certainly Much less say I can the Authority of one or two Fathers only supposed not proved of à different opinion in judging the Roman Catholick Church errable availe one whit to make it probable that She is guilty of errour or liable to it when contrary to Protestants both She and all the learned Dr's of one Faith with her boldly assert She cannot erre Hence I infer that no Authority taken from this or that ancient Father much less from this or that private man can rationally oppose the Church in her just claim to Infallibility The next Principle the Dr and others use to rely on is taken from General Councils approved by the Church How I beseech you or in what manner Did any Council ever yet expressly define that the Church can err You will say no but these Councils contradict one another and no infallible Oracle doth so The weakest Pretence and least worth of any For doth not Holy Scripture also seemingly speak contradictions in many Passages You will say though they appear like Contradictions yet learned men have already cleared such Antilogies Besides Scripture is God's word and all know that God cannot contradict himselfe Very right this is my Answer also The learned of our Church have over and over cleared all such passages in Councils as appear to some short sighted eyes contradictions from all opposition and we more assuredly know that the Roman Catholick Church is God's own infallible Oracle than any Sectary can shew by reason that Scripture is the word of God or written by Divine Inspiration Please now to compare Principles together The Dr impeaches this Church of errour and takes his proofs from the seeming Contradictions of Councils A Catholick Adversary no less learned than he solves all the Dr Obiects The Church while these two Combatants are hot at vvork stand's by and positively declares She never delivered contrary Doctrin in any of her Councils Here is the Clear Catholick Principle Against this Principle the Dr makes his exceptions which thousands and thousands as learned as he judge to be feeble forceless and long since ruined Fallacies The Question is now and t is worth the while to drive it on further because it is most useful in all debates with Sectaries The Question I say is vvho shall judge in this Contest between the Church and this Dr vvith all his exceptions Have vve means to know vvho speaks truth in so vveighty à matter and upon vvhom the errour lies To clear this you shall se how indifferently I proceed I will as yet neither suppose the Church nor the Dr blamable but leave this to the just trial of some Iudge let that Iudge be named and much is done The Church never censured by any Orthodox Christian and defended by the most learned in the world think 's her own Authority worth something and powerful enough to bear up her cause against à single Dr with all his crew of Sectaries but let that be yet disputable whither will the Dr lead us for à final Sentence in this yet debatable case Has he any ancient Church any consent of Fathers any one word of Scripture any received Tradition whereby he evinces the Church errable in her Councils These are excellent Principles but I absolutely assert he has none of them not one vvas ever yet produced by him nor shall hereafter be brought to light while the world stands as is clearly made out both in this and my former Treatises Contrarywise it is certain that the Church and all her learned Doctors plead strongly by every one of these Principles therefore She stand's upon surer grounds than the Dr vvho as I now said has none of them The Dr may reply These very Scriptures and Fathers the Church plead's by for her not erring are only doubtful proofs and therefore convince nothing I answer if these be doubtful the Dr's Assertion vvhile he saith They are doubtful is I am sure no selfe-evident Truth but either utterly false or at least fearfully doubtful and therefore must be proved by à stronger Principle than his own proofless vvord Leave us not now Mr Dr in darkness give us I beseech you some light of that Principle or ultimate proof vvhereby it may appear that you speak truth or so much as Sence vvhen you tell us All our proofs alledged in behalfe of the Churches Infallibility are doubtfull and controverted Name the Church the Fathers or Councils Scripture you have none that speak as you do You may introduce Sectaries vvho say so but they come unarmed vvithout Scripture church-Church-authority Fathers or Tradition and to these men of yesterday vve oppose thousands more ancient on our side Thus Mr Dr we proceed in every other particular Controversy and will shew you when you please so non-plus't and soon driven to an end of all discourse for want of Principles that the ultimate proofs of your Assertions whether you defend Protestancy or impugn This great truth I intend to enlarge further upon another Occasion Catholick Religion Shall at last be brought to nothing but to your own bare naked and unproved Assertions themselves which stand tottering unprincipled Now that you may se I speak seriously I challenge you once more to discusse with me this particular Question concerning the Churches Infallibility and if after all you have said or can say I make not vvhat is here asserted manifest I vvill acknowledge my errour before the vvhole vvorld The ground I stand upon is
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
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
of those word's Truths whereof the Dr hath not Evidence whereby you judge the Trinity is revealed Have you evidence of their being words divinely inspired Have you any thing like evidence of the Mystery believed No All the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles wrought cannot make these particular truths to appear evident to any in this State yet Orthodox Christians believe them Infallibly true by Faith and therefore you Sr are as deep in à Dungeon as any you ieer at get out how you can 16 The rest that followes is nothing but an idle sporting with S. Paul's Doctrin Heb. 11. 1. Is it not pretty saith the Dr because Faith is called an Evidence therefore it must be inevident Because it is called an Argument therefore it can use none What stuff is here Who ever said that Faith uses not Arguments Or called it à Conviction but as the Apostle speaks of things not seen Soon after he has à â—ash at me and it reaches S. Austin also I had said no merit or thanks in believing had we evidence of the Mysteries we believe and I speak with S. Austin In Evangel Ioan. Trac 79. This is the praise of Faith if that which is believed be not seen For what great thing is it if that be believed which is seen According to that sentence of our Lord when he rebuked his Disciple saying because thou hast seen me Thomas Thou hast believed Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed CHAP. VIII The Doctor 's Discourse from page 400 to P. 416. Considered and found weightless 1 HEre the Dr would fain rescue another Argument taken out of his Account from the obiections I made against it Reas and Relig Disc 2. C. 2. n. 5. And you may se him hard put to it for The Dr hard put to his Shifts proofs when to shew the Church no way necessary to ground Faith he run's up to the woman of Samaria Iohn 4. to Barbarians and others who all received Divine Revelation and believed without an Infallible Church In plain English he would inferr that the Christian Catholick Church before it was perfectly founded or owned as God's Oracle did not then ground Faith therefore it could never do so after its compleat establishment Is not this an heroical attempt Tell me Mr Dr. what sence have we in this Inference The Samaritan woman believed Christ when the Church was not perfectly in being Therefore S. Austin when it was an absolute built moral Body erred much in saying He would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholick Church moved him to believe it VVhich authority once weakned saith the Saint in the same place contra Epist Fundam I cannot believe the Gospel S. Dyonisius and Damaris Act. 17. who knew nothing of the Churches beginning at Hierusalem on whitsunday hearing S. Paul an Infallible Oracle preach believed Ergo Christians that lived in time of the Nicene Council could not then believe the Church What Logick is this Nay more in the Dr ' s Principles that Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Church stands there to no purpose because forsooth in some extraordinary circumstances and occasions Faith may be had without knowledge of the Church of Scripture and of Christ also For many Divines hold that Barbarians by meer contemplating the visible works in nature may without the teaching of à living Oracle come to the knowledge of one God as à Rewarder and have Faith available to Salvation Now here is the Dr ' s erroneous Principle that which in some circumstances serves to beget Faith may ever serve and in all occasions 2 The unsoundness or rather Nonsence whereof I will demonstrate against Mr Dr. The ancient Christians had true Faith before the Canon of Scripture was extant Now that holy Book being published and received all over our Dr ground 's his Faith upon it only Ancient Christians had true Faith before scripture was written as it s understood by every man's discerning faculty what therefore once was no rule nor ground of Faith because not in being afterward becomes à ground when it is known and published Just thus we discourse of the Church When the woman of Samaria and some Barbarians believed the Church was not founded nor known or owned by all as Gods Oracle but afterward the foundation of it being perfectly laid and Pastors and Doctors appointed by Christ to teach the world it was owned for God's Oracle and then brought with it an obligation upon all to hear and believe it 3 The reason hereof more amply laid forth in my last Treatise is taken from the express constitution of Christ who erected the Church as à most facile clear and living Rule of Faith This great Master assures all that whoever hear's the Church hear's him That Faith comes by hearing and therefore Pastors and Doctors are appointed to teach to the Consummation of Saints unto the work of the Ministery for the edifying of Christ's Mystical body c. Wherefore Baronus in his Apodixis Tract 9. puncto 2. ingenuously professes That the Testimony of the present Church is à condition necessarily required to believe the authority of the Scripture because Faith comes by hearing Hence I argue A law made by Christ is to be observed the ordinary means appointed by the Law-giver Himselfe for the grounding of Faith ought in no case to be neglected But Christ hath obliged all who believe to rely on the Christian Church ever since She was made an Oracle known to the world as is largely proved Reas. and Religion through the whole Second Discourse therefore though by accident or in some very unusual circumstance men have had Faith without any knowledge either of Scripture or Church Yet now after the Churches compleat establishment and Her long continuance to exclude her Authority and believe upon any other ground would be so great folly and rashness that God may justly deny his supernatural Grace to such unadvised Believers who therefore would not have Faith to Salvation 4 Pray you tell me should à Barbarian that never heard of Church or Scripture yet may probably believe in God as à Rewarder of Good by à meer contemplation of the Heavens c. Should I say such an one come to the knowledge of Christ of the Scripture and of the Church gloriously illustrated with all her Motives Can this man think you in these new circumstances of à greater light neglect all and believe that God will reward good upon the old motive to wit the visible beauty or motion of the Heavens No That belief would now be imprudent and upon that account unavailable The Dr's grand Principle proved forceless to Salvation VVhat therefore serves to ground Faith in some circumstances serves not in all We have yet another Instance against the Dr who hold's there is à Thing in being called the Church of England where he preaches and pretend's to settle his Faith upon Scripture only Would he
like it well should some of his Hearers tell him they build not their Faith upon any Doctrin as it is delivered in Scripture or by the Church of England or finally taught by Mr Dr but purely believe upon the Barbartans Motive or as the Samaritan Woman believed upon our Saviours words long since spoken I am the Messias I perswade my self he will not easily approve any such extravagancy Yet he must if he proceed consequently to his indigested Discourse for the Faith of that Samaritan woman and Barbarians also was truly Divine and why may not his People believe as they did independently of all Scripture and the Church of Englands Doctrin as he would now have us to believe independently of the Catholick Churches Testimony For here is his Principle or he speak's Non-sence What was once sufficient to propound or ground Faith may be ever sufficient and in all circumstances 5 One may reply That Samaritan and Barbarians likewise believed upon God's word not then written but spoken which afterward became the Doctrin of Scripture Very right and so say I they believed upon that Doctrin which afterward was is and ever will be taught by the Church but as then there was no written Scripture So there was no Church founded to propose or ground Faith upon And thus the Proponent of Faith may vary though the ultimate Motive or formal obiect of it which is Gods Revelation never changes The variety of an Infallible Oracle varies not the Formal obiect of Faith 6 By what is here noted you se how pitifully the Dr abuses himself and Reader P 4â—7 I had said n. 7. That none can make the Roman Catholick Church in all circumstances the only sure foundation of Faith upon this Principle chiefly that Faith in general requires no more but only to rely on God the first Verity speaking by one or more lawfully sent to teach who prove their Mission and make the Doctrin proposed evidently Credible A fair concession replyes the Dr which plainly destroy's the necessity of the The Dr abuses the Reader and grosly mistakes Churches Infallibility in order to Faith For if no more be necessary in order to Faith but to rely upon God speaking by this or that Oracle how comes the Infallible Testimony of the Church to be in in any Age necessary to Faith A fair Concession on my part Mr Dr but à foul mistake on yours For have not I all along proved though you Answer nothing that the Church is one of the Infallible Oracles whereby God speaks as immediatly and infallibly as ever he spake by Prophet or Apostle And must not you admit two or three Infallible Oracles The Apostles who taught Christianity before the writing of Scripture were Infallible Oracles Scripture it self compleatly finished and set forth say you is another and I hope you will not deny but that S. Iohn the Evangelist who lived à considerable time after the whole Canon was Signed kept still his Apostolical authority and remained Infallible 7 Observe now Gentle Reader Doth the Dr destroy the necessity of the Scriptures An Argument ad hominem infallible Testimony because he own 's the Apostles Oral teaching Infallible No. How then do we destroy the Churches Infallibility in saying that Faith in General only requires to rely upon the first Verity speaking by this or that Oracle For if two or three distinct Oracles subvert not the Dr ' s Faith built upon Scripture how can more Oracles then one overthrow mine built on the Church The Question therefore in this place is not whether the Churches Testimony be Infallible but precisely thus much whether the Dr ' s Inference have any thing like reason in it Viz. Faith relies on God speaking by this or that Oracle Ergo it cannot rely on God speaking by the Church The inference plainly appear's Non-sense unless the Churches Testimony be first proved fallible Now should the whole A modest offer made to the Dr. contest come to the Churches Infallibility after all I have said of it whereunto the Dr never yet replyed word I am most willing and ready to discusse again this particular Controversy with him in à Treatise apart upon all the Principles Christian Religion can afford Scripture Church Fathers and manifest Reason Is not this à fair modest offer 8 What followes in the Dr upon this subiect is more than simple God saith he spake by Christ and his Apostles as Oracles by whom his word is declared to us Therefore nothing can be necessary to Faith but to rely on the first Truth speaking by them Marke here an improbable Supposition made use of for à proof as if forsooth every one by casting an eye upon Scripture after some diligence could exactly declare what Christ and his Apostles taught whereas I have told the Dr over and over and it is the grand Principle The Dr's improbable Supposition refuted I rely on that none can in this present State say absolutely what Doctrin those first great Oracles delivered even in the Fundamentals of Faith none can know the true sence of the words registred in Scripture or assert that they were Divinely inspired without the Infallible Testimony of the Church I say Infallible For if She Teaches so fallibly that her Doctrin may be false much better were it I think that She never speak or define at all Thus you have in brief my Principle further explained in the two last Treatises whereof the Dr has taken no notice hitherto and the reason most certainly is because he knowes not what to answer 9 The very most that goes before or followes in the Dr on this subiect besides much ill language is à meer rehearsal of what his Account contains and as he repeat's his old Obiections so I need to do no more but only to return my Answers given Reas. and Relig cited above beginning from n. 8. and. 9. He demanded in his Account and here has the same VVith what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the old Testament I answered Supposing à total subversion of the Jewish Church not to examin now the difference between the Infallibility of the Synagogue and our Christian Church The Disciples had our Blessed Lord present most able to ascertain them that he came not to cancel any Divine revealed Truth in the old Scripture for that was impossible but to fulfil the ancient Prophesies and to establish à new law of Grace far more perfect than the ceremonial Law had been and that upon his sole Authority the Disciples believed the verities of the old Testament Admit therefore that the high Priests and Elders had all erred in consenting to our Saviours death this only followes as I answered n. 9. that their Priviledge of not erring lasted only to Christ's comming as S. Luke 16. 16. testifies Lex Prophetae usque ad Ioannem which is to say Christs sacred Kingdom being then at hand and
what is supposed True be true it is true and we ought to assent to it Just as if one should say if Peter be à man of his word I may believe evidenced null and forceless him but as that conditional proves not Peter honest no more do these Assertions of the Dr being only conditional prove any thing true without à Minor to this sence But these things are so which Minor is wanting The Dr think 's he proves his Assertions upon these grounds That the writers of Scripture cannot be suspected of Ignorance having had long conversation with him they wrot of Their simplicity and candour in writing gives evidence they intended no deceipt with all the rest that followes I answer these are nothing like rational proofs but meer unproved Suppositions whereunto neither Iewes nor Gentils give credit I evince this demonstratively Put the book of holy Scripture into the hands of à Heathen Philosopher who never heard of Christ of the Church or of any other Motive for Christian Religion but only takes so much as the Dr here proposes and what the Scripture it selfe barely relates Would this Philosopher think ye after his pondering the Dr ' s Discourse and reading Scripture forthwith acquiesse and say all is true he reads He were worse then besotted did he so If prudent he would tell you he had joyntly perused with Scripture the Turks Alcaron and as he found strange wonders written of Christ in the one book so also he met with great matters recounted of Mahomet in the other for which the Turks pretend to have universal tradition but whether Scripture or the Alcaron speaks truth whether such men as the Dr mentions related exactly the Miracles of Christ and his true Doctrin with those Miracles the Philosopher knowes not nor shall ever know without à further proof taken from the testimony of some other Infallible Oracle which makes the truths in Scripture evidently credible and then proposes all as Divine and infallible Verities 14 The ultimate reason hereof is most convincing All matters contained in Scripture whether Miracles or The reason of their nullity said forth Doctrin are not ex terminis any Self evidence nor can they give by themselves so much as à great moral certainty of their Truth or Credibility Therefore they must be proved either true or evidently Credible by another Certain Oracle or can never draw belief from any I am sure S. Austin who discoursed more profoundly than the Dr ever did judged So when he told the Manichaes He would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it and upon this firm ground all must believe or believe nothing The Dr ' s whole discourse proves only this conditional truth that if the Primitive Christians had reason to believe the Doctrin of Christ upon the inducement of his Miracles they did well to believe but that such Miracles were wrought he shewes not save only by Scripture it selfe hitherto neither proved True nor Divine I say proved For no Christian doubt's of the truths there contained though all justly question whether the Dr makes them to appear Truths by à bare telling us of some Contents in that book which neither Jew nor Gentil nor indeed any can believe unless more be said than the Dr bring 's to light 15 In à word here lies the whole errour He makes the Christian Doctrin Wherein the Dr's errour lies couched in Scripture to prove it selfe and drawes his rational Evidence of Credibility from the Mysteries believed Observe well He believes the Resurrection of Christ from the dead for this is an Article of Faith can he I beseech you make the Resurrection it self as believed the rational Motive of believing it while after all his discourse we are yet to seek for à proof of that very Scriptures Truth and Divinity also whereby the Resurrection is attested 16 The Dr may reply his evidence is not taken from the Mysteries of Faith Apos◠reply 〈◊〉 seen and prevented and from our Saviours Miracles the like is of Apostolical wonders as they are believed but from the Humane consent of the Primitive Christians who either saw or heard of such matters of fact wrought by Christ and his Apostles which common consent passing among so many grave and pious men made them in those dayes evidently Credible and Morally certain though we abstract from all Divine Revelation in Scripture and the Churches Infallible Authority I answer first if the Dr run's this way his whole discourse fastidiously spun out against the Miracles of the Roman Catholick Church fall's to nothing for if the common humane consent of the ancient Christians Supposed neither Devine Revelation nor infallible raised The common consent of the ancient Christians and modern for Miracles parallel'd our Saviours Miracles to Moral certainty or evident Credibility Then why should not the like common humane Consent of Christians Now make the Miracles owned in the Roman Catholick Church morally certain or evidently credible And I speak of Miracles approved by the Church not of every forged tale or pretended false wonder which were not wanting in the Primitive times If therefore the Dr say that all since the Apostles dayes have been grosly deluded in recounting the Miracles wrought in the Catholick Church both Jewes and Gentils will shrewdly pester him and avouch as boldly that those Primitive Christians over Credulous what Iewes may obiect like papists in these dayes were no less beguiled in their crying up Apostolical Miracles What say you to this Mr Dr The parity taken from the primitive times and ours I shall urge more fully hereafter and tell the Dr he shall long sweat at it before he solves what I here object if which is ever to be noted we stand only upon à common humane consent of men called Christians and abstract from the Authority of an Infallible Church 17 I answer 2. The enquiry here made concern's not only the bare truth of these matters of fact recorded in Scripture but implies more for we ask how what is here chiefly enquired these matters of fact are rationally proved truths written by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost or how when supposed wrought sixteen Ages since they are now conveyed and applyed to us as Truths of so high à nature No common consent of Christians meerly humane and long since past can give Sufficient certainty hereof sufficient I say to ground Divine Faith Wherefore seing Scripture evidences not it's own truths nor any reflection made upon Scripture can clear these doubts an infallible living Oracle manifested by supernatural Signs must speak and tell us that these matters of fact were written not like other things in humane History which are lyable to errour but by the special direction and inspiration of the Holy Ghost 18 Hence we proceed to the second Question If saith the Dr I be asked why I The Dr's second question proposed believe the Doctrin contained in