what followes If men saith he cannot be infallible in believing the Apostles unless there be other infallible Proponents in every Age to assure them that the Apostles were inspired why must not the Infallibility of these present Proponents be likewise so attested as well as the Apostles He would I think ask in clearer terms Why should not the Infallibility whereunto the now living Guides of the Church lay claim be as well attested and applyed by another Infallible Attestation as the Church attest's or applyes to us the Infallibility of the Apostles And thus as he insinuates we must goe on endlesly in these Applications and Attestations or at last rest in that first Attestation or application made by the Apostles Were it worth the while it would be easy to show how the intangled Dr must solve his own difficulty if in lieu of Infallible you will use the word Truth He declares to his Hearers and truly as we suppose some dark Mystery of Faith and with that you have his true Attestation or application of it But must that Attestation ere Faith be truly conveyed into his Hearers be applied and attested by another Attestation distinct from Scripture and the Dr◠The Dr's Simple Discourse Concerning endless Attestations refuted own last delivery If so we goe on endlesly in Attestations In à word the Answer most fully laid forth in my last Treatise is thus As when the Apostles preach't they rationally proved themselves by the signal wonders they wrought to be Gods own Infallible Proponents or Oracles and therefore needed no further Attestation of their Infallibility in that Age so the Church ever since evidenced by the like visible lustre of rational marks and wonders proves Her selfe Gods own Infallible Oracle and therefore is without any further Attestation the Primum Credible in order to Christians But the first most immediate known Oracle made by her selfe and for her selfe Credible in so much that we cannot in this present state infallibly adhere to that the Dr calls Apostolical evidence or the Divinity of Scripture without the Churches Attestation needs no further witness or attesting Authority Se more hereof Rea and Relig Disc 3. c. 12. n. 4. c. 15. n. 3. and c. 16. per totum but chiefly Disc. 2. c. 11. where it is proved that as no Prophet was ever comparable to Christ our Lord so no Church was is or shall be comparable to the Roman Catholick 23 By thus much here briefly hinted at and amply proved in the places now quoted you se the Dr knowes not what he saith P. 84 where he tell 's us If we rest not satisfied with the rational Evidence which the Apostles inspired by God gave the world there will either be an endless infallibility or Faith at last must be resolved into Enthusiasm Again let the world judge saith he whether Christ and his Apostles did not give stronger evidence that they were sent from God then the Guides of the present Church do 24 Because à lesse wary Reader may be here affrighted with big words we will lead the Dr with his Bible to à Synagogue of Jewes or to an Assembly of learned Heathens and desire him to lay forth that stronger rational evidence whereby these Aliens from Christ ought to be induced to believe that infallible Divine Inspiration imparted to the Apostles If his answer be direct and pertinent he will relate their Miracles The blind se the lame walk the dead rise c. And are these say the Heathens The Dr's supposed rational Evidence gives no Satisfaction to Iewes and Heathens your best rational Evidences Mr Dr Know good Sr that once if true they were Evidences to those who saw them but now cease to be so to us and therefore may be better called matters revealed than rational Evidences Now if the truth of that Revelation concerning the Apostolical Inspiration be only proved by Miracles not known or attested but by à Revelation wholly as obscure as the thing is which should be proved by them such Miracles far recede from the Nature of Evidence Remember Dr your own words P. 110. That à proof ought alwaies to be more evident than the thing proved by it but here the Miracles produced by you as à Medium to prove the Apostles Divine Inspiration are wholly as obscure to the Heathens as that inspiration is they should prove for both are only supposed not yet proved Revelations therefore they far recede from the nature of rational Evidence 25 On the other side could our Dr evince those Scripture Miracles upon The Dr to bring in Atheism ru'on's the true rational Evidence the Attestation of à Church which God from the beginning of Christianity has gloriously marked out by as signal and sensible wonders as ever the Apostles were evidenced could he make use of these later Signes and shew them to be no natural but supernatural effects proceeding from an Infinit Power and wisdom and only peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church could he tell us he own 's à Church which both Heaven and earth have so far approved that never any known Orthodox Christian laid censure on it or condemned its Doctrin He might well give in strong evidence indeed and powerfully plead against Jewes Gentils and all Heretiques but the unfortunate man ruin's all this rational Evidence and to his eternal disgrace laies à charge of Idolatry upon this renowned Church though by virtue of her glorious wonders She has drawn the very best the most choise and learned of the Christian world to Her belief And thus as I noted Reas and Reli Disc 3. c. 16. n. 28 He destroies Scripture deads Faith makes Christian Religion unreasonable and doth his utmost to bring in Atheism But of this more largely hereafter when we shall discover the Dr's fraud and fallacy concerning his pretended Evidence 26 P. 84 He end 's with me And in the next 85. attaques that learned and laborious Author N. O. His whole endeavor is to shew we may have Sufficient certainty of Faith without the Infallibility of the Church Though it would be incivility on my part to reply for N. O best able to answer for himselfe neither can I for I have not his book yet by that erudite Authors leave I will make à few reflections upon Dr Still unknit rambling discourse and evince that he speaks nothing against the Infallibility of our Church This I doe because I have not yet seen the Dr's second part where I am told he hath much against me CHAP. II. A few Considerations premised concerning Infallibility Express Scripture proves The Church Infallible No one word for her Fallibility alleged by the Dr. An Argument proposed against the Doctor 1 IT is prodigiously strange to se how uniustly we Catholicks are dealt with who before these rambling Novellists began their new whimsy of reforming and deserted the old way of Truth stood in à peaceable possession of this great Verity The Roman Catholick Church was is and ever
Again those ancient Miracles though supposed true are far from giving any undubitable assurance by their Sight alone without further light that such was and yet is the genuin and pure Sence of God's word for how many thousands are there now in the world who willingly own all the Miracles wrought by Christ and yet are at implacable discord concerning the true meaning of what our Saviour and his Apostles taught which strifes cannot be ended by à bare owning those Miracles true but by the Infallible Decision of an ever living manifested Church I say manifested by Miracles and other weighty Motives that laid before mans rational Power led it on to believe in Christ and his Church for these two Articles go together and are proposed in the Creed as necessary believeable Verities I believe in Iesus Christ I believe the Holy Catholick Church As therefore to believe all that Christ taught confessedly required the light of glorious Motives whereby his Doctrin Christ was manifested by rational Motives and so is the Church was made Credible to reason so also to believe what the Church teaches requires the like light or an answerable evident Credibility grounded on convincing and rational Motives I desired the Dr Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 16. n. 28. to consider how cold and faint Christian Faith would have grown in the hearts of men before this day had all Church Motives fail'd or ceased soon after the Apostles preaching Had no more Conversions been wrought no more Martyrs dyed for God's truth no more contempt of the world been evidenced in thousands and thousands and finally had no other Miracles been don in after Ages but such only as the Scripture relates It is therefore open impiety in the Dr to slight all Church Motives and her Miracles calling them à grand Salade too often served up It is worse then Perverness to tell us as he doth in his last book P. 665. That the Doctrin of Christ and his Apostles being confirmed by Miracles wrought by them there can be no The Continuation of Miracles proved necessary such necessity in succeeding Ages to confirm the same Doctrin by Miracles I have answered this very Obiection Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 7. and shewed the Continuation of Miracles in the Church both useful and necessary not only because our Saviour fore told they should be done Iohn 12 but upon this account also that the Conversion of Infidels to Christ was wrought as well in the Ages after the Apostles as when those blessed men preached to the world If therefore the first Apostolical Miracles were necessary to convince unbelieving Jewes and Gentils Then it is plain ungodliness to deem them fruitless Now when God is pleased to work them by Missioners lawfully sent to convert as Barbarous Nations as ever S. Paul preach't to 24 Again Miracles most evidently have been wrought and very frequently The end of God's Concurring with his servants to work Miracles I ask for what end did God concurr with his Servants to do them No other reason can with probability fall into mens minds but this That an infinit Power and wisdom intended thereby to make his Church glorious and to induce the most obdurate hearts to believe her Doctrin The Dr yet seems not satisfied for he thinks the conveyance of the Apostolical Miracles being wrought for the benefit of succeeding Ages may well serve the turn in all after Times without more I wish this man were sent with his Bible to some Barbarians in America who never perhaps heard of Christ or Scripture and only read them such Miracles as Scripture relates without working any himselfe as S. Xaverius and other Missioners have done How many think ye would the Dr draw to Christ if he told his Hearers that all the certainty men have of those ancient Miracles and Christ's Doctrin comes from fallible Tradition which may be false My thought is he would convert this way very few or rather none at all Let others judge as they please Now because the main ground whereon he relies is his much driven in conveyance by Tradition we will bestow à little pains upon it and shew if ever man lost himselfe in a Labyrinth it is Dr Stillingfleet Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition what Christ did and spake 25 THe Substance of the Dr ' s Discourse Account P. 205 is thus Tradition to us doth only supply the want of our senses as to what Christ did and spake it being à perpetuated sensation and of the same use to us now as if we had been actually present with Christ and seen his Miracles or heard his Doctrin when he delivered it Soon after It is apparent that the use of the senses to those The substance of the Drs Discourse laid down in his own words who saw Christs Miracles and heard his Doctrin was not to give any Credibility to either of them but only to be the means of conveying them those things which might induce them to believe The same is Tradition now to us it doth not in it selfe make the Doctrin more credible but supplies the use of our senses in a certain conveyance of those things which were Motives to believe them Hence he inferr's That the motives to the primitive Christians and to us are the same only the manner of conveyance differ's 2. He inferr's as it was not then necessary for those who saw our Saviours Miracles wrought for the confirmation of his Doctrin to have the inward Testimony of the Spirit or any external Infallible Testimony of à Church to assure them that those Miracles were really done by Christ but God left them to the judgement of sense so proportionably neither of these two are now necessary for the resolution of Faith but God instead of sense leaves us to the evidence of Tradition Thus the Dr where you se his whole labour spent in vain and à gross mistake with it for he think's the main difficulty lies in the conveyance of the things written in Scripture to this Age whereas the reall difficulty is to prove that there ever were any He waves the real difficulty such things true and written by Divine inspiration as he supposes to be conveyed Unlesse this particular be first rationally evinced the Turks will dare to argue as the Dr doth In Mahomet's time there was reason to believe Mahomets Miracles and wonders Ergo there is reason to believe them now because they are conveyed down by Tradition And thus the followers of every false Sectarie may make any Religion true But here is not all 26 Mark I beseech you how pitifully the Dr shuffles He own 's à tradition which conveigh's unto us what Christ did and spake That is we may No man is wiser by the Dr's lame Tradition know by his fallible tradition received among Christians that our Saviour wrought such Miracles and spake such words for example I and my Father are one The word is
is to say one part of Scripture proves another before the whole book is proved upon any certain Authority to be God's word or written by the Holy Ghost From hence 2. the necessity of an Infallible evidenced Church is necessarily inferred The necessity of an Infallible Church evinced from our discourse which only bring 's us out of the Labyrinth wherein the Dr is lost This Church as I said proves by her infallible and never interrupted Tradition that Scripture is God's word She and She only ascertain's all that the Contents in Scripture are Divinely inspired and finally when difficulties arise concerning the Sence in controverted passages relating to Necessaries composes all strifes otherwise endless and bring 's all to à perfect unity in Faith 31 I say lastly Could the Dr evince that the book of Scripture contain's true Doctrin could he shew the Doctrin Not one Protestant Tenet proved by Scripture of it to be as it truly is Divinely inspired he yet hath not one clear Sentence in the whole Bible understood according to the obvious sence of the words which proves so much as one Tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestancy is distinguished from Popery and the Doctrin of all known condemned Hereticks The proof of this Assertion is largely laid forth Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 20. from n. 4. to the end of that Chapter and because I really judge Protestancy utterly ruined upon the reasons there alleged I petition Dr Still to review that short Discourse and if I judge amiss to unbeguile me by à plain Answer showing wherein my Arguments are fallacious 32 I except in that place against his empty Title called A rational Account of the grounds of Protestants Religion and prove as I think demonstratively that if you cast out of Protestancy all it's Negative Articles which the Dr confesses are no Essentials the remainder will either be what the Catholick Church teaches and therefore not peculiar to Protestancy or the Doctrin of some one or other condemned Heretick In so much that in the whole Essence of Protestancy you will not find one Truth revealed by Almighty God necessary for Salvation or ever taught by any Orthodox Church And Nor one Necessary for Salva tion found in Protestancy herein it differ's not only from Catholick Religion but as I take it from all ancient Heresies for both Arians and Pelagians the like is of the rest thought their particular Doctrins revealed by Almighty God and necessary to Salvation Otherwise they had been worse than besotted to abandon the Catholick Tenents for opinions meerly or Positions not necessary to Salvation Se more of this subiect Disc 3. c. 18. n. 8. CHAP. X. The Church proved Infallible before She interpret's Scripture The reason hereof The Doctors gross errour in charging à Circle on us in the Resolution of Faith VVhat à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 1 THe rest that followes in the Dr from P. 423. is all along meer Confusion or à horrid jumbling in à speculative matter concerning the resolution of Faith and the notion of à vicious Circle which he truly understand's not but wonder nothing you can expect no better from halfe Scholars in speculative learning if I make not what I here assert manifest blame me boldly 2 To rescue my Doctrin from Blunderers and the Dr if I ever met with any is one I am forced to set down plainly part of it That done you shall se how remote the Dr is from medling with it The most he would except against you have at large Reas and Relig. Disc 3. c. 5. n. 5. where I answer an Obiection proposed in his Account P. 127. And assert Seing Scripture evidences not it selfe to be divinely inspired some other Infallible Oracle distinct from Scripture necessarily ascertain's that The Church not first proved Infallible by Scripture Truth and this is the Church which as rationally proves herselfe by Signs and Miracles an Oracle whereby God speaks independently of Scripture as ever any Apostle proved himself to be so before Scripture was written Hence I inferred that the Church was ever and is yet in à General way believed infallible by Her self and for Her self upon this ground that God speaks by Her as his own Oracle and then concluded that She is not in the first place proved infallible by Scripture I say in à General way for thus the Apostles believed our Saviour to be the true Messias before they received from him à full Account of many other particular Christian Verities learned after that General acknowledgement 3 Thus much and more amply declared in the place now cited comes Dr Still in his last book P. 424. with his old Tautologies and asks again as if nothing had been said why we believe the Churches Infallibility and verily think 's we have no other way to make out Her Infallibility but only by Scripture Is not this worse then jumbling Reflect good Reader I shew that the Church in the first place is proved infallible without recourse at all had to Scripture for so She was proved infallible before Scriptures were written and here he out-faces me with empty words saying I cannot prove the Church infallible but by Scripture only In lieu of this ridiculous Reply He should have refuted my reasons and this is one No man can ascertain any that Scripture is divinely inspired or render the true sence of it relating to Necessaries for Salvation but one only infallible Church Therefore the Church which only can give certainty of these truths must necessarily be first owned infallible before we recurr It is Senceless to prove the Church by Scripture before Scripture be Proved God's word to Scripture for it is more than Senceless to prove by Scripture the Churches Infallibility or any other Article of Christian Faith before we have absolute Assurance that the Book whereby we argue is Gods word and know what its meaning is in à hundred difficult passages But thus much is only known by Church Authority as is amply proved in the place now cited 4 This reason the Dr shamefully waves with à jeer and tell 's me P. 405. that this first act of Faith terminated upon Church Authority hath nothing to rely on but the fallible Motives of Credibility and Consequently cannot be Divine Faith for want of an Infallible Testimony Gross ignorance produced this Answer for have not I proved through my whole last Treatise that God as immediatly speak's to us now by his Church as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle And if God speake by it there is no want of an Infallible Testimony I challenge the Dr to answer my Arguments upon this subiect hitherto never taken notice of neither shall he hereafter reply without apparent shuffling to use his words and running away from the main difficulty here treated How often have I told him that Divine Faith relies not upon the Motives of Credibility though
c. VVe must earnestly contend for the Faith once delivered VVe are to beware of false seducers c. have no weight for the Drs intent unlesse he shew by Scripture that this trial this contention and wariness ought to be done by every mans private judgement only without any other rule O but there is à stinging Text. Iohn 7. 17. where our Saviour expresly promises to those that do the will of God they shall know of his Doctrin whether it be of God Very true But how shall we discern those that do the will of God from others that do it not Are those the Doers of Gods will who reject their Guides and follow their own Iudgement in matters they understand not Answer Mr Dr. 14 In his 143. P for I run up and down to find any thing like an Obiection we are told that all who consider the excellency of Christian Religion cannot but give it preheminence before Iudaism and Mahometism Very true Mr Dr yet you touch not the difficulty unlesse you tell us which Christian Religion amongst so many dissenting Sects even in fundamentals may be called the only true Christian Religion If Arianism or Palagianism or Protestanism damn men as deeply as Iudaism what matters it if one professe Iudaism I assure you Doctor I have heard some great A fallible Doctrin which may be false destructive to Faith men say that if all who profess Christian Religion believed fallible Doctrin which may be false they would not give à pin to chuse whether they were Iewes Arians or Protestants But why have not you in this place or through your whole large Account set forth the Excellency of your Protestancy and preferred that little late unknown thing before all other Religion Some cause there is of your deep silence and I have not dissembled it in my Advertisement You really know not what to say of it 15 P. 132. We have this Proposition Infallibility in à body of men is as liable to doubts and disputes as in those books from whence only they derive their infallibility Sr if I well understand this some what dark Assertion please to tell me Were not the Apostles an Infallible body of men And was not their Infallibility owned as clear from doubts and disputes when God had evidenced them by clear visible Signes and Wonders to be his faithful Oracles even before their writing Scripture Or did theyderive their Infallibility from the books they wrote The true answer to these demands will be our Answer The Church is as rationally proved an Infallible Oracle by her Illustrious signes and wonders and appointed by God to teach as ever any Apostle was this I hold clearly evinced in my last Treatise Disc 3. c. 15. n. 3. and c. 16. n. 5. If you Mr Dr can except against my proofs please to speak for hitherto you have answered nothing I shew also Prot without Princi c. 8. n. 2. 3. That God neither will nor can permit à false Religion to be more speciously illustrated by rational Signs then his only true Religion is Were this possible he The true Church made discernable from all false Sects would contrary to Truth and Goodness oblige reason to embrace à false Religion If therefore the only true and infallible Religion be manifestly discernable or made known by the lustre of Supernatural Motives from all false Sects we have enough For it is most evident that our ever marked and Signalized Catholick Religion illustrated by Miracles and approved by the publick judgement of the very best and most learned who have lived since the Creation of the world is the undoubted true Religion where we learn what Christ taught and what Doctrin the Apostles preached And thus Dr Still imperfect discourse P. 143 where he gives the preheminence to Christianity in general above Iudaism Mahometism c. is driven home to that one only Religion amongst Christians which must save Souls 16 We say 2. That this evidenced Catholick Church proves her selfe infallible Independently of Scripture as the Apostles did before they wrote their sacred Books It is-true after those writings are proved Divine to us upon Church Authority we Argue from them and evince her Infallible but this only is done upon the Supposition of that proof and not before For we say and make it out clearly in the Treatises now cited That the Church being the light of the world and à City placed upon a conspicuous And proved infallible without recourse to Scripture mountain demonstrable as S. Austin teaches by every mans finger is the Primum indemonstrabile principium the very first and indemonstrable principle proved by it selfe and for it selfe to be Gods Infallible Oracle whereof more hereafter Hence you se 3. that as the Apostles neither proved nor derived their Infallibility from the Books they wrote so we in the first place if à true Analysis be made prove not the Churches Infallibility from Scripture but evince this truth upon other Principles as is now declared But saith Dr Still It is against all just lawes of reasoning to make use of the Churches Infallibility to prove Scriptures by Why so noble Dr I am sure for the reasons already given you will be forced to retract this inconsiderate Assertion Do not you know first that the bare letter of Scripture breed's endless divisions even in fundamentals not only between man and man as is evident by the jarrs you have with Arians Pelagians c. but also between God and man while all your vehement contentions are driven at last to know whether your discerning Faculty or the Arians hit right vpon the meaning of what God speak's in Scripture it being most certain that Verity it selfe approves not your open contradictions Who can decide here but an Infallible Church Do you not know 2. That it is more then ridiculous to draw either Iew or Heathen to believe these contradictious Doctrins as Divine or reasonable while neither you nor Arians can ascertain any that what either of you teach is from God or à truth revealed by him Who ought or can speak here but the Church Do you not se 3. That the clearness of Church Doctrin universally known to all whether Orthodox or others beget's faith more easily then Scripture yet obscure and unsenced Hence it is as I noted in my last Treatise Disc 2. c. 16. n. 11. That few or none Question what this Oracle teaches as necessary for that 's plain yet there are endless debates about the Scriptures meaning and this only is Gods word not intelligible in à hundred passages without the Churches interpretation 4 As I noted also The Infallibility and Truth of every Divine Revelation relating to Necessaries so necessarily The Church decides many doubts not decideable by ' Scripture ' terminat's Divine Faith that whoever believes and abstract's as it were from this double perfection intrinsic to what God speak's believes not because God speak's but upon some other fallible Motive
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.
for I am weary in following such weightless stuff yet in the next page you have more of it where he blames me as one sensless because I say n. 12. that fewer Motives may serve to induce young Beginners seldom molested with difficulties against Faith witness S. Austin cited above Ceteram turbam c than will convince the more learned who often struggle to captivate their understanding to our high Christian Mysteries And is not this exactly verifyed in Luther Calvin and innumerable others who when Beginners easily submitted to all the Church teaches yet afterward when more learned they found unless they tell the world loud lies Motives to disswade them from their first Faith Such men therefore seduced by fallacious Arguments or rather by their own malice should have been better grounded in that one Principle whereon all Christian Doctrin wholly depend's the Infallibility of Christs true Church 15 P. 414. I meet with à jeer because I hold Protes without Princ Disc 1. c. 2. n. 3. That every Bishop or Pastor though not personally infallible yet when he is lawfully sent to teach and speak's in the name of God and the Church considered as à member conioyned with the Infallible Church may be said to teach infallibly An admirable speculation replies the Dr and so saith he may every one in the streets be infallible not as considered in himself but as à member conjoyned with truth A conjunction with God's word implies Vnion with the Church or every Sectary as à member conjoyned with God's word Reflect Mr Dr is every one we meet in the streets à Bishop or Pastor commissioned to teach infallibly Christs Verities of such Pastors I speak and not of your street men Or can à Sectary be à member conjoyned with Gods word It is impossible for to say Sectary is to suppose him separated from God's word which therefore destroies your Imagined infallible conjunction and makes your Speculation not admirable but ridiculous Again and here is à solution to the Argument more amply laid forth Disc 3. c. 3. n. 17. 19. and before that c. 2. n. 12 A conjunction with truth or Gods word necessarily implies in this present State a conjunction with the Church for without the Testimony of this Oracle previously assented to we have no infallible assurance that such books are divinely inspired or what the sence of them is in all controverted passages therefore to suppose an Infallible conjunction with truth or God's word independently of Church-authority is to suppose light taken from darkness or the last Resolvent of Faith in order to us not to ground it at all But saith the Dr the Question is whether such à Prelate or Pastor may be divided from God's infallible Another difficulty Solved truth If he can what security hath any one to rely upon him upon such à conditional Infallibility whereof he can have no assurance I answer the common received Doctrin of the Church being known and divulged in every Catechism it is easily known when à Renegado such an one as the Bishop of Spalato was abandon's the Church In case of any rational mistrust or doubt because wolves sometimes appear like lambs Prudence direct's timorous Consciences to advise with their Pastors or others more learned then themselves 16 P. 415. The Dr applaudes his good fortune in meeting with an Adversary that mistakes his so well explicated Rational Evidence of Christian Religion Of the Dr's vain applauding himselfe and à long talk followes of hewers of difficulties and water-drawers of the Seraphims feathers and S. Laurenc'es Gridiron to what purpose I know not My hope is before this next Chapter be ended to make it manifest that the Dr neither understand's what is meant by rational Evidence nor has any thing like it for Protestant Religion CHAP. IX Dr Stilling pretended Evidence for Christian Religion proved nothing like Evidence His Evidence taken from Sense in the Mystery of the holy Eucharist demonstrated Sensless How vainly he endeavour's to prove by Miracles related in Scripture the Truth of the Doctrin there registred A word of his Tradition and many other errours 1 THe Dr P. 416 goes about to explain what is meant by his rational Evidence of Christian Religion and ground 's it upon the unquestionable assurance which we have of matters of fact and the Miracles wrought by Christ as à great part of this rational Evidence which is destroyed by our Doctrin of Transubstantiation Soon after he complain's of our silent passing over these things the Schools having found no answers to such Arguments What will The Dr's unworthy proceeding not this man say in points remote from us when in à plain matter of fact he beguiles his Reader with most loud untruths Let any one peruse my last Treatise Disc 1. c. 9. n. 11. 12. In that Discourse of à Heathen with à Christian he will find the first difficulty largely handled and solved where I say the Dr either believes our Saviours unparallaled Miracles because Scripture relates them and then he supposes Scripture to be Divine or inspired by the Holy Ghost which the Heathen denies and therefore wishes that Divine inspiration to be proved by Arguments extrinsical to the Doctrin delivered in Scripture Or contrarywise he proves those Miracles to have been upon the Fallible report of men liable to errour the Dr own 's no Tradition Infallible and this advances not his cause at all for do not the Turk's speak as much of Mahomets Miracles upon fallible and perhaps false reports also Thus the Heathen argues and rationally too not yet knowing what Religion to embrace Here in à word you have the substance of all I then said and I think my Argument thus delivered convinces VVhoever proves Christian Religion to be assuredly true by Motives as obscure as the very Doctrin of Christian Religion is either evinces nothing or makes à vicious An Argument proposed Circle But thus the Dr proceeds whose rational Evidence or unquestionable assurance of Christian Religion is proved by matters of fact Miracles I mean wrought by Christ which Miracles are as obscure to à Heathen and as much obiects of Faith to Christians as the very Doctrin of Christ is recorded in Scripture Therefore he proves nothing Se more hereof n. 12. cited 2 The other piece of the Dr ' s rational Evidence taken from Sense which he The Drs Argument taken from the Holy Eucharist both here and formely Solved thinks the Doctrin of Transubstantiation destroies I then reflected on and fully answered Reas. and Râ—lig c. 12. n. 3. where I say the immediate obiect of Sense remain's after consecration unchangeable as before It is true reason upon the suggestion of sense might well conclude that the substance of bread is there also were there not another Stronger Principle then sense which overawes us Christ's own words This is my body which cause reason to submit Thus S. Chrisostom S. Cyril of Hierusalem with innumerable ancient
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
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
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICK CHURCH AND HER MIRACLES Defended against Dr Stillingfleets Cavils Unworthily made publick In two late Books The one called An Answer to Several Treatises c The other à Vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith Against the Pretence of Infallibility IN THE ROMAN CHVRCH c. BY E. W. The first Part. ANTWERP Printed by MICHAEL CNOBBAERT at the Sign of S. Peter in the Year 1674. Permissu Superiorum THE PREFACE NIne years or there about are pas't Since Dr Edward Stillingfleet set Printed Anno 1669 forth à voluminous book entituled A rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion and exposed it to the view and examination of others Many both learned and judicious have in their several latter works discovered here and there no Small but great Errours in it Among the rest one worthy man not scared with the fearful bulk of the book fixed upon the whole engaged to examin it and to return the Dr à full just and compleat Answer but it pleased God to call him out of this world before he saw an end of his labours VVhile he yet lived busy at work I ventured upon the chiefest Points of Controversy handled by the Dr not willing to meddle with the whole book because another had it in hand I thought then and do so still that Dr Stillingfleet came much too short of à right Reckoning The one Printed Anno 1668 The other 1672 in his Account and therefore plainly laid down his Mistakes and errours in two Treatises Protestancy without Principles Reason and Religion c. Ever since year after year I expected the good hour when Mr Dr vvould please to just Accounts vvith me for he had been long in debt and give like à good Correspondent satisfaction to the many exceptions I made against his Account At last two other books containing his after Reckonings appear not like the grand volume Bulkie and so far praise vvorthy who ever saies more to their commendation loses credit vvith me VVhen these books came to my hands one long after the other the distance of place vvould have it so I read all and examined every particular diligently still hopeing as I vvent along to find the Dr more rational and better at his Reckonings now then he had been in his former VVritings but after an exact perusal I saw clearly my hopes frustrated and Dr Still just like himselfe not only unmethodical but besides à meer Shuffler in the main matter he vvas obliged to give Account of as vvill be made out hereafter The first of his volumes is called An answer to several Treatises occasioned by à book c. The other beares the name of à Discourse in vindication of the Protestant grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide of Controversies by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with à particular Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church In these Treatises where Mr Dr should have made a right Reckoning with his Creditors those I mean who trusted him with the best wares they had he in recompence fall's into hitter fitts of passion and railing at them One is blind another has neither fear nor wit à third is à popish Leviathan c. And thus hurried on you shall have the list of his obloquies more compleat presently he thinks not one only but Se the Dr's general Preface all he deals with halfe martyred by him and that none has more felt the weight of his heavy hand than E. W. To give the man his due if curst language can kill one he has behaved himselfe stoutly and knock't E. W. down more like à Wood-river with à beetle than à Scholar by strong Arguments à hundred times over yet thanks be to God E. W. is alive well able to keep Accounts with the Dr whose furious Doings and feeble pen Labour he fear 's not For proof hereof I remit you Gentle Reader to the following Treatise Peruse and censure freely I appeal to your Iudgement In the mean while it will not me thinks be amiss for the better clearing of Accounts between the Dr and me to preacquaint you with some few yet real exceptions I justly make against an very ill Respondent A main one is that as you se by the Dr's Title he pretend's to answer my two last Books already named whereas the Contrary is evident and proved in this Treatise He answers nothing nor so much as offer 's to meddle with such matters as are deservedly esteemed by all Polemical writers the most substantial or of greatest concern For example I told the Dr as plainly as any man can speak that never Book merited less the Title than his Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion and upon this very account I excepted both against the Book and Author and said that the Dr never yet went about to tell us what is meant by his Protestancy much less to settle one Tenet of it upon any Principle express Scripture universal Tradition or the Authority of any Church held Orthodox by the Christian Reas and Relig 1. c. 20. and Disc 3. c. 18. world Not à word of answer hath the Dr returned to this most just and urgent exception Besides I told him that his Protestancy which he supposes well grounded want's the very Essence of Religion and consequently subsist's upon no grounds and that in Protestancy as it is distinguished from Catholick Religion and all known condemned Heresies there is not so much as one Article revealed by Almighty God taught by any Orthodox Church or Iudged by the Professors of this Novelty necessary to Salvation This I thought and think still à charge very Material yet Mr Dr waves it not because he deem's it little for nothing can be more destructive to Protestancy but because he knowes not what to answer Yet more Protestants grant and so far the Dr sides vvith them that the Roman Catholick Church once pure in Faith sincerely conveyed to posterity the great Mysteries concerning Christian Religion of the sacred Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection of the dead c but say withall that after so much good service done She perversty brought in and publickly taught contrary to truth many both new and dangerous doctrins Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and Purgatory with à mighty deluge of other gross errours I have amply proved this charge of errours and change of Religion entring à whole Church to be utterly impossible and rely upon an undubitable Protest without Princ Disc 3. C. 13. n. 5. Principle Viz. These Supposed Novelties being plain matters of Fact could never get into Christianity without publick Defence in those who first broached them and publick Resistance in others that had they been errours publickly opposed them but never Since Christ's time was there any such publick defence or publick opposition
if he take Pet What if passion and ignorance drive him into à humour of Contempt VVhat if he lay all thought of answering aside and Satisfy some few of his own Gange by an odd Querie as he once did Cannot à dull book come out with my name in the Title but I must be obliged to answer it No I assure them I know better how to spend my time Well Courteous Part. 1. Page 72. Reader if he run this way I have done and say no more but what all will vow that the of oyle of the Doctors lampe is well nigh if not wholly spent Among the many wayes here briefly hinted at time I hope may tell us how he will behave himselfe I expect his Answer A word now if you please of what I shall handle hereafter Dr Still hath published two spiteful ridiculous Treatises justly offensive to every Iudicious man the one is his simple charge of Idolatry shamefully and without judgement laid upon the Roman Catholick Church thanks be to God he hath been soundly baffled for it The other is his wild Enquiry after Miracles vvrought in the same great Moral body of Christians and this I engage to answer though indeed the juggling the palpable Sophistry the manifest falsities vvherewith that vvhole Discourse is seasoned return you the best Answer and plainly tell you The Enquiry made by him is in à vvord vvorth nothing abating this one point that it exposes the Author as he deserves to publick contempt VVhat in Gods name came into the Dr's head to vvrite as he hath done against all Miracles Many Protestants I am sure as you shall see afterward ingenuously acknovvledge true Miracles to have been vvrought in the Roman Catholick Church others of the worser sort allow at least an appearance of them though perhaps done by the help of Divels but the Dr seem's in Several Passages not to allow us so much as the outward Semblance of à Miracle and all along own 's not one of them true VVhat shall â—e say to this man VVill he grant that the Iewes bad true Miracles among them and deny the like Grace and Priviledge to the Christian Church VVill he allow the gift of working Miracles to two great Prophets Enoch and Elias at their appearing again when the Church will be neer an end and take from her all Signs all true Miracles during the vast space of time between the Apostles and the latter dayes of these two Prophets VVill he say and he must say it when Antichrist comes that that false Prophet will do strange wonders yea in appearance great Miracles though all rotten and full of guile and shall Christ's own Spouse the true Christian Church be so abased so vilely thought of by one that professes Christianity as never to have vvrought by God's special favour so much as one true Miracle never to have Shewed any other vvonder but vvhat Divels have done and Antichrist will do by his charm's vvhen he comes to delude the vvorld Gentle Reader these things are horrid and better befit à Proficient in Atheism than one that bear 's the name of à Christian But more of this in the Treatise vvhere I shall discover the Dr's intolerable fraudes which run through his vvhole Discourse and show also vvhat Catholicks understand by Church Miracles vvherein the Dr grosly err's for he thinks every uncertain Story related by this or that too credulous Author often censured by the Church passes amongst us for à Church Miracle There is no such matter the Miracles vve chiefly rely on and defend are rigidly examined attested by oath and made every way so morally certain before they gain Approbation that no man in prudence can call them into doubt Those other related by private Authors are either probable dubious or manifestly false If all Circumstances Considered they appear probable vve own them as such and go no further If dubious vve suspend our judgements and leave them in that uncertain Condition If false vvhich is easily known upon Examination vve utterly reject them The rest that belongs to this weighty matter Concerning Miracles you shall have God vvilling hereafter part vvhereof is added to this Treatise The remainder I hope vvill follow before many Months come to an End Farewel Courteous READER THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST PART CHAP. I. VVhat moved the Author to write this short Treatise How weakly Dr Stilling trifles with his Adversaries A touch of the Dr's new way in Arguing Of his simple exception against the word Infallibility How the Infallibility in the first Propounders of Faith depend's upon the present Guides of the Church Pag. 1 CHAP. II. A few Considerations premised concerning Infallibility Express Scripture proves The Church Infallible No one word for her Fallibility alleged by the Dr. An Argument proposed against the Doctor 32 CHAP. III. Doctor Stillingfleets Rule and ground of faith proved no Rule It lessens not in the least the Churches Infallibility 42 CHAP. IV. Doctor Still Arguments answered His unintelligible jumbling discovered A word briefly of the ground of the Churches Infallibility The Churches Guides teach infallibly 61 CHAP. V. Doctor Stillingfleets pretended Answer to E W s Two books Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion shew'd no Answer but à meer shuffling or palpable digression from the main point bandled in those Treatises How the Dr shift's off the only difficulty wberein satisfaction is required 96 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 Hovv necessary it is to distinguish betvveen the Credibility of à Mystery and the infallible believing it true Obiections ansvvered Other difficulties proposed 123 CHAP. VII Reflections made upon the Doctors follovving Discourse Of his Mistakes concerning the Churches Testimony and the obscurity of Faith 154 CHAP. VIII The Doctor 's Discourse from page 400 to P. 416. Considered and found vveightless 174 CHAP. IX Dr Stilling pretended Evidence for Christian Religion proved nothing like Evidence His Evidence taken from Sense in the Mystery of the holy Eucharist demonstrated Sensless How vainly he endeavour's to prove by Miracles related in Scripture the Truth of the Doctrin there registred A word of his Tradition and many other errours 193 Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition what Christ did and spake 226 CHAP. X. The Church proved Infallible before She interpret's Scripture The reason hereof The Doctors gross errour in charging à Circle on us in the Resolution of Faith What à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 236 THE CHAPTERS OF THE SECOND PART 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 the Apostles and in the Church What is meant by Church Miracles Of the Cheats which run through the Dr's
whole Enquiry 3 The Miraculous Translation of the Chappel of Loreto defended against the Doctor Authorities for the Translation Produced 14 CHAP. II. Of the Dr's proceeding against me What he supposes destroies it selfe VVhat weight Church Miracles have None of wit or judgement ever contradicted them How the Dr juggles in appealing to Apostolical Miracles The Miraculous Translation of the sacred house of Loreto manifestly proved against the Dr's weak and unvvorthy Cavils 19 CHAP. III The Dr's ridiculous cavils at Teremanus his Table shew'd Nonsence The main Objection against the Chappels Translation proposed and solved A difficulty moved Concerning the strange Translation of Protestaney into Germany and England 37 CHAP. IV. More witnesses produced for the Chappels Translation VVhether Baronius proves Pope Ioan to have never been by à Negative Argument or Silence meerly Of the Dr's gross Errours and unworthy dealing 45 CHAP. V. The Dr's frivolus Objections against the Miracles wrought at Loreto dissolved A word of his other frauds 68 COVRTEOVS READER The Printer of this Treatise is wholly ignorant of the English tongue many faults therefore have slipped the prâ—sse Some are already Charitably corrected by others if more be found please to mend or pardon them ERRATA PART I. In the Title of the first 31 pages For Triefling and c read trifling Page 5. Line 22. r. overcharged P. 13. l. 15 r. Scholler P. 49. l. 30. r. Imaginable p. 49 p. 202. Margent r. of p. 212. l. 31. r. acquiesce PART II. P. 31. l. 28. r. taken thence p. 31. l. 16. r. appertaining p. 72. l. 12. r. Narration p. 35. l. 16. r. thrown out p. 78. l. 23. r. accuseth p. 3. l. 10. r. humane N. for u and u. for n. h. for b. an u. for i. as unsufficient for insufficient please to correct faults very discernable THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICK CHVRCH And Her Miracles defended against Dr Stillingfleet's Cavils THE FIRST PART CHAP. I. VVhat moued the Author to write this short Treatise How weakly Dr Stilling trifles with his Adversaries At ouch of the Drs new way in Arguing Of his simple exception against the word Infallibility How the Infallibility in the first Propounders of Faith depend's upon the present Guides of the Church 1 SIx years are now past since I set forth à book intituled Protestancy without Principles and after that another called Reason and Religion My chiefest aime and end in both was to fix in all à firm beliefe of à Truth which neither Doctor nor Divel shall overthrow It is the asserted Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church then largely discussed with an express intention to oppose Dr Stillingfleet The Dr after à long silence replies as you se and pretend's to answer these two books Moreover to perswade all he hath answered home hear how Champion like he beates the Air with à large siz'd Brag. When we saith he in the Preface to his first The Drs vast brag Part P. 3. set our selves to Answer their books we endeavour to state the Controversy plainly to examin their proofs to apply distinct Answers to their Arguments we make use of no tricks to deceive men nor Sophistical Cavils to perplex things We dare appeal to the judgement of any person who will take the pains tâ— examin the matters in difference between us But they Catholicks seek to avoid the maiâ— things in Dispute c. Thus the Dr and â— am sure never Paragraph had morâ— empty Nothings cramm'd into it that this of our glorious Antagonist 2 Wherefore I deal Candidly anâ— must tell the naked truth for truth wilâ— out and prove it in the ensuing Discouâ—se This Dr neither states the Controversy rigâ— between us nor examin's the proofs producâ— by me in behalfe of the Churches Infallibilitâ— but contrary wise waves the very best and moâ— substantial reason I alledge Again he is â— far from giving pertinent distinctions to my Arguments that I verily believe by what hitherto appear's he neither knowes how or where to distinguish No. His strange new mode in Arguing most opposit to all close reasoning is bluntly and blindly to lay about him with huffs and Cavils light where they will he heed's not For as much as concern's his tricks and Sophistry I will say in à word they may though far from being magical perhaps ensnare some vulgar people who decry all that relishes Popery but to shock the judgement of any prudent man very few for ought I know have found their brains troubled with them At least hitherto I never heard of one man bred up in à right beliefe gained to the Dr's opinions by his Sophistry tricks or scribling books 3 Now to prove what is here briefly hinted at and to show the Dr's rash and why the Author returned this Answer inconsiderate Answer to be in real truth nothing like an Answer to my books I have writ this short Treatise where I discover his shallowness in learning and would if possible make him more wise than vainly to boast of doing that which he neither has not can perform He tell 's us in his General Praeface What an excelâ—ent chymical Controvertist he is in drawing off all the Spirit he could find in Reason and Religion whereas it is evident and here demonstrated he never meddles witth that which is most material and should be called the Spirit though I urged him again and again as you may se in the Preface to answer for himselfe So little of the Spirit have I met with in these two discourses of the Dr that some may justly wonder and perhaps mislike my pains taken in following too exactly his pitiful Cavils while they plainly se that the very most which looks there like substance hath been refuted in my two last Treatises and so penurious he is in producing any thing new against me in these his discourses that I could most easily have replyed to all in one sheet of paper but that would have gall'd Mr Dr and raised Clamours as if I either could not or would not answer him in his own way To dead these false Alarms I was necessitated to turn over much rubbish to travel through the very most of his slight stuff for want of better substance to work upon 4 Courteous Reader my intention My intention purely good in order to the Dr and Euery one is purely good to the Dr in whom iâ— possible I would work à meaner conceipt of himselfe seing plainly the more he writes the more credit he loses and why should we not if we can take the man off hinder him from incurring more disgrace he hath enough of that already In case my endeavour prove unsuccesful to the Dr I doubt not but that I shall unbeguile some over credulous People whose opinion he courts and would swell up with à high esteem of his parts Here lies his last aime To do this I shall by Gods grace evince that He err's grosly in the main matters of Faith
want's learning judgement and common Civility His defect in learning appear's most in this Treatise His want of Judgement Truth and Sincerity will be more manifest in my second Part where I rescue the glorious Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church from à vast number of forgeries and Calumnies His transgression against Civility is so notorious that almost every page in his books overcharged with it cries shame upon him Wherefore wonder not if here and there I twitch him à little though with no proportion to his rude and uncourteous handling me and others Thus much noted know courteous Reader that 5 The most or rather all Doctor Stilling fleet hath against me in his first discourse besides much ill language cast out of that sanctified mouth to embellish his general Preface with you have at his 77. page There lies the main business I am to consider though all is so profoundly simple that I am ashamed to read it As for the sornful words he gives no more regarded by me then the chattering of à magpie I tell you plainly they shall never break my head nor vex my heart Let that young Cock crow on his own dunghil if it do him good let him peck at what dead skull he pleases no great hurt say I while no more is done My task is to look after substance could I meet with it but I am fob'd off with meer tittle tattle all along with jeers and drollery and therefore must deal ingenuously courteous Reader and openly Nothing like à difficulty proposed by the Dr. profess before God and the world that though I have with all possible diligence weighed the utmost strength of Dr Still Arguments against our Church Doctrin yet I find not one that carries with it so much as the face or à shadow of difficulty as shall by God's Assistance be proved in this short Treatise And I easily believe that those other worthy Authors the Doctor slights and flurts at all have their lashes well able to answer for them selves will manifestly make it out that he only trifles and speaks nothing to the purpose against their learned labours My endeavour is to answer for my selfe Se more in the Preface to the Reader 6 Doctor Still in the page now cited pick 's up à few of my Assertions taken out of the Book intituled Protestancy without principles and after his usual manner proceed's very disingenuously for he either mangles them as best served his turn or wilily strip's them of all their proofs which without any labour might have been added and given vigour to every Proposition Finally he wholly waves the ultimate reason I alledge for the Churches infallibility Protestancy without Princ P. 28. where I prove that Christian Religion is ruin'd if for ought any man can know all Churches all Pastors and Guides teach Christ's Doctrin so fallibly that it may be false 7. Now à word or two of my Assertions related by the Dr. I say first All true believers not all men as the Dr miscites in the Assent given to Gods revealed verities are infallible and prove the Assertion God the first Verity reveal's infallibly eternal truths for this end that all believe him as he speak's if therefore he speaks infallibly all that believe him as he speak's believe infallibly I ground this Doctrin upon the Apostles words 1. Subiective Infallibility in true Believers Thessa 2. v. 12. Therefore we thank God without intermission because when ye received the word of God which you heard from us ye received it not as the word of men but at it is indeed the word of God who works in you that believe Hence I infer'd He that receives the delivered word of God as it is truly God's word and not the word of man He in whom God work 's belief by Divine grace believes Gods revealed truths infallibly And then Concluded Whoever disown's such infallible Believers ioyntly disown's infallible Faith and said this reason proves à subjective Infallibility in true Believers Thus the Blessed Apostles who received the word of God from Christ our Lord had Divine Faith and firmly assented to Christ◠sacred Doctrin were first infallible believers and afterward infallible Teachers also What harme in these Assertions I challenge the Dr to speak à probable word against them upon any known or owned Principle for hitherto he hath returned no Answer 8. I Assert 2. P. 20. He that hear's an infallible Teacher hath the Spirit of truth and he that hear's not an infallible Teacher wants the spirit of truth Holy Scripture speaks as I speak Iohn 1. c. 4. v. 6. we are of God he that knowes God hear's us he that is not of God heareth us not hereby we know the Spiririt of truth and the Spirit of errour Hence I infer'd that à fallible teaching of Christs Doctrin which by the force of its proposal or delivery may deceive and be false is lyable to cavils and disputes In saying this I wrong not in the least Christs infallible Doctrin but only assert that à fallible or false delivery which may easily deprave it is not Christs infallible Doctrin because as yet it is not made sufficiently Credible nor ultimately applyed to à Hearer as Christ's Doctrin An Arian for example read's these words I and my Father are one and so also doth Dr St. Both read the Doctrin of Christ yet contradict each other and the one depraves and perverts it by his false and fallible delivery I say this false and fallible teaching most easily distinguish'd from revealed truths in Gods word is not Christs infallible Doctrin If the Doctor boggle at this distinction whereof he takes no notice the worst I wish him is more light and learning 9. The Doctor saies I assert in my 21. Page No man can be an Heretick that denies the obiective verities revealed in Gods word unless he be sure that his Teacher reveales those verities Infallibly There is no such Proposition in that 21. page much less any words importing that à Teacher reveal's Teachers in this present state good Dr propose infallibly the ancient revealed Verities and often add à clearer explication which implies not if we speak properly any new Revelation You have more of my Propositions in Dr St which I own and wil defend as they stand with their reasons in my Book even to the very last P. 22. and. 24. where I say As long as the infallibility of à Revelation is remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an Infallible Proponent the Revelation can no more convey certainty into Faith then fire at à great distance warm I give this reason omitted by the Dr. It little avail's to know that God speak's infallibly for every one has that assured unless in the circumstance he speak's to me and for my salvation I yeild my infallible assent to his word which cannot be without assurance had from the Proponent of Faith that he Speaks as I ought to believe infallibly
If therefore the Proponent saies only doubtfully I think God speak's as I teach but am not certain the Assent given to his teaching is only doubtful If he truly say I teach infallibly what God reveal's the Assent in à faithfull Believer answer's and is infallible See more hereof in the pages now cited all waved by the Dr. 10. P. 79. Having slightly run over my assertions the man begin's to bristle up This saith he is the sum of the Principles of that Metaphysical wit Hold there good Doctor In the 28. page n. 9. wholly omitted by you I give à better Sum and tell you that none can teach Christian Doctrin who truly ownes not God an Infinit verity the Author of it but he that only teaches fallible doctrin which may be false cannot truly own God the Author but some other fallible Proponent that may both deceive and be deceived Whence I conclude that God never sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles to teach à Christian Doctrin which by virtue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on is meerly fallible and may be false Therefore some other God never sent any to teach fallible Doctrin which may be false malignant Spirit and not God sent Sectaries to teach their supposed fallible and easily falsified Doctrin Upon this ground more amply explain'd in the place now quoted I rely as on an invincible proof and petition the Dr to return à close Answer without trifling needless parergons vain distinctions and yet slighter stuff which ever take up the most room in his books and weary a Readers patience Se now how roughly he begins with me 11. Sure saith the Dr alluding to my Assertions à man must have his brains well confounded by School Divinity and hard words before he can have common sense little enough to think he understand's them For ought I ever yet saw in Dr St writings his brains are not too much burden'd with that dangerous learning had he more of it common sense not easily lost by School Divinity would have guided him to write more to the purpose But stay Courteous Reader is this the Doctors The Drs new way in answering new mode of confuting Propositions First lamely to set them down and then to rail at the Author Would not his Doctors hip take it ill think ye should any one confute all his late books by saying barely his brains were so turned and confounded with Heretical fancies that in real truth he knew not what he wrot What was it that gall'd him How could he wrest any thing said by me to the least offence I set down plainly my Assertions and he answers not one but becomes peevish surly and outragious Is this à Christian way of writing Controversies If he thought my Assertions deserved not à scratch of his pen why did he meddle with them and allow them so much room as to fill two pages in his book And if he judged them worthy to appear there why has he not replyed to some of them Hear the Doctors excuse 12. I never loved saith he to spend time How peevish and blunt the Dr is in confuting à man who thinks himselfe the wiser for speaking things which neither he nor any one els understand's Can any thing be more blunt What if I cheer up into some briskness and tell him wiser than he far more grave and learned have without rubbing their foreheads easily understood all that he slights What if I add it is à hard matter for one who has been long in Schools to deal with à half Scholar unacquainted with speculative learning Though what great speculation have we in any one of my Assertions Such men as these when their brains reach only to à vulgar notion of things think all amiss if you follow them not just in their old hackney pace or say any thing though never so little above their Ken. In case the Dr account me uncivil for touching his talent in learning let him thank himselfe who first began the quarel 13 Next he run's God knowes whither and saies he rather chose to put together such Propositions as might give account of Christian Faith without all this Iargon of infallibility And as I take it he relates to the Principles which slipt from his pen in one hour or other when his head turn'd round and are yet to be seen at the end of that pitiful Book concerning the Idolatry practized by the Church of Rome If so good Dr follow friendly Counsel and as you tender your credit talk no more of those Principles for they are not only torn in pieces by four at least of your Adversaries but moreover to my certain knowledge are scorned by some of your own learned coat who look on them as the most senceless things you ever writ next to your late infamous His unreasonable Cavil piece of Idolatry But in passing what shall we say to his Iargon about infallibility Is not I beseech you Iargon à far more obscure Term then the word Infallibility Yet the Dr Complains's of hard words Few I think of the vulgar know that Iargon signifies sustian language pedâ—ers French or à barbarous jangling yet all have à clearer notion of the word Infallibility and doth not Mr Dr apply it à hundred times over in his Account to God to Christ our Lord and to the Apostles who were all infallible in what they taught the world Now if he hold it not rightly applyed when we speak of the Church he is to impugn that by reason and not to quarel with à harmless word as if witchery lay in it 14 Soon after this raillery he tells us he will fix the Notion of Infallibility for saith he as it is used it seem's à rare word How and to what Infallibility is rightly applyed for jugglers in Divinity to play tricks with For sometimes they apply it to the obiect that is believed He mean's or it 's Nonsence to all that God reveal's and call that Infallibly true Very well done I think for so that word of Faith which S. Paul preached Rom. 10. 8. with testifying to Iewes and Gentils Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ was Acts. 20 21. obiectively taken infallibly true Doth the Apostle juggle here O but sometimes they apply it to the subject capable of believing and say all persons ought to be certain that what they believe is infallible true Most undoubted also if they believe what God speak's Let all the house of Israel most certainly know that God hath made him Lord. Acts 2. 36. I know whom I have believed and am certain 2. Tim. 1. 12. And to show how firm and Infallible Divine Faith is in the hearts of true Believers the Apostle tell 's the Galatians 1. 8. Although we or an Angel from heaven preach to you otherwise then that we preached to you let him be accursed Thus Scripture speak's of Divine Faith and attributes certainty to it What jugling lies here
particular Revelations because they are ordained by Providence to ascertain every one in particular of what God speak's no hurt at all I easily accord but his words and meaning Seem quite contrary for first he will have all the Guides of the present Church inspired in their teaching as the Apostles were inspired by some celestial vision or Divine illustration Or he thinks they cannot teach Infallibly Nay more Nothing saith he P. 82 Can make the Faith of particular persons Infallible but private Inspiration which must resolve all Faith into Enthusiasm and immediate Revelation Were this true which the Dr never offer 's to make out by any proof but his own fallible word every private person might as securely write holy Scripture as any Prophet or Apostle for the chiefest Prerogative granted these great Masters was that the very words they wrote expressed the internal inspiration of the Holy Ghost or his private Revelation and upon this account are rightly called Gods own words When the inspiration was clear they expressed it clearly when obscure obscurely as we se in the dark Prophesies of the old Testament and in the Book of the Apocalypse 17 Catholicks in lieu of the Doctors Inspiration and Revelation ordinarily use The word Assistance used by Catholicks the word Assistance or Guidance of the Holy Ghost which neither implyes Enthusianism private Revelation or Prophetical illumination but the safe conduct and infallible direction of that Blessed Spirit whereby the Guides of the Church are preserved from errour in the substance of that Doctrin they oblige Christians to believe whereof see more in my last Treatise Disc 3. c. 12. n. 9. To assert therefore as the Dr doth that nothing can be more absurd than to say There are infallible Believers without infallible inspiration is not only an unproved whimsy but to speak in his homely language more then absurd if he knowes what Inspiration properly import's 18 P. 83. He saith first that those persons whom God hath imployed to make known his Doctrin must give assurance that he hath secured them from mistake and errour and then add's But to suppose that we cannot believe the first Infallible Proponents he means the Apostles unless there be such in every age is to make more difficulties and to answer none And therefore he saith in the foregoing Page It is unconceivable that ' persons should be more infallible in judging the Inspiration read Assistance of the present Guides than of the first Founders of the Church For then all my beliefe of the Infallibility of the first Proponents must depend on the evidence which the present Guides of the Church give of their Infallibility 19 This vulgar Obiection solved over and over in my two last Treatises contain's nothing like à difficulty and the Dr who will not I hope disdain to be one of the Guides of the English Church must confess it to be wholly strengthles for when he preaches to his people in The Dr's objection solved Holborn and doctrinally explain's that great Mystery of the Incarnation or tells them I suppose truly though not infallibly of an admirable Hypostatical union whereby two distinct natures Divine and humane are joyned together subsisting in one Divine person and in saying thus much gain 's belief from his Auditors when this I say is done One that 's curious demand's of those Hearers upon what motive dare they ground their faith in believing so sublime à Mystery It 's answered they believe it because God an Eternal Verity deliver's the truth in Holy Scripture But ask again whether Scripture in express Terms makes mention of that Hypostatical union or of the two different Natures united together They answer No Yet tell you that their Doctor to lay forth the Mystery more fully assures them all is true and because he is their Guide they no more suspend their Faith but believe Now if in the third place you demand whether the Verity of this Mystery depend's upon the Dr's teaching which is the only thing here stumbled at They answer no for the Verity was proposed from Christs time yet this influence his Teaching has over their Faith that he both shewes what was anciently revealed and now applyes that ancient Doctrin to their weak capacities not hitherto so exactly conceived or laid forth 20 Here you have something like that I would express and if the Dr were as infallible in his teaching as we now suppose him to speak truth we should soon agree In à word Catholick Faith as S. Thomas excellently well observes 1 Part. q. 1. art 8 ad 2. necessarily relies upon the Revelation made to the ancient Prophets and Apostles who wrote Divine Scripture and yet more primarily upon Christ our Lord's teaching Now as the Apostles often declared more fully what our great Master of truth infallibly delivered and in this sence explain'd and compleated his Doctrin so also the Church of Christ in all Ages since declared more amply what both Christ and the Apostles taught concerning the Mysteries of Faith and in this sence not only explain's what they taught but proposes it also infallibly as the certain Doctrin delivered by Christ and his Apostles and upon this account is rightly called Conditio applicans à necessary condition applying it to our capacities Hence you se though the ancient Truths were primarily matter of Faith yet to Believers in succeeding Ages they stand as it were remote from all and need this immediate Proposal of the Church living and actually teaching 21 The reason hereof if you make à true Analysis of Faith is clear For ask why I believe the Incarnation I answer the first Guides of the Church revealed it in Scripture but enquire again what assurance have I of that Revelation which is not exterminis evident much less are all the particulars belonging to the Mystery already laid forth evident I answer the Attestation of the present Church manifested by supernatural wonders gives me my last assurance and How the Infallibility of the first proponents of Faith depends upon the Churches present Guides therefore either is à partial formal obiect of Faith as I defend Reason and Religion Disc. 3. c. 12. n. 8. 9. or at least an intrinsical necessary condition as shall be afterward declared Thus you se how and in what manner the beliefe of the Infallibility of the first Proponents depend's on the rational Evidence which the present Guides of the Church give of those first Proponents Infallibility The verity of the Mystery attested and considered in it selfe depend's not upon the present Guides for it was true before they taught but à farther and more exact declaration of it not discoverable before the Church speak's and the immediate application of it respectively made to Believers depend's on these now living Guides And this also the Dr must confess when by his preaching he truly applyes the high mysteries of Faith to the understanding of his Hearers 22 The Dr takes not his measures right in
they undervalve his private discerning faculty and prefer their own quite opposite to his May both he and they hold contradictions in the most essential Points of Faith and be saved If the Dr hath not such Latitudinarians I am sure there are à world of them in England Be it how you will his Principle is not only unsound but pernicious also and distructive to Christian faith as is now proved 19 You may here expect that I solve the Dr ' s Arguments alleged in behalfe of his Principle or 13 Proposition cited above I shall briefly touch some few though its scarse worth the pains for they fall of themselves to nothing by what is said already The rest I leave to his learned Adversary N. O. and could have wish'd to have seen in the Dr ' s two last little Books something that bear 's the face of an Obiection against the Churches Infallibility but he is wary and knowes well to shuffle when need is CHAP. IV. Doctor Still Arguments answered His unintelligible iumbling discovered A word briefly of the ground of the Churches Infallibility The Churches Guides teach infallibly 1 THe Dr P. 100. demand's whether Christ our Lord and the Evangelists may not justly be charged with not speaking the will of God plainly if those who heard them understood not their Doctrin I Answer first in case of not understanding they had infallible Teachers at hand for their further instruction and made use of them you good Dr have none such I Answer 2. It import's little to our present purpose whether they understood or no without more light when Christ for example said I and my Father are one while Christians both now and in former Ages highly differ about the sence of that speech and cannot certainly say this is God's true meaning or that the words are his without an Infallible Teacher But what may one reply can we infer because some mistake the sence of Scripture therefore all do so No truly but this Inference is good if some mistake and others not its Necessary to have the mistaken clearly distinguished from the sincere Believers otherwise à Seeker after truth may as well become an Arian as à sound orthodox Christian The Question therefore is how or by what means this severing the faithfull from the misled wholly necessary for Salvation may be exactly done without erring 2 The Dr. P. 101. most tediously rambles on to no purpose at all Is not Christianity saith he therfore highly recommended to us in the new Testament because of the perspicuity wherein the Doctrins and Precepts thereof are delivered And yet after The Dr is to shew what Christianity among so many Dissenters is commended in Scripture this cannot the most Necessary parts of it be understood by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them To answer this meer nothing it 's enough to ask What Christianity is commended to us for its clearness and perspicuity Is it Arianism Nestorianism or Protestanism It little God knowes avail's to know in General that some Christians are right in the beliefe of the Scriptures most necessary Part while no man can say to what Church they belong or who they are 2. It is most evident notwithstanding the Scriptures supposed perspicuity that very learned grosly err in the prime Necessaries for Salvation and doe all these clearly se the right meaning of it Here the Dr is obliged to tell us who are the blind or misled and which he ever unluckily waves how those he call's sincere Endeavourers may be distinguished from others supine and negligent And they ought to be known in the Dr ' s Principles for if the discerning FAculty in every man can easily find out the necessary truths for Salvation by reading Scripture it may I hope more easily discover the open Professors of these truths or that Christian Society where such truths are taught 3. Suppose Scriptures were writ for this end to teach all Necessaries how can the Dr prove that the search after them is committed to every private man's erring changeable Faculty Why not as well to the Pastors and Doctors of that Church whereof private men are members Now and here arises an insuperable difficulty what if these private men highly dissent from their Pastors concerning Necessaries five or six for example in Holborn from Dr Still Those denie Christs Godhead which he believes Both produce Scriptures and sence them differently who is to yeild in this contest the Dr to his Hearers or they to the Dr 3 This difficulty the Doctors worthy Adversary proposes with reference to the Church Governours and ask's whether these may not be presumed to understand the Scriptures meaning in order to Necessaries as well as ordinary Rusticks and if these be supposed to use à sincere endeavour in their pondering Scripture much more may we suppose it not wanting to the Guides of the Church And are we not here again saith N. O. arrived at Church Infallibility Se the Drs first part P. 138. 4 Never was man more intangled in hammering out à solution to any Argument The Dr much intangled in Solving à difficulty than our Dr is here First he wishes N. O. had kept to his own expressions and not forced in that term of Infallibility then to divert the Reader with nothing he repeat's again his whole 13 Proposition and because he well understand's not what is meant by men being infallible in Necessaries he makes it capable of three several senses 1. That men are infallible in judging of Necessaries to Salvation Or. 2. That they are infallible in teaching others what are Necessaries to Salvation These two meanings the Dr rejects and yet approves à third Viz. Men are infallible in believing such things as are Necessary to Salvation 1. e. That such is the Goodness of God and the clearness of Scriptures that no man who sincerely desires to know what is necessary to Salvation shall be deceived therein Yet more Though saith he I know no reason for useing the term Infallibility thus applyed yet the thing in it selfe I assert in that sence And what now can be inferred from hence but that the Guides of the Church supposeing the same sincerity shall enioy the same priviledge 5 If all this be not an unintelligible jumbling I never read any Pray reflect Men are infallible in believing such things as are Necessary for Salvation and yet are not infallible in judging of these Necessaries How can they infallibly believe Necessaries and not infallibly judge of them by that very infallible assent they give to Necessaries Again They are infallible in believing Necessaries but not infallible in teaching others the Necessaries to Salvation What is this to say Cannot men commissioned to instruct others teach that infallibly which they believe infallibly The Dr believes infallibly the high God head in Christ cannot he open his mouth and convey infallibly this Truth to others capable of believing infallibly were he lawfully sent to Preach 6 Now if by
matter of Faith in case his two yet unknown rules be followed I answer it is impossible in the Dr ' s Principles to prescribe or to set down clearly any such Rules I prove the Assertion 10 Put case that the Guides of two dissenting Churches Arians for example and Protestants contest about Necessaries for Salvation or any other matter of Faith the like is if dissentions arise between the Guides of either Church and lay men under their charge All these jarring Spirits as we now suppose are fallible and may err in what they judge concerning their own Tenets Now if the supposed rules pitcht upon be as fallible à like faulty and as liable to errour as these Contenders are they can never rectify them nor bring any to à setled union in Faith But all the Rules assignable in the Doctors Principles be they what you will are thus faulty and fallible therefore most unfit to set any man right in Faith for à fallible crooked rule applyed to the fallible crooked judgements of others at high dissentions concerning beliefe regulates no better than if the blind endeavour to lead the blind Pray tell me did you ever know wise Man after his hearing two litigious persons at earnest contention about Meum tuum act the part of à Judge by Saying My masters be gone you are both wranglers Here you have the very case of all Hereticks laid open I speak boldly and am ready to defend my Assertion before the whole world What ever Rule Dr Still can make use of for the ending of differences between him and Arians for example what ever Judge he dare appeal to in this contest can pronounce no other sentence but this Be gone you are all wranglers The wisest on earth is not able to say more to your never endless quarels The reason à Priori of my Assertion and all hitherto said is thus The certain Rule which regulates Faith can neither be taken In the Drs Principles no rule is assignable to end contentions from any controverted passage in Holy Writ for that only yeild's uncertainty much lesse from the fallible and errable conceptions of those who believe contradictions Here is all the Dr can pitch upon for his unknown rules Tradition fail's him if all the Churches in the world be fallible and have actually erred for who dare even upon moral certainty trust the Tradition of condemned Hereticks or of an Idolatrous Church as in the Dr ' s Opinion the Roman is The Fathers are fallible and all of them or the very most infected with Popery The Doctrin of the Primitive Church in controverted matters afford's no certain indisputable rule Long therefore may the Dr overlook his note-Note-books before he find à rule for the Churh Guides to proceed by and for others to judge of their proceeding 11 Perhaps his 266 page will give more light where we are told That the supposition of Guides in Religion doth depend of some common Principles of Religion that may be known to all and that within the compass of these plain duties lies the capacity of persons judgeing of their Guides but if they carry them out of this beaten way or tell them they must put out their eyes to follow them the better what reason can there be that any should commit themselves to the absolute conduct of such unfaithfull Guides Once more you have here the like dull flegmatick and general talk you had just now nothing particularized nothing proved And all is tacitely to countenance that foul illegal Schism and open rebellion made against the Church when à few desperate Novellists headed by two ungracious wretches Luther and Calvin condemned her of errour and this before no other Tribunal but themselves who were the Rebels Here one common Principle of Religion and à main one too which obliges Christians to obey their lawful Superiours was against all conscience shamefully violated Here the beaten way wherein millions had walked peacefully to Heaven became deserted and in lieu of that Meanders By-wayes and intricate cross windings were made choice of Now the time was when people sure blinde with too much light went about to pull out the eyes of their own ancient Guides and saw more then ever the world saw before these new eyes were set in their heads We need not Dr to stand indenting with you for these truths They are as clear as the Sunshine But as you sowe you may hope to reap you have cast the seeds of dissention into our once most Catholick England and I tell you before hand look to it you will find confusion at the haruest and most likely sooner In the mean while I tell you again there is not one true Principle within the bounds of Christian Religion that capacitates particular persons to judge their Guides proceedings Name this Principle and I yeild up the whole cause Answer if you can And thus much of the Drs Rules 12 Other petty obiections I find in this first part scattered up and down scarse worth reflection P. 109. His Adversary N. O. quotes that Text of S. Peter Epist 2. Chap. 3. 16. where its said There are certain things in S. Pauls Epistles hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable deprà ve as also the rest of Scriptures to their own perdition These things being certainly of consequence if perdition followes the depravation we ask what is become of Dr Still discerning truth from falshood by Scripture A simple Answer of the Dr refuted only and his discerning faculty Hear his frivolous answer But doth S. Peter say that Scriptures are so hard that sober minds cannot learn therein what is Necessary to Salvation Yes Dr he saith it expresly for some say I beseech you who they are pervert Scripture to their own perdition that is to damnation Now if you quibble about Sober and devout minds the Arians will tell you they are as sober and devout as you therefore unless you plainly point out those you call sober minded you may be as well listed amongst the perverse as any other accounted by you depraved or ill minded Solve this difficulty if you can 13 The Dr in his 144. P. cloyes us with other Testimonies of Scripture no more to any purpose than if he had cited the first Chapter of Exodus Thessal 1. 2. 12. The people are to hold fast that which is good Very true But are they here commanded to hold fast to what their private judgement tell 's them and not to adhere to Apostolical Doctrin and the Spirit of the Catholick Church Acts. 17. 12. They searched Scripture dayly whether the things proposed were so or not What wonder here if after S. Paul's large discourse concerning Christ never heard so fully before they search'd Scriptures and found all true he taught having still an Eye more to the Apostles expounding Scripture than to their own private judgements The other passages alleged For example We must not believe every Spirit but try the Spirits
impugn the Infallibility she layes claim to by this Scripture which he saith is both doubtful and Controverted 25 Page 197 He enquires into the Necessity of an Infallible interpretation of the doubtful places in Scripture and here loses himselfe for in my whole life I never saw such à far fetcht rambling discourse as he begins with P. 197. which summed up amount's only to this that you must either believe the Dr infallible in giving an account of the proceeding of the primitive Church in this matter or remain as ignorant as you were before For my part I dare not trust the Dr for by what I have perused he is horribly out of all sound Principles Be it so or no I am wholly unconcerned in this controversy having hitherto only enquired after the means how to understand the sence of Scripture in such passages as relate to the prime Necessaries of Salvation The Godhead of Christ A Trinity of distinct persons c. Now when the Dr gives satisfaction in these particulars have at him for the rest In the mean time I supersede the labour which might be spent and leave that to the accurate review of his worthy Adversary N. O. Thus much of the Dr ' s first part And t' is more then I was obliged to take notice of but because I wanted à long time his second discourse I chose rather for the little leisure allowed from my other employments to make the few reflections you have already than to be forgetful of my good friend Doctor Stillingfleet Now we enter into his second Discourse CHAP. V. Doctor Stillingfleets pretended Answer to E VVs Two books Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion shew'd no Answer but à meer shuffling or palpable digression from the main point handled in those Treatises How the Dr shift's off the only difficulty wherein satisfaction is required 1 THere are as I conceive two wayes of answering à book The one to follow an Adversary step by step the other to reverse his Principles or at least to solve such Arguments as the Author judges worth an Answer If he judge amiss or thinks weak arguments strong ones à Respondent ought fairly to lay forth their want of strength and shew wherein they are fallacious The thing I chiefly aimed at in both Treatises was as those know who read them to vindicate the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church from the unjust censure of Sectaries whether you take it as à large body spread the whole world over or consider its Representative in general approved Councils Dr Stilling as appear's by his Title undertakes to answer these books but doth it after à new mode or the strangest way I ever yet saw in any He waves all my Arguments which I judge prove clearly the Churches Infallibility and entertain's himselfe with some few By-matters little or nothing relating to this main difficulty 2 You will perhaps better understand my meaning if I briefly sum up The chiefe Contents in the Drs second Discourse briefly Collected the chief contents of this Doctors idlely spent labour in the second discourse from his 2. Chapter page 329 to page 433. Thus it is First he enters into à serious matter with meer Drollery and spiteful language 2. He transcrib's some parcels of my Doctrin mangled as he thought best for his own design and leaves all as he found it though here and there he featly intermingles some scoffes thought by him pretty lests and to make greater confusion now you find him like à rat nibbling at one of my Treatises now at the other without method or order and the whole strain of his writing is either to tell the Reader what he saies without the least shadow of proof which directly makes against the Churches Infallibility or barely to relate what I assert for it but replyes not at all to the Arguments I chiefly insist upon as will presently appear It is true about his page 362 he would fain batter my Answers to two Objections taken out of his Account which meerly touch upon à Scholastical point How weakly we shall se hereafter but all this while not à word comes from him which directly tend's to prove the Church fallible nor can I find any of my Arguments solved Yet this is the man that in his Title-page pretend's to Answer my two books 3. After some quarrels with the Supernaturality of Faith and its obscure tendency He slip's aside into another Scholastical point concerning the Resolution of Faith and because the matter of it selfe is hard and made harder by his jumbling he get's into à Labyrinth of his own making called the Rational Evidence of Christian Religion My chief endeavour shall be to wind him out of it which would soon be done were he better versed in speculative learning 3 The Dr as I said now some what waspish layes aside much of his gravity and begins with Ironies Mockeries and bitter language called by some Iest earnest and discharges that rounder shot of Toyes Triffles and Fancies very thick upon me Is not this hard proceeding Methinks these men of the new Gospel are strangely priviledged to reproach when the Of the Dr's Ironies and bitter Language spirit moves What à gallant lesson had he learn't us in the. 5. Page of his Preface to the former book Not to revile though he be reviled and here weak man he breaks his purpose forget's his lesson and reproaches boldly And will you know why Forsooth he takes it ill that I joyned him in my Title-page with Atheists Iewes Turks and Sectaries In real earnest Mr Dr though I said it not in plain terms yet I thought you well deserved the place but seing you resent my putting you after that rabble you shall in my next book be upermost and have à palce before them all But in God's name what unluckie Spirit light on you in that deep Exclamation O! what à pestilent Heretick is this Stillingfleet Look to it Doctor Ridentem dicere verum quid vetat If you in raillery make your selfe heretick and others judge you one of the worser sort I will pray for you but can not clear you of the guilt before you deserve better There is more of this rambling He tell 's me If either of my books were thrown at his head he would have enough to defend himself for they are very thick and heavy But how would he defend that precious Pate were his voluminous Account thrown after them I am sure that 's thicker and heavier To my great comfort saith he I never yet saw two such bulky books whose Substance might be brought into à less compass or more full of Tautologies and tedious repetitions A homely complement I hope Sr. you except your own bulkie Account or ought in all reason to do so for in my whole life I never read any thing more stuff't with empty words and superabounding Tautologies To be short I dare wager ten to one if ever you and I meet in
Holborn that for one Tautologie in mine I will shew five in yours with à pretty addition of new ones in these your two last Treatises Now whereas you tell me the whole substance of my books lies in this one word Infallibility Know Sr you get the worst here for the whole substance of all you have said or can say confessedly lies in à far weaker word called Fallibility Here it seem's the Dr is willing to leave off his long Tattle for fear of more Advertisements And is it possible could that harmless and well meant Advertisement wherein nothing can be found offensive stirr up thus much unruly passion in à Dr I know no remedy yet hope the Preface to this Treatise will à little calm it 4 To end He ierk's me once more and will need 's suppose that Protestancy without Principles was disposed of to better uses than to be read because forsooth he More jerks yet never heard of one man in England that read it over A weak proof of à false supposition Good Sr are all truths conveyed to your ears do not some miss their way thither Be it how you will hear or pretend not to hear most certainly that book was read by many not only in England but Ireland also Nay more all the Copies above six hundred excepting some few seized on were in à short time bought up In so much that à Gentleman of our Nation offered three Crowns for one single Copy yet could not after long enquiry meet with one These truths known to the Printer and others are sufficient to evert your false supposition and your weak proof added to it 5 And thus much of the Dr ' s Comical Introduction If he thinks me too pert or pleasant with him I answer Benedictis si certasset audisset bene Had not à fermentation The Dr's vast conceipt of himselfe of blood transported him beyond all bounds of common civility no ill word should have fallen from me but when we find à vain Bragger gloriously enthrown'd in à vast conceipt of himselfe as if all he treat's with were desplicable Mushromes it is Charity I think not to sooth him up in his folly but to tell him his own home as S. Hierome once did an Adversary Quae voluisti locutus quae non vis audire debes Time I hope may make the Dr wiser Let us now goe on 6 I said above Dr Still answers not directly one Argument proposed by me for the Churches Infallibility If I prove the Assertion it followes clearly that either he understand's them and will not answer because he finds them too strong for him Or 2 he cannot answer because he penetrat's not their force Grant the first he is à meer cheat and deludes the Reader with à seeming reply which is none in substance Say 2. He understand's not the force of my Arguments and cannot answer he is unworthy to be dealt with and ought in that measure to be despised as he despises others 7 Now I prove my Assertion I say as he relates P. 331. That without an Infallible The Dr answers net my arguments Church he means in this present state as I often inculcate there can be no certainty of Faith and have established the Assertion upon these grounds Neither the Canon nor Divinity nor the Infallible truth or sence of Scripture even in points Necessary to Salvation can be probably much less certainly assured to any in this present state but by the Authority of an Infallible Church To this not à word of answer is or can be returned by the Dr. 8 I Assert 2. As the Dr cites that the Roman Catholick Church only is God's Infallible Oracle and prove it Reas and Relig D. 2. c. 14. n. 10. 11. from Scripture Fathers and most pregnant reason 1. If any Church be Infallible it is the Roman Catholick for all others disclaim the Guidance of an Infallible living Oracle 2. As nothing can more discountenance the worth of true Christianity than à stedfast perswasion of it's fallibility or easily being false So nothing can fix in us an undubitable beliefe of Christ's Doctrin but an Oracle not lyable to errour 3. And chiefly If no Church be Infallible to whose Authority Christians must submit when dissentions arise concerning the Fundamentals Proofs for the Churches Infallibility of Faith and the genuin sence of Scripture both Iewes and Heathens may most justly despise Christian Religion and scorn all our endeavours to make them of one Faith with us upon this ground That none can certainly say what Doctrin Christ our Lord or his Apostles taught the world So it is Mr Dr our debates about the prime Articles of Faith no satisfactory means to end them but Topicks and fallible reasoning are so many that all taught Doctrin lies like an undecided Process in law still disputable and therefore of no credit or estimation unless an Infallible Church decide them and bring Christians to acquiesce in one Faith These Arguments and many more I proposed against the Doctor in the Discourse now cited and all the Answer I have is that he set's down some mangled parcels of my Tenents or barely tells me what I say For example I assert Protestancy without Prine Disc 1. c. 2. That à Doctrin which by virtue of all the Principles it has is meerly fallible and no more may be false but Christian Doctrin say Sectaries as it is taught by all Pastors is thus fallible therefore it may be false But God never Sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles or any to teach Christian Doctrin that may be false Ergo he sent none to teach meer fallible Doctrin This Reason our Dr blindly hints at P. 333. but leaves it without any Answer And thus he run's on to his 339. P. where he tells me He hath laid together so many parcels of my rambling discourse as were necessary in order to the examination of it To the examination of it Mr Dr Not one word true This had been material to shew my Arguments for the The Dr flies from the main difficulty Churches infallibility unconcluding you touch not these or at least to prove by some solid reasoning that the Church is fallible this point you most shamefully shift off and in the next page tell us that the necessity of Divine grace is no way pertinent to our present purpose the Question only being of an external infallible Proponent in order to Faith Sr what you make to your purpose I know not nor much care It was my duty and pertinent when I undertook the full and adequate Resolution of Divine Faith to lay down all the Principles it relies on and à main one is the internal assistance of Grace Had I omitted to treat of an external infallible Proponent you might have justly quarrelled but when that particular is largely handled through the five last chapters of the second Discourse and not à word replyed to any of my Arguments your accusation
was one whose Zeal carried him no further than the Popes interest What 's this but an idle crack of à petty Ministers potgun The Dr's Slighting Baronius discharged against à most eminent and renowned Person Should one as inferiour to the Dr as he is to the Cardinal publish in Print that all his scribling has been to gain à little vain applause of men would he think himselfe civilly dealt with God best knowes how much of this is true 2. Yet we have more of the like blundering When Canisius gives à fuller account of this Story and tells us that the Angels are Ministring Spirits as appear's by their transporting Habacuc and Philip. Acts. 7. 40. Our Dr replies very gravely As though saith he Angels could not discharge that Ministery unless at some time or other they took away an old house and mounted it into the Ayr. Is not this to answer The impertinent Cavils of our Dr laid forth pertinently think ye Tursellin lib. 1. c. 6. recount's that the trees while the Chappel passed by made lowly reverence to it A jeer refutes all It seems saith the Dr they bovved so lovv that they could never recover themselves after And might he not as well have scorned that stately tree which reverently bowed to our Saviour witness Sozomenus lib 5. Cap. 21 and Nicephorus Lib 10. c. 31. But this is the usual trick of our Dr when put hard to it for an Answer to what pleases not he makes short work look's big and laughs at it Hence he slights those two witnesses Renalduccius and Francis Prior who attested upon oath that their Ancestors had seen the Chappel and often visited it scornfully calling them two Affidavit men though he has not one Affidavit man that ever questioned their Fidelity Af this strain he slights that exact Historian Hteronymus Angelita because forsooth he wrote his Story in Clement the 7th time too late as the Dr thinks and dedicated it to the Pope Thus he slights the Authentick Table of the pious Provost Teremanus with one simple Demand Was ever so great à Miracle better attested than this Reflect Gentle Reader May this new mode passe Current in refuting Authors of known integrity by jeers Ieers and Ironies the Dr's best and only Authors and asking impertment Questions you may cast all History aside and let ranting flouts and Ironies have place Dr Still tells you it must be so having little els to fill his book with nor so much as one Author to oppose these Testimonies 3. In the mean while perhaps some thing better may occur but it s only the old rubbish former Hereticks have turned over to furnish the Dr with and he ought to thank them for it Here in à word lies the Chief charge and in effect all that can be said Three Writers Dante 's Aldigerius Franciscus Petrarchae and Ioannes Boccaccius that prosecuted the Italian History in the fourth Century after the year one thousand never mentioned the Miraculous translation of this house And what saies our Dr is it credible that so great à The only Argument of Heretiks against the Chappels Translation Drawn from the Silence of Authors Miracle should happen in those dayes without notice taken of it by such inquisitive men Besides S. Antonin of Florence speaks not à word of it and which is more S. Vincentius Ferrerius Serm de Assump B. V. positively assert's that the Chamber of our Lady was still in Nazareth And though the former are negative Testimonies adds the Dr yet they cannot be rejected by us because we often make use of them as appear's by the Story of Pope Ioan. For Baronius saith that the not recording it or the Silence of so long à time after wherein there was just occasion to mention it was more then à thousand witnesses to prove the falsity of it And if silence be à thousand witnesses on their side I hope it may be at least five hundred on ours Thus Mr Dr. And afterward upon an other An Argument taken out of Baronius speaking of Pope Ioan. occasion p. 472. harp's much upon the same string and highly applaud's Baronius his excellent rule Viz. What soever is delivered by later Authors concerning the matters of Antiquity and is not confirmed by the Authority of some ancient Writer is contemned By this rule in all these matters saith our Dr let us stand or fall Jam content Mr Dr and before I soule the difficulty can easily preacquaint you with another great wonder never mentioned never taken notice of by any Author but most silently pass't over by all ancient writers yet you and all Protestants hold it unquestionably true 4. In the year 1517. there appeared in Germany à very strange Machine our Dr will have it well nigh as old as the Chappel at Loreto called by some if not the whole at least the best Part of the House of the living God that is his Church which should had it been built by Jesus Christ be more worth then à little Chappel Not to keep you longer in Suspence I mean by this Machine the whole Essential Fabrick A great wonder held by protestants never mentioned by ancient Author of Protestancy and beseech you mistake me not but mark well what I enquire after By Protestancy I do not understand the Common Tenets of Christian Religion but the very essentials of this Novelty as it differ's or is distinguished by its reformation from that which some Scornfully call Popery and all condemned Heresies whereof I have treated more largely Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 20. n. 2. Thus much supposed 5. It is most clear that this fancied Choise part of God's house appeared in Germany such à year and from thence to say nothing of other Transmigrations Crossed the sea and got into England All this is evident Now further But no ancient Writer ever told the world where this Protestancy had been before Luther or from what remote Part of the world it first came or finally who first transported it into Germany therefore according to the Dr's rule it justly deserves contempt Shall I speak Who conveyed this new Machine of protestancy into Germany and England more plainly The essential Structure of Protestancy say Sectaries was ever in being from the time of Christ and his Apostles Three dayes before Luther it was not in Germany yet afterwards got thither we seek for witnesses and would have this matter of fact plainly attested by some ancient Writer And is not the Dr think ye when pressed thus home obliged to produce his VVriters and vvitnesses One Author as credible as Teremanus one witness as faithful as Renalduccius shall content me You Mr Dr make the Essentials of Protestancy Marvellously ancient Make this out Tell us who were the Professors of it Where they lived Did ever man or Angel bring you the newes of this Machin's Translation from any Part of the world Were any ever sent in such or such an
those books to be Divine I answer 1. That in the Age when the Doctrin was delivered there was sufficient reason to believe it Divine He goes on Supposing then that we already believe upon the former answer that if Christ did such unparalleld Miracles and rose from the dead they who heard his Doctrin had reason to believe it to be of God He mean's Divine and revealed Doctrin for all Doctrin of God or from God is not in our Sence now Divine or revealed Doctrin Thus much said He asserts 2. If they the ancient Christians had reason then we have so now Viz. to believe upon our Saviours unparalleld Miracles From these matters of fact and Apostolical wonders the Dr takes his rational Evidence and conveigh's it to us by Tradition our exceptions made against his evidence which supplies the want of our Senses as to what Christ did and spake I shall presently insist more largely n. 26. upon his Tradition Here I am to show that his Evidence in order to Christians now living is nothing like rational Evidence if and this he requires we exclude the Testimony of an Infallible Church 19 To propose plainly what I would say and to give the Dr the fairest play imaginable I gratis admit all the Miracles and matters of fact recorded in the Gospel to be most true though hitherto not proved true by the Dr but then ask what use will he make of them He may answer he proves by these Miracles the Doctrin of Christ to be true Admit this also I demand further and here lies the main business that concern's us at present whether the Doctor can assure any by virtue of where the main difficulty is those Miracles who at this day among so many dissenting Christians in points of Faith most fundamental believe and profess Christ's true Doctrin For his rational Evidence if it deserve the Title of rational must drive hither at last or its worth nothing to Christians now living that is he must shew by these long since wrought Miracles whether Arians Pelagians Protestants or Catholicks have à right beliefe of Christs Doctrin for most certainly all of them believe not the true Doctrin delivered by Christ I say it is impossible to make this out unless the strangest Consequence that ever man heard of be good and it 's thus Christ rose from the dead He commanded the sea and winds and they obeyed his voice He gave life to dead Lazarus c. Ergo the Arians for example profess Christ's true Doctrin and Protestants not Or Contrarywise Protestants believe right and the Arians are in a wrong Faith Unless this Inference which is worse than Non-sence pass current the Doctors pretended rational Evidence taken from those ancient matters of fact is the most fruitless and most discomfortable Evidence that ever wise man pitch't upon whereof more presently n. 27. Note in the mean while he may perhaps and no more but perhaps tell us by his the Dr's rational Evidence demonstrated â—seless to Christians now living Evidence that Christs Doctrin in it selfe is true but shall never thereupon assure us who among so many Dissenters in Necessaries to Salvation believes or professes that true Doctrin He may tell us that horrid debates arise amongst the learned of different Religions but shall never tell us how they can be composed or ended by à bare owning the truth of Christ's Miracles which are carried up and down by à common humane consent of Christians though they have none to attest them Infallibly true in this present State 20 Please now to consider how differently we Catholicks proceed in this matter and satisfy both Jewes and Gentils We own all that Scripture contain's whether Miracles or Doctrin true and Divine To evince this we lead you not to à dead book or to matters of fact far off but to an ever living Oracle distinct from that book called the Holy Catholick Church which proves herselfe by her neerer visible matters of fact signal marks and undoubted Miracles as rationally à true Oracle whereby God speak's to the world as ever any Apostle did From this glorious signalized and long standing Church we take our rational Evidence and know if the Primitive Christians took theirs right from the Apostolical wonders we no way Inferiour keep parallel with them while we rationally rely upon our clear manifested Oracle Moreover we prove that this Church which hath power from God to teach and engages her whole Authority to teach Truth shewes herselfe by real Signs and Miraculous effects the greatest Oracle now under God appointed to instruct the world It is She if Controversies arise concerning Faith that composes all She assures us that the verities in Scripture written by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost are Divine She applies and conveigh's these ancient truths to us She tells us now How differently we proceed from the Dr in our rational Evidence and Infallibly what Christ's Doctrin long since made evidently Credible by his own most glorious Miracles is She finally ascertain's every one without doubt and hesitancy who they are that profess this revealed Doctrin And thus relying upon à rational evidenced Church we Shew our selves rational men and void of fear set our hearts at rest while the Dr by à bare relation of our Saviours Miracles now remote from us proves not one of these particulars but will forsooth evince the Doctrin in Scripture to be Divine upon à meer unproved Supposition that such matters of fact once were which yet cannot be evinced true sufficient as I said to ground Faith much less Divine without the Churches Testimony whereby full assurance is given to all in this present State that both Doctrin and Miracles are true and Divine 21 The Dr therefore should in the first place have proved the Divinity of Christ's Doctrin and from thence he might have inferred it's Truth but to evince it Divine to Christians now upon what the Dr should aimâ— at but perform's not à meer unproved Supposition Viz. That such matters of fact are true is a break-neck to his Discourse and an unaproachable way of ever comming to the Conclusion he intend's because his aime must be or he doth nothing to show by his Evidence what Society of Christians now living believes and professes the true Doctrin of Christ or how Chrst's true Society may be made discernable by those ancient Miracles from others that teach damnable Doctrin Herein he fail's and shall fail while an Infallible Church is rejected 22 These Considerations clearly laid down no less clearly evince the Dr ' s resolution of Faith to be frivolous and his rational Evidence unreasonable for tell me not by his Evidence what Society of Christians are now right in Faith prove me not that Scripture was written by Divine assistance Shew me not that the truths related there are Truths revealed by Almighty God the whole Doctrin of that book and all the Miracles in it signify nothing 23
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