of Rome confess that it was not always necessary but least on the other side they should seem hereby to forego the Palladium of that Church they do withall say that sometimes Faith may begin there and so run into the very same absurdities that the others do For if one man can resolve his Faith well so why not a hundred why not a thousand why not all Christians If all cannot do it without running into a circle neither can one for the process of Faith is alike in all Not that the same means are used to all persons for it is evident that men believe upon different grounds but what is absurd if a thousand do it is equally absurd if but one do it Although the Guide â—n Controversies doth not suppose it necessary â—or men to resolve their Faith into the Churches Infallibility yet he doth suppose â—hat some men may do it Well then we will put the case that any one person doth reâ—olve his Faith concerning Gods Revelation â—nto the Churches Infallibility as the ground of his divine Faith I desire to be informed by this worthy Guide whether he doth not run into the same absurdities which all would do if they proceeded that way i. e. whether it be any more possible for one to free himself from a circle than for all Is not the reason assigned by Canus and Layman and Lugo this viz. because the Churches Infallibility iâ— one of the things to be believed as revealed by God and therefore cannot be the ground of Faith to any And will not this reason exclude any one person from doing it that resolves his Faith as he ought to do So that if this hold in any one being drawn from the reason of the thing and not from the circumstances of persons it must equally hold against all persons and consequently no one person can reasonably establish his Faith as to Gods Revelation upon the Churches Infallibility § 6. 3. I am far from understanding this way of immediate asseâ—â—t to the divine Revelation I grant the reason against proceeding furtheâ— to be very good for the Guide could see nâ— passage that way but over rocks and precipices and therefore finds out a shorter cut by asserting an immediate assent to the Divinâ— Revelation But to what divine Revelation doth he mean The Authority of Soripture Churches Infallibility Apostolical Tradition or any of these It is all one to me which it is for it is equally unreasonable to alloâ— any of them For I look upon Faith aâ— an act of the mind which must always have a reason moving it to assent Even in self evident Propositions where the assent is most immediate yet there is the greatest and clearest reason for it viz. the evidence of the thing which makes the understanding never hesitate or doubt but yield a firm assent upon the first apprehension and proportionable to the reason and evidence of the thing or of the motive enclining to assent so is the readiness and firmness of it But to assert an assent in Faith so immediate of which no motive or reason can be assigned proportionable to it is a thing repugnant to the nature of our reasonable faculties and it is to make one of the noblest acts of our understandings a meer blind and bruitish assent All that we enquire for is a sufficient reason to move our minds to believe in the act of divine Faith which is seen in all the acts of humane Faith For no man can reasonably believe what another saith or that he hath said so but he is able to give an account of both of them And it would be very strange that in the most weighty matters of Faith on which mens eternal happiness and misery depend they should be obliged to assent in such an immediate manner that they can have no good account to give of their divine Faith Yes â—aith the Guide an account may be given â—o make this assent appear prudent by the moâ—ives of credibility But that is not the thing we enquire for but a sufficient foundation for divine Faith and as to this he asserts â—hat our Faith doth immediately rest upon divine Revelation without proceeding to another Revelation for the ground of it But now then can this divine Faith have a divine Revelation for its ground It may have it for its material object which comes not under our consideration but only the formal object on motive of that Faith as to this Revelation We will suppose the Churches Infallibility to be the matter believed I demand a reason why this is to be believed The Answer is because God hath revealed it in his Word there the Qâ—estion returns what reason have you to believe that to be the Word of God Here the Guide cries out stand there if you proceed a step further you are lost For if you say upon another Revelation then that upon another and so without end But say I you tell me I must believe this to be Gods Word with a divine Faith and this divine Faith must rest upon a divine Revelation as its formal cause assign me that or you overthrow the nature of divine Faith what divine Revelation is there for this Faith to rest upon None say you but here it must stop if so then it is certain by your own principles this either can be no divine Faith or else divine Faith doth not always need a divine Revelation So that this way of the resolution of Faith overthrows it self and needs no other opposition but of one part to another § 7. 4. It may be all this may be cleared by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost supplying the want of another Revelation by its illuminating and confirming the mind So the Tragoedians of old call'd down the Gods upon the Stage when they could extricate themselves by no other means Not that I do in the least doubt the efficiency of the divine Spirit in the act and exercise of Faith or that God by secret and unexpressible ways may strengthen and increase Grace in the hearts of men which thereby become better assured of the â—hings they believe But the Question now â—s whether our Faith as to the motive and â—eason of it can or ought to be resolved into â—he illumination of the Holy Ghost And in â—ruth after all his turnings and windings the Guide sits down at last in the grossest way of resolving divine faith into the Testimony of the Holy Ghost For he saith that doth â—lluminate the understanding that the prime verity cannot lie in whatever thing it reveals and also that the particular articles of our faith are its revelations Was ever any â—hing more fully said to this purpose by the highest Calvinists or Enthusiasts Have the â—isputants of the Church of Rome hitherâ—o charged them with a circle in this â—esolution of faith equal with theirs between the Church and Scripture and hath the very Guide in Controversies found no way to escape one whirlpool but by
for Assent is not according to the objective certitude of things but the evidence of them to our understanding For is it possible to assent to the truth of a Demonstration in a demonstrative manner because any Mathematician tells one the thing is demonstrable For in that case the assent is not according to the evidence of the thing but according to the opinion such a person hath of him who tells him it is demonstrable Nay supposing that Person Infallible in saying so yet if the other hath no means to be Infallibly assured that he is so his Assent is as doubtful as if he were not Infallible Therefore supposing the Testimony of the Roman Church to be really Infallible yet since the means of believing it are but probable and prudential ' â—he Assent cannot be according to the nature of the Testimony considered in it self but according to the reasons which induce me to believe such a Testimony Infallible And in all such cases where I believe one thing for the sake of another my Assent to the object believed is according to my Assent to the Medium on which I believe it As our light is not according to the light in the body of the Sun but that which presseth on our Organs of Sense So that supposing their Churches Testimony to be Infallible in it self if one may be deceived in judging whether it be Infallible or no one may be deceived in such things which he believes on that supposed Infallibility It being impossible that the assent to the matters of faith should rise higher or stand firmer than the assent to the Testimony upon which those things are believed But now to prove the Churches infallibility they make use only of the motives of credibility which themselves grant can be the foundation only of a fallible assent This was the reason I then urged I must now consider what E. W. saith in answer to it And the force of his answer lies in these things 1. That all this proceeds from ignorance of the nature of faith which Discourses not like to science For he grants that the article of faith which concerns Gods Revâ—lation cannot be proved by another believeâ— article of faith wholly as obscure to us â— that is for that would proceed in infinitum therefore all rational proofs avail tâ—â—get faith in any must of necessity be extrinsecal to belief and lie as it were iâ— another Region more clear yet less certain than the revealed mystery is we assent to by faith And so in that article of faith the Church is Gods infallible Oracle he saith that antecedently to faith it cannot be proved by arguments as obscure and of the same Infallible certainty with faith for then faith would be superfluous or rather we should believe by a firm and infallible assent before we do believe on the motive of Gods insallible Revelation which is impossible So that the extrinsecal motives of faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is proved independently on Scripture are not of the same certainty with supernatural faith it self and only prove the evident credibility either of the Scripture or the Church 2. That the force of this Argument will hold against our selves and those who believed in the Apostles times whose infallible assent of faitb doth as much exceed all proportion or degree of evidence as theirs does in believing the Churches Infallibility on the motives of credibility In order to the giving a clear and distinct Answer it will be necessary to enquire â— What those acts of Faith are we now Discourse of 2. What influence the moâ—ives of credibility have upon them 1. For the acts of Faith there are two assigned by E. W. 1. That whereby men beâ—elieve the Scripture to be the Word of God 2. That whereby men believe the Church to be Infallible both these he acknowledges â—re Articles of faith and to be believed with â—an Infallible assent But here mark the shuffling the first of these cannot be believed but by an Infallible Testimony viz. Of the Church for that end the Churches Infallibiâ—ity is made necessary that the Faith may be divine and infallible because divine faith can rest only upon Infallible Testimony but â—hen in the other act of faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed we hear no more of this infallible Testimony because then it is impossible to avoid the circle I propose therefore this Dilemma to E. W. Either it is necessary to every act of divine Faith to have an Infallible Testimony or it is not if it be not necessary then there is no necessity of asserting the Churches Infallibility in order to believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God and so the cause is gained if it be necessary then the faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed must have such a divine Testimony and so either a process in infinitum or a circle are unavoidable by him If he considered this and yet wriâ— two such Books to prove the necessity of Infallibility in order to faith he betrays too much insincerity for a man to deal with him if he did not he need not complain so much of others Ignorance he may easily find enough nearer home And therefore all the fault of these men does not lie barely in making the assent to be more certain than the motives of Faith but in requiring so strictly in one act of Faith a proportionable certainty to the assent and not in another For what is there I beseech E. W. in believing the Churches Infallibility which should not make it as necessary for that to be supported by an infallible Testimony as that whereby we believe the Divine Revelation If faith hath nâ— grounds and doth not Discourse as Science doth then I hope the case is alike in bothâ— and so the necessity of an Infallible Testimony must be affirmed of the one or equally denyed in the other But he seems to assert That faith whatever object it respects doth not Discourse as Science doth but solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of reason Grant this at present but then I hope both these acts of faith equally do so and still â—he Churches infallibility cannot be made â—ecessary to faith for if faith immediately â—elies on Gods Testimony what need any other to ascertain it or any other proposition than such as is sufficient to make known â—he object of faith to which end no infalliâ—ility in the proponent is necessary Any more than it is necessary for the act of love â—oward a desireable object that he that shews a Beauty should be infallible in the description of her If all the necessity of the Churches proposition be no more than to convey the Divine Testimony to us as E. W. sometimes â—mplies let him take pains to a little better purpose in proving that such a conditio applicans as he calls it must have infallibility belonging to it For Infallibility is then only necessary when it is relied upon
constitute it in the notion of faith divine because the faith so stiled is supposed to rest always on an higher ground viz. Revelation Divine 10. That the infallibility of the Church grounded on Divine Revelation and believed by a divine faith is a main ground and pillar of a Catholicks faith for any other articles thereof that are established by the sam◠Churches Definitions where the Scriptures or Tradition Apostolick are to him doubtful Of which ground and assurance of such points believed by Catholicks from the Churches infallible Authority the Protestant◠faith is destitute § 3. These are the Principles upon which this Guide in Controversies undertakes to clear this intricate Question and to free their resolution of faith from the danger of a circle I have but two small things to object against this way 1. That it gives up the cause in dispute 2. That notwithstanding it doth not avoid the main difficulties 1. That it gives up the cause in Dispute◠which was whether the Infallible Testimony of the Church be the necessary Foundation of Divine Faith for upon occasion of the supposed necessity of this Infallibility the Question was first started this Infallibility being asserted to be necessary by T. C. and was the thing I chiefly opposed in the discourse of the Resolution of Faith Now this the Guide in Controversies freely yields to me and consequently the main Foundation of Faith asserted by my Adversary is destroyed as plainly appears by the third Proposition wherein he affirms that an external infallible proponent is not necessary to divine Faith But this he doth not barely affirm but he saith it is copiously proved by many learned Catholicks and to this purpose he cites Cardinal Lugo speaking of Divine Faith who saith that the infallibility of the Church cannot be the first Ground of Divine Faith because this Infallible Authority of the church by Assistance of the Holy Ghost is it self an article of Divine Faith And experience tells us that all Children or adult persons first coming to the Faith do not apprebend much less infallibly believe this Infallible Authority in the Church before any other article of Faith And in the Law of Nature and under the Law of Moses the Churches proposition was not necessary in order to faith but the instruction of Parents was sufficient in one and the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets in the other before their Prophecies were received by the Church He cites Estius likewise speaking of this Divine and Salvifical faith that it is not material to faith what medium God makes use of to bestow this gift of Faith upon men many having believed that knew nothing of the Churches infallibility He cites Layman asserting that it often comes to pass that other articles of our faith are explicitly believed before that of the Churches Infallibility and withal this Infallibility of the Church depends upon the promise of the spirit therefore men must first believe that there is a spirit of God and consequently the holy Trinity Farther saith he it is plain that the primitive Christians did believe with divine Faith not for the Authority of the Church which either was not founded yet when St. Peter believed Christ to be the Son of the living God or had not defined any doctrines of Faith Again he denies the Churches Authority to be the formal principle or motive of Faith and that for this very good reason because this infallible Authority of the Church is one of the things to be believed Nay he cites Fa. Knot himself in his reply to Chillingworth affirming Christians may have a true Infallible Divine Faith of which faith they have only a fallible proponent nor are infallibly certain thereof i. e. as to the proponent I now appeal to the indifferent reader whether the main thing contended for by me viz. that the infallible Testimony of the Church is not necessary in order to Faith be not here fully granted to me 2. But yet the account of Faith here given is very far from clearing the chief difficulties of it as will appear by these two things 1. That this resolution of Divine Faith is very unsatisfactory in it self ◠2. That it is liable to the absurdities which he seeks to avoid by it 1. That the resolution of Divine Faith laid down by him is very unsatisfactory in it self the principles of which are these 1. That Divine Faith must rest upon Divine Revelation 2. This Divine Revelation upon which faith is built is that which is first made known to the person and from which he proceeds to other matters of faith 3. This Divine Revelation is not one and the same to all but to some the Authority of the Scriptures to some the Authority of the Church to some Apostolical Tradition 4. Divine Faith must rest upon this Revelation with an immediate assent to it without enquiring further for if there be any further process there must be so in infinitum or a circle 5. That the Holy Ghost doth illuminate the understanding of him that believes both as to the veracity of God and the truth of his Revelation and causes such a firm adherence of faith as many times far exceeds that of any humane Science or demonstrations But in this way I can neither be satisfied 1. What that particular divine Revelation is which this divine Faith doth rest upon Not 2. How this Faith can equally rest in several persons upon several ways Nor 3. How it can rest with an immediate assent upon any way Nor 4. Wherein this way differs from resolving Faith into the Testimony of the Spirit § 4. I cannot understand what that particular divine Revelation is into which as into it◠prime extrinsecal motive Faith is here resolved The thing enquired after is the reason of believing the truth of what God hath publickly revealed to mankind as we say he hath done the Doctrines of Christianity the ultimate resolution of divine Faith as to this I am told is that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to a man i◠this particular divine Revelation the sam◠with Gods publick and general Revelation o◠distinct from it If it be the same it can offer no reason for my Faith unless the same thing may be proved by it self if it be different then God makes use of particular divine Revelations to men different from his publick into which they are to resolve their Faith Suppose then the Question be thus put why do you believe that Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead The general Answer is because God that cannot lie hath revealed it but then the Question returns on what ground do you believe this Revelation to have been from God with such a divine Faith as must rest upon divine Revelation For such you assert to be necessary To this the Guide in Controversies Answers that the ultimate resolution of a Christians divine Faith is into that particular divine
Revelation first made known to him What particular divine Revelation I beseech him is that on which I ground the divine Faith of this Proposition that the Doctrine of Scripture is Gods Revelation For of that we enquire It cannot be understood of the rational evidence of the truth of the divine Revelation for that is asserted by him not to be a sufficient foundation for divine Faith which must rest upon nothing short of divine Revelation I would gladly be informed and directed by this Guide in Controversies since I must believe Gods Revelation with a divine Faith and this divine Faith must rest upon a divine Revelation what that particular divine Revelation is on which I am to believe with divine Faith the truth of Gods publick and general Revelation I have endeavoured to find out what his meaning herein is but I confess I cannot sometimes he seems to denâ— any resolution at all of this divine faith into anâ— further principles and quotes Layman with approbation who saith that the formal reason of believing what God saith is his veracity but that God hath revealed such thing to us cannot be any further resolved or prâ—ved by divine Faith In the next Section he saith That divine Faith doth not resolve into an extrinsecal even morally infalliblâ— motive thereof either as the formal cause oâ— always as the applicative introductive oâ— condition of this divine Faith From whence it follows that this divine Faith may be where there is neither infallible nor prudential motive i. e. it may be where no account at all can be given of it for all motives must be of one sort or other and yet this divine Faith doth rest upon a particular divine Revelation of which since no account can be given it is unreasonable to expect it But I will try yet further by an Instance of his own The Question put by him is why he believes the things contained in the Gospel of St. Matthew to be divinely revealed he Answers That he resolves his Faith of the truth of those contents not into the Churches saying they are true although he believe all that true the Church saith but into divine Revelation because God by his Evangelist delivereth them for truth Again he saith When he believes that all contained in St. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church tells him iâ— iâ— so and then believes that the Church â—elleth him true because God hath revealed â—n some part of his Word that the Church in this shall not erre here his Faith he saith is ultimately resolved again not into the Churches Authority but the divine Revelaâ—ion concerning the Church This looks like something at first hearing if one do not press â—oo far in the examination of it but being â—hroughly searched into how profound soever it may seem it is scarce tolerable sense upon his own principles For it is agreed now on all hands that in the Question of the resolution of Faith the enquiry is not why we believe what God reveals but why we believe this to be a divine Revelation and the Question is now put particularly concerning the doctrine contained in St. Matthews Gospel his principles are That this must be believed by divine Faith and that this Faith must rest upon divine Revelation I now enquire upon what particular divine Revelation he doth build this act of divine Faith that St. Matthew's Gospel contains the Word of God He Answers first Though he believes it to be true because the Church saith it is so yet his Faith is not resolved into the Churches Testimony but into divine Revelation 〈◊〉 What divine Revelation doth he mean that which is in Question viz. That St. Matthew's Gospel is divine Revelation if so theâ— he doth not believe it because the Church saith it but if he doth believe it because of the Churches Testimony then it cannot be oâ— the account of Gods delivering it for truth by the Evangelist For doth he believe it because the Evangelist saith so or not If hâ— doth then he doth not believe it because the Church saith it if he doth not believe it because the Evangelist saith it then he must believe it because the Church saith it and so his Faith must be resolved into the Churches Testimony which if it be a divine Faith must according to his own principles suppose that the Churches Testimony is a divine Revelation and the formal object of divine Faith The same absurdity lies in the other Answer He believeâ— he saith that all contained in St. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church telleth him so and then believes that the Church tells him true because God hath revealed in some part of his Word that the Church in this shall not erre And yet his Faith is not resolved into the Churches Authority but the divine Revelation concerning the Church This Answer must be understood either of St. Matthew's Gospel being proved by some other part of Scripture and then I grant the circle is avoided but that doth not answer the present difficulty which is concerning the ground of believing not some one part of divine Revelation but the whole Or else it must be understood of St. Matthew's Gospel being proved by some part of it self And then he resolves his Faith thus He believes what St. Matthew's Gospel saith concerning the Church because he believes St. Matthew's Gospel to be true and believes St. Matthew's Gospel to be true with a divine Faith because the Church tells him so Can any thing now be more plain than that he must resolve his Faith into that Authority upon which he believed St. Matthew's Gospel to be true which himself confesseth to be that of the Church Only if a man can be so foolish to believe first the truth of St. Matthew's Gospel because the Church saith it and at the same time believe the Church to say true because St. Matthew's Gospel saith so that mans Faith is to be resolved into nothing but the dancing of Fairies which have put him into such a circle that he can never find the way out of But if he mean any thing else I know not what to impute such an absurd way of proceeding to unless it be to a through intoxication of School Divinity which confounds all true notions and distinct conceptions of things and makes men have such swimming brains that all things turn round with them § 5. 2. But supposing I could understand what this particular divine Revelation meant into which this divine Faith must be resolved why may not one particular way serve all mankind for it Must there be several and all equal foundations of divine Faith I can easily satisfie my self of the reason of asserting itâ— but not of the reason of the thing in this way of resolving Faith The true reason of asseâ—ting it was the plain evidence that many persons had a true divine Faith without knowing any thing of the Churches Infallibility this made some men in the Church
Imprimatur Sam. Parker R. in Christo Patri ac D no. D no. Gilberto Arch. Episc. Cantuar. Ã sac Dom. April 15. 1673. A SECOND DISCOURSE IN VINDICATION OF THE Protestant Grounds of Faith Against the Pretence of INFALLIBILITY In the ROMAN CHURCH In Answer to The Guide in Controversies by R. H Protestancy without Principles AND Reason and Religion or the Certain Rule of Faith by E. W. With a particular Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty LONDON Printed by R. W. for H. Martlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard and at the White Hart in Westminster Hall 1673. To the Right Honourable ANTHONY Earl of SHAFTSBURY Lord High Chancellour OF ENGLAND c. My Lord I HOPE it will not be thought unseasonable to make an Address of this nature to Your Lordship in the Beginning of Term since the great Cause at present in Your Court as one of late pleasantly said is thaet between the King and the Pope between our Church and the Church of Rome And while so many Witnesses are daily sworn of the Kings and the Churches side it may not be improper to lay open to Your Lordship the Nature and Merits of the Cause A Cause My Lord which was at first set on Foot by Ambition carried on by Faction and must therefore be maintained by the like means but can never hope to prevail among us again till subjection to a Forreign Power can be thought our Interest and to part at once with Reason and Religion be esteemed our Honour It is a Cause much of the nature of some others depending before Your Lordship more vexatious than difficult and managed by such Advocates who being retained in the Cause though they have nothing material to say for it yet are ashamed to be silent Who are alwayes disputing about an end of Controversies but at the same time do their utmost to increase and perpetuate them and are ready to foment our differences that they may make use of them to their own advantage While we have such restless Adversaries to deal with part of our danger lyes in being too secure of the Goodness of our Cause and methinks there can be little satisfaction in lying still or quarrelling with each other when we know our common enemies to be at work undermining of us But whatever repose others enjoy my Adversaries seem to deal with me as some do with those whom they suspect of Witchcraft they think by pinching me so often and keeping me from taking rest to make me say at last as they would have me But the comfort is as long as I am secure of my senses I am of my Religion against theirs if I once lose them or my understanding I know not whether it may be my fortune to be carried to Rome or some more convenient place And in my opinion they deal with those under their care as if they believed them not to be in their right senses for they keep them alwayes in the dark and think nothing more dangerous than to let in light upon them Wherein I cannot deny but considering the nature of their Cause they take the most effectual course to maintain it for it not being capable of enduring a severe tryal nothing can preserve its reputation but Ignorance and Credulity which are therefore in so great esteem among them that if it were a Custome to Canonize Things as well as Persons we might find those sacred names in their Litanies and addresses as solemn made to them as ever were to Faith and Vertue among the elder and wiser Romans I need not go far for an Instance of their design to advance even in this Inquisitive Age the Honour of these two great Pillars of their Church For if your Lordship shall be pleased to cast Your eye on the following Discourse especially that part which concerns the Miracles of the Roman Church You will find fufficient evidence of it almost in every Page When I first engaged in this Controversie I could hardly believe what I now see that they would ever have brought it to this issue with me viz. That they would renounce all claim to Infallibility if they did not produce as great Miracles wrought in their Church to attest it as ever were wrought by Christ or his Apostles The boldness of which assertion and the pernicious influence of it upon Christianity it self hath made me take the more pains in the examination of it Which I have done with so much care in consulting their own approved Authors that I hope at last they will grow ashamed of that groundless calumny that I do not deal fairly in the citing of them A calumny so void of proof that I could desire no better argument of a baffled Cause than such impertinent Clamours But if impudent sayings will serve their turn they need never fear what can be written against them Do they indeed think me a man so void of common sense as to expose my self so easily to the contempt of every one that will but take pains to compare my citations Have I the Books only in my own keeping or are they so rare that they cannot get a sight of them How then come they to know them to be false quoted But alas they are men of business and have not leisure to search out and compare Books and therefore the shortest way is to say that without doubt they are all false Their numbers certainly are not so small nor their business so great but they might have spared some to have undertaken this task particularly if I had been faulty and in my mind it had been of some consequence to have freed their Church from those heavy imputations of Fanaticism and destroying the necessity of a good life from the Testimony of their own Authors But if these could not move them I desire them not to spare me in this present subject of Miracles wherein I profess to relye on the Testimony of their own Writers if they shew me any wilful mistakes therein I will endeavour to give them publick satisfaction Were I not well assured My Lord of the Strength of my Evidence as well as of the Goodness of my Cause I should never have appeared in it before a Person of so sharp and piercing a Judgement as Your Lordship But I have the rather presumed to offer this Discourse into Your Lordships hands and to send it abroad under the Protection of Your Name not only thereby to acknowledge the particular Favours I have received from Your Lordship but to thank You on a more publick Account I mean for Your late generous owning the Cause of our Religion and Church in so Critical a time which not only gives a present Lustre to Your Name but will preserve it with Honour to Posterity I am My Lord Your Lordships most obliged and faithful Servant Edward Stillingfleet The Contents CHAP. 1. An answer to
revealed by God as the matter was capable of and such evidence we say ought to perswade any prudent person This is all which the description of faith so much alledged doth imply which was never intended for an accurate definition of it for as Hugo de sancto Victore saith of it non indicat quid est fides sed signat quid facit it doth not shew what faith is but what it doth by making things future and invisible to have as great power and influence on mens minds as if they were present and visible And when the Fathers speak of the obscurity of Faith they do not mean an assent without grounds but the belief of things out of our view and that obscurity is understood by them in comparison with the clearness of a future state or in opposition to the way of proving things by meer reason without Revelation So Cardinal Lugo truly answers the Testimonies of Fathers to that purpose by saying that when they exclude reason and arguments from faith they take them as they are opposed to Authority but in as much as they suppose the mysteries of Christian faith to be believed for the sake of Divine Revelation a discourse is thereby implied from the Authority of God revealing to the mysteries believed Neither is such discourse only requisite but that in the first place which doth assure men of the truth of this Revelation for upon that the other must proceed All mediums used for the proof of this must be extrinsecal to the nature of the thing and therefore cannot be repugnant to faith and in this I have the consent of some of the most learned of the Schoolmen who make evidentiam in attestante as they call it consistent with faith But saith E. W. No thanks to thee poor creature to assent hadst thou Evidence This it is now to hope to merit at Gods hands by a blind faith for so elsewhere he saith evidence is incompatible with that merit and obsequiousness of faith which God requires of his rational creatures who are to walk to Heaven by an humble and dutiful faith A very humble saith certainly that hopes to merit by believing And very dutiful in expecting so large a reward for doing it knows not what We think it our duty to believe firmly whatever God saith but withal we think it our duty to enquire carefully whether God hath said it or no before we believe and according to the evidence we have of this we assent to the former But this is not to proceed Nobly with God saith E. W. Brave man It hath been reported of a Hector in this Town that a little before his death he said he hoped God would deal with him like a Gentleman It seems E. W. would deal so with God We have often heard of works of super-erogation but our noble E. W. is not content with them he will have a faith of super-erogation too We poor creatures are contented to do our duties and take it as a great Favour for God to accept of the best we can do We dare not so much as think of such terms of kindness and favour from us to God as to proceed Nobly with him Neither do we believe that God is so hugely pleased with the blind and the lame when they are offered in sacrifice to him Whatever E. W. imagines it is no such Noble proceeding to believe infallibly upon confessedly fallible grounds For that is the present case he grants that the motives of credibility are not infallible and that there are no other motives in order to faith above these and yet he supposes we ought to oblige God by giving an infallible assent upon these Motives But the bottom of all is That our Faith ought to be suitable to Gods infallible veracity which Faith immediately rests upon and from whence and not â—rom the motives infallible certainty as E W. speaks is transfused into it This deep speculation by no means satisfies me for though I know it to be impossible for God to lie or to deceive yet our question is not about believing the truth of what God saith but about believing this or that to be revealed by him And while the Question is whether Gods veracity be concerned in the thing how is it possible for his Veracity to transfuse an Infallible Certainty into my Belief of it Suppose E. W. be acquainted with as honest a man as ever lived and one comes and tells him from him that such a Friend of his was dead and gave him five hundred pound I would fain know whether the unquestionable veracity of the Friend from whom the Messenger saith he received it can transfuse an unquestionable certainty in his mind of the truth of the thing while he is yet in doubt whether his faithful Friend said it or no If his assent here be not according to the veracity of his Friend unless he be first assured of the fidelity of the reporter No more can it be in the present case of believing For no one questions what God saith but our only doubt is whether God hath said it and whilst one gives no infallible assent to the one he cannot infallibly rest upon the other But may not credible arguments as to the Messenger be sufficient for infallible belief of the thing upon the Authority of the other For that I appeal to E. W. whether his belief of the thing would not in that case be according to the grounds he had to believe the Messenger and the Authority of his Friend would make him so much the more Question whether his name might not be abused by a Person that had a design to put a trick upon him especially if that Messenger challenged to himself so much credit that he ought to be believed without any dispute at aâ—l For in this case the over eager affirming would give a man cause to question the more the truth of the person if his evidence bear no proportion with his confidence So it is in our present case it is granted on all sides if God reveals any thing it must be true our enquiry is how far we are to believe that God hath said such a thing upon the credit of those who convey it to us if they desire no more credit with us than they give sufficient evidence for then we are bound to believe them but if they exact an infallible assenâ— and offer only fallible grounds we have reason to mistrust their design and so long as we do so we must question the thing which we are to believe upon their credit If they require only an assent suitable to their evidence it would be unreasonable to deny it but still the degree of our assent to the Revelation is proportionable to the degree of evidence that it is a divine Revelation Which Dr. Holden thinks to be so evident that he accounts it lost labour for a man to go about to prove it to any one that hath
he thinks makes it no difficâ—lty at all makes it to me the greatest in the world For by the Exposition or Interpretation I suppose he means the Infallible sense of Scripture and if this be resolved into and believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church then I still enquire how this Infallible Authority of the Church comes to be proved by this Exposition of Scripture the Infallibility of which doth suppose the thing to be proved viz. the Churches Infallibility And if the sense internal to the letter cannot be infallibly propounded otherwise than by the Church I would fain know what assurance any man can have of this sense but from the belief of this Infallible Interpreter But saith he Scripture and the Churches Interpretation indivisibly concur to this latter act of Faith This indivisible concurrence is to me an odd piece of mystical Divinity the meaning must be if there be any that I believe the Church Infallibility by those Scriptures from the Churches Infallibility appearing in the Infallible sense of those Scriptures But whence say I doth this appear to be the Infallible sense of them For if the sense of any places of Scripture be doubtful theirs is since their meaning is so doubtful how come men firmly to believe this to be the true and Infallible sense of those places and none else Can men come to an Infallible sense of Scripture without an Infallible Church if so what need of any such Infallibility if not then the Infallible sense of these places cannot be known but from the Churches Infallibility and therefore the Circle unavoidably follows viz. that they must prove the Churches Infallibility by the Infallible sense of Scripture and the Infallible sense of Scripture by the Churches Infallibility And any man might easily guess that E. W. was in a Circle by his Conjuring and speaking things which neither he nor any one else can understand 3. I shewed that they avoided not the circle by this way from the nature of the Infallibility which they attribute to the Church Which is not by an immediate Revelation but but by Divine assistance promised in Scripture and therefore the utmost the motives of credibility can do in this case is only to notifie or distinguish the Church but still the formal reason of believing this Infallibility cannot be from those Motives but from those promises which are supposed in Scripture to imply it So that still the circle returns for they believe the Scriptures Infallible because of the Churches Testimony and the Church Infallible because of the promisâ— of Scripture This he gravely calls aâ— unlearned objection That is even as iâ— pleases him but I have no reason to take him for an Infallible judge of Learning how ever it is no great matter learned oâ— unlearned it is more than he gives any tolerable answer to But I see no reason why he calls it so unless it be because he saith it is in effect the same objection repeated again And he thinks a man may be allowed to call his Creditor Roguâ— or Rascal that comes a second time because he could get no good answer at first However such is the civility of E. W. that he will not send it away without a sufficient answer and yet after all we have nothing for payment but the first general act of Faith one would have thought it had been the Act of Publick Faith by the badness of the payment And this first general act of Faith he saith wâ—olly relies upon the Churches own Infallible Testimony without depending on Scripture But what is this to that divine Faith we enquire after and which he saith must rest upon an Infallible Authority For since Faith must rest upon its motives and those motives are confessed to be fallible this cannot be that assent of Faith which himself makes to be necessary and we have made appear notwithstanding all his shusfling unavoidably brings them into a Circle CHAP. III. An Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church § 1. THE next thing which I objected against this way of resolving faith was that it was notoriously false viz. that there are the same motives of credibility for the Infallibility of the Roman Church that there were for the Infallibility of Moses and the Prophets or of Christ and his Apostles The natural consequence I said of affirming this was that there is as great danger in not believing the Church of Rome insallible as in not believing Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles to have been sent from God For where there is an equal obligation to believe there is an equal sin in not believing and where the sin is equal it stands to reason that the punishment should be so too So that the denial of the Roman Churches Infallibility must be accounted by them as high a piece of Infidelity as calling in Qâ—estion the Infallibility of Christ himself or denying the Scriptures This doth not in the least startle E. W. for he boldly asserts that there are equal motives of credibility as to their Church and Christ and his Apostles he frequently challenges me to shew the disparity nay he puts the whole issue of his cause upon it As may be seen by these words of his The main argument of T. C. he saith was this As Christ and his Apostles proved themselves Oracles sent from God by their Works signs and Miracles again as the Primitive Christians induced by such signs believed Christ and the Apostles upon their own Testimony to be Infallible Teachers so we having ever had the very like Works Signs and Miracles manifest in the Church are prudently induced to believe her as an Infallible Oracle upon her own Infallible Testimony To solve this plain and pressing argument saith E. W. one of these two things must be done either a disparity is to be given between those first Signs and Miracles of the Apostles and the later of the Church or it must be shewn wherein the Inference made is defective or unconcluding viz. that the Church evidenced by her signs is not proved Gods Infallible Oracle as the Apostles were proved by their signs to be Infallible Teachers Afterward he saith he hath proved that the Church hath wrought Miracles every way equal with those which the Apostles wrought In those Chapters to which he refers us for the proof of this I find this assertion in the beginning I say first clear and unquestionable Miracles of the like quality with those which Christ and his Apostles wrought have been ever since most gloriously manifest in the Roman-Catholick Church and in no other Society of Christians Afterwards he calls their Miracles glorious Miracles standing upon inslubitable record and for the proof of these Miracles he appeals to the lives of the Saints and certain Church-history Besides the Testimonies of some Fathers of Miracles done in their time not at all to his purpose as shall afterwards appear he appeals to the
Meliapor were mixed with Lime and Sand which no doubt were designed to preserve them from corruption And Paulus Zacchias a learned Roman Physician hath declared that the incorruption of bodies by Salt Nitre or Lime is so far from being a miracle that it hath nothing of wonder in it And yet this must be cryed up as a strange miracle in Xaverius his Body which would have passed for a common accident in any one else it being so well known to be an ordinary effect of nature to preserve bodies a long time from corruption by the use of things which are of so drying a nature as those are But as to all these miracles whose relation we have from the Jesuits in the East Indies we are to consider what credit their testimony deserves with us for if they are men who think it lawful to lye for a good cause as no doubt the honour of their Society is such with them how can we with any tolerable discretion relye upon their words And what will those men stick at who have had the impudence to insert fabulous miracles and stories into the very history of the Gospel For which we are to understand that Acabar Emperour of the Mogols having given liberty to the Jesuits to live in the City of Agra desired of Hierome Xavier the chief of them a kinsman of the former Francis Xavier and a man of such an Apostolical Spirit faith Alegambe an account of the life and miracles of Christ. The subtle Jesuit very well understanding their own doctrine about the obscurity and insufficiency of Scripture durst not put into his hands the four Evangelists but framed an excellent Gospel of his own A. D. 1602. which he declares at the end of it to have taken out of the Holy Gospel and the Books of the Prophets and we may judge of his sincerity by these passages In the beginning of it he relates the story of the Virgin Mary not as it is in the Evangelists but as he had taken it out of a a silly Book de Nativitate S. Mariae attributed to St. Hierom but rejected not only by Erasmus but by Baronius Canus Sixtus Senensis and others and the true Author is supposed by some to be Seleucus the Manichee whether it were he or no Baronius saith he was so ignorant as not to avoid manifest lyes however this new Evangelist thought him a fit Author for him to make a new Gospeâ— out of the better to please the Great Mogol He tells him out of that Book that Joachim and Anna the Parents of the Blessed Virgin being very Rich and Childless â—ad made a vow to God if they had a Son to devote him to his service one time Joachim went up to the Temple to offer up his Sacrifice there and Issachar the High Priest rejected him a notorious lye saith Baronius for no such man as Issachar could be High Priest then upon which he and his Wife went â—way discontented at last God sent an Angel to comfort Joachim and told him he should have a daughter and should call her name Mary who should be filled with the Holy Ghost from her conception and charged them to perform their vow about her education in the Temple he is so punctual as to set down the very day of her conception and birth and relates the occasion of keeping the Feast of her Nativity among Christians viz. a revelation made to an Eremite that she was born the eighth of September when the Eremite heard strange Melody in the Heavens upon that day upon which Innocent the fourth appointed the Feast to be kept What Gospel and Prophets had this Jesuit met with to take these excellent stories from But it must be from one of the Prophets indeed since Innocent the fourth lived 1250. years since the birth of Christ. The Blessed Virgin as Xavier's Gospel goes on at three years old upon Friday the twenty first of November was carryed up to the Temple and there shut up in a Holy place to be educated most of the modeâ—â— Commentators on this new Gospel tell us it was the Holy of Holies which it seems was then turned into a Nunnery and for elevâ—â— years together they say she never went oâ—â— of that place if any one should boldly ask what conveniencies she could have there they readily answer that she needed nonâ— being fed by Angels all that time with spiritual food So Canisius Poza and others in Theophilus Raynaudus and Benedictus Gonâ—nus adds that Zachary Father to St. John Baptist saw the Angel that carried her meat to her for which he quotes Pantaleon in Metaphrastes no doubt an excellent Author but Xavier saith that for the most part she had her food from Heaven I omit her vow of Virginity the manner of her Espousals with Joseph and the reason of them viz. to cheaâ— the Devil the blossoming of Josephs Rod the particular description of the Virgin Maries countenance with great blewish eyes and golden locks c. all which he sets off with as many circumstances as if they had made a considerable part in our Gospels but one of the greatest miracles of her beauty was that a wicked man by looking upon her was converted It was great pity then she went no oftner abroad that she might have reformed the world by her Countenance Afterwards he describes the manner of the Angels Salutation of the Blessed Virgin so exactly that it plainly appears he despised the rudeness of the Evangelists in their manner of expressing it The Blessed Virgin saith he was then sitting in her Parlour musing upon that saying of Esaias A Virgin shall conceive c. and she mightily desired to see that Virgin and wished she might be her hand-maid while she was in these thoughts an Angel comes in like a beautiful young man with great splendour and falls upon his knees â—nd fixed his eyes on the ground and with great devotion said Ave Maria c. She was not surprized saith he at the sight of the Angel for she had often conversed with Angels before but at his humble posture and the honour he gave to her Who can now doubt the lawfulness of praying to the Blessed Virgin when the Angel Gabriel said the Ave Maria upon his bended knees to her After the Angel had delivered his message â—he made him wait saith Xavier till Midnight before she gave any answer then saith he in the very point of Midnight she fell upon her knees and with her head downward and eyes full of tears and her arms a cross she said Ecce ancilla Domini c. Much in the same way he describes the manner of her delivery only that her eyes were then lifted up towards Heaven I pass bâ— the fabulous miracles he relates concerning the birth of our Saviour of which there iâ— not one word in Scripture or any good Historian The story of the wise men with