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
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
the Guide in Controversies about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith THE State of the Controversie p. 295. The Principles of the Guide in Controversies p. 300. Those Principles Considered p. 304. Of Particular Divine Revelation as the Ground of Faith p. 308. The Resolution of Divine faith must agree to all p. 314. Of immediate assent p. 316. Of the assistance of the Holy Ghost p. 318. The absurdities of the Guides Principles 322. CHAP. II. The Principles of E. W. about Divine Faith laid down and considered E. W's Principles laid done p. 329. Some things premised to the State of the Question p. 340. Of the necessity of Grace and the sense of Moral certainty in this Controversie p. 346. 347. Gods veracity as the foundation of faith not received on divine Revelation p. 349. Of the notion of Divine faith p. 353. The true State of the Question p. 358. My first argument laid down and defended p. 361. Of the Motives of Credibility and their influence upon faith p. 369. Of the Grounds of Faith p. 376. Of the School-notion of the obscurity of faith p. 383. Of the Scripture notion of it p. 386. Of the power of the will in the assent of faith p. 395. The second argument defended against E. W. p. 400. Of the Circle in the resolution of faith not avoided by E. W. p. 423. CHAP. III. An enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church E. W's assertions about the miracles of the Roman Church p. 434. The ways proposed for examination of them p. 439. Of the miraculous translation of the Chappel of Loreto p. 441. Of the miracles wrought at the Chappel of Loreto p. 452. Of the miracles wrought by St. James at Compostella p. 465. Of St. Mary Magdalens vial and other Reliques p. 476. Of the miracles of St. Dominick p. 488. Of the miracles of the Rosary of the B. Virgin p. 493. Of the miracles of St. Francis p. 496. Of the miracles related of the British and Irish Saints p. 505. Of the Testimonies of St. Chrysostom and St. Augustin against the continuance of the power of miracles p. 567. Of the miracles of St. Vincentius Ferrerius p. 574. Of the Testimonies of their own Writers against the miracles of the Roman Church p. 585. Of the miracles reported by Bede and St. Gregory p. 589. Of the miracles wrought in the Indies p. 615. Of the Impostures and forgeries of miracles in the Roman Church in several examples p. 624. Of the insufficiency of this argument from their miracles to prove the Infullibility of their Church p. 663. Several conclusions about the proof of miracles p. 664. The miracles of Heathens and Hereticks compared with those of the Roman Church p. 670. ERRATA PAge 302. line 28. read ultimate p. 343. l. 15. â— asseâ—t p. 421. l. 13 r. signatures p. 437. l. 13. r. convince l. 18. r. dispâ—ssessed p. 493. l. 15. r. consiâ—â—ing p. 502. l. 24. r. several p. 508. l. 22. r. any better p. 549. after Saints insert than p. 590. l. 14. r. â—oâ—l p. 641. l. 11. r. Anglerius CHAP. I. An Answer to the Guide in Controversies about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith § 1. THere are two great Pleas for the necessity of Infallibility in the Roman Church one to make an end of Controversies the other to lay a sufficient Foundation for divine Faith Having therefore fully examined the former Plea in the foregoing discourse I shall now proceed to the latter with a particular respect to those Adversaries who have undertaken the Defence of the Cause of the Church of Rome against me in this Controversie And because all this dispute refers to the Principles of Faith I shall undertake to shew 1. That the Principles laid down by them are false and fallacious 2. That the Protestant Principles defended by me are sound and true 1. For the better examination of their Principles I shall give a brief account of the Rise and State of this Controversie about the Grounds of Faith The Arch-Bishops Adversary in Conference with him asked how he knew the Scripture to be the Word of God hoping thereby to drive him to the necessity of owning the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church but he failed so much of his end that the Arch-Bishop fully proved that such a Testimony could not be the Foundation of that Faith whereby we believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and that there are sufficient Grounds for Faith without it One of the great arguments whereby he disproved that way of Resolving Faith was that it was impossible to avoid a vitious circle in proving the Churches infallibility by Scripture and the Scripture by the Infallible Testimony of the Church This difficulty which hath puzled the greatest Wits of the Roman Church his Answerer thought to avoid by saying that the Churches Infallibility was not primarily proved by the Scripture but by the Motives of Credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner that Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles were proved to be Infallible Which bold assertion obliged me in a large discourse to shew these three things 1. That this way of resolving Faith was manifestly unreasonable 2. That supposing it true he could not avoid the circle by it 3. That it was false and built on no other ground but a daring confidence 1. The first I proved 1. Because an Assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence the Assent required being Infallible and the evidence only probable and prudential Motives 2. Because hereby they must run into all the Absurdities they would seek to avoid it being impossible to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of the Roman Church than we can do without it both sides acknowledging that those Motives of Credibility do hold for the Scriptures which are by us denied to belong to their Church and if faith as to the Scriptures be uncertain if it rely on them much more must it be so as to the Churches Infallibility If divine Faith as to the Scriptures can rest upon motives of Credibility there can be no necessity of the Churches Infallibility to a divine faith if it cannot how come those motives to be a sufficient ground for such a Faith as to the Church For the Churches Infallibility being the reason as to them of believing the things contained in the Scripture it ought to be believed with a faith equally divine with that whereby we are to believe the Scriptures which are the instrument of conveyinâ— the matters of Faith to us Besides thâ— leaves every mans reason to be judge in thâ— choice of his Religion because every maâ— must satisfie himself as to the credibility oâ— those motives And after all this way oâ— Resolving Faith by the Churches Infallibility doth unsettle the very Foundations oâ— Faith laid by Christ and his Apostles whâ— all supposed a rational certainty of the motives of Faith to be a sufficient
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