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
both his Books lies in this one word Infallibility But it is time to fall to my business for fear of more Advertisements and Infallibility being the main design of his Books that shall be the subject of my present debate with him And because this E. W. is a great pretender to Principles the method I shall proceed in shall be first to consider his Principles and then to defend my own For which I shall chiefly make use of his last Book it being in effect but another edition of his former the other as I suppose being disposed of to better purposes than to be read for I never heard of one person in England that read it over However what there is material in it different from the last as to the present controversie I shall upon occasion take notice of The two main Principles he builds upon are these 1. That without an Infallible Church there can be no certainty of Faith 2. That the Roman-Catholick Church is this Infallible Church If he can prove these two he shall not need any more to establish their Religion or to overthrow ours And I will say that for his praise that he hath brought the controversie into a narrow compass for he confesses it is endless to dispute out of Scripture and Fathers since witty men by their fallâ—ble Glosses can turn and winde them which way they please but there is nothing so stiff and inflexible as a standing infallible Oracle in the Church which being once believed all Controversie is at an end But we may as soon hope to see all other controversies ended by dry blows as this Principle proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable man The main proofs for the necessity of the Churches Infallibility which he insists upon are these 1. That there can be no Divine Faith without it 2. There can be no certainty as to the Canon or edition or sense of Scripture 3. There can be as little certainty as to the sense of the Fathers or the Primitive Church 1. That there can be no divine Faith without it This he frequently insists upon in both his Books and with so much vehemency as to make the deniers of Infallibility to overthrow all Faith and Religion Which being a charge of the highest nature ought to be made good by the clearest evidence Whether that which E. W. produces be so I shall leave any one to judge when I have given an Account of his Principles as to this matter In his first Book called Protestancy without Principles he begins with this subject and lays down these assertions upon which all his Discourse is built 1. That Gods infallible Revelation requires an infallible Assent of Faith or an infallible verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible assent of Faith in us the contrary he calls wild Doctrine this subjective infallibility as he calls it he offers very wisely to prove from those places of Scripture which speak of the assurance which Christians had of the truth of their Religion 2. This infallible assent of Faith doth require infallible Teachers for infallible believers and infallible Teachers are correlatives And in the second Chapter he goes about to prove it because if Christs infallible Doctrine be only fallibly taught no man hath certainty what it is and seeing what is fallible may be false Christs Doctrine may not be taught at all which is infallible and cannot be false and he that should abjure this fallible Doctrine doth not deny therein Christs Doctrine and cannot be upon that account an Heretick But to make Faith Infallible he asserts That every Preacher sent by the infallible Church as a member conjoyned with it is infallible in his Teaching and on the contrary whosoever renounces an Infallible society cannot teach with certainty Christs infallible Doctrine From whence he saith follows an utter ruine of Christian Religion In his third Chapter he further proves That if the Church were fallible in her Teaching God would oblige us to believe a falsity because God commands men to hear the Church and if the Church may erre then men are obliged to believe a false Doctrine taught by her And all other means short of this Infallibility would be insufficient for preserving Christian Religion in the world In the fourth Chapter he comes to a particular consideration of divine Faith and from thence proves the necessity of infallibility Faith saith he requires two things essentially an object which is Gods Revelation and a Proposition of this object by Vertue of which the elicit act of Faith follows in a believer and intellectually lays as it were hold both oâ— Gods Revelation and the thing revealed Now to prove the necessity of such an infallible Proposition in order to divine Faith hoâ— lays down some abstruse Propositions 1. That Gods infallible Revelation availâ— nothing in order to Faith unless Christianâ— by their Faith lay hold on the certainly thereof or owne it as infallible and the assured ground of their Assent 2. That the measure and degrees of certitude in the assent are according to those which the Proponent gives to the Revelation If he teaches doubtfully the assent is doubtful if probably the assent is probable is infallibly the assent is infallible the reason which he gives of this is because an object revealed receives its light from the proposal as an object of sight doth from the light of the air As long therefore saith he as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an infallible proponent it can no more transfuse certainty into Faith than Fire at a great distance warm that is no more than if it were not certain in it self or not at all in Being 3. From hence he saith it follows that Protestants can only doubtfully guess at what they are to believe and consequently never yet had nor can have Divine certain and infallible Faith Because they cannot â—ropose Faith infallibly Hence he proceeds Chapter fifth and sixth to disprove Moral Cerâ—ainty as insufficient in order to Faith and destroying as he saith The very being and â—ssence of Divine and supernatural Faith because the sole and adequate object of divine and supernatural Faith is Gods infinite veracity actually speaking to us but this infinite veracity when it is duly proposed transsuseth more certainty into the elicit act of Faith than any Moral Certainty derived â—rom inferiour motives can have For all Moral Certainty is at least capable of falsity and may deceive us Gods infallible veracity cannot be false nor deceive if Faith rest upon that Motive and if it rest not there it is no Faith at all Nay he asserts that supernatural Faith is more certain and infallible than all the Metaphysical Sciences which nature can give us For which he gives this plain reason Because the infinite veracity of God which only supporteth Faith with greater force energy and necessity transfuseth into it a supereminent
he never attempts either not understanding what was fit to be proved or knowing it impossible to be done But if the infallible certainty of Faith doth depend upon inward illumination and divine concurrence the Infallibility of Faith may be had without an external Infallible Proponent And so all his first principles signify nothing to his purpose for supposing an Infallible assent of Faith necessary to an Infallible Revelation yet that doth not prove the necessity of Infallible teachers unless it can be had no other way But here he tells us That Infallible certainty is derived from supernatural principles concurring to the act of Faith which he elsewhere calls The interior illustration of Grace imparted to a Soul which he saith is wholly necessary to make faith certain and after saith we come to an absolute certainty of Faith upon tbis interiour sacred Language of God or his internal illumination the necessity of which he proves from Scripture and Fathers But when he hath done all he hath most effectually confuted himself For if this inward illumination can as he saith supply the inefficacy of external motives How comes the Infallibility of an external proponent to be necessary in order to that certainty of Faith which may be obtained by divinâ— Grace making up what is wanting in the outward motives Did ever any man shew more kindness to his Adversary in helping him with weapons to destroy himself than this E. W. doth When after a most tedious endeavour to prove the necessity of an externaâ— Infallible Proponent in order to the certainty of Faith he sets down these words Now what we assert in this particular is that the Infallible certainty of faith comes from thâ— interior illumination as it more lively setâ— forth the formal object assented to or helpâ— to a clearer proposal of the divine mysteries Doth the Infallible certainty of Faith indeed come from this interior illumination What then becomes of the necessity of an Infallible Church We often hear of the great Assistance the Jesuits have in writing their Books I should rather have thought some enemy of E. W's had put in these things to overthrow all he had spent so many impertinent words about before But lest such expressions should be thought to have dropt from him unawares observe with what care he sums up the whole progress of Faith in this State First A natural Proposition of the mysteries precedes this begets a natural apprehension of their credibility after some consideration there may arise an imperfect judgement of credibility but should the will offer as yet to incline the mind to assent only upon what appears hitherto it could not move to a Faith which is an assent super omnia or most certain Therefore the illustration or powerful invitation of Grace by which as I said the object appears another way and more clearly is infused whereof the soul is recipient The Will now after other Preparatives thus strengthned a new commands boldly the understanding to Assert upon the safest Principles imaginable viz. upon Gods infallible Revelation accompanied with his own Divine Light which makes faith to grow higher in certainty than all the reason or knowledge in this life can arise to For as S. Thomas observes humane knowledge derives its certitude from mans natural Reason which may err but faith hath its infallibility ex lumine divinae scientiae from the light of divine wisdom which cannot deceive and therefore is most certain Who upon reading these words would not have thought this E. W. more conversant in Calvins Institutions than Aquinas his Sums For in all this Resolution of Faith how can a man edge in the necessity of an infallible Church in order to the certainty of Faith I will not say E. W. was wholly inapprehensive of this snare he had brought himself into but he takes the worst way imaginable to get out of it For to shew the difference between this way and that of Hereticks he makes the exterior humane proposition of Divine Revelation necessarily preceding the true light of Faith which cannoâ— be made but by one that makes the Proposition good by a Miracle or some supernatural wonder but no Protestant is able to do thus much And is any Papist think we I would withal my heart see some of the miracles wrought by their Preachers to convince me I profess the greatest readiness of mind to be perswaded by them in case they do but work such miracles as Christ and his Apostles did But of this subject at large afterwards At present it may suffice to take notice 1. That no proposition of Faith is supposed sufficient by E. W. but where the Proponent doth work Miracles and therefore we may safely question the Churches Proposition till we see such Miracles wrought by her as were by Christ and his Apostles For thus saith he Christ our Lord Sent by his Eternal Father thus the Apostles sent by Christ and the Church ever since all shewing wonders above the force of Nature proved their mission and withal evinced that God only impowred them to teach as they did And because the poor Protestant doth not pretend to miracles therefore the light he pretends to is a meer ignis fatuus vain and void of all reality I must say that of my Adversary that he puts the controversie upon the fairest issue that can be desired For if their Church work such miracles as Christ and his Apostles did to attest their divine commission the evidence from thence to believe her infallibility ought to over rule the opinions of such who say she hath erred in case the doctrine attested by Christ and his Apostles and that of the Roman Church do not directly contradict each other 2. Although this exterior Proponent prove himself so commissioned yet by the Progress of Faith laid down by E. W. this is not enough to beget an infallible certainty of Faith For he saith after the exteriour proposition only a natural apprehension of their credibility succeeds then a judgement of credibility then the inclination of the Will but yet no infallible certainty till the illustration of Divine Grace comes So that it evidently follows according to E. W. that an infallible Proponent cannot beget an infallible Assent of Faith but that doth arise from the inward illumination of the mind by the Holy Ghost Which I have already shewed doth lay men open to all the absurditieâ— the highest Calvinists were charged with in resolving Faith and is withal impertinent to our dispute which relates to the necessity of an external infallible Proponent in order to the Certainty of Faith But surely the Jesuiâ— are not so berest of all their subtilty to comply with their greatest Adversaries without some advantage to be gained by it Yes E. W. will shake hands with some old enemies the better to assault some later Protestants who seem to attribute he saith no other certainty to the very act of Faith than what is
cannot have any unquestionable assurance that there was such a Person as Christ in the world that he wrought such great miracles for confirmation of his doctrine that he died and rose again Is all this no more than the common consent of Jews Gentiles and Cbristians that Christ died on a Cross Was ever any man so senseless as to make only the belief of the death of Christ on the Cross the reason of believing his Divinity But I say his Miracles before and Resurrection aâ—ter gave abundant testimony that he was sent from God and therefore his doctrine must needs be true and when we believe the truth of his doctrine wâ— are bound to believe every part of it such are his being the only Messias the true God the Redeemer of mankind and all other divine verities contained therein Let the Reader now judge whether the Objection or the Answer savours of more ignorance and folly But it is the mischief of this School-Divinity that it adds confidence to Ignorance and it makes men then most apt to despise others when they most expose themselves I proceeded to shew that instead of setling faith on a sure foundation by the Churches Infallibility they bring it to greater uncertainties than it was in before because they can neither satisfie men what that Church is which they suppose Infallible what in that Church is the proper subject of this Infallibility what kind of Infallibility it is nor how we should know when the Church doth define Infallibly and yet I say every one of these Questions is absolutely necessary to be resolved in order to the satisfaction of mens minds as to the Foundation of their Faith His Answer to these Questions refers us to his proofs of the Roman Churches Infallibility as the only society of Christians which hath power to define Infallibly by her representative moral Body which when I see proved I shall confess an Answer is given to those Questions Only one thing he thinks fit to give a more particular Answer to which is that this Infallibility should be the only Foundation of believing all things in Religion and yet so many things and some of them very strange ones must be certainly believed before it Here his common-place-Book again fails him and therefore wanting his Compass he roves and wanders from the point in hand He tells me it is hard to guess at my meaning for I name not one article thus assented to Perhaps I would say that the verities revealed in some Books of Scripture called Protocanonical known by their own proper signitures or motives as the Harmony Sanctity and Majesty of the Stile may be believed without this Testimony of an Infallible Church Well he doth not know what I meant but he knew an Argument he had an Answer ready to and therefore that must be my meaning But are not my words plain enough to any one that reads them And what a vast measure of faith say I is necessary to believe the Papal Infallibility for unless a man believes the particular Roman Church to be the Catholick Church unless he believes that Christ hath promised an infallible assistance to the Pastors of the Church and that not as separate but as assembled in Council and not in every Council but such as the Pope calls and presides in and confirms he cannot believe this Doctrine of Infallibility Nay further he must Infallibly believe the Church to be Infallible though no Infallible Argument be brought for it that this Church doth judicially and authoritatively pronounce her sentence in matters of Faith though we know not what that Church is which must so pronounce that he Infallibly know that this particular sentence was so pronounced though he can have no other than moral means of knowing it and lastly that the Infallibility must be the first thing believed although all these things must be believed before it Could any man well in his senses after reading these words imagine that I meant the self evidencing light of the Scriptures again But they write for those that believe them and that never dare look into the Books they pretend to consute Yet he hath a mind to prove the name of Roman Catholick Church to be no Bull which I said in a Parenthesis was like German universal Emperour This gives a new start another common-place Head is searched Title Catholick Church there he finds ready the old weather beaten Testimonies Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world over ergo Roman and Catholick are all one A plain demonstration What need they talk of the obscurity of Faith where there is such convincing evidence But what if it should have happened that S. Paul had said the same thing of the Faith of the Corinthians or Thessalonians would it not have been a most evident demonstration that the Church of Corinth was the Catholick Church at that time and was to continue so in following Ages But Scripture though never so plain cannot serve their turn they must have Fathers too So E. W. brings in St. Hierom St. Cyprian St. Athanasius St. Ambrose all evidently proving that the Church of Rome was once Catholick and what then I beseech him Were not other Churches so too But these very Testimonies as it unhappily falls out had been particularly and largely examined by me in a whole Chapter to that purpose But it is no matter for that I had not blotted them out of his Note-Books and there he found no answers and therefore out they come again § 11. 2. The second thing I objected against this way of resolving Faith was that it did not effect that which it was brought for for supposing that Chuch Infallible and that Infallibility proved by the motives of credibility they do not escape the circle objected against them Which I shewed 1. from the nature of divine Faith as explained by them 2. From the consideration of the persons whose Faith was to be resolved 3. From the nature of that Infallibility which is attributed to the Church I must now consider how E. W. attempts the clearing of these difficulties 1. As to the nature of divine Faith I ask whether a divine Faith as to the Churches Infallibility may be built upon the motives of credibility If it may then a divine Faith may rest upon prudential motives if not then this way cannot clear them from a circle in the resolution of divine Faith For I demanded why with a divine Faith they believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God Their answer is because the Church which is Infallible delivers them as such to us If I then ask why with a divine Faith they believe the Churches Infallibility I desired them to answer me if they can any other way than because the Scriptures which are Infallible say so It is a very pleasant thing to see how E. W. is miserably put to his shifts about this difficulty for although in his former Discourses he had
Faith for if the Infallible assent of Faith do come from the power of the Will then to what purpose is any formal object of that assent enquired after For the formal object doth assign a reason of believing from the object it self of which there can be none if the Will by her own Power elicit that which is the proper assent of Faith And all other material objects of Faith may be believed in as infallible a manner by the same power of the Will But if the Will can command the understanding to assent beyond the degree of evidence why may not the understanding dictate to the Will to desire a thing beyond the degree of goodness appearing to it and by this means both those faculties would tend to their objects in a way disagreeing to their nature All these ways being found in sufficient Cardinal Lugo saith some had recourse at last to a mysterious elevation of the understanding beyond all connatural ways of its operation whereby it lays hold on the matters of Faith in a way wholly inexplicable and however the Cardinal slights this way and expresseth a great detestation of it as that which renders the matters of Faith incredible and imperceptible yet I think it absolutely the best for those of the Roman Church that hath yet been thought of and I would particularly commend it to E. W. who loves to talk so unintelligibly and confusedly as if he had this habit of believing infused already And thus much in vindication of the first argument I proposed against making the Infallible Testimony of the Church the foundation of Faith and yet that Infallibility to be only proved by the motives of credibility viz. that hereby an infallible assent must be built upon fallible grounds As to what E. W. saith by way of recrimination it shall be answered when I come to defend our own grounds of Faith § 10. The next Argument which afford◠any new matter to my Adversary whereb◠I shewed this way of resolving Faith to b◠unreasonable was because by making the Insallible Testimony of the Church necessary to Faith they make that necessary to Faith which was not made so by Christ or his Apostles What then say I will become of the Faith of all those who received Divine Revelations without the Infallible Testimony of any Church at all With what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the Old Testament was it a true Divine Faith or not If it was whereon was it built Not certainly on the Infallible Testimony of the Jewish Church which at that time consented to the death of the Messias condemning him as a Malefactor and Deceiver Or did they believe it because of the great rational evidence they had to convince them that those Prophesies came from God If so why may not we believe the Divinity of all the Scriptures on the same grounds and with a Divine Faith too With what Faith did those believe in the Messias who were not personally present at the Miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the womans of Samaria was to the Samaritans Or were all such persons excused from believing meerly because they were not spectators But by the same reason all those would be excused who never saw our Saviours Miracles or heard his Doctrine or his Apostles but if such persons then were bound to believe I ask on what Testimony was their Faith founded Was the woman of Samaria Infallible in reporting the Discourse between Christ and her Were all the persons Infallible who gave an account to others of what Christ did Yet I suppose had it been your own case you would have thought your self bound to have believed Christ to have been the Messias if you had lived at that time and a certain account had been given you of our Saviours Doctrine and Miracles by men faithful and honest though you had no reason to have believed them infallible I pray Sir answer me would you have thought your self bound to have believed or no If you affirm it as I will suppose you so much a Christian as to say so I pray then tell me whether persons in those circumstances might not have a true and divine Faith where there was no infallible Testimony but only Rational Evidence to build it self upon And if those Persons might have a divine Faith upon such evidence as that was may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature indeed but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was And how then can you stil◠assert an Infallible Testimony of the conveyers of divine Revelation to be necessary in order to a divine Faith Nay further yet how few were there in comparison in the first Ages of the Christian Church who received the Doctrine of the Gospel from the mouths of persons Infallible and of those who did so what certain evidence have men that all those persons did receive the Doctrine upon the account of the Infallibility of the Propounders and not rather upon the Rational evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and whether the belief of their Infallibility was absolutely necessary to Faith when the report of the evidences of the Truth of the Doctrine might raise in them an obligation to believe supposing them not Infallible in that delivery of it but that they looked on them as honest men who faithfully related what they had seen and heard and to which evidence of sense the Apostles and Evangelists appealed so that when there was certainly an infallible Testimony yet that is not urged as the only Foundation for Faith but Rational Evidence produced even by those Persons who were thus infallible If we descend lower in the Christian Church or walk abroad to view the several Plantations of the Churches at that time where do we read or meet with the least intimation of an Infallible Testimony of the Catholick Church so called from its Communion with that of Rome What Infallible Testimony of that Church had the poor Britains to believe on Or those Barbarians mentioned in Irenaeus who yet believed without a written Word What mention do we meet with in all the ancient Apologeticks of Christians wherein they give so large an account of the grounds of Christian Faith of the modern method for resolving Faith Nay what one ancient Father or Council give the least countenance to this pretended Infallibility much less make it the only sure Foundation of Faith as you do Nay how very few are there among your selves who believe it and yet think themselves never the worse Christians for it If then your Doctrine be true what becomes of the Faith of all these persons mentioned Upon your principles their Faith could not be true and Divine Faith that is let them all think they believed the Doctrine of Christ never so heartily and obey it never so conscientiously yet because they
did not believe on the Infallibility of your Church their Faith was but a kind of guilded and splendid infidelity and none of them Christians because not Jesuits And doth not this principle then fairly advance Christianity in the world when the belief of it comes to be settled on Foundations never heard of in the best and purest times of it nay such Foundations as for want of their believing them their Faith must be all in vain and Christ dyed in vain for them And what now saith E. W. to all this First he saith I do not bring Instances enough Secondly That I bring too many 1. That I do not bring enough for he much wonders I omit to touch upon an instance far more difficult than any of these concerning rude and illiterate persons which I and all others are bound to solve Meâ— thinks he might have been contented with those I had brought unless he had answered them better and should not have blamed me for omitting that which I purposely take notice of and give a sufficient answer to in these words Although the Ignorance and carelesness of men in a matter of so great consequence be so great in all Ages as is not to be justified because all men ought to endeavour aster the highest ways of satisfaction in a matter so nearly concerning them and it is none of the least things to be blamed in your Church that she doth so much countenance this ignorance and neglect of the Scripture yet for such persons who either morally or invincibly are hindred from this capacity of examining Scripture there may be sufficient means for their Faith to be built upon For although such illiterate persons cannot themselves see and read the Scripture yet as many as do believe do receive the Doctrine of it by that sense by which Faith is conveyed and by that means they have so great certainty as excludes all doubting that such Doctrines and such matters of Fact are contained in these Books by which they come to the understanding of the nature of this Doctrine and are capable of judging concerning the Divinity of it For the Light spoken of in Scripture is not a light to the eye but to the mind now the mind is capable of this light as well by the ear as by the eyes The case then of such honest illiterate persons as are not capable of reading Scripture but diligently and devoutly hear it read to them is much of the same nature with those who heard the Apostles Preach this Doctrine before it was writ For whatever was an Argument to such to believe the Apostles in what they spake becomes an Argument to such who hear the same things which are certainly conveyed to us by an unquestionable Tradition So that nothing hinders but such illiterate persons may resolve their Faith into the same Doctrine and Motives which others do only those are conveyed to them by the ear which are conveyed to others by the eyes But if you suppose persons so rude and illiterate as not to understand any thing but that they are to believe as the Church believes do you if you can resolve their Faith for them for my part I cannot and am so far from it that I have no reason to believe they can have any Judge now Reader what measure I am like to meet with from such men who can so impudently charge me with omitting a difficulty which I give so punctual an answer to 2. But those instances I have brought are too many for him as will easily appear by the shuffling answers he makes to them My design was from them to prove that the Churches Infallibity was not necessary in order to Faith he puts it thus If the Infallibility of the Church be a sure Foundation of Faith c. Is not this a good beginning to put Sure in stead of Necessary or only sure For that may be sure which is not necessary and it was the necessity I disproved by these Instances To them however he attempts to give an Answer 1. In general That none make the Roman Catholick Church in all circumstances the only sure Foundation of Divine Faith For the first man that believed in Christ our Lord before the compleat establishment of his Church had perfect faith resting on that great Master of Truth without dependance on the Christian Church for Christ alone was not the Church but the Head of it Faith therefore in general requires no more but only to rely upon God the first verity speaking by this or that Oracle by one or more men lawfully sent to teach who prove their mission and make the doctrine proposed by them evidently credible In like manner the Apostles preached no doctrine in the name of the new Christian Church whilst our Saviour lived here on earth but testified that he was the true Messias by vertue of those signs and miracles which had been already wrought above the force of Nature A very fair concession which plainly destroys the necessity of the Churches infallibility in order to Faith For if no more be necessary in order to faith but to rely upon God the first verity speaking by this or that Oracle c. how comes the infallible testimony of the Church to be in any Age necessary to faith For God spake by Christ and his Apostles as his Oracles by whom his word is declared to us therefore nothing can be necessary to faith but to rely upon God the first Truth speaking by them And this we assert as well as they But he must prove that we cannot rely on God as speaking by them unless he hath an insallible Church in every Age if he will make this infallible testimony of the Church necessary to faith which I despair of ever seeing done while the world stands 2. In particular 1. To the instance of the disciples of Christ believing the divine Authority of the old Testament without any infallible testimony of the Jewish Church only upon the rational evidence they had to convince them that those Prophesies came from God he answers that it is hard to say where the force of it lies seeing there were innumerable Jews then dispersed all Jury over and the other parts of the world who most firmly believed the Divine Authority of those Books upon whose Testimony the Apostles might believe those Books to be divine A most excellent answer if we well consider it Have not they of the Church of Rome proved the necessity of infallibility in the Church from Deut. 17. 10 11 12. of which abundant instances might be produced and particularly the Considerator of my Principles which words if they imply any Infallibility at all do necessarily prove that it is lodged in the supream Ecclesiastical Judges and no where else so that if there were no infallibility in them it could not be supposed to be any where else therefore I proposed the case at that time when these Ecclesiastical Judges consented
Power in the cure of diseases at the memories of the Mariyrs or upon the prayers of the faithful of which he there gives several examples but elsewhere he shews that the miâ—acles wrought by Christ and his Apostles were â—rought for the benefit and satisfaction of future Ages as well as their own that so none might complain for want of a power of miracles And when the Donatists aftewards appealed to the miracles wrought by Donatus and Pontius and to visions and revelations St. Augustin very smartly bids them lay aside those feigned miracles or Diabolical impostures for either they were not true or if they were we have so much the more reason to beware of them because our Saviour hath foretold that false Prophets should arise working signs and wonders that if it were possible they should deceive the very Elect. But it may be said that in all this St. Augustin doth only upbraid the Schismatical Donatists witâ— lying miracles and not take away the evidence of miracles from the true Church 〈◊〉 that St. Augustin himself answers that the Catholicks do not bring the evidence of miracles to prove the true Church by nor yet oâ— Visions and Revelations for saith he 〈◊〉 such things are to be approved because they are done in the Catholick Church and nâ—â— that the Church is proved to be Catholicâ— because such things are done in it and therefore saith that controversie of the Church must be ended by the Scriptures From whence it necessarily follows that St. Augustin could never think the miracles done in his time were to be compared with those wrought by Christ or his Apostles or could give equal evidence of credibility either concerning the Doctrine or the Church which delivered it Never did two men more plainly contradict each other in this point than St. Augustin and E. W. who appeals to miracles for proof of the Catholick and infallible Church and such as are equal to those of Christ and his Apostles but whether St. Augustin or E. W. deserve the greater credit that is another controversie which I am not now at leisure to engage in To the same purpose St. Augustin speaks in another place viz that miracles are no proof of the true Church for though Pontius and Doâ—atus might do wonders and see visions yet Christ hath now forewarned us quia miraculis decipi non debemus we ought not now to be deceived by miracles The force of which argument from our Saviours caution depends upon this viz. that the Christian Religion being once established by plain and evident miracles there would be no necessity in after ages to have recourse to miracles again For if no new Doctrine be delivered what need can there be of new miracles Let no man therefore now complain saith the same St. Augustin because Christ doth not work the same miracles now that he did in former times for he hath said Blessed are they which have not seen and yet have believed whom doth he mean saith he but us and those who are to come after us But those miracles were wrought by Christ to draw men to faith and this faith is now spread over the world And now although he does not work the same cures he does greater now the blind eyes do not receive sight by a miracle of Christ but the blind hearts do see by the doctrine of Christ now dead bodies are not raised but souls that are dead in living bodies do rise again Now deaf ears are not opened but deaf minds are by the power of Gods word so that they believe and live well who were unbelievers and wicked and disobedient Could any man of common sense have used these expressions if he had thought there was either any necessity of miracles being wrought in his time or that there were such miracles then wrought which might be compared with those of Christ and his Apostles and as he elsewhere fully speaks to this purpose Signâ— and Miracles were wrought by the Apostles to bring men from infidelity to faith that men seeing those things done which are impossible with men may acknowledge that the preaching is from God by which power they were to prove that there was reason to believe Among believers then signs and miracles are not not necessary but only a firm hope From these Testimonies of St. Augustin thus laid together we observe these things 1. That the main intention of miracles was to convince unbelievers 2. That the Christian faith being established there was no longer any necessity of the power of miracles 3. That though there were not any such necessity yet God out of his abundant kindness was pleased to do some extraordinary things among them in their time 4. That in disputes about the true Church they never appealed to the Power of miracles but to the Scriptures whose Doctrine was already confirmed by Miracles 5. That those out of the true Church might make as great a pretence to miracles visions and revelations as those who were in it as appears by the Donatists 6. That some kind of miracles were wholly ceased then in the Church as the gift of tongues and the common miraculous cures of diseases by those that preached 7. That those which did then remain were not in any respect for number or quality to be compared with those of Christ and his Apostles as the cure of one blind man at Miâ—â—n or those other cures of a Cancer a Fistula or the two shaking persons in Africa for when himself speaks most favourably of the miracles then wrought he saith they were not so great nor so many as those done by Christ or his Apostles § 10. But what shall we now say to the succeeding Ages of the Church For after the first 600 years were passed and there were no more St. Chrysostoms or St. Augustins and one of the greatest Prodigies as Tully said of old was a wise man the pretence of the common working of miracles was again started by those who undertook to give an account of the lives of the Saints for they thought they said nothing in effect of them if they did not attribute the power of miracles upon any occasion to them Then St. Gregory and St. Bede shewed the way to the rest and by their own credulity and want of judgement gave a pattern and encouragement to all the Monkish Tales and impostures afterwards But we must acknowledge our obligation to some more ingenuous and judicious men in the Roman Church who in several Ages have blasted the credit and discovered the Impostures of these Legendary Writers which is the next thing I am to prove viz. 2. That the credibility of their miracles in the Church of Rome is destroyed by the Testimony of their own more judicious Writers Ludovicus Vives after he hath discoursed of all other Histories comes to that of the Church and particularly the Lives of the Saints of which he saith that they are generally corrupted with
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
insallibility supereminent he saith and above all the Certainty which the principles of naturâ— can afford This is the substance of E. Wâ— principles of Faith in his first Book which is somewhat more enlarged in the second In one Chapter he designs to prove if the Roman Church be not infallible there is no truâ— Faith in the world the reason of which in his own easie terms is this For the meer possibility of deceiving Christians in one Article impossibilitates the Belief of all she proposeth In another Chapter That she is not only infallible but that the Adversaries of her infallibility destroy the very essence of Christian Religion And in the next That divine Faith in this present state of things necessarily requires a Church infallible because the infallibility of faith necessarily requires not only an Infallible Revelation but aâ— infallible Proponent Ruine one or the other Infallibility faith can be no more but an uncertain Assent and consequently can be no faith at all This reason he diversifies into many shapes and represents it in different words but it comes in at every turn So in the next Chapter he proves the Catholick Church Gods infallible Oracle because infallibility once taken away no man can have assurance so much as of one Christian verity the reason is no man can be assured of what is fallibly taught because what is so taught may by vertue of the Proposition be â—alse but a doctrine so far removed from inâ—allible certainly for want of a due application of its infallibility comes not near to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles which was applied taught and proposed infallibly And in the same Chapter he saith It is utterly impossible that an infallible verity as revealed though fallibly proposed should have influence upon faith or work in believers a most firm assent Not long after he asserts That infallibility being taken away no man can tell but that Christian Religion is a fiction for these are his words A feigned and fallible Religion are near Coâ—sin Germans The one is a Fiction the other at least may be so and for ought any man can know is no better And in the same Chapter he saith That without infallibility Religion is meer Scepticism because all other means infallibility being set aside may be equally pleaded by Hereticks as Arians and such like as by any other To the same purpose in the following Chapter where he proposes that which he calls the last proof of the Churches Infallibility which is still the very same over and over for he out-does the Cook of Brundusium in serving up the the same meat in several dresses viz. That the denyal of it overthrows Christian Religion be pleased to observe his concise way oâ— reasoning If the infallibility of revealeâ— doctrine be lost as it were in the way between God and us If the Revelation appear not as it is in it self infallible wheâ— we assent to it by faith that is if it be noâ— infallibly conveyed and applied to all by aâ—â—nerring proponent as it subsists in its first cause infinitely infallible faith perishes wâ— are cast upon pure uncertainties and maâ— justly doubt whether such a doctrine separated from that other Perfection of Infallibility be really true or no In his third Diâ—course we meet with a convincing Argumenâ— as he calls it for Infallibility If all Authority imaginable whereupon faith can depend conveyed or delivered these verities both as infallible Truths and infallibly and I assent to the doctrine with a belief not infallible but only morally certain I leave by my fallible moral assent the true infallible teaching and conveying Oracles of Christian doctrine and believe upon a meer phansied Authority which was never impowered to convey Gods verities to any Before I come to examine these things it will be necessary to lay down his notion of faith in his own terms viz. That it essentially trends obsecurely to its own object no matter for understanding it but the words found well together and by this saith we lâ—y hold upon the most supream and all comprehending infallibility proper to God alone But withal we are to take notice of a twofold certitude in faith the one a certitude of Infallibility arising from the supernatural principles which concur to the very act of belief and these being not liable to error can never operate but when the divine Revelation really is and implies not only the meer truth of the act but moreover an infallible determination to Truth the other a certitude of adhesion not grounded on evidence but upon most prudent motives proposed to Reason which clearly discover'd the Will by her â—pious affection commands and determines the intellectual faculties to assent indubitably After all which he concludes that the plain and easie Resolution of Faith is into Gods veracity as speaking to men by an infallible Church Thus I have laid together so many parcels of E. W's rambling discourse as were necessary in order to the examination of it And indeed I cannot compare his reasoning to any thing better than his own pretty notion of faith for just as he saith Faith essentially tends obscurely to its object so his principles do to his conclusion But that I may proceed with the greater clearness I must premise these two things 1. § 2. That the Question is not concerning the necessity of any internal Assistance oâ— divine Grace but of an external insalliblâ— Proponent in order to divine Faith So thaâ— whatever certainty of saith is derived from the Spirit of God is no ways pertinent to ouâ— present debate I do not deny that a trulâ— divine faith doth suppose a divine and super natural assistance I do not deny that thâ— Holy Ghost may confirm mens minds to sucâ— a degree of certainty which may exceed thâ— rational grounds they are able to give tâ— others of their faith But I say all this iâ— very far from the purpose For I had expresly laid down this caution before that oâ— Question in the Resolution of Faith did noâ— relate to the workings of the divine Spirit oâ— our minds of which no satisfactory accounâ— can be given to others but to the externaâ— motives and grounds of faith whether theâ— must be infallible or not To what purposâ— is it then for E. W. to talk of a certitudâ— of Infallibility as he calls it arising from the supernatural principles which concur tâ— the very act of belief and these not liable tâ— error can never operate but when the divine Revelation really is Granting all thiâ— to be true yet what doth this prove concerning the necessity of an external infallible Proponent such as the Church is All that caâ— hence follow is that those whom the Spirit of God enables to believe cannot believe a falshood but what then Hath he proved that the supernatural principles of faith do never operate but where the Church first infalâ—ibly proposes No this
and is the ground of believing and not where it is a meer condition of understanding If a Prince sends an Ambassadour about a match to a foraign Princess declaring that he will wholly rely upon his Testimony of her in this case there needs the greatest judgement and veracity in the Person trusted because the Prince resolves his judgement into his Ambassadours Testimony but if he only imploys a Person to bring her into the Room where he may see her and judge of her himself in this case there is no necessity of any other quality thâ—â— only obedience and fidelity So we say as the Church if the Churches Testimony to be relied upon as the Foundation of oâ— belief of the Scriptures then it is necessaâ— the Church should be infallible if there câ—â— be no faith without such a Testimony bâ— if all the office of the Church be only to prâ— pose the object of faith to be viewed and coâ— sidered by us then a common veracity mâ— be sufficient for it And in this case I granâ— faith is not to be resolved into the conditioâ— of applying the object of faith any moâ— than love is into the light whereby a mâ— sees Beauty or the burning of Fire into thâ— laying near of the fuel but if it be assertâ— that there can be no divine faith without â— infallible Testimony that this Testimony iâ— that of the Church and therefore upon thiâ— infallible Testimony we must build our saith he is blind that doth not see in this case thaâ— it must be resolved into this infallible testimony And therefore E. W. very impertinently charges me with this constant errour viz. making the motives of faith the Foundation of it and that hereby I confound thâ— judgement of credibility with the assent of faith by making the infallible testimony of the Church to those who believe it the formal object of faith For although the common motives of faith should do no more than â—ake the object of faith appear evidently â—edible and so the faith of such persons be â—eâ—olved into a further reason than those moâ—ves yet they who do believe upon the acâ—ount of the infallibility of the Churches â—estimony must resolve their faith into that which to them is the only infallible and adaequate Ground of Faith § 6. 2. To lay open the Foundation of all these mistakes about the nature of Faith I shall inquire into the influence which the motives of credibility have upon believing And therein give an account of these three things 1. What the motives of credibility are 2. How far they are necessary to faith 3. What influence they have upon the assent of Faith 1. What these motives of credibility are Suarez brings them under four heads 1. From the qualities of the Christian doctrine and those are 1. It s truth without any mixture of falshood but faith he if there be many things true and some false it is a sufficient sign that doctrine is not from God as it was among the Philosophers of old The way to judge of this quality he thus laies down those things which the Christian Religion speaks of which may be knowâ— by natural light are very agreeable to thâ— common reason of mankind those otheâ— things which are above it are not repugnanâ— to any principle of it but are agreeable tâ— the infinite and incomprehensible Majesty oâ— God 2. The sanctity and purity of this doctrine as appears by the excellency of the precepts of it the moral precepts not only agreeable to the Law of nature but tend much to the improvement of it the spiritual precepts have nothing contrary to the rules of morality and are suitable to the perfections of the Divine Nature 3. The efficacy of it which is seen by the strange and miraculous ways of its propagation by such instruments as were never like to effect their design without a Divine Power 2. The second Motive is from the number of witnesses of the whole Trinity at the Baptism of Christ of Christ himself in his holy and innocent life of Moses and the Prophets before him of the Apostles after him of the Devils themselves of the multitude of Martyrs of all kinds suffering with so much patience and courage and Christian Religion increasing by it 3. From the Testimony God gave to the truth of it by the Miracles which were wrought in confirmation of the Doctrine preached in which ought to be considered the nature the effects the frequency the manner of working them and the end for which they were wrought which must be not meerly for the benefit of the person on whom they are wrought but for a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine delivered otherwise he grants a Deceiver may work Miracles 4. From the continuance of this Doctrine in the world being so hard to believe the Doctrine and practice the precepts of it meeting with such multitudes of enemies of all kinds out of all which the credibility of the Christian Religion may be demonstrated a Divine Providence being supposed to take care of the affairs of mankind Greg. de Valentiâ reckons up these motives to 19. Michael Medina follows â—cotus and makes 10. or 11. of them on which he largely insists viz. the fulfilling of Prophesies the consent of Scriptures their Authority and truth the care and diligence of the first Christians in examining the Doctrine of Christianity the excellency of it in all its parts the propagation of it in the world the Miracles wrought for the confirmation of it the testimony of enemies the justice of providence and the destruction of its Adversaries To the same purpose Cardinal Lugo and others of the Schoolmen make an enumeration of theâ— motives of credibility but a late Jesuit haâ— reduced them all to the four chief Attribute of God His Wisdom Goodness Poweâ— and Providence but inlarges upon theâ— much in the same way that Suarez had donâ— Thus much may suffice for understandinâ— what these motives of credibility are whâ—â— are acknowledged to make up a demonstrâ—tion for the credibility of the Christian Religion 2. How far these are necessary to faith for that we are to consider that faith beinâ— an assent of the rational faculty in man muâ— proceed upon such grounds as may justifie thâ— assent to be a rational act which cannot bâ— unless sufficient reason appear to induce thâ— mind to assent which reason appearing â— all one with the creâ—â—bility of the object which doth not imply here what may be believed either with or without reason but whaâ— all circumstances considered ought to be believed by every prudent person And in thiâ— sense Suarez asserts the necessity of the evidence of credibility to the act of faith for saith he it is not enough that the object oâ— faith be proposed as revealed by God but iâ— is necessary that it be proposed with such circumstances as make it appear prudently crâ—dible in that way it is proposed For levilâ—
of judgement and rashness of assent he makes â—nconsistent with divine faith and every man ought so to believe as to exclude all fear of the contrary and so as that he can never â—rudently disbelieve what he now believes but if a man believes upon bad grounds he may afterwards prudently reject those grounds But this is not all for he makes such a proposition of the object of faith necessary whereby it appears evidently credible as revealed by God and consequently as certain and infallible For which he gives this reason because an inclination of the will to assent must precede the assent of faith before which there must be a judgement determining that act of the will this judgement must either be certain or uncertain if uncertain it is not sufficient for divine faith if it be certain then there must be such an evidence of credibility in the objects of faith And although a practical certainty as to matters of humane faith may be sufficiently founded upon a judgement of probability i. e. a man may judge it fit for him to believe where he sees only a greater probability on one side than of the other yet in matters of divine faith a higher judgement than of meer probability is necessary viz. that which is founded upon the evidence of credibility for with a meer probability a prudent doubting is consistent which is not with divine saith and withal the certainty of faith is not meerly practical but speculative i. e. of the truth of the thing in it self and therefore requires a speculative evidence of the credibility of the object From whence he concludes that a bare credibility is not sufficient but a greater credibility of the doctrine believed than of any other contrary to it for if two doctrines appear equally credible there can be only a doubtful assent given to one of them and a man might choose which he would believe but in the assent of faith it is not only necessary that there be a greater credibility of one doctrine than of the other but that this be evident to natural reason which dictates that in matters of Salvation that doctrine is to be believed which appears more evidently credible than any other To the same purpose Cardinal Lugo determines that the will cannot command a prudent assent of faith where there precedes only a probable judgement of the credibility of the object because there must be the apprehension of a certain obligation to believe which must arise from the evidence of credibility in the object of faith And Aquinas himself had determined that no man would believe unless he saw that the things were to be believed either sor the evidence os miracles or something of a like nature which Cajetan interprets of believing truly and vertuously truly i. e. without fear of the contrary and vertuously i. e. prudently So that although men may rashly and indiscreetly believe things without sufficient evidence of their credibility yet no man can by the acknowledgement of the most learned of the Schoolmen yield a rational and prudent assent of faith without it 3. The main thing is to consider what influence the evidence of credibility hath upon the act of faith For E. W. asserts that all that results from thence is only a judgement of credibility but that the act of faith it self relies wholly upon other principles and by the help of the distinction of these two he labours to avoid the force of my arguments Thus then the matter stands it is agreed that faith must have rational proofs antecedent to it but these proofs he must say do not perswade men to believe or which is all one have no influence upon the act of Faith If all that were meant by this talk were only this that we are then said properly to believe when we fix our assent upon Gods testimony but that all acts of the mind short of this may not properly be called believing but by some other name this would presently appear to be a controversie about words which I perfectly hate But more must be understood by such men as E. W. or else they do not speak at all to the purpose for the Question is whether in requiring an infallible assent of faith to the Churches Infallibility upon motives confessedly fallible an assent be not required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence to this he answers that this argument proceeds upon ignorance of the nature of faith which doth not discourse as Science doth and he grants that the motives of credibility have not the same certainty that faith hath What then can hence follow but that faith is an unreasonable assent and hath no grounds or that it may be stronger than the grounds it proceeds upon But if it appear that faith must have grounds and that the assent of faith can be no stronger than the grounds are then it follows that they are very unreasonable in requiring an infallible assent of faith to the Churches Infallibility barely upon the motives of credibility § 7. 1. That faith must have grounds If a man had not to deal with persons who have confounded their own understandings with an appearance of subtilty one would think this as needless a task as to prove that man is a reasonable creature for if faith be an assent of the mind taking it as strictly and properly as they please it must have the nature of a rational act which it cannot have unless it proceeds upon reasonable grounds The grounds I grant are different in several assents but it must always have some Those which are accounted the most immediate assents have the clearest and most evident reason such as the assents to first principles are as that the whole is greater than the part c. and for conclusions drawn from them the readiness and firmness of the assent is proportionable to the evidence of their connexion with those principles from whence they are drawn In other things that depend upon the evidence of sense the reason of our assent to the truth of them is from the supposition of the truth of our faculties and that we are so framed as not to be imposed upon in matters that are plainly and with due circumstances conveyed to our minds by our Organs of sense But if there appear an evidence of reason overthrowing the certainty of sense Scepticism immediately follows and the suspension of all assent to the truth of things conveyed by our senses for no man can then be certain of any thing by the evidence of sense but only of the appearance of things I may be certain that things do appear with such difference of colours and tasts and smells but I cannot be certain that there are really such differences in the things themselves If therefore the Scepticks arguments should prevail upon any mans mind so far as to make him question whether sense be a certain medium to convey the truth of the things to his
others should But the Foundation of all this Nonsense is a strange apprehension of the nature of faith which the School-doctrine hath so rivited into him that it seems to be of the nature of a first principle with him which must be supposed as the Basis of all his discourse which is that faith is an obscure and inevident assent or that it essentially tends obscurely to its object and therefore no motives or arguments how clear or strong soever can have any influence upon faith For he imagines as great an opposition between arguments and faith as between light and darkness he first conceives faith to be a kind of deep Dungeon of the soul full of darkness and obscurity and then bids men have a care of bringing any light into it for if they do it ceaseth to be what he described it A light may serve a man very well to shew him the way to this Dungeon nay it may direct him to the very door but then farewel to all light noâ— the least crevise must be left to let in any to the mind that is once entred it but the excellency of it is that the soul fixes more certainly on its object in this state of darkness than it could do being environed with the clearest light Just as if a man should say there is a particular way of seeing with ones eys shut which is far more admirable and excellent than all the common ways of beholding things being far more certain and piercing than seeing by the help of eyes and light is for the light and sight may both fail in the representation of an object but this seeing without eyes is an infallible way to prevent all the fallacies of sense Much in this way doth E. W. talk for all arguments are fallible and therefore by no means must faith proceed upon them O but this believing without or above or it may be against arguments is the most infallible thing in the world for that man need never fear being deceived with reason that disowns the use of it Upon these grounds a skilful Painter may make a shift to bungle and to draw some rude uneven strokes by the help of his Pencil and a good light but if he would be sure not to miss making an excellent Piece he ought to shut his eyes or darken his Room for then to be sure that fallible thing called light can never deceive him An indifferent person that only consulted the nature and reason of things could never have fallen into these dotages but it hath been the interest of some men to cry down light that have had false wares to put off But of all things I wonder if this be the whole nature of Christian faith to believe no man knows why nor wherefore for if he doth his faith ceases to be faith being built upon reason why all this ado is kept about an infallible Church and motives of credibility cannot a man believe without reason at first as well at last cannot faith fix upon Gods Revelation for it self without troubling those motives of credibility to no purpose If a man hath a mind to leap blindfold from a Precipice why cannot he do it without so much ceremony must he have all his attendance about him and his Gentleman-usher to conduct him to the very brink of the Rock and there bid him Goodnight If all these motives of credibility contribute nothing to the act of believing what use are they of in such a Religion where Faith is look'd on as the great Principle of practice and the means of salvation If the judgement of credibility would save men they might still be useful but this will be by no means allowed for nothing in their opinion but this blind Guide which they call faith can conduct men to Heaven § 8. But what is it that hath made meâ— so in love with nonsense and contradictions Hath the Scripture given any countenance to this notion of faith Yes doubtless they are such lovers of Scripture that they daâ—e not take up any opinion in these matters without plain Scripture Then I hope Scripture may be plain in clear things if it be so in the description of so obscure a thing as they make faith to be But doth not the Scripture say that Faith is the Substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen and is not this all one as if it had been said that faith essentially tends obscurely to its object and that it is an inevident assent and therefore cannot make use of arguments This I know is all the pretence they have for this notion of faith but is it not very pretty because faith is called an evidence therefore iâ— must be inevident or to follow the vulgaâ— Latine because it is called an argument therefore it can use none No man is so senseless to deny that we believe things we do not see and things which cannot be seen we believe some things which might have been seen and were seen by some whose credit we rely upon as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ we believe other things which are uncapable of being seen by our senses as the Joys of Heaven and the Torments of Hell and as to such things faith supplies the want of the Evidence of sense to us and by it our minds are assured of the truth of them though we do not or cannot see them Which is all that is intended by this description of faith but how doth it hence follow that our faith must be an immediate inevident obscure assent on which all the arguments that perswade men to believe can have no influence May not I believe that Christ died and rose again and will come to judge the quick and the dead because I see all the reason in the world to perswade me to believe it from the testimony of those who saw him and have delivered his doctrine to us and have given the greatest evidence of their fidelity Doth the strength of the argument hinder me at all from believing what I did not see I had rather thought the more obscure the object had been for it is little better than nonsense to call an act of faith obscure the greater necessity there had been of strong evidence to perswade a man to believe not such evidence as doth arise from the nature of the thing for that is contrary to the obscurity of the object but such as gives the greatest reason to believe from the Authority of those on whose Testimony I rely So that the greatest clearness and evidence as to the Testimony is not repugnant to the nature of Faith this only shews that in Christian Religion we do noâ— proceed by meer evidence of sense or rigorous demonstrations in the things we assent to but that the great things we believe are remote from sense and received upon the Authority of the Revealer yet so as that we assert we have as great evidence that these things were
Gods word which I hope is an Oracle altogether as infallible as the Church But the question is whether such a one may be divided from Gods infallible Truth or not if not he is absolutely infallible if he may then what security hath any one to rely upon him upon such a conditional Infallibility which he can have no assurance of But still he hopes to retort the Instances upon me I never saw such a way of retorting in my whole life My design was to prove by these Instances that an infallible Testimony of a Church was not necessary in order to Faith he saith I must solve my own difficulties I confess I see none at all in my way that need to be answered for I assert that men may have sufficient Grounds of Faith without an infallible Proponent Well but he supposes all these Barbarians converted to Christ to have had true Faith and consequently prudent Motives to believe before they firmly assented to the Divine Revelation And so do I too But what were these motives To this Question he saith I return the strangest answer he ever heard for I seem to make the motives inducing to faith nothing but the Rational evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and therefore I grievously complain that they destroy the obligation which ariseth from the Rational evidence of the Christian Religion upon which he discourses as though by rational evidence the self-evidencing light of the doctrine and consequently all the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles were to no purpose Have not I reason to applaud my good fortune that I have met with so ingenuous an Adversary But I see those who write Controversies must be true Nethinims not only hewers of difficulties and drawers of the waters of contention but bearers of burdens too even such as their Adversaries please to lay upon them Could any thing be further from my meaning than by the rational evidence of Christianity to understand the self-evidencing light of the Scriptures But it is not what I say but what E. W. finds in his Common-place-Books a little before when I had proposed an argument he had not met with in those terms he presently fancied I meant another arguâ—ent which he found under the title of Defectilility of the Church and then in comes that with the answers he found ready to it Now for the rational evidence oâ— Christian Religion he finds not that Head in his Note-Books and cannot therefore tell what to make of it But an argument he had ready against the self-evidenâ—ing lighâ— of the Scriptures and therefore the Seraphims seather must serve instead of St. Larence's Gridiron He might have been easily satisfied in that very Paragraph what I mean by the rational evidence of Christian Religion viz. the unquestionable assurance which we have of the matters of fact and the miracles wrought by Christ for confirmation of his Doctrine and this within four lines after the words by him produced And in the foregoing paragraph I insist very much on the evidence of sense as to the miracles wrought by Christ as a great part of the rational â—vidence of Christianity which is destroyed by the doctrine of the Roman Church while transubstantiation is believed in it For what assurance can there be of any object of sense such as the miracles of Christ were and his Body after his Resurrection if we are so framed not only that our senses may be but we are bound to believe that they are actually deceived in as proper an object of sense as any in the world And if such a thing may be false what evidence can we have when any thing is true For if a thing so plain and evident to our senses may be false viz. that what I and all other men see is bread what ground of certainty can we have but that which my senses and all other mens judge to be false may be true For by this means the criterium both of sense and reason is destroyed and consequently all things are equally true and false to us and then farewel sense and reason and Religion together These things I there largely insist upon which is all very silently passed over the Schools having found no answers to such arguments and therefore they must be content to be let alone But however though arguments cannot be answered I desire they may not be mis-represented and that when I fully declare what I meanby rational evidence such a sense may not be put upon my words as I never dreamt off There is nothing after which looks with the face of an answer to theâ—e Instances unless it be that he saith that none can have infallible assurance either of our Savâ—ours Miracles or of any other verity recorded in Scripture independent of some actual living actual infallible and most clear evidenced Oracle by signs above the force of nature which in this present state is the Church These are good sayings and they want only proving and by the Instances already produced I have shewed that Persons did believe upon such evidence as implied no infallible Testimony and if he goes about to prove the Church infallible by such Miracles wrought by her as were wrought by the Apostles I desire only not to believe the Church infallible till I be satisfied about these Miracles but of that afterwards But I demanded if we can have no assurance of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles without an Infallible Church what obligation can lie upon men to believe them who see no reason to believe any such Infallibility And since the Articles of our Faith are built upon matters of fact such as â—he death and resurrection of Jesus Christ whether these matters of fact may not be conveyed down in as unquestionable a manner as any others are Cannot we have an unquestionable assurance that there were such persons as Caesar and Pompey and that they did such and such things without some Infallible Testimony If we may in such things why not in other matters of fact which infinitely more concern the world to know than whatever Caesar or Pompey did This his Margin calls an unlearned objection and in the body of his Book saith I might have proposed a wiser Question an â—asier I grant I might as appears by the answer he gives it For two things he saith may be considered 1. That the man called Christ dyed upon the Crâ—ss and this he saith both Jews and Gentiles yet assent to upon Moral Cerâ—ainty but therefore do not believe in Christ. 2. That the man called Christ dying for us was the only Messias truly God the Redeemer of mankind Here we have he saith the hidden verities of Christian Religion the certain objects of faith conveyed unto us by no moral assurance but only upon Gods Infallible Revelation A very wise answer I must needs say if intolerable shuffling be any part of wisdom Read over my words again and be ashamed If so then men
abundance of lies while the Writer indulges his own passion and sets down not what the Saints did but what he would have had him done so that in their lives we see the mind of the Writer and not the truth For there have been those who thought it a piecâ— of pieâ—y to tell lies for Religion which is a very dangerous thing lest by that means the true be rejected for the sake of the false This saying of Vives Melchior Canus a man highly esteemed in the Church of Rome recites and approves with a great deal more to the same purpose wherein he saith that the lives of the Philosophers are more severely written by Laertius than the Lives of the Saints by Christians and that Suetonius hath with more honesty and integrity delivered the acts of the Caesars than the Catholicks have done the Acts of Martyrs Virgins and Confessors And afterwards he charges them with wilful falsefying either only to deceive or to gain by it of which the one is sordid and the other pernicious and he produces some instances of such miracles which he saith are without number Neither doth he only understand this of such men as the Author of the Golden Legend or of the speculum exemplorum but he plainly confesses that their most grave Writers in reporting the miracles of Saints have followed uncertain reports and conveyed them to Posterity In which they either gave great liberty to themselves or yeilded too much to the desires of the People whom they found not only ready to believe these miracles but to be fond and greedy of them Therefore saith he they have reported some signs and miracles not that they did willingly believe them themselves but because they would not be wanting to the pious desire of the people which was it seems that they should tell lies to please them And if they had not their desires fully answered in this they were very insatiable After this he particularly instances in Bede and Gregory the one of which in his History the other in his Dialogues he charges with relating miracles upon common reports which the Criticks of thâ—â— Age will judge to be uncertain And we may be sure Canus who tells us what an excellent wit his Master Victoria said he had was one of them But is now the credibility of the miracles in the Roman Church to be compared with that of Christ and his Apostles Did they who writ the miracles recorded of them indulge their own affections and make Tales to please the people as we see Canus saith their gravest Writers of Miracles did Or did they take up things upon common rumors and from thence divulge them to posterity as we see Canus charges even St. Gregory and St. Bede with doing What would become of our Christianity if we had no better grounds to believe the miracles of Christ and his Apostles If any should say so of the reporters of their miracles they would be justly charged with betraying the Doctrine of Christianity and making it suspectd to be a fourb an Imposture a fabulous story as E. W. speaks in the case of the miracles related by St. Antonin And yet Mâ—lchior Canus expresly saith of him that he did not make it his business to wriâ—â— what wâ—â— true and certain but to let nothing pass that he could meet with And that he and Vincentius Belovacensis were so far from weighing what they writ in an exact ballance that they did not so much as make use of a common judgement Whereas our Critical E. W. saith And who dares say that so great a Doctor and most modest Prelate as St. Antonin was so frontless as to write that we read without assurance and certainty We see Melchior Canus dares say it and that not only of St. Antonin whom he looks on as far inferior to the other but of his venerable Bede too whom E. W. calls a great Scholar and a man highly esteemed the whole Christian world over I shall not go about to diminish his reputation in other things but he had need of a good easie faith that can swallow the miracles related by him whether those of St. Cuthbert which E. W. mentions or others What must we think of the Angels appearing to S. Cuthbert a horseback when he was a boy and prescribing him a Poultess to cure his sore knee and of his seeing the Gates of Heaven opened and the soul of St. Aidan conveyed through them by a troop of Angels Of his receiving three hot loaves from an Angel that were whiter than lillies smelt beyond roses and tasted sweeter than hony Of his frighting the crows from stealing the thatch off from the Covent and the penance they submitted to for the injury they had done and the satisfaction they made by bringing him a good piece of Lard with which he used afterwards to grease his Boots Of the vertue of his shoo 's in curing a man of a Palsie after St. Cuâ—â—bert's death being put on upon his feet Of these I shall only ask E. W's Question An any such sâ—en now a days wrought among Protestant Bishops No God knows their faith is a stranger to such kind of miracles But what shall we say to Canus who takes away the Authority of St. Gregory too as well as Bede in this matter of miracles I know Baronius falls very soul upon Canus for speaking so freely of St. Gregory in this particular especially because he doth not mention those miracles which he looks on as undeserving credit but I think he ought to have thanked him for his modesty and silence herein in not exposing Gregories credulity to contempt by insisting upon them But in truth St. Gregory in those Books of Dialogues for I see no reason to deny them to be his own was the Father of Legends and most of the others afterwards were made in imitation of his as might be particularly made appear by many Instances And Bede followed the Copy which Gregory had set him and from hence such a swarm of Legends arose that in the succeeding Ages it is hard to say whether there were more Ignorance or Wonders To give only a tast of some of the miracles reported by Gregory the first is of Honoratus the Abbot that stopt a great stone in the middle of its falling from a great mountain by making the sign of the cross towards it and there it is seen hanging as it were in the air But in my opinion St. Dunstan out-did him who not only saith Capgrave stopt a piece of Timber so falling but with the sign of the cross made it return back to the place from whence it sell. This was the greater miracle although the other had more to shew for it if the stone had hung quite in the air which I confess I do a little question Libertinus raised one from the dead by Honoratus his shoe being laid upon his breast saith Gregory as St. Cuthberts shoo 's in Bede
excuse for their Insidelity that his works did bear witness of him And his Evangelist declares that this was the end for which these miracles are recorded that men might believe that Jesus was the son of God Afterwards when he was risen from the dead and he sent abroad his Disciples to preach the Gospel he told them that God would bear them witness by divers signs and miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost of which we have a full account in the Books of the new Testament As to all which miracles we have not the least ground of suspicion of any fraud or imposture being publickly done in the presence of enemies and written in a time when the Testimony of Writers might be easily contradicted and when all imaginable way 's were used to make the first Witnesses of these things to recant their Testimonies by the greatest severities and persecutions in stead of which they persisted with great resolution and laid down their lives rather than weaken the Testimony which they had given Thus we see such great and extraordinary effects of Divine Power which we ought to call miracles were wrought by Christ and his Apostles on purpose to confirm their own Authority that they were Persons sent from God and therefore could not deceive the World in the doctrine delivered by them 2. The Authority and Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles being thus confirmed by the miracles wrought by them there cannot be any such necessity in succeeding Ages to confirm the same doctrine by miracles For if it were once fully proved by those miracles then wrought there can want nothing further to establish the faith of succeeding Ages than a certain conveyance of those miracles to them Those miracles being wrought for the benefit of succeeding Ages as well as of that present Age And if those miracles would not serve for the Ages following as well as that present time it might with as much reason be said that then they did serve only for those who saw them For on the same ground that Persons then in regard of distance of Place were bound to believe although they did not see them wrought so likewise are others in regard of distance of time only supposing the certainty of conveyance to be equal But it is with much advantage to us by the concurrent Testimony of so many Ages and the effects of the doctrine confirmed by those miracles upon so many nations of the World not with standing all the Power and subtility which were used against it 3. The less the necessity and the greater the pretence to miracles so much more reason there is to suspect them Because God we are certain doth not imploy his Power in going beyond the common effects of nature to little or no purpose When we see that in all the writings of Scripture miracles were very sparingly wrought unless it were for the confirmation of a new Religion as that of Moses and Christ if asterwards we find such abundance of miracles pretended to that no Age or Country of one sort of men but give out that multitudes of these are done among them what must we think that God hath changed the Method of his Providence and not rather that God is true but such men are liars or through ignorance and credulity take those for miracles which are not so 4. Those cannot be true miracles which are pretended to be wrought to confirm a doctrine contrary to what is already confirmed by miracles For God will never imploy his power to contradict himself he may in the establishing of one Religion foretel the comming of another afterwards in its room by his own appointment as in the Gospel succeeding the Law but the latter miracles in this case do not contradict but rather confirm the doctrine of the former but when he hath declared that no other Religion shall come into the world after that which is confirmed by miracles as it is with the Christian Religion then to suppose miracles wrought to confirm any doctrine contrary to that is to suppose that God by miracles should contradict himself Therefore although in the beginning of a Religion the doctrine is to be proved by miracles yet that being once supposed miracles afterwards are to be tryed by the doctrine And then though an Angel from heaven should preach or offer to confirm any other doctrine by miracles than that which was first confirmed by Christ and his Apostles we are bound to reject that doctrine and to suspect those miracles not to be from God 5. Where false and lying miracles are foretold by a doctrine confirmed by true miracles there can be no reason to believe upon such miracles till they are evidently distinguished from such as are deceitful Now this is plainly the case in the Christian Religion Christ himself hath foretold that men shall arise doing such great wonders in imitation of him as should deceive if it were possible the very elect and his Apostles that his greatest enemies should appear with all power and signs and lying wonders Can any thing be now more reasonable than after such forewarnings for us to examine all pretences of miracles by trying whether they can be evidently distinguished from all deceitfull appearances of miracles which may be wrought by a power less than divine For in this case the evidence must be such as the persons concerned are to judge by to tell them any distinctions which they cannot proceed by in the judgement of miracles is to speak impertinently where rules of Judgement are required 6. If the continuance of the power of miracles be asserted to prove the Churches infallibility in every Age there must not only evident proof be given that such miracles are wrought but that they are wrought for this very end For if God may work miracles for another end either to shew his Providence in general or particular Regard to some men then the meer proving miracles cannot be sufficient but it must be shewed that these miracles could be wrought for no other end but to prove the Church infallible These things being premised I now come to shew 1. That in the Roman Church they cannot give any evident distinction between the miracles they pretend to and such which we are bid to beware of 2. That they can never prove that the miracles wrought in their Church could be wrought for no other end than to prove the infallibility of their Church 1. That in the Roman Church they cannot give any evident distinction between their miracles and such as we are bid to beware of For which we are to consider that scarce any Religion or superstition hath obtained in the world but it hath pretended to be confirmed by some kind of miracâ—es which in it self is no more a prejudice to true miracles than sophistical arguments are to true reasoning But those who pretend to miracles in a Church which is founded on a doctrine confirmed by undoubted miracles must give such