Again those ancient Miracles though supposed true are far from giving any undubitable assurance by their Sight alone without further light that such was and yet is the genuin and pure Sence of God's word for how many thousands are there now in the world who willingly own all the Miracles wrought by Christ and yet are at implacable discord concerning the true meaning of what our Saviour and his Apostles taught which strifes cannot be ended by à bare owning those Miracles true but by the Infallible Decision of an ever living manifested Church I say manifested by Miracles and other weighty Motives that laid before mans rational Power led it on to believe in Christ and his Church for these two Articles go together and are proposed in the Creed as necessary believeable Verities I believe in Iesus Christ I believe the Holy Catholick Church As therefore to believe all that Christ taught confessedly required the light of glorious Motives whereby his Doctrin Christ was manifested by rational Motives and so is the Church was made Credible to reason so also to believe what the Church teaches requires the like light or an answerable evident Credibility grounded on convincing and rational Motives I desired the Dr Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 16. n. 28. to consider how cold and faint Christian Faith would have grown in the hearts of men before this day had all Church Motives fail'd or ceased soon after the Apostles preaching Had no more Conversions been wrought no more Martyrs dyed for God's truth no more contempt of the world been evidenced in thousands and thousands and finally had no other Miracles been don in after Ages but such only as the Scripture relates It is therefore open impiety in the Dr to slight all Church Motives and her Miracles calling them à grand Salade too often served up It is worse then Perverness to tell us as he doth in his last book P. 665. That the Doctrin of Christ and his Apostles being confirmed by Miracles wrought by them there can be no The Continuation of Miracles proved necessary such necessity in succeeding Ages to confirm the same Doctrin by Miracles I have answered this very Obiection Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 7. and shewed the Continuation of Miracles in the Church both useful and necessary not only because our Saviour fore told they should be done Iohn 12 but upon this account also that the Conversion of Infidels to Christ was wrought as well in the Ages after the Apostles as when those blessed men preached to the world If therefore the first Apostolical Miracles were necessary to convince unbelieving Jewes and Gentils Then it is plain ungodliness to deem them fruitless Now when God is pleased to work them by Missioners lawfully sent to convert as Barbarous Nations as ever S. Paul preach't to 24 Again Miracles most evidently have been wrought and very frequently The end of God's Concurring with his servants to work Miracles I ask for what end did God concurr with his Servants to do them No other reason can with probability fall into mens minds but this That an infinit Power and wisdom intended thereby to make his Church glorious and to induce the most obdurate hearts to believe her Doctrin The Dr yet seems not satisfied for he thinks the conveyance of the Apostolical Miracles being wrought for the benefit of succeeding Ages may well serve the turn in all after Times without more I wish this man were sent with his Bible to some Barbarians in America who never perhaps heard of Christ or Scripture and only read them such Miracles as Scripture relates without working any himselfe as S. Xaverius and other Missioners have done How many think ye would the Dr draw to Christ if he told his Hearers that all the certainty men have of those ancient Miracles and Christ's Doctrin comes from fallible Tradition which may be false My thought is he would convert this way very few or rather none at all Let others judge as they please Now because the main ground whereon he relies is his much driven in conveyance by Tradition we will bestow à little pains upon it and shew if ever man lost himselfe in a Labyrinth it is Dr Stillingfleet Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition what Christ did and spake 25 THe Substance of the Dr ' s Discourse Account P. 205 is thus Tradition to us doth only supply the want of our senses as to what Christ did and spake it being à perpetuated sensation and of the same use to us now as if we had been actually present with Christ and seen his Miracles or heard his Doctrin when he delivered it Soon after It is apparent that the use of the senses to those The substance of the Drs Discourse laid down in his own words who saw Christs Miracles and heard his Doctrin was not to give any Credibility to either of them but only to be the means of conveying them those things which might induce them to believe The same is Tradition now to us it doth not in it selfe make the Doctrin more credible but supplies the use of our senses in a certain conveyance of those things which were Motives to believe them Hence he inferr's That the motives to the primitive Christians and to us are the same only the manner of conveyance differ's 2. He inferr's as it was not then necessary for those who saw our Saviours Miracles wrought for the confirmation of his Doctrin to have the inward Testimony of the Spirit or any external Infallible Testimony of à Church to assure them that those Miracles were really done by Christ but God left them to the judgement of sense so proportionably neither of these two are now necessary for the resolution of Faith but God instead of sense leaves us to the evidence of Tradition Thus the Dr where you se his whole labour spent in vain and à gross mistake with it for he think's the main difficulty lies in the conveyance of the things written in Scripture to this Age whereas the reall difficulty is to prove that there ever were any He waves the real difficulty such things true and written by Divine inspiration as he supposes to be conveyed Unlesse this particular be first rationally evinced the Turks will dare to argue as the Dr doth In Mahomet's time there was reason to believe Mahomets Miracles and wonders Ergo there is reason to believe them now because they are conveyed down by Tradition And thus the followers of every false Sectarie may make any Religion true But here is not all 26 Mark I beseech you how pitifully the Dr shuffles He own 's à tradition which conveigh's unto us what Christ did and spake That is we may No man is wiser by the Dr's lame Tradition know by his fallible tradition received among Christians that our Saviour wrought such Miracles and spake such words for example I and my Father are one The word is
made flesh This is my body c. But how is any man wiser for that How is our knowledge or faith improved by such à maimed or half perfect Tradition While no man can certainly tell us what the true meaning of those sacred words is No man can determine the debates which arise among Christians the Arians and you that draw plain Contradictions out of these words now cited Such à conveyance or tradition as could end these long strifes would be to your purpose and comfort Mr Dr but you have none of it because you slight the Tradition and Authority of an Infallible Church Though therefore you tell us twenty times over you believe all truths expressed in Scripture yet while you cannot assure us upon tradition or any other sound Principle what those necessary truths are which Faith in necessaries is determinately to pitch upon you only trifle away your time and cheat your Reader in seeming to discover great How the Dr Cheat's his Reader matters whereas in real truth you speak not one word to the purpose If to solve the difficulty here briefly touched you run up to your own discerning faculty permit the Arian to keep you company and blame him not if he trust to his discerning faculty quite contrary to yours Se more hereof above Chap. 4. n. 10. Thus much premised 27 To answer the Dr I say first Fallible Tradition which may be false Our Answer to the Dr. the Dr own 's none Infallible gives not so great certainty of Miracles Supposed true in Scripture as Eye-sight did to those who beheld them The reason is Fallible Tradition in the Dr ' s Principles easily alters in time and may tell one Story for another whereof more presently If therefore that Tradition conveyed by hearing altered as I shall shew most shamefully and if fallible no wonder at the change what certainty have Fallible tradition worth little in Divine matters we now in this present Age either of the Miracles or of the Doctrin recorded in Scripture by virtue of it Or how can the Dr parallel the certainty of à Miracle conveyed down by fallible Tradition with the sight of it This must needs be à lame Parallel For when I se à Miracle I need not to prove the outward appearance of it evidently seen but when that appearance passes down Age after Age upon Hearsay or à faultering Tradition which may change the Story from what it once was I must either prove that Tradition true or cannot prudently rely on it chiefly in this present case while we dispute against Iewes and Gentils who utterly deny those Miracles to have ever been truly wrought by Christ The ancient Jewes all know said Christ cast out Divels by the help of Beelzebub and these modern men of the Synagogue calumniate as boldly to this day 28 I say 2. Those ancient Miracles if saith à Jew ever any such were together with the Doctrin which is thought to be proved either true or evidently credible by such wonders can be no more certain now than the fallible Tradition is which conveighs them to us But this Tradition gives no man so much as moral certainty either of the Miracles or Doctrin I prove the Minor That The reason why worthless in the Dr's Principles ancient Tradition say Sectaries notoriously changed not long after the Apostles dayes when à universal deluge of errours spread it selfe the whole Christian world over and the efficacy of Christs true Doctrin together with its old Tradition was blotted out of mens memory when the Roman Catholick The Dr charges this Idolatry upon the Roman Church Church once confessedly Orthodox unluckily began Her universal Apostacy and professed open Idolatry when the Arians denyed the Mystery of the Incarnation and Trinity Others the two VVills in Christ others his Sacred Humanity others the Resurrection of the dead others the necessity of Divine Grace and others finally professed yet more horrid Doctrins In so much that the whole Christian word part of it one way part another erred most grosly in the very fundamentals of Faith In those dismal dayes say I when all Christian Societies nameable and the Roman Church with them became so infatuated as to change the first received truths taught by Christ and his Apostles the ancient true Tradition could not but change and faile also therefore at this day Tradition is worthless and unualvable because no man can know upon any sure Principle what it anciently was 29 The Dr may reply All called Christians own the Bible and the Miracles there related of Christ and his Apostles which are sufficient to prove Christs Doctrin true so far at least Tradition never failed Small Comfort God knowes to have Tradition of the Scriptures bare letter which yet is not had in our Sectaries Principles Se Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 6. n. 2. If the Christian world long since cheated out of their ancient Faith bequeathed to posterity à false Doctrin in Lieu of that which The Arians and all hereticks lay as great claime to Christs Miracles as the Dr or any other doth Christ and his Apostles taught and with that à false Tradition also Moreover were those Miracles with their Tradition proved most true the Arians will as well lay claim to them for à proof their Doctrin as the Dr can do for that Religion he professes and the like may all others pretend if called Christians though of à quite different belief in the very Essentials of Faith unless this consequence utterly false be good Christ our Lord wrought such and such Miracles Ergo Protestancy is à better Religion then Arianism Pelagianism is better then Nestorianism and so of the rest The Dr therefore must either make this out that Christ and his Apostles wrought their Miracles to confirm all the erroneous Sects in the world or he speaks nothing to the purpose when he tells us in his Account What the Dr is obliged to clear P. 205. That the Motives of Faith both to them the ancient Christians and to us are the same only the manner of conveyance is different those Primitive Believers Saw them we hear of them by Tradition In saying this he either thinks that such Motives prove the truth of all Religions called Christian which is horridly false or only prove the true Christian Religion among so many dissenting Sects Grant this and we are in as much darkness after the supposed Truth of these Miracles and the Dr ' s long discourse as we were before and can never know by his Motives only which is the true Religion I earnestly desire the Dr would please to solve this one difficulty which I judge cannot be Solved 30 By all hitherto clearly laid down we se 1. The Dr ' s rational Evidence so much talked of brought to nothing but empty words for his whole proofs are meer unproved Suppositions He endeavours to evince by Miracles internal to Scripture the Divinity of the book which
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICK CHURCH AND HER MIRACLES Defended against Dr Stillingfleets Cavils Unworthily made publick In two late Books The one called An Answer to Several Treatises c The other à Vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith Against the Pretence of Infallibility IN THE ROMAN CHVRCH c. BY E. W. The first Part. ANTWERP Printed by MICHAEL CNOBBAERT at the Sign of S. Peter in the Year 1674. Permissu Superiorum THE PREFACE NIne years or there about are pas't Since Dr Edward Stillingfleet set Printed Anno 1669 forth à voluminous book entituled A rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion and exposed it to the view and examination of others Many both learned and judicious have in their several latter works discovered here and there no Small but great Errours in it Among the rest one worthy man not scared with the fearful bulk of the book fixed upon the whole engaged to examin it and to return the Dr à full just and compleat Answer but it pleased God to call him out of this world before he saw an end of his labours VVhile he yet lived busy at work I ventured upon the chiefest Points of Controversy handled by the Dr not willing to meddle with the whole book because another had it in hand I thought then and do so still that Dr Stillingfleet came much too short of à right Reckoning The one Printed Anno 1668 The other 1672 in his Account and therefore plainly laid down his Mistakes and errours in two Treatises Protestancy without Principles Reason and Religion c. Ever since year after year I expected the good hour when Mr Dr vvould please to just Accounts vvith me for he had been long in debt and give like à good Correspondent satisfaction to the many exceptions I made against his Account At last two other books containing his after Reckonings appear not like the grand volume Bulkie and so far praise vvorthy who ever saies more to their commendation loses credit vvith me VVhen these books came to my hands one long after the other the distance of place vvould have it so I read all and examined every particular diligently still hopeing as I vvent along to find the Dr more rational and better at his Reckonings now then he had been in his former VVritings but after an exact perusal I saw clearly my hopes frustrated and Dr Still just like himselfe not only unmethodical but besides à meer Shuffler in the main matter he vvas obliged to give Account of as vvill be made out hereafter The first of his volumes is called An answer to several Treatises occasioned by à book c. The other beares the name of à Discourse in vindication of the Protestant grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide of Controversies by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with à particular Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church In these Treatises where Mr Dr should have made a right Reckoning with his Creditors those I mean who trusted him with the best wares they had he in recompence fall's into hitter fitts of passion and railing at them One is blind another has neither fear nor wit à third is à popish Leviathan c. And thus hurried on you shall have the list of his obloquies more compleat presently he thinks not one only but Se the Dr's general Preface all he deals with halfe martyred by him and that none has more felt the weight of his heavy hand than E. W. To give the man his due if curst language can kill one he has behaved himselfe stoutly and knock't E. W. down more like à Wood-river with à beetle than à Scholar by strong Arguments à hundred times over yet thanks be to God E. W. is alive well able to keep Accounts with the Dr whose furious Doings and feeble pen Labour he fear 's not For proof hereof I remit you Gentle Reader to the following Treatise Peruse and censure freely I appeal to your Iudgement In the mean while it will not me thinks be amiss for the better clearing of Accounts between the Dr and me to preacquaint you with some few yet real exceptions I justly make against an very ill Respondent A main one is that as you se by the Dr's Title he pretend's to answer my two last Books already named whereas the Contrary is evident and proved in this Treatise He answers nothing nor so much as offer 's to meddle with such matters as are deservedly esteemed by all Polemical writers the most substantial or of greatest concern For example I told the Dr as plainly as any man can speak that never Book merited less the Title than his Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion and upon this very account I excepted both against the Book and Author and said that the Dr never yet went about to tell us what is meant by his Protestancy much less to settle one Tenet of it upon any Principle express Scripture universal Tradition or the Authority of any Church held Orthodox by the Christian Reas and Relig 1. c. 20. and Disc 3. c. 18. world Not à word of answer hath the Dr returned to this most just and urgent exception Besides I told him that his Protestancy which he supposes well grounded want's the very Essence of Religion and consequently subsist's upon no grounds and that in Protestancy as it is distinguished from Catholick Religion and all known condemned Heresies there is not so much as one Article revealed by Almighty God taught by any Orthodox Church or Iudged by the Professors of this Novelty necessary to Salvation This I thought and think still à charge very Material yet Mr Dr waves it not because he deem's it little for nothing can be more destructive to Protestancy but because he knowes not what to answer Yet more Protestants grant and so far the Dr sides vvith them that the Roman Catholick Church once pure in Faith sincerely conveyed to posterity the great Mysteries concerning Christian Religion of the sacred Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection of the dead c but say withall that after so much good service done She perversty brought in and publickly taught contrary to truth many both new and dangerous doctrins Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and Purgatory with à mighty deluge of other gross errours I have amply proved this charge of errours and change of Religion entring à whole Church to be utterly impossible and rely upon an undubitable Protest without Princ Disc 3. C. 13. n. 5. Principle Viz. These Supposed Novelties being plain matters of Fact could never get into Christianity without publick Defence in those who first broached them and publick Resistance in others that had they been errours publickly opposed them but never Since Christ's time was there any such publick defence or publick opposition
as is largely proved in the place now cited Here I add one Consideration more Sectaries who lay this foul aspersion on the Church must Iudge the whole body of Christians Princes Prelates and People all over Germany Italy Spain France and England c stark madd at once that is to have unanimously conspired in à beliefe of Transubstantiation for example never held before and this is as great à Paradox as if you Should suppose that Catholicks now might universally agree in one beliefe and stedfastly maintain that the Water in Baptism is really Christ's sacred blood as vvorthy Adoration as à Consecrated Chalice is yet and here is the wonder no man forsooth must be thought to take the least Notice of so universal à dotage nor of the prodigious change made in Christian Religion by it Tell me Courteous Reader were such à Novelty brought this present year into the Church would not Iewes Turks Heathens and all Hereticks if none els did it raise loud Clamours against the great body of Christians observe all that 's done and ieer at us in the publick Streets On the other side if Sectaries say these supposed Innovations were first begun by Some few two or three in corners got growth in time and at last became believed Articles of Faith all over the Christian world I answer this is more impossible yea the greatest Chimaera Imaginable Viz. That such gross Novelties should steal into à Church and be publickly taught by à few vvithout opposition or notice taken by other sound Christians far more numerous and learned for now we suppose all ran not mad at once Here also the Instance already given has the like force Should à few men in à town or City publickly teach that the water in Baptism is Christ's real blood would not the whole Body of sound Christians both censure and decry the errour as horrid and blasphemous Nothing can be more evident Besides all know how exact the Church of Christ has been in condemning Heresies as they rose up the time when they began and the Persons that introduced them remain still upon record but here are Novelties spoken of and unworthily charged upon à whole Church yet hush All passed in silence no man mentions them no Author friend or Enemy left them upon Record The Dr may remember how he impugn's that matter of fact concerning the miraculous Translation of the house of Disc 2. P. 451. Loreto from Nazareth where he tells us because three Authors Dante 's Petrach and Boccace men most inquisitive omitted to mention it the wholy Story was to be thought an incredible fiction But here à matter of Fact and of far greater concern the palpable change of Christian Doctrin from what it was anciently is supposed to enter the world not mentioned by any one Author friend or enemy Therefore according to the Dr it is to be judged à forged tale à meer whimsy improbable and incredible Much more then this comes to I urged against the Dr and here remind him of his grand Omission for to this very day though he pretend's to answer my book 's yet be never medled with this one point most weighty and of greatest Importance I call it weighty for upon these unanswerable proofs Protestancy is ruin'd and the Church no lesse demonstratively cleared from that unjust calumny of altering Her Doctrin which She received from Christ and his Apostles But the greatest Omission of all where the Dr's dull proceeding with me appear's most remain's yet untouched Those who have read my last Treatises know that the chiefest thing I insisted upon and aimed at was to prove Protes without Princ Disc 1. c. 2. n. 9. à Truth which must stand or Christian Religion fall's to nothing It is the Roman Catholick Churches Infallibility in every Doctrin She obliges Christians to believe I told the Dr if all Pastors all Bishops and the Church with them be so fallible in delivering Christian Doctrin that when it is ultimately applyed to the Hearers the Doctrin may be false God never sent them to teach it I proved the Assertion God sent not Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles nor the Apostles others to teach any Doctrin but that which relies upon the first Verity infallibly revealing truth but such à Doctrin can neither be fallible nor false but most true and infallible if therefore the Church teaches not that Doctrin as it is true and Infallible but may change it into meer fallible and perhaps false Doctrin She ceases eo ipso to be à Church and all the Doctors that teach so are no Catholick Doctors Moreover I said If Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 19. n. 12. God hath not purposely made Religion à matter of eternal debate if he has not cast Christians upon endless vncertainties what to believe if both the Truth and infallibility of his revealed Doctrin stand firmly upon the first Verity not separable there and be revealed for this end that all assent to it as it is true and Infallible If finally the very fundamentals of Faith necessary for Salvation as registred in Holy Writ be still liable to disputes amongst the learned of different Religion If these things be as they all are clear Evidences Nothing can be more manifest than that the All-seing Providence hath impowred some Oracle to compose such strifes raised among Christians and to teach Christ's Doctrin as it deserves to be taught truly and infallibly These Arguments with many others not to be repeated I have clearly proposed and often Called on Mr Dr to reply but in the very nick and occasion when he found himselfe obliged to answer he warily slip's aside to another By-question about the resolution of Faith and there forsooth because the matter of its own nature is hard and speculative not easily understood by every vulgar Reader he thought he might well lie hid free from the Censure of such men whom he court's though he speake as be often doth plainly from the purpose VVhereas had he proceeded downright and directly fallen upon my reasons alledged in behalfe of the Churches Infallibility every judicious Reader though little versed in speculative Learning would have soon seen whether of us I in arguing or he in his answers deserved reproof and stood grounded upon better Principles Notwithstanding this pretty Subterfuge the Dr hath got little by waving the main Question Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 5. n. 5. for I have followed him closely in the Speculative matter he lead's me to and made it manifest that he neither bitt's upon the right resolution of Faith nor indeed understand's where the real difficulty lies One thing yet remain's and I much wonder the Dr never medled with it I said who ever impeaches the Roman Catholick Church of errour in points of Faith is sure to be worsted in every rational Contest held upon that subiect and ought to own the supposed errour so remediless an Evil that it must remain as it is
without all hope of bettering it The Assertion stand's firm upon this ground No man can rationally charge errour upon à whole Church never censured by any in former Ages but known and condemned Hereticks without Principles more convincing vveighty and ponderous than the Churches Sole Authority is But there are no Principles in Being powerful enough to uphold any such discourse and not to make long vvork about à manifest Truth pray tell me vvhither can the Dr goe for Principles vvhereby the Church is proved so much as liable to errour Will he take recourse to the unanimous consent of Fathers The attempt is desperate while they generally teach quite contrary Doctrin as is amply proved in my two last Treatises Nay more can the Dr produce Se Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 14. n. 10. â—1 one ancient Father who saies plainly the Roman Catholick Church can err I will return him hearty thanks if he point out one but suppose which is false one or two glance at any such thing have their doubtful words thinke ye force enough to Counterpoise the Authority of So renowned an Oracle as this Church is Say I beseech you what if one or two English Dr's should boldly tell us that the nine and thirty Articles are matters of Divine Faith and that all vvho teach the Doctrin are by Divine Assistance made Infallible Oracles is this sufficient to overthrow the Sentiment of the vvhole English Church vvhich hold's Herselfe fallible in delivering the Doctrin She maintains No certainly Much less say I can the Authority of one or two Fathers only supposed not proved of à different opinion in judging the Roman Catholick Church errable availe one whit to make it probable that She is guilty of errour or liable to it when contrary to Protestants both She and all the learned Dr's of one Faith with her boldly assert She cannot erre Hence I infer that no Authority taken from this or that ancient Father much less from this or that private man can rationally oppose the Church in her just claim to Infallibility The next Principle the Dr and others use to rely on is taken from General Councils approved by the Church How I beseech you or in what manner Did any Council ever yet expressly define that the Church can err You will say no but these Councils contradict one another and no infallible Oracle doth so The weakest Pretence and least worth of any For doth not Holy Scripture also seemingly speak contradictions in many Passages You will say though they appear like Contradictions yet learned men have already cleared such Antilogies Besides Scripture is God's word and all know that God cannot contradict himselfe Very right this is my Answer also The learned of our Church have over and over cleared all such passages in Councils as appear to some short sighted eyes contradictions from all opposition and we more assuredly know that the Roman Catholick Church is God's own infallible Oracle than any Sectary can shew by reason that Scripture is the word of God or written by Divine Inspiration Please now to compare Principles together The Dr impeaches this Church of errour and takes his proofs from the seeming Contradictions of Councils A Catholick Adversary no less learned than he solves all the Dr Obiects The Church while these two Combatants are hot at vvork stand's by and positively declares She never delivered contrary Doctrin in any of her Councils Here is the Clear Catholick Principle Against this Principle the Dr makes his exceptions which thousands and thousands as learned as he judge to be feeble forceless and long since ruined Fallacies The Question is now and t is worth the while to drive it on further because it is most useful in all debates with Sectaries The Question I say is vvho shall judge in this Contest between the Church and this Dr vvith all his exceptions Have vve means to know vvho speaks truth in so vveighty à matter and upon vvhom the errour lies To clear this you shall se how indifferently I proceed I will as yet neither suppose the Church nor the Dr blamable but leave this to the just trial of some Iudge let that Iudge be named and much is done The Church never censured by any Orthodox Christian and defended by the most learned in the world think 's her own Authority worth something and powerful enough to bear up her cause against à single Dr with all his crew of Sectaries but let that be yet disputable whither will the Dr lead us for à final Sentence in this yet debatable case Has he any ancient Church any consent of Fathers any one word of Scripture any received Tradition whereby he evinces the Church errable in her Councils These are excellent Principles but I absolutely assert he has none of them not one vvas ever yet produced by him nor shall hereafter be brought to light while the world stands as is clearly made out both in this and my former Treatises Contrarywise it is certain that the Church and all her learned Doctors plead strongly by every one of these Principles therefore She stand's upon surer grounds than the Dr vvho as I now said has none of them The Dr may reply These very Scriptures and Fathers the Church plead's by for her not erring are only doubtful proofs and therefore convince nothing I answer if these be doubtful the Dr's Assertion vvhile he saith They are doubtful is I am sure no selfe-evident Truth but either utterly false or at least fearfully doubtful and therefore must be proved by à stronger Principle than his own proofless vvord Leave us not now Mr Dr in darkness give us I beseech you some light of that Principle or ultimate proof vvhereby it may appear that you speak truth or so much as Sence vvhen you tell us All our proofs alledged in behalfe of the Churches Infallibility are doubtfull and controverted Name the Church the Fathers or Councils Scripture you have none that speak as you do You may introduce Sectaries vvho say so but they come unarmed vvithout Scripture Church-authority Fathers or Tradition and to these men of yesterday vve oppose thousands more ancient on our side Thus Mr Dr we proceed in every other particular Controversy and will shew you when you please so non-plus't and soon driven to an end of all discourse for want of Principles that the ultimate proofs of your Assertions whether you defend Protestancy or impugn This great truth I intend to enlarge further upon another Occasion Catholick Religion Shall at last be brought to nothing but to your own bare naked and unproved Assertions themselves which stand tottering unprincipled Now that you may se I speak seriously I challenge you once more to discusse with me this particular Question concerning the Churches Infallibility and if after all you have said or can say I make not vvhat is here asserted manifest I vvill acknowledge my errour before the vvhole vvorld The ground I stand upon is
if he take Pet What if passion and ignorance drive him into à humour of Contempt VVhat if he lay all thought of answering aside and Satisfy some few of his own Gange by an odd Querie as he once did Cannot à dull book come out with my name in the Title but I must be obliged to answer it No I assure them I know better how to spend my time Well Courteous Part. 1. Page 72. Reader if he run this way I have done and say no more but what all will vow that the of oyle of the Doctors lampe is well nigh if not wholly spent Among the many wayes here briefly hinted at time I hope may tell us how he will behave himselfe I expect his Answer A word now if you please of what I shall handle hereafter Dr Still hath published two spiteful ridiculous Treatises justly offensive to every Iudicious man the one is his simple charge of Idolatry shamefully and without judgement laid upon the Roman Catholick Church thanks be to God he hath been soundly baffled for it The other is his wild Enquiry after Miracles vvrought in the same great Moral body of Christians and this I engage to answer though indeed the juggling the palpable Sophistry the manifest falsities vvherewith that vvhole Discourse is seasoned return you the best Answer and plainly tell you The Enquiry made by him is in à vvord vvorth nothing abating this one point that it exposes the Author as he deserves to publick contempt VVhat in Gods name came into the Dr's head to vvrite as he hath done against all Miracles Many Protestants I am sure as you shall see afterward ingenuously acknovvledge true Miracles to have been vvrought in the Roman Catholick Church others of the worser sort allow at least an appearance of them though perhaps done by the help of Divels but the Dr seem's in Several Passages not to allow us so much as the outward Semblance of à Miracle and all along own 's not one of them true VVhat shall â—e say to this man VVill he grant that the Iewes bad true Miracles among them and deny the like Grace and Priviledge to the Christian Church VVill he allow the gift of working Miracles to two great Prophets Enoch and Elias at their appearing again when the Church will be neer an end and take from her all Signs all true Miracles during the vast space of time between the Apostles and the latter dayes of these two Prophets VVill he say and he must say it when Antichrist comes that that false Prophet will do strange wonders yea in appearance great Miracles though all rotten and full of guile and shall Christ's own Spouse the true Christian Church be so abased so vilely thought of by one that professes Christianity as never to have vvrought by God's special favour so much as one true Miracle never to have Shewed any other vvonder but vvhat Divels have done and Antichrist will do by his charm's vvhen he comes to delude the vvorld Gentle Reader these things are horrid and better befit à Proficient in Atheism than one that bear 's the name of à Christian But more of this in the Treatise vvhere I shall discover the Dr's intolerable fraudes which run through his vvhole Discourse and show also vvhat Catholicks understand by Church Miracles vvherein the Dr grosly err's for he thinks every uncertain Story related by this or that too credulous Author often censured by the Church passes amongst us for à Church Miracle There is no such matter the Miracles vve chiefly rely on and defend are rigidly examined attested by oath and made every way so morally certain before they gain Approbation that no man in prudence can call them into doubt Those other related by private Authors are either probable dubious or manifestly false If all Circumstances Considered they appear probable vve own them as such and go no further If dubious vve suspend our judgements and leave them in that uncertain Condition If false vvhich is easily known upon Examination vve utterly reject them The rest that belongs to this weighty matter Concerning Miracles you shall have God vvilling hereafter part vvhereof is added to this Treatise The remainder I hope vvill follow before many Months come to an End Farewel Courteous READER THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST PART CHAP. I. VVhat moved the Author to write this short Treatise How weakly Dr Stilling trifles with his Adversaries A touch of the Dr's new way in Arguing Of his simple exception against the word Infallibility How the Infallibility in the first Propounders of Faith depend's upon the present Guides of the Church Pag. 1 CHAP. II. A few Considerations premised concerning Infallibility Express Scripture proves The Church Infallible No one word for her Fallibility alleged by the Dr. An Argument proposed against the Doctor 32 CHAP. III. Doctor Stillingfleets Rule and ground of faith proved no Rule It lessens not in the least the Churches Infallibility 42 CHAP. IV. Doctor Still Arguments answered His unintelligible jumbling discovered A word briefly of the ground of the Churches Infallibility The Churches Guides teach infallibly 61 CHAP. V. Doctor Stillingfleets pretended Answer to E W s Two books Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion shew'd no Answer but à meer shuffling or palpable digression from the main point bandled in those Treatises How the Dr shift's off the only difficulty wberein satisfaction is required 96 CHAP. VI. Dr Still grant's that Faith transcend's the Certainty of those Motives which induce to believe Independently of his concession that verity is proved and the ground thereof firmly setled Hovv necessary it is to distinguish betvveen the Credibility of à Mystery and the infallible believing it true Obiections ansvvered Other difficulties proposed 123 CHAP. VII Reflections made upon the Doctors follovving Discourse Of his Mistakes concerning the Churches Testimony and the obscurity of Faith 154 CHAP. VIII The Doctor 's Discourse from page 400 to P. 416. Considered and found vveightless 174 CHAP. IX Dr Stilling pretended Evidence for Christian Religion proved nothing like Evidence His Evidence taken from Sense in the Mystery of the holy Eucharist demonstrated Sensless How vainly he endeavour's to prove by Miracles related in Scripture the Truth of the Doctrin there registred A word of his Tradition and many other errours 193 Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition what Christ did and spake 226 CHAP. X. The Church proved Infallible before She interpret's Scripture The reason hereof The Doctors gross errour in charging à Circle on us in the Resolution of Faith What à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 236 THE CHAPTERS OF THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. How I formerly argued in behalfe of our Churches Miracles The Dr in his Enquiry waves my Arguments Of the difference between Christ's Miracles and those wrought by the Apostles and in the Church What is meant by Church Miracles Of the Cheats which run through the Dr's
particular Revelations because they are ordained by Providence to ascertain every one in particular of what God speak's no hurt at all I easily accord but his words and meaning Seem quite contrary for first he will have all the Guides of the present Church inspired in their teaching as the Apostles were inspired by some celestial vision or Divine illustration Or he thinks they cannot teach Infallibly Nay more Nothing saith he P. 82 Can make the Faith of particular persons Infallible but private Inspiration which must resolve all Faith into Enthusiasm and immediate Revelation Were this true which the Dr never offer 's to make out by any proof but his own fallible word every private person might as securely write holy Scripture as any Prophet or Apostle for the chiefest Prerogative granted these great Masters was that the very words they wrote expressed the internal inspiration of the Holy Ghost or his private Revelation and upon this account are rightly called Gods own words When the inspiration was clear they expressed it clearly when obscure obscurely as we se in the dark Prophesies of the old Testament and in the Book of the Apocalypse 17 Catholicks in lieu of the Doctors Inspiration and Revelation ordinarily use The word Assistance used by Catholicks the word Assistance or Guidance of the Holy Ghost which neither implyes Enthusianism private Revelation or Prophetical illumination but the safe conduct and infallible direction of that Blessed Spirit whereby the Guides of the Church are preserved from errour in the substance of that Doctrin they oblige Christians to believe whereof see more in my last Treatise Disc 3. c. 12. n. 9. To assert therefore as the Dr doth that nothing can be more absurd than to say There are infallible Believers without infallible inspiration is not only an unproved whimsy but to speak in his homely language more then absurd if he knowes what Inspiration properly import's 18 P. 83. He saith first that those persons whom God hath imployed to make known his Doctrin must give assurance that he hath secured them from mistake and errour and then add's But to suppose that we cannot believe the first Infallible Proponents he means the Apostles unless there be such in every age is to make more difficulties and to answer none And therefore he saith in the foregoing Page It is unconceivable that ' persons should be more infallible in judging the Inspiration read Assistance of the present Guides than of the first Founders of the Church For then all my beliefe of the Infallibility of the first Proponents must depend on the evidence which the present Guides of the Church give of their Infallibility 19 This vulgar Obiection solved over and over in my two last Treatises contain's nothing like à difficulty and the Dr who will not I hope disdain to be one of the Guides of the English Church must confess it to be wholly strengthles for when he preaches to his people in The Dr's objection solved Holborn and doctrinally explain's that great Mystery of the Incarnation or tells them I suppose truly though not infallibly of an admirable Hypostatical union whereby two distinct natures Divine and humane are joyned together subsisting in one Divine person and in saying thus much gain 's belief from his Auditors when this I say is done One that 's curious demand's of those Hearers upon what motive dare they ground their faith in believing so sublime à Mystery It 's answered they believe it because God an Eternal Verity deliver's the truth in Holy Scripture But ask again whether Scripture in express Terms makes mention of that Hypostatical union or of the two different Natures united together They answer No Yet tell you that their Doctor to lay forth the Mystery more fully assures them all is true and because he is their Guide they no more suspend their Faith but believe Now if in the third place you demand whether the Verity of this Mystery depend's upon the Dr's teaching which is the only thing here stumbled at They answer no for the Verity was proposed from Christs time yet this influence his Teaching has over their Faith that he both shewes what was anciently revealed and now applyes that ancient Doctrin to their weak capacities not hitherto so exactly conceived or laid forth 20 Here you have something like that I would express and if the Dr were as infallible in his teaching as we now suppose him to speak truth we should soon agree In à word Catholick Faith as S. Thomas excellently well observes 1 Part. q. 1. art 8 ad 2. necessarily relies upon the Revelation made to the ancient Prophets and Apostles who wrote Divine Scripture and yet more primarily upon Christ our Lord's teaching Now as the Apostles often declared more fully what our great Master of truth infallibly delivered and in this sence explain'd and compleated his Doctrin so also the Church of Christ in all Ages since declared more amply what both Christ and the Apostles taught concerning the Mysteries of Faith and in this sence not only explain's what they taught but proposes it also infallibly as the certain Doctrin delivered by Christ and his Apostles and upon this account is rightly called Conditio applicans à necessary condition applying it to our capacities Hence you se though the ancient Truths were primarily matter of Faith yet to Believers in succeeding Ages they stand as it were remote from all and need this immediate Proposal of the Church living and actually teaching 21 The reason hereof if you make à true Analysis of Faith is clear For ask why I believe the Incarnation I answer the first Guides of the Church revealed it in Scripture but enquire again what assurance have I of that Revelation which is not exterminis evident much less are all the particulars belonging to the Mystery already laid forth evident I answer the Attestation of the present Church manifested by supernatural wonders gives me my last assurance and How the Infallibility of the first proponents of Faith depends upon the Churches present Guides therefore either is à partial formal obiect of Faith as I defend Reason and Religion Disc. 3. c. 12. n. 8. 9. or at least an intrinsical necessary condition as shall be afterward declared Thus you se how and in what manner the beliefe of the Infallibility of the first Proponents depend's on the rational Evidence which the present Guides of the Church give of those first Proponents Infallibility The verity of the Mystery attested and considered in it selfe depend's not upon the present Guides for it was true before they taught but à farther and more exact declaration of it not discoverable before the Church speak's and the immediate application of it respectively made to Believers depend's on these now living Guides And this also the Dr must confess when by his preaching he truly applyes the high mysteries of Faith to the understanding of his Hearers 22 The Dr takes not his measures right in
what followes If men saith he cannot be infallible in believing the Apostles unless there be other infallible Proponents in every Age to assure them that the Apostles were inspired why must not the Infallibility of these present Proponents be likewise so attested as well as the Apostles He would I think ask in clearer terms Why should not the Infallibility whereunto the now living Guides of the Church lay claim be as well attested and applyed by another Infallible Attestation as the Church attest's or applyes to us the Infallibility of the Apostles And thus as he insinuates we must goe on endlesly in these Applications and Attestations or at last rest in that first Attestation or application made by the Apostles Were it worth the while it would be easy to show how the intangled Dr must solve his own difficulty if in lieu of Infallible you will use the word Truth He declares to his Hearers and truly as we suppose some dark Mystery of Faith and with that you have his true Attestation or application of it But must that Attestation ere Faith be truly conveyed into his Hearers be applied and attested by another Attestation distinct from Scripture and the Dr◠The Dr's Simple Discourse Concerning endless Attestations refuted own last delivery If so we goe on endlesly in Attestations In à word the Answer most fully laid forth in my last Treatise is thus As when the Apostles preach't they rationally proved themselves by the signal wonders they wrought to be Gods own Infallible Proponents or Oracles and therefore needed no further Attestation of their Infallibility in that Age so the Church ever since evidenced by the like visible lustre of rational marks and wonders proves Her selfe Gods own Infallible Oracle and therefore is without any further Attestation the Primum Credible in order to Christians But the first most immediate known Oracle made by her selfe and for her selfe Credible in so much that we cannot in this present state infallibly adhere to that the Dr calls Apostolical evidence or the Divinity of Scripture without the Churches Attestation needs no further witness or attesting Authority Se more hereof Rea and Relig Disc 3. c. 12. n. 4. c. 15. n. 3. and c. 16. per totum but chiefly Disc. 2. c. 11. where it is proved that as no Prophet was ever comparable to Christ our Lord so no Church was is or shall be comparable to the Roman Catholick 23 By thus much here briefly hinted at and amply proved in the places now quoted you se the Dr knowes not what he saith P. 84 where he tell 's us If we rest not satisfied with the rational Evidence which the Apostles inspired by God gave the world there will either be an endless infallibility or Faith at last must be resolved into Enthusiasm Again let the world judge saith he whether Christ and his Apostles did not give stronger evidence that they were sent from God then the Guides of the present Church do 24 Because à lesse wary Reader may be here affrighted with big words we will lead the Dr with his Bible to à Synagogue of Jewes or to an Assembly of learned Heathens and desire him to lay forth that stronger rational evidence whereby these Aliens from Christ ought to be induced to believe that infallible Divine Inspiration imparted to the Apostles If his answer be direct and pertinent he will relate their Miracles The blind se the lame walk the dead rise c. And are these say the Heathens The Dr's supposed rational Evidence gives no Satisfaction to Iewes and Heathens your best rational Evidences Mr Dr Know good Sr that once if true they were Evidences to those who saw them but now cease to be so to us and therefore may be better called matters revealed than rational Evidences Now if the truth of that Revelation concerning the Apostolical Inspiration be only proved by Miracles not known or attested but by à Revelation wholly as obscure as the thing is which should be proved by them such Miracles far recede from the Nature of Evidence Remember Dr your own words P. 110. That à proof ought alwaies to be more evident than the thing proved by it but here the Miracles produced by you as à Medium to prove the Apostles Divine Inspiration are wholly as obscure to the Heathens as that inspiration is they should prove for both are only supposed not yet proved Revelations therefore they far recede from the nature of rational Evidence 25 On the other side could our Dr evince those Scripture Miracles upon The Dr to bring in Atheism ru'on's the true rational Evidence the Attestation of à Church which God from the beginning of Christianity has gloriously marked out by as signal and sensible wonders as ever the Apostles were evidenced could he make use of these later Signes and shew them to be no natural but supernatural effects proceeding from an Infinit Power and wisdom and only peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church could he tell us he own 's à Church which both Heaven and earth have so far approved that never any known Orthodox Christian laid censure on it or condemned its Doctrin He might well give in strong evidence indeed and powerfully plead against Jewes Gentils and all Heretiques but the unfortunate man ruin's all this rational Evidence and to his eternal disgrace laies à charge of Idolatry upon this renowned Church though by virtue of her glorious wonders She has drawn the very best the most choise and learned of the Christian world to Her belief And thus as I noted Reas and Reli Disc 3. c. 16. n. 28 He destroies Scripture deads Faith makes Christian Religion unreasonable and doth his utmost to bring in Atheism But of this more largely hereafter when we shall discover the Dr's fraud and fallacy concerning his pretended Evidence 26 P. 84 He end 's with me And in the next 85. attaques that learned and laborious Author N. O. His whole endeavor is to shew we may have Sufficient certainty of Faith without the Infallibility of the Church Though it would be incivility on my part to reply for N. O best able to answer for himselfe neither can I for I have not his book yet by that erudite Authors leave I will make à few reflections upon Dr Still unknit rambling discourse and evince that he speaks nothing against the Infallibility of our Church This I doe because I have not yet seen the Dr's second part where I am told he hath much against me CHAP. II. A few Considerations premised concerning Infallibility Express Scripture proves The Church Infallible No one word for her Fallibility alleged by the Dr. An Argument proposed against the Doctor 1 IT is prodigiously strange to se how uniustly we Catholicks are dealt with who before these rambling Novellists began their new whimsy of reforming and deserted the old way of Truth stood in à peaceable possession of this great Verity The Roman Catholick Church was is and ever
this Title to his 8. Chapter The Churches How the Dr juggles in his Account Infallibility not proved from Scripture whereas this or the like Title could he have made it good had bin to the purpose The Churches fallibility proved by Scripture That first Title only gives occasion and he doth no more to interpret and gloss such Scriptures as are usually alleged for the Churches Infallibility but the second would have obliged him to produce positive Scripture whereby that Oracle is proved fallible This he waves and must wave because there is no such Testimony in the whole Bible You will say if the Dr makes it ou◠that the Churches Infallibility is no◠proved by Scripture He◠evinces Her fallible Very false Doctrin for the Church was proved Infallible before Scripture appeared in the world an◠yet is proved infallible independently of Scripture But let this pass How wil◠the Dr make it out that Scripture proves not the Churches Infallibility whilst I allege Testimonies as plain fo◠this Catholick Tenet as the Dr ca◠produce for any fundamental Article o◠Christian Faith For example Chri◠saies I am with you alwaies to the ◠of the world The Conforter the Holy Gho◠shall abide with you for ever The words as fully express à continual assistance granted the Successors of the Apostles and that for ever as any Text in the whole Bible proves the Mystery of the Incarnation Now all the Dr doth or can doe by way of Answer to these passages is after his wonted fashion to gloss them as you may se in his Account P. chiefly 254. And cannot an Arian as nimbly gloss the strongest Text allegable for the Incarnation For example I and my Father are one as the Dr glosses this Text. I am with you alwaies c. I yeild saith the Bishop cited in that page à continual Assistance granted the Apostles and their Successors in Christs promises but in à different degree For it was of continual and Infallible Assistance to the Apostles but to their Successors of Continual and fitting Assistance yet not Infallible Mark the gloss no Scripture God knowes and note likewise how the Arian keep 's him company I grant saith he à unity or Oneness between the Father and Son not in nature or Essence but in love and affection only and that 's à fitting unity the other in nature appear's unbeseeming God yea Impossible 6 Thus you have two fallible Glossers Dr Stil and Dr Arian delivering their fallible sentiments But how a poor The Dr and an Arian gloss scripture alike Christian who would fain learn what Christ hath infallibly taught can be one whit the wiser by his hearing such men talk is à riddle to me and every one besides For I think there is none but can easily argue thus That fitting Assistance maintained by you Mr Dr which excludes infallible assistance is no more Gods express word or the Doctrin of any Orthodox Church than that fitting unity excluding à real unity maintained by an Arian is God's word or the Doctrin of any orthodox Church Or if it be produce your Scripture What is it then A conceited gloss which stand's unprincipled by it selfe Observe I beseech you We enquire whether the Church be not proved Infallible by the plain sence of Christs words now cited I am with you alwaies to the end of the world the Dr and his Bishop say no because Her assistance is à sitting one but not Infallible Here is their last proof and 't is no more but their own weak Assertion that gives all the strength to the thing which should be proved and consequently nothing like Christs Doctrin that ever stand's firm upon undubitable Principles Nay more That whole blundering discourse held on by the Dr in his Account P. 255. amount's to thus much only that now and then he hint's at something which should be proved but never proves it And were he only once faulty in this dissatisfactory proceeding it might pass but I must say more to unbeguile those who read the Dr and make this great truth known to all Viz. That when he handles these matters of Faith and either opposes our Catholick Tenets or goes about to establish his Protestancy the beginning the progress and end of his discourse are naked and destitute of proofs Neither Scripture nor Church Authority speak in his behalfe whence it is that Cavils jeers drollery and impertinent excursions take up the greatest room in his writings glosses you have without end but no Principled Doctrin to gloss for How easy were it had the Dr any thing like à good cause in hand to prove his gloss of à fitting but fallible Assistance by Scripture or Church Doctrin But we need not feare for I tell him when that 's done the Arian will advance his gloss as farr and altogether as wisely unhinge one prime Article of Christian faith CHAP. III. Doctor Stillingfleets Rule and ground of faith proved no Rule It lessens not in the least the Churches Infallibility 1 OUr Dr by what I read in this first Part chiefly build's his whole Religion upon the sufficiency of Scripture easily understood in Necessaries by à Faculty that every man hath of discerning of truth and falshood wherein he much cleaves to Socinianism and followes exactly the steps of Mr Chilingworth Here and there he recurr's to Gods Grace and to other helps but saies not plainly what those helps are neither can he while his whole endeavour is to exclude the Church from being the Rule or ground of Faith 2 In behalfe of Scripture he laies down this Proposition P. 99. Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such à way of writing being made choice of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the designe and the Wisdom and Goodnes of God to give Infallible assistance to persons in writing his will for the benefit of mankind if these writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their Salvation From this Principle he would conclude that if those writings may be understood by all persons its needles to rely on any Church whether fallible or infallible for our instruction in necessaries because Scripture alone without the Church is the Master-Teacher and à faculty granted every man of discerning truth and falshood which cannot but hit right upon these necessaries knowes them all 3 This Principle learnedly refuted by the Ingenious Author of Errour-Nonplus't P. 81. supposes what neither is proved Dr Still rule of Faith proved no rule nor ever shall be made probable Viz. That an infinit Wisdom and Goodness hath made choise of à Bible only with this design that his will be known in things necessary to salvation which is no more but à vain Supposition For if eternal Wisdom besides the means of written Scripture hath
reason of their Heresy Thus much by the By the rest I leave to Dr. T. G. best able to answer Let us follow our Dr à little not long I promise you 21 In his P. 174. for I passe over all that old trash examined à hundred times over concerning Liberius the Bishops of Istria Pope vigilius and God knowes who besides for none of these concern the Churches Infallibility and are all thread-bare worn out difficulties I come I say to the page now quoted where we are told that of five parts of the Christian world four of them Viz. The Nestorians the Iacobits the Greek Church and Protestants are all agreed That there is no Necessary of living in subiection to the Guides of the Roman Church but they are all under their own Guides which they do not question will direct them in the right way to Heaven 22 I am apt to think Mr Dr you question it as little for it seem's by this The Dr seem's to patronize the Guides among known and Condemned Heretiquet your odd expression and some other which follow any thing true or false will serve the turn and set men in the right way to Heaven But say on I beseech you Are these dissenting Christians to be listed among such as you call sincere Endeavourers who cannot but know what is necessary to Salvation by the clearness of Scripture If you affirm none of them err in Necessaries or the Fundamentals of Faith and consequently the Nestorians Eutychians and Arians are in à safe way to Salvation Would to God Sr you would once declare your selfe plainly that we may hereafter know of what beliefe you are in heart of any or none or of one as bad as none Now on the other side if you number not these among your sincere Seekers but account them misled and deceived to what purpose do you produce such examples Is it to tell us because their Number is great you would have them therefore thought of greater esteem or more valvable then the Catholick Church whereof they were once members and from which Church their first Guides like you ungraciously receded This way of arguing will ruin Christian Religion for Heathens Turks Iewes and Atheists are far ore numerous then these O! say you P. 143. Every man when come to years of understanding see 's upon his own Judgement and reason an Excellency in Christian Religion above Heathens Turks c. This Sr is my Answer Every man at such years if he will open his eyes cannot but se an incomparable greater lustre and Excellency manifest in the Catholick Church as Antiquity Conversions Miracles than in all those other Societies though called Christians who abandon'd it It is true they ran out of this Church but left behind them Gods own Signatures Marks and Signs of true Christianity upon it still these they could never rob us of nor appropriate to themselves and therefore its Gods just judgement upon them remain as they do obscure and contemptible Perhaps the Dr intended by his instances to give some little countenance to his Protestancy If so I answer This Protestancy has the worst luck of all other Sects in the world it s like another Ismael as it stand's up against all called Christians so all are against this Novelty and discard it as Antichristian Neither the Greeks Abyssins or Nestorians can endure it whereof some of them scarce hold it à Christian Religion Read Prince Radzivil in his Ierosoly Peregrin Antwerp print 1614. P. 109. Wherefore I se no reason why Protestants should like these men cut off from the Church or seek patronage And Complement's those that Condemn Protestancy from them for all of them have their Altars and own the Sacrifice of Masse adore the consecrated Host pray to Saints and in à word are as great Idolaters as Papists to whom our kind Dr with much difficulty grant's Salvation Now why such men should be courted complemented or thought worthy to discountenance God's Church is à riddle to every sound Christian Yet more There are evident contradictions maintained among Nestorians Iacobits Eutychians Grecians and others who pretend to believe Catholick verities And here our difficulty proposed above recurr's again concerning the plain obvious means left by Christ to bring all these to one unity in faith and this the Dr shall never clear without liberty granted every one to believe what is fancied true not what God has truly revealed Judge whether this be à sound way or no 23 Page 180. Our Dr appeal's to the Doctrin and practice of the truly Catholick Church in matters of difference between Protestants and the Church of Rome A piece of wise nonsence Let him first tell us plainly where this truly Catholick Church was distinct from the Roman universal and Catholick before Luther's Schism and we will stand to Her Judgement He appeals to à Church never in being but he must not fool us with empty words Before hand I tell him plainly there was no such Catholick Society in being for all nameable besides the professors of our ancient Church were condemned Hereticks Now if he run up to the Primitive Church acknowledged by all most Orthodox let him say without fumbling what Protestants hold essentially Necessary to Salvation and then prove that the Primitive Church taught so much Doctrin and no more as Necessary and he will dispatch à great piece of work but I assure him he will sooner grow gray than give satisfaction in this particular 24 P. 196. Dr Still saies the places of Scripture which are alledged for an infallible Iudge or Church are the most doubtful and controverted of any Answ The proof of this Assertion stand's only upon his own proofless word and licences every Arian to make all the passages in Scripture relating to the most necessary fundamentals of Faith the high God head of Christ for example doubtful and controverted For if the Dr by adding his sence and glosses to such passages as significantly express the Church to be an Infallible Judge will have them after his labour idlely spent doubtfull and controverted why may not an Arian by setting his sence and glosses upon the clearest Text in holy VVrit alledged in proof of Christ's Godhead make those also doubtful and controverted But here is not all I say in à word if the Passages in Scripture usually produced for an infallible The Dr argues against himself Judge or the Churches Infallibility are to be accounted doubtful and controverted much more ought those places which the Dr alledges to prove this Judge fallible were there any such in Holy writ to be esteemed in like manner doubtful and controverted Hence it followes that the Dr is at à Non plus or an end of all his Arguments against the Church while he plead's by Scripture only for if none can raise from à doubtful or controverted Principle any Proof rationally certain how will the Dr evince by Scripture only that the Church is fallible or
Holborn that for one Tautologie in mine I will shew five in yours with à pretty addition of new ones in these your two last Treatises Now whereas you tell me the whole substance of my books lies in this one word Infallibility Know Sr you get the worst here for the whole substance of all you have said or can say confessedly lies in à far weaker word called Fallibility Here it seem's the Dr is willing to leave off his long Tattle for fear of more Advertisements And is it possible could that harmless and well meant Advertisement wherein nothing can be found offensive stirr up thus much unruly passion in à Dr I know no remedy yet hope the Preface to this Treatise will à little calm it 4 To end He ierk's me once more and will need 's suppose that Protestancy without Principles was disposed of to better uses than to be read because forsooth he More jerks yet never heard of one man in England that read it over A weak proof of à false supposition Good Sr are all truths conveyed to your ears do not some miss their way thither Be it how you will hear or pretend not to hear most certainly that book was read by many not only in England but Ireland also Nay more all the Copies above six hundred excepting some few seized on were in à short time bought up In so much that à Gentleman of our Nation offered three Crowns for one single Copy yet could not after long enquiry meet with one These truths known to the Printer and others are sufficient to evert your false supposition and your weak proof added to it 5 And thus much of the Dr ' s Comical Introduction If he thinks me too pert or pleasant with him I answer Benedictis si certasset audisset bene Had not à fermentation The Dr's vast conceipt of himselfe of blood transported him beyond all bounds of common civility no ill word should have fallen from me but when we find à vain Bragger gloriously enthrown'd in à vast conceipt of himselfe as if all he treat's with were desplicable Mushromes it is Charity I think not to sooth him up in his folly but to tell him his own home as S. Hierome once did an Adversary Quae voluisti locutus quae non vis audire debes Time I hope may make the Dr wiser Let us now goe on 6 I said above Dr Still answers not directly one Argument proposed by me for the Churches Infallibility If I prove the Assertion it followes clearly that either he understand's them and will not answer because he finds them too strong for him Or 2 he cannot answer because he penetrat's not their force Grant the first he is à meer cheat and deludes the Reader with à seeming reply which is none in substance Say 2. He understand's not the force of my Arguments and cannot answer he is unworthy to be dealt with and ought in that measure to be despised as he despises others 7 Now I prove my Assertion I say as he relates P. 331. That without an Infallible The Dr answers net my arguments Church he means in this present state as I often inculcate there can be no certainty of Faith and have established the Assertion upon these grounds Neither the Canon nor Divinity nor the Infallible truth or sence of Scripture even in points Necessary to Salvation can be probably much less certainly assured to any in this present state but by the Authority of an Infallible Church To this not à word of answer is or can be returned by the Dr. 8 I Assert 2. As the Dr cites that the Roman Catholick Church only is God's Infallible Oracle and prove it Reas and Relig D. 2. c. 14. n. 10. 11. from Scripture Fathers and most pregnant reason 1. If any Church be Infallible it is the Roman Catholick for all others disclaim the Guidance of an Infallible living Oracle 2. As nothing can more discountenance the worth of true Christianity than à stedfast perswasion of it's fallibility or easily being false So nothing can fix in us an undubitable beliefe of Christ's Doctrin but an Oracle not lyable to errour 3. And chiefly If no Church be Infallible to whose Authority Christians must submit when dissentions arise concerning the Fundamentals Proofs for the Churches Infallibility of Faith and the genuin sence of Scripture both Iewes and Heathens may most justly despise Christian Religion and scorn all our endeavours to make them of one Faith with us upon this ground That none can certainly say what Doctrin Christ our Lord or his Apostles taught the world So it is Mr Dr our debates about the prime Articles of Faith no satisfactory means to end them but Topicks and fallible reasoning are so many that all taught Doctrin lies like an undecided Process in law still disputable and therefore of no credit or estimation unless an Infallible Church decide them and bring Christians to acquiesce in one Faith These Arguments and many more I proposed against the Doctor in the Discourse now cited and all the Answer I have is that he set's down some mangled parcels of my Tenents or barely tells me what I say For example I assert Protestancy without Prine Disc 1. c. 2. That à Doctrin which by virtue of all the Principles it has is meerly fallible and no more may be false but Christian Doctrin say Sectaries as it is taught by all Pastors is thus fallible therefore it may be false But God never Sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles or any to teach Christian Doctrin that may be false Ergo he sent none to teach meer fallible Doctrin This Reason our Dr blindly hints at P. 333. but leaves it without any Answer And thus he run's on to his 339. P. where he tells me He hath laid together so many parcels of my rambling discourse as were necessary in order to the examination of it To the examination of it Mr Dr Not one word true This had been material to shew my Arguments for the The Dr flies from the main difficulty Churches infallibility unconcluding you touch not these or at least to prove by some solid reasoning that the Church is fallible this point you most shamefully shift off and in the next page tell us that the necessity of Divine grace is no way pertinent to our present purpose the Question only being of an external infallible Proponent in order to Faith Sr what you make to your purpose I know not nor much care It was my duty and pertinent when I undertook the full and adequate Resolution of Divine Faith to lay down all the Principles it relies on and à main one is the internal assistance of Grace Had I omitted to treat of an external infallible Proponent you might have justly quarrelled but when that particular is largely handled through the five last chapters of the second Discourse and not à word replyed to any of my Arguments your accusation
is without either shame or grace most unjust 9 From P. 340. to 362. the Dr gives me but little entertainment save only to make à few reflections upon his too many Parergons and one repeated over and over yet the good man will be free from Tautologies is that the difficulty now in hand only concern's an external Proponent such as the Church is Shall we condescend to his humour and debate that sole Question I am content upon one condition that he plainly solves this plain difficulty If all the men in the world as we now suppose considered meerly as nature has framed them be fallible If none of them have infallible assistance to teach the very fundamentals of faith infallibly and if notwithstanding God obliges all to believe his infallible revealed verities without mixture of errour If finally we evidently se Christians at high Contradictions and of à different belief in such Necessaries of no less concern then their eternal Salvation I say if all these And leaves all to believe what they list particulars be undeniably manifest either you Mr Dr ought to assign some clear certain means whereby Christians may be brought to union in one true Faith to profess and believe one and the same Doctrin of Jesus Christ or you must leave all to believe as they list or what pure fancy teaches My Tenet is that none can doe this but an Infallible Church nor so much as bring us to any Vnity at all were faith as you make it only morally certain 10 P. 341 He demand's where have I shew'd that the Supernatural Principles of Faith do never cooperate but where the Church infallibly proposes and thinks I never attempt this He wrong's me exceedingly Se Reas and Relig. Disc 2. c. 15. There I prove at large that Divine Faith in this present state requires no less an Infallible Oracle then the belief of the Primitive Christians required Infallibility in the Apostles As therefore the supernatural Principles of those first Believers never could operate contrary to the Doctrin taught Infallibly by the Apostles so they work not in true Believers now but when they fall right upon the Infallible Doctrin taught by the Catholick Church The reason hereof is clear God cannot concurr or incite any by Supernatural Principles to believe a falshood The Revelation therefore which support's Divine Faith must not be meerly apparent but real and truly in being for then only Divine Grace cooperat's with Faith not otherwise So true it is that the Infallibility in our internal Assent of Faith ever supposes and necessarily prerequires Infallibility in the last ground thereof which is God's veracity as likewise in the immediate Proponent I mean the Catholick Church But saies our Dr very wisely If the Infallible certainty of Faith depend's upon Divine concurrence the Infallibility of Faith may be had without an Infallible Proponent A most pitiful reply It seem's he cannot well understand how one act of Faith depend's upon two distinct Principles yet the instance now given will enlighten him à little Did not the Faith of the Primitive Christians depend upon the Apostles infallible The necessary principles for Faith teaching None questions that And had not Divine grace influence upon it also Most undoubtedly certain Ergo two different Principles an Infallible Church and Divine Assistance necessarily support one act of Faith The reason is clear Faith is the Gift of God and therefore without the cooperation of Grace cannot be Divine or Supernatural and without an Infallible Proponent no man certainly knowes what to believe For who can say indubitably this is the sence of God's word herein lies the Truth and Infallibility of à Revelation if an Infallible Church be rejected Hence it is that the Primitive Church while She condemned all ancient Hereticks and established the contrary truths never proceeded doubtfully or probably but spake as Gods Oracle ought to speak infallibly 11 The Dr P. 342. Shewes himself à meer Rambler multiplies words and proves just nothing First he tells me six or seven times over yet he is far from tedious repetitions if Faith depends on Grace an external infallible Proponent seem's needless Then he thinks I destroy my selfe because I say the Infallible certainty of Faith comes from Gods interiour illumination as it more lively set's forth the formal obiect assented to What 's next Marry he hath often heard of the great Assistance Iesuits have in writing their books and Imagins that some Enemy hath put these things into my head Sr without doubt you have heard many à magnifyed untruth and this if it relate to any Assistance given me is à loud one as all who know me can testify and will avouch that I needed no assistance to answer an Adversary so well tamed and broken as you are Now if you will rely so much upon Hearsay know Sr I have also heard something and had it from men of good repute and credit It is that the most able at Cambridge with one likewise at Oxord aided you to the purpose in setting forth your tumbling Account and I am apt to believe this true because some who know you Conceive you not à man so expedite and nimble at work as to dispatch such à volume in à twelve months time though to gain applause this must be insinuated in the first words of your preface These things I have heard whether all be true or no you know best 12 Soon after to fill paper you tell me again what I say then that I shake hands with Calvin and some old Enemies in this matter of Grace that I hold you à Denier of Grace and much more to little purpose Concerning the Assistance of Grace in order to Faith I say that Faith being à Gift of God Necessarily depend's on à supernatural Principle and this is Catholick Doctrin taken from Scripture Church authority and holy Fathers What I hold particularly of its giving more clarity to an obscure Revelation though only an opinion in Schools maintained by some denied by others is sounder Doctrin then your skill in Divinity can refute You have The Dr's fouling me with Calvinism shew'd sencles and ridiculous it largely set down Reas. and Relig. Disc 3. c. 9. n. chiefly 13. Your wilful fouling me with Calvinism becomes one that knowes better to calumniate than to argue Had Calvin own'd the Church infallible as I do in all she obliges Christians to believe and dutifully submitted to her judgement his Faith would have been right and Grace answerable Supernatural but because he slighted that Oracle and believed what meer fancy suggested he abused Grace and had no true Faith Should I Sr maintain à light of Faith allowed men at random to believe what their private judgements tell them concerning Gods revelations in Scripture independently of all Infallible exteriour Propounders of Faith I should not much differ from Calvin but when I only assert it to serve for à better manifestation of such truths as an
like it well should some of his Hearers tell him they build not their Faith upon any Doctrin as it is delivered in Scripture or by the Church of England or finally taught by Mr Dr but purely believe upon the Barbartans Motive or as the Samaritan Woman believed upon our Saviours words long since spoken I am the Messias I perswade my self he will not easily approve any such extravagancy Yet he must if he proceed consequently to his indigested Discourse for the Faith of that Samaritan woman and Barbarians also was truly Divine and why may not his People believe as they did independently of all Scripture and the Church of Englands Doctrin as he would now have us to believe independently of the Catholick Churches Testimony For here is his Principle or he speak's Non-sence What was once sufficient to propound or ground Faith may be ever sufficient and in all circumstances 5 One may reply That Samaritan and Barbarians likewise believed upon God's word not then written but spoken which afterward became the Doctrin of Scripture Very right and so say I they believed upon that Doctrin which afterward was is and ever will be taught by the Church but as then there was no written Scripture So there was no Church founded to propose or ground Faith upon And thus the Proponent of Faith may vary though the ultimate Motive or formal obiect of it which is Gods Revelation never changes The variety of an Infallible Oracle varies not the Formal obiect of Faith 6 By what is here noted you se how pitifully the Dr abuses himself and Reader P 4â—7 I had said n. 7. That none can make the Roman Catholick Church in all circumstances the only sure foundation of Faith upon this Principle chiefly that Faith in general requires no more but only to rely on God the first Verity speaking by one or more lawfully sent to teach who prove their Mission and make the Doctrin proposed evidently Credible A fair concession replyes the Dr which plainly destroy's the necessity of the The Dr abuses the Reader and grosly mistakes Churches Infallibility in order to Faith For if no more be necessary in order to Faith but to rely upon God speaking by this or that Oracle how comes the Infallible Testimony of the Church to be in in any Age necessary to Faith A fair Concession on my part Mr Dr but à foul mistake on yours For have not I all along proved though you Answer nothing that the Church is one of the Infallible Oracles whereby God speaks as immediatly and infallibly as ever he spake by Prophet or Apostle And must not you admit two or three Infallible Oracles The Apostles who taught Christianity before the writing of Scripture were Infallible Oracles Scripture it self compleatly finished and set forth say you is another and I hope you will not deny but that S. Iohn the Evangelist who lived à considerable time after the whole Canon was Signed kept still his Apostolical authority and remained Infallible 7 Observe now Gentle Reader Doth the Dr destroy the necessity of the Scriptures An Argument ad hominem infallible Testimony because he own 's the Apostles Oral teaching Infallible No. How then do we destroy the Churches Infallibility in saying that Faith in General only requires to rely upon the first Verity speaking by this or that Oracle For if two or three distinct Oracles subvert not the Dr ' s Faith built upon Scripture how can more Oracles then one overthrow mine built on the Church The Question therefore in this place is not whether the Churches Testimony be Infallible but precisely thus much whether the Dr ' s Inference have any thing like reason in it Viz. Faith relies on God speaking by this or that Oracle Ergo it cannot rely on God speaking by the Church The inference plainly appear's Non-sense unless the Churches Testimony be first proved fallible Now should the whole A modest offer made to the Dr. contest come to the Churches Infallibility after all I have said of it whereunto the Dr never yet replyed word I am most willing and ready to discusse again this particular Controversy with him in à Treatise apart upon all the Principles Christian Religion can afford Scripture Church Fathers and manifest Reason Is not this à fair modest offer 8 What followes in the Dr upon this subiect is more than simple God saith he spake by Christ and his Apostles as Oracles by whom his word is declared to us Therefore nothing can be necessary to Faith but to rely on the first Truth speaking by them Marke here an improbable Supposition made use of for à proof as if forsooth every one by casting an eye upon Scripture after some diligence could exactly declare what Christ and his Apostles taught whereas I have told the Dr over and over and it is the grand Principle The Dr's improbable Supposition refuted I rely on that none can in this present State say absolutely what Doctrin those first great Oracles delivered even in the Fundamentals of Faith none can know the true sence of the words registred in Scripture or assert that they were Divinely inspired without the Infallible Testimony of the Church I say Infallible For if She Teaches so fallibly that her Doctrin may be false much better were it I think that She never speak or define at all Thus you have in brief my Principle further explained in the two last Treatises whereof the Dr has taken no notice hitherto and the reason most certainly is because he knowes not what to answer 9 The very most that goes before or followes in the Dr on this subiect besides much ill language is à meer rehearsal of what his Account contains and as he repeat's his old Obiections so I need to do no more but only to return my Answers given Reas. and Relig cited above beginning from n. 8. and. 9. He demanded in his Account and here has the same VVith what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the old Testament I answered Supposing à total subversion of the Jewish Church not to examin now the difference between the Infallibility of the Synagogue and our Christian Church The Disciples had our Blessed Lord present most able to ascertain them that he came not to cancel any Divine revealed Truth in the old Scripture for that was impossible but to fulfil the ancient Prophesies and to establish à new law of Grace far more perfect than the ceremonial Law had been and that upon his sole Authority the Disciples believed the verities of the old Testament Admit therefore that the high Priests and Elders had all erred in consenting to our Saviours death this only followes as I answered n. 9. that their Priviledge of not erring lasted only to Christ's comming as S. Luke 16. 16. testifies Lex Prophetae usque ad Ioannem which is to say Christs sacred Kingdom being then at hand and
those books to be Divine I answer 1. That in the Age when the Doctrin was delivered there was sufficient reason to believe it Divine He goes on Supposing then that we already believe upon the former answer that if Christ did such unparalleld Miracles and rose from the dead they who heard his Doctrin had reason to believe it to be of God He mean's Divine and revealed Doctrin for all Doctrin of God or from God is not in our Sence now Divine or revealed Doctrin Thus much said He asserts 2. If they the ancient Christians had reason then we have so now Viz. to believe upon our Saviours unparalleld Miracles From these matters of fact and Apostolical wonders the Dr takes his rational Evidence and conveigh's it to us by Tradition our exceptions made against his evidence which supplies the want of our Senses as to what Christ did and spake I shall presently insist more largely n. 26. upon his Tradition Here I am to show that his Evidence in order to Christians now living is nothing like rational Evidence if and this he requires we exclude the Testimony of an Infallible Church 19 To propose plainly what I would say and to give the Dr the fairest play imaginable I gratis admit all the Miracles and matters of fact recorded in the Gospel to be most true though hitherto not proved true by the Dr but then ask what use will he make of them He may answer he proves by these Miracles the Doctrin of Christ to be true Admit this also I demand further and here lies the main business that concern's us at present whether the Doctor can assure any by virtue of where the main difficulty is those Miracles who at this day among so many dissenting Christians in points of Faith most fundamental believe and profess Christ's true Doctrin For his rational Evidence if it deserve the Title of rational must drive hither at last or its worth nothing to Christians now living that is he must shew by these long since wrought Miracles whether Arians Pelagians Protestants or Catholicks have à right beliefe of Christs Doctrin for most certainly all of them believe not the true Doctrin delivered by Christ I say it is impossible to make this out unless the strangest Consequence that ever man heard of be good and it 's thus Christ rose from the dead He commanded the sea and winds and they obeyed his voice He gave life to dead Lazarus c. Ergo the Arians for example profess Christ's true Doctrin and Protestants not Or Contrarywise Protestants believe right and the Arians are in a wrong Faith Unless this Inference which is worse than Non-sence pass current the Doctors pretended rational Evidence taken from those ancient matters of fact is the most fruitless and most discomfortable Evidence that ever wise man pitch't upon whereof more presently n. 27. Note in the mean while he may perhaps and no more but perhaps tell us by his the Dr's rational Evidence demonstrated â—seless to Christians now living Evidence that Christs Doctrin in it selfe is true but shall never thereupon assure us who among so many Dissenters in Necessaries to Salvation believes or professes that true Doctrin He may tell us that horrid debates arise amongst the learned of different Religions but shall never tell us how they can be composed or ended by à bare owning the truth of Christ's Miracles which are carried up and down by à common humane consent of Christians though they have none to attest them Infallibly true in this present State 20 Please now to consider how differently we Catholicks proceed in this matter and satisfy both Jewes and Gentils We own all that Scripture contain's whether Miracles or Doctrin true and Divine To evince this we lead you not to à dead book or to matters of fact far off but to an ever living Oracle distinct from that book called the Holy Catholick Church which proves herselfe by her neerer visible matters of fact signal marks and undoubted Miracles as rationally à true Oracle whereby God speak's to the world as ever any Apostle did From this glorious signalized and long standing Church we take our rational Evidence and know if the Primitive Christians took theirs right from the Apostolical wonders we no way Inferiour keep parallel with them while we rationally rely upon our clear manifested Oracle Moreover we prove that this Church which hath power from God to teach and engages her whole Authority to teach Truth shewes herselfe by real Signs and Miraculous effects the greatest Oracle now under God appointed to instruct the world It is She if Controversies arise concerning Faith that composes all She assures us that the verities in Scripture written by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost are Divine She applies and conveigh's these ancient truths to us She tells us now How differently we proceed from the Dr in our rational Evidence and Infallibly what Christ's Doctrin long since made evidently Credible by his own most glorious Miracles is She finally ascertain's every one without doubt and hesitancy who they are that profess this revealed Doctrin And thus relying upon à rational evidenced Church we Shew our selves rational men and void of fear set our hearts at rest while the Dr by à bare relation of our Saviours Miracles now remote from us proves not one of these particulars but will forsooth evince the Doctrin in Scripture to be Divine upon à meer unproved Supposition that such matters of fact once were which yet cannot be evinced true sufficient as I said to ground Faith much less Divine without the Churches Testimony whereby full assurance is given to all in this present State that both Doctrin and Miracles are true and Divine 21 The Dr therefore should in the first place have proved the Divinity of Christ's Doctrin and from thence he might have inferred it's Truth but to evince it Divine to Christians now upon what the Dr should aimâ— at but perform's not à meer unproved Supposition Viz. That such matters of fact are true is a break-neck to his Discourse and an unaproachable way of ever comming to the Conclusion he intend's because his aime must be or he doth nothing to show by his Evidence what Society of Christians now living believes and professes the true Doctrin of Christ or how Chrst's true Society may be made discernable by those ancient Miracles from others that teach damnable Doctrin Herein he fail's and shall fail while an Infallible Church is rejected 22 These Considerations clearly laid down no less clearly evince the Dr ' s resolution of Faith to be frivolous and his rational Evidence unreasonable for tell me not by his Evidence what Society of Christians are now right in Faith prove me not that Scripture was written by Divine assistance Shew me not that the truths related there are Truths revealed by Almighty God the whole Doctrin of that book and all the Miracles in it signify nothing 23
is to say one part of Scripture proves another before the whole book is proved upon any certain Authority to be God's word or written by the Holy Ghost From hence 2. the necessity of an Infallible evidenced Church is necessarily inferred The necessity of an Infallible Church evinced from our discourse which only bring 's us out of the Labyrinth wherein the Dr is lost This Church as I said proves by her infallible and never interrupted Tradition that Scripture is God's word She and She only ascertain's all that the Contents in Scripture are Divinely inspired and finally when difficulties arise concerning the Sence in controverted passages relating to Necessaries composes all strifes otherwise endless and bring 's all to à perfect unity in Faith 31 I say lastly Could the Dr evince that the book of Scripture contain's true Doctrin could he shew the Doctrin Not one Protestant Tenet proved by Scripture of it to be as it truly is Divinely inspired he yet hath not one clear Sentence in the whole Bible understood according to the obvious sence of the words which proves so much as one Tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestancy is distinguished from Popery and the Doctrin of all known condemned Hereticks The proof of this Assertion is largely laid forth Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 20. from n. 4. to the end of that Chapter and because I really judge Protestancy utterly ruined upon the reasons there alleged I petition Dr Still to review that short Discourse and if I judge amiss to unbeguile me by à plain Answer showing wherein my Arguments are fallacious 32 I except in that place against his empty Title called A rational Account of the grounds of Protestants Religion and prove as I think demonstratively that if you cast out of Protestancy all it's Negative Articles which the Dr confesses are no Essentials the remainder will either be what the Catholick Church teaches and therefore not peculiar to Protestancy or the Doctrin of some one or other condemned Heretick In so much that in the whole Essence of Protestancy you will not find one Truth revealed by Almighty God necessary for Salvation or ever taught by any Orthodox Church And Nor one Necessary for Salva tion found in Protestancy herein it differ's not only from Catholick Religion but as I take it from all ancient Heresies for both Arians and Pelagians the like is of the rest thought their particular Doctrins revealed by Almighty God and necessary to Salvation Otherwise they had been worse than besotted to abandon the Catholick Tenents for opinions meerly or Positions not necessary to Salvation Se more of this subiect Disc 3. c. 18. n. 8. CHAP. X. The Church proved Infallible before She interpret's Scripture The reason hereof The Doctors gross errour in charging à Circle on us in the Resolution of Faith VVhat à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 1 THe rest that followes in the Dr from P. 423. is all along meer Confusion or à horrid jumbling in à speculative matter concerning the resolution of Faith and the notion of à vicious Circle which he truly understand's not but wonder nothing you can expect no better from halfe Scholars in speculative learning if I make not what I here assert manifest blame me boldly 2 To rescue my Doctrin from Blunderers and the Dr if I ever met with any is one I am forced to set down plainly part of it That done you shall se how remote the Dr is from medling with it The most he would except against you have at large Reas and Relig. Disc 3. c. 5. n. 5. where I answer an Obiection proposed in his Account P. 127. And assert Seing Scripture evidences not it selfe to be divinely inspired some other Infallible Oracle distinct from Scripture necessarily ascertain's that The Church not first proved Infallible by Scripture Truth and this is the Church which as rationally proves herselfe by Signs and Miracles an Oracle whereby God speaks independently of Scripture as ever any Apostle proved himself to be so before Scripture was written Hence I inferred that the Church was ever and is yet in à General way believed infallible by Her self and for Her self upon this ground that God speaks by Her as his own Oracle and then concluded that She is not in the first place proved infallible by Scripture I say in à General way for thus the Apostles believed our Saviour to be the true Messias before they received from him à full Account of many other particular Christian Verities learned after that General acknowledgement 3 Thus much and more amply declared in the place now cited comes Dr Still in his last book P. 424. with his old Tautologies and asks again as if nothing had been said why we believe the Churches Infallibility and verily think 's we have no other way to make out Her Infallibility but only by Scripture Is not this worse then jumbling Reflect good Reader I shew that the Church in the first place is proved infallible without recourse at all had to Scripture for so She was proved infallible before Scriptures were written and here he out-faces me with empty words saying I cannot prove the Church infallible but by Scripture only In lieu of this ridiculous Reply He should have refuted my reasons and this is one No man can ascertain any that Scripture is divinely inspired or render the true sence of it relating to Necessaries for Salvation but one only infallible Church Therefore the Church which only can give certainty of these truths must necessarily be first owned infallible before we recurr It is Senceless to prove the Church by Scripture before Scripture be Proved God's word to Scripture for it is more than Senceless to prove by Scripture the Churches Infallibility or any other Article of Christian Faith before we have absolute Assurance that the Book whereby we argue is Gods word and know what its meaning is in à hundred difficult passages But thus much is only known by Church Authority as is amply proved in the place now cited 4 This reason the Dr shamefully waves with à jeer and tell 's me P. 405. that this first act of Faith terminated upon Church Authority hath nothing to rely on but the fallible Motives of Credibility and Consequently cannot be Divine Faith for want of an Infallible Testimony Gross ignorance produced this Answer for have not I proved through my whole last Treatise that God as immediatly speak's to us now by his Church as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle And if God speake by it there is no want of an Infallible Testimony I challenge the Dr to answer my Arguments upon this subiect hitherto never taken notice of neither shall he hereafter reply without apparent shuffling to use his words and running away from the main difficulty here treated How often have I told him that Divine Faith relies not upon the Motives of Credibility though
these as inducements lead to it but upon God's speaking by the Church as is now declared 5 Having thus cleared the first act of Faith from all danger of à Circle because it ultimately rest's upon God's speaking by the Church made by it self immediatly credible without recourse to Scripture yet not known to be Divine or God's infallible word I add moreover N 9. If we speak of another distinct consequent and more explicit act of Faith whereby we believe the Churches Infallibility evidenced null and forceless when this Oracle declares the Scriptures true Sence which proves her Infallible there is no difficulty at all because this interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon Scripture and the Churches Infallible exposition together for thus ioyntly taken they ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles as if we first believed the Scriptures sence independently of the Churches interpretation and then again believed the Churches exposition to be infallible because the sence of Scripture known without any dependance on Church Authority saith She is Infallible Our good Dr set's down these words more at large and desires the Reader to try his faculty upon them what tolerable sence he can make of them I answer more learned faculties in Speculative matters then the Doctor 's is have made sence of them and that 's enough to ward off his weak blow of contempt Now I am to discover his fallacious and more then simple way of Arguing against me 6 The whole difficulty is brought at last to the true decision of this Question Whether one Infallible Oracle while it explicates the darker Sence of another The difficulty concerning à vicious Circle proposed likewise Infallble cannot be believed for it self without à vicious Circle One or two Instances will clear my meaning The Prophet Ioel. 2. 28. long before S. Peter lived Prophesyed of the effusion of God's divine Spirit upon all flesh which words dark in themselves that great Apostle Acts. 2. 16. interpret's as spoken of the pouring out of Gods Spirit upon the Apostles in the feast of Pentecost This is that saith S. Peter which was said or foretold by the Prophet Ioel. Observe well S. Peter was proved an Infallible Oracle before he interpreted this Passage of an Infallible Prophet so is the Church proved Infallible before She interpret's any words in Scripture S. Peter used or exercised his Power of interpreting infallibly not first proved infallible by his Interpretation but upon other grounds wholly independent of that Sence he gives to the Prophet So is the Church first proved infallible independently of all and every Interpretation She gives of Scripture Finally as that darker Sence of the Prophet made clear by the Apostles Infallible Interpretation indivisibly concurred to the Faith of the Primitive Christians so also the darker Sence of Scripture cleared by the Churches interpretation indivisibly concur's to the Faith of Believers now 7 Ponder well the force of this Instance and you will soon se through the Dr ' s trivial Obiections I say in à word An Instance worth reflection Had S. Peter proved himself in the first place Infallible by the Sence of that Scripture he then interpreted the Circle would have been Manifest because the thing proved which is the infallible explication of Ioel is assumed again or first made use of to prove S. Peter and his explication infallible But when the Apostles Infallibility in every Doctrin of Faith stood firm upon other grounds though he had never written Scripture nor interpreted any Prophet that man must be quicker sighted than Aristotle who find's à Circle in it This is our case as to the Church She is in à general way supposed and proved infallible in every Catholick Doctrin independently of this or that particular taught by her one particular is the true Interpretation of Scripture more rightly called the exercise and use of her infallible Assistance then the proof The use of the Churches power destroies not â—â—er power of it but evinces not herselfe in the first place to be infallible because She interpret's for that is antecedently proved upon other grounds therefore unless the use of Her power wherewith She is indued to interpret infallibly destroy that power it is impossible to catch her in à Circle while she interpret's 8 Thus much premised You shall se the Dr ' s Obiection melt like wax before the fire Iudge Reader saith he P. The Dr's own words 428 whether here be not à plain Circle Because they believe the Church infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith she is so and again they believe this to be the infallible sence of Scripture because the infallible Church saith so Judge Reader say I whether one plain distinction overthrowes not this feeble fallacy and thus it is We first believe the Church infallible because the true Sence of Scripture saith she is infallible I deny it for that first act of Faith is not at all founded on Scripture We believe the Church infallible by à second more distinct and explicit Faith indivisibly fixed on Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together I grant that most willingly Now this second act of Faith must if we make à right Analysis be at last resolved into this other general Truth VVhat ever God speak's by the Church is certain and infallible which general Truth stand's firm without recourse to Scripture at all The reason is Whatever Argument proved the Church God's infallible Oracle in all She taught before Scripture was written proves Her also without depending on Scripture the same Infallible Oracle still 9 The other part following in the Dr ' s discourse is wholly as lame VVe believe again this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so I answer we believe so indeed but by à second more explicit act of Faith which The Dr's absurd fallacy unravelled supposes the Church proved infallible antecedently to her Interpretation where there is no shadow of à Circle for if the Church be owned infallible in every matter of Christian Faith thus much only followes that when She interpret's the same God that once spake obscurely in Scripture declares his meaning more clearly by his own Oracle the Church 10 One example where you shall have the Dr ' s circle as round as à hoop will yet give more light Imagin those words of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. 15. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth to be as Sectaries will have them obscure or not openly significant for the Churches Infallibility Suppose again that S. Paul or any other infallible Apostle had delivered in clearer terms the true Sence of them nay suppose he had told us the true meaning of those words The Pillar and ground of truth is just so as Catholicks now believe Could Mr Dr or any man living have found à vicious Circle here had S. Paul been owned
Infallibility To what purpose Should we lose time Have not I answered that the Churches Infallibility stand's firm upon other grounds before Scripture be either owned Divine or the Sence of its difficult passages can be known Have not I moreover said that that general Truth of the Churches Infallibility must necessarily be proved and supposed antecedently to the belief of this or that particular Interpretation For who can fix his Faith upon the exposition of any Divine Oracle without being first ascertained it is God that speak's by it The Instances given above most clearly evince what is here asserted Please to make use either of our Saviours interpreting his own Parable Luke 8. concerning the Sower and seed or of S. Peters exposition given to the Prophet Joel They are one and the same in order to my present Intent We prove or believe that to be the true Sence of our Saviours Parable because eternal Truth interpreted it so but do we again first prove or believe him to be eternal Truth because he then delivered the true Sence of that Parable to his Disciples No. For by this lame way of arguing we should prove the Sence of the Parable to be true upon our Saviour Interpretation and again prove him à true Interpreter because he interpreted Mark well the Dr's confusion We Catholicks saith he believe the Church to be infallible because the true The Dr's Confused Doctrin Clearly driven back vpon himselfe Sence of Scripture saith she is so And you Sr believe our Saviours Interpretation upon that Parable to be true that Parable is now Scripture because our Saviour interpreted it so Again we believe this to be the Infallible sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so And you Mr Dr believe this to be the Infallible Sence of that Parable because Christ said so Here Sr you have your own Circle in express Terms Judge whether it stand's not something awry What must be done then to get out of this Confusion All must answer Though we believe our Saviours Interpretation by an Infallible act of Faith yet we first prove him not infallible because he interprets but suppose his Infallibility made out and proved upon other grounds independently of his explication And this is our Answer also as to the Church whereof enough is said already and more than ever the Dr will or can Answer 24 P. 430. the Doctor once more run's on with the same Tautologie and because I said the Scripture and Churches interpretation indivisibly Concur to that latter act of Faith whereby we believe the Sence of Scripture explained by the Church he tells me This indivisible concurrence Seem's to him an odd piece of Mystical Divinity I Answer no great matter for that as odd as it is he must own it if he believes S. Peters infallible Interpretation upon the Prophet or the exposition given to the Royal Prophets Testimony Psal 131. 11. Foreseing saith the Apostle His Tautologies and ill words he spake of Christs Resurrection Acts. 2. 31. Se more of this indivisible concurrence Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 11. n. 10. The rest our Dr hath to his page 433. is either the like Tautologie VVe prove the Churches Infallibility by the Infallible Sence of Scripture and the infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches Infallibility Or most uncivil language or finally a foul ending with à gross mistake for he thinks our Faith rest's upon no Infallible Authority because we have none to rely on but Motives Confessedly fallible It is à perverse errour already refuted 25 To end this Controversy about à vicious Circle wherein the Dr. P. 431. account's me à Conjurer and one that speak's things which neither he nor any one els can understand I have right me thinks to enquire by what means or upon what grounded Motive can the Dr come to à certainty of the Scriptures true Sence In proposing this Question I might easily retaliate and tell him Though he Conjure cheat and shuffle his whole life long he shall never yet clear this one difficulty without recourse to an Infallible Church The proof of my Assertion stand's sure upon this most undoubted principle The true Sence of A difficulty proposed and the Dr is desired to Answer Scripture in many passages relating to Necessaries for Salvation is no Selfe-evidence nor can it be certainly known by that endless Search or mispent industry of private men as appear's by those many most opposit and plain contradictory Interpretations which the learned of different Religions give to these and the like Expressions in God's word I and my Father are one The word is made flesh There are three that give Testimony in Heaven c. Not one of these Passages though pondered and compared with other Texts in Holy Writ doth Evidence its own true Sence Therefore the means whereby it is discovered or the Oracle which infallibly ascertain's it must necessarily be both distinct from the dark words now cited and also more clear and plainly significant than the yet concealed Sence is we seek for Now further Neither Calvins private Spirit nor the Dr's rational Evidence nor Tradition without nor Grace within as Bishop Lawd speaks in the Dr ' s Account P. 186. n. 15 nor finally any other Medium which is not Scripture can infallibly declare this Sence as is largely proved both in this Treatise and the last Therefore an Infallible Church must either do God and man this good Service and certainly tell us what Scripture Speak's in these Necessaries for Salvation Or the true meaning of God's Word will be just like Some useless airy nicity not worth knowing still matter of debate ever disputable but never known Thus much said in answer to the Dr's Speculative part we passe in the next Discourse to à serious view of his long Drollery and simple exceptions made against the glorious Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church and Shall God willing evince that in this Treatise where he thought to triumph most he is foiled and hath disgraced none but himselfe An end of the first Part. A DISCOVRSE CONCERNING MIRACLES WROUGHT in the Roman CATHOLICK CHVRCH in vindication of their Truth against Doctor Stillingfleets unjust Cavils VVHERE The Miraculous Translation of the Holy House OF LORETO is Asserted and proved an undeniable Verity BY E. W. The second Part. ANTWERP Printed by MICHAEL CNOBBAERT at the Sign of S. Peter in the Year 1674. Dr Stillingfleet in his second Discourse Chap. 3. P. 434 makes an Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church I follow him as he goes along and lay open the ill Success our Inquifitive man hath had in his Search which will I hope appear to every one after à full view taken of what is proposed in the ensuing Treatise Peruse and judge Courteous Reader CHAP. I. How I formerly argued in behalfe of our Churches Miracles The Dr in his Enquiry waves my Arguments Of the difference between Christ's Miracles and those wrought by
upon our Dr's vvritings to se vvhere Satisfaction is given A. B. vvho excellently vvell makes it out and solidly proves what he asserts Viz. That Dr St A. Bs. first letter Page 3. and 4. is à very Fanatick as right an Euthusiastick in Iudgement and Beliefe as any one in all England yet after à diligent search have met with no answer to the Author of that pithy letter These things and many more would time permit I should insist upon and must though it lengthen's the Preface à little take notice of one particular the foulest and most gross I ever read in any You have it in the Doctors General Preface vvhere he bitterly inveigh's General Preface Paulo ante medium against the Doctrin of Attrition which the Church and all Catholicks hold though by it selfe it justifies not yet in the Sacrament of Penance it disposes à Sinner to See the Council of Trent Sess 14. c 4. â—um tamen ad Deigratiam in Sacramento disponit impetrate and obtain the Grace of God VVhether it be à full sufficient disposition in the Sacrament to grace without Contrition is another Question Now comes the Dr and demand's How do They the damned want the Sacrament of Penance in Hell for no doubt there is Attrition good store there The Sacrament of Penance in Hell Dr Attrition good store in Hell I read these words with horrour and stand astonish't at this height of stupidity Pray Sr vvho can absolve in Hell VVhat Divels Or who are there capable of Absolution Damned Souls Answer I beseech you Are such Souls in your opinion capable of Baptism or of that you call the Lords Supper You will say no. In like manner say I and speak with the whole Christian world they are as uncapable of the Sacrament of Penance Sacraments Good Sr serve only for the living on their way to Eternity and benefit none departed this life O! but Attrition whereof there is good store in Hell troubles the Dr. Here you have also the like gross Ignorance and therefore I answer in à word If the Dr call eternal horrour everlasting shame and despair Attrition he may find great store indeed but these miseries inseparably attending the damned are as remote from that Attrition vvhich the Church and Catholicks maintain as Hell is from Heaven The Catholick attrition as the Council now cited declares is Dei donum the gift of God wrought in à Soul by the impulse and motion of the Holy Ghost and though it tend's upon à less perfect Motive than Contrition yet it is à Supernatural Operation If you Mr Dr speak not of this Attrition you fight vvith Shadowes and touch not Catholick Doctrin I might in this place also show how grosly the Dr is mistaken in his quoting Gregory de Valentia but I hasten to my own affaires and shall briefly tell you how and in vvhat manner I proceed vvith this Adversary The Dr you know hath employed himself and time upon two very different Subiects the one hard and Speculative the other more easy containing matters of Fact set forth vvith this Title An Enquiry into the Miracles of the Church of Rome In this first Part I follow him as he goes along and reply to his Cavils not one I am sure if any be worth notice as few are is omitted by me I discover also his Shuffling and as occasion fall's out mind him here and there of what he should prove though he never doth it I shew moreover that the grand Principle he relies on called à Faculty of discerning allowed every one to judge of the Scriptures Sence in the most necessary points concerning Salvation is not only evidently unsound but likewise highly injurious to God and Truth for by it he licences every Arian every Anabaptist every Fanatick and Quaker who have as good discerning Faculties as the Dr can glory in to uphold that Sence they draw from Scripture and maintain it as true though false and heretical and this forsooth is done because malice vvill not brook God's own Oracle to teach when we stand most in need of Instruction After my grounds given for the Churches Infallibility I urge the Doctor to produce à Proof from any received Principle whereby it may but probably appear that à Church once confessedly Orthodox and right in Faith is errable or ever erred In that speculative Contest about Faith transcending the certainty of Motives I evince that not only the Dr doth de facto but all others must subscribe to the truth I Propugn and own it as an undisputable Verity Much more I have against the Doctor better known by à full perusal of the Treatise than by any Summary laid before the Reader in à short Preface In case he vvill reioyn I vvish him vvhat ere becomes of the rest not to pass over my tvvo last Chapters where first I largely insist upon that he call's his rational Evidence of Christian Religion which I shew every way defective and besides demonstrate that the true Evidence for Christianity is not as the Dr would have it either destroyed or in the least measure endamaged by the Doctrin of Transubstantiation In the 10th and last Chapter I discover the Dr's too manifest errour in his unskilful charging à vicious Circle on us while we resolve our Catholick Faith I tell him which he knowes not what a vicious Circle essentially implies and demonstratively clear the Church from all shadow and danger of à Circle May it please the Dr to give me Satisfaction in these two main matters now Specified My exceptions against him are plain and also vouchsafe to solve another difficulty proposed in this Treatise concerning the means Christ has left to bring all open Dissenters in the fundamentals of Faith or Necessaries for Salvation to one beliefe that is to understand the true genuin Sence of God's word without an Infallible Church May it I say please the Dr to do only thus much I will not only highly applaude his labours but freely quit him of blame though he trifle never so much with me in his Answers to the rest of this Treatise Now in case he take courage to reply whereof I doubt very much it is hard to say what humour he will be in what Vizor or Shape he may assume Perchance he vvill appear with his pageant-like piety and renew his promises of vvriting fairly as becomes an Ingenuous Adversary Very good if he answer as fairly and home I am vvell content It may be quite contrary he will bear me down vvith bigg vvords and call me Philosophical fool vvitless fellow brainless Saucy bold and all that naught is No matter say I if he answer's my obiections I can digest all It may be he will without much notice taken of my Arguments repeat all or the most he has said already it is à usual trick of Sectaries and entitle that an Answer to this Treatise if so he will need no great Sophist to lay open the cheat But what
c. VVe must earnestly contend for the Faith once delivered VVe are to beware of false seducers c. have no weight for the Drs intent unlesse he shew by Scripture that this trial this contention and wariness ought to be done by every mans private judgement only without any other rule O but there is à stinging Text. Iohn 7. 17. where our Saviour expresly promises to those that do the will of God they shall know of his Doctrin whether it be of God Very true But how shall we discern those that do the will of God from others that do it not Are those the Doers of Gods will who reject their Guides and follow their own Iudgement in matters they understand not Answer Mr Dr. 14 In his 143. P for I run up and down to find any thing like an Obiection we are told that all who consider the excellency of Christian Religion cannot but give it preheminence before Iudaism and Mahometism Very true Mr Dr yet you touch not the difficulty unlesse you tell us which Christian Religion amongst so many dissenting Sects even in fundamentals may be called the only true Christian Religion If Arianism or Palagianism or Protestanism damn men as deeply as Iudaism what matters it if one professe Iudaism I assure you Doctor I have heard some great A fallible Doctrin which may be false destructive to Faith men say that if all who profess Christian Religion believed fallible Doctrin which may be false they would not give à pin to chuse whether they were Iewes Arians or Protestants But why have not you in this place or through your whole large Account set forth the Excellency of your Protestancy and preferred that little late unknown thing before all other Religion Some cause there is of your deep silence and I have not dissembled it in my Advertisement You really know not what to say of it 15 P. 132. We have this Proposition Infallibility in à body of men is as liable to doubts and disputes as in those books from whence only they derive their infallibility Sr if I well understand this some what dark Assertion please to tell me Were not the Apostles an Infallible body of men And was not their Infallibility owned as clear from doubts and disputes when God had evidenced them by clear visible Signes and Wonders to be his faithful Oracles even before their writing Scripture Or did theyderive their Infallibility from the books they wrote The true answer to these demands will be our Answer The Church is as rationally proved an Infallible Oracle by her Illustrious signes and wonders and appointed by God to teach as ever any Apostle was this I hold clearly evinced in my last Treatise Disc 3. c. 15. n. 3. and c. 16. n. 5. If you Mr Dr can except against my proofs please to speak for hitherto you have answered nothing I shew also Prot without Princi c. 8. n. 2. 3. That God neither will nor can permit à false Religion to be more speciously illustrated by rational Signs then his only true Religion is Were this possible he The true Church made discernable from all false Sects would contrary to Truth and Goodness oblige reason to embrace à false Religion If therefore the only true and infallible Religion be manifestly discernable or made known by the lustre of Supernatural Motives from all false Sects we have enough For it is most evident that our ever marked and Signalized Catholick Religion illustrated by Miracles and approved by the publick judgement of the very best and most learned who have lived since the Creation of the world is the undoubted true Religion where we learn what Christ taught and what Doctrin the Apostles preached And thus Dr Still imperfect discourse P. 143 where he gives the preheminence to Christianity in general above Iudaism Mahometism c. is driven home to that one only Religion amongst Christians which must save Souls 16 We say 2. That this evidenced Catholick Church proves her selfe infallible Independently of Scripture as the Apostles did before they wrote their sacred Books It is-true after those writings are proved Divine to us upon Church Authority we Argue from them and evince her Infallible but this only is done upon the Supposition of that proof and not before For we say and make it out clearly in the Treatises now cited That the Church being the light of the world and à City placed upon a conspicuous And proved infallible without recourse to Scripture mountain demonstrable as S. Austin teaches by every mans finger is the Primum indemonstrabile principium the very first and indemonstrable principle proved by it selfe and for it selfe to be Gods Infallible Oracle whereof more hereafter Hence you se 3. that as the Apostles neither proved nor derived their Infallibility from the Books they wrote so we in the first place if à true Analysis be made prove not the Churches Infallibility from Scripture but evince this truth upon other Principles as is now declared But saith Dr Still It is against all just lawes of reasoning to make use of the Churches Infallibility to prove Scriptures by Why so noble Dr I am sure for the reasons already given you will be forced to retract this inconsiderate Assertion Do not you know first that the bare letter of Scripture breed's endless divisions even in fundamentals not only between man and man as is evident by the jarrs you have with Arians Pelagians c. but also between God and man while all your vehement contentions are driven at last to know whether your discerning Faculty or the Arians hit right vpon the meaning of what God speak's in Scripture it being most certain that Verity it selfe approves not your open contradictions Who can decide here but an Infallible Church Do you not know 2. That it is more then ridiculous to draw either Iew or Heathen to believe these contradictious Doctrins as Divine or reasonable while neither you nor Arians can ascertain any that what either of you teach is from God or à truth revealed by him Who ought or can speak here but the Church Do you not se 3. That the clearness of Church Doctrin universally known to all whether Orthodox or others beget's faith more easily then Scripture yet obscure and unsenced Hence it is as I noted in my last Treatise Disc 2. c. 16. n. 11. That few or none Question what this Oracle teaches as necessary for that 's plain yet there are endless debates about the Scriptures meaning and this only is Gods word not intelligible in à hundred passages without the Churches interpretation 4 As I noted also The Infallibility and Truth of every Divine Revelation relating to Necessaries so necessarily The Church decides many doubts not decideable by ' Scripture ' terminat's Divine Faith that whoever believes and abstract's as it were from this double perfection intrinsic to what God speak's believes not because God speak's but upon some other fallible Motive
for I am weary in following such weightless stuff yet in the next page you have more of it where he blames me as one sensless because I say n. 12. that fewer Motives may serve to induce young Beginners seldom molested with difficulties against Faith witness S. Austin cited above Ceteram turbam c than will convince the more learned who often struggle to captivate their understanding to our high Christian Mysteries And is not this exactly verifyed in Luther Calvin and innumerable others who when Beginners easily submitted to all the Church teaches yet afterward when more learned they found unless they tell the world loud lies Motives to disswade them from their first Faith Such men therefore seduced by fallacious Arguments or rather by their own malice should have been better grounded in that one Principle whereon all Christian Doctrin wholly depend's the Infallibility of Christs true Church 15 P. 414. I meet with à jeer because I hold Protes without Princ Disc 1. c. 2. n. 3. That every Bishop or Pastor though not personally infallible yet when he is lawfully sent to teach and speak's in the name of God and the Church considered as à member conioyned with the Infallible Church may be said to teach infallibly An admirable speculation replies the Dr and so saith he may every one in the streets be infallible not as considered in himself but as à member conjoyned with truth A conjunction with God's word implies Vnion with the Church or every Sectary as à member conjoyned with God's word Reflect Mr Dr is every one we meet in the streets à Bishop or Pastor commissioned to teach infallibly Christs Verities of such Pastors I speak and not of your street men Or can à Sectary be à member conjoyned with Gods word It is impossible for to say Sectary is to suppose him separated from God's word which therefore destroies your Imagined infallible conjunction and makes your Speculation not admirable but ridiculous Again and here is à solution to the Argument more amply laid forth Disc 3. c. 3. n. 17. 19. and before that c. 2. n. 12 A conjunction with truth or Gods word necessarily implies in this present State a conjunction with the Church for without the Testimony of this Oracle previously assented to we have no infallible assurance that such books are divinely inspired or what the sence of them is in all controverted passages therefore to suppose an Infallible conjunction with truth or God's word independently of Church-authority is to suppose light taken from darkness or the last Resolvent of Faith in order to us not to ground it at all But saith the Dr the Question is whether such à Prelate or Pastor may be divided from God's infallible Another difficulty Solved truth If he can what security hath any one to rely upon him upon such à conditional Infallibility whereof he can have no assurance I answer the common received Doctrin of the Church being known and divulged in every Catechism it is easily known when à Renegado such an one as the Bishop of Spalato was abandon's the Church In case of any rational mistrust or doubt because wolves sometimes appear like lambs Prudence direct's timorous Consciences to advise with their Pastors or others more learned then themselves 16 P. 415. The Dr applaudes his good fortune in meeting with an Adversary that mistakes his so well explicated Rational Evidence of Christian Religion Of the Dr's vain applauding himselfe and à long talk followes of hewers of difficulties and water-drawers of the Seraphims feathers and S. Laurenc'es Gridiron to what purpose I know not My hope is before this next Chapter be ended to make it manifest that the Dr neither understand's what is meant by rational Evidence nor has any thing like it for Protestant Religion CHAP. IX Dr Stilling pretended Evidence for Christian Religion proved nothing like Evidence His Evidence taken from Sense in the Mystery of the holy Eucharist demonstrated Sensless How vainly he endeavour's to prove by Miracles related in Scripture the Truth of the Doctrin there registred A word of his Tradition and many other errours 1 THe Dr P. 416 goes about to explain what is meant by his rational Evidence of Christian Religion and ground 's it upon the unquestionable assurance which we have of matters of fact and the Miracles wrought by Christ as à great part of this rational Evidence which is destroyed by our Doctrin of Transubstantiation Soon after he complain's of our silent passing over these things the Schools having found no answers to such Arguments What will The Dr's unworthy proceeding not this man say in points remote from us when in à plain matter of fact he beguiles his Reader with most loud untruths Let any one peruse my last Treatise Disc 1. c. 9. n. 11. 12. In that Discourse of à Heathen with à Christian he will find the first difficulty largely handled and solved where I say the Dr either believes our Saviours unparallaled Miracles because Scripture relates them and then he supposes Scripture to be Divine or inspired by the Holy Ghost which the Heathen denies and therefore wishes that Divine inspiration to be proved by Arguments extrinsical to the Doctrin delivered in Scripture Or contrarywise he proves those Miracles to have been upon the Fallible report of men liable to errour the Dr own 's no Tradition Infallible and this advances not his cause at all for do not the Turk's speak as much of Mahomets Miracles upon fallible and perhaps false reports also Thus the Heathen argues and rationally too not yet knowing what Religion to embrace Here in à word you have the substance of all I then said and I think my Argument thus delivered convinces VVhoever proves Christian Religion to be assuredly true by Motives as obscure as the very Doctrin of Christian Religion is either evinces nothing or makes à vicious An Argument proposed Circle But thus the Dr proceeds whose rational Evidence or unquestionable assurance of Christian Religion is proved by matters of fact Miracles I mean wrought by Christ which Miracles are as obscure to à Heathen and as much obiects of Faith to Christians as the very Doctrin of Christ is recorded in Scripture Therefore he proves nothing Se more hereof n. 12. cited 2 The other piece of the Dr ' s rational Evidence taken from Sense which he The Drs Argument taken from the Holy Eucharist both here and formely Solved thinks the Doctrin of Transubstantiation destroies I then reflected on and fully answered Reas. and Râ—lig c. 12. n. 3. where I say the immediate obiect of Sense remain's after consecration unchangeable as before It is true reason upon the suggestion of sense might well conclude that the substance of bread is there also were there not another Stronger Principle then sense which overawes us Christ's own words This is my body which cause reason to submit Thus S. Chrisostom S. Cyril of Hierusalem with innumerable ancient