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
Faith to the Churches infallibility upon Motives confessedly fallible an assent be not required beyond all proportion and degree of evidence First Who tells you Mr Dr that the Motives are confessedly fallible The Church never defined so I with others expressly say they are Metaphysically certain and have infallible connexion with the Divine Revelation It is true some Divines hold them fallible but it is only an opinion and therefore too weak to support your stout expression confessedly fallible or to make the contrary opinion improbable But suppose them fallible I have notwithstanding shewed how the act of Faith is most certain and infallible and shall here for the better satisfaction of à less learned Reader upon this hint given by the Dr apply all I have said above to the Catholick Church Thus I discourse 12 God an eternal Truth who perfectly comprehend's all things intuitively Seing himself one Essence and Though the Motives to Faith were fallible Faith yet stand's firm three distinct Persons reveal's that Verity and to the end all may assent to it by Faith He adorn's his own Oracle the Catholick Church with the Royal Signs of his Power and wisdom The Church thus illustrated speaking in the name of God or which is all one God speaking by Her proposes that high Mystery and obliges all to believe it The Signs or Motives whereby he speaks to reason manifest in the Church make it evidently credible that eternal Truth speak's and in order to Faith are the only exteriour rational lights we have in this present State from whence Faith takes it rise and whereupon it necessarily depend's But the highest measure of certainty these motives considered as rational inducements can give any is only as I say to make the Mystery evidently credible not evidently true Yet on the other side when we prudently reflect upon God's powerfull speaking by Signs and Motives and withall ponder the weight of his Command which obliges us to assent not only to the Credibility of à Mystery but to its very Truth à pious will both can and is bound to move the understanding to passe as it were above that Credibility and to believe the Infallible truth of the Revelation which revealed truth by help of other Principles mentioned in the foregoing Chapter advances Faith to infallible certainty and therefore farr transcends that intellectual light rising from the Motives and also goes beyond the plainest signification of words Christ ever spake because Faith as Faith ultimately relies not upon the bare signification of words or on the exteriour sight of Miracles but upon the real Truth of Gods Revelation pointed at by words and works though by such outward Signs not eviâ—vidently proved true And thus you se first what the obscurity of Faith implies or wherein it consist's It consist's in this that through Obedience to God's Command we raise our selves above the force of all Motives inducing to Faith and firmly believe upon anothers Authority I mean God's Divine Testimony that to be infallibly true though we neither se the Testimony nor the thing attested evidently true You se 2. That our Dr ' s long Tattle of Faith transcending the Motives of Credibility serves only to amuse an unwary Reader or rather to tell the learned that he shamefully mistakes and handles one difficulty in place of another for according to his promise he should either have proved that Faith it self or the Church is fallible but all this while he run's astray and never meddles with that main Question contenting himself to impugn and most weakly à School opinion only 13 And here by the way I cannot but wonder at our Dr ' s simplicity who cites Doctour Holden saying That no assent of Divine Faith can have any greater true and rational certainty then the assent of the Medium hath by which the obiect of Faith is applyed to the understanding First What if Dr Holden differ from others in explicating the certainty of Faith doth he therefore hold it fallible or only morally certain This followes not 2. Dr Still should here have told us what is meant by those words The assent of the medium by which c For if the Catholick Doctour teach that the Medium now spoken of is the Divine Revelation applyed by Motives Metaphysically certain he may well assert that Faith as true and rational mark the words can have no greater certainty then that medium known by natural discourse gives yet this hinders not that higher certainty grounded on the Revealers Authority believed and upon God's command as is already explained 14 Dr Still from his P. 376 to P. 400. besides endless Tautologies all tending to shew Faith unreasonable for want of Motives already answered and much ill language not worth answering gives me little to reflect on Yet his 383 P. must not passe wholly unexamined where got into à Dungeon he cryes out against the obscure tendency of Faith upon its own obiect though he knowes or should know that old Maxim Fides est credere quod non vides The truth is grounded vpon our Saviours words to S. Thomas Blessed are those who believe and have not seen It s grounded on S. Peters words 2. Epist 1. 19. A light shining in à dark place upon S. Austin's Doctrin Epist 85. Faith hath its eyes wherewith after some manner quodammodo All Authors ascribe an obscure tendency to Faith it may se that to be true which yet it sees not and the Authority of many other Fathers Therefore S. Thomas rightly conclud's 2. 2. q. 5. a. 2. corp That the Intellectual power assents to à matter believed not because it see 's it either in it selfe or by any resolution made into the first Principles Seen but because it is convinced by the Divine Authority to assent to things Quae non videt which it see 's not Hence also Catholick Divines inferr that the very act of Faith purely considered as Faith see 's not by any evidence the Truth of what we believe otherwise to se evidently and to believe would be the same thing contrary to Christ words which annex happines to believing without seeing or clear evidence had of that obiect yet in darkness never to be perfectly dispelled untill we se God in the next life 15 But saith Dr Still The great things we believe are received upon the Authority of the Revealer yet so that we assert we have as great evidence that these things were revealed by God as the matter is capable of Here is no man knowes what hudled up in this dark expression As the matter is capable of Let us therefore proceed plainly You Sr believe the Mysterious Trinity because as you think God reveal's it in Scripture Have you by your act of Faith for here we speak not of the previous rational Evidence of Credibility Evidence that such à Revelation which was and is yet God's free act and might not have been doth now really exist Have you evidence of the true Sence
of those word's Truths whereof the Dr hath not Evidence whereby you judge the Trinity is revealed Have you evidence of their being words divinely inspired Have you any thing like evidence of the Mystery believed No All the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles wrought cannot make these particular truths to appear evident to any in this State yet Orthodox Christians believe them Infallibly true by Faith and therefore you Sr are as deep in à Dungeon as any you ieer at get out how you can 16 The rest that followes is nothing but an idle sporting with S. Paul's Doctrin Heb. 11. 1. Is it not pretty saith the Dr because Faith is called an Evidence therefore it must be inevident Because it is called an Argument therefore it can use none What stuff is here Who ever said that Faith uses not Arguments Or called it à Conviction but as the Apostle speaks of things not seen Soon after he has à â—ash at me and it reaches S. Austin also I had said no merit or thanks in believing had we evidence of the Mysteries we believe and I speak with S. Austin In Evangel Ioan. Trac 79. This is the praise of Faith if that which is believed be not seen For what great thing is it if that be believed which is seen According to that sentence of our Lord when he rebuked his Disciple saying because thou hast seen me Thomas Thou hast believed Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed CHAP. VIII The Doctor 's Discourse from page 400 to P. 416. Considered and found weightless 1 HEre the Dr would fain rescue another Argument taken out of his Account from the obiections I made against it Reas and Relig Disc 2. C. 2. n. 5. And you may se him hard put to it for The Dr hard put to his Shifts proofs when to shew the Church no way necessary to ground Faith he run's up to the woman of Samaria Iohn 4. to Barbarians and others who all received Divine Revelation and believed without an Infallible Church In plain English he would inferr that the Christian Catholick Church before it was perfectly founded or owned as God's Oracle did not then ground Faith therefore it could never do so after its compleat establishment Is not this an heroical attempt Tell me Mr Dr. what sence have we in this Inference The Samaritan woman believed Christ when the Church was not perfectly in being Therefore S. Austin when it was an absolute built moral Body erred much in saying He would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholick Church moved him to believe it VVhich authority once weakned saith the Saint in the same place contra Epist Fundam I cannot believe the Gospel S. Dyonisius and Damaris Act. 17. who knew nothing of the Churches beginning at Hierusalem on whitsunday hearing S. Paul an Infallible Oracle preach believed Ergo Christians that lived in time of the Nicene Council could not then believe the Church What Logick is this Nay more in the Dr ' s Principles that Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Church stands there to no purpose because forsooth in some extraordinary circumstances and occasions Faith may be had without knowledge of the Church of Scripture and of Christ also For many Divines hold that Barbarians by meer contemplating the visible works in nature may without the teaching of à living Oracle come to the knowledge of one God as à Rewarder and have Faith available to Salvation Now here is the Dr ' s erroneous Principle that which in some circumstances serves to beget Faith may ever serve and in all occasions 2 The unsoundness or rather Nonsence whereof I will demonstrate against Mr Dr. The ancient Christians had true Faith before the Canon of Scripture was extant Now that holy Book being published and received all over our Dr ground 's his Faith upon it only Ancient Christians had true Faith before scripture was written as it s understood by every man's discerning faculty what therefore once was no rule nor ground of Faith because not in being afterward becomes à ground when it is known and published Just thus we discourse of the Church When the woman of Samaria and some Barbarians believed the Church was not founded nor known or owned by all as Gods Oracle but afterward the foundation of it being perfectly laid and Pastors and Doctors appointed by Christ to teach the world it was owned for God's Oracle and then brought with it an obligation upon all to hear and believe it 3 The reason hereof more amply laid forth in my last Treatise is taken from the express constitution of Christ who erected the Church as à most facile clear and living Rule of Faith This great Master assures all that whoever hear's the Church hear's him That Faith comes by hearing and therefore Pastors and Doctors are appointed to teach to the Consummation of Saints unto the work of the Ministery for the edifying of Christ's Mystical body c. Wherefore Baronus in his Apodixis Tract 9. puncto 2. ingenuously professes That the Testimony of the present Church is à condition necessarily required to believe the authority of the Scripture because Faith comes by hearing Hence I argue A law made by Christ is to be observed the ordinary means appointed by the Law-giver Himselfe for the grounding of Faith ought in no case to be neglected But Christ hath obliged all who believe to rely on the Christian Church ever since She was made an Oracle known to the world as is largely proved Reas. and Religion through the whole Second Discourse therefore though by accident or in some very unusual circumstance men have had Faith without any knowledge either of Scripture or Church Yet now after the Churches compleat establishment and Her long continuance to exclude her Authority and believe upon any other ground would be so great folly and rashness that God may justly deny his supernatural Grace to such unadvised Believers who therefore would not have Faith to Salvation 4 Pray you tell me should à Barbarian that never heard of Church or Scripture yet may probably believe in God as à Rewarder of Good by à meer contemplation of the Heavens c. Should I say such an one come to the knowledge of Christ of the Scripture and of the Church gloriously illustrated with all her Motives Can this man think you in these new circumstances of à greater light neglect all and believe that God will reward good upon the old motive to wit the visible beauty or motion of the Heavens No That belief would now be imprudent and upon that account unavailable The Dr's grand Principle proved forceless to Salvation VVhat therefore serves to ground Faith in some circumstances serves not in all We have yet another Instance against the Dr who hold's there is à Thing in being called the Church of England where he preaches and pretend's to settle his Faith upon Scripture only Would he
to remain to the worlds end the Prophets ceased to prophesy of His appearing in flesh and had no longer that Infallible gift Answearable hereunto one might assert were it needful that the High Priests infallible power in judging fail'd also at that time though the Dr will have à heard task to prove that Caiphas's Judgement was erroneous in case he ponder well S. Iohns words c. 11. 50. You know nothing neither do you what he repeat's to little purpose hath been Solved consider that it is expedient for us that one man dy for the people and that the whole nation perish not And this he said not of himself but being the High Priest of that year he Prophecyed That Iesus should dy for the Nation and not only for the Nation c. Observe well It was expedient that Christ should dy and though à wicked man spake the words yet the Spirit of truth which guided his tongue for he spake not of himself erred not And this proves that God often preserves truth as well by an unworthy Prelate as by one really worthy where Order and Office is to be regarded and not the dignity or Indignity of the person Now whether all the subordinate Judges of the Sanhedrin were infallible is à new question not pertinent to the matter in hand It is more satisfaction then I owe the Dr to shew that the Supream Judge of the Sanhedrin who ever presided over the rest much less the whole Church of the Iewes erred not Witness S. Joseph of Arimathaea Nicodemus and innumerable others dispersed all Jury over who all were faithful and free from errour 10 Concerning the other Question hinted at None I think can doubt but that the High Priests in all grand Judicatures were infallible which Priviledge Moses certainly enjoyed and Amarias also 2. Paralip 19. 11. Moses induced by Iethro his Counsel Exod. 18. 13 made Choice of some others to Judge in causes of lesser importance reserving greater matters to himself Num. 11. 16. God commanded Moses to call together seventy of the Elders in Israel for his assistance appointed to bear the burthen with him and at their election had the Spirit of Prophesy After Moses death the Prophets Iosue Samuel David Elias Eliseus c succeeded and these certainly were Infallible But there is no need of staying longer upon this point being as I said not pertinent to our present Enquiry relating to the Infallibility of our Christian Church 11 The Dr P. 408. err's not à little while he supposes the Infallibility of the Roman Church to be lodged in the Supream Ecclesiastical Iudges and no where els To this I answered directly Reas. and Relig Disc 3. C. 12. n. 14. much wonder it is the Dr ' s eyes saw it not and said when we resolve Faith into the Churches Infallible Authority we understand by the Church the whole diffused body of Orthodox Christians made manifest by Supernatural Motives and not in the first place the Representative in General Councils For that more explicite Beliefe had of General Councils connaturally presupposes when à right Analysis is made the other general Truth assented to Viz. This manifested Society of Christians is God's own Church and the only way to Salvation Hence all Catholicks avouch that the whole Catholick Body consisting of Pastors to teach and Hearers to learn cannot totally err or swerve from truth whereunto properly belong those promises of the Gospel Hell gates shall not prevail against the Church The spirit of truth abides with Her for ever She is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. 12 The Dr err's again in his next An other Errour of the Dr. page where he demand's why the concurrent Testimony of all Christians may not afford as sufficient à ground to believe the books of the new Testament without an Ecclesiastical Senate as those Jewes who no more believed Christ Infallible than the Sanhedrin did might have à sufficient ground to believe that the Prophesies came not in old time by the will of God This I take to be the sence of the Dr ' s Querie which after his manner he spin's out to à tedious length I answer though the Jewes had sufficient ground to believe that those ancient Prophesies were not from man but God yet the concurrent Testimony of Christians in the Dr's Principles is no certain ground to believe the Authority of the books of the new Testament First because all that Testimony with him is fallible and may be false and if the Jewes The Churches Tradition is infallible had no surer Ground to believe the old Prophesies they could not assent to them by Divine Faith In our Catholick Principles there is no difficulty at all because we hold the Tradition of the Church infallible Yet as I noted in the last Treatise the first consent of Christians owning these books Divine presupposed them taken as Divine upon the Authority of an Infallible Oracle and first made them not accepted as Divine for no man will say Scripture is first owned as à book Divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost because Christians Say so but contrary wise therefore they say so and agree in that truth because God antecedently to the universal consent assured all by an Infallible Oracle that they were of Divine Inspiration 13 P. 410. we have fearful Doings about à man of clouts where the Dr sadly complain's that I fall unmercifully to work with this man of Clouts He means himself that I throw him first down and trample upon him then I set him up again to make him capable of more valour being shown upon him then I kick him afresh and beat him of on side then on the other and so terribly triumph over him that the poor man of Clouts blesseth himself that he is not made of flesh and bones for if he had it might have The Dr's more than rediculous Complaints cost him some aches and wounds What in the name of God put the Dr into this strange trembling fit Wil not every one that read's these Threnes judge that I have dealt most rudely with à Doctor and deem my crime horrid one surely of the first magnitude to be wash't away with teares and sorrow Please to hear it Marry I said Disc 2. c. 3. n. 9 and the Dr cites my words That I verily thought Mr Still mistook one obiection for an other And is this all Not one syllable more I assure you that can give offence unless he be angry with me for not calling him Doctor when I knew nothing of his Doctorship 14 P. 411. He ask's how those believed Infallibly who only heard of Christs Miracles but saw them not I answered n. 15. Every immediate Conveyer or Propounder of Christ's Doctrin needs not to be Infallible though before those Hearers whether Barbartans or others believe Every one that proposes faith need 's not to be infallible an Infallible Oracle must be known and relyed on Se more hereof n. 16.
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
and proved an Infallible Teacher independently of his clearer interpretation It is impossible while we believe S. Paul speaking obscurely for S. Paul delivering the Sence of his own words more clearly 11 Now Sr look upon your own pretty Circle VVe believe say you the The D's Circle retorted upon himselfe Church to be infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith so And you believe the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth because the true sence of S. Paul's words explicated by Apostolical Authority saith so Moreover Say you VVe believe this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so and could not you Sr have believed such à Sence of the words now cited had S. Paul delivered it because either he or some other infallible Apostle said so This is only to assert in plainer Terms that the darker sence written in Scripture by one Infallible Oracle can be cleared by the Interpretation of the very same or any other Infallible Oracle which lead's no man into the least danger of à vicious Circle 12 Pray tell me Mr Dr when you in your Account interpret our Saviours words This is my body according to the Sence you judge true do you intangle your Reader in à vicious Circle By your new way of Arguing it's plain you do For those who read or hear your interpretation assent to it as true because the true Sence of Scripture saith so And again they believe this to be the true Sence of Scripture because you say so Your Interpretation has some influence upon the assent of those that believe it be it Condition Cause or what you will otherwise it signifies nothing but And yet made more Clear stand's like an useless cypher in your book This granted your Circle is manifestly vieious for you run in à round from your supposed true interpretation of Scripture to the true Sence of Scripture and back again from the true Sence of Scripture to your supposed true Interpretation Mark well Your Interpretation is proved or believed true by the true sence of Scripture here is your only ground and the true Sence of Scripture is again proved or believed true by your supposed true explication Hence it followes that either your interpretation is not according to the true Sence of Scripture God forbid say you or that the true Sence of Scripture correspond's not to your supposed true explication or finally this must be granted that you run round in à Circle and prove the one by the other 13 Perhaps to avoid à Circle it will be said you prove not your Interpretation true by the true sence of Scripture but evince that upon other grounds distinct from Scripture Viz. by the Authority of Fathers your often alleged sence and reason and God knowes what Is it so indeed Dare you Sr most shamefully quit the only main prop you rely on which is Scripture when you stand most in need of it whereof more presently and yet charge on me à vicious Circle while I believe the true Sence of Scripture because an infallible Church declares that Sence Cannot I more rationally would I seek Subterfugies evince the Infallibility of the Church by other proofs drawn from Fathers Church authority and reason and plead as you do to avoid à Circle were it necessary But I like no such Shuffling I positively assert the Sence of Scripture is therefore proved and believed true because the Infallible Church saith so though if questioned further I must bring in my reason why I believe this Oracle Infallible yet the immediate ground of my beliefe is the Churches Interpretation given upon Christs words now cited and I rest upon her Authority by Faith though this Interpretation be not the first ground why I believe her Infallible but that other more general received Truth that proves Her Gods own Oracle in all she delivers as matter of Faith which general Truth observe it well is most rationally evinced without any recourse to or dependance on Scripture And this is only to say that à Divine Oracle first proved Infallible can interpret Scripture without danger of à vicious Circle 14 What I here assert is undeniable for had any Apostle explained those words in the Gospel I and my Father are one answerable to the Sence now believed in the Church Viz. That Christ our Lord is the eternal Son of God consubstantial with his Father could not the primitive Christians have as firmly fixed their beliefe upon those words Infallibly interpreted as the Disciples fixed their Beliefe upon our Saviours Interpretation when Luke 8. 9. he fully explained the Sence of that Parable concerning the Sower and Seed These and the like Interpretations are believeable matters of Faith upon this Principle that every Interpreter whether Christ or Apostle was supposed and proved Infallible independently of that Sence they gave to God's sacred words and so is the Church as is already declared 15 The Dr ' s Confusion and whole mistake lies here that he has not yet got perfectly into his head the right notion of à vicious Circle and therefore P. 428. wishes I had told him the Secret I will do it briefly and then make his errour more known 16 A vicious Circle Mr Dr ever implies two Propositions or in à Circular What à Vicious Circle implies discourse two Syllogisms Here we will insist upon Propositions being more plain and easy then to proceed by long Syllogisms Know therefore when any first Proposition is assumed to prove the second and this second is made use of without further light to prove the first again or that very thing which is asserted by the first the Circle is notoriously vicious For example One endeavours to prove man to have Free-will because he is indowed with an intellectual Faculty then return's again and proves him intellectual because he hath Free-will the second Proposition implies à Circle because the thing proved which is Liberty or Free will not otherwise evinced but by mans being intellectual is made use of to prove that Power and so in effect Liberty or Free-will becomes à Medium to prove it self by 17 Observe well This vicious consequence whereby man seem's evinced à free Agent or indowed with liberty takes all the force it hath from the Antecedent of his being intellectual and wholly relies on that Medium If therefore as it here fall's out that Consequence whereby Liberty is asserted without any more light or further proof be again assumed as the only Medium to prove man intellectual Liberty or Free-will by its proving man intellectual proves it self and thus hic nune is both Antecedent and Consequent Antecedent as it is the Medium to prove man Intellectual and Consequent as it is the thing proved by Intellectuality which flaw is ever manifest in all vicious Circles as Aristotle notes well Lib. 1. Post cap. 3. 18 Now on the other side should I take this Consequence concerning Liberty which is deduced
want's learning judgement and common Civility His defect in learning appear's most in this Treatise His want of Judgement Truth and Sincerity will be more manifest in my second Part where I rescue the glorious Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church from à vast number of forgeries and Calumnies His transgression against Civility is so notorious that almost every page in his books overcharged with it cries shame upon him Wherefore wonder not if here and there I twitch him à little though with no proportion to his rude and uncourteous handling me and others Thus much noted know courteous Reader that 5 The most or rather all Doctor Stilling fleet hath against me in his first discourse besides much ill language cast out of that sanctified mouth to embellish his general Preface with you have at his 77. page There lies the main business I am to consider though all is so profoundly simple that I am ashamed to read it As for the sornful words he gives no more regarded by me then the chattering of à magpie I tell you plainly they shall never break my head nor vex my heart Let that young Cock crow on his own dunghil if it do him good let him peck at what dead skull he pleases no great hurt say I while no more is done My task is to look after substance could I meet with it but I am fob'd off with meer tittle tattle all along with jeers and drollery and therefore must deal ingenuously courteous Reader and openly Nothing like à difficulty proposed by the Dr. profess before God and the world that though I have with all possible diligence weighed the utmost strength of Dr Still Arguments against our Church Doctrin yet I find not one that carries with it so much as the face or à shadow of difficulty as shall by God's Assistance be proved in this short Treatise And I easily believe that those other worthy Authors the Doctor slights and flurts at all have their lashes well able to answer for them selves will manifestly make it out that he only trifles and speaks nothing to the purpose against their learned labours My endeavour is to answer for my selfe Se more in the Preface to the Reader 6 Doctor Still in the page now cited pick 's up à few of my Assertions taken out of the Book intituled Protestancy without principles and after his usual manner proceed's very disingenuously for he either mangles them as best served his turn or wilily strip's them of all their proofs which without any labour might have been added and given vigour to every Proposition Finally he wholly waves the ultimate reason I alledge for the Churches infallibility Protestancy without Princ P. 28. where I prove that Christian Religion is ruin'd if for ought any man can know all Churches all Pastors and Guides teach Christ's Doctrin so fallibly that it may be false 7. Now à word or two of my Assertions related by the Dr. I say first All true believers not all men as the Dr miscites in the Assent given to Gods revealed verities are infallible and prove the Assertion God the first Verity reveal's infallibly eternal truths for this end that all believe him as he speak's if therefore he speaks infallibly all that believe him as he speak's believe infallibly I ground this Doctrin upon the Apostles words 1. Subiective Infallibility in true Believers Thessa 2. v. 12. Therefore we thank God without intermission because when ye received the word of God which you heard from us ye received it not as the word of men but at it is indeed the word of God who works in you that believe Hence I infer'd He that receives the delivered word of God as it is truly God's word and not the word of man He in whom God work 's belief by Divine grace believes Gods revealed truths infallibly And then Concluded Whoever disown's such infallible Believers ioyntly disown's infallible Faith and said this reason proves à subjective Infallibility in true Believers Thus the Blessed Apostles who received the word of God from Christ our Lord had Divine Faith and firmly assented to Christ◠sacred Doctrin were first infallible believers and afterward infallible Teachers also What harme in these Assertions I challenge the Dr to speak à probable word against them upon any known or owned Principle for hitherto he hath returned no Answer 8. I Assert 2. P. 20. He that hear's an infallible Teacher hath the Spirit of truth and he that hear's not an infallible Teacher wants the spirit of truth Holy Scripture speaks as I speak Iohn 1. c. 4. v. 6. we are of God he that knowes God hear's us he that is not of God heareth us not hereby we know the Spiririt of truth and the Spirit of errour Hence I infer'd that à fallible teaching of Christs Doctrin which by the force of its proposal or delivery may deceive and be false is lyable to cavils and disputes In saying this I wrong not in the least Christs infallible Doctrin but only assert that à fallible or false delivery which may easily deprave it is not Christs infallible Doctrin because as yet it is not made sufficiently Credible nor ultimately applyed to à Hearer as Christ's Doctrin An Arian for example read's these words I and my Father are one and so also doth Dr St. Both read the Doctrin of Christ yet contradict each other and the one depraves and perverts it by his false and fallible delivery I say this false and fallible teaching most easily distinguish'd from revealed truths in Gods word is not Christs infallible Doctrin If the Doctor boggle at this distinction whereof he takes no notice the worst I wish him is more light and learning 9. The Doctor saies I assert in my 21. Page No man can be an Heretick that denies the obiective verities revealed in Gods word unless he be sure that his Teacher reveales those verities Infallibly There is no such Proposition in that 21. page much less any words importing that à Teacher reveal's Teachers in this present state good Dr propose infallibly the ancient revealed Verities and often add à clearer explication which implies not if we speak properly any new Revelation You have more of my Propositions in Dr St which I own and wil defend as they stand with their reasons in my Book even to the very last P. 22. and. 24. where I say As long as the infallibility of à Revelation is remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an Infallible Proponent the Revelation can no more convey certainty into Faith then fire at à great distance warm I give this reason omitted by the Dr. It little avail's to know that God speak's infallibly for every one has that assured unless in the circumstance he speak's to me and for my salvation I yeild my infallible assent to his word which cannot be without assurance had from the Proponent of Faith that he Speaks as I ought to believe infallibly
Scripture to discover that yet concealed Infallible truth and sence also or that Christ is wanting in Necessaries to Mankind Now that not only Truth but an Infallible Divine truth and the genuine sence of Gods Revelation are obiects of faith when we believe Necessaries is most undeniable unless one will say that we believe truths but abstract or regard not whether they be Divine and Infallible truths we believe the words of Scripture without their sence c. 14 I say 2. There is an Oracle appointed by God to declare the Truth the Infallibility and sence of every revealed Necessary and prove my Assertion The The necessity of an Infallible living Oracle end of Divine Revelation is to settle in all faithful minds à firm beliefe concerning the Truth Infallibility and meaning of every revealed Necessary for why doth God reveal truly and infallibly but to beget in us true and Infallible â—aith But Scripture it selfe evidences not this Divine truth Infallibility and meaning nor tell 's us which are Necessaries therefore an Oracle appointed by God is both impowred and obliged to declare these particulars certainly and Infallibly I say Infallibly for if it faulter but in one or give us only weak Topicks and doubtfull probabilities the end of God's Infallible Revelation is frustrated and our Faith can be no more but wavering and uncertain that is no Faith at all This Argument I urged against the Doctor Reas and Religion Disc 2. c. 19. n. 2. 3. But no answer from him yet 15 I Argued 2. what ever Necessary for Salvation is proposed doubtfully and fallibly may by virtue of that proposal be à fiction and false But à Necessary thus doubtfully proposed appeares not like to one of God's infallible revealed Necessaries for what God reveal's is infallibly true therefore as doubtfully proposed it appeares à changeling only à fallible truth wholly unfit to support Divine Faith Some will say it is yet in it selfe à Divine truth though proposed fallibly Who knowes that If neither Scripture nor Oracle distinct from Scripture nor all the Doctors and Pastors on earth can infallibly avouch that S. John spake à Divine Infallible Truth when he said The Word is made flesh much lesse can they ascertain any of the sence of these Infallible and moral Certainty imply à difference words or evince that they contain à Necessary for Salvation One may yet reply The Truth the Infallibility and sence of these words are morally certain and faith of Necessaries requir's no more To Answer I suppose that moral certainty as it is distinguished from Infallible certainty may in rigour be false or if not that moral and Infallible certainty import the very same thing or degree of certainty Thus much supposed I ask when we affirm that God has revealed the Mystery of the Incarnation in Scripture do we say he hath told us that Secret by à Revelation which because only morally certain may be false or à lye It s blasphemy to judge so for all that the first verity speaks is most Infallibly certain 16. Or contrary wise do we say that Divine Faith terminated upon the Revelation though likely to be true is yet because only morally certain possible to be false or à lye Grant this and it followes that that high perfection of Infallibility intrinsick to Divine Revelation lies out of sight and in order to Faith is as if it were not and therefore can have no Influence upon beliefe The reason hereof is manifest for although we know if God Speak he speak's infallibly yet all the men on earth cannot know infallibly by Faith or by any other act previous to faith that his infallible Revelation engaged in this Mystery assert's it or is certainly in being because the best and surest certainty men can attain in this life A moral certain Faith which may be false is not Faith of any Revelation is only Moral and may be false But such à knowledge determin's none without fear and hesitancy to judge absolutely that God speaks infallibly or that he speak's as beseem's God for our Salvation By this short Discourse you se it is in effect the very same to say God reveal's not infallibly any one Necessary as to say we neither know nor can believe that he reveal's it infallibly For what strength or virtue can that perfection of Infallibility impart to faith if none can assent to it as it is infallible or apply it to his intellectual Faculty but only by à moral certain Faith which may be false Who ever desires more of this subiect may peruse Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 15. Where I show that neither God nor Christ God and man nor Apostle nor Orthodox Church ever patronized à certainty in matters of Divine Faith which may be false nor to my knowledge did ever any Heterodox Christian content themselves with it in such Tenets as they held Essential or were with them matters of Belief I proved 2. n. 11. That none but Eternal Truth it selfe who is the first Revealer the Apostles and the Roman Catholick Church which proposes the high Mysteries of Faith can give Infallible assurance of their being infallible Divine Truths 17 Now this Church evidenced by Supernatural wonders neither Prophet or Apostle had ever greater is the Infallible Oracle I have hitherto pointed at in general Terms only Her Conversions Miracles and other publick Signatures of Gods infinit Power and VVisdom whereby she is proved God's Oracle are particularly declared Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 15. And her Infallibility is amply evinced in three whole Chapters Disc 2. c. 14. 15. 16. But I know not how it fall's out Dr Still hath waved all my Arguments and not answered one 18 After à full consideration had of what is proved in this one Chapter all ingenuous Readers will I think conclude with me that never wise man made such à foolish Choice or exchange of means for Salvation as this Dr hath done Observe I beseech you Instead of Infallible certainty terminated upon Gods Revelation he is so strait hearted that nothing is allowed by him but à great moral probability which may be false In lieu of an Infallible Church which plainly declares her Necessary Doctrin he thrusts into The Drs foolish Choice and exchange of Principles our hands à Bible most certainly obscure and in place of the Guides of the Church who are by Christ's ordination to teach he substitutes his own fallible discerning Faculty or the private Judgement of all the Illiterate persons in his Parish These must read Scripture gloss and interpret Scripture and when that 's done all of them like Quakers after some few humms and pauses may believe what they think is true but not one amongst them shall ever know this way That God speak's in Scripture as he thinks and judges Pray tell me What if some of the Doctors own Auditors with their sincere and serious endeavour made concerning Necessaries dissent from him What if
Now none can ascertain any that this or that particular Revelation is true and Infallible but an Infallible Church only Therefore you err Mr Dr in saying that the Infallibility of the Church is as liable to doubts as that of Scriptures if you speak as you must of the Scriptures genuine Sence Truth and Infallibility 17 The Dr P. 113. proposes one of the rarest obiections ever man I think yet heard of Had Christ saith he intended Infallibility as the foundation of Faith how easily might all contentions in the world have been prevented had he said I do promise my Infallible spirit to the Guides of the Church in all Ages to give the true sence of Scripture in all Controversies which shall arise amongst Christians c. Answ I verily judge Christ hath fully said thus much He that heares you heares me The Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church Pastors and Guides are given to the end we be not carried about with every wind of Doctrin c. But suppose Christ or any Evangelist had used your very expression how easily would you Sr have sound à pretty gloss for it and told us That such à promise was forsooth only conditional if the Guides followed Scripture or some like whimsy which phansy might have suggested Now tell me seing your invention fall's so luckily upon new coyn'd Promises why have we not in Scripture à promise suitable to your new faith Viz. I promise no other Spirit to any but such an one as may serve for the moral certainty of beliefe which is fallible and may be false Or rather thus I doe promise that who ever read's Scripture and understand's it according to his private Judgement though he err's in matters of Faith yea even in Necessaries is yet in the way to Salvation and need 's not to consult any Guide for his better instruction Thus contentions would have been easily prevented and licence given every man to believe what he pleased Such promises as these would have fitted you right Mr Dr but there are none of them in God's word 18 P. 150. He thinks to destroy the Evidence of sense and consequently the Grounds of Religion because we believe not that to be bread in the Holy Eucharist which sense tell 's us is so Never ancient Church nor Councils nor Pastors nor Doctors nor any Orthodox Christian pleaded thus for sense for all unanimously believed that really not to be bread which yet in outward appearance seems bread as is demonstrated against the Dr. Reas and Religi c. 12. 13. Whereunto he never yet returned word of answer though I solved this very Obiection to satisfy the Gentleman and told him that the immediate Object of sense is not the inward Substance of bread but The obiect of sense not destroed in the Holy Eucharist colour or light with other accidents and these remain after Consecration visible and sensible as before It is true reason upon the Suggestion of sense would judge what we se to be bread were it not over-awed by à stronger Principle which is Gods express Revelation To this we submit and our crime â—s that we preferr the words of eternal â—ruth before weak reason easily beguiled â—ray tell me had the Dr seen those â—wo Angels who came to Lot Gen 19 in the shape of mortal men had he eate with them at Lots table would he not have thought them men like others living in Sodom But had God then told him by an express Revelation they were indeed Angels and not men which verity is now known he would I hope have believed God and yeilded up his reason to that Supream Verity Thus we proceed in the beliefe of the blessed Sacrament whereof se more Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 18. n. 4. I shall add hereafter other considerations little to the Dr ' s Comfort 19 Page 151. The Dr would fain know whether there be not some points of Faith and parts of our duty so plain that no Church Authority determining contrary ought to be obeyed I answer were any so plain as few are in the very fundamentals of Faith witness those greaâ— Mysteries of the Trinity and the eternaâ— Godhead of Christ the Catholicâ— Church cannot by reason of Gods speciaâ— Assistance determin the contrary or contradict it selfe in any universal doctrinâ— and therefore that Non-obedience hintâ— at is à Chimaera or à thing not at aâ— supposeable It seem's our Dr would have the not worshiping Images to bâ— one of his plain delivered points A gross mistake as his worthy learned Adversary Doctor T. G. whose works and Person I honour pithily demonstrat's in his late excellent book Catholiks no Idolaters Part 1. chiefly c. 3. and 4. Now because I mention this Reverend man I cannot but reflect upon another intolerable mistake of Dr Still 20 Dr T. G. said in his preface to the Reader It is à known Maxim That none can give to another that which he hath not himselfe If therefore the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy much more if guilty of Idolatry it fall's under the Apostles Excommunication Gal. 1. 8. and so remains deprived of lawful Authority mark the words to use and exercise the power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing preaching and administring Sacraments which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves as derived from the Church of Rome can be no true and lawful jurisdiction but usurped and Antichristian The plain and obvious An other gross errour of the Dr sense is He who has no jurisdiction but is deprived of it by the Churches Censures cannot give it to another Neither can he that has no lawful Authority to ordain lawfully ordain any or give Authority lawfully to ordain others Now comes Dr Still in his General Preface to ward off this blow but never man did it less dexterously and we must wholly attribute it to his little skill in fencing He tell 's us that the council of Trent pronounces Anathema against those that deny the Validity observe here also the word validity of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin in case he observes the Essentials of it and in this gross errour he run's on for nine or ten pages Citing Author after Author to prove that the Sacrament of Order is validly given by one in mortal sin or excommunicated But what is all this to Dr. T. Gs. Most true Assertion That none guilty of Idolatry or Heresy can give Iurisdiction to any of the Church of England which they must have from Catholick Bishops or wholly want it or impower them to ordain others lawfully when they are deprived of all lawfull Authority to use oâ— exercise the power of Orders Hence you se Dr Still blindness who argues from the validity of giving Orders to the lawful giving them and from the no power of giving Jurisdiction the chiefest thing aimed at by D. T. G. to impart it to men in England uncapable of all Jurisdiction by
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
Infallible Church delivers which are known without that light though by an inferiour degree of certainty the Calvinism is more in your head then in my Doctrin To say more of this subiect were only to transcribe what I have in the place now cited 13 P. 347 to P. 361. I find the like bundle of trash all along Now moral certainty refuted above comes in again Now the Question in this Controversy is Stated à new Viz. Whether the Spirit of God may not by moral Arguments work in mens minds such à certain assent of Faith as The Dr err's in stating the question the Scripture requires for Salvation Here the Dr err's for the Question is not whether Arguments morally certain may induce to believe but whether Faith relying on moral inducements only be Divine and Supernatural This I deny The next Question started P. 349. is whether Supernatural Faith be at last resolved into God's Verity known by natural reason which is only à Theological controversy wholly impertinent to our present difficulty of the Churches Infallibility or the undoubted certainty of Faith Grant or deny no hurt to either My opinion is and t' is no more but an opinion That Faith relies not upon that veracity as known Scientifically though I am far from excluding the natural knowledge thereof from our capacities before we believe à Divine Revelation But saith the Dr. Supposing God had never discovered his own Veracity in Scripture could not men have had Divine Faith Yea and with the Assistance of Grace Supernatural Faith also of God as he is à Rewarder Heb 11. 6 in case they had never heard of either Church or Scripture To such God speak's by his visible and Admirable Providence over the world For his invisible perfections are manifested from the creation of the world Rom. 1. 19. The Heavens declare his glory c. But what is all this to our matter in hand when we have Gods veracity and Revelation proposed by Church and Scripture and easily suppose that first perfection known by natural reason 14 In the next place the Dr has à fling at Cardinal Lugo Suares with others and court's them after his homely manner with ieers and reproachful language Poor man Were these profound Doctors living he would not be thought worthy to turn over books for them Soon after he would have the terms of Divine Supernatural Infallible and Inevident Faith banished Schools That Of the Dr's rambling is because he understand's them not Next he tell 's us P. 358. These things were necessary to be premised before we could come to the true state of the Question and thus it is VVhether in order to the certainty of our Faith concerning Gods Revelation an Infallible Testimony of the Church be necessary This he proposes and denies yet never so much as offer 's to meddle with And intolerable Shuffling the Question What is done Marry he first makes another large excursion and relates some broken pieces of my Doctrin then shamefully slip's aside and enters upon à meer speculative Scholastical difficulty concerning the Resolution of Faith Is not this worse then shuffling Suppose that neither Mr Dr nor I give the best Resolution in this matter doth i◠therefore follow that Faith requires not the Churches infallible Testimony in this present state No more followes from this were all true save thus much only that neither of us as yet have hit right upon the true Resolution In à word the necessary dependence of Faith upon the Church is proved in both my last Treatises because none can have certainty of the Divine Inspiration of Scriptures of the Infallible truth of Scriptures or finally of their genuin sense unless an Infallible Church ascertain these particulars and to these convincing proofs wholly independent of the Dr ' s Resolution and mine no answer was ever yet nor can be hereafter returned 15 The Dr told us just now he would come to the true state of the Question concerning the Churches Infallible Testimony and to comply with his promiss as I said above he meddles not at all with it but. P. 361. attaques my Resolution of Faith and doth it in such an unlearned manner as never Dr I think did before him First he laies down à part of my Doctrin but as his custome is answers nothing 2. In lieu of answering he object 's and tells us again an old story partly taken out of his Account What proceeding is this Our method is quite contrary we ever solve an Argument directly when it is proposed and should be laugh't at did we to avoid the difficulty only throw an another objection at an Adversary to stop his mouth with 16 A word now of my Doctrin to the end all may se how this man deal's with me Reas. and Relig. Disc 1. c. 1. and. 6. I Assert That as the primitive Christians resolved their Faith just so we resolve ours and argue thus Had one demanded of those first converted multitudes after the Canon of Scripture was written why they believed Christ to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world They might have answered Scripture as we are taught expresses these verities But ask again how know you that your Scriptures are not suppositious We now resolve our Faith as the primitive Christians did before us as some Gospels have been They would have said for we suppose them reasonable this we believe upon the undoubted Testimony of those blessed men the Apostles who wrot that Holy book Yet another Question ensues How do you know that these Apostles were not Cheats for there have been false Prophets and Apostles but men inspired by Almighty God to teach and write his sacred verities Had they proved this by Scripture the Circle would have been inevitable For to say Scripture is Gods word because the Apostles tell us so and to say the Apostles were infallible Oracles of truth because the Scripture affirm's that implies à most vicious circulation Their rational Answer therefore would have been for there is no other The manifest wonders done by the Apostles their strange Miracles and Conversions wrought the whole world over their eminent Sanctity and sheding of blood for the Doctrin delivered by them proved those blessed men to be Oracle divinely inspired Gods most faithful and Commissioned Teachers But all this Discourse hold's exactly applyed to the Roman Catholick Church for She evidences the like undeniable Miracles greater Conversions more martyrdoms since the Apostles dayes most admirable Sanctity in thousands and thousands therefore She in like manner is proved God's Oracle as is more largely declared in the place now cited 17 This Argument I urged against the Dr and told him c. 6. that he was either obliged to shew wherein those first Apostolical Miracles and Conversions surpass'd these latter of the Church or rationally to blame my inference as defective and unconcluding Viz. That the Church is not as fully evinced by her Signs to be God's Oracle as the
Apostles were by theirs You may read c. 6. n. 5. how egregiously the Dr trifled with this difficulty in his Account and here he is worse though he had seen all my exceptions made against him in his Answer returned to T. C. Observe I beseech you 18 Against this saith the Dr he means of paralleling the Churches Miracles Conversions c. with those of the Apostles I objected three things Object Mr. Dr In this place you are not to object but to Answer the main ground I rely on in my Resolution that is to shew wherein the parity between the Apostolical Church and ours fail's or is faulty or if that cannot be done to admit of my Inference You perform neither but The Dr instead of answering object 's again what had been solved shamefully shift off what most presseth and it is done most unluckily for your objections contain nothing but what is directly replyed to by me in the. 1. 2. and 3. Chap of that 3. Discourse You say first This way of resolving Faith seem's vnreasonable because an assent is hereby required beyond all degree of Evidence no grounds being assign'd for it but the motives of Credibility which are fallible Here are three errours at once plainly refuted in the Chapters now cited where I say our true Christian Faith in this present state no more goes beyond the proportion and degree of evidence be yet this unexplicated evidence what you will then the Faith of the Primitive Christians went beyond it And I urg'd you again and again to giue à disparity or to shew wherein the tendency of their Faith was different from ours 2. It is à flat calumny to say as you do that I assigne no other grounds for Faith but the motives of Credibility which you suppose faillible C. 2. n. 8. I say expresly our Assent to matters of Faith is ultimatly grounded upon God's Divine Testimony and not as Faith upon the motives which induce to believe and there parified the ground of the primitive Christians Faith with the ground we rely on and their Motives with ours For example Some of them saw others heard of the Apostles strange Miracles admirable Sanctity c. and thence rationally inferred that they were men sent from God and believed their Doctrin though hard and difficult upon their infallible words Thus I discourse as to the Church and wish the Dr would shew where I miss or give any shadow of Difference 3. If the motives of credibility have à certain and infallible connexion with the Divine Revelation which I grant The Dr's supposition of fallible or probable motives in this place is wholly impertinent and makes nothing against my Analysis 19 Still he rambles on and knowes not I think what he would be at It is not sufficient saith he to say that the Infallibility of the Churches Testimony makes the Assent infallible for the Assent is not according to the objectiue certitude of things but the Evidence of them to our understanding Of what objective certitude or evidence of things An obiective certitude spoken of not explicated by this Dr. can this man speak think ye Will he say that à mysterious Trinity or the Incarnation are evident to us while we walk by Faith Or dare he assert that the Truth the Infallible Divine Inspiration and true sense of Scripture appear evidently to our understanding While we se innumerable called Christians at implacable variance about these matters Vnless this be maintain'd wholly improbable the evidence here mentioned concerning no man yet knowes what things is plain Nonsence Again what evidence hath the Dr of these ignote Things who gives no greater certitude to any Assent but à moral one which may be false Yet he run's on Supposing the Testimony of the Roman Church to be really infallible yet since the means of believing it are but probable and prudential the assent cannot be according to the nature of the Testimony considered in it self but according to the reasons which induce me to believe such à Testimony infallible By the means here pointed at the Dr understand's the motive of credibility only and therein err's for we shall shew hereafter other means But had we none who tells him that the Motives are only probable or barely prudential I say they are infallible and essentialy connected with the Divine Revelation though were they only moral the certitude of Faith is yet defensible as will appear in the next Chapter 2. If the Churches Testimony considered in it self be infallible as he supposes it cannot but be known as it is infallible for no man will say that God founded an infallible Church with intention to hide or remove from our sight her infallible Testimony whose final end is to teach all infallibly Therefore providence hath left certain means whereby the learned may come to the knowledge of that necessary truth I have spent three whole Chapters in the third Discourse upon this subject yet the Dr replyes not to one of my Arguments 3. What ever he urges here concerning the means of believing upon probable inducements and it is all raked out of his Account I have not only answered in my last Treatise but retorted also as you may se Disc 3. c. 2. n. 5. 6. 7 20 I suppose there that S. Iohn expressed an Infallible revealed Verity concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation when he told the world The word is made flesh I then thought Dr Still yeilded an Assent so firm and infallible to the Revelation that though an Angel should have preach't contrary he would not upon any reason proposable disbelieve it But that Mystery is no Self evident truth to us neither can it be Scientifically proved by an other revealed verity wholly as obscure all therefore that can be done is to make it evidently credible by motives extrinsick to the Mystery believed For example as the Dr insinuates by universal Tradition the exteriour Consent of many learned men c. 21 Hereupon ensues à troublesome difficulty This humane fallible Tradition this Consent and all other Motives previous to the belief of the Incarnation are in the Dr ' s Principles fallible and may be false yet his Faith terminated The Dr raises his Faith higher than the Motives can lead to upon the revealed Incarnation is so certain that it cannot be false Ergo his Faith fixt there is raised higher and stand's firmer on that ground then the Evidence of his Motives can induce to And thus the Dr goes beyond all the proportion or degree of Evidence preambulatory to his certain belief and consequently must solve his own Argument This and more I have in the place now cited but the Dr's courage fail'd to return an Answer Perhaps he will tell me his belief of the Incarnation goes not beyond the uncertain lights of his fallible motives Grant this and it followes evidently 1. That he contradict's himself as will be proved in the next Chapter It followes 2. That his Faith of
to à trial much born down with this very difficulty 7 In the mean while to give some hints at what I shall then say I ask when the Dr who talks much of Faiths evidence believes the Mystery of the Incarnation upon this sole ground that God reveals it in Scripture what rational evidence can he derive into his Faith if you precisely consider it as fixed upon the Revelation and Mystery together None arises from the nature of these things purely believed unless he stoutly affirm and he is as like to do it as any man living that he evidently see 's by his new eyes of Faith the intrinsick infallible truth of the Revelation in it self as also the two natures in Christ Humane and Divine I say by virtue of that act as it is precisely terminated upon the obiect believed which if I rightly understand him P. 387. fine he acknowledges to be obscure and upon that account unmeet to ground Evidence What then is to be done O saith the Dr I will fetch my Evidence not from the Nature of the things believed for they are remote and dark but from the evidence of sense as to the Miracles wrought by Christ from the Testimony of those who saw Christ our Lord and have delivered his Doctrin to us and given the greatest Evidence of their fidelity c. Se his pages 387 and 416. Very good let all yet be as he pleases 8 Hence it followes first That the Dr ' s act of Faith as it tend's upon the Revelation not evidently seen and an obscure Mystery together is so far blind yea and like a Mole working without light They are his own words P. 353 as that Faith is which he would impugn The Dr own 's Faith both clear and obscure and this I chiefly insist upon at present It followes 2. That his one indivisible act of Faith is both clear and obscure as fixed upon his supposed evident Motives it is clear and under another respect obscure as it adheres to an obscure obiect believed For so he speak's P. 387. I had rather thought saith he the more obscure the obiect had been for its little better then Non-sence to call an act of Faith obscure the greater necessity there had been of strong evidence to perswade c. One word Mr Dr by the way I think it far greater Nonsence to call obiects à parte rei obscure if we use proper language A pore blind man stumbles at à stone is the stone therefore obscure while another sees it clearly and stumbles not Thus all obiects obscure to our weak Capacities are clear and evident to God and Angels Clarity and obscurity Mr Dr as I have often noted but you never mend your faults when told of them are inseparable proprieties of vital operations and belong not to Things in rigour of speech though in à vulgar way with à respect to our acts the language may pass Again shift all you will if the obiect in your sence be obscure your act of Faith as it is fixed upon that clouded verity cannot but under that notion and respect be obscure also 9 It followes 3. That had the Dr pitch't on the true Evidence of Credibility which is not done I have all that for my Faith with much more to boot taken from the Churches long continuance Her Miracles Sanctity Conversions and other Motives Whereof see Reas and Relig. Disc 2. C. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Now if the Evidence of Credibility once established necessary in the Church be ever prerequired as an inducement to believe as all confess it little import's Christianity whether it be discovered by the very act of Faith or the Iudgement previous to Faith supposing as I said above that this judgement inform's and illuminat's the understanding chiefly at every mans first Conversion Did I come short of the where the Evidence of Credibility is found Dr in the evidence of Credibility he might justly blame me but when in reallity he has none as we shall se hereafter and I introduce such an Evidence as converted the world Say I beseech you wherein am I faulty Marry in this may the Dr reply that I allow not evidence to the very act of Faith but only to the previous judgement of Credibility No hurt at all while the mind has the evidence of Credibility laid open and the Dr ' s very act of Faith such an one as it is is partly clear partly obscure 10 But to quiet the Dr I can without prejudice to my Opinion much less to Christian Religion grant with many learned Divines that one indivisible act of Faith rest's both upon the Motives and the revealed Mystery together Nay more I do hold that the Motives are God's own language whereby he speak's to the world not imitable by any Enemy for etiam factis loquitur Deus as S. Austin often cited affirm's Se Reas Relig Disc 3. I say 3. The The obligation of believing arises from the Motives obligation of believing first arises from the light of these Motives for no man saies he believes because he believes but therefore believes because antecedently to his Faith he judges it most reasonable note the rational ground upon God's command to believe what is revealed The Revelation therefore obscurely proposed to us cannot as obscure be the rational ground of our firm assenting to it and for this reason to avoyd confusion in the Analysis I attribute Evidence to the previous judgement of Credibility and not to the very act of Faith Though I scruple nothing to grant that I believe also for the Motives which as I now said have their influence upon Faith and therefore the Dr flatly calumniat's when he tell 's me over and over that I believe without reason without grounds and Motives That I have Motives and evident Motives P. 382 yet after all this Evidence believing hath nothing to do with them Iust as if à man should say P. 384. there is à particular way of seing with ones eyes shut He might better have said his intellectual Eyes were darkened when he read my The Dr's cavil groundless Treatise for no Author ever gave greater strength and efficacy to the Motives then I have done when I say not only Faith but Christ also the Church Scripture and all true Religion goes to wrack without them I further assert that à Believers mind is so far from being in à state of darkness in the instant it elicits Faith that even then it is environed with the light of these Motives clearly represented by the judgement of credibility the lustre whereof is so great that as many Divines teach they make Faith evident in Attestance This opinion I could maintain and yet defend the obscurity of Faith in order to its Material obiect as the Dr withall his pretended Evidence must do whereof more presently 11 P. 376. He seem's some what resty ruminates again his old difficulty and ask's whether in requiring an Infallible assent of
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
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-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
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
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
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
If therefore the Proponent saies only doubtfully I think God speak's as I teach but am not certain the Assent given to his teaching is only doubtful If he truly say I teach infallibly what God reveal's the Assent in à faithfull Believer answer's and is infallible See more hereof in the pages now cited all waved by the Dr. 10. P. 79. Having slightly run over my assertions the man begin's to bristle up This saith he is the sum of the Principles of that Metaphysical wit Hold there good Doctor In the 28. page n. 9. wholly omitted by you I give à better Sum and tell you that none can teach Christian Doctrin who truly ownes not God an Infinit verity the Author of it but he that only teaches fallible doctrin which may be false cannot truly own God the Author but some other fallible Proponent that may both deceive and be deceived Whence I conclude that God never sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles to teach à Christian Doctrin which by virtue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on is meerly fallible and may be false Therefore some other God never sent any to teach fallible Doctrin which may be false malignant Spirit and not God sent Sectaries to teach their supposed fallible and easily falsified Doctrin Upon this ground more amply explain'd in the place now quoted I rely as on an invincible proof and petition the Dr to return à close Answer without trifling needless parergons vain distinctions and yet slighter stuff which ever take up the most room in his books and weary a Readers patience Se now how roughly he begins with me 11. Sure saith the Dr alluding to my Assertions à man must have his brains well confounded by School Divinity and hard words before he can have common sense little enough to think he understand's them For ought I ever yet saw in Dr St writings his brains are not too much burden'd with that dangerous learning had he more of it common sense not easily lost by School Divinity would have guided him to write more to the purpose But stay Courteous Reader is this the Doctors The Drs new way in answering new mode of confuting Propositions First lamely to set them down and then to rail at the Author Would not his Doctors hip take it ill think ye should any one confute all his late books by saying barely his brains were so turned and confounded with Heretical fancies that in real truth he knew not what he wrot What was it that gall'd him How could he wrest any thing said by me to the least offence I set down plainly my Assertions and he answers not one but becomes peevish surly and outragious Is this à Christian way of writing Controversies If he thought my Assertions deserved not à scratch of his pen why did he meddle with them and allow them so much room as to fill two pages in his book And if he judged them worthy to appear there why has he not replyed to some of them Hear the Doctors excuse 12. I never loved saith he to spend time How peevish and blunt the Dr is in confuting à man who thinks himselfe the wiser for speaking things which neither he nor any one els understand's Can any thing be more blunt What if I cheer up into some briskness and tell him wiser than he far more grave and learned have without rubbing their foreheads easily understood all that he slights What if I add it is à hard matter for one who has been long in Schools to deal with à half Scholar unacquainted with speculative learning Though what great speculation have we in any one of my Assertions Such men as these when their brains reach only to à vulgar notion of things think all amiss if you follow them not just in their old hackney pace or say any thing though never so little above their Ken. In case the Dr account me uncivil for touching his talent in learning let him thank himselfe who first began the quarel 13 Next he run's God knowes whither and saies he rather chose to put together such Propositions as might give account of Christian Faith without all this Iargon of infallibility And as I take it he relates to the Principles which slipt from his pen in one hour or other when his head turn'd round and are yet to be seen at the end of that pitiful Book concerning the Idolatry practized by the Church of Rome If so good Dr follow friendly Counsel and as you tender your credit talk no more of those Principles for they are not only torn in pieces by four at least of your Adversaries but moreover to my certain knowledge are scorned by some of your own learned coat who look on them as the most senceless things you ever writ next to your late infamous His unreasonable Cavil piece of Idolatry But in passing what shall we say to his Iargon about infallibility Is not I beseech you Iargon à far more obscure Term then the word Infallibility Yet the Dr Complains's of hard words Few I think of the vulgar know that Iargon signifies sustian language pedâ—ers French or à barbarous jangling yet all have à clearer notion of the word Infallibility and doth not Mr Dr apply it à hundred times over in his Account to God to Christ our Lord and to the Apostles who were all infallible in what they taught the world Now if he hold it not rightly applyed when we speak of the Church he is to impugn that by reason and not to quarel with à harmless word as if witchery lay in it 14 Soon after this raillery he tells us he will fix the Notion of Infallibility for saith he as it is used it seem's à rare word How and to what Infallibility is rightly applyed for jugglers in Divinity to play tricks with For sometimes they apply it to the obiect that is believed He mean's or it 's Nonsence to all that God reveal's and call that Infallibly true Very well done I think for so that word of Faith which S. Paul preached Rom. 10. 8. with testifying to Iewes and Gentils Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ was Acts. 20 21. obiectively taken infallibly true Doth the Apostle juggle here O but sometimes they apply it to the subject capable of believing and say all persons ought to be certain that what they believe is infallible true Most undoubted also if they believe what God speak's Let all the house of Israel most certainly know that God hath made him Lord. Acts 2. 36. I know whom I have believed and am certain 2. Tim. 1. 12. And to show how firm and Infallible Divine Faith is in the hearts of true Believers the Apostle tell 's the Galatians 1. 8. Although we or an Angel from heaven preach to you otherwise then that we preached to you let him be accursed Thus Scripture speak's of Divine Faith and attributes certainty to it What jugling lies here
Sometimes they apply it to to the means of conveying that infallible Truth to the faculties of â—en and these they say must be infallible Very right no Jugling yet The Galatians c. 1. 24. accounted S. Paul no Jugler when they glorified God because one that in time past had been à Persecutor now preached and conveyed the truths of Jesus Christ to the world Again if Faith comes by hearing and none can hear without à Preacher Rom. 10. 14 And if God hath appointed Pastors and Doctors for the work of the Ministerie to the end we be not carried a way with every wind of Doctrin by the deceipt of men Ephes 4. 12. If these Assertions I say be true we are secured by Divine Scripture without jugling that God will ever provide his Church of infallible Teachers who by special assistance are to convey and propose to us infallibly what is infallibly revealed chiefly then when the Mysteries of Faith transcend all natural reason or lye obscurely in Gods written word But of this particular whereat the Doctor boggles most more hereafter In the mean while you see that if Catholick Divines who apply infallibility to Gods Revelation to the Faith of such as assent to that Revelation and finally to the Oracle that proposes Faith be à jugling Scripture it selve juggles with us 15 Our Dr proceed's But the subtility of these things he means of the distinctions The Drs ill worded Definition rejected hitherto given lies only in their obscurity and the Schoolman is spoiled when his talk is brought out of the clouds to common sence In good sober earnest Schoolmen will never be spoiled by such a Bungler as the Dr is But wil you hear how Eagle like he mount's the clouds and at once profoundly dives into the depth of this doubtful Term Infallibility if yet it signifies any thing Infallible is that saith the Dr which cannot be deceived Now we are to suppose ourselves brought down out of the cloudes Most pitiful What cobler is there in England that by meer hearing the word Infallibility understand's not as well the sence of it as he doth after the Doctors ill worded definition In God's name how doth his definition charm greater clarity into the word Infallible than it had before Again was Infallibility when I used it pedlers french and fustian language How happen's it now after the Doctor 's mouth hath hallowed the Term to become à less Iargon Or doth he only tell us by his definition what à Iargon or fustian language signifies We only ask here whether the very vvord deserves contempt and shall enquire afterward to whom it is applyed Lastly the Dr is Shamefully out for the Infallibility proper to Divine Faith is ill expressed by Saying barely It cannot be deceived much more is required And it is that as the true Proponent of Faith whether Christ Apostle or Church can neither deceive not be deceived So à true Believer by Virtue of his Faith can neither deceive nor be deceived The Dr has not yet done If no one thus he speak's will say that à Proposition cannot be deceived it is absur'd to say that it is Infallibly true A Proposition deceived good Dr. Propositions are not if I understand English properly said to be deceived but the Proponent that makes them when fals is deceived neither doe we say in Schools Propositio fallitur but est fallax aut falsa Proponens fallitur But let this pass The Dr's meaning may be à homely spun thing and import this sense If every one will say that à Proposition may be false it is absurd to say it is infallibly true No hurt in this no more harme can I discover in those other flat Propositions which follow P. 82. viz. That the impossibility of being deceived doth in truth belong only to an Infinitly perfect understanding for what ever understanding is imperfect is of it selfe lyable to errour and mistake 2. Yet an understanding lyable to be deceived may not be deceived and be sure it is not 3. The assurance of not being deceived is from Gods revealing any thing to men for we know it is impossible that God should ' be deceived or goe about To deceive man kind in what he obliges The Drs Propositions to no purpose in this place them to believe as true 4. It is granted that what ever person speak's from God he cannot be deceived in it but men may be deceived in thinking they speak from God when they doe not These I call loose and dull Propositions fit to fill paper for to what other end they serve in this place standing as they doe alone and unconnected with the main Business now in hand no man I think can tell me Had the Dr come to the point as he might have done well on this occasion and proved closely by positive Arguments that the Roman Catholick Church dispersed the whole world over is fallible or that we are deceived in thinking God speak's infallibly by this Oracle when he doth not his propositions had been to the purpose But both here and all along he waves these express positive proofs which should make directly against us and only skirmishes with some few Arguments of Catholicks God knowes most weakly whereby they endeavour to evince the Churches Infallibility Besides such faint attempts with flurts here and there at Popes and Councils you have nothing as shall appear hereafter 16 The ensuing talk in the Dr's three next Pages may be briefly reduced to three or four Assertions Having told us that particular persons may be deceived in believing those inspired who are not he saith nothing can be sufficient to prevent His errour concerning private Inspiration discovered this but Divine Revelation to every particular person that God hath appointed infallible Guides in the Church to assure men he had at first setled his Church by persons that were infallible What can the Dr mean Will he say that God whispered every Primitive Christian in the ear and declared by private Revelation when the Apostles preached that they were his Infallible Oracles Or supposing that the Roman Catholick Church be infallible must God therefore communicate that secret by private Revelation to those many millions who have been and yet are professed members of it What proof hath the Dr for this unmaintainable Assertion In à word thus much we have by express Revelation That the Church is the pillar and ground of truth That he who hear's the Church hear's Christ That Pastors and Doctors will ever liâ— in this great body and preserve it from the circumvention of errours and these Revelations with many others of the like nature in Holy writ are taught by the Church for this end that every particular person after à due application made may submissively yeild à most firm assent to them This Assent proceeding from Divine grace we call Supernatural Faith and hold it infallible Now if the Dr will call these Verities recorded in Scripture
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
those obscure Terms What are Necessaries to Salvation he only mean that none can tell How many Necessaries are he speak's à truth in his own Principles but nothing to the present purpose for here we only enquire whether the Guides of God's Church are not impowred to deliver infallibly so much as one particular Necessary which they believe infallibly No saith the Dr because Scripture is so clear in Necessaries that no man who sincerely desires to know them shall be deceived I answer first Were it ten times clearer the perspicuity hinder's not these Guides from declaring infallibly what Scripture speaks infallibly The most that can be inferred from hence were all true as its false is that the Churches Guides need not to declare any thing but that their declaration therefore ceases to be infallible shall never be probably made out 1 Answer 2. The Dr grosly mistakes for most evident experience teaches that thousands and thousands called Christians are deceived who sincerely desire to know what is Necessary to Salvation Is it not manifest as I said above that the Arians Pelagians c. Or the Dr with his Partizans run on in à false beliefe of Necessaries This matter of fact supposed the Question proposed above return's again VVhat means hath Christ left whereby all may certainly know the deluded or erring Party And this proves the Scripture obscure or not perspicuous in all Necessaries unlesse the Dr infuses à clarity into it which no mans eyes ever yet saw but his own and à few Sectaries with him The next pretty whimsy is that he knowes no reason for useing the Term Infallibility yet i' ft be applyed to Infallible Believers of Necessaries he asserts it in that sence Is not this right as it should be He has no reason for useing the Term but great reason to use the thing signified by the term Let this passe the worst is yet to come 7 The Guides of the Church saith he P. 141. Supposing the same sincerity shall enioy the same Priviledge with Rusticks That is they may believe Infallibly as Rusticks doe yet none can Teach Infallibly First this Answers not my difficulty above when I ask'd if these Guides and the Illiterate under their charge ponder Scripture and use all sincere endeavour to understand its meaning yet mainly differ in the beliefe of Necessaries what remedy in such à case Is not our Dr obliged to propose some fair easy means whereby these Guides and people may be united in one faith or at least to tell us on which party whether Pastors or People the blame lies to the end all may avoid them Scripture most evidently makes not the blamable known nor unit's all in one Faith An infallible Church is rejected the discerning Faculty of dissenting men run's as we se contrary wayes Therefore all may believe as they Judge whether true or false or suspend their beliefe untill Dr Still laies down à better rule To that other part I say the Guides of the Church can teach infallibly the Necessaries they believe and I still insist upon Necessaries only The reason is given already To believe the Infallible Truth of à Divine Revelation expressing à Necessary is absolutely necessary to Salvation but this neither Scripture it selfe nor the discerning faculty of any fallible man can declare or make known therefore the Guides of The reason why the Guides of the Church teach infallibly the Church impowred by Christ to instruct qui vos audit me audit are to declare the Truth the Infallible truth and sence of every Revelation relating to Necessaries Now further If this declaration be so fallible that it may be false neither Jewes nor Gentils nor Christians yet seeking after these main truths can come to any acquiescency For what have they to lean upon in the least degree Satisfactory While fallible men agitate the cause fallible Discourses carry it on and fallible Principles are the only support of all that is or can be controverted Please to se this Argument further enlarged Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 16. n. â—8 whereunto our good Dr return's no Answer 8 Next vouchsafe to cast an eye vpon his 147 page and consider how lamely he handles à matter of greatest importance VVe are Saith Dr Still far from denying all reasonable and just Authority to be given to the Guides of the Church Very general talk Perhaps that Authority must be only reasonable which he judges reasonable But of what Church doth the Gentleman speak here The Arians and Protestants have their dissenting Churches will you have the Arians follow their Guides and the Protestants theirs Herein he resolves nothing but sometimes remit's us to the Primitive Church which breeds endless disputes because we yet agree not what that Church taught nor shall ever learn but by the voice and Tradition of the present Catholick Church Have yet patience to hear the Dr. VVe say that their Authority that is of the Guides of some Church but God only knowes which it is not being absolute is confined to some known rule O this Rule would doe us noble service but the mischiefe is our shuffling Dr clap's it under lock and key like à lewel worth hiding You have it by the name of some known Rule though no body yet knowes what it is or where to find it He cannot in this place mean Scripture for its sence is most unknown and the bare letter as we have seen causes open hostility no lesse between the Guides of the Church and refractory subjects than The Drs general talk of unknown rules enlightens none amongst the Guides of two dissenting Churches In à word If Dr Still shall please to lay down à plain certain rule whereby all dissenting Christians may be brought to one true Faith even in Necessaries he will deserve immortal renown and do more then all the Hereticks since Christs time have done But to perform this his intrigues concerning Some Rule and no man knowes what Rule can never doe his business whereof more presently Now listen well to the end of his Discourse VVhere there is à rule for them he mean's the Guides of the Church to proceed by there is à rule for others to judge of their proceedings and consequently men must exercise their judgements about the matters they the Guides determin whether they be agreable to that rule or not 9 Still we are put off with general words One rule it seem's is allowed the Guides of the Church to proceed by an other if the Layity dissent to judge of their Guides proceedings Yet no man must know in particular what these Rules are Is not all this tattle something and nothing empty stuff without substance But say on What if these two Imagined Rules breed everlasting jarrs between the Guides and the Guided who is to yeild and to whom Or rather we ask what means hath Christ appointed to end these differences by If he say no dissentions can arise either about Necessaries or any other
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
this fundamental Mystery for ought any man living can know may be à Lye 3. That all Christ's Doctrin as it is now believed by Faith may be both fallible and false 4. That God obliges the whole Christian world to believe that as an infallible truth which really may be à falshood Lastly that all the glorious Martyrs in forgoing Ages were bound to maintain that with the losse of their lives to be à truth which only apparently was so and might in reallity be no truth If the Dr subscrib's to these consequences he has not one drachm of true Faith in his heart Now one word more with the Dr 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 How necessary it is to distinguish between the Credibility of à Mystery and the infallible believing it true Obiections answered Other difficulties proposed 1 Dr Still in his Account Part. 1. c. 7. P. 207. Speak's thus Moral certainty yeilds sufficient assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true and he proves the Assertion because moral certainty may evidently shew us the Credibility of Christian Religion and that from the credibility of it the infallible truth of it may be proved will appear by these two things 1. That where there is evident Credibility in the matter propounded there doth arise upon men an obligation to believe And that is proved ...... from What the Dr teaches Gods intention in giving such Motives which was to perswade them to believe as appears by multitudes of places of Scripture and withall though the meer credibility of the Motives might at first suppose some doubts concerning the Infallibility of the Doctrin yet it is not consistent with any doubt as to the obligation to believe because there can be no other reason assigned of those Motives of credibility than the induceing on men an obligation to Faith 2. That where there is such an obligation to believe we have the greatest assurance that the matter to be believed is infallibly true which depend's on this manifest proof that God cannot oblige men to believe à lye it being repugnant to all our conceptions of the veracity and Goodnes of God to Imagin that God should require of men on the pain of eternal damnation to believe something infallibly true which is really false Thus the Dr. Reflect courteous Reader Is it so that from the Credibility of Christian Religion the Infallible truth of it may be proved There is then no doubt at all but if it be Advantage given by the Dr's own Doctrin proved infallibly true it may be also believed as it is infallibly true Doth the Dr concede that from the Evident Credibility of Christian Doctrin there arises in all men an Obligation to believe it and that this obligation is not consistent with any doubt as to the obligation of believing it I wish no more from an Adversary having enough to make good all I say concerning the Infallibility of Divine Faith Doth he finally assert that where there is such an obligation we have the greatest assurance that the matter believed is infallibly true because God cannot require of men to believe that as infallibly true which is really false I wholly agree with him thus farr yet withall affirm that he plainly contradict's his own Doctrin For if when there is such an obligation to believe we have the greatest assurance that is infallible assurance or nothing that the matter believed is infallible true it is undisputably clear that Faith which has that greatest assurance goes far beyond the certainty of the Motives which is only moral and not so infallible certain as the very act of Faith is Hence it followes that the Dr contradict's himself in all he teaches concerning the moral certainty of Faith and must while he hold's Faith infallibly certain grant that as terminated upon the truth of à Revelation it rises higher and goes beyond the strength of the motives which only afford moral certainty and not greater But of this more presently 2 In the mean time I wish the Dr would make what he saies here to agree with some odd expressions in his precedent page 206. There we are told that certainty implies the taking away all suspicion of doubt but in moral things all suspicion of doubt is removed upon moral evidence and here he saith Though the meer Credibility of the Motives only morally certain might at first suppose some doubt concerning the Infallibility of the Doctrin yet it is not consistent with any doubt as to the obligation to believe I Say contrary if it may at first suppose some doubt it must ever suppose it for this moral certainty grounded on the Miracles internal to Scripture as the Dr teaches growes not less nor more perswasive in time but is alwaies the same and therefore cannot remove all doubt from a Believers mind 3 Hence I argue This moral certainty at first capable of doubt comes in time to be infallible certainty or still retain's some doubt In case it be improved and grow up to infallible certainty it yeilds not in certainty to the very act of Faith where unto it perswades and so the Dr's distinction between moral certainty and An Argument proposed his term's Infallibly true becomes frivolous Moral certainty saith he yeilds us sufficient assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true Say now that this moral certainty is still consistent with some suspicion of doubt it must either derive that doubt into the very act of Faith and make that doubtful or it ought to be granted that Faith rises higher and goes beyond the strength of that moral doubtful certainty contrary to the Dr's Principles I wish also he had explaind him self better in this other dark Proposition Moral certainty may be as great as Mathematical and Phisical supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their natures as in Mathematical and Phisical as to theirs These words Supposing as little reason to doubt spoil all he saies for if moral certainty ever supposes some suspicion of doubt how can that be as great as Mathematical or Physical which supposes none But enough of this jangling 4 We now come to the main point and shall endeavour to shew that although the Motives were only Morally certain and not as I hold infallibly connected with Divine Revelation yet the act of Faith it self is infallibly certain and consequently rises above that weaker light of the Motives This I say to vindicate the absolute infallibility of Faith from all iust exceptions while Divines vary about the connexion of the Motives with the Divine Revelation 5 The proof of my Assertion stands firm upon two Principles laid down Prot. without Prin. Disc 1. C. 5. n. 6. 7. And Reas and Relig. Disc 3. C. 8. n. 16. In the first place I say and it s à Maxim known by the
reason hereof is already given If an earthly King can oblige his subjects to obey à law as truly his made evidently Credible as is now declared much more can the King of Kings lay that obligation upon all when his Revelation is made evidently Credible by Signs surpassing the power of nature Again Evident Credibility founded on rational Motives perswad 's and oblig's men to believe some thing as the Dr grant's I ask what They need not to perswade to à belief of themselves because their Evidence is seen before assent be given to the Revelation and therefore both perswade and oblige all to believe the Infallible Truth of the Revelation though not evidently seen 11 I Argue 3. and this reason convinces The blessed Apostles firmly believed Christ our Lord to be truly God à Redeemer and the long expected Messias and rested not in this judgement alone It is only evidently Credible that Christ is God or the true Messias and How the blessed Apostles believed consequently their Faith went above the force of all the Motives laid open to their eyes and senses 12 I prove the consequence manifestly Consider that great Miracle of raysing Lazarus from his grave meerly as seen or known by sense and preceded Faith none can say that that wonder the like is of all other Miracles evidently proved Christ to be God or the true Messias For God might have wrought that Miracle for some other end than to assure any of Christ's Divinity Nay he might have impowred an Angel or à man not priviledged with the Hypostatical union to call one dead to life again as the Prophet Elias did Kings 3. 17. 21. Yea and to do all the Miracles which Christ wrought What followes therefore from the sight of these Miracles Thus much only and no more that as that poor widow of Seraptia truly judged Elias after his giving life to her Son to be à man sent from God and that all be spake was true so the Apostles might rationally have concluded that our Saviours Miracles were indeed from à Power above the force of What force Miracles as seen have nature but that He was thereby evidently proved God appeared no evident infallible verity deduced from his wonders Yet those blessed men and the Primitive Christians firmly believed all these Truths by Infallible Faith and therefore as I said now went above the certainty of the Motives which as seen afforded no such infallible certainty 13 Some may say If all those glorious Miracles wrought by our Saviour neither gave evidence of his being God nor solely taken ultimately determined any to believe his Divinity or so much as one Revealed verity How came the Apostles and all Orthodox Christians with them to raise their Faith so high as to believe infallibly Christs sacred Doctrin I answer Three things chiefly brought their Faith to Three things necessary for faith this perfection Prodigious works or Miracles as seen perswaded much Our Saviours sacred words as heard by those he taught added more strength and finally the pious affection of the Will in every Believer that saw these works and heard his words when drawn on and encouraged by Christ's Command to elicite Faith passed through all difficulties to the Contrary and moved the understanding to believe infallibly the truth of what ever that great Master did speak 14 Shall I yet touch upon these particulars more plainly All know that the greatest Miracles which were ever done without words or Doctrin delivered by him that wrought them make not our Christian Verities known for had Christ appeared in the world and given life to twenty dead men and all that time never spoken word of his Doctrin none could have apprehended what to believe of our Christian Mysteries Those therefore who saw his Miracles might well have thought him some extraordinary person sent from God because are further explicated Divels cannot restore life to the dead but could never know by those wonders what he judged of Divine matters before they heard him speak 2. Words alone without miraculous works induce none to believe wherefore had Christ come amongst us and only told us he was God and the true Messias and wrought no Miracles shewed no sanctity or austerity of life neither Iewes nor Gentils nor indeed any could in prudence have believed him Hereof se more in my notes upon Pooles Appendix n. 21. and learn withall that Christ's admirable works and sacred words ioyntly taken highly conduce to beget Divine Faith in all I say Ioyntly taken whereof we have an Instance in that glorious Transfiguration upon Mount Thabor The Disciples there present saw our Saviours sacred face shine like the sun and his garments white as snow Yet that vision alone no way apt by it selfe to perswade any of his being the Son of God might have left the Apostles in suspence concerning that Mystery 2. They heard à voice as S. Peter speak's z. Epist 1. 17. from the magnificent Glory This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased That voice added to the vision gave more strength 3. An express command Close ensued upon that Vision and voice Ipsum audite Be sure to hear my beloved Son Here all further delay ceased and à strict obligation was layd on them to raise their Faith above all they saw or heard as also most firmly to believe the truth of what ever Christ our Lord spake 15 Upon this one Instance all I would say is grounded Ask therefore why I by Faith goe above all the Signs and Miracles which Christ or his Church The effiâ—acy of God's Command in order to Faith shewes me or why I infallibly believe the truth of every Revelation proposed I answer the reason is because God who hath right to oblige when he intimat's his will by clear Signs prodigious works and words command's me to do so and I am as much bound to obey him upon such summons as if the truth of the Revelation were made evident to me Here you must either deny that God can lay such à command upon men which is evidently false for à temporal Prince as is now proved can do it or grant that I am obliged to obey his Command and therefore can ascend with my Faith above the strength of all Motives and believe the Truth of his Revelation infallibly Otherwise you must say God command's me to do what I cannot do just as if he should bid me fly through the Air when I have neither power nor wrings to fly with 16 Now mark I beseech you All our Adversaries Arguments either tend to prove that God cannot lay that obligation upon us when he gives such Motives as perswade to believe which yet saith Dr Still appeares by multitudes of places of Scripture or evince that nothing can bring men to believe the Truth of à Revelation but the evidence of it or à clear sight of that Truth we assent to by Faith which is manifestly false Reflect once more upon
and other Motives and layd open to the understanding of primitive Believers who saw Christs wonders the Will thereby enlightned could easily with her pious affection move the Intellectual power to elicit à most firm assent of Faith because God speak's or command's Beliefe which assent if ultimately resolved we shall find securely fixed both upon the Truth of the Revelation as also upon the real Truth of the Motives also joyntly believed And thus the Motives which were only inducements to Believers solely considered that is as they constituted à Revelation and themselves evidently credible can under the notion of Truths conjoyned with the Divine Revelation terminate à certain and infallible assent of Faith 27 Perhaps some half Scholars in speculative learning will esteem all now said confused stuff and very likely as Halfe Scholars talk not valved the Dr expresses himself P. 427 desire the Reader to try his faculty upon it whether it be intelligible No great matter for that say I. Let Smatterers talke I appeal to the judgement of such as have been long versed in Schools and hope to enlighten the unlearned by this one clear Instance 28 Had Christ our Lord after his raysing Lazarus from the dead said only thus much to the then present Spectators You have seen this one great wonder my Disciples and others have been Eye-witnesses of many more An Instance gives light to my Assention wrought by me I speak now to you in the words which my Evangelist shall hereafter register in the Gospel Iohn 10. 25. The works that I do in my Fathers name they give Testimony of me and withall declare that I am truly God and the Messias sent into the world Believe me induced to assent by the works you and others have seen and moreover believe that these seen wonders are not counterfeited but true Miraculous works In this case it is clear that the same Miracles first known by sense or as they apply'd the Divine Revelation to the Believers understanding made themselves together with the Revelation no more but evidently credible and therefore forced none to believe but left that free yet they imposed an obligation upon all rational men of believing the real truth of these Miracles and the Truth of the Revelation whereof neither those primitive Christians nor we ever yet had any Evidence This is to say in plainer terms and mark well the distinction Miracles and all other exteriour Motives as seen or known move to à beliefe of themselves under the notion of Truths though not evidently seen or known as Truths but believed so 29 The whole discourse in this Chapter goes upon à supposition that the Motives of credibility are not essentially connected with the Divine Revelation though if that essential connexion be admitted which is true Doctrin and much avail's to raise Faith above the strength of all exteriour Motives An act of Faith terminated upon the Revelation and the truth of the Motives more certain than humane knowledge yet the act of Faith terminated upon the Revelation and the Truth of the Motives far surpasses in certainty the knowledge which any in this life can have of that connexion for the knowledge of that Connexion is only got by natural discourse whereas the assent of Faith it self rest's upon the most supream Verity I mean God speaking to the world And thus in all opinions the certainty of Faith is defensible As à rational assent Faith depend's upon the Motives of Credibility because God speak's by such Signs As purely Divine it rest's upon the Divine Revelation applyed by rational Motives whereunto I add the lumen fidei which represent's the Truth of the Motives and the Revelation more clearly and immediatly then any natural discourse can do and upon that account much conduces to the Infallible certainty of Faith as is largely declared Reas. and Relig Disc 3. c. 9. n. 6 The last certainty comes from the pious affection of the will as is already declared Having said thus much I desire Dr Still to weaken any one of these Principles upon Good Authority or solid reason CHAP. VII Reflections made upon the Doctors following Discourse Of his Mistakes concerning the Churches Testimony and the obscurity of Faith 1 I Am forced courteous Reader to passe by many impertinent excursions of the Dr his ill language also with other lesser faults for fear of making this Treatise too bulky which may displease him neither do I need to enlarge my self much upon his obiections from P. 365. to P. 400. For they are all solved in my two former Treatises Some few particulars I shall add more to satisfy others in this speculative matter of our Analysis than to answer the Dr who in very deed hath his full Answer already 2 In the. P. now cited he complain's of my shuffling because he hear's no more of the Churches infallible Testimony whereby men believe the Scripture to be the word of God I stand astonish't at this clamorous Adversary Where were his Eyes where was his attention if ever he read my Treatises The very chief aime whereof is to shew not only to Christians but to Iewes and Gentils also that the first known ground of true Religion is à Church manifested by Supernatural Motives proceeding from an infinit power and wisdom This Church I have amply proved to be God's own assured Oracle The Primum credible or first believed Teacher in this present state and that God speak's as immediatly and infallibly by it now as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle As therefore those whom the blessed Apostles taught having seen the Apostolical Signs immediatly believed upon their word So with as great reason may we having penetrated the Churches glorious Marks assent immediatly upon Her word and believe all She obliges Christians to believe But to have assurance of the Scriptures Divine inspiration as likewise of its true infallible sence are believed Articles grounded upon the Churches Infallible Testimony or rather upon God speaking by this Oracle and here we must rest or can believe Nothing The Churches Testimony God's own Testimony I must therefore once more blame the Doctor who forsooth thinks the Faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed ought to have such à Divine Testimony and so à process in Infinitum or à Circle will unavoydably follow Such à Divine Testimony Mr Dr you understand not what I teach I say expresly that the Churches Testimony is God's own Testimony as immediatly assented to upon Church Authority for he that hear's the Church hear's God as ever Doctrin was believed upon any Apostles word Thus much supposed and largely proved what need have we of another Testimony distinct from that of the Church Out of all I concluded that as there was neither vicious Circle nor process in Infinitum in those who terminated their faith upon S. Paul's preaching for example so there is neither the one nor other fault in me when I assent to this truth The Churches
Testimony is God's own Testimony and ground my faith upon it Se more of this subiect Reas. and Relig Disc 3. C. 6. n. 26. 3 We have another quarel P. 367. Where I am told if all the necessity of the Churches Proposition be no more then to convey the Divine Testimony to us and the Dr who cites my 3. Disc c. 4. n. 18. wishes me to take pains à little better in proving that Such à condition must have Infallibility belonging to it I answer Mr Dr misrelates my Doctrin for I speak not in that place of the Churches Proposition but of her Motives whereby the Divine Testimony whether God speak's by Scripture or the Church is applyed to us Let him therefore take the pains to cite more exactly or surcease to charge me with that I never taught From this very gross errour proceed's another Infallibility saith he is then only necessary when it is relied upon and is the ground of believing and not where it is à meer condition of understanding In real truth there is nothing here but à want of understanding in Mr Dr. Pray Courteous Reader peruse what I have Disc 3. C. 6. n. 18. 19. where I say the Churches Testimony is not à meer extrinsical condition disposing to believe upon the Divine Testimony in Scripture but a ioynt Motive with it which compleat's the ancient Revelation in order to the beliefe of our Christian Mysteries Therefore when I believe the Church to be infallible because S. Paul teaches She is the Pillar and ground of truth and believe it also because God speak's that very truth by the Church I no way separate the ancient Revelation from the Churches Testimony but by one Indivisible act of Faith be-lieve both at once Hereof I have given à clear Instance in the Chapter now cited n. 22. 23. And constantly find by experience that to evacuate the Dr ' s Arguments no more is necessary but only to point at what is noted in my former Treatises 4 P. 369. He first pretend's to tell us VVhat these Motives of Credibility are 2 How far they are necessary to Faith 3. VVhat influence they have vpon the assent of Faith Had he followed these particulars closely according to his own opinion he might well have given no little advantage against himself but in lieu of doing so he wisely start's aside and for two or three pages only relates what Suares Cardinal Lugo and other great Divines say of these Motives and though all of them speak much to my sence and in things material have nothing contrary to me Yet P. 375. He blames me because I must say that the proofs taken from these Motives do not perswade men to believe or which is all one have no Influence vpon the act of Faith Would to God this Dr would either not write evident untruths or consider better what he writes Pray you reflect Do not I say Protest without Princ. Disc 1. c. 5. n. 11. That the Motives to Faith manifestly point out that true Society of Christians wherein Gods Verities are taught and make it discernable from all heretical Communities Do not I say n. 12. That if Gods goodness could permit these Motives like false Charms to delude the world all might with just reason exclaim as Rich. de S. Vict once did If we believe an errour it is you o God who have deceived us Do not I say n. 14. That without Motives never any since Christianity began rightly believed in Christ our Lord in Apostle or Church Have I not Reas. and Relig. Disc 2 through two whole Chapters laid down the Efficacy of these Motives and shewed what influence they have upon Reason and Faith also Have I not proved them c. 7. n. 3. 4. to be God's own Language or publick way of speaking The Dri unjust Cavils to the world And. c. 16. n. 30. plainly assert that to separate the lustre of Motives from Christ and his Church implies à subversion of Christian Religion And yet with me saith our worthy Dr they perswade not to believe nor have influence upon the act of Faith though I say Faith never was or can be without them 5 But from whence comes this gross mistake of the Dr Marry from hence because I say that the act of Faith as Faith wholly relies upon other Principles Good Mr Dr cannot you conceive how one indivisible act where in there are no separable parts wholly relies or depend's upon several Principles though with à different respect Take One act of Faith Necessarily depend's upon several Principles for example à Conclusion deduced out of well ordered Premises as à vital operation it wholly depend's upon the intellectual faculty that produces it As à thing in being it wholly depends upon Gods general concurse which gives existence to every creature yet as à Conclusion it wholly relies on the Premises The whole influence of one of these different Principles abates nothing but is well consistent with the whole influence of their other associated causes Iust thus it is in an act of Faith As vital it wholly depend's on the Intellectual power as supernatural wholly on the infused habit or something equivalent For its Being it depend's on Gods universal concurse whereby every thing exist's but as à rational operation it wholly depend's on the Motives inducing to Faith not that the motives considered meerly as inducements concurr by way of efficiency to that act any more then premises to à conclusion but because the judgement of Credibility which actually inform's the mind in the very instant à Believer first elicit's Faith illuminates his intellectual power and manifestly shew's what he is ready to believe is evidently Credible or worthy à most certain assent because God speak's by his own Oracle O! but the act of Faith precisely fix't upon the Divine Revelation reasons not and consequently saith our Dr seem's unreasonable or hath no ground to rely on 6 This difficulty I have both proposed in express terms and solved Reas. Relig Disc 3. C. 16. n. 25. and say there an act of Faith may be considered two wayes First as it is à prudent reasonable submission to what ever God reveals 2. as terminated upon the Revelation proposed by the Church or any other infallible Oracle Under the first notion of à prudent submission it either necessarily implies or presupposes the rational prudent judgment of credibility set fast on such Motives as converted the world which judgement rightly denominat's Faith à reasonable Obsequiousness But again consider the act in it self I mean as it precisely tend's upon the Revelation and à Mystery not evidently seen it where an Act of Faith reasons not cannot reason at all nor more prove or Scientifically know its obiect as it rest's there than Science as science believe Thus I then answered and though the Doctor hitherto never took the least notice of my reply yet we shall find him hereafter when his rational Evidence of Christian Religion comes
my own body risen from the dead You have none Therefore rely boldly on your senses and reason also and judge me to be the same Individual Saviour I was before For there is no Principle natural or revealed which contradict's this belief or that enjoynes you to deny your Senses either in this or any other sensible obiect But for the change of bread into my body you have my express words the world hereafter will profess that truth all over Christianity my Church shall maintain it the best Christians upon earth believe it Innumerable Martyrs shall dy for it undeniable Miracles confirm it and the most learned Doctors that ever lived shall leave this my Doctrin upon Record to the utter confusion of all Hereticks The Dr may demand upon what ground can I imagin that our Saviour would have argued thus against his Disciples I answer my ground is incomparably more sure than any the Dr can give or endeavour to perswade by that the Apostles were ever so sottish as to have thought of his ridiculous Obiection For all I say here are Truths owned over Christendom and worthy to be spoken by out Saviour but his Obiection never wise or Orthodox man seriously proposed before himself 6 What followes in the Dr is no more but one Tautologie after another The Dr's Tautologies Or the same thing already casheired said too often over When saith he the assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of the Senses of those who were Eye-witnesses of the Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ if the Senses of men may be so grosly deceived in the proper obiects of them in the case of Transubstantiation what assurance could they have who were Eye-witnesses of them A long period with many falsities to no purpose I have answered to what here import's that though our senses be deceived in the case of Transubstantiation which is not true yet we have as much certainty in every other thing we se or and weak way of arguing feel as the Dr hath when he sees or feels the pulpit he preaches in Vnless this Sequel be allowed of My eyes are once deceived if yet so ergo they must alwaies be deceived Or à Iugler can make me se what is not ergo I never se what is Again saith he The Drs repeated Obiections Take away the certainty of the judgement of sense you destroy all certainty in Religion I have answered We neither take away the Obiect of sense nor like well his miscalled judgement of sense for sense hath still its own proper obiect though were it otherwise in this Mystery his Inference of all certainty destroyed has no Sence in it 3. Saith the Dr. I must by virtue of your Churches Infallibility believe something to be true which if it be true there can be no certainty at all of the truth of Christian Religion This is only the some thing needlesly repeated already answered And so is that which some others do obiect If the sense of seing be deceived so likewise may the sense of hearing and consequently none can have assurance of what either Christ spake or the Church teaches Who can read this stuff with patience Yet it is gravely set forth in Sermons as most weighty and convincing and which is worse thought worthy to appear in Print 7 The Solution of all in à word is Our senses in this Mystery are not deceived nor so much beguiled as the eye is when we se à straight stick crooked in the water for here the Medium makes that to appear crooked which is not there in the Eucharist the immediate obiect of sense is seen as before without the least Illusion Yet grant which is not true à deception here it is à folly above expression to infer that our senses are beguiled in every other obiect set before our eyes clearly solved and this the Dr must prove or he evinces nothing Thus much noted I challenge and charge the Dr to discover in his next Answer any thing like à fallacy in my whole Discourse But when will this be done think ye Then I say and not sooner when the Dr makes this Consequence good If Christ changed bread retaining the outward semblance of bread into his own body we may prudently judge that he also changed those stones the Divel shew'd him Matt 4. into good bakers bread though outwardly they still appeared stones The first change is grounded upon as great Authority as any Mystery of Faith is none excepted For the second we have nothing but fancy only Now if after all I have said the Dr as his usual If the Dr tell his old stories over again he will be called à Bungler custome hath been silently passes by my reasons hitherto alledged and only tells his old stories over again of our senses being deceived c. I shall retort his own words upon him and conclude that his School find's no answer to my Arguments 8 Another grand errour of this Dr is that he attributes more to the Evidence of sense in order to its proper obiect à visible Miracle for example than can be allowed The Sense of seing take this for an Instance the like is of feeling hearing c is only terminated upon the outward appearance of things and as it penetrat's not the substance of the bread so neither see 's it the inward life or motion of the Soul in à mortal body Whence it followes though we grant that Sense is never beguiled as to its proper obiect yet it often gives occasion of deceipt in other matters wholly out of the reach of sense You shall se what I here hint at by one Instance Suppose the Dr saw the Divel that often transform's himself into an Angel of light doing his feates to delude the senses with à false Miracle or if he denies Divels he must grant that power to Antichrist who will shew many seeming wonders Suppose this be one that à man in outward appearance dead to all senses by Antichrists Charms stand's up again and moves as others do I ask how will the Dr who gives so much credit to his eyes and senses distinguish by Sense only between the true resuscitation of Iairus daughter Luke 8. 55. and this counter feit Miracle of Antichrist In his Principles he cannot difference them if guided by the Evidence of sense and all that reason Can discover by Sense only 9 Hence to take off the Dr ' s errour as to the Blessed Sacrament we discourse further He Iudges what he see 's in The Dr by virtue of his own Principle must own Antichrist's Miracles for true Miracles a consecrated Host to be truly bread because his eyes and senses tell him it is bread These the Dr thinks give in stronger Evidence for its being bread than any proof to the contrary can perswade that it is not bread Yeild this and the Dr yeilds all He is obliged to own this seeming Miracle of Antichrist for
what is supposed True be true it is true and we ought to assent to it Just as if one should say if Peter be à man of his word I may believe evidenced null and forceless him but as that conditional proves not Peter honest no more do these Assertions of the Dr being only conditional prove any thing true without à Minor to this sence But these things are so which Minor is wanting The Dr think 's he proves his Assertions upon these grounds That the writers of Scripture cannot be suspected of Ignorance having had long conversation with him they wrot of Their simplicity and candour in writing gives evidence they intended no deceipt with all the rest that followes I answer these are nothing like rational proofs but meer unproved Suppositions whereunto neither Iewes nor Gentils give credit I evince this demonstratively Put the book of holy Scripture into the hands of à Heathen Philosopher who never heard of Christ of the Church or of any other Motive for Christian Religion but only takes so much as the Dr here proposes and what the Scripture it selfe barely relates Would this Philosopher think ye after his pondering the Dr ' s Discourse and reading Scripture forthwith acquiesse and say all is true he reads He were worse then besotted did he so If prudent he would tell you he had joyntly perused with Scripture the Turks Alcaron and as he found strange wonders written of Christ in the one book so also he met with great matters recounted of Mahomet in the other for which the Turks pretend to have universal tradition but whether Scripture or the Alcaron speaks truth whether such men as the Dr mentions related exactly the Miracles of Christ and his true Doctrin with those Miracles the Philosopher knowes not nor shall ever know without à further proof taken from the testimony of some other Infallible Oracle which makes the truths in Scripture evidently credible and then proposes all as Divine and infallible Verities 14 The ultimate reason hereof is most convincing All matters contained in Scripture whether Miracles or The reason of their nullity said forth Doctrin are not ex terminis any Self evidence nor can they give by themselves so much as à great moral certainty of their Truth or Credibility Therefore they must be proved either true or evidently Credible by another Certain Oracle or can never draw belief from any I am sure S. Austin who discoursed more profoundly than the Dr ever did judged So when he told the Manichaes He would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it and upon this firm ground all must believe or believe nothing The Dr ' s whole discourse proves only this conditional truth that if the Primitive Christians had reason to believe the Doctrin of Christ upon the inducement of his Miracles they did well to believe but that such Miracles were wrought he shewes not save only by Scripture it selfe hitherto neither proved True nor Divine I say proved For no Christian doubt's of the truths there contained though all justly question whether the Dr makes them to appear Truths by à bare telling us of some Contents in that book which neither Jew nor Gentil nor indeed any can believe unless more be said than the Dr bring 's to light 15 In à word here lies the whole errour He makes the Christian Doctrin Wherein the Dr's errour lies couched in Scripture to prove it selfe and drawes his rational Evidence of Credibility from the Mysteries believed Observe well He believes the Resurrection of Christ from the dead for this is an Article of Faith can he I beseech you make the Resurrection it self as believed the rational Motive of believing it while after all his discourse we are yet to seek for à proof of that very Scriptures Truth and Divinity also whereby the Resurrection is attested 16 The Dr may reply his evidence is not taken from the Mysteries of Faith Apos◠reply 〈◊〉 seen and prevented and from our Saviours Miracles the like is of Apostolical wonders as they are believed but from the Humane consent of the Primitive Christians who either saw or heard of such matters of fact wrought by Christ and his Apostles which common consent passing among so many grave and pious men made them in those dayes evidently Credible and Morally certain though we abstract from all Divine Revelation in Scripture and the Churches Infallible Authority I answer first if the Dr run's this way his whole discourse fastidiously spun out against the Miracles of the Roman Catholick Church fall's to nothing for if the common humane consent of the ancient Christians Supposed neither Devine Revelation nor infallible raised The common consent of the ancient Christians and modern for Miracles parallel'd our Saviours Miracles to Moral certainty or evident Credibility Then why should not the like common humane Consent of Christians Now make the Miracles owned in the Roman Catholick Church morally certain or evidently credible And I speak of Miracles approved by the Church not of every forged tale or pretended false wonder which were not wanting in the Primitive times If therefore the Dr say that all since the Apostles dayes have been grosly deluded in recounting the Miracles wrought in the Catholick Church both Jewes and Gentils will shrewdly pester him and avouch as boldly that those Primitive Christians over Credulous what Iewes may obiect like papists in these dayes were no less beguiled in their crying up Apostolical Miracles What say you to this Mr Dr The parity taken from the primitive times and ours I shall urge more fully hereafter and tell the Dr he shall long sweat at it before he solves what I here object if which is ever to be noted we stand only upon à common humane consent of men called Christians and abstract from the Authority of an Infallible Church 17 I answer 2. The enquiry here made concern's not only the bare truth of these matters of fact recorded in Scripture but implies more for we ask how what is here chiefly enquired these matters of fact are rationally proved truths written by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost or how when supposed wrought sixteen Ages since they are now conveyed and applyed to us as Truths of so high à nature No common consent of Christians meerly humane and long since past can give Sufficient certainty hereof sufficient I say to ground Divine Faith Wherefore seing Scripture evidences not it's own truths nor any reflection made upon Scripture can clear these doubts an infallible living Oracle manifested by supernatural Signs must speak and tell us that these matters of fact were written not like other things in humane History which are lyable to errour but by the special direction and inspiration of the Holy Ghost 18 Hence we proceed to the second Question If saith the Dr I be asked why I The Dr's second question proposed believe the Doctrin contained in
those books to be Divine I answer 1. That in the Age when the Doctrin was delivered there was sufficient reason to believe it Divine He goes on Supposing then that we already believe upon the former answer that if Christ did such unparalleld Miracles and rose from the dead they who heard his Doctrin had reason to believe it to be of God He mean's Divine and revealed Doctrin for all Doctrin of God or from God is not in our Sence now Divine or revealed Doctrin Thus much said He asserts 2. If they the ancient Christians had reason then we have so now Viz. to believe upon our Saviours unparalleld Miracles From these matters of fact and Apostolical wonders the Dr takes his rational Evidence and conveigh's it to us by Tradition our exceptions made against his evidence which supplies the want of our Senses as to what Christ did and spake I shall presently insist more largely n. 26. upon his Tradition Here I am to show that his Evidence in order to Christians now living is nothing like rational Evidence if and this he requires we exclude the Testimony of an Infallible Church 19 To propose plainly what I would say and to give the Dr the fairest play imaginable I gratis admit all the Miracles and matters of fact recorded in the Gospel to be most true though hitherto not proved true by the Dr but then ask what use will he make of them He may answer he proves by these Miracles the Doctrin of Christ to be true Admit this also I demand further and here lies the main business that concern's us at present whether the Doctor can assure any by virtue of where the main difficulty is those Miracles who at this day among so many dissenting Christians in points of Faith most fundamental believe and profess Christ's true Doctrin For his rational Evidence if it deserve the Title of rational must drive hither at last or its worth nothing to Christians now living that is he must shew by these long since wrought Miracles whether Arians Pelagians Protestants or Catholicks have à right beliefe of Christs Doctrin for most certainly all of them believe not the true Doctrin delivered by Christ I say it is impossible to make this out unless the strangest Consequence that ever man heard of be good and it 's thus Christ rose from the dead He commanded the sea and winds and they obeyed his voice He gave life to dead Lazarus c. Ergo the Arians for example profess Christ's true Doctrin and Protestants not Or Contrarywise Protestants believe right and the Arians are in a wrong Faith Unless this Inference which is worse than Non-sence pass current the Doctors pretended rational Evidence taken from those ancient matters of fact is the most fruitless and most discomfortable Evidence that ever wise man pitch't upon whereof more presently n. 27. Note in the mean while he may perhaps and no more but perhaps tell us by his the Dr's rational Evidence demonstrated â—seless to Christians now living Evidence that Christs Doctrin in it selfe is true but shall never thereupon assure us who among so many Dissenters in Necessaries to Salvation believes or professes that true Doctrin He may tell us that horrid debates arise amongst the learned of different Religions but shall never tell us how they can be composed or ended by à bare owning the truth of Christ's Miracles which are carried up and down by à common humane consent of Christians though they have none to attest them Infallibly true in this present State 20 Please now to consider how differently we Catholicks proceed in this matter and satisfy both Jewes and Gentils We own all that Scripture contain's whether Miracles or Doctrin true and Divine To evince this we lead you not to à dead book or to matters of fact far off but to an ever living Oracle distinct from that book called the Holy Catholick Church which proves herselfe by her neerer visible matters of fact signal marks and undoubted Miracles as rationally à true Oracle whereby God speak's to the world as ever any Apostle did From this glorious signalized and long standing Church we take our rational Evidence and know if the Primitive Christians took theirs right from the Apostolical wonders we no way Inferiour keep parallel with them while we rationally rely upon our clear manifested Oracle Moreover we prove that this Church which hath power from God to teach and engages her whole Authority to teach Truth shewes herselfe by real Signs and Miraculous effects the greatest Oracle now under God appointed to instruct the world It is She if Controversies arise concerning Faith that composes all She assures us that the verities in Scripture written by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost are Divine She applies and conveigh's these ancient truths to us She tells us now How differently we proceed from the Dr in our rational Evidence and Infallibly what Christ's Doctrin long since made evidently Credible by his own most glorious Miracles is She finally ascertain's every one without doubt and hesitancy who they are that profess this revealed Doctrin And thus relying upon à rational evidenced Church we Shew our selves rational men and void of fear set our hearts at rest while the Dr by à bare relation of our Saviours Miracles now remote from us proves not one of these particulars but will forsooth evince the Doctrin in Scripture to be Divine upon à meer unproved Supposition that such matters of fact once were which yet cannot be evinced true sufficient as I said to ground Faith much less Divine without the Churches Testimony whereby full assurance is given to all in this present State that both Doctrin and Miracles are true and Divine 21 The Dr therefore should in the first place have proved the Divinity of Christ's Doctrin and from thence he might have inferred it's Truth but to evince it Divine to Christians now upon what the Dr should aimâ— at but perform's not à meer unproved Supposition Viz. That such matters of fact are true is a break-neck to his Discourse and an unaproachable way of ever comming to the Conclusion he intend's because his aime must be or he doth nothing to show by his Evidence what Society of Christians now living believes and professes the true Doctrin of Christ or how Chrst's true Society may be made discernable by those ancient Miracles from others that teach damnable Doctrin Herein he fail's and shall fail while an Infallible Church is rejected 22 These Considerations clearly laid down no less clearly evince the Dr ' s resolution of Faith to be frivolous and his rational Evidence unreasonable for tell me not by his Evidence what Society of Christians are now right in Faith prove me not that Scripture was written by Divine assistance Shew me not that the truths related there are Truths revealed by Almighty God the whole Doctrin of that book and all the Miracles in it signify nothing 23
made flesh This is my body c. But how is any man wiser for that How is our knowledge or faith improved by such à maimed or half perfect Tradition While no man can certainly tell us what the true meaning of those sacred words is No man can determine the debates which arise among Christians the Arians and you that draw plain Contradictions out of these words now cited Such à conveyance or tradition as could end these long strifes would be to your purpose and comfort Mr Dr but you have none of it because you slight the Tradition and Authority of an Infallible Church Though therefore you tell us twenty times over you believe all truths expressed in Scripture yet while you cannot assure us upon tradition or any other sound Principle what those necessary truths are which Faith in necessaries is determinately to pitch upon you only trifle away your time and cheat your Reader in seeming to discover great How the Dr Cheat's his Reader matters whereas in real truth you speak not one word to the purpose If to solve the difficulty here briefly touched you run up to your own discerning faculty permit the Arian to keep you company and blame him not if he trust to his discerning faculty quite contrary to yours Se more hereof above Chap. 4. n. 10. Thus much premised 27 To answer the Dr I say first Fallible Tradition which may be false Our Answer to the Dr. the Dr own 's none Infallible gives not so great certainty of Miracles Supposed true in Scripture as Eye-sight did to those who beheld them The reason is Fallible Tradition in the Dr ' s Principles easily alters in time and may tell one Story for another whereof more presently If therefore that Tradition conveyed by hearing altered as I shall shew most shamefully and if fallible no wonder at the change what certainty have Fallible tradition worth little in Divine matters we now in this present Age either of the Miracles or of the Doctrin recorded in Scripture by virtue of it Or how can the Dr parallel the certainty of à Miracle conveyed down by fallible Tradition with the sight of it This must needs be à lame Parallel For when I se à Miracle I need not to prove the outward appearance of it evidently seen but when that appearance passes down Age after Age upon Hearsay or à faultering Tradition which may change the Story from what it once was I must either prove that Tradition true or cannot prudently rely on it chiefly in this present case while we dispute against Iewes and Gentils who utterly deny those Miracles to have ever been truly wrought by Christ The ancient Jewes all know said Christ cast out Divels by the help of Beelzebub and these modern men of the Synagogue calumniate as boldly to this day 28 I say 2. Those ancient Miracles if saith à Jew ever any such were together with the Doctrin which is thought to be proved either true or evidently credible by such wonders can be no more certain now than the fallible Tradition is which conveighs them to us But this Tradition gives no man so much as moral certainty either of the Miracles or Doctrin I prove the Minor That The reason why worthless in the Dr's Principles ancient Tradition say Sectaries notoriously changed not long after the Apostles dayes when à universal deluge of errours spread it selfe the whole Christian world over and the efficacy of Christs true Doctrin together with its old Tradition was blotted out of mens memory when the Roman Catholick The Dr charges this Idolatry upon the Roman Church Church once confessedly Orthodox unluckily began Her universal Apostacy and professed open Idolatry when the Arians denyed the Mystery of the Incarnation and Trinity Others the two VVills in Christ others his Sacred Humanity others the Resurrection of the dead others the necessity of Divine Grace and others finally professed yet more horrid Doctrins In so much that the whole Christian word part of it one way part another erred most grosly in the very fundamentals of Faith In those dismal dayes say I when all Christian Societies nameable and the Roman Church with them became so infatuated as to change the first received truths taught by Christ and his Apostles the ancient true Tradition could not but change and faile also therefore at this day Tradition is worthless and unualvable because no man can know upon any sure Principle what it anciently was 29 The Dr may reply All called Christians own the Bible and the Miracles there related of Christ and his Apostles which are sufficient to prove Christs Doctrin true so far at least Tradition never failed Small Comfort God knowes to have Tradition of the Scriptures bare letter which yet is not had in our Sectaries Principles Se Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 6. n. 2. If the Christian world long since cheated out of their ancient Faith bequeathed to posterity à false Doctrin in Lieu of that which The Arians and all hereticks lay as great claime to Christs Miracles as the Dr or any other doth Christ and his Apostles taught and with that à false Tradition also Moreover were those Miracles with their Tradition proved most true the Arians will as well lay claim to them for à proof their Doctrin as the Dr can do for that Religion he professes and the like may all others pretend if called Christians though of à quite different belief in the very Essentials of Faith unless this consequence utterly false be good Christ our Lord wrought such and such Miracles Ergo Protestancy is à better Religion then Arianism Pelagianism is better then Nestorianism and so of the rest The Dr therefore must either make this out that Christ and his Apostles wrought their Miracles to confirm all the erroneous Sects in the world or he speaks nothing to the purpose when he tells us in his Account What the Dr is obliged to clear P. 205. That the Motives of Faith both to them the ancient Christians and to us are the same only the manner of conveyance is different those Primitive Believers Saw them we hear of them by Tradition In saying this he either thinks that such Motives prove the truth of all Religions called Christian which is horridly false or only prove the true Christian Religion among so many dissenting Sects Grant this and we are in as much darkness after the supposed Truth of these Miracles and the Dr ' s long discourse as we were before and can never know by his Motives only which is the true Religion I earnestly desire the Dr would please to solve this one difficulty which I judge cannot be Solved 30 By all hitherto clearly laid down we se 1. The Dr ' s rational Evidence so much talked of brought to nothing but empty words for his whole proofs are meer unproved Suppositions He endeavours to evince by Miracles internal to Scripture the Divinity of the book which
from the Antecedent of mans being intellectual Should I prove that Consequence upon other grounds either by Authority or manifest experience because we se men freely eschew Evil and embrace Good should I from thence inferr that he is Intellectual the Inference now guarded by other proofs barely subsist's not upon the strength of its Antecedent but is à Verity known aliunde and therefore is rightly called Regressus utilis à rational profitable Regress free from The difference between a Circle and à profitable way of Arguing all vicious Circulation For as Philosophers teach grounding their discourse vpon Aristotle now cited A vicious Circle is à Regress or going back ab eodem ad Idem per eandem viam from the same thing to the same again and by the same way as appeares in the Instance proposed where the Antecedent assuming Intellectual proves Liberty and Liberty not known as I said upon any other proof but by that Medium Intellestual return's again and by the very same way proves Intellectuallity This is to say the Consequence as known by the Antecedent offer 's to prove at once both it self and the Antecedent together Had Dr St well reflected upon what is here noted he might easily have spared his lost labour spent upon à vicious Circle and it is à wonder be wanted reflection because Sextus Empiricus cited by him in the short discourse he has of that he calls à Diallel gives every one light enough to se what the Dr it seems saw not though Sextus be none of the clearest Authors 19 Thus much premised we proceed to the matter now in hand and Assert If any one should in the first place either believe or prove the Sence of Scripture to be true by the Churches Interpretation not otherwise believed Infallible or proved true but barely by her Interpretation and should again goe about to prove her Interpretation true by nothing but her own Interpretation which explains that true Sence the Circle would be manifest because the true Sence of Scripture interpreted by the Church is again assumed An application made to the matter now in hand as the only Medium to prove her Interpretation true which way of Arguing essentially implies à vicious Regress from the very same thing to the same thing again and by the very same way But if I first prove the Churches Infallibility in all She teaches upon other Grounds without any recourse at all either to the words or Sence of Scripture as is shewed above and from thence both prove and believe her Interpretation to be infallibly true that man who holds this way of Arguing Circular knowes no more what à Circle is than Doctor Stillingfleet A little touch upon the Dr ' s weak Obiections will yet give more clarity 20 Is not that à Circle saith he P. 428. when the Argument made use to prove another The Dr's Obiections answered thing by must it self be proved by that very thing which it is made use of to prove Very good Sr these general Terms hurt no body to your Application therefore in the next page The thing to be proved Say you is the Churches Infallibility the Argument to prove it by is the Infallible Sence of Scripture Answ I flatly deny the first proof of the Churches Infallibility to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture for the first Argument is taken from that general Truth whereby She is owned and proved God's Infallible Oracle in every thing She teaches concerning Faith and this independently of Scripture Here I say more It is impossible to prove her first Infallible by the Sence she gives of Scripture because that Sence is not known before She interpret's and no body goes about to prove any thing by meer insignificant Characters without their Sence Can the Dr who hold's the Church Fallible and must if he ever evince that prove it by Scripture probably take his Proof from Scripture not senced It is plain Dotage to do so He goes on But if the Infallible Sence of Scripture can be proved by nothing but by thē Churches infallible Interpretation then it is plain that is assumed as an Argument to prove Infallibility by which cannot be otherwise known than by this Infallibility What To argue from Scripture not Senced is Non-sense Infallibility doth the Dr speak of in these last ambiguous words If he say we prove the Infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches infallible Interpretation I grant it Jf contrarywise he thinks we prove in the first place the Churches Infallibility by her own infallible Interpretation of Scripture he err's grosly as is already made manifest and therefore proves nothing 21 In à word either the Sence of Scripture is known by the Churches Interpretation or is clear by it self If known upon the Churches Interpretation the Sence is one and the same with that of the Scripture for these two Oracles can never clash or differ If known by it selfe as it is in many Passages relating to manners no more is required but that the Church ascertain us of the Scriptures Divine Inspiration So that still we depend upon the Church alwaies for the assurance of Scripture being Divine or from God and in the greatest Mysteries of Faith we rely on it also for the true Sence 22 A second obiection It is à little strange that there should be no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose Sence could not infallibly be known without the Supposal of that Infallibility which is proved by them Answ It s more than à little strange that the Dr cannot distinguish between the first general act of Faith whereby the Church is believed Infallible without depending on Scripture and à second more explicit and Consequent act which wholly relies upon Her interpretation and Scripture together It is also strange if God pleases to speak obscurely as he certainly doth in many Passages of Holy Writ that another Infallible Oracle cannot tell us with he mean's without Two Strange Mistakes in the Dr. à vicious Circle The Substance of all he obiects here only amount's to thus much We prove or believe the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose sence cannot be infallibly known without the supposal of that Infallibility If he mean's as he must by supposal and that Infallibility the Churches Infallibility I have answered the Church is not only supposed but proved also infallible before Scripture was written and before She ever went about to interpret that Divine Book 23 A third Obiection is the like Tautologie over again and therefore requires no other but the same Solution If saith he the Infallible sence of Scripture be resolved into and believed upon the same infallible Authority of the Church then I still enquire how this infallible Authority of the Church comes to be proved by this exposition of Scripture the Infallibility of which doth suppose the thing to be proved Viz. the Churches
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
Clement are evidently improbable unsufficient to make the fact Credible afterward attested and examined by publick Authority More saw this wonder wrought upon the lame then that other upon the blinde cured by our Saviour Will he say there was never such à man born lame much less such à man cured as Iohn Clement but that all are Lyars and Cheats who tell the Story More justly might the Jewes have said there was never such à man blinde as christ restored sight to for they saw not that cure vvrought yet believed it upon the mans own word and his Parents and therefore advised him to glorify God for the favour done though their obstinacy would not ascribe the Miracle to Christ O! but here is à disparity Scripture recount's the one Miracle not the other A most simple reply We now insist upon humane Authority and ask which is ever to be noted whether upon that ground the latter Miracle be not made more credible then the first and here we are told the one is believed by Faith because God saies so and not the other All the Miracles Christ wrought were presupposed true before the vvriting of Scripture and not first true because they are registred in that Book 18 This humane Faith utterly ruined by our Dr the Erudite Lipsius plead's by and presses home cap. 1. Vbi estis qui paulò vetustiora elevatis c. Where are you who extenuat and undervalve ancient Miracles Ecce nova novitia behold new ones done in This Miracle as Montague proclaimed all over the Eyes of us all and heard vvith our cares renowned and solemnized by the frequent concourse and applause of People with great benefit to Nations Quae fides potest esse in rebus humani si haec non est What faith can there be amongst men if these things gain not credit And therefore he saith in his Preface Those deserve not to be called men that boggle at or doubt of such illustrious vvonders yet à Ieer à Pish and Flurt of our Dr's finger seem's forcible enough to discredit these admirable and no less manifest Testimonies of God's power publickly shewed to the world 19 More Cheats and fallacies of this Dr will better appear in the ensuing Discourse Here A fift Cheat. is one more and gross enough He never refutes the known and certain Miracles of the Church but now laugh's at one less certain now at another related as I said by private Authors prudently judged over credulous in writing matters upon Hearsay These support not our cause for we plead as S. Austin did by Miracles Multitudine magnitudine conspicuous undeniable and thus our Saviour Argues Iohn 15. 24. The vvorks vvhich I have By what Miracles we argue done not one work no other has done Acts. 2 Many vvonders and Signs vvere vvrought by the Apostles in Hierusalem What if false or doubtful Scriptures have been forged under the Apostles names as manifest happened in the Primitive times must we therefore reject the true Scriptures already received Yet this fallacy or cheat is à main Prop to the very most of our Dr's rambling discourse as shall be shewn afterwards 20 A Second Cheat is that when à Miracle appears strange or ridiculous to the Dr's fancy A sixt Cheat grounded upon the Strangeness of Miracles he slights it as counterfeit turn's it off with à Iibe and well instruct's Atheists and Heathens to deride the Miracles related in Scripture For what can be more ridiculous to an Atheist then to read of Moses his horned face Of Balaams Asse speaking Of Samsons destroying à thousand men with the Jawbone of an Asse or of water issuing out of one tooth in that Jawbone to quench the wearied mans thirst after his fighting These and many more à Heathen Scorn's as highly as Miracles recorded in Scripture more ridiculous to Atheists than Church Miracles the Dr doth our most certain Church Miracles But thanks be to God the Church and her Miracles are not like the walls of Jericho overthrown with loud Braying or the empty sound of à Dr's broken Trumpet No. Christs Sacred Doctrin witness the Apostles though à Scandal to the Iewes and à foolery to the Gentils yet stand's invincible against all Opposers and so will the Church and her Miracles continue glorious to the end of Ages maugre the attempt of Her weak Adversaries Thus much premised we will in the next place consider the Dr's exceptions against Miracles and ward off à few Cavils Arguments drawn from Authority or reason I find not any worth answering CHAP II. Of the Dr's proceeding against me VVhat he supposes destroies it selfe VVhat weight Church Miracles have None of wit or judgement ever contradicted them How the Dr juggles in appealing to Apostolical Miracles The Miraculous Translation of the sacred house of Loreto manifestly proved against the Dr's weak and unworthy Cavils 1. AFter the Dr had set down some parcels of my Discourse and chiefly excepted against my comparing Church Miracles with those wrought by Christ and his Apostles he thinks an Atheist would desire no more advantage against Christian Religion then to have it granted that those Primitive Miracles were no other than such as are wrought in the Roman Catholick Church I answer The Dr either here supposes the Church never to have had one true Miracle in it and upon that Supposition it's madness to talk of paralleling Apostolical Miracles believed by Faith with Miracles never in being For who can parallel fourbs and fancied wonders with Apostolical Miracles really wrought Or Contrarywise He supposes true Miracles as curing the lame dispossessing Divels and raysing the dead to have manifestly illustrated the Church Grant this What ought to be supposed for à right Parallel and he is obliged to give à disparity between the Primitive wonders and these latter in the Church This I alwaies urged but the Dr leaves it unanswered 2. Again he perswades himselfe of great advantage given to Atheists who as much slight the Apostolical Miracles as those of the Church I see no such matter and therefore Say contrary and have proved it If Church Miracles be rejected the plainest Evidence of Credibility fail's and if Christian Religion be made thus bare and naked of glorious Marks Atheisin get's so much ground that neither Christ nor his Miracles can gain belief of any For undermine the Church and that is done How all faith is ruined if you rob her of her Miracles and other Motives Scripture it selfe and the very wonders of Christ lose credit and goe to wrack also because the certainty we have of These relies upon Church Authority utterly discredited when as the Dr would have it you expose her without Lustre and thereby make her contemptible to Iewes who anciently had true The Dr's Athcism Miracles amongst them and ridiculous to Gentils Here is your Atheism good Mr Doctor 3. In the following page 439. He enquires after the credibility of the
Authority boy'd them up or patronized their cause But no such Opposition was made No. They contented themselves with the Angels Chappel which they had under their charge Anno 1626. and convinced by Evidence frankly acknowledged the Translation of the house to Loreto to be most true and so likewise doth the whole Church of God witness Quaresmius C. 4. fine Popes saith he have granted great Indulgences and Priviledges So likevvise doth quaresmius to the Holy house of Loreto the frequent Concourse of People still honour it God most certainly hath wrought great Miracles there and done the like even in this at Nazareth And though saith he the Translation of the house of Loreto may in some things seem contrary to Sense which is fallacious yet Sense of lesse value ought to be postposed and all due respect given to the judgement of the most wise who never called the Miraculous Translation into The Translation never called into question Question Among these wise he numbers at the beginning of his 4.th Chapter Canisius Mantuanus and stiles him Lauilatissimum Theologum à worthy Divine Hieronymus Angelita Secretary to the Common wealth of Recanati More Authors quoted à most diligent and sincere man witness his whole book of the house of Loreto Baronius Rutilius Benzonius and finally Franciscus Alcarotus in Itinerario terrae Sanctae besides many more cited by these Authors 20. By all now said you see the Dr's fraudulent The Dr's fraud discovered and unjust Proceeding when he asks How the Church of the Annuntiation at Nazareth should be removed to Italy and yet remain still at Nazareth by the constant Tradition of the Eastern parts Has this man any Conscience think ye when upon à meer cheat he would perswade the Reader that our Ladies Chappel was never translated to Italy and to his eternal discredit ground 's the Cheat upon à gross errour in not distinguishing between the Church of the Annuntiation and the translated Chappel To take where his cheat lies away all shift and evasion He either makes the Church of the Annuntiation one and the same with the Chappel of Loreto or different If the Same All Authors as you have heard flatly contradict him and there is no Tradition constant or unconstant for that If which is most true they are distinct Chappels his Question is no less fraudulent than impertinent for suppose à distinction of these two Chappels the one may well remain at Nazareth as it doth and yet no way clash with the Translation of the other to Loreto as we have amply proved already Be it how you will the Dr is Shamefully out for if our Ladies Cell where she was Saluted by the Angel be at Loreto we have our intent and if it still remaine at Nazareth the Dr's Scruples of an old house lasting so long without decay and escaping ruin in the The Dr clearly convinced General devastation made by Vespasian are senceless and signify nothing but thus much only that the Dr writes he knowes not what 21. The second Cheat concern's the commensuration made between the Angels Chappel and the ancient foundations of our Ladies Another cheat concerning the Commensuration made cleared by Novaria Chamber found larger saith the Dr than the Angels Chappel We ask here for à further discovery of his fraud what he mean's by the Angels Chappel If he Speak of the house of Loreto and this he must mean or nothing his errour is intolerable as is now made out In case he would only Say that the old foundations of our Ladies Chappel are larger than the Angels Chappel built upon them Thomas à Novaria hath given à full account thereof and told you that the Angels Chappel drawn in à little by reason of an addition laid to the old foundations of our Ladies translated house Non adaequatur to use his words answer's not exactly and this makes not at all for the Dr's purpose yet clearly laies open his malice or ignorance if not both together 22. Ponder now courteous Reader on the one side the proofs produced for the Miraculous Translation of the Sacred house of Loreto weigh well on the other how pittifully the Dr fumbles while he impugn's it You have not from him so much as one Argument Arguments alledged for the Chappels Translation clear and urgent excepting à few Negatives brought against it You have not one Author alledged that call's the Miracle into doubt and though hereafter he quotes some Catholick writers that in his eyes seem to question such and such à Story yet in his handling the present Relation of Loreto he is wholly silent and gives you none but himselfe calling it an incredible fiction Against these the Dr let 's flie à few jeers and dissatisfactory Negatives Ponder I say these things well and you will se how powerfully truth outfaces falshood and must conclude with Petra Sanctae P. 39. Those seem not men in their wits that boggle at so clear à Miracle What saith this Author Will these Hereticks upon the Authority of Pliny Lâ—h 2. C. 8. believe by humane faith that two Mountains neer Modena rose up violently justled one another and again returned to their old Postures Can they believe because What wonders Hereticks own upon humane Faith Authors say it that some Cities in Syria seated upon Mountains were thrown six miles off into à Plain and there remain'd entire without dammage and here doubt whether God can remove à little house from place to place In doing so they must either Question his Omnipotency and this is madness or scruple the fidelity of Authors already produced which are not inferiour but far more Credible than either Pliny or Theophanes CHAP. V. The Dr's Frivolus Objections against the Miracles wrought at Loreto dissolved A word of his other frauds 1. TO insist in this place upon the evident known Miracles wrought by the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin at Loreto or to mention the Donaries offered there as Testimonies of gratitude would be only à Transcription of what Tursellin and other writers have amply performed to my hands In à word Our Saviours own Miracles The blind see the lame walk men possessed with Divels free'd c. have Our Saviours own Miracles Manifest at Loreto been manifestly done at Loreto To relate all or halfe would require à Volume I must therefore wave them and remit you to Tursellin for further Satisfaction my task being only to encounter the Dr's more than Childish Caviles against some few he quarrels with One related by Tursellin lib. 2. c. 18. is briefly thus 2. A certain Priest of Dalmatia taken by the Turks was urged to renounce his Religion but would not still calling upon Christ and the Sacred Virgin whereupon the barbarous Turks threatned to pull out his bowels if he did not curse them both which by no threats he would do but contrarywise made à vow to our Lady at Loreto that if he lived he
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
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