constitute it in the notion of faith divine because the faith so stiled is supposed to rest always on an higher ground viz. Revelation Divine 10. That the infallibility of the Church grounded on Divine Revelation and believed by a divine faith is a main ground and pillar of a Catholicks faith for any other articles thereof that are established by the sam◠Churches Definitions where the Scriptures or Tradition Apostolick are to him doubtful Of which ground and assurance of such points believed by Catholicks from the Churches infallible Authority the Protestant◠faith is destitute § 3. These are the Principles upon which this Guide in Controversies undertakes to clear this intricate Question and to free their resolution of faith from the danger of a circle I have but two small things to object against this way 1. That it gives up the cause in dispute 2. That notwithstanding it doth not avoid the main difficulties 1. That it gives up the cause in Dispute◠which was whether the Infallible Testimony of the Church be the necessary Foundation of Divine Faith for upon occasion of the supposed necessity of this Infallibility the Question was first started this Infallibility being asserted to be necessary by T. C. and was the thing I chiefly opposed in the discourse of the Resolution of Faith Now this the Guide in Controversies freely yields to me and consequently the main Foundation of Faith asserted by my Adversary is destroyed as plainly appears by the third Proposition wherein he affirms that an external infallible proponent is not necessary to divine Faith But this he doth not barely affirm but he saith it is copiously proved by many learned Catholicks and to this purpose he cites Cardinal Lugo speaking of Divine Faith who saith that the infallibility of the Church cannot be the first Ground of Divine Faith because this Infallible Authority of the church by Assistance of the Holy Ghost is it self an article of Divine Faith And experience tells us that all Children or adult persons first coming to the Faith do not apprebend much less infallibly believe this Infallible Authority in the Church before any other article of Faith And in the Law of Nature and under the Law of Moses the Churches proposition was not necessary in order to faith but the instruction of Parents was sufficient in one and the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets in the other before their Prophecies were received by the Church He cites Estius likewise speaking of this Divine and Salvifical faith that it is not material to faith what medium God makes use of to bestow this gift of Faith upon men many having believed that knew nothing of the Churches infallibility He cites Layman asserting that it often comes to pass that other articles of our faith are explicitly believed before that of the Churches Infallibility and withal this Infallibility of the Church depends upon the promise of the spirit therefore men must first believe that there is a spirit of God and consequently the holy Trinity Farther saith he it is plain that the primitive Christians did believe with divine Faith not for the Authority of the Church which either was not founded yet when St. Peter believed Christ to be the Son of the living God or had not defined any doctrines of Faith Again he denies the Churches Authority to be the formal principle or motive of Faith and that for this very good reason because this infallible Authority of the Church is one of the things to be believed Nay he cites Fa. Knot himself in his reply to Chillingworth affirming Christians may have a true Infallible Divine Faith of which faith they have only a fallible proponent nor are infallibly certain thereof i. e. as to the proponent I now appeal to the indifferent reader whether the main thing contended for by me viz. that the infallible Testimony of the Church is not necessary in order to Faith be not here fully granted to me 2. But yet the account of Faith here given is very far from clearing the chief difficulties of it as will appear by these two things 1. That this resolution of Divine Faith is very unsatisfactory in it self ◠2. That it is liable to the absurdities which he seeks to avoid by it 1. That the resolution of Divine Faith laid down by him is very unsatisfactory in it self the principles of which are these 1. That Divine Faith must rest upon Divine Revelation 2. This Divine Revelation upon which faith is built is that which is first made known to the person and from which he proceeds to other matters of faith 3. This Divine Revelation is not one and the same to all but to some the Authority of the Scriptures to some the Authority of the Church to some Apostolical Tradition 4. Divine Faith must rest upon this Revelation with an immediate assent to it without enquiring further for if there be any further process there must be so in infinitum or a circle 5. That the Holy Ghost doth illuminate the understanding of him that believes both as to the veracity of God and the truth of his Revelation and causes such a firm adherence of faith as many times far exceeds that of any humane Science or demonstrations But in this way I can neither be satisfied 1. What that particular divine Revelation is which this divine Faith doth rest upon Not 2. How this Faith can equally rest in several persons upon several ways Nor 3. How it can rest with an immediate assent upon any way Nor 4. Wherein this way differs from resolving Faith into the Testimony of the Spirit § 4. I cannot understand what that particular divine Revelation is into which as into it◠prime extrinsecal motive Faith is here resolved The thing enquired after is the reason of believing the truth of what God hath publickly revealed to mankind as we say he hath done the Doctrines of Christianity the ultimate resolution of divine Faith as to this I am told is that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to a man i◠this particular divine Revelation the sam◠with Gods publick and general Revelation o◠distinct from it If it be the same it can offer no reason for my Faith unless the same thing may be proved by it self if it be different then God makes use of particular divine Revelations to men different from his publick into which they are to resolve their Faith Suppose then the Question be thus put why do you believe that Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead The general Answer is because God that cannot lie hath revealed it but then the Question returns on what ground do you believe this Revelation to have been from God with such a divine Faith as must rest upon divine Revelation For such you assert to be necessary To this the Guide in Controversies Answers that the ultimate resolution of a Christians divine Faith is into that particular divine
and divine Humanâ— as it is first grounded upon the Testimony of men and Divine as it finally rests upon the Testimony of God And in the present condition of mankind it is not reasonable to suppose that any Faith should now immediately rest upon the Divine Revelation without some rational evidence antecedent to it For the thing to be believed being the Testimony which God gave at the distance of above one thousand six hundred years we must either suppose an immediate Revelation of it or it must be conveyed to them by the credit of others Which according to this notion can beget only a humane faith for to resolve the belief of one Divine Testimony into another is to proceed without end but this humane faith if it be so called satisfying a mans mind concerning the Testimony which God gave and thereupon assenting to what was delivered upon that Testimony this Faith proceeding in the same way of rational evidence becomes a divine Faith by resting upon the Testimony which God gave to those who declared his Will 3. The Faith whereby we must first embrace a Divine Revelation cannot in this sense be called a Divine Faith i. e. as divine Faith doth rely upon a divine Testimony For that Faith is built upon those two Foundations viz. That whatever God saith is true and that this is his Revelation Now neither of these two can be entertained at first oâ— the account of a Divine Testimony thâ— first I have shewed already cannot be withouâ— a circle neitheâ— can the second for still thâ— Question will return on what account you believe that Testimony So that although thiâ— be commonly calâ—ed an act of divine Faith yet if Faith be taken in this strict sense foâ— believing upon a divine Testimony we must find out some other name for this Assent noâ— thereby to take off from the certainty or excellency of it but to prevent that confusion which the not observing these things hatâ— caused in these Controversies And if thâ— Terms of Divine Supernatural Infallible Obscure and Inevident were banished thâ— Schools the School-men themselves would be forced to speak sense in these matters And it would be a pleasant sight to see how pitifully E. W's Discourses would look without them For the main force of all he saith lies in the misapplying those terms and thâ— rattling noise they make is apt to keep in awe a vulgar understanding especially that hath been bred up with some more than ordinary Reverence to these astonishing terms § 4. These things were necessary to be premised before we could come to the true State of the Question which we now plainly see doth not relate to that Assent whereby we believe whatever God saith to be true but to that whereby we believe this particular Revelation contained in the Scriptures to be from God And so the Controversie is brought to this issue Whether in order to the certainty of our faith concerning Gods Revelation an Infallible Testimony of the Church be necessary which he affirms and I deny For in order to the certainty of Faith we have already seen he frequently asserts the necessity of an Infallible Oracle and makes all degrees of certainty short of Infallibility insufficient for Divine Faith But that we may the better understand his opinion we must take notice of his own explications of it and the distinctions he thinks necessary for that end 1. He distinguisheth between the judgement of credibility necessary to faith and the act of faith it self and the Resolution of these two though they have a due subordination to each other yet depend upon quite different principles the judgement of credibility whereby the Will moves and commands the intellectual faculty to elicit faith relies not upon that object which finally terminates faith it self but upon extrinsecal motives which perswade and powerfully induce to believe super omnia 2. He distinguisheth between the nature oâ— Science and faith Science is worth nothing unless it prove and faith purely considered as faith these words he desires may be well marked is worthless if it prove For faith reasons not nor asks how these mysteries can be but simply believes Oâ— as he expresseth it in his former Book Faitâ— solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of reason for its motive And here he asserts That there is a more firm adhesion to the infallibility of that Divine Testimony for which we believe than the extrinsecal motives inducing to believâ— either do or can draw from us 3. He distinguisheth between the Humane and Divine Authority of the Church the Humane Authority being as such fallible is not sufficient to ground divine faith But the first act of faith whereby every one believes the Church to be Gods Oracle is built upon her infallible divine Authority manifested by miracles and other signal marks of Truth By the help of these distinctions we may better understand his Resolution of Faith which he delivers in this manner Demanded why we believe the mystery of the Incarnation it is answered Scripture asserts it Ask again why we believe the Divinity of that Book called Scripture It is answered the Church ascertains us of that But how do we know that the Church herein delivers truth It is answered if we speak of knowledge previous to faith then he brings the motives of credibility which make the Churches Infallibility so evidently credible that we cannot if prudent and manifest reason guide us but as firmly believe whatever this Oracle teaches as the Israelites believed Moses and the Prophets This one would think were enough of all conscience but he thinks otherwise for there is saith he but one only difference and that advantageous to them that in lieu of Moses they have an ample Church innumerable multitudes in place of one servant of God the incomparable greater Light the pillar and Ground of Truth the Catholick Church diffused the whole world over and a little after asserts That they have the very same way of Resolving faith which the Primitive Christians had in the time of Christ and his Apostles Here is enough asserted if it could be proved § 5. Against this way laid down by my first Adversary T. C. I objected these three things 1. That it was unreasonable 2. That it did not avoid the main difficulties 3. That it was notoriously false these three waies of attacking it of which a short account is given in the entrance of this Discourse I must now more largely defend I shewed this way to be unreasonable and that upon these grounds 1. Because an assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence for the act of Faith being according to E. W. an insallible assent and no other grounds assigued for it besides the motives of credibility he must make an Infallible assent only upon fallible grounds And it is not sufficient to say that the Infallibility of the Churches Testimony makes the Assent Infallible
did not believe on the Infallibility of your Church their Faith was but a kind of guilded and splendid infidelity and none of them Christians because not Jesuits And doth not this principle then fairly advance Christianity in the world when the belief of it comes to be settled on Foundations never heard of in the best and purest times of it nay such Foundations as for want of their believing them their Faith must be all in vain and Christ dyed in vain for them And what now saith E. W. to all this First he saith I do not bring Instances enough Secondly That I bring too many 1. That I do not bring enough for he much wonders I omit to touch upon an instance far more difficult than any of these concerning rude and illiterate persons which I and all others are bound to solve Meâ— thinks he might have been contented with those I had brought unless he had answered them better and should not have blamed me for omitting that which I purposely take notice of and give a sufficient answer to in these words Although the Ignorance and carelesness of men in a matter of so great consequence be so great in all Ages as is not to be justified because all men ought to endeavour aster the highest ways of satisfaction in a matter so nearly concerning them and it is none of the least things to be blamed in your Church that she doth so much countenance this ignorance and neglect of the Scripture yet for such persons who either morally or invincibly are hindred from this capacity of examining Scripture there may be sufficient means for their Faith to be built upon For although such illiterate persons cannot themselves see and read the Scripture yet as many as do believe do receive the Doctrine of it by that sense by which Faith is conveyed and by that means they have so great certainty as excludes all doubting that such Doctrines and such matters of Fact are contained in these Books by which they come to the understanding of the nature of this Doctrine and are capable of judging concerning the Divinity of it For the Light spoken of in Scripture is not a light to the eye but to the mind now the mind is capable of this light as well by the ear as by the eyes The case then of such honest illiterate persons as are not capable of reading Scripture but diligently and devoutly hear it read to them is much of the same nature with those who heard the Apostles Preach this Doctrine before it was writ For whatever was an Argument to such to believe the Apostles in what they spake becomes an Argument to such who hear the same things which are certainly conveyed to us by an unquestionable Tradition So that nothing hinders but such illiterate persons may resolve their Faith into the same Doctrine and Motives which others do only those are conveyed to them by the ear which are conveyed to others by the eyes But if you suppose persons so rude and illiterate as not to understand any thing but that they are to believe as the Church believes do you if you can resolve their Faith for them for my part I cannot and am so far from it that I have no reason to believe they can have any Judge now Reader what measure I am like to meet with from such men who can so impudently charge me with omitting a difficulty which I give so punctual an answer to 2. But those instances I have brought are too many for him as will easily appear by the shuffling answers he makes to them My design was from them to prove that the Churches Infallibity was not necessary in order to Faith he puts it thus If the Infallibility of the Church be a sure Foundation of Faith c. Is not this a good beginning to put Sure in stead of Necessary or only sure For that may be sure which is not necessary and it was the necessity I disproved by these Instances To them however he attempts to give an Answer 1. In general That none make the Roman Catholick Church in all circumstances the only sure Foundation of Divine Faith For the first man that believed in Christ our Lord before the compleat establishment of his Church had perfect faith resting on that great Master of Truth without dependance on the Christian Church for Christ alone was not the Church but the Head of it Faith therefore in general requires no more but only to rely upon God the first verity speaking by this or that Oracle by one or more men lawfully sent to teach who prove their mission and make the doctrine proposed by them evidently credible In like manner the Apostles preached no doctrine in the name of the new Christian Church whilst our Saviour lived here on earth but testified that he was the true Messias by vertue of those signs and miracles which had been already wrought above the force of Nature A very fair concession which plainly destroys the necessity of the Churches infallibility in order to Faith For if no more be necessary in order to faith but to rely upon God the first verity speaking by this or that Oracle c. how comes the infallible testimony of the Church to be in any Age necessary to faith For God spake by Christ and his Apostles as his Oracles by whom his word is declared to us therefore nothing can be necessary to faith but to rely upon God the first Truth speaking by them And this we assert as well as they But he must prove that we cannot rely on God as speaking by them unless he hath an insallible Church in every Age if he will make this infallible testimony of the Church necessary to faith which I despair of ever seeing done while the world stands 2. In particular 1. To the instance of the disciples of Christ believing the divine Authority of the old Testament without any infallible testimony of the Jewish Church only upon the rational evidence they had to convince them that those Prophesies came from God he answers that it is hard to say where the force of it lies seeing there were innumerable Jews then dispersed all Jury over and the other parts of the world who most firmly believed the Divine Authority of those Books upon whose Testimony the Apostles might believe those Books to be divine A most excellent answer if we well consider it Have not they of the Church of Rome proved the necessity of infallibility in the Church from Deut. 17. 10 11 12. of which abundant instances might be produced and particularly the Considerator of my Principles which words if they imply any Infallibility at all do necessarily prove that it is lodged in the supream Ecclesiastical Judges and no where else so that if there were no infallibility in them it could not be supposed to be any where else therefore I proposed the case at that time when these Ecclesiastical Judges consented
cannot have any unquestionable assurance that there was such a Person as Christ in the world that he wrought such great miracles for confirmation of his doctrine that he died and rose again Is all this no more than the common consent of Jews Gentiles and Cbristians that Christ died on a Cross Was ever any man so senseless as to make only the belief of the death of Christ on the Cross the reason of believing his Divinity But I say his Miracles before and Resurrection aâ—ter gave abundant testimony that he was sent from God and therefore his doctrine must needs be true and when we believe the truth of his doctrine wâ— are bound to believe every part of it such are his being the only Messias the true God the Redeemer of mankind and all other divine verities contained therein Let the Reader now judge whether the Objection or the Answer savours of more ignorance and folly But it is the mischief of this School-Divinity that it adds confidence to Ignorance and it makes men then most apt to despise others when they most expose themselves I proceeded to shew that instead of setling faith on a sure foundation by the Churches Infallibility they bring it to greater uncertainties than it was in before because they can neither satisfie men what that Church is which they suppose Infallible what in that Church is the proper subject of this Infallibility what kind of Infallibility it is nor how we should know when the Church doth define Infallibly and yet I say every one of these Questions is absolutely necessary to be resolved in order to the satisfaction of mens minds as to the Foundation of their Faith His Answer to these Questions refers us to his proofs of the Roman Churches Infallibility as the only society of Christians which hath power to define Infallibly by her representative moral Body which when I see proved I shall confess an Answer is given to those Questions Only one thing he thinks fit to give a more particular Answer to which is that this Infallibility should be the only Foundation of believing all things in Religion and yet so many things and some of them very strange ones must be certainly believed before it Here his common-place-Book again fails him and therefore wanting his Compass he roves and wanders from the point in hand He tells me it is hard to guess at my meaning for I name not one article thus assented to Perhaps I would say that the verities revealed in some Books of Scripture called Protocanonical known by their own proper signitures or motives as the Harmony Sanctity and Majesty of the Stile may be believed without this Testimony of an Infallible Church Well he doth not know what I meant but he knew an Argument he had an Answer ready to and therefore that must be my meaning But are not my words plain enough to any one that reads them And what a vast measure of faith say I is necessary to believe the Papal Infallibility for unless a man believes the particular Roman Church to be the Catholick Church unless he believes that Christ hath promised an infallible assistance to the Pastors of the Church and that not as separate but as assembled in Council and not in every Council but such as the Pope calls and presides in and confirms he cannot believe this Doctrine of Infallibility Nay further he must Infallibly believe the Church to be Infallible though no Infallible Argument be brought for it that this Church doth judicially and authoritatively pronounce her sentence in matters of Faith though we know not what that Church is which must so pronounce that he Infallibly know that this particular sentence was so pronounced though he can have no other than moral means of knowing it and lastly that the Infallibility must be the first thing believed although all these things must be believed before it Could any man well in his senses after reading these words imagine that I meant the self evidencing light of the Scriptures again But they write for those that believe them and that never dare look into the Books they pretend to consute Yet he hath a mind to prove the name of Roman Catholick Church to be no Bull which I said in a Parenthesis was like German universal Emperour This gives a new start another common-place Head is searched Title Catholick Church there he finds ready the old weather beaten Testimonies Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world over ergo Roman and Catholick are all one A plain demonstration What need they talk of the obscurity of Faith where there is such convincing evidence But what if it should have happened that S. Paul had said the same thing of the Faith of the Corinthians or Thessalonians would it not have been a most evident demonstration that the Church of Corinth was the Catholick Church at that time and was to continue so in following Ages But Scripture though never so plain cannot serve their turn they must have Fathers too So E. W. brings in St. Hierom St. Cyprian St. Athanasius St. Ambrose all evidently proving that the Church of Rome was once Catholick and what then I beseech him Were not other Churches so too But these very Testimonies as it unhappily falls out had been particularly and largely examined by me in a whole Chapter to that purpose But it is no matter for that I had not blotted them out of his Note-Books and there he found no answers and therefore out they come again § 11. 2. The second thing I objected against this way of resolving Faith was that it did not effect that which it was brought for for supposing that Chuch Infallible and that Infallibility proved by the motives of credibility they do not escape the circle objected against them Which I shewed 1. from the nature of divine Faith as explained by them 2. From the consideration of the persons whose Faith was to be resolved 3. From the nature of that Infallibility which is attributed to the Church I must now consider how E. W. attempts the clearing of these difficulties 1. As to the nature of divine Faith I ask whether a divine Faith as to the Churches Infallibility may be built upon the motives of credibility If it may then a divine Faith may rest upon prudential motives if not then this way cannot clear them from a circle in the resolution of divine Faith For I demanded why with a divine Faith they believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God Their answer is because the Church which is Infallible delivers them as such to us If I then ask why with a divine Faith they believe the Churches Infallibility I desired them to answer me if they can any other way than because the Scriptures which are Infallible say so It is a very pleasant thing to see how E. W. is miserably put to his shifts about this difficulty for although in his former Discourses he had
revealed by God as the matter was capable of and such evidence we say ought to perswade any prudent person This is all which the description of faith so much alledged doth imply which was never intended for an accurate definition of it for as Hugo de sancto Victore saith of it non indicat quid est fides sed signat quid facit it doth not shew what faith is but what it doth by making things future and invisible to have as great power and influence on mens minds as if they were present and visible And when the Fathers speak of the obscurity of Faith they do not mean an assent without grounds but the belief of things out of our view and that obscurity is understood by them in comparison with the clearness of a future state or in opposition to the way of proving things by meer reason without Revelation So Cardinal Lugo truly answers the Testimonies of Fathers to that purpose by saying that when they exclude reason and arguments from faith they take them as they are opposed to Authority but in as much as they suppose the mysteries of Christian faith to be believed for the sake of Divine Revelation a discourse is thereby implied from the Authority of God revealing to the mysteries believed Neither is such discourse only requisite but that in the first place which doth assure men of the truth of this Revelation for upon that the other must proceed All mediums used for the proof of this must be extrinsecal to the nature of the thing and therefore cannot be repugnant to faith and in this I have the consent of some of the most learned of the Schoolmen who make evidentiam in attestante as they call it consistent with faith But saith E. W. No thanks to thee poor creature to assent hadst thou Evidence This it is now to hope to merit at Gods hands by a blind faith for so elsewhere he saith evidence is incompatible with that merit and obsequiousness of faith which God requires of his rational creatures who are to walk to Heaven by an humble and dutiful faith A very humble saith certainly that hopes to merit by believing And very dutiful in expecting so large a reward for doing it knows not what We think it our duty to believe firmly whatever God saith but withal we think it our duty to enquire carefully whether God hath said it or no before we believe and according to the evidence we have of this we assent to the former But this is not to proceed Nobly with God saith E. W. Brave man It hath been reported of a Hector in this Town that a little before his death he said he hoped God would deal with him like a Gentleman It seems E. W. would deal so with God We have often heard of works of super-erogation but our noble E. W. is not content with them he will have a faith of super-erogation too We poor creatures are contented to do our duties and take it as a great Favour for God to accept of the best we can do We dare not so much as think of such terms of kindness and favour from us to God as to proceed Nobly with him Neither do we believe that God is so hugely pleased with the blind and the lame when they are offered in sacrifice to him Whatever E. W. imagines it is no such Noble proceeding to believe infallibly upon confessedly fallible grounds For that is the present case he grants that the motives of credibility are not infallible and that there are no other motives in order to faith above these and yet he supposes we ought to oblige God by giving an infallible assent upon these Motives But the bottom of all is That our Faith ought to be suitable to Gods infallible veracity which Faith immediately rests upon and from whence and not â—rom the motives infallible certainty as E W. speaks is transfused into it This deep speculation by no means satisfies me for though I know it to be impossible for God to lie or to deceive yet our question is not about believing the truth of what God saith but about believing this or that to be revealed by him And while the Question is whether Gods veracity be concerned in the thing how is it possible for his Veracity to transfuse an Infallible Certainty into my Belief of it Suppose E. W. be acquainted with as honest a man as ever lived and one comes and tells him from him that such a Friend of his was dead and gave him five hundred pound I would fain know whether the unquestionable veracity of the Friend from whom the Messenger saith he received it can transfuse an unquestionable certainty in his mind of the truth of the thing while he is yet in doubt whether his faithful Friend said it or no If his assent here be not according to the veracity of his Friend unless he be first assured of the fidelity of the reporter No more can it be in the present case of believing For no one questions what God saith but our only doubt is whether God hath said it and whilst one gives no infallible assent to the one he cannot infallibly rest upon the other But may not credible arguments as to the Messenger be sufficient for infallible belief of the thing upon the Authority of the other For that I appeal to E. W. whether his belief of the thing would not in that case be according to the grounds he had to believe the Messenger and the Authority of his Friend would make him so much the more Question whether his name might not be abused by a Person that had a design to put a trick upon him especially if that Messenger challenged to himself so much credit that he ought to be believed without any dispute at aâ—l For in this case the over eager affirming would give a man cause to question the more the truth of the person if his evidence bear no proportion with his confidence So it is in our present case it is granted on all sides if God reveals any thing it must be true our enquiry is how far we are to believe that God hath said such a thing upon the credit of those who convey it to us if they desire no more credit with us than they give sufficient evidence for then we are bound to believe them but if they exact an infallible assenâ— and offer only fallible grounds we have reason to mistrust their design and so long as we do so we must question the thing which we are to believe upon their credit If they require only an assent suitable to their evidence it would be unreasonable to deny it but still the degree of our assent to the Revelation is proportionable to the degree of evidence that it is a divine Revelation Which Dr. Holden thinks to be so evident that he accounts it lost labour for a man to go about to prove it to any one that hath