the Guide in Controversies about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith THE State of the Controversie p. 295. The Principles of the Guide in Controversies p. 300. Those Principles Considered p. 304. Of Particular Divine Revelation as the Ground of Faith p. 308. The Resolution of Divine faith must agree to all p. 314. Of immediate assent p. 316. Of the assistance of the Holy Ghost p. 318. The absurdities of the Guides Principles 322. CHAP. II. The Principles of E. W. about Divine Faith laid down and considered E. W's Principles laid done p. 329. Some things premised to the State of the Question p. 340. Of the necessity of Grace and the sense of Moral certainty in this Controversie p. 346. 347. Gods veracity as the foundation of faith not received on divine Revelation p. 349. Of the notion of Divine faith p. 353. The true State of the Question p. 358. My first argument laid down and defended p. 361. Of the Motives of Credibility and their influence upon faith p. 369. Of the Grounds of Faith p. 376. Of the School-notion of the obscurity of faith p. 383. Of the Scripture notion of it p. 386. Of the power of the will in the assent of faith p. 395. The second argument defended against E. W. p. 400. Of the Circle in the resolution of faith not avoided by E. W. p. 423. CHAP. III. An enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church E. W's assertions about the miracles of the Roman Church p. 434. The ways proposed for examination of them p. 439. Of the miraculous translation of the Chappel of Loreto p. 441. Of the miracles wrought at the Chappel of Loreto p. 452. Of the miracles wrought by St. James at Compostella p. 465. Of St. Mary Magdalens vial and other Reliques p. 476. Of the miracles of St. Dominick p. 488. Of the miracles of the Rosary of the B. Virgin p. 493. Of the miracles of St. Francis p. 496. Of the miracles related of the British and Irish Saints p. 505. Of the Testimonies of St. Chrysostom and St. Augustin against the continuance of the power of miracles p. 567. Of the miracles of St. Vincentius Ferrerius p. 574. Of the Testimonies of their own Writers against the miracles of the Roman Church p. 585. Of the miracles reported by Bede and St. Gregory p. 589. Of the miracles wrought in the Indies p. 615. Of the Impostures and forgeries of miracles in the Roman Church in several examples p. 624. Of the insufficiency of this argument from their miracles to prove the Infullibility of their Church p. 663. Several conclusions about the proof of miracles p. 664. The miracles of Heathens and Hereticks compared with those of the Roman Church p. 670. ERRATA PAge 302. line 28. read ultimate p. 343. l. 15. â— asseâ—t p. 421. l. 13 r. signatures p. 437. l. 13. r. convince l. 18. r. dispâ—ssessed p. 493. l. 15. r. consiâ—â—ing p. 502. l. 24. r. several p. 508. l. 22. r. any better p. 549. after Saints insert than p. 590. l. 14. r. â—oâ—l p. 641. l. 11. r. Anglerius CHAP. I. An Answer to the Guide in Controversies about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith § 1. THere are two great Pleas for the necessity of Infallibility in the Roman Church one to make an end of Controversies the other to lay a sufficient Foundation for divine Faith Having therefore fully examined the former Plea in the foregoing discourse I shall now proceed to the latter with a particular respect to those Adversaries who have undertaken the Defence of the Cause of the Church of Rome against me in this Controversie And because all this dispute refers to the Principles of Faith I shall undertake to shew 1. That the Principles laid down by them are false and fallacious 2. That the Protestant Principles defended by me are sound and true 1. For the better examination of their Principles I shall give a brief account of the Rise and State of this Controversie about the Grounds of Faith The Arch-Bishops Adversary in Conference with him asked how he knew the Scripture to be the Word of God hoping thereby to drive him to the necessity of owning the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church but he failed so much of his end that the Arch-Bishop fully proved that such a Testimony could not be the Foundation of that Faith whereby we believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and that there are sufficient Grounds for Faith without it One of the great arguments whereby he disproved that way of Resolving Faith was that it was impossible to avoid a vitious circle in proving the Churches infallibility by Scripture and the Scripture by the Infallible Testimony of the Church This difficulty which hath puzled the greatest Wits of the Roman Church his Answerer thought to avoid by saying that the Churches Infallibility was not primarily proved by the Scripture but by the Motives of Credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner that Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles were proved to be Infallible Which bold assertion obliged me in a large discourse to shew these three things 1. That this way of resolving Faith was manifestly unreasonable 2. That supposing it true he could not avoid the circle by it 3. That it was false and built on no other ground but a daring confidence 1. The first I proved 1. Because an Assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence the Assent required being Infallible and the evidence only probable and prudential Motives 2. Because hereby they must run into all the Absurdities they would seek to avoid it being impossible to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of the Roman Church than we can do without it both sides acknowledging that those Motives of Credibility do hold for the Scriptures which are by us denied to belong to their Church and if faith as to the Scriptures be uncertain if it rely on them much more must it be so as to the Churches Infallibility If divine Faith as to the Scriptures can rest upon motives of Credibility there can be no necessity of the Churches Infallibility to a divine faith if it cannot how come those motives to be a sufficient ground for such a Faith as to the Church For the Churches Infallibility being the reason as to them of believing the things contained in the Scripture it ought to be believed with a faith equally divine with that whereby we are to believe the Scriptures which are the instrument of conveyinâ— the matters of Faith to us Besides thâ— leaves every mans reason to be judge in thâ— choice of his Religion because every maâ— must satisfie himself as to the credibility oâ— those motives And after all this way oâ— Resolving Faith by the Churches Infallibility doth unsettle the very Foundations oâ— Faith laid by Christ and his Apostles whâ— all supposed a rational certainty of the motives of Faith to be a sufficient
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
Revelation for the foundation of that faith by thâ— Churches Infallibility why will not the samâ— reason hold for the last act which must havâ— as good a Foundation as the other or elsâ— how comes it to be a divine faith as well as â—he other But the subtilty of all this is â—ou have it seems by your office of Guide â—he opening of the Gate and you hold it â—pen so long as to let through all your Friends â—or Infallibility and Tradition must by any means be let through and when these are â—assed down falls the Gate in so rude a manâ—er as is enough to cripple any other that endeavours to get passage Can any man posâ—ibly assign a reason why the operation of the Spirit should not have as great force before the Churches Infallibility be let in But this it is to be a Guide in Controversies â—o direct Infallibility Tradition and the Hoâ—y Ghost to know their distance and to keep â—heir due places and it is a great favour â—hat the Holy Spirit is allowed to bring up the rear and to make all sure but by no means to offer to go before Infallibility or Tradition For these are capable of doing better service afterwards than the Holy Ghost is ever like to do them the greatest use of it being to make good a Pass that nothing follow to disturb the march of Infallibility and Tradition But if I may be so bold once more to presume to ask this wonderful Guide when the dispute is about the sense of Scripture why he doth believe such a particular sense which doth not appear clearly to him in Scriptures to be the infalliblâ— sense of it or to be divine Revelation Hiâ— answer is because the Church which is revealed in Scriptures to be infallible hath deliveâ—ed this to him as the sense of it Very well this is an Answer I understand though I seâ— no reason for it But I proceed why dâ— you believe this Infallibility to be the sensâ— of those places which speak of the Church since to me they are far from appearing tâ— be clearly delivered in those Scriptures Remember you believe this with divinâ— faith and this divine faith must have dâ—vine Revelation the Question then is uâ— on what divine Revelation do you believâ— the Infallibility of the Church to be prâ—mised in Scripture He Answers upon Apâ—stolical Tradition Is this Apostolical Tradition the same with the Scriptures or different from it If the same what greate clearness can there be in this than in thâ— Scriptures If different what divine Revelation is your faith of the Infallibility oâ— that built upon He ingenuously consesseâ— none at all for then there must be a process in infinitum or a circle And yet hiâ— principle is that divine revelation is neceâ—sary to divine faith but there can be nonâ— here by his own consession without process in insinitum or a circle which iâ— to acknowledge the absurdity of his own way as far as a man can desire Well but how comes this Apostolical Tradition to be known to him By the Church he saith but may the Church be deceived in delivering Apostolical Traditions No he saith she is infallible but do you believe her infallible with divine faith Yes he saith that must be done then at last there must be a divine Revelation again for this Infallibility and so the circle returns No he saith at last he believes the Churches Testimony infallible only with a humane and acquisite faith upon prudential motives but he believes the Apostolical Tradition related by the Church with a divine faith Was there ever such a perplexed Guide in Controversies The Infallibility of the Church is sometimes to be believed with a divine faith and sometimes not and yet when it is not to be believed with a divine faith it is the Foundation of the divine faith of Apostolical Tradition for he assigns no other ground or reason for it besides the Infallible Testimony of the Church But this infallibility he saith may be known two ways by promises of Scripture or prudential motives not to dispute now the possibility of proving the Churches Infallibility by prudential motives which I shall do at large afterwards the thing I now enquire after is since the Apostolical Tradition must be believed by divine faith and the belief of it comes by the Churches Infallibility whether any other Infallibility can secure such a faith besides the Infallibility by Promise for the Infallibility asserted being a security from error by divine Assistance and that assistance only supposed to be promised in Scripture there can be no other Infallibility here understood but that which Infallibility by his own assertion must be believed by divine faith which divine Faith must rest upon divine Revelation and so he believes the sense of Scripture because of the Churches Infallibility and the Churches Infallibility by Apostolical Tradition and Apostolical Tradition by the Churches Infallibility and the Churches Infallibility by the sense of Scripture See now what an admirable Guide in Controversies we have met with and with what skill and dexterity he hath escaped the circle And so I take my leave of this GUIDE finding nothing in him further material about Infallibility which I have not answered in the foregoing Discourse The Consideratoâ— urging so much the very same things and frequently in the same words that I now think he either was the same person or made very bold with him CHAP. II. The Principles of E. W. about the certainty of Divine Faith laid down and considered § 1. HAving met with so little satisfaction from the Guide in Controversies I now betake my self to the Rule no Fancies Toys Trifles or Fallible Glosses I assure you for those E. W. cries out upon almost in every page of his worthy work but Reason and Religion or The Certain Rule of Faith What can any man desire more unless it be to see Mr. Stillingfleet joyned in the Title-page with Atheists Heathens Jews Turks and all Sectaries And that he might own a greater obligation to him than all that Rabble he dispatches them all after a fashion in 30. pages and spends above 600 upon him O what a pestilent Heretick is this Stillingfleet that deserves so many lashes beyond Atheists Heathens Jews or Turks If he had been any one of those he might have been gently used for never were they fairlier dealt with by any man that undertook them But he is not so much their Friend to thank him for this kind usage and E. W. thinks he will have enough to do to defend himself I confess I think so too if either of his Books against me were to be thrown at my head for they are very thick and as heavy as is possible And to my great comfort I never yet saw two such bulky books whose substance might be brought into a less compass for setting aside Tautologies and tedious repetitions frequent excursions and impertinent digressions the pith and marrow of
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
for Assent is not according to the objective certitude of things but the evidence of them to our understanding For is it possible to assent to the truth of a Demonstration in a demonstrative manner because any Mathematician tells one the thing is demonstrable For in that case the assent is not according to the evidence of the thing but according to the opinion such a person hath of him who tells him it is demonstrable Nay supposing that Person Infallible in saying so yet if the other hath no means to be Infallibly assured that he is so his Assent is as doubtful as if he were not Infallible Therefore supposing the Testimony of the Roman Church to be really Infallible yet since the means of believing it are but probable and prudential ' â—he Assent cannot be according to the nature of the Testimony considered in it self but according to the reasons which induce me to believe such a Testimony Infallible And in all such cases where I believe one thing for the sake of another my Assent to the object believed is according to my Assent to the Medium on which I believe it As our light is not according to the light in the body of the Sun but that which presseth on our Organs of Sense So that supposing their Churches Testimony to be Infallible in it self if one may be deceived in judging whether it be Infallible or no one may be deceived in such things which he believes on that supposed Infallibility It being impossible that the assent to the matters of faith should rise higher or stand firmer than the assent to the Testimony upon which those things are believed But now to prove the Churches infallibility they make use only of the motives of credibility which themselves grant can be the foundation only of a fallible assent This was the reason I then urged I must now consider what E. W. saith in answer to it And the force of his answer lies in these things 1. That all this proceeds from ignorance of the nature of faith which Discourses not like to science For he grants that the article of faith which concerns Gods Revâ—lation cannot be proved by another believeâ— article of faith wholly as obscure to us â— that is for that would proceed in infinitum therefore all rational proofs avail tâ—â—get faith in any must of necessity be extrinsecal to belief and lie as it were iâ— another Region more clear yet less certain than the revealed mystery is we assent to by faith And so in that article of faith the Church is Gods infallible Oracle he saith that antecedently to faith it cannot be proved by arguments as obscure and of the same Infallible certainty with faith for then faith would be superfluous or rather we should believe by a firm and infallible assent before we do believe on the motive of Gods insallible Revelation which is impossible So that the extrinsecal motives of faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is proved independently on Scripture are not of the same certainty with supernatural faith it self and only prove the evident credibility either of the Scripture or the Church 2. That the force of this Argument will hold against our selves and those who believed in the Apostles times whose infallible assent of faitb doth as much exceed all proportion or degree of evidence as theirs does in believing the Churches Infallibility on the motives of credibility In order to the giving a clear and distinct Answer it will be necessary to enquire â— What those acts of Faith are we now Discourse of 2. What influence the moâ—ives of credibility have upon them 1. For the acts of Faith there are two assigned by E. W. 1. That whereby men beâ—elieve the Scripture to be the Word of God 2. That whereby men believe the Church to be Infallible both these he acknowledges â—re Articles of faith and to be believed with â—an Infallible assent But here mark the shuffling the first of these cannot be believed but by an Infallible Testimony viz. Of the Church for that end the Churches Infallibiâ—ity is made necessary that the Faith may be divine and infallible because divine faith can rest only upon Infallible Testimony but â—hen in the other act of faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed we hear no more of this infallible Testimony because then it is impossible to avoid the circle I propose therefore this Dilemma to E. W. Either it is necessary to every act of divine Faith to have an Infallible Testimony or it is not if it be not necessary then there is no necessity of asserting the Churches Infallibility in order to believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God and so the cause is gained if it be necessary then the faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed must have such a divine Testimony and so either a process in infinitum or a circle are unavoidable by him If he considered this and yet wriâ— two such Books to prove the necessity of Infallibility in order to faith he betrays too much insincerity for a man to deal with him if he did not he need not complain so much of others Ignorance he may easily find enough nearer home And therefore all the fault of these men does not lie barely in making the assent to be more certain than the motives of Faith but in requiring so strictly in one act of Faith a proportionable certainty to the assent and not in another For what is there I beseech E. W. in believing the Churches Infallibility which should not make it as necessary for that to be supported by an infallible Testimony as that whereby we believe the Divine Revelation If faith hath nâ— grounds and doth not Discourse as Science doth then I hope the case is alike in bothâ— and so the necessity of an Infallible Testimony must be affirmed of the one or equally denyed in the other But he seems to assert That faith whatever object it respects doth not Discourse as Science doth but solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of reason Grant this at present but then I hope both these acts of faith equally do so and still â—he Churches infallibility cannot be made â—ecessary to faith for if faith immediately â—elies on Gods Testimony what need any other to ascertain it or any other proposition than such as is sufficient to make known â—he object of faith to which end no infalliâ—ility in the proponent is necessary Any more than it is necessary for the act of love â—oward a desireable object that he that shews a Beauty should be infallible in the description of her If all the necessity of the Churches proposition be no more than to convey the Divine Testimony to us as E. W. sometimes â—mplies let him take pains to a little better purpose in proving that such a conditio applicans as he calls it must have infallibility belonging to it For Infallibility is then only necessary when it is relied upon
and is the ground of believing and not where it is a meer condition of understanding If a Prince sends an Ambassadour about a match to a foraign Princess declaring that he will wholly rely upon his Testimony of her in this case there needs the greatest judgement and veracity in the Person trusted because the Prince resolves his judgement into his Ambassadours Testimony but if he only imploys a Person to bring her into the Room where he may see her and judge of her himself in this case there is no necessity of any other quality thâ—â— only obedience and fidelity So we say as the Church if the Churches Testimony to be relied upon as the Foundation of oâ— belief of the Scriptures then it is necessaâ— the Church should be infallible if there câ—â— be no faith without such a Testimony bâ— if all the office of the Church be only to prâ— pose the object of faith to be viewed and coâ— sidered by us then a common veracity mâ— be sufficient for it And in this case I granâ— faith is not to be resolved into the conditioâ— of applying the object of faith any moâ— than love is into the light whereby a mâ— sees Beauty or the burning of Fire into thâ— laying near of the fuel but if it be assertâ— that there can be no divine faith without â— infallible Testimony that this Testimony iâ— that of the Church and therefore upon thiâ— infallible Testimony we must build our saith he is blind that doth not see in this case thaâ— it must be resolved into this infallible testimony And therefore E. W. very impertinently charges me with this constant errour viz. making the motives of faith the Foundation of it and that hereby I confound thâ— judgement of credibility with the assent of faith by making the infallible testimony of the Church to those who believe it the formal object of faith For although the common motives of faith should do no more than â—ake the object of faith appear evidently â—edible and so the faith of such persons be â—eâ—olved into a further reason than those moâ—ves yet they who do believe upon the acâ—ount of the infallibility of the Churches â—estimony must resolve their faith into that which to them is the only infallible and adaequate Ground of Faith § 6. 2. To lay open the Foundation of all these mistakes about the nature of Faith I shall inquire into the influence which the motives of credibility have upon believing And therein give an account of these three things 1. What the motives of credibility are 2. How far they are necessary to faith 3. What influence they have upon the assent of Faith 1. What these motives of credibility are Suarez brings them under four heads 1. From the qualities of the Christian doctrine and those are 1. It s truth without any mixture of falshood but faith he if there be many things true and some false it is a sufficient sign that doctrine is not from God as it was among the Philosophers of old The way to judge of this quality he thus laies down those things which the Christian Religion speaks of which may be knowâ— by natural light are very agreeable to thâ— common reason of mankind those otheâ— things which are above it are not repugnanâ— to any principle of it but are agreeable tâ— the infinite and incomprehensible Majesty oâ— God 2. The sanctity and purity of this doctrine as appears by the excellency of the precepts of it the moral precepts not only agreeable to the Law of nature but tend much to the improvement of it the spiritual precepts have nothing contrary to the rules of morality and are suitable to the perfections of the Divine Nature 3. The efficacy of it which is seen by the strange and miraculous ways of its propagation by such instruments as were never like to effect their design without a Divine Power 2. The second Motive is from the number of witnesses of the whole Trinity at the Baptism of Christ of Christ himself in his holy and innocent life of Moses and the Prophets before him of the Apostles after him of the Devils themselves of the multitude of Martyrs of all kinds suffering with so much patience and courage and Christian Religion increasing by it 3. From the Testimony God gave to the truth of it by the Miracles which were wrought in confirmation of the Doctrine preached in which ought to be considered the nature the effects the frequency the manner of working them and the end for which they were wrought which must be not meerly for the benefit of the person on whom they are wrought but for a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine delivered otherwise he grants a Deceiver may work Miracles 4. From the continuance of this Doctrine in the world being so hard to believe the Doctrine and practice the precepts of it meeting with such multitudes of enemies of all kinds out of all which the credibility of the Christian Religion may be demonstrated a Divine Providence being supposed to take care of the affairs of mankind Greg. de Valentiâ reckons up these motives to 19. Michael Medina follows â—cotus and makes 10. or 11. of them on which he largely insists viz. the fulfilling of Prophesies the consent of Scriptures their Authority and truth the care and diligence of the first Christians in examining the Doctrine of Christianity the excellency of it in all its parts the propagation of it in the world the Miracles wrought for the confirmation of it the testimony of enemies the justice of providence and the destruction of its Adversaries To the same purpose Cardinal Lugo and others of the Schoolmen make an enumeration of theâ— motives of credibility but a late Jesuit haâ— reduced them all to the four chief Attribute of God His Wisdom Goodness Poweâ— and Providence but inlarges upon theâ— much in the same way that Suarez had donâ— Thus much may suffice for understandinâ— what these motives of credibility are whâ—â— are acknowledged to make up a demonstrâ—tion for the credibility of the Christian Religion 2. How far these are necessary to faith for that we are to consider that faith beinâ— an assent of the rational faculty in man muâ— proceed upon such grounds as may justifie thâ— assent to be a rational act which cannot bâ— unless sufficient reason appear to induce thâ— mind to assent which reason appearing â— all one with the creâ—â—bility of the object which doth not imply here what may be believed either with or without reason but whaâ— all circumstances considered ought to be believed by every prudent person And in thiâ— sense Suarez asserts the necessity of the evidence of credibility to the act of faith for saith he it is not enough that the object oâ— faith be proposed as revealed by God but iâ— is necessary that it be proposed with such circumstances as make it appear prudently crâ—dible in that way it is proposed For levilâ—
of judgement and rashness of assent he makes â—nconsistent with divine faith and every man ought so to believe as to exclude all fear of the contrary and so as that he can never â—rudently disbelieve what he now believes but if a man believes upon bad grounds he may afterwards prudently reject those grounds But this is not all for he makes such a proposition of the object of faith necessary whereby it appears evidently credible as revealed by God and consequently as certain and infallible For which he gives this reason because an inclination of the will to assent must precede the assent of faith before which there must be a judgement determining that act of the will this judgement must either be certain or uncertain if uncertain it is not sufficient for divine faith if it be certain then there must be such an evidence of credibility in the objects of faith And although a practical certainty as to matters of humane faith may be sufficiently founded upon a judgement of probability i. e. a man may judge it fit for him to believe where he sees only a greater probability on one side than of the other yet in matters of divine faith a higher judgement than of meer probability is necessary viz. that which is founded upon the evidence of credibility for with a meer probability a prudent doubting is consistent which is not with divine saith and withal the certainty of faith is not meerly practical but speculative i. e. of the truth of the thing in it self and therefore requires a speculative evidence of the credibility of the object From whence he concludes that a bare credibility is not sufficient but a greater credibility of the doctrine believed than of any other contrary to it for if two doctrines appear equally credible there can be only a doubtful assent given to one of them and a man might choose which he would believe but in the assent of faith it is not only necessary that there be a greater credibility of one doctrine than of the other but that this be evident to natural reason which dictates that in matters of Salvation that doctrine is to be believed which appears more evidently credible than any other To the same purpose Cardinal Lugo determines that the will cannot command a prudent assent of faith where there precedes only a probable judgement of the credibility of the object because there must be the apprehension of a certain obligation to believe which must arise from the evidence of credibility in the object of faith And Aquinas himself had determined that no man would believe unless he saw that the things were to be believed either sor the evidence os miracles or something of a like nature which Cajetan interprets of believing truly and vertuously truly i. e. without fear of the contrary and vertuously i. e. prudently So that although men may rashly and indiscreetly believe things without sufficient evidence of their credibility yet no man can by the acknowledgement of the most learned of the Schoolmen yield a rational and prudent assent of faith without it 3. The main thing is to consider what influence the evidence of credibility hath upon the act of faith For E. W. asserts that all that results from thence is only a judgement of credibility but that the act of faith it self relies wholly upon other principles and by the help of the distinction of these two he labours to avoid the force of my arguments Thus then the matter stands it is agreed that faith must have rational proofs antecedent to it but these proofs he must say do not perswade men to believe or which is all one have no influence upon the act of Faith If all that were meant by this talk were only this that we are then said properly to believe when we fix our assent upon Gods testimony but that all acts of the mind short of this may not properly be called believing but by some other name this would presently appear to be a controversie about words which I perfectly hate But more must be understood by such men as E. W. or else they do not speak at all to the purpose for the Question is whether in requiring an infallible assent of faith to the Churches Infallibility upon motives confessedly fallible an assent be not required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence to this he answers that this argument proceeds upon ignorance of the nature of faith which doth not discourse as Science doth and he grants that the motives of credibility have not the same certainty that faith hath What then can hence follow but that faith is an unreasonable assent and hath no grounds or that it may be stronger than the grounds it proceeds upon But if it appear that faith must have grounds and that the assent of faith can be no stronger than the grounds are then it follows that they are very unreasonable in requiring an infallible assent of faith to the Churches Infallibility barely upon the motives of credibility § 7. 1. That faith must have grounds If a man had not to deal with persons who have confounded their own understandings with an appearance of subtilty one would think this as needless a task as to prove that man is a reasonable creature for if faith be an assent of the mind taking it as strictly and properly as they please it must have the nature of a rational act which it cannot have unless it proceeds upon reasonable grounds The grounds I grant are different in several assents but it must always have some Those which are accounted the most immediate assents have the clearest and most evident reason such as the assents to first principles are as that the whole is greater than the part c. and for conclusions drawn from them the readiness and firmness of the assent is proportionable to the evidence of their connexion with those principles from whence they are drawn In other things that depend upon the evidence of sense the reason of our assent to the truth of them is from the supposition of the truth of our faculties and that we are so framed as not to be imposed upon in matters that are plainly and with due circumstances conveyed to our minds by our Organs of sense But if there appear an evidence of reason overthrowing the certainty of sense Scepticism immediately follows and the suspension of all assent to the truth of things conveyed by our senses for no man can then be certain of any thing by the evidence of sense but only of the appearance of things I may be certain that things do appear with such difference of colours and tasts and smells but I cannot be certain that there are really such differences in the things themselves If therefore the Scepticks arguments should prevail upon any mans mind so far as to make him question whether sense be a certain medium to convey the truth of the things to his
Faith for if the Infallible assent of Faith do come from the power of the Will then to what purpose is any formal object of that assent enquired after For the formal object doth assign a reason of believing from the object it self of which there can be none if the Will by her own Power elicit that which is the proper assent of Faith And all other material objects of Faith may be believed in as infallible a manner by the same power of the Will But if the Will can command the understanding to assent beyond the degree of evidence why may not the understanding dictate to the Will to desire a thing beyond the degree of goodness appearing to it and by this means both those faculties would tend to their objects in a way disagreeing to their nature All these ways being found in sufficient Cardinal Lugo saith some had recourse at last to a mysterious elevation of the understanding beyond all connatural ways of its operation whereby it lays hold on the matters of Faith in a way wholly inexplicable and however the Cardinal slights this way and expresseth a great detestation of it as that which renders the matters of Faith incredible and imperceptible yet I think it absolutely the best for those of the Roman Church that hath yet been thought of and I would particularly commend it to E. W. who loves to talk so unintelligibly and confusedly as if he had this habit of believing infused already And thus much in vindication of the first argument I proposed against making the Infallible Testimony of the Church the foundation of Faith and yet that Infallibility to be only proved by the motives of credibility viz. that hereby an infallible assent must be built upon fallible grounds As to what E. W. saith by way of recrimination it shall be answered when I come to defend our own grounds of Faith § 10. The next Argument which afford◠any new matter to my Adversary whereb◠I shewed this way of resolving Faith to b◠unreasonable was because by making the Insallible Testimony of the Church necessary to Faith they make that necessary to Faith which was not made so by Christ or his Apostles What then say I will become of the Faith of all those who received Divine Revelations without the Infallible Testimony of any Church at all With what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the Old Testament was it a true Divine Faith or not If it was whereon was it built Not certainly on the Infallible Testimony of the Jewish Church which at that time consented to the death of the Messias condemning him as a Malefactor and Deceiver Or did they believe it because of the great rational evidence they had to convince them that those Prophesies came from God If so why may not we believe the Divinity of all the Scriptures on the same grounds and with a Divine Faith too With what Faith did those believe in the Messias who were not personally present at the Miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the womans of Samaria was to the Samaritans Or were all such persons excused from believing meerly because they were not spectators But by the same reason all those would be excused who never saw our Saviours Miracles or heard his Doctrine or his Apostles but if such persons then were bound to believe I ask on what Testimony was their Faith founded Was the woman of Samaria Infallible in reporting the Discourse between Christ and her Were all the persons Infallible who gave an account to others of what Christ did Yet I suppose had it been your own case you would have thought your self bound to have believed Christ to have been the Messias if you had lived at that time and a certain account had been given you of our Saviours Doctrine and Miracles by men faithful and honest though you had no reason to have believed them infallible I pray Sir answer me would you have thought your self bound to have believed or no If you affirm it as I will suppose you so much a Christian as to say so I pray then tell me whether persons in those circumstances might not have a true and divine Faith where there was no infallible Testimony but only Rational Evidence to build it self upon And if those Persons might have a divine Faith upon such evidence as that was may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature indeed but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was And how then can you stil◠assert an Infallible Testimony of the conveyers of divine Revelation to be necessary in order to a divine Faith Nay further yet how few were there in comparison in the first Ages of the Christian Church who received the Doctrine of the Gospel from the mouths of persons Infallible and of those who did so what certain evidence have men that all those persons did receive the Doctrine upon the account of the Infallibility of the Propounders and not rather upon the Rational evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and whether the belief of their Infallibility was absolutely necessary to Faith when the report of the evidences of the Truth of the Doctrine might raise in them an obligation to believe supposing them not Infallible in that delivery of it but that they looked on them as honest men who faithfully related what they had seen and heard and to which evidence of sense the Apostles and Evangelists appealed so that when there was certainly an infallible Testimony yet that is not urged as the only Foundation for Faith but Rational Evidence produced even by those Persons who were thus infallible If we descend lower in the Christian Church or walk abroad to view the several Plantations of the Churches at that time where do we read or meet with the least intimation of an Infallible Testimony of the Catholick Church so called from its Communion with that of Rome What Infallible Testimony of that Church had the poor Britains to believe on Or those Barbarians mentioned in Irenaeus who yet believed without a written Word What mention do we meet with in all the ancient Apologeticks of Christians wherein they give so large an account of the grounds of Christian Faith of the modern method for resolving Faith Nay what one ancient Father or Council give the least countenance to this pretended Infallibility much less make it the only sure Foundation of Faith as you do Nay how very few are there among your selves who believe it and yet think themselves never the worse Christians for it If then your Doctrine be true what becomes of the Faith of all these persons mentioned Upon your principles their Faith could not be true and Divine Faith that is let them all think they believed the Doctrine of Christ never so heartily and obey it never so conscientiously yet because they
to the death of Christ and my Question will not only hold of the Apostles but of any common Jews among them who might not believe Christ infallible any more than the Sanhedrin I ask whether such might not have seen sufficient ground to believe that the Prophesies came not in old time by the will of man but by the Will of God if such persons had reason sufficient for their faith without any infallible Testimony the same I say may all Christians have of the Divine Authority of the New Testament For if the concurrent Testimony of the dispersed Jews firmly believing the divine Authority of the Old Testament were a sufficient ground for a person then to believe the Divinity of those Books why may not the concurrent Testimony of all Christians afford as sufficient a ground to believe the Authority of the Books of the New though no Ecclesiastical Senate among Christians be supposed any more infallible than the Jewish Sanhedrin was at the death of Christ and by this I hope E. W. may a little better perceive what this objection aims at But saith he hence it follows not that then there was no Jewish Church which believed the divine verities of the old Scripture O the monstrous subtilty of Jesuits who is able to stand before their terrible wits What have we to do with a Churches believing the divine verities of the Old Scripture we only enquire for the Testimony of a Church as necessary in order to others believing it If they firmly believed and yet had no infallible Testimony of a Church at that time what can be more to our advantage than this seeing it hence follows that there may be a firm faith without any Churches infallible Testimony Well but he verily thinks I mistook one objection for another perhaps I would have said that the Apostles lost faith of our Saviours Resurrection at the time of his Passion but this difficulty is solved over and over And then falls unmercifully to work with this man of clouts he throws him first down and tramples upon him then sets him up again to make him capable of more valour being shown upon him then he kicks him afresh beats him of one side and then of the other and so terribly triumphs 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 cost him some aches and wounds But I assure him I meant no such thing yet if I had I do not see but after all his batteries the argument such as it is would have stood firm enough for supposing the Infallible Testimony of the Church to rest in the Apostles after our Saviours death it must have prejudiced the faith of others who were to believe that article upon their Authority if they lost the faith of Christs Resurrection 2. I instanced in those who believed in Christ and yet were not personally present at the miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the womans of Samaria was to the Samaritans Of these I ask what infallible Testimony their faith was built upon And if those persons might have a Divine Faith meerly upon rational evidence may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was To this he answers by distinguishing between the Motive or the natural Proposition of faith which comes by hearing and the infallible Oracle whereupon it relies and he thinks it strange I did not see the distinction It is far easier to see the distinction than the pertinency of it to his purpose for our Question is not about the necessity of an Infallible Oracle in order to Faith but of an infallible Proposition we still yield that which our faith relies upon to be an infallible Oracle of God but if a natural Proposition of that be sufficient for faith we have all we contend for But to what purpose the Legend of S. Photina and the dispute whether she were the Samaritan woman is here inserted is very hard to understand unless he thought it the best way by any means to escape from the business in hand Next he tells us what he might answer iâ— these instances by saying with good Divinâ— that all immediate Propounders or Conveyerâ— of Divine Revelation in such particular caseâ— need not to be infallible I am glad to hear of such good Divines among them only I would know why in these particular cases an infallible proposition was unnecessary to faith if in the general case of all Christians it be now become necessary But he saith although infallibility be not necessary for young beginners seldom molested with difficulties against saith yet it is not only convenient but absolutely necessary for others more learned who often struggle to captivate their understanding when the high mysteries of Christianity are proposed Never was there certainly a more senseless answer for who are molested with difficulties against faith if those who are to be converted to Christianity are not who have none of the advantages of education to recommend the doctrines of Christianity to their minds and are filled and prepossessed with contrary prejudices Never were there such happy Converters of Infidels as the Jesuits are if they meet with such Converts who are never molested with difficulties against faith only as they grow up they begin to grow Infidels again and then it is necessary to choke them with an Infallible Church I do not at all wonder that the more learned in the Church of Rome seeing the weakness of the grounds of Faith among them do struggle with themselves about believing the mysteries of their faith but I very much wonder if so unreasonable a pretence as that of Infallibility can ever satisfie them I desire to know of these more learned believers whether they believed the Churches Infallibility before those strugglings or not if they did not how came they to be believers since there can be no divine faith without an infallible testimony if they did how came they to question whether they were to believe the particular mysteries of faith if they did believe the Church Infallible which proposed them But I suppose these learned believers were such as questioned the Infallibility of the Church and Christ and his Apostles too of which sort I doubt not there are many in Rome it self But yet he hath two other ways to solve these difficulties 1. By Gods special illumination and that I hope may serve all as well as these and then let him shew the necessity of an infallible Proponent 2. That every particular proponent as a member conjoyned with Christs infallible Oracle may be said to teach infallibly A most admirable speculation and so may every one we meet with in the streets be infallible not as considered in himself but as a member conjoyned with truth or every Sectary as a member conjoyned with
pressed the necessity of divine Faith so much that from thence he might introduce the necessity of Infallibility yet he now seems wholly to have forgotten any such distinction of Faith humane and divine although he could not but see that the force of my Argument did depend upon it The substance of his answer is That the first act of Faith whereby we believe the Churches Infallibility relies not on Scripture but upon the Church it self as the most known manisested Oracle Be it so but the Question is whether this first act be divine Faith or not if not it is nothing to the purpose if it be then divine Faith may want an Infallible Testimony for this first act of Faith concerning the Churches Infallibility hath nothing to rely upon but the fallible motives of credibility and consequently divine Faith may want an Infallible Testimony And I say still let them answer this if they can without apparent shuffling and running away from the Question in hand 2. From the consideration of the persons whose Faith is to be resolved for I say 1. The Question is not which way they will prove the Insallibility of their Church against those who deny it but which way they resolve their own Faith of the Churches Infallibility 2. In disputing against their Adversaries they cannot avoid the circle for while they prove Infallibility from Scripture the Question arises how they come to know Infallibly that this is the sense of those places for which they must again appeal to the Churches Infallibility in delivering the sense of Scripture which if it be not a circle I say there is hardly such a figure in Mathematicks To this he answers 1. That they both resolve and prove but then if they do resolve their Faith into this Infallibility it is no sufsicient answer to say they only prove it to Adversaries which was all I intended by that first particular But what answer doth he give to the second concerning tbe sense of Scripture Here again he makes use of his distinction of the first and second act of Faith the first he saith is not at all founded upon the sense of Scripture but upon the Churches own Infallible Testimony made by it self and for it self immediately credible Now if we speak saith he of another distinct consequent and more explicit act of Faith when we believe the Churches Infallibility upon this ground that she declares the Scriptures genuine sense which proves her an Infallible Oracle there is no difficulty at all because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church or rather upon Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together For thus joyntly taken they ground Faith and not like two disparate principles as if we first believed the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches Interpretation and then again believed the Churches interpretation to be Infallible because the sense of Scripture known aliunde or without depending on Church Authority saith she is Infallible This cannot bâ— if Scripture and the Churches interpretation indivisibly concur to this latter act of Faith whereof we now speak Here then is a Dilemma that clears all and frees us from the least shadow of a circle we either know or believe the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches interpretation or receive it upon her Infallible Authority grant the first there is no danger of a circle grant the latter there are 〈◊〉 two imaginable propositions to make a circle of whilst that sense internal to the letter cannot be Infallibly propounded otherwise than by the Church I have set down these words more at large to let the Reader try his faculty upon them what tolerable sense he can make of them My objection was plain and easie they offer to prove the Churches Infallibility by Scripture at least as to the second act of Faith which is alone pertinent to our purpose I asked what way they come to believe Infallibly themselves and assure others this is the sense of those places and in this case they are forced to return to the Churches Infalliâ—ility judge now Reader whether here be not a plain circle because they believe the Church Infallible because the true sense of Scripture saith she is so and again they believe this to be the Infallible sense of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so No saith E. W. Here is not the least shadow of a circle I would he had told us first what a circle was and then applyed what he had said to the description given of it But for all that I can see by his answer he had a mind to amuse his Reader by seeming to say something but no great matter what Is not that a circle when the Argument made use of to prove another thing by must it self be proved by that very thing which it is made use of to prove For in this case the mind hath nothing to fix it self upon and therefore must suspend all assent which must have some certain foundation to proceed upon on which it may rest it self As the will could not love Physick for the sake of health if it loved health for the sake of Physick so neither can the understanding assent to one truth for another if it assent to that other only for the sake of the former For then the same Proposition would be more certain than the other as it is the antecedent by which the other is proved and less certain as it is the consequent proved by the other as it's antecedent and so in different respects would be more and less certain than it self Let us now apply this to our present case The thing to be proved is the Churches Infallibility the Argument to prove it by is the Infallible sense of Scripture but if the Infallible sense of Scripture can be proved by nothing but the 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 Now let any man attend to the answer he gives he saith there is no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon this ground that she declares the Scriptures genuine sense which proves her an Infallible Oracle No difficulty at all Nay that is a little strange that there should be no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon the sense of those Scriptures whose sense could not be insallibly known without the supposal of that Infallibility which is to be proved by them But how comes there to be no difficulty at all in this matter Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last principle is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church or rather upon Scripture and the Churches interpretation together What a strange thing the difference of mens understandings is That which
of Rome confess that it was not always necessary but least on the other side they should seem hereby to forego the Palladium of that Church they do withall say that sometimes Faith may begin there and so run into the very same absurdities that the others do For if one man can resolve his Faith well so why not a hundred why not a thousand why not all Christians If all cannot do it without running into a circle neither can one for the process of Faith is alike in all Not that the same means are used to all persons for it is evident that men believe upon different grounds but what is absurd if a thousand do it is equally absurd if but one do it Although the Guide â—n Controversies doth not suppose it necessary â—or men to resolve their Faith into the Churches Infallibility yet he doth suppose â—hat some men may do it Well then we will put the case that any one person doth reâ—olve his Faith concerning Gods Revelation â—nto the Churches Infallibility as the ground of his divine Faith I desire to be informed by this worthy Guide whether he doth not run into the same absurdities which all would do if they proceeded that way i. e. whether it be any more possible for one to free himself from a circle than for all Is not the reason assigned by Canus and Layman and Lugo this viz. because the Churches Infallibility iâ— one of the things to be believed as revealed by God and therefore cannot be the ground of Faith to any And will not this reason exclude any one person from doing it that resolves his Faith as he ought to do So that if this hold in any one being drawn from the reason of the thing and not from the circumstances of persons it must equally hold against all persons and consequently no one person can reasonably establish his Faith as to Gods Revelation upon the Churches Infallibility § 6. 3. I am far from understanding this way of immediate asseâ—â—t to the divine Revelation I grant the reason against proceeding furtheâ— to be very good for the Guide could see nâ— passage that way but over rocks and precipices and therefore finds out a shorter cut by asserting an immediate assent to the Divinâ— Revelation But to what divine Revelation doth he mean The Authority of Soripture Churches Infallibility Apostolical Tradition or any of these It is all one to me which it is for it is equally unreasonable to alloâ— any of them For I look upon Faith aâ— an act of the mind which must always have a reason moving it to assent Even in self evident Propositions where the assent is most immediate yet there is the greatest and clearest reason for it viz. the evidence of the thing which makes the understanding never hesitate or doubt but yield a firm assent upon the first apprehension and proportionable to the reason and evidence of the thing or of the motive enclining to assent so is the readiness and firmness of it But to assert an assent in Faith so immediate of which no motive or reason can be assigned proportionable to it is a thing repugnant to the nature of our reasonable faculties and it is to make one of the noblest acts of our understandings a meer blind and bruitish assent All that we enquire for is a sufficient reason to move our minds to believe in the act of divine Faith which is seen in all the acts of humane Faith For no man can reasonably believe what another saith or that he hath said so but he is able to give an account of both of them And it would be very strange that in the most weighty matters of Faith on which mens eternal happiness and misery depend they should be obliged to assent in such an immediate manner that they can have no good account to give of their divine Faith Yes â—aith the Guide an account may be given â—o make this assent appear prudent by the moâ—ives of credibility But that is not the thing we enquire for but a sufficient foundation for divine Faith and as to this he asserts â—hat our Faith doth immediately rest upon divine Revelation without proceeding to another Revelation for the ground of it But now then can this divine Faith have a divine Revelation for its ground It may have it for its material object which comes not under our consideration but only the formal object on motive of that Faith as to this Revelation We will suppose the Churches Infallibility to be the matter believed I demand a reason why this is to be believed The Answer is because God hath revealed it in his Word there the Qâ—estion returns what reason have you to believe that to be the Word of God Here the Guide cries out stand there if you proceed a step further you are lost For if you say upon another Revelation then that upon another and so without end But say I you tell me I must believe this to be Gods Word with a divine Faith and this divine Faith must rest upon a divine Revelation as its formal cause assign me that or you overthrow the nature of divine Faith what divine Revelation is there for this Faith to rest upon None say you but here it must stop if so then it is certain by your own principles this either can be no divine Faith or else divine Faith doth not always need a divine Revelation So that this way of the resolution of Faith overthrows it self and needs no other opposition but of one part to another § 7. 4. It may be all this may be cleared by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost supplying the want of another Revelation by its illuminating and confirming the mind So the Tragoedians of old call'd down the Gods upon the Stage when they could extricate themselves by no other means Not that I do in the least doubt the efficiency of the divine Spirit in the act and exercise of Faith or that God by secret and unexpressible ways may strengthen and increase Grace in the hearts of men which thereby become better assured of the â—hings they believe But the Question now â—s whether our Faith as to the motive and â—eason of it can or ought to be resolved into â—he illumination of the Holy Ghost And in â—ruth after all his turnings and windings the Guide sits down at last in the grossest way of resolving divine faith into the Testimony of the Holy Ghost For he saith that doth â—lluminate the understanding that the prime verity cannot lie in whatever thing it reveals and also that the particular articles of our faith are its revelations Was ever any â—hing more fully said to this purpose by the highest Calvinists or Enthusiasts Have the â—isputants of the Church of Rome hitherâ—o charged them with a circle in this â—esolution of faith equal with theirs between the Church and Scripture and hath the very Guide in Controversies found no way to escape one whirlpool but by
falling into another But since I see no reason to believe this Guide in Controversies to be infallible any more than the Pope himself I hope I may have leave to ask him some few Questions Doth he in earnest believe that our assurance of Gods veracity and the truth of his revelations do flow from the immediate illumination of the Spirit of God I would fain know then 1. Why he troubleâ— himself about any other resolution of faith For by this way he resolves faith in all the parts of it If you ask the first Questionâ— why you believe that to be true which God reveals The Answer is ready the Holy Ghost illuminates my mind in the belief of this If you again ask why you believe these particular articles to be Gods revelations the answer is already given the same Holy Ghost illuminates my mind in that too What need Church-Infallibility Apostolical Tradition motives of credibility or any other way the work is compleatly and effectually done without the assistance of any of them 2. Is not this to tell unbelievers that we can give them no satisfaction as to the grounds of our divine faith It is true he grants something may be said for a dull kind of humane and acquisite faith which others are capable of understanding but for divine faith that depends upon such secret and private illuminations which no person can at all judge of but he that hath them nor he very well unless another revelation assures him that these are the illuminations of Gods Spirit and not the deceptions of his own Especially since it is a principle in the Roman Church that no man can attain any absolute certainty of Grace without a particular Revelation from God See then what a wilderness this Guide hath led us into We â—re to believe that what God hath revealed â—s true and that he hath revealed these things â—rom the illumination of the Holy Ghost â—ut we cannot certainly know that we have â—uch an illumination without another reveâ—ation to discover that and so we must run â—n without end or turn back again the same way we went to believe illumination by â—evelation and revelation by illumination 3. How he can possibly give himself any good account of his faith in this manner For since the fundamental principle of faith â—s the veracity of God and the belief of Gods veracity is here attributed to the illumination of the Holy Ghost we may see how excellent a Guide this is that thus stumbles in a plain way or must of necessity go forward and backward For I desire him to satisfie me according to this resolution of faith in this Question why he doth believe whatsoever God saith is true his Answer is because the Holy Ghost by his inward illumination assured me so But then I ask again why he is assured of the truth of what the Holy Ghost enlightens him his Answer must be if he speaks at all to the purpose because the Holy Ghost is God and cannot speak any thing but truth So that the veracity of God is proved by the Spirits Illumination and the Spirits Illumination by Goâ— veracity But there is yet another principlâ— which faith stands upon which is that Goâ— hath revealed the things we believe heâ— again I ask why he believes these articles aâ— Gods revelations his answer is the Holâ— Ghost by enlightening my mind hath assured me of it But then I ask how he is suâ— with a divine faith which in this case is necessary that there is a Holy Ghost and thaâ— this is the illumination of the Holy Ghostâ— Here he must return again to divine Revelation wherein the promise of the Holy Ghosâ— is made Judge now Reader whether thiâ— be not an admirable Guide in Controversies and whether he hath not given a very satisfactory account of the Resolution of Faith § 8. Besides that this way is thus unsatisfactory in it self I have this further charge against it that other ways are liable only to the single absurdities of their own particulaâ— opinions but this blind Guide hoping to cleaâ— himself of one great absurdity hath not only run into it the very way he seeks to escape it but into many more besides If there be any thing absurd in the Calvinists Resolution of Faith he hath taken in that if there be any thing absurd in resolving faith by the Infallibility of the Church he is liable to â—hat too because though he doth not think â—t necessary he allows it to be good and last of all that which he looks upon as the advantage of their faith above ours plungeth him unavoidably in as bad a circle as may â—e And that is That the Infallibility of the Church being once believed by a divine Faith from the Revelation of it in Scripture it is a ground of faith to him in all controversies that arise concerning the sense of Scripture I am not now to examine the falseness of the pretence which hath been done already and may be more afterwards that which at present I am to shew is that it is impossible for him in his resolution of Faith concerning the sense of Scripture to avoid the circle Let us see how he attempts it Suppose I be asked saith he concerning some article of faith defined by the Church though the same article doth not appear to me clearly delivered in the Scriptures why with a divine faith I believe it to be divine Revelation I answer because the Church which is revealed by the Scriptures to be perpetually assisted by the Holy Ghost and to be infallible for ever in matters delivered by her hath delivered it to me as such If again why with a divine faith I believe these Scriptures in general or such a sense of those texts in particular which are pretended to reveal the Churches infallibility to be divine Revelation I answer as before because Apostolical Tradition hath delivered them to be so which Apostolical Tradition related or conveyed to me by the Churcâ— I believe with a divine faith by the internaâ— operation of the Holy Spirit without haviâ—â— at all any further Divine Revelation froâ— which I should believe this Revelation to bâ— divine This is the utmost progress of divine faith with him I know not how mucâ— faith there may be in this way I am suâ— there is not the least shadow of reason Foâ— if a stop be made at last by the internal opâ—ration of the Holy Spirit what need so mucâ— ado to come thither Might not the samâ— answer have served as well to the first anâ— second Question as to the third When yoâ— were asked why with a divine faith you bâ—lieve such a sense of Scripture to be divinâ— Revelation Might not you have hindred aâ— further proceeding by saying I believe iâ— with a divine faith by the internal operatioâ— of the Holy Spirit without having at all anâ— further divine Revelation But if you though it necessary to assign another divine
mind it is impossible that man should yield a firm assent to the truth of any thing on the account of the evidence of sense So that still assent proceeds upon the grounds of reason which satisfie the mind that all circumstances considered it ought not to suspend any longer Let us now consider such things which are not so evident of themselves nor conveyed by our senses and unless we distrust all mankind we have reason to believe some things to be which we never saw our selves and this is the fundamental ground of that we call believing which is nothing else but taking truth upon trust or receiving a thing as true upon such testimony which I see no reason to question If I see any reason to doubt either the skill or fidelity of those persons upon whose credit I am to rely it is impossible for me firmly to believe upon their Authority if I see none then on that account I believe what they say wherein it is as evident that my assent is according to the grounds I proceed upon as that two and two make four What is it then that hath thus confounded these mens minds to make them to contend that the act of divine faith is of such a nature that nothing like it is to be found in any other act of the mind Must we cease to be men by being Christians or where the strongest reason is most necessary must there be none at all to what end then were there arguments ever used to perswade men to believe Christianity were those arguments able to perswade men or not if they were then men did believe upon the strength of those arguments and is it possible for men to believe upon the strength of arguments and yet those arguments have no influence upon the act of faith This is horrible nonsense and fit only for those to write who believe contradictions for such an act of faith indeed can have no reason for it But to come closer yet to our matter The Churches infallibility is to be believed saith E. W. with divine faith is there any ground for that act of faith or not If there be none shew what obligation to believe there can be where there is no ground for it if there be I desire to know whether they are able to perswade me or not if not shew then why I ought to believe on insufficient grounds if they be may not I then believe upon those grounds and if I do doth not that act of faith rely upon those grounds Besides of those who plead for the necessity of the Churches infallibility I desire to know on what account they do it Is it not that faith may have a sufficient Foundation to be built upon which in their opinion cannot be without such infallibility and yet after all this must not faith stand upon this ground Why then are Scotus Durand Gabriel Medina and others charged by some of the Roman Church with resolving faith into the Churches testimony What is this else but only to make the Churches Testimony the ground of faith Nay why are there any disputes at all about the formal object of faith For the formal object is nothing but the reason of believing and what account can be given of the reason of believing if there be none at all But it may be all this while I mistake my profound Adversary it being hardly possible that a man of common sense should write such stuff To prevent any suspicion of this nature I shall lay down his assertions in his own words from several places of his worthy works Faith solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of Reason for ill Motive the previous Motives well pondered bring with them an obligation to believe and not faith it self For Faith reasons not but simply believes Faith contrary to science goes beyond the certainty of all extrinsecal inducements And afterwards where he attempts to answer the main difficulty as he calls it in the resolution of faith which in short is since the motives of credibility seem to leave the matter doubtful what that is which determines the assent to the objects of faith as infallibly true waving at present that answer that it is from the command of the will he seems to attribute so great an evidence to the Motives of credibility that they do infallibly prove the truth of divine Revelation there being an insiparable connexion between the Motives and divine Revelation but then he starts an untoward objection viz. that then the Revelation must appear evident and so faith would be evident to which he answers by denying the consequence because this assent is science and not faith now this evidence arising from the motives of credibility faith saith he as faith leaves or lays aside and firmly adheres to the Divine Revelation only for it self as contradistinct both from the Moral evidence of the Motives and their apparent connexion with the Revelation The reason is taken saith he from the notion of faith which essentially tends obscurely upon its own object as the most ancient Fathers assert From whence it is clear if you believe him that no evidence of the testimony assented to can move to faith not only because we should in the case of evidence be necessitated to believe but upon this account also that the certitude of faith taken from the supreamest verity iâ— of a higher strain and far surpasses all the certitude we find in nature or in the Motives inducing to believe But which is more pleasant he yet adds It is true the more evident these motives appear the better they induce to believe yet for that reason have less to do with the very act of faith which as he said rests upon and lays claim to no lower a verity than the most pure and supream only and if it rests not here it is no faith And yet after all this he asserts that the evidence of credibility apparent in those manifest signs and marks which illustrate true Christianity is abundantly sufficient to induce the most obdurate heart in the world to believe with such an Assent as suits Gods great Majesty i. e. with a faith most firm and infallible Here we have Motives such Motives as give evidence of divine Revelation such motives as are sufficient to induce the most obdurate person to an infallible assent of faith and yet after all this evidence by these motives in order to believing this believing hath nothing to do with them and the more they induce to believe the less influence they have upon faith for that fixeth on the divine Revelation solely for it self and hath a certainty beyond that of the greatest arguments that are used for believing He that hath the faculty of understanding these things ought to oblige mankind with a clearer discovery of them than E. W. hath made who doth not seem to understand what he writes himself and therefore it cannot be expected that
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
Foundatioâ— for it but the pretence of Infallibility doâ—â— overthrow the evidence of sense and reason and put the whole tryal of the Truth of Christianity upon the pitiful proofs which theâ— bring for the Church of Romes Infallibility And when they have brought men to it they cannot assure them what that Church is which they attribute this Infallibility to who in that Church are the proper subjects of it what kind of Infallibility it is noâ— when the Church doth define Infallibly so many things are to be believed without reason both as the persons who are to define and the manner of their definitions 2. Supposing this way true the Circle still remains which I proved by three things â— From the nature of the faith they enquire for a resolution of which is not humane but Divine Faith For the Question was not whether by another kind of Assent they could not escape the circle but whether they could â—o it in the resolution of Divine Faith or not Either then the Churches Infallibility is not to be believed with a Divine Faith or there may be a Divine Faith without an Infallible Testimony or this Divine Faith of the Churches Infallibility must be built on the Scripture and so the Circle returns 2. From the persons whose faith is to be resolved the way of resolving faith being a different thing from proving a matter of Faith to an Adversary granting then that to those who deny the Churches Infallibility but allow the Scriptures they may prove the one by the other yet this signifies nothing to the Resolution of their own Faith which is the thing enquired after and yet even in proving to â—dâ—ersaries the Churches Infallibility from Sciptureâ— they cannot avoid the Circle when the Question returns about the sense of those places for then they must run to the Church because the Church which is Infallible hath delivered this to be the sense of them 3. From the nature of that Infallibility which they attribute to the Church which being not by immediate divine Revelation but by a Supernatural Assistance promised in Scripture it is impossible to prove this Infallibility but by first proving the truth of thaâ— Scripture wherein these promises are contained and so the Circle still returns for the believe the Scriptures Infallible because oâ— the Churches Testimony and they belieâ—â— the Church Infallible because of the Promises of her Assistance recorded in Scripture 3. It is false that there are the same motive of credibility as to the Churches Infallibility which there were for the Infallibility of Mosâ—â— and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles which T. C. therefore very wisely declined tâ— prove and only said it was sufficient to sheâ— how he had escaped the Circle § 2. This is a brief account of that pan of the Resolution of Faith which hath beeâ— since assaulted by two several Adversarieâ— but in different ways The first of them iâ— the Guide in Controversies who ingenuouslâ— confesseth the Question about the Resolutioâ— of Faith upon their Principles to be intricatâ— so any one might easily guess by the intricacy and obscurity of his answer to it I shall endeavâ—ur to bring it to as much clearness aâ— possibly I can that I may the better represent the force and consequences of it The substance of what he saith may be reduced to these propositions 1. That the Church may be considered two ways 1. As a Society already manifested by Divine Revelation whether written or unwritten to be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost 2. As a Society of men whose Testimony is to be received upon prudential motives 2. That the Church being considered in the former of the two acceptions the infallible authority and testimony thereof is not only an introductive into but one of the articles of divine faith and that so many as believe the Churches Infallibility in this sense may safely resolve their divine faith of other articles of their belief into its delivering them as such 3. That whatever this Infallible Authority of the Church be it is not necessary that every one for attaining a divine and saving faith be infallibly certain of this Infallible Authority or as he elsewhere expresseth it that it is not necessary for divine faith that it should always have an external rationally-infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church-authority or any other on his part that so believes or that he have some extrinsecal motive or proponent of which he is infallibly certain that it is infallible 4. There are two sorts of faith to be resolved divine and humane or infused and acquisite the one is always built upon divine Revelation the other needs no more than prudential motives or such as are sufficiently credible or morally infallible on which an acquired or humane faith securely rests 5. That there must be particular ultimate divine Revelation which may not be to all the same but to some one to some another viz. either Scripture or Churches Testimony or Apostolical Tradition or Miracles beyond which he can resolve his divine faith no further for proving or consirming which revelation he can produce no other divine revelution but there must end unless a process be made in infinitum or a running round 6. Divine Faith as to such altimate particular divine Revelation cannot be grounded meerly on Gods veracity but that God hath said this particular thing which we believe namely that the testimony of the Church or Apostles or Scriptures is true which must either be grounded that it may be the Foundation of a divine faith on some other divine Revelation and so in infinitum or else I must rest there with an immediate assent to it 7. The internal efficient of all Divine faith is the power or Grace of the Holy Ghost illuminating the understanding that the prime verity cannot lye in whatever thing it reveals and also that the particular articles of our faith are its Revelations and perswading and operating in the Will such a firm adherence unto these articles as many times far exceeds that of any humane science or demonstrations 8. The ultimate resolution of a Christians divine faith as to the extrinsecal prime motive ground reason or principle thereof that equals in certainty the faith built upon it can be no other than that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to him or from which in building his faith â—e proceeds to the rest as to the internal efficient it is into the Grace of the Holy Spirit 9. The motives of credibility or the rational evidence of the truth of Christianity do serve indeed antecedently for an introductive to or after it introduced for a confirmative of this divine faith i. e. to make it credible or acceptable to humane reason my own or others that this faith is true and no way liable to error that I am assured in it by the holy and no seducing Spirit but not to
both his Books lies in this one word Infallibility But it is time to fall to my business for fear of more Advertisements and Infallibility being the main design of his Books that shall be the subject of my present debate with him And because this E. W. is a great pretender to Principles the method I shall proceed in shall be first to consider his Principles and then to defend my own For which I shall chiefly make use of his last Book it being in effect but another edition of his former the other as I suppose being disposed of to better purposes than to be read for I never heard of one person in England that read it over However what there is material in it different from the last as to the present controversie I shall upon occasion take notice of The two main Principles he builds upon are these 1. That without an Infallible Church there can be no certainty of Faith 2. That the Roman-Catholick Church is this Infallible Church If he can prove these two he shall not need any more to establish their Religion or to overthrow ours And I will say that for his praise that he hath brought the controversie into a narrow compass for he confesses it is endless to dispute out of Scripture and Fathers since witty men by their fallâ—ble Glosses can turn and winde them which way they please but there is nothing so stiff and inflexible as a standing infallible Oracle in the Church which being once believed all Controversie is at an end But we may as soon hope to see all other controversies ended by dry blows as this Principle proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable man The main proofs for the necessity of the Churches Infallibility which he insists upon are these 1. That there can be no Divine Faith without it 2. There can be no certainty as to the Canon or edition or sense of Scripture 3. There can be as little certainty as to the sense of the Fathers or the Primitive Church 1. That there can be no divine Faith without it This he frequently insists upon in both his Books and with so much vehemency as to make the deniers of Infallibility to overthrow all Faith and Religion Which being a charge of the highest nature ought to be made good by the clearest evidence Whether that which E. W. produces be so I shall leave any one to judge when I have given an Account of his Principles as to this matter In his first Book called Protestancy without Principles he begins with this subject and lays down these assertions upon which all his Discourse is built 1. That Gods infallible Revelation requires an infallible Assent of Faith or an infallible verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible assent of Faith in us the contrary he calls wild Doctrine this subjective infallibility as he calls it he offers very wisely to prove from those places of Scripture which speak of the assurance which Christians had of the truth of their Religion 2. This infallible assent of Faith doth require infallible Teachers for infallible believers and infallible Teachers are correlatives And in the second Chapter he goes about to prove it because if Christs infallible Doctrine be only fallibly taught no man hath certainty what it is and seeing what is fallible may be false Christs Doctrine may not be taught at all which is infallible and cannot be false and he that should abjure this fallible Doctrine doth not deny therein Christs Doctrine and cannot be upon that account an Heretick But to make Faith Infallible he asserts That every Preacher sent by the infallible Church as a member conjoyned with it is infallible in his Teaching and on the contrary whosoever renounces an Infallible society cannot teach with certainty Christs infallible Doctrine From whence he saith follows an utter ruine of Christian Religion In his third Chapter he further proves That if the Church were fallible in her Teaching God would oblige us to believe a falsity because God commands men to hear the Church and if the Church may erre then men are obliged to believe a false Doctrine taught by her And all other means short of this Infallibility would be insufficient for preserving Christian Religion in the world In the fourth Chapter he comes to a particular consideration of divine Faith and from thence proves the necessity of infallibility Faith saith he requires two things essentially an object which is Gods Revelation and a Proposition of this object by Vertue of which the elicit act of Faith follows in a believer and intellectually lays as it were hold both oâ— Gods Revelation and the thing revealed Now to prove the necessity of such an infallible Proposition in order to divine Faith hoâ— lays down some abstruse Propositions 1. That Gods infallible Revelation availâ— nothing in order to Faith unless Christianâ— by their Faith lay hold on the certainly thereof or owne it as infallible and the assured ground of their Assent 2. That the measure and degrees of certitude in the assent are according to those which the Proponent gives to the Revelation If he teaches doubtfully the assent is doubtful if probably the assent is probable is infallibly the assent is infallible the reason which he gives of this is because an object revealed receives its light from the proposal as an object of sight doth from the light of the air As long therefore saith he as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an infallible proponent it can no more transfuse certainty into Faith than Fire at a great distance warm that is no more than if it were not certain in it self or not at all in Being 3. From hence he saith it follows that Protestants can only doubtfully guess at what they are to believe and consequently never yet had nor can have Divine certain and infallible Faith Because they cannot â—ropose Faith infallibly Hence he proceeds Chapter fifth and sixth to disprove Moral Cerâ—ainty as insufficient in order to Faith and destroying as he saith The very being and â—ssence of Divine and supernatural Faith because the sole and adequate object of divine and supernatural Faith is Gods infinite veracity actually speaking to us but this infinite veracity when it is duly proposed transsuseth more certainty into the elicit act of Faith than any Moral Certainty derived â—rom inferiour motives can have For all Moral Certainty is at least capable of falsity and may deceive us Gods infallible veracity cannot be false nor deceive if Faith rest upon that Motive and if it rest not there it is no Faith at all Nay he asserts that supernatural Faith is more certain and infallible than all the Metaphysical Sciences which nature can give us For which he gives this plain reason Because the infinite veracity of God which only supporteth Faith with greater force energy and necessity transfuseth into it a supereminent
insallibility supereminent he saith and above all the Certainty which the principles of naturâ— can afford This is the substance of E. Wâ— principles of Faith in his first Book which is somewhat more enlarged in the second In one Chapter he designs to prove if the Roman Church be not infallible there is no truâ— Faith in the world the reason of which in his own easie terms is this For the meer possibility of deceiving Christians in one Article impossibilitates the Belief of all she proposeth In another Chapter That she is not only infallible but that the Adversaries of her infallibility destroy the very essence of Christian Religion And in the next That divine Faith in this present state of things necessarily requires a Church infallible because the infallibility of faith necessarily requires not only an Infallible Revelation but aâ— infallible Proponent Ruine one or the other Infallibility faith can be no more but an uncertain Assent and consequently can be no faith at all This reason he diversifies into many shapes and represents it in different words but it comes in at every turn So in the next Chapter he proves the Catholick Church Gods infallible Oracle because infallibility once taken away no man can have assurance so much as of one Christian verity the reason is no man can be assured of what is fallibly taught because what is so taught may by vertue of the Proposition be â—alse but a doctrine so far removed from inâ—allible certainly for want of a due application of its infallibility comes not near to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles which was applied taught and proposed infallibly And in the same Chapter he saith It is utterly impossible that an infallible verity as revealed though fallibly proposed should have influence upon faith or work in believers a most firm assent Not long after he asserts That infallibility being taken away no man can tell but that Christian Religion is a fiction for these are his words A feigned and fallible Religion are near Coâ—sin Germans The one is a Fiction the other at least may be so and for ought any man can know is no better And in the same Chapter he saith That without infallibility Religion is meer Scepticism because all other means infallibility being set aside may be equally pleaded by Hereticks as Arians and such like as by any other To the same purpose in the following Chapter where he proposes that which he calls the last proof of the Churches Infallibility which is still the very same over and over for he out-does the Cook of Brundusium in serving up the the same meat in several dresses viz. That the denyal of it overthrows Christian Religion be pleased to observe his concise way oâ— reasoning If the infallibility of revealeâ— doctrine be lost as it were in the way between God and us If the Revelation appear not as it is in it self infallible wheâ— we assent to it by faith that is if it be noâ— infallibly conveyed and applied to all by aâ—â—nerring proponent as it subsists in its first cause infinitely infallible faith perishes wâ— are cast upon pure uncertainties and maâ— justly doubt whether such a doctrine separated from that other Perfection of Infallibility be really true or no In his third Diâ—course we meet with a convincing Argumenâ— as he calls it for Infallibility If all Authority imaginable whereupon faith can depend conveyed or delivered these verities both as infallible Truths and infallibly and I assent to the doctrine with a belief not infallible but only morally certain I leave by my fallible moral assent the true infallible teaching and conveying Oracles of Christian doctrine and believe upon a meer phansied Authority which was never impowered to convey Gods verities to any Before I come to examine these things it will be necessary to lay down his notion of faith in his own terms viz. That it essentially trends obsecurely to its own object no matter for understanding it but the words found well together and by this saith we lâ—y hold upon the most supream and all comprehending infallibility proper to God alone But withal we are to take notice of a twofold certitude in faith the one a certitude of Infallibility arising from the supernatural principles which concur to the very act of belief and these being not liable to error can never operate but when the divine Revelation really is and implies not only the meer truth of the act but moreover an infallible determination to Truth the other a certitude of adhesion not grounded on evidence but upon most prudent motives proposed to Reason which clearly discover'd the Will by her â—pious affection commands and determines the intellectual faculties to assent indubitably After all which he concludes that the plain and easie Resolution of Faith is into Gods veracity as speaking to men by an infallible Church Thus I have laid together so many parcels of E. W's rambling discourse as were necessary in order to the examination of it And indeed I cannot compare his reasoning to any thing better than his own pretty notion of faith for just as he saith Faith essentially tends obscurely to its object so his principles do to his conclusion But that I may proceed with the greater clearness I must premise these two things 1. § 2. That the Question is not concerning the necessity of any internal Assistance oâ— divine Grace but of an external insalliblâ— Proponent in order to divine Faith So thaâ— whatever certainty of saith is derived from the Spirit of God is no ways pertinent to ouâ— present debate I do not deny that a trulâ— divine faith doth suppose a divine and super natural assistance I do not deny that thâ— Holy Ghost may confirm mens minds to sucâ— a degree of certainty which may exceed thâ— rational grounds they are able to give tâ— others of their faith But I say all this iâ— very far from the purpose For I had expresly laid down this caution before that oâ— Question in the Resolution of Faith did noâ— relate to the workings of the divine Spirit oâ— our minds of which no satisfactory accounâ— can be given to others but to the externaâ— motives and grounds of faith whether theâ— must be infallible or not To what purposâ— is it then for E. W. to talk of a certitudâ— of Infallibility as he calls it arising from the supernatural principles which concur tâ— the very act of belief and these not liable tâ— error can never operate but when the divine Revelation really is Granting all thiâ— to be true yet what doth this prove concerning the necessity of an external infallible Proponent such as the Church is All that caâ— hence follow is that those whom the Spirit of God enables to believe cannot believe a falshood but what then Hath he proved that the supernatural principles of faith do never operate but where the Church first infalâ—ibly proposes No this
others should But the Foundation of all this Nonsense is a strange apprehension of the nature of faith which the School-doctrine hath so rivited into him that it seems to be of the nature of a first principle with him which must be supposed as the Basis of all his discourse which is that faith is an obscure and inevident assent or that it essentially tends obscurely to its object and therefore no motives or arguments how clear or strong soever can have any influence upon faith For he imagines as great an opposition between arguments and faith as between light and darkness he first conceives faith to be a kind of deep Dungeon of the soul full of darkness and obscurity and then bids men have a care of bringing any light into it for if they do it ceaseth to be what he described it A light may serve a man very well to shew him the way to this Dungeon nay it may direct him to the very door but then farewel to all light noâ— the least crevise must be left to let in any to the mind that is once entred it but the excellency of it is that the soul fixes more certainly on its object in this state of darkness than it could do being environed with the clearest light Just as if a man should say there is a particular way of seeing with ones eys shut which is far more admirable and excellent than all the common ways of beholding things being far more certain and piercing than seeing by the help of eyes and light is for the light and sight may both fail in the representation of an object but this seeing without eyes is an infallible way to prevent all the fallacies of sense Much in this way doth E. W. talk for all arguments are fallible and therefore by no means must faith proceed upon them O but this believing without or above or it may be against arguments is the most infallible thing in the world for that man need never fear being deceived with reason that disowns the use of it Upon these grounds a skilful Painter may make a shift to bungle and to draw some rude uneven strokes by the help of his Pencil and a good light but if he would be sure not to miss making an excellent Piece he ought to shut his eyes or darken his Room for then to be sure that fallible thing called light can never deceive him An indifferent person that only consulted the nature and reason of things could never have fallen into these dotages but it hath been the interest of some men to cry down light that have had false wares to put off But of all things I wonder if this be the whole nature of Christian faith to believe no man knows why nor wherefore for if he doth his faith ceases to be faith being built upon reason why all this ado is kept about an infallible Church and motives of credibility cannot a man believe without reason at first as well at last cannot faith fix upon Gods Revelation for it self without troubling those motives of credibility to no purpose If a man hath a mind to leap blindfold from a Precipice why cannot he do it without so much ceremony must he have all his attendance about him and his Gentleman-usher to conduct him to the very brink of the Rock and there bid him Goodnight If all these motives of credibility contribute nothing to the act of believing what use are they of in such a Religion where Faith is look'd on as the great Principle of practice and the means of salvation If the judgement of credibility would save men they might still be useful but this will be by no means allowed for nothing in their opinion but this blind Guide which they call faith can conduct men to Heaven § 8. But what is it that hath made meâ— so in love with nonsense and contradictions Hath the Scripture given any countenance to this notion of faith Yes doubtless they are such lovers of Scripture that they daâ—e not take up any opinion in these matters without plain Scripture Then I hope Scripture may be plain in clear things if it be so in the description of so obscure a thing as they make faith to be But doth not the Scripture say that Faith is the Substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen and is not this all one as if it had been said that faith essentially tends obscurely to its object and that it is an inevident assent and therefore cannot make use of arguments This I know is all the pretence they have for this notion of faith but is it not very pretty because faith is called an evidence therefore iâ— must be inevident or to follow the vulgaâ— Latine because it is called an argument therefore it can use none No man is so senseless to deny that we believe things we do not see and things which cannot be seen we believe some things which might have been seen and were seen by some whose credit we rely upon as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ we believe other things which are uncapable of being seen by our senses as the Joys of Heaven and the Torments of Hell and as to such things faith supplies the want of the Evidence of sense to us and by it our minds are assured of the truth of them though we do not or cannot see them Which is all that is intended by this description of faith but how doth it hence follow that our faith must be an immediate inevident obscure assent on which all the arguments that perswade men to believe can have no influence May not I believe that Christ died and rose again and will come to judge the quick and the dead because I see all the reason in the world to perswade me to believe it from the testimony of those who saw him and have delivered his doctrine to us and have given the greatest evidence of their fidelity Doth the strength of the argument hinder me at all from believing what I did not see I had rather thought the more obscure the object had been for it is little better than nonsense to call an act of faith obscure the greater necessity there had been of strong evidence to perswade a man to believe not such evidence as doth arise from the nature of the thing for that is contrary to the obscurity of the object but such as gives the greatest reason to believe from the Authority of those on whose Testimony I rely So that the greatest clearness and evidence as to the Testimony is not repugnant to the nature of Faith this only shews that in Christian Religion we do noâ— proceed by meer evidence of sense or rigorous demonstrations in the things we assent to but that the great things we believe are remote from sense and received upon the Authority of the Revealer yet so as that we assert we have as great evidence that these things were
Gods word which I hope is an Oracle altogether as infallible as the Church But the question is whether such a one may be divided from Gods infallible Truth or not if not he is absolutely infallible if he may then what security hath any one to rely upon him upon such a conditional Infallibility which he can have no assurance of But still he hopes to retort the Instances upon me I never saw such a way of retorting in my whole life My design was to prove by these Instances that an infallible Testimony of a Church was not necessary in order to Faith he saith I must solve my own difficulties I confess I see none at all in my way that need to be answered for I assert that men may have sufficient Grounds of Faith without an infallible Proponent Well but he supposes all these Barbarians converted to Christ to have had true Faith and consequently prudent Motives to believe before they firmly assented to the Divine Revelation And so do I too But what were these motives To this Question he saith I return the strangest answer he ever heard for I seem to make the motives inducing to faith nothing but the Rational evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and therefore I grievously complain that they destroy the obligation which ariseth from the Rational evidence of the Christian Religion upon which he discourses as though by rational evidence the self-evidencing light of the doctrine and consequently all the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles were to no purpose Have not I reason to applaud my good fortune that I have met with so ingenuous an Adversary But I see those who write Controversies must be true Nethinims not only hewers of difficulties and drawers of the waters of contention but bearers of burdens too even such as their Adversaries please to lay upon them Could any thing be further from my meaning than by the rational evidence of Christianity to understand the self-evidencing light of the Scriptures But it is not what I say but what E. W. finds in his Common-place-Books a little before when I had proposed an argument he had not met with in those terms he presently fancied I meant another arguâ—ent which he found under the title of Defectilility of the Church and then in comes that with the answers he found ready to it Now for the rational evidence oâ— Christian Religion he finds not that Head in his Note-Books and cannot therefore tell what to make of it But an argument he had ready against the self-evidenâ—ing lighâ— of the Scriptures and therefore the Seraphims seather must serve instead of St. Larence's Gridiron He might have been easily satisfied in that very Paragraph what I mean by the rational evidence of Christian Religion viz. the unquestionable assurance which we have of the matters of fact and the miracles wrought by Christ for confirmation of his Doctrine and this within four lines after the words by him produced And in the foregoing paragraph I insist very much on the evidence of sense as to the miracles wrought by Christ as a great part of the rational â—vidence of Christianity which is destroyed by the doctrine of the Roman Church while transubstantiation is believed in it For what assurance can there be of any object of sense such as the miracles of Christ were and his Body after his Resurrection if we are so framed not only that our senses may be but we are bound to believe that they are actually deceived in as proper an object of sense as any in the world And if such a thing may be false what evidence can we have when any thing is true For if a thing so plain and evident to our senses may be false viz. that what I and all other men see is bread what ground of certainty can we have but that which my senses and all other mens judge to be false may be true For by this means the criterium both of sense and reason is destroyed and consequently all things are equally true and false to us and then farewel sense and reason and Religion together These things I there largely insist upon which is all very silently passed over the Schools having found no answers to such arguments and therefore they must be content to be let alone But however though arguments cannot be answered I desire they may not be mis-represented and that when I fully declare what I meanby rational evidence such a sense may not be put upon my words as I never dreamt off There is nothing after which looks with the face of an answer to theâ—e Instances unless it be that he saith that none can have infallible assurance either of our Savâ—ours Miracles or of any other verity recorded in Scripture independent of some actual living actual infallible and most clear evidenced Oracle by signs above the force of nature which in this present state is the Church These are good sayings and they want only proving and by the Instances already produced I have shewed that Persons did believe upon such evidence as implied no infallible Testimony and if he goes about to prove the Church infallible by such Miracles wrought by her as were wrought by the Apostles I desire only not to believe the Church infallible till I be satisfied about these Miracles but of that afterwards But I demanded if we can have no assurance of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles without an Infallible Church what obligation can lie upon men to believe them who see no reason to believe any such Infallibility And since the Articles of our Faith are built upon matters of fact such as â—he death and resurrection of Jesus Christ whether these matters of fact may not be conveyed down in as unquestionable a manner as any others are Cannot we have an unquestionable assurance that there were such persons as Caesar and Pompey and that they did such and such things without some Infallible Testimony If we may in such things why not in other matters of fact which infinitely more concern the world to know than whatever Caesar or Pompey did This his Margin calls an unlearned objection and in the body of his Book saith I might have proposed a wiser Question an â—asier I grant I might as appears by the answer he gives it For two things he saith may be considered 1. That the man called Christ dyed upon the Crâ—ss and this he saith both Jews and Gentiles yet assent to upon Moral Cerâ—ainty but therefore do not believe in Christ. 2. That the man called Christ dying for us was the only Messias truly God the Redeemer of mankind Here we have he saith the hidden verities of Christian Religion the certain objects of faith conveyed unto us by no moral assurance but only upon Gods Infallible Revelation A very wise answer I must needs say if intolerable shuffling be any part of wisdom Read over my words again and be ashamed If so then men
Christ which House stood in the country of Judea in a City of Galilee whose name was Nazareth in which Chamber the B. Virgin Mary was born and bred up and afterwards there received the salutation of the Angel Gabriel and in the same Chamber she educated her Son Jesus Christ to the Age of twelve years After the Ascention of Christ to Heaven the Virgin Mary remained upon earth with the Apostles and other Disciples of Christ who seeing many divine Mysteries performed in the said Chamber did by the common consent of them all decree to make a Church of that Chamber to the honour and memory of the B. Virgin Mary which they did and the Apostles and Disciples consecrated that Chamber to be a Church and there celebrated divine offices and St. Luke the Evangelist with his own hands made an Image to the likeness of the B. Virgin which is there to this day Afterwards that Church was inhabited and honoured with much devotion by the Christian people in those parts in which it stood as long as the people remained Christian. But after they renounced the Christian faith and embraced Mahometism the Angels of God took away the said Church and carried it into the parts of Sclavonia and there placed it by a certain Castle called Fiume where it met not with that honour which the B. Virgin desired Therefore the Angels came and took it from thence and carried it clear over the Sea into the parts of the territory of Recanati and there placed it in a Wood which belonged to a Noble Lady who had the command of the City of Recanati and was Owner of the Wood whose name was Loreta and from her the Church took its name of St. Maria de Loreto In that time by reason of the great concourse of all people to that Wood in which the Church remained abundance of robberies and mischiefs were committed there and therefore the Angels again took up the Chappel and carried it to a Hill belonging to two Brothers where the Angels set it down these Brothers getting a vast revenew by the resort of Pilgrims thither and the oblations by them made fell to a great discord Upon which the Angels came again and took away the Chappel from that place and carried it into the High-way and there placed it where it is now with many signs and innumerable gifts and miracles Then all the people of Recanati went to see the Church which stood upon the Earth without any Foundation and being astonished at such a Miracle and fearing left it should come to ruine they compassed it about with a good thick Wall and a strong Foundation as it iâ— seen at this day and yet no one knew from whence that Church came into those parts until in A. D. 1290. the blessed Virgin appeared in a Dream to a certain maâ— much devoted to her to whom she revealed the foregoing things and he presently divulged them to certain honest men of that Country who immediately resolved to know the truth of these matters and therefore determined to send sixteen notable good men to Nazareth to find out the truth of them Who carried with them the measure of the said Church and there they found exactly the Foundations of it and the just measure and to make all sure they found it written upon a Wall that such a Church had been there and was gone from thence and these persons upon their return certified the truth of all these things and from that time it was known that that Chappel was the Chamber of the blessed Virgin Mary and the Christian people shewed great devotion towards it for the blessed Virgin there every day doth infinite Miracles as experience shews There was a certain Eremite that was called Brother Paul of the Wood who dwelt in a small Cottage in that Wood and every morning went to divine offices in that Chappel and wâ—s a man of a great abstinence and a holy Lifâ— who said that ten years before or thereabouts on the day of the Nativity of the blessed Virgin bâ—ing the 8th of September two hours before day in a clear Air going out of his Cottage towards the Church he saw a light descend from Heaven upon the Church twelve â—oot long and six broad and when it was upon the Church it vanished upon which he said it was the blessed Virgin which there appeared on the day of her Nativity and came to see her Feast observed but no man saw her besides this Holy man To confirm the Truth and certainty of all these things two honest men of this Village reported them several times to me Teremanus the Over-seer and Governour of the said Church one of them was called Paulus Renaldatii the other Francis Prior. The said Paul told me that his Grandfathers Grandfather saw when the Angels carried the said Chappel over the Sea and placed it in the Wood and that he and other persons oftimes went to the said Chappel And the said Francis oftimes said to me that his Grandfather being one hundred and twenty years old said that he went often to the said Church in the Wood. Moreover the said Francis averred that his Grandfathers Grandfather had a House and dwelt there and that in his time the Chappel was removed by Angels from the hill of the two Brothers to the High-way Deo gratias Imprinted at Venice by Benedictus de Bindonis A. D. 1499. In the Italian Copy it is only added that this Narration was taken out oâ— an Original Authentick M. S. belonging to the said Chappel March 20. A. D. 1492. And is not this a very pleasant story to be matched in point of credibility with the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles What do these men think in their hearts of Christian Religion that dare avouch such ridiculous fictions as these are and impose them on the credulity of mankind But we are not to imagine this to be only a Legend hung up at Loreto for the comfort of devout Pilgrims but it is delivered in the same manner by men who should have had more wit or more honesty Cardinal Baronius in his Annals cannot let it escape but relates the miraculous translation of this Chappel from Nazareth to Dalmatia from thence to Loreto much after the same way All the Argument â—e brings for the truth of it is taken from Gods omnipotency as though as Is. Casauâ—on truly answers him all the Rabbinical and Mahumetan Fables might not be believed on the same ground And he observes from some of the Fathers that Gods omnipotency is the Sanctuary of Hereticks whither they betake themselves when they are basfled with reason But Baronius refers us to Canisius for a fuller account of this admirable story who very wisely brings the stories of the Prophet Elias Habakkuk and Philip in the Acts to confirm the truth of this as though the dispute were whether God could do it and not whether the thing were really done But if we offer to Question
common sense viz. That no assent of divine Faith can have any greater true and rational certainty than the assent of the medium hath by which the object of Faith is applied to the understanding For whatever certainty we can attribute to an intellectual assent upon the Authority of God revealing it is necessary it should come from and depend upon the certainty of the medium by which this Authority of God revealing is conveyed to the understanding For as it is impossible that a man should believe or yield assent to any thing because it is revealed by God unless he thinks and knows that God hath revealed it so it is impossible that he should believe the things revealed by God with greater true and rational certainty than that by which he knows that God revealed them For whatever degree of uncertainty or doubt there is in the mind of a believer of the certainty and truth of the medium there must be the same in that assent whereby he believes the things which are proposed by that medium Because with what degree a man doubts whether God hath revealed this or that he cannot but doubt in the same degree of that which is said to be revealed by God For what man in his wits doth not presently perceive that no man can be more certain of that thing which God is said to reveal than he is certain that God hath revealed it as no man can be more certain of the things done by Caesar than they are that Caesar was or of the mysteries revealed by Christ than that Christ was This he saith he had never mentioned unless some later Divines such as E. W. discoursing vainly and Sceptically and not considering the true reason of believing had feigned to themselves he knew not what kind of divine and supernatural certainty in Christian Faith passing by the true and rational which it is clearer than noon day is but an idle and imaginary thing Good Reader observe the power of reason over an ingenuous mind I know not what entertainment Dr. H. might have given E. W. on other accounts but it is plain by this Discourse he thought a dark Room the fittest for him since he pronounces that no man in his senses can assert the things which he confidently doth Although therefore he thought this needless to be proved yet I must proceed to shew § 9. 2. That the Assent of Faith can be no stronger than the Grounds are For if it doth proceed upon Grounds those are of the nature of Premises and the assent of faith as the conclusion drawn from them and therefore must be stronger or weaker according to them In every act of Faith which hath a particular Revelation for its object there must be two distinct premises conceived from whence that which is the proper act of believing follows As suppose the Question be concerning the Resurrection of the dead why I believe that article of Faith to be tâ—ue the present Answer is because God hath revealed it but therein lies the force of a Syllogism by which it will appear that the act of Faith follows as the conclusion from the premises Whatsoever God reveals is true but God hath revealed the Resurrection of the dead therefore it is true Now since the force of a conclusion depends upon the premises the assent of Faith cannot be supposed stronger and firmer than the Premises are from which it results For however it may hold in other causes in those which are moral and final it is an undoubted Maxim of reason That which makes an other thing to be so must be much more so it self As that end which makes any thing desirable for its sake is much more desirable it self because it is that which moves the Soul to desire the means and so it is likewise in whatever moves the understanding to assent as well as the will to desire but the Premises do move the understanding to assent to the conclusion therefore the consent to the conclusion must be agreeable to that of the Premises This difficulty hath so racked and tormented the minds of the Schoolmen that Arriaga relates he hath heard the most Learned and Ingenious among them profess they could find no way through it While they did require an infallible assent in the conclusion when there could be no infallible assent to one of the Premises viz. that God hath revealed this Which some have thought they got over when they asserted the necessity of the Churches Infallibility as the foundation of that assent But granting them the truth of that yet they have given the difficulty but one remove by it for it speedily returns again concerning the belief of the Churches Infaâ—libility which they agree must be believed infallibly and yet here again they offer at no more than motives confessed to be fallible to prove it And so at last they are fain to take up with other Answers which make the Churches Infallible Proposition of no use at all in this matter for if the assent be said to be immediate to the Revelation if the strength of it arises either from the Spirit of God or the pious inclination of the Will and not from the motives of Faith if any of these waies can solve the difficulty then however from hence it follows that all these will equally do it without ever so much as supposing the necessity of the Churches infallible Testimony I shall not now trouble my self with others but consider my Adversary who after making several attempts this way and that at last bethinks of a good Friend in a corner called the Power of the Will and to this he is willing to attribute the strength of the assent when it exceeds the motives of Faith which he thinks the more plain and easie way and therefore asserts that after the previous judgement of credibility the Will works by hâ—r pious affection and that moves the understanding to elicit the infallible assent of Faith For saith he if it be demanded how the understanding dares rest most firmly on an object not evidently seen we pass â—rom that Power to the Will and say she can by her pious affection command the intellectual faculty to captivate it self in Obsequium fidei and believe most undoubtedly This is the last Reserve in this matter which is as weak as any of the former For if the Will can determine the understanding to assent beyond the strength of the motives it may determine it to assent without any motives at all because that degree of assent which doth exceed the evidence of the motives hath nothing to incline or move it besides the meer power of the Will and if it can command the highest and most Infallible assent withouâ— Infallible grounds it may equally command a fallible assent without fallible grounds and by this means there will be no need of any motives of credibility at all Besides this takes away any such thing as the formal object of divine