is without either shame or grace most unjust 9 From P. 340. to 362. the Dr gives me but little entertainment save only to make à few reflections upon his too many Parergons and one repeated over and over yet the good man will be free from Tautologies is that the difficulty now in hand only concern's an external Proponent such as the Church is Shall we condescend to his humour and debate that sole Question I am content upon one condition that he plainly solves this plain difficulty If all the men in the world as we now suppose considered meerly as nature has framed them be fallible If none of them have infallible assistance to teach the very fundamentals of faith infallibly and if notwithstanding God obliges all to believe his infallible revealed verities without mixture of errour If finally we evidently se Christians at high Contradictions and of à different belief in such Necessaries of no less concern then their eternal Salvation I say if all these And leaves all to believe what they list particulars be undeniably manifest either you Mr Dr ought to assign some clear certain means whereby Christians may be brought to union in one true Faith to profess and believe one and the same Doctrin of Jesus Christ or you must leave all to believe as they list or what pure fancy teaches My Tenet is that none can doe this but an Infallible Church nor so much as bring us to any Vnity at all were faith as you make it only morally certain 10 P. 341 He demand's where have I shew'd that the Supernatural Principles of Faith do never cooperate but where the Church infallibly proposes and thinks I never attempt this He wrong's me exceedingly Se Reas and Relig. Disc 2. c. 15. There I prove at large that Divine Faith in this present state requires no less an Infallible Oracle then the belief of the Primitive Christians required Infallibility in the Apostles As therefore the supernatural Principles of those first Believers never could operate contrary to the Doctrin taught Infallibly by the Apostles so they work not in true Believers now but when they fall right upon the Infallible Doctrin taught by the Catholick Church The reason hereof is clear God cannot concurr or incite any by Supernatural Principles to believe a falshood The Revelation therefore which support's Divine Faith must not be meerly apparent but real and truly in being for then only Divine Grace cooperat's with Faith not otherwise So true it is that the Infallibility in our internal Assent of Faith ever supposes and necessarily prerequires Infallibility in the last ground thereof which is God's veracity as likewise in the immediate Proponent I mean the Catholick Church But saies our Dr very wisely If the Infallible certainty of Faith depend's upon Divine concurrence the Infallibility of Faith may be had without an Infallible Proponent A most pitiful reply It seem's he cannot well understand how one act of Faith depend's upon two distinct Principles yet the instance now given will enlighten him à little Did not the Faith of the Primitive Christians depend upon the Apostles infallible The necessary principles for Faith teaching None questions that And had not Divine grace influence upon it also Most undoubtedly certain Ergo two different Principles an Infallible Church and Divine Assistance necessarily support one act of Faith The reason is clear Faith is the Gift of God and therefore without the cooperation of Grace cannot be Divine or Supernatural and without an Infallible Proponent no man certainly knowes what to believe For who can say indubitably this is the sence of God's word herein lies the Truth and Infallibility of à Revelation if an Infallible Church be rejected Hence it is that the Primitive Church while She condemned all ancient Hereticks and established the contrary truths never proceeded doubtfully or probably but spake as Gods Oracle ought to speak infallibly 11 The Dr P. 342. Shewes himself à meer Rambler multiplies words and proves just nothing First he tells me six or seven times over yet he is far from tedious repetitions if Faith depends on Grace an external infallible Proponent seem's needless Then he thinks I destroy my selfe because I say the Infallible certainty of Faith comes from Gods interiour illumination as it more lively set's forth the formal obiect assented to What 's next Marry he hath often heard of the great Assistance Iesuits have in writing their books and Imagins that some Enemy hath put these things into my head Sr without doubt you have heard many à magnifyed untruth and this if it relate to any Assistance given me is à loud one as all who know me can testify and will avouch that I needed no assistance to answer an Adversary so well tamed and broken as you are Now if you will rely so much upon Hearsay know Sr I have also heard something and had it from men of good repute and credit It is that the most able at Cambridge with one likewise at Oxord aided you to the purpose in setting forth your tumbling Account and I am apt to believe this true because some who know you Conceive you not à man so expedite and nimble at work as to dispatch such à volume in à twelve months time though to gain applause this must be insinuated in the first words of your preface These things I have heard whether all be true or no you know best 12 Soon after to fill paper you tell me again what I say then that I shake hands with Calvin and some old Enemies in this matter of Grace that I hold you à Denier of Grace and much more to little purpose Concerning the Assistance of Grace in order to Faith I say that Faith being à Gift of God Necessarily depend's on à supernatural Principle and this is Catholick Doctrin taken from Scripture Church authority and holy Fathers What I hold particularly of its giving more clarity to an obscure Revelation though only an opinion in Schools maintained by some denied by others is sounder Doctrin then your skill in Divinity can refute You have The Dr's fouling me with Calvinism shew'd sencles and ridiculous it largely set down Reas. and Relig. Disc 3. c. 9. n. chiefly 13. Your wilful fouling me with Calvinism becomes one that knowes better to calumniate than to argue Had Calvin own'd the Church infallible as I do in all she obliges Christians to believe and dutifully submitted to her judgement his Faith would have been right and Grace answerable Supernatural but because he slighted that Oracle and believed what meer fancy suggested he abused Grace and had no true Faith Should I Sr maintain à light of Faith allowed men at random to believe what their private judgements tell them concerning Gods revelations in Scripture independently of all Infallible exteriour Propounders of Faith I should not much differ from Calvin but when I only assert it to serve for à better manifestation of such truths as an
Apostles were by theirs You may read c. 6. n. 5. how egregiously the Dr trifled with this difficulty in his Account and here he is worse though he had seen all my exceptions made against him in his Answer returned to T. C. Observe I beseech you 18 Against this saith the Dr he means of paralleling the Churches Miracles Conversions c. with those of the Apostles I objected three things Object Mr. Dr In this place you are not to object but to Answer the main ground I rely on in my Resolution that is to shew wherein the parity between the Apostolical Church and ours fail's or is faulty or if that cannot be done to admit of my Inference You perform neither but The Dr instead of answering object 's again what had been solved shamefully shift off what most presseth and it is done most unluckily for your objections contain nothing but what is directly replyed to by me in the. 1. 2. and 3. Chap of that 3. Discourse You say first This way of resolving Faith seem's vnreasonable because an assent is hereby required beyond all degree of Evidence no grounds being assign'd for it but the motives of Credibility which are fallible Here are three errours at once plainly refuted in the Chapters now cited where I say our true Christian Faith in this present state no more goes beyond the proportion and degree of evidence be yet this unexplicated evidence what you will then the Faith of the Primitive Christians went beyond it And I urg'd you again and again to giue à disparity or to shew wherein the tendency of their Faith was different from ours 2. It is à flat calumny to say as you do that I assigne no other grounds for Faith but the motives of Credibility which you suppose faillible C. 2. n. 8. I say expresly our Assent to matters of Faith is ultimatly grounded upon God's Divine Testimony and not as Faith upon the motives which induce to believe and there parified the ground of the primitive Christians Faith with the ground we rely on and their Motives with ours For example Some of them saw others heard of the Apostles strange Miracles admirable Sanctity c. and thence rationally inferred that they were men sent from God and believed their Doctrin though hard and difficult upon their infallible words Thus I discourse as to the Church and wish the Dr would shew where I miss or give any shadow of Difference 3. If the motives of credibility have à certain and infallible connexion with the Divine Revelation which I grant The Dr's supposition of fallible or probable motives in this place is wholly impertinent and makes nothing against my Analysis 19 Still he rambles on and knowes not I think what he would be at It is not sufficient saith he to say that the Infallibility of the Churches Testimony makes the Assent infallible for the Assent is not according to the objectiue certitude of things but the Evidence of them to our understanding Of what objective certitude or evidence of things An obiective certitude spoken of not explicated by this Dr. can this man speak think ye Will he say that à mysterious Trinity or the Incarnation are evident to us while we walk by Faith Or dare he assert that the Truth the Infallible Divine Inspiration and true sense of Scripture appear evidently to our understanding While we se innumerable called Christians at implacable variance about these matters Vnless this be maintain'd wholly improbable the evidence here mentioned concerning no man yet knowes what things is plain Nonsence Again what evidence hath the Dr of these ignote Things who gives no greater certitude to any Assent but à moral one which may be false Yet he run's on Supposing the Testimony of the Roman Church to be really infallible yet since the means of believing it are but probable and prudential the assent cannot be according to the nature of the Testimony considered in it self but according to the reasons which induce me to believe such à Testimony infallible By the means here pointed at the Dr understand's the motive of credibility only and therein err's for we shall shew hereafter other means But had we none who tells him that the Motives are only probable or barely prudential I say they are infallible and essentialy connected with the Divine Revelation though were they only moral the certitude of Faith is yet defensible as will appear in the next Chapter 2. If the Churches Testimony considered in it self be infallible as he supposes it cannot but be known as it is infallible for no man will say that God founded an infallible Church with intention to hide or remove from our sight her infallible Testimony whose final end is to teach all infallibly Therefore providence hath left certain means whereby the learned may come to the knowledge of that necessary truth I have spent three whole Chapters in the third Discourse upon this subject yet the Dr replyes not to one of my Arguments 3. What ever he urges here concerning the means of believing upon probable inducements and it is all raked out of his Account I have not only answered in my last Treatise but retorted also as you may se Disc 3. c. 2. n. 5. 6. 7 20 I suppose there that S. Iohn expressed an Infallible revealed Verity concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation when he told the world The word is made flesh I then thought Dr Still yeilded an Assent so firm and infallible to the Revelation that though an Angel should have preach't contrary he would not upon any reason proposable disbelieve it But that Mystery is no Self evident truth to us neither can it be Scientifically proved by an other revealed verity wholly as obscure all therefore that can be done is to make it evidently credible by motives extrinsick to the Mystery believed For example as the Dr insinuates by universal Tradition the exteriour Consent of many learned men c. 21 Hereupon ensues à troublesome difficulty This humane fallible Tradition this Consent and all other Motives previous to the belief of the Incarnation are in the Dr ' s Principles fallible and may be false yet his Faith terminated The Dr raises his Faith higher than the Motives can lead to upon the revealed Incarnation is so certain that it cannot be false Ergo his Faith fixt there is raised higher and stand's firmer on that ground then the Evidence of his Motives can induce to And thus the Dr goes beyond all the proportion or degree of Evidence preambulatory to his certain belief and consequently must solve his own Argument This and more I have in the place now cited but the Dr's courage fail'd to return an Answer Perhaps he will tell me his belief of the Incarnation goes not beyond the uncertain lights of his fallible motives Grant this and it followes evidently 1. That he contradict's himself as will be proved in the next Chapter It followes 2. That his Faith of
Testimony is God's own Testimony and ground my faith upon it Se more of this subiect Reas. and Relig Disc 3. C. 6. n. 26. 3 We have another quarel P. 367. Where I am told if all the necessity of the Churches Proposition be no more then to convey the Divine Testimony to us and the Dr who cites my 3. Disc c. 4. n. 18. wishes me to take pains à little better in proving that Such à condition must have Infallibility belonging to it I answer Mr Dr misrelates my Doctrin for I speak not in that place of the Churches Proposition but of her Motives whereby the Divine Testimony whether God speak's by Scripture or the Church is applyed to us Let him therefore take the pains to cite more exactly or surcease to charge me with that I never taught From this very gross errour proceed's another Infallibility saith he is then only necessary when it is relied upon and is the ground of believing and not where it is à meer condition of understanding In real truth there is nothing here but à want of understanding in Mr Dr. Pray Courteous Reader peruse what I have Disc 3. C. 6. n. 18. 19. where I say the Churches Testimony is not à meer extrinsical condition disposing to believe upon the Divine Testimony in Scripture but a ioynt Motive with it which compleat's the ancient Revelation in order to the beliefe of our Christian Mysteries Therefore when I believe the Church to be infallible because S. Paul teaches She is the Pillar and ground of truth and believe it also because God speak's that very truth by the Church I no way separate the ancient Revelation from the Churches Testimony but by one Indivisible act of Faith be-lieve both at once Hereof I have given à clear Instance in the Chapter now cited n. 22. 23. And constantly find by experience that to evacuate the Dr ' s Arguments no more is necessary but only to point at what is noted in my former Treatises 4 P. 369. He first pretend's to tell us VVhat these Motives of Credibility are 2 How far they are necessary to Faith 3. VVhat influence they have vpon the assent of Faith Had he followed these particulars closely according to his own opinion he might well have given no little advantage against himself but in lieu of doing so he wisely start's aside and for two or three pages only relates what Suares Cardinal Lugo and other great Divines say of these Motives and though all of them speak much to my sence and in things material have nothing contrary to me Yet P. 375. He blames me because I must say that the proofs taken from these Motives do not perswade men to believe or which is all one have no Influence vpon the act of Faith Would to God this Dr would either not write evident untruths or consider better what he writes Pray you reflect Do not I say Protest without Princ. Disc 1. c. 5. n. 11. That the Motives to Faith manifestly point out that true Society of Christians wherein Gods Verities are taught and make it discernable from all heretical Communities Do not I say n. 12. That if Gods goodness could permit these Motives like false Charms to delude the world all might with just reason exclaim as Rich. de S. Vict once did If we believe an errour it is you o God who have deceived us Do not I say n. 14. That without Motives never any since Christianity began rightly believed in Christ our Lord in Apostle or Church Have I not Reas. and Relig. Disc 2 through two whole Chapters laid down the Efficacy of these Motives and shewed what influence they have upon Reason and Faith also Have I not proved them c. 7. n. 3. 4. to be God's own Language or publick way of speaking The Dri unjust Cavils to the world And. c. 16. n. 30. plainly assert that to separate the lustre of Motives from Christ and his Church implies à subversion of Christian Religion And yet with me saith our worthy Dr they perswade not to believe nor have influence upon the act of Faith though I say Faith never was or can be without them 5 But from whence comes this gross mistake of the Dr Marry from hence because I say that the act of Faith as Faith wholly relies upon other Principles Good Mr Dr cannot you conceive how one indivisible act where in there are no separable parts wholly relies or depend's upon several Principles though with à different respect Take One act of Faith Necessarily depend's upon several Principles for example à Conclusion deduced out of well ordered Premises as à vital operation it wholly depend's upon the intellectual faculty that produces it As à thing in being it wholly depends upon Gods general concurse which gives existence to every creature yet as à Conclusion it wholly relies on the Premises The whole influence of one of these different Principles abates nothing but is well consistent with the whole influence of their other associated causes Iust thus it is in an act of Faith As vital it wholly depend's on the Intellectual power as supernatural wholly on the infused habit or something equivalent For its Being it depend's on Gods universal concurse whereby every thing exist's but as à rational operation it wholly depend's on the Motives inducing to Faith not that the motives considered meerly as inducements concurr by way of efficiency to that act any more then premises to à conclusion but because the judgement of Credibility which actually inform's the mind in the very instant à Believer first elicit's Faith illuminates his intellectual power and manifestly shew's what he is ready to believe is evidently Credible or worthy à most certain assent because God speak's by his own Oracle O! but the act of Faith precisely fix't upon the Divine Revelation reasons not and consequently saith our Dr seem's unreasonable or hath no ground to rely on 6 This difficulty I have both proposed in express terms and solved Reas. Relig Disc 3. C. 16. n. 25. and say there an act of Faith may be considered two wayes First as it is à prudent reasonable submission to what ever God reveals 2. as terminated upon the Revelation proposed by the Church or any other infallible Oracle Under the first notion of à prudent submission it either necessarily implies or presupposes the rational prudent judgment of credibility set fast on such Motives as converted the world which judgement rightly denominat's Faith à reasonable Obsequiousness But again consider the act in it self I mean as it precisely tend's upon the Revelation and à Mystery not evidently seen it where an Act of Faith reasons not cannot reason at all nor more prove or Scientifically know its obiect as it rest's there than Science as science believe Thus I then answered and though the Doctor hitherto never took the least notice of my reply yet we shall find him hereafter when his rational Evidence of Christian Religion comes
to à trial much born down with this very difficulty 7 In the mean while to give some hints at what I shall then say I ask when the Dr who talks much of Faiths evidence believes the Mystery of the Incarnation upon this sole ground that God reveals it in Scripture what rational evidence can he derive into his Faith if you precisely consider it as fixed upon the Revelation and Mystery together None arises from the nature of these things purely believed unless he stoutly affirm and he is as like to do it as any man living that he evidently see 's by his new eyes of Faith the intrinsick infallible truth of the Revelation in it self as also the two natures in Christ Humane and Divine I say by virtue of that act as it is precisely terminated upon the obiect believed which if I rightly understand him P. 387. fine he acknowledges to be obscure and upon that account unmeet to ground Evidence What then is to be done O saith the Dr I will fetch my Evidence not from the Nature of the things believed for they are remote and dark but from the evidence of sense as to the Miracles wrought by Christ from the Testimony of those who saw Christ our Lord and have delivered his Doctrin to us and given the greatest Evidence of their fidelity c. Se his pages 387 and 416. Very good let all yet be as he pleases 8 Hence it followes first That the Dr ' s act of Faith as it tend's upon the Revelation not evidently seen and an obscure Mystery together is so far blind yea and like a Mole working without light They are his own words P. 353 as that Faith is which he would impugn The Dr own 's Faith both clear and obscure and this I chiefly insist upon at present It followes 2. That his one indivisible act of Faith is both clear and obscure as fixed upon his supposed evident Motives it is clear and under another respect obscure as it adheres to an obscure obiect believed For so he speak's P. 387. I had rather thought saith he the more obscure the obiect had been for its little better then Non-sence to call an act of Faith obscure the greater necessity there had been of strong evidence to perswade c. One word Mr Dr by the way I think it far greater Nonsence to call obiects à parte rei obscure if we use proper language A pore blind man stumbles at à stone is the stone therefore obscure while another sees it clearly and stumbles not Thus all obiects obscure to our weak Capacities are clear and evident to God and Angels Clarity and obscurity Mr Dr as I have often noted but you never mend your faults when told of them are inseparable proprieties of vital operations and belong not to Things in rigour of speech though in à vulgar way with à respect to our acts the language may pass Again shift all you will if the obiect in your sence be obscure your act of Faith as it is fixed upon that clouded verity cannot but under that notion and respect be obscure also 9 It followes 3. That had the Dr pitch't on the true Evidence of Credibility which is not done I have all that for my Faith with much more to boot taken from the Churches long continuance Her Miracles Sanctity Conversions and other Motives Whereof see Reas and Relig. Disc 2. C. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Now if the Evidence of Credibility once established necessary in the Church be ever prerequired as an inducement to believe as all confess it little import's Christianity whether it be discovered by the very act of Faith or the Iudgement previous to Faith supposing as I said above that this judgement inform's and illuminat's the understanding chiefly at every mans first Conversion Did I come short of the where the Evidence of Credibility is found Dr in the evidence of Credibility he might justly blame me but when in reallity he has none as we shall se hereafter and I introduce such an Evidence as converted the world Say I beseech you wherein am I faulty Marry in this may the Dr reply that I allow not evidence to the very act of Faith but only to the previous judgement of Credibility No hurt at all while the mind has the evidence of Credibility laid open and the Dr ' s very act of Faith such an one as it is is partly clear partly obscure 10 But to quiet the Dr I can without prejudice to my Opinion much less to Christian Religion grant with many learned Divines that one indivisible act of Faith rest's both upon the Motives and the revealed Mystery together Nay more I do hold that the Motives are God's own language whereby he speak's to the world not imitable by any Enemy for etiam factis loquitur Deus as S. Austin often cited affirm's Se Reas Relig Disc 3. I say 3. The The obligation of believing arises from the Motives obligation of believing first arises from the light of these Motives for no man saies he believes because he believes but therefore believes because antecedently to his Faith he judges it most reasonable note the rational ground upon God's command to believe what is revealed The Revelation therefore obscurely proposed to us cannot as obscure be the rational ground of our firm assenting to it and for this reason to avoyd confusion in the Analysis I attribute Evidence to the previous judgement of Credibility and not to the very act of Faith Though I scruple nothing to grant that I believe also for the Motives which as I now said have their influence upon Faith and therefore the Dr flatly calumniat's when he tell 's me over and over that I believe without reason without grounds and Motives That I have Motives and evident Motives P. 382 yet after all this Evidence believing hath nothing to do with them Iust as if à man should say P. 384. there is à particular way of seing with ones eyes shut He might better have said his intellectual Eyes were darkened when he read my The Dr's cavil groundless Treatise for no Author ever gave greater strength and efficacy to the Motives then I have done when I say not only Faith but Christ also the Church Scripture and all true Religion goes to wrack without them I further assert that à Believers mind is so far from being in à state of darkness in the instant it elicits Faith that even then it is environed with the light of these Motives clearly represented by the judgement of credibility the lustre whereof is so great that as many Divines teach they make Faith evident in Attestance This opinion I could maintain and yet defend the obscurity of Faith in order to its Material obiect as the Dr withall his pretended Evidence must do whereof more presently 11 P. 376. He seem's some what resty ruminates again his old difficulty and ask's whether in requiring an Infallible assent of
of those word's Truths whereof the Dr hath not Evidence whereby you judge the Trinity is revealed Have you evidence of their being words divinely inspired Have you any thing like evidence of the Mystery believed No All the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles wrought cannot make these particular truths to appear evident to any in this State yet Orthodox Christians believe them Infallibly true by Faith and therefore you Sr are as deep in à Dungeon as any you ieer at get out how you can 16 The rest that followes is nothing but an idle sporting with S. Paul's Doctrin Heb. 11. 1. Is it not pretty saith the Dr because Faith is called an Evidence therefore it must be inevident Because it is called an Argument therefore it can use none What stuff is here Who ever said that Faith uses not Arguments Or called it à Conviction but as the Apostle speaks of things not seen Soon after he has à â—ash at me and it reaches S. Austin also I had said no merit or thanks in believing had we evidence of the Mysteries we believe and I speak with S. Austin In Evangel Ioan. Trac 79. This is the praise of Faith if that which is believed be not seen For what great thing is it if that be believed which is seen According to that sentence of our Lord when he rebuked his Disciple saying because thou hast seen me Thomas Thou hast believed Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed CHAP. VIII The Doctor 's Discourse from page 400 to P. 416. Considered and found weightless 1 HEre the Dr would fain rescue another Argument taken out of his Account from the obiections I made against it Reas and Relig Disc 2. C. 2. n. 5. And you may se him hard put to it for The Dr hard put to his Shifts proofs when to shew the Church no way necessary to ground Faith he run's up to the woman of Samaria Iohn 4. to Barbarians and others who all received Divine Revelation and believed without an Infallible Church In plain English he would inferr that the Christian Catholick Church before it was perfectly founded or owned as God's Oracle did not then ground Faith therefore it could never do so after its compleat establishment Is not this an heroical attempt Tell me Mr Dr. what sence have we in this Inference The Samaritan woman believed Christ when the Church was not perfectly in being Therefore S. Austin when it was an absolute built moral Body erred much in saying He would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholick Church moved him to believe it VVhich authority once weakned saith the Saint in the same place contra Epist Fundam I cannot believe the Gospel S. Dyonisius and Damaris Act. 17. who knew nothing of the Churches beginning at Hierusalem on whitsunday hearing S. Paul an Infallible Oracle preach believed Ergo Christians that lived in time of the Nicene Council could not then believe the Church What Logick is this Nay more in the Dr ' s Principles that Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Church stands there to no purpose because forsooth in some extraordinary circumstances and occasions Faith may be had without knowledge of the Church of Scripture and of Christ also For many Divines hold that Barbarians by meer contemplating the visible works in nature may without the teaching of à living Oracle come to the knowledge of one God as à Rewarder and have Faith available to Salvation Now here is the Dr ' s erroneous Principle that which in some circumstances serves to beget Faith may ever serve and in all occasions 2 The unsoundness or rather Nonsence whereof I will demonstrate against Mr Dr. The ancient Christians had true Faith before the Canon of Scripture was extant Now that holy Book being published and received all over our Dr ground 's his Faith upon it only Ancient Christians had true Faith before scripture was written as it s understood by every man's discerning faculty what therefore once was no rule nor ground of Faith because not in being afterward becomes à ground when it is known and published Just thus we discourse of the Church When the woman of Samaria and some Barbarians believed the Church was not founded nor known or owned by all as Gods Oracle but afterward the foundation of it being perfectly laid and Pastors and Doctors appointed by Christ to teach the world it was owned for God's Oracle and then brought with it an obligation upon all to hear and believe it 3 The reason hereof more amply laid forth in my last Treatise is taken from the express constitution of Christ who erected the Church as à most facile clear and living Rule of Faith This great Master assures all that whoever hear's the Church hear's him That Faith comes by hearing and therefore Pastors and Doctors are appointed to teach to the Consummation of Saints unto the work of the Ministery for the edifying of Christ's Mystical body c. Wherefore Baronus in his Apodixis Tract 9. puncto 2. ingenuously professes That the Testimony of the present Church is à condition necessarily required to believe the authority of the Scripture because Faith comes by hearing Hence I argue A law made by Christ is to be observed the ordinary means appointed by the Law-giver Himselfe for the grounding of Faith ought in no case to be neglected But Christ hath obliged all who believe to rely on the Christian Church ever since She was made an Oracle known to the world as is largely proved Reas. and Religion through the whole Second Discourse therefore though by accident or in some very unusual circumstance men have had Faith without any knowledge either of Scripture or Church Yet now after the Churches compleat establishment and Her long continuance to exclude her Authority and believe upon any other ground would be so great folly and rashness that God may justly deny his supernatural Grace to such unadvised Believers who therefore would not have Faith to Salvation 4 Pray you tell me should à Barbarian that never heard of Church or Scripture yet may probably believe in God as à Rewarder of Good by à meer contemplation of the Heavens c. Should I say such an one come to the knowledge of Christ of the Scripture and of the Church gloriously illustrated with all her Motives Can this man think you in these new circumstances of à greater light neglect all and believe that God will reward good upon the old motive to wit the visible beauty or motion of the Heavens No That belief would now be imprudent and upon that account unavailable The Dr's grand Principle proved forceless to Salvation VVhat therefore serves to ground Faith in some circumstances serves not in all We have yet another Instance against the Dr who hold's there is à Thing in being called the Church of England where he preaches and pretend's to settle his Faith upon Scripture only Would he
like it well should some of his Hearers tell him they build not their Faith upon any Doctrin as it is delivered in Scripture or by the Church of England or finally taught by Mr Dr but purely believe upon the Barbartans Motive or as the Samaritan Woman believed upon our Saviours words long since spoken I am the Messias I perswade my self he will not easily approve any such extravagancy Yet he must if he proceed consequently to his indigested Discourse for the Faith of that Samaritan woman and Barbarians also was truly Divine and why may not his People believe as they did independently of all Scripture and the Church of Englands Doctrin as he would now have us to believe independently of the Catholick Churches Testimony For here is his Principle or he speak's Non-sence What was once sufficient to propound or ground Faith may be ever sufficient and in all circumstances 5 One may reply That Samaritan and Barbarians likewise believed upon God's word not then written but spoken which afterward became the Doctrin of Scripture Very right and so say I they believed upon that Doctrin which afterward was is and ever will be taught by the Church but as then there was no written Scripture So there was no Church founded to propose or ground Faith upon And thus the Proponent of Faith may vary though the ultimate Motive or formal obiect of it which is Gods Revelation never changes The variety of an Infallible Oracle varies not the Formal obiect of Faith 6 By what is here noted you se how pitifully the Dr abuses himself and Reader P 4â—7 I had said n. 7. That none can make the Roman Catholick Church in all circumstances the only sure foundation of Faith upon this Principle chiefly that Faith in general requires no more but only to rely on God the first Verity speaking by one or more lawfully sent to teach who prove their Mission and make the Doctrin proposed evidently Credible A fair concession replyes the Dr which plainly destroy's the necessity of the The Dr abuses the Reader and grosly mistakes Churches Infallibility in order to Faith For if no more be necessary in order to Faith but to rely upon God speaking by this or that Oracle how comes the Infallible Testimony of the Church to be in in any Age necessary to Faith A fair Concession on my part Mr Dr but à foul mistake on yours For have not I all along proved though you Answer nothing that the Church is one of the Infallible Oracles whereby God speaks as immediatly and infallibly as ever he spake by Prophet or Apostle And must not you admit two or three Infallible Oracles The Apostles who taught Christianity before the writing of Scripture were Infallible Oracles Scripture it self compleatly finished and set forth say you is another and I hope you will not deny but that S. Iohn the Evangelist who lived à considerable time after the whole Canon was Signed kept still his Apostolical authority and remained Infallible 7 Observe now Gentle Reader Doth the Dr destroy the necessity of the Scriptures An Argument ad hominem infallible Testimony because he own 's the Apostles Oral teaching Infallible No. How then do we destroy the Churches Infallibility in saying that Faith in General only requires to rely upon the first Verity speaking by this or that Oracle For if two or three distinct Oracles subvert not the Dr ' s Faith built upon Scripture how can more Oracles then one overthrow mine built on the Church The Question therefore in this place is not whether the Churches Testimony be Infallible but precisely thus much whether the Dr ' s Inference have any thing like reason in it Viz. Faith relies on God speaking by this or that Oracle Ergo it cannot rely on God speaking by the Church The inference plainly appear's Non-sense unless the Churches Testimony be first proved fallible Now should the whole A modest offer made to the Dr. contest come to the Churches Infallibility after all I have said of it whereunto the Dr never yet replyed word I am most willing and ready to discusse again this particular Controversy with him in à Treatise apart upon all the Principles Christian Religion can afford Scripture Church Fathers and manifest Reason Is not this à fair modest offer 8 What followes in the Dr upon this subiect is more than simple God saith he spake by Christ and his Apostles as Oracles by whom his word is declared to us Therefore nothing can be necessary to Faith but to rely on the first Truth speaking by them Marke here an improbable Supposition made use of for à proof as if forsooth every one by casting an eye upon Scripture after some diligence could exactly declare what Christ and his Apostles taught whereas I have told the Dr over and over and it is the grand Principle The Dr's improbable Supposition refuted I rely on that none can in this present State say absolutely what Doctrin those first great Oracles delivered even in the Fundamentals of Faith none can know the true sence of the words registred in Scripture or assert that they were Divinely inspired without the Infallible Testimony of the Church I say Infallible For if She Teaches so fallibly that her Doctrin may be false much better were it I think that She never speak or define at all Thus you have in brief my Principle further explained in the two last Treatises whereof the Dr has taken no notice hitherto and the reason most certainly is because he knowes not what to answer 9 The very most that goes before or followes in the Dr on this subiect besides much ill language is à meer rehearsal of what his Account contains and as he repeat's his old Obiections so I need to do no more but only to return my Answers given Reas. and Relig cited above beginning from n. 8. and. 9. He demanded in his Account and here has the same VVith what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the old Testament I answered Supposing à total subversion of the Jewish Church not to examin now the difference between the Infallibility of the Synagogue and our Christian Church The Disciples had our Blessed Lord present most able to ascertain them that he came not to cancel any Divine revealed Truth in the old Scripture for that was impossible but to fulfil the ancient Prophesies and to establish à new law of Grace far more perfect than the ceremonial Law had been and that upon his sole Authority the Disciples believed the verities of the old Testament Admit therefore that the high Priests and Elders had all erred in consenting to our Saviours death this only followes as I answered n. 9. that their Priviledge of not erring lasted only to Christ's comming as S. Luke 16. 16. testifies Lex Prophetae usque ad Ioannem which is to say Christs sacred Kingdom being then at hand and
if he take Pet What if passion and ignorance drive him into à humour of Contempt VVhat if he lay all thought of answering aside and Satisfy some few of his own Gange by an odd Querie as he once did Cannot à dull book come out with my name in the Title but I must be obliged to answer it No I assure them I know better how to spend my time Well Courteous Part. 1. Page 72. Reader if he run this way I have done and say no more but what all will vow that the of oyle of the Doctors lampe is well nigh if not wholly spent Among the many wayes here briefly hinted at time I hope may tell us how he will behave himselfe I expect his Answer A word now if you please of what I shall handle hereafter Dr Still hath published two spiteful ridiculous Treatises justly offensive to every Iudicious man the one is his simple charge of Idolatry shamefully and without judgement laid upon the Roman Catholick Church thanks be to God he hath been soundly baffled for it The other is his wild Enquiry after Miracles vvrought in the same great Moral body of Christians and this I engage to answer though indeed the juggling the palpable Sophistry the manifest falsities vvherewith that vvhole Discourse is seasoned return you the best Answer and plainly tell you The Enquiry made by him is in à vvord vvorth nothing abating this one point that it exposes the Author as he deserves to publick contempt VVhat in Gods name came into the Dr's head to vvrite as he hath done against all Miracles Many Protestants I am sure as you shall see afterward ingenuously acknovvledge true Miracles to have been vvrought in the Roman Catholick Church others of the worser sort allow at least an appearance of them though perhaps done by the help of Divels but the Dr seem's in Several Passages not to allow us so much as the outward Semblance of à Miracle and all along own 's not one of them true VVhat shall â—e say to this man VVill he grant that the Iewes bad true Miracles among them and deny the like Grace and Priviledge to the Christian Church VVill he allow the gift of working Miracles to two great Prophets Enoch and Elias at their appearing again when the Church will be neer an end and take from her all Signs all true Miracles during the vast space of time between the Apostles and the latter dayes of these two Prophets VVill he say and he must say it when Antichrist comes that that false Prophet will do strange wonders yea in appearance great Miracles though all rotten and full of guile and shall Christ's own Spouse the true Christian Church be so abased so vilely thought of by one that professes Christianity as never to have vvrought by God's special favour so much as one true Miracle never to have Shewed any other vvonder but vvhat Divels have done and Antichrist will do by his charm's vvhen he comes to delude the vvorld Gentle Reader these things are horrid and better befit à Proficient in Atheism than one that bear 's the name of à Christian But more of this in the Treatise vvhere I shall discover the Dr's intolerable fraudes which run through his vvhole Discourse and show also vvhat Catholicks understand by Church Miracles vvherein the Dr grosly err's for he thinks every uncertain Story related by this or that too credulous Author often censured by the Church passes amongst us for à Church Miracle There is no such matter the Miracles vve chiefly rely on and defend are rigidly examined attested by oath and made every way so morally certain before they gain Approbation that no man in prudence can call them into doubt Those other related by private Authors are either probable dubious or manifestly false If all Circumstances Considered they appear probable vve own them as such and go no further If dubious vve suspend our judgements and leave them in that uncertain Condition If false vvhich is easily known upon Examination vve utterly reject them The rest that belongs to this weighty matter Concerning Miracles you shall have God vvilling hereafter part vvhereof is added to this Treatise The remainder I hope vvill follow before many Months come to an End Farewel Courteous READER THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST PART CHAP. I. VVhat moved the Author to write this short Treatise How weakly Dr Stilling trifles with his Adversaries A touch of the Dr's new way in Arguing Of his simple exception against the word Infallibility How the Infallibility in the first Propounders of Faith depend's upon the present Guides of the Church Pag. 1 CHAP. II. A few Considerations premised concerning Infallibility Express Scripture proves The Church Infallible No one word for her Fallibility alleged by the Dr. An Argument proposed against the Doctor 32 CHAP. III. Doctor Stillingfleets Rule and ground of faith proved no Rule It lessens not in the least the Churches Infallibility 42 CHAP. IV. Doctor Still Arguments answered His unintelligible jumbling discovered A word briefly of the ground of the Churches Infallibility The Churches Guides teach infallibly 61 CHAP. V. Doctor Stillingfleets pretended Answer to E W s Two books Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion shew'd no Answer but à meer shuffling or palpable digression from the main point bandled in those Treatises How the Dr shift's off the only difficulty wberein satisfaction is required 96 CHAP. VI. Dr Still grant's that Faith transcend's the Certainty of those Motives which induce to believe Independently of his concession that verity is proved and the ground thereof firmly setled Hovv necessary it is to distinguish betvveen the Credibility of à Mystery and the infallible believing it true Obiections ansvvered Other difficulties proposed 123 CHAP. VII Reflections made upon the Doctors follovving Discourse Of his Mistakes concerning the Churches Testimony and the obscurity of Faith 154 CHAP. VIII The Doctor 's Discourse from page 400 to P. 416. Considered and found vveightless 174 CHAP. IX Dr Stilling pretended Evidence for Christian Religion proved nothing like Evidence His Evidence taken from Sense in the Mystery of the holy Eucharist demonstrated Sensless How vainly he endeavour's to prove by Miracles related in Scripture the Truth of the Doctrin there registred A word of his Tradition and many other errours 193 Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition what Christ did and spake 226 CHAP. X. The Church proved Infallible before She interpret's Scripture The reason hereof The Doctors gross errour in charging à Circle on us in the Resolution of Faith What à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 236 THE CHAPTERS OF THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. How I formerly argued in behalfe of our Churches Miracles The Dr in his Enquiry waves my Arguments Of the difference between Christ's Miracles and those wrought by the Apostles and in the Church What is meant by Church Miracles Of the Cheats which run through the Dr's
this Title to his 8. Chapter The Churches How the Dr juggles in his Account Infallibility not proved from Scripture whereas this or the like Title could he have made it good had bin to the purpose The Churches fallibility proved by Scripture That first Title only gives occasion and he doth no more to interpret and gloss such Scriptures as are usually alleged for the Churches Infallibility but the second would have obliged him to produce positive Scripture whereby that Oracle is proved fallible This he waves and must wave because there is no such Testimony in the whole Bible You will say if the Dr makes it ou◠that the Churches Infallibility is no◠proved by Scripture He◠evinces Her fallible Very false Doctrin for the Church was proved Infallible before Scripture appeared in the world an◠yet is proved infallible independently of Scripture But let this pass How wil◠the Dr make it out that Scripture proves not the Churches Infallibility whilst I allege Testimonies as plain fo◠this Catholick Tenet as the Dr ca◠produce for any fundamental Article o◠Christian Faith For example Chri◠saies I am with you alwaies to the ◠of the world The Conforter the Holy Gho◠shall abide with you for ever The words as fully express à continual assistance granted the Successors of the Apostles and that for ever as any Text in the whole Bible proves the Mystery of the Incarnation Now all the Dr doth or can doe by way of Answer to these passages is after his wonted fashion to gloss them as you may se in his Account P. chiefly 254. And cannot an Arian as nimbly gloss the strongest Text allegable for the Incarnation For example I and my Father are one as the Dr glosses this Text. I am with you alwaies c. I yeild saith the Bishop cited in that page à continual Assistance granted the Apostles and their Successors in Christs promises but in à different degree For it was of continual and Infallible Assistance to the Apostles but to their Successors of Continual and fitting Assistance yet not Infallible Mark the gloss no Scripture God knowes and note likewise how the Arian keep 's him company I grant saith he à unity or Oneness between the Father and Son not in nature or Essence but in love and affection only and that 's à fitting unity the other in nature appear's unbeseeming God yea Impossible 6 Thus you have two fallible Glossers Dr Stil and Dr Arian delivering their fallible sentiments But how a poor The Dr and an Arian gloss scripture alike Christian who would fain learn what Christ hath infallibly taught can be one whit the wiser by his hearing such men talk is à riddle to me and every one besides For I think there is none but can easily argue thus That fitting Assistance maintained by you Mr Dr which excludes infallible assistance is no more Gods express word or the Doctrin of any Orthodox Church than that fitting unity excluding à real unity maintained by an Arian is God's word or the Doctrin of any orthodox Church Or if it be produce your Scripture What is it then A conceited gloss which stand's unprincipled by it selfe Observe I beseech you We enquire whether the Church be not proved Infallible by the plain sence of Christs words now cited I am with you alwaies to the end of the world the Dr and his Bishop say no because Her assistance is à sitting one but not Infallible Here is their last proof and 't is no more but their own weak Assertion that gives all the strength to the thing which should be proved and consequently nothing like Christs Doctrin that ever stand's firm upon undubitable Principles Nay more That whole blundering discourse held on by the Dr in his Account P. 255. amount's to thus much only that now and then he hint's at something which should be proved but never proves it And were he only once faulty in this dissatisfactory proceeding it might pass but I must say more to unbeguile those who read the Dr and make this great truth known to all Viz. That when he handles these matters of Faith and either opposes our Catholick Tenets or goes about to establish his Protestancy the beginning the progress and end of his discourse are naked and destitute of proofs Neither Scripture nor Church Authority speak in his behalfe whence it is that Cavils jeers drollery and impertinent excursions take up the greatest room in his writings glosses you have without end but no Principled Doctrin to gloss for How easy were it had the Dr any thing like à good cause in hand to prove his gloss of à fitting but fallible Assistance by Scripture or Church Doctrin But we need not feare for I tell him when that 's done the Arian will advance his gloss as farr and altogether as wisely unhinge one prime Article of Christian faith CHAP. III. Doctor Stillingfleets Rule and ground of faith proved no Rule It lessens not in the least the Churches Infallibility 1 OUr Dr by what I read in this first Part chiefly build's his whole Religion upon the sufficiency of Scripture easily understood in Necessaries by à Faculty that every man hath of discerning of truth and falshood wherein he much cleaves to Socinianism and followes exactly the steps of Mr Chilingworth Here and there he recurr's to Gods Grace and to other helps but saies not plainly what those helps are neither can he while his whole endeavour is to exclude the Church from being the Rule or ground of Faith 2 In behalfe of Scripture he laies down this Proposition P. 99. Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such à way of writing being made choice of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the designe and the Wisdom and Goodnes of God to give Infallible assistance to persons in writing his will for the benefit of mankind if these writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their Salvation From this Principle he would conclude that if those writings may be understood by all persons its needles to rely on any Church whether fallible or infallible for our instruction in necessaries because Scripture alone without the Church is the Master-Teacher and à faculty granted every man of discerning truth and falshood which cannot but hit right upon these necessaries knowes them all 3 This Principle learnedly refuted by the Ingenious Author of Errour-Nonplus't P. 81. supposes what neither is proved Dr Still rule of Faith proved no rule nor ever shall be made probable Viz. That an infinit Wisdom and Goodness hath made choise of à Bible only with this design that his will be known in things necessary to salvation which is no more but à vain Supposition For if eternal Wisdom besides the means of written Scripture hath
this fundamental Mystery for ought any man living can know may be à Lye 3. That all Christ's Doctrin as it is now believed by Faith may be both fallible and false 4. That God obliges the whole Christian world to believe that as an infallible truth which really may be à falshood Lastly that all the glorious Martyrs in forgoing Ages were bound to maintain that with the losse of their lives to be à truth which only apparently was so and might in reallity be no truth If the Dr subscrib's to these consequences he has not one drachm of true Faith in his heart Now one word more with the Dr CHAP. VI. Dr Still grant's that Faith transcend's the certainty of those Motives which induce to believe Independently of his Concession that verity is proved and the ground thereof firmly setled How necessary it is to distinguish between the Credibility of à Mystery and the infallible believing it true Obiections answered Other difficulties proposed 1 Dr Still in his Account Part. 1. c. 7. P. 207. Speak's thus Moral certainty yeilds sufficient assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true and he proves the Assertion because moral certainty may evidently shew us the Credibility of Christian Religion and that from the credibility of it the infallible truth of it may be proved will appear by these two things 1. That where there is evident Credibility in the matter propounded there doth arise upon men an obligation to believe And that is proved ...... from What the Dr teaches Gods intention in giving such Motives which was to perswade them to believe as appears by multitudes of places of Scripture and withall though the meer credibility of the Motives might at first suppose some doubts concerning the Infallibility of the Doctrin yet it is not consistent with any doubt as to the obligation to believe because there can be no other reason assigned of those Motives of credibility than the induceing on men an obligation to Faith 2. That where there is such an obligation to believe we have the greatest assurance that the matter to be believed is infallibly true which depend's on this manifest proof that God cannot oblige men to believe à lye it being repugnant to all our conceptions of the veracity and Goodnes of God to Imagin that God should require of men on the pain of eternal damnation to believe something infallibly true which is really false Thus the Dr. Reflect courteous Reader Is it so that from the Credibility of Christian Religion the Infallible truth of it may be proved There is then no doubt at all but if it be Advantage given by the Dr's own Doctrin proved infallibly true it may be also believed as it is infallibly true Doth the Dr concede that from the Evident Credibility of Christian Doctrin there arises in all men an Obligation to believe it and that this obligation is not consistent with any doubt as to the obligation of believing it I wish no more from an Adversary having enough to make good all I say concerning the Infallibility of Divine Faith Doth he finally assert that where there is such an obligation we have the greatest assurance that the matter believed is infallibly true because God cannot require of men to believe that as infallibly true which is really false I wholly agree with him thus farr yet withall affirm that he plainly contradict's his own Doctrin For if when there is such an obligation to believe we have the greatest assurance that is infallible assurance or nothing that the matter believed is infallible true it is undisputably clear that Faith which has that greatest assurance goes far beyond the certainty of the Motives which is only moral and not so infallible certain as the very act of Faith is Hence it followes that the Dr contradict's himself in all he teaches concerning the moral certainty of Faith and must while he hold's Faith infallibly certain grant that as terminated upon the truth of à Revelation it rises higher and goes beyond the strength of the motives which only afford moral certainty and not greater But of this more presently 2 In the mean time I wish the Dr would make what he saies here to agree with some odd expressions in his precedent page 206. There we are told that certainty implies the taking away all suspicion of doubt but in moral things all suspicion of doubt is removed upon moral evidence and here he saith Though the meer Credibility of the Motives only morally certain might at first suppose some doubt concerning the Infallibility of the Doctrin yet it is not consistent with any doubt as to the obligation to believe I Say contrary if it may at first suppose some doubt it must ever suppose it for this moral certainty grounded on the Miracles internal to Scripture as the Dr teaches growes not less nor more perswasive in time but is alwaies the same and therefore cannot remove all doubt from a Believers mind 3 Hence I argue This moral certainty at first capable of doubt comes in time to be infallible certainty or still retain's some doubt In case it be improved and grow up to infallible certainty it yeilds not in certainty to the very act of Faith where unto it perswades and so the Dr's distinction between moral certainty and An Argument proposed his term's Infallibly true becomes frivolous Moral certainty saith he yeilds us sufficient assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true Say now that this moral certainty is still consistent with some suspicion of doubt it must either derive that doubt into the very act of Faith and make that doubtful or it ought to be granted that Faith rises higher and goes beyond the strength of that moral doubtful certainty contrary to the Dr's Principles I wish also he had explaind him self better in this other dark Proposition Moral certainty may be as great as Mathematical and Phisical supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their natures as in Mathematical and Phisical as to theirs These words Supposing as little reason to doubt spoil all he saies for if moral certainty ever supposes some suspicion of doubt how can that be as great as Mathematical or Physical which supposes none But enough of this jangling 4 We now come to the main point and shall endeavour to shew that although the Motives were only Morally certain and not as I hold infallibly connected with Divine Revelation yet the act of Faith it self is infallibly certain and consequently rises above that weaker light of the Motives This I say to vindicate the absolute infallibility of Faith from all iust exceptions while Divines vary about the connexion of the Motives with the Divine Revelation 5 The proof of my Assertion stands firm upon two Principles laid down Prot. without Prin. Disc 1. C. 5. n. 6. 7. And Reas and Relig. Disc 3. C. 8. n. 16. In the first place I say and it s à Maxim known by the
and other Motives and layd open to the understanding of primitive Believers who saw Christs wonders the Will thereby enlightned could easily with her pious affection move the Intellectual power to elicit à most firm assent of Faith because God speak's or command's Beliefe which assent if ultimately resolved we shall find securely fixed both upon the Truth of the Revelation as also upon the real Truth of the Motives also joyntly believed And thus the Motives which were only inducements to Believers solely considered that is as they constituted à Revelation and themselves evidently credible can under the notion of Truths conjoyned with the Divine Revelation terminate à certain and infallible assent of Faith 27 Perhaps some half Scholars in speculative learning will esteem all now said confused stuff and very likely as Halfe Scholars talk not valved the Dr expresses himself P. 427 desire the Reader to try his faculty upon it whether it be intelligible No great matter for that say I. Let Smatterers talke I appeal to the judgement of such as have been long versed in Schools and hope to enlighten the unlearned by this one clear Instance 28 Had Christ our Lord after his raysing Lazarus from the dead said only thus much to the then present Spectators You have seen this one great wonder my Disciples and others have been Eye-witnesses of many more An Instance gives light to my Assention wrought by me I speak now to you in the words which my Evangelist shall hereafter register in the Gospel Iohn 10. 25. The works that I do in my Fathers name they give Testimony of me and withall declare that I am truly God and the Messias sent into the world Believe me induced to assent by the works you and others have seen and moreover believe that these seen wonders are not counterfeited but true Miraculous works In this case it is clear that the same Miracles first known by sense or as they apply'd the Divine Revelation to the Believers understanding made themselves together with the Revelation no more but evidently credible and therefore forced none to believe but left that free yet they imposed an obligation upon all rational men of believing the real truth of these Miracles and the Truth of the Revelation whereof neither those primitive Christians nor we ever yet had any Evidence This is to say in plainer terms and mark well the distinction Miracles and all other exteriour Motives as seen or known move to à beliefe of themselves under the notion of Truths though not evidently seen or known as Truths but believed so 29 The whole discourse in this Chapter goes upon à supposition that the Motives of credibility are not essentially connected with the Divine Revelation though if that essential connexion be admitted which is true Doctrin and much avail's to raise Faith above the strength of all exteriour Motives An act of Faith terminated upon the Revelation and the truth of the Motives more certain than humane knowledge yet the act of Faith terminated upon the Revelation and the Truth of the Motives far surpasses in certainty the knowledge which any in this life can have of that connexion for the knowledge of that Connexion is only got by natural discourse whereas the assent of Faith it self rest's upon the most supream Verity I mean God speaking to the world And thus in all opinions the certainty of Faith is defensible As à rational assent Faith depend's upon the Motives of Credibility because God speak's by such Signs As purely Divine it rest's upon the Divine Revelation applyed by rational Motives whereunto I add the lumen fidei which represent's the Truth of the Motives and the Revelation more clearly and immediatly then any natural discourse can do and upon that account much conduces to the Infallible certainty of Faith as is largely declared Reas. and Relig Disc 3. c. 9. n. 6 The last certainty comes from the pious affection of the will as is already declared Having said thus much I desire Dr Still to weaken any one of these Principles upon Good Authority or solid reason CHAP. VII Reflections made upon the Doctors following Discourse Of his Mistakes concerning the Churches Testimony and the obscurity of Faith 1 I Am forced courteous Reader to passe by many impertinent excursions of the Dr his ill language also with other lesser faults for fear of making this Treatise too bulky which may displease him neither do I need to enlarge my self much upon his obiections from P. 365. to P. 400. For they are all solved in my two former Treatises Some few particulars I shall add more to satisfy others in this speculative matter of our Analysis than to answer the Dr who in very deed hath his full Answer already 2 In the. P. now cited he complain's of my shuffling because he hear's no more of the Churches infallible Testimony whereby men believe the Scripture to be the word of God I stand astonish't at this clamorous Adversary Where were his Eyes where was his attention if ever he read my Treatises The very chief aime whereof is to shew not only to Christians but to Iewes and Gentils also that the first known ground of true Religion is à Church manifested by Supernatural Motives proceeding from an infinit power and wisdom This Church I have amply proved to be God's own assured Oracle The Primum credible or first believed Teacher in this present state and that God speak's as immediatly and infallibly by it now as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle As therefore those whom the blessed Apostles taught having seen the Apostolical Signs immediatly believed upon their word So with as great reason may we having penetrated the Churches glorious Marks assent immediatly upon Her word and believe all She obliges Christians to believe But to have assurance of the Scriptures Divine inspiration as likewise of its true infallible sence are believed Articles grounded upon the Churches Infallible Testimony or rather upon God speaking by this Oracle and here we must rest or can believe Nothing The Churches Testimony God's own Testimony I must therefore once more blame the Doctor who forsooth thinks the Faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed ought to have such à Divine Testimony and so à process in Infinitum or à Circle will unavoydably follow Such à Divine Testimony Mr Dr you understand not what I teach I say expresly that the Churches Testimony is God's own Testimony as immediatly assented to upon Church Authority for he that hear's the Church hear's God as ever Doctrin was believed upon any Apostles word Thus much supposed and largely proved what need have we of another Testimony distinct from that of the Church Out of all I concluded that as there was neither vicious Circle nor process in Infinitum in those who terminated their faith upon S. Paul's preaching for example so there is neither the one nor other fault in me when I assent to this truth The Churches
and proved an Infallible Teacher independently of his clearer interpretation It is impossible while we believe S. Paul speaking obscurely for S. Paul delivering the Sence of his own words more clearly 11 Now Sr look upon your own pretty Circle VVe believe say you the The D's Circle retorted upon himselfe Church to be infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith so And you believe the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth because the true sence of S. Paul's words explicated by Apostolical Authority saith so Moreover Say you VVe believe this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so and could not you Sr have believed such à Sence of the words now cited had S. Paul delivered it because either he or some other infallible Apostle said so This is only to assert in plainer Terms that the darker sence written in Scripture by one Infallible Oracle can be cleared by the Interpretation of the very same or any other Infallible Oracle which lead's no man into the least danger of à vicious Circle 12 Pray tell me Mr Dr when you in your Account interpret our Saviours words This is my body according to the Sence you judge true do you intangle your Reader in à vicious Circle By your new way of Arguing it's plain you do For those who read or hear your interpretation assent to it as true because the true Sence of Scripture saith so And again they believe this to be the true Sence of Scripture because you say so Your Interpretation has some influence upon the assent of those that believe it be it Condition Cause or what you will otherwise it signifies nothing but And yet made more Clear stand's like an useless cypher in your book This granted your Circle is manifestly vieious for you run in à round from your supposed true interpretation of Scripture to the true Sence of Scripture and back again from the true Sence of Scripture to your supposed true Interpretation Mark well Your Interpretation is proved or believed true by the true sence of Scripture here is your only ground and the true Sence of Scripture is again proved or believed true by your supposed true explication Hence it followes that either your interpretation is not according to the true Sence of Scripture God forbid say you or that the true Sence of Scripture correspond's not to your supposed true explication or finally this must be granted that you run round in à Circle and prove the one by the other 13 Perhaps to avoid à Circle it will be said you prove not your Interpretation true by the true sence of Scripture but evince that upon other grounds distinct from Scripture Viz. by the Authority of Fathers your often alleged sence and reason and God knowes what Is it so indeed Dare you Sr most shamefully quit the only main prop you rely on which is Scripture when you stand most in need of it whereof more presently and yet charge on me à vicious Circle while I believe the true Sence of Scripture because an infallible Church declares that Sence Cannot I more rationally would I seek Subterfugies evince the Infallibility of the Church by other proofs drawn from Fathers Church authority and reason and plead as you do to avoid à Circle were it necessary But I like no such Shuffling I positively assert the Sence of Scripture is therefore proved and believed true because the Infallible Church saith so though if questioned further I must bring in my reason why I believe this Oracle Infallible yet the immediate ground of my beliefe is the Churches Interpretation given upon Christs words now cited and I rest upon her Authority by Faith though this Interpretation be not the first ground why I believe her Infallible but that other more general received Truth that proves Her Gods own Oracle in all she delivers as matter of Faith which general Truth observe it well is most rationally evinced without any recourse to or dependance on Scripture And this is only to say that à Divine Oracle first proved Infallible can interpret Scripture without danger of à vicious Circle 14 What I here assert is undeniable for had any Apostle explained those words in the Gospel I and my Father are one answerable to the Sence now believed in the Church Viz. That Christ our Lord is the eternal Son of God consubstantial with his Father could not the primitive Christians have as firmly fixed their beliefe upon those words Infallibly interpreted as the Disciples fixed their Beliefe upon our Saviours Interpretation when Luke 8. 9. he fully explained the Sence of that Parable concerning the Sower and Seed These and the like Interpretations are believeable matters of Faith upon this Principle that every Interpreter whether Christ or Apostle was supposed and proved Infallible independently of that Sence they gave to God's sacred words and so is the Church as is already declared 15 The Dr ' s Confusion and whole mistake lies here that he has not yet got perfectly into his head the right notion of à vicious Circle and therefore P. 428. wishes I had told him the Secret I will do it briefly and then make his errour more known 16 A vicious Circle Mr Dr ever implies two Propositions or in à Circular What à Vicious Circle implies discourse two Syllogisms Here we will insist upon Propositions being more plain and easy then to proceed by long Syllogisms Know therefore when any first Proposition is assumed to prove the second and this second is made use of without further light to prove the first again or that very thing which is asserted by the first the Circle is notoriously vicious For example One endeavours to prove man to have Free-will because he is indowed with an intellectual Faculty then return's again and proves him intellectual because he hath Free-will the second Proposition implies à Circle because the thing proved which is Liberty or Free will not otherwise evinced but by mans being intellectual is made use of to prove that Power and so in effect Liberty or Free-will becomes à Medium to prove it self by 17 Observe well This vicious consequence whereby man seem's evinced à free Agent or indowed with liberty takes all the force it hath from the Antecedent of his being intellectual and wholly relies on that Medium If therefore as it here fall's out that Consequence whereby Liberty is asserted without any more light or further proof be again assumed as the only Medium to prove man intellectual Liberty or Free-will by its proving man intellectual proves it self and thus hic nune is both Antecedent and Consequent Antecedent as it is the Medium to prove man Intellectual and Consequent as it is the thing proved by Intellectuality which flaw is ever manifest in all vicious Circles as Aristotle notes well Lib. 1. Post cap. 3. 18 Now on the other side should I take this Consequence concerning Liberty which is deduced
Infallibility To what purpose Should we lose time Have not I answered that the Churches Infallibility stand's firm upon other grounds before Scripture be either owned Divine or the Sence of its difficult passages can be known Have not I moreover said that that general Truth of the Churches Infallibility must necessarily be proved and supposed antecedently to the belief of this or that particular Interpretation For who can fix his Faith upon the exposition of any Divine Oracle without being first ascertained it is God that speak's by it The Instances given above most clearly evince what is here asserted Please to make use either of our Saviours interpreting his own Parable Luke 8. concerning the Sower and seed or of S. Peters exposition given to the Prophet Joel They are one and the same in order to my present Intent We prove or believe that to be the true Sence of our Saviours Parable because eternal Truth interpreted it so but do we again first prove or believe him to be eternal Truth because he then delivered the true Sence of that Parable to his Disciples No. For by this lame way of arguing we should prove the Sence of the Parable to be true upon our Saviour Interpretation and again prove him à true Interpreter because he interpreted Mark well the Dr's confusion We Catholicks saith he believe the Church to be infallible because the true The Dr's Confused Doctrin Clearly driven back vpon himselfe Sence of Scripture saith she is so And you Sr believe our Saviours Interpretation upon that Parable to be true that Parable is now Scripture because our Saviour interpreted it so Again we believe this to be the Infallible sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so And you Mr Dr believe this to be the Infallible Sence of that Parable because Christ said so Here Sr you have your own Circle in express Terms Judge whether it stand's not something awry What must be done then to get out of this Confusion All must answer Though we believe our Saviours Interpretation by an Infallible act of Faith yet we first prove him not infallible because he interprets but suppose his Infallibility made out and proved upon other grounds independently of his explication And this is our Answer also as to the Church whereof enough is said already and more than ever the Dr will or can Answer 24 P. 430. the Doctor once more run's on with the same Tautologie and because I said the Scripture and Churches interpretation indivisibly Concur to that latter act of Faith whereby we believe the Sence of Scripture explained by the Church he tells me This indivisible concurrence Seem's to him an odd piece of Mystical Divinity I Answer no great matter for that as odd as it is he must own it if he believes S. Peters infallible Interpretation upon the Prophet or the exposition given to the Royal Prophets Testimony Psal 131. 11. Foreseing saith the Apostle His Tautologies and ill words he spake of Christs Resurrection Acts. 2. 31. Se more of this indivisible concurrence Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 11. n. 10. The rest our Dr hath to his page 433. is either the like Tautologie VVe prove the Churches Infallibility by the Infallible Sence of Scripture and the infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches Infallibility Or most uncivil language or finally a foul ending with à gross mistake for he thinks our Faith rest's upon no Infallible Authority because we have none to rely on but Motives Confessedly fallible It is à perverse errour already refuted 25 To end this Controversy about à vicious Circle wherein the Dr. P. 431. account's me à Conjurer and one that speak's things which neither he nor any one els can understand I have right me thinks to enquire by what means or upon what grounded Motive can the Dr come to à certainty of the Scriptures true Sence In proposing this Question I might easily retaliate and tell him Though he Conjure cheat and shuffle his whole life long he shall never yet clear this one difficulty without recourse to an Infallible Church The proof of my Assertion stand's sure upon this most undoubted principle The true Sence of A difficulty proposed and the Dr is desired to Answer Scripture in many passages relating to Necessaries for Salvation is no Selfe-evidence nor can it be certainly known by that endless Search or mispent industry of private men as appear's by those many most opposit and plain contradictory Interpretations which the learned of different Religions give to these and the like Expressions in God's word I and my Father are one The word is made flesh There are three that give Testimony in Heaven c. Not one of these Passages though pondered and compared with other Texts in Holy Writ doth Evidence its own true Sence Therefore the means whereby it is discovered or the Oracle which infallibly ascertain's it must necessarily be both distinct from the dark words now cited and also more clear and plainly significant than the yet concealed Sence is we seek for Now further Neither Calvins private Spirit nor the Dr's rational Evidence nor Tradition without nor Grace within as Bishop Lawd speaks in the Dr ' s Account P. 186. n. 15 nor finally any other Medium which is not Scripture can infallibly declare this Sence as is largely proved both in this Treatise and the last Therefore an Infallible Church must either do God and man this good Service and certainly tell us what Scripture Speak's in these Necessaries for Salvation Or the true meaning of God's Word will be just like Some useless airy nicity not worth knowing still matter of debate ever disputable but never known Thus much said in answer to the Dr's Speculative part we passe in the next Discourse to à serious view of his long Drollery and simple exceptions made against the glorious Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church and Shall God willing evince that in this Treatise where he thought to triumph most he is foiled and hath disgraced none but himselfe An end of the first Part. A DISCOVRSE CONCERNING MIRACLES WROUGHT in the Roman CATHOLICK CHVRCH in vindication of their Truth against Doctor Stillingfleets unjust Cavils VVHERE The Miraculous Translation of the Holy House OF LORETO is Asserted and proved an undeniable Verity BY E. W. The second Part. ANTWERP Printed by MICHAEL CNOBBAERT at the Sign of S. Peter in the Year 1674. Dr Stillingfleet in his second Discourse Chap. 3. P. 434 makes an Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church I follow him as he goes along and lay open the ill Success our Inquifitive man hath had in his Search which will I hope appear to every one after à full view taken of what is proposed in the ensuing Treatise Peruse and judge Courteous Reader CHAP. I. How I formerly argued in behalfe of our Churches Miracles The Dr in his Enquiry waves my Arguments Of the difference between Christ's Miracles and those wrought by
want's learning judgement and common Civility His defect in learning appear's most in this Treatise His want of Judgement Truth and Sincerity will be more manifest in my second Part where I rescue the glorious Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church from à vast number of forgeries and Calumnies His transgression against Civility is so notorious that almost every page in his books overcharged with it cries shame upon him Wherefore wonder not if here and there I twitch him à little though with no proportion to his rude and uncourteous handling me and others Thus much noted know courteous Reader that 5 The most or rather all Doctor Stilling fleet hath against me in his first discourse besides much ill language cast out of that sanctified mouth to embellish his general Preface with you have at his 77. page There lies the main business I am to consider though all is so profoundly simple that I am ashamed to read it As for the sornful words he gives no more regarded by me then the chattering of à magpie I tell you plainly they shall never break my head nor vex my heart Let that young Cock crow on his own dunghil if it do him good let him peck at what dead skull he pleases no great hurt say I while no more is done My task is to look after substance could I meet with it but I am fob'd off with meer tittle tattle all along with jeers and drollery and therefore must deal ingenuously courteous Reader and openly Nothing like à difficulty proposed by the Dr. profess before God and the world that though I have with all possible diligence weighed the utmost strength of Dr Still Arguments against our Church Doctrin yet I find not one that carries with it so much as the face or à shadow of difficulty as shall by God's Assistance be proved in this short Treatise And I easily believe that those other worthy Authors the Doctor slights and flurts at all have their lashes well able to answer for them selves will manifestly make it out that he only trifles and speaks nothing to the purpose against their learned labours My endeavour is to answer for my selfe Se more in the Preface to the Reader 6 Doctor Still in the page now cited pick 's up à few of my Assertions taken out of the Book intituled Protestancy without principles and after his usual manner proceed's very disingenuously for he either mangles them as best served his turn or wilily strip's them of all their proofs which without any labour might have been added and given vigour to every Proposition Finally he wholly waves the ultimate reason I alledge for the Churches infallibility Protestancy without Princ P. 28. where I prove that Christian Religion is ruin'd if for ought any man can know all Churches all Pastors and Guides teach Christ's Doctrin so fallibly that it may be false 7. Now à word or two of my Assertions related by the Dr. I say first All true believers not all men as the Dr miscites in the Assent given to Gods revealed verities are infallible and prove the Assertion God the first Verity reveal's infallibly eternal truths for this end that all believe him as he speak's if therefore he speaks infallibly all that believe him as he speak's believe infallibly I ground this Doctrin upon the Apostles words 1. Subiective Infallibility in true Believers Thessa 2. v. 12. Therefore we thank God without intermission because when ye received the word of God which you heard from us ye received it not as the word of men but at it is indeed the word of God who works in you that believe Hence I infer'd He that receives the delivered word of God as it is truly God's word and not the word of man He in whom God work 's belief by Divine grace believes Gods revealed truths infallibly And then Concluded Whoever disown's such infallible Believers ioyntly disown's infallible Faith and said this reason proves à subjective Infallibility in true Believers Thus the Blessed Apostles who received the word of God from Christ our Lord had Divine Faith and firmly assented to Christ◠sacred Doctrin were first infallible believers and afterward infallible Teachers also What harme in these Assertions I challenge the Dr to speak à probable word against them upon any known or owned Principle for hitherto he hath returned no Answer 8. I Assert 2. P. 20. He that hear's an infallible Teacher hath the Spirit of truth and he that hear's not an infallible Teacher wants the spirit of truth Holy Scripture speaks as I speak Iohn 1. c. 4. v. 6. we are of God he that knowes God hear's us he that is not of God heareth us not hereby we know the Spiririt of truth and the Spirit of errour Hence I infer'd that à fallible teaching of Christs Doctrin which by the force of its proposal or delivery may deceive and be false is lyable to cavils and disputes In saying this I wrong not in the least Christs infallible Doctrin but only assert that à fallible or false delivery which may easily deprave it is not Christs infallible Doctrin because as yet it is not made sufficiently Credible nor ultimately applyed to à Hearer as Christ's Doctrin An Arian for example read's these words I and my Father are one and so also doth Dr St. Both read the Doctrin of Christ yet contradict each other and the one depraves and perverts it by his false and fallible delivery I say this false and fallible teaching most easily distinguish'd from revealed truths in Gods word is not Christs infallible Doctrin If the Doctor boggle at this distinction whereof he takes no notice the worst I wish him is more light and learning 9. The Doctor saies I assert in my 21. Page No man can be an Heretick that denies the obiective verities revealed in Gods word unless he be sure that his Teacher reveales those verities Infallibly There is no such Proposition in that 21. page much less any words importing that à Teacher reveal's Teachers in this present state good Dr propose infallibly the ancient revealed Verities and often add à clearer explication which implies not if we speak properly any new Revelation You have more of my Propositions in Dr St which I own and wil defend as they stand with their reasons in my Book even to the very last P. 22. and. 24. where I say As long as the infallibility of à Revelation is remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an Infallible Proponent the Revelation can no more convey certainty into Faith then fire at à great distance warm I give this reason omitted by the Dr. It little avail's to know that God speak's infallibly for every one has that assured unless in the circumstance he speak's to me and for my salvation I yeild my infallible assent to his word which cannot be without assurance had from the Proponent of Faith that he Speaks as I ought to believe infallibly
Sometimes they apply it to to the means of conveying that infallible Truth to the faculties of â—en and these they say must be infallible Very right no Jugling yet The Galatians c. 1. 24. accounted S. Paul no Jugler when they glorified God because one that in time past had been à Persecutor now preached and conveyed the truths of Jesus Christ to the world Again if Faith comes by hearing and none can hear without à Preacher Rom. 10. 14 And if God hath appointed Pastors and Doctors for the work of the Ministerie to the end we be not carried a way with every wind of Doctrin by the deceipt of men Ephes 4. 12. If these Assertions I say be true we are secured by Divine Scripture without jugling that God will ever provide his Church of infallible Teachers who by special assistance are to convey and propose to us infallibly what is infallibly revealed chiefly then when the Mysteries of Faith transcend all natural reason or lye obscurely in Gods written word But of this particular whereat the Doctor boggles most more hereafter In the mean while you see that if Catholick Divines who apply infallibility to Gods Revelation to the Faith of such as assent to that Revelation and finally to the Oracle that proposes Faith be à jugling Scripture it selve juggles with us 15 Our Dr proceed's But the subtility of these things he means of the distinctions The Drs ill worded Definition rejected hitherto given lies only in their obscurity and the Schoolman is spoiled when his talk is brought out of the clouds to common sence In good sober earnest Schoolmen will never be spoiled by such a Bungler as the Dr is But wil you hear how Eagle like he mount's the clouds and at once profoundly dives into the depth of this doubtful Term Infallibility if yet it signifies any thing Infallible is that saith the Dr which cannot be deceived Now we are to suppose ourselves brought down out of the cloudes Most pitiful What cobler is there in England that by meer hearing the word Infallibility understand's not as well the sence of it as he doth after the Doctors ill worded definition In God's name how doth his definition charm greater clarity into the word Infallible than it had before Again was Infallibility when I used it pedlers french and fustian language How happen's it now after the Doctor 's mouth hath hallowed the Term to become à less Iargon Or doth he only tell us by his definition what à Iargon or fustian language signifies We only ask here whether the very vvord deserves contempt and shall enquire afterward to whom it is applyed Lastly the Dr is Shamefully out for the Infallibility proper to Divine Faith is ill expressed by Saying barely It cannot be deceived much more is required And it is that as the true Proponent of Faith whether Christ Apostle or Church can neither deceive not be deceived So à true Believer by Virtue of his Faith can neither deceive nor be deceived The Dr has not yet done If no one thus he speak's will say that à Proposition cannot be deceived it is absur'd to say that it is Infallibly true A Proposition deceived good Dr. Propositions are not if I understand English properly said to be deceived but the Proponent that makes them when fals is deceived neither doe we say in Schools Propositio fallitur but est fallax aut falsa Proponens fallitur But let this pass The Dr's meaning may be à homely spun thing and import this sense If every one will say that à Proposition may be false it is absurd to say it is infallibly true No hurt in this no more harme can I discover in those other flat Propositions which follow P. 82. viz. That the impossibility of being deceived doth in truth belong only to an Infinitly perfect understanding for what ever understanding is imperfect is of it selfe lyable to errour and mistake 2. Yet an understanding lyable to be deceived may not be deceived and be sure it is not 3. The assurance of not being deceived is from Gods revealing any thing to men for we know it is impossible that God should ' be deceived or goe about To deceive man kind in what he obliges The Drs Propositions to no purpose in this place them to believe as true 4. It is granted that what ever person speak's from God he cannot be deceived in it but men may be deceived in thinking they speak from God when they doe not These I call loose and dull Propositions fit to fill paper for to what other end they serve in this place standing as they doe alone and unconnected with the main Business now in hand no man I think can tell me Had the Dr come to the point as he might have done well on this occasion and proved closely by positive Arguments that the Roman Catholick Church dispersed the whole world over is fallible or that we are deceived in thinking God speak's infallibly by this Oracle when he doth not his propositions had been to the purpose But both here and all along he waves these express positive proofs which should make directly against us and only skirmishes with some few Arguments of Catholicks God knowes most weakly whereby they endeavour to evince the Churches Infallibility Besides such faint attempts with flurts here and there at Popes and Councils you have nothing as shall appear hereafter 16 The ensuing talk in the Dr's three next Pages may be briefly reduced to three or four Assertions Having told us that particular persons may be deceived in believing those inspired who are not he saith nothing can be sufficient to prevent His errour concerning private Inspiration discovered this but Divine Revelation to every particular person that God hath appointed infallible Guides in the Church to assure men he had at first setled his Church by persons that were infallible What can the Dr mean Will he say that God whispered every Primitive Christian in the ear and declared by private Revelation when the Apostles preached that they were his Infallible Oracles Or supposing that the Roman Catholick Church be infallible must God therefore communicate that secret by private Revelation to those many millions who have been and yet are professed members of it What proof hath the Dr for this unmaintainable Assertion In à word thus much we have by express Revelation That the Church is the pillar and ground of truth That he who hear's the Church hear's Christ That Pastors and Doctors will ever liâ— in this great body and preserve it from the circumvention of errours and these Revelations with many others of the like nature in Holy writ are taught by the Church for this end that every particular person after à due application made may submissively yeild à most firm assent to them This Assent proceeding from Divine grace we call Supernatural Faith and hold it infallible Now if the Dr will call these Verities recorded in Scripture
Now none can ascertain any that this or that particular Revelation is true and Infallible but an Infallible Church only Therefore you err Mr Dr in saying that the Infallibility of the Church is as liable to doubts as that of Scriptures if you speak as you must of the Scriptures genuine Sence Truth and Infallibility 17 The Dr P. 113. proposes one of the rarest obiections ever man I think yet heard of Had Christ saith he intended Infallibility as the foundation of Faith how easily might all contentions in the world have been prevented had he said I do promise my Infallible spirit to the Guides of the Church in all Ages to give the true sence of Scripture in all Controversies which shall arise amongst Christians c. Answ I verily judge Christ hath fully said thus much He that heares you heares me The Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church Pastors and Guides are given to the end we be not carried about with every wind of Doctrin c. But suppose Christ or any Evangelist had used your very expression how easily would you Sr have sound à pretty gloss for it and told us That such à promise was forsooth only conditional if the Guides followed Scripture or some like whimsy which phansy might have suggested Now tell me seing your invention fall's so luckily upon new coyn'd Promises why have we not in Scripture à promise suitable to your new faith Viz. I promise no other Spirit to any but such an one as may serve for the moral certainty of beliefe which is fallible and may be false Or rather thus I doe promise that who ever read's Scripture and understand's it according to his private Judgement though he err's in matters of Faith yea even in Necessaries is yet in the way to Salvation and need 's not to consult any Guide for his better instruction Thus contentions would have been easily prevented and licence given every man to believe what he pleased Such promises as these would have fitted you right Mr Dr but there are none of them in God's word 18 P. 150. He thinks to destroy the Evidence of sense and consequently the Grounds of Religion because we believe not that to be bread in the Holy Eucharist which sense tell 's us is so Never ancient Church nor Councils nor Pastors nor Doctors nor any Orthodox Christian pleaded thus for sense for all unanimously believed that really not to be bread which yet in outward appearance seems bread as is demonstrated against the Dr. Reas and Religi c. 12. 13. Whereunto he never yet returned word of answer though I solved this very Obiection to satisfy the Gentleman and told him that the immediate Object of sense is not the inward Substance of bread but The obiect of sense not destroed in the Holy Eucharist colour or light with other accidents and these remain after Consecration visible and sensible as before It is true reason upon the Suggestion of sense would judge what we se to be bread were it not over-awed by à stronger Principle which is Gods express Revelation To this we submit and our crime â—s that we preferr the words of eternal â—ruth before weak reason easily beguiled â—ray tell me had the Dr seen those â—wo Angels who came to Lot Gen 19 in the shape of mortal men had he eate with them at Lots table would he not have thought them men like others living in Sodom But had God then told him by an express Revelation they were indeed Angels and not men which verity is now known he would I hope have believed God and yeilded up his reason to that Supream Verity Thus we proceed in the beliefe of the blessed Sacrament whereof se more Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 18. n. 4. I shall add hereafter other considerations little to the Dr ' s Comfort 19 Page 151. The Dr would fain know whether there be not some points of Faith and parts of our duty so plain that no Church Authority determining contrary ought to be obeyed I answer were any so plain as few are in the very fundamentals of Faith witness those greaâ— Mysteries of the Trinity and the eternaâ— Godhead of Christ the Catholicâ— Church cannot by reason of Gods speciaâ— Assistance determin the contrary or contradict it selfe in any universal doctrinâ— and therefore that Non-obedience hintâ— at is à Chimaera or à thing not at aâ— supposeable It seem's our Dr would have the not worshiping Images to bâ— one of his plain delivered points A gross mistake as his worthy learned Adversary Doctor T. G. whose works and Person I honour pithily demonstrat's in his late excellent book Catholiks no Idolaters Part 1. chiefly c. 3. and 4. Now because I mention this Reverend man I cannot but reflect upon another intolerable mistake of Dr Still 20 Dr T. G. said in his preface to the Reader It is à known Maxim That none can give to another that which he hath not himselfe If therefore the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy much more if guilty of Idolatry it fall's under the Apostles Excommunication Gal. 1. 8. and so remains deprived of lawful Authority mark the words to use and exercise the power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing preaching and administring Sacraments which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves as derived from the Church of Rome can be no true and lawful jurisdiction but usurped and Antichristian The plain and obvious An other gross errour of the Dr sense is He who has no jurisdiction but is deprived of it by the Churches Censures cannot give it to another Neither can he that has no lawful Authority to ordain lawfully ordain any or give Authority lawfully to ordain others Now comes Dr Still in his General Preface to ward off this blow but never man did it less dexterously and we must wholly attribute it to his little skill in fencing He tell 's us that the council of Trent pronounces Anathema against those that deny the Validity observe here also the word validity of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin in case he observes the Essentials of it and in this gross errour he run's on for nine or ten pages Citing Author after Author to prove that the Sacrament of Order is validly given by one in mortal sin or excommunicated But what is all this to Dr. T. Gs. Most true Assertion That none guilty of Idolatry or Heresy can give Iurisdiction to any of the Church of England which they must have from Catholick Bishops or wholly want it or impower them to ordain others lawfully when they are deprived of all lawfull Authority to use oâ— exercise the power of Orders Hence you se Dr Still blindness who argues from the validity of giving Orders to the lawful giving them and from the no power of giving Jurisdiction the chiefest thing aimed at by D. T. G. to impart it to men in England uncapable of all Jurisdiction by
by torments or inticements to deny in words any revealed verity yet few in their wits saith the Saint will venture to do so for à truth known by natural science Whereupon he inferr's that Faith is not so much à Speculative act as practical in order to the real effects of suffering and dying for God and his truth attested by Revelation though not evidently seen 22 Some may here demand whether the Will can make the Motives inducing to Faith to appear stronger then they are in themselves I answer it cannot For all know that as ratio Veri or truth moves the understanding so ratio Boni or Good moves the will and is its proper object The will therefore can strongly adhere to what it rationally loves and move the understanding to obey God when it is evidently credible by clear Signs that He speak's and requires obedience from us but to force the intellectual power to se more light in the Motives than they of their own nature can give is impossible One may here ask How then can the will as Divines teach supply the inefficacy of the Motives were there want of efficacy in them as there is none in my Opinion for I hold them infallibly connected with the Divine Revelation I answer No otherwise then by adding constancy and à strong practical firmness to the assent of Faith so much flame and fervour that if the intellectual power had yet more evidence the adhesion would not be greater And thus as both Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers speak corde creditur ad Salutem A pious will can captivate the understanding and move it to believe to Salvation 23 By what is here said and further explicated in the place now cited you se Dr Still jumbling discourse P. 398. most weak and fixed upon no rational ground If the Will saith he can determine the understanding to assent beyond the strength of the Motives it may determine it to assent with out any Motives at all Not so Mr Dr. It is far easier to assent upon some Motives though weak ones then for none at all as is evident in the rash judgements men usually make when by the perversness of the Will they strongly judge upon most slight reasons such an one to be an Enemy who never The Dr's ill way of arguing rejected intended mischief to any much more therefore can this power by her pious affection when She has grave and most weighty reasons proposed to obey God move the understanding to comply with that obligation and to believe most firmly 24 Now comes in the Dr ' s jumbling If saith he the infallible assent of Faith comes from the power of the Will then to what purpose is any formal obiect enquired after or Motives of Credibility either Mark first an improper speech of an Assent comming from the power of the VVill. The assent Sr comes from the understanding commanded by the will to assent He goes on The Formal Obiect doth assign à reason of believing from the Obiect it self of which there can be none if the VVill by her own power elicit that which is the proper assent of Faith I Answer The understanding if we And his jumbling also speak properly elicit's the assent of Faith that is produces it and not the Wil. Now if the word Elicit import only à command it is more then profoundly simple to assert as the Dr doth that that command takes away from the formal Obiect all reason of believing Observe I beseech you God obliges all to keep his precepts and one is to believe the Incarnation upon this Motive or formal obiect that eternal Truth has revealed it The VVill because God requires that assent readily submit's and command's the understanding to believe the Mystery How can this command of the will any way lessen or take from the formal Obiect all reason of believing when it moves the understanding to believe because God speak's and will have us to believe so It is impossible unlesse You 'le say that because God enioyn's me not to steal and the Will thereupon moves me to abstain from Theft I take away God's law by my obedience which is à blasphemy It is true could the will being of it selfe à blind faculty elicit or produce Faith by its own power without any reason proposed and this gross errour lay deep in the Dr's head when he The Dr's errour Wrot he might then talk at random and tell us as he doth of no need of any Motives of Credibility of taking away the formal Obiect of Faith and such like Nonsence but all is contrary For the Will can never move the Understanding to elicit Faith without first having the formal obiect of Faith rationally proposed and applyed by most grave and weighty Motives as shall be now briefly declared 25 I observed above n. 5. That the Motives of Credibility may be considered two wayes First as rational lights preceding Faith or known by natural discourse answerable to our Saviours words Matt 11. 4. Tell Iohn what you have heard and seen 2. As Truths believed by Faith wherein there appear's no difficulty at all if which is evident one and the same Obiect can terminate two different cognitions Thus the Apostles conversing with our Saviour knew him by natural reason to be truly man and yet induced by prudent Motives they raised their Faith above sense above all natural knowledge and believed he was indeed Our Saviours Miracles as seen were rational Motives to à beliefe of their truth true Man They saw the outward appearance of his glorious Miracles but by sence and natural discourse had no strict evidence of their being Truths for sence may be deceived or of the end for which they were wrought however led on by prudent Motives they believed them true Miracles and not in appearance only Now I ask why could not our Saviours own Miracles as seen become rational inducements to believe the real truth of them not evidently seen All confess that as seen and known by discourse they had force enough to perswade to à Beliefe of what ever Christ spake and God revealed If so There can be no reason why they might not also induce to à firm beliefe of their own being true Miracles For if the sight of them had so much force as to cast light upon another Obiect Viz. The Divine Revelation and to make the truth thereof evidently Credible that very sight was no lesse powerful to give the like clarity of their being evident credible Truths At least all must say and 't is mainly for my present purpose that our Saviours Miracles together with the other external Motives seen or known by Natural discourse did ultimately constitute the Divine Revelation in à compleat state of Credibility which we call Gods own rational speaking to the world by Signs or the last application of his speaking 26 Now further When this rational Proposition or ultimate application of God's speaking was made by miracles
to remain to the worlds end the Prophets ceased to prophesy of His appearing in flesh and had no longer that Infallible gift Answearable hereunto one might assert were it needful that the High Priests infallible power in judging fail'd also at that time though the Dr will have à heard task to prove that Caiphas's Judgement was erroneous in case he ponder well S. Iohns words c. 11. 50. You know nothing neither do you what he repeat's to little purpose hath been Solved consider that it is expedient for us that one man dy for the people and that the whole nation perish not And this he said not of himself but being the High Priest of that year he Prophecyed That Iesus should dy for the Nation and not only for the Nation c. Observe well It was expedient that Christ should dy and though à wicked man spake the words yet the Spirit of truth which guided his tongue for he spake not of himself erred not And this proves that God often preserves truth as well by an unworthy Prelate as by one really worthy where Order and Office is to be regarded and not the dignity or Indignity of the person Now whether all the subordinate Judges of the Sanhedrin were infallible is à new question not pertinent to the matter in hand It is more satisfaction then I owe the Dr to shew that the Supream Judge of the Sanhedrin who ever presided over the rest much less the whole Church of the Iewes erred not Witness S. Joseph of Arimathaea Nicodemus and innumerable others dispersed all Jury over who all were faithful and free from errour 10 Concerning the other Question hinted at None I think can doubt but that the High Priests in all grand Judicatures were infallible which Priviledge Moses certainly enjoyed and Amarias also 2. Paralip 19. 11. Moses induced by Iethro his Counsel Exod. 18. 13 made Choice of some others to Judge in causes of lesser importance reserving greater matters to himself Num. 11. 16. God commanded Moses to call together seventy of the Elders in Israel for his assistance appointed to bear the burthen with him and at their election had the Spirit of Prophesy After Moses death the Prophets Iosue Samuel David Elias Eliseus c succeeded and these certainly were Infallible But there is no need of staying longer upon this point being as I said not pertinent to our present Enquiry relating to the Infallibility of our Christian Church 11 The Dr P. 408. err's not à little while he supposes the Infallibility of the Roman Church to be lodged in the Supream Ecclesiastical Iudges and no where els To this I answered directly Reas. and Relig Disc 3. C. 12. n. 14. much wonder it is the Dr ' s eyes saw it not and said when we resolve Faith into the Churches Infallible Authority we understand by the Church the whole diffused body of Orthodox Christians made manifest by Supernatural Motives and not in the first place the Representative in General Councils For that more explicite Beliefe had of General Councils connaturally presupposes when à right Analysis is made the other general Truth assented to Viz. This manifested Society of Christians is God's own Church and the only way to Salvation Hence all Catholicks avouch that the whole Catholick Body consisting of Pastors to teach and Hearers to learn cannot totally err or swerve from truth whereunto properly belong those promises of the Gospel Hell gates shall not prevail against the Church The spirit of truth abides with Her for ever She is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. 12 The Dr err's again in his next An other Errour of the Dr. page where he demand's why the concurrent Testimony of all Christians may not afford as sufficient à ground to believe the books of the new Testament without an Ecclesiastical Senate as those Jewes who no more believed Christ Infallible than the Sanhedrin did might have à sufficient ground to believe that the Prophesies came not in old time by the will of God This I take to be the sence of the Dr ' s Querie which after his manner he spin's out to à tedious length I answer though the Jewes had sufficient ground to believe that those ancient Prophesies were not from man but God yet the concurrent Testimony of Christians in the Dr's Principles is no certain ground to believe the Authority of the books of the new Testament First because all that Testimony with him is fallible and may be false and if the Jewes The Churches Tradition is infallible had no surer Ground to believe the old Prophesies they could not assent to them by Divine Faith In our Catholick Principles there is no difficulty at all because we hold the Tradition of the Church infallible Yet as I noted in the last Treatise the first consent of Christians owning these books Divine presupposed them taken as Divine upon the Authority of an Infallible Oracle and first made them not accepted as Divine for no man will say Scripture is first owned as à book Divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost because Christians Say so but contrary wise therefore they say so and agree in that truth because God antecedently to the universal consent assured all by an Infallible Oracle that they were of Divine Inspiration 13 P. 410. we have fearful Doings about à man of clouts where the Dr sadly complain's that I fall unmercifully to work with this man of Clouts He means himself that I throw him first down and trample upon him then I set him up again to make him capable of more valour being shown upon him then I kick him afresh and beat him of on side then on the other and so terribly triumph over him that the poor man of Clouts blesseth himself that he is not made of flesh and bones for if he had it might have The Dr's more than rediculous Complaints cost him some aches and wounds What in the name of God put the Dr into this strange trembling fit Wil not every one that read's these Threnes judge that I have dealt most rudely with à Doctor and deem my crime horrid one surely of the first magnitude to be wash't away with teares and sorrow Please to hear it Marry I said Disc 2. c. 3. n. 9 and the Dr cites my words That I verily thought Mr Still mistook one obiection for an other And is this all Not one syllable more I assure you that can give offence unless he be angry with me for not calling him Doctor when I knew nothing of his Doctorship 14 P. 411. He ask's how those believed Infallibly who only heard of Christs Miracles but saw them not I answered n. 15. Every immediate Conveyer or Propounder of Christ's Doctrin needs not to be Infallible though before those Hearers whether Barbartans or others believe Every one that proposes faith need 's not to be infallible an Infallible Oracle must be known and relyed on Se more hereof n. 16.
my own body risen from the dead You have none Therefore rely boldly on your senses and reason also and judge me to be the same Individual Saviour I was before For there is no Principle natural or revealed which contradict's this belief or that enjoynes you to deny your Senses either in this or any other sensible obiect But for the change of bread into my body you have my express words the world hereafter will profess that truth all over Christianity my Church shall maintain it the best Christians upon earth believe it Innumerable Martyrs shall dy for it undeniable Miracles confirm it and the most learned Doctors that ever lived shall leave this my Doctrin upon Record to the utter confusion of all Hereticks The Dr may demand upon what ground can I imagin that our Saviour would have argued thus against his Disciples I answer my ground is incomparably more sure than any the Dr can give or endeavour to perswade by that the Apostles were ever so sottish as to have thought of his ridiculous Obiection For all I say here are Truths owned over Christendom and worthy to be spoken by out Saviour but his Obiection never wise or Orthodox man seriously proposed before himself 6 What followes in the Dr is no more but one Tautologie after another The Dr's Tautologies Or the same thing already casheired said too often over When saith he the assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of the Senses of those who were Eye-witnesses of the Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ if the Senses of men may be so grosly deceived in the proper obiects of them in the case of Transubstantiation what assurance could they have who were Eye-witnesses of them A long period with many falsities to no purpose I have answered to what here import's that though our senses be deceived in the case of Transubstantiation which is not true yet we have as much certainty in every other thing we se or and weak way of arguing feel as the Dr hath when he sees or feels the pulpit he preaches in Vnless this Sequel be allowed of My eyes are once deceived if yet so ergo they must alwaies be deceived Or à Iugler can make me se what is not ergo I never se what is Again saith he The Drs repeated Obiections Take away the certainty of the judgement of sense you destroy all certainty in Religion I have answered We neither take away the Obiect of sense nor like well his miscalled judgement of sense for sense hath still its own proper obiect though were it otherwise in this Mystery his Inference of all certainty destroyed has no Sence in it 3. Saith the Dr. I must by virtue of your Churches Infallibility believe something to be true which if it be true there can be no certainty at all of the truth of Christian Religion This is only the some thing needlesly repeated already answered And so is that which some others do obiect If the sense of seing be deceived so likewise may the sense of hearing and consequently none can have assurance of what either Christ spake or the Church teaches Who can read this stuff with patience Yet it is gravely set forth in Sermons as most weighty and convincing and which is worse thought worthy to appear in Print 7 The Solution of all in à word is Our senses in this Mystery are not deceived nor so much beguiled as the eye is when we se à straight stick crooked in the water for here the Medium makes that to appear crooked which is not there in the Eucharist the immediate obiect of sense is seen as before without the least Illusion Yet grant which is not true à deception here it is à folly above expression to infer that our senses are beguiled in every other obiect set before our eyes clearly solved and this the Dr must prove or he evinces nothing Thus much noted I challenge and charge the Dr to discover in his next Answer any thing like à fallacy in my whole Discourse But when will this be done think ye Then I say and not sooner when the Dr makes this Consequence good If Christ changed bread retaining the outward semblance of bread into his own body we may prudently judge that he also changed those stones the Divel shew'd him Matt 4. into good bakers bread though outwardly they still appeared stones The first change is grounded upon as great Authority as any Mystery of Faith is none excepted For the second we have nothing but fancy only Now if after all I have said the Dr as his usual If the Dr tell his old stories over again he will be called à Bungler custome hath been silently passes by my reasons hitherto alledged and only tells his old stories over again of our senses being deceived c. I shall retort his own words upon him and conclude that his School find's no answer to my Arguments 8 Another grand errour of this Dr is that he attributes more to the Evidence of sense in order to its proper obiect à visible Miracle for example than can be allowed The Sense of seing take this for an Instance the like is of feeling hearing c is only terminated upon the outward appearance of things and as it penetrat's not the substance of the bread so neither see 's it the inward life or motion of the Soul in à mortal body Whence it followes though we grant that Sense is never beguiled as to its proper obiect yet it often gives occasion of deceipt in other matters wholly out of the reach of sense You shall se what I here hint at by one Instance Suppose the Dr saw the Divel that often transform's himself into an Angel of light doing his feates to delude the senses with à false Miracle or if he denies Divels he must grant that power to Antichrist who will shew many seeming wonders Suppose this be one that à man in outward appearance dead to all senses by Antichrists Charms stand's up again and moves as others do I ask how will the Dr who gives so much credit to his eyes and senses distinguish by Sense only between the true resuscitation of Iairus daughter Luke 8. 55. and this counter feit Miracle of Antichrist In his Principles he cannot difference them if guided by the Evidence of sense and all that reason Can discover by Sense only 9 Hence to take off the Dr ' s errour as to the Blessed Sacrament we discourse further He Iudges what he see 's in The Dr by virtue of his own Principle must own Antichrist's Miracles for true Miracles a consecrated Host to be truly bread because his eyes and senses tell him it is bread These the Dr thinks give in stronger Evidence for its being bread than any proof to the contrary can perswade that it is not bread Yeild this and the Dr yeilds all He is obliged to own this seeming Miracle of Antichrist for
what is supposed True be true it is true and we ought to assent to it Just as if one should say if Peter be à man of his word I may believe evidenced null and forceless him but as that conditional proves not Peter honest no more do these Assertions of the Dr being only conditional prove any thing true without à Minor to this sence But these things are so which Minor is wanting The Dr think 's he proves his Assertions upon these grounds That the writers of Scripture cannot be suspected of Ignorance having had long conversation with him they wrot of Their simplicity and candour in writing gives evidence they intended no deceipt with all the rest that followes I answer these are nothing like rational proofs but meer unproved Suppositions whereunto neither Iewes nor Gentils give credit I evince this demonstratively Put the book of holy Scripture into the hands of à Heathen Philosopher who never heard of Christ of the Church or of any other Motive for Christian Religion but only takes so much as the Dr here proposes and what the Scripture it selfe barely relates Would this Philosopher think ye after his pondering the Dr ' s Discourse and reading Scripture forthwith acquiesse and say all is true he reads He were worse then besotted did he so If prudent he would tell you he had joyntly perused with Scripture the Turks Alcaron and as he found strange wonders written of Christ in the one book so also he met with great matters recounted of Mahomet in the other for which the Turks pretend to have universal tradition but whether Scripture or the Alcaron speaks truth whether such men as the Dr mentions related exactly the Miracles of Christ and his true Doctrin with those Miracles the Philosopher knowes not nor shall ever know without à further proof taken from the testimony of some other Infallible Oracle which makes the truths in Scripture evidently credible and then proposes all as Divine and infallible Verities 14 The ultimate reason hereof is most convincing All matters contained in Scripture whether Miracles or The reason of their nullity said forth Doctrin are not ex terminis any Self evidence nor can they give by themselves so much as à great moral certainty of their Truth or Credibility Therefore they must be proved either true or evidently Credible by another Certain Oracle or can never draw belief from any I am sure S. Austin who discoursed more profoundly than the Dr ever did judged So when he told the Manichaes He would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it and upon this firm ground all must believe or believe nothing The Dr ' s whole discourse proves only this conditional truth that if the Primitive Christians had reason to believe the Doctrin of Christ upon the inducement of his Miracles they did well to believe but that such Miracles were wrought he shewes not save only by Scripture it selfe hitherto neither proved True nor Divine I say proved For no Christian doubt's of the truths there contained though all justly question whether the Dr makes them to appear Truths by à bare telling us of some Contents in that book which neither Jew nor Gentil nor indeed any can believe unless more be said than the Dr bring 's to light 15 In à word here lies the whole errour He makes the Christian Doctrin Wherein the Dr's errour lies couched in Scripture to prove it selfe and drawes his rational Evidence of Credibility from the Mysteries believed Observe well He believes the Resurrection of Christ from the dead for this is an Article of Faith can he I beseech you make the Resurrection it self as believed the rational Motive of believing it while after all his discourse we are yet to seek for à proof of that very Scriptures Truth and Divinity also whereby the Resurrection is attested 16 The Dr may reply his evidence is not taken from the Mysteries of Faith Apos◠reply 〈◊〉 seen and prevented and from our Saviours Miracles the like is of Apostolical wonders as they are believed but from the Humane consent of the Primitive Christians who either saw or heard of such matters of fact wrought by Christ and his Apostles which common consent passing among so many grave and pious men made them in those dayes evidently Credible and Morally certain though we abstract from all Divine Revelation in Scripture and the Churches Infallible Authority I answer first if the Dr run's this way his whole discourse fastidiously spun out against the Miracles of the Roman Catholick Church fall's to nothing for if the common humane consent of the ancient Christians Supposed neither Devine Revelation nor infallible raised The common consent of the ancient Christians and modern for Miracles parallel'd our Saviours Miracles to Moral certainty or evident Credibility Then why should not the like common humane Consent of Christians Now make the Miracles owned in the Roman Catholick Church morally certain or evidently credible And I speak of Miracles approved by the Church not of every forged tale or pretended false wonder which were not wanting in the Primitive times If therefore the Dr say that all since the Apostles dayes have been grosly deluded in recounting the Miracles wrought in the Catholick Church both Jewes and Gentils will shrewdly pester him and avouch as boldly that those Primitive Christians over Credulous what Iewes may obiect like papists in these dayes were no less beguiled in their crying up Apostolical Miracles What say you to this Mr Dr The parity taken from the primitive times and ours I shall urge more fully hereafter and tell the Dr he shall long sweat at it before he solves what I here object if which is ever to be noted we stand only upon à common humane consent of men called Christians and abstract from the Authority of an Infallible Church 17 I answer 2. The enquiry here made concern's not only the bare truth of these matters of fact recorded in Scripture but implies more for we ask how what is here chiefly enquired these matters of fact are rationally proved truths written by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost or how when supposed wrought sixteen Ages since they are now conveyed and applyed to us as Truths of so high à nature No common consent of Christians meerly humane and long since past can give Sufficient certainty hereof sufficient I say to ground Divine Faith Wherefore seing Scripture evidences not it's own truths nor any reflection made upon Scripture can clear these doubts an infallible living Oracle manifested by supernatural Signs must speak and tell us that these matters of fact were written not like other things in humane History which are lyable to errour but by the special direction and inspiration of the Holy Ghost 18 Hence we proceed to the second Question If saith the Dr I be asked why I The Dr's second question proposed believe the Doctrin contained in
is to say one part of Scripture proves another before the whole book is proved upon any certain Authority to be God's word or written by the Holy Ghost From hence 2. the necessity of an Infallible evidenced Church is necessarily inferred The necessity of an Infallible Church evinced from our discourse which only bring 's us out of the Labyrinth wherein the Dr is lost This Church as I said proves by her infallible and never interrupted Tradition that Scripture is God's word She and She only ascertain's all that the Contents in Scripture are Divinely inspired and finally when difficulties arise concerning the Sence in controverted passages relating to Necessaries composes all strifes otherwise endless and bring 's all to à perfect unity in Faith 31 I say lastly Could the Dr evince that the book of Scripture contain's true Doctrin could he shew the Doctrin Not one Protestant Tenet proved by Scripture of it to be as it truly is Divinely inspired he yet hath not one clear Sentence in the whole Bible understood according to the obvious sence of the words which proves so much as one Tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestancy is distinguished from Popery and the Doctrin of all known condemned Hereticks The proof of this Assertion is largely laid forth Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 20. from n. 4. to the end of that Chapter and because I really judge Protestancy utterly ruined upon the reasons there alleged I petition Dr Still to review that short Discourse and if I judge amiss to unbeguile me by à plain Answer showing wherein my Arguments are fallacious 32 I except in that place against his empty Title called A rational Account of the grounds of Protestants Religion and prove as I think demonstratively that if you cast out of Protestancy all it's Negative Articles which the Dr confesses are no Essentials the remainder will either be what the Catholick Church teaches and therefore not peculiar to Protestancy or the Doctrin of some one or other condemned Heretick In so much that in the whole Essence of Protestancy you will not find one Truth revealed by Almighty God necessary for Salvation or ever taught by any Orthodox Church And Nor one Necessary for Salva tion found in Protestancy herein it differ's not only from Catholick Religion but as I take it from all ancient Heresies for both Arians and Pelagians the like is of the rest thought their particular Doctrins revealed by Almighty God and necessary to Salvation Otherwise they had been worse than besotted to abandon the Catholick Tenents for opinions meerly or Positions not necessary to Salvation Se more of this subiect Disc 3. c. 18. n. 8. CHAP. X. The Church proved Infallible before She interpret's Scripture The reason hereof The Doctors gross errour in charging à Circle on us in the Resolution of Faith VVhat à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 1 THe rest that followes in the Dr from P. 423. is all along meer Confusion or à horrid jumbling in à speculative matter concerning the resolution of Faith and the notion of à vicious Circle which he truly understand's not but wonder nothing you can expect no better from halfe Scholars in speculative learning if I make not what I here assert manifest blame me boldly 2 To rescue my Doctrin from Blunderers and the Dr if I ever met with any is one I am forced to set down plainly part of it That done you shall se how remote the Dr is from medling with it The most he would except against you have at large Reas and Relig. Disc 3. c. 5. n. 5. where I answer an Obiection proposed in his Account P. 127. And assert Seing Scripture evidences not it selfe to be divinely inspired some other Infallible Oracle distinct from Scripture necessarily ascertain's that The Church not first proved Infallible by Scripture Truth and this is the Church which as rationally proves herselfe by Signs and Miracles an Oracle whereby God speaks independently of Scripture as ever any Apostle proved himself to be so before Scripture was written Hence I inferred that the Church was ever and is yet in à General way believed infallible by Her self and for Her self upon this ground that God speaks by Her as his own Oracle and then concluded that She is not in the first place proved infallible by Scripture I say in à General way for thus the Apostles believed our Saviour to be the true Messias before they received from him à full Account of many other particular Christian Verities learned after that General acknowledgement 3 Thus much and more amply declared in the place now cited comes Dr Still in his last book P. 424. with his old Tautologies and asks again as if nothing had been said why we believe the Churches Infallibility and verily think 's we have no other way to make out Her Infallibility but only by Scripture Is not this worse then jumbling Reflect good Reader I shew that the Church in the first place is proved infallible without recourse at all had to Scripture for so She was proved infallible before Scriptures were written and here he out-faces me with empty words saying I cannot prove the Church infallible but by Scripture only In lieu of this ridiculous Reply He should have refuted my reasons and this is one No man can ascertain any that Scripture is divinely inspired or render the true sence of it relating to Necessaries for Salvation but one only infallible Church Therefore the Church which only can give certainty of these truths must necessarily be first owned infallible before we recurr It is Senceless to prove the Church by Scripture before Scripture be Proved God's word to Scripture for it is more than Senceless to prove by Scripture the Churches Infallibility or any other Article of Christian Faith before we have absolute Assurance that the Book whereby we argue is Gods word and know what its meaning is in à hundred difficult passages But thus much is only known by Church Authority as is amply proved in the place now cited 4 This reason the Dr shamefully waves with à jeer and tell 's me P. 405. that this first act of Faith terminated upon Church Authority hath nothing to rely on but the fallible Motives of Credibility and Consequently cannot be Divine Faith for want of an Infallible Testimony Gross ignorance produced this Answer for have not I proved through my whole last Treatise that God as immediatly speak's to us now by his Church as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle And if God speake by it there is no want of an Infallible Testimony I challenge the Dr to answer my Arguments upon this subiect hitherto never taken notice of neither shall he hereafter reply without apparent shuffling to use his words and running away from the main difficulty here treated How often have I told him that Divine Faith relies not upon the Motives of Credibility though
these as inducements lead to it but upon God's speaking by the Church as is now declared 5 Having thus cleared the first act of Faith from all danger of à Circle because it ultimately rest's upon God's speaking by the Church made by it self immediatly credible without recourse to Scripture yet not known to be Divine or God's infallible word I add moreover N 9. If we speak of another distinct consequent and more explicit act of Faith whereby we believe the Churches Infallibility evidenced null and forceless when this Oracle declares the Scriptures true Sence which proves her Infallible there is no difficulty at all because this interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon Scripture and the Churches Infallible exposition together for thus ioyntly taken they ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles as if we first believed the Scriptures sence independently of the Churches interpretation and then again believed the Churches exposition to be infallible because the sence of Scripture known without any dependance on Church Authority saith She is Infallible Our good Dr set's down these words more at large and desires the Reader to try his faculty upon them what tolerable sence he can make of them I answer more learned faculties in Speculative matters then the Doctor 's is have made sence of them and that 's enough to ward off his weak blow of contempt Now I am to discover his fallacious and more then simple way of Arguing against me 6 The whole difficulty is brought at last to the true decision of this Question Whether one Infallible Oracle while it explicates the darker Sence of another The difficulty concerning à vicious Circle proposed likewise Infallble cannot be believed for it self without à vicious Circle One or two Instances will clear my meaning The Prophet Ioel. 2. 28. long before S. Peter lived Prophesyed of the effusion of God's divine Spirit upon all flesh which words dark in themselves that great Apostle Acts. 2. 16. interpret's as spoken of the pouring out of Gods Spirit upon the Apostles in the feast of Pentecost This is that saith S. Peter which was said or foretold by the Prophet Ioel. Observe well S. Peter was proved an Infallible Oracle before he interpreted this Passage of an Infallible Prophet so is the Church proved Infallible before She interpret's any words in Scripture S. Peter used or exercised his Power of interpreting infallibly not first proved infallible by his Interpretation but upon other grounds wholly independent of that Sence he gives to the Prophet So is the Church first proved infallible independently of all and every Interpretation She gives of Scripture Finally as that darker Sence of the Prophet made clear by the Apostles Infallible Interpretation indivisibly concurred to the Faith of the Primitive Christians so also the darker Sence of Scripture cleared by the Churches interpretation indivisibly concur's to the Faith of Believers now 7 Ponder well the force of this Instance and you will soon se through the Dr ' s trivial Obiections I say in à word An Instance worth reflection Had S. Peter proved himself in the first place Infallible by the Sence of that Scripture he then interpreted the Circle would have been Manifest because the thing proved which is the infallible explication of Ioel is assumed again or first made use of to prove S. Peter and his explication infallible But when the Apostles Infallibility in every Doctrin of Faith stood firm upon other grounds though he had never written Scripture nor interpreted any Prophet that man must be quicker sighted than Aristotle who find's à Circle in it This is our case as to the Church She is in à general way supposed and proved infallible in every Catholick Doctrin independently of this or that particular taught by her one particular is the true Interpretation of Scripture more rightly called the exercise and use of her infallible Assistance then the proof The use of the Churches power destroies not â—â—er power of it but evinces not herselfe in the first place to be infallible because She interpret's for that is antecedently proved upon other grounds therefore unless the use of Her power wherewith She is indued to interpret infallibly destroy that power it is impossible to catch her in à Circle while she interpret's 8 Thus much premised You shall se the Dr ' s Obiection melt like wax before the fire Iudge Reader saith he P. The Dr's own words 428 whether here be not à plain Circle Because they believe the Church infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith she is so and again they believe this to be the infallible sence of Scripture because the infallible Church saith so Judge Reader say I whether one plain distinction overthrowes not this feeble fallacy and thus it is We first believe the Church infallible because the true Sence of Scripture saith she is infallible I deny it for that first act of Faith is not at all founded on Scripture We believe the Church infallible by à second more distinct and explicit Faith indivisibly fixed on Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together I grant that most willingly Now this second act of Faith must if we make à right Analysis be at last resolved into this other general Truth VVhat ever God speak's by the Church is certain and infallible which general Truth stand's firm without recourse to Scripture at all The reason is Whatever Argument proved the Church God's infallible Oracle in all She taught before Scripture was written proves Her also without depending on Scripture the same Infallible Oracle still 9 The other part following in the Dr ' s discourse is wholly as lame VVe believe again this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so I answer we believe so indeed but by à second more explicit act of Faith which The Dr's absurd fallacy unravelled supposes the Church proved infallible antecedently to her Interpretation where there is no shadow of à Circle for if the Church be owned infallible in every matter of Christian Faith thus much only followes that when She interpret's the same God that once spake obscurely in Scripture declares his meaning more clearly by his own Oracle the Church 10 One example where you shall have the Dr ' s circle as round as à hoop will yet give more light Imagin those words of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. 15. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth to be as Sectaries will have them obscure or not openly significant for the Churches Infallibility Suppose again that S. Paul or any other infallible Apostle had delivered in clearer terms the true Sence of them nay suppose he had told us the true meaning of those words The Pillar and ground of truth is just so as Catholicks now believe Could Mr Dr or any man living have found à vicious Circle here had S. Paul been owned