THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICK CHURCH AND HER MIRACLES Defended against Dr Stillingfleets Cavils Unworthily made publick In two late Books The one called An Answer to Several Treatises c The other à Vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith Against the Pretence of Infallibility IN THE ROMAN CHVRCH c. BY E. W. The first Part. ANTWERP Printed by MICHAEL CNOBBAERT at the Sign of S. Peter in the Year 1674. Permissu Superiorum THE PREFACE NIne years or there about are pas't Since Dr Edward Stillingfleet set Printed Anno 1669 forth à voluminous book entituled A rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion and exposed it to the view and examination of others Many both learned and judicious have in their several latter works discovered here and there no Small but great Errours in it Among the rest one worthy man not scared with the fearful bulk of the book fixed upon the whole engaged to examin it and to return the Dr à full just and compleat Answer but it pleased God to call him out of this world before he saw an end of his labours VVhile he yet lived busy at work I ventured upon the chiefest Points of Controversy handled by the Dr not willing to meddle with the whole book because another had it in hand I thought then and do so still that Dr Stillingfleet came much too short of à right Reckoning The one Printed Anno 1668 The other 1672 in his Account and therefore plainly laid down his Mistakes and errours in two Treatises Protestancy without Principles Reason and Religion c. Ever since year after year I expected the good hour when Mr Dr vvould please to just Accounts vvith me for he had been long in debt and give like à good Correspondent satisfaction to the many exceptions I made against his Account At last two other books containing his after Reckonings appear not like the grand volume Bulkie and so far praise vvorthy who ever saies more to their commendation loses credit vvith me VVhen these books came to my hands one long after the other the distance of place vvould have it so I read all and examined every particular diligently still hopeing as I vvent along to find the Dr more rational and better at his Reckonings now then he had been in his former VVritings but after an exact perusal I saw clearly my hopes frustrated and Dr Still just like himselfe not only unmethodical but besides à meer Shuffler in the main matter he vvas obliged to give Account of as vvill be made out hereafter The first of his volumes is called An answer to several Treatises occasioned by à book c. The other beares the name of à Discourse in vindication of the Protestant grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide of Controversies by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with à particular Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church In these Treatises where Mr Dr should have made a right Reckoning with his Creditors those I mean who trusted him with the best wares they had he in recompence fall's into hitter fitts of passion and railing at them One is blind another has neither fear nor wit à third is à popish Leviathan c. And thus hurried on you shall have the list of his obloquies more compleat presently he thinks not one only but Se the Dr's general Preface all he deals with halfe martyred by him and that none has more felt the weight of his heavy hand than E. W. To give the man his due if curst language can kill one he has behaved himselfe stoutly and knock't E. W. down more like à Wood-river with à beetle than à Scholar by strong Arguments à hundred times over yet thanks be to God E. W. is alive well able to keep Accounts with the Dr whose furious Doings and feeble pen Labour he fear 's not For proof hereof I remit you Gentle Reader to the following Treatise Peruse and censure freely I appeal to your Iudgement In the mean while it will not me thinks be amiss for the better clearing of Accounts between the Dr and me to preacquaint you with some few yet real exceptions I justly make against an very ill Respondent A main one is that as you se by the Dr's Title he pretend's to answer my two last Books already named whereas the Contrary is evident and proved in this Treatise He answers nothing nor so much as offer 's to meddle with such matters as are deservedly esteemed by all Polemical writers the most substantial or of greatest concern For example I told the Dr as plainly as any man can speak that never Book merited less the Title than his Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion and upon this very account I excepted both against the Book and Author and said that the Dr never yet went about to tell us what is meant by his Protestancy much less to settle one Tenet of it upon any Principle express Scripture universal Tradition or the Authority of any Church held Orthodox by the Christian Reas and Relig 1. c. 20. and Disc 3. c. 18. world Not à word of answer hath the Dr returned to this most just and urgent exception Besides I told him that his Protestancy which he supposes well grounded want's the very Essence of Religion and consequently subsist's upon no grounds and that in Protestancy as it is distinguished from Catholick Religion and all known condemned Heresies there is not so much as one Article revealed by Almighty God taught by any Orthodox Church or Iudged by the Professors of this Novelty necessary to Salvation This I thought and think still à charge very Material yet Mr Dr waves it not because he deem's it little for nothing can be more destructive to Protestancy but because he knowes not what to answer Yet more Protestants grant and so far the Dr sides vvith them that the Roman Catholick Church once pure in Faith sincerely conveyed to posterity the great Mysteries concerning Christian Religion of the sacred Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection of the dead c but say withall that after so much good service done She perversty brought in and publickly taught contrary to truth many both new and dangerous doctrins Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and Purgatory with à mighty deluge of other gross errours I have amply proved this charge of errours and change of Religion entring à whole Church to be utterly impossible and rely upon an undubitable Protest without Princ Disc 3. C. 13. n. 5. Principle Viz. These Supposed Novelties being plain matters of Fact could never get into Christianity without publick Defence in those who first broached them and publick Resistance in others that had they been errours publickly opposed them but never Since Christ's time was there any such publick defence or publick opposition
upon our Dr's vvritings to se vvhere Satisfaction is given A. B. vvho excellently vvell makes it out and solidly proves what he asserts Viz. That Dr St A. Bs. first letter Page 3. and 4. is à very Fanatick as right an Euthusiastick in Iudgement and Beliefe as any one in all England yet after à diligent search have met with no answer to the Author of that pithy letter These things and many more would time permit I should insist upon and must though it lengthen's the Preface à little take notice of one particular the foulest and most gross I ever read in any You have it in the Doctors General Preface vvhere he bitterly inveigh's General Preface Paulo ante medium against the Doctrin of Attrition which the Church and all Catholicks hold though by it selfe it justifies not yet in the Sacrament of Penance it disposes à Sinner to See the Council of Trent Sess 14. c 4. â—um tamen ad Deigratiam in Sacramento disponit impetrate and obtain the Grace of God VVhether it be à full sufficient disposition in the Sacrament to grace without Contrition is another Question Now comes the Dr and demand's How do They the damned want the Sacrament of Penance in Hell for no doubt there is Attrition good store there The Sacrament of Penance in Hell Dr Attrition good store in Hell I read these words with horrour and stand astonish't at this height of stupidity Pray Sr vvho can absolve in Hell VVhat Divels Or who are there capable of Absolution Damned Souls Answer I beseech you Are such Souls in your opinion capable of Baptism or of that you call the Lords Supper You will say no. In like manner say I and speak with the whole Christian world they are as uncapable of the Sacrament of Penance Sacraments Good Sr serve only for the living on their way to Eternity and benefit none departed this life O! but Attrition whereof there is good store in Hell troubles the Dr. Here you have also the like gross Ignorance and therefore I answer in à word If the Dr call eternal horrour everlasting shame and despair Attrition he may find great store indeed but these miseries inseparably attending the damned are as remote from that Attrition vvhich the Church and Catholicks maintain as Hell is from Heaven The Catholick attrition as the Council now cited declares is Dei donum the gift of God wrought in à Soul by the impulse and motion of the Holy Ghost and though it tend's upon à less perfect Motive than Contrition yet it is à Supernatural Operation If you Mr Dr speak not of this Attrition you fight vvith Shadowes and touch not Catholick Doctrin I might in this place also show how grosly the Dr is mistaken in his quoting Gregory de Valentia but I hasten to my own affaires and shall briefly tell you how and in vvhat manner I proceed vvith this Adversary The Dr you know hath employed himself and time upon two very different Subiects the one hard and Speculative the other more easy containing matters of Fact set forth vvith this Title An Enquiry into the Miracles of the Church of Rome In this first Part I follow him as he goes along and reply to his Cavils not one I am sure if any be worth notice as few are is omitted by me I discover also his Shuffling and as occasion fall's out mind him here and there of what he should prove though he never doth it I shew moreover that the grand Principle he relies on called à Faculty of discerning allowed every one to judge of the Scriptures Sence in the most necessary points concerning Salvation is not only evidently unsound but likewise highly injurious to God and Truth for by it he licences every Arian every Anabaptist every Fanatick and Quaker who have as good discerning Faculties as the Dr can glory in to uphold that Sence they draw from Scripture and maintain it as true though false and heretical and this forsooth is done because malice vvill not brook God's own Oracle to teach when we stand most in need of Instruction After my grounds given for the Churches Infallibility I urge the Doctor to produce à Proof from any received Principle whereby it may but probably appear that à Church once confessedly Orthodox and right in Faith is errable or ever erred In that speculative Contest about Faith transcending the certainty of Motives I evince that not only the Dr doth de facto but all others must subscribe to the truth I Propugn and own it as an undisputable Verity Much more I have against the Doctor better known by à full perusal of the Treatise than by any Summary laid before the Reader in à short Preface In case he vvill reioyn I vvish him vvhat ere becomes of the rest not to pass over my tvvo last Chapters where first I largely insist upon that he call's his rational Evidence of Christian Religion which I shew every way defective and besides demonstrate that the true Evidence for Christianity is not as the Dr would have it either destroyed or in the least measure endamaged by the Doctrin of Transubstantiation In the 10th and last Chapter I discover the Dr's too manifest errour in his unskilful charging à vicious Circle on us while we resolve our Catholick Faith I tell him which he knowes not what a vicious Circle essentially implies and demonstratively clear the Church from all shadow and danger of à Circle May it please the Dr to give me Satisfaction in these two main matters now Specified My exceptions against him are plain and also vouchsafe to solve another difficulty proposed in this Treatise concerning the means Christ has left to bring all open Dissenters in the fundamentals of Faith or Necessaries for Salvation to one beliefe that is to understand the true genuin Sence of God's word without an Infallible Church May it I say please the Dr to do only thus much I will not only highly applaude his labours but freely quit him of blame though he trifle never so much with me in his Answers to the rest of this Treatise Now in case he take courage to reply whereof I doubt very much it is hard to say what humour he will be in what Vizor or Shape he may assume Perchance he vvill appear with his pageant-like piety and renew his promises of vvriting fairly as becomes an Ingenuous Adversary Very good if he answer as fairly and home I am vvell content It may be quite contrary he will bear me down vvith bigg vvords and call me Philosophical fool vvitless fellow brainless Saucy bold and all that naught is No matter say I if he answer's my obiections I can digest all It may be he will without much notice taken of my Arguments repeat all or the most he has said already it is à usual trick of Sectaries and entitle that an Answer to this Treatise if so he will need no great Sophist to lay open the cheat But what
if he take Pet What if passion and ignorance drive him into à humour of Contempt VVhat if he lay all thought of answering aside and Satisfy some few of his own Gange by an odd Querie as he once did Cannot à dull book come out with my name in the Title but I must be obliged to answer it No I assure them I know better how to spend my time Well Courteous Part. 1. Page 72. Reader if he run this way I have done and say no more but what all will vow that the of oyle of the Doctors lampe is well nigh if not wholly spent Among the many wayes here briefly hinted at time I hope may tell us how he will behave himselfe I expect his Answer A word now if you please of what I shall handle hereafter Dr Still hath published two spiteful ridiculous Treatises justly offensive to every Iudicious man the one is his simple charge of Idolatry shamefully and without judgement laid upon the Roman Catholick Church thanks be to God he hath been soundly baffled for it The other is his wild Enquiry after Miracles vvrought in the same great Moral body of Christians and this I engage to answer though indeed the juggling the palpable Sophistry the manifest falsities vvherewith that vvhole Discourse is seasoned return you the best Answer and plainly tell you The Enquiry made by him is in à vvord vvorth nothing abating this one point that it exposes the Author as he deserves to publick contempt VVhat in Gods name came into the Dr's head to vvrite as he hath done against all Miracles Many Protestants I am sure as you shall see afterward ingenuously acknovvledge true Miracles to have been vvrought in the Roman Catholick Church others of the worser sort allow at least an appearance of them though perhaps done by the help of Divels but the Dr seem's in Several Passages not to allow us so much as the outward Semblance of à Miracle and all along own 's not one of them true VVhat shall â—e say to this man VVill he grant that the Iewes bad true Miracles among them and deny the like Grace and Priviledge to the Christian Church VVill he allow the gift of working Miracles to two great Prophets Enoch and Elias at their appearing again when the Church will be neer an end and take from her all Signs all true Miracles during the vast space of time between the Apostles and the latter dayes of these two Prophets VVill he say and he must say it when Antichrist comes that that false Prophet will do strange wonders yea in appearance great Miracles though all rotten and full of guile and shall Christ's own Spouse the true Christian Church be so abased so vilely thought of by one that professes Christianity as never to have vvrought by God's special favour so much as one true Miracle never to have Shewed any other vvonder but vvhat Divels have done and Antichrist will do by his charm's vvhen he comes to delude the vvorld Gentle Reader these things are horrid and better befit à Proficient in Atheism than one that bear 's the name of à Christian But more of this in the Treatise vvhere I shall discover the Dr's intolerable fraudes which run through his vvhole Discourse and show also vvhat Catholicks understand by Church Miracles vvherein the Dr grosly err's for he thinks every uncertain Story related by this or that too credulous Author often censured by the Church passes amongst us for à Church Miracle There is no such matter the Miracles vve chiefly rely on and defend are rigidly examined attested by oath and made every way so morally certain before they gain Approbation that no man in prudence can call them into doubt Those other related by private Authors are either probable dubious or manifestly false If all Circumstances Considered they appear probable vve own them as such and go no further If dubious vve suspend our judgements and leave them in that uncertain Condition If false vvhich is easily known upon Examination vve utterly reject them The rest that belongs to this weighty matter Concerning Miracles you shall have God vvilling hereafter part vvhereof is added to this Treatise The remainder I hope vvill follow before many Months come to an End Farewel Courteous READER THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST PART CHAP. I. VVhat moved the Author to write this short Treatise How weakly Dr Stilling trifles with his Adversaries A touch of the Dr's new way in Arguing Of his simple exception against the word Infallibility How the Infallibility in the first Propounders of Faith depend's upon the present Guides of the Church Pag. 1 CHAP. II. A few Considerations premised concerning Infallibility Express Scripture proves The Church Infallible No one word for her Fallibility alleged by the Dr. An Argument proposed against the Doctor 32 CHAP. III. Doctor Stillingfleets Rule and ground of faith proved no Rule It lessens not in the least the Churches Infallibility 42 CHAP. IV. Doctor Still Arguments answered His unintelligible jumbling discovered A word briefly of the ground of the Churches Infallibility The Churches Guides teach infallibly 61 CHAP. V. Doctor Stillingfleets pretended Answer to E W s Two books Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion shew'd no Answer but à meer shuffling or palpable digression from the main point bandled in those Treatises How the Dr shift's off the only difficulty wberein satisfaction is required 96 CHAP. VI. Dr Still grant's that Faith transcend's the Certainty of those Motives which induce to believe Independently of his concession that verity is proved and the ground thereof firmly setled Hovv necessary it is to distinguish betvveen the Credibility of à Mystery and the infallible believing it true Obiections ansvvered Other difficulties proposed 123 CHAP. VII Reflections made upon the Doctors follovving Discourse Of his Mistakes concerning the Churches Testimony and the obscurity of Faith 154 CHAP. VIII The Doctor 's Discourse from page 400 to P. 416. Considered and found vveightless 174 CHAP. IX Dr Stilling pretended Evidence for Christian Religion proved nothing like Evidence His Evidence taken from Sense in the Mystery of the holy Eucharist demonstrated Sensless How vainly he endeavour's to prove by Miracles related in Scripture the Truth of the Doctrin there registred A word of his Tradition and many other errours 193 Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition what Christ did and spake 226 CHAP. X. The Church proved Infallible before She interpret's Scripture The reason hereof The Doctors gross errour in charging à Circle on us in the Resolution of Faith What à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 236 THE CHAPTERS OF THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. How I formerly argued in behalfe of our Churches Miracles The Dr in his Enquiry waves my Arguments Of the difference between Christ's Miracles and those wrought by the Apostles and in the Church What is meant by Church Miracles Of the Cheats which run through the Dr's
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
Holborn that for one Tautologie in mine I will shew five in yours with à pretty addition of new ones in these your two last Treatises Now whereas you tell me the whole substance of my books lies in this one word Infallibility Know Sr you get the worst here for the whole substance of all you have said or can say confessedly lies in à far weaker word called Fallibility Here it seem's the Dr is willing to leave off his long Tattle for fear of more Advertisements And is it possible could that harmless and well meant Advertisement wherein nothing can be found offensive stirr up thus much unruly passion in à Dr I know no remedy yet hope the Preface to this Treatise will à little calm it 4 To end He ierk's me once more and will need 's suppose that Protestancy without Principles was disposed of to better uses than to be read because forsooth he More jerks yet never heard of one man in England that read it over A weak proof of à false supposition Good Sr are all truths conveyed to your ears do not some miss their way thither Be it how you will hear or pretend not to hear most certainly that book was read by many not only in England but Ireland also Nay more all the Copies above six hundred excepting some few seized on were in à short time bought up In so much that à Gentleman of our Nation offered three Crowns for one single Copy yet could not after long enquiry meet with one These truths known to the Printer and others are sufficient to evert your false supposition and your weak proof added to it 5 And thus much of the Dr ' s Comical Introduction If he thinks me too pert or pleasant with him I answer Benedictis si certasset audisset bene Had not à fermentation The Dr's vast conceipt of himselfe of blood transported him beyond all bounds of common civility no ill word should have fallen from me but when we find à vain Bragger gloriously enthrown'd in à vast conceipt of himselfe as if all he treat's with were desplicable Mushromes it is Charity I think not to sooth him up in his folly but to tell him his own home as S. Hierome once did an Adversary Quae voluisti locutus quae non vis audire debes Time I hope may make the Dr wiser Let us now goe on 6 I said above Dr Still answers not directly one Argument proposed by me for the Churches Infallibility If I prove the Assertion it followes clearly that either he understand's them and will not answer because he finds them too strong for him Or 2 he cannot answer because he penetrat's not their force Grant the first he is à meer cheat and deludes the Reader with à seeming reply which is none in substance Say 2. He understand's not the force of my Arguments and cannot answer he is unworthy to be dealt with and ought in that measure to be despised as he despises others 7 Now I prove my Assertion I say as he relates P. 331. That without an Infallible The Dr answers net my arguments Church he means in this present state as I often inculcate there can be no certainty of Faith and have established the Assertion upon these grounds Neither the Canon nor Divinity nor the Infallible truth or sence of Scripture even in points Necessary to Salvation can be probably much less certainly assured to any in this present state but by the Authority of an Infallible Church To this not à word of answer is or can be returned by the Dr. 8 I Assert 2. As the Dr cites that the Roman Catholick Church only is God's Infallible Oracle and prove it Reas and Relig D. 2. c. 14. n. 10. 11. from Scripture Fathers and most pregnant reason 1. If any Church be Infallible it is the Roman Catholick for all others disclaim the Guidance of an Infallible living Oracle 2. As nothing can more discountenance the worth of true Christianity than à stedfast perswasion of it's fallibility or easily being false So nothing can fix in us an undubitable beliefe of Christ's Doctrin but an Oracle not lyable to errour 3. And chiefly If no Church be Infallible to whose Authority Christians must submit when dissentions arise concerning the Fundamentals Proofs for the Churches Infallibility of Faith and the genuin sence of Scripture both Iewes and Heathens may most justly despise Christian Religion and scorn all our endeavours to make them of one Faith with us upon this ground That none can certainly say what Doctrin Christ our Lord or his Apostles taught the world So it is Mr Dr our debates about the prime Articles of Faith no satisfactory means to end them but Topicks and fallible reasoning are so many that all taught Doctrin lies like an undecided Process in law still disputable and therefore of no credit or estimation unless an Infallible Church decide them and bring Christians to acquiesce in one Faith These Arguments and many more I proposed against the Doctor in the Discourse now cited and all the Answer I have is that he set's down some mangled parcels of my Tenents or barely tells me what I say For example I assert Protestancy without Prine Disc 1. c. 2. That à Doctrin which by virtue of all the Principles it has is meerly fallible and no more may be false but Christian Doctrin say Sectaries as it is taught by all Pastors is thus fallible therefore it may be false But God never Sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles or any to teach Christian Doctrin that may be false Ergo he sent none to teach meer fallible Doctrin This Reason our Dr blindly hints at P. 333. but leaves it without any Answer And thus he run's on to his 339. P. where he tells me He hath laid together so many parcels of my rambling discourse as were necessary in order to the examination of it To the examination of it Mr Dr Not one word true This had been material to shew my Arguments for the The Dr flies from the main difficulty Churches infallibility unconcluding you touch not these or at least to prove by some solid reasoning that the Church is fallible this point you most shamefully shift off and in the next page tell us that the necessity of Divine grace is no way pertinent to our present purpose the Question only being of an external infallible Proponent in order to Faith Sr what you make to your purpose I know not nor much care It was my duty and pertinent when I undertook the full and adequate Resolution of Divine Faith to lay down all the Principles it relies on and à main one is the internal assistance of Grace Had I omitted to treat of an external infallible Proponent you might have justly quarrelled but when that particular is largely handled through the five last chapters of the second Discourse and not à word replyed to any of my Arguments your accusation
is without either shame or grace most unjust 9 From P. 340. to 362. the Dr gives me but little entertainment save only to make à few reflections upon his too many Parergons and one repeated over and over yet the good man will be free from Tautologies is that the difficulty now in hand only concern's an external Proponent such as the Church is Shall we condescend to his humour and debate that sole Question I am content upon one condition that he plainly solves this plain difficulty If all the men in the world as we now suppose considered meerly as nature has framed them be fallible If none of them have infallible assistance to teach the very fundamentals of faith infallibly and if notwithstanding God obliges all to believe his infallible revealed verities without mixture of errour If finally we evidently se Christians at high Contradictions and of à different belief in such Necessaries of no less concern then their eternal Salvation I say if all these And leaves all to believe what they list particulars be undeniably manifest either you Mr Dr ought to assign some clear certain means whereby Christians may be brought to union in one true Faith to profess and believe one and the same Doctrin of Jesus Christ or you must leave all to believe as they list or what pure fancy teaches My Tenet is that none can doe this but an Infallible Church nor so much as bring us to any Vnity at all were faith as you make it only morally certain 10 P. 341 He demand's where have I shew'd that the Supernatural Principles of Faith do never cooperate but where the Church infallibly proposes and thinks I never attempt this He wrong's me exceedingly Se Reas and Relig. Disc 2. c. 15. There I prove at large that Divine Faith in this present state requires no less an Infallible Oracle then the belief of the Primitive Christians required Infallibility in the Apostles As therefore the supernatural Principles of those first Believers never could operate contrary to the Doctrin taught Infallibly by the Apostles so they work not in true Believers now but when they fall right upon the Infallible Doctrin taught by the Catholick Church The reason hereof is clear God cannot concurr or incite any by Supernatural Principles to believe a falshood The Revelation therefore which support's Divine Faith must not be meerly apparent but real and truly in being for then only Divine Grace cooperat's with Faith not otherwise So true it is that the Infallibility in our internal Assent of Faith ever supposes and necessarily prerequires Infallibility in the last ground thereof which is God's veracity as likewise in the immediate Proponent I mean the Catholick Church But saies our Dr very wisely If the Infallible certainty of Faith depend's upon Divine concurrence the Infallibility of Faith may be had without an Infallible Proponent A most pitiful reply It seem's he cannot well understand how one act of Faith depend's upon two distinct Principles yet the instance now given will enlighten him à little Did not the Faith of the Primitive Christians depend upon the Apostles infallible The necessary principles for Faith teaching None questions that And had not Divine grace influence upon it also Most undoubtedly certain Ergo two different Principles an Infallible Church and Divine Assistance necessarily support one act of Faith The reason is clear Faith is the Gift of God and therefore without the cooperation of Grace cannot be Divine or Supernatural and without an Infallible Proponent no man certainly knowes what to believe For who can say indubitably this is the sence of God's word herein lies the Truth and Infallibility of à Revelation if an Infallible Church be rejected Hence it is that the Primitive Church while She condemned all ancient Hereticks and established the contrary truths never proceeded doubtfully or probably but spake as Gods Oracle ought to speak infallibly 11 The Dr P. 342. Shewes himself à meer Rambler multiplies words and proves just nothing First he tells me six or seven times over yet he is far from tedious repetitions if Faith depends on Grace an external infallible Proponent seem's needless Then he thinks I destroy my selfe because I say the Infallible certainty of Faith comes from Gods interiour illumination as it more lively set's forth the formal obiect assented to What 's next Marry he hath often heard of the great Assistance Iesuits have in writing their books and Imagins that some Enemy hath put these things into my head Sr without doubt you have heard many à magnifyed untruth and this if it relate to any Assistance given me is à loud one as all who know me can testify and will avouch that I needed no assistance to answer an Adversary so well tamed and broken as you are Now if you will rely so much upon Hearsay know Sr I have also heard something and had it from men of good repute and credit It is that the most able at Cambridge with one likewise at Oxord aided you to the purpose in setting forth your tumbling Account and I am apt to believe this true because some who know you Conceive you not à man so expedite and nimble at work as to dispatch such à volume in à twelve months time though to gain applause this must be insinuated in the first words of your preface These things I have heard whether all be true or no you know best 12 Soon after to fill paper you tell me again what I say then that I shake hands with Calvin and some old Enemies in this matter of Grace that I hold you à Denier of Grace and much more to little purpose Concerning the Assistance of Grace in order to Faith I say that Faith being à Gift of God Necessarily depend's on à supernatural Principle and this is Catholick Doctrin taken from Scripture Church authority and holy Fathers What I hold particularly of its giving more clarity to an obscure Revelation though only an opinion in Schools maintained by some denied by others is sounder Doctrin then your skill in Divinity can refute You have The Dr's fouling me with Calvinism shew'd sencles and ridiculous it largely set down Reas. and Relig. Disc 3. c. 9. n. chiefly 13. Your wilful fouling me with Calvinism becomes one that knowes better to calumniate than to argue Had Calvin own'd the Church infallible as I do in all she obliges Christians to believe and dutifully submitted to her judgement his Faith would have been right and Grace answerable Supernatural but because he slighted that Oracle and believed what meer fancy suggested he abused Grace and had no true Faith Should I Sr maintain à light of Faith allowed men at random to believe what their private judgements tell them concerning Gods revelations in Scripture independently of all Infallible exteriour Propounders of Faith I should not much differ from Calvin but when I only assert it to serve for à better manifestation of such truths as an
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
these as inducements lead to it but upon God's speaking by the Church as is now declared 5 Having thus cleared the first act of Faith from all danger of à Circle because it ultimately rest's upon God's speaking by the Church made by it self immediatly credible without recourse to Scripture yet not known to be Divine or God's infallible word I add moreover N 9. If we speak of another distinct consequent and more explicit act of Faith whereby we believe the Churches Infallibility evidenced null and forceless when this Oracle declares the Scriptures true Sence which proves her Infallible there is no difficulty at all because this interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon Scripture and the Churches Infallible exposition together for thus ioyntly taken they ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles as if we first believed the Scriptures sence independently of the Churches interpretation and then again believed the Churches exposition to be infallible because the sence of Scripture known without any dependance on Church Authority saith She is Infallible Our good Dr set's down these words more at large and desires the Reader to try his faculty upon them what tolerable sence he can make of them I answer more learned faculties in Speculative matters then the Doctor 's is have made sence of them and that 's enough to ward off his weak blow of contempt Now I am to discover his fallacious and more then simple way of Arguing against me 6 The whole difficulty is brought at last to the true decision of this Question Whether one Infallible Oracle while it explicates the darker Sence of another The difficulty concerning à vicious Circle proposed likewise Infallble cannot be believed for it self without à vicious Circle One or two Instances will clear my meaning The Prophet Ioel. 2. 28. long before S. Peter lived Prophesyed of the effusion of God's divine Spirit upon all flesh which words dark in themselves that great Apostle Acts. 2. 16. interpret's as spoken of the pouring out of Gods Spirit upon the Apostles in the feast of Pentecost This is that saith S. Peter which was said or foretold by the Prophet Ioel. Observe well S. Peter was proved an Infallible Oracle before he interpreted this Passage of an Infallible Prophet so is the Church proved Infallible before She interpret's any words in Scripture S. Peter used or exercised his Power of interpreting infallibly not first proved infallible by his Interpretation but upon other grounds wholly independent of that Sence he gives to the Prophet So is the Church first proved infallible independently of all and every Interpretation She gives of Scripture Finally as that darker Sence of the Prophet made clear by the Apostles Infallible Interpretation indivisibly concurred to the Faith of the Primitive Christians so also the darker Sence of Scripture cleared by the Churches interpretation indivisibly concur's to the Faith of Believers now 7 Ponder well the force of this Instance and you will soon se through the Dr ' s trivial Obiections I say in à word An Instance worth reflection Had S. Peter proved himself in the first place Infallible by the Sence of that Scripture he then interpreted the Circle would have been Manifest because the thing proved which is the infallible explication of Ioel is assumed again or first made use of to prove S. Peter and his explication infallible But when the Apostles Infallibility in every Doctrin of Faith stood firm upon other grounds though he had never written Scripture nor interpreted any Prophet that man must be quicker sighted than Aristotle who find's à Circle in it This is our case as to the Church She is in à general way supposed and proved infallible in every Catholick Doctrin independently of this or that particular taught by her one particular is the true Interpretation of Scripture more rightly called the exercise and use of her infallible Assistance then the proof The use of the Churches power destroies not â—â—er power of it but evinces not herselfe in the first place to be infallible because She interpret's for that is antecedently proved upon other grounds therefore unless the use of Her power wherewith She is indued to interpret infallibly destroy that power it is impossible to catch her in à Circle while she interpret's 8 Thus much premised You shall se the Dr ' s Obiection melt like wax before the fire Iudge Reader saith he P. The Dr's own words 428 whether here be not à plain Circle Because they believe the Church infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith she is so and again they believe this to be the infallible sence of Scripture because the infallible Church saith so Judge Reader say I whether one plain distinction overthrowes not this feeble fallacy and thus it is We first believe the Church infallible because the true Sence of Scripture saith she is infallible I deny it for that first act of Faith is not at all founded on Scripture We believe the Church infallible by à second more distinct and explicit Faith indivisibly fixed on Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together I grant that most willingly Now this second act of Faith must if we make à right Analysis be at last resolved into this other general Truth VVhat ever God speak's by the Church is certain and infallible which general Truth stand's firm without recourse to Scripture at all The reason is Whatever Argument proved the Church God's infallible Oracle in all She taught before Scripture was written proves Her also without depending on Scripture the same Infallible Oracle still 9 The other part following in the Dr ' s discourse is wholly as lame VVe believe again this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so I answer we believe so indeed but by à second more explicit act of Faith which The Dr's absurd fallacy unravelled supposes the Church proved infallible antecedently to her Interpretation where there is no shadow of à Circle for if the Church be owned infallible in every matter of Christian Faith thus much only followes that when She interpret's the same God that once spake obscurely in Scripture declares his meaning more clearly by his own Oracle the Church 10 One example where you shall have the Dr ' s circle as round as à hoop will yet give more light Imagin those words of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. 15. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth to be as Sectaries will have them obscure or not openly significant for the Churches Infallibility Suppose again that S. Paul or any other infallible Apostle had delivered in clearer terms the true Sence of them nay suppose he had told us the true meaning of those words The Pillar and ground of truth is just so as Catholicks now believe Could Mr Dr or any man living have found à vicious Circle here had S. Paul been owned
Infallibility To what purpose Should we lose time Have not I answered that the Churches Infallibility stand's firm upon other grounds before Scripture be either owned Divine or the Sence of its difficult passages can be known Have not I moreover said that that general Truth of the Churches Infallibility must necessarily be proved and supposed antecedently to the belief of this or that particular Interpretation For who can fix his Faith upon the exposition of any Divine Oracle without being first ascertained it is God that speak's by it The Instances given above most clearly evince what is here asserted Please to make use either of our Saviours interpreting his own Parable Luke 8. concerning the Sower and seed or of S. Peters exposition given to the Prophet Joel They are one and the same in order to my present Intent We prove or believe that to be the true Sence of our Saviours Parable because eternal Truth interpreted it so but do we again first prove or believe him to be eternal Truth because he then delivered the true Sence of that Parable to his Disciples No. For by this lame way of arguing we should prove the Sence of the Parable to be true upon our Saviour Interpretation and again prove him à true Interpreter because he interpreted Mark well the Dr's confusion We Catholicks saith he believe the Church to be infallible because the true The Dr's Confused Doctrin Clearly driven back vpon himselfe Sence of Scripture saith she is so And you Sr believe our Saviours Interpretation upon that Parable to be true that Parable is now Scripture because our Saviour interpreted it so Again we believe this to be the Infallible sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so And you Mr Dr believe this to be the Infallible Sence of that Parable because Christ said so Here Sr you have your own Circle in express Terms Judge whether it stand's not something awry What must be done then to get out of this Confusion All must answer Though we believe our Saviours Interpretation by an Infallible act of Faith yet we first prove him not infallible because he interprets but suppose his Infallibility made out and proved upon other grounds independently of his explication And this is our Answer also as to the Church whereof enough is said already and more than ever the Dr will or can Answer 24 P. 430. the Doctor once more run's on with the same Tautologie and because I said the Scripture and Churches interpretation indivisibly Concur to that latter act of Faith whereby we believe the Sence of Scripture explained by the Church he tells me This indivisible concurrence Seem's to him an odd piece of Mystical Divinity I Answer no great matter for that as odd as it is he must own it if he believes S. Peters infallible Interpretation upon the Prophet or the exposition given to the Royal Prophets Testimony Psal 131. 11. Foreseing saith the Apostle His Tautologies and ill words he spake of Christs Resurrection Acts. 2. 31. Se more of this indivisible concurrence Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 11. n. 10. The rest our Dr hath to his page 433. is either the like Tautologie VVe prove the Churches Infallibility by the Infallible Sence of Scripture and the infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches Infallibility Or most uncivil language or finally a foul ending with à gross mistake for he thinks our Faith rest's upon no Infallible Authority because we have none to rely on but Motives Confessedly fallible It is à perverse errour already refuted 25 To end this Controversy about à vicious Circle wherein the Dr. P. 431. account's me à Conjurer and one that speak's things which neither he nor any one els can understand I have right me thinks to enquire by what means or upon what grounded Motive can the Dr come to à certainty of the Scriptures true Sence In proposing this Question I might easily retaliate and tell him Though he Conjure cheat and shuffle his whole life long he shall never yet clear this one difficulty without recourse to an Infallible Church The proof of my Assertion stand's sure upon this most undoubted principle The true Sence of A difficulty proposed and the Dr is desired to Answer Scripture in many passages relating to Necessaries for Salvation is no Selfe-evidence nor can it be certainly known by that endless Search or mispent industry of private men as appear's by those many most opposit and plain contradictory Interpretations which the learned of different Religions give to these and the like Expressions in God's word I and my Father are one The word is made flesh There are three that give Testimony in Heaven c. Not one of these Passages though pondered and compared with other Texts in Holy Writ doth Evidence its own true Sence Therefore the means whereby it is discovered or the Oracle which infallibly ascertain's it must necessarily be both distinct from the dark words now cited and also more clear and plainly significant than the yet concealed Sence is we seek for Now further Neither Calvins private Spirit nor the Dr's rational Evidence nor Tradition without nor Grace within as Bishop Lawd speaks in the Dr ' s Account P. 186. n. 15 nor finally any other Medium which is not Scripture can infallibly declare this Sence as is largely proved both in this Treatise and the last Therefore an Infallible Church must either do God and man this good Service and certainly tell us what Scripture Speak's in these Necessaries for Salvation Or the true meaning of God's Word will be just like Some useless airy nicity not worth knowing still matter of debate ever disputable but never known Thus much said in answer to the Dr's Speculative part we passe in the next Discourse to à serious view of his long Drollery and simple exceptions made against the glorious Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church and Shall God willing evince that in this Treatise where he thought to triumph most he is foiled and hath disgraced none but himselfe An end of the first Part. A DISCOVRSE CONCERNING MIRACLES WROUGHT in the Roman CATHOLICK CHVRCH in vindication of their Truth against Doctor Stillingfleets unjust Cavils VVHERE The Miraculous Translation of the Holy House OF LORETO is Asserted and proved an undeniable Verity BY E. W. The second Part. ANTWERP Printed by MICHAEL CNOBBAERT at the Sign of S. Peter in the Year 1674. Dr Stillingfleet in his second Discourse Chap. 3. P. 434 makes an Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church I follow him as he goes along and lay open the ill Success our Inquifitive man hath had in his Search which will I hope appear to every one after à full view taken of what is proposed in the ensuing Treatise Peruse and judge Courteous Reader CHAP. I. How I formerly argued in behalfe of our Churches Miracles The Dr in his Enquiry waves my Arguments Of the difference between Christ's Miracles and those wrought by
shall be Infallible in what She clearly obliges her children to believe We then produced and yet Catholicks highly injured alledge as plain Scripture for the Assertion as ever God inspired the first great Masters of the Gospel to write We here publickly avouch and will make it good That God's word is as express and significant in behalfe of the Churches Infallibility as for the most primary and fundamental Articles of Christian Religion We confirm our Assertion by the unanswerable Authority of ancient Fathers and learned Councils we add here unto the Authority of à Church never yet censured by any but known Hereticks Upon these grounds we stand Now hear I beseech you how we are treated There is à young hot Antagonist nam'd Dr Still who call's this claim to Infallibility Page 84. an uniust usurpation à thing notoriously false an arrogant pretence of an usurping faction c. Is it not think ye The Dr called to an account high time after such ratling language to give this Bragger à just challenge to call him to à rigid account before God and the world and force him to prove what he saith Scripture Councils and Fathers without glosses shall speak for us these shall determine the cause and end it My evidences are as strong as known 1. Tim. 3. 16. That thou mais't know how thou oughs't to converse in the house of God which is the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of truth Matth. 2. 8. 20. Goe therefore teach all nations Teaching them to observe all things what ever I have commanded you and behold I am with you all dayes to the end of the world What Christ here promises is certainly performed therefore his Protection over the Church will never fail Iohn 14. 15. I will pray the Father and he will give you another comforter that may abide with you for ever The Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive The spirit of truth abiding with that Society of Christians it 's promised to is opposit to errour and falshood Ephes 4. 11. We read of Apostles Prophets Euangelists of Pastors and Doctors given by God's special Providence to the consummation of Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the body of Christ c. If you ask how long this incomparable Scripture plain for the Churches Infallibility blessing shal last It 's answered v 13. until we all meet in the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God Demand again for what end those Guides are verse 14 return's this Answer That we be not like Children wavering tossed to and fro or carried about with every wind of doctrin by the deceipt of men c. But if those Guides can be circumvented with errour how is it possible to secure Christians committed to their charge from being carried away with the wind of false Doctrin No Catholick though he study for it can speak more significantly the Churches sence concerning the Infallibility of her Guides then the blessed Apostle here amply expresseth Thus much briefly for an Essay of Scriptural proofs Fathers and Councils shall follow on à fitter occasion when the Dr requires them 2 In the mean while this Dr who makes the Church and all her Guides fallible for her Infallibility saith he is à thing notoriously false is called on to confront these Authorities and to prove his own Assertion by plain and express Scripture or by so much as one Text that meanly and remotely hints at the fallibility of this great extended Body Where Sr read we in holy Writ any thing tending to your sence That the Church is not the pillar and ground of truth Where have we that God who promised to be with the Church to the end of the world would desert Her in one Age or other Where That the Spirit of Not one word in Scripture to prove her fallible truth should leave this Oracle Where find we o horrid blasphemy that all Her Guides all the Pastors and Doctors grosly deceived themselves may suffer millions of souls under their charge to be carried away with à whole deluge of errour and one no lesse then professed Idolatry Speake out Dr and produce your Scriptures as plain for the Churches fallibility as mine now alledged are for Her Infallibility 3 Hence I argue If the Infallibility of the Church be à notorious falshood or as the Dr makes it in his Account P. 101 ridiculous yea really distructive to Christianity Her Fallibility is à Notorious truth which mainly supports true Religion An Argument proposed But God certainly hath not omitted to register in holy VVrit à truth so notorious as mainly support's true Religion therefore he hath not omitted to set down in plain Terms the Churches Fallibility But this most evidently is not done wherefore I tell the Dr that not only he but all the Doctors on earth shall sooner lose their eyes then find one single Text in the whole Bible which so much as seemingly makes the Church fallible in what the obliges Christians to believe But if this cannot be evinced by Scripture laid as à foundation to the Dr ' s discourse he may better goe to bed and sleep than meddle any more with the Question of Infallibility For all he saies or can say upon the Matter will be meer empty talk without proof and Principles 4 I urge this Argument further and ask Whether to believe the fallibility of the Church be à fundamental Article of the Dr's new Faith or only one of his Inferiour truths which Scripture expresses not nor requires beliefe of necessary to Salvation Grant the first He is obliged to prove it by God's express word for as he thinks all fundamentals are there Make. 2. this asserted Fallibility to be only one of his Inferiour truths wholly waved by Scripture and not necessary to Salvation the Dr spoil's his own Scriptureless cause With what face then dare he tell us in his Account cited above that our pretence to Infallibility overthrowes belief destroyes Christianity and tend's apace towards Atheism Whilst God never yet spake any such unheard Assertions Never Church taught them Never Fathers owned them Never Councils defined them only the disordered phansy of à young Dr begot them in Ignorance and malice as you se hath set all forth in print If I speak rashly the Dr hath all liberty to shame me and one single passage in God's word whereby this fallibility is proved shall lay an eternal disgrace upon me but as I am sure there is no such passage so I fear not any the least disgrace 5 What no such passage may one reply Surely I mistake For doth not Mr Still in his Account Part. 1. c. 8. â—blot page after page to prove the Church fallible and by express Scripture also I answer he touches not the difficulty we here insist on but â—uggles all along We require one plain Text whereby the Christian Church is proved fallible And he gives
they undervalve his private discerning faculty and prefer their own quite opposite to his May both he and they hold contradictions in the most essential Points of Faith and be saved If the Dr hath not such Latitudinarians I am sure there are à world of them in England Be it how you will his Principle is not only unsound but pernicious also and distructive to Christian faith as is now proved 19 You may here expect that I solve the Dr ' s Arguments alleged in behalfe of his Principle or 13 Proposition cited above I shall briefly touch some few though its scarse worth the pains for they fall of themselves to nothing by what is said already The rest I leave to his learned Adversary N. O. and could have wish'd to have seen in the Dr ' s two last little Books something that bear 's the face of an Obiection against the Churches Infallibility but he is wary and knowes well to shuffle when need is CHAP. IV. Doctor Still Arguments answered His unintelligible iumbling discovered A word briefly of the ground of the Churches Infallibility The Churches Guides teach infallibly 1 THe Dr P. 100. demand's whether Christ our Lord and the Evangelists may not justly be charged with not speaking the will of God plainly if those who heard them understood not their Doctrin I Answer first in case of not understanding they had infallible Teachers at hand for their further instruction and made use of them you good Dr have none such I Answer 2. It import's little to our present purpose whether they understood or no without more light when Christ for example said I and my Father are one while Christians both now and in former Ages highly differ about the sence of that speech and cannot certainly say this is God's true meaning or that the words are his without an Infallible Teacher But what may one reply can we infer because some mistake the sence of Scripture therefore all do so No truly but this Inference is good if some mistake and others not its Necessary to have the mistaken clearly distinguished from the sincere Believers otherwise à Seeker after truth may as well become an Arian as à sound orthodox Christian The Question therefore is how or by what means this severing the faithfull from the misled wholly necessary for Salvation may be exactly done without erring 2 The Dr. P. 101. most tediously rambles on to no purpose at all Is not Christianity saith he therfore highly recommended to us in the new Testament because of the perspicuity wherein the Doctrins and Precepts thereof are delivered And yet after The Dr is to shew what Christianity among so many Dissenters is commended in Scripture this cannot the most Necessary parts of it be understood by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them To answer this meer nothing it 's enough to ask What Christianity is commended to us for its clearness and perspicuity Is it Arianism Nestorianism or Protestanism It little God knowes avail's to know in General that some Christians are right in the beliefe of the Scriptures most necessary Part while no man can say to what Church they belong or who they are 2. It is most evident notwithstanding the Scriptures supposed perspicuity that very learned grosly err in the prime Necessaries for Salvation and doe all these clearly se the right meaning of it Here the Dr is obliged to tell us who are the blind or misled and which he ever unluckily waves how those he call's sincere Endeavourers may be distinguished from others supine and negligent And they ought to be known in the Dr ' s Principles for if the discerning FAculty in every man can easily find out the necessary truths for Salvation by reading Scripture it may I hope more easily discover the open Professors of these truths or that Christian Society where such truths are taught 3. Suppose Scriptures were writ for this end to teach all Necessaries how can the Dr prove that the search after them is committed to every private man's erring changeable Faculty Why not as well to the Pastors and Doctors of that Church whereof private men are members Now and here arises an insuperable difficulty what if these private men highly dissent from their Pastors concerning Necessaries five or six for example in Holborn from Dr Still Those denie Christs Godhead which he believes Both produce Scriptures and sence them differently who is to yeild in this contest the Dr to his Hearers or they to the Dr 3 This difficulty the Doctors worthy Adversary proposes with reference to the Church Governours and ask's whether these may not be presumed to understand the Scriptures meaning in order to Necessaries as well as ordinary Rusticks and if these be supposed to use à sincere endeavour in their pondering Scripture much more may we suppose it not wanting to the Guides of the Church And are we not here again saith N. O. arrived at Church Infallibility Se the Drs first part P. 138. 4 Never was man more intangled in hammering out à solution to any Argument The Dr much intangled in Solving à difficulty than our Dr is here First he wishes N. O. had kept to his own expressions and not forced in that term of Infallibility then to divert the Reader with nothing he repeat's again his whole 13 Proposition and because he well understand's not what is meant by men being infallible in Necessaries he makes it capable of three several senses 1. That men are infallible in judging of Necessaries to Salvation Or. 2. That they are infallible in teaching others what are Necessaries to Salvation These two meanings the Dr rejects and yet approves à third Viz. Men are infallible in believing such things as are Necessary to Salvation 1. e. That such is the Goodness of God and the clearness of Scriptures that no man who sincerely desires to know what is necessary to Salvation shall be deceived therein Yet more Though saith he I know no reason for useing the term Infallibility thus applyed yet the thing in it selfe I assert in that sence And what now can be inferred from hence but that the Guides of the Church supposeing the same sincerity shall enioy the same priviledge 5 If all this be not an unintelligible jumbling I never read any Pray reflect Men are infallible in believing such things as are Necessary for Salvation and yet are not infallible in judging of these Necessaries How can they infallibly believe Necessaries and not infallibly judge of them by that very infallible assent they give to Necessaries Again They are infallible in believing Necessaries but not infallible in teaching others the Necessaries to Salvation What is this to say Cannot men commissioned to instruct others teach that infallibly which they believe infallibly The Dr believes infallibly the high God head in Christ cannot he open his mouth and convey infallibly this Truth to others capable of believing infallibly were he lawfully sent to Preach 6 Now if by
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
à true Miracle because his eyes and senses will have it true I prove it The exteriour Evidence in both Cases is the very Same for as sense see 's and feel's this man to be like one truly dead though he is not dead So it also see 's and fee'ls this wafer after Consecration to be like true bread though it be not bread and reason as I now said purely led on by the conduct of sense judges alike in both cases therefore if the Dr Conform's his Judgement to the perswasion of his senses in the one and truly hold's à consecrated host to be bread he cannot but upon the same Evidence Judge that Antichrist's Miracle is à true Miracle No disparity can be given O! but Scripture so often forewarning us of Antichrist's false Miracles much abates yea wholly withdrawes every sound Christian from believing them true Is it possible Can Scripture let in so much light upon us Can it make us to deny what our eyes see and fingers feel to be true Why therefore cannot the clearest words that Christ ever Spake This is my body My flesh is meat indeed My blood is drink indeed force us to deny the weak suggestion of our Senses called by the Dr the Strongest Evidence Why should not those Sacred words move us Submissively to confess that as no real Miracle lies under that outward guise of Antichrist's What plain Scripture forces on us to believe in the blessed Sacrament apparent wonder Scripture drawes us to own this truth So no real bread lies under the outward apparence or visible forms of bread and wine or if Scripture work 's so powerfully upon us as not to believe that to be bread which to our Senses looks like bread where in is Our offence greater than the Dr ' s who believes that to be no true Miracle which to our Senses looks like a true one In à word the Dr must either quit his so much cryed up Evidence taken from Sense or will be forced to grant which is horrid that Antichrist Shâ—ll work as true Miracles as ever Christ wrought 10 Again how can the Dr Assert that Christ's Miracles wrought before the writing of Scripture were done to confirm all the Doctrin registred by S. Paul and the other Disciples afterward Nay how can he prove they were wrought to confirm the truth of our Saviours own Doctrin without giving some further proof then the outward sight of à Miracle is Hence I said the Dr erred when he told us that 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 First no Eye-witnesses saw our Saviour actually rysing from the dead but afterward yet had they seen him in that instant can the Dr judge that the assurance of the Apostles Faith came from that sight Doth he or any ground Faith upon the sight of those who beheld Christs Miracles while the very best Eye-witnesses believed not because they saw them but upon this strong Motive that Christ told them he was sent from God to teach eternal truth and that now risen he was the same Saviour who had been dead Gods Infallible word therefore rightly called Divine Revelation not seen by any mortal eye grounded the Apostles Divine Faith relies not upon the sight of à Miracle Faith and so it likewises doth all true Christian Faith in the world to this day Now if the Dr tell us when he saies the assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of sense his meaning only was that the sight of those Miracles were Inducements to believe Christ's revealed Doctrin and made that not evidently seen evidently credible He first speaks improperly in calling those visible matters of fact the Foundations of Faith Account P. 119 And. 2. destroyes the certainty of Christian Doctrin by endeavouring to prove it immediatly true before he evinces it evidently credible And this he doth by introducing à new set of Motives different from those of the Catholick Church which both Jewes and Gentils scorn and in reallity neither evidence the Truth to such men nor the Credibility of Christian Religion much lesse have any reference to the Thing he calls Protestancy as will appear afterward 11 To make my Assertion good turn courteous Reader to the Doctors Account Part. 1. c. 7. P. 204 where he offer 's to resolve the Faith of Protestants though he never meddl's with the Novelty as I have largely proved Protest without Princ. Disc 1. c. 9. In this place I am to show that his Discourse tend's to the ruin of true Christian Religion also Supposing what he will have with all might and main Supposed that there is no Infallible Church 12 There are saith he three Questions to be resolved in the resolution of Faith First if I be asked on what grounds I believe the things to be true which the Dr's discourse deâ—â—â—ed in 〈◊〉 own â—ords are contained in Scripture My answer must be from the greatest evidence of truth which things of that nature are capable of If therefore the persons who are supposed to have writ those things were such who were fully acquainted with what they writ of and cannot be suspected of any design to deceive men by their writings and if I be certain that these which go under the name of their writings are undoubtedly theirs I have sufficient grounds to believe the truth of them He add's more These writers cannot be suspected of ignorance for they wrot these things when the story was new and some of them had been conversant with the person and actions of him whom they writ of That they could have no intent to deceive appear's from their simplicity and Candour both of their actions and writings from their contempt of the world and exposing themselves to the greatest hazards to bear witness to them Finally that these writings have been unanimously received by Christians and never doubted of by Iewes His pretended rational evidence for the first act of faith or Heathen Philosopher Thus the Dr plead's for the evidence of the first act of Faith whereby he believes those things true which are Doctrin more at large not in to leave it unexamined as he usually doth mine but to shew the unreasonableness of it while he makes all along à bare Supposition his best and only proof Or speak thus and you fully express all he saies Some body wrot the things contained in Scripture Ergo all that appear's there is true because writen 13 To prove by reason that the things contained in Scripture are true he first begins with Ifs. If the persons who are supposed to have written such things were fully acquainted with what they vvrot of If they cannot be suspected of any design to deceive men If is be certain that such uvritings are theirs c. Observe I beseech you These conditional Propositions carry no other weight with them but thus much only if
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
from the Antecedent of mans being intellectual Should I prove that Consequence upon other grounds either by Authority or manifest experience because we se men freely eschew Evil and embrace Good should I from thence inferr that he is Intellectual the Inference now guarded by other proofs barely subsist's not upon the strength of its Antecedent but is à Verity known aliunde and therefore is rightly called Regressus utilis à rational profitable Regress free from The difference between a Circle and à profitable way of Arguing all vicious Circulation For as Philosophers teach grounding their discourse vpon Aristotle now cited A vicious Circle is à Regress or going back ab eodem ad Idem per eandem viam from the same thing to the same again and by the same way as appeares in the Instance proposed where the Antecedent assuming Intellectual proves Liberty and Liberty not known as I said upon any other proof but by that Medium Intellestual return's again and by the very same way proves Intellectuallity This is to say the Consequence as known by the Antecedent offer 's to prove at once both it self and the Antecedent together Had Dr St well reflected upon what is here noted he might easily have spared his lost labour spent upon à vicious Circle and it is à wonder be wanted reflection because Sextus Empiricus cited by him in the short discourse he has of that he calls à Diallel gives every one light enough to se what the Dr it seems saw not though Sextus be none of the clearest Authors 19 Thus much premised we proceed to the matter now in hand and Assert If any one should in the first place either believe or prove the Sence of Scripture to be true by the Churches Interpretation not otherwise believed Infallible or proved true but barely by her Interpretation and should again goe about to prove her Interpretation true by nothing but her own Interpretation which explains that true Sence the Circle would be manifest because the true Sence of Scripture interpreted by the Church is again assumed An application made to the matter now in hand as the only Medium to prove her Interpretation true which way of Arguing essentially implies à vicious Regress from the very same thing to the same thing again and by the very same way But if I first prove the Churches Infallibility in all She teaches upon other Grounds without any recourse at all either to the words or Sence of Scripture as is shewed above and from thence both prove and believe her Interpretation to be infallibly true that man who holds this way of Arguing Circular knowes no more what à Circle is than Doctor Stillingfleet A little touch upon the Dr ' s weak Obiections will yet give more clarity 20 Is not that à Circle saith he P. 428. when the Argument made use to prove another The Dr's Obiections answered thing by must it self be proved by that very thing which it is made use of to prove Very good Sr these general Terms hurt no body to your Application therefore in the next page The thing to be proved Say you is the Churches Infallibility the Argument to prove it by is the Infallible Sence of Scripture Answ I flatly deny the first proof of the Churches Infallibility to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture for the first Argument is taken from that general Truth whereby She is owned and proved God's Infallible Oracle in every thing She teaches concerning Faith and this independently of Scripture Here I say more It is impossible to prove her first Infallible by the Sence she gives of Scripture because that Sence is not known before She interpret's and no body goes about to prove any thing by meer insignificant Characters without their Sence Can the Dr who hold's the Church Fallible and must if he ever evince that prove it by Scripture probably take his Proof from Scripture not senced It is plain Dotage to do so He goes on But if the Infallible Sence of Scripture can be proved by nothing but by thē Churches infallible Interpretation then it is plain that is assumed as an Argument to prove Infallibility by which cannot be otherwise known than by this Infallibility What To argue from Scripture not Senced is Non-sense Infallibility doth the Dr speak of in these last ambiguous words If he say we prove the Infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches infallible Interpretation I grant it Jf contrarywise he thinks we prove in the first place the Churches Infallibility by her own infallible Interpretation of Scripture he err's grosly as is already made manifest and therefore proves nothing 21 In à word either the Sence of Scripture is known by the Churches Interpretation or is clear by it self If known upon the Churches Interpretation the Sence is one and the same with that of the Scripture for these two Oracles can never clash or differ If known by it selfe as it is in many Passages relating to manners no more is required but that the Church ascertain us of the Scriptures Divine Inspiration So that still we depend upon the Church alwaies for the assurance of Scripture being Divine or from God and in the greatest Mysteries of Faith we rely on it also for the true Sence 22 A second obiection It is à little strange that there should be no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose Sence could not infallibly be known without the Supposal of that Infallibility which is proved by them Answ It s more than à little strange that the Dr cannot distinguish between the first general act of Faith whereby the Church is believed Infallible without depending on Scripture and à second more explicit and Consequent act which wholly relies upon Her interpretation and Scripture together It is also strange if God pleases to speak obscurely as he certainly doth in many Passages of Holy Writ that another Infallible Oracle cannot tell us with he mean's without Two Strange Mistakes in the Dr. à vicious Circle The Substance of all he obiects here only amount's to thus much We prove or believe the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose sence cannot be infallibly known without the supposal of that Infallibility If he mean's as he must by supposal and that Infallibility the Churches Infallibility I have answered the Church is not only supposed but proved also infallible before Scripture was written and before She ever went about to interpret that Divine Book 23 A third Obiection is the like Tautologie over again and therefore requires no other but the same Solution If saith he the Infallible sence of Scripture be resolved into and believed upon the same infallible Authority of the Church then I still enquire how this infallible Authority of the Church comes to be proved by this exposition of Scripture the Infallibility of which doth suppose the thing to be proved Viz. the Churches
as is largely proved in the place now cited Here I add one Consideration more Sectaries who lay this foul aspersion on the Church must Iudge the whole body of Christians Princes Prelates and People all over Germany Italy Spain France and England c stark madd at once that is to have unanimously conspired in à beliefe of Transubstantiation for example never held before and this is as great à Paradox as if you Should suppose that Catholicks now might universally agree in one beliefe and stedfastly maintain that the Water in Baptism is really Christ's sacred blood as vvorthy Adoration as à Consecrated Chalice is yet and here is the wonder no man forsooth must be thought to take the least Notice of so universal à dotage nor of the prodigious change made in Christian Religion by it Tell me Courteous Reader were such à Novelty brought this present year into the Church would not Iewes Turks Heathens and all Hereticks if none els did it raise loud Clamours against the great body of Christians observe all that 's done and ieer at us in the publick Streets On the other side if Sectaries say these supposed Innovations were first begun by Some few two or three in corners got growth in time and at last became believed Articles of Faith all over the Christian world I answer this is more impossible yea the greatest Chimaera Imaginable Viz. That such gross Novelties should steal into à Church and be publickly taught by à few vvithout opposition or notice taken by other sound Christians far more numerous and learned for now we suppose all ran not mad at once Here also the Instance already given has the like force Should à few men in à town or City publickly teach that the water in Baptism is Christ's real blood would not the whole Body of sound Christians both censure and decry the errour as horrid and blasphemous Nothing can be more evident Besides all know how exact the Church of Christ has been in condemning Heresies as they rose up the time when they began and the Persons that introduced them remain still upon record but here are Novelties spoken of and unworthily charged upon à whole Church yet hush All passed in silence no man mentions them no Author friend or Enemy left them upon Record The Dr may remember how he impugn's that matter of fact concerning the miraculous Translation of the house of Disc 2. P. 451. Loreto from Nazareth where he tells us because three Authors Dante 's Petrach and Boccace men most inquisitive omitted to mention it the wholy Story was to be thought an incredible fiction But here à matter of Fact and of far greater concern the palpable change of Christian Doctrin from what it was anciently is supposed to enter the world not mentioned by any one Author friend or enemy Therefore according to the Dr it is to be judged à forged tale à meer whimsy improbable and incredible Much more then this comes to I urged against the Dr and here remind him of his grand Omission for to this very day though he pretend's to answer my book 's yet be never medled with this one point most weighty and of greatest Importance I call it weighty for upon these unanswerable proofs Protestancy is ruin'd and the Church no lesse demonstratively cleared from that unjust calumny of altering Her Doctrin which She received from Christ and his Apostles But the greatest Omission of all where the Dr's dull proceeding with me appear's most remain's yet untouched Those who have read my last Treatises know that the chiefest thing I insisted upon and aimed at was to prove Protes without Princ Disc 1. c. 2. n. 9. à Truth which must stand or Christian Religion fall's to nothing It is the Roman Catholick Churches Infallibility in every Doctrin She obliges Christians to believe I told the Dr if all Pastors all Bishops and the Church with them be so fallible in delivering Christian Doctrin that when it is ultimately applyed to the Hearers the Doctrin may be false God never sent them to teach it I proved the Assertion God sent not Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles nor the Apostles others to teach any Doctrin but that which relies upon the first Verity infallibly revealing truth but such à Doctrin can neither be fallible nor false but most true and infallible if therefore the Church teaches not that Doctrin as it is true and Infallible but may change it into meer fallible and perhaps false Doctrin She ceases eo ipso to be à Church and all the Doctors that teach so are no Catholick Doctors Moreover I said If Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 19. n. 12. God hath not purposely made Religion à matter of eternal debate if he has not cast Christians upon endless vncertainties what to believe if both the Truth and infallibility of his revealed Doctrin stand firmly upon the first Verity not separable there and be revealed for this end that all assent to it as it is true and Infallible If finally the very fundamentals of Faith necessary for Salvation as registred in Holy Writ be still liable to disputes amongst the learned of different Religion If these things be as they all are clear Evidences Nothing can be more manifest than that the All-seing Providence hath impowred some Oracle to compose such strifes raised among Christians and to teach Christ's Doctrin as it deserves to be taught truly and infallibly These Arguments with many others not to be repeated I have clearly proposed and often Called on Mr Dr to reply but in the very nick and occasion when he found himselfe obliged to answer he warily slip's aside to another By-question about the resolution of Faith and there forsooth because the matter of its own nature is hard and speculative not easily understood by every vulgar Reader he thought he might well lie hid free from the Censure of such men whom he court's though he speake as be often doth plainly from the purpose VVhereas had he proceeded downright and directly fallen upon my reasons alledged in behalfe of the Churches Infallibility every judicious Reader though little versed in speculative Learning would have soon seen whether of us I in arguing or he in his answers deserved reproof and stood grounded upon better Principles Notwithstanding this pretty Subterfuge the Dr hath got little by waving the main Question Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 5. n. 5. for I have followed him closely in the Speculative matter he lead's me to and made it manifest that he neither bitt's upon the right resolution of Faith nor indeed understand's where the real difficulty lies One thing yet remain's and I much wonder the Dr never medled with it I said who ever impeaches the Roman Catholick Church of errour in points of Faith is sure to be worsted in every rational Contest held upon that subiect and ought to own the supposed errour so remediless an Evil that it must remain as it is
without all hope of bettering it The Assertion stand's firm upon this ground No man can rationally charge errour upon à whole Church never censured by any in former Ages but known and condemned Hereticks without Principles more convincing vveighty and ponderous than the Churches Sole Authority is But there are no Principles in Being powerful enough to uphold any such discourse and not to make long vvork about à manifest Truth pray tell me vvhither can the Dr goe for Principles vvhereby the Church is proved so much as liable to errour Will he take recourse to the unanimous consent of Fathers The attempt is desperate while they generally teach quite contrary Doctrin as is amply proved in my two last Treatises Nay more can the Dr produce Se Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 14. n. 10. â—1 one ancient Father who saies plainly the Roman Catholick Church can err I will return him hearty thanks if he point out one but suppose which is false one or two glance at any such thing have their doubtful words thinke ye force enough to Counterpoise the Authority of So renowned an Oracle as this Church is Say I beseech you what if one or two English Dr's should boldly tell us that the nine and thirty Articles are matters of Divine Faith and that all vvho teach the Doctrin are by Divine Assistance made Infallible Oracles is this sufficient to overthrow the Sentiment of the vvhole English Church vvhich hold's Herselfe fallible in delivering the Doctrin She maintains No certainly Much less say I can the Authority of one or two Fathers only supposed not proved of à different opinion in judging the Roman Catholick Church errable availe one whit to make it probable that She is guilty of errour or liable to it when contrary to Protestants both She and all the learned Dr's of one Faith with her boldly assert She cannot erre Hence I infer that no Authority taken from this or that ancient Father much less from this or that private man can rationally oppose the Church in her just claim to Infallibility The next Principle the Dr and others use to rely on is taken from General Councils approved by the Church How I beseech you or in what manner Did any Council ever yet expressly define that the Church can err You will say no but these Councils contradict one another and no infallible Oracle doth so The weakest Pretence and least worth of any For doth not Holy Scripture also seemingly speak contradictions in many Passages You will say though they appear like Contradictions yet learned men have already cleared such Antilogies Besides Scripture is God's word and all know that God cannot contradict himselfe Very right this is my Answer also The learned of our Church have over and over cleared all such passages in Councils as appear to some short sighted eyes contradictions from all opposition and we more assuredly know that the Roman Catholick Church is God's own infallible Oracle than any Sectary can shew by reason that Scripture is the word of God or written by Divine Inspiration Please now to compare Principles together The Dr impeaches this Church of errour and takes his proofs from the seeming Contradictions of Councils A Catholick Adversary no less learned than he solves all the Dr Obiects The Church while these two Combatants are hot at vvork stand's by and positively declares She never delivered contrary Doctrin in any of her Councils Here is the Clear Catholick Principle Against this Principle the Dr makes his exceptions which thousands and thousands as learned as he judge to be feeble forceless and long since ruined Fallacies The Question is now and t is worth the while to drive it on further because it is most useful in all debates with Sectaries The Question I say is vvho shall judge in this Contest between the Church and this Dr vvith all his exceptions Have vve means to know vvho speaks truth in so vveighty à matter and upon vvhom the errour lies To clear this you shall se how indifferently I proceed I will as yet neither suppose the Church nor the Dr blamable but leave this to the just trial of some Iudge let that Iudge be named and much is done The Church never censured by any Orthodox Christian and defended by the most learned in the world think 's her own Authority worth something and powerful enough to bear up her cause against à single Dr with all his crew of Sectaries but let that be yet disputable whither will the Dr lead us for à final Sentence in this yet debatable case Has he any ancient Church any consent of Fathers any one word of Scripture any received Tradition whereby he evinces the Church errable in her Councils These are excellent Principles but I absolutely assert he has none of them not one vvas ever yet produced by him nor shall hereafter be brought to light while the world stands as is clearly made out both in this and my former Treatises Contrarywise it is certain that the Church and all her learned Doctors plead strongly by every one of these Principles therefore She stand's upon surer grounds than the Dr vvho as I now said has none of them The Dr may reply These very Scriptures and Fathers the Church plead's by for her not erring are only doubtful proofs and therefore convince nothing I answer if these be doubtful the Dr's Assertion vvhile he saith They are doubtful is I am sure no selfe-evident Truth but either utterly false or at least fearfully doubtful and therefore must be proved by à stronger Principle than his own proofless vvord Leave us not now Mr Dr in darkness give us I beseech you some light of that Principle or ultimate proof vvhereby it may appear that you speak truth or so much as Sence vvhen you tell us All our proofs alledged in behalfe of the Churches Infallibility are doubtfull and controverted Name the Church the Fathers or Councils Scripture you have none that speak as you do You may introduce Sectaries vvho say so but they come unarmed vvithout Scripture Church-authority Fathers or Tradition and to these men of yesterday vve oppose thousands more ancient on our side Thus Mr Dr we proceed in every other particular Controversy and will shew you when you please so non-plus't and soon driven to an end of all discourse for want of Principles that the ultimate proofs of your Assertions whether you defend Protestancy or impugn This great truth I intend to enlarge further upon another Occasion Catholick Religion Shall at last be brought to nothing but to your own bare naked and unproved Assertions themselves which stand tottering unprincipled Now that you may se I speak seriously I challenge you once more to discusse with me this particular Question concerning the Churches Infallibility and if after all you have said or can say I make not vvhat is here asserted manifest I vvill acknowledge my errour before the vvhole vvorld The ground I stand upon is
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
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
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
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
plain Impostor's and unexcusable Lyars Let us se how the Reader will rellish this desperate and Heathenish Proposition Yet worse followes and it is that Antichrist's Signes and wonders may most justly be preferred before any true Miracle registred by the Fathers for this false Prophet will exhibit Miracles specious in appearance though false Christ's Church saith this Doctor Never shewed any really true No. All are Fourbs Lies Fictions Impostures and what not 14 A third cheat lies in à strange art he uses very suitable to Arheistical humours who believe nothing and it is thus To disparage these wonderful works of God he fail's in his main enterprise observe it well He rejects all Church Miracles as fourbs Ought not the Dr I beseech you to exchange Principles with us A third Cheat in denying all and proving nothing and prove what he denies by as great Authority as we allege for the contrary Affirmative of their being undoubted Truths This the Godly man never attempts but be cause he will have Miracles appear ridiculous he thinks his spiteful jeering at them proof enough to decry all as incredible despicable and contemptible Jeers fit well men of his humour who hold fast to what they see and feel loath to trouble their braines with more but jeers Shall not serve his turn and therefore I shall ever urge him when we plead for Miracles by unexceptionable Witnesses to prove them false or to grant the fact attested 15 A fourth Cheat undermin's the most connatural way of conveying truth either absent or past to mans understanding and is called Humane Faith which has great weight when A fourth Cheat under 〈…〉 all Humane Faith no just exception comes against it but the Fool-hardy spirit of unbelieving Heathens and Hereticks Our Saviour's own Miracles before the writing of Scripture were thus conveyed to many who saw them not and judged prudently Credible upon Humane Authority This Principle grounded in nature and approved by Christ the Dr wholly invalidates for though our Cyrills our Basils our Austins our Bernards Bedes and innumerable others recount indubitable Miracles though they point at the time when and the place where they were wrought though they tell you such and such Eye-witnesses saw them such Cures were done by the Reliques of Saints yet Impostors they are for their pains and guilty of that enormous Sin of impudently deceiving the world Pray you consider Would not those poor Shepherds thinke ye present at our Saviours birth have gained Credit had they told the Inhabitants neer Bethlem what they Saw and heard that night And shall not the word of S. Ambrose or S. Austin be taken while both recount Miracles seen with their own eyes Did that blind man cured by our Saviour Iohn 9. perswade the Jewes upon his own and Parents Testimony that he was their Son and born blinde And shall not à far greater number of Eye-witnesses that knew Iohn Clement born What force Humane Faith has monstrously lame and whole multitudes saw him in an Instant Miraculously cured in our Ladies Chappel at Montaigue work upon the Dr's dull Incredulity and induce him to believe upon humane faith this most strange and evident wonder obtained by the Intercession of the Mother of God It happened in July Anno 1603 in the Presence as I said of many Eye-witnesses and forthwith became publick in Print and Pulpit Sundry of the Gentlemen who attended the Earle of Hereford at that time An Evidens clear Miracle wrought as Montague Lord Ambassadour from England saw and conferred with the Party and received Satisfaction both from him and other publick Testimonies given of the Cure Thus Brereley Protest Apolog speak's Tract 2. c. 3. Sect. 7. Subd 5. Page with me 544. And the learned Iustus Lipsius then living at Lovain not far from Montaigu relates most largely the whole Story in his Book intituled Diva Sichimiensis sive Aspricollis Antwerp print 1605. C. 45. 16 Now because I only gave à glance at this Miracle Reas and Relig. Disc 2. c. 8. n. 17 whereof the Dr takes no notice I will here very briefly set down the Substance as Lipsius relates it Erat saith he Bruxellae c. There was at Beuxells Iohn Clement Son to Iames Clement Vpon Iohn Clement amply related by Lipsius born lame weak and of à monstruous misshapen body his leggs and feet contracted were turned upward so that his knees and thighes joyned close to his brest and belly That lump of his body gathered round like à Ball made the poor Patient unfit to stand lie down or walk and for that reason alwaies sate forced by the help of his hands and two Crutches to push himself forward whereupon the People who dayly gave this Iohn reliefe usually called him in their vulgar language Hansken in 't schotelken Little Iohn in à dish In this afflicted condition often hearing of the great Miracles wrought at Montague he hoped to find help and comfort in that holy place whither he was carried in à wagon and having confessed his Sins performed his Penance The whole manner of the cure declared and received the Blessed Sacrament feeling him self full of pain he endeavoured to creep out of the Church for à little refreshment of Air but could not stir VVhether he would or no he was forced to remain that whole day in the same place Evening comming on Solemn Laudes were sung and this Patient as he sate before the high Altar felt him self lifted up from the ground when behold his contracted and wrested feet wholly loose were stretched out then also the doublet wherin his body was bound burst assunder and he in à moment stood bolt up Other cloaths being brought his strength and vigour more and more encreased his small dryed leggs were then filled with flesh and bloud And which is another wonder à wound in his head which he had received 15. dayes before yet wide open shut it selfe close together in that very time he was cured This whole multitudes What Iudgement the bost physilians made of it saw This at his return to Lovain and Bruxells he related when People ran out to see and meet him c. I have saith Lipsius heard the most expert Physitians of no easy Faith exclaime and openly profess that this cure vvas vvrought by the povverful hand of God above the force of nature 17 Please now couteous Reader to parallel this Miracle with that of the blind man in the Gospel and ask what disparity can the Dr give between them or what exceptions can he make to this latter strange wonder Will he say Iohn Clement was à Counterfeit It 's Impudence Hundred and hundreds knew him in this miserable condition twenty yeares together after his Mothers death who as Lipsius notes ventre exsecto dyed at his birth Caeso Will he say those many Eye-witnesses who beheld him cured in à moment of time were All Exceptions made against the Miracle wrought on Iohn
Clement are evidently improbable unsufficient to make the fact Credible afterward attested and examined by publick Authority More saw this wonder wrought upon the lame then that other upon the blinde cured by our Saviour Will he say there was never such à man born lame much less such à man cured as Iohn Clement but that all are Lyars and Cheats who tell the Story More justly might the Jewes have said there was never such à man blinde as christ restored sight to for they saw not that cure vvrought yet believed it upon the mans own word and his Parents and therefore advised him to glorify God for the favour done though their obstinacy would not ascribe the Miracle to Christ O! but here is à disparity Scripture recount's the one Miracle not the other A most simple reply We now insist upon humane Authority and ask which is ever to be noted whether upon that ground the latter Miracle be not made more credible then the first and here we are told the one is believed by Faith because God saies so and not the other All the Miracles Christ wrought were presupposed true before the vvriting of Scripture and not first true because they are registred in that Book 18 This humane Faith utterly ruined by our Dr the Erudite Lipsius plead's by and presses home cap. 1. Vbi estis qui paulò vetustiora elevatis c. Where are you who extenuat and undervalve ancient Miracles Ecce nova novitia behold new ones done in This Miracle as Montague proclaimed all over the Eyes of us all and heard vvith our cares renowned and solemnized by the frequent concourse and applause of People with great benefit to Nations Quae fides potest esse in rebus humani si haec non est What faith can there be amongst men if these things gain not credit And therefore he saith in his Preface Those deserve not to be called men that boggle at or doubt of such illustrious vvonders yet à Ieer à Pish and Flurt of our Dr's finger seem's forcible enough to discredit these admirable and no less manifest Testimonies of God's power publickly shewed to the world 19 More Cheats and fallacies of this Dr will better appear in the ensuing Discourse Here A fift Cheat. is one more and gross enough He never refutes the known and certain Miracles of the Church but now laugh's at one less certain now at another related as I said by private Authors prudently judged over credulous in writing matters upon Hearsay These support not our cause for we plead as S. Austin did by Miracles Multitudine magnitudine conspicuous undeniable and thus our Saviour Argues Iohn 15. 24. The vvorks vvhich I have By what Miracles we argue done not one work no other has done Acts. 2 Many vvonders and Signs vvere vvrought by the Apostles in Hierusalem What if false or doubtful Scriptures have been forged under the Apostles names as manifest happened in the Primitive times must we therefore reject the true Scriptures already received Yet this fallacy or cheat is à main Prop to the very most of our Dr's rambling discourse as shall be shewn afterwards 20 A Second Cheat is that when à Miracle appears strange or ridiculous to the Dr's fancy A sixt Cheat grounded upon the Strangeness of Miracles he slights it as counterfeit turn's it off with à Iibe and well instruct's Atheists and Heathens to deride the Miracles related in Scripture For what can be more ridiculous to an Atheist then to read of Moses his horned face Of Balaams Asse speaking Of Samsons destroying à thousand men with the Jawbone of an Asse or of water issuing out of one tooth in that Jawbone to quench the wearied mans thirst after his fighting These and many more à Heathen Scorn's as highly as Miracles recorded in Scripture more ridiculous to Atheists than Church Miracles the Dr doth our most certain Church Miracles But thanks be to God the Church and her Miracles are not like the walls of Jericho overthrown with loud Braying or the empty sound of à Dr's broken Trumpet No. Christs Sacred Doctrin witness the Apostles though à Scandal to the Iewes and à foolery to the Gentils yet stand's invincible against all Opposers and so will the Church and her Miracles continue glorious to the end of Ages maugre the attempt of Her weak Adversaries Thus much premised we will in the next place consider the Dr's exceptions against Miracles and ward off à few Cavils Arguments drawn from Authority or reason I find not any worth answering CHAP II. Of the Dr's proceeding against me VVhat he supposes destroies it selfe VVhat weight Church Miracles have None of wit or judgement ever contradicted them How the Dr juggles in appealing to Apostolical Miracles The Miraculous Translation of the sacred house of Loreto manifestly proved against the Dr's weak and unworthy Cavils 1. AFter the Dr had set down some parcels of my Discourse and chiefly excepted against my comparing Church Miracles with those wrought by Christ and his Apostles he thinks an Atheist would desire no more advantage against Christian Religion then to have it granted that those Primitive Miracles were no other than such as are wrought in the Roman Catholick Church I answer The Dr either here supposes the Church never to have had one true Miracle in it and upon that Supposition it's madness to talk of paralleling Apostolical Miracles believed by Faith with Miracles never in being For who can parallel fourbs and fancied wonders with Apostolical Miracles really wrought Or Contrarywise He supposes true Miracles as curing the lame dispossessing Divels and raysing the dead to have manifestly illustrated the Church Grant this What ought to be supposed for à right Parallel and he is obliged to give à disparity between the Primitive wonders and these latter in the Church This I alwaies urged but the Dr leaves it unanswered 2. Again he perswades himselfe of great advantage given to Atheists who as much slight the Apostolical Miracles as those of the Church I see no such matter and therefore Say contrary and have proved it If Church Miracles be rejected the plainest Evidence of Credibility fail's and if Christian Religion be made thus bare and naked of glorious Marks Atheisin get's so much ground that neither Christ nor his Miracles can gain belief of any For undermine the Church and that is done How all faith is ruined if you rob her of her Miracles and other Motives Scripture it selfe and the very wonders of Christ lose credit and goe to wrack also because the certainty we have of These relies upon Church Authority utterly discredited when as the Dr would have it you expose her without Lustre and thereby make her contemptible to Iewes who anciently had true The Dr's Athcism Miracles amongst them and ridiculous to Gentils Here is your Atheism good Mr Doctor 3. In the following page 439. He enquires after the credibility of the