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
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
c. VVe must earnestly contend for the Faith once delivered VVe are to beware of false seducers c. have no weight for the Drs intent unlesse he shew by Scripture that this trial this contention and wariness ought to be done by every mans private judgement only without any other rule O but there is à stinging Text. Iohn 7. 17. where our Saviour expresly promises to those that do the will of God they shall know of his Doctrin whether it be of God Very true But how shall we discern those that do the will of God from others that do it not Are those the Doers of Gods will who reject their Guides and follow their own Iudgement in matters they understand not Answer Mr Dr. 14 In his 143. P for I run up and down to find any thing like an Obiection we are told that all who consider the excellency of Christian Religion cannot but give it preheminence before Iudaism and Mahometism Very true Mr Dr yet you touch not the difficulty unlesse you tell us which Christian Religion amongst so many dissenting Sects even in fundamentals may be called the only true Christian Religion If Arianism or Palagianism or Protestanism damn men as deeply as Iudaism what matters it if one professe Iudaism I assure you Doctor I have heard some great A fallible Doctrin which may be false destructive to Faith men say that if all who profess Christian Religion believed fallible Doctrin which may be false they would not give à pin to chuse whether they were Iewes Arians or Protestants But why have not you in this place or through your whole large Account set forth the Excellency of your Protestancy and preferred that little late unknown thing before all other Religion Some cause there is of your deep silence and I have not dissembled it in my Advertisement You really know not what to say of it 15 P. 132. We have this Proposition Infallibility in à body of men is as liable to doubts and disputes as in those books from whence only they derive their infallibility Sr if I well understand this some what dark Assertion please to tell me Were not the Apostles an Infallible body of men And was not their Infallibility owned as clear from doubts and disputes when God had evidenced them by clear visible Signes and Wonders to be his faithful Oracles even before their writing Scripture Or did theyderive their Infallibility from the books they wrote The true answer to these demands will be our Answer The Church is as rationally proved an Infallible Oracle by her Illustrious signes and wonders and appointed by God to teach as ever any Apostle was this I hold clearly evinced in my last Treatise Disc 3. c. 15. n. 3. and c. 16. n. 5. If you Mr Dr can except against my proofs please to speak for hitherto you have answered nothing I shew also Prot without Princi c. 8. n. 2. 3. That God neither will nor can permit à false Religion to be more speciously illustrated by rational Signs then his only true Religion is Were this possible he The true Church made discernable from all false Sects would contrary to Truth and Goodness oblige reason to embrace à false Religion If therefore the only true and infallible Religion be manifestly discernable or made known by the lustre of Supernatural Motives from all false Sects we have enough For it is most evident that our ever marked and Signalized Catholick Religion illustrated by Miracles and approved by the publick judgement of the very best and most learned who have lived since the Creation of the world is the undoubted true Religion where we learn what Christ taught and what Doctrin the Apostles preached And thus Dr Still imperfect discourse P. 143 where he gives the preheminence to Christianity in general above Iudaism Mahometism c. is driven home to that one only Religion amongst Christians which must save Souls 16 We say 2. That this evidenced Catholick Church proves her selfe infallible Independently of Scripture as the Apostles did before they wrote their sacred Books It is-true after those writings are proved Divine to us upon Church Authority we Argue from them and evince her Infallible but this only is done upon the Supposition of that proof and not before For we say and make it out clearly in the Treatises now cited That the Church being the light of the world and à City placed upon a conspicuous And proved infallible without recourse to Scripture mountain demonstrable as S. Austin teaches by every mans finger is the Primum indemonstrabile principium the very first and indemonstrable principle proved by it selfe and for it selfe to be Gods Infallible Oracle whereof more hereafter Hence you se 3. that as the Apostles neither proved nor derived their Infallibility from the Books they wrote so we in the first place if à true Analysis be made prove not the Churches Infallibility from Scripture but evince this truth upon other Principles as is now declared But saith Dr Still It is against all just lawes of reasoning to make use of the Churches Infallibility to prove Scriptures by Why so noble Dr I am sure for the reasons already given you will be forced to retract this inconsiderate Assertion Do not you know first that the bare letter of Scripture breed's endless divisions even in fundamentals not only between man and man as is evident by the jarrs you have with Arians Pelagians c. but also between God and man while all your vehement contentions are driven at last to know whether your discerning Faculty or the Arians hit right vpon the meaning of what God speak's in Scripture it being most certain that Verity it selfe approves not your open contradictions Who can decide here but an Infallible Church Do you not know 2. That it is more then ridiculous to draw either Iew or Heathen to believe these contradictious Doctrins as Divine or reasonable while neither you nor Arians can ascertain any that what either of you teach is from God or à truth revealed by him Who ought or can speak here but the Church Do you not se 3. That the clearness of Church Doctrin universally known to all whether Orthodox or others beget's faith more easily then Scripture yet obscure and unsenced Hence it is as I noted in my last Treatise Disc 2. c. 16. n. 11. That few or none Question what this Oracle teaches as necessary for that 's plain yet there are endless debates about the Scriptures meaning and this only is Gods word not intelligible in à hundred passages without the Churches interpretation 4 As I noted also The Infallibility and Truth of every Divine Revelation relating to Necessaries so necessarily The Church decides many doubts not decideable by ' Scripture ' terminat's Divine Faith that whoever believes and abstract's as it were from this double perfection intrinsic to what God speak's believes not because God speak's but upon some other fallible Motive
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
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
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.
what is supposed True be true it is true and we ought to assent to it Just as if one should say if Peter be à man of his word I may believe evidenced null and forceless him but as that conditional proves not Peter honest no more do these Assertions of the Dr being only conditional prove any thing true without à Minor to this sence But these things are so which Minor is wanting The Dr think 's he proves his Assertions upon these grounds That the writers of Scripture cannot be suspected of Ignorance having had long conversation with him they wrot of Their simplicity and candour in writing gives evidence they intended no deceipt with all the rest that followes I answer these are nothing like rational proofs but meer unproved Suppositions whereunto neither Iewes nor Gentils give credit I evince this demonstratively Put the book of holy Scripture into the hands of à Heathen Philosopher who never heard of Christ of the Church or of any other Motive for Christian Religion but only takes so much as the Dr here proposes and what the Scripture it selfe barely relates Would this Philosopher think ye after his pondering the Dr ' s Discourse and reading Scripture forthwith acquiesse and say all is true he reads He were worse then besotted did he so If prudent he would tell you he had joyntly perused with Scripture the Turks Alcaron and as he found strange wonders written of Christ in the one book so also he met with great matters recounted of Mahomet in the other for which the Turks pretend to have universal tradition but whether Scripture or the Alcaron speaks truth whether such men as the Dr mentions related exactly the Miracles of Christ and his true Doctrin with those Miracles the Philosopher knowes not nor shall ever know without à further proof taken from the testimony of some other Infallible Oracle which makes the truths in Scripture evidently credible and then proposes all as Divine and infallible Verities 14 The ultimate reason hereof is most convincing All matters contained in Scripture whether Miracles or The reason of their nullity said forth Doctrin are not ex terminis any Self evidence nor can they give by themselves so much as à great moral certainty of their Truth or Credibility Therefore they must be proved either true or evidently Credible by another Certain Oracle or can never draw belief from any I am sure S. Austin who discoursed more profoundly than the Dr ever did judged So when he told the Manichaes He would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it and upon this firm ground all must believe or believe nothing The Dr ' s whole discourse proves only this conditional truth that if the Primitive Christians had reason to believe the Doctrin of Christ upon the inducement of his Miracles they did well to believe but that such Miracles were wrought he shewes not save only by Scripture it selfe hitherto neither proved True nor Divine I say proved For no Christian doubt's of the truths there contained though all justly question whether the Dr makes them to appear Truths by à bare telling us of some Contents in that book which neither Jew nor Gentil nor indeed any can believe unless more be said than the Dr bring 's to light 15 In à word here lies the whole errour He makes the Christian Doctrin Wherein the Dr's errour lies couched in Scripture to prove it selfe and drawes his rational Evidence of Credibility from the Mysteries believed Observe well He believes the Resurrection of Christ from the dead for this is an Article of Faith can he I beseech you make the Resurrection it self as believed the rational Motive of believing it while after all his discourse we are yet to seek for à proof of that very Scriptures Truth and Divinity also whereby the Resurrection is attested 16 The Dr may reply his evidence is not taken from the Mysteries of Faith Apos◠reply 〈◊〉 seen and prevented and from our Saviours Miracles the like is of Apostolical wonders as they are believed but from the Humane consent of the Primitive Christians who either saw or heard of such matters of fact wrought by Christ and his Apostles which common consent passing among so many grave and pious men made them in those dayes evidently Credible and Morally certain though we abstract from all Divine Revelation in Scripture and the Churches Infallible Authority I answer first if the Dr run's this way his whole discourse fastidiously spun out against the Miracles of the Roman Catholick Church fall's to nothing for if the common humane consent of the ancient Christians Supposed neither Devine Revelation nor infallible raised The common consent of the ancient Christians and modern for Miracles parallel'd our Saviours Miracles to Moral certainty or evident Credibility Then why should not the like common humane Consent of Christians Now make the Miracles owned in the Roman Catholick Church morally certain or evidently credible And I speak of Miracles approved by the Church not of every forged tale or pretended false wonder which were not wanting in the Primitive times If therefore the Dr say that all since the Apostles dayes have been grosly deluded in recounting the Miracles wrought in the Catholick Church both Jewes and Gentils will shrewdly pester him and avouch as boldly that those Primitive Christians over Credulous what Iewes may obiect like papists in these dayes were no less beguiled in their crying up Apostolical Miracles What say you to this Mr Dr The parity taken from the primitive times and ours I shall urge more fully hereafter and tell the Dr he shall long sweat at it before he solves what I here object if which is ever to be noted we stand only upon à common humane consent of men called Christians and abstract from the Authority of an Infallible Church 17 I answer 2. The enquiry here made concern's not only the bare truth of these matters of fact recorded in Scripture but implies more for we ask how what is here chiefly enquired these matters of fact are rationally proved truths written by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost or how when supposed wrought sixteen Ages since they are now conveyed and applyed to us as Truths of so high à nature No common consent of Christians meerly humane and long since past can give Sufficient certainty hereof sufficient I say to ground Divine Faith Wherefore seing Scripture evidences not it's own truths nor any reflection made upon Scripture can clear these doubts an infallible living Oracle manifested by supernatural Signs must speak and tell us that these matters of fact were written not like other things in humane History which are lyable to errour but by the special direction and inspiration of the Holy Ghost 18 Hence we proceed to the second Question If saith the Dr I be asked why I The Dr's second question proposed believe the Doctrin contained in
those books to be Divine I answer 1. That in the Age when the Doctrin was delivered there was sufficient reason to believe it Divine He goes on Supposing then that we already believe upon the former answer that if Christ did such unparalleld Miracles and rose from the dead they who heard his Doctrin had reason to believe it to be of God He mean's Divine and revealed Doctrin for all Doctrin of God or from God is not in our Sence now Divine or revealed Doctrin Thus much said He asserts 2. If they the ancient Christians had reason then we have so now Viz. to believe upon our Saviours unparalleld Miracles From these matters of fact and Apostolical wonders the Dr takes his rational Evidence and conveigh's it to us by Tradition our exceptions made against his evidence which supplies the want of our Senses as to what Christ did and spake I shall presently insist more largely n. 26. upon his Tradition Here I am to show that his Evidence in order to Christians now living is nothing like rational Evidence if and this he requires we exclude the Testimony of an Infallible Church 19 To propose plainly what I would say and to give the Dr the fairest play imaginable I gratis admit all the Miracles and matters of fact recorded in the Gospel to be most true though hitherto not proved true by the Dr but then ask what use will he make of them He may answer he proves by these Miracles the Doctrin of Christ to be true Admit this also I demand further and here lies the main business that concern's us at present whether the Doctor can assure any by virtue of where the main difficulty is those Miracles who at this day among so many dissenting Christians in points of Faith most fundamental believe and profess Christ's true Doctrin For his rational Evidence if it deserve the Title of rational must drive hither at last or its worth nothing to Christians now living that is he must shew by these long since wrought Miracles whether Arians Pelagians Protestants or Catholicks have à right beliefe of Christs Doctrin for most certainly all of them believe not the true Doctrin delivered by Christ I say it is impossible to make this out unless the strangest Consequence that ever man heard of be good and it 's thus Christ rose from the dead He commanded the sea and winds and they obeyed his voice He gave life to dead Lazarus c. Ergo the Arians for example profess Christ's true Doctrin and Protestants not Or Contrarywise Protestants believe right and the Arians are in a wrong Faith Unless this Inference which is worse than Non-sence pass current the Doctors pretended rational Evidence taken from those ancient matters of fact is the most fruitless and most discomfortable Evidence that ever wise man pitch't upon whereof more presently n. 27. Note in the mean while he may perhaps and no more but perhaps tell us by his the Dr's rational Evidence demonstrated â—seless to Christians now living Evidence that Christs Doctrin in it selfe is true but shall never thereupon assure us who among so many Dissenters in Necessaries to Salvation believes or professes that true Doctrin He may tell us that horrid debates arise amongst the learned of different Religions but shall never tell us how they can be composed or ended by à bare owning the truth of Christ's Miracles which are carried up and down by à common humane consent of Christians though they have none to attest them Infallibly true in this present State 20 Please now to consider how differently we Catholicks proceed in this matter and satisfy both Jewes and Gentils We own all that Scripture contain's whether Miracles or Doctrin true and Divine To evince this we lead you not to à dead book or to matters of fact far off but to an ever living Oracle distinct from that book called the Holy Catholick Church which proves herselfe by her neerer visible matters of fact signal marks and undoubted Miracles as rationally à true Oracle whereby God speak's to the world as ever any Apostle did From this glorious signalized and long standing Church we take our rational Evidence and know if the Primitive Christians took theirs right from the Apostolical wonders we no way Inferiour keep parallel with them while we rationally rely upon our clear manifested Oracle Moreover we prove that this Church which hath power from God to teach and engages her whole Authority to teach Truth shewes herselfe by real Signs and Miraculous effects the greatest Oracle now under God appointed to instruct the world It is She if Controversies arise concerning Faith that composes all She assures us that the verities in Scripture written by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost are Divine She applies and conveigh's these ancient truths to us She tells us now How differently we proceed from the Dr in our rational Evidence and Infallibly what Christ's Doctrin long since made evidently Credible by his own most glorious Miracles is She finally ascertain's every one without doubt and hesitancy who they are that profess this revealed Doctrin And thus relying upon à rational evidenced Church we Shew our selves rational men and void of fear set our hearts at rest while the Dr by à bare relation of our Saviours Miracles now remote from us proves not one of these particulars but will forsooth evince the Doctrin in Scripture to be Divine upon à meer unproved Supposition that such matters of fact once were which yet cannot be evinced true sufficient as I said to ground Faith much less Divine without the Churches Testimony whereby full assurance is given to all in this present State that both Doctrin and Miracles are true and Divine 21 The Dr therefore should in the first place have proved the Divinity of Christ's Doctrin and from thence he might have inferred it's Truth but to evince it Divine to Christians now upon what the Dr should aimâ— at but perform's not à meer unproved Supposition Viz. That such matters of fact are true is a break-neck to his Discourse and an unaproachable way of ever comming to the Conclusion he intend's because his aime must be or he doth nothing to show by his Evidence what Society of Christians now living believes and professes the true Doctrin of Christ or how Chrst's true Society may be made discernable by those ancient Miracles from others that teach damnable Doctrin Herein he fail's and shall fail while an Infallible Church is rejected 22 These Considerations clearly laid down no less clearly evince the Dr ' s resolution of Faith to be frivolous and his rational Evidence unreasonable for tell me not by his Evidence what Society of Christians are now right in Faith prove me not that Scripture was written by Divine assistance Shew me not that the truths related there are Truths revealed by Almighty God the whole Doctrin of that book and all the Miracles in it signify nothing 23
made flesh This is my body c. But how is any man wiser for that How is our knowledge or faith improved by such à maimed or half perfect Tradition While no man can certainly tell us what the true meaning of those sacred words is No man can determine the debates which arise among Christians the Arians and you that draw plain Contradictions out of these words now cited Such à conveyance or tradition as could end these long strifes would be to your purpose and comfort Mr Dr but you have none of it because you slight the Tradition and Authority of an Infallible Church Though therefore you tell us twenty times over you believe all truths expressed in Scripture yet while you cannot assure us upon tradition or any other sound Principle what those necessary truths are which Faith in necessaries is determinately to pitch upon you only trifle away your time and cheat your Reader in seeming to discover great How the Dr Cheat's his Reader matters whereas in real truth you speak not one word to the purpose If to solve the difficulty here briefly touched you run up to your own discerning faculty permit the Arian to keep you company and blame him not if he trust to his discerning faculty quite contrary to yours Se more hereof above Chap. 4. n. 10. Thus much premised 27 To answer the Dr I say first Fallible Tradition which may be false Our Answer to the Dr. the Dr own 's none Infallible gives not so great certainty of Miracles Supposed true in Scripture as Eye-sight did to those who beheld them The reason is Fallible Tradition in the Dr ' s Principles easily alters in time and may tell one Story for another whereof more presently If therefore that Tradition conveyed by hearing altered as I shall shew most shamefully and if fallible no wonder at the change what certainty have Fallible tradition worth little in Divine matters we now in this present Age either of the Miracles or of the Doctrin recorded in Scripture by virtue of it Or how can the Dr parallel the certainty of à Miracle conveyed down by fallible Tradition with the sight of it This must needs be à lame Parallel For when I se à Miracle I need not to prove the outward appearance of it evidently seen but when that appearance passes down Age after Age upon Hearsay or à faultering Tradition which may change the Story from what it once was I must either prove that Tradition true or cannot prudently rely on it chiefly in this present case while we dispute against Iewes and Gentils who utterly deny those Miracles to have ever been truly wrought by Christ The ancient Jewes all know said Christ cast out Divels by the help of Beelzebub and these modern men of the Synagogue calumniate as boldly to this day 28 I say 2. Those ancient Miracles if saith à Jew ever any such were together with the Doctrin which is thought to be proved either true or evidently credible by such wonders can be no more certain now than the fallible Tradition is which conveighs them to us But this Tradition gives no man so much as moral certainty either of the Miracles or Doctrin I prove the Minor That The reason why worthless in the Dr's Principles ancient Tradition say Sectaries notoriously changed not long after the Apostles dayes when à universal deluge of errours spread it selfe the whole Christian world over and the efficacy of Christs true Doctrin together with its old Tradition was blotted out of mens memory when the Roman Catholick The Dr charges this Idolatry upon the Roman Church Church once confessedly Orthodox unluckily began Her universal Apostacy and professed open Idolatry when the Arians denyed the Mystery of the Incarnation and Trinity Others the two VVills in Christ others his Sacred Humanity others the Resurrection of the dead others the necessity of Divine Grace and others finally professed yet more horrid Doctrins In so much that the whole Christian word part of it one way part another erred most grosly in the very fundamentals of Faith In those dismal dayes say I when all Christian Societies nameable and the Roman Church with them became so infatuated as to change the first received truths taught by Christ and his Apostles the ancient true Tradition could not but change and faile also therefore at this day Tradition is worthless and unualvable because no man can know upon any sure Principle what it anciently was 29 The Dr may reply All called Christians own the Bible and the Miracles there related of Christ and his Apostles which are sufficient to prove Christs Doctrin true so far at least Tradition never failed Small Comfort God knowes to have Tradition of the Scriptures bare letter which yet is not had in our Sectaries Principles Se Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 6. n. 2. If the Christian world long since cheated out of their ancient Faith bequeathed to posterity à false Doctrin in Lieu of that which The Arians and all hereticks lay as great claime to Christs Miracles as the Dr or any other doth Christ and his Apostles taught and with that à false Tradition also Moreover were those Miracles with their Tradition proved most true the Arians will as well lay claim to them for à proof their Doctrin as the Dr can do for that Religion he professes and the like may all others pretend if called Christians though of à quite different belief in the very Essentials of Faith unless this consequence utterly false be good Christ our Lord wrought such and such Miracles Ergo Protestancy is à better Religion then Arianism Pelagianism is better then Nestorianism and so of the rest The Dr therefore must either make this out that Christ and his Apostles wrought their Miracles to confirm all the erroneous Sects in the world or he speaks nothing to the purpose when he tells us in his Account What the Dr is obliged to clear P. 205. That the Motives of Faith both to them the ancient Christians and to us are the same only the manner of conveyance is different those Primitive Believers Saw them we hear of them by Tradition In saying this he either thinks that such Motives prove the truth of all Religions called Christian which is horridly false or only prove the true Christian Religion among so many dissenting Sects Grant this and we are in as much darkness after the supposed Truth of these Miracles and the Dr ' s long discourse as we were before and can never know by his Motives only which is the true Religion I earnestly desire the Dr would please to solve this one difficulty which I judge cannot be Solved 30 By all hitherto clearly laid down we se 1. The Dr ' s rational Evidence so much talked of brought to nothing but empty words for his whole proofs are meer unproved Suppositions He endeavours to evince by Miracles internal to Scripture the Divinity of the book which
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
Age to Nazareth Dalmatia or Italy that slightly mention it Writers and witnesses you have none deep Silence therefore and this Silence and à destructive Negative the only grounds of Protestancy destructive Negative No man though most inquisitive ever vvrote of Protestancy in former Ages are the best and only Supports of it We have often demanded Satisfaction to this particular yet never had it nor shall hereafter have any whereof I am so Confident that I challenge the Dr to Discuss this one particular with me in à Treatise apart and I desire he would consider upon it 6. It may be he will answer the Essentials of Protestancy were carried hither and all the Not one Essential of Protestancy in the whole Bible world over with Holy Scripture I have prevented this Cavil in the place now cited and told the Dr it is impossible to find in the whole Bible so much as one Essential Tenet of this Religion as it is Protestancy or called à reformed Religion which point I also engage to examin with him when he pleases I answer 2. More numerous and far graver Authors to say nothing of Church Authority contradict this phansied conveyance of Protestancy with Scripture than ever opposed the Translation of our Ladies cell from Nazareth Perhaps the Dr will Say The difficulty now agitated concern's not Religion which is à thing wholly Spiritual and depend's not on History as the Translation of à house doth No good Dr rub your forhead à little When you Simply talk of that ancient Faith from whence the Roman Church once swerved must not you either pretend History for your Assertion and tell us when or in what Age it swerved or speak Non-sense Again Spiritual things Religion chiefly are both real and of greatest concern and ought we not A pure Evasion rejected to enquire how and when they are conveyed to us Should now à new Sect of Hereticks arise and set abroad à new Learning like yours never heard of before shall we not demand think ye as Tertullian did Anciently Qui estis vos Who are you Vnde from whence came you Shew your Commission what Authority sent you to preach c These Questions we propose to you concerning the Conveyance of Protestancy into these Parts of the world and you answer nothing therefore you must either help out your cause with this Negative What Protestants are forced to grant No ancient writer ever took notice of it and so by your own Principle make it Contemptible or ingenuously confess the truth that Luthers mad brains brew'd it first broach'd it and poysoned Posterity with it You may say Some Parallel this Machine of Protestancy hath with the Holy house of Loreto that it stand's unsupported or without any Foundations If this be Miraculous or make for its Credit I am content but in passing consider how unlike it is upon another Score The Chappel of Loreto hath stood where it is well nigh four hundred years without repair or the alteration of one Stone but this unsteedy Church How different the Protestant Church is from the Chappel at Loreto of Protestancy in the compass of one Age endlesly tampered with changes almost every year in so much that the old and new Structure of it are nothing like one another 7. Now to the Obiection proposed above I answer Had none within the compasse of that fourth Century after the year 1000 left à memory of this Chappels Translation the Silence of Dante 's Petrach and Boccace would The Obiection Proposed above answered have had more weight but when as Silv Petr Sanct P. 35. notes well Three Popes Benedict the 12 Vrban the 6 and Boniface the 9 much about that time positively maintain the truth of this Miracle as appear's by their Apostolical letters the Silence of those others being meerly à Negative Argument prejudiceth not the cause at all One reason of their Silence was the afflicted and much disturbed State of Italy in those dayes caused first by the absence of popes from Rome who early in that Age repaired to Avignon and made their Residence there full seventy years Another might arise from that long Schism of fourty years to say nothing of the ruin and Two reasons of Some Authors Silence destruction which followed in Italy upon the bitter Enmity between those Guelphi and the Gibellins well known to the world These and some other distractions as Silvester observes P. 28. much lessened the fame of this Chappels translation at the beginning neither can it be any wonder if three Writers in that Age not fully as yet informed of all particulars silently pass't it over when besides those Monuments of piety erected by Count Frangipanius and the Authority of the Popes now named we have other witnesses clear and indubitable for this matter of fact CHAP. IV. More witnesses produced for the Chappels Translation VVhether Baronius proves Pope Ioan to have never been by à Negative Argument or Silence meerly Of the Dr's gross Errours and unworthy dealing 1. BEsides the Testimonies already alleged for the Translation of this Chappel the fame of so great à wonder alwaies continued in Picenum by à never interrupted Tradition where Age after Age Parents taught their Children and Masters their Schollers how and in what manner the Chappel was Miraculously transported and I hope Tradition in such matters may have some weight with our Dr. 2. A whole book was set forth in Print by the express command of the Bishop of Recanati wherein the several Transmigrations of this house are recorded Petra Sancta P. 28. remit's the Reader to the book though as yet I have not seen it 3. Flavius Blondus in his Italiâ illustratâ treating of Picenum P. 339. tell 's you where the house stand's call's it Celeberrimum gloriosae Virginis Sacellum the most renowned Chappel of the glorious Virgin and adds this as à most certain and irrefragable proof for it that such as by their Vowes and earnest prayers sought assistance at Loreto have by the Intercession of God's Sacred Mother most certainly been heard and obtained many favours there 1. The Dr cannot let this Testimony pass without Shuffling and abusing the Author Three frauds I observe in his Answer First he saith Blondus was Secretary to Eugenius the 4.th about the year 1450 à good competent time after the Miracle was said to be wrought whereas Bellarmine de Scriptor Eccles testifies that Blondus Continued Three frauds discovered in the Dr. his Story from Anno. 407. to his own time Anno. 1400. though he lived till the year 1440 ten years short of the Dr's 1450 neither was Eugenius alive in that year 1450. being made Pope Anno 1431 and sate 15 years 11. months and 12 dayes and I am sure Blondus most likely not then living was no Secretary to à dead Pope By all you may see the Dr's pretty clinch About the year 1450. 2. He tells us All Blondus saith is only that there was Ã
matter of Faith in case his two yet unknown rules be followed I answer it is impossible in the Dr ' s Principles to prescribe or to set down clearly any such Rules I prove the Assertion 10 Put case that the Guides of two dissenting Churches Arians for example and Protestants contest about Necessaries for Salvation or any other matter of Faith the like is if dissentions arise between the Guides of either Church and lay men under their charge All these jarring Spirits as we now suppose are fallible and may err in what they judge concerning their own Tenets Now if the supposed rules pitcht upon be as fallible à like faulty and as liable to errour as these Contenders are they can never rectify them nor bring any to à setled union in Faith But all the Rules assignable in the Doctors Principles be they what you will are thus faulty and fallible therefore most unfit to set any man right in Faith for à fallible crooked rule applyed to the fallible crooked judgements of others at high dissentions concerning beliefe regulates no better than if the blind endeavour to lead the blind Pray tell me did you ever know wise Man after his hearing two litigious persons at earnest contention about Meum tuum act the part of à Judge by Saying My masters be gone you are both wranglers Here you have the very case of all Hereticks laid open I speak boldly and am ready to defend my Assertion before the whole world What ever Rule Dr Still can make use of for the ending of differences between him and Arians for example what ever Judge he dare appeal to in this contest can pronounce no other sentence but this Be gone you are all wranglers The wisest on earth is not able to say more to your never endless quarels The reason à Priori of my Assertion and all hitherto said is thus The certain Rule which regulates Faith can neither be taken In the Drs Principles no rule is assignable to end contentions from any controverted passage in Holy Writ for that only yeild's uncertainty much lesse from the fallible and errable conceptions of those who believe contradictions Here is all the Dr can pitch upon for his unknown rules Tradition fail's him if all the Churches in the world be fallible and have actually erred for who dare even upon moral certainty trust the Tradition of condemned Hereticks or of an Idolatrous Church as in the Dr ' s Opinion the Roman is The Fathers are fallible and all of them or the very most infected with Popery The Doctrin of the Primitive Church in controverted matters afford's no certain indisputable rule Long therefore may the Dr overlook his Note-books before he find à rule for the Churh Guides to proceed by and for others to judge of their proceeding 11 Perhaps his 266 page will give more light where we are told That the supposition of Guides in Religion doth depend of some common Principles of Religion that may be known to all and that within the compass of these plain duties lies the capacity of persons judgeing of their Guides but if they carry them out of this beaten way or tell them they must put out their eyes to follow them the better what reason can there be that any should commit themselves to the absolute conduct of such unfaithfull Guides Once more you have here the like dull flegmatick and general talk you had just now nothing particularized nothing proved And all is tacitely to countenance that foul illegal Schism and open rebellion made against the Church when à few desperate Novellists headed by two ungracious wretches Luther and Calvin condemned her of errour and this before no other Tribunal but themselves who were the Rebels Here one common Principle of Religion and à main one too which obliges Christians to obey their lawful Superiours was against all conscience shamefully violated Here the beaten way wherein millions had walked peacefully to Heaven became deserted and in lieu of that Meanders By-wayes and intricate cross windings were made choice of Now the time was when people sure blinde with too much light went about to pull out the eyes of their own ancient Guides and saw more then ever the world saw before these new eyes were set in their heads We need not Dr to stand indenting with you for these truths They are as clear as the Sunshine But as you sowe you may hope to reap you have cast the seeds of dissention into our once most Catholick England and I tell you before hand look to it you will find confusion at the haruest and most likely sooner In the mean while I tell you again there is not one true Principle within the bounds of Christian Religion that capacitates particular persons to judge their Guides proceedings Name this Principle and I yeild up the whole cause Answer if you can And thus much of the Drs Rules 12 Other petty obiections I find in this first part scattered up and down scarse worth reflection P. 109. His Adversary N. O. quotes that Text of S. Peter Epist 2. Chap. 3. 16. where its said There are certain things in S. Pauls Epistles hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable deprà ve as also the rest of Scriptures to their own perdition These things being certainly of consequence if perdition followes the depravation we ask what is become of Dr Still discerning truth from falshood by Scripture A simple Answer of the Dr refuted only and his discerning faculty Hear his frivolous answer But doth S. Peter say that Scriptures are so hard that sober minds cannot learn therein what is Necessary to Salvation Yes Dr he saith it expresly for some say I beseech you who they are pervert Scripture to their own perdition that is to damnation Now if you quibble about Sober and devout minds the Arians will tell you they are as sober and devout as you therefore unless you plainly point out those you call sober minded you may be as well listed amongst the perverse as any other accounted by you depraved or ill minded Solve this difficulty if you can 13 The Dr in his 144. P. cloyes us with other Testimonies of Scripture no more to any purpose than if he had cited the first Chapter of Exodus Thessal 1. 2. 12. The people are to hold fast that which is good Very true But are they here commanded to hold fast to what their private judgement tell 's them and not to adhere to Apostolical Doctrin and the Spirit of the Catholick Church Acts. 17. 12. They searched Scripture dayly whether the things proposed were so or not What wonder here if after S. Paul's large discourse concerning Christ never heard so fully before they search'd Scriptures and found all true he taught having still an Eye more to the Apostles expounding Scripture than to their own private judgements The other passages alleged For example We must not believe every Spirit but try the Spirits
Fathers cited in that Chapter yeilded up their reason notwithstanding that strong insinuation of sense to the Contrary And must not the Dr do so also had he either seen our Lord Iesus à little Infant in Bethlem or those Angels that appeared to Lot Genesis 19 He would certainly have judged upon the suggestion of what he saw that Christ our Lord was only man and not God and that those Angels were mortal men and not Angels yet had he then known by Divine Revelation that Christ was truly God and that those Angels were only men in appearance as the Eucharist is seemingly bread would he not think ye forthwith have rejected that fallacious suggestion of his sight and firmly assented to the Divine Revelation Nay more doth not the Dr tell us in his Account P. 574. that we are not to look on bread and wine as naked Signs but as Signa efficacia and that there is à real Presence of Christ in and with those signs to the Souls of the Believers This unexplicated Presence of Christ in and with bread be it what you will is as much contrary to Sence as Christs real Presence is under the accidents of bread I prove my assertion These outward Accidents of bread either essentially exclude the presence of all other things from being there or permit that God may by his omnipotent power put unde◠them annother Substance In case they be essentially incompatible with any other Substance but bread how dare D◠Still tell us so asseverantly that there is in and with bread to the souls of Believers à real presence of Christ such Souls I suppose believe not meer phansies Now if the Accidents essentially exclude not another substance I hope Christ's sacred body may be as well present with them as that real presence is which the Dr assert's O! but we Catholicks destroy the substance of bread That is not at all pertinent to Protestants boggle not at the possibility of the change our present purpose neither doth the truth hereof belong to the judgement of sense but only to Gods omnipotent power For here is the only difficulty whether God by his absolute power can conceil the real presence of our Saviours sacred body under the Accidents of bread The Divel more skilful in natural things then the Dr perswaded himself Matt 4. that our Saviour could turn stones into bread Why therefore may not we believe upon the greatest Authority I mean God's own express word that he changed bread into flesh The learnedest Protestants that ever writ boggle not at the possibility of this change but only Question the matter of fact whether God has done as we believe Wherein most certainly we have the upper hand if plain Scripture the general consent of Fathers and the Authority of all Orthodox Churches cited in the last Treatise may plead our cause and be admitted as sound Principles against the errour of à few Sectaries Thus much premised we goe on and will examin more of the Dr's strange Discourse laid forth in his Account Part. 1. c. 5. P. 118. It is worth some reflection though I think never Dr rambled on like him 3 The whole substance comes to this Sense is sometimes deceived or to speak properly reason upon the suggestion of sense err's Ergo it may alwaies err and be deceived in its proper obiect Or thus Those of Sodom judged Angels appearing like men to be really men and not Angels Ergo they might rationally think that all they met with in the Streets were Angels concealed under the outward shape of men Why so Because forsooth after that one Illusion they were in reason never to make use of their senses afterward upon any other obiect for fear of the like deceipt Herein lies the whole strength of the Dr's weak talk If saith he what I se and all others se to be bread be not really bread by The whole Strength of the Dr's weak discourse what means can our faculties difference truth from falshood I answer most easily For although it be à truth that that which appear's bread in the Holy Eucharist be not really bread yet it is à meer dream to inferr from thence that every mountain I cast my eyes upon is not really à Mountain but in appearance only and consequently in the Dr ' s judgement à falshood for what Consequence is this God wrought à Miraculous change upon bread therefore He doth the like all the world over and perhaps changes whole Castles whole Towns yea the whole Ocean into other substances at least there is no security to the contrary and therefore we may all justly question whether we inhabit real Houses and doubt whether the fair City of London be raised to the great splendour it hath upon real Materials as wood and stones but rather upon such Materials in appearance A mad discourse if ever any was which more ruin's all the Cities in the world then the last dismal fire destroyed noble London 4 Mark well Courteous Reader the force of my Argument I do not by What is to be noted in my Argument what is hitherto said goe about to prove the Conversion of bread into Christ's sacred body that is cleared upon other grounds but only proceed upon à Supposition and assert if our Saviour wrought that Conversion and changed bread into his body The Dr ' s Discourse is worse then Nonsence who out of one Miraculous change where he thinks our senses are beguiled will force upon us an illusion so universal that no man hereafter ought to trust his eyes and tast when he eates his Diner Herein lies his gross mistake which yet to his no little disgrace he run's on with in the following Instances 5 Tell me saith he what assurance could The Dr's Instances the Apostles have of the Resurrection of Christ's individual body from the grave but the judgement of Sense Or had S. Thomas believed Transubstantiation might he not have thought our Saviour some invisible Spirit hid under those external accidents of his body because Hoc est corpus meum had told him and the other Disciples that the external accidents might remain where the substance is changed I passe by his Catacresis judgement of sense for sense makes no Judgement and say had the Disciples been so childish as to have argued like the Dr our wise Saviour would have soon vanquished that senceless plea and told them My good Disciples I assured you at my last supper that the bread I took into my hands I changed into my body this must be supposed or Dr Still Argument becomes forceles but did I ever yet tell you that the body you now behold with your Eyes is only à Spectre or an apparition of my body No upon what ground then or by what Authority can you rationally infer out of my working one miracle upon bread that How Christ might have rebuked his Disciples had they pleaded like the Dr. I must do the like now upon