pressed the necessity of divine Faith so much that from thence he might introduce the necessity of Infallibility yet he now seems wholly to have forgotten any such distinction of Faith humane and divine although he could not but see that the force of my Argument did depend upon it The substance of his answer is That the first act of Faith whereby we believe the Churches Infallibility relies not on Scripture but upon the Church it self as the most known manisested Oracle Be it so but the Question is whether this first act be divine Faith or not if not it is nothing to the purpose if it be then divine Faith may want an Infallible Testimony for this first act of Faith concerning the Churches Infallibility hath nothing to rely upon but the fallible motives of credibility and consequently divine Faith may want an Infallible Testimony And I say still let them answer this if they can without apparent shuffling and running away from the Question in hand 2. From the consideration of the persons whose Faith is to be resolved for I say 1. The Question is not which way they will prove the Insallibility of their Church against those who deny it but which way they resolve their own Faith of the Churches Infallibility 2. In disputing against their Adversaries they cannot avoid the circle for while they prove Infallibility from Scripture the Question arises how they come to know Infallibly that this is the sense of those places for which they must again appeal to the Churches Infallibility in delivering the sense of Scripture which if it be not a circle I say there is hardly such a figure in Mathematicks To this he answers 1. That they both resolve and prove but then if they do resolve their Faith into this Infallibility it is no sufsicient answer to say they only prove it to Adversaries which was all I intended by that first particular But what answer doth he give to the second concerning tbe sense of Scripture Here again he makes use of his distinction of the first and second act of Faith the first he saith is not at all founded upon the sense of Scripture but upon the Churches own Infallible Testimony made by it self and for it self immediately credible Now if we speak saith he of another distinct consequent and more explicit act of Faith when we believe the Churches Infallibility upon this ground that she declares the Scriptures genuine sense which proves her an Infallible Oracle there is no difficulty at all because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church or rather upon Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together For thus joyntly taken they ground Faith and not like two disparate principles as if we first believed the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches Interpretation and then again believed the Churches interpretation to be Infallible because the sense of Scripture known aliunde or without depending on Church Authority saith she is Infallible This cannot bâ— if Scripture and the Churches interpretation indivisibly concur to this latter act of Faith whereof we now speak Here then is a Dilemma that clears all and frees us from the least shadow of a circle we either know or believe the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches interpretation or receive it upon her Infallible Authority grant the first there is no danger of a circle grant the latter there are 〈◊〉 two imaginable propositions to make a circle of whilst that sense internal to the letter cannot be Infallibly propounded otherwise than by the Church I have set down these words more at large to let the Reader try his faculty upon them what tolerable sense he can make of them My objection was plain and easie they offer to prove the Churches Infallibility by Scripture at least as to the second act of Faith which is alone pertinent to our purpose I asked what way they come to believe Infallibly themselves and assure others this is the sense of those places and in this case they are forced to return to the Churches Infalliâ—ility judge now Reader whether here be not a plain circle because they believe the Church Infallible because the true sense of Scripture saith she is so and again they believe this to be the Infallible sense of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so No saith E. W. Here is not the least shadow of a circle I would he had told us first what a circle was and then applyed what he had said to the description given of it But for all that I can see by his answer he had a mind to amuse his Reader by seeming to say something but no great matter what Is not that a circle when the Argument made use of to prove another thing by must it self be proved by that very thing which it is made use of to prove For in this case the mind hath nothing to fix it self upon and therefore must suspend all assent which must have some certain foundation to proceed upon on which it may rest it self As the will could not love Physick for the sake of health if it loved health for the sake of Physick so neither can the understanding assent to one truth for another if it assent to that other only for the sake of the former For then the same Proposition would be more certain than the other as it is the antecedent by which the other is proved and less certain as it is the consequent proved by the other as it's antecedent and so in different respects would be more and less certain than it self Let us now apply this to our present case The thing to be proved is the Churches Infallibility the Argument to prove it by is the Infallible sense of Scripture but if the Infallible sense of Scripture can be proved by nothing but the Churches Infallible interpretation then it is plain that is assumed as an Argument to prove Infallibility by which cannot be otherwise known than by this Infallibility Now let any man attend to the answer he gives he saith there is no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon this ground that she declares the Scriptures genuine sense which proves her an Infallible Oracle No difficulty at all Nay that is a little strange that there should be no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon the sense of those Scriptures whose sense could not be insallibly known without the supposal of that Infallibility which is to be proved by them But how comes there to be no difficulty at all in this matter Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last principle is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church or rather upon Scripture and the Churches interpretation together What a strange thing the difference of mens understandings is That which
he thinks makes it no difficâ—lty at all makes it to me the greatest in the world For by the Exposition or Interpretation I suppose he means the Infallible sense of Scripture and if this 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 Infallibility And if the sense internal to the letter cannot be infallibly propounded otherwise than by the Church I would fain know what assurance any man can have of this sense but from the belief of this Infallible Interpreter But saith he Scripture and the Churches Interpretation indivisibly concur to this latter act of Faith This indivisible concurrence is to me an odd piece of mystical Divinity the meaning must be if there be any that I believe the Church Infallibility by those Scriptures from the Churches Infallibility appearing in the Infallible sense of those Scriptures But whence say I doth this appear to be the Infallible sense of them For if the sense of any places of Scripture be doubtful theirs is since their meaning is so doubtful how come men firmly to believe this to be the true and Infallible sense of those places and none else Can men come to an Infallible sense of Scripture without an Infallible Church if so what need of any such Infallibility if not then the Infallible sense of these places cannot be known but from the Churches Infallibility and therefore the Circle unavoidably follows viz. that they must prove the Churches Infallibility by the Infallible sense of Scripture and the Infallible sense of Scripture by the Churches Infallibility And any man might easily guess that E. W. was in a Circle by his Conjuring and speaking things which neither he nor any one else can understand 3. I shewed that they avoided not the circle by this way from the nature of the Infallibility which they attribute to the Church Which is not by an immediate Revelation but but by Divine assistance promised in Scripture and therefore the utmost the motives of credibility can do in this case is only to notifie or distinguish the Church but still the formal reason of believing this Infallibility cannot be from those Motives but from those promises which are supposed in Scripture to imply it So that still the circle returns for they believe the Scriptures Infallible because of the Churches Testimony and the Church Infallible because of the promisâ— of Scripture This he gravely calls aâ— unlearned objection That is even as iâ— pleases him but I have no reason to take him for an Infallible judge of Learning how ever it is no great matter learned oâ— unlearned it is more than he gives any tolerable answer to But I see no reason why he calls it so unless it be because he saith it is in effect the same objection repeated again And he thinks a man may be allowed to call his Creditor Roguâ— or Rascal that comes a second time because he could get no good answer at first However such is the civility of E. W. that he will not send it away without a sufficient answer and yet after all we have nothing for payment but the first general act of Faith one would have thought it had been the Act of Publick Faith by the badness of the payment And this first general act of Faith he saith wâ—olly relies upon the Churches own Infallible Testimony without depending on Scripture But what is this to that divine Faith we enquire after and which he saith must rest upon an Infallible Authority For since Faith must rest upon its motives and those motives are confessed to be fallible this cannot be that assent of Faith which himself makes to be necessary and we have made appear notwithstanding all his shusfling unavoidably brings them into a Circle CHAP. III. An Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church § 1. THE next thing which I objected against this way of resolving faith was that it was notoriously false viz. that there are the same motives of credibility for the Infallibility of the Roman Church that there were for the Infallibility of Moses and the Prophets or of Christ and his Apostles The natural consequence I said of affirming this was that there is as great danger in not believing the Church of Rome insallible as in not believing Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles to have been sent from God For where there is an equal obligation to believe there is an equal sin in not believing and where the sin is equal it stands to reason that the punishment should be so too So that the denial of the Roman Churches Infallibility must be accounted by them as high a piece of Infidelity as calling in Qâ—estion the Infallibility of Christ himself or denying the Scriptures This doth not in the least startle E. W. for he boldly asserts that there are equal motives of credibility as to their Church and Christ and his Apostles he frequently challenges me to shew the disparity nay he puts the whole issue of his cause upon it As may be seen by these words of his The main argument of T. C. he saith was this As Christ and his Apostles proved themselves Oracles sent from God by their Works signs and Miracles again as the Primitive Christians induced by such signs believed Christ and the Apostles upon their own Testimony to be Infallible Teachers so we having ever had the very like Works Signs and Miracles manifest in the Church are prudently induced to believe her as an Infallible Oracle upon her own Infallible Testimony To solve this plain and pressing argument saith E. W. one of these two things must be done either a disparity is to be given between those first Signs and Miracles of the Apostles and the later of the Church or it must be shewn wherein the Inference made is defective or unconcluding viz. that the Church evidenced by her signs is not proved Gods Infallible Oracle as the Apostles were proved by their signs to be Infallible Teachers Afterward he saith he hath proved that the Church hath wrought Miracles every way equal with those which the Apostles wrought In those Chapters to which he refers us for the proof of this I find this assertion in the beginning I say first clear and unquestionable Miracles of the like quality with those which Christ and his Apostles wrought have been ever since most gloriously manifest in the Roman-Catholick Church and in no other Society of Christians Afterwards he calls their Miracles glorious Miracles standing upon inslubitable record and for the proof of these Miracles he appeals to the lives of the Saints and certain Church-history Besides the Testimonies of some Fathers of Miracles done in their time not at all to his purpose as shall afterwards appear he appeals to the
Revelation first made known to him What particular divine Revelation I beseech him is that on which I ground the divine Faith of this Proposition that the Doctrine of Scripture is Gods Revelation For of that we enquire It cannot be understood of the rational evidence of the truth of the divine Revelation for that is asserted by him not to be a sufficient foundation for divine Faith which must rest upon nothing short of divine Revelation I would gladly be informed and directed by this Guide in Controversies since I must believe Gods Revelation with a divine Faith and this divine Faith must rest upon a divine Revelation what that particular divine Revelation is on which I am to believe with divine Faith the truth of Gods publick and general Revelation I have endeavoured to find out what his meaning herein is but I confess I cannot sometimes he seems to denâ— any resolution at all of this divine faith into anâ— further principles and quotes Layman with approbation who saith that the formal reason of believing what God saith is his veracity but that God hath revealed such thing to us cannot be any further resolved or prâ—ved by divine Faith In the next Section he saith That divine Faith doth not resolve into an extrinsecal even morally infalliblâ— motive thereof either as the formal cause oâ— always as the applicative introductive oâ— condition of this divine Faith From whence it follows that this divine Faith may be where there is neither infallible nor prudential motive i. e. it may be where no account at all can be given of it for all motives must be of one sort or other and yet this divine Faith doth rest upon a particular divine Revelation of which since no account can be given it is unreasonable to expect it But I will try yet further by an Instance of his own The Question put by him is why he believes the things contained in the Gospel of St. Matthew to be divinely revealed he Answers That he resolves his Faith of the truth of those contents not into the Churches saying they are true although he believe all that true the Church saith but into divine Revelation because God by his Evangelist delivereth them for truth Again he saith When he believes that all contained in St. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church tells him iâ— iâ— so and then believes that the Church â—elleth him true because God hath revealed â—n some part of his Word that the Church in this shall not erre here his Faith he saith is ultimately resolved again not into the Churches Authority but the divine Revelaâ—ion concerning the Church This looks like something at first hearing if one do not press â—oo far in the examination of it but being â—hroughly searched into how profound soever it may seem it is scarce tolerable sense upon his own principles For it is agreed now on all hands that in the Question of the resolution of Faith the enquiry is not why we believe what God reveals but why we believe this to be a divine Revelation and the Question is now put particularly concerning the doctrine contained in St. Matthews Gospel his principles are That this must be believed by divine Faith and that this Faith must rest upon divine Revelation I now enquire upon what particular divine Revelation he doth build this act of divine Faith that St. Matthew's Gospel contains the Word of God He Answers first Though he believes it to be true because the Church saith it is so yet his Faith is not resolved into the Churches Testimony but into divine Revelation 〈◊〉 What divine Revelation doth he mean that which is in Question viz. That St. Matthew's Gospel is divine Revelation if so theâ— he doth not believe it because the Church saith it but if he doth believe it because of the Churches Testimony then it cannot be oâ— the account of Gods delivering it for truth by the Evangelist For doth he believe it because the Evangelist saith so or not If hâ— doth then he doth not believe it because the Church saith it if he doth not believe it because the Evangelist saith it then he must believe it because the Church saith it and so his Faith must be resolved into the Churches Testimony which if it be a divine Faith must according to his own principles suppose that the Churches Testimony is a divine Revelation and the formal object of divine Faith The same absurdity lies in the other Answer He believeâ— he saith that all contained in St. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church telleth him so and then believes that the Church tells him true because God hath revealed in some part of his Word that the Church in this shall not erre And yet his Faith is not resolved into the Churches Authority but the divine Revelation concerning the Church This Answer must be understood either of St. Matthew's Gospel being proved by some other part of Scripture and then I grant the circle is avoided but that doth not answer the present difficulty which is concerning the ground of believing not some one part of divine Revelation but the whole Or else it must be understood of St. Matthew's Gospel being proved by some part of it self And then he resolves his Faith thus He believes what St. Matthew's Gospel saith concerning the Church because he believes St. Matthew's Gospel to be true and believes St. Matthew's Gospel to be true with a divine Faith because the Church tells him so Can any thing now be more plain than that he must resolve his Faith into that Authority upon which he believed St. Matthew's Gospel to be true which himself confesseth to be that of the Church Only if a man can be so foolish to believe first the truth of St. Matthew's Gospel because the Church saith it and at the same time believe the Church to say true because St. Matthew's Gospel saith so that mans Faith is to be resolved into nothing but the dancing of Fairies which have put him into such a circle that he can never find the way out of But if he mean any thing else I know not what to impute such an absurd way of proceeding to unless it be to a through intoxication of School Divinity which confounds all true notions and distinct conceptions of things and makes men have such swimming brains that all things turn round with them § 5. 2. But supposing I could understand what this particular divine Revelation meant into which this divine Faith must be resolved why may not one particular way serve all mankind for it Must there be several and all equal foundations of divine Faith I can easily satisfie my self of the reason of asserting itâ— but not of the reason of the thing in this way of resolving Faith The true reason of asseâ—ting it was the plain evidence that many persons had a true divine Faith without knowing any thing of the Churches Infallibility this made some men in the Church
and divine Humanâ— as it is first grounded upon the Testimony of men and Divine as it finally rests upon the Testimony of God And in the present condition of mankind it is not reasonable to suppose that any Faith should now immediately rest upon the Divine Revelation without some rational evidence antecedent to it For the thing to be believed being the Testimony which God gave at the distance of above one thousand six hundred years we must either suppose an immediate Revelation of it or it must be conveyed to them by the credit of others Which according to this notion can beget only a humane faith for to resolve the belief of one Divine Testimony into another is to proceed without end but this humane faith if it be so called satisfying a mans mind concerning the Testimony which God gave and thereupon assenting to what was delivered upon that Testimony this Faith proceeding in the same way of rational evidence becomes a divine Faith by resting upon the Testimony which God gave to those who declared his Will 3. The Faith whereby we must first embrace a Divine Revelation cannot in this sense be called a Divine Faith i. e. as divine Faith doth rely upon a divine Testimony For that Faith is built upon those two Foundations viz. That whatever God saith is true and that this is his Revelation Now neither of these two can be entertained at first oâ— the account of a Divine Testimony thâ— first I have shewed already cannot be withouâ— a circle neitheâ— can the second for still thâ— Question will return on what account you believe that Testimony So that although thiâ— be commonly calâ—ed an act of divine Faith yet if Faith be taken in this strict sense foâ— believing upon a divine Testimony we must find out some other name for this Assent noâ— thereby to take off from the certainty or excellency of it but to prevent that confusion which the not observing these things hatâ— caused in these Controversies And if thâ— Terms of Divine Supernatural Infallible Obscure and Inevident were banished thâ— Schools the School-men themselves would be forced to speak sense in these matters And it would be a pleasant sight to see how pitifully E. W's Discourses would look without them For the main force of all he saith lies in the misapplying those terms and thâ— rattling noise they make is apt to keep in awe a vulgar understanding especially that hath been bred up with some more than ordinary Reverence to these astonishing terms § 4. These things were necessary to be premised before we could come to the true State of the Question which we now plainly see doth not relate to that Assent whereby we believe whatever God saith to be true but to that whereby we believe this particular Revelation contained in the Scriptures to be from God And so the Controversie is brought to this issue Whether in order to the certainty of our faith concerning Gods Revelation an Infallible Testimony of the Church be necessary which he affirms and I deny For in order to the certainty of Faith we have already seen he frequently asserts the necessity of an Infallible Oracle and makes all degrees of certainty short of Infallibility insufficient for Divine Faith But that we may the better understand his opinion we must take notice of his own explications of it and the distinctions he thinks necessary for that end 1. He distinguisheth between the judgement of credibility necessary to faith and the act of faith it self and the Resolution of these two though they have a due subordination to each other yet depend upon quite different principles the judgement of credibility whereby the Will moves and commands the intellectual faculty to elicit faith relies not upon that object which finally terminates faith it self but upon extrinsecal motives which perswade and powerfully induce to believe super omnia 2. He distinguisheth between the nature oâ— Science and faith Science is worth nothing unless it prove and faith purely considered as faith these words he desires may be well marked is worthless if it prove For faith reasons not nor asks how these mysteries can be but simply believes Oâ— as he expresseth it in his former Book Faitâ— solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of reason for its motive And here he asserts That there is a more firm adhesion to the infallibility of that Divine Testimony for which we believe than the extrinsecal motives inducing to believâ— either do or can draw from us 3. He distinguisheth between the Humane and Divine Authority of the Church the Humane Authority being as such fallible is not sufficient to ground divine faith But the first act of faith whereby every one believes the Church to be Gods Oracle is built upon her infallible divine Authority manifested by miracles and other signal marks of Truth By the help of these distinctions we may better understand his Resolution of Faith which he delivers in this manner Demanded why we believe the mystery of the Incarnation it is answered Scripture asserts it Ask again why we believe the Divinity of that Book called Scripture It is answered the Church ascertains us of that But how do we know that the Church herein delivers truth It is answered if we speak of knowledge previous to faith then he brings the motives of credibility which make the Churches Infallibility so evidently credible that we cannot if prudent and manifest reason guide us but as firmly believe whatever this Oracle teaches as the Israelites believed Moses and the Prophets This one would think were enough of all conscience but he thinks otherwise for there is saith he but one only difference and that advantageous to them that in lieu of Moses they have an ample Church innumerable multitudes in place of one servant of God the incomparable greater Light the pillar and Ground of Truth the Catholick Church diffused the whole world over and a little after asserts That they have the very same way of Resolving faith which the Primitive Christians had in the time of Christ and his Apostles Here is enough asserted if it could be proved § 5. Against this way laid down by my first Adversary T. C. I objected these three things 1. That it was unreasonable 2. That it did not avoid the main difficulties 3. That it was notoriously false these three waies of attacking it of which a short account is given in the entrance of this Discourse I must now more largely defend I shewed this way to be unreasonable and that upon these grounds 1. Because an assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence for the act of Faith being according to E. W. an insallible assent and no other grounds assigued for it besides the motives of credibility he must make an Infallible assent only upon fallible grounds And it is not sufficient to say that the Infallibility of the Churches Testimony makes the Assent Infallible
to the death of Christ and my Question will not only hold of the Apostles but of any common Jews among them who might not believe Christ infallible any more than the Sanhedrin I ask whether such might not have seen sufficient ground to believe that the Prophesies came not in old time by the will of man but by the Will of God if such persons had reason sufficient for their faith without any infallible Testimony the same I say may all Christians have of the Divine Authority of the New Testament For if the concurrent Testimony of the dispersed Jews firmly believing the divine Authority of the Old Testament were a sufficient ground for a person then to believe the Divinity of those Books why may not the concurrent Testimony of all Christians afford as sufficient a ground to believe the Authority of the Books of the New though no Ecclesiastical Senate among Christians be supposed any more infallible than the Jewish Sanhedrin was at the death of Christ and by this I hope E. W. may a little better perceive what this objection aims at But saith he hence it follows not that then there was no Jewish Church which believed the divine verities of the old Scripture O the monstrous subtilty of Jesuits who is able to stand before their terrible wits What have we to do with a Churches believing the divine verities of the Old Scripture we only enquire for the Testimony of a Church as necessary in order to others believing it If they firmly believed and yet had no infallible Testimony of a Church at that time what can be more to our advantage than this seeing it hence follows that there may be a firm faith without any Churches infallible Testimony Well but he verily thinks I mistook one objection for another perhaps I would have said that the Apostles lost faith of our Saviours Resurrection at the time of his Passion but this difficulty is solved over and over And then falls unmercifully to work with this man of clouts he throws him first down and tramples upon him then sets him up again to make him capable of more valour being shown upon him then he kicks him afresh beats him of one side and then of the other and so terribly triumphs over him that the poor man of clouts blesseth himself that he is not made of flesh and bones for if he had it might have cost him some aches and wounds But I assure him I meant no such thing yet if I had I do not see but after all his batteries the argument such as it is would have stood firm enough for supposing the Infallible Testimony of the Church to rest in the Apostles after our Saviours death it must have prejudiced the faith of others who were to believe that article upon their Authority if they lost the faith of Christs Resurrection 2. I instanced in those who believed in Christ and yet were not personally present at the miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the womans of Samaria was to the Samaritans Of these I ask what infallible Testimony their faith was built upon And if those persons might have a Divine Faith meerly upon rational evidence may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was To this he answers by distinguishing between the Motive or the natural Proposition of faith which comes by hearing and the infallible Oracle whereupon it relies and he thinks it strange I did not see the distinction It is far easier to see the distinction than the pertinency of it to his purpose for our Question is not about the necessity of an Infallible Oracle in order to Faith but of an infallible Proposition we still yield that which our faith relies upon to be an infallible Oracle of God but if a natural Proposition of that be sufficient for faith we have all we contend for But to what purpose the Legend of S. Photina and the dispute whether she were the Samaritan woman is here inserted is very hard to understand unless he thought it the best way by any means to escape from the business in hand Next he tells us what he might answer iâ— these instances by saying with good Divinâ— that all immediate Propounders or Conveyerâ— of Divine Revelation in such particular caseâ— need not to be infallible I am glad to hear of such good Divines among them only I would know why in these particular cases an infallible proposition was unnecessary to faith if in the general case of all Christians it be now become necessary But he saith although infallibility be not necessary for young beginners seldom molested with difficulties against saith yet it is not only convenient but absolutely necessary for others more learned who often struggle to captivate their understanding when the high mysteries of Christianity are proposed Never was there certainly a more senseless answer for who are molested with difficulties against faith if those who are to be converted to Christianity are not who have none of the advantages of education to recommend the doctrines of Christianity to their minds and are filled and prepossessed with contrary prejudices Never were there such happy Converters of Infidels as the Jesuits are if they meet with such Converts who are never molested with difficulties against faith only as they grow up they begin to grow Infidels again and then it is necessary to choke them with an Infallible Church I do not at all wonder that the more learned in the Church of Rome seeing the weakness of the grounds of Faith among them do struggle with themselves about believing the mysteries of their faith but I very much wonder if so unreasonable a pretence as that of Infallibility can ever satisfie them I desire to know of these more learned believers whether they believed the Churches Infallibility before those strugglings or not if they did not how came they to be believers since there can be no divine faith without an infallible testimony if they did how came they to question whether they were to believe the particular mysteries of faith if they did believe the Church Infallible which proposed them But I suppose these learned believers were such as questioned the Infallibility of the Church and Christ and his Apostles too of which sort I doubt not there are many in Rome it self But yet he hath two other ways to solve these difficulties 1. By Gods special illumination and that I hope may serve all as well as these and then let him shew the necessity of an infallible Proponent 2. That every particular proponent as a member conjoyned with Christs infallible Oracle may be said to teach infallibly A most admirable speculation and so may every one we meet with in the streets be infallible not as considered in himself but as a member conjoyned with truth or every Sectary as a member conjoyned with
constitute it in the notion of faith divine because the faith so stiled is supposed to rest always on an higher ground viz. Revelation Divine 10. That the infallibility of the Church grounded on Divine Revelation and believed by a divine faith is a main ground and pillar of a Catholicks faith for any other articles thereof that are established by the sam◠Churches Definitions where the Scriptures or Tradition Apostolick are to him doubtful Of which ground and assurance of such points believed by Catholicks from the Churches infallible Authority the Protestant◠faith is destitute § 3. These are the Principles upon which this Guide in Controversies undertakes to clear this intricate Question and to free their resolution of faith from the danger of a circle I have but two small things to object against this way 1. That it gives up the cause in dispute 2. That notwithstanding it doth not avoid the main difficulties 1. That it gives up the cause in Dispute◠which was whether the Infallible Testimony of the Church be the necessary Foundation of Divine Faith for upon occasion of the supposed necessity of this Infallibility the Question was first started this Infallibility being asserted to be necessary by T. C. and was the thing I chiefly opposed in the discourse of the Resolution of Faith Now this the Guide in Controversies freely yields to me and consequently the main Foundation of Faith asserted by my Adversary is destroyed as plainly appears by the third Proposition wherein he affirms that an external infallible proponent is not necessary to divine Faith But this he doth not barely affirm but he saith it is copiously proved by many learned Catholicks and to this purpose he cites Cardinal Lugo speaking of Divine Faith who saith that the infallibility of the Church cannot be the first Ground of Divine Faith because this Infallible Authority of the church by Assistance of the Holy Ghost is it self an article of Divine Faith And experience tells us that all Children or adult persons first coming to the Faith do not apprebend much less infallibly believe this Infallible Authority in the Church before any other article of Faith And in the Law of Nature and under the Law of Moses the Churches proposition was not necessary in order to faith but the instruction of Parents was sufficient in one and the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets in the other before their Prophecies were received by the Church He cites Estius likewise speaking of this Divine and Salvifical faith that it is not material to faith what medium God makes use of to bestow this gift of Faith upon men many having believed that knew nothing of the Churches infallibility He cites Layman asserting that it often comes to pass that other articles of our faith are explicitly believed before that of the Churches Infallibility and withal this Infallibility of the Church depends upon the promise of the spirit therefore men must first believe that there is a spirit of God and consequently the holy Trinity Farther saith he it is plain that the primitive Christians did believe with divine Faith not for the Authority of the Church which either was not founded yet when St. Peter believed Christ to be the Son of the living God or had not defined any doctrines of Faith Again he denies the Churches Authority to be the formal principle or motive of Faith and that for this very good reason because this infallible Authority of the Church is one of the things to be believed Nay he cites Fa. Knot himself in his reply to Chillingworth affirming Christians may have a true Infallible Divine Faith of which faith they have only a fallible proponent nor are infallibly certain thereof i. e. as to the proponent I now appeal to the indifferent reader whether the main thing contended for by me viz. that the infallible Testimony of the Church is not necessary in order to Faith be not here fully granted to me 2. But yet the account of Faith here given is very far from clearing the chief difficulties of it as will appear by these two things 1. That this resolution of Divine Faith is very unsatisfactory in it self ◠2. That it is liable to the absurdities which he seeks to avoid by it 1. That the resolution of Divine Faith laid down by him is very unsatisfactory in it self the principles of which are these 1. That Divine Faith must rest upon Divine Revelation 2. This Divine Revelation upon which faith is built is that which is first made known to the person and from which he proceeds to other matters of faith 3. This Divine Revelation is not one and the same to all but to some the Authority of the Scriptures to some the Authority of the Church to some Apostolical Tradition 4. Divine Faith must rest upon this Revelation with an immediate assent to it without enquiring further for if there be any further process there must be so in infinitum or a circle 5. That the Holy Ghost doth illuminate the understanding of him that believes both as to the veracity of God and the truth of his Revelation and causes such a firm adherence of faith as many times far exceeds that of any humane Science or demonstrations But in this way I can neither be satisfied 1. What that particular divine Revelation is which this divine Faith doth rest upon Not 2. How this Faith can equally rest in several persons upon several ways Nor 3. How it can rest with an immediate assent upon any way Nor 4. Wherein this way differs from resolving Faith into the Testimony of the Spirit § 4. I cannot understand what that particular divine Revelation is into which as into it◠prime extrinsecal motive Faith is here resolved The thing enquired after is the reason of believing the truth of what God hath publickly revealed to mankind as we say he hath done the Doctrines of Christianity the ultimate resolution of divine Faith as to this I am told is that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to a man i◠this particular divine Revelation the sam◠with Gods publick and general Revelation o◠distinct from it If it be the same it can offer no reason for my Faith unless the same thing may be proved by it self if it be different then God makes use of particular divine Revelations to men different from his publick into which they are to resolve their Faith Suppose then the Question be thus put why do you believe that Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead The general Answer is because God that cannot lie hath revealed it but then the Question returns on what ground do you believe this Revelation to have been from God with such a divine Faith as must rest upon divine Revelation For such you assert to be necessary To this the Guide in Controversies Answers that the ultimate resolution of a Christians divine Faith is into that particular divine
us as though God had nothing else to do with his Power but to pervert the course of nature by it at the beck of any idle fellow as it God did not manage his power as he does all things else with infinite wisdom as if God imployed his extraordinary power without great and most urgent causes For when it was necessary to shew his power for the confirmation of the Christian Religion and the Satisfaction of unbelievers then all persons might see the wonderful works of God but now saith he when the Truth of Christianity is known it would be to no purpose for God to shew so many miracles But whence then comes it that so many miracles are still talked of This arises saith he from the devotion of some who attribute ordinary effects of nature to a miraculous Power and from the Superstitious folly and fraud of others who will not endure any thing cryed up for a miracle should be ever questioned by any but say it is profane Atheistical and which is somewhat worse heretical to do it Whereas poor wretches they do not think what injury they do the Catholick cause while they go about to strengthen it with lies and forgeries when the Christian doctrine is already fully confirmed by the most true and undoubted miracles of Christ and his Apostles What need they then to feign any new miracles Doth God need your lies will ye talk deceitfully for him as I may justly use the words of Job saith he of these men Another cause of so much talk of miracles in the Roman Church he saith is Ignorance whereby any extraordinary accident though such as might happen where Christianity was never known is extolled for a miracle Quorum operum causas nulla ratione videre Possunt haec fieri divino numine rentur From hence he proceeds to particulars and shews that most of those who are accounted possessed among them are Melancholy and Hypochondriacal men and Hysterical women and then examins the pretence to Inspiration and Prophecy to raptures and extasies to miraculous cures to prodigious fastings to incorruption of bodies to raising from the dead and shews under every one of these heads how very often the meer effects of nature pass for miracles in the Roman Church to whose learned discourses I refer the Reader and we may easily understand the meaning of such a person when he tells us after all this that the Church will not suffer men to be deceived about miracles but such as the Church approves are to be approved Now let any one judge whether such persons who receive no other miracles but such which the Church commands them to believe could ever imagine that the Infallibility of their Church was proved by such miracles which they would not believe to be true unless they first believed the Church which approved them to be infallible Fortunatus Scacchus a man of great Authority in Româ— grants that it is a very easie matter to take false miracles for true and that no certain argument can be taken from Tables which are hung up at Images or shrines that wicked men may do real miracles which he proves from Scripture and History and the continued practice in their Church from whence he concludes that no argument can be drawn for the sanctity of any Person but only from such miracles as are approved by the Roman Church For saith he it belongs only to the Authority of the Roman See and the Bishop of Rome to determine which are true miracles because the promise of infallibility is only made to the Roman Church and the Head of it From whence he concludes that no other Bishop hath any Power to approve miracles especially if they be supposed to be wrought by an uncanonized Saint For we are to understand that the great use of miracles in the Roman Church hath not been pretended to be for proving the faith or Infallibility of the Church but for an argument of Saintship of those who are to be Beatified or Canonized So Aquinas determines that miracles are either wrought to confirm the truth of a doctrine preached or for the demonstration of the Sanctity of a Person and therefore in the Process of Canonization one main enquiry is about the miracles wrought by the Person who stands for the preferment of Canonization In the Process about the Canonization of Andreas Corsinus presented to Paul 5. the Auditours of the Rota say that to the Being Canonized it is concluded by all to be necessary that the person have wrought miracles and there they agree that it is not necessary to a miracle to be wrought for the confirmation of faith seeing miracles may be done for another end viz. for the proof of the Sanctity of the Person And such miracles say they are those which are done among Catholicks for whose sake miracles would be necessary on no other account because miracles are a sign not to believers but to unbelievers whence as they well observe from Isidore St. Paul cured the Father of Publius by a miracle but presâ—ribed to Timothy a natural remedy And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many other processes of Canonization to the same purpose viz. to prove that it is not necessary to a miracle that it be done for the confirmation of any part of Christian faith Since therefore the far greatest number of the miracles in the Roman Church are such as are wrought for another end how can they from them prove the infallibility of their Church unless they can make it appear that where ever there are true Saints the Church is Infallible From which it appears that the miracles of the Roman Church ought no more to be compared with those of Christ and his Apostles as to the Testimony by them given to Infallibility than in point of credibility and that in both respects they are so infinitely short of them that nothing but the height of impudence could make any man pretending to be Christian to assert that as great nay greater miracles have been done by the Roman Church as ever were done by Christ or his Apostles in which subject I have taken the more pains not meerly to detect the frauds and impostures of the Roman Church but to preserve and vindicate the Honour of Christianity lest that should suffer by the intolerable rudeness of these comparisons The END Books sold by Henry Mortlock at his Shop at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard and at the White-Hart in Westminster Hall A Rational account of the grounds of Protestant Réligion being a Vindication of the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Relation of a conference from the pretended answer of T. C. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. in Folio Cotgraves Dictionary French and English in Folio Sermons Preached by Anthony Farindon Folio House of Mourning in Folio Sheppards Practical Counsellor in Folio Animadversions on the 4. part of Cooks Institutes by William Prynne Esq Folio Observations upon Millitary and Political afairs by the Right