for I am weary in following such weightless stuff yet in the next page you have more of it where he blames me as one sensless because I say n. 12. that fewer Motives may serve to induce young Beginners seldom molested with difficulties against Faith witness S. Austin cited above Ceteram turbam c than will convince the more learned who often struggle to captivate their understanding to our high Christian Mysteries And is not this exactly verifyed in Luther Calvin and innumerable others who when Beginners easily submitted to all the Church teaches yet afterward when more learned they found unless they tell the world loud lies Motives to disswade them from their first Faith Such men therefore seduced by fallacious Arguments or rather by their own malice should have been better grounded in that one Principle whereon all Christian Doctrin wholly depend's the Infallibility of Christs true Church 15 P. 414. I meet with à jeer because I hold Protes without Princ Disc 1. c. 2. n. 3. That every Bishop or Pastor though not personally infallible yet when he is lawfully sent to teach and speak's in the name of God and the Church considered as à member conioyned with the Infallible Church may be said to teach infallibly An admirable speculation replies the Dr and so saith he may every one in the streets be infallible not as considered in himself but as à member conjoyned with truth A conjunction with God's word implies Vnion with the Church or every Sectary as à member conjoyned with God's word Reflect Mr Dr is every one we meet in the streets à Bishop or Pastor commissioned to teach infallibly Christs Verities of such Pastors I speak and not of your street men Or can à Sectary be à member conjoyned with Gods word It is impossible for to say Sectary is to suppose him separated from God's word which therefore destroies your Imagined infallible conjunction and makes your Speculation not admirable but ridiculous Again and here is à solution to the Argument more amply laid forth Disc 3. c. 3. n. 17. 19. and before that c. 2. n. 12 A conjunction with truth or Gods word necessarily implies in this present State a conjunction with the Church for without the Testimony of this Oracle previously assented to we have no infallible assurance that such books are divinely inspired or what the sence of them is in all controverted passages therefore to suppose an Infallible conjunction with truth or God's word independently of Church-authority is to suppose light taken from darkness or the last Resolvent of Faith in order to us not to ground it at all But saith the Dr the Question is whether such à Prelate or Pastor may be divided from God's infallible Another difficulty Solved truth If he can what security hath any one to rely upon him upon such à conditional Infallibility whereof he can have no assurance I answer the common received Doctrin of the Church being known and divulged in every Catechism it is easily known when à Renegado such an one as the Bishop of Spalato was abandon's the Church In case of any rational mistrust or doubt because wolves sometimes appear like lambs Prudence direct's timorous Consciences to advise with their Pastors or others more learned then themselves 16 P. 415. The Dr applaudes his good fortune in meeting with an Adversary that mistakes his so well explicated Rational Evidence of Christian Religion Of the Dr's vain applauding himselfe and à long talk followes of hewers of difficulties and water-drawers of the Seraphims feathers and S. Laurenc'es Gridiron to what purpose I know not My hope is before this next Chapter be ended to make it manifest that the Dr neither understand's what is meant by rational Evidence nor has any thing like it for Protestant Religion CHAP. IX Dr Stilling pretended Evidence for Christian Religion proved nothing like Evidence His Evidence taken from Sense in the Mystery of the holy Eucharist demonstrated Sensless How vainly he endeavour's to prove by Miracles related in Scripture the Truth of the Doctrin there registred A word of his Tradition and many other errours 1 THe Dr P. 416 goes about to explain what is meant by his rational Evidence of Christian Religion and ground 's it upon the unquestionable assurance which we have of matters of fact and the Miracles wrought by Christ as à great part of this rational Evidence which is destroyed by our Doctrin of Transubstantiation Soon after he complain's of our silent passing over these things the Schools having found no answers to such Arguments What will The Dr's unworthy proceeding not this man say in points remote from us when in à plain matter of fact he beguiles his Reader with most loud untruths Let any one peruse my last Treatise Disc 1. c. 9. n. 11. 12. In that Discourse of à Heathen with à Christian he will find the first difficulty largely handled and solved where I say the Dr either believes our Saviours unparallaled Miracles because Scripture relates them and then he supposes Scripture to be Divine or inspired by the Holy Ghost which the Heathen denies and therefore wishes that Divine inspiration to be proved by Arguments extrinsical to the Doctrin delivered in Scripture Or contrarywise he proves those Miracles to have been upon the Fallible report of men liable to errour the Dr own 's no Tradition Infallible and this advances not his cause at all for do not the Turk's speak as much of Mahomets Miracles upon fallible and perhaps false reports also Thus the Heathen argues and rationally too not yet knowing what Religion to embrace Here in à word you have the substance of all I then said and I think my Argument thus delivered convinces VVhoever proves Christian Religion to be assuredly true by Motives as obscure as the very Doctrin of Christian Religion is either evinces nothing or makes à vicious An Argument proposed Circle But thus the Dr proceeds whose rational Evidence or unquestionable assurance of Christian Religion is proved by matters of fact Miracles I mean wrought by Christ which Miracles are as obscure to à Heathen and as much obiects of Faith to Christians as the very Doctrin of Christ is recorded in Scripture Therefore he proves nothing Se more hereof n. 12. cited 2 The other piece of the Dr ' s rational Evidence taken from Sense which he The Drs Argument taken from the Holy Eucharist both here and formely Solved thinks the Doctrin of Transubstantiation destroies I then reflected on and fully answered Reas. and Râ—lig c. 12. n. 3. where I say the immediate obiect of Sense remain's after consecration unchangeable as before It is true reason upon the suggestion of sense might well conclude that the substance of bread is there also were there not another Stronger Principle then sense which overawes us Christ's own words This is my body which cause reason to submit Thus S. Chrisostom S. Cyril of Hierusalem with innumerable ancient
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
my own body risen from the dead You have none Therefore rely boldly on your senses and reason also and judge me to be the same Individual Saviour I was before For there is no Principle natural or revealed which contradict's this belief or that enjoynes you to deny your Senses either in this or any other sensible obiect But for the change of bread into my body you have my express words the world hereafter will profess that truth all over Christianity my Church shall maintain it the best Christians upon earth believe it Innumerable Martyrs shall dy for it undeniable Miracles confirm it and the most learned Doctors that ever lived shall leave this my Doctrin upon Record to the utter confusion of all Hereticks The Dr may demand upon what ground can I imagin that our Saviour would have argued thus against his Disciples I answer my ground is incomparably more sure than any the Dr can give or endeavour to perswade by that the Apostles were ever so sottish as to have thought of his ridiculous Obiection For all I say here are Truths owned over Christendom and worthy to be spoken by out Saviour but his Obiection never wise or Orthodox man seriously proposed before himself 6 What followes in the Dr is no more but one Tautologie after another The Dr's Tautologies Or the same thing already casheired said too often over When saith he the assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of the Senses of those who were Eye-witnesses of the Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ if the Senses of men may be so grosly deceived in the proper obiects of them in the case of Transubstantiation what assurance could they have who were Eye-witnesses of them A long period with many falsities to no purpose I have answered to what here import's that though our senses be deceived in the case of Transubstantiation which is not true yet we have as much certainty in every other thing we se or and weak way of arguing feel as the Dr hath when he sees or feels the pulpit he preaches in Vnless this Sequel be allowed of My eyes are once deceived if yet so ergo they must alwaies be deceived Or à Iugler can make me se what is not ergo I never se what is Again saith he The Drs repeated Obiections Take away the certainty of the judgement of sense you destroy all certainty in Religion I have answered We neither take away the Obiect of sense nor like well his miscalled judgement of sense for sense hath still its own proper obiect though were it otherwise in this Mystery his Inference of all certainty destroyed has no Sence in it 3. Saith the Dr. I must by virtue of your Churches Infallibility believe something to be true which if it be true there can be no certainty at all of the truth of Christian Religion This is only the some thing needlesly repeated already answered And so is that which some others do obiect If the sense of seing be deceived so likewise may the sense of hearing and consequently none can have assurance of what either Christ spake or the Church teaches Who can read this stuff with patience Yet it is gravely set forth in Sermons as most weighty and convincing and which is worse thought worthy to appear in Print 7 The Solution of all in à word is Our senses in this Mystery are not deceived nor so much beguiled as the eye is when we se à straight stick crooked in the water for here the Medium makes that to appear crooked which is not there in the Eucharist the immediate obiect of sense is seen as before without the least Illusion Yet grant which is not true à deception here it is à folly above expression to infer that our senses are beguiled in every other obiect set before our eyes clearly solved and this the Dr must prove or he evinces nothing Thus much noted I challenge and charge the Dr to discover in his next Answer any thing like à fallacy in my whole Discourse But when will this be done think ye Then I say and not sooner when the Dr makes this Consequence good If Christ changed bread retaining the outward semblance of bread into his own body we may prudently judge that he also changed those stones the Divel shew'd him Matt 4. into good bakers bread though outwardly they still appeared stones The first change is grounded upon as great Authority as any Mystery of Faith is none excepted For the second we have nothing but fancy only Now if after all I have said the Dr as his usual If the Dr tell his old stories over again he will be called à Bungler custome hath been silently passes by my reasons hitherto alledged and only tells his old stories over again of our senses being deceived c. I shall retort his own words upon him and conclude that his School find's no answer to my Arguments 8 Another grand errour of this Dr is that he attributes more to the Evidence of sense in order to its proper obiect à visible Miracle for example than can be allowed The Sense of seing take this for an Instance the like is of feeling hearing c is only terminated upon the outward appearance of things and as it penetrat's not the substance of the bread so neither see 's it the inward life or motion of the Soul in à mortal body Whence it followes though we grant that Sense is never beguiled as to its proper obiect yet it often gives occasion of deceipt in other matters wholly out of the reach of sense You shall se what I here hint at by one Instance Suppose the Dr saw the Divel that often transform's himself into an Angel of light doing his feates to delude the senses with à false Miracle or if he denies Divels he must grant that power to Antichrist who will shew many seeming wonders Suppose this be one that à man in outward appearance dead to all senses by Antichrists Charms stand's up again and moves as others do I ask how will the Dr who gives so much credit to his eyes and senses distinguish by Sense only between the true resuscitation of Iairus daughter Luke 8. 55. and this counter feit Miracle of Antichrist In his Principles he cannot difference them if guided by the Evidence of sense and all that reason Can discover by Sense only 9 Hence to take off the Dr ' s errour as to the Blessed Sacrament we discourse further He Iudges what he see 's in The Dr by virtue of his own Principle must own Antichrist's Miracles for true Miracles a consecrated Host to be truly bread because his eyes and senses tell him it is bread These the Dr thinks give in stronger Evidence for its being bread than any proof to the contrary can perswade that it is not bread Yeild this and the Dr yeilds all He is obliged to own this seeming Miracle of Antichrist for
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
can never bring any to this determinate iudgement These are the sincere Believers Those others easily pointed out are not And without this particular None can know by the Drs rule who are sincere believers who not distinguishing knowledge Necessaries wholly out of our reach are as if they were not useles and unprofitable An Instance will give more light One is assured that some craftily devise to take away his life but after much Enquiry knowes not in particular who it is for all â—rofess the dearest friendship imaginable as all profess themselves right in the beliefe of Necessaries Can this man avoid the mischief intended by virtue of à general knowledge that some would destroy him It is impossible This is our very case Mr Dr. Either you or the Arian intend mischief to the Christian world The one or other would bereave us of life Faith I mean Necessary for Salvation but by your Rule we know not particularly which of the Two goe about to ensnare us both of you cannot be supposed invincibly ignorant in à matter of so great consequence Say now by what means can à diligent Enquirer know in particular the man that intend's our ruin Shall we put the Bible into both your hands and bid you clear the cause there It is meer labour lost you may wrangle till both be tired and all tired that hear you yet you are where you began in à Labyrinth nothing is ended the way nothing concluded Wil you say the Arian wants Gods grace He verily judges you want it more and whâ— is to be believed Will you say the learned Socinians or Arians are invincibly ignorant concerning Necessaries They will cast that foul aspersion upon yoâ— and your Party And who knowâ— what is true here Will you accuâ— them of negligence in searching Scriptures They recriminate as boldly and with good reason for their books shew them more versed in Scripture then you that being made their only study But whether you or they rightly understand Scripture is yet à secret not knowable by your Rule 10 By what is said you se the disconsolate condition all zealous Seekers after truth are left in The Guidance of an Infallible Church is set naught by The necessary truths for salvation cannot as we have proved be known by Scripture only The unnecessaries say â—ou need not to be known Therefore â—en may get to Heaven without faith â—ad of either of Necessaries or unnecesaries that is as I take it without any faith at all 11 You may se 2. The force of my argument hitherto proposed by these â—terrogatories Please to reflect à little â— it true that Christ our Lord who will 's â— to be Saved hath afforded means â—th easy and certain whereby Necessaâ—s to Salvation may be known It is â—e that innumerable learned men of à â—ite different beliefe after an exact â—usal of Scripture are at high dissentions about these Necessaries Is it The force of my Argument yet more illustrated true that all these cannot be supposed voluntarily to damn themselves by impiously imposing à false sence on Godâ— word Is it true that no few amongâ— these many wrong the most supreaâ— Verity and believe what God neveâ— revealed Is it true that none caâ— yet distinguish by Scripture alone or aâ— private discerning faculty who at this vâ—ry day do this wrong or Contrarywiâ— are right in the beliefe of Necessaries Is it true that if every private man â— sufficiently taught by reading Scriptuâ— only all recourse to our Spiritual Guidâ— though appointed by Christ to instrâ— us becomes useless and unprofitable If these particulars already laid forth â— manifestly proved as I am sure they aâ— Dr Still Rule for the finding out Necâ—saries by Scripture and the sincere â—deavour of private men is not only â— slight Errour but in à matter of greatâ— consequence intolerable yea and dreâ—ful upon this account that it enlighteâ— none in the search after Necessaries â— cast's all upon an impossibility of findâ— what they seek for Now we procâ— to another Argument 12 Admit Scripture were as plainâ— the Dr can wish Admit also that â— may be understood by all Christians who sincerely endeavour to know its meaning in Necessaries A great difficulty remain's concerning Iewes and Genâ—ils Viz. How such Aliens from Christ may be gained to believe the Necessaries we speak of I ask therefore hath Christ afforded means to reclaim these from errour or no If not God conâ—rary to the Dr ' s assertion is wanting in Necessaries and consequently no man can prudently labour for their conversion If means be allowed that most evidently cannot be Scripture Perhaps the Dr will say his Rule above belong's not to Iewes and Heathens but to Christians only If this be his Answer â— shall by Gods assistance hereafter clearâ—y shew that that rational Evidence for Christian Religion whereon the Dr reâ—ies avail's just nothing to the Converâ—ion Neither the Drs rule nor his rational Evidence avail's to the Conversion of Iewes and Gentils of either Jewes or Heathens Here â— am to prove that Scripture is not the means First because such men after â—heir reading it slight and contemn all â—hat Christ and his Apostles taught and one reason of their contempt as à Jew â—tely observed is grounded upon the â—orrid dessentions amongst Christians â—thanks be to Luther and Calvin for â—hem concerning the canon and sence of Scripture Who said he can move me to believe in Christ by Scripture while some called Christians deny his Godhead Others his humane nature some say his body is really present under à wafer Others deny that and thus forsooth Scripture must prove both parts of the Contradiction Again though Scripture were supposed clear in Necessaries it is yet far enough from being à selfe Evidence as to the Divine Truth to the infallibility or the plain sence of these Necessaries Nay who can know by Scripture which and how many theâ— Necessaries are For example I think S. Iohn record's à Necessary when â— tells us The Word is made flesh yet by â— bare reading and pondering the words â— cannot without more light peremptorily avouch that they contain à Necessary foâ— Salvation or that they evidence to me â— Divine infallible truth much less can I saâ— the sence of them is as I judge while wâ—se Christians so highly at contest abouâ— the sence that they maintain open contradictions And this opposition alonâ— upheld by the judgements of private meâ— very learned makes the Truth and Infâ—libility of every Revelation à thing only doubtful and conjectural All this beinâ— undeniable 13 I say first if à true beliefe of the Divine word made flesh be à necessary for Salvation and if the Truth the Infallibility or sence of the Revelation whereby the Mystery is attested lies dark yea impossible to be found out by Scripture alone one of these two things inevitably follow Viz. That the wise Providence of God hath either appointed some oracle distinct from
those obscure Terms What are Necessaries to Salvation he only mean that none can tell How many Necessaries are he speak's à truth in his own Principles but nothing to the present purpose for here we only enquire whether the Guides of God's Church are not impowred to deliver infallibly so much as one particular Necessary which they believe infallibly No saith the Dr because Scripture is so clear in Necessaries that no man who sincerely desires to know them shall be deceived I answer first Were it ten times clearer the perspicuity hinder's not these Guides from declaring infallibly what Scripture speaks infallibly The most that can be inferred from hence were all true as its false is that the Churches Guides need not to declare any thing but that their declaration therefore ceases to be infallible shall never be probably made out 1 Answer 2. The Dr grosly mistakes for most evident experience teaches that thousands and thousands called Christians are deceived who sincerely desire to know what is Necessary to Salvation Is it not manifest as I said above that the Arians Pelagians c. Or the Dr with his Partizans run on in à false beliefe of Necessaries This matter of fact supposed the Question proposed above return's again VVhat means hath Christ left whereby all may certainly know the deluded or erring Party And this proves the Scripture obscure or not perspicuous in all Necessaries unlesse the Dr infuses à clarity into it which no mans eyes ever yet saw but his own and à few Sectaries with him The next pretty whimsy is that he knowes no reason for useing the Term Infallibility yet i' ft be applyed to Infallible Believers of Necessaries he asserts it in that sence Is not this right as it should be He has no reason for useing the Term but great reason to use the thing signified by the term Let this passe the worst is yet to come 7 The Guides of the Church saith he P. 141. Supposing the same sincerity shall enioy the same Priviledge with Rusticks That is they may believe Infallibly as Rusticks doe yet none can Teach Infallibly First this Answers not my difficulty above when I ask'd if these Guides and the Illiterate under their charge ponder Scripture and use all sincere endeavour to understand its meaning yet mainly differ in the beliefe of Necessaries what remedy in such à case Is not our Dr obliged to propose some fair easy means whereby these Guides and people may be united in one faith or at least to tell us on which party whether Pastors or People the blame lies to the end all may avoid them Scripture most evidently makes not the blamable known nor unit's all in one Faith An infallible Church is rejected the discerning Faculty of dissenting men run's as we se contrary wayes Therefore all may believe as they Judge whether true or false or suspend their beliefe untill Dr Still laies down à better rule To that other part I say the Guides of the Church can teach infallibly the Necessaries they believe and I still insist upon Necessaries only The reason is given already To believe the Infallible Truth of à Divine Revelation expressing à Necessary is absolutely necessary to Salvation but this neither Scripture it selfe nor the discerning faculty of any fallible man can declare or make known therefore the Guides of The reason why the Guides of the Church teach infallibly the Church impowred by Christ to instruct qui vos audit me audit are to declare the Truth the Infallible truth and sence of every Revelation relating to Necessaries Now further If this declaration be so fallible that it may be false neither Jewes nor Gentils nor Christians yet seeking after these main truths can come to any acquiescency For what have they to lean upon in the least degree Satisfactory While fallible men agitate the cause fallible Discourses carry it on and fallible Principles are the only support of all that is or can be controverted Please to se this Argument further enlarged Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 16. n. â—8 whereunto our good Dr return's no Answer 8 Next vouchsafe to cast an eye vpon his 147 page and consider how lamely he handles à matter of greatest importance VVe are Saith Dr Still far from denying all reasonable and just Authority to be given to the Guides of the Church Very general talk Perhaps that Authority must be only reasonable which he judges reasonable But of what Church doth the Gentleman speak here The Arians and Protestants have their dissenting Churches will you have the Arians follow their Guides and the Protestants theirs Herein he resolves nothing but sometimes remit's us to the Primitive Church which breeds endless disputes because we yet agree not what that Church taught nor shall ever learn but by the voice and Tradition of the present Catholick Church Have yet patience to hear the Dr. VVe say that their Authority that is of the Guides of some Church but God only knowes which it is not being absolute is confined to some known rule O this Rule would doe us noble service but the mischiefe is our shuffling Dr clap's it under lock and key like à lewel worth hiding You have it by the name of some known Rule though no body yet knowes what it is or where to find it He cannot in this place mean Scripture for its sence is most unknown and the bare letter as we have seen causes open hostility no lesse between the Guides of the Church and refractory subjects than The Drs general talk of unknown rules enlightens none amongst the Guides of two dissenting Churches In à word If Dr Still shall please to lay down à plain certain rule whereby all dissenting Christians may be brought to one true Faith even in Necessaries he will deserve immortal renown and do more then all the Hereticks since Christs time have done But to perform this his intrigues concerning Some Rule and no man knowes what Rule can never doe his business whereof more presently Now listen well to the end of his Discourse VVhere there is à rule for them he mean's the Guides of the Church to proceed by there is à rule for others to judge of their proceedings and consequently men must exercise their judgements about the matters they the Guides determin whether they be agreable to that rule or not 9 Still we are put off with general words One rule it seem's is allowed the Guides of the Church to proceed by an other if the Layity dissent to judge of their Guides proceedings Yet no man must know in particular what these Rules are Is not all this tattle something and nothing empty stuff without substance But say on What if these two Imagined Rules breed everlasting jarrs between the Guides and the Guided who is to yeild and to whom Or rather we ask what means hath Christ appointed to end these differences by If he say no dissentions can arise either about Necessaries or any other
à true Miracle because his eyes and senses will have it true I prove it The exteriour Evidence in both Cases is the very Same for as sense see 's and feel's this man to be like one truly dead though he is not dead So it also see 's and fee'ls this wafer after Consecration to be like true bread though it be not bread and reason as I now said purely led on by the conduct of sense judges alike in both cases therefore if the Dr Conform's his Judgement to the perswasion of his senses in the one and truly hold's à consecrated host to be bread he cannot but upon the same Evidence Judge that Antichrist's Miracle is à true Miracle No disparity can be given O! but Scripture so often forewarning us of Antichrist's false Miracles much abates yea wholly withdrawes every sound Christian from believing them true Is it possible Can Scripture let in so much light upon us Can it make us to deny what our eyes see and fingers feel to be true Why therefore cannot the clearest words that Christ ever Spake This is my body My flesh is meat indeed My blood is drink indeed force us to deny the weak suggestion of our Senses called by the Dr the Strongest Evidence Why should not those Sacred words move us Submissively to confess that as no real Miracle lies under that outward guise of Antichrist's What plain Scripture forces on us to believe in the blessed Sacrament apparent wonder Scripture drawes us to own this truth So no real bread lies under the outward apparence or visible forms of bread and wine or if Scripture work 's so powerfully upon us as not to believe that to be bread which to our Senses looks like bread where in is Our offence greater than the Dr ' s who believes that to be no true Miracle which to our Senses looks like a true one In à word the Dr must either quit his so much cryed up Evidence taken from Sense or will be forced to grant which is horrid that Antichrist Shâ—ll work as true Miracles as ever Christ wrought 10 Again how can the Dr Assert that Christ's Miracles wrought before the writing of Scripture were done to confirm all the Doctrin registred by S. Paul and the other Disciples afterward Nay how can he prove they were wrought to confirm the truth of our Saviours own Doctrin without giving some further proof then the outward sight of à Miracle is Hence I said the Dr erred when he told us that the assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of the senses of those who were Eye-witnesses of the Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ First no Eye-witnesses saw our Saviour actually rysing from the dead but afterward yet had they seen him in that instant can the Dr judge that the assurance of the Apostles Faith came from that sight Doth he or any ground Faith upon the sight of those who beheld Christs Miracles while the very best Eye-witnesses believed not because they saw them but upon this strong Motive that Christ told them he was sent from God to teach eternal truth and that now risen he was the same Saviour who had been dead Gods Infallible word therefore rightly called Divine Revelation not seen by any mortal eye grounded the Apostles Divine Faith relies not upon the sight of à Miracle Faith and so it likewises doth all true Christian Faith in the world to this day Now if the Dr tell us when he saies the assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of sense his meaning only was that the sight of those Miracles were Inducements to believe Christ's revealed Doctrin and made that not evidently seen evidently credible He first speaks improperly in calling those visible matters of fact the Foundations of Faith Account P. 119 And. 2. destroyes the certainty of Christian Doctrin by endeavouring to prove it immediatly true before he evinces it evidently credible And this he doth by introducing à new set of Motives different from those of the Catholick Church which both Jewes and Gentils scorn and in reallity neither evidence the Truth to such men nor the Credibility of Christian Religion much lesse have any reference to the Thing he calls Protestancy as will appear afterward 11 To make my Assertion good turn courteous Reader to the Doctors Account Part. 1. c. 7. P. 204 where he offer 's to resolve the Faith of Protestants though he never meddl's with the Novelty as I have largely proved Protest without Princ. Disc 1. c. 9. In this place I am to show that his Discourse tend's to the ruin of true Christian Religion also Supposing what he will have with all might and main Supposed that there is no Infallible Church 12 There are saith he three Questions to be resolved in the resolution of Faith First if I be asked on what grounds I believe the things to be true which the Dr's discourse deâ—â—â—ed in 〈◊〉 own â—ords are contained in Scripture My answer must be from the greatest evidence of truth which things of that nature are capable of If therefore the persons who are supposed to have writ those things were such who were fully acquainted with what they writ of and cannot be suspected of any design to deceive men by their writings and if I be certain that these which go under the name of their writings are undoubtedly theirs I have sufficient grounds to believe the truth of them He add's more These writers cannot be suspected of ignorance for they wrot these things when the story was new and some of them had been conversant with the person and actions of him whom they writ of That they could have no intent to deceive appear's from their simplicity and Candour both of their actions and writings from their contempt of the world and exposing themselves to the greatest hazards to bear witness to them Finally that these writings have been unanimously received by Christians and never doubted of by Iewes His pretended rational evidence for the first act of faith or Heathen Philosopher Thus the Dr plead's for the evidence of the first act of Faith whereby he believes those things true which are Doctrin more at large not in to leave it unexamined as he usually doth mine but to shew the unreasonableness of it while he makes all along à bare Supposition his best and only proof Or speak thus and you fully express all he saies Some body wrot the things contained in Scripture Ergo all that appear's there is true because writen 13 To prove by reason that the things contained in Scripture are true he first begins with Ifs. If the persons who are supposed to have written such things were fully acquainted with what they vvrot of If they cannot be suspected of any design to deceive men If is be certain that such uvritings are theirs c. Observe I beseech you These conditional Propositions carry no other weight with them but thus much only if
and proved an Infallible Teacher independently of his clearer interpretation It is impossible while we believe S. Paul speaking obscurely for S. Paul delivering the Sence of his own words more clearly 11 Now Sr look upon your own pretty Circle VVe believe say you the The D's Circle retorted upon himselfe Church to be infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith so And you believe the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth because the true sence of S. Paul's words explicated by Apostolical Authority saith so Moreover Say you VVe believe this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so and could not you Sr have believed such à Sence of the words now cited had S. Paul delivered it because either he or some other infallible Apostle said so This is only to assert in plainer Terms that the darker sence written in Scripture by one Infallible Oracle can be cleared by the Interpretation of the very same or any other Infallible Oracle which lead's no man into the least danger of à vicious Circle 12 Pray tell me Mr Dr when you in your Account interpret our Saviours words This is my body according to the Sence you judge true do you intangle your Reader in à vicious Circle By your new way of Arguing it's plain you do For those who read or hear your interpretation assent to it as true because the true Sence of Scripture saith so And again they believe this to be the true Sence of Scripture because you say so Your Interpretation has some influence upon the assent of those that believe it be it Condition Cause or what you will otherwise it signifies nothing but And yet made more Clear stand's like an useless cypher in your book This granted your Circle is manifestly vieious for you run in à round from your supposed true interpretation of Scripture to the true Sence of Scripture and back again from the true Sence of Scripture to your supposed true Interpretation Mark well Your Interpretation is proved or believed true by the true sence of Scripture here is your only ground and the true Sence of Scripture is again proved or believed true by your supposed true explication Hence it followes that either your interpretation is not according to the true Sence of Scripture God forbid say you or that the true Sence of Scripture correspond's not to your supposed true explication or finally this must be granted that you run round in à Circle and prove the one by the other 13 Perhaps to avoid à Circle it will be said you prove not your Interpretation true by the true sence of Scripture but evince that upon other grounds distinct from Scripture Viz. by the Authority of Fathers your often alleged sence and reason and God knowes what Is it so indeed Dare you Sr most shamefully quit the only main prop you rely on which is Scripture when you stand most in need of it whereof more presently and yet charge on me à vicious Circle while I believe the true Sence of Scripture because an infallible Church declares that Sence Cannot I more rationally would I seek Subterfugies evince the Infallibility of the Church by other proofs drawn from Fathers Church authority and reason and plead as you do to avoid à Circle were it necessary But I like no such Shuffling I positively assert the Sence of Scripture is therefore proved and believed true because the Infallible Church saith so though if questioned further I must bring in my reason why I believe this Oracle Infallible yet the immediate ground of my beliefe is the Churches Interpretation given upon Christs words now cited and I rest upon her Authority by Faith though this Interpretation be not the first ground why I believe her Infallible but that other more general received Truth that proves Her Gods own Oracle in all she delivers as matter of Faith which general Truth observe it well is most rationally evinced without any recourse to or dependance on Scripture And this is only to say that à Divine Oracle first proved Infallible can interpret Scripture without danger of à vicious Circle 14 What I here assert is undeniable for had any Apostle explained those words in the Gospel I and my Father are one answerable to the Sence now believed in the Church Viz. That Christ our Lord is the eternal Son of God consubstantial with his Father could not the primitive Christians have as firmly fixed their beliefe upon those words Infallibly interpreted as the Disciples fixed their Beliefe upon our Saviours Interpretation when Luke 8. 9. he fully explained the Sence of that Parable concerning the Sower and Seed These and the like Interpretations are believeable matters of Faith upon this Principle that every Interpreter whether Christ or Apostle was supposed and proved Infallible independently of that Sence they gave to God's sacred words and so is the Church as is already declared 15 The Dr ' s Confusion and whole mistake lies here that he has not yet got perfectly into his head the right notion of à vicious Circle and therefore P. 428. wishes I had told him the Secret I will do it briefly and then make his errour more known 16 A vicious Circle Mr Dr ever implies two Propositions or in à Circular What à Vicious Circle implies discourse two Syllogisms Here we will insist upon Propositions being more plain and easy then to proceed by long Syllogisms Know therefore when any first Proposition is assumed to prove the second and this second is made use of without further light to prove the first again or that very thing which is asserted by the first the Circle is notoriously vicious For example One endeavours to prove man to have Free-will because he is indowed with an intellectual Faculty then return's again and proves him intellectual because he hath Free-will the second Proposition implies à Circle because the thing proved which is Liberty or Free will not otherwise evinced but by mans being intellectual is made use of to prove that Power and so in effect Liberty or Free-will becomes à Medium to prove it self by 17 Observe well This vicious consequence whereby man seem's evinced à free Agent or indowed with liberty takes all the force it hath from the Antecedent of his being intellectual and wholly relies on that Medium If therefore as it here fall's out that Consequence whereby Liberty is asserted without any more light or further proof be again assumed as the only Medium to prove man intellectual Liberty or Free-will by its proving man intellectual proves it self and thus hic nune is both Antecedent and Consequent Antecedent as it is the Medium to prove man Intellectual and Consequent as it is the thing proved by Intellectuality which flaw is ever manifest in all vicious Circles as Aristotle notes well Lib. 1. Post cap. 3. 18 Now on the other side should I take this Consequence concerning Liberty which is deduced
from the Antecedent of mans being intellectual Should I prove that Consequence upon other grounds either by Authority or manifest experience because we se men freely eschew Evil and embrace Good should I from thence inferr that he is Intellectual the Inference now guarded by other proofs barely subsist's not upon the strength of its Antecedent but is à Verity known aliunde and therefore is rightly called Regressus utilis à rational profitable Regress free from The difference between a Circle and à profitable way of Arguing all vicious Circulation For as Philosophers teach grounding their discourse vpon Aristotle now cited A vicious Circle is à Regress or going back ab eodem ad Idem per eandem viam from the same thing to the same again and by the same way as appeares in the Instance proposed where the Antecedent assuming Intellectual proves Liberty and Liberty not known as I said upon any other proof but by that Medium Intellestual return's again and by the very same way proves Intellectuallity This is to say the Consequence as known by the Antecedent offer 's to prove at once both it self and the Antecedent together Had Dr St well reflected upon what is here noted he might easily have spared his lost labour spent upon à vicious Circle and it is à wonder be wanted reflection because Sextus Empiricus cited by him in the short discourse he has of that he calls à Diallel gives every one light enough to se what the Dr it seems saw not though Sextus be none of the clearest Authors 19 Thus much premised we proceed to the matter now in hand and Assert If any one should in the first place either believe or prove the Sence of Scripture to be true by the Churches Interpretation not otherwise believed Infallible or proved true but barely by her Interpretation and should again goe about to prove her Interpretation true by nothing but her own Interpretation which explains that true Sence the Circle would be manifest because the true Sence of Scripture interpreted by the Church is again assumed An application made to the matter now in hand as the only Medium to prove her Interpretation true which way of Arguing essentially implies à vicious Regress from the very same thing to the same thing again and by the very same way But if I first prove the Churches Infallibility in all She teaches upon other Grounds without any recourse at all either to the words or Sence of Scripture as is shewed above and from thence both prove and believe her Interpretation to be infallibly true that man who holds this way of Arguing Circular knowes no more what à Circle is than Doctor Stillingfleet A little touch upon the Dr ' s weak Obiections will yet give more clarity 20 Is not that à Circle saith he P. 428. when the Argument made use to prove another The Dr's Obiections answered thing by must it self be proved by that very thing which it is made use of to prove Very good Sr these general Terms hurt no body to your Application therefore in the next page The thing to be proved Say you is the Churches Infallibility the Argument to prove it by is the Infallible Sence of Scripture Answ I flatly deny the first proof of the Churches Infallibility to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture for the first Argument is taken from that general Truth whereby She is owned and proved God's Infallible Oracle in every thing She teaches concerning Faith and this independently of Scripture Here I say more It is impossible to prove her first Infallible by the Sence she gives of Scripture because that Sence is not known before She interpret's and no body goes about to prove any thing by meer insignificant Characters without their Sence Can the Dr who hold's the Church Fallible and must if he ever evince that prove it by Scripture probably take his Proof from Scripture not senced It is plain Dotage to do so He goes on But if the Infallible Sence of Scripture can be proved by nothing but by thē Churches infallible Interpretation then it is plain that is assumed as an Argument to prove Infallibility by which cannot be otherwise known than by this Infallibility What To argue from Scripture not Senced is Non-sense Infallibility doth the Dr speak of in these last ambiguous words If he say we prove the Infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches infallible Interpretation I grant it Jf contrarywise he thinks we prove in the first place the Churches Infallibility by her own infallible Interpretation of Scripture he err's grosly as is already made manifest and therefore proves nothing 21 In à word either the Sence of Scripture is known by the Churches Interpretation or is clear by it self If known upon the Churches Interpretation the Sence is one and the same with that of the Scripture for these two Oracles can never clash or differ If known by it selfe as it is in many Passages relating to manners no more is required but that the Church ascertain us of the Scriptures Divine Inspiration So that still we depend upon the Church alwaies for the assurance of Scripture being Divine or from God and in the greatest Mysteries of Faith we rely on it also for the true Sence 22 A second obiection It is à little strange that there should be no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose Sence could not infallibly be known without the Supposal of that Infallibility which is proved by them Answ It s more than à little strange that the Dr cannot distinguish between the first general act of Faith whereby the Church is believed Infallible without depending on Scripture and à second more explicit and Consequent act which wholly relies upon Her interpretation and Scripture together It is also strange if God pleases to speak obscurely as he certainly doth in many Passages of Holy Writ that another Infallible Oracle cannot tell us with he mean's without Two Strange Mistakes in the Dr. à vicious Circle The Substance of all he obiects here only amount's to thus much We prove or believe the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose sence cannot be infallibly known without the supposal of that Infallibility If he mean's as he must by supposal and that Infallibility the Churches Infallibility I have answered the Church is not only supposed but proved also infallible before Scripture was written and before She ever went about to interpret that Divine Book 23 A third Obiection is the like Tautologie over again and therefore requires no other but the same Solution If saith he the Infallible sence of Scripture be resolved into and believed upon the same infallible Authority of the Church then I still enquire how this infallible Authority of the Church comes to be proved by this exposition of Scripture the Infallibility of which doth suppose the thing to be proved Viz. the Churches