upon our Dr's vvritings to se vvhere Satisfaction is given A. B. vvho excellently vvell makes it out and solidly proves what he asserts Viz. That Dr St A. Bs. first letter Page 3. and 4. is à very Fanatick as right an Euthusiastick in Iudgement and Beliefe as any one in all England yet after à diligent search have met with no answer to the Author of that pithy letter These things and many more would time permit I should insist upon and must though it lengthen's the Preface à little take notice of one particular the foulest and most gross I ever read in any You have it in the Doctors General Preface vvhere he bitterly inveigh's General Preface Paulo ante medium against the Doctrin of Attrition which the Church and all Catholicks hold though by it selfe it justifies not yet in the Sacrament of Penance it disposes à Sinner to See the Council of Trent Sess 14. c 4. â—um tamen ad Deigratiam in Sacramento disponit impetrate and obtain the Grace of God VVhether it be à full sufficient disposition in the Sacrament to grace without Contrition is another Question Now comes the Dr and demand's How do They the damned want the Sacrament of Penance in Hell for no doubt there is Attrition good store there The Sacrament of Penance in Hell Dr Attrition good store in Hell I read these words with horrour and stand astonish't at this height of stupidity Pray Sr vvho can absolve in Hell VVhat Divels Or who are there capable of Absolution Damned Souls Answer I beseech you Are such Souls in your opinion capable of Baptism or of that you call the Lords Supper You will say no. In like manner say I and speak with the whole Christian world they are as uncapable of the Sacrament of Penance Sacraments Good Sr serve only for the living on their way to Eternity and benefit none departed this life O! but Attrition whereof there is good store in Hell troubles the Dr. Here you have also the like gross Ignorance and therefore I answer in à word If the Dr call eternal horrour everlasting shame and despair Attrition he may find great store indeed but these miseries inseparably attending the damned are as remote from that Attrition vvhich the Church and Catholicks maintain as Hell is from Heaven The Catholick attrition as the Council now cited declares is Dei donum the gift of God wrought in à Soul by the impulse and motion of the Holy Ghost and though it tend's upon à less perfect Motive than Contrition yet it is à Supernatural Operation If you Mr Dr speak not of this Attrition you fight vvith Shadowes and touch not Catholick Doctrin I might in this place also show how grosly the Dr is mistaken in his quoting Gregory de Valentia but I hasten to my own affaires and shall briefly tell you how and in vvhat manner I proceed vvith this Adversary The Dr you know hath employed himself and time upon two very different Subiects the one hard and Speculative the other more easy containing matters of Fact set forth vvith this Title An Enquiry into the Miracles of the Church of Rome In this first Part I follow him as he goes along and reply to his Cavils not one I am sure if any be worth notice as few are is omitted by me I discover also his Shuffling and as occasion fall's out mind him here and there of what he should prove though he never doth it I shew moreover that the grand Principle he relies on called à Faculty of discerning allowed every one to judge of the Scriptures Sence in the most necessary points concerning Salvation is not only evidently unsound but likewise highly injurious to God and Truth for by it he licences every Arian every Anabaptist every Fanatick and Quaker who have as good discerning Faculties as the Dr can glory in to uphold that Sence they draw from Scripture and maintain it as true though false and heretical and this forsooth is done because malice vvill not brook God's own Oracle to teach when we stand most in need of Instruction After my grounds given for the Churches Infallibility I urge the Doctor to produce à Proof from any received Principle whereby it may but probably appear that à Church once confessedly Orthodox and right in Faith is errable or ever erred In that speculative Contest about Faith transcending the certainty of Motives I evince that not only the Dr doth de facto but all others must subscribe to the truth I Propugn and own it as an undisputable Verity Much more I have against the Doctor better known by à full perusal of the Treatise than by any Summary laid before the Reader in à short Preface In case he vvill reioyn I vvish him vvhat ere becomes of the rest not to pass over my tvvo last Chapters where first I largely insist upon that he call's his rational Evidence of Christian Religion which I shew every way defective and besides demonstrate that the true Evidence for Christianity is not as the Dr would have it either destroyed or in the least measure endamaged by the Doctrin of Transubstantiation In the 10th and last Chapter I discover the Dr's too manifest errour in his unskilful charging à vicious Circle on us while we resolve our Catholick Faith I tell him which he knowes not what a vicious Circle essentially implies and demonstratively clear the Church from all shadow and danger of à Circle May it please the Dr to give me Satisfaction in these two main matters now Specified My exceptions against him are plain and also vouchsafe to solve another difficulty proposed in this Treatise concerning the means Christ has left to bring all open Dissenters in the fundamentals of Faith or Necessaries for Salvation to one beliefe that is to understand the true genuin Sence of God's word without an Infallible Church May it I say please the Dr to do only thus much I will not only highly applaude his labours but freely quit him of blame though he trifle never so much with me in his Answers to the rest of this Treatise Now in case he take courage to reply whereof I doubt very much it is hard to say what humour he will be in what Vizor or Shape he may assume Perchance he vvill appear with his pageant-like piety and renew his promises of vvriting fairly as becomes an Ingenuous Adversary Very good if he answer as fairly and home I am vvell content It may be quite contrary he will bear me down vvith bigg vvords and call me Philosophical fool vvitless fellow brainless Saucy bold and all that naught is No matter say I if he answer's my obiections I can digest all It may be he will without much notice taken of my Arguments repeat all or the most he has said already it is à usual trick of Sectaries and entitle that an Answer to this Treatise if so he will need no great Sophist to lay open the cheat But what
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
of those word's Truths whereof the Dr hath not Evidence whereby you judge the Trinity is revealed Have you evidence of their being words divinely inspired Have you any thing like evidence of the Mystery believed No All the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles wrought cannot make these particular truths to appear evident to any in this State yet Orthodox Christians believe them Infallibly true by Faith and therefore you Sr are as deep in à Dungeon as any you ieer at get out how you can 16 The rest that followes is nothing but an idle sporting with S. Paul's Doctrin Heb. 11. 1. Is it not pretty saith the Dr because Faith is called an Evidence therefore it must be inevident Because it is called an Argument therefore it can use none What stuff is here Who ever said that Faith uses not Arguments Or called it à Conviction but as the Apostle speaks of things not seen Soon after he has à â—ash at me and it reaches S. Austin also I had said no merit or thanks in believing had we evidence of the Mysteries we believe and I speak with S. Austin In Evangel Ioan. Trac 79. This is the praise of Faith if that which is believed be not seen For what great thing is it if that be believed which is seen According to that sentence of our Lord when he rebuked his Disciple saying because thou hast seen me Thomas Thou hast believed Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed CHAP. VIII The Doctor 's Discourse from page 400 to P. 416. Considered and found weightless 1 HEre the Dr would fain rescue another Argument taken out of his Account from the obiections I made against it Reas and Relig Disc 2. C. 2. n. 5. And you may se him hard put to it for The Dr hard put to his Shifts proofs when to shew the Church no way necessary to ground Faith he run's up to the woman of Samaria Iohn 4. to Barbarians and others who all received Divine Revelation and believed without an Infallible Church In plain English he would inferr that the Christian Catholick Church before it was perfectly founded or owned as God's Oracle did not then ground Faith therefore it could never do so after its compleat establishment Is not this an heroical attempt Tell me Mr Dr. what sence have we in this Inference The Samaritan woman believed Christ when the Church was not perfectly in being Therefore S. Austin when it was an absolute built moral Body erred much in saying He would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholick Church moved him to believe it VVhich authority once weakned saith the Saint in the same place contra Epist Fundam I cannot believe the Gospel S. Dyonisius and Damaris Act. 17. who knew nothing of the Churches beginning at Hierusalem on whitsunday hearing S. Paul an Infallible Oracle preach believed Ergo Christians that lived in time of the Nicene Council could not then believe the Church What Logick is this Nay more in the Dr ' s Principles that Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Church stands there to no purpose because forsooth in some extraordinary circumstances and occasions Faith may be had without knowledge of the Church of Scripture and of Christ also For many Divines hold that Barbarians by meer contemplating the visible works in nature may without the teaching of à living Oracle come to the knowledge of one God as à Rewarder and have Faith available to Salvation Now here is the Dr ' s erroneous Principle that which in some circumstances serves to beget Faith may ever serve and in all occasions 2 The unsoundness or rather Nonsence whereof I will demonstrate against Mr Dr. The ancient Christians had true Faith before the Canon of Scripture was extant Now that holy Book being published and received all over our Dr ground 's his Faith upon it only Ancient Christians had true Faith before scripture was written as it s understood by every man's discerning faculty what therefore once was no rule nor ground of Faith because not in being afterward becomes à ground when it is known and published Just thus we discourse of the Church When the woman of Samaria and some Barbarians believed the Church was not founded nor known or owned by all as Gods Oracle but afterward the foundation of it being perfectly laid and Pastors and Doctors appointed by Christ to teach the world it was owned for God's Oracle and then brought with it an obligation upon all to hear and believe it 3 The reason hereof more amply laid forth in my last Treatise is taken from the express constitution of Christ who erected the Church as à most facile clear and living Rule of Faith This great Master assures all that whoever hear's the Church hear's him That Faith comes by hearing and therefore Pastors and Doctors are appointed to teach to the Consummation of Saints unto the work of the Ministery for the edifying of Christ's Mystical body c. Wherefore Baronus in his Apodixis Tract 9. puncto 2. ingenuously professes That the Testimony of the present Church is à condition necessarily required to believe the authority of the Scripture because Faith comes by hearing Hence I argue A law made by Christ is to be observed the ordinary means appointed by the Law-giver Himselfe for the grounding of Faith ought in no case to be neglected But Christ hath obliged all who believe to rely on the Christian Church ever since She was made an Oracle known to the world as is largely proved Reas. and Religion through the whole Second Discourse therefore though by accident or in some very unusual circumstance men have had Faith without any knowledge either of Scripture or Church Yet now after the Churches compleat establishment and Her long continuance to exclude her Authority and believe upon any other ground would be so great folly and rashness that God may justly deny his supernatural Grace to such unadvised Believers who therefore would not have Faith to Salvation 4 Pray you tell me should à Barbarian that never heard of Church or Scripture yet may probably believe in God as à Rewarder of Good by à meer contemplation of the Heavens c. Should I say such an one come to the knowledge of Christ of the Scripture and of the Church gloriously illustrated with all her Motives Can this man think you in these new circumstances of à greater light neglect all and believe that God will reward good upon the old motive to wit the visible beauty or motion of the Heavens No That belief would now be imprudent and upon that account unavailable The Dr's grand Principle proved forceless to Salvation VVhat therefore serves to ground Faith in some circumstances serves not in all We have yet another Instance against the Dr who hold's there is à Thing in being called the Church of England where he preaches and pretend's to settle his Faith upon Scripture only Would he
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
Infallibility To what purpose Should we lose time Have not I answered that the Churches Infallibility stand's firm upon other grounds before Scripture be either owned Divine or the Sence of its difficult passages can be known Have not I moreover said that that general Truth of the Churches Infallibility must necessarily be proved and supposed antecedently to the belief of this or that particular Interpretation For who can fix his Faith upon the exposition of any Divine Oracle without being first ascertained it is God that speak's by it The Instances given above most clearly evince what is here asserted Please to make use either of our Saviours interpreting his own Parable Luke 8. concerning the Sower and seed or of S. Peters exposition given to the Prophet Joel They are one and the same in order to my present Intent We prove or believe that to be the true Sence of our Saviours Parable because eternal Truth interpreted it so but do we again first prove or believe him to be eternal Truth because he then delivered the true Sence of that Parable to his Disciples No. For by this lame way of arguing we should prove the Sence of the Parable to be true upon our Saviour Interpretation and again prove him à true Interpreter because he interpreted Mark well the Dr's confusion We Catholicks saith he believe the Church to be infallible because the true The Dr's Confused Doctrin Clearly driven back vpon himselfe Sence of Scripture saith she is so And you Sr believe our Saviours Interpretation upon that Parable to be true that Parable is now Scripture because our Saviour interpreted it so Again we believe this to be the Infallible sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so And you Mr Dr believe this to be the Infallible Sence of that Parable because Christ said so Here Sr you have your own Circle in express Terms Judge whether it stand's not something awry What must be done then to get out of this Confusion All must answer Though we believe our Saviours Interpretation by an Infallible act of Faith yet we first prove him not infallible because he interprets but suppose his Infallibility made out and proved upon other grounds independently of his explication And this is our Answer also as to the Church whereof enough is said already and more than ever the Dr will or can Answer 24 P. 430. the Doctor once more run's on with the same Tautologie and because I said the Scripture and Churches interpretation indivisibly Concur to that latter act of Faith whereby we believe the Sence of Scripture explained by the Church he tells me This indivisible concurrence Seem's to him an odd piece of Mystical Divinity I Answer no great matter for that as odd as it is he must own it if he believes S. Peters infallible Interpretation upon the Prophet or the exposition given to the Royal Prophets Testimony Psal 131. 11. Foreseing saith the Apostle His Tautologies and ill words he spake of Christs Resurrection Acts. 2. 31. Se more of this indivisible concurrence Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 11. n. 10. The rest our Dr hath to his page 433. is either the like Tautologie VVe prove the Churches Infallibility by the Infallible Sence of Scripture and the infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches Infallibility Or most uncivil language or finally a foul ending with à gross mistake for he thinks our Faith rest's upon no Infallible Authority because we have none to rely on but Motives Confessedly fallible It is à perverse errour already refuted 25 To end this Controversy about à vicious Circle wherein the Dr. P. 431. account's me à Conjurer and one that speak's things which neither he nor any one els can understand I have right me thinks to enquire by what means or upon what grounded Motive can the Dr come to à certainty of the Scriptures true Sence In proposing this Question I might easily retaliate and tell him Though he Conjure cheat and shuffle his whole life long he shall never yet clear this one difficulty without recourse to an Infallible Church The proof of my Assertion stand's sure upon this most undoubted principle The true Sence of A difficulty proposed and the Dr is desired to Answer Scripture in many passages relating to Necessaries for Salvation is no Selfe-evidence nor can it be certainly known by that endless Search or mispent industry of private men as appear's by those many most opposit and plain contradictory Interpretations which the learned of different Religions give to these and the like Expressions in God's word I and my Father are one The word is made flesh There are three that give Testimony in Heaven c. Not one of these Passages though pondered and compared with other Texts in Holy Writ doth Evidence its own true Sence Therefore the means whereby it is discovered or the Oracle which infallibly ascertain's it must necessarily be both distinct from the dark words now cited and also more clear and plainly significant than the yet concealed Sence is we seek for Now further Neither Calvins private Spirit nor the Dr's rational Evidence nor Tradition without nor Grace within as Bishop Lawd speaks in the Dr ' s Account P. 186. n. 15 nor finally any other Medium which is not Scripture can infallibly declare this Sence as is largely proved both in this Treatise and the last Therefore an Infallible Church must either do God and man this good Service and certainly tell us what Scripture Speak's in these Necessaries for Salvation Or the true meaning of God's Word will be just like Some useless airy nicity not worth knowing still matter of debate ever disputable but never known Thus much said in answer to the Dr's Speculative part we passe in the next Discourse to à serious view of his long Drollery and simple exceptions made against the glorious Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church and Shall God willing evince that in this Treatise where he thought to triumph most he is foiled and hath disgraced none but himselfe An end of the first Part. A DISCOVRSE CONCERNING MIRACLES WROUGHT in the Roman CATHOLICK CHVRCH in vindication of their Truth against Doctor Stillingfleets unjust Cavils VVHERE The Miraculous Translation of the Holy House OF LORETO is Asserted and proved an undeniable Verity BY E. W. The second Part. ANTWERP Printed by MICHAEL CNOBBAERT at the Sign of S. Peter in the Year 1674. Dr Stillingfleet in his second Discourse Chap. 3. P. 434 makes an Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church I follow him as he goes along and lay open the ill Success our Inquifitive man hath had in his Search which will I hope appear to every one after à full view taken of what is proposed in the ensuing Treatise Peruse and judge Courteous Reader CHAP. I. How I formerly argued in behalfe of our Churches Miracles The Dr in his Enquiry waves my Arguments Of the difference between Christ's Miracles and those wrought by
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
these as inducements lead to it but upon God's speaking by the Church as is now declared 5 Having thus cleared the first act of Faith from all danger of à Circle because it ultimately rest's upon God's speaking by the Church made by it self immediatly credible without recourse to Scripture yet not known to be Divine or God's infallible word I add moreover N 9. If we speak of another distinct consequent and more explicit act of Faith whereby we believe the Churches Infallibility evidenced null and forceless when this Oracle declares the Scriptures true Sence which proves her Infallible there is no difficulty at all because this interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon Scripture and the Churches Infallible exposition together for thus ioyntly taken they ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles as if we first believed the Scriptures sence independently of the Churches interpretation and then again believed the Churches exposition to be infallible because the sence of Scripture known without any dependance on Church Authority saith She is Infallible Our good Dr set's down these words more at large and desires the Reader to try his faculty upon them what tolerable sence he can make of them I answer more learned faculties in Speculative matters then the Doctor 's is have made sence of them and that 's enough to ward off his weak blow of contempt Now I am to discover his fallacious and more then simple way of Arguing against me 6 The whole difficulty is brought at last to the true decision of this Question Whether one Infallible Oracle while it explicates the darker Sence of another The difficulty concerning à vicious Circle proposed likewise Infallble cannot be believed for it self without à vicious Circle One or two Instances will clear my meaning The Prophet Ioel. 2. 28. long before S. Peter lived Prophesyed of the effusion of God's divine Spirit upon all flesh which words dark in themselves that great Apostle Acts. 2. 16. interpret's as spoken of the pouring out of Gods Spirit upon the Apostles in the feast of Pentecost This is that saith S. Peter which was said or foretold by the Prophet Ioel. Observe well S. Peter was proved an Infallible Oracle before he interpreted this Passage of an Infallible Prophet so is the Church proved Infallible before She interpret's any words in Scripture S. Peter used or exercised his Power of interpreting infallibly not first proved infallible by his Interpretation but upon other grounds wholly independent of that Sence he gives to the Prophet So is the Church first proved infallible independently of all and every Interpretation She gives of Scripture Finally as that darker Sence of the Prophet made clear by the Apostles Infallible Interpretation indivisibly concurred to the Faith of the Primitive Christians so also the darker Sence of Scripture cleared by the Churches interpretation indivisibly concur's to the Faith of Believers now 7 Ponder well the force of this Instance and you will soon se through the Dr ' s trivial Obiections I say in à word An Instance worth reflection Had S. Peter proved himself in the first place Infallible by the Sence of that Scripture he then interpreted the Circle would have been Manifest because the thing proved which is the infallible explication of Ioel is assumed again or first made use of to prove S. Peter and his explication infallible But when the Apostles Infallibility in every Doctrin of Faith stood firm upon other grounds though he had never written Scripture nor interpreted any Prophet that man must be quicker sighted than Aristotle who find's à Circle in it This is our case as to the Church She is in à general way supposed and proved infallible in every Catholick Doctrin independently of this or that particular taught by her one particular is the true Interpretation of Scripture more rightly called the exercise and use of her infallible Assistance then the proof The use of the Churches power destroies not â—â—er power of it but evinces not herselfe in the first place to be infallible because She interpret's for that is antecedently proved upon other grounds therefore unless the use of Her power wherewith She is indued to interpret infallibly destroy that power it is impossible to catch her in à Circle while she interpret's 8 Thus much premised You shall se the Dr ' s Obiection melt like wax before the fire Iudge Reader saith he P. The Dr's own words 428 whether here be not à plain Circle Because they believe the Church infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith she is so and again they believe this to be the infallible sence of Scripture because the infallible Church saith so Judge Reader say I whether one plain distinction overthrowes not this feeble fallacy and thus it is We first believe the Church infallible because the true Sence of Scripture saith she is infallible I deny it for that first act of Faith is not at all founded on Scripture We believe the Church infallible by à second more distinct and explicit Faith indivisibly fixed on Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together I grant that most willingly Now this second act of Faith must if we make à right Analysis be at last resolved into this other general Truth VVhat ever God speak's by the Church is certain and infallible which general Truth stand's firm without recourse to Scripture at all The reason is Whatever Argument proved the Church God's infallible Oracle in all She taught before Scripture was written proves Her also without depending on Scripture the same Infallible Oracle still 9 The other part following in the Dr ' s discourse is wholly as lame VVe believe again this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so I answer we believe so indeed but by à second more explicit act of Faith which The Dr's absurd fallacy unravelled supposes the Church proved infallible antecedently to her Interpretation where there is no shadow of à Circle for if the Church be owned infallible in every matter of Christian Faith thus much only followes that when She interpret's the same God that once spake obscurely in Scripture declares his meaning more clearly by his own Oracle the Church 10 One example where you shall have the Dr ' s circle as round as à hoop will yet give more light Imagin those words of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. 15. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth to be as Sectaries will have them obscure or not openly significant for the Churches Infallibility Suppose again that S. Paul or any other infallible Apostle had delivered in clearer terms the true Sence of them nay suppose he had told us the true meaning of those words The Pillar and ground of truth is just so as Catholicks now believe Could Mr Dr or any man living have found à vicious Circle here had S. Paul been owned