without all hope of bettering it The Assertion stand's firm upon this ground No man can rationally charge errour upon à whole Church never censured by any in former Ages but known and condemned Hereticks without Principles more convincing vveighty and ponderous than the Churches Sole Authority is But there are no Principles in Being powerful enough to uphold any such discourse and not to make long vvork about à manifest Truth pray tell me vvhither can the Dr goe for Principles vvhereby the Church is proved so much as liable to errour Will he take recourse to the unanimous consent of Fathers The attempt is desperate while they generally teach quite contrary Doctrin as is amply proved in my two last Treatises Nay more can the Dr produce Se Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 14. n. 10. â—1 one ancient Father who saies plainly the Roman Catholick Church can err I will return him hearty thanks if he point out one but suppose which is false one or two glance at any such thing have their doubtful words thinke ye force enough to Counterpoise the Authority of So renowned an Oracle as this Church is Say I beseech you what if one or two English Dr's should boldly tell us that the nine and thirty Articles are matters of Divine Faith and that all vvho teach the Doctrin are by Divine Assistance made Infallible Oracles is this sufficient to overthrow the Sentiment of the vvhole English Church vvhich hold's Herselfe fallible in delivering the Doctrin She maintains No certainly Much less say I can the Authority of one or two Fathers only supposed not proved of à different opinion in judging the Roman Catholick Church errable availe one whit to make it probable that She is guilty of errour or liable to it when contrary to Protestants both She and all the learned Dr's of one Faith with her boldly assert She cannot erre Hence I infer that no Authority taken from this or that ancient Father much less from this or that private man can rationally oppose the Church in her just claim to Infallibility The next Principle the Dr and others use to rely on is taken from General Councils approved by the Church How I beseech you or in what manner Did any Council ever yet expressly define that the Church can err You will say no but these Councils contradict one another and no infallible Oracle doth so The weakest Pretence and least worth of any For doth not Holy Scripture also seemingly speak contradictions in many Passages You will say though they appear like Contradictions yet learned men have already cleared such Antilogies Besides Scripture is God's word and all know that God cannot contradict himselfe Very right this is my Answer also The learned of our Church have over and over cleared all such passages in Councils as appear to some short sighted eyes contradictions from all opposition and we more assuredly know that the Roman Catholick Church is God's own infallible Oracle than any Sectary can shew by reason that Scripture is the word of God or written by Divine Inspiration Please now to compare Principles together The Dr impeaches this Church of errour and takes his proofs from the seeming Contradictions of Councils A Catholick Adversary no less learned than he solves all the Dr Obiects The Church while these two Combatants are hot at vvork stand's by and positively declares She never delivered contrary Doctrin in any of her Councils Here is the Clear Catholick Principle Against this Principle the Dr makes his exceptions which thousands and thousands as learned as he judge to be feeble forceless and long since ruined Fallacies The Question is now and t is worth the while to drive it on further because it is most useful in all debates with Sectaries The Question I say is vvho shall judge in this Contest between the Church and this Dr vvith all his exceptions Have vve means to know vvho speaks truth in so vveighty à matter and upon vvhom the errour lies To clear this you shall se how indifferently I proceed I will as yet neither suppose the Church nor the Dr blamable but leave this to the just trial of some Iudge let that Iudge be named and much is done The Church never censured by any Orthodox Christian and defended by the most learned in the world think 's her own Authority worth something and powerful enough to bear up her cause against à single Dr with all his crew of Sectaries but let that be yet disputable whither will the Dr lead us for à final Sentence in this yet debatable case Has he any ancient Church any consent of Fathers any one word of Scripture any received Tradition whereby he evinces the Church errable in her Councils These are excellent Principles but I absolutely assert he has none of them not one vvas ever yet produced by him nor shall hereafter be brought to light while the world stands as is clearly made out both in this and my former Treatises Contrarywise it is certain that the Church and all her learned Doctors plead strongly by every one of these Principles therefore She stand's upon surer grounds than the Dr vvho as I now said has none of them The Dr may reply These very Scriptures and Fathers the Church plead's by for her not erring are only doubtful proofs and therefore convince nothing I answer if these be doubtful the Dr's Assertion vvhile he saith They are doubtful is I am sure no selfe-evident Truth but either utterly false or at least fearfully doubtful and therefore must be proved by à stronger Principle than his own proofless vvord Leave us not now Mr Dr in darkness give us I beseech you some light of that Principle or ultimate proof vvhereby it may appear that you speak truth or so much as Sence vvhen you tell us All our proofs alledged in behalfe of the Churches Infallibility are doubtfull and controverted Name the Church the Fathers or Councils Scripture you have none that speak as you do You may introduce Sectaries vvho say so but they come unarmed vvithout Scripture Church-authority Fathers or Tradition and to these men of yesterday vve oppose thousands more ancient on our side Thus Mr Dr we proceed in every other particular Controversy and will shew you when you please so non-plus't and soon driven to an end of all discourse for want of Principles that the ultimate proofs of your Assertions whether you defend Protestancy or impugn This great truth I intend to enlarge further upon another Occasion Catholick Religion Shall at last be brought to nothing but to your own bare naked and unproved Assertions themselves which stand tottering unprincipled Now that you may se I speak seriously I challenge you once more to discusse with me this particular Question concerning the Churches Infallibility and if after all you have said or can say I make not vvhat is here asserted manifest I vvill acknowledge my errour before the vvhole vvorld The ground I stand upon is
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
if he take Pet What if passion and ignorance drive him into à humour of Contempt VVhat if he lay all thought of answering aside and Satisfy some few of his own Gange by an odd Querie as he once did Cannot à dull book come out with my name in the Title but I must be obliged to answer it No I assure them I know better how to spend my time Well Courteous Part. 1. Page 72. Reader if he run this way I have done and say no more but what all will vow that the of oyle of the Doctors lampe is well nigh if not wholly spent Among the many wayes here briefly hinted at time I hope may tell us how he will behave himselfe I expect his Answer A word now if you please of what I shall handle hereafter Dr Still hath published two spiteful ridiculous Treatises justly offensive to every Iudicious man the one is his simple charge of Idolatry shamefully and without judgement laid upon the Roman Catholick Church thanks be to God he hath been soundly baffled for it The other is his wild Enquiry after Miracles vvrought in the same great Moral body of Christians and this I engage to answer though indeed the juggling the palpable Sophistry the manifest falsities vvherewith that vvhole Discourse is seasoned return you the best Answer and plainly tell you The Enquiry made by him is in à vvord vvorth nothing abating this one point that it exposes the Author as he deserves to publick contempt VVhat in Gods name came into the Dr's head to vvrite as he hath done against all Miracles Many Protestants I am sure as you shall see afterward ingenuously acknovvledge true Miracles to have been vvrought in the Roman Catholick Church others of the worser sort allow at least an appearance of them though perhaps done by the help of Divels but the Dr seem's in Several Passages not to allow us so much as the outward Semblance of à Miracle and all along own 's not one of them true VVhat shall â—e say to this man VVill he grant that the Iewes bad true Miracles among them and deny the like Grace and Priviledge to the Christian Church VVill he allow the gift of working Miracles to two great Prophets Enoch and Elias at their appearing again when the Church will be neer an end and take from her all Signs all true Miracles during the vast space of time between the Apostles and the latter dayes of these two Prophets VVill he say and he must say it when Antichrist comes that that false Prophet will do strange wonders yea in appearance great Miracles though all rotten and full of guile and shall Christ's own Spouse the true Christian Church be so abased so vilely thought of by one that professes Christianity as never to have vvrought by God's special favour so much as one true Miracle never to have Shewed any other vvonder but vvhat Divels have done and Antichrist will do by his charm's vvhen he comes to delude the vvorld Gentle Reader these things are horrid and better befit à Proficient in Atheism than one that bear 's the name of à Christian But more of this in the Treatise vvhere I shall discover the Dr's intolerable fraudes which run through his vvhole Discourse and show also vvhat Catholicks understand by Church Miracles vvherein the Dr grosly err's for he thinks every uncertain Story related by this or that too credulous Author often censured by the Church passes amongst us for à Church Miracle There is no such matter the Miracles vve chiefly rely on and defend are rigidly examined attested by oath and made every way so morally certain before they gain Approbation that no man in prudence can call them into doubt Those other related by private Authors are either probable dubious or manifestly false If all Circumstances Considered they appear probable vve own them as such and go no further If dubious vve suspend our judgements and leave them in that uncertain Condition If false vvhich is easily known upon Examination vve utterly reject them The rest that belongs to this weighty matter Concerning Miracles you shall have God vvilling hereafter part vvhereof is added to this Treatise The remainder I hope vvill follow before many Months come to an End Farewel Courteous READER THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST PART CHAP. I. VVhat moved the Author to write this short Treatise How weakly Dr Stilling trifles with his Adversaries A touch of the Dr's new way in Arguing Of his simple exception against the word Infallibility How the Infallibility in the first Propounders of Faith depend's upon the present Guides of the Church Pag. 1 CHAP. II. A few Considerations premised concerning Infallibility Express Scripture proves The Church Infallible No one word for her Fallibility alleged by the Dr. An Argument proposed against the Doctor 32 CHAP. III. Doctor Stillingfleets Rule and ground of faith proved no Rule It lessens not in the least the Churches Infallibility 42 CHAP. IV. Doctor Still Arguments answered His unintelligible jumbling discovered A word briefly of the ground of the Churches Infallibility The Churches Guides teach infallibly 61 CHAP. V. Doctor Stillingfleets pretended Answer to E W s Two books Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion shew'd no Answer but à meer shuffling or palpable digression from the main point bandled in those Treatises How the Dr shift's off the only difficulty wberein satisfaction is required 96 CHAP. VI. Dr Still grant's that Faith transcend's the Certainty of those Motives which induce to believe Independently of his concession that verity is proved and the ground thereof firmly setled Hovv necessary it is to distinguish betvveen the Credibility of à Mystery and the infallible believing it true Obiections ansvvered Other difficulties proposed 123 CHAP. VII Reflections made upon the Doctors follovving Discourse Of his Mistakes concerning the Churches Testimony and the obscurity of Faith 154 CHAP. VIII The Doctor 's Discourse from page 400 to P. 416. Considered and found vveightless 174 CHAP. IX Dr Stilling pretended Evidence for Christian Religion proved nothing like Evidence His Evidence taken from Sense in the Mystery of the holy Eucharist demonstrated Sensless How vainly he endeavour's to prove by Miracles related in Scripture the Truth of the Doctrin there registred A word of his Tradition and many other errours 193 Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition what Christ did and spake 226 CHAP. X. The Church proved Infallible before She interpret's Scripture The reason hereof The Doctors gross errour in charging à Circle on us in the Resolution of Faith What à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 236 THE CHAPTERS OF THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. How I formerly argued in behalfe of our Churches Miracles The Dr in his Enquiry waves my Arguments Of the difference between Christ's Miracles and those wrought by the Apostles and in the Church What is meant by Church Miracles Of the Cheats which run through the Dr's
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
Again those ancient Miracles though supposed true are far from giving any undubitable assurance by their Sight alone without further light that such was and yet is the genuin and pure Sence of God's word for how many thousands are there now in the world who willingly own all the Miracles wrought by Christ and yet are at implacable discord concerning the true meaning of what our Saviour and his Apostles taught which strifes cannot be ended by à bare owning those Miracles true but by the Infallible Decision of an ever living manifested Church I say manifested by Miracles and other weighty Motives that laid before mans rational Power led it on to believe in Christ and his Church for these two Articles go together and are proposed in the Creed as necessary believeable Verities I believe in Iesus Christ I believe the Holy Catholick Church As therefore to believe all that Christ taught confessedly required the light of glorious Motives whereby his Doctrin Christ was manifested by rational Motives and so is the Church was made Credible to reason so also to believe what the Church teaches requires the like light or an answerable evident Credibility grounded on convincing and rational Motives I desired the Dr Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 16. n. 28. to consider how cold and faint Christian Faith would have grown in the hearts of men before this day had all Church Motives fail'd or ceased soon after the Apostles preaching Had no more Conversions been wrought no more Martyrs dyed for God's truth no more contempt of the world been evidenced in thousands and thousands and finally had no other Miracles been don in after Ages but such only as the Scripture relates It is therefore open impiety in the Dr to slight all Church Motives and her Miracles calling them à grand Salade too often served up It is worse then Perverness to tell us as he doth in his last book P. 665. That the Doctrin of Christ and his Apostles being confirmed by Miracles wrought by them there can be no The Continuation of Miracles proved necessary such necessity in succeeding Ages to confirm the same Doctrin by Miracles I have answered this very Obiection Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 7. and shewed the Continuation of Miracles in the Church both useful and necessary not only because our Saviour fore told they should be done Iohn 12 but upon this account also that the Conversion of Infidels to Christ was wrought as well in the Ages after the Apostles as when those blessed men preached to the world If therefore the first Apostolical Miracles were necessary to convince unbelieving Jewes and Gentils Then it is plain ungodliness to deem them fruitless Now when God is pleased to work them by Missioners lawfully sent to convert as Barbarous Nations as ever S. Paul preach't to 24 Again Miracles most evidently have been wrought and very frequently The end of God's Concurring with his servants to work Miracles I ask for what end did God concurr with his Servants to do them No other reason can with probability fall into mens minds but this That an infinit Power and wisdom intended thereby to make his Church glorious and to induce the most obdurate hearts to believe her Doctrin The Dr yet seems not satisfied for he thinks the conveyance of the Apostolical Miracles being wrought for the benefit of succeeding Ages may well serve the turn in all after Times without more I wish this man were sent with his Bible to some Barbarians in America who never perhaps heard of Christ or Scripture and only read them such Miracles as Scripture relates without working any himselfe as S. Xaverius and other Missioners have done How many think ye would the Dr draw to Christ if he told his Hearers that all the certainty men have of those ancient Miracles and Christ's Doctrin comes from fallible Tradition which may be false My thought is he would convert this way very few or rather none at all Let others judge as they please Now because the main ground whereon he relies is his much driven in conveyance by Tradition we will bestow à little pains upon it and shew if ever man lost himselfe in a Labyrinth it is Dr Stillingfleet Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition what Christ did and spake 25 THe Substance of the Dr ' s Discourse Account P. 205 is thus Tradition to us doth only supply the want of our senses as to what Christ did and spake it being à perpetuated sensation and of the same use to us now as if we had been actually present with Christ and seen his Miracles or heard his Doctrin when he delivered it Soon after It is apparent that the use of the senses to those The substance of the Drs Discourse laid down in his own words who saw Christs Miracles and heard his Doctrin was not to give any Credibility to either of them but only to be the means of conveying them those things which might induce them to believe The same is Tradition now to us it doth not in it selfe make the Doctrin more credible but supplies the use of our senses in a certain conveyance of those things which were Motives to believe them Hence he inferr's That the motives to the primitive Christians and to us are the same only the manner of conveyance differ's 2. He inferr's as it was not then necessary for those who saw our Saviours Miracles wrought for the confirmation of his Doctrin to have the inward Testimony of the Spirit or any external Infallible Testimony of à Church to assure them that those Miracles were really done by Christ but God left them to the judgement of sense so proportionably neither of these two are now necessary for the resolution of Faith but God instead of sense leaves us to the evidence of Tradition Thus the Dr where you se his whole labour spent in vain and à gross mistake with it for he think's the main difficulty lies in the conveyance of the things written in Scripture to this Age whereas the reall difficulty is to prove that there ever were any He waves the real difficulty such things true and written by Divine inspiration as he supposes to be conveyed Unlesse this particular be first rationally evinced the Turks will dare to argue as the Dr doth In Mahomet's time there was reason to believe Mahomets Miracles and wonders Ergo there is reason to believe them now because they are conveyed down by Tradition And thus the followers of every false Sectarie may make any Religion true But here is not all 26 Mark I beseech you how pitifully the Dr shuffles He own 's à tradition which conveigh's unto us what Christ did and spake That is we may No man is wiser by the Dr's lame Tradition know by his fallible tradition received among Christians that our Saviour wrought such Miracles and spake such words for example I and my Father are one The word is
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
they undervalve his private discerning faculty and prefer their own quite opposite to his May both he and they hold contradictions in the most essential Points of Faith and be saved If the Dr hath not such Latitudinarians I am sure there are à world of them in England Be it how you will his Principle is not only unsound but pernicious also and distructive to Christian faith as is now proved 19 You may here expect that I solve the Dr ' s Arguments alleged in behalfe of his Principle or 13 Proposition cited above I shall briefly touch some few though its scarse worth the pains for they fall of themselves to nothing by what is said already The rest I leave to his learned Adversary N. O. and could have wish'd to have seen in the Dr ' s two last little Books something that bear 's the face of an Obiection against the Churches Infallibility but he is wary and knowes well to shuffle when need is CHAP. IV. Doctor Still Arguments answered His unintelligible iumbling discovered A word briefly of the ground of the Churches Infallibility The Churches Guides teach infallibly 1 THe Dr P. 100. demand's whether Christ our Lord and the Evangelists may not justly be charged with not speaking the will of God plainly if those who heard them understood not their Doctrin I Answer first in case of not understanding they had infallible Teachers at hand for their further instruction and made use of them you good Dr have none such I Answer 2. It import's little to our present purpose whether they understood or no without more light when Christ for example said I and my Father are one while Christians both now and in former Ages highly differ about the sence of that speech and cannot certainly say this is God's true meaning or that the words are his without an Infallible Teacher But what may one reply can we infer because some mistake the sence of Scripture therefore all do so No truly but this Inference is good if some mistake and others not its Necessary to have the mistaken clearly distinguished from the sincere Believers otherwise à Seeker after truth may as well become an Arian as à sound orthodox Christian The Question therefore is how or by what means this severing the faithfull from the misled wholly necessary for Salvation may be exactly done without erring 2 The Dr. P. 101. most tediously rambles on to no purpose at all Is not Christianity saith he therfore highly recommended to us in the new Testament because of the perspicuity wherein the Doctrins and Precepts thereof are delivered And yet after The Dr is to shew what Christianity among so many Dissenters is commended in Scripture this cannot the most Necessary parts of it be understood by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them To answer this meer nothing it 's enough to ask What Christianity is commended to us for its clearness and perspicuity Is it Arianism Nestorianism or Protestanism It little God knowes avail's to know in General that some Christians are right in the beliefe of the Scriptures most necessary Part while no man can say to what Church they belong or who they are 2. It is most evident notwithstanding the Scriptures supposed perspicuity that very learned grosly err in the prime Necessaries for Salvation and doe all these clearly se the right meaning of it Here the Dr is obliged to tell us who are the blind or misled and which he ever unluckily waves how those he call's sincere Endeavourers may be distinguished from others supine and negligent And they ought to be known in the Dr ' s Principles for if the discerning FAculty in every man can easily find out the necessary truths for Salvation by reading Scripture it may I hope more easily discover the open Professors of these truths or that Christian Society where such truths are taught 3. Suppose Scriptures were writ for this end to teach all Necessaries how can the Dr prove that the search after them is committed to every private man's erring changeable Faculty Why not as well to the Pastors and Doctors of that Church whereof private men are members Now and here arises an insuperable difficulty what if these private men highly dissent from their Pastors concerning Necessaries five or six for example in Holborn from Dr Still Those denie Christs Godhead which he believes Both produce Scriptures and sence them differently who is to yeild in this contest the Dr to his Hearers or they to the Dr 3 This difficulty the Doctors worthy Adversary proposes with reference to the Church Governours and ask's whether these may not be presumed to understand the Scriptures meaning in order to Necessaries as well as ordinary Rusticks and if these be supposed to use à sincere endeavour in their pondering Scripture much more may we suppose it not wanting to the Guides of the Church And are we not here again saith N. O. arrived at Church Infallibility Se the Drs first part P. 138. 4 Never was man more intangled in hammering out à solution to any Argument The Dr much intangled in Solving à difficulty than our Dr is here First he wishes N. O. had kept to his own expressions and not forced in that term of Infallibility then to divert the Reader with nothing he repeat's again his whole 13 Proposition and because he well understand's not what is meant by men being infallible in Necessaries he makes it capable of three several senses 1. That men are infallible in judging of Necessaries to Salvation Or. 2. That they are infallible in teaching others what are Necessaries to Salvation These two meanings the Dr rejects and yet approves à third Viz. Men are infallible in believing such things as are Necessary to Salvation 1. e. That such is the Goodness of God and the clearness of Scriptures that no man who sincerely desires to know what is necessary to Salvation shall be deceived therein Yet more Though saith he I know no reason for useing the term Infallibility thus applyed yet the thing in it selfe I assert in that sence And what now can be inferred from hence but that the Guides of the Church supposeing the same sincerity shall enioy the same priviledge 5 If all this be not an unintelligible jumbling I never read any Pray reflect Men are infallible in believing such things as are Necessary for Salvation and yet are not infallible in judging of these Necessaries How can they infallibly believe Necessaries and not infallibly judge of them by that very infallible assent they give to Necessaries Again They are infallible in believing Necessaries but not infallible in teaching others the Necessaries to Salvation What is this to say Cannot men commissioned to instruct others teach that infallibly which they believe infallibly The Dr believes infallibly the high God head in Christ cannot he open his mouth and convey infallibly this Truth to others capable of believing infallibly were he lawfully sent to Preach 6 Now if by
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
those books to be Divine I answer 1. That in the Age when the Doctrin was delivered there was sufficient reason to believe it Divine He goes on Supposing then that we already believe upon the former answer that if Christ did such unparalleld Miracles and rose from the dead they who heard his Doctrin had reason to believe it to be of God He mean's Divine and revealed Doctrin for all Doctrin of God or from God is not in our Sence now Divine or revealed Doctrin Thus much said He asserts 2. If they the ancient Christians had reason then we have so now Viz. to believe upon our Saviours unparalleld Miracles From these matters of fact and Apostolical wonders the Dr takes his rational Evidence and conveigh's it to us by Tradition our exceptions made against his evidence which supplies the want of our Senses as to what Christ did and spake I shall presently insist more largely n. 26. upon his Tradition Here I am to show that his Evidence in order to Christians now living is nothing like rational Evidence if and this he requires we exclude the Testimony of an Infallible Church 19 To propose plainly what I would say and to give the Dr the fairest play imaginable I gratis admit all the Miracles and matters of fact recorded in the Gospel to be most true though hitherto not proved true by the Dr but then ask what use will he make of them He may answer he proves by these Miracles the Doctrin of Christ to be true Admit this also I demand further and here lies the main business that concern's us at present whether the Doctor can assure any by virtue of where the main difficulty is those Miracles who at this day among so many dissenting Christians in points of Faith most fundamental believe and profess Christ's true Doctrin For his rational Evidence if it deserve the Title of rational must drive hither at last or its worth nothing to Christians now living that is he must shew by these long since wrought Miracles whether Arians Pelagians Protestants or Catholicks have à right beliefe of Christs Doctrin for most certainly all of them believe not the true Doctrin delivered by Christ I say it is impossible to make this out unless the strangest Consequence that ever man heard of be good and it 's thus Christ rose from the dead He commanded the sea and winds and they obeyed his voice He gave life to dead Lazarus c. Ergo the Arians for example profess Christ's true Doctrin and Protestants not Or Contrarywise Protestants believe right and the Arians are in a wrong Faith Unless this Inference which is worse than Non-sence pass current the Doctors pretended rational Evidence taken from those ancient matters of fact is the most fruitless and most discomfortable Evidence that ever wise man pitch't upon whereof more presently n. 27. Note in the mean while he may perhaps and no more but perhaps tell us by his the Dr's rational Evidence demonstrated â—seless to Christians now living Evidence that Christs Doctrin in it selfe is true but shall never thereupon assure us who among so many Dissenters in Necessaries to Salvation believes or professes that true Doctrin He may tell us that horrid debates arise amongst the learned of different Religions but shall never tell us how they can be composed or ended by à bare owning the truth of Christ's Miracles which are carried up and down by à common humane consent of Christians though they have none to attest them Infallibly true in this present State 20 Please now to consider how differently we Catholicks proceed in this matter and satisfy both Jewes and Gentils We own all that Scripture contain's whether Miracles or Doctrin true and Divine To evince this we lead you not to à dead book or to matters of fact far off but to an ever living Oracle distinct from that book called the Holy Catholick Church which proves herselfe by her neerer visible matters of fact signal marks and undoubted Miracles as rationally à true Oracle whereby God speak's to the world as ever any Apostle did From this glorious signalized and long standing Church we take our rational Evidence and know if the Primitive Christians took theirs right from the Apostolical wonders we no way Inferiour keep parallel with them while we rationally rely upon our clear manifested Oracle Moreover we prove that this Church which hath power from God to teach and engages her whole Authority to teach Truth shewes herselfe by real Signs and Miraculous effects the greatest Oracle now under God appointed to instruct the world It is She if Controversies arise concerning Faith that composes all She assures us that the verities in Scripture written by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost are Divine She applies and conveigh's these ancient truths to us She tells us now How differently we proceed from the Dr in our rational Evidence and Infallibly what Christ's Doctrin long since made evidently Credible by his own most glorious Miracles is She finally ascertain's every one without doubt and hesitancy who they are that profess this revealed Doctrin And thus relying upon à rational evidenced Church we Shew our selves rational men and void of fear set our hearts at rest while the Dr by à bare relation of our Saviours Miracles now remote from us proves not one of these particulars but will forsooth evince the Doctrin in Scripture to be Divine upon à meer unproved Supposition that such matters of fact once were which yet cannot be evinced true sufficient as I said to ground Faith much less Divine without the Churches Testimony whereby full assurance is given to all in this present State that both Doctrin and Miracles are true and Divine 21 The Dr therefore should in the first place have proved the Divinity of Christ's Doctrin and from thence he might have inferred it's Truth but to evince it Divine to Christians now upon what the Dr should aimâ— at but perform's not à meer unproved Supposition Viz. That such matters of fact are true is a break-neck to his Discourse and an unaproachable way of ever comming to the Conclusion he intend's because his aime must be or he doth nothing to show by his Evidence what Society of Christians now living believes and professes the true Doctrin of Christ or how Chrst's true Society may be made discernable by those ancient Miracles from others that teach damnable Doctrin Herein he fail's and shall fail while an Infallible Church is rejected 22 These Considerations clearly laid down no less clearly evince the Dr ' s resolution of Faith to be frivolous and his rational Evidence unreasonable for tell me not by his Evidence what Society of Christians are now right in Faith prove me not that Scripture was written by Divine assistance Shew me not that the truths related there are Truths revealed by Almighty God the whole Doctrin of that book and all the Miracles in it signify nothing 23