what is supposed True be true it is true and we ought to assent to it Just as if one should say if Peter be à man of his word I may believe evidenced null and forceless him but as that conditional proves not Peter honest no more do these Assertions of the Dr being only conditional prove any thing true without à Minor to this sence But these things are so which Minor is wanting The Dr think 's he proves his Assertions upon these grounds That the writers of Scripture cannot be suspected of Ignorance having had long conversation with him they wrot of Their simplicity and candour in writing gives evidence they intended no deceipt with all the rest that followes I answer these are nothing like rational proofs but meer unproved Suppositions whereunto neither Iewes nor Gentils give credit I evince this demonstratively Put the book of holy Scripture into the hands of à Heathen Philosopher who never heard of Christ of the Church or of any other Motive for Christian Religion but only takes so much as the Dr here proposes and what the Scripture it selfe barely relates Would this Philosopher think ye after his pondering the Dr ' s Discourse and reading Scripture forthwith acquiesse and say all is true he reads He were worse then besotted did he so If prudent he would tell you he had joyntly perused with Scripture the Turks Alcaron and as he found strange wonders written of Christ in the one book so also he met with great matters recounted of Mahomet in the other for which the Turks pretend to have universal tradition but whether Scripture or the Alcaron speaks truth whether such men as the Dr mentions related exactly the Miracles of Christ and his true Doctrin with those Miracles the Philosopher knowes not nor shall ever know without à further proof taken from the testimony of some other Infallible Oracle which makes the truths in Scripture evidently credible and then proposes all as Divine and infallible Verities 14 The ultimate reason hereof is most convincing All matters contained in Scripture whether Miracles or The reason of their nullity said forth Doctrin are not ex terminis any Self evidence nor can they give by themselves so much as à great moral certainty of their Truth or Credibility Therefore they must be proved either true or evidently Credible by another Certain Oracle or can never draw belief from any I am sure S. Austin who discoursed more profoundly than the Dr ever did judged So when he told the Manichaes He would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it and upon this firm ground all must believe or believe nothing The Dr ' s whole discourse proves only this conditional truth that if the Primitive Christians had reason to believe the Doctrin of Christ upon the inducement of his Miracles they did well to believe but that such Miracles were wrought he shewes not save only by Scripture it selfe hitherto neither proved True nor Divine I say proved For no Christian doubt's of the truths there contained though all justly question whether the Dr makes them to appear Truths by à bare telling us of some Contents in that book which neither Jew nor Gentil nor indeed any can believe unless more be said than the Dr bring 's to light 15 In à word here lies the whole errour He makes the Christian Doctrin Wherein the Dr's errour lies couched in Scripture to prove it selfe and drawes his rational Evidence of Credibility from the Mysteries believed Observe well He believes the Resurrection of Christ from the dead for this is an Article of Faith can he I beseech you make the Resurrection it self as believed the rational Motive of believing it while after all his discourse we are yet to seek for à proof of that very Scriptures Truth and Divinity also whereby the Resurrection is attested 16 The Dr may reply his evidence is not taken from the Mysteries of Faith Apos◠reply 〈◊〉 seen and prevented and from our Saviours Miracles the like is of Apostolical wonders as they are believed but from the Humane consent of the Primitive Christians who either saw or heard of such matters of fact wrought by Christ and his Apostles which common consent passing among so many grave and pious men made them in those dayes evidently Credible and Morally certain though we abstract from all Divine Revelation in Scripture and the Churches Infallible Authority I answer first if the Dr run's this way his whole discourse fastidiously spun out against the Miracles of the Roman Catholick Church fall's to nothing for if the common humane consent of the ancient Christians Supposed neither Devine Revelation nor infallible raised The common consent of the ancient Christians and modern for Miracles parallel'd our Saviours Miracles to Moral certainty or evident Credibility Then why should not the like common humane Consent of Christians Now make the Miracles owned in the Roman Catholick Church morally certain or evidently credible And I speak of Miracles approved by the Church not of every forged tale or pretended false wonder which were not wanting in the Primitive times If therefore the Dr say that all since the Apostles dayes have been grosly deluded in recounting the Miracles wrought in the Catholick Church both Jewes and Gentils will shrewdly pester him and avouch as boldly that those Primitive Christians over Credulous what Iewes may obiect like papists in these dayes were no less beguiled in their crying up Apostolical Miracles What say you to this Mr Dr The parity taken from the primitive times and ours I shall urge more fully hereafter and tell the Dr he shall long sweat at it before he solves what I here object if which is ever to be noted we stand only upon à common humane consent of men called Christians and abstract from the Authority of an Infallible Church 17 I answer 2. The enquiry here made concern's not only the bare truth of these matters of fact recorded in Scripture but implies more for we ask how what is here chiefly enquired these matters of fact are rationally proved truths written by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost or how when supposed wrought sixteen Ages since they are now conveyed and applyed to us as Truths of so high à nature No common consent of Christians meerly humane and long since past can give Sufficient certainty hereof sufficient I say to ground Divine Faith Wherefore seing Scripture evidences not it's own truths nor any reflection made upon Scripture can clear these doubts an infallible living Oracle manifested by supernatural Signs must speak and tell us that these matters of fact were written not like other things in humane History which are lyable to errour but by the special direction and inspiration of the Holy Ghost 18 Hence we proceed to the second Question If saith the Dr I be asked why I The Dr's second question proposed believe the Doctrin contained in
If therefore the Proponent saies only doubtfully I think God speak's as I teach but am not certain the Assent given to his teaching is only doubtful If he truly say I teach infallibly what God reveal's the Assent in à faithfull Believer answer's and is infallible See more hereof in the pages now cited all waved by the Dr. 10. P. 79. Having slightly run over my assertions the man begin's to bristle up This saith he is the sum of the Principles of that Metaphysical wit Hold there good Doctor In the 28. page n. 9. wholly omitted by you I give à better Sum and tell you that none can teach Christian Doctrin who truly ownes not God an Infinit verity the Author of it but he that only teaches fallible doctrin which may be false cannot truly own God the Author but some other fallible Proponent that may both deceive and be deceived Whence I conclude that God never sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles to teach à Christian Doctrin which by virtue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on is meerly fallible and may be false Therefore some other God never sent any to teach fallible Doctrin which may be false malignant Spirit and not God sent Sectaries to teach their supposed fallible and easily falsified Doctrin Upon this ground more amply explain'd in the place now quoted I rely as on an invincible proof and petition the Dr to return à close Answer without trifling needless parergons vain distinctions and yet slighter stuff which ever take up the most room in his books and weary a Readers patience Se now how roughly he begins with me 11. Sure saith the Dr alluding to my Assertions à man must have his brains well confounded by School Divinity and hard words before he can have common sense little enough to think he understand's them For ought I ever yet saw in Dr St writings his brains are not too much burden'd with that dangerous learning had he more of it common sense not easily lost by School Divinity would have guided him to write more to the purpose But stay Courteous Reader is this the Doctors The Drs new way in answering new mode of confuting Propositions First lamely to set them down and then to rail at the Author Would not his Doctors hip take it ill think ye should any one confute all his late books by saying barely his brains were so turned and confounded with Heretical fancies that in real truth he knew not what he wrot What was it that gall'd him How could he wrest any thing said by me to the least offence I set down plainly my Assertions and he answers not one but becomes peevish surly and outragious Is this à Christian way of writing Controversies If he thought my Assertions deserved not à scratch of his pen why did he meddle with them and allow them so much room as to fill two pages in his book And if he judged them worthy to appear there why has he not replyed to some of them Hear the Doctors excuse 12. I never loved saith he to spend time How peevish and blunt the Dr is in confuting à man who thinks himselfe the wiser for speaking things which neither he nor any one els understand's Can any thing be more blunt What if I cheer up into some briskness and tell him wiser than he far more grave and learned have without rubbing their foreheads easily understood all that he slights What if I add it is à hard matter for one who has been long in Schools to deal with à half Scholar unacquainted with speculative learning Though what great speculation have we in any one of my Assertions Such men as these when their brains reach only to à vulgar notion of things think all amiss if you follow them not just in their old hackney pace or say any thing though never so little above their Ken. In case the Dr account me uncivil for touching his talent in learning let him thank himselfe who first began the quarel 13 Next he run's God knowes whither and saies he rather chose to put together such Propositions as might give account of Christian Faith without all this Iargon of infallibility And as I take it he relates to the Principles which slipt from his pen in one hour or other when his head turn'd round and are yet to be seen at the end of that pitiful Book concerning the Idolatry practized by the Church of Rome If so good Dr follow friendly Counsel and as you tender your credit talk no more of those Principles for they are not only torn in pieces by four at least of your Adversaries but moreover to my certain knowledge are scorned by some of your own learned coat who look on them as the most senceless things you ever writ next to your late infamous His unreasonable Cavil piece of Idolatry But in passing what shall we say to his Iargon about infallibility Is not I beseech you Iargon à far more obscure Term then the word Infallibility Yet the Dr Complains's of hard words Few I think of the vulgar know that Iargon signifies sustian language pedâ—ers French or à barbarous jangling yet all have à clearer notion of the word Infallibility and doth not Mr Dr apply it à hundred times over in his Account to God to Christ our Lord and to the Apostles who were all infallible in what they taught the world Now if he hold it not rightly applyed when we speak of the Church he is to impugn that by reason and not to quarel with à harmless word as if witchery lay in it 14 Soon after this raillery he tells us he will fix the Notion of Infallibility for saith he as it is used it seem's à rare word How and to what Infallibility is rightly applyed for jugglers in Divinity to play tricks with For sometimes they apply it to the obiect that is believed He mean's or it 's Nonsence to all that God reveal's and call that Infallibly true Very well done I think for so that word of Faith which S. Paul preached Rom. 10. 8. with testifying to Iewes and Gentils Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ was Acts. 20 21. obiectively taken infallibly true Doth the Apostle juggle here O but sometimes they apply it to the subject capable of believing and say all persons ought to be certain that what they believe is infallible true Most undoubted also if they believe what God speak's Let all the house of Israel most certainly know that God hath made him Lord. Acts 2. 36. I know whom I have believed and am certain 2. Tim. 1. 12. And to show how firm and Infallible Divine Faith is in the hearts of true Believers the Apostle tell 's the Galatians 1. 8. Although we or an Angel from heaven preach to you otherwise then that we preached to you let him be accursed Thus Scripture speak's of Divine Faith and attributes certainty to it What jugling lies here
particular Revelations because they are ordained by Providence to ascertain every one in particular of what God speak's no hurt at all I easily accord but his words and meaning Seem quite contrary for first he will have all the Guides of the present Church inspired in their teaching as the Apostles were inspired by some celestial vision or Divine illustration Or he thinks they cannot teach Infallibly Nay more Nothing saith he P. 82 Can make the Faith of particular persons Infallible but private Inspiration which must resolve all Faith into Enthusiasm and immediate Revelation Were this true which the Dr never offer 's to make out by any proof but his own fallible word every private person might as securely write holy Scripture as any Prophet or Apostle for the chiefest Prerogative granted these great Masters was that the very words they wrote expressed the internal inspiration of the Holy Ghost or his private Revelation and upon this account are rightly called Gods own words When the inspiration was clear they expressed it clearly when obscure obscurely as we se in the dark Prophesies of the old Testament and in the Book of the Apocalypse 17 Catholicks in lieu of the Doctors Inspiration and Revelation ordinarily use The word Assistance used by Catholicks the word Assistance or Guidance of the Holy Ghost which neither implyes Enthusianism private Revelation or Prophetical illumination but the safe conduct and infallible direction of that Blessed Spirit whereby the Guides of the Church are preserved from errour in the substance of that Doctrin they oblige Christians to believe whereof see more in my last Treatise Disc 3. c. 12. n. 9. To assert therefore as the Dr doth that nothing can be more absurd than to say There are infallible Believers without infallible inspiration is not only an unproved whimsy but to speak in his homely language more then absurd if he knowes what Inspiration properly import's 18 P. 83. He saith first that those persons whom God hath imployed to make known his Doctrin must give assurance that he hath secured them from mistake and errour and then add's But to suppose that we cannot believe the first Infallible Proponents he means the Apostles unless there be such in every age is to make more difficulties and to answer none And therefore he saith in the foregoing Page It is unconceivable that ' persons should be more infallible in judging the Inspiration read Assistance of the present Guides than of the first Founders of the Church For then all my beliefe of the Infallibility of the first Proponents must depend on the evidence which the present Guides of the Church give of their Infallibility 19 This vulgar Obiection solved over and over in my two last Treatises contain's nothing like à difficulty and the Dr who will not I hope disdain to be one of the Guides of the English Church must confess it to be wholly strengthles for when he preaches to his people in The Dr's objection solved Holborn and doctrinally explain's that great Mystery of the Incarnation or tells them I suppose truly though not infallibly of an admirable Hypostatical union whereby two distinct natures Divine and humane are joyned together subsisting in one Divine person and in saying thus much gain 's belief from his Auditors when this I say is done One that 's curious demand's of those Hearers upon what motive dare they ground their faith in believing so sublime à Mystery It 's answered they believe it because God an Eternal Verity deliver's the truth in Holy Scripture But ask again whether Scripture in express Terms makes mention of that Hypostatical union or of the two different Natures united together They answer No Yet tell you that their Doctor to lay forth the Mystery more fully assures them all is true and because he is their Guide they no more suspend their Faith but believe Now if in the third place you demand whether the Verity of this Mystery depend's upon the Dr's teaching which is the only thing here stumbled at They answer no for the Verity was proposed from Christs time yet this influence his Teaching has over their Faith that he both shewes what was anciently revealed and now applyes that ancient Doctrin to their weak capacities not hitherto so exactly conceived or laid forth 20 Here you have something like that I would express and if the Dr were as infallible in his teaching as we now suppose him to speak truth we should soon agree In à word Catholick Faith as S. Thomas excellently well observes 1 Part. q. 1. art 8 ad 2. necessarily relies upon the Revelation made to the ancient Prophets and Apostles who wrote Divine Scripture and yet more primarily upon Christ our Lord's teaching Now as the Apostles often declared more fully what our great Master of truth infallibly delivered and in this sence explain'd and compleated his Doctrin so also the Church of Christ in all Ages since declared more amply what both Christ and the Apostles taught concerning the Mysteries of Faith and in this sence not only explain's what they taught but proposes it also infallibly as the certain Doctrin delivered by Christ and his Apostles and upon this account is rightly called Conditio applicans à necessary condition applying it to our capacities Hence you se though the ancient Truths were primarily matter of Faith yet to Believers in succeeding Ages they stand as it were remote from all and need this immediate Proposal of the Church living and actually teaching 21 The reason hereof if you make à true Analysis of Faith is clear For ask why I believe the Incarnation I answer the first Guides of the Church revealed it in Scripture but enquire again what assurance have I of that Revelation which is not exterminis evident much less are all the particulars belonging to the Mystery already laid forth evident I answer the Attestation of the present Church manifested by supernatural wonders gives me my last assurance and How the Infallibility of the first proponents of Faith depends upon the Churches present Guides therefore either is à partial formal obiect of Faith as I defend Reason and Religion Disc. 3. c. 12. n. 8. 9. or at least an intrinsical necessary condition as shall be afterward declared Thus you se how and in what manner the beliefe of the Infallibility of the first Proponents depend's on the rational Evidence which the present Guides of the Church give of those first Proponents Infallibility The verity of the Mystery attested and considered in it selfe depend's not upon the present Guides for it was true before they taught but à farther and more exact declaration of it not discoverable before the Church speak's and the immediate application of it respectively made to Believers depend's on these now living Guides And this also the Dr must confess when by his preaching he truly applyes the high mysteries of Faith to the understanding of his Hearers 22 The Dr takes not his measures right in
is to say one part of Scripture proves another before the whole book is proved upon any certain Authority to be God's word or written by the Holy Ghost From hence 2. the necessity of an Infallible evidenced Church is necessarily inferred The necessity of an Infallible Church evinced from our discourse which only bring 's us out of the Labyrinth wherein the Dr is lost This Church as I said proves by her infallible and never interrupted Tradition that Scripture is God's word She and She only ascertain's all that the Contents in Scripture are Divinely inspired and finally when difficulties arise concerning the Sence in controverted passages relating to Necessaries composes all strifes otherwise endless and bring 's all to à perfect unity in Faith 31 I say lastly Could the Dr evince that the book of Scripture contain's true Doctrin could he shew the Doctrin Not one Protestant Tenet proved by Scripture of it to be as it truly is Divinely inspired he yet hath not one clear Sentence in the whole Bible understood according to the obvious sence of the words which proves so much as one Tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestancy is distinguished from Popery and the Doctrin of all known condemned Hereticks The proof of this Assertion is largely laid forth Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 20. from n. 4. to the end of that Chapter and because I really judge Protestancy utterly ruined upon the reasons there alleged I petition Dr Still to review that short Discourse and if I judge amiss to unbeguile me by à plain Answer showing wherein my Arguments are fallacious 32 I except in that place against his empty Title called A rational Account of the grounds of Protestants Religion and prove as I think demonstratively that if you cast out of Protestancy all it's Negative Articles which the Dr confesses are no Essentials the remainder will either be what the Catholick Church teaches and therefore not peculiar to Protestancy or the Doctrin of some one or other condemned Heretick In so much that in the whole Essence of Protestancy you will not find one Truth revealed by Almighty God necessary for Salvation or ever taught by any Orthodox Church And Nor one Necessary for Salva tion found in Protestancy herein it differ's not only from Catholick Religion but as I take it from all ancient Heresies for both Arians and Pelagians the like is of the rest thought their particular Doctrins revealed by Almighty God and necessary to Salvation Otherwise they had been worse than besotted to abandon the Catholick Tenents for opinions meerly or Positions not necessary to Salvation Se more of this subiect Disc 3. c. 18. n. 8. 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 VVhat à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 1 THe rest that followes in the Dr from P. 423. is all along meer Confusion or à horrid jumbling in à speculative matter concerning the resolution of Faith and the notion of à vicious Circle which he truly understand's not but wonder nothing you can expect no better from halfe Scholars in speculative learning if I make not what I here assert manifest blame me boldly 2 To rescue my Doctrin from Blunderers and the Dr if I ever met with any is one I am forced to set down plainly part of it That done you shall se how remote the Dr is from medling with it The most he would except against you have at large Reas and Relig. Disc 3. c. 5. n. 5. where I answer an Obiection proposed in his Account P. 127. And assert Seing Scripture evidences not it selfe to be divinely inspired some other Infallible Oracle distinct from Scripture necessarily ascertain's that The Church not first proved Infallible by Scripture Truth and this is the Church which as rationally proves herselfe by Signs and Miracles an Oracle whereby God speaks independently of Scripture as ever any Apostle proved himself to be so before Scripture was written Hence I inferred that the Church was ever and is yet in à General way believed infallible by Her self and for Her self upon this ground that God speaks by Her as his own Oracle and then concluded that She is not in the first place proved infallible by Scripture I say in à General way for thus the Apostles believed our Saviour to be the true Messias before they received from him à full Account of many other particular Christian Verities learned after that General acknowledgement 3 Thus much and more amply declared in the place now cited comes Dr Still in his last book P. 424. with his old Tautologies and asks again as if nothing had been said why we believe the Churches Infallibility and verily think 's we have no other way to make out Her Infallibility but only by Scripture Is not this worse then jumbling Reflect good Reader I shew that the Church in the first place is proved infallible without recourse at all had to Scripture for so She was proved infallible before Scriptures were written and here he out-faces me with empty words saying I cannot prove the Church infallible but by Scripture only In lieu of this ridiculous Reply He should have refuted my reasons and this is one No man can ascertain any that Scripture is divinely inspired or render the true sence of it relating to Necessaries for Salvation but one only infallible Church Therefore the Church which only can give certainty of these truths must necessarily be first owned infallible before we recurr It is Senceless to prove the Church by Scripture before Scripture be Proved God's word to Scripture for it is more than Senceless to prove by Scripture the Churches Infallibility or any other Article of Christian Faith before we have absolute Assurance that the Book whereby we argue is Gods word and know what its meaning is in à hundred difficult passages But thus much is only known by Church Authority as is amply proved in the place now cited 4 This reason the Dr shamefully waves with à jeer and tell 's me P. 405. that this first act of Faith terminated upon Church Authority hath nothing to rely on but the fallible Motives of Credibility and Consequently cannot be Divine Faith for want of an Infallible Testimony Gross ignorance produced this Answer for have not I proved through my whole last Treatise that God as immediatly speak's to us now by his Church as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle And if God speake by it there is no want of an Infallible Testimony I challenge the Dr to answer my Arguments upon this subiect hitherto never taken notice of neither shall he hereafter reply without apparent shuffling to use his words and running away from the main difficulty here treated How often have I told him that Divine Faith relies not upon the Motives of Credibility though
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
from the Antecedent of mans being intellectual Should I prove that Consequence upon other grounds either by Authority or manifest experience because we se men freely eschew Evil and embrace Good should I from thence inferr that he is Intellectual the Inference now guarded by other proofs barely subsist's not upon the strength of its Antecedent but is à Verity known aliunde and therefore is rightly called Regressus utilis à rational profitable Regress free from The difference between a Circle and à profitable way of Arguing all vicious Circulation For as Philosophers teach grounding their discourse vpon Aristotle now cited A vicious Circle is à Regress or going back ab eodem ad Idem per eandem viam from the same thing to the same again and by the same way as appeares in the Instance proposed where the Antecedent assuming Intellectual proves Liberty and Liberty not known as I said upon any other proof but by that Medium Intellestual return's again and by the very same way proves Intellectuallity This is to say the Consequence as known by the Antecedent offer 's to prove at once both it self and the Antecedent together Had Dr St well reflected upon what is here noted he might easily have spared his lost labour spent upon à vicious Circle and it is à wonder be wanted reflection because Sextus Empiricus cited by him in the short discourse he has of that he calls à Diallel gives every one light enough to se what the Dr it seems saw not though Sextus be none of the clearest Authors 19 Thus much premised we proceed to the matter now in hand and Assert If any one should in the first place either believe or prove the Sence of Scripture to be true by the Churches Interpretation not otherwise believed Infallible or proved true but barely by her Interpretation and should again goe about to prove her Interpretation true by nothing but her own Interpretation which explains that true Sence the Circle would be manifest because the true Sence of Scripture interpreted by the Church is again assumed An application made to the matter now in hand as the only Medium to prove her Interpretation true which way of Arguing essentially implies à vicious Regress from the very same thing to the same thing again and by the very same way But if I first prove the Churches Infallibility in all She teaches upon other Grounds without any recourse at all either to the words or Sence of Scripture as is shewed above and from thence both prove and believe her Interpretation to be infallibly true that man who holds this way of Arguing Circular knowes no more what à Circle is than Doctor Stillingfleet A little touch upon the Dr ' s weak Obiections will yet give more clarity 20 Is not that à Circle saith he P. 428. when the Argument made use to prove another The Dr's Obiections answered thing by must it self be proved by that very thing which it is made use of to prove Very good Sr these general Terms hurt no body to your Application therefore in the next page The thing to be proved Say you is the Churches Infallibility the Argument to prove it by is the Infallible Sence of Scripture Answ I flatly deny the first proof of the Churches Infallibility to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture for the first Argument is taken from that general Truth whereby She is owned and proved God's Infallible Oracle in every thing She teaches concerning Faith and this independently of Scripture Here I say more It is impossible to prove her first Infallible by the Sence she gives of Scripture because that Sence is not known before She interpret's and no body goes about to prove any thing by meer insignificant Characters without their Sence Can the Dr who hold's the Church Fallible and must if he ever evince that prove it by Scripture probably take his Proof from Scripture not senced It is plain Dotage to do so He goes on But if the Infallible Sence of Scripture can be proved by nothing but by thē Churches infallible Interpretation then it is plain that is assumed as an Argument to prove Infallibility by which cannot be otherwise known than by this Infallibility What To argue from Scripture not Senced is Non-sense Infallibility doth the Dr speak of in these last ambiguous words If he say we prove the Infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches infallible Interpretation I grant it Jf contrarywise he thinks we prove in the first place the Churches Infallibility by her own infallible Interpretation of Scripture he err's grosly as is already made manifest and therefore proves nothing 21 In à word either the Sence of Scripture is known by the Churches Interpretation or is clear by it self If known upon the Churches Interpretation the Sence is one and the same with that of the Scripture for these two Oracles can never clash or differ If known by it selfe as it is in many Passages relating to manners no more is required but that the Church ascertain us of the Scriptures Divine Inspiration So that still we depend upon the Church alwaies for the assurance of Scripture being Divine or from God and in the greatest Mysteries of Faith we rely on it also for the true Sence 22 A second obiection It is à little strange that there should be no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose Sence could not infallibly be known without the Supposal of that Infallibility which is proved by them Answ It s more than à little strange that the Dr cannot distinguish between the first general act of Faith whereby the Church is believed Infallible without depending on Scripture and à second more explicit and Consequent act which wholly relies upon Her interpretation and Scripture together It is also strange if God pleases to speak obscurely as he certainly doth in many Passages of Holy Writ that another Infallible Oracle cannot tell us with he mean's without Two Strange Mistakes in the Dr. à vicious Circle The Substance of all he obiects here only amount's to thus much We prove or believe the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose sence cannot be infallibly known without the supposal of that Infallibility If he mean's as he must by supposal and that Infallibility the Churches Infallibility I have answered the Church is not only supposed but proved also infallible before Scripture was written and before She ever went about to interpret that Divine Book 23 A third Obiection is the like Tautologie over again and therefore requires no other but the same Solution If saith he the Infallible sence of Scripture be resolved into and believed upon the same infallible Authority of the Church then I still enquire how this infallible Authority of the Church comes to be proved by this exposition of Scripture the Infallibility of which doth suppose the thing to be proved Viz. the Churches
the Dr's eyes in so great an Oversight What can any man judge of him but that he writes at random without discretion and judgement But of Blondus more presently with à word or two of the Dr's great insincerity 15. In the mean while take notice of four simple Questions proposed by the Dr which he call's his Scruples One is How such à Four of the Dr's Scruples Cleared chamber should be able to hold without decay for above a thousand and six hundred years I answer we have clear Evidence of its holding out without decay in Dalmatia and where it now stand's for the space well nigh of four hundred years and therefore Say as this latter evident Preservation is deservedly accounted Miraculous so the first and longer was though all that time it had Foundations to stand upon and for that reason may seem less Miraculous He asks 2. How this house could possibly escape ruin when Authors say The wholo Country about Nazareth was destroyed by Traian after the strange devastation of it made by Vespasian I answer The great destruction The sacred Chappel preserved by divine Providence of à whole Country necessarily implies not the Subversion of every little house in it though it is most likely that God by his special Providence secured the house dear to our Blessed Lord and his sacred Mother from the rage and fury of all those Enemies He as'ks 3. How the Church of the Annuntiation should be removed to Italy and yet remain at Nazareth by the constant Tradition of the Eastern parts Did ever man say and unsay like this Dr Just now he will have the house destroyed in the general devastation of à whole Country and here the constant Tradition of the Eastern parts makes it still to remain at Nazareth If it The Dr agrees not with himselfe remain still at Nazareth it was not destroyed or if destroyed it remain's not still there Again if it stand there still the Dr must solve his first difficulty of its not deâ—caying for above Sixteen Ages What Sence or coherence have we in this mans writing But of this egregious Cheat more presently 16. He asks 4. How the measure should be found exactly agreeing by those sent to examin it when Thomas de Novaria saith that he lately found out the only true foundations larger than the Angels Chappel there built And he places Thomas de Novaria in his Context with à blind marginal Note Quaresm abbreviated Elucid terrae Sanctae Lib. 7 c. 5. Whereas His odd way in quoting Quaresmins Franciscus Quaresmius should have been cited as the Principle Author and Thomas à Novaria brought in as à witness by Quaresmius for so he is But the Dr thought it best to cast à mist before the eyes of à vulgar Reader for fear of having his notorious fraud discovered which I will now lay open 17. Quaresmius Tom. 2. Elucidat terrae Sanctae lib. 7. cap. 5. Pereg. 3. page 837. set's down the long relation of Thomas à Novaria where wee are told first what difficulties both he and his companion P. F. Iacobus encountred in their Pilgrimage to Nazareth yet by God's good assistance overcame all Then The relation made by Quaresmius p. 8â—8 Colum. 2. paulo post medium has these words Locum igitur Sanctum ingressi c. We entered into the holy place at Nazareth on whose foundations the house of Loreto once stood and being led into the dark Cave where the Sacred Virgin was saluted by the Angel we reverently adored there and soon after began to clense the holy Sanctuary and blessed that old Altar of the Annuntiation which the long-since living Christians had erected Much more followes of great Miracles wrought in that place and of two Pillars set up by the ancient Christians as à Memorial of the Angels Saluting our Lady c. This is all Thomas Taken from Thomas à Novaria à Novaria hath to our present purpose in Quaresmius his 5. Chapter whereunto the Dr remit's us and you see it s granted that the Chappel had stood there without mentioning its being now at Nazareth neither have you any word of those larger foundations in that Chapter whereof the Dr speak's Now if he say our Ladies house stood indeed once at Nazareth but afterward was destroyed turn to the foregoing 4 th Chapter in Quaresmius and you will find the Dr's whole fraud or malice rather unmasked by his own quoted Author Thomas à Novaria an Eye-witness of the Evidence 18. For the better understanding of the whole Story and the Dr's jugling please to note with Quaresmius § Tertio That Iacobus à Vandosma à man most industrious and accurate gives assurance that in the place at Nazareth from whence the house of Loreto was carried away another little Church called the Chappel of the Angel or the Church of the Annuntiation was built not just equal to the The Church of the Annuntiation erected in the place where the house of Loreto once Stood old foundations of our Ladies Chamber but lower upon the Floor or Pavement and in à straiter Compass Wherefore saith he the Chamber next to the dark cave being taken away by the Ministry of Angels in place of it this other Chappel was erected having some addition of polisht stones laid by the inward foundations of the house of Loreto to support better the whole fabrick of the Angels Chappel and this the ancient Christians adjoyned Now saith Novaria we Viz. Himselfe and Jacobus à vandosma meddled not with the inward enlargement but beginning from the old and true foundations of our ladies Chamber drew à right line measured them exactly and found to our great Joy this place in Nazareth per omnia every way just equal to the The measure of the old foundations taken exactly agree c. foot of the foundations of the Holy house at Loreto All things perfectly answer one another all things exactly agree between this Chappel at Nazareth and the holy house at Loreto Dempto quod dixi excepting what I noted of the inward enlargement whereby the Angels Chappel drawn in à little is not fully so large as the foundations of the house of Loreto are These truths saith Novaria we publish upon our certain knowledge for the comfort of all faithful People to the end that no man may hereafter doubt in à matter of so great Concern 19. Reflect courteous Reader in passing before we return to the Dr how earnestly would Novaria and Vandosma have stood for the still quiet owning so great à treasure as the Novaria and Vandosma frankly acknowledge the Translation of the Chappel Sacred house of Loreto is till now could they have done it in justice or conscience How eagerly would they have pleaded Olim possideo Prior possideo We here at Nazareth not you at Loreto preserve yet in being the Sacred Chamber where the Angel saluted the Virgin and God became man had either Tradition or any