my own body risen from the dead You have none Therefore rely boldly on your senses and reason also and judge me to be the same Individual Saviour I was before For there is no Principle natural or revealed which contradict's this belief or that enjoynes you to deny your Senses either in this or any other sensible obiect But for the change of bread into my body you have my express words the world hereafter will profess that truth all over Christianity my Church shall maintain it the best Christians upon earth believe it Innumerable Martyrs shall dy for it undeniable Miracles confirm it and the most learned Doctors that ever lived shall leave this my Doctrin upon Record to the utter confusion of all Hereticks The Dr may demand upon what ground can I imagin that our Saviour would have argued thus against his Disciples I answer my ground is incomparably more sure than any the Dr can give or endeavour to perswade by that the Apostles were ever so sottish as to have thought of his ridiculous Obiection For all I say here are Truths owned over Christendom and worthy to be spoken by out Saviour but his Obiection never wise or Orthodox man seriously proposed before himself 6 What followes in the Dr is no more but one Tautologie after another The Dr's Tautologies Or the same thing already casheired said too often over When saith he the assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of the Senses of those who were Eye-witnesses of the Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ if the Senses of men may be so grosly deceived in the proper obiects of them in the case of Transubstantiation what assurance could they have who were Eye-witnesses of them A long period with many falsities to no purpose I have answered to what here import's that though our senses be deceived in the case of Transubstantiation which is not true yet we have as much certainty in every other thing we se or and weak way of arguing feel as the Dr hath when he sees or feels the pulpit he preaches in Vnless this Sequel be allowed of My eyes are once deceived if yet so ergo they must alwaies be deceived Or à Iugler can make me se what is not ergo I never se what is Again saith he The Drs repeated Obiections Take away the certainty of the judgement of sense you destroy all certainty in Religion I have answered We neither take away the Obiect of sense nor like well his miscalled judgement of sense for sense hath still its own proper obiect though were it otherwise in this Mystery his Inference of all certainty destroyed has no Sence in it 3. Saith the Dr. I must by virtue of your Churches Infallibility believe something to be true which if it be true there can be no certainty at all of the truth of Christian Religion This is only the some thing needlesly repeated already answered And so is that which some others do obiect If the sense of seing be deceived so likewise may the sense of hearing and consequently none can have assurance of what either Christ spake or the Church teaches Who can read this stuff with patience Yet it is gravely set forth in Sermons as most weighty and convincing and which is worse thought worthy to appear in Print 7 The Solution of all in à word is Our senses in this Mystery are not deceived nor so much beguiled as the eye is when we se à straight stick crooked in the water for here the Medium makes that to appear crooked which is not there in the Eucharist the immediate obiect of sense is seen as before without the least Illusion Yet grant which is not true à deception here it is à folly above expression to infer that our senses are beguiled in every other obiect set before our eyes clearly solved and this the Dr must prove or he evinces nothing Thus much noted I challenge and charge the Dr to discover in his next Answer any thing like à fallacy in my whole Discourse But when will this be done think ye Then I say and not sooner when the Dr makes this Consequence good If Christ changed bread retaining the outward semblance of bread into his own body we may prudently judge that he also changed those stones the Divel shew'd him Matt 4. into good bakers bread though outwardly they still appeared stones The first change is grounded upon as great Authority as any Mystery of Faith is none excepted For the second we have nothing but fancy only Now if after all I have said the Dr as his usual If the Dr tell his old stories over again he will be called à Bungler custome hath been silently passes by my reasons hitherto alledged and only tells his old stories over again of our senses being deceived c. I shall retort his own words upon him and conclude that his School find's no answer to my Arguments 8 Another grand errour of this Dr is that he attributes more to the Evidence of sense in order to its proper obiect à visible Miracle for example than can be allowed The Sense of seing take this for an Instance the like is of feeling hearing c is only terminated upon the outward appearance of things and as it penetrat's not the substance of the bread so neither see 's it the inward life or motion of the Soul in à mortal body Whence it followes though we grant that Sense is never beguiled as to its proper obiect yet it often gives occasion of deceipt in other matters wholly out of the reach of sense You shall se what I here hint at by one Instance Suppose the Dr saw the Divel that often transform's himself into an Angel of light doing his feates to delude the senses with à false Miracle or if he denies Divels he must grant that power to Antichrist who will shew many seeming wonders Suppose this be one that à man in outward appearance dead to all senses by Antichrists Charms stand's up again and moves as others do I ask how will the Dr who gives so much credit to his eyes and senses distinguish by Sense only between the true resuscitation of Iairus daughter Luke 8. 55. and this counter feit Miracle of Antichrist In his Principles he cannot difference them if guided by the Evidence of sense and all that reason Can discover by Sense only 9 Hence to take off the Dr ' s errour as to the Blessed Sacrament we discourse further He Iudges what he see 's in The Dr by virtue of his own Principle must own Antichrist's Miracles for true Miracles a consecrated Host to be truly bread because his eyes and senses tell him it is bread These the Dr thinks give in stronger Evidence for its being bread than any proof to the contrary can perswade that it is not bread Yeild this and the Dr yeilds all He is obliged to own this seeming Miracle of Antichrist for
Now none can ascertain any that this or that particular Revelation is true and Infallible but an Infallible Church only Therefore you err Mr Dr in saying that the Infallibility of the Church is as liable to doubts as that of Scriptures if you speak as you must of the Scriptures genuine Sence Truth and Infallibility 17 The Dr P. 113. proposes one of the rarest obiections ever man I think yet heard of Had Christ saith he intended Infallibility as the foundation of Faith how easily might all contentions in the world have been prevented had he said I do promise my Infallible spirit to the Guides of the Church in all Ages to give the true sence of Scripture in all Controversies which shall arise amongst Christians c. Answ I verily judge Christ hath fully said thus much He that heares you heares me The Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church Pastors and Guides are given to the end we be not carried about with every wind of Doctrin c. But suppose Christ or any Evangelist had used your very expression how easily would you Sr have sound à pretty gloss for it and told us That such à promise was forsooth only conditional if the Guides followed Scripture or some like whimsy which phansy might have suggested Now tell me seing your invention fall's so luckily upon new coyn'd Promises why have we not in Scripture à promise suitable to your new faith Viz. I promise no other Spirit to any but such an one as may serve for the moral certainty of beliefe which is fallible and may be false Or rather thus I doe promise that who ever read's Scripture and understand's it according to his private Judgement though he err's in matters of Faith yea even in Necessaries is yet in the way to Salvation and need 's not to consult any Guide for his better instruction Thus contentions would have been easily prevented and licence given every man to believe what he pleased Such promises as these would have fitted you right Mr Dr but there are none of them in God's word 18 P. 150. He thinks to destroy the Evidence of sense and consequently the Grounds of Religion because we believe not that to be bread in the Holy Eucharist which sense tell 's us is so Never ancient Church nor Councils nor Pastors nor Doctors nor any Orthodox Christian pleaded thus for sense for all unanimously believed that really not to be bread which yet in outward appearance seems bread as is demonstrated against the Dr. Reas and Religi c. 12. 13. Whereunto he never yet returned word of answer though I solved this very Obiection to satisfy the Gentleman and told him that the immediate Object of sense is not the inward Substance of bread but The obiect of sense not destroed in the Holy Eucharist colour or light with other accidents and these remain after Consecration visible and sensible as before It is true reason upon the Suggestion of sense would judge what we se to be bread were it not over-awed by à stronger Principle which is Gods express Revelation To this we submit and our crime â—s that we preferr the words of eternal â—ruth before weak reason easily beguiled â—ray tell me had the Dr seen those â—wo Angels who came to Lot Gen 19 in the shape of mortal men had he eate with them at Lots table would he not have thought them men like others living in Sodom But had God then told him by an express Revelation they were indeed Angels and not men which verity is now known he would I hope have believed God and yeilded up his reason to that Supream Verity Thus we proceed in the beliefe of the blessed Sacrament whereof se more Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 18. n. 4. I shall add hereafter other considerations little to the Dr ' s Comfort 19 Page 151. The Dr would fain know whether there be not some points of Faith and parts of our duty so plain that no Church Authority determining contrary ought to be obeyed I answer were any so plain as few are in the very fundamentals of Faith witness those greaâ— Mysteries of the Trinity and the eternaâ— Godhead of Christ the Catholicâ— Church cannot by reason of Gods speciaâ— Assistance determin the contrary or contradict it selfe in any universal doctrinâ— and therefore that Non-obedience hintâ— at is à Chimaera or à thing not at aâ— supposeable It seem's our Dr would have the not worshiping Images to bâ— one of his plain delivered points A gross mistake as his worthy learned Adversary Doctor T. G. whose works and Person I honour pithily demonstrat's in his late excellent book Catholiks no Idolaters Part 1. chiefly c. 3. and 4. Now because I mention this Reverend man I cannot but reflect upon another intolerable mistake of Dr Still 20 Dr T. G. said in his preface to the Reader It is à known Maxim That none can give to another that which he hath not himselfe If therefore the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy much more if guilty of Idolatry it fall's under the Apostles Excommunication Gal. 1. 8. and so remains deprived of lawful Authority mark the words to use and exercise the power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing preaching and administring Sacraments which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves as derived from the Church of Rome can be no true and lawful jurisdiction but usurped and Antichristian The plain and obvious An other gross errour of the Dr sense is He who has no jurisdiction but is deprived of it by the Churches Censures cannot give it to another Neither can he that has no lawful Authority to ordain lawfully ordain any or give Authority lawfully to ordain others Now comes Dr Still in his General Preface to ward off this blow but never man did it less dexterously and we must wholly attribute it to his little skill in fencing He tell 's us that the council of Trent pronounces Anathema against those that deny the Validity observe here also the word validity of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin in case he observes the Essentials of it and in this gross errour he run's on for nine or ten pages Citing Author after Author to prove that the Sacrament of Order is validly given by one in mortal sin or excommunicated But what is all this to Dr. T. Gs. Most true Assertion That none guilty of Idolatry or Heresy can give Iurisdiction to any of the Church of England which they must have from Catholick Bishops or wholly want it or impower them to ordain others lawfully when they are deprived of all lawfull Authority to use oâ— exercise the power of Orders Hence you se Dr Still blindness who argues from the validity of giving Orders to the lawful giving them and from the no power of giving Jurisdiction the chiefest thing aimed at by D. T. G. to impart it to men in England uncapable of all Jurisdiction 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
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
à true Miracle because his eyes and senses will have it true I prove it The exteriour Evidence in both Cases is the very Same for as sense see 's and feel's this man to be like one truly dead though he is not dead So it also see 's and fee'ls this wafer after Consecration to be like true bread though it be not bread and reason as I now said purely led on by the conduct of sense judges alike in both cases therefore if the Dr Conform's his Judgement to the perswasion of his senses in the one and truly hold's à consecrated host to be bread he cannot but upon the same Evidence Judge that Antichrist's Miracle is à true Miracle No disparity can be given O! but Scripture so often forewarning us of Antichrist's false Miracles much abates yea wholly withdrawes every sound Christian from believing them true Is it possible Can Scripture let in so much light upon us Can it make us to deny what our eyes see and fingers feel to be true Why therefore cannot the clearest words that Christ ever Spake This is my body My flesh is meat indeed My blood is drink indeed force us to deny the weak suggestion of our Senses called by the Dr the Strongest Evidence Why should not those Sacred words move us Submissively to confess that as no real Miracle lies under that outward guise of Antichrist's What plain Scripture forces on us to believe in the blessed Sacrament apparent wonder Scripture drawes us to own this truth So no real bread lies under the outward apparence or visible forms of bread and wine or if Scripture work 's so powerfully upon us as not to believe that to be bread which to our Senses looks like bread where in is Our offence greater than the Dr ' s who believes that to be no true Miracle which to our Senses looks like a true one In à word the Dr must either quit his so much cryed up Evidence taken from Sense or will be forced to grant which is horrid that Antichrist Shâ—ll work as true Miracles as ever Christ wrought 10 Again how can the Dr Assert that Christ's Miracles wrought before the writing of Scripture were done to confirm all the Doctrin registred by S. Paul and the other Disciples afterward Nay how can he prove they were wrought to confirm the truth of our Saviours own Doctrin without giving some further proof then the outward sight of à Miracle is Hence I said the Dr erred when he told us that the assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of the senses of those who were Eye-witnesses of the Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ First no Eye-witnesses saw our Saviour actually rysing from the dead but afterward yet had they seen him in that instant can the Dr judge that the assurance of the Apostles Faith came from that sight Doth he or any ground Faith upon the sight of those who beheld Christs Miracles while the very best Eye-witnesses believed not because they saw them but upon this strong Motive that Christ told them he was sent from God to teach eternal truth and that now risen he was the same Saviour who had been dead Gods Infallible word therefore rightly called Divine Revelation not seen by any mortal eye grounded the Apostles Divine Faith relies not upon the sight of à Miracle Faith and so it likewises doth all true Christian Faith in the world to this day Now if the Dr tell us when he saies the assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of sense his meaning only was that the sight of those Miracles were Inducements to believe Christ's revealed Doctrin and made that not evidently seen evidently credible He first speaks improperly in calling those visible matters of fact the Foundations of Faith Account P. 119 And. 2. destroyes the certainty of Christian Doctrin by endeavouring to prove it immediatly true before he evinces it evidently credible And this he doth by introducing à new set of Motives different from those of the Catholick Church which both Jewes and Gentils scorn and in reallity neither evidence the Truth to such men nor the Credibility of Christian Religion much lesse have any reference to the Thing he calls Protestancy as will appear afterward 11 To make my Assertion good turn courteous Reader to the Doctors Account Part. 1. c. 7. P. 204 where he offer 's to resolve the Faith of Protestants though he never meddl's with the Novelty as I have largely proved Protest without Princ. Disc 1. c. 9. In this place I am to show that his Discourse tend's to the ruin of true Christian Religion also Supposing what he will have with all might and main Supposed that there is no Infallible Church 12 There are saith he three Questions to be resolved in the resolution of Faith First if I be asked on what grounds I believe the things to be true which the Dr's discourse deâ—â—â—ed in 〈◊〉 own â—ords are contained in Scripture My answer must be from the greatest evidence of truth which things of that nature are capable of If therefore the persons who are supposed to have writ those things were such who were fully acquainted with what they writ of and cannot be suspected of any design to deceive men by their writings and if I be certain that these which go under the name of their writings are undoubtedly theirs I have sufficient grounds to believe the truth of them He add's more These writers cannot be suspected of ignorance for they wrot these things when the story was new and some of them had been conversant with the person and actions of him whom they writ of That they could have no intent to deceive appear's from their simplicity and Candour both of their actions and writings from their contempt of the world and exposing themselves to the greatest hazards to bear witness to them Finally that these writings have been unanimously received by Christians and never doubted of by Iewes His pretended rational evidence for the first act of faith or Heathen Philosopher Thus the Dr plead's for the evidence of the first act of Faith whereby he believes those things true which are Doctrin more at large not in to leave it unexamined as he usually doth mine but to shew the unreasonableness of it while he makes all along à bare Supposition his best and only proof Or speak thus and you fully express all he saies Some body wrot the things contained in Scripture Ergo all that appear's there is true because writen 13 To prove by reason that the things contained in Scripture are true he first begins with Ifs. If the persons who are supposed to have written such things were fully acquainted with what they vvrot of If they cannot be suspected of any design to deceive men If is be certain that such uvritings are theirs c. Observe I beseech you These conditional Propositions carry no other weight with them but thus much only if
made flesh This is my body c. But how is any man wiser for that How is our knowledge or faith improved by such à maimed or half perfect Tradition While no man can certainly tell us what the true meaning of those sacred words is No man can determine the debates which arise among Christians the Arians and you that draw plain Contradictions out of these words now cited Such à conveyance or tradition as could end these long strifes would be to your purpose and comfort Mr Dr but you have none of it because you slight the Tradition and Authority of an Infallible Church Though therefore you tell us twenty times over you believe all truths expressed in Scripture yet while you cannot assure us upon tradition or any other sound Principle what those necessary truths are which Faith in necessaries is determinately to pitch upon you only trifle away your time and cheat your Reader in seeming to discover great How the Dr Cheat's his Reader matters whereas in real truth you speak not one word to the purpose If to solve the difficulty here briefly touched you run up to your own discerning faculty permit the Arian to keep you company and blame him not if he trust to his discerning faculty quite contrary to yours Se more hereof above Chap. 4. n. 10. Thus much premised 27 To answer the Dr I say first Fallible Tradition which may be false Our Answer to the Dr. the Dr own 's none Infallible gives not so great certainty of Miracles Supposed true in Scripture as Eye-sight did to those who beheld them The reason is Fallible Tradition in the Dr ' s Principles easily alters in time and may tell one Story for another whereof more presently If therefore that Tradition conveyed by hearing altered as I shall shew most shamefully and if fallible no wonder at the change what certainty have Fallible tradition worth little in Divine matters we now in this present Age either of the Miracles or of the Doctrin recorded in Scripture by virtue of it Or how can the Dr parallel the certainty of à Miracle conveyed down by fallible Tradition with the sight of it This must needs be à lame Parallel For when I se à Miracle I need not to prove the outward appearance of it evidently seen but when that appearance passes down Age after Age upon Hearsay or à faultering Tradition which may change the Story from what it once was I must either prove that Tradition true or cannot prudently rely on it chiefly in this present case while we dispute against Iewes and Gentils who utterly deny those Miracles to have ever been truly wrought by Christ The ancient Jewes all know said Christ cast out Divels by the help of Beelzebub and these modern men of the Synagogue calumniate as boldly to this day 28 I say 2. Those ancient Miracles if saith à Jew ever any such were together with the Doctrin which is thought to be proved either true or evidently credible by such wonders can be no more certain now than the fallible Tradition is which conveighs them to us But this Tradition gives no man so much as moral certainty either of the Miracles or Doctrin I prove the Minor That The reason why worthless in the Dr's Principles ancient Tradition say Sectaries notoriously changed not long after the Apostles dayes when à universal deluge of errours spread it selfe the whole Christian world over and the efficacy of Christs true Doctrin together with its old Tradition was blotted out of mens memory when the Roman Catholick The Dr charges this Idolatry upon the Roman Church Church once confessedly Orthodox unluckily began Her universal Apostacy and professed open Idolatry when the Arians denyed the Mystery of the Incarnation and Trinity Others the two VVills in Christ others his Sacred Humanity others the Resurrection of the dead others the necessity of Divine Grace and others finally professed yet more horrid Doctrins In so much that the whole Christian word part of it one way part another erred most grosly in the very fundamentals of Faith In those dismal dayes say I when all Christian Societies nameable and the Roman Church with them became so infatuated as to change the first received truths taught by Christ and his Apostles the ancient true Tradition could not but change and faile also therefore at this day Tradition is worthless and unualvable because no man can know upon any sure Principle what it anciently was 29 The Dr may reply All called Christians own the Bible and the Miracles there related of Christ and his Apostles which are sufficient to prove Christs Doctrin true so far at least Tradition never failed Small Comfort God knowes to have Tradition of the Scriptures bare letter which yet is not had in our Sectaries Principles Se Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 6. n. 2. If the Christian world long since cheated out of their ancient Faith bequeathed to posterity à false Doctrin in Lieu of that which The Arians and all hereticks lay as great claime to Christs Miracles as the Dr or any other doth Christ and his Apostles taught and with that à false Tradition also Moreover were those Miracles with their Tradition proved most true the Arians will as well lay claim to them for à proof their Doctrin as the Dr can do for that Religion he professes and the like may all others pretend if called Christians though of à quite different belief in the very Essentials of Faith unless this consequence utterly false be good Christ our Lord wrought such and such Miracles Ergo Protestancy is à better Religion then Arianism Pelagianism is better then Nestorianism and so of the rest The Dr therefore must either make this out that Christ and his Apostles wrought their Miracles to confirm all the erroneous Sects in the world or he speaks nothing to the purpose when he tells us in his Account What the Dr is obliged to clear P. 205. That the Motives of Faith both to them the ancient Christians and to us are the same only the manner of conveyance is different those Primitive Believers Saw them we hear of them by Tradition In saying this he either thinks that such Motives prove the truth of all Religions called Christian which is horridly false or only prove the true Christian Religion among so many dissenting Sects Grant this and we are in as much darkness after the supposed Truth of these Miracles and the Dr ' s long discourse as we were before and can never know by his Motives only which is the true Religion I earnestly desire the Dr would please to solve this one difficulty which I judge cannot be Solved 30 By all hitherto clearly laid down we se 1. The Dr ' s rational Evidence so much talked of brought to nothing but empty words for his whole proofs are meer unproved Suppositions He endeavours to evince by Miracles internal to Scripture the Divinity of the book which