THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICK CHURCH AND HER MIRACLES Defended against Dr Stillingfleets Cavils Unworthily made publick In two late Books The one called An Answer to Several Treatises c The other à Vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith Against the Pretence of Infallibility IN THE ROMAN CHVRCH c. BY E. W. The first Part. ANTWERP Printed by MICHAEL CNOBBAERT at the Sign of S. Peter in the Year 1674. Permissu Superiorum THE PREFACE NIne years or there about are pas't Since Dr Edward Stillingfleet set Printed Anno 1669 forth à voluminous book entituled A rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion and exposed it to the view and examination of others Many both learned and judicious have in their several latter works discovered here and there no Small but great Errours in it Among the rest one worthy man not scared with the fearful bulk of the book fixed upon the whole engaged to examin it and to return the Dr à full just and compleat Answer but it pleased God to call him out of this world before he saw an end of his labours VVhile he yet lived busy at work I ventured upon the chiefest Points of Controversy handled by the Dr not willing to meddle with the whole book because another had it in hand I thought then and do so still that Dr Stillingfleet came much too short of à right Reckoning The one Printed Anno 1668 The other 1672 in his Account and therefore plainly laid down his Mistakes and errours in two Treatises Protestancy without Principles Reason and Religion c. Ever since year after year I expected the good hour when Mr Dr vvould please to just Accounts vvith me for he had been long in debt and give like à good Correspondent satisfaction to the many exceptions I made against his Account At last two other books containing his after Reckonings appear not like the grand volume Bulkie and so far praise vvorthy who ever saies more to their commendation loses credit vvith me VVhen these books came to my hands one long after the other the distance of place vvould have it so I read all and examined every particular diligently still hopeing as I vvent along to find the Dr more rational and better at his Reckonings now then he had been in his former VVritings but after an exact perusal I saw clearly my hopes frustrated and Dr Still just like himselfe not only unmethodical but besides à meer Shuffler in the main matter he vvas obliged to give Account of as vvill be made out hereafter The first of his volumes is called An answer to several Treatises occasioned by à book c. The other beares the name of à Discourse in vindication of the Protestant grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide of Controversies by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with à particular Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church In these Treatises where Mr Dr should have made a right Reckoning with his Creditors those I mean who trusted him with the best wares they had he in recompence fall's into hitter fitts of passion and railing at them One is blind another has neither fear nor wit à third is à popish Leviathan c. And thus hurried on you shall have the list of his obloquies more compleat presently he thinks not one only but Se the Dr's general Preface all he deals with halfe martyred by him and that none has more felt the weight of his heavy hand than E. W. To give the man his due if curst language can kill one he has behaved himselfe stoutly and knock't E. W. down more like à Wood-river with à beetle than à Scholar by strong Arguments à hundred times over yet thanks be to God E. W. is alive well able to keep Accounts with the Dr whose furious Doings and feeble pen Labour he fear 's not For proof hereof I remit you Gentle Reader to the following Treatise Peruse and censure freely I appeal to your Iudgement In the mean while it will not me thinks be amiss for the better clearing of Accounts between the Dr and me to preacquaint you with some few yet real exceptions I justly make against an very ill Respondent A main one is that as you se by the Dr's Title he pretend's to answer my two last Books already named whereas the Contrary is evident and proved in this Treatise He answers nothing nor so much as offer 's to meddle with such matters as are deservedly esteemed by all Polemical writers the most substantial or of greatest concern For example I told the Dr as plainly as any man can speak that never Book merited less the Title than his Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion and upon this very account I excepted both against the Book and Author and said that the Dr never yet went about to tell us what is meant by his Protestancy much less to settle one Tenet of it upon any Principle express Scripture universal Tradition or the Authority of any Church held Orthodox by the Christian Reas and Relig 1. c. 20. and Disc 3. c. 18. world Not à word of answer hath the Dr returned to this most just and urgent exception Besides I told him that his Protestancy which he supposes well grounded want's the very Essence of Religion and consequently subsist's upon no grounds and that in Protestancy as it is distinguished from Catholick Religion and all known condemned Heresies there is not so much as one Article revealed by Almighty God taught by any Orthodox Church or Iudged by the Professors of this Novelty necessary to Salvation This I thought and think still à charge very Material yet Mr Dr waves it not because he deem's it little for nothing can be more destructive to Protestancy but because he knowes not what to answer Yet more Protestants grant and so far the Dr sides vvith them that the Roman Catholick Church once pure in Faith sincerely conveyed to posterity the great Mysteries concerning Christian Religion of the sacred Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection of the dead c but say withall that after so much good service done She perversty brought in and publickly taught contrary to truth many both new and dangerous doctrins Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and Purgatory with à mighty deluge of other gross errours I have amply proved this charge of errours and change of Religion entring à whole Church to be utterly impossible and rely upon an undubitable Protest without Princ Disc 3. C. 13. n. 5. Principle Viz. These Supposed Novelties being plain matters of Fact could never get into Christianity without publick Defence in those who first broached them and publick Resistance in others that had they been errours publickly opposed them but never Since Christ's time was there any such publick defence or publick opposition
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-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
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
c. VVe must earnestly contend for the Faith once delivered VVe are to beware of false seducers c. have no weight for the Drs intent unlesse he shew by Scripture that this trial this contention and wariness ought to be done by every mans private judgement only without any other rule O but there is à stinging Text. Iohn 7. 17. where our Saviour expresly promises to those that do the will of God they shall know of his Doctrin whether it be of God Very true But how shall we discern those that do the will of God from others that do it not Are those the Doers of Gods will who reject their Guides and follow their own Iudgement in matters they understand not Answer Mr Dr. 14 In his 143. P for I run up and down to find any thing like an Obiection we are told that all who consider the excellency of Christian Religion cannot but give it preheminence before Iudaism and Mahometism Very true Mr Dr yet you touch not the difficulty unlesse you tell us which Christian Religion amongst so many dissenting Sects even in fundamentals may be called the only true Christian Religion If Arianism or Palagianism or Protestanism damn men as deeply as Iudaism what matters it if one professe Iudaism I assure you Doctor I have heard some great A fallible Doctrin which may be false destructive to Faith men say that if all who profess Christian Religion believed fallible Doctrin which may be false they would not give à pin to chuse whether they were Iewes Arians or Protestants But why have not you in this place or through your whole large Account set forth the Excellency of your Protestancy and preferred that little late unknown thing before all other Religion Some cause there is of your deep silence and I have not dissembled it in my Advertisement You really know not what to say of it 15 P. 132. We have this Proposition Infallibility in à body of men is as liable to doubts and disputes as in those books from whence only they derive their infallibility Sr if I well understand this some what dark Assertion please to tell me Were not the Apostles an Infallible body of men And was not their Infallibility owned as clear from doubts and disputes when God had evidenced them by clear visible Signes and Wonders to be his faithful Oracles even before their writing Scripture Or did theyderive their Infallibility from the books they wrote The true answer to these demands will be our Answer The Church is as rationally proved an Infallible Oracle by her Illustrious signes and wonders and appointed by God to teach as ever any Apostle was this I hold clearly evinced in my last Treatise Disc 3. c. 15. n. 3. and c. 16. n. 5. If you Mr Dr can except against my proofs please to speak for hitherto you have answered nothing I shew also Prot without Princi c. 8. n. 2. 3. That God neither will nor can permit à false Religion to be more speciously illustrated by rational Signs then his only true Religion is Were this possible he The true Church made discernable from all false Sects would contrary to Truth and Goodness oblige reason to embrace à false Religion If therefore the only true and infallible Religion be manifestly discernable or made known by the lustre of Supernatural Motives from all false Sects we have enough For it is most evident that our ever marked and Signalized Catholick Religion illustrated by Miracles and approved by the publick judgement of the very best and most learned who have lived since the Creation of the world is the undoubted true Religion where we learn what Christ taught and what Doctrin the Apostles preached And thus Dr Still imperfect discourse P. 143 where he gives the preheminence to Christianity in general above Iudaism Mahometism c. is driven home to that one only Religion amongst Christians which must save Souls 16 We say 2. That this evidenced Catholick Church proves her selfe infallible Independently of Scripture as the Apostles did before they wrote their sacred Books It is-true after those writings are proved Divine to us upon Church Authority we Argue from them and evince her Infallible but this only is done upon the Supposition of that proof and not before For we say and make it out clearly in the Treatises now cited That the Church being the light of the world and à City placed upon a conspicuous And proved infallible without recourse to Scripture mountain demonstrable as S. Austin teaches by every mans finger is the Primum indemonstrabile principium the very first and indemonstrable principle proved by it selfe and for it selfe to be Gods Infallible Oracle whereof more hereafter Hence you se 3. that as the Apostles neither proved nor derived their Infallibility from the Books they wrote so we in the first place if à true Analysis be made prove not the Churches Infallibility from Scripture but evince this truth upon other Principles as is now declared But saith Dr Still It is against all just lawes of reasoning to make use of the Churches Infallibility to prove Scriptures by Why so noble Dr I am sure for the reasons already given you will be forced to retract this inconsiderate Assertion Do not you know first that the bare letter of Scripture breed's endless divisions even in fundamentals not only between man and man as is evident by the jarrs you have with Arians Pelagians c. but also between God and man while all your vehement contentions are driven at last to know whether your discerning Faculty or the Arians hit right vpon the meaning of what God speak's in Scripture it being most certain that Verity it selfe approves not your open contradictions Who can decide here but an Infallible Church Do you not know 2. That it is more then ridiculous to draw either Iew or Heathen to believe these contradictious Doctrins as Divine or reasonable while neither you nor Arians can ascertain any that what either of you teach is from God or à truth revealed by him Who ought or can speak here but the Church Do you not se 3. That the clearness of Church Doctrin universally known to all whether Orthodox or others beget's faith more easily then Scripture yet obscure and unsenced Hence it is as I noted in my last Treatise Disc 2. c. 16. n. 11. That few or none Question what this Oracle teaches as necessary for that 's plain yet there are endless debates about the Scriptures meaning and this only is Gods word not intelligible in à hundred passages without the Churches interpretation 4 As I noted also The Infallibility and Truth of every Divine Revelation relating to Necessaries so necessarily The Church decides many doubts not decideable by ' Scripture ' terminat's Divine Faith that whoever believes and abstract's as it were from this double perfection intrinsic to what God speak's believes not because God speak's but upon some other fallible Motive
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
Holborn that for one Tautologie in mine I will shew five in yours with à pretty addition of new ones in these your two last Treatises Now whereas you tell me the whole substance of my books lies in this one word Infallibility Know Sr you get the worst here for the whole substance of all you have said or can say confessedly lies in à far weaker word called Fallibility Here it seem's the Dr is willing to leave off his long Tattle for fear of more Advertisements And is it possible could that harmless and well meant Advertisement wherein nothing can be found offensive stirr up thus much unruly passion in à Dr I know no remedy yet hope the Preface to this Treatise will à little calm it 4 To end He ierk's me once more and will need 's suppose that Protestancy without Principles was disposed of to better uses than to be read because forsooth he More jerks yet never heard of one man in England that read it over A weak proof of à false supposition Good Sr are all truths conveyed to your ears do not some miss their way thither Be it how you will hear or pretend not to hear most certainly that book was read by many not only in England but Ireland also Nay more all the Copies above six hundred excepting some few seized on were in à short time bought up In so much that à Gentleman of our Nation offered three Crowns for one single Copy yet could not after long enquiry meet with one These truths known to the Printer and others are sufficient to evert your false supposition and your weak proof added to it 5 And thus much of the Dr ' s Comical Introduction If he thinks me too pert or pleasant with him I answer Benedictis si certasset audisset bene Had not à fermentation The Dr's vast conceipt of himselfe of blood transported him beyond all bounds of common civility no ill word should have fallen from me but when we find à vain Bragger gloriously enthrown'd in à vast conceipt of himselfe as if all he treat's with were desplicable Mushromes it is Charity I think not to sooth him up in his folly but to tell him his own home as S. Hierome once did an Adversary Quae voluisti locutus quae non vis audire debes Time I hope may make the Dr wiser Let us now goe on 6 I said above Dr Still answers not directly one Argument proposed by me for the Churches Infallibility If I prove the Assertion it followes clearly that either he understand's them and will not answer because he finds them too strong for him Or 2 he cannot answer because he penetrat's not their force Grant the first he is à meer cheat and deludes the Reader with à seeming reply which is none in substance Say 2. He understand's not the force of my Arguments and cannot answer he is unworthy to be dealt with and ought in that measure to be despised as he despises others 7 Now I prove my Assertion I say as he relates P. 331. That without an Infallible The Dr answers net my arguments Church he means in this present state as I often inculcate there can be no certainty of Faith and have established the Assertion upon these grounds Neither the Canon nor Divinity nor the Infallible truth or sence of Scripture even in points Necessary to Salvation can be probably much less certainly assured to any in this present state but by the Authority of an Infallible Church To this not à word of answer is or can be returned by the Dr. 8 I Assert 2. As the Dr cites that the Roman Catholick Church only is God's Infallible Oracle and prove it Reas and Relig D. 2. c. 14. n. 10. 11. from Scripture Fathers and most pregnant reason 1. If any Church be Infallible it is the Roman Catholick for all others disclaim the Guidance of an Infallible living Oracle 2. As nothing can more discountenance the worth of true Christianity than à stedfast perswasion of it's fallibility or easily being false So nothing can fix in us an undubitable beliefe of Christ's Doctrin but an Oracle not lyable to errour 3. And chiefly If no Church be Infallible to whose Authority Christians must submit when dissentions arise concerning the Fundamentals Proofs for the Churches Infallibility of Faith and the genuin sence of Scripture both Iewes and Heathens may most justly despise Christian Religion and scorn all our endeavours to make them of one Faith with us upon this ground That none can certainly say what Doctrin Christ our Lord or his Apostles taught the world So it is Mr Dr our debates about the prime Articles of Faith no satisfactory means to end them but Topicks and fallible reasoning are so many that all taught Doctrin lies like an undecided Process in law still disputable and therefore of no credit or estimation unless an Infallible Church decide them and bring Christians to acquiesce in one Faith These Arguments and many more I proposed against the Doctor in the Discourse now cited and all the Answer I have is that he set's down some mangled parcels of my Tenents or barely tells me what I say For example I assert Protestancy without Prine Disc 1. c. 2. That à Doctrin which by virtue of all the Principles it has is meerly fallible and no more may be false but Christian Doctrin say Sectaries as it is taught by all Pastors is thus fallible therefore it may be false But God never Sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles or any to teach Christian Doctrin that may be false Ergo he sent none to teach meer fallible Doctrin This Reason our Dr blindly hints at P. 333. but leaves it without any Answer And thus he run's on to his 339. P. where he tells me He hath laid together so many parcels of my rambling discourse as were necessary in order to the examination of it To the examination of it Mr Dr Not one word true This had been material to shew my Arguments for the The Dr flies from the main difficulty Churches infallibility unconcluding you touch not these or at least to prove by some solid reasoning that the Church is fallible this point you most shamefully shift off and in the next page tell us that the necessity of Divine grace is no way pertinent to our present purpose the Question only being of an external infallible Proponent in order to Faith Sr what you make to your purpose I know not nor much care It was my duty and pertinent when I undertook the full and adequate Resolution of Divine Faith to lay down all the Principles it relies on and à main one is the internal assistance of Grace Had I omitted to treat of an external infallible Proponent you might have justly quarrelled but when that particular is largely handled through the five last chapters of the second Discourse and not à word replyed to any of my Arguments your accusation
and other Motives and layd open to the understanding of primitive Believers who saw Christs wonders the Will thereby enlightned could easily with her pious affection move the Intellectual power to elicit à most firm assent of Faith because God speak's or command's Beliefe which assent if ultimately resolved we shall find securely fixed both upon the Truth of the Revelation as also upon the real Truth of the Motives also joyntly believed And thus the Motives which were only inducements to Believers solely considered that is as they constituted à Revelation and themselves evidently credible can under the notion of Truths conjoyned with the Divine Revelation terminate à certain and infallible assent of Faith 27 Perhaps some half Scholars in speculative learning will esteem all now said confused stuff and very likely as Halfe Scholars talk not valved the Dr expresses himself P. 427 desire the Reader to try his faculty upon it whether it be intelligible No great matter for that say I. Let Smatterers talke I appeal to the judgement of such as have been long versed in Schools and hope to enlighten the unlearned by this one clear Instance 28 Had Christ our Lord after his raysing Lazarus from the dead said only thus much to the then present Spectators You have seen this one great wonder my Disciples and others have been Eye-witnesses of many more An Instance gives light to my Assention wrought by me I speak now to you in the words which my Evangelist shall hereafter register in the Gospel Iohn 10. 25. The works that I do in my Fathers name they give Testimony of me and withall declare that I am truly God and the Messias sent into the world Believe me induced to assent by the works you and others have seen and moreover believe that these seen wonders are not counterfeited but true Miraculous works In this case it is clear that the same Miracles first known by sense or as they apply'd the Divine Revelation to the Believers understanding made themselves together with the Revelation no more but evidently credible and therefore forced none to believe but left that free yet they imposed an obligation upon all rational men of believing the real truth of these Miracles and the Truth of the Revelation whereof neither those primitive Christians nor we ever yet had any Evidence This is to say in plainer terms and mark well the distinction Miracles and all other exteriour Motives as seen or known move to à beliefe of themselves under the notion of Truths though not evidently seen or known as Truths but believed so 29 The whole discourse in this Chapter goes upon à supposition that the Motives of credibility are not essentially connected with the Divine Revelation though if that essential connexion be admitted which is true Doctrin and much avail's to raise Faith above the strength of all exteriour Motives An act of Faith terminated upon the Revelation and the truth of the Motives more certain than humane knowledge yet the act of Faith terminated upon the Revelation and the Truth of the Motives far surpasses in certainty the knowledge which any in this life can have of that connexion for the knowledge of that Connexion is only got by natural discourse whereas the assent of Faith it self rest's upon the most supream Verity I mean God speaking to the world And thus in all opinions the certainty of Faith is defensible As à rational assent Faith depend's upon the Motives of Credibility because God speak's by such Signs As purely Divine it rest's upon the Divine Revelation applyed by rational Motives whereunto I add the lumen fidei which represent's the Truth of the Motives and the Revelation more clearly and immediatly then any natural discourse can do and upon that account much conduces to the Infallible certainty of Faith as is largely declared Reas. and Relig Disc 3. c. 9. n. 6 The last certainty comes from the pious affection of the will as is already declared Having said thus much I desire Dr Still to weaken any one of these Principles upon Good Authority or solid reason CHAP. VII Reflections made upon the Doctors following Discourse Of his Mistakes concerning the Churches Testimony and the obscurity of Faith 1 I Am forced courteous Reader to passe by many impertinent excursions of the Dr his ill language also with other lesser faults for fear of making this Treatise too bulky which may displease him neither do I need to enlarge my self much upon his obiections from P. 365. to P. 400. For they are all solved in my two former Treatises Some few particulars I shall add more to satisfy others in this speculative matter of our Analysis than to answer the Dr who in very deed hath his full Answer already 2 In the. P. now cited he complain's of my shuffling because he hear's no more of the Churches infallible Testimony whereby men believe the Scripture to be the word of God I stand astonish't at this clamorous Adversary Where were his Eyes where was his attention if ever he read my Treatises The very chief aime whereof is to shew not only to Christians but to Iewes and Gentils also that the first known ground of true Religion is à Church manifested by Supernatural Motives proceeding from an infinit power and wisdom This Church I have amply proved to be God's own assured Oracle The Primum credible or first believed Teacher in this present state and that God speak's as immediatly and infallibly by it now as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle As therefore those whom the blessed Apostles taught having seen the Apostolical Signs immediatly believed upon their word So with as great reason may we having penetrated the Churches glorious Marks assent immediatly upon Her word and believe all She obliges Christians to believe But to have assurance of the Scriptures Divine inspiration as likewise of its true infallible sence are believed Articles grounded upon the Churches Infallible Testimony or rather upon God speaking by this Oracle and here we must rest or can believe Nothing The Churches Testimony God's own Testimony I must therefore once more blame the Doctor who forsooth thinks the Faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed ought to have such à Divine Testimony and so à process in Infinitum or à Circle will unavoydably follow Such à Divine Testimony Mr Dr you understand not what I teach I say expresly that the Churches Testimony is God's own Testimony as immediatly assented to upon Church Authority for he that hear's the Church hear's God as ever Doctrin was believed upon any Apostles word Thus much supposed and largely proved what need have we of another Testimony distinct from that of the Church Out of all I concluded that as there was neither vicious Circle nor process in Infinitum in those who terminated their faith upon S. Paul's preaching for example so there is neither the one nor other fault in me when I assent to this truth The Churches
to remain to the worlds end the Prophets ceased to prophesy of His appearing in flesh and had no longer that Infallible gift Answearable hereunto one might assert were it needful that the High Priests infallible power in judging fail'd also at that time though the Dr will have à heard task to prove that Caiphas's Judgement was erroneous in case he ponder well S. Iohns words c. 11. 50. You know nothing neither do you what he repeat's to little purpose hath been Solved consider that it is expedient for us that one man dy for the people and that the whole nation perish not And this he said not of himself but being the High Priest of that year he Prophecyed That Iesus should dy for the Nation and not only for the Nation c. Observe well It was expedient that Christ should dy and though à wicked man spake the words yet the Spirit of truth which guided his tongue for he spake not of himself erred not And this proves that God often preserves truth as well by an unworthy Prelate as by one really worthy where Order and Office is to be regarded and not the dignity or Indignity of the person Now whether all the subordinate Judges of the Sanhedrin were infallible is à new question not pertinent to the matter in hand It is more satisfaction then I owe the Dr to shew that the Supream Judge of the Sanhedrin who ever presided over the rest much less the whole Church of the Iewes erred not Witness S. Joseph of Arimathaea Nicodemus and innumerable others dispersed all Jury over who all were faithful and free from errour 10 Concerning the other Question hinted at None I think can doubt but that the High Priests in all grand Judicatures were infallible which Priviledge Moses certainly enjoyed and Amarias also 2. Paralip 19. 11. Moses induced by Iethro his Counsel Exod. 18. 13 made Choice of some others to Judge in causes of lesser importance reserving greater matters to himself Num. 11. 16. God commanded Moses to call together seventy of the Elders in Israel for his assistance appointed to bear the burthen with him and at their election had the Spirit of Prophesy After Moses death the Prophets Iosue Samuel David Elias Eliseus c succeeded and these certainly were Infallible But there is no need of staying longer upon this point being as I said not pertinent to our present Enquiry relating to the Infallibility of our Christian Church 11 The Dr P. 408. err's not à little while he supposes the Infallibility of the Roman Church to be lodged in the Supream Ecclesiastical Iudges and no where els To this I answered directly Reas. and Relig Disc 3. C. 12. n. 14. much wonder it is the Dr ' s eyes saw it not and said when we resolve Faith into the Churches Infallible Authority we understand by the Church the whole diffused body of Orthodox Christians made manifest by Supernatural Motives and not in the first place the Representative in General Councils For that more explicite Beliefe had of General Councils connaturally presupposes when à right Analysis is made the other general Truth assented to Viz. This manifested Society of Christians is God's own Church and the only way to Salvation Hence all Catholicks avouch that the whole Catholick Body consisting of Pastors to teach and Hearers to learn cannot totally err or swerve from truth whereunto properly belong those promises of the Gospel Hell gates shall not prevail against the Church The spirit of truth abides with Her for ever She is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. 12 The Dr err's again in his next An other Errour of the Dr. page where he demand's why the concurrent Testimony of all Christians may not afford as sufficient à ground to believe the books of the new Testament without an Ecclesiastical Senate as those Jewes who no more believed Christ Infallible than the Sanhedrin did might have à sufficient ground to believe that the Prophesies came not in old time by the will of God This I take to be the sence of the Dr ' s Querie which after his manner he spin's out to à tedious length I answer though the Jewes had sufficient ground to believe that those ancient Prophesies were not from man but God yet the concurrent Testimony of Christians in the Dr's Principles is no certain ground to believe the Authority of the books of the new Testament First because all that Testimony with him is fallible and may be false and if the Jewes The Churches Tradition is infallible had no surer Ground to believe the old Prophesies they could not assent to them by Divine Faith In our Catholick Principles there is no difficulty at all because we hold the Tradition of the Church infallible Yet as I noted in the last Treatise the first consent of Christians owning these books Divine presupposed them taken as Divine upon the Authority of an Infallible Oracle and first made them not accepted as Divine for no man will say Scripture is first owned as à book Divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost because Christians Say so but contrary wise therefore they say so and agree in that truth because God antecedently to the universal consent assured all by an Infallible Oracle that they were of Divine Inspiration 13 P. 410. we have fearful Doings about à man of clouts where the Dr sadly complain's that I fall unmercifully to work with this man of Clouts He means himself that I throw him first down and trample upon him then I set him up again to make him capable of more valour being shown upon him then I kick him afresh and beat him of on side then on the other and so terribly triumph over him that the poor man of Clouts blesseth himself that he is not made of flesh and bones for if he had it might have The Dr's more than rediculous Complaints cost him some aches and wounds What in the name of God put the Dr into this strange trembling fit Wil not every one that read's these Threnes judge that I have dealt most rudely with à Doctor and deem my crime horrid one surely of the first magnitude to be wash't away with teares and sorrow Please to hear it Marry I said Disc 2. c. 3. n. 9 and the Dr cites my words That I verily thought Mr Still mistook one obiection for an other And is this all Not one syllable more I assure you that can give offence unless he be angry with me for not calling him Doctor when I knew nothing of his Doctorship 14 P. 411. He ask's how those believed Infallibly who only heard of Christs Miracles but saw them not I answered n. 15. Every immediate Conveyer or Propounder of Christ's Doctrin needs not to be Infallible though before those Hearers whether Barbartans or others believe Every one that proposes faith need 's not to be infallible an Infallible Oracle must be known and relyed on Se more hereof n. 16.
and proved an Infallible Teacher independently of his clearer interpretation It is impossible while we believe S. Paul speaking obscurely for S. Paul delivering the Sence of his own words more clearly 11 Now Sr look upon your own pretty Circle VVe believe say you the The D's Circle retorted upon himselfe Church to be infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith so And you believe the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth because the true sence of S. Paul's words explicated by Apostolical Authority saith so Moreover Say you VVe believe this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so and could not you Sr have believed such à Sence of the words now cited had S. Paul delivered it because either he or some other infallible Apostle said so This is only to assert in plainer Terms that the darker sence written in Scripture by one Infallible Oracle can be cleared by the Interpretation of the very same or any other Infallible Oracle which lead's no man into the least danger of à vicious Circle 12 Pray tell me Mr Dr when you in your Account interpret our Saviours words This is my body according to the Sence you judge true do you intangle your Reader in à vicious Circle By your new way of Arguing it's plain you do For those who read or hear your interpretation assent to it as true because the true Sence of Scripture saith so And again they believe this to be the true Sence of Scripture because you say so Your Interpretation has some influence upon the assent of those that believe it be it Condition Cause or what you will otherwise it signifies nothing but And yet made more Clear stand's like an useless cypher in your book This granted your Circle is manifestly vieious for you run in à round from your supposed true interpretation of Scripture to the true Sence of Scripture and back again from the true Sence of Scripture to your supposed true Interpretation Mark well Your Interpretation is proved or believed true by the true sence of Scripture here is your only ground and the true Sence of Scripture is again proved or believed true by your supposed true explication Hence it followes that either your interpretation is not according to the true Sence of Scripture God forbid say you or that the true Sence of Scripture correspond's not to your supposed true explication or finally this must be granted that you run round in à Circle and prove the one by the other 13 Perhaps to avoid à Circle it will be said you prove not your Interpretation true by the true sence of Scripture but evince that upon other grounds distinct from Scripture Viz. by the Authority of Fathers your often alleged sence and reason and God knowes what Is it so indeed Dare you Sr most shamefully quit the only main prop you rely on which is Scripture when you stand most in need of it whereof more presently and yet charge on me à vicious Circle while I believe the true Sence of Scripture because an infallible Church declares that Sence Cannot I more rationally would I seek Subterfugies evince the Infallibility of the Church by other proofs drawn from Fathers Church authority and reason and plead as you do to avoid à Circle were it necessary But I like no such Shuffling I positively assert the Sence of Scripture is therefore proved and believed true because the Infallible Church saith so though if questioned further I must bring in my reason why I believe this Oracle Infallible yet the immediate ground of my beliefe is the Churches Interpretation given upon Christs words now cited and I rest upon her Authority by Faith though this Interpretation be not the first ground why I believe her Infallible but that other more general received Truth that proves Her Gods own Oracle in all she delivers as matter of Faith which general Truth observe it well is most rationally evinced without any recourse to or dependance on Scripture And this is only to say that à Divine Oracle first proved Infallible can interpret Scripture without danger of à vicious Circle 14 What I here assert is undeniable for had any Apostle explained those words in the Gospel I and my Father are one answerable to the Sence now believed in the Church Viz. That Christ our Lord is the eternal Son of God consubstantial with his Father could not the primitive Christians have as firmly fixed their beliefe upon those words Infallibly interpreted as the Disciples fixed their Beliefe upon our Saviours Interpretation when Luke 8. 9. he fully explained the Sence of that Parable concerning the Sower and Seed These and the like Interpretations are believeable matters of Faith upon this Principle that every Interpreter whether Christ or Apostle was supposed and proved Infallible independently of that Sence they gave to God's sacred words and so is the Church as is already declared 15 The Dr ' s Confusion and whole mistake lies here that he has not yet got perfectly into his head the right notion of à vicious Circle and therefore P. 428. wishes I had told him the Secret I will do it briefly and then make his errour more known 16 A vicious Circle Mr Dr ever implies two Propositions or in à Circular What à Vicious Circle implies discourse two Syllogisms Here we will insist upon Propositions being more plain and easy then to proceed by long Syllogisms Know therefore when any first Proposition is assumed to prove the second and this second is made use of without further light to prove the first again or that very thing which is asserted by the first the Circle is notoriously vicious For example One endeavours to prove man to have Free-will because he is indowed with an intellectual Faculty then return's again and proves him intellectual because he hath Free-will the second Proposition implies à Circle because the thing proved which is Liberty or Free will not otherwise evinced but by mans being intellectual is made use of to prove that Power and so in effect Liberty or Free-will becomes à Medium to prove it self by 17 Observe well This vicious consequence whereby man seem's evinced à free Agent or indowed with liberty takes all the force it hath from the Antecedent of his being intellectual and wholly relies on that Medium If therefore as it here fall's out that Consequence whereby Liberty is asserted without any more light or further proof be again assumed as the only Medium to prove man intellectual Liberty or Free-will by its proving man intellectual proves it self and thus hic nune is both Antecedent and Consequent Antecedent as it is the Medium to prove man Intellectual and Consequent as it is the thing proved by Intellectuality which flaw is ever manifest in all vicious Circles as Aristotle notes well Lib. 1. Post cap. 3. 18 Now on the other side should I take this Consequence concerning Liberty which is deduced
from the Antecedent of mans being intellectual Should I prove that Consequence upon other grounds either by Authority or manifest experience because we se men freely eschew Evil and embrace Good should I from thence inferr that he is Intellectual the Inference now guarded by other proofs barely subsist's not upon the strength of its Antecedent but is à Verity known aliunde and therefore is rightly called Regressus utilis à rational profitable Regress free from The difference between a Circle and à profitable way of Arguing all vicious Circulation For as Philosophers teach grounding their discourse vpon Aristotle now cited A vicious Circle is à Regress or going back ab eodem ad Idem per eandem viam from the same thing to the same again and by the same way as appeares in the Instance proposed where the Antecedent assuming Intellectual proves Liberty and Liberty not known as I said upon any other proof but by that Medium Intellestual return's again and by the very same way proves Intellectuallity This is to say the Consequence as known by the Antecedent offer 's to prove at once both it self and the Antecedent together Had Dr St well reflected upon what is here noted he might easily have spared his lost labour spent upon à vicious Circle and it is à wonder be wanted reflection because Sextus Empiricus cited by him in the short discourse he has of that he calls à Diallel gives every one light enough to se what the Dr it seems saw not though Sextus be none of the clearest Authors 19 Thus much premised we proceed to the matter now in hand and Assert If any one should in the first place either believe or prove the Sence of Scripture to be true by the Churches Interpretation not otherwise believed Infallible or proved true but barely by her Interpretation and should again goe about to prove her Interpretation true by nothing but her own Interpretation which explains that true Sence the Circle would be manifest because the true Sence of Scripture interpreted by the Church is again assumed An application made to the matter now in hand as the only Medium to prove her Interpretation true which way of Arguing essentially implies à vicious Regress from the very same thing to the same thing again and by the very same way But if I first prove the Churches Infallibility in all She teaches upon other Grounds without any recourse at all either to the words or Sence of Scripture as is shewed above and from thence both prove and believe her Interpretation to be infallibly true that man who holds this way of Arguing Circular knowes no more what à Circle is than Doctor Stillingfleet A little touch upon the Dr ' s weak Obiections will yet give more clarity 20 Is not that à Circle saith he P. 428. when the Argument made use to prove another The Dr's Obiections answered thing by must it self be proved by that very thing which it is made use of to prove Very good Sr these general Terms hurt no body to your Application therefore in the next page The thing to be proved Say you is the Churches Infallibility the Argument to prove it by is the Infallible Sence of Scripture Answ I flatly deny the first proof of the Churches Infallibility to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture for the first Argument is taken from that general Truth whereby She is owned and proved God's Infallible Oracle in every thing She teaches concerning Faith and this independently of Scripture Here I say more It is impossible to prove her first Infallible by the Sence she gives of Scripture because that Sence is not known before She interpret's and no body goes about to prove any thing by meer insignificant Characters without their Sence Can the Dr who hold's the Church Fallible and must if he ever evince that prove it by Scripture probably take his Proof from Scripture not senced It is plain Dotage to do so He goes on But if the Infallible Sence of Scripture can be proved by nothing but by thē Churches infallible Interpretation then it is plain that is assumed as an Argument to prove Infallibility by which cannot be otherwise known than by this Infallibility What To argue from Scripture not Senced is Non-sense Infallibility doth the Dr speak of in these last ambiguous words If he say we prove the Infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches infallible Interpretation I grant it Jf contrarywise he thinks we prove in the first place the Churches Infallibility by her own infallible Interpretation of Scripture he err's grosly as is already made manifest and therefore proves nothing 21 In à word either the Sence of Scripture is known by the Churches Interpretation or is clear by it self If known upon the Churches Interpretation the Sence is one and the same with that of the Scripture for these two Oracles can never clash or differ If known by it selfe as it is in many Passages relating to manners no more is required but that the Church ascertain us of the Scriptures Divine Inspiration So that still we depend upon the Church alwaies for the assurance of Scripture being Divine or from God and in the greatest Mysteries of Faith we rely on it also for the true Sence 22 A second obiection It is à little strange that there should be no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose Sence could not infallibly be known without the Supposal of that Infallibility which is proved by them Answ It s more than à little strange that the Dr cannot distinguish between the first general act of Faith whereby the Church is believed Infallible without depending on Scripture and à second more explicit and Consequent act which wholly relies upon Her interpretation and Scripture together It is also strange if God pleases to speak obscurely as he certainly doth in many Passages of Holy Writ that another Infallible Oracle cannot tell us with he mean's without Two Strange Mistakes in the Dr. à vicious Circle The Substance of all he obiects here only amount's to thus much We prove or believe the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose sence cannot be infallibly known without the supposal of that Infallibility If he mean's as he must by supposal and that Infallibility the Churches Infallibility I have answered the Church is not only supposed but proved also infallible before Scripture was written and before She ever went about to interpret that Divine Book 23 A third Obiection is the like Tautologie over again and therefore requires no other but the same Solution If saith he the Infallible sence of Scripture be resolved into and believed upon the same infallible Authority of the Church then I still enquire how this infallible Authority of the Church comes to be proved by this exposition of Scripture the Infallibility of which doth suppose the thing to be proved Viz. the Churches
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
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
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