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
impugn the Infallibility she layes claim to by this Scripture which he saith is both doubtful and Controverted 25 Page 197 He enquires into the Necessity of an Infallible interpretation of the doubtful places in Scripture and here loses himselfe for in my whole life I never saw such à far fetcht rambling discourse as he begins with P. 197. which summed up amount's only to this that you must either believe the Dr infallible in giving an account of the proceeding of the primitive Church in this matter or remain as ignorant as you were before For my part I dare not trust the Dr for by what I have perused he is horribly out of all sound Principles Be it so or no I am wholly unconcerned in this controversy having hitherto only enquired after the means how to understand the sence of Scripture in such passages as relate to the prime Necessaries of Salvation The Godhead of Christ A Trinity of distinct persons c. Now when the Dr gives satisfaction in these particulars have at him for the rest In the mean time I supersede the labour which might be spent and leave that to the accurate review of his worthy Adversary N. O. Thus much of the Dr ' s first part And t' is more then I was obliged to take notice of but because I wanted à long time his second discourse I chose rather for the little leisure allowed from my other employments to make the few reflections you have already than to be forgetful of my good friend Doctor Stillingfleet Now we enter into his second Discourse CHAP. V. Doctor Stillingfleets pretended Answer to E VVs Two books Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion shew'd no Answer but à meer shuffling or palpable digression from the main point handled in those Treatises How the Dr shift's off the only difficulty wherein satisfaction is required 1 THere are as I conceive two wayes of answering à book The one to follow an Adversary step by step the other to reverse his Principles or at least to solve such Arguments as the Author judges worth an Answer If he judge amiss or thinks weak arguments strong ones à Respondent ought fairly to lay forth their want of strength and shew wherein they are fallacious The thing I chiefly aimed at in both Treatises was as those know who read them to vindicate the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church from the unjust censure of Sectaries whether you take it as à large body spread the whole world over or consider its Representative in general approved Councils Dr Stilling as appear's by his Title undertakes to answer these books but doth it after à new mode or the strangest way I ever yet saw in any He waves all my Arguments which I judge prove clearly the Churches Infallibility and entertain's himselfe with some few By-matters little or nothing relating to this main difficulty 2 You will perhaps better understand my meaning if I briefly sum up The chiefe Contents in the Drs second Discourse briefly Collected the chief contents of this Doctors idlely spent labour in the second discourse from his 2. Chapter page 329 to page 433. Thus it is First he enters into à serious matter with meer Drollery and spiteful language 2. He transcrib's some parcels of my Doctrin mangled as he thought best for his own design and leaves all as he found it though here and there he featly intermingles some scoffes thought by him pretty lests and to make greater confusion now you find him like à rat nibbling at one of my Treatises now at the other without method or order and the whole strain of his writing is either to tell the Reader what he saies without the least shadow of proof which directly makes against the Churches Infallibility or barely to relate what I assert for it but replyes not at all to the Arguments I chiefly insist upon as will presently appear It is true about his page 362 he would fain batter my Answers to two Objections taken out of his Account which meerly touch upon à Scholastical point How weakly we shall se hereafter but all this while not à word comes from him which directly tend's to prove the Church fallible nor can I find any of my Arguments solved Yet this is the man that in his Title-page pretend's to Answer my two books 3. After some quarrels with the Supernaturality of Faith and its obscure tendency He slip's aside into another Scholastical point concerning the Resolution of Faith and because the matter of it selfe is hard and made harder by his jumbling he get's into à Labyrinth of his own making called the Rational Evidence of Christian Religion My chief endeavour shall be to wind him out of it which would soon be done were he better versed in speculative learning 3 The Dr as I said now some what waspish layes aside much of his gravity and begins with Ironies Mockeries and bitter language called by some Iest earnest and discharges that rounder shot of Toyes Triffles and Fancies very thick upon me Is not this hard proceeding Methinks these men of the new Gospel are strangely priviledged to reproach when the Of the Dr's Ironies and bitter Language spirit moves What à gallant lesson had he learn't us in the. 5. Page of his Preface to the former book Not to revile though he be reviled and here weak man he breaks his purpose forget's his lesson and reproaches boldly And will you know why Forsooth he takes it ill that I joyned him in my Title-page with Atheists Iewes Turks and Sectaries In real earnest Mr Dr though I said it not in plain terms yet I thought you well deserved the place but seing you resent my putting you after that rabble you shall in my next book be upermost and have à palce before them all But in God's name what unluckie Spirit light on you in that deep Exclamation O! what à pestilent Heretick is this Stillingfleet Look to it Doctor Ridentem dicere verum quid vetat If you in raillery make your selfe heretick and others judge you one of the worser sort I will pray for you but can not clear you of the guilt before you deserve better There is more of this rambling He tell 's me If either of my books were thrown at his head he would have enough to defend himself for they are very thick and heavy But how would he defend that precious Pate were his voluminous Account thrown after them I am sure that 's thicker and heavier To my great comfort saith he I never yet saw two such bulky books whose Substance might be brought into à less compass or more full of Tautologies and tedious repetitions A homely complement I hope Sr. you except your own bulkie Account or ought in all reason to do so for in my whole life I never read any thing more stuff't with empty words and superabounding Tautologies To be short I dare wager ten to one if ever you and I meet in
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
whole Enquiry 3 The Miraculous Translation of the Chappel of Loreto defended against the Doctor Authorities for the Translation Produced 14 CHAP. II. Of the Dr's proceeding against me What he supposes destroies it selfe VVhat weight Church Miracles have None of wit or judgement ever contradicted them How the Dr juggles in appealing to Apostolical Miracles The Miraculous Translation of the sacred house of Loreto manifestly proved against the Dr's weak and unvvorthy Cavils 19 CHAP. III The Dr's ridiculous cavils at Teremanus his Table shew'd Nonsence The main Objection against the Chappels Translation proposed and solved A difficulty moved Concerning the strange Translation of Protestaney into Germany and England 37 CHAP. IV. More witnesses produced for the Chappels Translation VVhether Baronius proves Pope Ioan to have never been by à Negative Argument or Silence meerly Of the Dr's gross Errours and unworthy dealing 45 CHAP. V. The Dr's frivolus Objections against the Miracles wrought at Loreto dissolved A word of his other frauds 68 COVRTEOVS READER The Printer of this Treatise is wholly ignorant of the English tongue many faults therefore have slipped the prâ—sse Some are already Charitably corrected by others if more be found please to mend or pardon them ERRATA PART I. In the Title of the first 31 pages For Triefling and c read trifling Page 5. Line 22. r. overcharged P. 13. l. 15 r. Scholler P. 49. l. 30. r. Imaginable p. 49 p. 202. Margent r. of p. 212. l. 31. r. acquiesce PART II. P. 31. l. 28. r. taken thence p. 31. l. 16. r. appertaining p. 72. l. 12. r. Narration p. 35. l. 16. r. thrown out p. 78. l. 23. r. accuseth p. 3. l. 10. r. humane N. for u and u. for n. h. for b. an u. for i. as unsufficient for insufficient please to correct faults very discernable THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICK CHVRCH And Her Miracles defended against Dr Stillingfleet's Cavils THE FIRST PART CHAP. I. VVhat moued the Author to write this short Treatise How weakly Dr Stilling trifles with his Adversaries At ouch of the Drs 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 1 SIx years are now past since I set forth à book intituled Protestancy without Principles and after that another called Reason and Religion My chiefest aime and end in both was to fix in all à firm beliefe of à Truth which neither Doctor nor Divel shall overthrow It is the asserted Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church then largely discussed with an express intention to oppose Dr Stillingfleet The Dr after à long silence replies as you se and pretend's to answer these two books Moreover to perswade all he hath answered home hear how Champion like he beates the Air with à large siz'd Brag. When we saith he in the Preface to his first The Drs vast brag Part P. 3. set our selves to Answer their books we endeavour to state the Controversy plainly to examin their proofs to apply distinct Answers to their Arguments we make use of no tricks to deceive men nor Sophistical Cavils to perplex things We dare appeal to the judgement of any person who will take the pains tâ— examin the matters in difference between us But they Catholicks seek to avoid the maiâ— things in Dispute c. Thus the Dr and â— am sure never Paragraph had morâ— empty Nothings cramm'd into it that this of our glorious Antagonist 2 Wherefore I deal Candidly anâ— must tell the naked truth for truth wilâ— out and prove it in the ensuing Discouâ—se This Dr neither states the Controversy rigâ— between us nor examin's the proofs producâ— by me in behalfe of the Churches Infallibilitâ— but contrary wise waves the very best and moâ— substantial reason I alledge Again he is â— far from giving pertinent distinctions to my Arguments that I verily believe by what hitherto appear's he neither knowes how or where to distinguish No. His strange new mode in Arguing most opposit to all close reasoning is bluntly and blindly to lay about him with huffs and Cavils light where they will he heed's not For as much as concern's his tricks and Sophistry I will say in à word they may though far from being magical perhaps ensnare some vulgar people who decry all that relishes Popery but to shock the judgement of any prudent man very few for ought I know have found their brains troubled with them At least hitherto I never heard of one man bred up in à right beliefe gained to the Dr's opinions by his Sophistry tricks or scribling books 3 Now to prove what is here briefly hinted at and to show the Dr's rash and why the Author returned this Answer inconsiderate Answer to be in real truth nothing like an Answer to my books I have writ this short Treatise where I discover his shallowness in learning and would if possible make him more wise than vainly to boast of doing that which he neither has not can perform He tell 's us in his General Praeface What an excelâ—ent chymical Controvertist he is in drawing off all the Spirit he could find in Reason and Religion whereas it is evident and here demonstrated he never meddles witth that which is most material and should be called the Spirit though I urged him again and again as you may se in the Preface to answer for himselfe So little of the Spirit have I met with in these two discourses of the Dr that some may justly wonder and perhaps mislike my pains taken in following too exactly his pitiful Cavils while they plainly se that the very most which looks there like substance hath been refuted in my two last Treatises and so penurious he is in producing any thing new against me in these his discourses that I could most easily have replyed to all in one sheet of paper but that would have gall'd Mr Dr and raised Clamours as if I either could not or would not answer him in his own way To dead these false Alarms I was necessitated to turn over much rubbish to travel through the very most of his slight stuff for want of better substance to work upon 4 Courteous Reader my intention My intention purely good in order to the Dr and Euery one is purely good to the Dr in whom iâ— possible I would work à meaner conceipt of himselfe seing plainly the more he writes the more credit he loses and why should we not if we can take the man off hinder him from incurring more disgrace he hath enough of that already In case my endeavour prove unsuccesful to the Dr I doubt not but that I shall unbeguile some over credulous People whose opinion he courts and would swell up with à high esteem of his parts Here lies his last aime To do this I shall by Gods grace evince that He err's grosly in the main matters of Faith
If therefore the Proponent saies only doubtfully I think God speak's as I teach but am not certain the Assent given to his teaching is only doubtful If he truly say I teach infallibly what God reveal's the Assent in à faithfull Believer answer's and is infallible See more hereof in the pages now cited all waved by the Dr. 10. P. 79. Having slightly run over my assertions the man begin's to bristle up This saith he is the sum of the Principles of that Metaphysical wit Hold there good Doctor In the 28. page n. 9. wholly omitted by you I give à better Sum and tell you that none can teach Christian Doctrin who truly ownes not God an Infinit verity the Author of it but he that only teaches fallible doctrin which may be false cannot truly own God the Author but some other fallible Proponent that may both deceive and be deceived Whence I conclude that God never sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles to teach à Christian Doctrin which by virtue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on is meerly fallible and may be false Therefore some other God never sent any to teach fallible Doctrin which may be false malignant Spirit and not God sent Sectaries to teach their supposed fallible and easily falsified Doctrin Upon this ground more amply explain'd in the place now quoted I rely as on an invincible proof and petition the Dr to return à close Answer without trifling needless parergons vain distinctions and yet slighter stuff which ever take up the most room in his books and weary a Readers patience Se now how roughly he begins with me 11. Sure saith the Dr alluding to my Assertions à man must have his brains well confounded by School Divinity and hard words before he can have common sense little enough to think he understand's them For ought I ever yet saw in Dr St writings his brains are not too much burden'd with that dangerous learning had he more of it common sense not easily lost by School Divinity would have guided him to write more to the purpose But stay Courteous Reader is this the Doctors The Drs new way in answering new mode of confuting Propositions First lamely to set them down and then to rail at the Author Would not his Doctors hip take it ill think ye should any one confute all his late books by saying barely his brains were so turned and confounded with Heretical fancies that in real truth he knew not what he wrot What was it that gall'd him How could he wrest any thing said by me to the least offence I set down plainly my Assertions and he answers not one but becomes peevish surly and outragious Is this à Christian way of writing Controversies If he thought my Assertions deserved not à scratch of his pen why did he meddle with them and allow them so much room as to fill two pages in his book And if he judged them worthy to appear there why has he not replyed to some of them Hear the Doctors excuse 12. I never loved saith he to spend time How peevish and blunt the Dr is in confuting à man who thinks himselfe the wiser for speaking things which neither he nor any one els understand's Can any thing be more blunt What if I cheer up into some briskness and tell him wiser than he far more grave and learned have without rubbing their foreheads easily understood all that he slights What if I add it is à hard matter for one who has been long in Schools to deal with à half Scholar unacquainted with speculative learning Though what great speculation have we in any one of my Assertions Such men as these when their brains reach only to à vulgar notion of things think all amiss if you follow them not just in their old hackney pace or say any thing though never so little above their Ken. In case the Dr account me uncivil for touching his talent in learning let him thank himselfe who first began the quarel 13 Next he run's God knowes whither and saies he rather chose to put together such Propositions as might give account of Christian Faith without all this Iargon of infallibility And as I take it he relates to the Principles which slipt from his pen in one hour or other when his head turn'd round and are yet to be seen at the end of that pitiful Book concerning the Idolatry practized by the Church of Rome If so good Dr follow friendly Counsel and as you tender your credit talk no more of those Principles for they are not only torn in pieces by four at least of your Adversaries but moreover to my certain knowledge are scorned by some of your own learned coat who look on them as the most senceless things you ever writ next to your late infamous His unreasonable Cavil piece of Idolatry But in passing what shall we say to his Iargon about infallibility Is not I beseech you Iargon à far more obscure Term then the word Infallibility Yet the Dr Complains's of hard words Few I think of the vulgar know that Iargon signifies sustian language pedâ—ers French or à barbarous jangling yet all have à clearer notion of the word Infallibility and doth not Mr Dr apply it à hundred times over in his Account to God to Christ our Lord and to the Apostles who were all infallible in what they taught the world Now if he hold it not rightly applyed when we speak of the Church he is to impugn that by reason and not to quarel with à harmless word as if witchery lay in it 14 Soon after this raillery he tells us he will fix the Notion of Infallibility for saith he as it is used it seem's à rare word How and to what Infallibility is rightly applyed for jugglers in Divinity to play tricks with For sometimes they apply it to the obiect that is believed He mean's or it 's Nonsence to all that God reveal's and call that Infallibly true Very well done I think for so that word of Faith which S. Paul preached Rom. 10. 8. with testifying to Iewes and Gentils Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ was Acts. 20 21. obiectively taken infallibly true Doth the Apostle juggle here O but sometimes they apply it to the subject capable of believing and say all persons ought to be certain that what they believe is infallible true Most undoubted also if they believe what God speak's Let all the house of Israel most certainly know that God hath made him Lord. Acts 2. 36. I know whom I have believed and am certain 2. Tim. 1. 12. And to show how firm and Infallible Divine Faith is in the hearts of true Believers the Apostle tell 's the Galatians 1. 8. Although we or an Angel from heaven preach to you otherwise then that we preached to you let him be accursed Thus Scripture speak's of Divine Faith and attributes certainty to it What jugling lies here
appointed another far easier whereby his will may be known and without which Scripture cannot be understood it is only supposed and not proved that every vulgar person who relies on his private judgement is secured from errour after à sincere endeavour to find his faith of all necessaries in Scripture alone And this I shall evince against the Dr by urging one Argument proposed in my Two last Treatises ◠Cast your thoughts seriously upon those vast multitudes who call themselves Christians and observe how they stand divided or parted in Faith Take these for example The Arians Antitrinitarians the Manicheans Protestants and Papists also Most certainly all these together neither believe nor defend the true Doctrin of Jesus Christ for they hold plain contradictions and this not only in lesser matters esteemed by the Dr unnecessary to Salvation but in the most primary Articles of Christian Religion Some deny Christ our Lord to be truly the high God and Consubstantial with his eternal Father Others to be truly Man Some speak well of God's unity but refuse to own à Trinity of persons Others finally submissively yeild to these great Mysteries and hold them as undoubted revealed verities the beliefe whereof is necessary to Salvation after à due Proposal Of such Articles I profess to speak waveing at present all others if any be of lower concern and now propose my Argument 5 Christ our Lord who delights in no mans perdition but will 's all to be saved and come to the knowledge of his revealed truths 1. Tim. 2. 4. hath either pointed out à clear way or given some obvious and certain means whereby these Christians that hold contradictions in the very Necessaries for Salvation may be brought to à unity in Faith Or contrarywise hath not left any such easy way or means If not Christ is à most uncharitable Saviour who on the one side obliges us to believe the fundamental Necessaries yet on the other cast's all even the most learned upon an impossibility of ever finding them for if the certain means whereby to find what we seek for fails as is now supposed our enquiry after Necessaries is meerly à lost and fruitless labour 6 Doctor Still who tells us that God is not wanting in Necessaries to the Salvation of mankind thinks as you have heard That Scripture pondered by every mans discerning faculty without any other infallible Guide is the best Teacher the clearest light and chiefest means whereby all sincere Endeavourers may easily attain the knowledge of these Necessaries First the Dr makes here too much hast for he should on this occasion have given in an exact Catalogue of his Necessaries these being of so high concern that if one be mistaken or left out of his catalogue which is absolutely Necessary Faith faulters and Salvation depending on Necessary Faith miscaries also But our Dr was wise and thought it best to sculk in Generalities for fear of being caught To be briefe let us suppose the beliefe of the Incarnation that is of Christs being really true God and true man may be deservedly called one of the grand Necessaries for Salvation If the Dr boggle at this I know well how to proceed with him Thus much supposed 7 My Argument goes on The Learned Socinians the learned Arians My Assertion proved with others read and ponder the same Scripture you read Mr Dr. They want no more the Faculty of discerning between Truth and falshood then you They pretend to have as much of Gods grace as you can pretend to and are as loth to damn themselves by maintaining a wilful errour against Scripture as you Yet this matter of fact is evident That they plainly contradict you in the belief of Necessaries and so doe other most learned Christians also What redress now Where have we the means prescribed by Christ to make us all of one Faith in this one Necessary already Specified Scripture you se abused by you or the Arian breed's these dissentions though none yet knowes by your Rule who is in fault and therefore can be no fitt means to end them for the sence of it in the matter now proposed is the only thing in controversy This ground failing all sincere endeavour to learn what that book teaches without more help fail's also 8 Because the Drs Faith is as much unknown to me as his person by some hints I guess it to be à very odd one I will press my Argument farther and demand Whether if à learned Arian after an exact perusal of Scripture makes this sincere judgement by his discerning Faculty that the high God head of Christ is neither revealed in that book nor worthy beliefe he may boldly abiure Christ God and man and yet be saved In like manner I ask whether à learned Protestant if after à serious reading he judges that Christ is truly God and believes quite contrary to the Arian may be saved also In case the Dr say all these though of à most opposite beliefe concerning Necessaries may attain Salvation and I verily think his Principles carries him A difficulty proposed concerning necessaries to that desperate concession with what conscience can he oblige Christians under pain of damnation to believe Christs Godhead as à revealed verity most necessary to Salvation For in real truth it is not so because men professing Christianity may be saved without that beliefe and if Salvation may be had though this Mystery be with contempt rejected it followes that nothing of Christian Doctrin can be judged more Necessary and so the Turks beliefe of one God will be Faith enough to save all I might here add more and tell you that the ancient Church most injuriously censured the Arians as Heretiques liable to damnation upon their denying Christ's Godhead for that denyal in the supposition made is not damnable 9 Perhaps the Dr will say Some only of these open Dissenters who hold contradictions in Necessaries are in the right way to Salvation but others not because his Rule is neglected for some out of slothfulness or for want of God's grace endeavour not sincerely to know the Scriptures meaning in such matters If this be his reply the difficulty proposed return's again as vigorously as ever We therefore ask by what clear way or means Christ most certainly hath afforded means can à serious Seeker after Necessaries discern between these sincere not erring Christians and those others who err Unless these be easily distinguished unlesse it be known to what particular Church those first belong under what Pastors they live what sure Guides they rely on And the second misled be likewise pointed out as perverse and negligent an Enquirer after Necessaries may as well close with the Arian and believe as he believes as ioyn with the most Orthodox Christian in the world The reason hereof is evident for to know only in à general way that some Christians have à right beliefe and others not while all of a different faith profess to believe right
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
Infallible Church delivers which are known without that light though by an inferiour degree of certainty the Calvinism is more in your head then in my Doctrin To say more of this subiect were only to transcribe what I have in the place now cited 13 P. 347 to P. 361. I find the like bundle of trash all along Now moral certainty refuted above comes in again Now the Question in this Controversy is Stated à new Viz. Whether the Spirit of God may not by moral Arguments work in mens minds such à certain assent of Faith as The Dr err's in stating the question the Scripture requires for Salvation Here the Dr err's for the Question is not whether Arguments morally certain may induce to believe but whether Faith relying on moral inducements only be Divine and Supernatural This I deny The next Question started P. 349. is whether Supernatural Faith be at last resolved into God's Verity known by natural reason which is only à Theological controversy wholly impertinent to our present difficulty of the Churches Infallibility or the undoubted certainty of Faith Grant or deny no hurt to either My opinion is and t' is no more but an opinion That Faith relies not upon that veracity as known Scientifically though I am far from excluding the natural knowledge thereof from our capacities before we believe à Divine Revelation But saith the Dr. Supposing God had never discovered his own Veracity in Scripture could not men have had Divine Faith Yea and with the Assistance of Grace Supernatural Faith also of God as he is à Rewarder Heb 11. 6 in case they had never heard of either Church or Scripture To such God speak's by his visible and Admirable Providence over the world For his invisible perfections are manifested from the creation of the world Rom. 1. 19. The Heavens declare his glory c. But what is all this to our matter in hand when we have Gods veracity and Revelation proposed by Church and Scripture and easily suppose that first perfection known by natural reason 14 In the next place the Dr has à fling at Cardinal Lugo Suares with others and court's them after his homely manner with ieers and reproachful language Poor man Were these profound Doctors living he would not be thought worthy to turn over books for them Soon after he would have the terms of Divine Supernatural Infallible and Inevident Faith banished Schools That Of the Dr's rambling is because he understand's them not Next he tell 's us P. 358. These things were necessary to be premised before we could come to the true state of the Question and thus it is VVhether in order to the certainty of our Faith concerning Gods Revelation an Infallible Testimony of the Church be necessary This he proposes and denies yet never so much as offer 's to meddle with And intolerable Shuffling the Question What is done Marry he first makes another large excursion and relates some broken pieces of my Doctrin then shamefully slip's aside and enters upon à meer speculative Scholastical difficulty concerning the Resolution of Faith Is not this worse then shuffling Suppose that neither Mr Dr nor I give the best Resolution in this matter doth i◠therefore follow that Faith requires not the Churches infallible Testimony in this present state No more followes from this were all true save thus much only that neither of us as yet have hit right upon the true Resolution In à word the necessary dependence of Faith upon the Church is proved in both my last Treatises because none can have certainty of the Divine Inspiration of Scriptures of the Infallible truth of Scriptures or finally of their genuin sense unless an Infallible Church ascertain these particulars and to these convincing proofs wholly independent of the Dr ' s Resolution and mine no answer was ever yet nor can be hereafter returned 15 The Dr told us just now he would come to the true state of the Question concerning the Churches Infallible Testimony and to comply with his promiss as I said above he meddles not at all with it but. P. 361. attaques my Resolution of Faith and doth it in such an unlearned manner as never Dr I think did before him First he laies down à part of my Doctrin but as his custome is answers nothing 2. In lieu of answering he object 's and tells us again an old story partly taken out of his Account What proceeding is this Our method is quite contrary we ever solve an Argument directly when it is proposed and should be laugh't at did we to avoid the difficulty only throw an another objection at an Adversary to stop his mouth with 16 A word now of my Doctrin to the end all may se how this man deal's with me Reas. and Relig. Disc 1. c. 1. and. 6. I Assert That as the primitive Christians resolved their Faith just so we resolve ours and argue thus Had one demanded of those first converted multitudes after the Canon of Scripture was written why they believed Christ to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world They might have answered Scripture as we are taught expresses these verities But ask again how know you that your Scriptures are not suppositious We now resolve our Faith as the primitive Christians did before us as some Gospels have been They would have said for we suppose them reasonable this we believe upon the undoubted Testimony of those blessed men the Apostles who wrot that Holy book Yet another Question ensues How do you know that these Apostles were not Cheats for there have been false Prophets and Apostles but men inspired by Almighty God to teach and write his sacred verities Had they proved this by Scripture the Circle would have been inevitable For to say Scripture is Gods word because the Apostles tell us so and to say the Apostles were infallible Oracles of truth because the Scripture affirm's that implies à most vicious circulation Their rational Answer therefore would have been for there is no other The manifest wonders done by the Apostles their strange Miracles and Conversions wrought the whole world over their eminent Sanctity and sheding of blood for the Doctrin delivered by them proved those blessed men to be Oracle divinely inspired Gods most faithful and Commissioned Teachers But all this Discourse hold's exactly applyed to the Roman Catholick Church for She evidences the like undeniable Miracles greater Conversions more martyrdoms since the Apostles dayes most admirable Sanctity in thousands and thousands therefore She in like manner is proved God's Oracle as is more largely declared in the place now cited 17 This Argument I urged against the Dr and told him c. 6. that he was either obliged to shew wherein those first Apostolical Miracles and Conversions surpass'd these latter of the Church or rationally to blame my inference as defective and unconcluding Viz. That the Church is not as fully evinced by her Signs to be God's Oracle as the
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.
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