cannot have any unquestionable assurance that there was such a Person as Christ in the world that he wrought such great miracles for confirmation of his doctrine that he died and rose again Is all this no more than the common consent of Jews Gentiles and Cbristians that Christ died on a Cross Was ever any man so senseless as to make only the belief of the death of Christ on the Cross the reason of believing his Divinity But I say his Miracles before and Resurrection aâ—ter gave abundant testimony that he was sent from God and therefore his doctrine must needs be true and when we believe the truth of his doctrine wâ— are bound to believe every part of it such are his being the only Messias the true God the Redeemer of mankind and all other divine verities contained therein Let the Reader now judge whether the Objection or the Answer savours of more ignorance and folly But it is the mischief of this School-Divinity that it adds confidence to Ignorance and it makes men then most apt to despise others when they most expose themselves I proceeded to shew that instead of setling faith on a sure foundation by the Churches Infallibility they bring it to greater uncertainties than it was in before because they can neither satisfie men what that Church is which they suppose Infallible what in that Church is the proper subject of this Infallibility what kind of Infallibility it is nor how we should know when the Church doth define Infallibly and yet I say every one of these Questions is absolutely necessary to be resolved in order to the satisfaction of mens minds as to the Foundation of their Faith His Answer to these Questions refers us to his proofs of the Roman Churches Infallibility as the only society of Christians which hath power to define Infallibly by her representative moral Body which when I see proved I shall confess an Answer is given to those Questions Only one thing he thinks fit to give a more particular Answer to which is that this Infallibility should be the only Foundation of believing all things in Religion and yet so many things and some of them very strange ones must be certainly believed before it Here his common-place-Book again fails him and therefore wanting his Compass he roves and wanders from the point in hand He tells me it is hard to guess at my meaning for I name not one article thus assented to Perhaps I would say that the verities revealed in some Books of Scripture called Protocanonical known by their own proper signitures or motives as the Harmony Sanctity and Majesty of the Stile may be believed without this Testimony of an Infallible Church Well he doth not know what I meant but he knew an Argument he had an Answer ready to and therefore that must be my meaning But are not my words plain enough to any one that reads them And what a vast measure of faith say I is necessary to believe the Papal Infallibility for unless a man believes the particular Roman Church to be the Catholick Church unless he believes that Christ hath promised an infallible assistance to the Pastors of the Church and that not as separate but as assembled in Council and not in every Council but such as the Pope calls and presides in and confirms he cannot believe this Doctrine of Infallibility Nay further he must Infallibly believe the Church to be Infallible though no Infallible Argument be brought for it that this Church doth judicially and authoritatively pronounce her sentence in matters of Faith though we know not what that Church is which must so pronounce that he Infallibly know that this particular sentence was so pronounced though he can have no other than moral means of knowing it and lastly that the Infallibility must be the first thing believed although all these things must be believed before it Could any man well in his senses after reading these words imagine that I meant the self evidencing light of the Scriptures again But they write for those that believe them and that never dare look into the Books they pretend to consute Yet he hath a mind to prove the name of Roman Catholick Church to be no Bull which I said in a Parenthesis was like German universal Emperour This gives a new start another common-place Head is searched Title Catholick Church there he finds ready the old weather beaten Testimonies Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world over ergo Roman and Catholick are all one A plain demonstration What need they talk of the obscurity of Faith where there is such convincing evidence But what if it should have happened that S. Paul had said the same thing of the Faith of the Corinthians or Thessalonians would it not have been a most evident demonstration that the Church of Corinth was the Catholick Church at that time and was to continue so in following Ages But Scripture though never so plain cannot serve their turn they must have Fathers too So E. W. brings in St. Hierom St. Cyprian St. Athanasius St. Ambrose all evidently proving that the Church of Rome was once Catholick and what then I beseech him Were not other Churches so too But these very Testimonies as it unhappily falls out had been particularly and largely examined by me in a whole Chapter to that purpose But it is no matter for that I had not blotted them out of his Note-Books and there he found no answers and therefore out they come again § 11. 2. The second thing I objected against this way of resolving Faith was that it did not effect that which it was brought for for supposing that Chuch Infallible and that Infallibility proved by the motives of credibility they do not escape the circle objected against them Which I shewed 1. from the nature of divine Faith as explained by them 2. From the consideration of the persons whose Faith was to be resolved 3. From the nature of that Infallibility which is attributed to the Church I must now consider how E. W. attempts the clearing of these difficulties 1. As to the nature of divine Faith I ask whether a divine Faith as to the Churches Infallibility may be built upon the motives of credibility If it may then a divine Faith may rest upon prudential motives if not then this way cannot clear them from a circle in the resolution of divine Faith For I demanded why with a divine Faith they believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God Their answer is because the Church which is Infallible delivers them as such to us If I then ask why with a divine Faith they believe the Churches Infallibility I desired them to answer me if they can any other way than because the Scriptures which are Infallible say so It is a very pleasant thing to see how E. W. is miserably put to his shifts about this difficulty for although in his former Discourses he had
Miracles to convert them bâ—â— withal saith that the conversion of Infidels 〈◊〉 not so necessary now as in the Apostles times and therefore God doth not in this ordinarily bestow this gift on men although he mâ—â— do it in some extraordinary cases Whâ—â— shall we say now to the Testimony of thiâ— learned Bishop had he never heard 〈◊〉 St. James of Compostella and the Miraclâ—â— pretended to be wrought there and could 〈◊〉 believe them and write these things Haâ— he never heard of St. Vincentius Ferreriâ—â— who lived in some part of the same time witâ— him and if he had believed the Miracles reported of him he would neither have pâ—â— the Question nor answered it so as he diâ— After him I shall produce the Testimony 〈◊〉 Fisher Bishop of Rochester in his Answer tâ— Luther who to prove the necessity of interpreting Scripture by the continued sense 〈◊〉 the Church and not by the bare Letter offeâ— to produce such words of Christ in which bâ—sides the matter of fact and the commanâ— there is a promise annexed and yet saith he in our dayes no effect of this promise iâ— seen and then brings the words of Scriptuâ—â— wherein it is said that Christ cured tâ—â— blind and the lame and cast out Devils and he commanded his Disciples to do 〈◊〉 same and makes a promise to them that â—hould believe in Christ. Mark 16. that many â—â—gns should follow them and yet this promise saith he hath no effect now for no man â—ow casts out Devils nor heals diseases and yet no one questions but there are many that believe But what then was the promise of Christ of no effect no saith he Christ intended it only for the first Ages of the Church but when the Christian faith was dispersed over the world there was no longer need of miracles Can any Testimony be more plain or weighty in our case than this it being from one who undoubtedly knew all the pretences to miracles that were then made Erasmus expresly saith that the gift of miracles which was necessary to the first Ages of the Church for the conversion of Infidels as speaking with strange Tongues miraculous Cures Prophesying and such like miracles is is now ceased Stella not only saith that the power of miracles is ceased but he saith that the receiving it would do more hurt than good for men would say that the Christian faith was not sufficiently confirmed before Of all cases we might most reasonably suppose that God should if ever renew this gift in the conversion of Infidels and yet Franciscus à Victoria saith that he heard of no miracles or signs that were wrought for the conversion of the Indians Josephus Acostâ— at large debates this case why God doth nâ—â— now give the power of miracles among those who preach to Infidels as he did of old anâ— he offers at several reasons for it of which this is the chief That miracles were necessary in the beginning of Christian Religion but not now And if the Church be defective in the power of miracles where it is the most necessary what reasonable ground can there be to think that God should imploy his power not for the satisfaction of Infidels but of the credulous and superstitious As God never works miracles to convince obstinate Atheists so neither doth he to gratifie the curiosity of old Women and Pilgrims but if ever he doâ—â— it it is to lay a sufficient foundation for those to believe who are otherwise destitute of the means of faith But if such persons who are imployed upon the work of converting Infidels do want the Testimony of miracles I know no reason to believe that he imployâ—â— it for other ends And if these persons had believed that the power of miracles had been any where else in the Church they would have made that considerable objection to themselves why God should give it where there was less need and deny it where there was greatest But what then shall we say to the miracles pretended to be wrought by Xaverius and others in the East-Indies I say that if they were sufficiently attested we might be much more inclined to believe the Truth of those miracles than of the Lady of Loretto or St. James of Compostella or any of the rest which E. W. refers us to For if it were at any time reasonable to expect a power of miracles it would be for the conversion of Infidels and Xaverius and his companions going upon so generous a design might be favoured in it by some extraordinary effects of Divine Power But then in all reason the miracles would be such as were most accommodated to that design as the speaking with the Tongues in which they were to preach the Christian Religion but by the letters of Xaverius himself we find that he was extreamly put to it for want of this gift of Tongues both on the Coast of Commorin and especially in Japan for in one of his Letters he laments his condition very much because the people being willing to learn and he as willing to instruct them for want of the language they conversed with each other like Statues and when they asked him questions he could give them no answer but by degrees he said he learnt to prattle like a Child among them Can any one now imagine that God had bestowed the gift of miracles upon Xaverius for propagating Christianity and yet should deny him that without which all other miracles would be to no purpose if he could not deliver the doctrine those miracles were to confirm so as to be understood by the people But in truth I do not find that Xaverius himself in any of his Epistles did make any pretence to the power of miracles after his death indeed the Jesuits in those parts to increase the glory of their Society and their Brethren in these parts as readily concurring to such a design published some miracles which they said were wrought by him So Melchior Nunezius in his Epistle to Ignatius Loyola where he gives an account of the death of Francis Xaverius saith that many things were discovered since his death that were not known while he was alive and is not this a very probable circumstance that he had a power of miracles Would the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles have converted Infidels if they had not been known while they were living And yet these miracles he reports are very few and delivered on the single testimonies of no very considerable men the rest he faith for brevity's sake he omits which is not very probable considering how long he insists upon the story of the miraculous incorruption of his Body after his decease Which Bellarmin likewise magnifies viz. That his Body being cast into Lime was preserved fifteen months entire and free from corruption What will not these men make miracles of when they have a mind to it When Maffeius saith that the Relicks of St. Thomas at
the Guide in Controversies about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith THE State of the Controversie p. 295. The Principles of the Guide in Controversies p. 300. Those Principles Considered p. 304. Of Particular Divine Revelation as the Ground of Faith p. 308. The Resolution of Divine faith must agree to all p. 314. Of immediate assent p. 316. Of the assistance of the Holy Ghost p. 318. The absurdities of the Guides Principles 322. CHAP. II. The Principles of E. W. about Divine Faith laid down and considered E. W's Principles laid done p. 329. Some things premised to the State of the Question p. 340. Of the necessity of Grace and the sense of Moral certainty in this Controversie p. 346. 347. Gods veracity as the foundation of faith not received on divine Revelation p. 349. Of the notion of Divine faith p. 353. The true State of the Question p. 358. My first argument laid down and defended p. 361. Of the Motives of Credibility and their influence upon faith p. 369. Of the Grounds of Faith p. 376. Of the School-notion of the obscurity of faith p. 383. Of the Scripture notion of it p. 386. Of the power of the will in the assent of faith p. 395. The second argument defended against E. W. p. 400. Of the Circle in the resolution of faith not avoided by E. W. p. 423. CHAP. III. An enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church E. W's assertions about the miracles of the Roman Church p. 434. The ways proposed for examination of them p. 439. Of the miraculous translation of the Chappel of Loreto p. 441. Of the miracles wrought at the Chappel of Loreto p. 452. Of the miracles wrought by St. James at Compostella p. 465. Of St. Mary Magdalens vial and other Reliques p. 476. Of the miracles of St. Dominick p. 488. Of the miracles of the Rosary of the B. Virgin p. 493. Of the miracles of St. Francis p. 496. Of the miracles related of the British and Irish Saints p. 505. Of the Testimonies of St. Chrysostom and St. Augustin against the continuance of the power of miracles p. 567. Of the miracles of St. Vincentius Ferrerius p. 574. Of the Testimonies of their own Writers against the miracles of the Roman Church p. 585. Of the miracles reported by Bede and St. Gregory p. 589. Of the miracles wrought in the Indies p. 615. Of the Impostures and forgeries of miracles in the Roman Church in several examples p. 624. Of the insufficiency of this argument from their miracles to prove the Infullibility of their Church p. 663. Several conclusions about the proof of miracles p. 664. The miracles of Heathens and Hereticks compared with those of the Roman Church p. 670. ERRATA PAge 302. line 28. read ultimate p. 343. l. 15. â— asseâ—t p. 421. l. 13 r. signatures p. 437. l. 13. r. convince l. 18. r. dispâ—ssessed p. 493. l. 15. r. consiâ—â—ing p. 502. l. 24. r. several p. 508. l. 22. r. any better p. 549. after Saints insert than p. 590. l. 14. r. â—oâ—l p. 641. l. 11. r. Anglerius CHAP. I. An Answer to the Guide in Controversies about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith § 1. THere are two great Pleas for the necessity of Infallibility in the Roman Church one to make an end of Controversies the other to lay a sufficient Foundation for divine Faith Having therefore fully examined the former Plea in the foregoing discourse I shall now proceed to the latter with a particular respect to those Adversaries who have undertaken the Defence of the Cause of the Church of Rome against me in this Controversie And because all this dispute refers to the Principles of Faith I shall undertake to shew 1. That the Principles laid down by them are false and fallacious 2. That the Protestant Principles defended by me are sound and true 1. For the better examination of their Principles I shall give a brief account of the Rise and State of this Controversie about the Grounds of Faith The Arch-Bishops Adversary in Conference with him asked how he knew the Scripture to be the Word of God hoping thereby to drive him to the necessity of owning the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church but he failed so much of his end that the Arch-Bishop fully proved that such a Testimony could not be the Foundation of that Faith whereby we believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and that there are sufficient Grounds for Faith without it One of the great arguments whereby he disproved that way of Resolving Faith was that it was impossible to avoid a vitious circle in proving the Churches infallibility by Scripture and the Scripture by the Infallible Testimony of the Church This difficulty which hath puzled the greatest Wits of the Roman Church his Answerer thought to avoid by saying that the Churches Infallibility was not primarily proved by the Scripture but by the Motives of Credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner that Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles were proved to be Infallible Which bold assertion obliged me in a large discourse to shew these three things 1. That this way of resolving Faith was manifestly unreasonable 2. That supposing it true he could not avoid the circle by it 3. That it was false and built on no other ground but a daring confidence 1. The first I proved 1. Because an Assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence the Assent required being Infallible and the evidence only probable and prudential Motives 2. Because hereby they must run into all the Absurdities they would seek to avoid it being impossible to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of the Roman Church than we can do without it both sides acknowledging that those Motives of Credibility do hold for the Scriptures which are by us denied to belong to their Church and if faith as to the Scriptures be uncertain if it rely on them much more must it be so as to the Churches Infallibility If divine Faith as to the Scriptures can rest upon motives of Credibility there can be no necessity of the Churches Infallibility to a divine faith if it cannot how come those motives to be a sufficient ground for such a Faith as to the Church For the Churches Infallibility being the reason as to them of believing the things contained in the Scripture it ought to be believed with a faith equally divine with that whereby we are to believe the Scriptures which are the instrument of conveyinâ— the matters of Faith to us Besides thâ— leaves every mans reason to be judge in thâ— choice of his Religion because every maâ— must satisfie himself as to the credibility oâ— those motives And after all this way oâ— Resolving Faith by the Churches Infallibility doth unsettle the very Foundations oâ— Faith laid by Christ and his Apostles whâ— all supposed a rational certainty of the motives of Faith to be a sufficient
falling into another But since I see no reason to believe this Guide in Controversies to be infallible any more than the Pope himself I hope I may have leave to ask him some few Questions Doth he in earnest believe that our assurance of Gods veracity and the truth of his revelations do flow from the immediate illumination of the Spirit of God I would fain know then 1. Why he troubleâ— himself about any other resolution of faith For by this way he resolves faith in all the parts of it If you ask the first Questionâ— why you believe that to be true which God reveals The Answer is ready the Holy Ghost illuminates my mind in the belief of this If you again ask why you believe these particular articles to be Gods revelations the answer is already given the same Holy Ghost illuminates my mind in that too What need Church-Infallibility Apostolical Tradition motives of credibility or any other way the work is compleatly and effectually done without the assistance of any of them 2. Is not this to tell unbelievers that we can give them no satisfaction as to the grounds of our divine faith It is true he grants something may be said for a dull kind of humane and acquisite faith which others are capable of understanding but for divine faith that depends upon such secret and private illuminations which no person can at all judge of but he that hath them nor he very well unless another revelation assures him that these are the illuminations of Gods Spirit and not the deceptions of his own Especially since it is a principle in the Roman Church that no man can attain any absolute certainty of Grace without a particular Revelation from God See then what a wilderness this Guide hath led us into We â—re to believe that what God hath revealed â—s true and that he hath revealed these things â—rom the illumination of the Holy Ghost â—ut we cannot certainly know that we have â—uch an illumination without another reveâ—ation to discover that and so we must run â—n without end or turn back again the same way we went to believe illumination by â—evelation and revelation by illumination 3. How he can possibly give himself any good account of his faith in this manner For since the fundamental principle of faith â—s the veracity of God and the belief of Gods veracity is here attributed to the illumination of the Holy Ghost we may see how excellent a Guide this is that thus stumbles in a plain way or must of necessity go forward and backward For I desire him to satisfie me according to this resolution of faith in this Question why he doth believe whatsoever God saith is true his Answer is because the Holy Ghost by his inward illumination assured me so But then I ask again why he is assured of the truth of what the Holy Ghost enlightens him his Answer must be if he speaks at all to the purpose because the Holy Ghost is God and cannot speak any thing but truth So that the veracity of God is proved by the Spirits Illumination and the Spirits Illumination by Goâ— veracity But there is yet another principlâ— which faith stands upon which is that Goâ— hath revealed the things we believe heâ— again I ask why he believes these articles aâ— Gods revelations his answer is the Holâ— Ghost by enlightening my mind hath assured me of it But then I ask how he is suâ— with a divine faith which in this case is necessary that there is a Holy Ghost and thaâ— this is the illumination of the Holy Ghostâ— Here he must return again to divine Revelation wherein the promise of the Holy Ghosâ— is made Judge now Reader whether thiâ— be not an admirable Guide in Controversies and whether he hath not given a very satisfactory account of the Resolution of Faith § 8. Besides that this way is thus unsatisfactory in it self I have this further charge against it that other ways are liable only to the single absurdities of their own particulaâ— opinions but this blind Guide hoping to cleaâ— himself of one great absurdity hath not only run into it the very way he seeks to escape it but into many more besides If there be any thing absurd in the Calvinists Resolution of Faith he hath taken in that if there be any thing absurd in resolving faith by the Infallibility of the Church he is liable to â—hat too because though he doth not think â—t necessary he allows it to be good and last of all that which he looks upon as the advantage of their faith above ours plungeth him unavoidably in as bad a circle as may â—e And that is That the Infallibility of the Church being once believed by a divine Faith from the Revelation of it in Scripture it is a ground of faith to him in all controversies that arise concerning the sense of Scripture I am not now to examine the falseness of the pretence which hath been done already and may be more afterwards that which at present I am to shew is that it is impossible for him in his resolution of Faith concerning the sense of Scripture to avoid the circle Let us see how he attempts it Suppose I be asked saith he concerning some article of faith defined by the Church though the same article doth not appear to me clearly delivered in the Scriptures why with a divine faith I believe it to be divine Revelation I answer because the Church which is revealed by the Scriptures to be perpetually assisted by the Holy Ghost and to be infallible for ever in matters delivered by her hath delivered it to me as such If again why with a divine faith I believe these Scriptures in general or such a sense of those texts in particular which are pretended to reveal the Churches infallibility to be divine Revelation I answer as before because Apostolical Tradition hath delivered them to be so which Apostolical Tradition related or conveyed to me by the Churcâ— I believe with a divine faith by the internaâ— operation of the Holy Spirit without haviâ—â— at all any further Divine Revelation froâ— which I should believe this Revelation to bâ— divine This is the utmost progress of divine faith with him I know not how mucâ— faith there may be in this way I am suâ— there is not the least shadow of reason Foâ— if a stop be made at last by the internal opâ—ration of the Holy Spirit what need so mucâ— ado to come thither Might not the samâ— answer have served as well to the first anâ— second Question as to the third When yoâ— were asked why with a divine faith you bâ—lieve such a sense of Scripture to be divinâ— Revelation Might not you have hindred aâ— further proceeding by saying I believe iâ— with a divine faith by the internal operatioâ— of the Holy Spirit without having at all anâ— further divine Revelation But if you though it necessary to assign another divine
Revelation for the foundation of that faith by thâ— Churches Infallibility why will not the samâ— reason hold for the last act which must havâ— as good a Foundation as the other or elsâ— how comes it to be a divine faith as well as â—he other But the subtilty of all this is â—ou have it seems by your office of Guide â—he opening of the Gate and you hold it â—pen so long as to let through all your Friends â—or Infallibility and Tradition must by any means be let through and when these are â—assed down falls the Gate in so rude a manâ—er as is enough to cripple any other that endeavours to get passage Can any man posâ—ibly assign a reason why the operation of the Spirit should not have as great force before the Churches Infallibility be let in But this it is to be a Guide in Controversies â—o direct Infallibility Tradition and the Hoâ—y Ghost to know their distance and to keep â—heir due places and it is a great favour â—hat the Holy Spirit is allowed to bring up the rear and to make all sure but by no means to offer to go before Infallibility or Tradition For these are capable of doing better service afterwards than the Holy Ghost is ever like to do them the greatest use of it being to make good a Pass that nothing follow to disturb the march of Infallibility and Tradition But if I may be so bold once more to presume to ask this wonderful Guide when the dispute is about the sense of Scripture why he doth believe such a particular sense which doth not appear clearly to him in Scriptures to be the infalliblâ— sense of it or to be divine Revelation Hiâ— answer is because the Church which is revealed in Scriptures to be infallible hath deliveâ—ed this to him as the sense of it Very well this is an Answer I understand though I seâ— no reason for it But I proceed why dâ— you believe this Infallibility to be the sensâ— of those places which speak of the Church since to me they are far from appearing tâ— be clearly delivered in those Scriptures Remember you believe this with divinâ— faith and this divine faith must have dâ—vine Revelation the Question then is uâ— on what divine Revelation do you believâ— the Infallibility of the Church to be prâ—mised in Scripture He Answers upon Apâ—stolical Tradition Is this Apostolical Tradition the same with the Scriptures or different from it If the same what greate clearness can there be in this than in thâ— Scriptures If different what divine Revelation is your faith of the Infallibility oâ— that built upon He ingenuously consesseâ— none at all for then there must be a process in infinitum or a circle And yet hiâ— principle is that divine revelation is neceâ—sary to divine faith but there can be nonâ— here by his own consession without process in insinitum or a circle which iâ— to acknowledge the absurdity of his own way as far as a man can desire Well but how comes this Apostolical Tradition to be known to him By the Church he saith but may the Church be deceived in delivering Apostolical Traditions No he saith she is infallible but do you believe her infallible with divine faith Yes he saith that must be done then at last there must be a divine Revelation again for this Infallibility and so the circle returns No he saith at last he believes the Churches Testimony infallible only with a humane and acquisite faith upon prudential motives but he believes the Apostolical Tradition related by the Church with a divine faith Was there ever such a perplexed Guide in Controversies The Infallibility of the Church is sometimes to be believed with a divine faith and sometimes not and yet when it is not to be believed with a divine faith it is the Foundation of the divine faith of Apostolical Tradition for he assigns no other ground or reason for it besides the Infallible Testimony of the Church But this infallibility he saith may be known two ways by promises of Scripture or prudential motives not to dispute now the possibility of proving the Churches Infallibility by prudential motives which I shall do at large afterwards the thing I now enquire after is since the Apostolical Tradition must be believed by divine faith and the belief of it comes by the Churches Infallibility whether any other Infallibility can secure such a faith besides the Infallibility by Promise for the Infallibility asserted being a security from error by divine Assistance and that assistance only supposed to be promised in Scripture there can be no other Infallibility here understood but that which Infallibility by his own assertion must be believed by divine faith which divine Faith must rest upon divine Revelation and so he believes the sense of Scripture because of the Churches Infallibility and the Churches Infallibility by Apostolical Tradition and Apostolical Tradition by the Churches Infallibility and the Churches Infallibility by the sense of Scripture See now what an admirable Guide in Controversies we have met with and with what skill and dexterity he hath escaped the circle And so I take my leave of this GUIDE finding nothing in him further material about Infallibility which I have not answered in the foregoing Discourse The Consideratoâ— urging so much the very same things and frequently in the same words that I now think he either was the same person or made very bold with him CHAP. II. The Principles of E. W. about the certainty of Divine Faith laid down and considered § 1. HAving met with so little satisfaction from the Guide in Controversies I now betake my self to the Rule no Fancies Toys Trifles or Fallible Glosses I assure you for those E. W. cries out upon almost in every page of his worthy work but Reason and Religion or The Certain Rule of Faith What can any man desire more unless it be to see Mr. Stillingfleet joyned in the Title-page with Atheists Heathens Jews Turks and all Sectaries And that he might own a greater obligation to him than all that Rabble he dispatches them all after a fashion in 30. pages and spends above 600 upon him O what a pestilent Heretick is this Stillingfleet that deserves so many lashes beyond Atheists Heathens Jews or Turks If he had been any one of those he might have been gently used for never were they fairlier dealt with by any man that undertook them But he is not so much their Friend to thank him for this kind usage and E. W. thinks he will have enough to do to defend himself I confess I think so too if either of his Books against me were to be thrown at my head for they are very thick and as heavy as is possible And to my great comfort I never yet saw two such bulky books whose substance might be brought into a less compass for setting aside Tautologies and tedious repetitions frequent excursions and impertinent digressions the pith and marrow of
for Assent is not according to the objective certitude of things but the evidence of them to our understanding For is it possible to assent to the truth of a Demonstration in a demonstrative manner because any Mathematician tells one the thing is demonstrable For in that case the assent is not according to the evidence of the thing but according to the opinion such a person hath of him who tells him it is demonstrable Nay supposing that Person Infallible in saying so yet if the other hath no means to be Infallibly assured that he is so his Assent is as doubtful as if he were not Infallible Therefore supposing the Testimony of the Roman Church to be really Infallible yet since the means of believing it are but probable and prudential ' â—he Assent cannot be according to the nature of the Testimony considered in it self but according to the reasons which induce me to believe such a Testimony Infallible And in all such cases where I believe one thing for the sake of another my Assent to the object believed is according to my Assent to the Medium on which I believe it As our light is not according to the light in the body of the Sun but that which presseth on our Organs of Sense So that supposing their Churches Testimony to be Infallible in it self if one may be deceived in judging whether it be Infallible or no one may be deceived in such things which he believes on that supposed Infallibility It being impossible that the assent to the matters of faith should rise higher or stand firmer than the assent to the Testimony upon which those things are believed But now to prove the Churches infallibility they make use only of the motives of credibility which themselves grant can be the foundation only of a fallible assent This was the reason I then urged I must now consider what E. W. saith in answer to it And the force of his answer lies in these things 1. That all this proceeds from ignorance of the nature of faith which Discourses not like to science For he grants that the article of faith which concerns Gods Revâ—lation cannot be proved by another believeâ— article of faith wholly as obscure to us â— that is for that would proceed in infinitum therefore all rational proofs avail tâ—â—get faith in any must of necessity be extrinsecal to belief and lie as it were iâ— another Region more clear yet less certain than the revealed mystery is we assent to by faith And so in that article of faith the Church is Gods infallible Oracle he saith that antecedently to faith it cannot be proved by arguments as obscure and of the same Infallible certainty with faith for then faith would be superfluous or rather we should believe by a firm and infallible assent before we do believe on the motive of Gods insallible Revelation which is impossible So that the extrinsecal motives of faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is proved independently on Scripture are not of the same certainty with supernatural faith it self and only prove the evident credibility either of the Scripture or the Church 2. That the force of this Argument will hold against our selves and those who believed in the Apostles times whose infallible assent of faitb doth as much exceed all proportion or degree of evidence as theirs does in believing the Churches Infallibility on the motives of credibility In order to the giving a clear and distinct Answer it will be necessary to enquire â— What those acts of Faith are we now Discourse of 2. What influence the moâ—ives of credibility have upon them 1. For the acts of Faith there are two assigned by E. W. 1. That whereby men beâ—elieve the Scripture to be the Word of God 2. That whereby men believe the Church to be Infallible both these he acknowledges â—re Articles of faith and to be believed with â—an Infallible assent But here mark the shuffling the first of these cannot be believed but by an Infallible Testimony viz. Of the Church for that end the Churches Infallibiâ—ity is made necessary that the Faith may be divine and infallible because divine faith can rest only upon Infallible Testimony but â—hen in the other act of faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed we hear no more of this infallible Testimony because then it is impossible to avoid the circle I propose therefore this Dilemma to E. W. Either it is necessary to every act of divine Faith to have an Infallible Testimony or it is not if it be not necessary then there is no necessity of asserting the Churches Infallibility in order to believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God and so the cause is gained if it be necessary then the faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed must have such a divine Testimony and so either a process in infinitum or a circle are unavoidable by him If he considered this and yet wriâ— two such Books to prove the necessity of Infallibility in order to faith he betrays too much insincerity for a man to deal with him if he did not he need not complain so much of others Ignorance he may easily find enough nearer home And therefore all the fault of these men does not lie barely in making the assent to be more certain than the motives of Faith but in requiring so strictly in one act of Faith a proportionable certainty to the assent and not in another For what is there I beseech E. W. in believing the Churches Infallibility which should not make it as necessary for that to be supported by an infallible Testimony as that whereby we believe the Divine Revelation If faith hath nâ— grounds and doth not Discourse as Science doth then I hope the case is alike in bothâ— and so the necessity of an Infallible Testimony must be affirmed of the one or equally denyed in the other But he seems to assert That faith whatever object it respects doth not Discourse as Science doth but solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of reason Grant this at present but then I hope both these acts of faith equally do so and still â—he Churches infallibility cannot be made â—ecessary to faith for if faith immediately â—elies on Gods Testimony what need any other to ascertain it or any other proposition than such as is sufficient to make known â—he object of faith to which end no infalliâ—ility in the proponent is necessary Any more than it is necessary for the act of love â—oward a desireable object that he that shews a Beauty should be infallible in the description of her If all the necessity of the Churches proposition be no more than to convey the Divine Testimony to us as E. W. sometimes â—mplies let him take pains to a little better purpose in proving that such a conditio applicans as he calls it must have infallibility belonging to it For Infallibility is then only necessary when it is relied upon
Moral which doctrine he saith if it be defensible it 's impossible to declare how Faith it self or the illustration previous can proceed from the Holy Ghost For did the Spirit of God work with a soul when it believes the certainty of Faith would without all doubt go beyond that assurance which is only humane moral and fallible I think that I escape well that E. W. hath not transcribed a great part of Bradwardin de Causâ Dei against me for I plainly see he takes me for an Absolute Free Willer and a denier of the Grace of God It is true indeed I set aside the consideration of Divine Grace in this matter but I assure him not that I questioned the Truth or necessity of it but because it was not pertinent to â—his business For to what purpose should we argue about that which can only serve for â—he satisfaction of those which have it and â—eaves men entangled in the same difficulties they object to others But the Question was plainly put by me concerning the outward inducements to faith viz. whether an infallible Testimony of the Church were necessary in order to it or whether a certainty short of that which I called Moral were sufficient for Divine Faith Not opposing this Moral Certainty to the concurrence of Divine Grace but to an external infallible Proponent I took it then for granted on both sides that the Grace of Faith doth not come meerly from our selves but that it is the Gift of God that whereever God doth immediately concur he doth direct the mind to the belief of what is certainly True that there might be unaccountable ways whereby an inward certainty might be produced and so firm an adherence to the Truth believed which all the arguments and torments in the world could never shake of which the Primitive Martyrs were undeniable Instances But this internal perswasion could be made no matter of debate nor any argument to convince another any further than the effects of it did manifest that it came from God yet withal I did not Question but faith being an act of the mind of man which is rational and discursive had sufficient grounds to proceed upon and such which without any absurdity might justifie mens belief to any prudent or considerative men and to the severest enquiries of a mans own mind Now concerning these Grounds the Question was put by me taking in then the efficiency oâ— Divine Grace this is the true state of the Controversie whether the spirit of God may not by moral arguments work in mens minds such a certain assent of Faith as the Scripture requires for Salvation or whether in order thereto an Infallible Testimony of the Church be necessary But because the inserting the operation of the Holy Ghost doth rather perplex the controversie than explain it since this was granted on both sides I thought it better to leave it out and to manage the dispute as it ought to be only concerning the necessity of an infallible Testimony of the Church which is asserted by my Adversaries and denied by me 2. The Question is not concerning that Foundation of Faith whereby we believe what God saith to be true but that whereby we believe this to be revealed by God For those two Propositions must be supposed to any particular act of Faith viz. that whatever God saith is true and that God hath said this â—articular thing which I am bound to believe Concerning the first of these there is no dispute between us for Gods veracity founded â—pon â—his Infinite Wisdom and Goodness is agreed to be the ultimate reason of our assent â—o whatsoever God reveals Only E. W. to â—phold the supernatural certainty of Faith will not have the veracity of God to be the Foundation of Faith as it is known by natural Reason for if it were saith he Faith would at last be resolved into one natural â—rinciple thus I believe God to be the highâ—st verity imaginable not because he saith so â—ut because I know this great Truth scientiâ—ically Now saith he no science gives the â—ast or least degree of intrinsick certitude to â—aith This is profound reasoning but which â— dare say no faith can be built upon For â—ither I must be convinced of Gods veracity â—y natural reason from the consideration of â—he divine nature and attributes or by Reâ—elation from God but if by Gods revelaâ—ion then see what an excellent way this Scholastick Divine hath found for resolving Faith as to this Principle for as it is a matâ—er revealed it is an immediate object of â—aith If you then ask him why he believes any thing to be true which is revealed by God his answer is because he believes Gods supream verity or that he neither can nor wiâ— deceive but if you ask him again why hâ— believes this veracity of God he answers because God hath revealed it And is nâ— this a likely man to escape circles thâ— makes them where any common understanding would avoid them But besides supposing God had never discovered his own veracity in Scripture I would fain know of E. â— whether there could have been any sucâ— thing as Divine Faith or no if there coulâ— then this principle of Gods veracity muâ— have been the Foundation of divine faith â— known by natural Reason And supposinâ— Gods veracity not to be embraced antecedently to a divine Revelation it is impossible to suppose there should be any argumenâ— sufficient to perswade me to believe any Divine Revelation For the greatest Miracle cannot convince me of Gods Truth though they may of his Power and theâ— may perswade me to believe that God seâ— such men who work Miracles but they cannoâ— perswade me to believe that all they say is true For if God can deceive men he may imploy men as his messengers and deceive the world by them and if this opinion be rooted in a mans mind it is impossible he should yield a firm assent to any thing because it is revealed by God But E. W. saith Divines say so as he doth I suppose he means School Divines and then I grant they do and a great â—any silly things besides wrapt up under the â—ame of subtilties If any one hath a mind â—o try the truth of what I say he need do no more than read their unintelligible subtilties â—bout the nature and resolution of Faith Which Cardinal Lugo himself complains of and saith they make the doctrine of the Schools â—ard and unintelligible and in this particuâ—ar of believing Gods veracity on the account of Divine Revelation he saith it carries men into an inexplicable circle Suarez finding no better way to clear this difficulty â—uns to a mystery in it and makes it a great part of the mysteriousness of faith that although it doth not clearly see its object nor the things revealed yet it receives it by its own light and this act of faith he saith is wholy supernatural he might have said unintelligible But he
gives an admirable reason for it which is that this intrinsecally follows from the nature of a divine testimony as it is altogether infallible and can oblige to believe those things which God speaks as infallible for in speaking any thing he thereby declares his own veracity in what he affirms for by this means hâ— induces men to believe the truth of what he saith and consequently his own veracity a man being obliged to believe the testimony infallible and thereforâ— from the intrinsecal nature of such an act oâ— faith and such an object it follows that thâ— same testimony which suffices for the beliâ—â— of the thing revealed will likewise suffice tâ— believe Gods infallible veracity in revealing This reason I grant is very well accommodated to the mysteriousness of Faith but I do not know how it would satisfie any man that should doubt of Gods veracity in all his Revelations which ought to be the more considered since in the foregoing section he names some of their own Writers who assert that there is no intrinsecal evil in a falsity and therefore God may is he pleases reveal one so as to oblige manking to believe it I would willingly know then how the obligation on our parts to believe what God saith can satisfie any man of the infallible veracity of the revealer For all that there is in this reason is that God cannot oblige men to believe a falsity which it seems some of their own Schoolmen would not yield to But it is not enough that God hath declared he never will do it no Suarez himself plainly refutes that by saying that no man can be certain that God doth not make use of his absolute power in those declarations and if he can tell a lie he may not perform his own promise and therefore Gods ordinary power cannot serve the turn since by his absolute power he can act against it Cardinal Lugo although he saw all the reason in the world to reject the former opinion of Suarez yet he asserts That the assent to Gods veracity must be supernatural and elicited from the habit of infused faith which is not easie to understand since they all make this supernatural infused Faith to be an obscure inevident assent and himself grants this to be an evident assent from natural reason but how the same assent should be evident and inevident is a Question fit to be debated among the Schoolmen § 3. But all this perplexity and confusion among men of wit and subtilty arises from their false notion of divine and supernatural faith which as E. W. most Scholastically speaks essentially tending obscurely to its object like a blind man running at Tilt it makes them so much afraid of the least crevise of light or evidence lest the meritoriousness of it be utterly destroyed For it infinitely obliges God in their opinion to believe without evidence Therefore though a humane and acquisite faith such as Hereticks may have may be grounded on substantial reason yet this supernatural and meritorious faith much like a Mole works without light and expects the more wages for working in the dark I confess this essentiaâ— obscurity of faith suits very well with theiâ— Discourses about it which as E. W. speaks seems to have transfused its obscurity intâ— their writings concerning it But for us tâ— whom they will only allow a humane faith I wish they would afford a little more evidence for what they say and not overthrow the fundamental ground of all certainty oâ— Faith by deriving the perswasion of it from divine Revelation and not from the naturaâ— conceptions we have of God But I cannoâ— but commend the Ingenuity of one of theiâ— late School-men who yields That the verâ—city of God as it is the foundation of faitâ— must be known by natural light and to the objection that divine Faith must then be resolved into a natural assent he answers 1. That natural notices may be an inadaequate formal object of faith 2. That faitâ— properly goes not beyond a Testimony thâ— other being rather an act of knowledge thaâ— faith It is all one to me so the thing be granted by what name men call it That which I aim at is that the veracity of God which is the foundation of our assent to what God reveals must be received antecedently to divine Revelation And so the principles of natural Religion must be supposed true before it is possible for us to judge of revealed Religion and among those principles we â—ust allow of the veracity of God without which we cannot imagine any firm assent to â—e given to divine Revelation which is â—hat I understand by the name of Faith Wherein a divine Testimony being implyed â—hat assent which I give to any thing as true â—pon the account thereof may be called Diâ—ine Faith as that which I give to the Truth of a thing not upon knowledge or experience but the credit of another Person is â—ustly called humane faith i. e. when it goes â—o farther than meer humane Testimony but â—f that humane Testimony at last leads me to â—hat which is divine then the Faith must receive its denomination from that which it â—ests upon As suppose some persons in Persia at the time of our Saviours being in Judaea had been made acquainted with the Doctrine which he Preached and the holiness of his Life while these persons received all only upon the credit of their Friends we may call this a humane faith but if they were fully satisfied afterwards of the mighty works which were done by him to attest his divine Commission on which account they believe him to be the true Messias their faith might now more properly be called a divine faith because it fixeth it self upon an immediate Testimony of God But then we are to consider 1. That there is no sixed and determinatâ— sense of a divine faith it being no termâ— used in Scripture but taken up by men to express thereby the difference between the assent we give to the Word of God and to the Testimony of men But then this Faith may be called divine either as it relates to the material object or the formal object or the divine effects of Faith that Faith may be said to be divine in one sense which may not bâ— in another For a man may believe thaâ— which God reveals and upon the account uâ— his Testimony and yet that Faith may neveâ— operate effectually and so be no effect oâ— divine Grace upon the mind of man Therefore one of the great mistakes of the Schoolmen in this matter hath been the making the belief upon a divine Testimony to be thâ— act of divine and supernatural Faith which the Devils and Judas might have and exâ—luding Faith built upon fallible grounds from being divine which yet might effectually lead men to the obedience of Faith and consequently was truly more divine than the other 2. The same Faith in several respects may be called both humane
and divine Humanâ— as it is first grounded upon the Testimony of men and Divine as it finally rests upon the Testimony of God And in the present condition of mankind it is not reasonable to suppose that any Faith should now immediately rest upon the Divine Revelation without some rational evidence antecedent to it For the thing to be believed being the Testimony which God gave at the distance of above one thousand six hundred years we must either suppose an immediate Revelation of it or it must be conveyed to them by the credit of others Which according to this notion can beget only a humane faith for to resolve the belief of one Divine Testimony into another is to proceed without end but this humane faith if it be so called satisfying a mans mind concerning the Testimony which God gave and thereupon assenting to what was delivered upon that Testimony this Faith proceeding in the same way of rational evidence becomes a divine Faith by resting upon the Testimony which God gave to those who declared his Will 3. The Faith whereby we must first embrace a Divine Revelation cannot in this sense be called a Divine Faith i. e. as divine Faith doth rely upon a divine Testimony For that Faith is built upon those two Foundations viz. That whatever God saith is true and that this is his Revelation Now neither of these two can be entertained at first oâ— the account of a Divine Testimony thâ— first I have shewed already cannot be withouâ— a circle neitheâ— can the second for still thâ— Question will return on what account you believe that Testimony So that although thiâ— be commonly calâ—ed an act of divine Faith yet if Faith be taken in this strict sense foâ— believing upon a divine Testimony we must find out some other name for this Assent noâ— thereby to take off from the certainty or excellency of it but to prevent that confusion which the not observing these things hatâ— caused in these Controversies And if thâ— Terms of Divine Supernatural Infallible Obscure and Inevident were banished thâ— Schools the School-men themselves would be forced to speak sense in these matters And it would be a pleasant sight to see how pitifully E. W's Discourses would look without them For the main force of all he saith lies in the misapplying those terms and thâ— rattling noise they make is apt to keep in awe a vulgar understanding especially that hath been bred up with some more than ordinary Reverence to these astonishing terms § 4. These things were necessary to be premised before we could come to the true State of the Question which we now plainly see doth not relate to that Assent whereby we believe whatever God saith to be true but to that whereby we believe this particular Revelation contained in the Scriptures to be from God And so the Controversie is brought to this issue Whether in order to the certainty of our faith concerning Gods Revelation an Infallible Testimony of the Church be necessary which he affirms and I deny For in order to the certainty of Faith we have already seen he frequently asserts the necessity of an Infallible Oracle and makes all degrees of certainty short of Infallibility insufficient for Divine Faith But that we may the better understand his opinion we must take notice of his own explications of it and the distinctions he thinks necessary for that end 1. He distinguisheth between the judgement of credibility necessary to faith and the act of faith it self and the Resolution of these two though they have a due subordination to each other yet depend upon quite different principles the judgement of credibility whereby the Will moves and commands the intellectual faculty to elicit faith relies not upon that object which finally terminates faith it self but upon extrinsecal motives which perswade and powerfully induce to believe super omnia 2. He distinguisheth between the nature oâ— Science and faith Science is worth nothing unless it prove and faith purely considered as faith these words he desires may be well marked is worthless if it prove For faith reasons not nor asks how these mysteries can be but simply believes Oâ— as he expresseth it in his former Book Faitâ— solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of reason for its motive And here he asserts That there is a more firm adhesion to the infallibility of that Divine Testimony for which we believe than the extrinsecal motives inducing to believâ— either do or can draw from us 3. He distinguisheth between the Humane and Divine Authority of the Church the Humane Authority being as such fallible is not sufficient to ground divine faith But the first act of faith whereby every one believes the Church to be Gods Oracle is built upon her infallible divine Authority manifested by miracles and other signal marks of Truth By the help of these distinctions we may better understand his Resolution of Faith which he delivers in this manner Demanded why we believe the mystery of the Incarnation it is answered Scripture asserts it Ask again why we believe the Divinity of that Book called Scripture It is answered the Church ascertains us of that But how do we know that the Church herein delivers truth It is answered if we speak of knowledge previous to faith then he brings the motives of credibility which make the Churches Infallibility so evidently credible that we cannot if prudent and manifest reason guide us but as firmly believe whatever this Oracle teaches as the Israelites believed Moses and the Prophets This one would think were enough of all conscience but he thinks otherwise for there is saith he but one only difference and that advantageous to them that in lieu of Moses they have an ample Church innumerable multitudes in place of one servant of God the incomparable greater Light the pillar and Ground of Truth the Catholick Church diffused the whole world over and a little after asserts That they have the very same way of Resolving faith which the Primitive Christians had in the time of Christ and his Apostles Here is enough asserted if it could be proved § 5. Against this way laid down by my first Adversary T. C. I objected these three things 1. That it was unreasonable 2. That it did not avoid the main difficulties 3. That it was notoriously false these three waies of attacking it of which a short account is given in the entrance of this Discourse I must now more largely defend I shewed this way to be unreasonable and that upon these grounds 1. Because an assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence for the act of Faith being according to E. W. an insallible assent and no other grounds assigued for it besides the motives of credibility he must make an Infallible assent only upon fallible grounds And it is not sufficient to say that the Infallibility of the Churches Testimony makes the Assent Infallible
Gods word which I hope is an Oracle altogether as infallible as the Church But the question is whether such a one may be divided from Gods infallible Truth or not if not he is absolutely infallible if he may then what security hath any one to rely upon him upon such a conditional Infallibility which he can have no assurance of But still he hopes to retort the Instances upon me I never saw such a way of retorting in my whole life My design was to prove by these Instances that an infallible Testimony of a Church was not necessary in order to Faith he saith I must solve my own difficulties I confess I see none at all in my way that need to be answered for I assert that men may have sufficient Grounds of Faith without an infallible Proponent Well but he supposes all these Barbarians converted to Christ to have had true Faith and consequently prudent Motives to believe before they firmly assented to the Divine Revelation And so do I too But what were these motives To this Question he saith I return the strangest answer he ever heard for I seem to make the motives inducing to faith nothing but the Rational evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and therefore I grievously complain that they destroy the obligation which ariseth from the Rational evidence of the Christian Religion upon which he discourses as though by rational evidence the self-evidencing light of the doctrine and consequently all the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles were to no purpose Have not I reason to applaud my good fortune that I have met with so ingenuous an Adversary But I see those who write Controversies must be true Nethinims not only hewers of difficulties and drawers of the waters of contention but bearers of burdens too even such as their Adversaries please to lay upon them Could any thing be further from my meaning than by the rational evidence of Christianity to understand the self-evidencing light of the Scriptures But it is not what I say but what E. W. finds in his Common-place-Books a little before when I had proposed an argument he had not met with in those terms he presently fancied I meant another arguâ—ent which he found under the title of Defectilility of the Church and then in comes that with the answers he found ready to it Now for the rational evidence oâ— Christian Religion he finds not that Head in his Note-Books and cannot therefore tell what to make of it But an argument he had ready against the self-evidenâ—ing lighâ— of the Scriptures and therefore the Seraphims seather must serve instead of St. Larence's Gridiron He might have been easily satisfied in that very Paragraph what I mean by the rational evidence of Christian Religion viz. the unquestionable assurance which we have of the matters of fact and the miracles wrought by Christ for confirmation of his Doctrine and this within four lines after the words by him produced And in the foregoing paragraph I insist very much on the evidence of sense as to the miracles wrought by Christ as a great part of the rational â—vidence of Christianity which is destroyed by the doctrine of the Roman Church while transubstantiation is believed in it For what assurance can there be of any object of sense such as the miracles of Christ were and his Body after his Resurrection if we are so framed not only that our senses may be but we are bound to believe that they are actually deceived in as proper an object of sense as any in the world And if such a thing may be false what evidence can we have when any thing is true For if a thing so plain and evident to our senses may be false viz. that what I and all other men see is bread what ground of certainty can we have but that which my senses and all other mens judge to be false may be true For by this means the criterium both of sense and reason is destroyed and consequently all things are equally true and false to us and then farewel sense and reason and Religion together These things I there largely insist upon which is all very silently passed over the Schools having found no answers to such arguments and therefore they must be content to be let alone But however though arguments cannot be answered I desire they may not be mis-represented and that when I fully declare what I meanby rational evidence such a sense may not be put upon my words as I never dreamt off There is nothing after which looks with the face of an answer to theâ—e Instances unless it be that he saith that none can have infallible assurance either of our Savâ—ours Miracles or of any other verity recorded in Scripture independent of some actual living actual infallible and most clear evidenced Oracle by signs above the force of nature which in this present state is the Church These are good sayings and they want only proving and by the Instances already produced I have shewed that Persons did believe upon such evidence as implied no infallible Testimony and if he goes about to prove the Church infallible by such Miracles wrought by her as were wrought by the Apostles I desire only not to believe the Church infallible till I be satisfied about these Miracles but of that afterwards But I demanded if we can have no assurance of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles without an Infallible Church what obligation can lie upon men to believe them who see no reason to believe any such Infallibility And since the Articles of our Faith are built upon matters of fact such as â—he death and resurrection of Jesus Christ whether these matters of fact may not be conveyed down in as unquestionable a manner as any others are Cannot we have an unquestionable assurance that there were such persons as Caesar and Pompey and that they did such and such things without some Infallible Testimony If we may in such things why not in other matters of fact which infinitely more concern the world to know than whatever Caesar or Pompey did This his Margin calls an unlearned objection and in the body of his Book saith I might have proposed a wiser Question an â—asier I grant I might as appears by the answer he gives it For two things he saith may be considered 1. That the man called Christ dyed upon the Crâ—ss and this he saith both Jews and Gentiles yet assent to upon Moral Cerâ—ainty but therefore do not believe in Christ. 2. That the man called Christ dying for us was the only Messias truly God the Redeemer of mankind Here we have he saith the hidden verities of Christian Religion the certain objects of faith conveyed unto us by no moral assurance but only upon Gods Infallible Revelation A very wise answer I must needs say if intolerable shuffling be any part of wisdom Read over my words again and be ashamed If so then men