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
If therefore the Proponent saies only doubtfully I think God speak's as I teach but am not certain the Assent given to his teaching is only doubtful If he truly say I teach infallibly what God reveal's the Assent in à faithfull Believer answer's and is infallible See more hereof in the pages now cited all waved by the Dr. 10. P. 79. Having slightly run over my assertions the man begin's to bristle up This saith he is the sum of the Principles of that Metaphysical wit Hold there good Doctor In the 28. page n. 9. wholly omitted by you I give à better Sum and tell you that none can teach Christian Doctrin who truly ownes not God an Infinit verity the Author of it but he that only teaches fallible doctrin which may be false cannot truly own God the Author but some other fallible Proponent that may both deceive and be deceived Whence I conclude that God never sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles to teach à Christian Doctrin which by virtue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on is meerly fallible and may be false Therefore some other God never sent any to teach fallible Doctrin which may be false malignant Spirit and not God sent Sectaries to teach their supposed fallible and easily falsified Doctrin Upon this ground more amply explain'd in the place now quoted I rely as on an invincible proof and petition the Dr to return à close Answer without trifling needless parergons vain distinctions and yet slighter stuff which ever take up the most room in his books and weary a Readers patience Se now how roughly he begins with me 11. Sure saith the Dr alluding to my Assertions à man must have his brains well confounded by School Divinity and hard words before he can have common sense little enough to think he understand's them For ought I ever yet saw in Dr St writings his brains are not too much burden'd with that dangerous learning had he more of it common sense not easily lost by School Divinity would have guided him to write more to the purpose But stay Courteous Reader is this the Doctors The Drs new way in answering new mode of confuting Propositions First lamely to set them down and then to rail at the Author Would not his Doctors hip take it ill think ye should any one confute all his late books by saying barely his brains were so turned and confounded with Heretical fancies that in real truth he knew not what he wrot What was it that gall'd him How could he wrest any thing said by me to the least offence I set down plainly my Assertions and he answers not one but becomes peevish surly and outragious Is this à Christian way of writing Controversies If he thought my Assertions deserved not à scratch of his pen why did he meddle with them and allow them so much room as to fill two pages in his book And if he judged them worthy to appear there why has he not replyed to some of them Hear the Doctors excuse 12. I never loved saith he to spend time How peevish and blunt the Dr is in confuting à man who thinks himselfe the wiser for speaking things which neither he nor any one els understand's Can any thing be more blunt What if I cheer up into some briskness and tell him wiser than he far more grave and learned have without rubbing their foreheads easily understood all that he slights What if I add it is à hard matter for one who has been long in Schools to deal with à half Scholar unacquainted with speculative learning Though what great speculation have we in any one of my Assertions Such men as these when their brains reach only to à vulgar notion of things think all amiss if you follow them not just in their old hackney pace or say any thing though never so little above their Ken. In case the Dr account me uncivil for touching his talent in learning let him thank himselfe who first began the quarel 13 Next he run's God knowes whither and saies he rather chose to put together such Propositions as might give account of Christian Faith without all this Iargon of infallibility And as I take it he relates to the Principles which slipt from his pen in one hour or other when his head turn'd round and are yet to be seen at the end of that pitiful Book concerning the Idolatry practized by the Church of Rome If so good Dr follow friendly Counsel and as you tender your credit talk no more of those Principles for they are not only torn in pieces by four at least of your Adversaries but moreover to my certain knowledge are scorned by some of your own learned coat who look on them as the most senceless things you ever writ next to your late infamous His unreasonable Cavil piece of Idolatry But in passing what shall we say to his Iargon about infallibility Is not I beseech you Iargon à far more obscure Term then the word Infallibility Yet the Dr Complains's of hard words Few I think of the vulgar know that Iargon signifies sustian language pedâ—ers French or à barbarous jangling yet all have à clearer notion of the word Infallibility and doth not Mr Dr apply it à hundred times over in his Account to God to Christ our Lord and to the Apostles who were all infallible in what they taught the world Now if he hold it not rightly applyed when we speak of the Church he is to impugn that by reason and not to quarel with à harmless word as if witchery lay in it 14 Soon after this raillery he tells us he will fix the Notion of Infallibility for saith he as it is used it seem's à rare word How and to what Infallibility is rightly applyed for jugglers in Divinity to play tricks with For sometimes they apply it to the obiect that is believed He mean's or it 's Nonsence to all that God reveal's and call that Infallibly true Very well done I think for so that word of Faith which S. Paul preached Rom. 10. 8. with testifying to Iewes and Gentils Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ was Acts. 20 21. obiectively taken infallibly true Doth the Apostle juggle here O but sometimes they apply it to the subject capable of believing and say all persons ought to be certain that what they believe is infallible true Most undoubted also if they believe what God speak's Let all the house of Israel most certainly know that God hath made him Lord. Acts 2. 36. I know whom I have believed and am certain 2. Tim. 1. 12. And to show how firm and Infallible Divine Faith is in the hearts of true Believers the Apostle tell 's the Galatians 1. 8. Although we or an Angel from heaven preach to you otherwise then that we preached to you let him be accursed Thus Scripture speak's of Divine Faith and attributes certainty to it What jugling lies here
particular Revelations because they are ordained by Providence to ascertain every one in particular of what God speak's no hurt at all I easily accord but his words and meaning Seem quite contrary for first he will have all the Guides of the present Church inspired in their teaching as the Apostles were inspired by some celestial vision or Divine illustration Or he thinks they cannot teach Infallibly Nay more Nothing saith he P. 82 Can make the Faith of particular persons Infallible but private Inspiration which must resolve all Faith into Enthusiasm and immediate Revelation Were this true which the Dr never offer 's to make out by any proof but his own fallible word every private person might as securely write holy Scripture as any Prophet or Apostle for the chiefest Prerogative granted these great Masters was that the very words they wrote expressed the internal inspiration of the Holy Ghost or his private Revelation and upon this account are rightly called Gods own words When the inspiration was clear they expressed it clearly when obscure obscurely as we se in the dark Prophesies of the old Testament and in the Book of the Apocalypse 17 Catholicks in lieu of the Doctors Inspiration and Revelation ordinarily use The word Assistance used by Catholicks the word Assistance or Guidance of the Holy Ghost which neither implyes Enthusianism private Revelation or Prophetical illumination but the safe conduct and infallible direction of that Blessed Spirit whereby the Guides of the Church are preserved from errour in the substance of that Doctrin they oblige Christians to believe whereof see more in my last Treatise Disc 3. c. 12. n. 9. To assert therefore as the Dr doth that nothing can be more absurd than to say There are infallible Believers without infallible inspiration is not only an unproved whimsy but to speak in his homely language more then absurd if he knowes what Inspiration properly import's 18 P. 83. He saith first that those persons whom God hath imployed to make known his Doctrin must give assurance that he hath secured them from mistake and errour and then add's But to suppose that we cannot believe the first Infallible Proponents he means the Apostles unless there be such in every age is to make more difficulties and to answer none And therefore he saith in the foregoing Page It is unconceivable that ' persons should be more infallible in judging the Inspiration read Assistance of the present Guides than of the first Founders of the Church For then all my beliefe of the Infallibility of the first Proponents must depend on the evidence which the present Guides of the Church give of their Infallibility 19 This vulgar Obiection solved over and over in my two last Treatises contain's nothing like à difficulty and the Dr who will not I hope disdain to be one of the Guides of the English Church must confess it to be wholly strengthles for when he preaches to his people in The Dr's objection solved Holborn and doctrinally explain's that great Mystery of the Incarnation or tells them I suppose truly though not infallibly of an admirable Hypostatical union whereby two distinct natures Divine and humane are joyned together subsisting in one Divine person and in saying thus much gain 's belief from his Auditors when this I say is done One that 's curious demand's of those Hearers upon what motive dare they ground their faith in believing so sublime à Mystery It 's answered they believe it because God an Eternal Verity deliver's the truth in Holy Scripture But ask again whether Scripture in express Terms makes mention of that Hypostatical union or of the two different Natures united together They answer No Yet tell you that their Doctor to lay forth the Mystery more fully assures them all is true and because he is their Guide they no more suspend their Faith but believe Now if in the third place you demand whether the Verity of this Mystery depend's upon the Dr's teaching which is the only thing here stumbled at They answer no for the Verity was proposed from Christs time yet this influence his Teaching has over their Faith that he both shewes what was anciently revealed and now applyes that ancient Doctrin to their weak capacities not hitherto so exactly conceived or laid forth 20 Here you have something like that I would express and if the Dr were as infallible in his teaching as we now suppose him to speak truth we should soon agree In à word Catholick Faith as S. Thomas excellently well observes 1 Part. q. 1. art 8 ad 2. necessarily relies upon the Revelation made to the ancient Prophets and Apostles who wrote Divine Scripture and yet more primarily upon Christ our Lord's teaching Now as the Apostles often declared more fully what our great Master of truth infallibly delivered and in this sence explain'd and compleated his Doctrin so also the Church of Christ in all Ages since declared more amply what both Christ and the Apostles taught concerning the Mysteries of Faith and in this sence not only explain's what they taught but proposes it also infallibly as the certain Doctrin delivered by Christ and his Apostles and upon this account is rightly called Conditio applicans à necessary condition applying it to our capacities Hence you se though the ancient Truths were primarily matter of Faith yet to Believers in succeeding Ages they stand as it were remote from all and need this immediate Proposal of the Church living and actually teaching 21 The reason hereof if you make à true Analysis of Faith is clear For ask why I believe the Incarnation I answer the first Guides of the Church revealed it in Scripture but enquire again what assurance have I of that Revelation which is not exterminis evident much less are all the particulars belonging to the Mystery already laid forth evident I answer the Attestation of the present Church manifested by supernatural wonders gives me my last assurance and How the Infallibility of the first proponents of Faith depends upon the Churches present Guides therefore either is à partial formal obiect of Faith as I defend Reason and Religion Disc. 3. c. 12. n. 8. 9. or at least an intrinsical necessary condition as shall be afterward declared Thus you se how and in what manner the beliefe of the Infallibility of the first Proponents depend's on the rational Evidence which the present Guides of the Church give of those first Proponents Infallibility The verity of the Mystery attested and considered in it selfe depend's not upon the present Guides for it was true before they taught but à farther and more exact declaration of it not discoverable before the Church speak's and the immediate application of it respectively made to Believers depend's on these now living Guides And this also the Dr must confess when by his preaching he truly applyes the high mysteries of Faith to the understanding of his Hearers 22 The Dr takes not his measures right in
shall be Infallible in what She clearly obliges her children to believe We then produced and yet Catholicks highly injured alledge as plain Scripture for the Assertion as ever God inspired the first great Masters of the Gospel to write We here publickly avouch and will make it good That God's word is as express and significant in behalfe of the Churches Infallibility as for the most primary and fundamental Articles of Christian Religion We confirm our Assertion by the unanswerable Authority of ancient Fathers and learned Councils we add here unto the Authority of à Church never yet censured by any but known Hereticks Upon these grounds we stand Now hear I beseech you how we are treated There is à young hot Antagonist nam'd Dr Still who call's this claim to Infallibility Page 84. an uniust usurpation à thing notoriously false an arrogant pretence of an usurping faction c. Is it not think ye The Dr called to an account high time after such ratling language to give this Bragger à just challenge to call him to à rigid account before God and the world and force him to prove what he saith Scripture Councils and Fathers without glosses shall speak for us these shall determine the cause and end it My evidences are as strong as known 1. Tim. 3. 16. That thou mais't know how thou oughs't to converse in the house of God which is the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of truth Matth. 2. 8. 20. Goe therefore teach all nations Teaching them to observe all things what ever I have commanded you and behold I am with you all dayes to the end of the world What Christ here promises is certainly performed therefore his Protection over the Church will never fail Iohn 14. 15. I will pray the Father and he will give you another comforter that may abide with you for ever The Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive The spirit of truth abiding with that Society of Christians it 's promised to is opposit to errour and falshood Ephes 4. 11. We read of Apostles Prophets Euangelists of Pastors and Doctors given by God's special Providence to the consummation of Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the body of Christ c. If you ask how long this incomparable Scripture plain for the Churches Infallibility blessing shal last It 's answered v 13. until we all meet in the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God Demand again for what end those Guides are verse 14 return's this Answer That we be not like Children wavering tossed to and fro or carried about with every wind of doctrin by the deceipt of men c. But if those Guides can be circumvented with errour how is it possible to secure Christians committed to their charge from being carried away with the wind of false Doctrin No Catholick though he study for it can speak more significantly the Churches sence concerning the Infallibility of her Guides then the blessed Apostle here amply expresseth Thus much briefly for an Essay of Scriptural proofs Fathers and Councils shall follow on à fitter occasion when the Dr requires them 2 In the mean while this Dr who makes the Church and all her Guides fallible for her Infallibility saith he is à thing notoriously false is called on to confront these Authorities and to prove his own Assertion by plain and express Scripture or by so much as one Text that meanly and remotely hints at the fallibility of this great extended Body Where Sr read we in holy Writ any thing tending to your sence That the Church is not the pillar and ground of truth Where have we that God who promised to be with the Church to the end of the world would desert Her in one Age or other Where That the Spirit of Not one word in Scripture to prove her fallible truth should leave this Oracle Where find we o horrid blasphemy that all Her Guides all the Pastors and Doctors grosly deceived themselves may suffer millions of souls under their charge to be carried away with à whole deluge of errour and one no lesse then professed Idolatry Speake out Dr and produce your Scriptures as plain for the Churches fallibility as mine now alledged are for Her Infallibility 3 Hence I argue If the Infallibility of the Church be à notorious falshood or as the Dr makes it in his Account P. 101 ridiculous yea really distructive to Christianity Her Fallibility is à Notorious truth which mainly supports true Religion An Argument proposed But God certainly hath not omitted to register in holy VVrit à truth so notorious as mainly support's true Religion therefore he hath not omitted to set down in plain Terms the Churches Fallibility But this most evidently is not done wherefore I tell the Dr that not only he but all the Doctors on earth shall sooner lose their eyes then find one single Text in the whole Bible which so much as seemingly makes the Church fallible in what the obliges Christians to believe But if this cannot be evinced by Scripture laid as à foundation to the Dr ' s discourse he may better goe to bed and sleep than meddle any more with the Question of Infallibility For all he saies or can say upon the Matter will be meer empty talk without proof and Principles 4 I urge this Argument further and ask Whether to believe the fallibility of the Church be à fundamental Article of the Dr's new Faith or only one of his Inferiour truths which Scripture expresses not nor requires beliefe of necessary to Salvation Grant the first He is obliged to prove it by God's express word for as he thinks all fundamentals are there Make. 2. this asserted Fallibility to be only one of his Inferiour truths wholly waved by Scripture and not necessary to Salvation the Dr spoil's his own Scriptureless cause With what face then dare he tell us in his Account cited above that our pretence to Infallibility overthrowes belief destroyes Christianity and tend's apace towards Atheism Whilst God never yet spake any such unheard Assertions Never Church taught them Never Fathers owned them Never Councils defined them only the disordered phansy of à young Dr begot them in Ignorance and malice as you se hath set all forth in print If I speak rashly the Dr hath all liberty to shame me and one single passage in God's word whereby this fallibility is proved shall lay an eternal disgrace upon me but as I am sure there is no such passage so I fear not any the least disgrace 5 What no such passage may one reply Surely I mistake For doth not Mr Still in his Account Part. 1. c. 8. â—blot page after page to prove the Church fallible and by express Scripture also I answer he touches not the difficulty we here insist on but â—uggles all along We require one plain Text whereby the Christian Church is proved fallible And he gives
can never bring any to this determinate iudgement These are the sincere Believers Those others easily pointed out are not And without this particular None can know by the Drs rule who are sincere believers who not distinguishing knowledge Necessaries wholly out of our reach are as if they were not useles and unprofitable An Instance will give more light One is assured that some craftily devise to take away his life but after much Enquiry knowes not in particular who it is for all â—rofess the dearest friendship imaginable as all profess themselves right in the beliefe of Necessaries Can this man avoid the mischief intended by virtue of à general knowledge that some would destroy him It is impossible This is our very case Mr Dr. Either you or the Arian intend mischief to the Christian world The one or other would bereave us of life Faith I mean Necessary for Salvation but by your Rule we know not particularly which of the Two goe about to ensnare us both of you cannot be supposed invincibly ignorant in à matter of so great consequence Say now by what means can à diligent Enquirer know in particular the man that intend's our ruin Shall we put the Bible into both your hands and bid you clear the cause there It is meer labour lost you may wrangle till both be tired and all tired that hear you yet you are where you began in à Labyrinth nothing is ended the way nothing concluded Wil you say the Arian wants Gods grace He verily judges you want it more and whâ— is to be believed Will you say the learned Socinians or Arians are invincibly ignorant concerning Necessaries They will cast that foul aspersion upon yoâ— and your Party And who knowâ— what is true here Will you accuâ— them of negligence in searching Scriptures They recriminate as boldly and with good reason for their books shew them more versed in Scripture then you that being made their only study But whether you or they rightly understand Scripture is yet à secret not knowable by your Rule 10 By what is said you se the disconsolate condition all zealous Seekers after truth are left in The Guidance of an Infallible Church is set naught by The necessary truths for salvation cannot as we have proved be known by Scripture only The unnecessaries say â—ou need not to be known Therefore â—en may get to Heaven without faith â—ad of either of Necessaries or unnecesaries that is as I take it without any faith at all 11 You may se 2. The force of my argument hitherto proposed by these â—terrogatories Please to reflect à little â— it true that Christ our Lord who will 's â— to be Saved hath afforded means â—th easy and certain whereby Necessaâ—s to Salvation may be known It is â—e that innumerable learned men of à â—ite different beliefe after an exact â—usal of Scripture are at high dissentions about these Necessaries Is it The force of my Argument yet more illustrated true that all these cannot be supposed voluntarily to damn themselves by impiously imposing à false sence on Godâ— word Is it true that no few amongâ— these many wrong the most supreaâ— Verity and believe what God neveâ— revealed Is it true that none caâ— yet distinguish by Scripture alone or aâ— private discerning faculty who at this vâ—ry day do this wrong or Contrarywiâ— are right in the beliefe of Necessaries Is it true that if every private man â— sufficiently taught by reading Scriptuâ— only all recourse to our Spiritual Guidâ— though appointed by Christ to instrâ— us becomes useless and unprofitable If these particulars already laid forth â— manifestly proved as I am sure they aâ— Dr Still Rule for the finding out Necâ—saries by Scripture and the sincere â—deavour of private men is not only â— slight Errour but in à matter of greatâ— consequence intolerable yea and dreâ—ful upon this account that it enlighteâ— none in the search after Necessaries â— cast's all upon an impossibility of findâ— what they seek for Now we procâ— to another Argument 12 Admit Scripture were as plainâ— the Dr can wish Admit also that â— may be understood by all Christians who sincerely endeavour to know its meaning in Necessaries A great difficulty remain's concerning Iewes and Genâ—ils Viz. How such Aliens from Christ may be gained to believe the Necessaries we speak of I ask therefore hath Christ afforded means to reclaim these from errour or no If not God conâ—rary to the Dr ' s assertion is wanting in Necessaries and consequently no man can prudently labour for their conversion If means be allowed that most evidently cannot be Scripture Perhaps the Dr will say his Rule above belong's not to Iewes and Heathens but to Christians only If this be his Answer â— shall by Gods assistance hereafter clearâ—y shew that that rational Evidence for Christian Religion whereon the Dr reâ—ies avail's just nothing to the Converâ—ion Neither the Drs rule nor his rational Evidence avail's to the Conversion of Iewes and Gentils of either Jewes or Heathens Here â— am to prove that Scripture is not the means First because such men after â—heir reading it slight and contemn all â—hat Christ and his Apostles taught and one reason of their contempt as à Jew â—tely observed is grounded upon the â—orrid dessentions amongst Christians â—thanks be to Luther and Calvin for â—hem concerning the canon and sence of Scripture Who said he can move me to believe in Christ by Scripture while some called Christians deny his Godhead Others his humane nature some say his body is really present under à wafer Others deny that and thus forsooth Scripture must prove both parts of the Contradiction Again though Scripture were supposed clear in Necessaries it is yet far enough from being à selfe Evidence as to the Divine Truth to the infallibility or the plain sence of these Necessaries Nay who can know by Scripture which and how many theâ— Necessaries are For example I think S. Iohn record's à Necessary when â— tells us The Word is made flesh yet by â— bare reading and pondering the words â— cannot without more light peremptorily avouch that they contain à Necessary foâ— Salvation or that they evidence to me â— Divine infallible truth much less can I saâ— the sence of them is as I judge while wâ—se Christians so highly at contest abouâ— the sence that they maintain open contradictions And this opposition alonâ— upheld by the judgements of private meâ— very learned makes the Truth and Infâ—libility of every Revelation à thing only doubtful and conjectural All this beinâ— undeniable 13 I say first if à true beliefe of the Divine word made flesh be à necessary for Salvation and if the Truth the Infallibility or sence of the Revelation whereby the Mystery is attested lies dark yea impossible to be found out by Scripture alone one of these two things inevitably follow Viz. That the wise Providence of God hath either appointed some oracle distinct from
matter of Faith in case his two yet unknown rules be followed I answer it is impossible in the Dr ' s Principles to prescribe or to set down clearly any such Rules I prove the Assertion 10 Put case that the Guides of two dissenting Churches Arians for example and Protestants contest about Necessaries for Salvation or any other matter of Faith the like is if dissentions arise between the Guides of either Church and lay men under their charge All these jarring Spirits as we now suppose are fallible and may err in what they judge concerning their own Tenets Now if the supposed rules pitcht upon be as fallible à like faulty and as liable to errour as these Contenders are they can never rectify them nor bring any to à setled union in Faith But all the Rules assignable in the Doctors Principles be they what you will are thus faulty and fallible therefore most unfit to set any man right in Faith for à fallible crooked rule applyed to the fallible crooked judgements of others at high dissentions concerning beliefe regulates no better than if the blind endeavour to lead the blind Pray tell me did you ever know wise Man after his hearing two litigious persons at earnest contention about Meum tuum act the part of à Judge by Saying My masters be gone you are both wranglers Here you have the very case of all Hereticks laid open I speak boldly and am ready to defend my Assertion before the whole world What ever Rule Dr Still can make use of for the ending of differences between him and Arians for example what ever Judge he dare appeal to in this contest can pronounce no other sentence but this Be gone you are all wranglers The wisest on earth is not able to say more to your never endless quarels The reason à Priori of my Assertion and all hitherto said is thus The certain Rule which regulates Faith can neither be taken In the Drs Principles no rule is assignable to end contentions from any controverted passage in Holy Writ for that only yeild's uncertainty much lesse from the fallible and errable conceptions of those who believe contradictions Here is all the Dr can pitch upon for his unknown rules Tradition fail's him if all the Churches in the world be fallible and have actually erred for who dare even upon moral certainty trust the Tradition of condemned Hereticks or of an Idolatrous Church as in the Dr ' s Opinion the Roman is The Fathers are fallible and all of them or the very most infected with Popery The Doctrin of the Primitive Church in controverted matters afford's no certain indisputable rule Long therefore may the Dr overlook his Note-books before he find à rule for the Churh Guides to proceed by and for others to judge of their proceeding 11 Perhaps his 266 page will give more light where we are told That the supposition of Guides in Religion doth depend of some common Principles of Religion that may be known to all and that within the compass of these plain duties lies the capacity of persons judgeing of their Guides but if they carry them out of this beaten way or tell them they must put out their eyes to follow them the better what reason can there be that any should commit themselves to the absolute conduct of such unfaithfull Guides Once more you have here the like dull flegmatick and general talk you had just now nothing particularized nothing proved And all is tacitely to countenance that foul illegal Schism and open rebellion made against the Church when à few desperate Novellists headed by two ungracious wretches Luther and Calvin condemned her of errour and this before no other Tribunal but themselves who were the Rebels Here one common Principle of Religion and à main one too which obliges Christians to obey their lawful Superiours was against all conscience shamefully violated Here the beaten way wherein millions had walked peacefully to Heaven became deserted and in lieu of that Meanders By-wayes and intricate cross windings were made choice of Now the time was when people sure blinde with too much light went about to pull out the eyes of their own ancient Guides and saw more then ever the world saw before these new eyes were set in their heads We need not Dr to stand indenting with you for these truths They are as clear as the Sunshine But as you sowe you may hope to reap you have cast the seeds of dissention into our once most Catholick England and I tell you before hand look to it you will find confusion at the haruest and most likely sooner In the mean while I tell you again there is not one true Principle within the bounds of Christian Religion that capacitates particular persons to judge their Guides proceedings Name this Principle and I yeild up the whole cause Answer if you can And thus much of the Drs Rules 12 Other petty obiections I find in this first part scattered up and down scarse worth reflection P. 109. His Adversary N. O. quotes that Text of S. Peter Epist 2. Chap. 3. 16. where its said There are certain things in S. Pauls Epistles hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable deprà ve as also the rest of Scriptures to their own perdition These things being certainly of consequence if perdition followes the depravation we ask what is become of Dr Still discerning truth from falshood by Scripture A simple Answer of the Dr refuted only and his discerning faculty Hear his frivolous answer But doth S. Peter say that Scriptures are so hard that sober minds cannot learn therein what is Necessary to Salvation Yes Dr he saith it expresly for some say I beseech you who they are pervert Scripture to their own perdition that is to damnation Now if you quibble about Sober and devout minds the Arians will tell you they are as sober and devout as you therefore unless you plainly point out those you call sober minded you may be as well listed amongst the perverse as any other accounted by you depraved or ill minded Solve this difficulty if you can 13 The Dr in his 144. P. cloyes us with other Testimonies of Scripture no more to any purpose than if he had cited the first Chapter of Exodus Thessal 1. 2. 12. The people are to hold fast that which is good Very true But are they here commanded to hold fast to what their private judgement tell 's them and not to adhere to Apostolical Doctrin and the Spirit of the Catholick Church Acts. 17. 12. They searched Scripture dayly whether the things proposed were so or not What wonder here if after S. Paul's large discourse concerning Christ never heard so fully before they search'd Scriptures and found all true he taught having still an Eye more to the Apostles expounding Scripture than to their own private judgements The other passages alleged For example We must not believe every Spirit but try the Spirits
Now none can ascertain any that this or that particular Revelation is true and Infallible but an Infallible Church only Therefore you err Mr Dr in saying that the Infallibility of the Church is as liable to doubts as that of Scriptures if you speak as you must of the Scriptures genuine Sence Truth and Infallibility 17 The Dr P. 113. proposes one of the rarest obiections ever man I think yet heard of Had Christ saith he intended Infallibility as the foundation of Faith how easily might all contentions in the world have been prevented had he said I do promise my Infallible spirit to the Guides of the Church in all Ages to give the true sence of Scripture in all Controversies which shall arise amongst Christians c. Answ I verily judge Christ hath fully said thus much He that heares you heares me The Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church Pastors and Guides are given to the end we be not carried about with every wind of Doctrin c. But suppose Christ or any Evangelist had used your very expression how easily would you Sr have sound à pretty gloss for it and told us That such à promise was forsooth only conditional if the Guides followed Scripture or some like whimsy which phansy might have suggested Now tell me seing your invention fall's so luckily upon new coyn'd Promises why have we not in Scripture à promise suitable to your new faith Viz. I promise no other Spirit to any but such an one as may serve for the moral certainty of beliefe which is fallible and may be false Or rather thus I doe promise that who ever read's Scripture and understand's it according to his private Judgement though he err's in matters of Faith yea even in Necessaries is yet in the way to Salvation and need 's not to consult any Guide for his better instruction Thus contentions would have been easily prevented and licence given every man to believe what he pleased Such promises as these would have fitted you right Mr Dr but there are none of them in God's word 18 P. 150. He thinks to destroy the Evidence of sense and consequently the Grounds of Religion because we believe not that to be bread in the Holy Eucharist which sense tell 's us is so Never ancient Church nor Councils nor Pastors nor Doctors nor any Orthodox Christian pleaded thus for sense for all unanimously believed that really not to be bread which yet in outward appearance seems bread as is demonstrated against the Dr. Reas and Religi c. 12. 13. Whereunto he never yet returned word of answer though I solved this very Obiection to satisfy the Gentleman and told him that the immediate Object of sense is not the inward Substance of bread but The obiect of sense not destroed in the Holy Eucharist colour or light with other accidents and these remain after Consecration visible and sensible as before It is true reason upon the Suggestion of sense would judge what we se to be bread were it not over-awed by à stronger Principle which is Gods express Revelation To this we submit and our crime â—s that we preferr the words of eternal â—ruth before weak reason easily beguiled â—ray tell me had the Dr seen those â—wo Angels who came to Lot Gen 19 in the shape of mortal men had he eate with them at Lots table would he not have thought them men like others living in Sodom But had God then told him by an express Revelation they were indeed Angels and not men which verity is now known he would I hope have believed God and yeilded up his reason to that Supream Verity Thus we proceed in the beliefe of the blessed Sacrament whereof se more Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 18. n. 4. I shall add hereafter other considerations little to the Dr ' s Comfort 19 Page 151. The Dr would fain know whether there be not some points of Faith and parts of our duty so plain that no Church Authority determining contrary ought to be obeyed I answer were any so plain as few are in the very fundamentals of Faith witness those greaâ— Mysteries of the Trinity and the eternaâ— Godhead of Christ the Catholicâ— Church cannot by reason of Gods speciaâ— Assistance determin the contrary or contradict it selfe in any universal doctrinâ— and therefore that Non-obedience hintâ— at is à Chimaera or à thing not at aâ— supposeable It seem's our Dr would have the not worshiping Images to bâ— one of his plain delivered points A gross mistake as his worthy learned Adversary Doctor T. G. whose works and Person I honour pithily demonstrat's in his late excellent book Catholiks no Idolaters Part 1. chiefly c. 3. and 4. Now because I mention this Reverend man I cannot but reflect upon another intolerable mistake of Dr Still 20 Dr T. G. said in his preface to the Reader It is à known Maxim That none can give to another that which he hath not himselfe If therefore the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy much more if guilty of Idolatry it fall's under the Apostles Excommunication Gal. 1. 8. and so remains deprived of lawful Authority mark the words to use and exercise the power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing preaching and administring Sacraments which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves as derived from the Church of Rome can be no true and lawful jurisdiction but usurped and Antichristian The plain and obvious An other gross errour of the Dr sense is He who has no jurisdiction but is deprived of it by the Churches Censures cannot give it to another Neither can he that has no lawful Authority to ordain lawfully ordain any or give Authority lawfully to ordain others Now comes Dr Still in his General Preface to ward off this blow but never man did it less dexterously and we must wholly attribute it to his little skill in fencing He tell 's us that the council of Trent pronounces Anathema against those that deny the Validity observe here also the word validity of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin in case he observes the Essentials of it and in this gross errour he run's on for nine or ten pages Citing Author after Author to prove that the Sacrament of Order is validly given by one in mortal sin or excommunicated But what is all this to Dr. T. Gs. Most true Assertion That none guilty of Idolatry or Heresy can give Iurisdiction to any of the Church of England which they must have from Catholick Bishops or wholly want it or impower them to ordain others lawfully when they are deprived of all lawfull Authority to use oâ— exercise the power of Orders Hence you se Dr Still blindness who argues from the validity of giving Orders to the lawful giving them and from the no power of giving Jurisdiction the chiefest thing aimed at by D. T. G. to impart it to men in England uncapable of all Jurisdiction by
reason of their Heresy Thus much by the By the rest I leave to Dr. T. G. best able to answer Let us follow our Dr à little not long I promise you 21 In his P. 174. for I passe over all that old trash examined à hundred times over concerning Liberius the Bishops of Istria Pope vigilius and God knowes who besides for none of these concern the Churches Infallibility and are all thread-bare worn out difficulties I come I say to the page now quoted where we are told that of five parts of the Christian world four of them Viz. The Nestorians the Iacobits the Greek Church and Protestants are all agreed That there is no Necessary of living in subiection to the Guides of the Roman Church but they are all under their own Guides which they do not question will direct them in the right way to Heaven 22 I am apt to think Mr Dr you question it as little for it seem's by this The Dr seem's to patronize the Guides among known and Condemned Heretiquet your odd expression and some other which follow any thing true or false will serve the turn and set men in the right way to Heaven But say on I beseech you Are these dissenting Christians to be listed among such as you call sincere Endeavourers who cannot but know what is necessary to Salvation by the clearness of Scripture If you affirm none of them err in Necessaries or the Fundamentals of Faith and consequently the Nestorians Eutychians and Arians are in à safe way to Salvation Would to God Sr you would once declare your selfe plainly that we may hereafter know of what beliefe you are in heart of any or none or of one as bad as none Now on the other side if you number not these among your sincere Seekers but account them misled and deceived to what purpose do you produce such examples Is it to tell us because their Number is great you would have them therefore thought of greater esteem or more valvable then the Catholick Church whereof they were once members and from which Church their first Guides like you ungraciously receded This way of arguing will ruin Christian Religion for Heathens Turks Iewes and Atheists are far ore numerous then these O! say you P. 143. Every man when come to years of understanding see 's upon his own Judgement and reason an Excellency in Christian Religion above Heathens Turks c. This Sr is my Answer Every man at such years if he will open his eyes cannot but se an incomparable greater lustre and Excellency manifest in the Catholick Church as Antiquity Conversions Miracles than in all those other Societies though called Christians who abandon'd it It is true they ran out of this Church but left behind them Gods own Signatures Marks and Signs of true Christianity upon it still these they could never rob us of nor appropriate to themselves and therefore its Gods just judgement upon them remain as they do obscure and contemptible Perhaps the Dr intended by his instances to give some little countenance to his Protestancy If so I answer This Protestancy has the worst luck of all other Sects in the world it s like another Ismael as it stand's up against all called Christians so all are against this Novelty and discard it as Antichristian Neither the Greeks Abyssins or Nestorians can endure it whereof some of them scarce hold it à Christian Religion Read Prince Radzivil in his Ierosoly Peregrin Antwerp print 1614. P. 109. Wherefore I se no reason why Protestants should like these men cut off from the Church or seek patronage And Complement's those that Condemn Protestancy from them for all of them have their Altars and own the Sacrifice of Masse adore the consecrated Host pray to Saints and in à word are as great Idolaters as Papists to whom our kind Dr with much difficulty grant's Salvation Now why such men should be courted complemented or thought worthy to discountenance God's Church is à riddle to every sound Christian Yet more There are evident contradictions maintained among Nestorians Iacobits Eutychians Grecians and others who pretend to believe Catholick verities And here our difficulty proposed above recurr's again concerning the plain obvious means left by Christ to bring all these to one unity in faith and this the Dr shall never clear without liberty granted every one to believe what is fancied true not what God has truly revealed Judge whether this be à sound way or no 23 Page 180. Our Dr appeal's to the Doctrin and practice of the truly Catholick Church in matters of difference between Protestants and the Church of Rome A piece of wise nonsence Let him first tell us plainly where this truly Catholick Church was distinct from the Roman universal and Catholick before Luther's Schism and we will stand to Her Judgement He appeals to à Church never in being but he must not fool us with empty words Before hand I tell him plainly there was no such Catholick Society in being for all nameable besides the professors of our ancient Church were condemned Hereticks Now if he run up to the Primitive Church acknowledged by all most Orthodox let him say without fumbling what Protestants hold essentially Necessary to Salvation and then prove that the Primitive Church taught so much Doctrin and no more as Necessary and he will dispatch à great piece of work but I assure him he will sooner grow gray than give satisfaction in this particular 24 P. 196. Dr Still saies the places of Scripture which are alledged for an infallible Iudge or Church are the most doubtful and controverted of any Answ The proof of this Assertion stand's only upon his own proofless word and licences every Arian to make all the passages in Scripture relating to the most necessary fundamentals of Faith the high God head of Christ for example doubtful and controverted For if the Dr by adding his sence and glosses to such passages as significantly express the Church to be an Infallible Judge will have them after his labour idlely spent doubtfull and controverted why may not an Arian by setting his sence and glosses upon the clearest Text in holy VVrit alledged in proof of Christ's Godhead make those also doubtful and controverted But here is not all I say in à word if the Passages in Scripture usually produced for an infallible The Dr argues against himself Judge or the Churches Infallibility are to be accounted doubtful and controverted much more ought those places which the Dr alledges to prove this Judge fallible were there any such in Holy writ to be esteemed in like manner doubtful and controverted Hence it followes that the Dr is at à Non plus or an end of all his Arguments against the Church while he plead's by Scripture only for if none can raise from à doubtful or controverted Principle any Proof rationally certain how will the Dr evince by Scripture only that the Church is fallible or
of those word's Truths whereof the Dr hath not Evidence whereby you judge the Trinity is revealed Have you evidence of their being words divinely inspired Have you any thing like evidence of the Mystery believed No All the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles wrought cannot make these particular truths to appear evident to any in this State yet Orthodox Christians believe them Infallibly true by Faith and therefore you Sr are as deep in à Dungeon as any you ieer at get out how you can 16 The rest that followes is nothing but an idle sporting with S. Paul's Doctrin Heb. 11. 1. Is it not pretty saith the Dr because Faith is called an Evidence therefore it must be inevident Because it is called an Argument therefore it can use none What stuff is here Who ever said that Faith uses not Arguments Or called it à Conviction but as the Apostle speaks of things not seen Soon after he has à â—ash at me and it reaches S. Austin also I had said no merit or thanks in believing had we evidence of the Mysteries we believe and I speak with S. Austin In Evangel Ioan. Trac 79. This is the praise of Faith if that which is believed be not seen For what great thing is it if that be believed which is seen According to that sentence of our Lord when he rebuked his Disciple saying because thou hast seen me Thomas Thou hast believed Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed CHAP. VIII The Doctor 's Discourse from page 400 to P. 416. Considered and found weightless 1 HEre the Dr would fain rescue another Argument taken out of his Account from the obiections I made against it Reas and Relig Disc 2. C. 2. n. 5. And you may se him hard put to it for The Dr hard put to his Shifts proofs when to shew the Church no way necessary to ground Faith he run's up to the woman of Samaria Iohn 4. to Barbarians and others who all received Divine Revelation and believed without an Infallible Church In plain English he would inferr that the Christian Catholick Church before it was perfectly founded or owned as God's Oracle did not then ground Faith therefore it could never do so after its compleat establishment Is not this an heroical attempt Tell me Mr Dr. what sence have we in this Inference The Samaritan woman believed Christ when the Church was not perfectly in being Therefore S. Austin when it was an absolute built moral Body erred much in saying He would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholick Church moved him to believe it VVhich authority once weakned saith the Saint in the same place contra Epist Fundam I cannot believe the Gospel S. Dyonisius and Damaris Act. 17. who knew nothing of the Churches beginning at Hierusalem on whitsunday hearing S. Paul an Infallible Oracle preach believed Ergo Christians that lived in time of the Nicene Council could not then believe the Church What Logick is this Nay more in the Dr ' s Principles that Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Church stands there to no purpose because forsooth in some extraordinary circumstances and occasions Faith may be had without knowledge of the Church of Scripture and of Christ also For many Divines hold that Barbarians by meer contemplating the visible works in nature may without the teaching of à living Oracle come to the knowledge of one God as à Rewarder and have Faith available to Salvation Now here is the Dr ' s erroneous Principle that which in some circumstances serves to beget Faith may ever serve and in all occasions 2 The unsoundness or rather Nonsence whereof I will demonstrate against Mr Dr. The ancient Christians had true Faith before the Canon of Scripture was extant Now that holy Book being published and received all over our Dr ground 's his Faith upon it only Ancient Christians had true Faith before scripture was written as it s understood by every man's discerning faculty what therefore once was no rule nor ground of Faith because not in being afterward becomes à ground when it is known and published Just thus we discourse of the Church When the woman of Samaria and some Barbarians believed the Church was not founded nor known or owned by all as Gods Oracle but afterward the foundation of it being perfectly laid and Pastors and Doctors appointed by Christ to teach the world it was owned for God's Oracle and then brought with it an obligation upon all to hear and believe it 3 The reason hereof more amply laid forth in my last Treatise is taken from the express constitution of Christ who erected the Church as à most facile clear and living Rule of Faith This great Master assures all that whoever hear's the Church hear's him That Faith comes by hearing and therefore Pastors and Doctors are appointed to teach to the Consummation of Saints unto the work of the Ministery for the edifying of Christ's Mystical body c. Wherefore Baronus in his Apodixis Tract 9. puncto 2. ingenuously professes That the Testimony of the present Church is à condition necessarily required to believe the authority of the Scripture because Faith comes by hearing Hence I argue A law made by Christ is to be observed the ordinary means appointed by the Law-giver Himselfe for the grounding of Faith ought in no case to be neglected But Christ hath obliged all who believe to rely on the Christian Church ever since She was made an Oracle known to the world as is largely proved Reas. and Religion through the whole Second Discourse therefore though by accident or in some very unusual circumstance men have had Faith without any knowledge either of Scripture or Church Yet now after the Churches compleat establishment and Her long continuance to exclude her Authority and believe upon any other ground would be so great folly and rashness that God may justly deny his supernatural Grace to such unadvised Believers who therefore would not have Faith to Salvation 4 Pray you tell me should à Barbarian that never heard of Church or Scripture yet may probably believe in God as à Rewarder of Good by à meer contemplation of the Heavens c. Should I say such an one come to the knowledge of Christ of the Scripture and of the Church gloriously illustrated with all her Motives Can this man think you in these new circumstances of à greater light neglect all and believe that God will reward good upon the old motive to wit the visible beauty or motion of the Heavens No That belief would now be imprudent and upon that account unavailable The Dr's grand Principle proved forceless to Salvation VVhat therefore serves to ground Faith in some circumstances serves not in all We have yet another Instance against the Dr who hold's there is à Thing in being called the Church of England where he preaches and pretend's to settle his Faith upon Scripture only Would he
like it well should some of his Hearers tell him they build not their Faith upon any Doctrin as it is delivered in Scripture or by the Church of England or finally taught by Mr Dr but purely believe upon the Barbartans Motive or as the Samaritan Woman believed upon our Saviours words long since spoken I am the Messias I perswade my self he will not easily approve any such extravagancy Yet he must if he proceed consequently to his indigested Discourse for the Faith of that Samaritan woman and Barbarians also was truly Divine and why may not his People believe as they did independently of all Scripture and the Church of Englands Doctrin as he would now have us to believe independently of the Catholick Churches Testimony For here is his Principle or he speak's Non-sence What was once sufficient to propound or ground Faith may be ever sufficient and in all circumstances 5 One may reply That Samaritan and Barbarians likewise believed upon God's word not then written but spoken which afterward became the Doctrin of Scripture Very right and so say I they believed upon that Doctrin which afterward was is and ever will be taught by the Church but as then there was no written Scripture So there was no Church founded to propose or ground Faith upon And thus the Proponent of Faith may vary though the ultimate Motive or formal obiect of it which is Gods Revelation never changes The variety of an Infallible Oracle varies not the Formal obiect of Faith 6 By what is here noted you se how pitifully the Dr abuses himself and Reader P 4â—7 I had said n. 7. That none can make the Roman Catholick Church in all circumstances the only sure foundation of Faith upon this Principle chiefly that Faith in general requires no more but only to rely on God the first Verity speaking by one or more lawfully sent to teach who prove their Mission and make the Doctrin proposed evidently Credible A fair concession replyes the Dr which plainly destroy's the necessity of the The Dr abuses the Reader and grosly mistakes Churches Infallibility in order to Faith For if no more be necessary in order to Faith but to rely upon God speaking by this or that Oracle how comes the Infallible Testimony of the Church to be in in any Age necessary to Faith A fair Concession on my part Mr Dr but à foul mistake on yours For have not I all along proved though you Answer nothing that the Church is one of the Infallible Oracles whereby God speaks as immediatly and infallibly as ever he spake by Prophet or Apostle And must not you admit two or three Infallible Oracles The Apostles who taught Christianity before the writing of Scripture were Infallible Oracles Scripture it self compleatly finished and set forth say you is another and I hope you will not deny but that S. Iohn the Evangelist who lived à considerable time after the whole Canon was Signed kept still his Apostolical authority and remained Infallible 7 Observe now Gentle Reader Doth the Dr destroy the necessity of the Scriptures An Argument ad hominem infallible Testimony because he own 's the Apostles Oral teaching Infallible No. How then do we destroy the Churches Infallibility in saying that Faith in General only requires to rely upon the first Verity speaking by this or that Oracle For if two or three distinct Oracles subvert not the Dr ' s Faith built upon Scripture how can more Oracles then one overthrow mine built on the Church The Question therefore in this place is not whether the Churches Testimony be Infallible but precisely thus much whether the Dr ' s Inference have any thing like reason in it Viz. Faith relies on God speaking by this or that Oracle Ergo it cannot rely on God speaking by the Church The inference plainly appear's Non-sense unless the Churches Testimony be first proved fallible Now should the whole A modest offer made to the Dr. contest come to the Churches Infallibility after all I have said of it whereunto the Dr never yet replyed word I am most willing and ready to discusse again this particular Controversy with him in à Treatise apart upon all the Principles Christian Religion can afford Scripture Church Fathers and manifest Reason Is not this à fair modest offer 8 What followes in the Dr upon this subiect is more than simple God saith he spake by Christ and his Apostles as Oracles by whom his word is declared to us Therefore nothing can be necessary to Faith but to rely on the first Truth speaking by them Marke here an improbable Supposition made use of for à proof as if forsooth every one by casting an eye upon Scripture after some diligence could exactly declare what Christ and his Apostles taught whereas I have told the Dr over and over and it is the grand Principle The Dr's improbable Supposition refuted I rely on that none can in this present State say absolutely what Doctrin those first great Oracles delivered even in the Fundamentals of Faith none can know the true sence of the words registred in Scripture or assert that they were Divinely inspired without the Infallible Testimony of the Church I say Infallible For if She Teaches so fallibly that her Doctrin may be false much better were it I think that She never speak or define at all Thus you have in brief my Principle further explained in the two last Treatises whereof the Dr has taken no notice hitherto and the reason most certainly is because he knowes not what to answer 9 The very most that goes before or followes in the Dr on this subiect besides much ill language is à meer rehearsal of what his Account contains and as he repeat's his old Obiections so I need to do no more but only to return my Answers given Reas. and Relig cited above beginning from n. 8. and. 9. He demanded in his Account and here has the same VVith what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the old Testament I answered Supposing à total subversion of the Jewish Church not to examin now the difference between the Infallibility of the Synagogue and our Christian Church The Disciples had our Blessed Lord present most able to ascertain them that he came not to cancel any Divine revealed Truth in the old Scripture for that was impossible but to fulfil the ancient Prophesies and to establish à new law of Grace far more perfect than the ceremonial Law had been and that upon his sole Authority the Disciples believed the verities of the old Testament Admit therefore that the high Priests and Elders had all erred in consenting to our Saviours death this only followes as I answered n. 9. that their Priviledge of not erring lasted only to Christ's comming as S. Luke 16. 16. testifies Lex Prophetae usque ad Ioannem which is to say Christs sacred Kingdom being then at hand and
is to say one part of Scripture proves another before the whole book is proved upon any certain Authority to be God's word or written by the Holy Ghost From hence 2. the necessity of an Infallible evidenced Church is necessarily inferred The necessity of an Infallible Church evinced from our discourse which only bring 's us out of the Labyrinth wherein the Dr is lost This Church as I said proves by her infallible and never interrupted Tradition that Scripture is God's word She and She only ascertain's all that the Contents in Scripture are Divinely inspired and finally when difficulties arise concerning the Sence in controverted passages relating to Necessaries composes all strifes otherwise endless and bring 's all to à perfect unity in Faith 31 I say lastly Could the Dr evince that the book of Scripture contain's true Doctrin could he shew the Doctrin Not one Protestant Tenet proved by Scripture of it to be as it truly is Divinely inspired he yet hath not one clear Sentence in the whole Bible understood according to the obvious sence of the words which proves so much as one Tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestancy is distinguished from Popery and the Doctrin of all known condemned Hereticks The proof of this Assertion is largely laid forth Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 20. from n. 4. to the end of that Chapter and because I really judge Protestancy utterly ruined upon the reasons there alleged I petition Dr Still to review that short Discourse and if I judge amiss to unbeguile me by à plain Answer showing wherein my Arguments are fallacious 32 I except in that place against his empty Title called A rational Account of the grounds of Protestants Religion and prove as I think demonstratively that if you cast out of Protestancy all it's Negative Articles which the Dr confesses are no Essentials the remainder will either be what the Catholick Church teaches and therefore not peculiar to Protestancy or the Doctrin of some one or other condemned Heretick In so much that in the whole Essence of Protestancy you will not find one Truth revealed by Almighty God necessary for Salvation or ever taught by any Orthodox Church And Nor one Necessary for Salva tion found in Protestancy herein it differ's not only from Catholick Religion but as I take it from all ancient Heresies for both Arians and Pelagians the like is of the rest thought their particular Doctrins revealed by Almighty God and necessary to Salvation Otherwise they had been worse than besotted to abandon the Catholick Tenents for opinions meerly or Positions not necessary to Salvation Se more of this subiect Disc 3. c. 18. n. 8. CHAP. X. The Church proved Infallible before She interpret's Scripture The reason hereof The Doctors gross errour in charging à Circle on us in the Resolution of Faith VVhat à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 1 THe rest that followes in the Dr from P. 423. is all along meer Confusion or à horrid jumbling in à speculative matter concerning the resolution of Faith and the notion of à vicious Circle which he truly understand's not but wonder nothing you can expect no better from halfe Scholars in speculative learning if I make not what I here assert manifest blame me boldly 2 To rescue my Doctrin from Blunderers and the Dr if I ever met with any is one I am forced to set down plainly part of it That done you shall se how remote the Dr is from medling with it The most he would except against you have at large Reas and Relig. Disc 3. c. 5. n. 5. where I answer an Obiection proposed in his Account P. 127. And assert Seing Scripture evidences not it selfe to be divinely inspired some other Infallible Oracle distinct from Scripture necessarily ascertain's that The Church not first proved Infallible by Scripture Truth and this is the Church which as rationally proves herselfe by Signs and Miracles an Oracle whereby God speaks independently of Scripture as ever any Apostle proved himself to be so before Scripture was written Hence I inferred that the Church was ever and is yet in à General way believed infallible by Her self and for Her self upon this ground that God speaks by Her as his own Oracle and then concluded that She is not in the first place proved infallible by Scripture I say in à General way for thus the Apostles believed our Saviour to be the true Messias before they received from him à full Account of many other particular Christian Verities learned after that General acknowledgement 3 Thus much and more amply declared in the place now cited comes Dr Still in his last book P. 424. with his old Tautologies and asks again as if nothing had been said why we believe the Churches Infallibility and verily think 's we have no other way to make out Her Infallibility but only by Scripture Is not this worse then jumbling Reflect good Reader I shew that the Church in the first place is proved infallible without recourse at all had to Scripture for so She was proved infallible before Scriptures were written and here he out-faces me with empty words saying I cannot prove the Church infallible but by Scripture only In lieu of this ridiculous Reply He should have refuted my reasons and this is one No man can ascertain any that Scripture is divinely inspired or render the true sence of it relating to Necessaries for Salvation but one only infallible Church Therefore the Church which only can give certainty of these truths must necessarily be first owned infallible before we recurr It is Senceless to prove the Church by Scripture before Scripture be Proved God's word to Scripture for it is more than Senceless to prove by Scripture the Churches Infallibility or any other Article of Christian Faith before we have absolute Assurance that the Book whereby we argue is Gods word and know what its meaning is in à hundred difficult passages But thus much is only known by Church Authority as is amply proved in the place now cited 4 This reason the Dr shamefully waves with à jeer and tell 's me P. 405. that this first act of Faith terminated upon Church Authority hath nothing to rely on but the fallible Motives of Credibility and Consequently cannot be Divine Faith for want of an Infallible Testimony Gross ignorance produced this Answer for have not I proved through my whole last Treatise that God as immediatly speak's to us now by his Church as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle And if God speake by it there is no want of an Infallible Testimony I challenge the Dr to answer my Arguments upon this subiect hitherto never taken notice of neither shall he hereafter reply without apparent shuffling to use his words and running away from the main difficulty here treated How often have I told him that Divine Faith relies not upon the Motives of Credibility though
these as inducements lead to it but upon God's speaking by the Church as is now declared 5 Having thus cleared the first act of Faith from all danger of à Circle because it ultimately rest's upon God's speaking by the Church made by it self immediatly credible without recourse to Scripture yet not known to be Divine or God's infallible word I add moreover N 9. If we speak of another distinct consequent and more explicit act of Faith whereby we believe the Churches Infallibility evidenced null and forceless when this Oracle declares the Scriptures true Sence which proves her Infallible there is no difficulty at all because this interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon Scripture and the Churches Infallible exposition together for thus ioyntly taken they ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles as if we first believed the Scriptures sence independently of the Churches interpretation and then again believed the Churches exposition to be infallible because the sence of Scripture known without any dependance on Church Authority saith She is Infallible Our good Dr set's down these words more at large and desires the Reader to try his faculty upon them what tolerable sence he can make of them I answer more learned faculties in Speculative matters then the Doctor 's is have made sence of them and that 's enough to ward off his weak blow of contempt Now I am to discover his fallacious and more then simple way of Arguing against me 6 The whole difficulty is brought at last to the true decision of this Question Whether one Infallible Oracle while it explicates the darker Sence of another The difficulty concerning à vicious Circle proposed likewise Infallble cannot be believed for it self without à vicious Circle One or two Instances will clear my meaning The Prophet Ioel. 2. 28. long before S. Peter lived Prophesyed of the effusion of God's divine Spirit upon all flesh which words dark in themselves that great Apostle Acts. 2. 16. interpret's as spoken of the pouring out of Gods Spirit upon the Apostles in the feast of Pentecost This is that saith S. Peter which was said or foretold by the Prophet Ioel. Observe well S. Peter was proved an Infallible Oracle before he interpreted this Passage of an Infallible Prophet so is the Church proved Infallible before She interpret's any words in Scripture S. Peter used or exercised his Power of interpreting infallibly not first proved infallible by his Interpretation but upon other grounds wholly independent of that Sence he gives to the Prophet So is the Church first proved infallible independently of all and every Interpretation She gives of Scripture Finally as that darker Sence of the Prophet made clear by the Apostles Infallible Interpretation indivisibly concurred to the Faith of the Primitive Christians so also the darker Sence of Scripture cleared by the Churches interpretation indivisibly concur's to the Faith of Believers now 7 Ponder well the force of this Instance and you will soon se through the Dr ' s trivial Obiections I say in à word An Instance worth reflection Had S. Peter proved himself in the first place Infallible by the Sence of that Scripture he then interpreted the Circle would have been Manifest because the thing proved which is the infallible explication of Ioel is assumed again or first made use of to prove S. Peter and his explication infallible But when the Apostles Infallibility in every Doctrin of Faith stood firm upon other grounds though he had never written Scripture nor interpreted any Prophet that man must be quicker sighted than Aristotle who find's à Circle in it This is our case as to the Church She is in à general way supposed and proved infallible in every Catholick Doctrin independently of this or that particular taught by her one particular is the true Interpretation of Scripture more rightly called the exercise and use of her infallible Assistance then the proof The use of the Churches power destroies not â—â—er power of it but evinces not herselfe in the first place to be infallible because She interpret's for that is antecedently proved upon other grounds therefore unless the use of Her power wherewith She is indued to interpret infallibly destroy that power it is impossible to catch her in à Circle while she interpret's 8 Thus much premised You shall se the Dr ' s Obiection melt like wax before the fire Iudge Reader saith he P. The Dr's own words 428 whether here be not à plain Circle Because they believe the Church infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith she is so and again they believe this to be the infallible sence of Scripture because the infallible Church saith so Judge Reader say I whether one plain distinction overthrowes not this feeble fallacy and thus it is We first believe the Church infallible because the true Sence of Scripture saith she is infallible I deny it for that first act of Faith is not at all founded on Scripture We believe the Church infallible by à second more distinct and explicit Faith indivisibly fixed on Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together I grant that most willingly Now this second act of Faith must if we make à right Analysis be at last resolved into this other general Truth VVhat ever God speak's by the Church is certain and infallible which general Truth stand's firm without recourse to Scripture at all The reason is Whatever Argument proved the Church God's infallible Oracle in all She taught before Scripture was written proves Her also without depending on Scripture the same Infallible Oracle still 9 The other part following in the Dr ' s discourse is wholly as lame VVe believe again this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so I answer we believe so indeed but by à second more explicit act of Faith which The Dr's absurd fallacy unravelled supposes the Church proved infallible antecedently to her Interpretation where there is no shadow of à Circle for if the Church be owned infallible in every matter of Christian Faith thus much only followes that when She interpret's the same God that once spake obscurely in Scripture declares his meaning more clearly by his own Oracle the Church 10 One example where you shall have the Dr ' s circle as round as à hoop will yet give more light Imagin those words of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. 15. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth to be as Sectaries will have them obscure or not openly significant for the Churches Infallibility Suppose again that S. Paul or any other infallible Apostle had delivered in clearer terms the true Sence of them nay suppose he had told us the true meaning of those words The Pillar and ground of truth is just so as Catholicks now believe Could Mr Dr or any man living have found à vicious Circle here had S. Paul been owned
upon our Dr's vvritings to se vvhere Satisfaction is given A. B. vvho excellently vvell makes it out and solidly proves what he asserts Viz. That Dr St A. Bs. first letter Page 3. and 4. is à very Fanatick as right an Euthusiastick in Iudgement and Beliefe as any one in all England yet after à diligent search have met with no answer to the Author of that pithy letter These things and many more would time permit I should insist upon and must though it lengthen's the Preface à little take notice of one particular the foulest and most gross I ever read in any You have it in the Doctors General Preface vvhere he bitterly inveigh's General Preface Paulo ante medium against the Doctrin of Attrition which the Church and all Catholicks hold though by it selfe it justifies not yet in the Sacrament of Penance it disposes à Sinner to See the Council of Trent Sess 14. c 4. â—um tamen ad Deigratiam in Sacramento disponit impetrate and obtain the Grace of God VVhether it be à full sufficient disposition in the Sacrament to grace without Contrition is another Question Now comes the Dr and demand's How do They the damned want the Sacrament of Penance in Hell for no doubt there is Attrition good store there The Sacrament of Penance in Hell Dr Attrition good store in Hell I read these words with horrour and stand astonish't at this height of stupidity Pray Sr vvho can absolve in Hell VVhat Divels Or who are there capable of Absolution Damned Souls Answer I beseech you Are such Souls in your opinion capable of Baptism or of that you call the Lords Supper You will say no. In like manner say I and speak with the whole Christian world they are as uncapable of the Sacrament of Penance Sacraments Good Sr serve only for the living on their way to Eternity and benefit none departed this life O! but Attrition whereof there is good store in Hell troubles the Dr. Here you have also the like gross Ignorance and therefore I answer in à word If the Dr call eternal horrour everlasting shame and despair Attrition he may find great store indeed but these miseries inseparably attending the damned are as remote from that Attrition vvhich the Church and Catholicks maintain as Hell is from Heaven The Catholick attrition as the Council now cited declares is Dei donum the gift of God wrought in à Soul by the impulse and motion of the Holy Ghost and though it tend's upon à less perfect Motive than Contrition yet it is à Supernatural Operation If you Mr Dr speak not of this Attrition you fight vvith Shadowes and touch not Catholick Doctrin I might in this place also show how grosly the Dr is mistaken in his quoting Gregory de Valentia but I hasten to my own affaires and shall briefly tell you how and in vvhat manner I proceed vvith this Adversary The Dr you know hath employed himself and time upon two very different Subiects the one hard and Speculative the other more easy containing matters of Fact set forth vvith this Title An Enquiry into the Miracles of the Church of Rome In this first Part I follow him as he goes along and reply to his Cavils not one I am sure if any be worth notice as few are is omitted by me I discover also his Shuffling and as occasion fall's out mind him here and there of what he should prove though he never doth it I shew moreover that the grand Principle he relies on called à Faculty of discerning allowed every one to judge of the Scriptures Sence in the most necessary points concerning Salvation is not only evidently unsound but likewise highly injurious to God and Truth for by it he licences every Arian every Anabaptist every Fanatick and Quaker who have as good discerning Faculties as the Dr can glory in to uphold that Sence they draw from Scripture and maintain it as true though false and heretical and this forsooth is done because malice vvill not brook God's own Oracle to teach when we stand most in need of Instruction After my grounds given for the Churches Infallibility I urge the Doctor to produce à Proof from any received Principle whereby it may but probably appear that à Church once confessedly Orthodox and right in Faith is errable or ever erred In that speculative Contest about Faith transcending the certainty of Motives I evince that not only the Dr doth de facto but all others must subscribe to the truth I Propugn and own it as an undisputable Verity Much more I have against the Doctor better known by à full perusal of the Treatise than by any Summary laid before the Reader in à short Preface In case he vvill reioyn I vvish him vvhat ere becomes of the rest not to pass over my tvvo last Chapters where first I largely insist upon that he call's his rational Evidence of Christian Religion which I shew every way defective and besides demonstrate that the true Evidence for Christianity is not as the Dr would have it either destroyed or in the least measure endamaged by the Doctrin of Transubstantiation In the 10th and last Chapter I discover the Dr's too manifest errour in his unskilful charging à vicious Circle on us while we resolve our Catholick Faith I tell him which he knowes not what a vicious Circle essentially implies and demonstratively clear the Church from all shadow and danger of à Circle May it please the Dr to give me Satisfaction in these two main matters now Specified My exceptions against him are plain and also vouchsafe to solve another difficulty proposed in this Treatise concerning the means Christ has left to bring all open Dissenters in the fundamentals of Faith or Necessaries for Salvation to one beliefe that is to understand the true genuin Sence of God's word without an Infallible Church May it I say please the Dr to do only thus much I will not only highly applaude his labours but freely quit him of blame though he trifle never so much with me in his Answers to the rest of this Treatise Now in case he take courage to reply whereof I doubt very much it is hard to say what humour he will be in what Vizor or Shape he may assume Perchance he vvill appear with his pageant-like piety and renew his promises of vvriting fairly as becomes an Ingenuous Adversary Very good if he answer as fairly and home I am vvell content It may be quite contrary he will bear me down vvith bigg vvords and call me Philosophical fool vvitless fellow brainless Saucy bold and all that naught is No matter say I if he answer's my obiections I can digest all It may be he will without much notice taken of my Arguments repeat all or the most he has said already it is à usual trick of Sectaries and entitle that an Answer to this Treatise if so he will need no great Sophist to lay open the cheat But what
what followes If men saith he cannot be infallible in believing the Apostles unless there be other infallible Proponents in every Age to assure them that the Apostles were inspired why must not the Infallibility of these present Proponents be likewise so attested as well as the Apostles He would I think ask in clearer terms Why should not the Infallibility whereunto the now living Guides of the Church lay claim be as well attested and applyed by another Infallible Attestation as the Church attest's or applyes to us the Infallibility of the Apostles And thus as he insinuates we must goe on endlesly in these Applications and Attestations or at last rest in that first Attestation or application made by the Apostles Were it worth the while it would be easy to show how the intangled Dr must solve his own difficulty if in lieu of Infallible you will use the word Truth He declares to his Hearers and truly as we suppose some dark Mystery of Faith and with that you have his true Attestation or application of it But must that Attestation ere Faith be truly conveyed into his Hearers be applied and attested by another Attestation distinct from Scripture and the Dr◠The Dr's Simple Discourse Concerning endless Attestations refuted own last delivery If so we goe on endlesly in Attestations In à word the Answer most fully laid forth in my last Treatise is thus As when the Apostles preach't they rationally proved themselves by the signal wonders they wrought to be Gods own Infallible Proponents or Oracles and therefore needed no further Attestation of their Infallibility in that Age so the Church ever since evidenced by the like visible lustre of rational marks and wonders proves Her selfe Gods own Infallible Oracle and therefore is without any further Attestation the Primum Credible in order to Christians But the first most immediate known Oracle made by her selfe and for her selfe Credible in so much that we cannot in this present state infallibly adhere to that the Dr calls Apostolical evidence or the Divinity of Scripture without the Churches Attestation needs no further witness or attesting Authority Se more hereof Rea and Relig Disc 3. c. 12. n. 4. c. 15. n. 3. and c. 16. per totum but chiefly Disc. 2. c. 11. where it is proved that as no Prophet was ever comparable to Christ our Lord so no Church was is or shall be comparable to the Roman Catholick 23 By thus much here briefly hinted at and amply proved in the places now quoted you se the Dr knowes not what he saith P. 84 where he tell 's us If we rest not satisfied with the rational Evidence which the Apostles inspired by God gave the world there will either be an endless infallibility or Faith at last must be resolved into Enthusiasm Again let the world judge saith he whether Christ and his Apostles did not give stronger evidence that they were sent from God then the Guides of the present Church do 24 Because à lesse wary Reader may be here affrighted with big words we will lead the Dr with his Bible to à Synagogue of Jewes or to an Assembly of learned Heathens and desire him to lay forth that stronger rational evidence whereby these Aliens from Christ ought to be induced to believe that infallible Divine Inspiration imparted to the Apostles If his answer be direct and pertinent he will relate their Miracles The blind se the lame walk the dead rise c. And are these say the Heathens The Dr's supposed rational Evidence gives no Satisfaction to Iewes and Heathens your best rational Evidences Mr Dr Know good Sr that once if true they were Evidences to those who saw them but now cease to be so to us and therefore may be better called matters revealed than rational Evidences Now if the truth of that Revelation concerning the Apostolical Inspiration be only proved by Miracles not known or attested but by à Revelation wholly as obscure as the thing is which should be proved by them such Miracles far recede from the Nature of Evidence Remember Dr your own words P. 110. That à proof ought alwaies to be more evident than the thing proved by it but here the Miracles produced by you as à Medium to prove the Apostles Divine Inspiration are wholly as obscure to the Heathens as that inspiration is they should prove for both are only supposed not yet proved Revelations therefore they far recede from the nature of rational Evidence 25 On the other side could our Dr evince those Scripture Miracles upon The Dr to bring in Atheism ru'on's the true rational Evidence the Attestation of à Church which God from the beginning of Christianity has gloriously marked out by as signal and sensible wonders as ever the Apostles were evidenced could he make use of these later Signes and shew them to be no natural but supernatural effects proceeding from an Infinit Power and wisdom and only peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church could he tell us he own 's à Church which both Heaven and earth have so far approved that never any known Orthodox Christian laid censure on it or condemned its Doctrin He might well give in strong evidence indeed and powerfully plead against Jewes Gentils and all Heretiques but the unfortunate man ruin's all this rational Evidence and to his eternal disgrace laies à charge of Idolatry upon this renowned Church though by virtue of her glorious wonders She has drawn the very best the most choise and learned of the Christian world to Her belief And thus as I noted Reas and Reli Disc 3. c. 16. n. 28 He destroies Scripture deads Faith makes Christian Religion unreasonable and doth his utmost to bring in Atheism But of this more largely hereafter when we shall discover the Dr's fraud and fallacy concerning his pretended Evidence 26 P. 84 He end 's with me And in the next 85. attaques that learned and laborious Author N. O. His whole endeavor is to shew we may have Sufficient certainty of Faith without the Infallibility of the Church Though it would be incivility on my part to reply for N. O best able to answer for himselfe neither can I for I have not his book yet by that erudite Authors leave I will make à few reflections upon Dr Still unknit rambling discourse and evince that he speaks nothing against the Infallibility of our Church This I doe because I have not yet seen the Dr's second part where I am told he hath much against me 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 1 IT is prodigiously strange to se how uniustly we Catholicks are dealt with who before these rambling Novellists began their new whimsy of reforming and deserted the old way of Truth stood in à peaceable possession of this great Verity The Roman Catholick Church was is and ever
this Title to his 8. Chapter The Churches How the Dr juggles in his Account Infallibility not proved from Scripture whereas this or the like Title could he have made it good had bin to the purpose The Churches fallibility proved by Scripture That first Title only gives occasion and he doth no more to interpret and gloss such Scriptures as are usually alleged for the Churches Infallibility but the second would have obliged him to produce positive Scripture whereby that Oracle is proved fallible This he waves and must wave because there is no such Testimony in the whole Bible You will say if the Dr makes it ou◠that the Churches Infallibility is no◠proved by Scripture He◠evinces Her fallible Very false Doctrin for the Church was proved Infallible before Scripture appeared in the world an◠yet is proved infallible independently of Scripture But let this pass How wil◠the Dr make it out that Scripture proves not the Churches Infallibility whilst I allege Testimonies as plain fo◠this Catholick Tenet as the Dr ca◠produce for any fundamental Article o◠Christian Faith For example Chri◠saies I am with you alwaies to the ◠of the world The Conforter the Holy Gho◠shall abide with you for ever The words as fully express à continual assistance granted the Successors of the Apostles and that for ever as any Text in the whole Bible proves the Mystery of the Incarnation Now all the Dr doth or can doe by way of Answer to these passages is after his wonted fashion to gloss them as you may se in his Account P. chiefly 254. And cannot an Arian as nimbly gloss the strongest Text allegable for the Incarnation For example I and my Father are one as the Dr glosses this Text. I am with you alwaies c. I yeild saith the Bishop cited in that page à continual Assistance granted the Apostles and their Successors in Christs promises but in à different degree For it was of continual and Infallible Assistance to the Apostles but to their Successors of Continual and fitting Assistance yet not Infallible Mark the gloss no Scripture God knowes and note likewise how the Arian keep 's him company I grant saith he à unity or Oneness between the Father and Son not in nature or Essence but in love and affection only and that 's à fitting unity the other in nature appear's unbeseeming God yea Impossible 6 Thus you have two fallible Glossers Dr Stil and Dr Arian delivering their fallible sentiments But how a poor The Dr and an Arian gloss scripture alike Christian who would fain learn what Christ hath infallibly taught can be one whit the wiser by his hearing such men talk is à riddle to me and every one besides For I think there is none but can easily argue thus That fitting Assistance maintained by you Mr Dr which excludes infallible assistance is no more Gods express word or the Doctrin of any Orthodox Church than that fitting unity excluding à real unity maintained by an Arian is God's word or the Doctrin of any orthodox Church Or if it be produce your Scripture What is it then A conceited gloss which stand's unprincipled by it selfe Observe I beseech you We enquire whether the Church be not proved Infallible by the plain sence of Christs words now cited I am with you alwaies to the end of the world the Dr and his Bishop say no because Her assistance is à sitting one but not Infallible Here is their last proof and 't is no more but their own weak Assertion that gives all the strength to the thing which should be proved and consequently nothing like Christs Doctrin that ever stand's firm upon undubitable Principles Nay more That whole blundering discourse held on by the Dr in his Account P. 255. amount's to thus much only that now and then he hint's at something which should be proved but never proves it And were he only once faulty in this dissatisfactory proceeding it might pass but I must say more to unbeguile those who read the Dr and make this great truth known to all Viz. That when he handles these matters of Faith and either opposes our Catholick Tenets or goes about to establish his Protestancy the beginning the progress and end of his discourse are naked and destitute of proofs Neither Scripture nor Church Authority speak in his behalfe whence it is that Cavils jeers drollery and impertinent excursions take up the greatest room in his writings glosses you have without end but no Principled Doctrin to gloss for How easy were it had the Dr any thing like à good cause in hand to prove his gloss of à fitting but fallible Assistance by Scripture or Church Doctrin But we need not feare for I tell him when that 's done the Arian will advance his gloss as farr and altogether as wisely unhinge one prime Article of Christian faith CHAP. III. Doctor Stillingfleets Rule and ground of faith proved no Rule It lessens not in the least the Churches Infallibility 1 OUr Dr by what I read in this first Part chiefly build's his whole Religion upon the sufficiency of Scripture easily understood in Necessaries by à Faculty that every man hath of discerning of truth and falshood wherein he much cleaves to Socinianism and followes exactly the steps of Mr Chilingworth Here and there he recurr's to Gods Grace and to other helps but saies not plainly what those helps are neither can he while his whole endeavour is to exclude the Church from being the Rule or ground of Faith 2 In behalfe of Scripture he laies down this Proposition P. 99. Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such à way of writing being made choice of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the designe and the Wisdom and Goodnes of God to give Infallible assistance to persons in writing his will for the benefit of mankind if these writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their Salvation From this Principle he would conclude that if those writings may be understood by all persons its needles to rely on any Church whether fallible or infallible for our instruction in necessaries because Scripture alone without the Church is the Master-Teacher and à faculty granted every man of discerning truth and falshood which cannot but hit right upon these necessaries knowes them all 3 This Principle learnedly refuted by the Ingenious Author of Errour-Nonplus't P. 81. supposes what neither is proved Dr Still rule of Faith proved no rule nor ever shall be made probable Viz. That an infinit Wisdom and Goodness hath made choise of à Bible only with this design that his will be known in things necessary to salvation which is no more but à vain Supposition For if eternal Wisdom besides the means of written Scripture hath
they undervalve his private discerning faculty and prefer their own quite opposite to his May both he and they hold contradictions in the most essential Points of Faith and be saved If the Dr hath not such Latitudinarians I am sure there are à world of them in England Be it how you will his Principle is not only unsound but pernicious also and distructive to Christian faith as is now proved 19 You may here expect that I solve the Dr ' s Arguments alleged in behalfe of his Principle or 13 Proposition cited above I shall briefly touch some few though its scarse worth the pains for they fall of themselves to nothing by what is said already The rest I leave to his learned Adversary N. O. and could have wish'd to have seen in the Dr ' s two last little Books something that bear 's the face of an Obiection against the Churches Infallibility but he is wary and knowes well to shuffle when need is CHAP. IV. Doctor Still Arguments answered His unintelligible iumbling discovered A word briefly of the ground of the Churches Infallibility The Churches Guides teach infallibly 1 THe Dr P. 100. demand's whether Christ our Lord and the Evangelists may not justly be charged with not speaking the will of God plainly if those who heard them understood not their Doctrin I Answer first in case of not understanding they had infallible Teachers at hand for their further instruction and made use of them you good Dr have none such I Answer 2. It import's little to our present purpose whether they understood or no without more light when Christ for example said I and my Father are one while Christians both now and in former Ages highly differ about the sence of that speech and cannot certainly say this is God's true meaning or that the words are his without an Infallible Teacher But what may one reply can we infer because some mistake the sence of Scripture therefore all do so No truly but this Inference is good if some mistake and others not its Necessary to have the mistaken clearly distinguished from the sincere Believers otherwise à Seeker after truth may as well become an Arian as à sound orthodox Christian The Question therefore is how or by what means this severing the faithfull from the misled wholly necessary for Salvation may be exactly done without erring 2 The Dr. P. 101. most tediously rambles on to no purpose at all Is not Christianity saith he therfore highly recommended to us in the new Testament because of the perspicuity wherein the Doctrins and Precepts thereof are delivered And yet after The Dr is to shew what Christianity among so many Dissenters is commended in Scripture this cannot the most Necessary parts of it be understood by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them To answer this meer nothing it 's enough to ask What Christianity is commended to us for its clearness and perspicuity Is it Arianism Nestorianism or Protestanism It little God knowes avail's to know in General that some Christians are right in the beliefe of the Scriptures most necessary Part while no man can say to what Church they belong or who they are 2. It is most evident notwithstanding the Scriptures supposed perspicuity that very learned grosly err in the prime Necessaries for Salvation and doe all these clearly se the right meaning of it Here the Dr is obliged to tell us who are the blind or misled and which he ever unluckily waves how those he call's sincere Endeavourers may be distinguished from others supine and negligent And they ought to be known in the Dr ' s Principles for if the discerning FAculty in every man can easily find out the necessary truths for Salvation by reading Scripture it may I hope more easily discover the open Professors of these truths or that Christian Society where such truths are taught 3. Suppose Scriptures were writ for this end to teach all Necessaries how can the Dr prove that the search after them is committed to every private man's erring changeable Faculty Why not as well to the Pastors and Doctors of that Church whereof private men are members Now and here arises an insuperable difficulty what if these private men highly dissent from their Pastors concerning Necessaries five or six for example in Holborn from Dr Still Those denie Christs Godhead which he believes Both produce Scriptures and sence them differently who is to yeild in this contest the Dr to his Hearers or they to the Dr 3 This difficulty the Doctors worthy Adversary proposes with reference to the Church Governours and ask's whether these may not be presumed to understand the Scriptures meaning in order to Necessaries as well as ordinary Rusticks and if these be supposed to use à sincere endeavour in their pondering Scripture much more may we suppose it not wanting to the Guides of the Church And are we not here again saith N. O. arrived at Church Infallibility Se the Drs first part P. 138. 4 Never was man more intangled in hammering out à solution to any Argument The Dr much intangled in Solving à difficulty than our Dr is here First he wishes N. O. had kept to his own expressions and not forced in that term of Infallibility then to divert the Reader with nothing he repeat's again his whole 13 Proposition and because he well understand's not what is meant by men being infallible in Necessaries he makes it capable of three several senses 1. That men are infallible in judging of Necessaries to Salvation Or. 2. That they are infallible in teaching others what are Necessaries to Salvation These two meanings the Dr rejects and yet approves à third Viz. Men are infallible in believing such things as are Necessary to Salvation 1. e. That such is the Goodness of God and the clearness of Scriptures that no man who sincerely desires to know what is necessary to Salvation shall be deceived therein Yet more Though saith he I know no reason for useing the term Infallibility thus applyed yet the thing in it selfe I assert in that sence And what now can be inferred from hence but that the Guides of the Church supposeing the same sincerity shall enioy the same priviledge 5 If all this be not an unintelligible jumbling I never read any Pray reflect Men are infallible in believing such things as are Necessary for Salvation and yet are not infallible in judging of these Necessaries How can they infallibly believe Necessaries and not infallibly judge of them by that very infallible assent they give to Necessaries Again They are infallible in believing Necessaries but not infallible in teaching others the Necessaries to Salvation What is this to say Cannot men commissioned to instruct others teach that infallibly which they believe infallibly The Dr believes infallibly the high God head in Christ cannot he open his mouth and convey infallibly this Truth to others capable of believing infallibly were he lawfully sent to Preach 6 Now if by
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
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
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
the vision in Mount Thabor The Apostles saw there our Saviour all in glory yet knew not evidently what it meant They heard those words This is my most Dear Son Mark 9. 7. and understood their obvious sence yet had no evidence of the Truth signified by those words Finally they received that command Ipsum audite Hear and believe all that this dear Son deliver's to you but were yet far from having the truth of that command or any thing he spake laid out evidently before them Notwithstanding they believed the very truth of those words and Command also and thus their Faith led on by clear signs admirable works sacred words and an express command transcended the certainty of what ever they saw or heard 17 From what you have already noted it followes That if by Faith we believe the very truth of a Revelation and not only its Credibility the act of Faith cannot but be of à higher certainty than all the exteriour Signs and Motives as known by sense can perswade to The reason now given is clear All these outward Signs and Motives manifested to the world are reduced to the admirable works miracles for example Neither the Apostolical words nor Works can evidence the truth of Divine Revelation done by Christ his Apostles and the Church as also to the plain signification of words these Oracles spake But neither the works which Christ shewed nor the words he spake though plainly significant made the truth of his Revelation evident as is now proved but only evidently credible therefore if by Faith we believe the very truth of à Revelation which all grant and rest not only upon its Credibility we goe Eo ipso beyond the certainty of that judgement whereby we know it to be evidently credible though not shewed evidently true Hence I said Prot without Prin. Disc 1. c. 5. n. 6. that all the power in Heaven cannot separate Infallibility from an act of Faith setled upon the Truth of God's Revelation though Divines yet question whether by the absolute power of God all these outward Signs we se or hear of might not have been the very same in appearance as they are now had God never revealed any thing 18 Some less skilful may reply The words the Apostles heard on Mount Tabor and understood were plain and significant enough what need Truth is not alwaies Spoken by words most significant is there of more A simple objection Are I beseech you all significant words true Grant this and no man can tell à Lye or à false story for in such cases words are very significant yet far from truth Now the Apostles did not only know the signification of that voice heard but also believed its Truth though not made evident to them This is ever to be reflected on 19 You will say again Those words and all other written in Scripture are either evidently Credible or evidently true Answ Words evidently Credible in this place imply à piece of nonsence when by themselves they are evidently heard and their open signification If clear evidently known without any more light Speak therefore thus properly The true signification of words in Scripture is made evidently Credible and when clear believed true by Faith yet are not known evidently or Scientifically true and the obiection becomes forceles Here I expect that such an Adversary as Dr Still may obiect 3. From this discourse it followes Though one read Scripture à hundred times over and add to that the interpretation of the Church yet after all he cannot know that Christ our Saviour is God and the true Messias I Answer none can know these truths Scientifically or vpon clear evident Principles I grant it None can infallibly believe them by virtue of God's Revelation made evidently credible by clear signs I deny it After all this trifling 20 Followes another obiection much to this sence There seem's an open contest between these Signs or the Motives inducing to Faith on the one side and God's express command whereby we are obliged to believe the truth of his Revelation on the other The Motives draw one way and licence us not to goe one step further than to assent to what they shew which is only to acknowledge God's Revelation evidently Credible but not infallibly true God's Command pushes further and will have all to believe the Truth of à Revelation though we se no reason to go so high by Faith This obiection contain's nothing but what is solved already I therefore answer An obiection taken from the Motives and Gods Command solved in a word We se no reason to goe so high while we rest upon the Motives only I grant it we se no reason to goe so high if we attend to God's command manifested by clear signs I deny what is assumed For this command and the Majesty of the commander is both reason and à law more prevalent than all Motives are solely considered or as known by sense Therefore unless the weaknes of these Motives can as it were abate or infringe the strength of God's Command and make me to judge he command's none to believe without evidence had of his Revelation I both can and will captivate my understanding in obsequium fidei and say absolutely what ever you my God speak made evidently credible by clear signes is not only Credible but infallibly true And this is to proceed rationally for if I ought to believe à Mortal man reputed honest and sincere when he speak's though I have no evidence of what he interiourly judges because he may deceive much more am I obliged by captivating my understanding to believe God who cannot deceive when I have the greatest moral Assurance imaginable that he speak's to me and for my Salvation 21 Now here enter's that other Principle hinted at above I mean the pious affection of the will in every Believer which power when once enlightned by the previous judgement of Credibility grounded upon rational Motives for nihil volitum quin praecognitum hath from that judgement assurance that no assent of the mind is or can be of greater concern than an humble submission to what ever God speak's and command's though no evidence of his speaking be drawn from the Motives inducing to believe The reason hereof is clear because upon this assent eternal Salvation depend's and the omission of it brings with it eternal misery Besides the great confidence all have of pleasing God who command's us to believe and the fear we may justly apprehend of wronging his Divine Majesty in case we demurr or boggle when we are thus incited to believe cannot but drive the VVill forward with all the force it hath to move the intellectual Faculty to à most firm and infallible assent of Faith Hence it is as S. Bonaventure observes cited Reas and Relig Disc 3 c. 8. n. 15. VVhat power the will hath to â—lieiâ—â— Faith that men truly prudent and apprehensive of their eternal good are not drawn
by torments or inticements to deny in words any revealed verity yet few in their wits saith the Saint will venture to do so for à truth known by natural science Whereupon he inferr's that Faith is not so much à Speculative act as practical in order to the real effects of suffering and dying for God and his truth attested by Revelation though not evidently seen 22 Some may here demand whether the Will can make the Motives inducing to Faith to appear stronger then they are in themselves I answer it cannot For all know that as ratio Veri or truth moves the understanding so ratio Boni or Good moves the will and is its proper object The will therefore can strongly adhere to what it rationally loves and move the understanding to obey God when it is evidently credible by clear Signs that He speak's and requires obedience from us but to force the intellectual power to se more light in the Motives than they of their own nature can give is impossible One may here ask How then can the will as Divines teach supply the inefficacy of the Motives were there want of efficacy in them as there is none in my Opinion for I hold them infallibly connected with the Divine Revelation I answer No otherwise then by adding constancy and à strong practical firmness to the assent of Faith so much flame and fervour that if the intellectual power had yet more evidence the adhesion would not be greater And thus as both Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers speak corde creditur ad Salutem A pious will can captivate the understanding and move it to believe to Salvation 23 By what is here said and further explicated in the place now cited you se Dr Still jumbling discourse P. 398. most weak and fixed upon no rational ground If the Will saith he can determine the understanding to assent beyond the strength of the Motives it may determine it to assent with out any Motives at all Not so Mr Dr. It is far easier to assent upon some Motives though weak ones then for none at all as is evident in the rash judgements men usually make when by the perversness of the Will they strongly judge upon most slight reasons such an one to be an Enemy who never The Dr's ill way of arguing rejected intended mischief to any much more therefore can this power by her pious affection when She has grave and most weighty reasons proposed to obey God move the understanding to comply with that obligation and to believe most firmly 24 Now comes in the Dr ' s jumbling If saith he the infallible assent of Faith comes from the power of the Will then to what purpose is any formal obiect enquired after or Motives of Credibility either Mark first an improper speech of an Assent comming from the power of the VVill. The assent Sr comes from the understanding commanded by the will to assent He goes on The Formal Obiect doth assign à reason of believing from the Obiect it self of which there can be none if the VVill by her own power elicit that which is the proper assent of Faith I Answer The understanding if we And his jumbling also speak properly elicit's the assent of Faith that is produces it and not the Wil. Now if the word Elicit import only à command it is more then profoundly simple to assert as the Dr doth that that command takes away from the formal Obiect all reason of believing Observe I beseech you God obliges all to keep his precepts and one is to believe the Incarnation upon this Motive or formal obiect that eternal Truth has revealed it The VVill because God requires that assent readily submit's and command's the understanding to believe the Mystery How can this command of the will any way lessen or take from the formal Obiect all reason of believing when it moves the understanding to believe because God speak's and will have us to believe so It is impossible unlesse You 'le say that because God enioyn's me not to steal and the Will thereupon moves me to abstain from Theft I take away God's law by my obedience which is à blasphemy It is true could the will being of it selfe à blind faculty elicit or produce Faith by its own power without any reason proposed and this gross errour lay deep in the Dr's head when he The Dr's errour Wrot he might then talk at random and tell us as he doth of no need of any Motives of Credibility of taking away the formal Obiect of Faith and such like Nonsence but all is contrary For the Will can never move the Understanding to elicit Faith without first having the formal obiect of Faith rationally proposed and applyed by most grave and weighty Motives as shall be now briefly declared 25 I observed above n. 5. That the Motives of Credibility may be considered two wayes First as rational lights preceding Faith or known by natural discourse answerable to our Saviours words Matt 11. 4. Tell Iohn what you have heard and seen 2. As Truths believed by Faith wherein there appear's no difficulty at all if which is evident one and the same Obiect can terminate two different cognitions Thus the Apostles conversing with our Saviour knew him by natural reason to be truly man and yet induced by prudent Motives they raised their Faith above sense above all natural knowledge and believed he was indeed Our Saviours Miracles as seen were rational Motives to à beliefe of their truth true Man They saw the outward appearance of his glorious Miracles but by sence and natural discourse had no strict evidence of their being Truths for sence may be deceived or of the end for which they were wrought however led on by prudent Motives they believed them true Miracles and not in appearance only Now I ask why could not our Saviours own Miracles as seen become rational inducements to believe the real truth of them not evidently seen All confess that as seen and known by discourse they had force enough to perswade to à Beliefe of what ever Christ spake and God revealed If so There can be no reason why they might not also induce to à firm beliefe of their own being true Miracles For if the sight of them had so much force as to cast light upon another Obiect Viz. The Divine Revelation and to make the truth thereof evidently Credible that very sight was no lesse powerful to give the like clarity of their being evident credible Truths At least all must say and 't is mainly for my present purpose that our Saviours Miracles together with the other external Motives seen or known by Natural discourse did ultimately constitute the Divine Revelation in à compleat state of Credibility which we call Gods own rational speaking to the world by Signs or the last application of his speaking 26 Now further When this rational Proposition or ultimate application of God's speaking was made by miracles
and other Motives and layd open to the understanding of primitive Believers who saw Christs wonders the Will thereby enlightned could easily with her pious affection move the Intellectual power to elicit à most firm assent of Faith because God speak's or command's Beliefe which assent if ultimately resolved we shall find securely fixed both upon the Truth of the Revelation as also upon the real Truth of the Motives also joyntly believed And thus the Motives which were only inducements to Believers solely considered that is as they constituted à Revelation and themselves evidently credible can under the notion of Truths conjoyned with the Divine Revelation terminate à certain and infallible assent of Faith 27 Perhaps some half Scholars in speculative learning will esteem all now said confused stuff and very likely as Halfe Scholars talk not valved the Dr expresses himself P. 427 desire the Reader to try his faculty upon it whether it be intelligible No great matter for that say I. Let Smatterers talke I appeal to the judgement of such as have been long versed in Schools and hope to enlighten the unlearned by this one clear Instance 28 Had Christ our Lord after his raysing Lazarus from the dead said only thus much to the then present Spectators You have seen this one great wonder my Disciples and others have been Eye-witnesses of many more An Instance gives light to my Assention wrought by me I speak now to you in the words which my Evangelist shall hereafter register in the Gospel Iohn 10. 25. The works that I do in my Fathers name they give Testimony of me and withall declare that I am truly God and the Messias sent into the world Believe me induced to assent by the works you and others have seen and moreover believe that these seen wonders are not counterfeited but true Miraculous works In this case it is clear that the same Miracles first known by sense or as they apply'd the Divine Revelation to the Believers understanding made themselves together with the Revelation no more but evidently credible and therefore forced none to believe but left that free yet they imposed an obligation upon all rational men of believing the real truth of these Miracles and the Truth of the Revelation whereof neither those primitive Christians nor we ever yet had any Evidence This is to say in plainer terms and mark well the distinction Miracles and all other exteriour Motives as seen or known move to à beliefe of themselves under the notion of Truths though not evidently seen or known as Truths but believed so 29 The whole discourse in this Chapter goes upon à supposition that the Motives of credibility are not essentially connected with the Divine Revelation though if that essential connexion be admitted which is true Doctrin and much avail's to raise Faith above the strength of all exteriour Motives An act of Faith terminated upon the Revelation and the truth of the Motives more certain than humane knowledge yet the act of Faith terminated upon the Revelation and the Truth of the Motives far surpasses in certainty the knowledge which any in this life can have of that connexion for the knowledge of that Connexion is only got by natural discourse whereas the assent of Faith it self rest's upon the most supream Verity I mean God speaking to the world And thus in all opinions the certainty of Faith is defensible As à rational assent Faith depend's upon the Motives of Credibility because God speak's by such Signs As purely Divine it rest's upon the Divine Revelation applyed by rational Motives whereunto I add the lumen fidei which represent's the Truth of the Motives and the Revelation more clearly and immediatly then any natural discourse can do and upon that account much conduces to the Infallible certainty of Faith as is largely declared Reas. and Relig Disc 3. c. 9. n. 6 The last certainty comes from the pious affection of the will as is already declared Having said thus much I desire Dr Still to weaken any one of these Principles upon Good Authority or solid reason CHAP. VII Reflections made upon the Doctors following Discourse Of his Mistakes concerning the Churches Testimony and the obscurity of Faith 1 I Am forced courteous Reader to passe by many impertinent excursions of the Dr his ill language also with other lesser faults for fear of making this Treatise too bulky which may displease him neither do I need to enlarge my self much upon his obiections from P. 365. to P. 400. For they are all solved in my two former Treatises Some few particulars I shall add more to satisfy others in this speculative matter of our Analysis than to answer the Dr who in very deed hath his full Answer already 2 In the. P. now cited he complain's of my shuffling because he hear's no more of the Churches infallible Testimony whereby men believe the Scripture to be the word of God I stand astonish't at this clamorous Adversary Where were his Eyes where was his attention if ever he read my Treatises The very chief aime whereof is to shew not only to Christians but to Iewes and Gentils also that the first known ground of true Religion is à Church manifested by Supernatural Motives proceeding from an infinit power and wisdom This Church I have amply proved to be God's own assured Oracle The Primum credible or first believed Teacher in this present state and that God speak's as immediatly and infallibly by it now as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle As therefore those whom the blessed Apostles taught having seen the Apostolical Signs immediatly believed upon their word So with as great reason may we having penetrated the Churches glorious Marks assent immediatly upon Her word and believe all She obliges Christians to believe But to have assurance of the Scriptures Divine inspiration as likewise of its true infallible sence are believed Articles grounded upon the Churches Infallible Testimony or rather upon God speaking by this Oracle and here we must rest or can believe Nothing The Churches Testimony God's own Testimony I must therefore once more blame the Doctor who forsooth thinks the Faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed ought to have such à Divine Testimony and so à process in Infinitum or à Circle will unavoydably follow Such à Divine Testimony Mr Dr you understand not what I teach I say expresly that the Churches Testimony is God's own Testimony as immediatly assented to upon Church Authority for he that hear's the Church hear's God as ever Doctrin was believed upon any Apostles word Thus much supposed and largely proved what need have we of another Testimony distinct from that of the Church Out of all I concluded that as there was neither vicious Circle nor process in Infinitum in those who terminated their faith upon S. Paul's preaching for example so there is neither the one nor other fault in me when I assent to this truth The Churches
what is supposed True be true it is true and we ought to assent to it Just as if one should say if Peter be à man of his word I may believe evidenced null and forceless him but as that conditional proves not Peter honest no more do these Assertions of the Dr being only conditional prove any thing true without à Minor to this sence But these things are so which Minor is wanting The Dr think 's he proves his Assertions upon these grounds That the writers of Scripture cannot be suspected of Ignorance having had long conversation with him they wrot of Their simplicity and candour in writing gives evidence they intended no deceipt with all the rest that followes I answer these are nothing like rational proofs but meer unproved Suppositions whereunto neither Iewes nor Gentils give credit I evince this demonstratively Put the book of holy Scripture into the hands of à Heathen Philosopher who never heard of Christ of the Church or of any other Motive for Christian Religion but only takes so much as the Dr here proposes and what the Scripture it selfe barely relates Would this Philosopher think ye after his pondering the Dr ' s Discourse and reading Scripture forthwith acquiesse and say all is true he reads He were worse then besotted did he so If prudent he would tell you he had joyntly perused with Scripture the Turks Alcaron and as he found strange wonders written of Christ in the one book so also he met with great matters recounted of Mahomet in the other for which the Turks pretend to have universal tradition but whether Scripture or the Alcaron speaks truth whether such men as the Dr mentions related exactly the Miracles of Christ and his true Doctrin with those Miracles the Philosopher knowes not nor shall ever know without à further proof taken from the testimony of some other Infallible Oracle which makes the truths in Scripture evidently credible and then proposes all as Divine and infallible Verities 14 The ultimate reason hereof is most convincing All matters contained in Scripture whether Miracles or The reason of their nullity said forth Doctrin are not ex terminis any Self evidence nor can they give by themselves so much as à great moral certainty of their Truth or Credibility Therefore they must be proved either true or evidently Credible by another Certain Oracle or can never draw belief from any I am sure S. Austin who discoursed more profoundly than the Dr ever did judged So when he told the Manichaes He would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it and upon this firm ground all must believe or believe nothing The Dr ' s whole discourse proves only this conditional truth that if the Primitive Christians had reason to believe the Doctrin of Christ upon the inducement of his Miracles they did well to believe but that such Miracles were wrought he shewes not save only by Scripture it selfe hitherto neither proved True nor Divine I say proved For no Christian doubt's of the truths there contained though all justly question whether the Dr makes them to appear Truths by à bare telling us of some Contents in that book which neither Jew nor Gentil nor indeed any can believe unless more be said than the Dr bring 's to light 15 In à word here lies the whole errour He makes the Christian Doctrin Wherein the Dr's errour lies couched in Scripture to prove it selfe and drawes his rational Evidence of Credibility from the Mysteries believed Observe well He believes the Resurrection of Christ from the dead for this is an Article of Faith can he I beseech you make the Resurrection it self as believed the rational Motive of believing it while after all his discourse we are yet to seek for à proof of that very Scriptures Truth and Divinity also whereby the Resurrection is attested 16 The Dr may reply his evidence is not taken from the Mysteries of Faith Apos◠reply 〈◊〉 seen and prevented and from our Saviours Miracles the like is of Apostolical wonders as they are believed but from the Humane consent of the Primitive Christians who either saw or heard of such matters of fact wrought by Christ and his Apostles which common consent passing among so many grave and pious men made them in those dayes evidently Credible and Morally certain though we abstract from all Divine Revelation in Scripture and the Churches Infallible Authority I answer first if the Dr run's this way his whole discourse fastidiously spun out against the Miracles of the Roman Catholick Church fall's to nothing for if the common humane consent of the ancient Christians Supposed neither Devine Revelation nor infallible raised The common consent of the ancient Christians and modern for Miracles parallel'd our Saviours Miracles to Moral certainty or evident Credibility Then why should not the like common humane Consent of Christians Now make the Miracles owned in the Roman Catholick Church morally certain or evidently credible And I speak of Miracles approved by the Church not of every forged tale or pretended false wonder which were not wanting in the Primitive times If therefore the Dr say that all since the Apostles dayes have been grosly deluded in recounting the Miracles wrought in the Catholick Church both Jewes and Gentils will shrewdly pester him and avouch as boldly that those Primitive Christians over Credulous what Iewes may obiect like papists in these dayes were no less beguiled in their crying up Apostolical Miracles What say you to this Mr Dr The parity taken from the primitive times and ours I shall urge more fully hereafter and tell the Dr he shall long sweat at it before he solves what I here object if which is ever to be noted we stand only upon à common humane consent of men called Christians and abstract from the Authority of an Infallible Church 17 I answer 2. The enquiry here made concern's not only the bare truth of these matters of fact recorded in Scripture but implies more for we ask how what is here chiefly enquired these matters of fact are rationally proved truths written by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost or how when supposed wrought sixteen Ages since they are now conveyed and applyed to us as Truths of so high à nature No common consent of Christians meerly humane and long since past can give Sufficient certainty hereof sufficient I say to ground Divine Faith Wherefore seing Scripture evidences not it's own truths nor any reflection made upon Scripture can clear these doubts an infallible living Oracle manifested by supernatural Signs must speak and tell us that these matters of fact were written not like other things in humane History which are lyable to errour but by the special direction and inspiration of the Holy Ghost 18 Hence we proceed to the second Question If saith the Dr I be asked why I The Dr's second question proposed believe the Doctrin contained in
Again those ancient Miracles though supposed true are far from giving any undubitable assurance by their Sight alone without further light that such was and yet is the genuin and pure Sence of God's word for how many thousands are there now in the world who willingly own all the Miracles wrought by Christ and yet are at implacable discord concerning the true meaning of what our Saviour and his Apostles taught which strifes cannot be ended by à bare owning those Miracles true but by the Infallible Decision of an ever living manifested Church I say manifested by Miracles and other weighty Motives that laid before mans rational Power led it on to believe in Christ and his Church for these two Articles go together and are proposed in the Creed as necessary believeable Verities I believe in Iesus Christ I believe the Holy Catholick Church As therefore to believe all that Christ taught confessedly required the light of glorious Motives whereby his Doctrin Christ was manifested by rational Motives and so is the Church was made Credible to reason so also to believe what the Church teaches requires the like light or an answerable evident Credibility grounded on convincing and rational Motives I desired the Dr Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 16. n. 28. to consider how cold and faint Christian Faith would have grown in the hearts of men before this day had all Church Motives fail'd or ceased soon after the Apostles preaching Had no more Conversions been wrought no more Martyrs dyed for God's truth no more contempt of the world been evidenced in thousands and thousands and finally had no other Miracles been don in after Ages but such only as the Scripture relates It is therefore open impiety in the Dr to slight all Church Motives and her Miracles calling them à grand Salade too often served up It is worse then Perverness to tell us as he doth in his last book P. 665. That the Doctrin of Christ and his Apostles being confirmed by Miracles wrought by them there can be no The Continuation of Miracles proved necessary such necessity in succeeding Ages to confirm the same Doctrin by Miracles I have answered this very Obiection Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 7. and shewed the Continuation of Miracles in the Church both useful and necessary not only because our Saviour fore told they should be done Iohn 12 but upon this account also that the Conversion of Infidels to Christ was wrought as well in the Ages after the Apostles as when those blessed men preached to the world If therefore the first Apostolical Miracles were necessary to convince unbelieving Jewes and Gentils Then it is plain ungodliness to deem them fruitless Now when God is pleased to work them by Missioners lawfully sent to convert as Barbarous Nations as ever S. Paul preach't to 24 Again Miracles most evidently have been wrought and very frequently The end of God's Concurring with his servants to work Miracles I ask for what end did God concurr with his Servants to do them No other reason can with probability fall into mens minds but this That an infinit Power and wisdom intended thereby to make his Church glorious and to induce the most obdurate hearts to believe her Doctrin The Dr yet seems not satisfied for he thinks the conveyance of the Apostolical Miracles being wrought for the benefit of succeeding Ages may well serve the turn in all after Times without more I wish this man were sent with his Bible to some Barbarians in America who never perhaps heard of Christ or Scripture and only read them such Miracles as Scripture relates without working any himselfe as S. Xaverius and other Missioners have done How many think ye would the Dr draw to Christ if he told his Hearers that all the certainty men have of those ancient Miracles and Christ's Doctrin comes from fallible Tradition which may be false My thought is he would convert this way very few or rather none at all Let others judge as they please Now because the main ground whereon he relies is his much driven in conveyance by Tradition we will bestow à little pains upon it and shew if ever man lost himselfe in a Labyrinth it is Dr Stillingfleet Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition what Christ did and spake 25 THe Substance of the Dr ' s Discourse Account P. 205 is thus Tradition to us doth only supply the want of our senses as to what Christ did and spake it being à perpetuated sensation and of the same use to us now as if we had been actually present with Christ and seen his Miracles or heard his Doctrin when he delivered it Soon after It is apparent that the use of the senses to those The substance of the Drs Discourse laid down in his own words who saw Christs Miracles and heard his Doctrin was not to give any Credibility to either of them but only to be the means of conveying them those things which might induce them to believe The same is Tradition now to us it doth not in it selfe make the Doctrin more credible but supplies the use of our senses in a certain conveyance of those things which were Motives to believe them Hence he inferr's That the motives to the primitive Christians and to us are the same only the manner of conveyance differ's 2. He inferr's as it was not then necessary for those who saw our Saviours Miracles wrought for the confirmation of his Doctrin to have the inward Testimony of the Spirit or any external Infallible Testimony of à Church to assure them that those Miracles were really done by Christ but God left them to the judgement of sense so proportionably neither of these two are now necessary for the resolution of Faith but God instead of sense leaves us to the evidence of Tradition Thus the Dr where you se his whole labour spent in vain and à gross mistake with it for he think's the main difficulty lies in the conveyance of the things written in Scripture to this Age whereas the reall difficulty is to prove that there ever were any He waves the real difficulty such things true and written by Divine inspiration as he supposes to be conveyed Unlesse this particular be first rationally evinced the Turks will dare to argue as the Dr doth In Mahomet's time there was reason to believe Mahomets Miracles and wonders Ergo there is reason to believe them now because they are conveyed down by Tradition And thus the followers of every false Sectarie may make any Religion true But here is not all 26 Mark I beseech you how pitifully the Dr shuffles He own 's à tradition which conveigh's unto us what Christ did and spake That is we may No man is wiser by the Dr's lame Tradition know by his fallible tradition received among Christians that our Saviour wrought such Miracles and spake such words for example I and my Father are one The word is
made flesh This is my body c. But how is any man wiser for that How is our knowledge or faith improved by such à maimed or half perfect Tradition While no man can certainly tell us what the true meaning of those sacred words is No man can determine the debates which arise among Christians the Arians and you that draw plain Contradictions out of these words now cited Such à conveyance or tradition as could end these long strifes would be to your purpose and comfort Mr Dr but you have none of it because you slight the Tradition and Authority of an Infallible Church Though therefore you tell us twenty times over you believe all truths expressed in Scripture yet while you cannot assure us upon tradition or any other sound Principle what those necessary truths are which Faith in necessaries is determinately to pitch upon you only trifle away your time and cheat your Reader in seeming to discover great How the Dr Cheat's his Reader matters whereas in real truth you speak not one word to the purpose If to solve the difficulty here briefly touched you run up to your own discerning faculty permit the Arian to keep you company and blame him not if he trust to his discerning faculty quite contrary to yours Se more hereof above Chap. 4. n. 10. Thus much premised 27 To answer the Dr I say first Fallible Tradition which may be false Our Answer to the Dr. the Dr own 's none Infallible gives not so great certainty of Miracles Supposed true in Scripture as Eye-sight did to those who beheld them The reason is Fallible Tradition in the Dr ' s Principles easily alters in time and may tell one Story for another whereof more presently If therefore that Tradition conveyed by hearing altered as I shall shew most shamefully and if fallible no wonder at the change what certainty have Fallible tradition worth little in Divine matters we now in this present Age either of the Miracles or of the Doctrin recorded in Scripture by virtue of it Or how can the Dr parallel the certainty of à Miracle conveyed down by fallible Tradition with the sight of it This must needs be à lame Parallel For when I se à Miracle I need not to prove the outward appearance of it evidently seen but when that appearance passes down Age after Age upon Hearsay or à faultering Tradition which may change the Story from what it once was I must either prove that Tradition true or cannot prudently rely on it chiefly in this present case while we dispute against Iewes and Gentils who utterly deny those Miracles to have ever been truly wrought by Christ The ancient Jewes all know said Christ cast out Divels by the help of Beelzebub and these modern men of the Synagogue calumniate as boldly to this day 28 I say 2. Those ancient Miracles if saith à Jew ever any such were together with the Doctrin which is thought to be proved either true or evidently credible by such wonders can be no more certain now than the fallible Tradition is which conveighs them to us But this Tradition gives no man so much as moral certainty either of the Miracles or Doctrin I prove the Minor That The reason why worthless in the Dr's Principles ancient Tradition say Sectaries notoriously changed not long after the Apostles dayes when à universal deluge of errours spread it selfe the whole Christian world over and the efficacy of Christs true Doctrin together with its old Tradition was blotted out of mens memory when the Roman Catholick The Dr charges this Idolatry upon the Roman Church Church once confessedly Orthodox unluckily began Her universal Apostacy and professed open Idolatry when the Arians denyed the Mystery of the Incarnation and Trinity Others the two VVills in Christ others his Sacred Humanity others the Resurrection of the dead others the necessity of Divine Grace and others finally professed yet more horrid Doctrins In so much that the whole Christian word part of it one way part another erred most grosly in the very fundamentals of Faith In those dismal dayes say I when all Christian Societies nameable and the Roman Church with them became so infatuated as to change the first received truths taught by Christ and his Apostles the ancient true Tradition could not but change and faile also therefore at this day Tradition is worthless and unualvable because no man can know upon any sure Principle what it anciently was 29 The Dr may reply All called Christians own the Bible and the Miracles there related of Christ and his Apostles which are sufficient to prove Christs Doctrin true so far at least Tradition never failed Small Comfort God knowes to have Tradition of the Scriptures bare letter which yet is not had in our Sectaries Principles Se Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 6. n. 2. If the Christian world long since cheated out of their ancient Faith bequeathed to posterity à false Doctrin in Lieu of that which The Arians and all hereticks lay as great claime to Christs Miracles as the Dr or any other doth Christ and his Apostles taught and with that à false Tradition also Moreover were those Miracles with their Tradition proved most true the Arians will as well lay claim to them for à proof their Doctrin as the Dr can do for that Religion he professes and the like may all others pretend if called Christians though of à quite different belief in the very Essentials of Faith unless this consequence utterly false be good Christ our Lord wrought such and such Miracles Ergo Protestancy is à better Religion then Arianism Pelagianism is better then Nestorianism and so of the rest The Dr therefore must either make this out that Christ and his Apostles wrought their Miracles to confirm all the erroneous Sects in the world or he speaks nothing to the purpose when he tells us in his Account What the Dr is obliged to clear P. 205. That the Motives of Faith both to them the ancient Christians and to us are the same only the manner of conveyance is different those Primitive Believers Saw them we hear of them by Tradition In saying this he either thinks that such Motives prove the truth of all Religions called Christian which is horridly false or only prove the true Christian Religion among so many dissenting Sects Grant this and we are in as much darkness after the supposed Truth of these Miracles and the Dr ' s long discourse as we were before and can never know by his Motives only which is the true Religion I earnestly desire the Dr would please to solve this one difficulty which I judge cannot be Solved 30 By all hitherto clearly laid down we se 1. The Dr ' s rational Evidence so much talked of brought to nothing but empty words for his whole proofs are meer unproved Suppositions He endeavours to evince by Miracles internal to Scripture the Divinity of the book which
and proved an Infallible Teacher independently of his clearer interpretation It is impossible while we believe S. Paul speaking obscurely for S. Paul delivering the Sence of his own words more clearly 11 Now Sr look upon your own pretty Circle VVe believe say you the The D's Circle retorted upon himselfe Church to be infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith so And you believe the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth because the true sence of S. Paul's words explicated by Apostolical Authority saith so Moreover Say you VVe believe this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so and could not you Sr have believed such à Sence of the words now cited had S. Paul delivered it because either he or some other infallible Apostle said so This is only to assert in plainer Terms that the darker sence written in Scripture by one Infallible Oracle can be cleared by the Interpretation of the very same or any other Infallible Oracle which lead's no man into the least danger of à vicious Circle 12 Pray tell me Mr Dr when you in your Account interpret our Saviours words This is my body according to the Sence you judge true do you intangle your Reader in à vicious Circle By your new way of Arguing it's plain you do For those who read or hear your interpretation assent to it as true because the true Sence of Scripture saith so And again they believe this to be the true Sence of Scripture because you say so Your Interpretation has some influence upon the assent of those that believe it be it Condition Cause or what you will otherwise it signifies nothing but And yet made more Clear stand's like an useless cypher in your book This granted your Circle is manifestly vieious for you run in à round from your supposed true interpretation of Scripture to the true Sence of Scripture and back again from the true Sence of Scripture to your supposed true Interpretation Mark well Your Interpretation is proved or believed true by the true sence of Scripture here is your only ground and the true Sence of Scripture is again proved or believed true by your supposed true explication Hence it followes that either your interpretation is not according to the true Sence of Scripture God forbid say you or that the true Sence of Scripture correspond's not to your supposed true explication or finally this must be granted that you run round in à Circle and prove the one by the other 13 Perhaps to avoid à Circle it will be said you prove not your Interpretation true by the true sence of Scripture but evince that upon other grounds distinct from Scripture Viz. by the Authority of Fathers your often alleged sence and reason and God knowes what Is it so indeed Dare you Sr most shamefully quit the only main prop you rely on which is Scripture when you stand most in need of it whereof more presently and yet charge on me à vicious Circle while I believe the true Sence of Scripture because an infallible Church declares that Sence Cannot I more rationally would I seek Subterfugies evince the Infallibility of the Church by other proofs drawn from Fathers Church authority and reason and plead as you do to avoid à Circle were it necessary But I like no such Shuffling I positively assert the Sence of Scripture is therefore proved and believed true because the Infallible Church saith so though if questioned further I must bring in my reason why I believe this Oracle Infallible yet the immediate ground of my beliefe is the Churches Interpretation given upon Christs words now cited and I rest upon her Authority by Faith though this Interpretation be not the first ground why I believe her Infallible but that other more general received Truth that proves Her Gods own Oracle in all she delivers as matter of Faith which general Truth observe it well is most rationally evinced without any recourse to or dependance on Scripture And this is only to say that à Divine Oracle first proved Infallible can interpret Scripture without danger of à vicious Circle 14 What I here assert is undeniable for had any Apostle explained those words in the Gospel I and my Father are one answerable to the Sence now believed in the Church Viz. That Christ our Lord is the eternal Son of God consubstantial with his Father could not the primitive Christians have as firmly fixed their beliefe upon those words Infallibly interpreted as the Disciples fixed their Beliefe upon our Saviours Interpretation when Luke 8. 9. he fully explained the Sence of that Parable concerning the Sower and Seed These and the like Interpretations are believeable matters of Faith upon this Principle that every Interpreter whether Christ or Apostle was supposed and proved Infallible independently of that Sence they gave to God's sacred words and so is the Church as is already declared 15 The Dr ' s Confusion and whole mistake lies here that he has not yet got perfectly into his head the right notion of à vicious Circle and therefore P. 428. wishes I had told him the Secret I will do it briefly and then make his errour more known 16 A vicious Circle Mr Dr ever implies two Propositions or in à Circular What à Vicious Circle implies discourse two Syllogisms Here we will insist upon Propositions being more plain and easy then to proceed by long Syllogisms Know therefore when any first Proposition is assumed to prove the second and this second is made use of without further light to prove the first again or that very thing which is asserted by the first the Circle is notoriously vicious For example One endeavours to prove man to have Free-will because he is indowed with an intellectual Faculty then return's again and proves him intellectual because he hath Free-will the second Proposition implies à Circle because the thing proved which is Liberty or Free will not otherwise evinced but by mans being intellectual is made use of to prove that Power and so in effect Liberty or Free-will becomes à Medium to prove it self by 17 Observe well This vicious consequence whereby man seem's evinced à free Agent or indowed with liberty takes all the force it hath from the Antecedent of his being intellectual and wholly relies on that Medium If therefore as it here fall's out that Consequence whereby Liberty is asserted without any more light or further proof be again assumed as the only Medium to prove man intellectual Liberty or Free-will by its proving man intellectual proves it self and thus hic nune is both Antecedent and Consequent Antecedent as it is the Medium to prove man Intellectual and Consequent as it is the thing proved by Intellectuality which flaw is ever manifest in all vicious Circles as Aristotle notes well Lib. 1. Post cap. 3. 18 Now on the other side should I take this Consequence concerning Liberty which is deduced
Infallibility To what purpose Should we lose time Have not I answered that the Churches Infallibility stand's firm upon other grounds before Scripture be either owned Divine or the Sence of its difficult passages can be known Have not I moreover said that that general Truth of the Churches Infallibility must necessarily be proved and supposed antecedently to the belief of this or that particular Interpretation For who can fix his Faith upon the exposition of any Divine Oracle without being first ascertained it is God that speak's by it The Instances given above most clearly evince what is here asserted Please to make use either of our Saviours interpreting his own Parable Luke 8. concerning the Sower and seed or of S. Peters exposition given to the Prophet Joel They are one and the same in order to my present Intent We prove or believe that to be the true Sence of our Saviours Parable because eternal Truth interpreted it so but do we again first prove or believe him to be eternal Truth because he then delivered the true Sence of that Parable to his Disciples No. For by this lame way of arguing we should prove the Sence of the Parable to be true upon our Saviour Interpretation and again prove him à true Interpreter because he interpreted Mark well the Dr's confusion We Catholicks saith he believe the Church to be infallible because the true The Dr's Confused Doctrin Clearly driven back vpon himselfe Sence of Scripture saith she is so And you Sr believe our Saviours Interpretation upon that Parable to be true that Parable is now Scripture because our Saviour interpreted it so Again we believe this to be the Infallible sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so And you Mr Dr believe this to be the Infallible Sence of that Parable because Christ said so Here Sr you have your own Circle in express Terms Judge whether it stand's not something awry What must be done then to get out of this Confusion All must answer Though we believe our Saviours Interpretation by an Infallible act of Faith yet we first prove him not infallible because he interprets but suppose his Infallibility made out and proved upon other grounds independently of his explication And this is our Answer also as to the Church whereof enough is said already and more than ever the Dr will or can Answer 24 P. 430. the Doctor once more run's on with the same Tautologie and because I said the Scripture and Churches interpretation indivisibly Concur to that latter act of Faith whereby we believe the Sence of Scripture explained by the Church he tells me This indivisible concurrence Seem's to him an odd piece of Mystical Divinity I Answer no great matter for that as odd as it is he must own it if he believes S. Peters infallible Interpretation upon the Prophet or the exposition given to the Royal Prophets Testimony Psal 131. 11. Foreseing saith the Apostle His Tautologies and ill words he spake of Christs Resurrection Acts. 2. 31. Se more of this indivisible concurrence Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 11. n. 10. The rest our Dr hath to his page 433. is either the like Tautologie VVe prove the Churches Infallibility by the Infallible Sence of Scripture and the infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches Infallibility Or most uncivil language or finally a foul ending with à gross mistake for he thinks our Faith rest's upon no Infallible Authority because we have none to rely on but Motives Confessedly fallible It is à perverse errour already refuted 25 To end this Controversy about à vicious Circle wherein the Dr. P. 431. account's me à Conjurer and one that speak's things which neither he nor any one els can understand I have right me thinks to enquire by what means or upon what grounded Motive can the Dr come to à certainty of the Scriptures true Sence In proposing this Question I might easily retaliate and tell him Though he Conjure cheat and shuffle his whole life long he shall never yet clear this one difficulty without recourse to an Infallible Church The proof of my Assertion stand's sure upon this most undoubted principle The true Sence of A difficulty proposed and the Dr is desired to Answer Scripture in many passages relating to Necessaries for Salvation is no Selfe-evidence nor can it be certainly known by that endless Search or mispent industry of private men as appear's by those many most opposit and plain contradictory Interpretations which the learned of different Religions give to these and the like Expressions in God's word I and my Father are one The word is made flesh There are three that give Testimony in Heaven c. Not one of these Passages though pondered and compared with other Texts in Holy Writ doth Evidence its own true Sence Therefore the means whereby it is discovered or the Oracle which infallibly ascertain's it must necessarily be both distinct from the dark words now cited and also more clear and plainly significant than the yet concealed Sence is we seek for Now further Neither Calvins private Spirit nor the Dr's rational Evidence nor Tradition without nor Grace within as Bishop Lawd speaks in the Dr ' s Account P. 186. n. 15 nor finally any other Medium which is not Scripture can infallibly declare this Sence as is largely proved both in this Treatise and the last Therefore an Infallible Church must either do God and man this good Service and certainly tell us what Scripture Speak's in these Necessaries for Salvation Or the true meaning of God's Word will be just like Some useless airy nicity not worth knowing still matter of debate ever disputable but never known Thus much said in answer to the Dr's Speculative part we passe in the next Discourse to à serious view of his long Drollery and simple exceptions made against the glorious Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church and Shall God willing evince that in this Treatise where he thought to triumph most he is foiled and hath disgraced none but himselfe An end of the first Part. A DISCOVRSE CONCERNING MIRACLES WROUGHT in the Roman CATHOLICK CHVRCH in vindication of their Truth against Doctor Stillingfleets unjust Cavils VVHERE The Miraculous Translation of the Holy House OF LORETO is Asserted and proved an undeniable Verity BY E. W. The second Part. ANTWERP Printed by MICHAEL CNOBBAERT at the Sign of S. Peter in the Year 1674. Dr Stillingfleet in his second Discourse Chap. 3. P. 434 makes an Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church I follow him as he goes along and lay open the ill Success our Inquifitive man hath had in his Search which will I hope appear to every one after à full view taken of what is proposed in the ensuing Treatise Peruse and judge Courteous Reader 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
Clement are evidently improbable unsufficient to make the fact Credible afterward attested and examined by publick Authority More saw this wonder wrought upon the lame then that other upon the blinde cured by our Saviour Will he say there was never such à man born lame much less such à man cured as Iohn Clement but that all are Lyars and Cheats who tell the Story More justly might the Jewes have said there was never such à man blinde as christ restored sight to for they saw not that cure vvrought yet believed it upon the mans own word and his Parents and therefore advised him to glorify God for the favour done though their obstinacy would not ascribe the Miracle to Christ O! but here is à disparity Scripture recount's the one Miracle not the other A most simple reply We now insist upon humane Authority and ask which is ever to be noted whether upon that ground the latter Miracle be not made more credible then the first and here we are told the one is believed by Faith because God saies so and not the other All the Miracles Christ wrought were presupposed true before the vvriting of Scripture and not first true because they are registred in that Book 18 This humane Faith utterly ruined by our Dr the Erudite Lipsius plead's by and presses home cap. 1. Vbi estis qui paulò vetustiora elevatis c. Where are you who extenuat and undervalve ancient Miracles Ecce nova novitia behold new ones done in This Miracle as Montague proclaimed all over the Eyes of us all and heard vvith our cares renowned and solemnized by the frequent concourse and applause of People with great benefit to Nations Quae fides potest esse in rebus humani si haec non est What faith can there be amongst men if these things gain not credit And therefore he saith in his Preface Those deserve not to be called men that boggle at or doubt of such illustrious vvonders yet à Ieer à Pish and Flurt of our Dr's finger seem's forcible enough to discredit these admirable and no less manifest Testimonies of God's power publickly shewed to the world 19 More Cheats and fallacies of this Dr will better appear in the ensuing Discourse Here A fift Cheat. is one more and gross enough He never refutes the known and certain Miracles of the Church but now laugh's at one less certain now at another related as I said by private Authors prudently judged over credulous in writing matters upon Hearsay These support not our cause for we plead as S. Austin did by Miracles Multitudine magnitudine conspicuous undeniable and thus our Saviour Argues Iohn 15. 24. The vvorks vvhich I have By what Miracles we argue done not one work no other has done Acts. 2 Many vvonders and Signs vvere vvrought by the Apostles in Hierusalem What if false or doubtful Scriptures have been forged under the Apostles names as manifest happened in the Primitive times must we therefore reject the true Scriptures already received Yet this fallacy or cheat is à main Prop to the very most of our Dr's rambling discourse as shall be shewn afterwards 20 A Second Cheat is that when à Miracle appears strange or ridiculous to the Dr's fancy A sixt Cheat grounded upon the Strangeness of Miracles he slights it as counterfeit turn's it off with à Iibe and well instruct's Atheists and Heathens to deride the Miracles related in Scripture For what can be more ridiculous to an Atheist then to read of Moses his horned face Of Balaams Asse speaking Of Samsons destroying à thousand men with the Jawbone of an Asse or of water issuing out of one tooth in that Jawbone to quench the wearied mans thirst after his fighting These and many more à Heathen Scorn's as highly as Miracles recorded in Scripture more ridiculous to Atheists than Church Miracles the Dr doth our most certain Church Miracles But thanks be to God the Church and her Miracles are not like the walls of Jericho overthrown with loud Braying or the empty sound of à Dr's broken Trumpet No. Christs Sacred Doctrin witness the Apostles though à Scandal to the Iewes and à foolery to the Gentils yet stand's invincible against all Opposers and so will the Church and her Miracles continue glorious to the end of Ages maugre the attempt of Her weak Adversaries Thus much premised we will in the next place consider the Dr's exceptions against Miracles and ward off à few Cavils Arguments drawn from Authority or reason I find not any worth answering CHAP II. Of the Dr's proceeding against me VVhat 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 unworthy Cavils 1. AFter the Dr had set down some parcels of my Discourse and chiefly excepted against my comparing Church Miracles with those wrought by Christ and his Apostles he thinks an Atheist would desire no more advantage against Christian Religion then to have it granted that those Primitive Miracles were no other than such as are wrought in the Roman Catholick Church I answer The Dr either here supposes the Church never to have had one true Miracle in it and upon that Supposition it's madness to talk of paralleling Apostolical Miracles believed by Faith with Miracles never in being For who can parallel fourbs and fancied wonders with Apostolical Miracles really wrought Or Contrarywise He supposes true Miracles as curing the lame dispossessing Divels and raysing the dead to have manifestly illustrated the Church Grant this What ought to be supposed for à right Parallel and he is obliged to give à disparity between the Primitive wonders and these latter in the Church This I alwaies urged but the Dr leaves it unanswered 2. Again he perswades himselfe of great advantage given to Atheists who as much slight the Apostolical Miracles as those of the Church I see no such matter and therefore Say contrary and have proved it If Church Miracles be rejected the plainest Evidence of Credibility fail's and if Christian Religion be made thus bare and naked of glorious Marks Atheisin get's so much ground that neither Christ nor his Miracles can gain belief of any For undermine the Church and that is done How all faith is ruined if you rob her of her Miracles and other Motives Scripture it selfe and the very wonders of Christ lose credit and goe to wrack also because the certainty we have of These relies upon Church Authority utterly discredited when as the Dr would have it you expose her without Lustre and thereby make her contemptible to Iewes who anciently had true The Dr's Athcism Miracles amongst them and ridiculous to Gentils Here is your Atheism good Mr Doctor 3. In the following page 439. He enquires after the credibility of the