Foundatioâ— for it but the pretence of Infallibility doâ—â— overthrow the evidence of sense and reason and put the whole tryal of the Truth of Christianity upon the pitiful proofs which theâ— bring for the Church of Romes Infallibility And when they have brought men to it they cannot assure them what that Church is which they attribute this Infallibility to who in that Church are the proper subjects of it what kind of Infallibility it is noâ— when the Church doth define Infallibly so many things are to be believed without reason both as the persons who are to define and the manner of their definitions 2. Supposing this way true the Circle still remains which I proved by three things â— From the nature of the faith they enquire for a resolution of which is not humane but Divine Faith For the Question was not whether by another kind of Assent they could not escape the circle but whether they could â—o it in the resolution of Divine Faith or not Either then the Churches Infallibility is not to be believed with a Divine Faith or there may be a Divine Faith without an Infallible Testimony or this Divine Faith of the Churches Infallibility must be built on the Scripture and so the Circle returns 2. From the persons whose faith is to be resolved the way of resolving faith being a different thing from proving a matter of Faith to an Adversary granting then that to those who deny the Churches Infallibility but allow the Scriptures they may prove the one by the other yet this signifies nothing to the Resolution of their own Faith which is the thing enquired after and yet even in proving to â—dâ—ersaries the Churches Infallibility from Sciptureâ— they cannot avoid the Circle when the Question returns about the sense of those places for then they must run to the Church because the Church which is Infallible hath delivered this to be the sense of them 3. From the nature of that Infallibility which they attribute to the Church which being not by immediate divine Revelation but by a Supernatural Assistance promised in Scripture it is impossible to prove this Infallibility but by first proving the truth of thaâ— Scripture wherein these promises are contained and so the Circle still returns for the believe the Scriptures Infallible because oâ— the Churches Testimony and they belieâ—â— the Church Infallible because of the Promises of her Assistance recorded in Scripture 3. It is false that there are the same motive of credibility as to the Churches Infallibility which there were for the Infallibility of Mosâ—â— and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles which T. C. therefore very wisely declined tâ— prove and only said it was sufficient to sheâ— how he had escaped the Circle § 2. This is a brief account of that pan of the Resolution of Faith which hath beeâ— since assaulted by two several Adversarieâ— but in different ways The first of them iâ— the Guide in Controversies who ingenuouslâ— confesseth the Question about the Resolutioâ— of Faith upon their Principles to be intricatâ— so any one might easily guess by the intricacy and obscurity of his answer to it I shall endeavâ—ur to bring it to as much clearness aâ— possibly I can that I may the better represent the force and consequences of it The substance of what he saith may be reduced to these propositions 1. That the Church may be considered two ways 1. As a Society already manifested by Divine Revelation whether written or unwritten to be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost 2. As a Society of men whose Testimony is to be received upon prudential motives 2. That the Church being considered in the former of the two acceptions the infallible authority and testimony thereof is not only an introductive into but one of the articles of divine faith and that so many as believe the Churches Infallibility in this sense may safely resolve their divine faith of other articles of their belief into its delivering them as such 3. That whatever this Infallible Authority of the Church be it is not necessary that every one for attaining a divine and saving faith be infallibly certain of this Infallible Authority or as he elsewhere expresseth it that it is not necessary for divine faith that it should always have an external rationally-infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church-authority or any other on his part that so believes or that he have some extrinsecal motive or proponent of which he is infallibly certain that it is infallible 4. There are two sorts of faith to be resolved divine and humane or infused and acquisite the one is always built upon divine Revelation the other needs no more than prudential motives or such as are sufficiently credible or morally infallible on which an acquired or humane faith securely rests 5. That there must be particular ultimate divine Revelation which may not be to all the same but to some one to some another viz. either Scripture or Churches Testimony or Apostolical Tradition or Miracles beyond which he can resolve his divine faith no further for proving or consirming which revelation he can produce no other divine revelution but there must end unless a process be made in infinitum or a running round 6. Divine Faith as to such altimate particular divine Revelation cannot be grounded meerly on Gods veracity but that God hath said this particular thing which we believe namely that the testimony of the Church or Apostles or Scriptures is true which must either be grounded that it may be the Foundation of a divine faith on some other divine Revelation and so in infinitum or else I must rest there with an immediate assent to it 7. The internal efficient of all Divine faith is the power or Grace of the Holy Ghost illuminating the understanding that the prime verity cannot lye in whatever thing it reveals and also that the particular articles of our faith are its Revelations and perswading and operating in the Will such a firm adherence unto these articles as many times far exceeds that of any humane science or demonstrations 8. The ultimate resolution of a Christians divine faith as to the extrinsecal prime motive ground reason or principle thereof that equals in certainty the faith built upon it can be no other than that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to him or from which in building his faith â—e proceeds to the rest as to the internal efficient it is into the Grace of the Holy Spirit 9. The motives of credibility or the rational evidence of the truth of Christianity do serve indeed antecedently for an introductive to or after it introduced for a confirmative of this divine faith i. e. to make it credible or acceptable to humane reason my own or others that this faith is true and no way liable to error that I am assured in it by the holy and no seducing Spirit but not to
constitute it in the notion of faith divine because the faith so stiled is supposed to rest always on an higher ground viz. Revelation Divine 10. That the infallibility of the Church grounded on Divine Revelation and believed by a divine faith is a main ground and pillar of a Catholicks faith for any other articles thereof that are established by the sam◠Churches Definitions where the Scriptures or Tradition Apostolick are to him doubtful Of which ground and assurance of such points believed by Catholicks from the Churches infallible Authority the Protestant◠faith is destitute § 3. These are the Principles upon which this Guide in Controversies undertakes to clear this intricate Question and to free their resolution of faith from the danger of a circle I have but two small things to object against this way 1. That it gives up the cause in dispute 2. That notwithstanding it doth not avoid the main difficulties 1. That it gives up the cause in Dispute◠which was whether the Infallible Testimony of the Church be the necessary Foundation of Divine Faith for upon occasion of the supposed necessity of this Infallibility the Question was first started this Infallibility being asserted to be necessary by T. C. and was the thing I chiefly opposed in the discourse of the Resolution of Faith Now this the Guide in Controversies freely yields to me and consequently the main Foundation of Faith asserted by my Adversary is destroyed as plainly appears by the third Proposition wherein he affirms that an external infallible proponent is not necessary to divine Faith But this he doth not barely affirm but he saith it is copiously proved by many learned Catholicks and to this purpose he cites Cardinal Lugo speaking of Divine Faith who saith that the infallibility of the Church cannot be the first Ground of Divine Faith because this Infallible Authority of the church by Assistance of the Holy Ghost is it self an article of Divine Faith And experience tells us that all Children or adult persons first coming to the Faith do not apprebend much less infallibly believe this Infallible Authority in the Church before any other article of Faith And in the Law of Nature and under the Law of Moses the Churches proposition was not necessary in order to faith but the instruction of Parents was sufficient in one and the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets in the other before their Prophecies were received by the Church He cites Estius likewise speaking of this Divine and Salvifical faith that it is not material to faith what medium God makes use of to bestow this gift of Faith upon men many having believed that knew nothing of the Churches infallibility He cites Layman asserting that it often comes to pass that other articles of our faith are explicitly believed before that of the Churches Infallibility and withal this Infallibility of the Church depends upon the promise of the spirit therefore men must first believe that there is a spirit of God and consequently the holy Trinity Farther saith he it is plain that the primitive Christians did believe with divine Faith not for the Authority of the Church which either was not founded yet when St. Peter believed Christ to be the Son of the living God or had not defined any doctrines of Faith Again he denies the Churches Authority to be the formal principle or motive of Faith and that for this very good reason because this infallible Authority of the Church is one of the things to be believed Nay he cites Fa. Knot himself in his reply to Chillingworth affirming Christians may have a true Infallible Divine Faith of which faith they have only a fallible proponent nor are infallibly certain thereof i. e. as to the proponent I now appeal to the indifferent reader whether the main thing contended for by me viz. that the infallible Testimony of the Church is not necessary in order to Faith be not here fully granted to me 2. But yet the account of Faith here given is very far from clearing the chief difficulties of it as will appear by these two things 1. That this resolution of Divine Faith is very unsatisfactory in it self ◠2. That it is liable to the absurdities which he seeks to avoid by it 1. That the resolution of Divine Faith laid down by him is very unsatisfactory in it self the principles of which are these 1. That Divine Faith must rest upon Divine Revelation 2. This Divine Revelation upon which faith is built is that which is first made known to the person and from which he proceeds to other matters of faith 3. This Divine Revelation is not one and the same to all but to some the Authority of the Scriptures to some the Authority of the Church to some Apostolical Tradition 4. Divine Faith must rest upon this Revelation with an immediate assent to it without enquiring further for if there be any further process there must be so in infinitum or a circle 5. That the Holy Ghost doth illuminate the understanding of him that believes both as to the veracity of God and the truth of his Revelation and causes such a firm adherence of faith as many times far exceeds that of any humane Science or demonstrations But in this way I can neither be satisfied 1. What that particular divine Revelation is which this divine Faith doth rest upon Not 2. How this Faith can equally rest in several persons upon several ways Nor 3. How it can rest with an immediate assent upon any way Nor 4. Wherein this way differs from resolving Faith into the Testimony of the Spirit § 4. I cannot understand what that particular divine Revelation is into which as into it◠prime extrinsecal motive Faith is here resolved The thing enquired after is the reason of believing the truth of what God hath publickly revealed to mankind as we say he hath done the Doctrines of Christianity the ultimate resolution of divine Faith as to this I am told is that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to a man i◠this particular divine Revelation the sam◠with Gods publick and general Revelation o◠distinct from it If it be the same it can offer no reason for my Faith unless the same thing may be proved by it self if it be different then God makes use of particular divine Revelations to men different from his publick into which they are to resolve their Faith Suppose then the Question be thus put why do you believe that Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead The general Answer is because God that cannot lie hath revealed it but then the Question returns on what ground do you believe this Revelation to have been from God with such a divine Faith as must rest upon divine Revelation For such you assert to be necessary To this the Guide in Controversies Answers that the ultimate resolution of a Christians divine Faith is into that particular divine
Revelation first made known to him What particular divine Revelation I beseech him is that on which I ground the divine Faith of this Proposition that the Doctrine of Scripture is Gods Revelation For of that we enquire It cannot be understood of the rational evidence of the truth of the divine Revelation for that is asserted by him not to be a sufficient foundation for divine Faith which must rest upon nothing short of divine Revelation I would gladly be informed and directed by this Guide in Controversies since I must believe Gods Revelation with a divine Faith and this divine Faith must rest upon a divine Revelation what that particular divine Revelation is on which I am to believe with divine Faith the truth of Gods publick and general Revelation I have endeavoured to find out what his meaning herein is but I confess I cannot sometimes he seems to denâ— any resolution at all of this divine faith into anâ— further principles and quotes Layman with approbation who saith that the formal reason of believing what God saith is his veracity but that God hath revealed such thing to us cannot be any further resolved or prâ—ved by divine Faith In the next Section he saith That divine Faith doth not resolve into an extrinsecal even morally infalliblâ— motive thereof either as the formal cause oâ— always as the applicative introductive oâ— condition of this divine Faith From whence it follows that this divine Faith may be where there is neither infallible nor prudential motive i. e. it may be where no account at all can be given of it for all motives must be of one sort or other and yet this divine Faith doth rest upon a particular divine Revelation of which since no account can be given it is unreasonable to expect it But I will try yet further by an Instance of his own The Question put by him is why he believes the things contained in the Gospel of St. Matthew to be divinely revealed he Answers That he resolves his Faith of the truth of those contents not into the Churches saying they are true although he believe all that true the Church saith but into divine Revelation because God by his Evangelist delivereth them for truth Again he saith When he believes that all contained in St. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church tells him iâ— iâ— so and then believes that the Church â—elleth him true because God hath revealed â—n some part of his Word that the Church in this shall not erre here his Faith he saith is ultimately resolved again not into the Churches Authority but the divine Revelaâ—ion concerning the Church This looks like something at first hearing if one do not press â—oo far in the examination of it but being â—hroughly searched into how profound soever it may seem it is scarce tolerable sense upon his own principles For it is agreed now on all hands that in the Question of the resolution of Faith the enquiry is not why we believe what God reveals but why we believe this to be a divine Revelation and the Question is now put particularly concerning the doctrine contained in St. Matthews Gospel his principles are That this must be believed by divine Faith and that this Faith must rest upon divine Revelation I now enquire upon what particular divine Revelation he doth build this act of divine Faith that St. Matthew's Gospel contains the Word of God He Answers first Though he believes it to be true because the Church saith it is so yet his Faith is not resolved into the Churches Testimony but into divine Revelation 〈◊〉 What divine Revelation doth he mean that which is in Question viz. That St. Matthew's Gospel is divine Revelation if so theâ— he doth not believe it because the Church saith it but if he doth believe it because of the Churches Testimony then it cannot be oâ— the account of Gods delivering it for truth by the Evangelist For doth he believe it because the Evangelist saith so or not If hâ— doth then he doth not believe it because the Church saith it if he doth not believe it because the Evangelist saith it then he must believe it because the Church saith it and so his Faith must be resolved into the Churches Testimony which if it be a divine Faith must according to his own principles suppose that the Churches Testimony is a divine Revelation and the formal object of divine Faith The same absurdity lies in the other Answer He believeâ— he saith that all contained in St. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church telleth him so and then believes that the Church tells him true because God hath revealed in some part of his Word that the Church in this shall not erre And yet his Faith is not resolved into the Churches Authority but the divine Revelation concerning the Church This Answer must be understood either of St. Matthew's Gospel being proved by some other part of Scripture and then I grant the circle is avoided but that doth not answer the present difficulty which is concerning the ground of believing not some one part of divine Revelation but the whole Or else it must be understood of St. Matthew's Gospel being proved by some part of it self And then he resolves his Faith thus He believes what St. Matthew's Gospel saith concerning the Church because he believes St. Matthew's Gospel to be true and believes St. Matthew's Gospel to be true with a divine Faith because the Church tells him so Can any thing now be more plain than that he must resolve his Faith into that Authority upon which he believed St. Matthew's Gospel to be true which himself confesseth to be that of the Church Only if a man can be so foolish to believe first the truth of St. Matthew's Gospel because the Church saith it and at the same time believe the Church to say true because St. Matthew's Gospel saith so that mans Faith is to be resolved into nothing but the dancing of Fairies which have put him into such a circle that he can never find the way out of But if he mean any thing else I know not what to impute such an absurd way of proceeding to unless it be to a through intoxication of School Divinity which confounds all true notions and distinct conceptions of things and makes men have such swimming brains that all things turn round with them § 5. 2. But supposing I could understand what this particular divine Revelation meant into which this divine Faith must be resolved why may not one particular way serve all mankind for it Must there be several and all equal foundations of divine Faith I can easily satisfie my self of the reason of asserting itâ— but not of the reason of the thing in this way of resolving Faith The true reason of asseâ—ting it was the plain evidence that many persons had a true divine Faith without knowing any thing of the Churches Infallibility this made some men in the Church
falling into another But since I see no reason to believe this Guide in Controversies to be infallible any more than the Pope himself I hope I may have leave to ask him some few Questions Doth he in earnest believe that our assurance of Gods veracity and the truth of his revelations do flow from the immediate illumination of the Spirit of God I would fain know then 1. Why he troubleâ— himself about any other resolution of faith For by this way he resolves faith in all the parts of it If you ask the first Questionâ— why you believe that to be true which God reveals The Answer is ready the Holy Ghost illuminates my mind in the belief of this If you again ask why you believe these particular articles to be Gods revelations the answer is already given the same Holy Ghost illuminates my mind in that too What need Church-Infallibility Apostolical Tradition motives of credibility or any other way the work is compleatly and effectually done without the assistance of any of them 2. Is not this to tell unbelievers that we can give them no satisfaction as to the grounds of our divine faith It is true he grants something may be said for a dull kind of humane and acquisite faith which others are capable of understanding but for divine faith that depends upon such secret and private illuminations which no person can at all judge of but he that hath them nor he very well unless another revelation assures him that these are the illuminations of Gods Spirit and not the deceptions of his own Especially since it is a principle in the Roman Church that no man can attain any absolute certainty of Grace without a particular Revelation from God See then what a wilderness this Guide hath led us into We â—re to believe that what God hath revealed â—s true and that he hath revealed these things â—rom the illumination of the Holy Ghost â—ut we cannot certainly know that we have â—uch an illumination without another reveâ—ation to discover that and so we must run â—n without end or turn back again the same way we went to believe illumination by â—evelation and revelation by illumination 3. How he can possibly give himself any good account of his faith in this manner For since the fundamental principle of faith â—s the veracity of God and the belief of Gods veracity is here attributed to the illumination of the Holy Ghost we may see how excellent a Guide this is that thus stumbles in a plain way or must of necessity go forward and backward For I desire him to satisfie me according to this resolution of faith in this Question why he doth believe whatsoever God saith is true his Answer is because the Holy Ghost by his inward illumination assured me so But then I ask again why he is assured of the truth of what the Holy Ghost enlightens him his Answer must be if he speaks at all to the purpose because the Holy Ghost is God and cannot speak any thing but truth So that the veracity of God is proved by the Spirits Illumination and the Spirits Illumination by Goâ— veracity But there is yet another principlâ— which faith stands upon which is that Goâ— hath revealed the things we believe heâ— again I ask why he believes these articles aâ— Gods revelations his answer is the Holâ— Ghost by enlightening my mind hath assured me of it But then I ask how he is suâ— with a divine faith which in this case is necessary that there is a Holy Ghost and thaâ— this is the illumination of the Holy Ghostâ— Here he must return again to divine Revelation wherein the promise of the Holy Ghosâ— is made Judge now Reader whether thiâ— be not an admirable Guide in Controversies and whether he hath not given a very satisfactory account of the Resolution of Faith § 8. Besides that this way is thus unsatisfactory in it self I have this further charge against it that other ways are liable only to the single absurdities of their own particulaâ— opinions but this blind Guide hoping to cleaâ— himself of one great absurdity hath not only run into it the very way he seeks to escape it but into many more besides If there be any thing absurd in the Calvinists Resolution of Faith he hath taken in that if there be any thing absurd in resolving faith by the Infallibility of the Church he is liable to â—hat too because though he doth not think â—t necessary he allows it to be good and last of all that which he looks upon as the advantage of their faith above ours plungeth him unavoidably in as bad a circle as may â—e And that is That the Infallibility of the Church being once believed by a divine Faith from the Revelation of it in Scripture it is a ground of faith to him in all controversies that arise concerning the sense of Scripture I am not now to examine the falseness of the pretence which hath been done already and may be more afterwards that which at present I am to shew is that it is impossible for him in his resolution of Faith concerning the sense of Scripture to avoid the circle Let us see how he attempts it Suppose I be asked saith he concerning some article of faith defined by the Church though the same article doth not appear to me clearly delivered in the Scriptures why with a divine faith I believe it to be divine Revelation I answer because the Church which is revealed by the Scriptures to be perpetually assisted by the Holy Ghost and to be infallible for ever in matters delivered by her hath delivered it to me as such If again why with a divine faith I believe these Scriptures in general or such a sense of those texts in particular which are pretended to reveal the Churches infallibility to be divine Revelation I answer as before because Apostolical Tradition hath delivered them to be so which Apostolical Tradition related or conveyed to me by the Churcâ— I believe with a divine faith by the internaâ— operation of the Holy Spirit without haviâ—â— at all any further Divine Revelation froâ— which I should believe this Revelation to bâ— divine This is the utmost progress of divine faith with him I know not how mucâ— faith there may be in this way I am suâ— there is not the least shadow of reason Foâ— if a stop be made at last by the internal opâ—ration of the Holy Spirit what need so mucâ— ado to come thither Might not the samâ— answer have served as well to the first anâ— second Question as to the third When yoâ— were asked why with a divine faith you bâ—lieve such a sense of Scripture to be divinâ— Revelation Might not you have hindred aâ— further proceeding by saying I believe iâ— with a divine faith by the internal operatioâ— of the Holy Spirit without having at all anâ— further divine Revelation But if you though it necessary to assign another divine
Revelation for the foundation of that faith by thâ— Churches Infallibility why will not the samâ— reason hold for the last act which must havâ— as good a Foundation as the other or elsâ— how comes it to be a divine faith as well as â—he other But the subtilty of all this is â—ou have it seems by your office of Guide â—he opening of the Gate and you hold it â—pen so long as to let through all your Friends â—or Infallibility and Tradition must by any means be let through and when these are â—assed down falls the Gate in so rude a manâ—er as is enough to cripple any other that endeavours to get passage Can any man posâ—ibly assign a reason why the operation of the Spirit should not have as great force before the Churches Infallibility be let in But this it is to be a Guide in Controversies â—o direct Infallibility Tradition and the Hoâ—y Ghost to know their distance and to keep â—heir due places and it is a great favour â—hat the Holy Spirit is allowed to bring up the rear and to make all sure but by no means to offer to go before Infallibility or Tradition For these are capable of doing better service afterwards than the Holy Ghost is ever like to do them the greatest use of it being to make good a Pass that nothing follow to disturb the march of Infallibility and Tradition But if I may be so bold once more to presume to ask this wonderful Guide when the dispute is about the sense of Scripture why he doth believe such a particular sense which doth not appear clearly to him in Scriptures to be the infalliblâ— sense of it or to be divine Revelation Hiâ— answer is because the Church which is revealed in Scriptures to be infallible hath deliveâ—ed this to him as the sense of it Very well this is an Answer I understand though I seâ— no reason for it But I proceed why dâ— you believe this Infallibility to be the sensâ— of those places which speak of the Church since to me they are far from appearing tâ— be clearly delivered in those Scriptures Remember you believe this with divinâ— faith and this divine faith must have dâ—vine Revelation the Question then is uâ— on what divine Revelation do you believâ— the Infallibility of the Church to be prâ—mised in Scripture He Answers upon Apâ—stolical Tradition Is this Apostolical Tradition the same with the Scriptures or different from it If the same what greate clearness can there be in this than in thâ— Scriptures If different what divine Revelation is your faith of the Infallibility oâ— that built upon He ingenuously consesseâ— none at all for then there must be a process in infinitum or a circle And yet hiâ— principle is that divine revelation is neceâ—sary to divine faith but there can be nonâ— here by his own consession without process in insinitum or a circle which iâ— to acknowledge the absurdity of his own way as far as a man can desire Well but how comes this Apostolical Tradition to be known to him By the Church he saith but may the Church be deceived in delivering Apostolical Traditions No he saith she is infallible but do you believe her infallible with divine faith Yes he saith that must be done then at last there must be a divine Revelation again for this Infallibility and so the circle returns No he saith at last he believes the Churches Testimony infallible only with a humane and acquisite faith upon prudential motives but he believes the Apostolical Tradition related by the Church with a divine faith Was there ever such a perplexed Guide in Controversies The Infallibility of the Church is sometimes to be believed with a divine faith and sometimes not and yet when it is not to be believed with a divine faith it is the Foundation of the divine faith of Apostolical Tradition for he assigns no other ground or reason for it besides the Infallible Testimony of the Church But this infallibility he saith may be known two ways by promises of Scripture or prudential motives not to dispute now the possibility of proving the Churches Infallibility by prudential motives which I shall do at large afterwards the thing I now enquire after is since the Apostolical Tradition must be believed by divine faith and the belief of it comes by the Churches Infallibility whether any other Infallibility can secure such a faith besides the Infallibility by Promise for the Infallibility asserted being a security from error by divine Assistance and that assistance only supposed to be promised in Scripture there can be no other Infallibility here understood but that which Infallibility by his own assertion must be believed by divine faith which divine Faith must rest upon divine Revelation and so he believes the sense of Scripture because of the Churches Infallibility and the Churches Infallibility by Apostolical Tradition and Apostolical Tradition by the Churches Infallibility and the Churches Infallibility by the sense of Scripture See now what an admirable Guide in Controversies we have met with and with what skill and dexterity he hath escaped the circle And so I take my leave of this GUIDE finding nothing in him further material about Infallibility which I have not answered in the foregoing Discourse The Consideratoâ— urging so much the very same things and frequently in the same words that I now think he either was the same person or made very bold with him CHAP. II. The Principles of E. W. about the certainty of Divine Faith laid down and considered § 1. HAving met with so little satisfaction from the Guide in Controversies I now betake my self to the Rule no Fancies Toys Trifles or Fallible Glosses I assure you for those E. W. cries out upon almost in every page of his worthy work but Reason and Religion or The Certain Rule of Faith What can any man desire more unless it be to see Mr. Stillingfleet joyned in the Title-page with Atheists Heathens Jews Turks and all Sectaries And that he might own a greater obligation to him than all that Rabble he dispatches them all after a fashion in 30. pages and spends above 600 upon him O what a pestilent Heretick is this Stillingfleet that deserves so many lashes beyond Atheists Heathens Jews or Turks If he had been any one of those he might have been gently used for never were they fairlier dealt with by any man that undertook them But he is not so much their Friend to thank him for this kind usage and E. W. thinks he will have enough to do to defend himself I confess I think so too if either of his Books against me were to be thrown at my head for they are very thick and as heavy as is possible And to my great comfort I never yet saw two such bulky books whose substance might be brought into a less compass for setting aside Tautologies and tedious repetitions frequent excursions and impertinent digressions the pith and marrow of
he thinks makes it no difficâ—lty at all makes it to me the greatest in the world For by the Exposition or Interpretation I suppose he means the Infallible sense of Scripture and if this be resolved into and believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church then I still enquire how this Infallible Authority of the Church comes to be proved by this Exposition of Scripture the Infallibility of which doth suppose the thing to be proved viz. the Churches Infallibility And if the sense internal to the letter cannot be infallibly propounded otherwise than by the Church I would fain know what assurance any man can have of this sense but from the belief of this Infallible Interpreter But saith he Scripture and the Churches Interpretation indivisibly concur to this latter act of Faith This indivisible concurrence is to me an odd piece of mystical Divinity the meaning must be if there be any that I believe the Church Infallibility by those Scriptures from the Churches Infallibility appearing in the Infallible sense of those Scriptures But whence say I doth this appear to be the Infallible sense of them For if the sense of any places of Scripture be doubtful theirs is since their meaning is so doubtful how come men firmly to believe this to be the true and Infallible sense of those places and none else Can men come to an Infallible sense of Scripture without an Infallible Church if so what need of any such Infallibility if not then the Infallible sense of these places cannot be known but from the Churches Infallibility and therefore the Circle unavoidably follows viz. that they must prove the Churches Infallibility by the Infallible sense of Scripture and the Infallible sense of Scripture by the Churches Infallibility And any man might easily guess that E. W. was in a Circle by his Conjuring and speaking things which neither he nor any one else can understand 3. I shewed that they avoided not the circle by this way from the nature of the Infallibility which they attribute to the Church Which is not by an immediate Revelation but but by Divine assistance promised in Scripture and therefore the utmost the motives of credibility can do in this case is only to notifie or distinguish the Church but still the formal reason of believing this Infallibility cannot be from those Motives but from those promises which are supposed in Scripture to imply it So that still the circle returns for they believe the Scriptures Infallible because of the Churches Testimony and the Church Infallible because of the promisâ— of Scripture This he gravely calls aâ— unlearned objection That is even as iâ— pleases him but I have no reason to take him for an Infallible judge of Learning how ever it is no great matter learned oâ— unlearned it is more than he gives any tolerable answer to But I see no reason why he calls it so unless it be because he saith it is in effect the same objection repeated again And he thinks a man may be allowed to call his Creditor Roguâ— or Rascal that comes a second time because he could get no good answer at first However such is the civility of E. W. that he will not send it away without a sufficient answer and yet after all we have nothing for payment but the first general act of Faith one would have thought it had been the Act of Publick Faith by the badness of the payment And this first general act of Faith he saith wâ—olly relies upon the Churches own Infallible Testimony without depending on Scripture But what is this to that divine Faith we enquire after and which he saith must rest upon an Infallible Authority For since Faith must rest upon its motives and those motives are confessed to be fallible this cannot be that assent of Faith which himself makes to be necessary and we have made appear notwithstanding all his shusfling unavoidably brings them into a Circle CHAP. III. An Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church § 1. THE next thing which I objected against this way of resolving faith was that it was notoriously false viz. that there are the same motives of credibility for the Infallibility of the Roman Church that there were for the Infallibility of Moses and the Prophets or of Christ and his Apostles The natural consequence I said of affirming this was that there is as great danger in not believing the Church of Rome insallible as in not believing Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles to have been sent from God For where there is an equal obligation to believe there is an equal sin in not believing and where the sin is equal it stands to reason that the punishment should be so too So that the denial of the Roman Churches Infallibility must be accounted by them as high a piece of Infidelity as calling in Qâ—estion the Infallibility of Christ himself or denying the Scriptures This doth not in the least startle E. W. for he boldly asserts that there are equal motives of credibility as to their Church and Christ and his Apostles he frequently challenges me to shew the disparity nay he puts the whole issue of his cause upon it As may be seen by these words of his The main argument of T. C. he saith was this As Christ and his Apostles proved themselves Oracles sent from God by their Works signs and Miracles again as the Primitive Christians induced by such signs believed Christ and the Apostles upon their own Testimony to be Infallible Teachers so we having ever had the very like Works Signs and Miracles manifest in the Church are prudently induced to believe her as an Infallible Oracle upon her own Infallible Testimony To solve this plain and pressing argument saith E. W. one of these two things must be done either a disparity is to be given between those first Signs and Miracles of the Apostles and the later of the Church or it must be shewn wherein the Inference made is defective or unconcluding viz. that the Church evidenced by her signs is not proved Gods Infallible Oracle as the Apostles were proved by their signs to be Infallible Teachers Afterward he saith he hath proved that the Church hath wrought Miracles every way equal with those which the Apostles wrought In those Chapters to which he refers us for the proof of this I find this assertion in the beginning I say first clear and unquestionable Miracles of the like quality with those which Christ and his Apostles wrought have been ever since most gloriously manifest in the Roman-Catholick Church and in no other Society of Christians Afterwards he calls their Miracles glorious Miracles standing upon inslubitable record and for the proof of these Miracles he appeals to the lives of the Saints and certain Church-history Besides the Testimonies of some Fathers of Miracles done in their time not at all to his purpose as shall afterwards appear he appeals to the
the Guide in Controversies about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith THE State of the Controversie p. 295. The Principles of the Guide in Controversies p. 300. Those Principles Considered p. 304. Of Particular Divine Revelation as the Ground of Faith p. 308. The Resolution of Divine faith must agree to all p. 314. Of immediate assent p. 316. Of the assistance of the Holy Ghost p. 318. The absurdities of the Guides Principles 322. CHAP. II. The Principles of E. W. about Divine Faith laid down and considered E. W's Principles laid done p. 329. Some things premised to the State of the Question p. 340. Of the necessity of Grace and the sense of Moral certainty in this Controversie p. 346. 347. Gods veracity as the foundation of faith not received on divine Revelation p. 349. Of the notion of Divine faith p. 353. The true State of the Question p. 358. My first argument laid down and defended p. 361. Of the Motives of Credibility and their influence upon faith p. 369. Of the Grounds of Faith p. 376. Of the School-notion of the obscurity of faith p. 383. Of the Scripture notion of it p. 386. Of the power of the will in the assent of faith p. 395. The second argument defended against E. W. p. 400. Of the Circle in the resolution of faith not avoided by E. W. p. 423. CHAP. III. An enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church E. W's assertions about the miracles of the Roman Church p. 434. The ways proposed for examination of them p. 439. Of the miraculous translation of the Chappel of Loreto p. 441. Of the miracles wrought at the Chappel of Loreto p. 452. Of the miracles wrought by St. James at Compostella p. 465. Of St. Mary Magdalens vial and other Reliques p. 476. Of the miracles of St. Dominick p. 488. Of the miracles of the Rosary of the B. Virgin p. 493. Of the miracles of St. Francis p. 496. Of the miracles related of the British and Irish Saints p. 505. Of the Testimonies of St. Chrysostom and St. Augustin against the continuance of the power of miracles p. 567. Of the miracles of St. Vincentius Ferrerius p. 574. Of the Testimonies of their own Writers against the miracles of the Roman Church p. 585. Of the miracles reported by Bede and St. Gregory p. 589. Of the miracles wrought in the Indies p. 615. Of the Impostures and forgeries of miracles in the Roman Church in several examples p. 624. Of the insufficiency of this argument from their miracles to prove the Infullibility of their Church p. 663. Several conclusions about the proof of miracles p. 664. The miracles of Heathens and Hereticks compared with those of the Roman Church p. 670. ERRATA PAge 302. line 28. read ultimate p. 343. l. 15. â— asseâ—t p. 421. l. 13 r. signatures p. 437. l. 13. r. convince l. 18. r. dispâ—ssessed p. 493. l. 15. r. consiâ—â—ing p. 502. l. 24. r. several p. 508. l. 22. r. any better p. 549. after Saints insert than p. 590. l. 14. r. â—oâ—l p. 641. l. 11. r. Anglerius CHAP. I. An Answer to the Guide in Controversies about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith § 1. THere are two great Pleas for the necessity of Infallibility in the Roman Church one to make an end of Controversies the other to lay a sufficient Foundation for divine Faith Having therefore fully examined the former Plea in the foregoing discourse I shall now proceed to the latter with a particular respect to those Adversaries who have undertaken the Defence of the Cause of the Church of Rome against me in this Controversie And because all this dispute refers to the Principles of Faith I shall undertake to shew 1. That the Principles laid down by them are false and fallacious 2. That the Protestant Principles defended by me are sound and true 1. For the better examination of their Principles I shall give a brief account of the Rise and State of this Controversie about the Grounds of Faith The Arch-Bishops Adversary in Conference with him asked how he knew the Scripture to be the Word of God hoping thereby to drive him to the necessity of owning the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church but he failed so much of his end that the Arch-Bishop fully proved that such a Testimony could not be the Foundation of that Faith whereby we believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and that there are sufficient Grounds for Faith without it One of the great arguments whereby he disproved that way of Resolving Faith was that it was impossible to avoid a vitious circle in proving the Churches infallibility by Scripture and the Scripture by the Infallible Testimony of the Church This difficulty which hath puzled the greatest Wits of the Roman Church his Answerer thought to avoid by saying that the Churches Infallibility was not primarily proved by the Scripture but by the Motives of Credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner that Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles were proved to be Infallible Which bold assertion obliged me in a large discourse to shew these three things 1. That this way of resolving Faith was manifestly unreasonable 2. That supposing it true he could not avoid the circle by it 3. That it was false and built on no other ground but a daring confidence 1. The first I proved 1. Because an Assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence the Assent required being Infallible and the evidence only probable and prudential Motives 2. Because hereby they must run into all the Absurdities they would seek to avoid it being impossible to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of the Roman Church than we can do without it both sides acknowledging that those Motives of Credibility do hold for the Scriptures which are by us denied to belong to their Church and if faith as to the Scriptures be uncertain if it rely on them much more must it be so as to the Churches Infallibility If divine Faith as to the Scriptures can rest upon motives of Credibility there can be no necessity of the Churches Infallibility to a divine faith if it cannot how come those motives to be a sufficient ground for such a Faith as to the Church For the Churches Infallibility being the reason as to them of believing the things contained in the Scripture it ought to be believed with a faith equally divine with that whereby we are to believe the Scriptures which are the instrument of conveyinâ— the matters of Faith to us Besides thâ— leaves every mans reason to be judge in thâ— choice of his Religion because every maâ— must satisfie himself as to the credibility oâ— those motives And after all this way oâ— Resolving Faith by the Churches Infallibility doth unsettle the very Foundations oâ— Faith laid by Christ and his Apostles whâ— all supposed a rational certainty of the motives of Faith to be a sufficient
both his Books lies in this one word Infallibility But it is time to fall to my business for fear of more Advertisements and Infallibility being the main design of his Books that shall be the subject of my present debate with him And because this E. W. is a great pretender to Principles the method I shall proceed in shall be first to consider his Principles and then to defend my own For which I shall chiefly make use of his last Book it being in effect but another edition of his former the other as I suppose being disposed of to better purposes than to be read for I never heard of one person in England that read it over However what there is material in it different from the last as to the present controversie I shall upon occasion take notice of The two main Principles he builds upon are these 1. That without an Infallible Church there can be no certainty of Faith 2. That the Roman-Catholick Church is this Infallible Church If he can prove these two he shall not need any more to establish their Religion or to overthrow ours And I will say that for his praise that he hath brought the controversie into a narrow compass for he confesses it is endless to dispute out of Scripture and Fathers since witty men by their fallâ—ble Glosses can turn and winde them which way they please but there is nothing so stiff and inflexible as a standing infallible Oracle in the Church which being once believed all Controversie is at an end But we may as soon hope to see all other controversies ended by dry blows as this Principle proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable man The main proofs for the necessity of the Churches Infallibility which he insists upon are these 1. That there can be no Divine Faith without it 2. There can be no certainty as to the Canon or edition or sense of Scripture 3. There can be as little certainty as to the sense of the Fathers or the Primitive Church 1. That there can be no divine Faith without it This he frequently insists upon in both his Books and with so much vehemency as to make the deniers of Infallibility to overthrow all Faith and Religion Which being a charge of the highest nature ought to be made good by the clearest evidence Whether that which E. W. produces be so I shall leave any one to judge when I have given an Account of his Principles as to this matter In his first Book called Protestancy without Principles he begins with this subject and lays down these assertions upon which all his Discourse is built 1. That Gods infallible Revelation requires an infallible Assent of Faith or an infallible verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible assent of Faith in us the contrary he calls wild Doctrine this subjective infallibility as he calls it he offers very wisely to prove from those places of Scripture which speak of the assurance which Christians had of the truth of their Religion 2. This infallible assent of Faith doth require infallible Teachers for infallible believers and infallible Teachers are correlatives And in the second Chapter he goes about to prove it because if Christs infallible Doctrine be only fallibly taught no man hath certainty what it is and seeing what is fallible may be false Christs Doctrine may not be taught at all which is infallible and cannot be false and he that should abjure this fallible Doctrine doth not deny therein Christs Doctrine and cannot be upon that account an Heretick But to make Faith Infallible he asserts That every Preacher sent by the infallible Church as a member conjoyned with it is infallible in his Teaching and on the contrary whosoever renounces an Infallible society cannot teach with certainty Christs infallible Doctrine From whence he saith follows an utter ruine of Christian Religion In his third Chapter he further proves That if the Church were fallible in her Teaching God would oblige us to believe a falsity because God commands men to hear the Church and if the Church may erre then men are obliged to believe a false Doctrine taught by her And all other means short of this Infallibility would be insufficient for preserving Christian Religion in the world In the fourth Chapter he comes to a particular consideration of divine Faith and from thence proves the necessity of infallibility Faith saith he requires two things essentially an object which is Gods Revelation and a Proposition of this object by Vertue of which the elicit act of Faith follows in a believer and intellectually lays as it were hold both oâ— Gods Revelation and the thing revealed Now to prove the necessity of such an infallible Proposition in order to divine Faith hoâ— lays down some abstruse Propositions 1. That Gods infallible Revelation availâ— nothing in order to Faith unless Christianâ— by their Faith lay hold on the certainly thereof or owne it as infallible and the assured ground of their Assent 2. That the measure and degrees of certitude in the assent are according to those which the Proponent gives to the Revelation If he teaches doubtfully the assent is doubtful if probably the assent is probable is infallibly the assent is infallible the reason which he gives of this is because an object revealed receives its light from the proposal as an object of sight doth from the light of the air As long therefore saith he as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an infallible proponent it can no more transfuse certainty into Faith than Fire at a great distance warm that is no more than if it were not certain in it self or not at all in Being 3. From hence he saith it follows that Protestants can only doubtfully guess at what they are to believe and consequently never yet had nor can have Divine certain and infallible Faith Because they cannot â—ropose Faith infallibly Hence he proceeds Chapter fifth and sixth to disprove Moral Cerâ—ainty as insufficient in order to Faith and destroying as he saith The very being and â—ssence of Divine and supernatural Faith because the sole and adequate object of divine and supernatural Faith is Gods infinite veracity actually speaking to us but this infinite veracity when it is duly proposed transsuseth more certainty into the elicit act of Faith than any Moral Certainty derived â—rom inferiour motives can have For all Moral Certainty is at least capable of falsity and may deceive us Gods infallible veracity cannot be false nor deceive if Faith rest upon that Motive and if it rest not there it is no Faith at all Nay he asserts that supernatural Faith is more certain and infallible than all the Metaphysical Sciences which nature can give us For which he gives this plain reason Because the infinite veracity of God which only supporteth Faith with greater force energy and necessity transfuseth into it a supereminent
for Assent is not according to the objective certitude of things but the evidence of them to our understanding For is it possible to assent to the truth of a Demonstration in a demonstrative manner because any Mathematician tells one the thing is demonstrable For in that case the assent is not according to the evidence of the thing but according to the opinion such a person hath of him who tells him it is demonstrable Nay supposing that Person Infallible in saying so yet if the other hath no means to be Infallibly assured that he is so his Assent is as doubtful as if he were not Infallible Therefore supposing the Testimony of the Roman Church to be really Infallible yet since the means of believing it are but probable and prudential ' â—he Assent cannot be according to the nature of the Testimony considered in it self but according to the reasons which induce me to believe such a Testimony Infallible And in all such cases where I believe one thing for the sake of another my Assent to the object believed is according to my Assent to the Medium on which I believe it As our light is not according to the light in the body of the Sun but that which presseth on our Organs of Sense So that supposing their Churches Testimony to be Infallible in it self if one may be deceived in judging whether it be Infallible or no one may be deceived in such things which he believes on that supposed Infallibility It being impossible that the assent to the matters of faith should rise higher or stand firmer than the assent to the Testimony upon which those things are believed But now to prove the Churches infallibility they make use only of the motives of credibility which themselves grant can be the foundation only of a fallible assent This was the reason I then urged I must now consider what E. W. saith in answer to it And the force of his answer lies in these things 1. That all this proceeds from ignorance of the nature of faith which Discourses not like to science For he grants that the article of faith which concerns Gods Revâ—lation cannot be proved by another believeâ— article of faith wholly as obscure to us â— that is for that would proceed in infinitum therefore all rational proofs avail tâ—â—get faith in any must of necessity be extrinsecal to belief and lie as it were iâ— another Region more clear yet less certain than the revealed mystery is we assent to by faith And so in that article of faith the Church is Gods infallible Oracle he saith that antecedently to faith it cannot be proved by arguments as obscure and of the same Infallible certainty with faith for then faith would be superfluous or rather we should believe by a firm and infallible assent before we do believe on the motive of Gods insallible Revelation which is impossible So that the extrinsecal motives of faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is proved independently on Scripture are not of the same certainty with supernatural faith it self and only prove the evident credibility either of the Scripture or the Church 2. That the force of this Argument will hold against our selves and those who believed in the Apostles times whose infallible assent of faitb doth as much exceed all proportion or degree of evidence as theirs does in believing the Churches Infallibility on the motives of credibility In order to the giving a clear and distinct Answer it will be necessary to enquire â— What those acts of Faith are we now Discourse of 2. What influence the moâ—ives of credibility have upon them 1. For the acts of Faith there are two assigned by E. W. 1. That whereby men beâ—elieve the Scripture to be the Word of God 2. That whereby men believe the Church to be Infallible both these he acknowledges â—re Articles of faith and to be believed with â—an Infallible assent But here mark the shuffling the first of these cannot be believed but by an Infallible Testimony viz. Of the Church for that end the Churches Infallibiâ—ity is made necessary that the Faith may be divine and infallible because divine faith can rest only upon Infallible Testimony but â—hen in the other act of faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed we hear no more of this infallible Testimony because then it is impossible to avoid the circle I propose therefore this Dilemma to E. W. Either it is necessary to every act of divine Faith to have an Infallible Testimony or it is not if it be not necessary then there is no necessity of asserting the Churches Infallibility in order to believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God and so the cause is gained if it be necessary then the faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed must have such a divine Testimony and so either a process in infinitum or a circle are unavoidable by him If he considered this and yet wriâ— two such Books to prove the necessity of Infallibility in order to faith he betrays too much insincerity for a man to deal with him if he did not he need not complain so much of others Ignorance he may easily find enough nearer home And therefore all the fault of these men does not lie barely in making the assent to be more certain than the motives of Faith but in requiring so strictly in one act of Faith a proportionable certainty to the assent and not in another For what is there I beseech E. W. in believing the Churches Infallibility which should not make it as necessary for that to be supported by an infallible Testimony as that whereby we believe the Divine Revelation If faith hath nâ— grounds and doth not Discourse as Science doth then I hope the case is alike in bothâ— and so the necessity of an Infallible Testimony must be affirmed of the one or equally denyed in the other But he seems to assert That faith whatever object it respects doth not Discourse as Science doth but solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of reason Grant this at present but then I hope both these acts of faith equally do so and still â—he Churches infallibility cannot be made â—ecessary to faith for if faith immediately â—elies on Gods Testimony what need any other to ascertain it or any other proposition than such as is sufficient to make known â—he object of faith to which end no infalliâ—ility in the proponent is necessary Any more than it is necessary for the act of love â—oward a desireable object that he that shews a Beauty should be infallible in the description of her If all the necessity of the Churches proposition be no more than to convey the Divine Testimony to us as E. W. sometimes â—mplies let him take pains to a little better purpose in proving that such a conditio applicans as he calls it must have infallibility belonging to it For Infallibility is then only necessary when it is relied upon
to the death of Christ and my Question will not only hold of the Apostles but of any common Jews among them who might not believe Christ infallible any more than the Sanhedrin I ask whether such might not have seen sufficient ground to believe that the Prophesies came not in old time by the will of man but by the Will of God if such persons had reason sufficient for their faith without any infallible Testimony the same I say may all Christians have of the Divine Authority of the New Testament For if the concurrent Testimony of the dispersed Jews firmly believing the divine Authority of the Old Testament were a sufficient ground for a person then to believe the Divinity of those Books why may not the concurrent Testimony of all Christians afford as sufficient a ground to believe the Authority of the Books of the New though no Ecclesiastical Senate among Christians be supposed any more infallible than the Jewish Sanhedrin was at the death of Christ and by this I hope E. W. may a little better perceive what this objection aims at But saith he hence it follows not that then there was no Jewish Church which believed the divine verities of the old Scripture O the monstrous subtilty of Jesuits who is able to stand before their terrible wits What have we to do with a Churches believing the divine verities of the Old Scripture we only enquire for the Testimony of a Church as necessary in order to others believing it If they firmly believed and yet had no infallible Testimony of a Church at that time what can be more to our advantage than this seeing it hence follows that there may be a firm faith without any Churches infallible Testimony Well but he verily thinks I mistook one objection for another perhaps I would have said that the Apostles lost faith of our Saviours Resurrection at the time of his Passion but this difficulty is solved over and over And then falls unmercifully to work with this man of clouts he throws him first down and tramples upon him then sets him up again to make him capable of more valour being shown upon him then he kicks him afresh beats him of one side and then of the other and so terribly triumphs over him that the poor man of clouts blesseth himself that he is not made of flesh and bones for if he had it might have cost him some aches and wounds But I assure him I meant no such thing yet if I had I do not see but after all his batteries the argument such as it is would have stood firm enough for supposing the Infallible Testimony of the Church to rest in the Apostles after our Saviours death it must have prejudiced the faith of others who were to believe that article upon their Authority if they lost the faith of Christs Resurrection 2. I instanced in those who believed in Christ and yet were not personally present at the miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the womans of Samaria was to the Samaritans Of these I ask what infallible Testimony their faith was built upon And if those persons might have a Divine Faith meerly upon rational evidence may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was To this he answers by distinguishing between the Motive or the natural Proposition of faith which comes by hearing and the infallible Oracle whereupon it relies and he thinks it strange I did not see the distinction It is far easier to see the distinction than the pertinency of it to his purpose for our Question is not about the necessity of an Infallible Oracle in order to Faith but of an infallible Proposition we still yield that which our faith relies upon to be an infallible Oracle of God but if a natural Proposition of that be sufficient for faith we have all we contend for But to what purpose the Legend of S. Photina and the dispute whether she were the Samaritan woman is here inserted is very hard to understand unless he thought it the best way by any means to escape from the business in hand Next he tells us what he might answer iâ— these instances by saying with good Divinâ— that all immediate Propounders or Conveyerâ— of Divine Revelation in such particular caseâ— need not to be infallible I am glad to hear of such good Divines among them only I would know why in these particular cases an infallible proposition was unnecessary to faith if in the general case of all Christians it be now become necessary But he saith although infallibility be not necessary for young beginners seldom molested with difficulties against saith yet it is not only convenient but absolutely necessary for others more learned who often struggle to captivate their understanding when the high mysteries of Christianity are proposed Never was there certainly a more senseless answer for who are molested with difficulties against faith if those who are to be converted to Christianity are not who have none of the advantages of education to recommend the doctrines of Christianity to their minds and are filled and prepossessed with contrary prejudices Never were there such happy Converters of Infidels as the Jesuits are if they meet with such Converts who are never molested with difficulties against faith only as they grow up they begin to grow Infidels again and then it is necessary to choke them with an Infallible Church I do not at all wonder that the more learned in the Church of Rome seeing the weakness of the grounds of Faith among them do struggle with themselves about believing the mysteries of their faith but I very much wonder if so unreasonable a pretence as that of Infallibility can ever satisfie them I desire to know of these more learned believers whether they believed the Churches Infallibility before those strugglings or not if they did not how came they to be believers since there can be no divine faith without an infallible testimony if they did how came they to question whether they were to believe the particular mysteries of faith if they did believe the Church Infallible which proposed them But I suppose these learned believers were such as questioned the Infallibility of the Church and Christ and his Apostles too of which sort I doubt not there are many in Rome it self But yet he hath two other ways to solve these difficulties 1. By Gods special illumination and that I hope may serve all as well as these and then let him shew the necessity of an infallible Proponent 2. That every particular proponent as a member conjoyned with Christs infallible Oracle may be said to teach infallibly A most admirable speculation and so may every one we meet with in the streets be infallible not as considered in himself but as a member conjoyned with truth or every Sectary as a member conjoyned with
cannot have any unquestionable assurance that there was such a Person as Christ in the world that he wrought such great miracles for confirmation of his doctrine that he died and rose again Is all this no more than the common consent of Jews Gentiles and Cbristians that Christ died on a Cross Was ever any man so senseless as to make only the belief of the death of Christ on the Cross the reason of believing his Divinity But I say his Miracles before and Resurrection aâ—ter gave abundant testimony that he was sent from God and therefore his doctrine must needs be true and when we believe the truth of his doctrine wâ— are bound to believe every part of it such are his being the only Messias the true God the Redeemer of mankind and all other divine verities contained therein Let the Reader now judge whether the Objection or the Answer savours of more ignorance and folly But it is the mischief of this School-Divinity that it adds confidence to Ignorance and it makes men then most apt to despise others when they most expose themselves I proceeded to shew that instead of setling faith on a sure foundation by the Churches Infallibility they bring it to greater uncertainties than it was in before because they can neither satisfie men what that Church is which they suppose Infallible what in that Church is the proper subject of this Infallibility what kind of Infallibility it is nor how we should know when the Church doth define Infallibly and yet I say every one of these Questions is absolutely necessary to be resolved in order to the satisfaction of mens minds as to the Foundation of their Faith His Answer to these Questions refers us to his proofs of the Roman Churches Infallibility as the only society of Christians which hath power to define Infallibly by her representative moral Body which when I see proved I shall confess an Answer is given to those Questions Only one thing he thinks fit to give a more particular Answer to which is that this Infallibility should be the only Foundation of believing all things in Religion and yet so many things and some of them very strange ones must be certainly believed before it Here his common-place-Book again fails him and therefore wanting his Compass he roves and wanders from the point in hand He tells me it is hard to guess at my meaning for I name not one article thus assented to Perhaps I would say that the verities revealed in some Books of Scripture called Protocanonical known by their own proper signitures or motives as the Harmony Sanctity and Majesty of the Stile may be believed without this Testimony of an Infallible Church Well he doth not know what I meant but he knew an Argument he had an Answer ready to and therefore that must be my meaning But are not my words plain enough to any one that reads them And what a vast measure of faith say I is necessary to believe the Papal Infallibility for unless a man believes the particular Roman Church to be the Catholick Church unless he believes that Christ hath promised an infallible assistance to the Pastors of the Church and that not as separate but as assembled in Council and not in every Council but such as the Pope calls and presides in and confirms he cannot believe this Doctrine of Infallibility Nay further he must Infallibly believe the Church to be Infallible though no Infallible Argument be brought for it that this Church doth judicially and authoritatively pronounce her sentence in matters of Faith though we know not what that Church is which must so pronounce that he Infallibly know that this particular sentence was so pronounced though he can have no other than moral means of knowing it and lastly that the Infallibility must be the first thing believed although all these things must be believed before it Could any man well in his senses after reading these words imagine that I meant the self evidencing light of the Scriptures again But they write for those that believe them and that never dare look into the Books they pretend to consute Yet he hath a mind to prove the name of Roman Catholick Church to be no Bull which I said in a Parenthesis was like German universal Emperour This gives a new start another common-place Head is searched Title Catholick Church there he finds ready the old weather beaten Testimonies Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world over ergo Roman and Catholick are all one A plain demonstration What need they talk of the obscurity of Faith where there is such convincing evidence But what if it should have happened that S. Paul had said the same thing of the Faith of the Corinthians or Thessalonians would it not have been a most evident demonstration that the Church of Corinth was the Catholick Church at that time and was to continue so in following Ages But Scripture though never so plain cannot serve their turn they must have Fathers too So E. W. brings in St. Hierom St. Cyprian St. Athanasius St. Ambrose all evidently proving that the Church of Rome was once Catholick and what then I beseech him Were not other Churches so too But these very Testimonies as it unhappily falls out had been particularly and largely examined by me in a whole Chapter to that purpose But it is no matter for that I had not blotted them out of his Note-Books and there he found no answers and therefore out they come again § 11. 2. The second thing I objected against this way of resolving Faith was that it did not effect that which it was brought for for supposing that Chuch Infallible and that Infallibility proved by the motives of credibility they do not escape the circle objected against them Which I shewed 1. from the nature of divine Faith as explained by them 2. From the consideration of the persons whose Faith was to be resolved 3. From the nature of that Infallibility which is attributed to the Church I must now consider how E. W. attempts the clearing of these difficulties 1. As to the nature of divine Faith I ask whether a divine Faith as to the Churches Infallibility may be built upon the motives of credibility If it may then a divine Faith may rest upon prudential motives if not then this way cannot clear them from a circle in the resolution of divine Faith For I demanded why with a divine Faith they believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God Their answer is because the Church which is Infallible delivers them as such to us If I then ask why with a divine Faith they believe the Churches Infallibility I desired them to answer me if they can any other way than because the Scriptures which are Infallible say so It is a very pleasant thing to see how E. W. is miserably put to his shifts about this difficulty for although in his former Discourses he had
pressed the necessity of divine Faith so much that from thence he might introduce the necessity of Infallibility yet he now seems wholly to have forgotten any such distinction of Faith humane and divine although he could not but see that the force of my Argument did depend upon it The substance of his answer is That the first act of Faith whereby we believe the Churches Infallibility relies not on Scripture but upon the Church it self as the most known manisested Oracle Be it so but the Question is whether this first act be divine Faith or not if not it is nothing to the purpose if it be then divine Faith may want an Infallible Testimony for this first act of Faith concerning the Churches Infallibility hath nothing to rely upon but the fallible motives of credibility and consequently divine Faith may want an Infallible Testimony And I say still let them answer this if they can without apparent shuffling and running away from the Question in hand 2. From the consideration of the persons whose Faith is to be resolved for I say 1. The Question is not which way they will prove the Insallibility of their Church against those who deny it but which way they resolve their own Faith of the Churches Infallibility 2. In disputing against their Adversaries they cannot avoid the circle for while they prove Infallibility from Scripture the Question arises how they come to know Infallibly that this is the sense of those places for which they must again appeal to the Churches Infallibility in delivering the sense of Scripture which if it be not a circle I say there is hardly such a figure in Mathematicks To this he answers 1. That they both resolve and prove but then if they do resolve their Faith into this Infallibility it is no sufsicient answer to say they only prove it to Adversaries which was all I intended by that first particular But what answer doth he give to the second concerning tbe sense of Scripture Here again he makes use of his distinction of the first and second act of Faith the first he saith is not at all founded upon the sense of Scripture but upon the Churches own Infallible Testimony made by it self and for it self immediately credible Now if we speak saith he of another distinct consequent and more explicit act of Faith when we believe the Churches Infallibility upon this ground that she declares the Scriptures genuine sense which proves her an Infallible Oracle there is no difficulty at all because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church or rather upon Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together For thus joyntly taken they ground Faith and not like two disparate principles as if we first believed the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches Interpretation and then again believed the Churches interpretation to be Infallible because the sense of Scripture known aliunde or without depending on Church Authority saith she is Infallible This cannot bâ— if Scripture and the Churches interpretation indivisibly concur to this latter act of Faith whereof we now speak Here then is a Dilemma that clears all and frees us from the least shadow of a circle we either know or believe the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches interpretation or receive it upon her Infallible Authority grant the first there is no danger of a circle grant the latter there are 〈◊〉 two imaginable propositions to make a circle of whilst that sense internal to the letter cannot be Infallibly propounded otherwise than by the Church I have set down these words more at large to let the Reader try his faculty upon them what tolerable sense he can make of them My objection was plain and easie they offer to prove the Churches Infallibility by Scripture at least as to the second act of Faith which is alone pertinent to our purpose I asked what way they come to believe Infallibly themselves and assure others this is the sense of those places and in this case they are forced to return to the Churches Infalliâ—ility judge now Reader whether here be not a plain circle because they believe the Church Infallible because the true sense of Scripture saith she is so and again they believe this to be the Infallible sense of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so No saith E. W. Here is not the least shadow of a circle I would he had told us first what a circle was and then applyed what he had said to the description given of it But for all that I can see by his answer he had a mind to amuse his Reader by seeming to say something but no great matter what Is not that a circle when the Argument made use of to prove another thing by must it self be proved by that very thing which it is made use of to prove For in this case the mind hath nothing to fix it self upon and therefore must suspend all assent which must have some certain foundation to proceed upon on which it may rest it self As the will could not love Physick for the sake of health if it loved health for the sake of Physick so neither can the understanding assent to one truth for another if it assent to that other only for the sake of the former For then the same Proposition would be more certain than the other as it is the antecedent by which the other is proved and less certain as it is the consequent proved by the other as it's antecedent and so in different respects would be more and less certain than it self Let us now apply this to our present case The thing to be proved is the Churches Infallibility the Argument to prove it by is the Infallible sense of Scripture but if the Infallible sense of Scripture can be proved by nothing but the Churches Infallible interpretation then it is plain that is assumed as an Argument to prove Infallibility by which cannot be otherwise known than by this Infallibility Now let any man attend to the answer he gives he saith there is no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon this ground that she declares the Scriptures genuine sense which proves her an Infallible Oracle No difficulty at all Nay that is a little strange that there should be no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon the sense of those Scriptures whose sense could not be insallibly known without the supposal of that Infallibility which is to be proved by them But how comes there to be no difficulty at all in this matter Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last principle is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church or rather upon Scripture and the Churches interpretation together What a strange thing the difference of mens understandings is That which
Power in the cure of diseases at the memories of the Mariyrs or upon the prayers of the faithful of which he there gives several examples but elsewhere he shews that the miâ—acles wrought by Christ and his Apostles were â—rought for the benefit and satisfaction of future Ages as well as their own that so none might complain for want of a power of miracles And when the Donatists aftewards appealed to the miracles wrought by Donatus and Pontius and to visions and revelations St. Augustin very smartly bids them lay aside those feigned miracles or Diabolical impostures for either they were not true or if they were we have so much the more reason to beware of them because our Saviour hath foretold that false Prophets should arise working signs and wonders that if it were possible they should deceive the very Elect. But it may be said that in all this St. Augustin doth only upbraid the Schismatical Donatists witâ— lying miracles and not take away the evidence of miracles from the true Church 〈◊〉 that St. Augustin himself answers that the Catholicks do not bring the evidence of miracles to prove the true Church by nor yet oâ— Visions and Revelations for saith he 〈◊〉 such things are to be approved because they are done in the Catholick Church and nâ—â— that the Church is proved to be Catholicâ— because such things are done in it and therefore saith that controversie of the Church must be ended by the Scriptures From whence it necessarily follows that St. Augustin could never think the miracles done in his time were to be compared with those wrought by Christ or his Apostles or could give equal evidence of credibility either concerning the Doctrine or the Church which delivered it Never did two men more plainly contradict each other in this point than St. Augustin and E. W. who appeals to miracles for proof of the Catholick and infallible Church and such as are equal to those of Christ and his Apostles but whether St. Augustin or E. W. deserve the greater credit that is another controversie which I am not now at leisure to engage in To the same purpose St. Augustin speaks in another place viz that miracles are no proof of the true Church for though Pontius and Doâ—atus might do wonders and see visions yet Christ hath now forewarned us quia miraculis decipi non debemus we ought not now to be deceived by miracles The force of which argument from our Saviours caution depends upon this viz. that the Christian Religion being once established by plain and evident miracles there would be no necessity in after ages to have recourse to miracles again For if no new Doctrine be delivered what need can there be of new miracles Let no man therefore now complain saith the same St. Augustin because Christ doth not work the same miracles now that he did in former times for he hath said Blessed are they which have not seen and yet have believed whom doth he mean saith he but us and those who are to come after us But those miracles were wrought by Christ to draw men to faith and this faith is now spread over the world And now although he does not work the same cures he does greater now the blind eyes do not receive sight by a miracle of Christ but the blind hearts do see by the doctrine of Christ now dead bodies are not raised but souls that are dead in living bodies do rise again Now deaf ears are not opened but deaf minds are by the power of Gods word so that they believe and live well who were unbelievers and wicked and disobedient Could any man of common sense have used these expressions if he had thought there was either any necessity of miracles being wrought in his time or that there were such miracles then wrought which might be compared with those of Christ and his Apostles and as he elsewhere fully speaks to this purpose Signâ— and Miracles were wrought by the Apostles to bring men from infidelity to faith that men seeing those things done which are impossible with men may acknowledge that the preaching is from God by which power they were to prove that there was reason to believe Among believers then signs and miracles are not not necessary but only a firm hope From these Testimonies of St. Augustin thus laid together we observe these things 1. That the main intention of miracles was to convince unbelievers 2. That the Christian faith being established there was no longer any necessity of the power of miracles 3. That though there were not any such necessity yet God out of his abundant kindness was pleased to do some extraordinary things among them in their time 4. That in disputes about the true Church they never appealed to the Power of miracles but to the Scriptures whose Doctrine was already confirmed by Miracles 5. That those out of the true Church might make as great a pretence to miracles visions and revelations as those who were in it as appears by the Donatists 6. That some kind of miracles were wholly ceased then in the Church as the gift of tongues and the common miraculous cures of diseases by those that preached 7. That those which did then remain were not in any respect for number or quality to be compared with those of Christ and his Apostles as the cure of one blind man at Miâ—â—n or those other cures of a Cancer a Fistula or the two shaking persons in Africa for when himself speaks most favourably of the miracles then wrought he saith they were not so great nor so many as those done by Christ or his Apostles § 10. But what shall we now say to the succeeding Ages of the Church For after the first 600 years were passed and there were no more St. Chrysostoms or St. Augustins and one of the greatest Prodigies as Tully said of old was a wise man the pretence of the common working of miracles was again started by those who undertook to give an account of the lives of the Saints for they thought they said nothing in effect of them if they did not attribute the power of miracles upon any occasion to them Then St. Gregory and St. Bede shewed the way to the rest and by their own credulity and want of judgement gave a pattern and encouragement to all the Monkish Tales and impostures afterwards But we must acknowledge our obligation to some more ingenuous and judicious men in the Roman Church who in several Ages have blasted the credit and discovered the Impostures of these Legendary Writers which is the next thing I am to prove viz. 2. That the credibility of their miracles in the Church of Rome is destroyed by the Testimony of their own more judicious Writers Ludovicus Vives after he hath discoursed of all other Histories comes to that of the Church and particularly the Lives of the Saints of which he saith that they are generally corrupted with
of Rome confess that it was not always necessary but least on the other side they should seem hereby to forego the Palladium of that Church they do withall say that sometimes Faith may begin there and so run into the very same absurdities that the others do For if one man can resolve his Faith well so why not a hundred why not a thousand why not all Christians If all cannot do it without running into a circle neither can one for the process of Faith is alike in all Not that the same means are used to all persons for it is evident that men believe upon different grounds but what is absurd if a thousand do it is equally absurd if but one do it Although the Guide â—n Controversies doth not suppose it necessary â—or men to resolve their Faith into the Churches Infallibility yet he doth suppose â—hat some men may do it Well then we will put the case that any one person doth reâ—olve his Faith concerning Gods Revelation â—nto the Churches Infallibility as the ground of his divine Faith I desire to be informed by this worthy Guide whether he doth not run into the same absurdities which all would do if they proceeded that way i. e. whether it be any more possible for one to free himself from a circle than for all Is not the reason assigned by Canus and Layman and Lugo this viz. because the Churches Infallibility iâ— one of the things to be believed as revealed by God and therefore cannot be the ground of Faith to any And will not this reason exclude any one person from doing it that resolves his Faith as he ought to do So that if this hold in any one being drawn from the reason of the thing and not from the circumstances of persons it must equally hold against all persons and consequently no one person can reasonably establish his Faith as to Gods Revelation upon the Churches Infallibility § 6. 3. I am far from understanding this way of immediate asseâ—â—t to the divine Revelation I grant the reason against proceeding furtheâ— to be very good for the Guide could see nâ— passage that way but over rocks and precipices and therefore finds out a shorter cut by asserting an immediate assent to the Divinâ— Revelation But to what divine Revelation doth he mean The Authority of Soripture Churches Infallibility Apostolical Tradition or any of these It is all one to me which it is for it is equally unreasonable to alloâ— any of them For I look upon Faith aâ— an act of the mind which must always have a reason moving it to assent Even in self evident Propositions where the assent is most immediate yet there is the greatest and clearest reason for it viz. the evidence of the thing which makes the understanding never hesitate or doubt but yield a firm assent upon the first apprehension and proportionable to the reason and evidence of the thing or of the motive enclining to assent so is the readiness and firmness of it But to assert an assent in Faith so immediate of which no motive or reason can be assigned proportionable to it is a thing repugnant to the nature of our reasonable faculties and it is to make one of the noblest acts of our understandings a meer blind and bruitish assent All that we enquire for is a sufficient reason to move our minds to believe in the act of divine Faith which is seen in all the acts of humane Faith For no man can reasonably believe what another saith or that he hath said so but he is able to give an account of both of them And it would be very strange that in the most weighty matters of Faith on which mens eternal happiness and misery depend they should be obliged to assent in such an immediate manner that they can have no good account to give of their divine Faith Yes â—aith the Guide an account may be given â—o make this assent appear prudent by the moâ—ives of credibility But that is not the thing we enquire for but a sufficient foundation for divine Faith and as to this he asserts â—hat our Faith doth immediately rest upon divine Revelation without proceeding to another Revelation for the ground of it But now then can this divine Faith have a divine Revelation for its ground It may have it for its material object which comes not under our consideration but only the formal object on motive of that Faith as to this Revelation We will suppose the Churches Infallibility to be the matter believed I demand a reason why this is to be believed The Answer is because God hath revealed it in his Word there the Qâ—estion returns what reason have you to believe that to be the Word of God Here the Guide cries out stand there if you proceed a step further you are lost For if you say upon another Revelation then that upon another and so without end But say I you tell me I must believe this to be Gods Word with a divine Faith and this divine Faith must rest upon a divine Revelation as its formal cause assign me that or you overthrow the nature of divine Faith what divine Revelation is there for this Faith to rest upon None say you but here it must stop if so then it is certain by your own principles this either can be no divine Faith or else divine Faith doth not always need a divine Revelation So that this way of the resolution of Faith overthrows it self and needs no other opposition but of one part to another § 7. 4. It may be all this may be cleared by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost supplying the want of another Revelation by its illuminating and confirming the mind So the Tragoedians of old call'd down the Gods upon the Stage when they could extricate themselves by no other means Not that I do in the least doubt the efficiency of the divine Spirit in the act and exercise of Faith or that God by secret and unexpressible ways may strengthen and increase Grace in the hearts of men which thereby become better assured of the â—hings they believe But the Question now â—s whether our Faith as to the motive and â—eason of it can or ought to be resolved into â—he illumination of the Holy Ghost And in â—ruth after all his turnings and windings the Guide sits down at last in the grossest way of resolving divine faith into the Testimony of the Holy Ghost For he saith that doth â—lluminate the understanding that the prime verity cannot lie in whatever thing it reveals and also that the particular articles of our faith are its revelations Was ever any â—hing more fully said to this purpose by the highest Calvinists or Enthusiasts Have the â—isputants of the Church of Rome hitherâ—o charged them with a circle in this â—esolution of faith equal with theirs between the Church and Scripture and hath the very Guide in Controversies found no way to escape one whirlpool but by
and divine Humanâ— as it is first grounded upon the Testimony of men and Divine as it finally rests upon the Testimony of God And in the present condition of mankind it is not reasonable to suppose that any Faith should now immediately rest upon the Divine Revelation without some rational evidence antecedent to it For the thing to be believed being the Testimony which God gave at the distance of above one thousand six hundred years we must either suppose an immediate Revelation of it or it must be conveyed to them by the credit of others Which according to this notion can beget only a humane faith for to resolve the belief of one Divine Testimony into another is to proceed without end but this humane faith if it be so called satisfying a mans mind concerning the Testimony which God gave and thereupon assenting to what was delivered upon that Testimony this Faith proceeding in the same way of rational evidence becomes a divine Faith by resting upon the Testimony which God gave to those who declared his Will 3. The Faith whereby we must first embrace a Divine Revelation cannot in this sense be called a Divine Faith i. e. as divine Faith doth rely upon a divine Testimony For that Faith is built upon those two Foundations viz. That whatever God saith is true and that this is his Revelation Now neither of these two can be entertained at first oâ— the account of a Divine Testimony thâ— first I have shewed already cannot be withouâ— a circle neitheâ— can the second for still thâ— Question will return on what account you believe that Testimony So that although thiâ— be commonly calâ—ed an act of divine Faith yet if Faith be taken in this strict sense foâ— believing upon a divine Testimony we must find out some other name for this Assent noâ— thereby to take off from the certainty or excellency of it but to prevent that confusion which the not observing these things hatâ— caused in these Controversies And if thâ— Terms of Divine Supernatural Infallible Obscure and Inevident were banished thâ— Schools the School-men themselves would be forced to speak sense in these matters And it would be a pleasant sight to see how pitifully E. W's Discourses would look without them For the main force of all he saith lies in the misapplying those terms and thâ— rattling noise they make is apt to keep in awe a vulgar understanding especially that hath been bred up with some more than ordinary Reverence to these astonishing terms § 4. These things were necessary to be premised before we could come to the true State of the Question which we now plainly see doth not relate to that Assent whereby we believe whatever God saith to be true but to that whereby we believe this particular Revelation contained in the Scriptures to be from God And so the Controversie is brought to this issue Whether in order to the certainty of our faith concerning Gods Revelation an Infallible Testimony of the Church be necessary which he affirms and I deny For in order to the certainty of Faith we have already seen he frequently asserts the necessity of an Infallible Oracle and makes all degrees of certainty short of Infallibility insufficient for Divine Faith But that we may the better understand his opinion we must take notice of his own explications of it and the distinctions he thinks necessary for that end 1. He distinguisheth between the judgement of credibility necessary to faith and the act of faith it self and the Resolution of these two though they have a due subordination to each other yet depend upon quite different principles the judgement of credibility whereby the Will moves and commands the intellectual faculty to elicit faith relies not upon that object which finally terminates faith it self but upon extrinsecal motives which perswade and powerfully induce to believe super omnia 2. He distinguisheth between the nature oâ— Science and faith Science is worth nothing unless it prove and faith purely considered as faith these words he desires may be well marked is worthless if it prove For faith reasons not nor asks how these mysteries can be but simply believes Oâ— as he expresseth it in his former Book Faitâ— solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of reason for its motive And here he asserts That there is a more firm adhesion to the infallibility of that Divine Testimony for which we believe than the extrinsecal motives inducing to believâ— either do or can draw from us 3. He distinguisheth between the Humane and Divine Authority of the Church the Humane Authority being as such fallible is not sufficient to ground divine faith But the first act of faith whereby every one believes the Church to be Gods Oracle is built upon her infallible divine Authority manifested by miracles and other signal marks of Truth By the help of these distinctions we may better understand his Resolution of Faith which he delivers in this manner Demanded why we believe the mystery of the Incarnation it is answered Scripture asserts it Ask again why we believe the Divinity of that Book called Scripture It is answered the Church ascertains us of that But how do we know that the Church herein delivers truth It is answered if we speak of knowledge previous to faith then he brings the motives of credibility which make the Churches Infallibility so evidently credible that we cannot if prudent and manifest reason guide us but as firmly believe whatever this Oracle teaches as the Israelites believed Moses and the Prophets This one would think were enough of all conscience but he thinks otherwise for there is saith he but one only difference and that advantageous to them that in lieu of Moses they have an ample Church innumerable multitudes in place of one servant of God the incomparable greater Light the pillar and Ground of Truth the Catholick Church diffused the whole world over and a little after asserts That they have the very same way of Resolving faith which the Primitive Christians had in the time of Christ and his Apostles Here is enough asserted if it could be proved § 5. Against this way laid down by my first Adversary T. C. I objected these three things 1. That it was unreasonable 2. That it did not avoid the main difficulties 3. That it was notoriously false these three waies of attacking it of which a short account is given in the entrance of this Discourse I must now more largely defend I shewed this way to be unreasonable and that upon these grounds 1. Because an assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence for the act of Faith being according to E. W. an insallible assent and no other grounds assigued for it besides the motives of credibility he must make an Infallible assent only upon fallible grounds And it is not sufficient to say that the Infallibility of the Churches Testimony makes the Assent Infallible
and is the ground of believing and not where it is a meer condition of understanding If a Prince sends an Ambassadour about a match to a foraign Princess declaring that he will wholly rely upon his Testimony of her in this case there needs the greatest judgement and veracity in the Person trusted because the Prince resolves his judgement into his Ambassadours Testimony but if he only imploys a Person to bring her into the Room where he may see her and judge of her himself in this case there is no necessity of any other quality thâ—â— only obedience and fidelity So we say as the Church if the Churches Testimony to be relied upon as the Foundation of oâ— belief of the Scriptures then it is necessaâ— the Church should be infallible if there câ—â— be no faith without such a Testimony bâ— if all the office of the Church be only to prâ— pose the object of faith to be viewed and coâ— sidered by us then a common veracity mâ— be sufficient for it And in this case I granâ— faith is not to be resolved into the conditioâ— of applying the object of faith any moâ— than love is into the light whereby a mâ— sees Beauty or the burning of Fire into thâ— laying near of the fuel but if it be assertâ— that there can be no divine faith without â— infallible Testimony that this Testimony iâ— that of the Church and therefore upon thiâ— infallible Testimony we must build our saith he is blind that doth not see in this case thaâ— it must be resolved into this infallible testimony And therefore E. W. very impertinently charges me with this constant errour viz. making the motives of faith the Foundation of it and that hereby I confound thâ— judgement of credibility with the assent of faith by making the infallible testimony of the Church to those who believe it the formal object of faith For although the common motives of faith should do no more than â—ake the object of faith appear evidently â—edible and so the faith of such persons be â—eâ—olved into a further reason than those moâ—ves yet they who do believe upon the acâ—ount of the infallibility of the Churches â—estimony must resolve their faith into that which to them is the only infallible and adaequate Ground of Faith § 6. 2. To lay open the Foundation of all these mistakes about the nature of Faith I shall inquire into the influence which the motives of credibility have upon believing And therein give an account of these three things 1. What the motives of credibility are 2. How far they are necessary to faith 3. What influence they have upon the assent of Faith 1. What these motives of credibility are Suarez brings them under four heads 1. From the qualities of the Christian doctrine and those are 1. It s truth without any mixture of falshood but faith he if there be many things true and some false it is a sufficient sign that doctrine is not from God as it was among the Philosophers of old The way to judge of this quality he thus laies down those things which the Christian Religion speaks of which may be knowâ— by natural light are very agreeable to thâ— common reason of mankind those otheâ— things which are above it are not repugnanâ— to any principle of it but are agreeable tâ— the infinite and incomprehensible Majesty oâ— God 2. The sanctity and purity of this doctrine as appears by the excellency of the precepts of it the moral precepts not only agreeable to the Law of nature but tend much to the improvement of it the spiritual precepts have nothing contrary to the rules of morality and are suitable to the perfections of the Divine Nature 3. The efficacy of it which is seen by the strange and miraculous ways of its propagation by such instruments as were never like to effect their design without a Divine Power 2. The second Motive is from the number of witnesses of the whole Trinity at the Baptism of Christ of Christ himself in his holy and innocent life of Moses and the Prophets before him of the Apostles after him of the Devils themselves of the multitude of Martyrs of all kinds suffering with so much patience and courage and Christian Religion increasing by it 3. From the Testimony God gave to the truth of it by the Miracles which were wrought in confirmation of the Doctrine preached in which ought to be considered the nature the effects the frequency the manner of working them and the end for which they were wrought which must be not meerly for the benefit of the person on whom they are wrought but for a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine delivered otherwise he grants a Deceiver may work Miracles 4. From the continuance of this Doctrine in the world being so hard to believe the Doctrine and practice the precepts of it meeting with such multitudes of enemies of all kinds out of all which the credibility of the Christian Religion may be demonstrated a Divine Providence being supposed to take care of the affairs of mankind Greg. de Valentiâ reckons up these motives to 19. Michael Medina follows â—cotus and makes 10. or 11. of them on which he largely insists viz. the fulfilling of Prophesies the consent of Scriptures their Authority and truth the care and diligence of the first Christians in examining the Doctrine of Christianity the excellency of it in all its parts the propagation of it in the world the Miracles wrought for the confirmation of it the testimony of enemies the justice of providence and the destruction of its Adversaries To the same purpose Cardinal Lugo and others of the Schoolmen make an enumeration of theâ— motives of credibility but a late Jesuit haâ— reduced them all to the four chief Attribute of God His Wisdom Goodness Poweâ— and Providence but inlarges upon theâ— much in the same way that Suarez had donâ— Thus much may suffice for understandinâ— what these motives of credibility are whâ—â— are acknowledged to make up a demonstrâ—tion for the credibility of the Christian Religion 2. How far these are necessary to faith for that we are to consider that faith beinâ— an assent of the rational faculty in man muâ— proceed upon such grounds as may justifie thâ— assent to be a rational act which cannot bâ— unless sufficient reason appear to induce thâ— mind to assent which reason appearing â— all one with the creâ—â—bility of the object which doth not imply here what may be believed either with or without reason but whaâ— all circumstances considered ought to be believed by every prudent person And in thiâ— sense Suarez asserts the necessity of the evidence of credibility to the act of faith for saith he it is not enough that the object oâ— faith be proposed as revealed by God but iâ— is necessary that it be proposed with such circumstances as make it appear prudently crâ—dible in that way it is proposed For levilâ—
did not believe on the Infallibility of your Church their Faith was but a kind of guilded and splendid infidelity and none of them Christians because not Jesuits And doth not this principle then fairly advance Christianity in the world when the belief of it comes to be settled on Foundations never heard of in the best and purest times of it nay such Foundations as for want of their believing them their Faith must be all in vain and Christ dyed in vain for them And what now saith E. W. to all this First he saith I do not bring Instances enough Secondly That I bring too many 1. That I do not bring enough for he much wonders I omit to touch upon an instance far more difficult than any of these concerning rude and illiterate persons which I and all others are bound to solve Meâ— thinks he might have been contented with those I had brought unless he had answered them better and should not have blamed me for omitting that which I purposely take notice of and give a sufficient answer to in these words Although the Ignorance and carelesness of men in a matter of so great consequence be so great in all Ages as is not to be justified because all men ought to endeavour aster the highest ways of satisfaction in a matter so nearly concerning them and it is none of the least things to be blamed in your Church that she doth so much countenance this ignorance and neglect of the Scripture yet for such persons who either morally or invincibly are hindred from this capacity of examining Scripture there may be sufficient means for their Faith to be built upon For although such illiterate persons cannot themselves see and read the Scripture yet as many as do believe do receive the Doctrine of it by that sense by which Faith is conveyed and by that means they have so great certainty as excludes all doubting that such Doctrines and such matters of Fact are contained in these Books by which they come to the understanding of the nature of this Doctrine and are capable of judging concerning the Divinity of it For the Light spoken of in Scripture is not a light to the eye but to the mind now the mind is capable of this light as well by the ear as by the eyes The case then of such honest illiterate persons as are not capable of reading Scripture but diligently and devoutly hear it read to them is much of the same nature with those who heard the Apostles Preach this Doctrine before it was writ For whatever was an Argument to such to believe the Apostles in what they spake becomes an Argument to such who hear the same things which are certainly conveyed to us by an unquestionable Tradition So that nothing hinders but such illiterate persons may resolve their Faith into the same Doctrine and Motives which others do only those are conveyed to them by the ear which are conveyed to others by the eyes But if you suppose persons so rude and illiterate as not to understand any thing but that they are to believe as the Church believes do you if you can resolve their Faith for them for my part I cannot and am so far from it that I have no reason to believe they can have any Judge now Reader what measure I am like to meet with from such men who can so impudently charge me with omitting a difficulty which I give so punctual an answer to 2. But those instances I have brought are too many for him as will easily appear by the shuffling answers he makes to them My design was from them to prove that the Churches Infallibity was not necessary in order to Faith he puts it thus If the Infallibility of the Church be a sure Foundation of Faith c. Is not this a good beginning to put Sure in stead of Necessary or only sure For that may be sure which is not necessary and it was the necessity I disproved by these Instances To them however he attempts to give an Answer 1. In general That none make the Roman Catholick Church in all circumstances the only sure Foundation of Divine Faith For the first man that believed in Christ our Lord before the compleat establishment of his Church had perfect faith resting on that great Master of Truth without dependance on the Christian Church for Christ alone was not the Church but the Head of it Faith therefore in general requires no more but only to rely upon God the first verity speaking by this or that Oracle by one or more men lawfully sent to teach who prove their mission and make the doctrine proposed by them evidently credible In like manner the Apostles preached no doctrine in the name of the new Christian Church whilst our Saviour lived here on earth but testified that he was the true Messias by vertue of those signs and miracles which had been already wrought above the force of Nature A very fair concession which plainly destroys the necessity of the Churches infallibility in order to Faith For if no more be necessary in order to faith but to rely upon God the first verity speaking by this or that Oracle c. how comes the infallible testimony of the Church to be in any Age necessary to faith For God spake by Christ and his Apostles as his Oracles by whom his word is declared to us therefore nothing can be necessary to faith but to rely upon God the first Truth speaking by them And this we assert as well as they But he must prove that we cannot rely on God as speaking by them unless he hath an insallible Church in every Age if he will make this infallible testimony of the Church necessary to faith which I despair of ever seeing done while the world stands 2. In particular 1. To the instance of the disciples of Christ believing the divine Authority of the old Testament without any infallible testimony of the Jewish Church only upon the rational evidence they had to convince them that those Prophesies came from God he answers that it is hard to say where the force of it lies seeing there were innumerable Jews then dispersed all Jury over and the other parts of the world who most firmly believed the Divine Authority of those Books upon whose Testimony the Apostles might believe those Books to be divine A most excellent answer if we well consider it Have not they of the Church of Rome proved the necessity of infallibility in the Church from Deut. 17. 10 11 12. of which abundant instances might be produced and particularly the Considerator of my Principles which words if they imply any Infallibility at all do necessarily prove that it is lodged in the supream Ecclesiastical Judges and no where else so that if there were no infallibility in them it could not be supposed to be any where else therefore I proposed the case at that time when these Ecclesiastical Judges consented
Leg cut off and strangely restored or that some persons were suddenly cured of a dangerous disease by the vision of an Apostle would this have ever satisfied the world that the Apostles were Persons sent from God and assisted by an infallible Spirit Supposing the matters of Fact were true it might be reasonably demanded why God might not do such extraordinary cures in some rare cases without making that Company of men infallible among whom they are done For we see their own Writers acknowledge that God may do real miracles even among Pagans and Infidels to give testimony to his universal Providence And Suarez particularly distinguisheth in this case of miracles saying that a miracle may be wrought two ways 1. Without respect to any truth at all to be confirmed by it but only for the benefit of him that receives it as in case of a miraculous cure or such like 2. When it is wrought purposely to confirm the truth of a doctrine Now I say supposing I should grant all that E. W. contends for as to the truth of the two miracles he insists so much upon viz. the cure of F. Marcellus and the restored Leg at Zaragosa what can this prove as to their Churches infallibility if according to Suarez such miracles may be wrought only for the benefit of those who receive them Del-Rio saith this is no good consequence such a one wrought miracles therefore his faith is true because God may work miracles by Insidels but this consequence he saith is good such a one wrought miracles to confirm the faith which he professed therefore his saith is true because God cannot work miracles purposely to confirm a falshood But withall he saith elsewhere that the faith being now established there is little or no necessity of miracles to confirm it Supposing then some true miracles to be wrought in the Roman Church what consequence can be thence drawn for that Churches infallibility in doctrine if those miracles are not wrought for that end as E. W. never undertook to prove that they were And if the consequence will not hold as to a particular person for the truth of his faith from the bare working of miracles neither can it for the truth or infallibility of a Church for the same reason for if God may work miracles by Infidels he may likewise in a false or corrupt Church Maldonat another Jesuit confesseth that since the Christian Religion hath been confirmed by miracles in the Churches beginning there is no necessity of miracles for that end and quotes Gregory and Bede for it who compare the power of miracles to the watering of a plant which is only needâ—ul at first and is given over when it hath taken root So that whatever miracles they suppose to remain in the Church they do not look on them as wrought for the confirmation of any necessary part of Christian faith such as the Churches Infallibility is asserted to be by E. W. Andradius saith that miracles are oftimes false but always weak proofs of a true Church Ferus that the doctrine of a Church is not to be proved by miracles but miracles by the doctrine viz. because Christ hath forewarned us of false Prophets doing so many signs and wonders So that Acosta saith that in the time of Antichrist it will be a hard matter to discern true and false signs when these later shall be many and great and very like the true and he quotes it from Hippolytus whom he calls an antient Writer that Antichrist shall do far greater miracles than the cure of Marcellus or the restored Leg at Zaragosa viz. that be shall raise the dead as well as cure the diseased and have command over all the elements And I would understand from E. W. whether Antichrists Church will not then be proved as insallible in this way as the Church of Rome Cajetan determines that the Church hath no ground to determine any matter of doctrine now on the account of miracles because the Dâ—vil may do such things which we cannot distinguish from true miracles as in great cures c. and because signs were given for unbelievers but the Church â—ow hath the Revelation of Prophets and Apostles to proceed by and because miracles prove only a personal faith i. e. of one that saith he is sent from God and because the doctrine of the Scripture is delivered to us with so much certainty that if an Angel from Heaven should deliver any thing contrary to it we are not to believe him and lastly because the most authentick testimonies of miracles among them viz. in the Canonization of Saints are not altogether certain because it is written every man is a lyer and he supposes that faith must stand on a more infallible certainty than that of their miracles And many of their most learned Writers do assert that there can be no certainty of the truth of any miracles among them but from the Churches approbation which is in effect to say they do not believe the Church infallible because of their miracles but they believe their miracles to be true because they believe their Church to be infallible For which Paulus Zacchias gives this reason because wicked men and Devils may not only do miracles in appearance but such as are really so as the instruments of divine Power and because credulous people are very apt to be deceived with false miracles instead of true And after he hath laid down the conditions of a true miracle he hath a chapter on purpose to enquire why since miracles very rarely happen yet so many are still pretended to in the Roman Church One cause he assigns of it is the monstrous credulity of their people in this matter of miracles who make so many that he saith if they were to be believed miracles would be almost as common as the ordinary effects of nature for no odd or unusual accident happens but among them passes for a miracle no man escapes out of a dangerous disease especially if by the disturbance of his Fancy he imagines he had a vision of some Saint as Xaverius or the like but he gives out he obtained his recovery by a miracle no man avoids any great danger or trouble if he chanced to think of the Blessed Virgin in it or made any addresses to some Saint for I do not find that praying to God or Christ is so effectual for miracles as praying to the Saints is but this is cryed up for a miracle Riolanus gives the relation of a man that was hanged and his body delivered to the Physitians to be dissected who found there was some lise in him and by letting blood and other means they recovered him who afterwards returning to his own Country Oetingen where there was a celebrated image of the Blessed Virgin this very recovery was there painted for a substantial miracle But to return to Zacchias miracles saith he are made so common among