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
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
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
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
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
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
of judgement and rashness of assent he makes â—nconsistent with divine faith and every man ought so to believe as to exclude all fear of the contrary and so as that he can never â—rudently disbelieve what he now believes but if a man believes upon bad grounds he may afterwards prudently reject those grounds But this is not all for he makes such a proposition of the object of faith necessary whereby it appears evidently credible as revealed by God and consequently as certain and infallible For which he gives this reason because an inclination of the will to assent must precede the assent of faith before which there must be a judgement determining that act of the will this judgement must either be certain or uncertain if uncertain it is not sufficient for divine faith if it be certain then there must be such an evidence of credibility in the objects of faith And although a practical certainty as to matters of humane faith may be sufficiently founded upon a judgement of probability i. e. a man may judge it fit for him to believe where he sees only a greater probability on one side than of the other yet in matters of divine faith a higher judgement than of meer probability is necessary viz. that which is founded upon the evidence of credibility for with a meer probability a prudent doubting is consistent which is not with divine saith and withal the certainty of faith is not meerly practical but speculative i. e. of the truth of the thing in it self and therefore requires a speculative evidence of the credibility of the object From whence he concludes that a bare credibility is not sufficient but a greater credibility of the doctrine believed than of any other contrary to it for if two doctrines appear equally credible there can be only a doubtful assent given to one of them and a man might choose which he would believe but in the assent of faith it is not only necessary that there be a greater credibility of one doctrine than of the other but that this be evident to natural reason which dictates that in matters of Salvation that doctrine is to be believed which appears more evidently credible than any other To the same purpose Cardinal Lugo determines that the will cannot command a prudent assent of faith where there precedes only a probable judgement of the credibility of the object because there must be the apprehension of a certain obligation to believe which must arise from the evidence of credibility in the object of faith And Aquinas himself had determined that no man would believe unless he saw that the things were to be believed either sor the evidence os miracles or something of a like nature which Cajetan interprets of believing truly and vertuously truly i. e. without fear of the contrary and vertuously i. e. prudently So that although men may rashly and indiscreetly believe things without sufficient evidence of their credibility yet no man can by the acknowledgement of the most learned of the Schoolmen yield a rational and prudent assent of faith without it 3. The main thing is to consider what influence the evidence of credibility hath upon the act of faith For E. W. asserts that all that results from thence is only a judgement of credibility but that the act of faith it self relies wholly upon other principles and by the help of the distinction of these two he labours to avoid the force of my arguments Thus then the matter stands it is agreed that faith must have rational proofs antecedent to it but these proofs he must say do not perswade men to believe or which is all one have no influence upon the act of Faith If all that were meant by this talk were only this that we are then said properly to believe when we fix our assent upon Gods testimony but that all acts of the mind short of this may not properly be called believing but by some other name this would presently appear to be a controversie about words which I perfectly hate But more must be understood by such men as E. W. or else they do not speak at all to the purpose for the Question is whether in requiring an infallible assent of faith to the Churches Infallibility upon motives confessedly fallible an assent be not required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence to this he answers that this argument proceeds upon ignorance of the nature of faith which doth not discourse as Science doth and he grants that the motives of credibility have not the same certainty that faith hath What then can hence follow but that faith is an unreasonable assent and hath no grounds or that it may be stronger than the grounds it proceeds upon But if it appear that faith must have grounds and that the assent of faith can be no stronger than the grounds are then it follows that they are very unreasonable in requiring an infallible assent of faith to the Churches Infallibility barely upon the motives of credibility § 7. 1. That faith must have grounds If a man had not to deal with persons who have confounded their own understandings with an appearance of subtilty one would think this as needless a task as to prove that man is a reasonable creature for if faith be an assent of the mind taking it as strictly and properly as they please it must have the nature of a rational act which it cannot have unless it proceeds upon reasonable grounds The grounds I grant are different in several assents but it must always have some Those which are accounted the most immediate assents have the clearest and most evident reason such as the assents to first principles are as that the whole is greater than the part c. and for conclusions drawn from them the readiness and firmness of the assent is proportionable to the evidence of their connexion with those principles from whence they are drawn In other things that depend upon the evidence of sense the reason of our assent to the truth of them is from the supposition of the truth of our faculties and that we are so framed as not to be imposed upon in matters that are plainly and with due circumstances conveyed to our minds by our Organs of sense But if there appear an evidence of reason overthrowing the certainty of sense Scepticism immediately follows and the suspension of all assent to the truth of things conveyed by our senses for no man can then be certain of any thing by the evidence of sense but only of the appearance of things I may be certain that things do appear with such difference of colours and tasts and smells but I cannot be certain that there are really such differences in the things themselves If therefore the Scepticks arguments should prevail upon any mans mind so far as to make him question whether sense be a certain medium to convey the truth of the things to his
mind it is impossible that man should yield a firm assent to the truth of any thing on the account of the evidence of sense So that still assent proceeds upon the grounds of reason which satisfie the mind that all circumstances considered it ought not to suspend any longer Let us now consider such things which are not so evident of themselves nor conveyed by our senses and unless we distrust all mankind we have reason to believe some things to be which we never saw our selves and this is the fundamental ground of that we call believing which is nothing else but taking truth upon trust or receiving a thing as true upon such testimony which I see no reason to question If I see any reason to doubt either the skill or fidelity of those persons upon whose credit I am to rely it is impossible for me firmly to believe upon their Authority if I see none then on that account I believe what they say wherein it is as evident that my assent is according to the grounds I proceed upon as that two and two make four What is it then that hath thus confounded these mens minds to make them to contend that the act of divine faith is of such a nature that nothing like it is to be found in any other act of the mind Must we cease to be men by being Christians or where the strongest reason is most necessary must there be none at all to what end then were there arguments ever used to perswade men to believe Christianity were those arguments able to perswade men or not if they were then men did believe upon the strength of those arguments and is it possible for men to believe upon the strength of arguments and yet those arguments have no influence upon the act of faith This is horrible nonsense and fit only for those to write who believe contradictions for such an act of faith indeed can have no reason for it But to come closer yet to our matter The Churches infallibility is to be believed saith E. W. with divine faith is there any ground for that act of faith or not If there be none shew what obligation to believe there can be where there is no ground for it if there be I desire to know whether they are able to perswade me or not if not shew then why I ought to believe on insufficient grounds if they be may not I then believe upon those grounds and if I do doth not that act of faith rely upon those grounds Besides of those who plead for the necessity of the Churches infallibility I desire to know on what account they do it Is it not that faith may have a sufficient Foundation to be built upon which in their opinion cannot be without such infallibility and yet after all this must not faith stand upon this ground Why then are Scotus Durand Gabriel Medina and others charged by some of the Roman Church with resolving faith into the Churches testimony What is this else but only to make the Churches Testimony the ground of faith Nay why are there any disputes at all about the formal object of faith For the formal object is nothing but the reason of believing and what account can be given of the reason of believing if there be none at all But it may be all this while I mistake my profound Adversary it being hardly possible that a man of common sense should write such stuff To prevent any suspicion of this nature I shall lay down his assertions in his own words from several places of his worthy works Faith solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of Reason for ill Motive the previous Motives well pondered bring with them an obligation to believe and not faith it self For Faith reasons not but simply believes Faith contrary to science goes beyond the certainty of all extrinsecal inducements And afterwards where he attempts to answer the main difficulty as he calls it in the resolution of faith which in short is since the motives of credibility seem to leave the matter doubtful what that is which determines the assent to the objects of faith as infallibly true waving at present that answer that it is from the command of the will he seems to attribute so great an evidence to the Motives of credibility that they do infallibly prove the truth of divine Revelation there being an insiparable connexion between the Motives and divine Revelation but then he starts an untoward objection viz. that then the Revelation must appear evident and so faith would be evident to which he answers by denying the consequence because this assent is science and not faith now this evidence arising from the motives of credibility faith saith he as faith leaves or lays aside and firmly adheres to the Divine Revelation only for it self as contradistinct both from the Moral evidence of the Motives and their apparent connexion with the Revelation The reason is taken saith he from the notion of faith which essentially tends obscurely upon its own object as the most ancient Fathers assert From whence it is clear if you believe him that no evidence of the testimony assented to can move to faith not only because we should in the case of evidence be necessitated to believe but upon this account also that the certitude of faith taken from the supreamest verity iâ— of a higher strain and far surpasses all the certitude we find in nature or in the Motives inducing to believe But which is more pleasant he yet adds It is true the more evident these motives appear the better they induce to believe yet for that reason have less to do with the very act of faith which as he said rests upon and lays claim to no lower a verity than the most pure and supream only and if it rests not here it is no faith And yet after all this he asserts that the evidence of credibility apparent in those manifest signs and marks which illustrate true Christianity is abundantly sufficient to induce the most obdurate heart in the world to believe with such an Assent as suits Gods great Majesty i. e. with a faith most firm and infallible Here we have Motives such Motives as give evidence of divine Revelation such motives as are sufficient to induce the most obdurate person to an infallible assent of faith and yet after all this evidence by these motives in order to believing this believing hath nothing to do with them and the more they induce to believe the less influence they have upon faith for that fixeth on the divine Revelation solely for it self and hath a certainty beyond that of the greatest arguments that are used for believing He that hath the faculty of understanding these things ought to oblige mankind with a clearer discovery of them than E. W. hath made who doth not seem to understand what he writes himself and therefore it cannot be expected that
others should But the Foundation of all this Nonsense is a strange apprehension of the nature of faith which the School-doctrine hath so rivited into him that it seems to be of the nature of a first principle with him which must be supposed as the Basis of all his discourse which is that faith is an obscure and inevident assent or that it essentially tends obscurely to its object and therefore no motives or arguments how clear or strong soever can have any influence upon faith For he imagines as great an opposition between arguments and faith as between light and darkness he first conceives faith to be a kind of deep Dungeon of the soul full of darkness and obscurity and then bids men have a care of bringing any light into it for if they do it ceaseth to be what he described it A light may serve a man very well to shew him the way to this Dungeon nay it may direct him to the very door but then farewel to all light noâ— the least crevise must be left to let in any to the mind that is once entred it but the excellency of it is that the soul fixes more certainly on its object in this state of darkness than it could do being environed with the clearest light Just as if a man should say there is a particular way of seeing with ones eys shut which is far more admirable and excellent than all the common ways of beholding things being far more certain and piercing than seeing by the help of eyes and light is for the light and sight may both fail in the representation of an object but this seeing without eyes is an infallible way to prevent all the fallacies of sense Much in this way doth E. W. talk for all arguments are fallible and therefore by no means must faith proceed upon them O but this believing without or above or it may be against arguments is the most infallible thing in the world for that man need never fear being deceived with reason that disowns the use of it Upon these grounds a skilful Painter may make a shift to bungle and to draw some rude uneven strokes by the help of his Pencil and a good light but if he would be sure not to miss making an excellent Piece he ought to shut his eyes or darken his Room for then to be sure that fallible thing called light can never deceive him An indifferent person that only consulted the nature and reason of things could never have fallen into these dotages but it hath been the interest of some men to cry down light that have had false wares to put off But of all things I wonder if this be the whole nature of Christian faith to believe no man knows why nor wherefore for if he doth his faith ceases to be faith being built upon reason why all this ado is kept about an infallible Church and motives of credibility cannot a man believe without reason at first as well at last cannot faith fix upon Gods Revelation for it self without troubling those motives of credibility to no purpose If a man hath a mind to leap blindfold from a Precipice why cannot he do it without so much ceremony must he have all his attendance about him and his Gentleman-usher to conduct him to the very brink of the Rock and there bid him Goodnight If all these motives of credibility contribute nothing to the act of believing what use are they of in such a Religion where Faith is look'd on as the great Principle of practice and the means of salvation If the judgement of credibility would save men they might still be useful but this will be by no means allowed for nothing in their opinion but this blind Guide which they call faith can conduct men to Heaven § 8. But what is it that hath made meâ— so in love with nonsense and contradictions Hath the Scripture given any countenance to this notion of faith Yes doubtless they are such lovers of Scripture that they daâ—e not take up any opinion in these matters without plain Scripture Then I hope Scripture may be plain in clear things if it be so in the description of so obscure a thing as they make faith to be But doth not the Scripture say that Faith is the Substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen and is not this all one as if it had been said that faith essentially tends obscurely to its object and that it is an inevident assent and therefore cannot make use of arguments This I know is all the pretence they have for this notion of faith but is it not very pretty because faith is called an evidence therefore iâ— must be inevident or to follow the vulgaâ— Latine because it is called an argument therefore it can use none No man is so senseless to deny that we believe things we do not see and things which cannot be seen we believe some things which might have been seen and were seen by some whose credit we rely upon as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ we believe other things which are uncapable of being seen by our senses as the Joys of Heaven and the Torments of Hell and as to such things faith supplies the want of the Evidence of sense to us and by it our minds are assured of the truth of them though we do not or cannot see them Which is all that is intended by this description of faith but how doth it hence follow that our faith must be an immediate inevident obscure assent on which all the arguments that perswade men to believe can have no influence May not I believe that Christ died and rose again and will come to judge the quick and the dead because I see all the reason in the world to perswade me to believe it from the testimony of those who saw him and have delivered his doctrine to us and have given the greatest evidence of their fidelity Doth the strength of the argument hinder me at all from believing what I did not see I had rather thought the more obscure the object had been for it is little better than nonsense to call an act of faith obscure the greater necessity there had been of strong evidence to perswade a man to believe not such evidence as doth arise from the nature of the thing for that is contrary to the obscurity of the object but such as gives the greatest reason to believe from the Authority of those on whose Testimony I rely So that the greatest clearness and evidence as to the Testimony is not repugnant to the nature of Faith this only shews that in Christian Religion we do noâ— proceed by meer evidence of sense or rigorous demonstrations in the things we assent to but that the great things we believe are remote from sense and received upon the Authority of the Revealer yet so as that we assert we have as great evidence that these things were
Gods word which I hope is an Oracle altogether as infallible as the Church But the question is whether such a one may be divided from Gods infallible Truth or not if not he is absolutely infallible if he may then what security hath any one to rely upon him upon such a conditional Infallibility which he can have no assurance of But still he hopes to retort the Instances upon me I never saw such a way of retorting in my whole life My design was to prove by these Instances that an infallible Testimony of a Church was not necessary in order to Faith he saith I must solve my own difficulties I confess I see none at all in my way that need to be answered for I assert that men may have sufficient Grounds of Faith without an infallible Proponent Well but he supposes all these Barbarians converted to Christ to have had true Faith and consequently prudent Motives to believe before they firmly assented to the Divine Revelation And so do I too But what were these motives To this Question he saith I return the strangest answer he ever heard for I seem to make the motives inducing to faith nothing but the Rational evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and therefore I grievously complain that they destroy the obligation which ariseth from the Rational evidence of the Christian Religion upon which he discourses as though by rational evidence the self-evidencing light of the doctrine and consequently all the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles were to no purpose Have not I reason to applaud my good fortune that I have met with so ingenuous an Adversary But I see those who write Controversies must be true Nethinims not only hewers of difficulties and drawers of the waters of contention but bearers of burdens too even such as their Adversaries please to lay upon them Could any thing be further from my meaning than by the rational evidence of Christianity to understand the self-evidencing light of the Scriptures But it is not what I say but what E. W. finds in his Common-place-Books a little before when I had proposed an argument he had not met with in those terms he presently fancied I meant another arguâ—ent which he found under the title of Defectilility of the Church and then in comes that with the answers he found ready to it Now for the rational evidence oâ— Christian Religion he finds not that Head in his Note-Books and cannot therefore tell what to make of it But an argument he had ready against the self-evidenâ—ing lighâ— of the Scriptures and therefore the Seraphims seather must serve instead of St. Larence's Gridiron He might have been easily satisfied in that very Paragraph what I mean by the rational evidence of Christian Religion viz. the unquestionable assurance which we have of the matters of fact and the miracles wrought by Christ for confirmation of his Doctrine and this within four lines after the words by him produced And in the foregoing paragraph I insist very much on the evidence of sense as to the miracles wrought by Christ as a great part of the rational â—vidence of Christianity which is destroyed by the doctrine of the Roman Church while transubstantiation is believed in it For what assurance can there be of any object of sense such as the miracles of Christ were and his Body after his Resurrection if we are so framed not only that our senses may be but we are bound to believe that they are actually deceived in as proper an object of sense as any in the world And if such a thing may be false what evidence can we have when any thing is true For if a thing so plain and evident to our senses may be false viz. that what I and all other men see is bread what ground of certainty can we have but that which my senses and all other mens judge to be false may be true For by this means the criterium both of sense and reason is destroyed and consequently all things are equally true and false to us and then farewel sense and reason and Religion together These things I there largely insist upon which is all very silently passed over the Schools having found no answers to such arguments and therefore they must be content to be let alone But however though arguments cannot be answered I desire they may not be mis-represented and that when I fully declare what I meanby rational evidence such a sense may not be put upon my words as I never dreamt off There is nothing after which looks with the face of an answer to theâ—e Instances unless it be that he saith that none can have infallible assurance either of our Savâ—ours Miracles or of any other verity recorded in Scripture independent of some actual living actual infallible and most clear evidenced Oracle by signs above the force of nature which in this present state is the Church These are good sayings and they want only proving and by the Instances already produced I have shewed that Persons did believe upon such evidence as implied no infallible Testimony and if he goes about to prove the Church infallible by such Miracles wrought by her as were wrought by the Apostles I desire only not to believe the Church infallible till I be satisfied about these Miracles but of that afterwards But I demanded if we can have no assurance of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles without an Infallible Church what obligation can lie upon men to believe them who see no reason to believe any such Infallibility And since the Articles of our Faith are built upon matters of fact such as â—he death and resurrection of Jesus Christ whether these matters of fact may not be conveyed down in as unquestionable a manner as any others are Cannot we have an unquestionable assurance that there were such persons as Caesar and Pompey and that they did such and such things without some Infallible Testimony If we may in such things why not in other matters of fact which infinitely more concern the world to know than whatever Caesar or Pompey did This his Margin calls an unlearned objection and in the body of his Book saith I might have proposed a wiser Question an â—asier I grant I might as appears by the answer he gives it For two things he saith may be considered 1. That the man called Christ dyed upon the Crâ—ss and this he saith both Jews and Gentiles yet assent to upon Moral Cerâ—ainty but therefore do not believe in Christ. 2. That the man called Christ dying for us was the only Messias truly God the Redeemer of mankind Here we have he saith the hidden verities of Christian Religion the certain objects of faith conveyed unto us by no moral assurance but only upon Gods Infallible Revelation A very wise answer I must needs say if intolerable shuffling be any part of wisdom Read over my words again and be ashamed If so then men
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