upon our Dr's vvritings to se vvhere Satisfaction is given A. B. vvho excellently vvell makes it out and solidly proves what he asserts Viz. That Dr St A. Bs. first letter Page 3. and 4. is à very Fanatick as right an Euthusiastick in Iudgement and Beliefe as any one in all England yet after à diligent search have met with no answer to the Author of that pithy letter These things and many more would time permit I should insist upon and must though it lengthen's the Preface à little take notice of one particular the foulest and most gross I ever read in any You have it in the Doctors General Preface vvhere he bitterly inveigh's General Preface Paulo ante medium against the Doctrin of Attrition which the Church and all Catholicks hold though by it selfe it justifies not yet in the Sacrament of Penance it disposes à Sinner to See the Council of Trent Sess 14. c 4. â—um tamen ad Deigratiam in Sacramento disponit impetrate and obtain the Grace of God VVhether it be à full sufficient disposition in the Sacrament to grace without Contrition is another Question Now comes the Dr and demand's How do They the damned want the Sacrament of Penance in Hell for no doubt there is Attrition good store there The Sacrament of Penance in Hell Dr Attrition good store in Hell I read these words with horrour and stand astonish't at this height of stupidity Pray Sr vvho can absolve in Hell VVhat Divels Or who are there capable of Absolution Damned Souls Answer I beseech you Are such Souls in your opinion capable of Baptism or of that you call the Lords Supper You will say no. In like manner say I and speak with the whole Christian world they are as uncapable of the Sacrament of Penance Sacraments Good Sr serve only for the living on their way to Eternity and benefit none departed this life O! but Attrition whereof there is good store in Hell troubles the Dr. Here you have also the like gross Ignorance and therefore I answer in à word If the Dr call eternal horrour everlasting shame and despair Attrition he may find great store indeed but these miseries inseparably attending the damned are as remote from that Attrition vvhich the Church and Catholicks maintain as Hell is from Heaven The Catholick attrition as the Council now cited declares is Dei donum the gift of God wrought in à Soul by the impulse and motion of the Holy Ghost and though it tend's upon à less perfect Motive than Contrition yet it is à Supernatural Operation If you Mr Dr speak not of this Attrition you fight vvith Shadowes and touch not Catholick Doctrin I might in this place also show how grosly the Dr is mistaken in his quoting Gregory de Valentia but I hasten to my own affaires and shall briefly tell you how and in vvhat manner I proceed vvith this Adversary The Dr you know hath employed himself and time upon two very different Subiects the one hard and Speculative the other more easy containing matters of Fact set forth vvith this Title An Enquiry into the Miracles of the Church of Rome In this first Part I follow him as he goes along and reply to his Cavils not one I am sure if any be worth notice as few are is omitted by me I discover also his Shuffling and as occasion fall's out mind him here and there of what he should prove though he never doth it I shew moreover that the grand Principle he relies on called à Faculty of discerning allowed every one to judge of the Scriptures Sence in the most necessary points concerning Salvation is not only evidently unsound but likewise highly injurious to God and Truth for by it he licences every Arian every Anabaptist every Fanatick and Quaker who have as good discerning Faculties as the Dr can glory in to uphold that Sence they draw from Scripture and maintain it as true though false and heretical and this forsooth is done because malice vvill not brook God's own Oracle to teach when we stand most in need of Instruction After my grounds given for the Churches Infallibility I urge the Doctor to produce à Proof from any received Principle whereby it may but probably appear that à Church once confessedly Orthodox and right in Faith is errable or ever erred In that speculative Contest about Faith transcending the certainty of Motives I evince that not only the Dr doth de facto but all others must subscribe to the truth I Propugn and own it as an undisputable Verity Much more I have against the Doctor better known by à full perusal of the Treatise than by any Summary laid before the Reader in à short Preface In case he vvill reioyn I vvish him vvhat ere becomes of the rest not to pass over my tvvo last Chapters where first I largely insist upon that he call's his rational Evidence of Christian Religion which I shew every way defective and besides demonstrate that the true Evidence for Christianity is not as the Dr would have it either destroyed or in the least measure endamaged by the Doctrin of Transubstantiation In the 10th and last Chapter I discover the Dr's too manifest errour in his unskilful charging à vicious Circle on us while we resolve our Catholick Faith I tell him which he knowes not what a vicious Circle essentially implies and demonstratively clear the Church from all shadow and danger of à Circle May it please the Dr to give me Satisfaction in these two main matters now Specified My exceptions against him are plain and also vouchsafe to solve another difficulty proposed in this Treatise concerning the means Christ has left to bring all open Dissenters in the fundamentals of Faith or Necessaries for Salvation to one beliefe that is to understand the true genuin Sence of God's word without an Infallible Church May it I say please the Dr to do only thus much I will not only highly applaude his labours but freely quit him of blame though he trifle never so much with me in his Answers to the rest of this Treatise Now in case he take courage to reply whereof I doubt very much it is hard to say what humour he will be in what Vizor or Shape he may assume Perchance he vvill appear with his pageant-like piety and renew his promises of vvriting fairly as becomes an Ingenuous Adversary Very good if he answer as fairly and home I am vvell content It may be quite contrary he will bear me down vvith bigg vvords and call me Philosophical fool vvitless fellow brainless Saucy bold and all that naught is No matter say I if he answer's my obiections I can digest all It may be he will without much notice taken of my Arguments repeat all or the most he has said already it is à usual trick of Sectaries and entitle that an Answer to this Treatise if so he will need no great Sophist to lay open the cheat But what
they undervalve his private discerning faculty and prefer their own quite opposite to his May both he and they hold contradictions in the most essential Points of Faith and be saved If the Dr hath not such Latitudinarians I am sure there are à world of them in England Be it how you will his Principle is not only unsound but pernicious also and distructive to Christian faith as is now proved 19 You may here expect that I solve the Dr ' s Arguments alleged in behalfe of his Principle or 13 Proposition cited above I shall briefly touch some few though its scarse worth the pains for they fall of themselves to nothing by what is said already The rest I leave to his learned Adversary N. O. and could have wish'd to have seen in the Dr ' s two last little Books something that bear 's the face of an Obiection against the Churches Infallibility but he is wary and knowes well to shuffle when need is CHAP. IV. Doctor Still Arguments answered His unintelligible iumbling discovered A word briefly of the ground of the Churches Infallibility The Churches Guides teach infallibly 1 THe Dr P. 100. demand's whether Christ our Lord and the Evangelists may not justly be charged with not speaking the will of God plainly if those who heard them understood not their Doctrin I Answer first in case of not understanding they had infallible Teachers at hand for their further instruction and made use of them you good Dr have none such I Answer 2. It import's little to our present purpose whether they understood or no without more light when Christ for example said I and my Father are one while Christians both now and in former Ages highly differ about the sence of that speech and cannot certainly say this is God's true meaning or that the words are his without an Infallible Teacher But what may one reply can we infer because some mistake the sence of Scripture therefore all do so No truly but this Inference is good if some mistake and others not its Necessary to have the mistaken clearly distinguished from the sincere Believers otherwise à Seeker after truth may as well become an Arian as à sound orthodox Christian The Question therefore is how or by what means this severing the faithfull from the misled wholly necessary for Salvation may be exactly done without erring 2 The Dr. P. 101. most tediously rambles on to no purpose at all Is not Christianity saith he therfore highly recommended to us in the new Testament because of the perspicuity wherein the Doctrins and Precepts thereof are delivered And yet after The Dr is to shew what Christianity among so many Dissenters is commended in Scripture this cannot the most Necessary parts of it be understood by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them To answer this meer nothing it 's enough to ask What Christianity is commended to us for its clearness and perspicuity Is it Arianism Nestorianism or Protestanism It little God knowes avail's to know in General that some Christians are right in the beliefe of the Scriptures most necessary Part while no man can say to what Church they belong or who they are 2. It is most evident notwithstanding the Scriptures supposed perspicuity that very learned grosly err in the prime Necessaries for Salvation and doe all these clearly se the right meaning of it Here the Dr is obliged to tell us who are the blind or misled and which he ever unluckily waves how those he call's sincere Endeavourers may be distinguished from others supine and negligent And they ought to be known in the Dr ' s Principles for if the discerning FAculty in every man can easily find out the necessary truths for Salvation by reading Scripture it may I hope more easily discover the open Professors of these truths or that Christian Society where such truths are taught 3. Suppose Scriptures were writ for this end to teach all Necessaries how can the Dr prove that the search after them is committed to every private man's erring changeable Faculty Why not as well to the Pastors and Doctors of that Church whereof private men are members Now and here arises an insuperable difficulty what if these private men highly dissent from their Pastors concerning Necessaries five or six for example in Holborn from Dr Still Those denie Christs Godhead which he believes Both produce Scriptures and sence them differently who is to yeild in this contest the Dr to his Hearers or they to the Dr 3 This difficulty the Doctors worthy Adversary proposes with reference to the Church Governours and ask's whether these may not be presumed to understand the Scriptures meaning in order to Necessaries as well as ordinary Rusticks and if these be supposed to use à sincere endeavour in their pondering Scripture much more may we suppose it not wanting to the Guides of the Church And are we not here again saith N. O. arrived at Church Infallibility Se the Drs first part P. 138. 4 Never was man more intangled in hammering out à solution to any Argument The Dr much intangled in Solving à difficulty than our Dr is here First he wishes N. O. had kept to his own expressions and not forced in that term of Infallibility then to divert the Reader with nothing he repeat's again his whole 13 Proposition and because he well understand's not what is meant by men being infallible in Necessaries he makes it capable of three several senses 1. That men are infallible in judging of Necessaries to Salvation Or. 2. That they are infallible in teaching others what are Necessaries to Salvation These two meanings the Dr rejects and yet approves à third Viz. Men are infallible in believing such things as are Necessary to Salvation 1. e. That such is the Goodness of God and the clearness of Scriptures that no man who sincerely desires to know what is necessary to Salvation shall be deceived therein Yet more Though saith he I know no reason for useing the term Infallibility thus applyed yet the thing in it selfe I assert in that sence And what now can be inferred from hence but that the Guides of the Church supposeing the same sincerity shall enioy the same priviledge 5 If all this be not an unintelligible jumbling I never read any Pray reflect Men are infallible in believing such things as are Necessary for Salvation and yet are not infallible in judging of these Necessaries How can they infallibly believe Necessaries and not infallibly judge of them by that very infallible assent they give to Necessaries Again They are infallible in believing Necessaries but not infallible in teaching others the Necessaries to Salvation What is this to say Cannot men commissioned to instruct others teach that infallibly which they believe infallibly The Dr believes infallibly the high God head in Christ cannot he open his mouth and convey infallibly this Truth to others capable of believing infallibly were he lawfully sent to Preach 6 Now if by
these as inducements lead to it but upon God's speaking by the Church as is now declared 5 Having thus cleared the first act of Faith from all danger of à Circle because it ultimately rest's upon God's speaking by the Church made by it self immediatly credible without recourse to Scripture yet not known to be Divine or God's infallible word I add moreover N 9. If we speak of another distinct consequent and more explicit act of Faith whereby we believe the Churches Infallibility evidenced null and forceless when this Oracle declares the Scriptures true Sence which proves her Infallible there is no difficulty at all because this interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon Scripture and the Churches Infallible exposition together for thus ioyntly taken they ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles as if we first believed the Scriptures sence independently of the Churches interpretation and then again believed the Churches exposition to be infallible because the sence of Scripture known without any dependance on Church Authority saith She is Infallible Our good Dr set's down these words more at large and desires the Reader to try his faculty upon them what tolerable sence he can make of them I answer more learned faculties in Speculative matters then the Doctor 's is have made sence of them and that 's enough to ward off his weak blow of contempt Now I am to discover his fallacious and more then simple way of Arguing against me 6 The whole difficulty is brought at last to the true decision of this Question Whether one Infallible Oracle while it explicates the darker Sence of another The difficulty concerning à vicious Circle proposed likewise Infallble cannot be believed for it self without à vicious Circle One or two Instances will clear my meaning The Prophet Ioel. 2. 28. long before S. Peter lived Prophesyed of the effusion of God's divine Spirit upon all flesh which words dark in themselves that great Apostle Acts. 2. 16. interpret's as spoken of the pouring out of Gods Spirit upon the Apostles in the feast of Pentecost This is that saith S. Peter which was said or foretold by the Prophet Ioel. Observe well S. Peter was proved an Infallible Oracle before he interpreted this Passage of an Infallible Prophet so is the Church proved Infallible before She interpret's any words in Scripture S. Peter used or exercised his Power of interpreting infallibly not first proved infallible by his Interpretation but upon other grounds wholly independent of that Sence he gives to the Prophet So is the Church first proved infallible independently of all and every Interpretation She gives of Scripture Finally as that darker Sence of the Prophet made clear by the Apostles Infallible Interpretation indivisibly concurred to the Faith of the Primitive Christians so also the darker Sence of Scripture cleared by the Churches interpretation indivisibly concur's to the Faith of Believers now 7 Ponder well the force of this Instance and you will soon se through the Dr ' s trivial Obiections I say in à word An Instance worth reflection Had S. Peter proved himself in the first place Infallible by the Sence of that Scripture he then interpreted the Circle would have been Manifest because the thing proved which is the infallible explication of Ioel is assumed again or first made use of to prove S. Peter and his explication infallible But when the Apostles Infallibility in every Doctrin of Faith stood firm upon other grounds though he had never written Scripture nor interpreted any Prophet that man must be quicker sighted than Aristotle who find's à Circle in it This is our case as to the Church She is in à general way supposed and proved infallible in every Catholick Doctrin independently of this or that particular taught by her one particular is the true Interpretation of Scripture more rightly called the exercise and use of her infallible Assistance then the proof The use of the Churches power destroies not â—â—er power of it but evinces not herselfe in the first place to be infallible because She interpret's for that is antecedently proved upon other grounds therefore unless the use of Her power wherewith She is indued to interpret infallibly destroy that power it is impossible to catch her in à Circle while she interpret's 8 Thus much premised You shall se the Dr ' s Obiection melt like wax before the fire Iudge Reader saith he P. The Dr's own words 428 whether here be not à plain Circle Because they believe the Church infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith she is so and again they believe this to be the infallible sence of Scripture because the infallible Church saith so Judge Reader say I whether one plain distinction overthrowes not this feeble fallacy and thus it is We first believe the Church infallible because the true Sence of Scripture saith she is infallible I deny it for that first act of Faith is not at all founded on Scripture We believe the Church infallible by à second more distinct and explicit Faith indivisibly fixed on Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together I grant that most willingly Now this second act of Faith must if we make à right Analysis be at last resolved into this other general Truth VVhat ever God speak's by the Church is certain and infallible which general Truth stand's firm without recourse to Scripture at all The reason is Whatever Argument proved the Church God's infallible Oracle in all She taught before Scripture was written proves Her also without depending on Scripture the same Infallible Oracle still 9 The other part following in the Dr ' s discourse is wholly as lame VVe believe again this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so I answer we believe so indeed but by à second more explicit act of Faith which The Dr's absurd fallacy unravelled supposes the Church proved infallible antecedently to her Interpretation where there is no shadow of à Circle for if the Church be owned infallible in every matter of Christian Faith thus much only followes that when She interpret's the same God that once spake obscurely in Scripture declares his meaning more clearly by his own Oracle the Church 10 One example where you shall have the Dr ' s circle as round as à hoop will yet give more light Imagin those words of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. 15. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth to be as Sectaries will have them obscure or not openly significant for the Churches Infallibility Suppose again that S. Paul or any other infallible Apostle had delivered in clearer terms the true Sence of them nay suppose he had told us the true meaning of those words The Pillar and ground of truth is just so as Catholicks now believe Could Mr Dr or any man living have found à vicious Circle here had S. Paul been owned
from the Antecedent of mans being intellectual Should I prove that Consequence upon other grounds either by Authority or manifest experience because we se men freely eschew Evil and embrace Good should I from thence inferr that he is Intellectual the Inference now guarded by other proofs barely subsist's not upon the strength of its Antecedent but is à Verity known aliunde and therefore is rightly called Regressus utilis à rational profitable Regress free from The difference between a Circle and à profitable way of Arguing all vicious Circulation For as Philosophers teach grounding their discourse vpon Aristotle now cited A vicious Circle is à Regress or going back ab eodem ad Idem per eandem viam from the same thing to the same again and by the same way as appeares in the Instance proposed where the Antecedent assuming Intellectual proves Liberty and Liberty not known as I said upon any other proof but by that Medium Intellestual return's again and by the very same way proves Intellectuallity This is to say the Consequence as known by the Antecedent offer 's to prove at once both it self and the Antecedent together Had Dr St well reflected upon what is here noted he might easily have spared his lost labour spent upon à vicious Circle and it is à wonder be wanted reflection because Sextus Empiricus cited by him in the short discourse he has of that he calls à Diallel gives every one light enough to se what the Dr it seems saw not though Sextus be none of the clearest Authors 19 Thus much premised we proceed to the matter now in hand and Assert If any one should in the first place either believe or prove the Sence of Scripture to be true by the Churches Interpretation not otherwise believed Infallible or proved true but barely by her Interpretation and should again goe about to prove her Interpretation true by nothing but her own Interpretation which explains that true Sence the Circle would be manifest because the true Sence of Scripture interpreted by the Church is again assumed An application made to the matter now in hand as the only Medium to prove her Interpretation true which way of Arguing essentially implies à vicious Regress from the very same thing to the same thing again and by the very same way But if I first prove the Churches Infallibility in all She teaches upon other Grounds without any recourse at all either to the words or Sence of Scripture as is shewed above and from thence both prove and believe her Interpretation to be infallibly true that man who holds this way of Arguing Circular knowes no more what à Circle is than Doctor Stillingfleet A little touch upon the Dr ' s weak Obiections will yet give more clarity 20 Is not that à Circle saith he P. 428. when the Argument made use to prove another The Dr's Obiections answered thing by must it self be proved by that very thing which it is made use of to prove Very good Sr these general Terms hurt no body to your Application therefore in the next page The thing to be proved Say you is the Churches Infallibility the Argument to prove it by is the Infallible Sence of Scripture Answ I flatly deny the first proof of the Churches Infallibility to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture for the first Argument is taken from that general Truth whereby She is owned and proved God's Infallible Oracle in every thing She teaches concerning Faith and this independently of Scripture Here I say more It is impossible to prove her first Infallible by the Sence she gives of Scripture because that Sence is not known before She interpret's and no body goes about to prove any thing by meer insignificant Characters without their Sence Can the Dr who hold's the Church Fallible and must if he ever evince that prove it by Scripture probably take his Proof from Scripture not senced It is plain Dotage to do so He goes on But if the Infallible Sence of Scripture can be proved by nothing but by thē Churches infallible Interpretation then it is plain that is assumed as an Argument to prove Infallibility by which cannot be otherwise known than by this Infallibility What To argue from Scripture not Senced is Non-sense Infallibility doth the Dr speak of in these last ambiguous words If he say we prove the Infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches infallible Interpretation I grant it Jf contrarywise he thinks we prove in the first place the Churches Infallibility by her own infallible Interpretation of Scripture he err's grosly as is already made manifest and therefore proves nothing 21 In à word either the Sence of Scripture is known by the Churches Interpretation or is clear by it self If known upon the Churches Interpretation the Sence is one and the same with that of the Scripture for these two Oracles can never clash or differ If known by it selfe as it is in many Passages relating to manners no more is required but that the Church ascertain us of the Scriptures Divine Inspiration So that still we depend upon the Church alwaies for the assurance of Scripture being Divine or from God and in the greatest Mysteries of Faith we rely on it also for the true Sence 22 A second obiection It is à little strange that there should be no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose Sence could not infallibly be known without the Supposal of that Infallibility which is proved by them Answ It s more than à little strange that the Dr cannot distinguish between the first general act of Faith whereby the Church is believed Infallible without depending on Scripture and à second more explicit and Consequent act which wholly relies upon Her interpretation and Scripture together It is also strange if God pleases to speak obscurely as he certainly doth in many Passages of Holy Writ that another Infallible Oracle cannot tell us with he mean's without Two Strange Mistakes in the Dr. à vicious Circle The Substance of all he obiects here only amount's to thus much We prove or believe the Churches Infallibility upon the Sence of those Scriptures whose sence cannot be infallibly known without the supposal of that Infallibility If he mean's as he must by supposal and that Infallibility the Churches Infallibility I have answered the Church is not only supposed but proved also infallible before Scripture was written and before She ever went about to interpret that Divine Book 23 A third Obiection is the like Tautologie over again and therefore requires no other but the same Solution If saith he the Infallible sence of Scripture be resolved into and believed upon the same infallible Authority of the Church then I still enquire how this infallible Authority of the Church comes to be proved by this exposition of Scripture the Infallibility of which doth suppose the thing to be proved Viz. the Churches
Infallibility To what purpose Should we lose time Have not I answered that the Churches Infallibility stand's firm upon other grounds before Scripture be either owned Divine or the Sence of its difficult passages can be known Have not I moreover said that that general Truth of the Churches Infallibility must necessarily be proved and supposed antecedently to the belief of this or that particular Interpretation For who can fix his Faith upon the exposition of any Divine Oracle without being first ascertained it is God that speak's by it The Instances given above most clearly evince what is here asserted Please to make use either of our Saviours interpreting his own Parable Luke 8. concerning the Sower and seed or of S. Peters exposition given to the Prophet Joel They are one and the same in order to my present Intent We prove or believe that to be the true Sence of our Saviours Parable because eternal Truth interpreted it so but do we again first prove or believe him to be eternal Truth because he then delivered the true Sence of that Parable to his Disciples No. For by this lame way of arguing we should prove the Sence of the Parable to be true upon our Saviour Interpretation and again prove him à true Interpreter because he interpreted Mark well the Dr's confusion We Catholicks saith he believe the Church to be infallible because the true The Dr's Confused Doctrin Clearly driven back vpon himselfe Sence of Scripture saith she is so And you Sr believe our Saviours Interpretation upon that Parable to be true that Parable is now Scripture because our Saviour interpreted it so Again we believe this to be the Infallible sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so And you Mr Dr believe this to be the Infallible Sence of that Parable because Christ said so Here Sr you have your own Circle in express Terms Judge whether it stand's not something awry What must be done then to get out of this Confusion All must answer Though we believe our Saviours Interpretation by an Infallible act of Faith yet we first prove him not infallible because he interprets but suppose his Infallibility made out and proved upon other grounds independently of his explication And this is our Answer also as to the Church whereof enough is said already and more than ever the Dr will or can Answer 24 P. 430. the Doctor once more run's on with the same Tautologie and because I said the Scripture and Churches interpretation indivisibly Concur to that latter act of Faith whereby we believe the Sence of Scripture explained by the Church he tells me This indivisible concurrence Seem's to him an odd piece of Mystical Divinity I Answer no great matter for that as odd as it is he must own it if he believes S. Peters infallible Interpretation upon the Prophet or the exposition given to the Royal Prophets Testimony Psal 131. 11. Foreseing saith the Apostle His Tautologies and ill words he spake of Christs Resurrection Acts. 2. 31. Se more of this indivisible concurrence Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 11. n. 10. The rest our Dr hath to his page 433. is either the like Tautologie VVe prove the Churches Infallibility by the Infallible Sence of Scripture and the infallible Sence of Scripture by the Churches Infallibility Or most uncivil language or finally a foul ending with à gross mistake for he thinks our Faith rest's upon no Infallible Authority because we have none to rely on but Motives Confessedly fallible It is à perverse errour already refuted 25 To end this Controversy about à vicious Circle wherein the Dr. P. 431. account's me à Conjurer and one that speak's things which neither he nor any one els can understand I have right me thinks to enquire by what means or upon what grounded Motive can the Dr come to à certainty of the Scriptures true Sence In proposing this Question I might easily retaliate and tell him Though he Conjure cheat and shuffle his whole life long he shall never yet clear this one difficulty without recourse to an Infallible Church The proof of my Assertion stand's sure upon this most undoubted principle The true Sence of A difficulty proposed and the Dr is desired to Answer Scripture in many passages relating to Necessaries for Salvation is no Selfe-evidence nor can it be certainly known by that endless Search or mispent industry of private men as appear's by those many most opposit and plain contradictory Interpretations which the learned of different Religions give to these and the like Expressions in God's word I and my Father are one The word is made flesh There are three that give Testimony in Heaven c. Not one of these Passages though pondered and compared with other Texts in Holy Writ doth Evidence its own true Sence Therefore the means whereby it is discovered or the Oracle which infallibly ascertain's it must necessarily be both distinct from the dark words now cited and also more clear and plainly significant than the yet concealed Sence is we seek for Now further Neither Calvins private Spirit nor the Dr's rational Evidence nor Tradition without nor Grace within as Bishop Lawd speaks in the Dr ' s Account P. 186. n. 15 nor finally any other Medium which is not Scripture can infallibly declare this Sence as is largely proved both in this Treatise and the last Therefore an Infallible Church must either do God and man this good Service and certainly tell us what Scripture Speak's in these Necessaries for Salvation Or the true meaning of God's Word will be just like Some useless airy nicity not worth knowing still matter of debate ever disputable but never known Thus much said in answer to the Dr's Speculative part we passe in the next Discourse to à serious view of his long Drollery and simple exceptions made against the glorious Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church and Shall God willing evince that in this Treatise where he thought to triumph most he is foiled and hath disgraced none but himselfe An end of the first Part. A DISCOVRSE CONCERNING MIRACLES WROUGHT in the Roman CATHOLICK CHVRCH in vindication of their Truth against Doctor Stillingfleets unjust Cavils VVHERE The Miraculous Translation of the Holy House OF LORETO is Asserted and proved an undeniable Verity BY E. W. The second Part. ANTWERP Printed by MICHAEL CNOBBAERT at the Sign of S. Peter in the Year 1674. Dr Stillingfleet in his second Discourse Chap. 3. P. 434 makes an Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church I follow him as he goes along and lay open the ill Success our Inquifitive man hath had in his Search which will I hope appear to every one after à full view taken of what is proposed in the ensuing Treatise Peruse and judge Courteous Reader CHAP. I. How I formerly argued in behalfe of our Churches Miracles The Dr in his Enquiry waves my Arguments Of the difference between Christ's Miracles and those wrought by
if he take Pet What if passion and ignorance drive him into à humour of Contempt VVhat if he lay all thought of answering aside and Satisfy some few of his own Gange by an odd Querie as he once did Cannot à dull book come out with my name in the Title but I must be obliged to answer it No I assure them I know better how to spend my time Well Courteous Part. 1. Page 72. Reader if he run this way I have done and say no more but what all will vow that the of oyle of the Doctors lampe is well nigh if not wholly spent Among the many wayes here briefly hinted at time I hope may tell us how he will behave himselfe I expect his Answer A word now if you please of what I shall handle hereafter Dr Still hath published two spiteful ridiculous Treatises justly offensive to every Iudicious man the one is his simple charge of Idolatry shamefully and without judgement laid upon the Roman Catholick Church thanks be to God he hath been soundly baffled for it The other is his wild Enquiry after Miracles vvrought in the same great Moral body of Christians and this I engage to answer though indeed the juggling the palpable Sophistry the manifest falsities vvherewith that vvhole Discourse is seasoned return you the best Answer and plainly tell you The Enquiry made by him is in à vvord vvorth nothing abating this one point that it exposes the Author as he deserves to publick contempt VVhat in Gods name came into the Dr's head to vvrite as he hath done against all Miracles Many Protestants I am sure as you shall see afterward ingenuously acknovvledge true Miracles to have been vvrought in the Roman Catholick Church others of the worser sort allow at least an appearance of them though perhaps done by the help of Divels but the Dr seem's in Several Passages not to allow us so much as the outward Semblance of à Miracle and all along own 's not one of them true VVhat shall â—e say to this man VVill he grant that the Iewes bad true Miracles among them and deny the like Grace and Priviledge to the Christian Church VVill he allow the gift of working Miracles to two great Prophets Enoch and Elias at their appearing again when the Church will be neer an end and take from her all Signs all true Miracles during the vast space of time between the Apostles and the latter dayes of these two Prophets VVill he say and he must say it when Antichrist comes that that false Prophet will do strange wonders yea in appearance great Miracles though all rotten and full of guile and shall Christ's own Spouse the true Christian Church be so abased so vilely thought of by one that professes Christianity as never to have vvrought by God's special favour so much as one true Miracle never to have Shewed any other vvonder but vvhat Divels have done and Antichrist will do by his charm's vvhen he comes to delude the vvorld Gentle Reader these things are horrid and better befit à Proficient in Atheism than one that bear 's the name of à Christian But more of this in the Treatise vvhere I shall discover the Dr's intolerable fraudes which run through his vvhole Discourse and show also vvhat Catholicks understand by Church Miracles vvherein the Dr grosly err's for he thinks every uncertain Story related by this or that too credulous Author often censured by the Church passes amongst us for à Church Miracle There is no such matter the Miracles vve chiefly rely on and defend are rigidly examined attested by oath and made every way so morally certain before they gain Approbation that no man in prudence can call them into doubt Those other related by private Authors are either probable dubious or manifestly false If all Circumstances Considered they appear probable vve own them as such and go no further If dubious vve suspend our judgements and leave them in that uncertain Condition If false vvhich is easily known upon Examination vve utterly reject them The rest that belongs to this weighty matter Concerning Miracles you shall have God vvilling hereafter part vvhereof is added to this Treatise The remainder I hope vvill follow before many Months come to an End Farewel Courteous READER THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST PART CHAP. I. VVhat moved the Author to write this short Treatise How weakly Dr Stilling trifles with his Adversaries A touch of the Dr's new way in Arguing Of his simple exception against the word Infallibility How the Infallibility in the first Propounders of Faith depend's upon the present Guides of the Church Pag. 1 CHAP. II. A few Considerations premised concerning Infallibility Express Scripture proves The Church Infallible No one word for her Fallibility alleged by the Dr. An Argument proposed against the Doctor 32 CHAP. III. Doctor Stillingfleets Rule and ground of faith proved no Rule It lessens not in the least the Churches Infallibility 42 CHAP. IV. Doctor Still Arguments answered His unintelligible jumbling discovered A word briefly of the ground of the Churches Infallibility The Churches Guides teach infallibly 61 CHAP. V. Doctor Stillingfleets pretended Answer to E W s Two books Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion shew'd no Answer but à meer shuffling or palpable digression from the main point bandled in those Treatises How the Dr shift's off the only difficulty wberein satisfaction is required 96 CHAP. VI. Dr Still grant's that Faith transcend's the Certainty of those Motives which induce to believe Independently of his concession that verity is proved and the ground thereof firmly setled Hovv necessary it is to distinguish betvveen the Credibility of à Mystery and the infallible believing it true Obiections ansvvered Other difficulties proposed 123 CHAP. VII Reflections made upon the Doctors follovving Discourse Of his Mistakes concerning the Churches Testimony and the obscurity of Faith 154 CHAP. VIII The Doctor 's Discourse from page 400 to P. 416. Considered and found vveightless 174 CHAP. IX Dr Stilling pretended Evidence for Christian Religion proved nothing like Evidence His Evidence taken from Sense in the Mystery of the holy Eucharist demonstrated Sensless How vainly he endeavour's to prove by Miracles related in Scripture the Truth of the Doctrin there registred A word of his Tradition and many other errours 193 Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition what Christ did and spake 226 CHAP. X. The Church proved Infallible before She interpret's Scripture The reason hereof The Doctors gross errour in charging à Circle on us in the Resolution of Faith What à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 236 THE CHAPTERS OF THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. How I formerly argued in behalfe of our Churches Miracles The Dr in his Enquiry waves my Arguments Of the difference between Christ's Miracles and those wrought by the Apostles and in the Church What is meant by Church Miracles Of the Cheats which run through the Dr's
shall be Infallible in what She clearly obliges her children to believe We then produced and yet Catholicks highly injured alledge as plain Scripture for the Assertion as ever God inspired the first great Masters of the Gospel to write We here publickly avouch and will make it good That God's word is as express and significant in behalfe of the Churches Infallibility as for the most primary and fundamental Articles of Christian Religion We confirm our Assertion by the unanswerable Authority of ancient Fathers and learned Councils we add here unto the Authority of à Church never yet censured by any but known Hereticks Upon these grounds we stand Now hear I beseech you how we are treated There is à young hot Antagonist nam'd Dr Still who call's this claim to Infallibility Page 84. an uniust usurpation à thing notoriously false an arrogant pretence of an usurping faction c. Is it not think ye The Dr called to an account high time after such ratling language to give this Bragger à just challenge to call him to à rigid account before God and the world and force him to prove what he saith Scripture Councils and Fathers without glosses shall speak for us these shall determine the cause and end it My evidences are as strong as known 1. Tim. 3. 16. That thou mais't know how thou oughs't to converse in the house of God which is the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of truth Matth. 2. 8. 20. Goe therefore teach all nations Teaching them to observe all things what ever I have commanded you and behold I am with you all dayes to the end of the world What Christ here promises is certainly performed therefore his Protection over the Church will never fail Iohn 14. 15. I will pray the Father and he will give you another comforter that may abide with you for ever The Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive The spirit of truth abiding with that Society of Christians it 's promised to is opposit to errour and falshood Ephes 4. 11. We read of Apostles Prophets Euangelists of Pastors and Doctors given by God's special Providence to the consummation of Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the body of Christ c. If you ask how long this incomparable Scripture plain for the Churches Infallibility blessing shal last It 's answered v 13. until we all meet in the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God Demand again for what end those Guides are verse 14 return's this Answer That we be not like Children wavering tossed to and fro or carried about with every wind of doctrin by the deceipt of men c. But if those Guides can be circumvented with errour how is it possible to secure Christians committed to their charge from being carried away with the wind of false Doctrin No Catholick though he study for it can speak more significantly the Churches sence concerning the Infallibility of her Guides then the blessed Apostle here amply expresseth Thus much briefly for an Essay of Scriptural proofs Fathers and Councils shall follow on à fitter occasion when the Dr requires them 2 In the mean while this Dr who makes the Church and all her Guides fallible for her Infallibility saith he is à thing notoriously false is called on to confront these Authorities and to prove his own Assertion by plain and express Scripture or by so much as one Text that meanly and remotely hints at the fallibility of this great extended Body Where Sr read we in holy Writ any thing tending to your sence That the Church is not the pillar and ground of truth Where have we that God who promised to be with the Church to the end of the world would desert Her in one Age or other Where That the Spirit of Not one word in Scripture to prove her fallible truth should leave this Oracle Where find we o horrid blasphemy that all Her Guides all the Pastors and Doctors grosly deceived themselves may suffer millions of souls under their charge to be carried away with à whole deluge of errour and one no lesse then professed Idolatry Speake out Dr and produce your Scriptures as plain for the Churches fallibility as mine now alledged are for Her Infallibility 3 Hence I argue If the Infallibility of the Church be à notorious falshood or as the Dr makes it in his Account P. 101 ridiculous yea really distructive to Christianity Her Fallibility is à Notorious truth which mainly supports true Religion An Argument proposed But God certainly hath not omitted to register in holy VVrit à truth so notorious as mainly support's true Religion therefore he hath not omitted to set down in plain Terms the Churches Fallibility But this most evidently is not done wherefore I tell the Dr that not only he but all the Doctors on earth shall sooner lose their eyes then find one single Text in the whole Bible which so much as seemingly makes the Church fallible in what the obliges Christians to believe But if this cannot be evinced by Scripture laid as à foundation to the Dr ' s discourse he may better goe to bed and sleep than meddle any more with the Question of Infallibility For all he saies or can say upon the Matter will be meer empty talk without proof and Principles 4 I urge this Argument further and ask Whether to believe the fallibility of the Church be à fundamental Article of the Dr's new Faith or only one of his Inferiour truths which Scripture expresses not nor requires beliefe of necessary to Salvation Grant the first He is obliged to prove it by God's express word for as he thinks all fundamentals are there Make. 2. this asserted Fallibility to be only one of his Inferiour truths wholly waved by Scripture and not necessary to Salvation the Dr spoil's his own Scriptureless cause With what face then dare he tell us in his Account cited above that our pretence to Infallibility overthrowes belief destroyes Christianity and tend's apace towards Atheism Whilst God never yet spake any such unheard Assertions Never Church taught them Never Fathers owned them Never Councils defined them only the disordered phansy of à young Dr begot them in Ignorance and malice as you se hath set all forth in print If I speak rashly the Dr hath all liberty to shame me and one single passage in God's word whereby this fallibility is proved shall lay an eternal disgrace upon me but as I am sure there is no such passage so I fear not any the least disgrace 5 What no such passage may one reply Surely I mistake For doth not Mr Still in his Account Part. 1. c. 8. â—blot page after page to prove the Church fallible and by express Scripture also I answer he touches not the difficulty we here insist on but â—uggles all along We require one plain Text whereby the Christian Church is proved fallible And he gives
can never bring any to this determinate iudgement These are the sincere Believers Those others easily pointed out are not And without this particular None can know by the Drs rule who are sincere believers who not distinguishing knowledge Necessaries wholly out of our reach are as if they were not useles and unprofitable An Instance will give more light One is assured that some craftily devise to take away his life but after much Enquiry knowes not in particular who it is for all â—rofess the dearest friendship imaginable as all profess themselves right in the beliefe of Necessaries Can this man avoid the mischief intended by virtue of à general knowledge that some would destroy him It is impossible This is our very case Mr Dr. Either you or the Arian intend mischief to the Christian world The one or other would bereave us of life Faith I mean Necessary for Salvation but by your Rule we know not particularly which of the Two goe about to ensnare us both of you cannot be supposed invincibly ignorant in à matter of so great consequence Say now by what means can à diligent Enquirer know in particular the man that intend's our ruin Shall we put the Bible into both your hands and bid you clear the cause there It is meer labour lost you may wrangle till both be tired and all tired that hear you yet you are where you began in à Labyrinth nothing is ended the way nothing concluded Wil you say the Arian wants Gods grace He verily judges you want it more and whâ— is to be believed Will you say the learned Socinians or Arians are invincibly ignorant concerning Necessaries They will cast that foul aspersion upon yoâ— and your Party And who knowâ— what is true here Will you accuâ— them of negligence in searching Scriptures They recriminate as boldly and with good reason for their books shew them more versed in Scripture then you that being made their only study But whether you or they rightly understand Scripture is yet à secret not knowable by your Rule 10 By what is said you se the disconsolate condition all zealous Seekers after truth are left in The Guidance of an Infallible Church is set naught by The necessary truths for salvation cannot as we have proved be known by Scripture only The unnecessaries say â—ou need not to be known Therefore â—en may get to Heaven without faith â—ad of either of Necessaries or unnecesaries that is as I take it without any faith at all 11 You may se 2. The force of my argument hitherto proposed by these â—terrogatories Please to reflect à little â— it true that Christ our Lord who will 's â— to be Saved hath afforded means â—th easy and certain whereby Necessaâ—s to Salvation may be known It is â—e that innumerable learned men of à â—ite different beliefe after an exact â—usal of Scripture are at high dissentions about these Necessaries Is it The force of my Argument yet more illustrated true that all these cannot be supposed voluntarily to damn themselves by impiously imposing à false sence on Godâ— word Is it true that no few amongâ— these many wrong the most supreaâ— Verity and believe what God neveâ— revealed Is it true that none caâ— yet distinguish by Scripture alone or aâ— private discerning faculty who at this vâ—ry day do this wrong or Contrarywiâ— are right in the beliefe of Necessaries Is it true that if every private man â— sufficiently taught by reading Scriptuâ— only all recourse to our Spiritual Guidâ— though appointed by Christ to instrâ— us becomes useless and unprofitable If these particulars already laid forth â— manifestly proved as I am sure they aâ— Dr Still Rule for the finding out Necâ—saries by Scripture and the sincere â—deavour of private men is not only â— slight Errour but in à matter of greatâ— consequence intolerable yea and dreâ—ful upon this account that it enlighteâ— none in the search after Necessaries â— cast's all upon an impossibility of findâ— what they seek for Now we procâ— to another Argument 12 Admit Scripture were as plainâ— the Dr can wish Admit also that â— may be understood by all Christians who sincerely endeavour to know its meaning in Necessaries A great difficulty remain's concerning Iewes and Genâ—ils Viz. How such Aliens from Christ may be gained to believe the Necessaries we speak of I ask therefore hath Christ afforded means to reclaim these from errour or no If not God conâ—rary to the Dr ' s assertion is wanting in Necessaries and consequently no man can prudently labour for their conversion If means be allowed that most evidently cannot be Scripture Perhaps the Dr will say his Rule above belong's not to Iewes and Heathens but to Christians only If this be his Answer â— shall by Gods assistance hereafter clearâ—y shew that that rational Evidence for Christian Religion whereon the Dr reâ—ies avail's just nothing to the Converâ—ion Neither the Drs rule nor his rational Evidence avail's to the Conversion of Iewes and Gentils of either Jewes or Heathens Here â— am to prove that Scripture is not the means First because such men after â—heir reading it slight and contemn all â—hat Christ and his Apostles taught and one reason of their contempt as à Jew â—tely observed is grounded upon the â—orrid dessentions amongst Christians â—thanks be to Luther and Calvin for â—hem concerning the canon and sence of Scripture Who said he can move me to believe in Christ by Scripture while some called Christians deny his Godhead Others his humane nature some say his body is really present under à wafer Others deny that and thus forsooth Scripture must prove both parts of the Contradiction Again though Scripture were supposed clear in Necessaries it is yet far enough from being à selfe Evidence as to the Divine Truth to the infallibility or the plain sence of these Necessaries Nay who can know by Scripture which and how many theâ— Necessaries are For example I think S. Iohn record's à Necessary when â— tells us The Word is made flesh yet by â— bare reading and pondering the words â— cannot without more light peremptorily avouch that they contain à Necessary foâ— Salvation or that they evidence to me â— Divine infallible truth much less can I saâ— the sence of them is as I judge while wâ—se Christians so highly at contest abouâ— the sence that they maintain open contradictions And this opposition alonâ— upheld by the judgements of private meâ— very learned makes the Truth and Infâ—libility of every Revelation à thing only doubtful and conjectural All this beinâ— undeniable 13 I say first if à true beliefe of the Divine word made flesh be à necessary for Salvation and if the Truth the Infallibility or sence of the Revelation whereby the Mystery is attested lies dark yea impossible to be found out by Scripture alone one of these two things inevitably follow Viz. That the wise Providence of God hath either appointed some oracle distinct from
Scripture to discover that yet concealed Infallible truth and sence also or that Christ is wanting in Necessaries to Mankind Now that not only Truth but an Infallible Divine truth and the genuine sence of Gods Revelation are obiects of faith when we believe Necessaries is most undeniable unless one will say that we believe truths but abstract or regard not whether they be Divine and Infallible truths we believe the words of Scripture without their sence c. 14 I say 2. There is an Oracle appointed by God to declare the Truth the Infallibility and sence of every revealed Necessary and prove my Assertion The The necessity of an Infallible living Oracle end of Divine Revelation is to settle in all faithful minds à firm beliefe concerning the Truth Infallibility and meaning of every revealed Necessary for why doth God reveal truly and infallibly but to beget in us true and Infallible â—aith But Scripture it selfe evidences not this Divine truth Infallibility and meaning nor tell 's us which are Necessaries therefore an Oracle appointed by God is both impowred and obliged to declare these particulars certainly and Infallibly I say Infallibly for if it faulter but in one or give us only weak Topicks and doubtfull probabilities the end of God's Infallible Revelation is frustrated and our Faith can be no more but wavering and uncertain that is no Faith at all This Argument I urged against the Doctor Reas and Religion Disc 2. c. 19. n. 2. 3. But no answer from him yet 15 I Argued 2. what ever Necessary for Salvation is proposed doubtfully and fallibly may by virtue of that proposal be à fiction and false But à Necessary thus doubtfully proposed appeares not like to one of God's infallible revealed Necessaries for what God reveal's is infallibly true therefore as doubtfully proposed it appeares à changeling only à fallible truth wholly unfit to support Divine Faith Some will say it is yet in it selfe à Divine truth though proposed fallibly Who knowes that If neither Scripture nor Oracle distinct from Scripture nor all the Doctors and Pastors on earth can infallibly avouch that S. John spake à Divine Infallible Truth when he said The Word is made flesh much lesse can they ascertain any of the sence of these Infallible and moral Certainty imply à difference words or evince that they contain à Necessary for Salvation One may yet reply The Truth the Infallibility and sence of these words are morally certain and faith of Necessaries requir's no more To Answer I suppose that moral certainty as it is distinguished from Infallible certainty may in rigour be false or if not that moral and Infallible certainty import the very same thing or degree of certainty Thus much supposed I ask when we affirm that God has revealed the Mystery of the Incarnation in Scripture do we say he hath told us that Secret by à Revelation which because only morally certain may be false or à lye It s blasphemy to judge so for all that the first verity speaks is most Infallibly certain 16. Or contrary wise do we say that Divine Faith terminated upon the Revelation though likely to be true is yet because only morally certain possible to be false or à lye Grant this and it followes that that high perfection of Infallibility intrinsick to Divine Revelation lies out of sight and in order to Faith is as if it were not and therefore can have no Influence upon beliefe The reason hereof is manifest for although we know if God Speak he speak's infallibly yet all the men on earth cannot know infallibly by Faith or by any other act previous to faith that his infallible Revelation engaged in this Mystery assert's it or is certainly in being because the best and surest certainty men can attain in this life A moral certain Faith which may be false is not Faith of any Revelation is only Moral and may be false But such à knowledge determin's none without fear and hesitancy to judge absolutely that God speaks infallibly or that he speak's as beseem's God for our Salvation By this short Discourse you se it is in effect the very same to say God reveal's not infallibly any one Necessary as to say we neither know nor can believe that he reveal's it infallibly For what strength or virtue can that perfection of Infallibility impart to faith if none can assent to it as it is infallible or apply it to his intellectual Faculty but only by à moral certain Faith which may be false Who ever desires more of this subiect may peruse Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 15. Where I show that neither God nor Christ God and man nor Apostle nor Orthodox Church ever patronized à certainty in matters of Divine Faith which may be false nor to my knowledge did ever any Heterodox Christian content themselves with it in such Tenets as they held Essential or were with them matters of Belief I proved 2. n. 11. That none but Eternal Truth it selfe who is the first Revealer the Apostles and the Roman Catholick Church which proposes the high Mysteries of Faith can give Infallible assurance of their being infallible Divine Truths 17 Now this Church evidenced by Supernatural wonders neither Prophet or Apostle had ever greater is the Infallible Oracle I have hitherto pointed at in general Terms only Her Conversions Miracles and other publick Signatures of Gods infinit Power and VVisdom whereby she is proved God's Oracle are particularly declared Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 15. And her Infallibility is amply evinced in three whole Chapters Disc 2. c. 14. 15. 16. But I know not how it fall's out Dr Still hath waved all my Arguments and not answered one 18 After à full consideration had of what is proved in this one Chapter all ingenuous Readers will I think conclude with me that never wise man made such à foolish Choice or exchange of means for Salvation as this Dr hath done Observe I beseech you Instead of Infallible certainty terminated upon Gods Revelation he is so strait hearted that nothing is allowed by him but à great moral probability which may be false In lieu of an Infallible Church which plainly declares her Necessary Doctrin he thrusts into The Drs foolish Choice and exchange of Principles our hands à Bible most certainly obscure and in place of the Guides of the Church who are by Christ's ordination to teach he substitutes his own fallible discerning Faculty or the private Judgement of all the Illiterate persons in his Parish These must read Scripture gloss and interpret Scripture and when that 's done all of them like Quakers after some few humms and pauses may believe what they think is true but not one amongst them shall ever know this way That God speak's in Scripture as he thinks and judges Pray tell me What if some of the Doctors own Auditors with their sincere and serious endeavour made concerning Necessaries dissent from him What if
reason of their Heresy Thus much by the By the rest I leave to Dr. T. G. best able to answer Let us follow our Dr à little not long I promise you 21 In his P. 174. for I passe over all that old trash examined à hundred times over concerning Liberius the Bishops of Istria Pope vigilius and God knowes who besides for none of these concern the Churches Infallibility and are all thread-bare worn out difficulties I come I say to the page now quoted where we are told that of five parts of the Christian world four of them Viz. The Nestorians the Iacobits the Greek Church and Protestants are all agreed That there is no Necessary of living in subiection to the Guides of the Roman Church but they are all under their own Guides which they do not question will direct them in the right way to Heaven 22 I am apt to think Mr Dr you question it as little for it seem's by this The Dr seem's to patronize the Guides among known and Condemned Heretiquet your odd expression and some other which follow any thing true or false will serve the turn and set men in the right way to Heaven But say on I beseech you Are these dissenting Christians to be listed among such as you call sincere Endeavourers who cannot but know what is necessary to Salvation by the clearness of Scripture If you affirm none of them err in Necessaries or the Fundamentals of Faith and consequently the Nestorians Eutychians and Arians are in à safe way to Salvation Would to God Sr you would once declare your selfe plainly that we may hereafter know of what beliefe you are in heart of any or none or of one as bad as none Now on the other side if you number not these among your sincere Seekers but account them misled and deceived to what purpose do you produce such examples Is it to tell us because their Number is great you would have them therefore thought of greater esteem or more valvable then the Catholick Church whereof they were once members and from which Church their first Guides like you ungraciously receded This way of arguing will ruin Christian Religion for Heathens Turks Iewes and Atheists are far ore numerous then these O! say you P. 143. Every man when come to years of understanding see 's upon his own Judgement and reason an Excellency in Christian Religion above Heathens Turks c. This Sr is my Answer Every man at such years if he will open his eyes cannot but se an incomparable greater lustre and Excellency manifest in the Catholick Church as Antiquity Conversions Miracles than in all those other Societies though called Christians who abandon'd it It is true they ran out of this Church but left behind them Gods own Signatures Marks and Signs of true Christianity upon it still these they could never rob us of nor appropriate to themselves and therefore its Gods just judgement upon them remain as they do obscure and contemptible Perhaps the Dr intended by his instances to give some little countenance to his Protestancy If so I answer This Protestancy has the worst luck of all other Sects in the world it s like another Ismael as it stand's up against all called Christians so all are against this Novelty and discard it as Antichristian Neither the Greeks Abyssins or Nestorians can endure it whereof some of them scarce hold it à Christian Religion Read Prince Radzivil in his Ierosoly Peregrin Antwerp print 1614. P. 109. Wherefore I se no reason why Protestants should like these men cut off from the Church or seek patronage And Complement's those that Condemn Protestancy from them for all of them have their Altars and own the Sacrifice of Masse adore the consecrated Host pray to Saints and in à word are as great Idolaters as Papists to whom our kind Dr with much difficulty grant's Salvation Now why such men should be courted complemented or thought worthy to discountenance God's Church is à riddle to every sound Christian Yet more There are evident contradictions maintained among Nestorians Iacobits Eutychians Grecians and others who pretend to believe Catholick verities And here our difficulty proposed above recurr's again concerning the plain obvious means left by Christ to bring all these to one unity in faith and this the Dr shall never clear without liberty granted every one to believe what is fancied true not what God has truly revealed Judge whether this be à sound way or no 23 Page 180. Our Dr appeal's to the Doctrin and practice of the truly Catholick Church in matters of difference between Protestants and the Church of Rome A piece of wise nonsence Let him first tell us plainly where this truly Catholick Church was distinct from the Roman universal and Catholick before Luther's Schism and we will stand to Her Judgement He appeals to à Church never in being but he must not fool us with empty words Before hand I tell him plainly there was no such Catholick Society in being for all nameable besides the professors of our ancient Church were condemned Hereticks Now if he run up to the Primitive Church acknowledged by all most Orthodox let him say without fumbling what Protestants hold essentially Necessary to Salvation and then prove that the Primitive Church taught so much Doctrin and no more as Necessary and he will dispatch à great piece of work but I assure him he will sooner grow gray than give satisfaction in this particular 24 P. 196. Dr Still saies the places of Scripture which are alledged for an infallible Iudge or Church are the most doubtful and controverted of any Answ The proof of this Assertion stand's only upon his own proofless word and licences every Arian to make all the passages in Scripture relating to the most necessary fundamentals of Faith the high God head of Christ for example doubtful and controverted For if the Dr by adding his sence and glosses to such passages as significantly express the Church to be an Infallible Judge will have them after his labour idlely spent doubtfull and controverted why may not an Arian by setting his sence and glosses upon the clearest Text in holy VVrit alledged in proof of Christ's Godhead make those also doubtful and controverted But here is not all I say in à word if the Passages in Scripture usually produced for an infallible The Dr argues against himself Judge or the Churches Infallibility are to be accounted doubtful and controverted much more ought those places which the Dr alledges to prove this Judge fallible were there any such in Holy writ to be esteemed in like manner doubtful and controverted Hence it followes that the Dr is at à Non plus or an end of all his Arguments against the Church while he plead's by Scripture only for if none can raise from à doubtful or controverted Principle any Proof rationally certain how will the Dr evince by Scripture only that the Church is fallible or
Holborn that for one Tautologie in mine I will shew five in yours with à pretty addition of new ones in these your two last Treatises Now whereas you tell me the whole substance of my books lies in this one word Infallibility Know Sr you get the worst here for the whole substance of all you have said or can say confessedly lies in à far weaker word called Fallibility Here it seem's the Dr is willing to leave off his long Tattle for fear of more Advertisements And is it possible could that harmless and well meant Advertisement wherein nothing can be found offensive stirr up thus much unruly passion in à Dr I know no remedy yet hope the Preface to this Treatise will à little calm it 4 To end He ierk's me once more and will need 's suppose that Protestancy without Principles was disposed of to better uses than to be read because forsooth he More jerks yet never heard of one man in England that read it over A weak proof of à false supposition Good Sr are all truths conveyed to your ears do not some miss their way thither Be it how you will hear or pretend not to hear most certainly that book was read by many not only in England but Ireland also Nay more all the Copies above six hundred excepting some few seized on were in à short time bought up In so much that à Gentleman of our Nation offered three Crowns for one single Copy yet could not after long enquiry meet with one These truths known to the Printer and others are sufficient to evert your false supposition and your weak proof added to it 5 And thus much of the Dr ' s Comical Introduction If he thinks me too pert or pleasant with him I answer Benedictis si certasset audisset bene Had not à fermentation The Dr's vast conceipt of himselfe of blood transported him beyond all bounds of common civility no ill word should have fallen from me but when we find à vain Bragger gloriously enthrown'd in à vast conceipt of himselfe as if all he treat's with were desplicable Mushromes it is Charity I think not to sooth him up in his folly but to tell him his own home as S. Hierome once did an Adversary Quae voluisti locutus quae non vis audire debes Time I hope may make the Dr wiser Let us now goe on 6 I said above Dr Still answers not directly one Argument proposed by me for the Churches Infallibility If I prove the Assertion it followes clearly that either he understand's them and will not answer because he finds them too strong for him Or 2 he cannot answer because he penetrat's not their force Grant the first he is à meer cheat and deludes the Reader with à seeming reply which is none in substance Say 2. He understand's not the force of my Arguments and cannot answer he is unworthy to be dealt with and ought in that measure to be despised as he despises others 7 Now I prove my Assertion I say as he relates P. 331. That without an Infallible The Dr answers net my arguments Church he means in this present state as I often inculcate there can be no certainty of Faith and have established the Assertion upon these grounds Neither the Canon nor Divinity nor the Infallible truth or sence of Scripture even in points Necessary to Salvation can be probably much less certainly assured to any in this present state but by the Authority of an Infallible Church To this not à word of answer is or can be returned by the Dr. 8 I Assert 2. As the Dr cites that the Roman Catholick Church only is God's Infallible Oracle and prove it Reas and Relig D. 2. c. 14. n. 10. 11. from Scripture Fathers and most pregnant reason 1. If any Church be Infallible it is the Roman Catholick for all others disclaim the Guidance of an Infallible living Oracle 2. As nothing can more discountenance the worth of true Christianity than à stedfast perswasion of it's fallibility or easily being false So nothing can fix in us an undubitable beliefe of Christ's Doctrin but an Oracle not lyable to errour 3. And chiefly If no Church be Infallible to whose Authority Christians must submit when dissentions arise concerning the Fundamentals Proofs for the Churches Infallibility of Faith and the genuin sence of Scripture both Iewes and Heathens may most justly despise Christian Religion and scorn all our endeavours to make them of one Faith with us upon this ground That none can certainly say what Doctrin Christ our Lord or his Apostles taught the world So it is Mr Dr our debates about the prime Articles of Faith no satisfactory means to end them but Topicks and fallible reasoning are so many that all taught Doctrin lies like an undecided Process in law still disputable and therefore of no credit or estimation unless an Infallible Church decide them and bring Christians to acquiesce in one Faith These Arguments and many more I proposed against the Doctor in the Discourse now cited and all the Answer I have is that he set's down some mangled parcels of my Tenents or barely tells me what I say For example I assert Protestancy without Prine Disc 1. c. 2. That à Doctrin which by virtue of all the Principles it has is meerly fallible and no more may be false but Christian Doctrin say Sectaries as it is taught by all Pastors is thus fallible therefore it may be false But God never Sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles or any to teach Christian Doctrin that may be false Ergo he sent none to teach meer fallible Doctrin This Reason our Dr blindly hints at P. 333. but leaves it without any Answer And thus he run's on to his 339. P. where he tells me He hath laid together so many parcels of my rambling discourse as were necessary in order to the examination of it To the examination of it Mr Dr Not one word true This had been material to shew my Arguments for the The Dr flies from the main difficulty Churches infallibility unconcluding you touch not these or at least to prove by some solid reasoning that the Church is fallible this point you most shamefully shift off and in the next page tell us that the necessity of Divine grace is no way pertinent to our present purpose the Question only being of an external infallible Proponent in order to Faith Sr what you make to your purpose I know not nor much care It was my duty and pertinent when I undertook the full and adequate Resolution of Divine Faith to lay down all the Principles it relies on and à main one is the internal assistance of Grace Had I omitted to treat of an external infallible Proponent you might have justly quarrelled but when that particular is largely handled through the five last chapters of the second Discourse and not à word replyed to any of my Arguments your accusation
like it well should some of his Hearers tell him they build not their Faith upon any Doctrin as it is delivered in Scripture or by the Church of England or finally taught by Mr Dr but purely believe upon the Barbartans Motive or as the Samaritan Woman believed upon our Saviours words long since spoken I am the Messias I perswade my self he will not easily approve any such extravagancy Yet he must if he proceed consequently to his indigested Discourse for the Faith of that Samaritan woman and Barbarians also was truly Divine and why may not his People believe as they did independently of all Scripture and the Church of Englands Doctrin as he would now have us to believe independently of the Catholick Churches Testimony For here is his Principle or he speak's Non-sence What was once sufficient to propound or ground Faith may be ever sufficient and in all circumstances 5 One may reply That Samaritan and Barbarians likewise believed upon God's word not then written but spoken which afterward became the Doctrin of Scripture Very right and so say I they believed upon that Doctrin which afterward was is and ever will be taught by the Church but as then there was no written Scripture So there was no Church founded to propose or ground Faith upon And thus the Proponent of Faith may vary though the ultimate Motive or formal obiect of it which is Gods Revelation never changes The variety of an Infallible Oracle varies not the Formal obiect of Faith 6 By what is here noted you se how pitifully the Dr abuses himself and Reader P 4â—7 I had said n. 7. That none can make the Roman Catholick Church in all circumstances the only sure foundation of Faith upon this Principle chiefly that Faith in general requires no more but only to rely on God the first Verity speaking by one or more lawfully sent to teach who prove their Mission and make the Doctrin proposed evidently Credible A fair concession replyes the Dr which plainly destroy's the necessity of the The Dr abuses the Reader and grosly mistakes Churches Infallibility in order to Faith For if no more be necessary in order to Faith but to rely upon God speaking by this or that Oracle how comes the Infallible Testimony of the Church to be in in any Age necessary to Faith A fair Concession on my part Mr Dr but à foul mistake on yours For have not I all along proved though you Answer nothing that the Church is one of the Infallible Oracles whereby God speaks as immediatly and infallibly as ever he spake by Prophet or Apostle And must not you admit two or three Infallible Oracles The Apostles who taught Christianity before the writing of Scripture were Infallible Oracles Scripture it self compleatly finished and set forth say you is another and I hope you will not deny but that S. Iohn the Evangelist who lived à considerable time after the whole Canon was Signed kept still his Apostolical authority and remained Infallible 7 Observe now Gentle Reader Doth the Dr destroy the necessity of the Scriptures An Argument ad hominem infallible Testimony because he own 's the Apostles Oral teaching Infallible No. How then do we destroy the Churches Infallibility in saying that Faith in General only requires to rely upon the first Verity speaking by this or that Oracle For if two or three distinct Oracles subvert not the Dr ' s Faith built upon Scripture how can more Oracles then one overthrow mine built on the Church The Question therefore in this place is not whether the Churches Testimony be Infallible but precisely thus much whether the Dr ' s Inference have any thing like reason in it Viz. Faith relies on God speaking by this or that Oracle Ergo it cannot rely on God speaking by the Church The inference plainly appear's Non-sense unless the Churches Testimony be first proved fallible Now should the whole A modest offer made to the Dr. contest come to the Churches Infallibility after all I have said of it whereunto the Dr never yet replyed word I am most willing and ready to discusse again this particular Controversy with him in à Treatise apart upon all the Principles Christian Religion can afford Scripture Church Fathers and manifest Reason Is not this à fair modest offer 8 What followes in the Dr upon this subiect is more than simple God saith he spake by Christ and his Apostles as Oracles by whom his word is declared to us Therefore nothing can be necessary to Faith but to rely on the first Truth speaking by them Marke here an improbable Supposition made use of for à proof as if forsooth every one by casting an eye upon Scripture after some diligence could exactly declare what Christ and his Apostles taught whereas I have told the Dr over and over and it is the grand Principle The Dr's improbable Supposition refuted I rely on that none can in this present State say absolutely what Doctrin those first great Oracles delivered even in the Fundamentals of Faith none can know the true sence of the words registred in Scripture or assert that they were Divinely inspired without the Infallible Testimony of the Church I say Infallible For if She Teaches so fallibly that her Doctrin may be false much better were it I think that She never speak or define at all Thus you have in brief my Principle further explained in the two last Treatises whereof the Dr has taken no notice hitherto and the reason most certainly is because he knowes not what to answer 9 The very most that goes before or followes in the Dr on this subiect besides much ill language is à meer rehearsal of what his Account contains and as he repeat's his old Obiections so I need to do no more but only to return my Answers given Reas. and Relig cited above beginning from n. 8. and. 9. He demanded in his Account and here has the same VVith what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the old Testament I answered Supposing à total subversion of the Jewish Church not to examin now the difference between the Infallibility of the Synagogue and our Christian Church The Disciples had our Blessed Lord present most able to ascertain them that he came not to cancel any Divine revealed Truth in the old Scripture for that was impossible but to fulfil the ancient Prophesies and to establish à new law of Grace far more perfect than the ceremonial Law had been and that upon his sole Authority the Disciples believed the verities of the old Testament Admit therefore that the high Priests and Elders had all erred in consenting to our Saviours death this only followes as I answered n. 9. that their Priviledge of not erring lasted only to Christ's comming as S. Luke 16. 16. testifies Lex Prophetae usque ad Ioannem which is to say Christs sacred Kingdom being then at hand and
for I am weary in following such weightless stuff yet in the next page you have more of it where he blames me as one sensless because I say n. 12. that fewer Motives may serve to induce young Beginners seldom molested with difficulties against Faith witness S. Austin cited above Ceteram turbam c than will convince the more learned who often struggle to captivate their understanding to our high Christian Mysteries And is not this exactly verifyed in Luther Calvin and innumerable others who when Beginners easily submitted to all the Church teaches yet afterward when more learned they found unless they tell the world loud lies Motives to disswade them from their first Faith Such men therefore seduced by fallacious Arguments or rather by their own malice should have been better grounded in that one Principle whereon all Christian Doctrin wholly depend's the Infallibility of Christs true Church 15 P. 414. I meet with à jeer because I hold Protes without Princ Disc 1. c. 2. n. 3. That every Bishop or Pastor though not personally infallible yet when he is lawfully sent to teach and speak's in the name of God and the Church considered as à member conioyned with the Infallible Church may be said to teach infallibly An admirable speculation replies the Dr and so saith he may every one in the streets be infallible not as considered in himself but as à member conjoyned with truth A conjunction with God's word implies Vnion with the Church or every Sectary as à member conjoyned with God's word Reflect Mr Dr is every one we meet in the streets à Bishop or Pastor commissioned to teach infallibly Christs Verities of such Pastors I speak and not of your street men Or can à Sectary be à member conjoyned with Gods word It is impossible for to say Sectary is to suppose him separated from God's word which therefore destroies your Imagined infallible conjunction and makes your Speculation not admirable but ridiculous Again and here is à solution to the Argument more amply laid forth Disc 3. c. 3. n. 17. 19. and before that c. 2. n. 12 A conjunction with truth or Gods word necessarily implies in this present State a conjunction with the Church for without the Testimony of this Oracle previously assented to we have no infallible assurance that such books are divinely inspired or what the sence of them is in all controverted passages therefore to suppose an Infallible conjunction with truth or God's word independently of Church-authority is to suppose light taken from darkness or the last Resolvent of Faith in order to us not to ground it at all But saith the Dr the Question is whether such à Prelate or Pastor may be divided from God's infallible Another difficulty Solved truth If he can what security hath any one to rely upon him upon such à conditional Infallibility whereof he can have no assurance I answer the common received Doctrin of the Church being known and divulged in every Catechism it is easily known when à Renegado such an one as the Bishop of Spalato was abandon's the Church In case of any rational mistrust or doubt because wolves sometimes appear like lambs Prudence direct's timorous Consciences to advise with their Pastors or others more learned then themselves 16 P. 415. The Dr applaudes his good fortune in meeting with an Adversary that mistakes his so well explicated Rational Evidence of Christian Religion Of the Dr's vain applauding himselfe and à long talk followes of hewers of difficulties and water-drawers of the Seraphims feathers and S. Laurenc'es Gridiron to what purpose I know not My hope is before this next Chapter be ended to make it manifest that the Dr neither understand's what is meant by rational Evidence nor has any thing like it for Protestant Religion CHAP. IX Dr Stilling pretended Evidence for Christian Religion proved nothing like Evidence His Evidence taken from Sense in the Mystery of the holy Eucharist demonstrated Sensless How vainly he endeavour's to prove by Miracles related in Scripture the Truth of the Doctrin there registred A word of his Tradition and many other errours 1 THe Dr P. 416 goes about to explain what is meant by his rational Evidence of Christian Religion and ground 's it upon the unquestionable assurance which we have of matters of fact and the Miracles wrought by Christ as à great part of this rational Evidence which is destroyed by our Doctrin of Transubstantiation Soon after he complain's of our silent passing over these things the Schools having found no answers to such Arguments What will The Dr's unworthy proceeding not this man say in points remote from us when in à plain matter of fact he beguiles his Reader with most loud untruths Let any one peruse my last Treatise Disc 1. c. 9. n. 11. 12. In that Discourse of à Heathen with à Christian he will find the first difficulty largely handled and solved where I say the Dr either believes our Saviours unparallaled Miracles because Scripture relates them and then he supposes Scripture to be Divine or inspired by the Holy Ghost which the Heathen denies and therefore wishes that Divine inspiration to be proved by Arguments extrinsical to the Doctrin delivered in Scripture Or contrarywise he proves those Miracles to have been upon the Fallible report of men liable to errour the Dr own 's no Tradition Infallible and this advances not his cause at all for do not the Turk's speak as much of Mahomets Miracles upon fallible and perhaps false reports also Thus the Heathen argues and rationally too not yet knowing what Religion to embrace Here in à word you have the substance of all I then said and I think my Argument thus delivered convinces VVhoever proves Christian Religion to be assuredly true by Motives as obscure as the very Doctrin of Christian Religion is either evinces nothing or makes à vicious An Argument proposed Circle But thus the Dr proceeds whose rational Evidence or unquestionable assurance of Christian Religion is proved by matters of fact Miracles I mean wrought by Christ which Miracles are as obscure to à Heathen and as much obiects of Faith to Christians as the very Doctrin of Christ is recorded in Scripture Therefore he proves nothing Se more hereof n. 12. cited 2 The other piece of the Dr ' s rational Evidence taken from Sense which he The Drs Argument taken from the Holy Eucharist both here and formely Solved thinks the Doctrin of Transubstantiation destroies I then reflected on and fully answered Reas. and Râ—lig c. 12. n. 3. where I say the immediate obiect of Sense remain's after consecration unchangeable as before It is true reason upon the suggestion of sense might well conclude that the substance of bread is there also were there not another Stronger Principle then sense which overawes us Christ's own words This is my body which cause reason to submit Thus S. Chrisostom S. Cyril of Hierusalem with innumerable ancient
à true Miracle because his eyes and senses will have it true I prove it The exteriour Evidence in both Cases is the very Same for as sense see 's and feel's this man to be like one truly dead though he is not dead So it also see 's and fee'ls this wafer after Consecration to be like true bread though it be not bread and reason as I now said purely led on by the conduct of sense judges alike in both cases therefore if the Dr Conform's his Judgement to the perswasion of his senses in the one and truly hold's à consecrated host to be bread he cannot but upon the same Evidence Judge that Antichrist's Miracle is à true Miracle No disparity can be given O! but Scripture so often forewarning us of Antichrist's false Miracles much abates yea wholly withdrawes every sound Christian from believing them true Is it possible Can Scripture let in so much light upon us Can it make us to deny what our eyes see and fingers feel to be true Why therefore cannot the clearest words that Christ ever Spake This is my body My flesh is meat indeed My blood is drink indeed force us to deny the weak suggestion of our Senses called by the Dr the Strongest Evidence Why should not those Sacred words move us Submissively to confess that as no real Miracle lies under that outward guise of Antichrist's What plain Scripture forces on us to believe in the blessed Sacrament apparent wonder Scripture drawes us to own this truth So no real bread lies under the outward apparence or visible forms of bread and wine or if Scripture work 's so powerfully upon us as not to believe that to be bread which to our Senses looks like bread where in is Our offence greater than the Dr ' s who believes that to be no true Miracle which to our Senses looks like a true one In à word the Dr must either quit his so much cryed up Evidence taken from Sense or will be forced to grant which is horrid that Antichrist Shâ—ll work as true Miracles as ever Christ wrought 10 Again how can the Dr Assert that Christ's Miracles wrought before the writing of Scripture were done to confirm all the Doctrin registred by S. Paul and the other Disciples afterward Nay how can he prove they were wrought to confirm the truth of our Saviours own Doctrin without giving some further proof then the outward sight of à Miracle is Hence I said the Dr erred when he told us that the assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of the senses of those who were Eye-witnesses of the Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ First no Eye-witnesses saw our Saviour actually rysing from the dead but afterward yet had they seen him in that instant can the Dr judge that the assurance of the Apostles Faith came from that sight Doth he or any ground Faith upon the sight of those who beheld Christs Miracles while the very best Eye-witnesses believed not because they saw them but upon this strong Motive that Christ told them he was sent from God to teach eternal truth and that now risen he was the same Saviour who had been dead Gods Infallible word therefore rightly called Divine Revelation not seen by any mortal eye grounded the Apostles Divine Faith relies not upon the sight of à Miracle Faith and so it likewises doth all true Christian Faith in the world to this day Now if the Dr tell us when he saies the assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of sense his meaning only was that the sight of those Miracles were Inducements to believe Christ's revealed Doctrin and made that not evidently seen evidently credible He first speaks improperly in calling those visible matters of fact the Foundations of Faith Account P. 119 And. 2. destroyes the certainty of Christian Doctrin by endeavouring to prove it immediatly true before he evinces it evidently credible And this he doth by introducing à new set of Motives different from those of the Catholick Church which both Jewes and Gentils scorn and in reallity neither evidence the Truth to such men nor the Credibility of Christian Religion much lesse have any reference to the Thing he calls Protestancy as will appear afterward 11 To make my Assertion good turn courteous Reader to the Doctors Account Part. 1. c. 7. P. 204 where he offer 's to resolve the Faith of Protestants though he never meddl's with the Novelty as I have largely proved Protest without Princ. Disc 1. c. 9. In this place I am to show that his Discourse tend's to the ruin of true Christian Religion also Supposing what he will have with all might and main Supposed that there is no Infallible Church 12 There are saith he three Questions to be resolved in the resolution of Faith First if I be asked on what grounds I believe the things to be true which the Dr's discourse deâ—â—â—ed in 〈◊〉 own â—ords are contained in Scripture My answer must be from the greatest evidence of truth which things of that nature are capable of If therefore the persons who are supposed to have writ those things were such who were fully acquainted with what they writ of and cannot be suspected of any design to deceive men by their writings and if I be certain that these which go under the name of their writings are undoubtedly theirs I have sufficient grounds to believe the truth of them He add's more These writers cannot be suspected of ignorance for they wrot these things when the story was new and some of them had been conversant with the person and actions of him whom they writ of That they could have no intent to deceive appear's from their simplicity and Candour both of their actions and writings from their contempt of the world and exposing themselves to the greatest hazards to bear witness to them Finally that these writings have been unanimously received by Christians and never doubted of by Iewes His pretended rational evidence for the first act of faith or Heathen Philosopher Thus the Dr plead's for the evidence of the first act of Faith whereby he believes those things true which are Doctrin more at large not in to leave it unexamined as he usually doth mine but to shew the unreasonableness of it while he makes all along à bare Supposition his best and only proof Or speak thus and you fully express all he saies Some body wrot the things contained in Scripture Ergo all that appear's there is true because writen 13 To prove by reason that the things contained in Scripture are true he first begins with Ifs. If the persons who are supposed to have written such things were fully acquainted with what they vvrot of If they cannot be suspected of any design to deceive men If is be certain that such uvritings are theirs c. Observe I beseech you These conditional Propositions carry no other weight with them but thus much only if
is to say one part of Scripture proves another before the whole book is proved upon any certain Authority to be God's word or written by the Holy Ghost From hence 2. the necessity of an Infallible evidenced Church is necessarily inferred The necessity of an Infallible Church evinced from our discourse which only bring 's us out of the Labyrinth wherein the Dr is lost This Church as I said proves by her infallible and never interrupted Tradition that Scripture is God's word She and She only ascertain's all that the Contents in Scripture are Divinely inspired and finally when difficulties arise concerning the Sence in controverted passages relating to Necessaries composes all strifes otherwise endless and bring 's all to à perfect unity in Faith 31 I say lastly Could the Dr evince that the book of Scripture contain's true Doctrin could he shew the Doctrin Not one Protestant Tenet proved by Scripture of it to be as it truly is Divinely inspired he yet hath not one clear Sentence in the whole Bible understood according to the obvious sence of the words which proves so much as one Tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestancy is distinguished from Popery and the Doctrin of all known condemned Hereticks The proof of this Assertion is largely laid forth Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 20. from n. 4. to the end of that Chapter and because I really judge Protestancy utterly ruined upon the reasons there alleged I petition Dr Still to review that short Discourse and if I judge amiss to unbeguile me by à plain Answer showing wherein my Arguments are fallacious 32 I except in that place against his empty Title called A rational Account of the grounds of Protestants Religion and prove as I think demonstratively that if you cast out of Protestancy all it's Negative Articles which the Dr confesses are no Essentials the remainder will either be what the Catholick Church teaches and therefore not peculiar to Protestancy or the Doctrin of some one or other condemned Heretick In so much that in the whole Essence of Protestancy you will not find one Truth revealed by Almighty God necessary for Salvation or ever taught by any Orthodox Church And Nor one Necessary for Salva tion found in Protestancy herein it differ's not only from Catholick Religion but as I take it from all ancient Heresies for both Arians and Pelagians the like is of the rest thought their particular Doctrins revealed by Almighty God and necessary to Salvation Otherwise they had been worse than besotted to abandon the Catholick Tenents for opinions meerly or Positions not necessary to Salvation Se more of this subiect Disc 3. c. 18. n. 8. CHAP. X. The Church proved Infallible before She interpret's Scripture The reason hereof The Doctors gross errour in charging à Circle on us in the Resolution of Faith VVhat à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 1 THe rest that followes in the Dr from P. 423. is all along meer Confusion or à horrid jumbling in à speculative matter concerning the resolution of Faith and the notion of à vicious Circle which he truly understand's not but wonder nothing you can expect no better from halfe Scholars in speculative learning if I make not what I here assert manifest blame me boldly 2 To rescue my Doctrin from Blunderers and the Dr if I ever met with any is one I am forced to set down plainly part of it That done you shall se how remote the Dr is from medling with it The most he would except against you have at large Reas and Relig. Disc 3. c. 5. n. 5. where I answer an Obiection proposed in his Account P. 127. And assert Seing Scripture evidences not it selfe to be divinely inspired some other Infallible Oracle distinct from Scripture necessarily ascertain's that The Church not first proved Infallible by Scripture Truth and this is the Church which as rationally proves herselfe by Signs and Miracles an Oracle whereby God speaks independently of Scripture as ever any Apostle proved himself to be so before Scripture was written Hence I inferred that the Church was ever and is yet in à General way believed infallible by Her self and for Her self upon this ground that God speaks by Her as his own Oracle and then concluded that She is not in the first place proved infallible by Scripture I say in à General way for thus the Apostles believed our Saviour to be the true Messias before they received from him à full Account of many other particular Christian Verities learned after that General acknowledgement 3 Thus much and more amply declared in the place now cited comes Dr Still in his last book P. 424. with his old Tautologies and asks again as if nothing had been said why we believe the Churches Infallibility and verily think 's we have no other way to make out Her Infallibility but only by Scripture Is not this worse then jumbling Reflect good Reader I shew that the Church in the first place is proved infallible without recourse at all had to Scripture for so She was proved infallible before Scriptures were written and here he out-faces me with empty words saying I cannot prove the Church infallible but by Scripture only In lieu of this ridiculous Reply He should have refuted my reasons and this is one No man can ascertain any that Scripture is divinely inspired or render the true sence of it relating to Necessaries for Salvation but one only infallible Church Therefore the Church which only can give certainty of these truths must necessarily be first owned infallible before we recurr It is Senceless to prove the Church by Scripture before Scripture be Proved God's word to Scripture for it is more than Senceless to prove by Scripture the Churches Infallibility or any other Article of Christian Faith before we have absolute Assurance that the Book whereby we argue is Gods word and know what its meaning is in à hundred difficult passages But thus much is only known by Church Authority as is amply proved in the place now cited 4 This reason the Dr shamefully waves with à jeer and tell 's me P. 405. that this first act of Faith terminated upon Church Authority hath nothing to rely on but the fallible Motives of Credibility and Consequently cannot be Divine Faith for want of an Infallible Testimony Gross ignorance produced this Answer for have not I proved through my whole last Treatise that God as immediatly speak's to us now by his Church as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle And if God speake by it there is no want of an Infallible Testimony I challenge the Dr to answer my Arguments upon this subiect hitherto never taken notice of neither shall he hereafter reply without apparent shuffling to use his words and running away from the main difficulty here treated How often have I told him that Divine Faith relies not upon the Motives of Credibility though
and proved an Infallible Teacher independently of his clearer interpretation It is impossible while we believe S. Paul speaking obscurely for S. Paul delivering the Sence of his own words more clearly 11 Now Sr look upon your own pretty Circle VVe believe say you the The D's Circle retorted upon himselfe Church to be infallible because the true sence of Scripture saith so And you believe the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth because the true sence of S. Paul's words explicated by Apostolical Authority saith so Moreover Say you VVe believe this to be the Infallible Sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so and could not you Sr have believed such à Sence of the words now cited had S. Paul delivered it because either he or some other infallible Apostle said so This is only to assert in plainer Terms that the darker sence written in Scripture by one Infallible Oracle can be cleared by the Interpretation of the very same or any other Infallible Oracle which lead's no man into the least danger of à vicious Circle 12 Pray tell me Mr Dr when you in your Account interpret our Saviours words This is my body according to the Sence you judge true do you intangle your Reader in à vicious Circle By your new way of Arguing it's plain you do For those who read or hear your interpretation assent to it as true because the true Sence of Scripture saith so And again they believe this to be the true Sence of Scripture because you say so Your Interpretation has some influence upon the assent of those that believe it be it Condition Cause or what you will otherwise it signifies nothing but And yet made more Clear stand's like an useless cypher in your book This granted your Circle is manifestly vieious for you run in à round from your supposed true interpretation of Scripture to the true Sence of Scripture and back again from the true Sence of Scripture to your supposed true Interpretation Mark well Your Interpretation is proved or believed true by the true sence of Scripture here is your only ground and the true Sence of Scripture is again proved or believed true by your supposed true explication Hence it followes that either your interpretation is not according to the true Sence of Scripture God forbid say you or that the true Sence of Scripture correspond's not to your supposed true explication or finally this must be granted that you run round in à Circle and prove the one by the other 13 Perhaps to avoid à Circle it will be said you prove not your Interpretation true by the true sence of Scripture but evince that upon other grounds distinct from Scripture Viz. by the Authority of Fathers your often alleged sence and reason and God knowes what Is it so indeed Dare you Sr most shamefully quit the only main prop you rely on which is Scripture when you stand most in need of it whereof more presently and yet charge on me à vicious Circle while I believe the true Sence of Scripture because an infallible Church declares that Sence Cannot I more rationally would I seek Subterfugies evince the Infallibility of the Church by other proofs drawn from Fathers Church authority and reason and plead as you do to avoid à Circle were it necessary But I like no such Shuffling I positively assert the Sence of Scripture is therefore proved and believed true because the Infallible Church saith so though if questioned further I must bring in my reason why I believe this Oracle Infallible yet the immediate ground of my beliefe is the Churches Interpretation given upon Christs words now cited and I rest upon her Authority by Faith though this Interpretation be not the first ground why I believe her Infallible but that other more general received Truth that proves Her Gods own Oracle in all she delivers as matter of Faith which general Truth observe it well is most rationally evinced without any recourse to or dependance on Scripture And this is only to say that à Divine Oracle first proved Infallible can interpret Scripture without danger of à vicious Circle 14 What I here assert is undeniable for had any Apostle explained those words in the Gospel I and my Father are one answerable to the Sence now believed in the Church Viz. That Christ our Lord is the eternal Son of God consubstantial with his Father could not the primitive Christians have as firmly fixed their beliefe upon those words Infallibly interpreted as the Disciples fixed their Beliefe upon our Saviours Interpretation when Luke 8. 9. he fully explained the Sence of that Parable concerning the Sower and Seed These and the like Interpretations are believeable matters of Faith upon this Principle that every Interpreter whether Christ or Apostle was supposed and proved Infallible independently of that Sence they gave to God's sacred words and so is the Church as is already declared 15 The Dr ' s Confusion and whole mistake lies here that he has not yet got perfectly into his head the right notion of à vicious Circle and therefore P. 428. wishes I had told him the Secret I will do it briefly and then make his errour more known 16 A vicious Circle Mr Dr ever implies two Propositions or in à Circular What à Vicious Circle implies discourse two Syllogisms Here we will insist upon Propositions being more plain and easy then to proceed by long Syllogisms Know therefore when any first Proposition is assumed to prove the second and this second is made use of without further light to prove the first again or that very thing which is asserted by the first the Circle is notoriously vicious For example One endeavours to prove man to have Free-will because he is indowed with an intellectual Faculty then return's again and proves him intellectual because he hath Free-will the second Proposition implies à Circle because the thing proved which is Liberty or Free will not otherwise evinced but by mans being intellectual is made use of to prove that Power and so in effect Liberty or Free-will becomes à Medium to prove it self by 17 Observe well This vicious consequence whereby man seem's evinced à free Agent or indowed with liberty takes all the force it hath from the Antecedent of his being intellectual and wholly relies on that Medium If therefore as it here fall's out that Consequence whereby Liberty is asserted without any more light or further proof be again assumed as the only Medium to prove man intellectual Liberty or Free-will by its proving man intellectual proves it self and thus hic nune is both Antecedent and Consequent Antecedent as it is the Medium to prove man Intellectual and Consequent as it is the thing proved by Intellectuality which flaw is ever manifest in all vicious Circles as Aristotle notes well Lib. 1. Post cap. 3. 18 Now on the other side should I take this Consequence concerning Liberty which is deduced
Sometimes they apply it to to the means of conveying that infallible Truth to the faculties of â—en and these they say must be infallible Very right no Jugling yet The Galatians c. 1. 24. accounted S. Paul no Jugler when they glorified God because one that in time past had been à Persecutor now preached and conveyed the truths of Jesus Christ to the world Again if Faith comes by hearing and none can hear without à Preacher Rom. 10. 14 And if God hath appointed Pastors and Doctors for the work of the Ministerie to the end we be not carried a way with every wind of Doctrin by the deceipt of men Ephes 4. 12. If these Assertions I say be true we are secured by Divine Scripture without jugling that God will ever provide his Church of infallible Teachers who by special assistance are to convey and propose to us infallibly what is infallibly revealed chiefly then when the Mysteries of Faith transcend all natural reason or lye obscurely in Gods written word But of this particular whereat the Doctor boggles most more hereafter In the mean while you see that if Catholick Divines who apply infallibility to Gods Revelation to the Faith of such as assent to that Revelation and finally to the Oracle that proposes Faith be à jugling Scripture it selve juggles with us 15 Our Dr proceed's But the subtility of these things he means of the distinctions The Drs ill worded Definition rejected hitherto given lies only in their obscurity and the Schoolman is spoiled when his talk is brought out of the clouds to common sence In good sober earnest Schoolmen will never be spoiled by such a Bungler as the Dr is But wil you hear how Eagle like he mount's the clouds and at once profoundly dives into the depth of this doubtful Term Infallibility if yet it signifies any thing Infallible is that saith the Dr which cannot be deceived Now we are to suppose ourselves brought down out of the cloudes Most pitiful What cobler is there in England that by meer hearing the word Infallibility understand's not as well the sence of it as he doth after the Doctors ill worded definition In God's name how doth his definition charm greater clarity into the word Infallible than it had before Again was Infallibility when I used it pedlers french and fustian language How happen's it now after the Doctor 's mouth hath hallowed the Term to become à less Iargon Or doth he only tell us by his definition what à Iargon or fustian language signifies We only ask here whether the very vvord deserves contempt and shall enquire afterward to whom it is applyed Lastly the Dr is Shamefully out for the Infallibility proper to Divine Faith is ill expressed by Saying barely It cannot be deceived much more is required And it is that as the true Proponent of Faith whether Christ Apostle or Church can neither deceive not be deceived So à true Believer by Virtue of his Faith can neither deceive nor be deceived The Dr has not yet done If no one thus he speak's will say that à Proposition cannot be deceived it is absur'd to say that it is Infallibly true A Proposition deceived good Dr. Propositions are not if I understand English properly said to be deceived but the Proponent that makes them when fals is deceived neither doe we say in Schools Propositio fallitur but est fallax aut falsa Proponens fallitur But let this pass The Dr's meaning may be à homely spun thing and import this sense If every one will say that à Proposition may be false it is absurd to say it is infallibly true No hurt in this no more harme can I discover in those other flat Propositions which follow P. 82. viz. That the impossibility of being deceived doth in truth belong only to an Infinitly perfect understanding for what ever understanding is imperfect is of it selfe lyable to errour and mistake 2. Yet an understanding lyable to be deceived may not be deceived and be sure it is not 3. The assurance of not being deceived is from Gods revealing any thing to men for we know it is impossible that God should ' be deceived or goe about To deceive man kind in what he obliges The Drs Propositions to no purpose in this place them to believe as true 4. It is granted that what ever person speak's from God he cannot be deceived in it but men may be deceived in thinking they speak from God when they doe not These I call loose and dull Propositions fit to fill paper for to what other end they serve in this place standing as they doe alone and unconnected with the main Business now in hand no man I think can tell me Had the Dr come to the point as he might have done well on this occasion and proved closely by positive Arguments that the Roman Catholick Church dispersed the whole world over is fallible or that we are deceived in thinking God speak's infallibly by this Oracle when he doth not his propositions had been to the purpose But both here and all along he waves these express positive proofs which should make directly against us and only skirmishes with some few Arguments of Catholicks God knowes most weakly whereby they endeavour to evince the Churches Infallibility Besides such faint attempts with flurts here and there at Popes and Councils you have nothing as shall appear hereafter 16 The ensuing talk in the Dr's three next Pages may be briefly reduced to three or four Assertions Having told us that particular persons may be deceived in believing those inspired who are not he saith nothing can be sufficient to prevent His errour concerning private Inspiration discovered this but Divine Revelation to every particular person that God hath appointed infallible Guides in the Church to assure men he had at first setled his Church by persons that were infallible What can the Dr mean Will he say that God whispered every Primitive Christian in the ear and declared by private Revelation when the Apostles preached that they were his Infallible Oracles Or supposing that the Roman Catholick Church be infallible must God therefore communicate that secret by private Revelation to those many millions who have been and yet are professed members of it What proof hath the Dr for this unmaintainable Assertion In à word thus much we have by express Revelation That the Church is the pillar and ground of truth That he who hear's the Church hear's Christ That Pastors and Doctors will ever liâ— in this great body and preserve it from the circumvention of errours and these Revelations with many others of the like nature in Holy writ are taught by the Church for this end that every particular person after à due application made may submissively yeild à most firm assent to them This Assent proceeding from Divine grace we call Supernatural Faith and hold it infallible Now if the Dr will call these Verities recorded in Scripture
this Title to his 8. Chapter The Churches How the Dr juggles in his Account Infallibility not proved from Scripture whereas this or the like Title could he have made it good had bin to the purpose The Churches fallibility proved by Scripture That first Title only gives occasion and he doth no more to interpret and gloss such Scriptures as are usually alleged for the Churches Infallibility but the second would have obliged him to produce positive Scripture whereby that Oracle is proved fallible This he waves and must wave because there is no such Testimony in the whole Bible You will say if the Dr makes it ou◠that the Churches Infallibility is no◠proved by Scripture He◠evinces Her fallible Very false Doctrin for the Church was proved Infallible before Scripture appeared in the world an◠yet is proved infallible independently of Scripture But let this pass How wil◠the Dr make it out that Scripture proves not the Churches Infallibility whilst I allege Testimonies as plain fo◠this Catholick Tenet as the Dr ca◠produce for any fundamental Article o◠Christian Faith For example Chri◠saies I am with you alwaies to the ◠of the world The Conforter the Holy Gho◠shall abide with you for ever The words as fully express à continual assistance granted the Successors of the Apostles and that for ever as any Text in the whole Bible proves the Mystery of the Incarnation Now all the Dr doth or can doe by way of Answer to these passages is after his wonted fashion to gloss them as you may se in his Account P. chiefly 254. And cannot an Arian as nimbly gloss the strongest Text allegable for the Incarnation For example I and my Father are one as the Dr glosses this Text. I am with you alwaies c. I yeild saith the Bishop cited in that page à continual Assistance granted the Apostles and their Successors in Christs promises but in à different degree For it was of continual and Infallible Assistance to the Apostles but to their Successors of Continual and fitting Assistance yet not Infallible Mark the gloss no Scripture God knowes and note likewise how the Arian keep 's him company I grant saith he à unity or Oneness between the Father and Son not in nature or Essence but in love and affection only and that 's à fitting unity the other in nature appear's unbeseeming God yea Impossible 6 Thus you have two fallible Glossers Dr Stil and Dr Arian delivering their fallible sentiments But how a poor The Dr and an Arian gloss scripture alike Christian who would fain learn what Christ hath infallibly taught can be one whit the wiser by his hearing such men talk is à riddle to me and every one besides For I think there is none but can easily argue thus That fitting Assistance maintained by you Mr Dr which excludes infallible assistance is no more Gods express word or the Doctrin of any Orthodox Church than that fitting unity excluding à real unity maintained by an Arian is God's word or the Doctrin of any orthodox Church Or if it be produce your Scripture What is it then A conceited gloss which stand's unprincipled by it selfe Observe I beseech you We enquire whether the Church be not proved Infallible by the plain sence of Christs words now cited I am with you alwaies to the end of the world the Dr and his Bishop say no because Her assistance is à sitting one but not Infallible Here is their last proof and 't is no more but their own weak Assertion that gives all the strength to the thing which should be proved and consequently nothing like Christs Doctrin that ever stand's firm upon undubitable Principles Nay more That whole blundering discourse held on by the Dr in his Account P. 255. amount's to thus much only that now and then he hint's at something which should be proved but never proves it And were he only once faulty in this dissatisfactory proceeding it might pass but I must say more to unbeguile those who read the Dr and make this great truth known to all Viz. That when he handles these matters of Faith and either opposes our Catholick Tenets or goes about to establish his Protestancy the beginning the progress and end of his discourse are naked and destitute of proofs Neither Scripture nor Church Authority speak in his behalfe whence it is that Cavils jeers drollery and impertinent excursions take up the greatest room in his writings glosses you have without end but no Principled Doctrin to gloss for How easy were it had the Dr any thing like à good cause in hand to prove his gloss of à fitting but fallible Assistance by Scripture or Church Doctrin But we need not feare for I tell him when that 's done the Arian will advance his gloss as farr and altogether as wisely unhinge one prime Article of Christian faith CHAP. III. Doctor Stillingfleets Rule and ground of faith proved no Rule It lessens not in the least the Churches Infallibility 1 OUr Dr by what I read in this first Part chiefly build's his whole Religion upon the sufficiency of Scripture easily understood in Necessaries by à Faculty that every man hath of discerning of truth and falshood wherein he much cleaves to Socinianism and followes exactly the steps of Mr Chilingworth Here and there he recurr's to Gods Grace and to other helps but saies not plainly what those helps are neither can he while his whole endeavour is to exclude the Church from being the Rule or ground of Faith 2 In behalfe of Scripture he laies down this Proposition P. 99. Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such à way of writing being made choice of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the designe and the Wisdom and Goodnes of God to give Infallible assistance to persons in writing his will for the benefit of mankind if these writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their Salvation From this Principle he would conclude that if those writings may be understood by all persons its needles to rely on any Church whether fallible or infallible for our instruction in necessaries because Scripture alone without the Church is the Master-Teacher and à faculty granted every man of discerning truth and falshood which cannot but hit right upon these necessaries knowes them all 3 This Principle learnedly refuted by the Ingenious Author of Errour-Nonplus't P. 81. supposes what neither is proved Dr Still rule of Faith proved no rule nor ever shall be made probable Viz. That an infinit Wisdom and Goodness hath made choise of à Bible only with this design that his will be known in things necessary to salvation which is no more but à vain Supposition For if eternal Wisdom besides the means of written Scripture hath
those obscure Terms What are Necessaries to Salvation he only mean that none can tell How many Necessaries are he speak's à truth in his own Principles but nothing to the present purpose for here we only enquire whether the Guides of God's Church are not impowred to deliver infallibly so much as one particular Necessary which they believe infallibly No saith the Dr because Scripture is so clear in Necessaries that no man who sincerely desires to know them shall be deceived I answer first Were it ten times clearer the perspicuity hinder's not these Guides from declaring infallibly what Scripture speaks infallibly The most that can be inferred from hence were all true as its false is that the Churches Guides need not to declare any thing but that their declaration therefore ceases to be infallible shall never be probably made out 1 Answer 2. The Dr grosly mistakes for most evident experience teaches that thousands and thousands called Christians are deceived who sincerely desire to know what is Necessary to Salvation Is it not manifest as I said above that the Arians Pelagians c. Or the Dr with his Partizans run on in à false beliefe of Necessaries This matter of fact supposed the Question proposed above return's again VVhat means hath Christ left whereby all may certainly know the deluded or erring Party And this proves the Scripture obscure or not perspicuous in all Necessaries unlesse the Dr infuses à clarity into it which no mans eyes ever yet saw but his own and à few Sectaries with him The next pretty whimsy is that he knowes no reason for useing the Term Infallibility yet i' ft be applyed to Infallible Believers of Necessaries he asserts it in that sence Is not this right as it should be He has no reason for useing the Term but great reason to use the thing signified by the term Let this passe the worst is yet to come 7 The Guides of the Church saith he P. 141. Supposing the same sincerity shall enioy the same Priviledge with Rusticks That is they may believe Infallibly as Rusticks doe yet none can Teach Infallibly First this Answers not my difficulty above when I ask'd if these Guides and the Illiterate under their charge ponder Scripture and use all sincere endeavour to understand its meaning yet mainly differ in the beliefe of Necessaries what remedy in such à case Is not our Dr obliged to propose some fair easy means whereby these Guides and people may be united in one faith or at least to tell us on which party whether Pastors or People the blame lies to the end all may avoid them Scripture most evidently makes not the blamable known nor unit's all in one Faith An infallible Church is rejected the discerning Faculty of dissenting men run's as we se contrary wayes Therefore all may believe as they Judge whether true or false or suspend their beliefe untill Dr Still laies down à better rule To that other part I say the Guides of the Church can teach infallibly the Necessaries they believe and I still insist upon Necessaries only The reason is given already To believe the Infallible Truth of à Divine Revelation expressing à Necessary is absolutely necessary to Salvation but this neither Scripture it selfe nor the discerning faculty of any fallible man can declare or make known therefore the Guides of The reason why the Guides of the Church teach infallibly the Church impowred by Christ to instruct qui vos audit me audit are to declare the Truth the Infallible truth and sence of every Revelation relating to Necessaries Now further If this declaration be so fallible that it may be false neither Jewes nor Gentils nor Christians yet seeking after these main truths can come to any acquiescency For what have they to lean upon in the least degree Satisfactory While fallible men agitate the cause fallible Discourses carry it on and fallible Principles are the only support of all that is or can be controverted Please to se this Argument further enlarged Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 16. n. â—8 whereunto our good Dr return's no Answer 8 Next vouchsafe to cast an eye vpon his 147 page and consider how lamely he handles à matter of greatest importance VVe are Saith Dr Still far from denying all reasonable and just Authority to be given to the Guides of the Church Very general talk Perhaps that Authority must be only reasonable which he judges reasonable But of what Church doth the Gentleman speak here The Arians and Protestants have their dissenting Churches will you have the Arians follow their Guides and the Protestants theirs Herein he resolves nothing but sometimes remit's us to the Primitive Church which breeds endless disputes because we yet agree not what that Church taught nor shall ever learn but by the voice and Tradition of the present Catholick Church Have yet patience to hear the Dr. VVe say that their Authority that is of the Guides of some Church but God only knowes which it is not being absolute is confined to some known rule O this Rule would doe us noble service but the mischiefe is our shuffling Dr clap's it under lock and key like à lewel worth hiding You have it by the name of some known Rule though no body yet knowes what it is or where to find it He cannot in this place mean Scripture for its sence is most unknown and the bare letter as we have seen causes open hostility no lesse between the Guides of the Church and refractory subjects than The Drs general talk of unknown rules enlightens none amongst the Guides of two dissenting Churches In à word If Dr Still shall please to lay down à plain certain rule whereby all dissenting Christians may be brought to one true Faith even in Necessaries he will deserve immortal renown and do more then all the Hereticks since Christs time have done But to perform this his intrigues concerning Some Rule and no man knowes what Rule can never doe his business whereof more presently Now listen well to the end of his Discourse VVhere there is à rule for them he mean's the Guides of the Church to proceed by there is à rule for others to judge of their proceedings and consequently men must exercise their judgements about the matters they the Guides determin whether they be agreable to that rule or not 9 Still we are put off with general words One rule it seem's is allowed the Guides of the Church to proceed by an other if the Layity dissent to judge of their Guides proceedings Yet no man must know in particular what these Rules are Is not all this tattle something and nothing empty stuff without substance But say on What if these two Imagined Rules breed everlasting jarrs between the Guides and the Guided who is to yeild and to whom Or rather we ask what means hath Christ appointed to end these differences by If he say no dissentions can arise either about Necessaries or any other
Now none can ascertain any that this or that particular Revelation is true and Infallible but an Infallible Church only Therefore you err Mr Dr in saying that the Infallibility of the Church is as liable to doubts as that of Scriptures if you speak as you must of the Scriptures genuine Sence Truth and Infallibility 17 The Dr P. 113. proposes one of the rarest obiections ever man I think yet heard of Had Christ saith he intended Infallibility as the foundation of Faith how easily might all contentions in the world have been prevented had he said I do promise my Infallible spirit to the Guides of the Church in all Ages to give the true sence of Scripture in all Controversies which shall arise amongst Christians c. Answ I verily judge Christ hath fully said thus much He that heares you heares me The Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church Pastors and Guides are given to the end we be not carried about with every wind of Doctrin c. But suppose Christ or any Evangelist had used your very expression how easily would you Sr have sound à pretty gloss for it and told us That such à promise was forsooth only conditional if the Guides followed Scripture or some like whimsy which phansy might have suggested Now tell me seing your invention fall's so luckily upon new coyn'd Promises why have we not in Scripture à promise suitable to your new faith Viz. I promise no other Spirit to any but such an one as may serve for the moral certainty of beliefe which is fallible and may be false Or rather thus I doe promise that who ever read's Scripture and understand's it according to his private Judgement though he err's in matters of Faith yea even in Necessaries is yet in the way to Salvation and need 's not to consult any Guide for his better instruction Thus contentions would have been easily prevented and licence given every man to believe what he pleased Such promises as these would have fitted you right Mr Dr but there are none of them in God's word 18 P. 150. He thinks to destroy the Evidence of sense and consequently the Grounds of Religion because we believe not that to be bread in the Holy Eucharist which sense tell 's us is so Never ancient Church nor Councils nor Pastors nor Doctors nor any Orthodox Christian pleaded thus for sense for all unanimously believed that really not to be bread which yet in outward appearance seems bread as is demonstrated against the Dr. Reas and Religi c. 12. 13. Whereunto he never yet returned word of answer though I solved this very Obiection to satisfy the Gentleman and told him that the immediate Object of sense is not the inward Substance of bread but The obiect of sense not destroed in the Holy Eucharist colour or light with other accidents and these remain after Consecration visible and sensible as before It is true reason upon the Suggestion of sense would judge what we se to be bread were it not over-awed by à stronger Principle which is Gods express Revelation To this we submit and our crime â—s that we preferr the words of eternal â—ruth before weak reason easily beguiled â—ray tell me had the Dr seen those â—wo Angels who came to Lot Gen 19 in the shape of mortal men had he eate with them at Lots table would he not have thought them men like others living in Sodom But had God then told him by an express Revelation they were indeed Angels and not men which verity is now known he would I hope have believed God and yeilded up his reason to that Supream Verity Thus we proceed in the beliefe of the blessed Sacrament whereof se more Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 18. n. 4. I shall add hereafter other considerations little to the Dr ' s Comfort 19 Page 151. The Dr would fain know whether there be not some points of Faith and parts of our duty so plain that no Church Authority determining contrary ought to be obeyed I answer were any so plain as few are in the very fundamentals of Faith witness those greaâ— Mysteries of the Trinity and the eternaâ— Godhead of Christ the Catholicâ— Church cannot by reason of Gods speciaâ— Assistance determin the contrary or contradict it selfe in any universal doctrinâ— and therefore that Non-obedience hintâ— at is à Chimaera or à thing not at aâ— supposeable It seem's our Dr would have the not worshiping Images to bâ— one of his plain delivered points A gross mistake as his worthy learned Adversary Doctor T. G. whose works and Person I honour pithily demonstrat's in his late excellent book Catholiks no Idolaters Part 1. chiefly c. 3. and 4. Now because I mention this Reverend man I cannot but reflect upon another intolerable mistake of Dr Still 20 Dr T. G. said in his preface to the Reader It is à known Maxim That none can give to another that which he hath not himselfe If therefore the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy much more if guilty of Idolatry it fall's under the Apostles Excommunication Gal. 1. 8. and so remains deprived of lawful Authority mark the words to use and exercise the power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing preaching and administring Sacraments which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves as derived from the Church of Rome can be no true and lawful jurisdiction but usurped and Antichristian The plain and obvious An other gross errour of the Dr sense is He who has no jurisdiction but is deprived of it by the Churches Censures cannot give it to another Neither can he that has no lawful Authority to ordain lawfully ordain any or give Authority lawfully to ordain others Now comes Dr Still in his General Preface to ward off this blow but never man did it less dexterously and we must wholly attribute it to his little skill in fencing He tell 's us that the council of Trent pronounces Anathema against those that deny the Validity observe here also the word validity of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin in case he observes the Essentials of it and in this gross errour he run's on for nine or ten pages Citing Author after Author to prove that the Sacrament of Order is validly given by one in mortal sin or excommunicated But what is all this to Dr. T. Gs. Most true Assertion That none guilty of Idolatry or Heresy can give Iurisdiction to any of the Church of England which they must have from Catholick Bishops or wholly want it or impower them to ordain others lawfully when they are deprived of all lawfull Authority to use oâ— exercise the power of Orders Hence you se Dr Still blindness who argues from the validity of giving Orders to the lawful giving them and from the no power of giving Jurisdiction the chiefest thing aimed at by D. T. G. to impart it to men in England uncapable of all Jurisdiction by
is without either shame or grace most unjust 9 From P. 340. to 362. the Dr gives me but little entertainment save only to make à few reflections upon his too many Parergons and one repeated over and over yet the good man will be free from Tautologies is that the difficulty now in hand only concern's an external Proponent such as the Church is Shall we condescend to his humour and debate that sole Question I am content upon one condition that he plainly solves this plain difficulty If all the men in the world as we now suppose considered meerly as nature has framed them be fallible If none of them have infallible assistance to teach the very fundamentals of faith infallibly and if notwithstanding God obliges all to believe his infallible revealed verities without mixture of errour If finally we evidently se Christians at high Contradictions and of à different belief in such Necessaries of no less concern then their eternal Salvation I say if all these And leaves all to believe what they list particulars be undeniably manifest either you Mr Dr ought to assign some clear certain means whereby Christians may be brought to union in one true Faith to profess and believe one and the same Doctrin of Jesus Christ or you must leave all to believe as they list or what pure fancy teaches My Tenet is that none can doe this but an Infallible Church nor so much as bring us to any Vnity at all were faith as you make it only morally certain 10 P. 341 He demand's where have I shew'd that the Supernatural Principles of Faith do never cooperate but where the Church infallibly proposes and thinks I never attempt this He wrong's me exceedingly Se Reas and Relig. Disc 2. c. 15. There I prove at large that Divine Faith in this present state requires no less an Infallible Oracle then the belief of the Primitive Christians required Infallibility in the Apostles As therefore the supernatural Principles of those first Believers never could operate contrary to the Doctrin taught Infallibly by the Apostles so they work not in true Believers now but when they fall right upon the Infallible Doctrin taught by the Catholick Church The reason hereof is clear God cannot concurr or incite any by Supernatural Principles to believe a falshood The Revelation therefore which support's Divine Faith must not be meerly apparent but real and truly in being for then only Divine Grace cooperat's with Faith not otherwise So true it is that the Infallibility in our internal Assent of Faith ever supposes and necessarily prerequires Infallibility in the last ground thereof which is God's veracity as likewise in the immediate Proponent I mean the Catholick Church But saies our Dr very wisely If the Infallible certainty of Faith depend's upon Divine concurrence the Infallibility of Faith may be had without an Infallible Proponent A most pitiful reply It seem's he cannot well understand how one act of Faith depend's upon two distinct Principles yet the instance now given will enlighten him à little Did not the Faith of the Primitive Christians depend upon the Apostles infallible The necessary principles for Faith teaching None questions that And had not Divine grace influence upon it also Most undoubtedly certain Ergo two different Principles an Infallible Church and Divine Assistance necessarily support one act of Faith The reason is clear Faith is the Gift of God and therefore without the cooperation of Grace cannot be Divine or Supernatural and without an Infallible Proponent no man certainly knowes what to believe For who can say indubitably this is the sence of God's word herein lies the Truth and Infallibility of à Revelation if an Infallible Church be rejected Hence it is that the Primitive Church while She condemned all ancient Hereticks and established the contrary truths never proceeded doubtfully or probably but spake as Gods Oracle ought to speak infallibly 11 The Dr P. 342. Shewes himself à meer Rambler multiplies words and proves just nothing First he tells me six or seven times over yet he is far from tedious repetitions if Faith depends on Grace an external infallible Proponent seem's needless Then he thinks I destroy my selfe because I say the Infallible certainty of Faith comes from Gods interiour illumination as it more lively set's forth the formal obiect assented to What 's next Marry he hath often heard of the great Assistance Iesuits have in writing their books and Imagins that some Enemy hath put these things into my head Sr without doubt you have heard many à magnifyed untruth and this if it relate to any Assistance given me is à loud one as all who know me can testify and will avouch that I needed no assistance to answer an Adversary so well tamed and broken as you are Now if you will rely so much upon Hearsay know Sr I have also heard something and had it from men of good repute and credit It is that the most able at Cambridge with one likewise at Oxord aided you to the purpose in setting forth your tumbling Account and I am apt to believe this true because some who know you Conceive you not à man so expedite and nimble at work as to dispatch such à volume in à twelve months time though to gain applause this must be insinuated in the first words of your preface These things I have heard whether all be true or no you know best 12 Soon after to fill paper you tell me again what I say then that I shake hands with Calvin and some old Enemies in this matter of Grace that I hold you à Denier of Grace and much more to little purpose Concerning the Assistance of Grace in order to Faith I say that Faith being à Gift of God Necessarily depend's on à supernatural Principle and this is Catholick Doctrin taken from Scripture Church authority and holy Fathers What I hold particularly of its giving more clarity to an obscure Revelation though only an opinion in Schools maintained by some denied by others is sounder Doctrin then your skill in Divinity can refute You have The Dr's fouling me with Calvinism shew'd sencles and ridiculous it largely set down Reas. and Relig. Disc 3. c. 9. n. chiefly 13. Your wilful fouling me with Calvinism becomes one that knowes better to calumniate than to argue Had Calvin own'd the Church infallible as I do in all she obliges Christians to believe and dutifully submitted to her judgement his Faith would have been right and Grace answerable Supernatural but because he slighted that Oracle and believed what meer fancy suggested he abused Grace and had no true Faith Should I Sr maintain à light of Faith allowed men at random to believe what their private judgements tell them concerning Gods revelations in Scripture independently of all Infallible exteriour Propounders of Faith I should not much differ from Calvin but when I only assert it to serve for à better manifestation of such truths as an
the vision in Mount Thabor The Apostles saw there our Saviour all in glory yet knew not evidently what it meant They heard those words This is my most Dear Son Mark 9. 7. and understood their obvious sence yet had no evidence of the Truth signified by those words Finally they received that command Ipsum audite Hear and believe all that this dear Son deliver's to you but were yet far from having the truth of that command or any thing he spake laid out evidently before them Notwithstanding they believed the very truth of those words and Command also and thus their Faith led on by clear signs admirable works sacred words and an express command transcended the certainty of what ever they saw or heard 17 From what you have already noted it followes That if by Faith we believe the very truth of a Revelation and not only its Credibility the act of Faith cannot but be of à higher certainty than all the exteriour Signs and Motives as known by sense can perswade to The reason now given is clear All these outward Signs and Motives manifested to the world are reduced to the admirable works miracles for example Neither the Apostolical words nor Works can evidence the truth of Divine Revelation done by Christ his Apostles and the Church as also to the plain signification of words these Oracles spake But neither the works which Christ shewed nor the words he spake though plainly significant made the truth of his Revelation evident as is now proved but only evidently credible therefore if by Faith we believe the very truth of à Revelation which all grant and rest not only upon its Credibility we goe Eo ipso beyond the certainty of that judgement whereby we know it to be evidently credible though not shewed evidently true Hence I said Prot without Prin. Disc 1. c. 5. n. 6. that all the power in Heaven cannot separate Infallibility from an act of Faith setled upon the Truth of God's Revelation though Divines yet question whether by the absolute power of God all these outward Signs we se or hear of might not have been the very same in appearance as they are now had God never revealed any thing 18 Some less skilful may reply The words the Apostles heard on Mount Tabor and understood were plain and significant enough what need Truth is not alwaies Spoken by words most significant is there of more A simple objection Are I beseech you all significant words true Grant this and no man can tell à Lye or à false story for in such cases words are very significant yet far from truth Now the Apostles did not only know the signification of that voice heard but also believed its Truth though not made evident to them This is ever to be reflected on 19 You will say again Those words and all other written in Scripture are either evidently Credible or evidently true Answ Words evidently Credible in this place imply à piece of nonsence when by themselves they are evidently heard and their open signification If clear evidently known without any more light Speak therefore thus properly The true signification of words in Scripture is made evidently Credible and when clear believed true by Faith yet are not known evidently or Scientifically true and the obiection becomes forceles Here I expect that such an Adversary as Dr Still may obiect 3. From this discourse it followes Though one read Scripture à hundred times over and add to that the interpretation of the Church yet after all he cannot know that Christ our Saviour is God and the true Messias I Answer none can know these truths Scientifically or vpon clear evident Principles I grant it None can infallibly believe them by virtue of God's Revelation made evidently credible by clear signs I deny it After all this trifling 20 Followes another obiection much to this sence There seem's an open contest between these Signs or the Motives inducing to Faith on the one side and God's express command whereby we are obliged to believe the truth of his Revelation on the other The Motives draw one way and licence us not to goe one step further than to assent to what they shew which is only to acknowledge God's Revelation evidently Credible but not infallibly true God's Command pushes further and will have all to believe the Truth of à Revelation though we se no reason to go so high by Faith This obiection contain's nothing but what is solved already I therefore answer An obiection taken from the Motives and Gods Command solved in a word We se no reason to goe so high while we rest upon the Motives only I grant it we se no reason to goe so high if we attend to God's command manifested by clear signs I deny what is assumed For this command and the Majesty of the commander is both reason and à law more prevalent than all Motives are solely considered or as known by sense Therefore unless the weaknes of these Motives can as it were abate or infringe the strength of God's Command and make me to judge he command's none to believe without evidence had of his Revelation I both can and will captivate my understanding in obsequium fidei and say absolutely what ever you my God speak made evidently credible by clear signes is not only Credible but infallibly true And this is to proceed rationally for if I ought to believe à Mortal man reputed honest and sincere when he speak's though I have no evidence of what he interiourly judges because he may deceive much more am I obliged by captivating my understanding to believe God who cannot deceive when I have the greatest moral Assurance imaginable that he speak's to me and for my Salvation 21 Now here enter's that other Principle hinted at above I mean the pious affection of the will in every Believer which power when once enlightned by the previous judgement of Credibility grounded upon rational Motives for nihil volitum quin praecognitum hath from that judgement assurance that no assent of the mind is or can be of greater concern than an humble submission to what ever God speak's and command's though no evidence of his speaking be drawn from the Motives inducing to believe The reason hereof is clear because upon this assent eternal Salvation depend's and the omission of it brings with it eternal misery Besides the great confidence all have of pleasing God who command's us to believe and the fear we may justly apprehend of wronging his Divine Majesty in case we demurr or boggle when we are thus incited to believe cannot but drive the VVill forward with all the force it hath to move the intellectual Faculty to à most firm and infallible assent of Faith Hence it is as S. Bonaventure observes cited Reas and Relig Disc 3 c. 8. n. 15. VVhat power the will hath to â—lieiâ—â— Faith that men truly prudent and apprehensive of their eternal good are not drawn
my own body risen from the dead You have none Therefore rely boldly on your senses and reason also and judge me to be the same Individual Saviour I was before For there is no Principle natural or revealed which contradict's this belief or that enjoynes you to deny your Senses either in this or any other sensible obiect But for the change of bread into my body you have my express words the world hereafter will profess that truth all over Christianity my Church shall maintain it the best Christians upon earth believe it Innumerable Martyrs shall dy for it undeniable Miracles confirm it and the most learned Doctors that ever lived shall leave this my Doctrin upon Record to the utter confusion of all Hereticks The Dr may demand upon what ground can I imagin that our Saviour would have argued thus against his Disciples I answer my ground is incomparably more sure than any the Dr can give or endeavour to perswade by that the Apostles were ever so sottish as to have thought of his ridiculous Obiection For all I say here are Truths owned over Christendom and worthy to be spoken by out Saviour but his Obiection never wise or Orthodox man seriously proposed before himself 6 What followes in the Dr is no more but one Tautologie after another The Dr's Tautologies Or the same thing already casheired said too often over When saith he the assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of the Senses of those who were Eye-witnesses of the Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ if the Senses of men may be so grosly deceived in the proper obiects of them in the case of Transubstantiation what assurance could they have who were Eye-witnesses of them A long period with many falsities to no purpose I have answered to what here import's that though our senses be deceived in the case of Transubstantiation which is not true yet we have as much certainty in every other thing we se or and weak way of arguing feel as the Dr hath when he sees or feels the pulpit he preaches in Vnless this Sequel be allowed of My eyes are once deceived if yet so ergo they must alwaies be deceived Or à Iugler can make me se what is not ergo I never se what is Again saith he The Drs repeated Obiections Take away the certainty of the judgement of sense you destroy all certainty in Religion I have answered We neither take away the Obiect of sense nor like well his miscalled judgement of sense for sense hath still its own proper obiect though were it otherwise in this Mystery his Inference of all certainty destroyed has no Sence in it 3. Saith the Dr. I must by virtue of your Churches Infallibility believe something to be true which if it be true there can be no certainty at all of the truth of Christian Religion This is only the some thing needlesly repeated already answered And so is that which some others do obiect If the sense of seing be deceived so likewise may the sense of hearing and consequently none can have assurance of what either Christ spake or the Church teaches Who can read this stuff with patience Yet it is gravely set forth in Sermons as most weighty and convincing and which is worse thought worthy to appear in Print 7 The Solution of all in à word is Our senses in this Mystery are not deceived nor so much beguiled as the eye is when we se à straight stick crooked in the water for here the Medium makes that to appear crooked which is not there in the Eucharist the immediate obiect of sense is seen as before without the least Illusion Yet grant which is not true à deception here it is à folly above expression to infer that our senses are beguiled in every other obiect set before our eyes clearly solved and this the Dr must prove or he evinces nothing Thus much noted I challenge and charge the Dr to discover in his next Answer any thing like à fallacy in my whole Discourse But when will this be done think ye Then I say and not sooner when the Dr makes this Consequence good If Christ changed bread retaining the outward semblance of bread into his own body we may prudently judge that he also changed those stones the Divel shew'd him Matt 4. into good bakers bread though outwardly they still appeared stones The first change is grounded upon as great Authority as any Mystery of Faith is none excepted For the second we have nothing but fancy only Now if after all I have said the Dr as his usual If the Dr tell his old stories over again he will be called à Bungler custome hath been silently passes by my reasons hitherto alledged and only tells his old stories over again of our senses being deceived c. I shall retort his own words upon him and conclude that his School find's no answer to my Arguments 8 Another grand errour of this Dr is that he attributes more to the Evidence of sense in order to its proper obiect à visible Miracle for example than can be allowed The Sense of seing take this for an Instance the like is of feeling hearing c is only terminated upon the outward appearance of things and as it penetrat's not the substance of the bread so neither see 's it the inward life or motion of the Soul in à mortal body Whence it followes though we grant that Sense is never beguiled as to its proper obiect yet it often gives occasion of deceipt in other matters wholly out of the reach of sense You shall se what I here hint at by one Instance Suppose the Dr saw the Divel that often transform's himself into an Angel of light doing his feates to delude the senses with à false Miracle or if he denies Divels he must grant that power to Antichrist who will shew many seeming wonders Suppose this be one that à man in outward appearance dead to all senses by Antichrists Charms stand's up again and moves as others do I ask how will the Dr who gives so much credit to his eyes and senses distinguish by Sense only between the true resuscitation of Iairus daughter Luke 8. 55. and this counter feit Miracle of Antichrist In his Principles he cannot difference them if guided by the Evidence of sense and all that reason Can discover by Sense only 9 Hence to take off the Dr ' s errour as to the Blessed Sacrament we discourse further He Iudges what he see 's in The Dr by virtue of his own Principle must own Antichrist's Miracles for true Miracles a consecrated Host to be truly bread because his eyes and senses tell him it is bread These the Dr thinks give in stronger Evidence for its being bread than any proof to the contrary can perswade that it is not bread Yeild this and the Dr yeilds all He is obliged to own this seeming Miracle of Antichrist for
Again those ancient Miracles though supposed true are far from giving any undubitable assurance by their Sight alone without further light that such was and yet is the genuin and pure Sence of God's word for how many thousands are there now in the world who willingly own all the Miracles wrought by Christ and yet are at implacable discord concerning the true meaning of what our Saviour and his Apostles taught which strifes cannot be ended by à bare owning those Miracles true but by the Infallible Decision of an ever living manifested Church I say manifested by Miracles and other weighty Motives that laid before mans rational Power led it on to believe in Christ and his Church for these two Articles go together and are proposed in the Creed as necessary believeable Verities I believe in Iesus Christ I believe the Holy Catholick Church As therefore to believe all that Christ taught confessedly required the light of glorious Motives whereby his Doctrin Christ was manifested by rational Motives and so is the Church was made Credible to reason so also to believe what the Church teaches requires the like light or an answerable evident Credibility grounded on convincing and rational Motives I desired the Dr Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 16. n. 28. to consider how cold and faint Christian Faith would have grown in the hearts of men before this day had all Church Motives fail'd or ceased soon after the Apostles preaching Had no more Conversions been wrought no more Martyrs dyed for God's truth no more contempt of the world been evidenced in thousands and thousands and finally had no other Miracles been don in after Ages but such only as the Scripture relates It is therefore open impiety in the Dr to slight all Church Motives and her Miracles calling them à grand Salade too often served up It is worse then Perverness to tell us as he doth in his last book P. 665. That the Doctrin of Christ and his Apostles being confirmed by Miracles wrought by them there can be no The Continuation of Miracles proved necessary such necessity in succeeding Ages to confirm the same Doctrin by Miracles I have answered this very Obiection Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 7. and shewed the Continuation of Miracles in the Church both useful and necessary not only because our Saviour fore told they should be done Iohn 12 but upon this account also that the Conversion of Infidels to Christ was wrought as well in the Ages after the Apostles as when those blessed men preached to the world If therefore the first Apostolical Miracles were necessary to convince unbelieving Jewes and Gentils Then it is plain ungodliness to deem them fruitless Now when God is pleased to work them by Missioners lawfully sent to convert as Barbarous Nations as ever S. Paul preach't to 24 Again Miracles most evidently have been wrought and very frequently The end of God's Concurring with his servants to work Miracles I ask for what end did God concurr with his Servants to do them No other reason can with probability fall into mens minds but this That an infinit Power and wisdom intended thereby to make his Church glorious and to induce the most obdurate hearts to believe her Doctrin The Dr yet seems not satisfied for he thinks the conveyance of the Apostolical Miracles being wrought for the benefit of succeeding Ages may well serve the turn in all after Times without more I wish this man were sent with his Bible to some Barbarians in America who never perhaps heard of Christ or Scripture and only read them such Miracles as Scripture relates without working any himselfe as S. Xaverius and other Missioners have done How many think ye would the Dr draw to Christ if he told his Hearers that all the certainty men have of those ancient Miracles and Christ's Doctrin comes from fallible Tradition which may be false My thought is he would convert this way very few or rather none at all Let others judge as they please Now because the main ground whereon he relies is his much driven in conveyance by Tradition we will bestow à little pains upon it and shew if ever man lost himselfe in a Labyrinth it is Dr Stillingfleet Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition what Christ did and spake 25 THe Substance of the Dr ' s Discourse Account P. 205 is thus Tradition to us doth only supply the want of our senses as to what Christ did and spake it being à perpetuated sensation and of the same use to us now as if we had been actually present with Christ and seen his Miracles or heard his Doctrin when he delivered it Soon after It is apparent that the use of the senses to those The substance of the Drs Discourse laid down in his own words who saw Christs Miracles and heard his Doctrin was not to give any Credibility to either of them but only to be the means of conveying them those things which might induce them to believe The same is Tradition now to us it doth not in it selfe make the Doctrin more credible but supplies the use of our senses in a certain conveyance of those things which were Motives to believe them Hence he inferr's That the motives to the primitive Christians and to us are the same only the manner of conveyance differ's 2. He inferr's as it was not then necessary for those who saw our Saviours Miracles wrought for the confirmation of his Doctrin to have the inward Testimony of the Spirit or any external Infallible Testimony of à Church to assure them that those Miracles were really done by Christ but God left them to the judgement of sense so proportionably neither of these two are now necessary for the resolution of Faith but God instead of sense leaves us to the evidence of Tradition Thus the Dr where you se his whole labour spent in vain and à gross mistake with it for he think's the main difficulty lies in the conveyance of the things written in Scripture to this Age whereas the reall difficulty is to prove that there ever were any He waves the real difficulty such things true and written by Divine inspiration as he supposes to be conveyed Unlesse this particular be first rationally evinced the Turks will dare to argue as the Dr doth In Mahomet's time there was reason to believe Mahomets Miracles and wonders Ergo there is reason to believe them now because they are conveyed down by Tradition And thus the followers of every false Sectarie may make any Religion true But here is not all 26 Mark I beseech you how pitifully the Dr shuffles He own 's à tradition which conveigh's unto us what Christ did and spake That is we may No man is wiser by the Dr's lame Tradition know by his fallible tradition received among Christians that our Saviour wrought such Miracles and spake such words for example I and my Father are one The word is
his death These circumstances and it was for the Dr's purpose to embellish the cheat he silently passes over and too nimbly tell 's us Away the Pope goes for Ancona and there dies of his Feaver 5. The Dr having done with Pope Pius unluckily fall's into another foul errour and The reasons alledged by Tursellin why some Authors omitted to mention the Translation wrong's Tursellin very much Tursellin Lib 1. c. 26. Gives three reasons why S. Vincentius S. Antonin and the ancient Italian Writers omitted to mention the Chappels Translation First S. Vincentius lived in Spain the time of à troublesome Schism what wonder therefore if the rumour of the Translation got not thither 2. S. Antonin and the other more ancient Historians had their Country entangled in à fearful Civil war which might well obstruct the certain knowledge of it as to them 3. Saith Tursellin none perhaps of the ancient writers mentioned the Translation because as yet it was not approved or confirmed by the Popes Authority The wonder therefore of à house carried from one Part of the world to another being so uncouth and strange they prudently waved it least they should seem to utter vain and incredible things But Blondus notwithstanding almost as ancient à VVriter as S. Blondus produced by Tursellin Vincent and S. Antonin and one that alwaies waited on the Pope gave as you have heard above an Excellent Testimony and asserts the Miracle as most undoubted It is true before the wonderful cure wrought upon Pope Pius the House had not the renown which it gained afterward by that illustrious Miracle the whole world over This is briefly the substance of what Tursellin hath 6. Now mark how fraudulently the Dr deal's with him First he wholly waves the main reasons alleged by Tursellin concerning the Silence of the Italian Writers and then seek's advantage from the little fame Loreto had before the Miracle wrought upon Pope Pius The Dr waves Tursellin's main reasons which saith he is the reason Tursellin gives why Vincentius Antoninus and the other Italian VVriters take no notice of it It may passe for one reason Mr Dr but neither is it the only or the Chiefest for the difficulty of Schism respectively to Spain the Intestine war raised in Italy and the want of approbation from the See Apostolick in those dayes are Tursellin's main grounds all waved by you Yet worse followes Those saith the Dr who did take notice of it as Blondus yet doe not mention the Translation least they should seem to utter vain and incredible things A very Substantial reason I confess Thus the Dr. A very Cheat say I Reflect Reader would not any man who read's these lines in the Dr take it for granted that Blondus with others omitted to mention the Chappels Translation for fear of publishing vain and incredible things Yet Tursellins words beare à quite contrary Sence and relate not at all to Blondus but oppose his Testimony plainly speaking of the Miraculous house to the Silence The Dr forces upon Tursellins words à Sence quite contrary to 〈◊〉 meaning of ancient Authors that said nothing of it for the reasons already mentioned Tursellins words are these At Blondus illorum fere aqualis c. But Blondus almost equal to the other gave an illustrious Testimony of it Now our Dr pervert's the whole Sence in making the word At or but in this place to signifiy As. Read Tursellin and the Dr's fraud will manifestly appear Perhaps He may say Blondus in express terms speak's not of the Chappels Translation least he should seem to utter an incredible thing Suppose this were in it selfe true as it is most false the Dr yet cannot by this Shift clear himselfe from jugling or ever make it out that Blondus Said so 7. What followes next in the Dr is nothing but Raillery or rather à whole List of Raillery and Calumnies unproved Calumnies told one after another as of Miracles growing very frequent of Peoples Superstition and Credulity of the abuse of Priests who make their Tables by the confident affirmation of persons that tell Stories of Miracles And thus in all likelihood saith the Dr Riera the Poenitentiary was abused 8. In passing take notice of his childish Proof In all likelihood So in all likelihood the Iew whom our Blessed Lady freed out of Prison was à forged tale Tursellin relates the true Story Lib 4. c. 12. and therefore I wave it But no doubt saith the Dr the Venetian Courtesan was à person of great credit who The Dr derides the sad Condition of à poor afflicted Poenitent having spent many year's in that trade came to Loreto full of à strange Miracle The Dr scornfully derides this poor Penitent's afflicted condition but Tursellin lib 3. c. 27 if you attend to all circumstances makes it undoubted 9. Briefly The young woman born in Sicily led it's true à lewd life at Venice but weary of it at last became very poenitent and turned what she had into Iewels and ready mony The Story of this young woman briefly related with intention to see her own Country again yet in the way purposed to visit Loreto there to bewail her whole life and to make à general Confession She took with her for à Guide one thought trusty but it proved otherwise for the perfidious Man when they came to the wood of Ravenna rob'd her of all the wealth she had cut her throat desperataly wounded her ran away and left the poor Creature desolate Swimming in her own bloud In How the was wounded by à perfidious Guide this sad condition she often implored the help of the Blessed Virgin who presently appearing cured her wounds and filled her Soul with heavenly comfort Now while she was devoutly on her knees giving thanks to Almighty And miraculously cured God and singing praises to the blessed Virgin for the cure wrought on her mangled body Providence so ordered that some Muletters passed by who finding her all bloody in her undermost linnen wear all the Rogue had left her cast upon the halfe naked creature à course Coverlet set her on à Mule and carried her to Ancona where she begg'd some poor cloaths and from thence went joyfully to Loreto Comming thither She first confessed and complied with her vow then made à relation of the whole danger past and gained credit by shewing the marks of her wounds chiefly that about her neck like à Ievvel or shinning Neclace 2. by her virtuous and devout life at Loreto for she prefer'd that holy Place before The Marks of her wounds and innocent life proofs of the Miracle her own Country and lived there many year's exciting others by her Innocent and most laudable example to Piety and devotion The rest you have in Tursellin 10. The Dr goes about to refute this Story by proposing à ridiculous Question VVas not saith he the Blessed virgin very kind to à Courtesan He might with the like
Faith to the Churches infallibility upon Motives confessedly fallible an assent be not required beyond all proportion and degree of evidence First Who tells you Mr Dr that the Motives are confessedly fallible The Church never defined so I with others expressly say they are Metaphysically certain and have infallible connexion with the Divine Revelation It is true some Divines hold them fallible but it is only an opinion and therefore too weak to support your stout expression confessedly fallible or to make the contrary opinion improbable But suppose them fallible I have notwithstanding shewed how the act of Faith is most certain and infallible and shall here for the better satisfaction of à less learned Reader upon this hint given by the Dr apply all I have said above to the Catholick Church Thus I discourse 12 God an eternal Truth who perfectly comprehend's all things intuitively Seing himself one Essence and Though the Motives to Faith were fallible Faith yet stand's firm three distinct Persons reveal's that Verity and to the end all may assent to it by Faith He adorn's his own Oracle the Catholick Church with the Royal Signs of his Power and wisdom The Church thus illustrated speaking in the name of God or which is all one God speaking by Her proposes that high Mystery and obliges all to believe it The Signs or Motives whereby he speaks to reason manifest in the Church make it evidently credible that eternal Truth speak's and in order to Faith are the only exteriour rational lights we have in this present State from whence Faith takes it rise and whereupon it necessarily depend's But the highest measure of certainty these motives considered as rational inducements can give any is only as I say to make the Mystery evidently credible not evidently true Yet on the other side when we prudently reflect upon God's powerfull speaking by Signs and Motives and withall ponder the weight of his Command which obliges us to assent not only to the Credibility of à Mystery but to its very Truth à pious will both can and is bound to move the understanding to passe as it were above that Credibility and to believe the Infallible truth of the Revelation which revealed truth by help of other Principles mentioned in the foregoing Chapter advances Faith to infallible certainty and therefore farr transcends that intellectual light rising from the Motives and also goes beyond the plainest signification of words Christ ever spake because Faith as Faith ultimately relies not upon the bare signification of words or on the exteriour sight of Miracles but upon the real Truth of Gods Revelation pointed at by words and works though by such outward Signs not eviâ—vidently proved true And thus you se first what the obscurity of Faith implies or wherein it consist's It consist's in this that through Obedience to God's Command we raise our selves above the force of all Motives inducing to Faith and firmly believe upon anothers Authority I mean God's Divine Testimony that to be infallibly true though we neither se the Testimony nor the thing attested evidently true You se 2. That our Dr ' s long Tattle of Faith transcending the Motives of Credibility serves only to amuse an unwary Reader or rather to tell the learned that he shamefully mistakes and handles one difficulty in place of another for according to his promise he should either have proved that Faith it self or the Church is fallible but all this while he run's astray and never meddles with that main Question contenting himself to impugn and most weakly à School opinion only 13 And here by the way I cannot but wonder at our Dr ' s simplicity who cites Doctour Holden saying That no assent of Divine Faith can have any greater true and rational certainty then the assent of the Medium hath by which the obiect of Faith is applyed to the understanding First What if Dr Holden differ from others in explicating the certainty of Faith doth he therefore hold it fallible or only morally certain This followes not 2. Dr Still should here have told us what is meant by those words The assent of the medium by which c For if the Catholick Doctour teach that the Medium now spoken of is the Divine Revelation applyed by Motives Metaphysically certain he may well assert that Faith as true and rational mark the words can have no greater certainty then that medium known by natural discourse gives yet this hinders not that higher certainty grounded on the Revealers Authority believed and upon God's command as is already explained 14 Dr Still from his P. 376 to P. 400. besides endless Tautologies all tending to shew Faith unreasonable for want of Motives already answered and much ill language not worth answering gives me little to reflect on Yet his 383 P. must not passe wholly unexamined where got into à Dungeon he cryes out against the obscure tendency of Faith upon its own obiect though he knowes or should know that old Maxim Fides est credere quod non vides The truth is grounded vpon our Saviours words to S. Thomas Blessed are those who believe and have not seen It s grounded on S. Peters words 2. Epist 1. 19. A light shining in à dark place upon S. Austin's Doctrin Epist 85. Faith hath its eyes wherewith after some manner quodammodo All Authors ascribe an obscure tendency to Faith it may se that to be true which yet it sees not and the Authority of many other Fathers Therefore S. Thomas rightly conclud's 2. 2. q. 5. a. 2. corp That the Intellectual power assents to à matter believed not because it see 's it either in it selfe or by any resolution made into the first Principles Seen but because it is convinced by the Divine Authority to assent to things Quae non videt which it see 's not Hence also Catholick Divines inferr that the very act of Faith purely considered as Faith see 's not by any evidence the Truth of what we believe otherwise to se evidently and to believe would be the same thing contrary to Christ words which annex happines to believing without seeing or clear evidence had of that obiect yet in darkness never to be perfectly dispelled untill we se God in the next life 15 But saith Dr Still The great things we believe are received upon the Authority of the Revealer yet so that we assert we have as great evidence that these things were revealed by God as the matter is capable of Here is no man knowes what hudled up in this dark expression As the matter is capable of Let us therefore proceed plainly You Sr believe the Mysterious Trinity because as you think God reveal's it in Scripture Have you by your act of Faith for here we speak not of the previous rational Evidence of Credibility Evidence that such à Revelation which was and is yet God's free act and might not have been doth now really exist Have you evidence of the true Sence
of those word's Truths whereof the Dr hath not Evidence whereby you judge the Trinity is revealed Have you evidence of their being words divinely inspired Have you any thing like evidence of the Mystery believed No All the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles wrought cannot make these particular truths to appear evident to any in this State yet Orthodox Christians believe them Infallibly true by Faith and therefore you Sr are as deep in à Dungeon as any you ieer at get out how you can 16 The rest that followes is nothing but an idle sporting with S. Paul's Doctrin Heb. 11. 1. Is it not pretty saith the Dr because Faith is called an Evidence therefore it must be inevident Because it is called an Argument therefore it can use none What stuff is here Who ever said that Faith uses not Arguments Or called it à Conviction but as the Apostle speaks of things not seen Soon after he has à â—ash at me and it reaches S. Austin also I had said no merit or thanks in believing had we evidence of the Mysteries we believe and I speak with S. Austin In Evangel Ioan. Trac 79. This is the praise of Faith if that which is believed be not seen For what great thing is it if that be believed which is seen According to that sentence of our Lord when he rebuked his Disciple saying because thou hast seen me Thomas Thou hast believed Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed CHAP. VIII The Doctor 's Discourse from page 400 to P. 416. Considered and found weightless 1 HEre the Dr would fain rescue another Argument taken out of his Account from the obiections I made against it Reas and Relig Disc 2. C. 2. n. 5. And you may se him hard put to it for The Dr hard put to his Shifts proofs when to shew the Church no way necessary to ground Faith he run's up to the woman of Samaria Iohn 4. to Barbarians and others who all received Divine Revelation and believed without an Infallible Church In plain English he would inferr that the Christian Catholick Church before it was perfectly founded or owned as God's Oracle did not then ground Faith therefore it could never do so after its compleat establishment Is not this an heroical attempt Tell me Mr Dr. what sence have we in this Inference The Samaritan woman believed Christ when the Church was not perfectly in being Therefore S. Austin when it was an absolute built moral Body erred much in saying He would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholick Church moved him to believe it VVhich authority once weakned saith the Saint in the same place contra Epist Fundam I cannot believe the Gospel S. Dyonisius and Damaris Act. 17. who knew nothing of the Churches beginning at Hierusalem on whitsunday hearing S. Paul an Infallible Oracle preach believed Ergo Christians that lived in time of the Nicene Council could not then believe the Church What Logick is this Nay more in the Dr ' s Principles that Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Church stands there to no purpose because forsooth in some extraordinary circumstances and occasions Faith may be had without knowledge of the Church of Scripture and of Christ also For many Divines hold that Barbarians by meer contemplating the visible works in nature may without the teaching of à living Oracle come to the knowledge of one God as à Rewarder and have Faith available to Salvation Now here is the Dr ' s erroneous Principle that which in some circumstances serves to beget Faith may ever serve and in all occasions 2 The unsoundness or rather Nonsence whereof I will demonstrate against Mr Dr. The ancient Christians had true Faith before the Canon of Scripture was extant Now that holy Book being published and received all over our Dr ground 's his Faith upon it only Ancient Christians had true Faith before scripture was written as it s understood by every man's discerning faculty what therefore once was no rule nor ground of Faith because not in being afterward becomes à ground when it is known and published Just thus we discourse of the Church When the woman of Samaria and some Barbarians believed the Church was not founded nor known or owned by all as Gods Oracle but afterward the foundation of it being perfectly laid and Pastors and Doctors appointed by Christ to teach the world it was owned for God's Oracle and then brought with it an obligation upon all to hear and believe it 3 The reason hereof more amply laid forth in my last Treatise is taken from the express constitution of Christ who erected the Church as à most facile clear and living Rule of Faith This great Master assures all that whoever hear's the Church hear's him That Faith comes by hearing and therefore Pastors and Doctors are appointed to teach to the Consummation of Saints unto the work of the Ministery for the edifying of Christ's Mystical body c. Wherefore Baronus in his Apodixis Tract 9. puncto 2. ingenuously professes That the Testimony of the present Church is à condition necessarily required to believe the authority of the Scripture because Faith comes by hearing Hence I argue A law made by Christ is to be observed the ordinary means appointed by the Law-giver Himselfe for the grounding of Faith ought in no case to be neglected But Christ hath obliged all who believe to rely on the Christian Church ever since She was made an Oracle known to the world as is largely proved Reas. and Religion through the whole Second Discourse therefore though by accident or in some very unusual circumstance men have had Faith without any knowledge either of Scripture or Church Yet now after the Churches compleat establishment and Her long continuance to exclude her Authority and believe upon any other ground would be so great folly and rashness that God may justly deny his supernatural Grace to such unadvised Believers who therefore would not have Faith to Salvation 4 Pray you tell me should à Barbarian that never heard of Church or Scripture yet may probably believe in God as à Rewarder of Good by à meer contemplation of the Heavens c. Should I say such an one come to the knowledge of Christ of the Scripture and of the Church gloriously illustrated with all her Motives Can this man think you in these new circumstances of à greater light neglect all and believe that God will reward good upon the old motive to wit the visible beauty or motion of the Heavens No That belief would now be imprudent and upon that account unavailable The Dr's grand Principle proved forceless to Salvation VVhat therefore serves to ground Faith in some circumstances serves not in all We have yet another Instance against the Dr who hold's there is à Thing in being called the Church of England where he preaches and pretend's to settle his Faith upon Scripture only Would he