§. 1. THere are two great Pleas for The state of the Controversie about Infallibility, and the Resolution of Faith. the necessity of Infallibility in the Roman Church, one to make an end of Controversies, the other to lay a sufficient Foundation for divine Faith. Having therefore fully examined the former Plea in the foregoing discourse, I shall now proceed to the latter; with a particular respect to those Adversaries, who have undertaken the Defence of the Cause of the Church of Rome against me in this Controversie. And because all this dispute refers to the Principles of Faith, I shall undertake to shew,

1. That the Principles laid down by them are false and fallacious.

2. That the Protestant Principles defended by me are sound and true.

1. For the better examination of their Principles, I shall give a brief account of the Rise and State of this Controversie about the Grounds of Faith. The Arch-Bishops Adversary in Conference with him, asked how he knew the Scripture to be the Word of God, hoping thereby to drive him to the necessity of owning the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church: but he failed so much of his end, that the Arch-Bishop fully proved, that such a Testimony could not be the Foundation of that Faith, whereby we believe the Scriptures, to be the Word of God; and that there are sufficient Grounds for Faith without it. One of the great arguments whereby he disproved that way of Resolving Faith was, that it was impossible to avoid a vitious circle in proving the Churches infallibility by Scripture, and the Scripture by the Infallible Testimony of the Church. This difficulty, which hath puzled the greatest Wits of the Roman Church, his Answerer thought to avoid by saying, that the Churches Infallibility was not primarily proved by the Scripture, but by the Motives of Credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner that Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles were proved to be Infallible. Which bold assertion obliged me in a large discourse to shew these three things. 1. That this way of resolving Faith was manifestly unreasonable. 2. That supposing it true he could not avoid the circle by it. 3. That it was false and built on no other ground but a daring confidence.

1. The first I proved. 1. Because an Assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence; the Assent required being Infallible and the evidence only probable and prudential Motives. 2. Because hereby they must run into all the Absurdities they would seek to avoid, it being impossible to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of the Roman Church, than we can do without it; both sides acknowledging that those Motives of Credibility do hold for the Scriptures, which are by us denied to belong to their Church; and if faith as to the Scriptures be uncertain if it rely on them, much more must it be so as to the Churches Infallibility: If divine Faith as to the Scriptures can rest upon motives of Credibility, there can be no necessity of the Churches Infallibility to a divine faith; if it cannot, how come those motives to be a sufficient ground for such a Faith as to the Church? For the Churches Infallibility being the reason as to them of believing the things contained in the Scripture, it ought to be believed with a faith equally divine with that whereby we are to believe the Scriptures which are the instrument of conveyin • the matters of Faith to us. Besides, th • leaves every mans reason to be judge in th • choice of his Religion; because every ma • must satisfie himself as to the credibility o • those motives. And after all, this way o • Resolving Faith by the Churches Infallibility, doth unsettle the very Foundations o • Faith laid by Christ and his Apostles, wh • all supposed a rational certainty of the motives of Faith to be a sufficient Foundatio • for it; but the pretence of Infallibility do •• overthrow the evidence of sense and reason and put the whole tryal of the Truth of Christianity upon the pitiful proofs which the • bring for the Church of Romes Infallibility. And when they have brought men to it they cannot assure them what that Church is which they attribute this Infallibility to who in that Church are the proper subjects of it; what kind of Infallibility it is; no • when the Church doth define Infallibly: so many things are to be believed without reason, both as the persons who are to define, and the manner of their definitions.

2. Supposing this way true, the Circle still remains: which I proved by three things. • . From the nature of the faith they enquire for a resolution of, which is not humane but Divine Faith. For the Question was not, whether by another kind of Assent they could not escape the circle; but whether they could • o it in the resolution of Divine Faith or not? Either then the Churches Infallibility is not to be believed with a Divine Faith, or there may be a Divine Faith without an Infallible Testimony, or this Divine Faith of the Churches Infallibility, must be built on the Scripture, and so the Circle returns. 2. From the persons whose faith is to be resolved; the way of resolving faith being a different thing from proving a matter of Faith to an Adversary; granting then that to those who deny the Churches Infallibility, but allow the Scriptures, they may prove the one by the other yet this signifies nothing to the Resolution of their own Faith, which is the thing enquired after: and yet even in proving to • d • ersaries the Churches Infallibility from Scipture • they cannot avoid the Circle, when the Question returns about the sense of those places; for then they must run to the Church; because the Church which is Infallible hath delivered this to be the sense of them. 3. From the nature of that Infallibility which they attribute to the Church, which being not by immediate divine Revelation, but by a Supernatural Assistance promised in Scripture it is impossible to prove this Infallibility, but by first proving the truth of tha • Scripture wherein these promises are contained, and so the Circle still returns; for the believe the Scriptures Infallible because o • the Churches Testimony, and they belie •• the Church Infallible because of the Promises of her Assistance recorded in Scripture.

3. It is false that there are the same motive of credibility as to the Churches Infallibility which there were for the Infallibility of Mos •• and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles which T. C. therefore very wisely declined t • prove, and only said it was sufficient to she • how he had escaped the Circle.

§. 2. This is a brief account of that pan The Principles of the Guide in Controversies. Guide in Contro. disc. 3. Ch 10. Sect. 123. of the Resolution of Faith which hath bee • since assaulted by two several Adversarie • but in different ways. The first of them i • the Guide in Controversies; who ingenuousl • confesseth the Question about the Resolutio • of Faith upon their Principles to be intricat • ; so any one might easily guess by the intricacy and obscurity of his answer to it. I shall endeav • ur to bring it to as much clearness a • possibly I can; that I may the better represent the force and consequences of it. The substance of what he saith, may be reduced to these propositions.

1. That the Church may be considered two ways. 1. As a Society already manifested Sect. 126. by Divine Revelation (whether written or unwritten) to be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost. 2. As a Society of men whose Testimony is to be received upon prudential motives.

2. That the Church being considered in the former of the two acceptions; the infallible Sect. 127. authority and testimony thereof is not only an introductive into, but one of the articles of divine faith; and that so many as believe the Churches Infallibility in this sense, may safely resolve their divine faith of other articles of their belief into its delivering them as such.

3. That whatever this Infallible Authority of the Church be, it is not necessary that Ibid. every one for attaining a divine and saving faith, be infallibly certain of this Infallible Authority; or as he elsewhere expresseth it; that it is not necessary for divine faith, that Sect. 135. it should always have an external rationallyinfallible ground, or motive thereto (whether Church-authority or any other) on his part that so believes: or that he have some extrinsecal motive or proponent of which he is infallibly certain that it is infallible.

4. There are two sorts of faith to be resolved divine and humane, or infused and acquisite; the one is always built upon divine Sect. 143. 153. 148. Revelation, the other needs no more than prudential motives, or such as are sufficiently credible or morally infallible; on which an acquired or humane faith securely rests.

5. That there must be particular ultimate divine Revelation, (which may not be to all Sect. 144, 145. the same but to some one, to some another, viz. either Scripture, or Churches Testimony, or Apostolical Tradition or Miracles) beyond which he can resolve his divine faith no further, for proving or consirming which revelation, he can produce no other divine revelution, but there must end; unless a process be made in infinitum, or a running round.

6. Divine Faith as to such altimate particular divine Revelation, cannot be grounded meerly on Gods veracity, but that God hath Sect. 145. said this particular thing which we believe (namely that the testimony of the Church, or Apostles, or Scriptures is true) which must either be grounded (that it may be the Foundation of a divine faith) on some other divine Revelation and so in infinitum, or else I must rest there with an immediate assent to it.

7. The internal efficient of all Divine faith is the power or Grace of the Holy Ghost illuminating the understanding, that Sect. the prime verity cannot lye in whatever thing it reveals; and also that the particular articles of our faith are its Revelations; and perswading and operating in the Will such a firm adherence unto these articles, as many times far exceeds that of any humane science or demonstrations.

8. The ultimate resolution of a Christians divine faith, as to the extrinsecal prime motive, ground, reason or principle thereof, S • c • that equals in certainty the faith built upon it, can be no other than that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to him, or from which in building his faith • e proceeds to the rest; as to the internal efficient, it is into the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

9. The motives of credibility, or the rational evidence of the truth of Christianity do serve indeed antecedently for an introductive to, or (after it introduced) for a S • ct. 148. confirmative of this divine faith, i. e. to make it credible or acceptable to humane reason (my own or others) that this faith is true and no way liable to error; that I am assured in it by the holy and no seducing Spirit; but not to constitute it in the notion of faith divine; because the faith so stiled is supposed to rest always on an higher ground. viz. Revelation Divine.

10. That the infallibility of the Church grounded on Divine Revelation and believed by a divine faith is a main ground and pillar of a Catholicks faith for any other articles Sect. 153. thereof, that are established by the sam • Churches Definitions, where the Scriptures, or Tradition Apostolick are to him doubtful. Of which ground and assurance of such points (believed by Catholicks from the Churches infallible Authority) the Protestant • faith is destitute.

§. 3. These are the Principles upon which Those Principles considered. this Guide in Controversies undertakes to clear this intricate Question, and to free their resolution of faith from the danger of a circle; I have but two small things to object against this way. 1. That it gives up the cause in dispute. 2. That notwithstanding it doth not avoid the main difficulties.

1. That it gives up the cause in Dispute • which was whether the Infallible Testimony of the Church be the necessary Foundation of Divine Faith? for upon occasion of the supposed necessity of this Infallibility, the Question was first started; this Infallibility being asserted to be necessary by T. C. and was the thing I chiefly opposed in the discourse of the Resolution of Faith. Now this the Guide in Controversies freely yields to me, and consequently the main Foundation of Faith asserted by my Adversary is destroyed: as plainly appears by the third Proposition, wherein he affirms that an external infallible proponent is not necessary to divine Faith. But this he doth not barely affirm, but, he saith, it is copiously proved by many learned Catholicks: and to this purpose he cites Cardinal Lugo speaking of Divine Lugo de • irtute Fidei disp. 1. Sect. 12. P. 247. Faith, who saith, that the infallibility of the Church cannot be the first Ground of Divine Faith; because this Infallible Authority of the church by Assistance of the Holy Ghost is it self an article of Divine Faith. And experience tells us that all Children or adult persons first coming to the Faith, do not apprebend much less infallibly believe, this Infallible Authority in the Church before any other article of Faith. And in the Law of Nature and under the Law of Moses, the Churches proposition was not necessary in order to faith; but the instruction of Parents was sufficient in one, and the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets in the other, before their Prophecies were received by the Church. He cites Estius likewise speaking of this Divine Es • i. in 3. sent. 23. d. Sect. 13. and Salvifical faith, that it is not material to faith what medium God makes use of to bestow this gift of Faith upon men: many having believed that knew nothing of the Churches infallibility. He cites Layman Paul. Layman. Th • olog. moral. 2. l. lr. 1. c. 5. asserting that it often comes to pass, that other articles of our faith are explicitly believed before that of the Churches Infallibility; and withal this Infallibility of the Church, depends upon the promise of the spirit; therefore men must first believe that there is a spirit of God and consequently the holy Trinity. Farther saith he, it is plain that the primitive Christians did believe with divine Faith, not for the Authority of the Church, which either was not founded yet (when St. Peter believed Christ to be the Son of the living God) or had not defined any doctrines of Faith. Again he denies the Churches Authority to be the formal principle or motive of Faith; and that for this very good reason, because this infallible Authority of the Church is one of the things to be believed. Nay he cites Fa. Knot himself in his reply to Chillingworth affirming Christians may have a true Knots answer to Chillingworth p. 358. Infallible Divine Faith, of which faith they have only a fallible proponent, nor are infallibly certain thereof, i. e. as to the proponent. I now appeal to the indifferent reader whether the main thing contended for by me, viz. that the infallible Testimony of the Church is not necessary in order to Faith, be not here fully granted to me?

2. But yet the account of Faith here given is very far from clearing the chief difficulties of it, as will appear by these two things. 1. That this resolution of Divine Faith is very unsatisfactory in it self. • 2. That it is liable to the absurdities which he seeks to avoid by it.

1. That the resolution of Divine Faith laid down by him is very unsatisfactory in it self: the principles of which are these. 1. That Divine Faith must rest upon Divine Revelation. 2. This Divine Revelation upon which faith is built is that which is first made known to the person, and from which he proceeds to other matters of faith. 3. This Divine Revelation is not one and the same to all, but to some the Authority of the Scriptures, to some the Authority of the Church, to some Apostolical Tradition. 4. Divine Faith must rest upon this Revelation with an immediate assent to it, without enquiring further, for if there be any further process there must be so in infinitum or a circle. 5. That the Holy Ghost doth illuminate the understanding of him that believes, both as to the veracity of God and the truth of his Revelation, and causes such a firm adherence of faith, as many times far exceeds that of any humane Science or demonstrations. But in this way I can neither be satisfied, 1. What that particular divine Revelation is, which this divine Faith doth rest upon? Not 2. How this Faith can equally rest in several persons upon several ways? Nor 3. How it can rest with an immediate assent upon any way? Nor 4. Wherein this way differs from resolving Faith into the Testimony of the Spirit?

§. 4. I cannot understand what that particular Of particular divine Revelation as the ground of Faith. divine Revelation is into which as into it • prime extrinsecal motive, Faith is here resolved? The thing enquired after is the reason of believing the truth of what God hath publickly revealed to mankind, as we say he hath done the Doctrines of Christianity the ultimate resolution of divine Faith as to this I am told is that particular divine Revelation, which is first made known to a man: i • this particular divine Revelation the sam • with Gods publick and general Revelation o • distinct from it? If it be the same it can offer no reason for my Faith, unless the same thing may be proved by it self; if it be different, then God makes use of particular divine Revelations to men different from his publick, into which they are to resolve their Faith. Suppose then the Question be thus put, why do you believe that Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead? The general Answer is, because God that cannot lie hath revealed it; but then the Question returns on what ground do you believe this Revelation to have been from God with such a divine Faith as must rest upon divine Revelation? For such you assert to be necessary. To this the Guide in Controversies Answers, that the ultimate resolution of a Christians divine Faith is into that particular divine Revelation first made known to him. What particular divine Revelation I beseech him is that, on which I ground the divine Faith of this Proposition, that the Doctrine of Scripture is Gods Revelation? For of that we enquire. It cannot be understood of the rational evidence of the truth of the divine Revelation; for that is asserted by him not to be a sufficient foundation for divine Faith, which must rest upon nothing short of divine Revelation: I would gladly be informed and directed by this Guide in Controversies, since I must believe Gods Revelation with a divine Faith, and this divine Faith must rest upon a divine Revelation; what that particular divine Revelation is on which I am to believe with divine Faith, the truth of Gods publick and general Revelation? I have endeavoured to find out what his meaning herein is, but I confess I cannot: sometimes he seems to den • any resolution at all of this divine faith into an • further principles, and quotes Layman with approbation, who saith, that the formal reason of believing what God saith is his veracity; but that God hath revealed such thing it. 133. to us, cannot be any further resolved or pr • ved by divine Faith. In the next Section he saith, That divine Faith doth not resolve into an extrinsecal, even morally infallibl • Sect. 134 motive thereof either as the formal cause, o • always as the applicative introductive o • condition of this divine Faith. From whence it follows, that this divine Faith may be where there is neither infallible nor prudential motive; i. e. it may be, where no account at all can be given of it; for all motives must be of one sort or other; and yet this divine Faith doth rest upon a particular divine Revelation, of which since no account can be given, it is unreasonable to expect it. But I will try yet further by an Instance of his own. The Question put by him is, why he believes the things contained in the Gospel of St. Matthew, to be divinely revealed; he Answers, That he resolves his Faith of the truth of those contents not into the Churches saying they are true, although he believe all that true the Church saith, but into divine Revelation; because God by his Evangelist delivereth them for truth: Again he saith, When he believes that all contained in St. Matthew's Gospel is true, because the Church tells him i • i • so, and then believes that the Church • elleth him true, because God hath revealed • n some part of his Word, that the Church in this shall not erre; here his Faith he saith, is ultimately resolved again, not into the Churches Authority, but the divine Revela • ion concerning the Church. This looks like something at first hearing, if one do not press • oo far in the examination of it; but being • hroughly searched into, how profound soever it may seem, it is scarce tolerable sense upon his own principles. For it is agreed now on all hands that in the Question of the resolution of Faith, the enquiry is not why we believe what God reveals; but why we believe this to be a divine Revelation; and the Question is now put particularly concerning the doctrine contained in St. Matthews Gospel: his principles are, That this must be believed by divine Faith, and that this Faith must rest upon divine Revelation; I now enquire upon what particular divine Revelation he doth build this act of divine Faith, that St. Matthew's Gospel contains the Word of God? He Answers, first, Though he believes it to be true because the Church saith it is so, yet his Faith is not resolved into the Churches Testimony, but into divine Revelation 〈◊〉 What divine Revelation doth he mean? that which is in Question? viz. That St. Matthew's Gospel is divine Revelation: if so the • he doth not believe it because the Church saith it; but if he doth believe it because of the Churches Testimony, then it cannot be o • the account of Gods delivering it for truth by the Evangelist. For doth he believe it because the Evangelist saith so or not? If h • doth, then he doth not believe it, because the Church saith it, if he doth not believe it because the Evangelist saith it, then he must believe it because the Church saith it, and so his Faith must be resolved into the Churches Testimony, which if it be a divine Faith▪ must according to his own principles suppose that the Churches Testimony is a divine Revelation, and the formal object of divine Faith. The same absurdity lies in the other Answer, He believe • , he saith, that all contained in St. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church telleth him so; and then believes that the Church tells him true, because God hath revealed in some part of his Word, that the Church in this shall not erre. And yet his Faith is not resolved into the Churches Authority but the divine Revelation concerning the Church. This Answer must be understood either of St. Matthew's Gospel being proved by some other part of Scripture, and then I grant the circle is avoided; but that doth not answer the present difficulty, which is concerning the ground of believing not some one part of divine Revelation, but the whole: Or else it must be understood of St. Matthew's Gospel being proved by some part of it self. And then he resolves his Faith thus. He believes what St. Matthew's Gospel saith concerning the Church, because he believes St. Matthew's Gospel to be true; and believes St. Matthew's Gospel to be true with a divine Faith, because the Church tells him so. Can any thing now be more plain than that, he must resolve his Faith into that Authority upon which he believed St. Matthew's Gospel to be true, which himself confesseth to be that of the Church? Only if a man can be so foolish to believe first the truth of St. Matthew's Gospel, because the Church saith it, and at the same time believe the Church to say true, because St. Matthew's Gospel saith so, that mans Faith is to be resolved into nothing but the dancing of Fairies, which have put him into such a circle that he can never find the way out of. But if he mean any thing else I know not what to impute such an absurd way of proceeding to; unless it be to a through intoxication of School Divinity, which confounds all true notions and distinct conceptions of things, and makes men have such swimming brains, that all things turn round with them.

§. 5. 2. But supposing I could understand The resolution ofdivine Faith must agree to all? what this particular divine Revelation meant, into which this divine Faith must be resolved, why may not one particular way serve all mankind for it? Must there be several and all equal foundations of divine Faith? I can easily satisfie my self of the reason of asserting it • but not of the reason of the thing in this way of resolving Faith. The true reason of asse • ting it was the plain evidence that many persons had a true divine Faith, without knowing any thing of the Churches Infallibility: this made some men in the Church of Rome confess that it was not always necessary; but least on the other side they should seem hereby to forego the Palladium of that Church, they do withall say, that sometimes Faith may begin there: and so run into the very same absurdities that the others do. For if one man can resolve his Faith well so, why not a hundred, why not a thousand, why not all Christians? If all cannot do it without running into a circle, neither can one; for the process of Faith is alike in all. Not that the same means are used to all persons; for it is evident that men believe upon different grounds; but what is absurd if a thousand do it, is equally absurd if but one do it. Although the Guide • n Controversies doth not suppose it necessary • or men to resolve their Faith into the Churches Infallibility; yet he doth suppose • hat some men may do it. Well then, we will put the case that any one person doth re • olve his Faith concerning Gods Revelation • nto the Churches Infallibility as the ground of his divine Faith; I desire to be informed by this worthy Guide, whether he doth not run into the same absurdities, which all would do if they proceeded that way? i. e. whether it be any more possible for one to free himself from a circle than for all? Is not the reason assigned by Canus and Layman, and Lugo this viz. because the Churches Infallibility i • one of the things to be believed as revealed by God, and therefore cannot be the ground of Faith to any? And will not this reason exclude any one person from doing it, that resolves his Faith as he ought to do? So that if this hold in any one, being drawn from the reason of the thing and not from the circumstances of persons, it must equally hold against all persons, and consequently no one person can reasonably establish his Faith as to Gods Revelation upon the Churches Infallibility.

§. 6. 3. I am far from understanding this way Of immediate Asnt. of immediate asse •• t to the divine Revelation▪ I grant the reason against proceeding furthe • to be very good, for the Guide could see n • passage that way, but over rocks and precipices: and therefore finds out a shorter cut by asserting an immediate assent to the Divin • Revelation. But to what divine Revelation doth he mean? The Authority of Soripture Churches Infallibility, Apostolical Tradition, or any of these? It is all one to me, which it is, for it is equally unreasonable, to allo • any of them. For I look upon Faith a • an act of the mind, which must always have a reason moving it to assent. Even in self evident Propositions where the assent is most immediate, yet there is the greatest and clearest reason for it, viz. the evidence of the thing, which makes the understanding never hesitate or doubt, but yield a firm assent upon the first apprehension, and proportionable to the reason and evidence of the thing, or of the motive enclining to assent, so is the readiness and firmness of it. But to assert an assent in Faith so immediate, of which no motive or reason can be assigned proportionable to it, is a thing repugnant to the nature of our reasonable faculties, and it is to make one of the noblest acts of our understandings a meer blind and bruitish assent. All that we enquire for, is a sufficient reason to move our minds to believe in the act of divine Faith; which is seen in all the acts of humane Faith. For no man can reasonably believe what another saith, or that he hath said so, but he is able to give an account of both of them. And it would be very strange that in the most weighty matters of Faith, on which mens eternal happiness and misery depend, they should be obliged to assent in such an immediate manner that they can have no good account to give of their divine Faith. Yes, • aith the Guide, an account may be given • o make this assent appear prudent by the mo • ives of credibility: But that is not the thing we enquire for; but a sufficient foundation for divine Faith: and as to this he asserts, • hat our Faith doth immediately rest upon divine Revelation without proceeding to another Revelation for the ground of it. But now then can this divine Faith have a divine Revelation for its ground? It may have it for its material object, which comes not under our consideration; but only the formal object on motive of that Faith as to this Revelation. We will suppose the Churches Infallibility to be the matter believed, I demand a reason why this is to be believed? The Answer is, because God hath revealed it in his Word; there the Q • estion returns what reason have you to believe that to be the Word of God? Here the Guide cries out, stand there; if you proceed a step further you are lost. For if you say upon another Revelation, then that upon another, and so without end. But say I, you tell me I must believe this to be Gods Word with a divine Faith; and this divine Faith must rest upon a divine Revelation as its formal cause; assign me that, or you overthrow the nature of divine Faith; what divine Revelation is there for this Faith to rest upon? None say you, but here it must stop; if so, then it is certain by your own principles this either can be no divine Faith, or else divine Faith doth not always need a divine Revelation. So that this way of the resolution of Faith overthrows it self; and needs no other opposition but of one part to another.

§. 7. 4. It may be all this may be cleared by Of the assistance of the Holy Ghost. the Assistance of the Holy Ghost supplying the want of another Revelation, by its illuminating and confirming the mind. So the Tragoedians of old call'd down the Gods upon the Stage, when they could extricate themselves by no other means. Not that I do in the least doubt the efficiency of the divine Spirit in the act and exercise of Faith; or that God by secret and unexpressible ways may strengthen and increase Grace in the hearts of men, which thereby become better assured of the • hings they believe. But the Question now • s whether our Faith, as to the motive and • eason of it can, or ought to be resolved into • he illumination of the Holy Ghost? And in • ruth after all his turnings and windings the Guide sits down at last in the grossest way of resolving divine faith into the Testimony of the Holy Ghost. For he saith that doth • lluminate the understanding that the prime verity cannot lie in whatever thing it reveals, and also that the particular articles of our faith are its revelations. Was ever any • hing more fully said to this purpose by the highest Calvinists or Enthusiasts? Have the • isputants of the Church of Rome hither • o charged them with a circle in this • esolution of faith, equal with theirs between the Church and Scripture; and hath the very Guide in Controversies found no way to escape one whirlpool, but by falling into another? But since I see no reason to believe this Guide in Controversies to be infallible, any more than the Pope himself, I hope I may have leave to ask him some few Questions. Doth he in earnest believe that our assurance of Gods veracity and the truth of his revelations do flow from the immediate illumination of the Spirit of God? I would fain know then, 1. Why he trouble • himself about any other resolution of faith▪ For by this way he resolves faith in all the parts of it. If you ask the first Question • why you believe that to be true which God reveals? The Answer is ready, the Holy Ghost illuminates my mind in the belief of this▪ If you again ask, why you believe these particular articles to be Gods revelations; the answer is already given, the same Holy Ghost illuminates my mind in that too. What need Church-Infallibility, Apostolical Tradition, motives of credibility, or any other way; the work is compleatly and effectually done without the assistance of any of them▪ 2. Is not this to tell unbelievers that we can give them no satisfaction as to the grounds of our divine faith? It is true, he grants something may be said for a dull kind of humane and acquisite faith, which others are capable of understanding; but for divine faith that depends upon such secret and private illuminations, which no person can at all judge of, but he that hath them; nor he very well, unless another revelation assures him, that these are the illuminations of Gods Spirit and not the deceptions of his own. Especially since it is a principle in the Roman Church that no man can attain any absolute certainty of Grace without a particular Revelation from God. See then what a wilderness this Guide hath led us into! We • re to believe that what God hath revealed • s true, and that he hath revealed these things, • rom the illumination of the Holy Ghost: • ut we cannot certainly know that we have • uch an illumination without another reve • ation to discover that; and so we must run • n without end or turn back again the same way we went, to believe illumination by • evelation and revelation by illumination. 3. How he can possibly give himself any good account of his faith in this manner? For since the fundamental principle of faith • s the veracity of God, and the belief of Gods veracity is here attributed to the illumination of the Holy Ghost; we may see how excellent a Guide this is, that thus stumbles in a plain way, or must of necessity go forward and backward. For I desire him to satisfie me according to this resolution of faith, in this Question; why he doth believe whatsoever God saith is true? his Answer is, because the Holy Ghost by his inward illumination assured me so; But then I ask again, why he is assured of the truth of what the Holy Ghost enlightens him? his Answer must be if he speaks at all to the purpose, because the Holy Ghost is God and cannot speak any thing but truth. So that the veracity of God is proved by the Spirits Illumination, and the Spirits Illumination by Go • veracity. But there is yet another principl • which faith stands upon, which is, that Go • hath revealed the things we believe; he • again I ask why he believes these articles a • Gods revelations, his answer is, the Hol • Ghost by enlightening my mind hath assured me of it. But then I ask how he is su • with a divine faith, which in this case is necessary that there is a Holy Ghost and tha • this is the illumination of the Holy Ghost • Here he must return again to divine Revelation, wherein the promise of the Holy Ghos • is made. Judge now, Reader, whether thi • be not an admirable Guide in Controversies and whether he hath not given a very satisfactory account of the Resolution of Faith?

§. 8. Besides that this way is thus unsatisfactory The absurdities of these principles. in it self, I have this further charge against it, that other ways are liable only to the single absurdities of their own particula • opinions; but this blind Guide hoping to clea • himself of one great absurdity, hath not only run into it the very way he seeks to escape it, but into many more besides. If there be any thing absurd in the Calvinists Resolution of Faith he hath taken in that; if there be any thing absurd in resolving faith by the Infallibility of the Church he is liable to • hat too; because though he doth not think • t necessary he allows it to be good; and last of all that which he looks upon as the advantage of their faith above ours plungeth him unavoidably in as bad a circle as may • e. And that is, That the Infallibility of the Church being once believed by a divine Faith from the Revelation of it in Scripture it is a ground of faith to him in all controversies that arise concerning the sense of Scripture; I am not now to examine the falseness of the pretence, (which hath been done already and may be more afterwards) that which at present I am to shew, is, that it is impossible for him in his resolution of Faith concerning the sense of Scripture to avoid the circle. Let us see how he attempts it, Suppose I be asked, saith he, concerning some article of Sect. 151. faith defined by the Church, though the same article doth not appear to me clearly delivered in the Scriptures, why with a divine faith I believe it to be divine Revelation? I answer, because the Church which is revealed by the Scriptures to be perpetually assisted by the Holy Ghost, and to be infallible for ever in matters delivered by her, hath delivered it to me as such. If again why with a divine faith I believe these Scriptures in general or such a sense of those texts in particular, which are pretended to reveal the Churches infallibility to be divine Revelation? I answer as before, because Apostolical Tradition hath delivered them to be so: which Apostolical Tradition related or conveyed to me by the Churc • I believe with a divine faith by the interna • operation of the Holy Spirit, without havi •• at all any further Divine Revelation, fro • which I should believe this Revelation to b • divine. This is the utmost progress of divine faith with him. I know not how muc • faith there may be in this way, I am su • there is not the least shadow of reason. Fo • if a stop be made at last by the internal op • ration of the Holy Spirit, what need so muc • ado to come thither? Might not the sam • answer have served as well to the first an • second Question as to the third? When yo • were asked why with a divine faith you b • lieve such a sense of Scripture to be divin • Revelation? Might not you have hindred a • further proceeding by saying, I believe i • with a divine faith by the internal operatio • of the Holy Spirit, without having at all an • further divine Revelation. But if you though it necessary to assign another divine Revelation for the foundation of that faith, by th • Churches Infallibility, why will not the sam • reason hold for the last act? which must hav • as good a Foundation as the other, or els • how comes it to be a divine faith as well as • he other? But the subtilty of all this is, • ou have it seems by your office of Guide • he opening of the Gate, and you hold it • pen so long as to let through all your Friends, • or Infallibility and Tradition must by any means be let through, and when these are • assed, down falls the Gate in so rude a man • er as is enough to cripple any other that endeavours to get passage. Can any man pos • ibly assign a reason, why the operation of the Spirit should not have as great force, before the Churches Infallibility be let in? But this it is to be a Guide in Controversies, • o direct Infallibility, Tradition and the Ho • y Ghost to know their distance and to keep • heir due places; and it is a great favour • hat the Holy Spirit is allowed to bring up the rear and to make all sure, but by no means to offer to go before Infallibility or Tradition. For these are capable of doing better service afterwards than the Holy Ghost is ever like to do them; the greatest use of it being to make good a Pass, that nothing follow to disturb the march of Infallibility and Tradition. But if I may be so bold once more to presume to ask this wonderful Guide; when the dispute is about the sense of Scripture, why he doth believe such a particular sense which doth not appear clearly to him in Scriptures to be the infallibl • sense of it, or to be divine Revelation? Hi • answer is, because the Church which is revealed in Scriptures to be infallible hath delive • ed this to him as the sense of it. Very well this is an Answer I understand, though I se • no reason for it. But I proceed, why d • you believe this Infallibility to be the sens • of those places which speak of the Church since to me they are far from appearing t • be clearly delivered in those Scriptures Remember you believe this with divin • faith, and this divine faith must have d • vine Revelation; the Question then is u • on what divine Revelation do you believ • the Infallibility of the Church to be pr • mised in Scripture? He Answers, upon Ap • stolical Tradition. Is this Apostolical Tradition the same with the Scriptures or different from it? If the same what greate clearness can there be in this than in th • Scriptures? If different, what divine Revelation is your faith of the Infallibility o • that built upon? He ingenuously consesse • none at all, for then there must be a process in infinitum or a circle. And yet hi • principle is that divine revelation is nece • sary to divine faith; but there can be non • here by his own consession, without process in insinitum or a circle; which i • to acknowledge the absurdity of his own way as far as a man can desire. Well, but how comes this Apostolical Tradition to be known to him? By the Church he saith; but may the Church be deceived in delivering Apostolical Traditions? No, he saith, she is infallible: but do you believe her infallible with divine faith? Yes, he saith that must be done: then at last there must be a divine Revelation again for this Infallibility, and so the circle returns. No, he saith, at last, he believes the Churches Testimony infallible only with a humane and acquisite faith upon prudential motives; but he believes the Apostolical Tradition related by the Church with a divine faith. Was there ever such a perplexed Guide in Controversies? The Infallibility of the Church is sometimes to be believed with a divine faith and sometimes not; and yet when it is not to be believed with a divine faith it is the Foundation of the divine faith of Apostolical Tradition; for he assigns no other ground or reason for it besides the Infallible Testimony of the Church. But this infallibility he saith may be known two ways by promises of Scripture, or prudential motives; not to dispute now the possibility of proving the Churches Infallibility by prudential motives; (which I shall do at large afterwards) the thing I now enquire after is, since the Apostolical Tradition must be believed by divine faith, and the belief of it comes by the Churches Infallibility; whether any other Infallibility can secure such a faith besides the Infallibility by Promise; for the Infallibility asserted being a security from error by divine Assistance, and that assistance only supposed to be promised in Scripture, there can be no other Infallibility here understood but that; which Infallibility by his own assertion must be believed by divine faith, which divine Faith must rest upon divine Revelation; and so he believes the sense of Scripture because of the Churches Infallibility, and the Churches Infallibility by Apostolical Tradition, and Apostolical Tradition by the Churches Infallibility, and the Churches Infallibility by the sense of Scripture. See now what an admirable Guide in Controversies we have met with! and with what skill and dexterity he hath escaped the circle. And so I take my leave of this GUIDE, finding nothing in him further material about Infallibility, which I have not answered in the foregoing Discourse. The Considerato • urging so much the very same things, and frequently in the same words, that I now think he either was the same person, or made very bold with him.

§. 1. HAving met with so little satisfaction from the Guide The Principles of E. W. laid down. in Controversies, I now betake my self to the Rule; no Fancies, Toys, Trifles, or Fallible Glosses, I assure you, for those E. W. cries out upon almost in every page of his worthy work; but Reason and Religion, or The Certain Rule of Faith. What can any man desire more? unless it be to see Mr. Stillingfleet joyned in the Title-page with Atheists, Heathens, Jews, Turks and all Sectaries. And that he might own a greater obligation to him, than all that Rabble; he dispatches them all, after a fashion, in 30. pages, and spends above 600, upon him. O what a pestilent Heretick is this Stillingfleet! that deserves so many lashes beyond Atheists, Heathens; Jews or Turks! If he had been any one of those, he might have been gently used, for never were they fairlier dealt with by any man that undertook them. But he is not so much their Friend to thank him for this kind usage: and E. W. thinks he will have enough to do to defend himself. I confess I think so too, if either of his Books against me, were to be thrown at my head; for they are very thick and as heavy as is possible. And to my great comfort, I never yet saw two such bulky books, whose substance might be brought into a less compass; for setting aside Tautologies and tedious repetitions, frequent excursions and impertinent digressions the pith and marrow of both his Books lies in this one word Infallibility. But it is time to fall to my business, for fear of more Advertisements; and Infallibility being the main design of his Books, that shall be the subject of my present debate with him. And because this E. W. is a great pretender to Principles; the method I shall proceed in shall be first to consider his Principles, and then to defend my own. For which I shall chiefly make use of his last Book, it being in effect but another edition of his former, the other as I suppose being disposed of to better purposes than to be read; for I never heard of one person in England that read it over. However, what there is material in it, different from the last, as to the present controversie, I shall upon occasion take notice of.

The two main Principles he builds upon are these.

1. That without an Infallible Church, there can be no certainty of Faith.

2. That the Roman-Catholick Church is this Infallible Church.

If he can prove these two, he shall not need any more to establish their Religion, or to overthrow ours. And I will say that for his praise that he hath brought the controversie into a narrow compass; for he confesses it is endless to dispute out of Scripture and Fathers, since witty men by their fall • ble, Glosses can turn and winde them which way they please, but there is nothing so stiff and inflexible as a standing infallible Oracle in the Church, which being once believed all Controversie is at an end. But we may as soon hope to see all other controversies ended by dry blows, as this Principle proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable man.

The main proofs for the necessity of the Churches Infallibility, which he insists upon are these. 1. That there can be no Divine Faith without it. 2. There can be no certainty as to the Canon, or edition, or sense of Scripture. 3. There can be as little certainty as to the sense of the Fathers or the Primitive Church.

1. That there can be no divine Faith without it. This he frequently insists upon in both his Books; and with so much vehemency, as to make the deniers of Infallibility to overthrow all Faith and Religion. Which being a charge of the highest nature, ought to be made good by the clearest evidence. Whether that which E. W. produces, be so I shall leave any one to judge, when I have given an Account of his Principles as to this matter. In his first Book called Protestancy without Principles, he begins with this subject; and lays down these assertions, upon which all his Discourse is built.

1. That Gods infallible Revelation requires an infallible Assent of Faith; or an infallible verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible assent of Faith in us: the contrary he calls wild Doctrine; this subjective infallibility, as he calls it, he offers very wisely to prove from those places of Scripture, which speak of the assurance which Christians had of the truth of their Religion.

2. This infallible assent of Faith doth require infallible Teachers; for infallible believers and infallible Teachers are correlatives. And in the second Chapter, he goes about to prove it, because, if Christs infallible Doctrine be only fallibly taught, no man hath certainty what it is; and seeing what is fallible may be false, Christs Doctrine may not be taught at all; which is infallible and cannot be false; and he that should abjure this fallible Doctrine, doth not deny therein Christs Doctrine, and cannot be upon that account an Heretick. But to Disc. 1. c. 2. p. 24, 27. make Faith Infallible, he asserts, That every Preacher sent by the infallible Church, as a member conjoyned with it, is infallible in his Teaching: and on the contrary, whosoever renounces an Infallible society cannot teach with certainty Christs infallible Doctrine. From whence he saith, follows an utter ruine of Christian Religion. In his third Chapter he further proves, That if the Church were fallible in her Teaching, God would oblige us to believe a falsity; because God commands men to hear the Church, and if the Church may erre, then men are obliged to believe a false Doctrine taught by her. And all other means short of this Infallibility would be insufficient for preserving Christian Religion in the world. In the fourth Chapter he comes to a particular consideration of divine Faith, and from thence proves the necessity of infallibility. Faith, saith he, requires two things essentially, an object which is Gods Revelation, and a Proposition of this object; by Vertue of which the elicit act of Faith follows in a believer, and intellectually lays as it were hold, both o • Gods Revelation and the thing revealed. Now to prove the necessity of such an infallible Proposition in order to divine Faith, ho • lays down some abstruse Propositions.

1. That Gods infallible Revelation avail • nothing in order to Faith, unless Christian • by their Faith lay hold on the certainly thereof, or owne it as infallible and the assured ground of their Assent.

2. That the measure and degrees of certitude in the assent are according to those which the Proponent gives to the Revelation. If he teaches doubtfully, the assent is doubtful, if probably, the assent is probable, is infallibly, the assent is infallible: the reason which he gives of this, is, because an object revealed receives its light from the proposal, as an object of sight doth from the light of the air. As long therefore, saith he, as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me, for want of an undoubted application made by an infallible proponent, it can no more transfuse certainty into Faith, than Fire at a great distance warm; that is, no more than if it were not certain in it self, or not at all in Being.

3. From hence he saith, it follows that Protestants can only doubtfully guess at what they are to believe, and consequently never yet had nor can have Divine, certain and infallible Faith. Because they cannot • ropose Faith infallibly. Hence he proceeds Chapter fifth and sixth, to disprove Moral Cer • ainty, as insufficient in order to Faith; and destroying, as he saith, The very being and • ssence of Divine and supernatural Faith; because the sole and adequate object of divine and supernatural Faith is Gods infinite veracity actually speaking to us; but this infinite veracity, (when it is duly proposed), transsuseth more certainty into the elicit act of Faith, than any Moral Certainty derived • rom inferiour motives can have. For all Moral Certainty is at least capable of falsity and may deceive us: Gods infallible veracity cannot be false nor deceive if Faith rest upon that Motive, and if it rest not there, it is no Faith at all. Nay he asserts, that supernatural Faith is more certain and infallible, than all the Metaphysical Sciences which nature can give us; For which he gives this plain reason, Because the infinite veracity of God which only supporteth Faith with greater force, energy, and necessity transfuseth into it, a supereminent insallibility, supereminent, he saith, and above all the Certainty, which the principles of natur • can afford. This is the substance of E. W • principles of Faith in his first Book: which is somewhat more enlarged in the second In one Chapter he designs to prove if the Roman Church be not infallible, there is no tru • Disc. 2. c. 5. Faith in the world, the reason of which in his own easie terms is this, For the meer possibility of deceiving Christians in one Article Disc 2. c. 14. impossibilitates the Belief of all she proposeth. In another Chapter, That she is not only infallible, c. 15. but that the Adversaries of her infallibility destroy the very essence of Christian Religion. And in the next, That divine Faith in this present state of things necessarily requires a Church infallible, because the infallibility of faith necessarily requires not only an Infallible Revelation, but a • infallible Proponent. Ruine one or the other Infallibility, faith can be no more but an uncertain Assent and consequently can be no faith at all; This reason he diversifies into many shapes, and represents it in different words, but it comes in at every turn. So in the next Chapter he proves the Catholick c. 16. Church Gods infallible Oracle, because infallibility once taken away, no man can have assurance so much as of one Christian verity; the reason is, no man can be assured of what is fallibly taught: because what is so taught, may by vertue of the Proposition be • alse, but a doctrine so far removed from in • allible certainly, for want of a due application of its infallibility, comes not near to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, which was applied, taught and proposed infallibly: And in the same Chapter he saith, It is utterly impossible, that an infallible verity C. 16 n. 14. as revealed, though fallibly proposed should have influence upon faith, or work in believers a most firm assent. Not long after, he asserts, That infallibility being taken C. 18 n. 4. away, no man can tell, but that Christian Religion is a fiction; for these are his words. A feigned and fallible Religion are near Co • sin Germans. The one is a Fiction, the other at least may be so, and for ought any man can know is no better: And in the same Chapter he saith, That without infallibility Religion N. 12. is meer Scepticism: because all other means, infallibility being set aside, may be equally pleaded by Hereticks, (as Arians and such like,) as by any other. To the same purpose in the following Chapter, where he proposes that which he calls the last proof of the Churches Infallibility, which is still the C. 19. n. 3. very same over and over; (for he out-does the Cook of Brundusium in serving up the the same meat in several dresses) viz. That the denyal of it overthrows Christian Religion; be pleased to observe his concise way o • reasoning. If the infallibility of reveale • doctrine be lost as it were in the way between God and us, If the Revelation appear not as it is in it self infallible, whe • we assent to it by faith, that is, if it be no • infallibly conveyed and applied to all by a • • nerring proponent, as it subsists in its first cause, infinitely infallible, faith perishes, w • are cast upon pure uncertainties, and ma • justly doubt whether such a doctrine, separated from that other Perfection of Infallibility be really true or no? In his third Di • course we meet with a convincing Argumen • , as he calls it, for Infallibility. If all Authority imaginable, whereupon faith can depend, Dis. 3 c. 4. N. 2. conveyed or delivered these verities both as infallible Truths and infallibly, and I assent to the doctrine with a belief not infallible, but only morally certain, I leave by my fallible moral assent the true infallible teaching and conveying Oracles of Christian doctrine, and believe upon a meer phansied Authority, which was never impowered to convey Gods verities to any. Before I come to examine these things it will be necessary to lay down his notion of faith in his own terms, viz. That it essentially trends obsecurely to its own object; (no matter for understanding it, but the words found c. 8. • . 1c. well together) and by this saith we l • y hold upon the most supream and all comprehending infallibility proper to God alone. But withal we are to take notice of a twofold certitude N. 14. in faith; the one a certitude of Infallibility arising from the supernatural principles which concur to the very act of belief, and these being not liable to error can never operate, but when the divine Revelation really is, and implies not only the meer truth of the act, but moreover an infallible determination to Truth: the other a certitude of adhesion not grounded on evidence, but upon most prudent motives proposed to Reason, (which clearly discover'd) the Will by her • pious affection commands and determines the intellectual faculties to assent indubitably. After all which he concludes, that the plain c. 10, 11. and easie Resolution of Faith, is into Gods veracity as speaking to men by an infallible Church. Thus I have laid together so many parcels of E. W's. rambling discourse, as were necessary in order to the examination of it. And indeed I cannot compare his reasoning to any thing better than his own pretty notion of faith, for just as he saith, Faith essentially tends obscurely to its object, so his principles do to his conclusion.

But that I may proceed with the greater clearness, I must premise these two things;

1. §. 2. That the Question is not concerning Some things premised to the S • a • e of the Question. the necessity of any internal Assistance o • divine Grace, but of an external insallibl • Proponent in order to divine Faith. So tha • whatever certainty of saith is derived from the Spirit of God, is no ways pertinent to ou • present debate. I do not deny that a trul • divine faith, doth suppose a divine and super natural assistance; I do not deny, that th • Holy Ghost may confirm mens minds to suc • a degree of certainty, which may exceed th • rational grounds they are able to give t • others of their faith. But I say all this i • very far from the purpose. For I had expresly laid down this caution before, that o • Question in the Resolution of Faith, did no • relate to the workings of the divine Spirit o • our minds of which no satisfactory accoun • can be given to others; but to the externa • Rational Account, part 1. c. 7. Sect. 1. motives and grounds of faith, whether the • must be infallible or not? To what purpos • is it then, for E. W. to talk of a certitud • of Infallibility, as he calls it, arising from the supernatural principles which concur t • the very act of belief, and these not liable t • error, can never operate, but when the divine Revelation really is? Granting all thi • to be true; yet what doth this prove, concerning the necessity of an external infallible Proponent such as the Church is? All that ca • hence follow is that those whom the Spirit of God enables to believe, cannot believe a falshood; but what then? Hath he proved that the supernatural principles of faith do never operate, but where the Church first infal • ibly proposes? No, this he never attempts, either not understanding what was fit to be proved, or knowing it impossible to be done. But if the infallible certainty of Faith doth depend upon inward illumination and divine concurrence; the Infallibility of Faith may be had without an external Infallible Proponent. And so all his first principles signify nothing to his purpose, for supposing an Infallible assent of Faith necessary to an Infallible Revelation; yet that doth not prove the necessity of Infallible teachers, unless it can be had no other way. But here he tells us, That Infallible certainty is derived from supernatural principles concurring to the act of Faith; which he elsewhere calls, The interior illustration of Grace imparted to a Reason and Religion, Disc. 3 c 9. N. 4. p. 562. Soul, which he saith, is wholly necessary to make faith certain; and after saith, we come to an absolute certainty of Faith, upon tbis interiour sacred Language of God, N. 6, 7. or his internal illumination; the necessity of which he proves from Scripture and Fathers. But when he hath done all, he hath most effectually confuted himself; For if this inward illumination, can, as he saith, supply N. 9. the inefficacy of external motives; How comes the Infallibility of an external proponent to be necessary in order to that certainty of Faith which may be obtained, by divin • Grace making up what is wanting in the outward motives? Did ever any man shew more kindness to his Adversary in helping him with weapons to destroy himself than this E. W. doth? When after a most tedious endeavour to prove the necessity of an externa • Infallible Proponent in order to the certainty of Faith; he sets down these words, Now what we assert in this particular, is, that the N. 11. Infallible certainty of faith comes from th • interior illumination, as it more lively set • forth the formal object assented to, or help • to a clearer proposal of the divine mysteries. Doth the Infallible certainty of Faith indeed come from this interior illumination? What then becomes of the necessity of an Infallible Church? We often hear of the great Assistance the Jesuits have in writing their Books; I should rather have thought some enemy of E. W's. had put in these things to overthrow all he had spent so many impertinent words about before. But lest such expressions should be thought to have dropt from him unawares, observe with what care he sums up the whole progress of Faith in this State.

First, A natural Proposition of the mysteries N. 12. precedes; this begets a natural apprehension of their credibility; after some consideration there may arise an imperfect judgement of credibility: but should the will offer as yet to incline the mind to assent only upon what appears hitherto, it could not move to a Faith which is an assent super omnia or most certain. Therefore the illustration, or powerful invitation of Grace (by which as I said the object appears another way and more clearly) is infused, whereof the soul is recipient. The Will now after other Preparatives thus strengthned a new commands boldly the understanding to Assert upon the safest Principles imaginable, viz. upon Gods infallible Revelation accompanied with his own Divine Light, which makes faith to grow higher in certainty, than all the reason or knowledge in this life can arise to. For as S. Thomas observes, humane knowledge derives its certitude from mans natural Reason which may err, but faith hath its infallibility, ex lumine divinae scientiae, from the light of divine wisdom which cannot deceive, and therefore is most certain.

Who, upon reading these words, would not have thought this E. W. more conversant in Calvins Institutions, than Aquinas his Sums? For in all this Resolution of Faith, how can a man edge in the necessity of an infallible Church in order to the certainty of Faith? I will not say E. W. was wholly inapprehensive of this snare he had brought himself into, but he takes the worst way imaginable to get out of it. For to shew the difference between this way and that of Hereticks, he makes the exterior humane proposition N. 13, 14, 15. of Divine Revelation necessarily preceding the true light of Faith; which canno • be made but by one that makes the Proposition good by a Miracle, or some supernatural wonder; but no Protestant is able to do thus much. And is any Papist think we? I would withal my heart see some of the miracles wrought by their Preachers to convince me; I profess the greatest readiness of mind to be perswaded by them, in case they do but work such miracles as Christ and his Apostles did. But of this subject at large afterwards. At present it may suffice to take notice. 1. That no proposition of Faith is supposed sufficient by E. W. but where the Proponent doth work Miracles: and therefore we may safely question the Churches Proposition till we see such Miracles wrought by her, as were by Christ and his Apostles. For thus, saith he, Christ our Lord Sent by N. 15. his Eternal Father, thus the Apostles sent by Christ and the Church ever since (all shewing wonders above the force of Nature) proved their mission; and withal evinced that God only impowred them to teach as they did. And because the poor Protestant doth not pretend to miracles, therefore the light he pretends to is a meer ignis fatuus vain and void of all reality. I must say that of my Adversary, that he puts the controversie upon the fairest issue that can be desired. For if their Church work such miracles as Christ and his Apostles did to attest their divine commission, the evidence from thence to believe her infallibility ought to over rule the opinions of such who say she hath erred; in case the doctrine attested by Christ and his Apostles and that of the Roman Church do not directly contradict each other. 2. Although this exterior Proponent prove himself so commissioned yet by the Progress of Faith laid down by E. W. this is not enough to beget an infallible certainty of Faith. For, he saith, after the exteriour proposition only a natural apprehension of their credibility succeeds; then a judgement of credibility, then the inclination of the Will; but yet no infallible certainty till the illustration of Divine Grace comes. So that it evidently follows according to E. W. that an infallible Proponent cannot beget an infallible Assent of Faith; but that doth arise from the inward illumination of the mind by the Holy Ghost. Which I have already shewed doth lay men open to all the absurditie • the highest Calvinists were charged with in resolving Faith; and is withal impertinent to our dispute; which relates to the necessity of an external infallible Proponent in order to the Certainty of Faith. But surely the Jesui • are not so berest of all their subtilty to comply with their greatest Adversaries without some advantage to be gained by it. Yes, E. W. will shake hands with some old enemies, the better to assault some later Protestants, who seem to attribute, he saith, no other certainty to the very act of Faith, than what is Moral; which doctrine, he saith, N. 16. if it be defensible it's impossible to declare, how Faith it self or the illustration previous, can proceed from the Holy Ghost. For did the Spirit of God work with a soul, when it believes, the certainty of Faith, would without all doubt, go beyond that assurance, which is only humane, moral and fallible. I think that I escape well, that E. W. hath not transcribed a great part of Bradwardin de Causâ Dei against me; for I plainly see, he takes me for an Absolute Free Willer, and a denier of the Grace of God. It is true indeed, I set aside the consideration of Divine Grace in this matter, but I assure him, not that I questioned the Truth or necessity of it; but because it was not pertinent to • his business. For to what purpose should we argue about that which can only serve for • he satisfaction of those which have it? and • eaves men entangled in the same difficulties they object to others? But the Question was plainly put by me concerning the outward inducements to faith; viz. whether an infallible Testimony of the Church were necessary in order to it? or whether a certainty short of that, which I called Moral, were sufficient for Divine Faith? Not opposing this Moral Certainty to the concurrence of Divine Grace, but to an external infallible Proponent. I took it then for granted on both sides, that the Grace of Faith doth not come meerly from our selves, but that it is the Gift of God, that whereever God doth immediately concur he doth direct the mind to the belief of what is certainly True, that there might be unaccountable ways, whereby an inward certainty might be produced, and so firm an adherence to the Truth believed, which all the arguments and torments in the world could never shake, of which the Primitive Martyrs were undeniable Instances; But this internal perswasion could be made no matter of debate, nor any argument to convince another, any further than the effects of it did manifest that it came from God: yet withal I did not Question, but faith being an act of the mind of man which is rational and discursive, had sufficient grounds to proceed upon, and such which without any absurdity might justifie mens belief to any prudent or considerative men, and to the severest enquiries of a mans own mind. Now concerning these Grounds the Question was put by me; taking in then the efficiency o • Divine Grace, this is the true state of the Controversie, whether the spirit of God may not by moral arguments work in mens minds such a certain assent of Faith, as the Scripture requires for Salvation? or whether in order thereto, an Infallible Testimony of the Church be necessary? But because the inserting the operation of the Holy Ghost doth rather perplex the controversie, than explain it; since this was granted on both sides, I thought it better to leave it out and to manage the dispute as it ought to be only concerning the necessity of an infallible Testimony of the Church, which is asserted by my Adversaries, and denied by me.

2. The Question is not, concerning that Foundation of Faith whereby we believe what God saith to be true; but that, whereby we believe this to be revealed by God. For those two Propositions must be supposed to any particular act of Faith, viz. that whatever God saith is true: and that God hath said this • articular thing which I am bound to believe. Concerning the first of these there is no dispute between us, for Gods veracity founded • pon • his Infinite Wisdom and Goodness is agreed to be the ultimate reason of our assent • o whatsoever God reveals. Only E. W. to Protest. without Principles, Disc. 1. C. 5. n. 10. • phold the supernatural certainty of Faith will not have the veracity of God to be the Foundation of Faith, as it is known by natural Reason; for if it were, saith he, Faith would at last be resolved into one natural • rinciple, thus, I believe God to be the high • st verity imaginable, not because he saith so, • ut because I know this great Truth scienti • ically. Now, saith he, no science gives the • ast or least degree of intrinsick certitude to • aith. This is profound reasoning: but which • dare say, no faith can be built upon. For • ither I must be convinced of Gods veracity • y natural reason, from the consideration of • he divine nature and attributes, or by Re • elation from God; but if by Gods revela • ion, then see what an excellent way this Scholastick Divine hath found for resolving Faith as to this Principle (for as it is a mat • er revealed it is an immediate object of • aith) If you then ask him why he believes any thing to be true which is revealed by God, his answer is, because he believes Gods supream verity, or that he neither can nor wi • deceive: but if you ask him again why h • believes this veracity of God, he answers because God hath revealed it. And is n • this a likely man to escape circles, th • makes them where any common understanding would avoid them? But besides, supposing God had never discovered his own veracity in Scripture, I would fain know of E. • . whether there could have been any suc • thing as Divine Faith or no? if there coul • then this principle of Gods veracity mu • have been the Foundation of divine faith • known by natural Reason. And supposin • Gods veracity not to be embraced antecedently to a divine Revelation, it is impossible to suppose there should be any argumen • sufficient to perswade me to believe any Divine Revelation. For the greatest Miracle cannot convince me of Gods Truth though they may of his Power; and the • may perswade me to believe that God se • such men who work Miracles, but they canno • perswade me to believe that all they say is true. For if God can deceive men, he may imploy men as his messengers and deceive the world by them: and if this opinion be rooted in a mans mind it is impossible he should yield a firm assent to any thing because it is revealed by God. But E. W. saith Divines say so as he doth. I suppose he means School Divines and then I grant they do and a great • any silly things besides, wrapt up under the • ame of subtilties. If any one hath a mind • o try the truth of what I say, he need do no more than read their unintelligible subtilties • bout the nature and resolution of Faith: Which Cardinal Lugo himself complains of; and saith they make the doctrine of the Schools

Lugo de virtute Fidei Divinae Disp. 1. Sect. 7. n. 114. Sect. 6. n. 82.

Suarez de Fide Disp. 3. Sect. 6. n. 8.

§. 1. THE next thing which I objected E. W's Assertions about the Miracles of the Roman Church. against this way of resolving faith was that it was notoriously false, viz. that there are the same motives of credibility for the Infallibility of the Roman Church, that there were for the Infallibility of Moses and the Prophets, or of Christ and his Apostles. The natural consequence I said, of affirming Rational Account Pa • t 1 C. 5. S • ct. 12. this was, that there is as great danger in not believing the Church of Rome insallible, as in not believing Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles to have been sent from God. For where there is an equal obligation to believe, there is an equal sin in not believing; and where the sin is equal, it stands to reason that the punishment should be so too. So that the denial of the Roman Churches Infallibility, must be accounted by them as high a piece of Infidelity, as calling in Q • estion the Infallibility of Christ himself; or denying the Scriptures. This doth not in the least startle E. W. for he boldly asserts, that there are equal motives of credibility as to their Church and Christ and his Apostles, he frequently challenges me to shew the disparity, nay he puts the whole issue of his cause upon it. As may be seen by these words of his: The main argument of T. C. Reason and Religion disc. 3. c. 5. n. 1, 2. he saith was this. As Christ and his Apostles proved themselves Oracles sent from God by their Works, signs, and Miracles; again as the Primitive Christians induced by such signs believed Christ and the Apostles upon their own Testimony to be Infallible Teachers; so we having ever had the very like Works, Signs, and Miracles manifest in the Church are prudently induced to believe her as an Infallible Oracle, upon her own Infallible Testimony. To solve this plain and pressing argument saith E. W. one of these two things must be done: either a disparity is to be given between those first Signs and Miracles of the Apostles, and the later of the Church, or it must be shewn wherein the Inference made is defective or unconcluding, viz. that the Church evidenced by her signs is not proved Gods Infallible Oracle, as the Apostles were proved by their signs, to be Infallible Teachers. Afterward he saith, he hath proved that the N. 4. Church hath wrought Miracles every way equal with those, which the Apostles wrought. In those Chapters to which he refers us for the proof of this, I find this assertion in the beginning. I say first, clear and unquestionable Miracles of the like quality with those

Disc. 2. c. 8, 9.

C. 8. n. 1.