CHAP. I.

1 SIx years are now past, sin­ce I set forth à book, inti­tuled Protestancy without Principles, and after that another, called Reason and Religion. My chiefest aime and end in both, was to fix in all à firm beliefe of à Truth, which neither Doctor nor Divel [Page 2] shall overthrow. It is the asserted Infalli­bility of the Roman Catholick Church, then largely discussed, with an express inten­tion to oppose Dr Stillingfleet. The Dr after à long silence replies, as you se, and pretend's to answer these two books. Moreover to perswade all, he hath an­swered home, hear how Champion like he beates the Air with à large siz'd Brag. When we (saith he in the Preface to his first The Drs vast brag. Part P. 3.) set our selves to Answer their books, we endeavour to state the Controversy plainly▪ to examin their proofs, to apply distinct An­swers to their Arguments: we make use of no tricks to deceive men nor Sophistical Cavils to perplex things. We dare appeal to the judge­ment of any person, who will take the pains t [...] examin the matters in difference between us. But they (Catholicks) seek to avoid the mai [...] things in Dispute &c. Thus the Dr, and [...] am sure, never Paragraph had mor [...] empty Nothings cramm'd into it, that this of our glorious Antagonist.

2 Wherefore I deal Candidly, an [...] must tell the naked truth (for truth wil [...] out) and prove it in the ensuing Discou [...] se. This Dr neither states the Controversy rig [...] between us, nor examin's the proofs produc [...] by me in behalfe of the Churches Infallibilit [...] but contrary wise waves the very best and mo [...] substantial reason I alledge. Again, he is [...] [Page 3] far from giving pertinent distinctions to my Arguments, that I verily believe by what hitherto appear's, he neither kno­wes how, or where to distinguish. No. His strange new mode in Arguing, most opposit to all close reasoning, is, bluntly and blindly to lay about him with huffs and Cavils, light where they will, he heed's not. For as much as concern's his tricks and Sophistry, I will say in à word, they may (though far from being magi­cal) perhaps ensnare some vulgar people, who decry all that relishes Popery, but to shock the judgement of any prudent man, very few, for ought I know, have found their brains troubled with them. At least hitherto, I never heard of one man, bred up in à right beliefe, gained to the Dr's opinions, by his Sophistry, tricks, or scribling books.

3 Now to prove what is here briefly hinted at, and to show the Dr's rash and why the Author re­turned this Answer inconsiderate Answer, to be in real truth nothing like an Answer to my books, I have writ this short Treatise, where I dis­cover his shallowness in learning, and would, if possible, make him more wise, than vainly to boast of doing that which he neither has, not can perform He tell's us in his General Praeface, What an excel­ [...]ent chymical Controvertist he is in drawing [Page 4] off all the Spirit he could find in Reason and Religion, whereas it is evident and here demonstrated, he never meddles witth that which is most material, and should be called the Spirit, though I urged him again and again, as you may se in the Pre­face, to answer for himselfe. So little of the Spirit have I met with in these two discourses of the Dr, that some may justly wonder, and perhaps mislike my pains taken in following too exactly his pitiful Cavils, while they plainly se, that the very most which looks there like sub­stance hath been refuted in my two last Treatises, and so penurious he is in pro­ducing any thing new against me in these his discourses, that I could most easily, have replyed to all in one sheet of paper, but that would have gall'd Mr Dr and raised Clamours, as if I either could not, or would not answer him in his own way. To dead these false Alarms, I was ne­cessitated to turn over much rubbish, to travel through the very most of his slight stuff, for want of better substance to work upon.

4 Courteous Reader, my intention My inten­tion purely good in or­der to the Dr, and Euery one. is purely good to the Dr, in whom, i [...] possible, I would work à meaner con­ceipt of himselfe, seing plainly, the more he writes the more credit he loses, and [Page 5] why should we not, if we can take the man off, hinder him from incurring more disgrace, he hath enough of that already? In case my endeavour prove unsuccesful to the Dr, I doubt not, but that I shall unbeguile some over credulous People, whose opinion he courts, and would swell up with à high esteem of his parts. Here lies his last aime. To do this, I shall by Gods grace evince, that He err's gro­sly, in the main matters of Faith, want's learning, judgement, and common Civi­lity. His defect in learning appear's most in this Treatise. His want of Judgement, Truth, and Sincerity will be more mani­fest in my second Part, where I rescue the glorious Miracles wrought in the Ro­man Catholick Church from à vast number of forgeries and Calumnies. His transgression against Civility is so notorious, that almost every page in his books, overcharged with it, cries shame upon him. Wherefore wonder not, if here and there I twitch him à little, though with no proportion to his rude and uncourteous handling me and o­thers. Thus much noted, know cour­teous Reader, that,

5 The most or rather all, Doctor Stil­ling fleet hath against me in his first dis­course, besides much ill language cast [Page 6] out of that sanctified mouth to embel­lish his general Preface with, you have at his 77. page. There lies the main busi­ness I am to consider, though all is so profoundly simple, that I am ashamed to read it. As for the sornful words he gives (no more regarded by me then the chat­tering of à magpie) I tell you plainly they shall never break my head nor vex my heart. Let that young Cock crow on his own dunghil, if it do him good, let him peck at what dead skull he pleases, no great hurt say I, while no more is do­ne. My task is to look after substance, could I meet with it, but I am fob'd off with meer tittle tattle all along, with jeers and drollery, and therefore must deal in­genuously (courteous Reader) and open­ly Nothing like à diffi­culty propo­sed by the Dr. profess before God and the world, that though I have with all possible dili­gence weighed the utmost strength of Dr Still: Arguments against our Church Doctrin, yet I find not one that carries with it so much as the face, or à shadow of difficulty, as shall by God's Assistance be proved in this short Treatise. And I easily believe, that those other worthy Authors the Doctor slights, and flurts at (all have their lashes) well able to an­swer for them selves, will manifestly ma­ke it out, that he only trifles, and speaks [Page 7] nothing to the purpose against their learned labours My endeavour is to answer for my selfe. Se more in the Preface to the Reader.

6 Doctor Still: in the page now cited pick's up à few of my Assertions taken out of the Book intituled. Protestancy wi­thout principles, and after his usual manner, proceed's very disingenuously; for he ei­ther mangles them as best served his turn, or wilily strip's them of all their proofs, which without any labour might have been added, and given vigour to every Proposition. Finally he wholly waves the ultimate reason I alledge for the Chur­ches infallibility, Protestancy without Princ: P. 28. where I prove; that Christian Re­ligion is ruin'd, if for ought any man can know, all Churches, all Pastors, and Gui­des teach Christ's Doctrin so fallibly, that it may be false.

7. Now à word or two of my Assertions, related by the Dr. I say first. All true belie­vers (not all men as the Dr miscites) in the Assent given to Gods revealed veri­ties are infallible, and prove the Asser­tion. God the first Verity reveal's infalli­bly eternal truths for this end, that all be­lieve him as he speak's, if therefore he speaks infallibly, all that believe him as he speak's, believe infallibly. I ground [Page 8] this Doctrin upon the Apostles words. 1. Subiective Infallibility in true Be­lievers. Thessa: 2. v. 12. Therefore we thank God wi­thout intermission, because when ye received the word of God which you heard from us, ye received it not as the word of men, but at it is indeed the word of God, who works in you that believe. Hence I infer'd. He that receives the delivered word of God, as it is truly God's word, and not the word of man; He in whom God work's belief by Divine gra­ce, believes Gods revealed truths infal­libly; And then Concluded. Whoever disown's such infallible Believers ioynt­ly disown's infallible Faith, and said, this reason proves à subjective Infallibility in true Believers. Thus the Blessed A­postles who received the word of God from Christ our Lord had Divine Faith, and firmly assented to Christ [...] sacred Do­ctrin, were first infallible believers, and af­terward infallible Teachers also. What harme in these Assertions? I challenge the Dr to speak à probable word against them upon any known or owned Prin­ciple, for hitherto he hath returned no Answer.

8. I Assert. 2. P. 20. He that hear's an infallible Teacher hath the Spirit of truth, and he that hear's not an infallible Teacher wants the spirit of truth. Holy Scripture speaks as I speak Iohn. 1. c. 4. v. [Page 9] 6. we are of God, he that knowes God, hear's us, he that is not of God, heareth us not, here­by we know the Spiririt of truth and the Spirit of errour. Hence I infer'd, that à fallible teaching of Christs Doctrin, which by the force of its proposal or delivery may deceive and be false, is lyable to cavils and dis­putes. In saying this, I wrong not in the least Christs infallible Doctrin, but only assert, that à fallible or false delive­ry which may easily deprave it, is not Christs infallible Doctrin, because as yet it is not made sufficiently Credible, nor ultimately applyed to à Hearer as Christ's Doctrin. An Arian, for example read's these words. I and my Father are one, and so also doth Dr St. Both read the Do­ctrin of Christ, yet contradict each other, and the one depraves and perverts it by his false and fallible delivery, I say this false and fallible teaching, most easily distinguish'd from revealed truths in Gods word, is not Christs infallible Do­ctrin. If the Doctor boggle at this distin­ction whereof he takes no notice, the worst I wish him is, more light, and learning.

9. The Doctor saies I assert in my. 21. Page No man can be an Heretick that de­nies the obiective verities revealed in Gods word, unless he be sure that his Teacher revea­les [Page 10] those verities Infallibly. There is no such Proposition in that. 21. page, much less any words importing that à Teacher reveal's. Teachers in this present state (good Dr) propose infallibly the ancient revealed Verities and often add à clearer explication which implies not (if we speak properly) any new Revelation. You have more of my Propositions in Dr St: which I own and wil defend as they stand with their reasons in my Book, even to the very last. P. 22. and. 24. where I say. As long as the infallibility of à Revelation is remote from me for want of an undoubted ap­plication made by an Infallible Proponent, the Revelation can no more convey certainty into Faith, then fire at à great distance warm. I give this reason, omitted by the Dr. It little a­vail's to know, that God speak's infallibly (for every one has that assured) unless in the circumstance he speak's to me and for my salvation, I yeild my infallible assent to his word, which cannot be without as­surance had from the Proponent of Faith, that he Speaks as I ought to believe, in­fallibly If therefore the Proponent saies only doubtfully. I think God speak's as I teach, but am not certain, the Assent given to his teaching is only doubtful. If he truly say. I teach infallibly what God reveal's, the Assent in à faithfull Believer answer's, [Page 11] and is infallible. See more hereof in the pages now cited, all waved by the Dr.

10. P. 79. Having slightly run over my assertions the man begin's to bristle up. This saith he is the sum of the Principles of that Metaphysical wit. Hold there good Do­ctor. In the 28. page. n. 9. wholly omitted by you, I give à better Sum, and tell you that none can teach Christian Doctrin who truly ownes not God, an Infinit, ve­rity, the Author of it, but he that only teaches fallible doctrin which may be fal­se cannot truly own God, the Author, but some other fallible Proponent that may both deceive and be deceived. When­ce I conclude, that God never sent Christ our Lord, nor Christ his Apostles, to teach à Christian Doctrin, which by virtue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on, is meerly fallible and may be false, Therefore some o­ther God never sent any to teach falli­ble Doctrin, which may be false. malignant Spirit and not God, sent Sectaries to teach their supposed fallible and easily falsified Doctrin. Upon this ground, more amply explain'd in the pla­ce now quoted I rely, as on an invincible proof, and petition the Dr to return à close Answer, without trifling, needless parergons, vain distinctions, and yet sligh­ter stuff, which ever take up the most room in his books, and weary a Readers patience. Se now how roughly he begins with me.

[Page 12]11. Sure, saith the Dr (alluding to my Assertions) à man must have his brains well confounded by School Divinity, and hard words, before he can have common sense little enough, to think he understand's them. For ought I ever yet saw in Dr St: writings, his brains are not too much burden'd with that dangerous learning, had he more of it, common sense (not easily lost by School Divinity) would have guided him to write more to the purpose. But stay, Courteous Reader, is this the Do­ctors The Drs new way in answering. new mode of confuting Proposi­tions? First lamely to set them down, and then to rail at the Author? Would not his Doctors hip take it ill, think ye, should any one confute all his late books by saying barely, his brains were so turned and confounded with Heretical fancies that in real truth he knew not what he wrot? What was it that gall'd him? How could he wrest any thing said by me to the least offence? I set down plain­ly my Assertions, and he answers not one, but becomes peevish, surly, and outra­gious. Is this à Christian way of writing Controversies? If he thought my Asser­tions deserved not à scratch of his pen, why did he meddle with them, and allow them so much room as to fill two pages in his book? And if he judged them [Page 13] worthy to appear there, why has he not replyed to some of them? Hear the Do­ctors excuse.

12. I never loved, saith he, to spend time How pee­vish and blunt the Dr is, in confuting à man who thinks himselfe the wiser, for speaking things which neither he nor any one els understand's. Can any thing be more blunt? What if I cheer up into so­me briskness and tell him, wiser than he, far more grave and learned, have without rubbing their foreheads, easily under­stood all that he slights? What if I add, it is à hard matter for one who has been long in Schools, to deal with à half Scholar, unacquainted with speculative learning? (Though what great specula­tion have we in any one of my Asser­tions?) Such men as these, when their brains reach only to à vulgar notion of things, think all amiss, if you follow them not just in their old hackney pace, or say any thing, though never so little, above their Ken. In case the Dr account me uncivil for touching his talent in learning, let him thank himselfe, who first began the quarel.

13, Next he run's God knowes whi­ther, and saies he rather chose to put to­gether such Propositions as might give account of Christian Faith without all this Iargon of infallibility, And, as I take [Page 14] it, he relates to the Principles which slipt from his pen in one hour or other when his head turn'd round, and are yet to be seen at the end of that pitiful Book con­cerning the Idolatry practized by the Church of Rome. If so; good Dr, follow friendly Counsel, and as you tender your credit talk no more of those Principles, for they are not only torn in pieces by four at least of your Adversaries, but moreover to my certain knowledge are scorned by some of your own learned coat, who look on them as the most senceless things you ever writ, next to your late infamous His unreaso­nable Cavil. piece of Idolatry. But in passing, what shall we say to his Iargon about infallibility? Is not I beseech you, Iargon, à far more obscure Term; then the word Infallibility? Yet the Dr Complains's of hard words. Few I think of the vulgar know that Iargon sig­nifies sustian language, ped [...]ers French, or à barbarous jangling, yet all have à clearer notion of the word Infallibility, and doth not Mr Dr apply it à hundred times over in his Account, to God, to Christ our Lord, and to the Apostles, who we­re all infallible in what they taught the world? Now if he hold it not rightly ap­plyed when we speak of the Church, he is to impugn that by reason, and not to quarel with à harmless word as if wit­chery lay in it.

[Page 15]14 Soon after this raillery, he tells us, he will fix the Notion of Infallibility for saith he, as it is used, it seem's à rare word How, and to what Infal­libility is rightly ap­plyed? for jugglers in Divinity to play tricks with. For sometimes they apply it to the obiect that is be­lieved. He mean's (or it's Nonsence) to all that God reveal's and call that Infallibly true. Very well done I think, for so that word of Faith which S. Paul preached Rom. 10. 8. with testifying to Iewes and Gentils. Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ, was Acts. 20 21. obiectively taken, infalli­bly true. Doth the Apostle juggle here? O, but sometimes they apply it to the subject ca­pable of believing, and say all persons ought to be certain, that what they believe is infallible true. Most undoubted also; if they believe what God speak's. Let all the house of Israel most certainly know that God hath made him Lord. Acts 2. 36. I know whom I have believed and am certain. 2. Tim. 1. 12. And to show how firm and Infallible Divine Faith is in the hearts of true Believers, the Apostle tell's the Galatians 1. 8. Although we, or an An­gel from heaven preach to you otherwise then that we preached to you, let him be accursed. Thus Scripture speak's of Divine Faith, and attributes certainty to it. What jugling lies here? Sometimes they apply it to to the means of conveying that infallible Truth to the faculties of [...]en, [Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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, [Page 18] 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. [Page 19] 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.

[Page 20]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 li [...] 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 [Page 21] 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 particular Revelations, becau­se they are ordained by Providence to ascertain every one in particular of what God speak's, no hurt at all, I easily ac­cord, but his words and meaning Seem quite contrary, for first he will have all the Guides of the present Church inspi­red in their teaching as the Apostles we­re inspired (by some celestial vision or Divine illustration) Or, he thinks, they cannot teach Infallibly. Nay more. No­thing saith he. P. 82 Can make the Faith of particular persons Infallible, but private Inspi­ration, which must resolve all Faith into En­thusiasm, and immediate Revelation. Were this true, which the Dr never offer's to make out by any proof but his own falli­ble word, every private person might as securely write holy Scripture as any Pro­phet or Apostle, for the chiefest Preroga­tive granted these great Masters was, that the very words they wrote, expressed the internal inspiration of the Holy Ghost, or his private Revelation, and upon this ac­count [Page 22] are rightly called Gods own words, When the inspiration was clear, they ex­pressed it clearly, when obscure, obscu­rely, as we se in the dark Prophesies of the old Testament, and in the Book of the Apocalypse.

17 Catholicks in lieu of the Doctors Inspiration and Revelation ordinarily use The word Assistance used by Ca­tholicks. the word Assistance or Guidance of the Ho­ly Ghost, which neither implyes Enthu­sianism, private Revelation, or Propheti­cal illumination, but the safe conduct and infallible direction of that Blessed Spirit, whereby the Guides of the Church are preserved from errour in the substance of that Doctrin they oblige Christians to believe, whereof see more in my last Treatise, Disc: 3. c. 12. n. 9. To assert therefore as the Dr doth, that nothing can be more absurd than to say. There are infallible Believers without infallible inspiration is not only an unproved whimsy, but to speak in his homely language more then absurd, if he knowes what Inspiration properly import's.

18 P. 83. He saith first, that those per­sons whom God hath imployed to make known his Doctrin, must give assurance that he hath secured them from mistake and errour, and then add's. But to suppose that we cannot believe the first Infallible Pro­ponents [Page 23] (he means the Apostles) unless the­re be such in every age, is to make more difficul­ties, and to answer none. And therefore he saith in the foregoing Page. It is uncon­ceivable, that' persons should be more infallible in judging the Inspiration (read Assistance) of the present Guides, than of the first Founders of the Church. For then all my beliefe of the Infallibility of the first Proponents must de­pend on the evidence which the present Guides of the Church give of their Infallibility.

19 This vulgar Obiection solved over and over in my two last Treatises, con­tain's nothing like à difficulty, and the Dr (who will not I hope disdain to be one of the Guides of the English Church) must confess it to be wholly strengthles, for when he preaches to his people in The Dr's ob­jection, sol­ved Holborn, and doctrinally explain's that great Mystery of the Incarnation, or tells them (I suppose truly, though not infal­libly) of an admirable Hypostatical union whereby two distinct natures, Divine and humane, are joyned together, subsisting in one Divine person, and in saying thus much gain's belief from his Auditors, when this, I say, is done; One that's cu­rious demand's of those Hearers, upon what motive dare they ground their faith in believing so sublime à Mystery? It's answered, they believe it, because God [Page 24] an Eternal Verity deliver's the truth in Holy Scripture. But ask again, whether Scripture in express Terms makes men­tion of that Hypostatical union, or of the two different Natures united toge­ther? They answer No; Yet tell you, that their Doctor to lay forth the My­stery more fully assures them all is true, and because he is their Guide, they no more suspend their Faith, but believe, Now, if in the third place you demand whether the Verity of this Mystery depend's upon the Dr's teaching, which is the only thing here stumbled at? They answer, no; for the Verity was proposed from Christs time, yet this in­fluence his Teaching has over their Faith, that he both shewes what was an­ciently revealed, and now applyes that ancient Doctrin to their weak capacities, not hitherto so exactly conceived, or laid forth.

20 Here you have something like that I would express, and if the Dr we­re as infallible in his teaching, as we now suppose him to speak truth, we should soon agree. In à word. Catho­lick Faith as S. Thomas excellently well observes. 1 Part. q. 1. art. 8, ad. 2. necessa­rily relies upon the Revelation made to the an­cient Prophets and Apostles, who wrote Divine [Page 25] Scripture, and yet more primarily upon Christ our Lord's teaching. Now as the Apost­les often declared more fully what our great Master of truth infallibly delivered, and in this sence explain'd and complea­ted his Doctrin, so also the Church of Christ in all Ages since, declared more amply what both Christ and the Apost­les taught concerning the Mysteries of Faith, and in this sence not only ex­plain's what they taught, but proposes it also infallibly, as the certain Doctrin delivered by Christ and his Apostles, and upon this account is rightly called Conditio applicans, à necessary condition applying it to our capacities. Hence you se, though the ancient Truths were primarily matter of Faith, yet to Belie­vers in succeeding Ages they stand, as it were, remote from all, and need this immediate Proposal of the Church living, and actually teaching.

21 The reason hereof, if you make à true Analysis of Faith, is clear. For ask why I believe the Incarnation? I answer, the first Guides of the Church revealed it in Scripture, but enquire again, what assurance have I of that Revelation which is not exterminis evident, much less are all the particulars belonging to the Mystery already laid forth, evident, [Page 26] I answer the Attestation of the present Church manifested by supernatural wonders gives me my last assurance, and How the In­fallibility of the first pro­ponents of Faith de­pends upon the Churches present Gui­des? therefore either is à partial formal obiect of Faith, as I defend Reason and Religion, Disc. 3. c. 12. n. 8. 9. or at least an intrin­sical necessary condition, as shall be af­terward declared. Thus you se how, and in what manner, the beliefe of the Infal­libility of the first Proponents depend's on the rational Evidence, which the pre­sent Guides of the Church give of those first Proponents Infallibility. The verity of the Mystery attested and considered in it selfe, depend's not upon the present Guides, for it was true before they taught, but à farther and more exact de­claration of it, not discoverable before the Church speak's, and the immediate application of it respectively made to Be­lievers, depend's on these now living Guides. And this also the Dr must con­fess, when by his preaching he truly ap­plyes the high mysteries of Faith to the understanding of his Hearers.

22 The Dr takes not his measures right in what followes. If men saith he, cannot be infallible in believing the A­postles unless there be other infallible Proponents in every Age, to assure them that the Apostles were inspired, why [Page 27] must not the Infallibility of these present Proponents be likewise so attested as well as the Apostles? He would, I think, ask in clearer terms, Why should not the Infallibility whereunto the now living Guides of the Church lay claim, be as well attested and applyed by another Infallible Attestation as the Church at­test's or applyes to us the Infallibility of the Apostles? And thus (as he insinua­tes) we must goe on endlesly in these Ap­plications and Attestations; or at last rest in that first Attestation or application made by the Apostles. Were it worth the while, it would be easy to show how the intangled Dr must solve his own difficulty, if in lieu of Infallible, you will use the word, Truth. He declares to his Hearers, and truly as we suppose, some dark Mystery of Faith, and with that you have his true Attestation or application of it. But must that Attestation ere Faith be truly conveyed into his Hearers be applied and attested by another Attesta­tion distinct from Scripture and the Dr [...] The Dr's Simple Dis­course Con­cerning end­less Attesta­tions, refu­ted. own last delivery? If so, we goe on end­lesly in Attestations. In à word, the An­swer most fully laid forth in my last Tre­atise, is thus. As when the Apostles preach't they rationally proved them­selves by the signal wonders they wrought [Page 28] to be Gods own Infallible Proponents or Oracles, and therefore needed no fur­ther Attestation of their Infallibility in that Age, so the Church ever since, evi­denced by the like visible lustre of ratio­nal marks and wonders, proves Her sel­fe Gods own Infallible Oracle, and the­refore is without any further Attesta­tion the Primum Credible in order to Chri­stians. But the first most immediate known Oracle made, by her selfe and for her selfe Credible (in so much that we cannot in this present state infallibly adhere to that the Dr calls Apostolical evi­dence or the Divinity of Scripture wi­thout the Churches Attestation) needs no further witness or attesting Authori­ty. Se more hereof. Rea: and Relig: Disc: 3. c. 12. n. 4. c. 15. n. 3. and c. 16. per to­tum, but chiefly. Disc. 2. c. 11. where it is proved, that as no Prophet was ever comparable to Christ our Lord, so no Church was, is, or shall be comparable to the Roman Catholick

23 By thus much here briefly hinted at, and amply proved in the places now quoted, you se the Dr knowes not what he saith. P. 84, where he tell's us, If we rest not satisfied with the rational Evidence which the Apostles inspired by God ga­ve the world, there will either be an end­less [Page 29] infallibility, or Faith at last must be re­solved into Enthusiasm. Again let the world judge, saith he, whether Christ and his Apostles did not give stronger evi­dence that they were sent from God, then the Guides of the present Church do?

24 Because à lesse wary Reader may be here affrighted with big words, we will lead the Dr with his Bible to à Sy­nagogue of Jewes, or to an Assembly of learned Heathens, and desire him to lay forth that stronger rational evidence, whe­reby these Aliens from Christ ought to be induced to believe that infallible Di­vine Inspiration imparted to the Apost­les. If his answer be direct and perti­nent, he will relate their Miracles. The blind se, the lame walk, the dead rise &c. And are these, say the Heathens, The Dr's supposed ra­tional Evi­dence gives no Satisfa­ction to Ie­wes and Heathens. your best rational Evidences Mr Dr? Know, good Sr, that once (if true) they were Evidences to those who saw them, but now cease to be so to us, and there­fore may be better called matters revealed, than rational Evidences. Now if the truth of that Revelation concerning the A­postolical Inspiration be only proved by Miracles not known or attested, but by à Revelation wholly as obs­cure as the thing is, which should [Page 30] be proved by them, such Miracles far rece­de from the Nature of Evidence. Re­member Dr your own words P. 110. That à proof ought alwaies to be more evident than the thing proved by it, but here the Miracles produced by you as à Medium to prove the Apostles Divine Inspiration, are whol­ly as obscure to the Heathens as that in­spiration is they should prove, for both are only supposed, not yet proved Reve­lations, therefore they far recede from the nature of rational Evidence.

25 On the other side, could our Dr evince those Scripture Miracles upon The Dr, to bring in Atheism, ru'on's the true rational Evidence. the Attestation of à Church which God from the beginning of Christianity has gloriously marked out by as signal and sensible wonders as ever the Apostles were evidenced; could he make use of these later Signes and shew them to be no natural, but supernatural effects pro­ceeding from an Infinit Power and wis­dom, and only peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church; could he tell us he own's à Church which both Heaven and earth have so far approved, that ne­ver any known Orthodox Christian laid censure on it, or condemned its Doctrin; He might well give in strong evidence indeed, and powerfully plead against Je­wes, Gentils, and all Heretiques, but [Page 31] the unfortunate man ruin's all this ra­tional Evidence, and to his eternal disgra­ce, laies à charge of Idolatry upon this re­nowned Church, though by virtue of her glorious wonders She has drawn the very best, the most choise and lear­ned of the Christian world to Her belief. And thus as I noted. Reas: and Reli: Disc: 3. c. 16. n. 28, He destroies Scripture, deads Faith, makes Christian Religion unreasonable, and doth his utmost to bring in Atheism. But of this more large­ly hereafter, when we shall discover the Dr's fraud and fallacy concerning his pretended Evidence.

26 P. 84 He end's with me. And in the next. 85. attaques that learned and laborious Author. N. O. His whole en­deavor is to shew, we may have Sufficient certainty of Faith without the Infallibili­ty of the Church. Though it would be incivility on my part to reply for N. O, best able to answer for himselfe (neither can I, for I have not his book) yet by that erudite Authors leave, I will make à few reflections upon Dr Still: unknit ram­bling discourse, and evince that he speaks nothing against the Infallibility of our Church. This I doe, because I have not yet seen the Dr's second part, where I am told he hath much against me.

CHAP. II.

1 IT is prodigiously strange to se how uniustly we Catholicks are dealt with, who, before these rambling Novel­lists began their new whimsy of refor­ming and deserted the old way of Truth, stood in à peaceable possession of this great Verity. The Roman Catholick Church was, is, and ever 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 [Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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.

[Page 35]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, [Page 36] 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 D^r 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 D^r'^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 [Page 37] 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 D^r 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. [...]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 [...]uggles all along. We require one plain Text whereby the Christian [Page 38] Church is proved fallible. And he gives 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 [...] [Page 39] 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 [Page 40] 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 D^r and his Bishop say no, because Her assistance is à sitting one but not In­fallible. Here is their last proof, and 'tis 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 D^r [Page 41] 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 D^r, 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 D^r 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.

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 [Page 43] 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 appointed another far easier, whereby his will may be known, and without which Scripture cannot be understood, it is only supposed and not proved, that every vulgar person, [Page 44] who relies on his private judgement, is secured from errour after à sincere en­deavour to find his faith of all necessa­ries in Scripture alone. And this I shall evince against the D^r by urging one Argument, proposed in my Two last Treatises.

[...] Cast your thoughts seriously upon those vast multitudes who call themselves Christians, and observe how they stand divided or parted in Faith. Take these for example. The Arians, An­titrinitarians, the Manicheans, Protestants and Papists also. Most certainly all these together, neither believe nor defend the true Doctrin of Jesus Christ, for they hold plain contradictions, and this not only in lesser matters esteemed by the D^r unnecessary to Salvation, but in the most primary Articles of Christian Religion. Some deny Christ our Lord to be truly the high God, and Consub­stantial with his eternal Father. Others to be truly Man. Some speak well of God's unity, but refuse to own à Tri­nity of persons. Others finally submis­sively yeild to these great Mysteries and hold them as undoubted revealed veri­ties, the beliefe whereof is necessary to Salvation, after à due Proposal. Of such Articles I profess to speak, waveing at [Page 45] present all others, if any be of lower con­cern, and now propose my Argument.

5 Christ our Lord who delights in no mans perdition, but will's all to be saved, and come to the knowledge of his revealed truths. 1. Tim. 2. 4. hath either pointed out à clear way, or given some obvious and certain means whereby these Chri­stians that hold contradictions in the very Necessaries for Salvation, may be brought to à unity in Faith? Or con­trarywise, hath not left any such easy way, or means. If not; Christ is à most uncharitable Saviour, who on the one si­de obliges us to believe the fundamental Necessaries, yet on the other, cast's all even the most learned upon an impossibi­lity of ever finding them, for if the certain means whereby to find what we seek for, fails (as is now supposed) our enquiry af­ter Necessaries, is meerly à lost and fruit­less labour.

6 Doctor Still: who tells us, that God is not wanting in Necessaries to the Sal­vation of mankind, thinks, as you have heard, That Scripture pondered by eve­ry mans discerning faculty, without any other infallible Guide, is the best Tea­cher, the clearest light, and chiefest means whereby all sincere Endeavourers may easily attain the knowledge of these Ne­cessaries. First, the D^r makes here too [Page 46] much hast, for he should on this occa­sion have given in an exact Catalogue of his Necessaries, these being of so high con­cern, that if one be mistaken, or left out of his catalogue which is absolutely Ne­cessary, Faith faulters, and Salvation depending on Necessary Faith, misca­ries also. But our Dr was wise, and thought it best to sculk in Generalities for fear of being caught. To be briefe, let us suppose the beliefe of the Incarnation, that is of Christs being really true God and true man, may be deservedly called one of the grand Necessaries for Salvation. If the Dr boggle at this, I know well how to proceed with him. Thus much sup­posed.

7 My Argument goes on. The Learned Socinians, the learned Arians My Asser­tion proved. with others, read and ponder the same Scripture you read Mr Dr. They want no more the Faculty of discerning be­tween Truth and falshood then you. They pretend to have as much of Gods grace as you can pretend to, and are as loth to damn themselves by maintaining a wilful errour against Scripture, as you. Yet this matter of fact is evident, That they plainly contradict you in the belief of Necessaries, and so doe other most le­arned Christians also. What redress [Page 47] now? Where have we the means pre­scribed by Christ to make us all of one Faith in this one Necessary already Spe­cified? Scripture you se abused, by you or the Arian breed's these dissentions, though none yet knowes by your Rule who is in fault, and therefore can be no fitt means to end them, for the sence of it in the matter now proposed, is the only thing in controversy. This ground fai­ling, all sincere endeavour to learn what that book teaches without more help, fail's also.

8 Because the Drs Faith is as much unknown to me as his person, (by some hints I guess it to be à very odd one) I will press my Argument farther, and demand. Whether, if à learned Arian, after an exact perusal of Scripture, makes this sincere judgement by his discerning Faculty, that the high God head of Christ is neither revealed in that book nor wor­thy beliefe, he may boldly abiure Christ, God and man, and yet be saved? In like manner I ask, whether, à learned Prote­stant, if after à serious reading he judges that Christ is truly God and believes qui­te contrary to the Arian, may be saved also? In case the Dr say, all these, though of à most opposite beliefe concerning Necessaries may attain Salvation (and I [Page 48] verily think his Principles carries him A difficulty proposed con­cerning ne­cessaries. to that desperate concession) with what conscience can he oblige Christians under pain of damnation to believe Christs Godhead, as à revealed verity most ne­cessary to Salvation? For in real truth it is not so, because men professing Chri­stianity may be saved without that be­liefe, and if Salvation may be had, though this Mystery be with contempt rejected, it fol­lowes, that nothing of Christian Do­ctrin can be judged more Necessary, and so the Turks beliefe of one God, will be Faith enough to save all. I might here add more, and tell you, that the ancient Church most injuriously censured the Arians as Heretiques liable to damna­tion, upon their denying Christ's God­head, for that denyal, in the supposition made, is not damnable.

9 Perhaps the D^r will say. Some only of these open Dissenters who hold contradictions in Necessaries are in the right way to Salvation, but others not, because his Rule is neglected, for some out of slothfulness or for want of God's grace, endeavour not sincerely to know the Scriptures meaning in such matters. If this be his reply, the difficulty propo­sed return's again as vigorously as ever. We therefore ask by what clear way or [Page 49] means (Christ most certainly hath affor­ded means) can à serious Seeker after Necessaries, discern between these since­re not erring Christians, and those others who err? Unless these be easily distin­guished, unlesse it be known to what par­ticular Church those first belong, under what Pastors they live, what sure Guides they rely on; And the second misled be likewise pointed out as perverse and ne­gligent, an Enquirer after Necessaries may as well close with the Arian and be­lieve as he believes, as ioyn with the most Orthodox Christian in the world. The reason hereof is evident, for to know only in à general way that some Chri­stians have à right beliefe, and others not (while all of a different faith profess to believe right) 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 [...]rofess the dearest friendship imaginable, (as all profess themselves right in the [Page 50] 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 M^r D^r. 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 wh [...] is to be believed? Will you say the le­arned Socinians or Arians are invincibly ignorant concerning Necessaries? They will cast that foul aspersion upon yo [...] and your Party. And who know [...] what is true here? Will you accu [...] them of negligence in searching Scrip­tures? [Page 51] 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 [...]ou, need not to be known, Therefore [...]en may get to Heaven without faith [...]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 [...]terrogatories. Please to reflect à little. [...] it true, that Christ our Lord who will's [...] to be Saved hath afforded means [...]th easy and certain, whereby Necessa­ [...]s to Salvation may be known? It is [...]e, that innumerable learned men of à [...]ite different beliefe, after an exact [...]usal of Scripture are at high dissen­tions [Page 52] 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 God [...] word? Is it true, that no few among [...] these many, wrong the most suprea [...] Verity, and believe what God neve [...] revealed? Is it true, that none ca [...] yet distinguish by Scripture alone or a [...] private discerning faculty, who at this v [...] ry day do this wrong, or Contrarywi [...] are right in the beliefe of Necessaries▪ Is it true, that if every private man [...] sufficiently taught by reading Scriptu [...] only, all recourse to our Spiritual Guid [...] though appointed by Christ to instr [...] us, becomes useless and unprofitable▪ If these particulars already laid forth, [...] manifestly proved, as I am sure they a [...] D^r Still: Rule for the finding out Nec [...] saries by Scripture and the sincere [...] deavour of private men, is not only [...] slight Errour, but in à matter of great [...] consequence intolerable, yea and dre [...] ful upon this account, that it enlighte [...] none in the search after Necessaries [...] cast's all upon an impossibility of find [...] what they seek for. Now we proc [...] to another Argument.

12 Admit Scripture were as plain [...] the D^r can wish, Admit also that [...] [Page 53] may be understood by all Christians, who sincerely endeavour to know its meaning in Necessaries. A great diffi­culty remain's concerning Iewes and Gen­ [...]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 con­ [...]rary to the D^r'^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 D^r will say his Rule above, belong's not to Iewes and Heathens but to Christians only. If this be his Answer, [...] shall by Gods assistance hereafter clear­ [...]y shew, that, that rational Evidence for Christian Religion whereon the D^r re­ [...]ies, avail's just nothing to the Conver­ [...]ion Neither the Drs rule, nor his ra­tional Evi­dence avail's to the Con­version of Iewes and Gentils. of either Jewes or Heathens. Here [...] am to prove that Scripture is not the means. First because such men after [...]heir reading it, slight and contemn all [...]hat Christ and his Apostles taught, and one reason of their contempt, as à Jew [...]tely observed, is grounded upon the [...]orrid dessentions amongst Christians [...]thanks be to Luther and Calvin for [...]hem) concerning the canon and sence [Page 54] 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 the [...] Necessaries are? For example, I think S. Iohn record's à Necessary, when [...] tells us. The Word is made flesh, yet by [...] bare reading and pondering the words, [...] cannot without more light peremptorily avouch, that they contain à Necessary fo [...] Salvation, or that they evidence to me [...] Divine infallible truth, much less can I sa [...] the sence of them is as I judge, while w [...] se Christians so highly at contest abou [...] the sence, that they maintain open con­tradictions. And this opposition alon [...] upheld by the judgements of private me [...] very learned, makes the Truth and Inf [...] libility of every Revelation à thing only doubtful. and conjectural. All this bein [...] undeniable,

[Page 55]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 [...]aith?) [Page 56] 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 [Page 57] 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? Its 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 [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] 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 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 D^r 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, [Page 61] but pernicious also, and distru­ctive to Christian faith, as is now pro­ved.

19 You may here expect that I solve the D^r'^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 D^r'^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.

1 THe D^r 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 [Page 62] 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 D^r, 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 D^r. P. 101. most tediously rambles on to no purpose at all. Is not Christianity, saith he, therfore highly re­commended [Page 63] 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 D^r 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 D^r'^s Princi­ples, for if the discerning FAculty in eve­ry man can easily find out the neces­sary truths for Salvation by reading [Page 64] 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 D^r 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 D^r Still? Those denie Christs Godhead which he believes) Both pro­duce Scriptures and sence them diffe­rently, who is to yeild in this contest, the D^r to his Hearers, or they to the D^r?

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, [Page 65] saith. N. O. arrived at Church Infallibili­ty? Se the D^rs 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 D^r 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 D^r 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 [Page 66] 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 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 D^r, be­cause Scripture is so clear in Necessaries, that no man who sincerely desires to [Page 67] 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 D^r 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 D^r 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 D^r 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 [Page 68] 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 D^r 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 D^r Still: laies [Page 69] 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. [...]8. whereunto our good D^r return's no Answer.

[Page 70]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 D^r 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 D^r. 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 D^r 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, [Page 71] 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 D^r 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 [Page 72] 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 matter of Faith in case his two yet un­known rules be followed. I answer it is impossible in the D^r'^s Principles to pre­scribe or to set down clearly any such Rules. I prove the Assertion.

10 Put case, that the Guides of two dissenting Churches, Arians for example and Protestants, contest about Necessaries for Salvation, or any other matter of Faith (the like is, if dissentions arise be­tween the Guides of either Church, and lay men under their charge). All these jarring Spirits, as we now suppose, are fallible, and may err in what they judge concerning their own Tenets. Now if the supposed rules pitcht upon be as fallible, à like faulty, and as liable to errour as these Contenders are, they can never rectify them, nor bring any to à setled union in Faith; But all the Rules assigna­ble in the Doctors Principles (be they what you will) are thus faulty and falli­ble, therefore most unfit to set any man right in Faith, for à fallible crooked rule [Page 73] applyed to the fallible crooked judge­ments of others at high dissentions con­cerning beliefe, regulates no better than if the blind endeavour to lead the blind. Pray tell me, did you ever know wise Man, after his hearing two litigious persons at earnest contention about Meum & tuum, act the part of à Judge, by Saying. My masters be gone, you are both wranglers. Here you have the very case of all Hereticks laid open. I speak boldly, and am ready to defend my Asser­tion before the whole world. What ever Rule D^r Still: can make use of for the ending of differences between him and Arians (for example) what ever Judge he dare appeal to in this contest, can pronounce no other sentence but this. Be gone you are all wranglers. The wisest on earth is not able to say more to your never endless quarels The rea­son à Priori of my Assertion and all hi­therto said, is thus. The certain Rule which regulates Faith can neither be ta­ken In the Drs Principles, no rule is assig­nable to end contentions. from any controverted passage in Holy Writ (for that only yeild's uncer­tainty) much lesse from the fallible and errable conceptions of those who belie­ve contradictions; Here is all the D^r can pitch upon for his unknown rules. Tradition fail's him, if all the Churches in the [Page 74] world be fallible, and have actually er­red, for who dare, even upon moral cer­tainty, trust the Tradition of condem­ned Hereticks, or of an Idolatrous Church, as in the D^r'^s Opinion the Ro­man is? The Fathers are fallible, and all of them, or the very most, infected with Popery. The Doctrin of the Pri­mitive Church in controverted matters afford's no certain indisputable rule. Long therefore may the D^r overlook his Note-books before he find à rule for the Churh Guides to proceed by, and for others to judge of their procee­ding.

11 Perhaps, his, 266 page will give more light, where we are told, That the supposition of Guides in Religion doth depend of some common Principles of Religion, that may be known to all, and that within the compass of these plain duties, lies the capacity of per­sons judgeing of their Guides, but if they car­ry them out of this beaten way, or tell them, they must put out their eyes to follow them the better, what reason can there be, that any should commit themselves to the absolute con­duct of such unfaithfull Guides? Once more, you have here the like dull, fleg­matick, and general talk, you had just now, nothing particularized, nothing proved. And all is tacitely to countenance that [Page 75] foul illegal Schism, and open rebellion made against the Church, when à few despe­rate Novellists headed by two ungra­cious wretches, Luther and Calvin, con­demned her of errour, and this before no other Tribunal but themselves who were the Rebels. Here one common Prin­ciple of Religion (and à main one too) which obliges Christians to obey their lawful Superiours, was against all con­science shamefully violated. Here the beaten way wherein millions had walked peacefully to Heaven, became deserted, and in lieu of that, Meanders, By-wayes, and intricate cross windings, were made choice of. Now the time was when peo­ple (sure blinde with too much light) went about to pull out the eyes of their own ancient Guides, and saw more then ever the world saw before these new eyes were set in their heads. We need not, D^r, to stand indenting with you for these truths, They are as clear as the Sunshine; But as you sowe, you may hope to reap, you have cast the seeds of dissention into our once most Catholick England, and I tell you before hand (look to it) you will find confu­sion at the haruest, and most likely soo­ner. In the mean while, I tell you again, there is not one true Principle within [Page 76] the bounds of Christian Religion, that capacitates particular persons to judge their Guides proceedings, Name this Principle and I yeild up the whole cause. Answer if you can. And thus much of the D^rs Rules.

12 Other petty obiections I find in this first part scattered up and down scarse worth reflection. P. 109. His Ad­versary. N. O. quotes that Text of S. Peter. Epist. 2. Chap. 3. 16. where its said, There are certain things in S. Pauls Epistles hard to be understood, which the un­learned and unstable depràve, as also the rest of Scriptures to their own perdition. These things being certainly of consequence, if perdition followes the depravation, we ask what is become of D^r Still: dis­cerning truth from falshood by Scripture A simple Answer of the Dr, re­futed. only, and his discerning faculty? Hear his frivolous answer. But doth S. Peter say that Scriptures are so hard that sober minds cannot learn therein, what is Necessary to Salvation? Yes D^r, he saith it expresly, for some (say I beseech you who they are) pervert Scripture to their own perdition, that is to damnation. Now if you quibble about Sober and devout minds, the Arians will tell you, they are as sober and devout as you, therefore unless you plainly point out those you [Page 77] call sober minded, you may be as well listed amongst the perverse as any other, accounted by you depraved or ill minded. Solve this difficulty if you can.

13 The D^r in his 144. P. cloyes us with other Testimonies of Scripture no more to any purpose, than if he had ci­ted the first Chapter of Exodus. Thessal: 1. 2. 12. The people are to hold fast that which is good. Very true. But are they here commanded to hold fast to what their private judgement tell's them, and not to adhere to Apostolical Doctrin, and the Spirit of the Catholick Church? Acts. 17. 12. They searched Scripture dayly whe­ther the things proposed were so or not. What wonder here, if after S. Paul's large dis­course concerning Christ never heard so fully before, they search'd Scriptures and found all true he taught, having still an Eye more to the Apostles expoun­ding Scripture, than to their own private judgements? The other passages alleged, For example. We must not believe every Spirit but try the Spirits &c. VVe must ear­nestly contend for the Faith once delivered. VVe are to beware of false seducers &c. have no weight for the D^rs intent, unlesse he shew by Scripture that this trial, this contention, and wariness ought to be done [Page 78] by every mans private judgement only, without any other rule. O, but there is à stinging Text. Iohn. 7. 17. where our Saviour expresly promises to those that do the will of God, they shall know of his Doctrin, whether it be of God. Very true. But how shall we discern those that do the will of God, from others that do it not? Are those the Doers of Gods will who reject their Guides, and follow their own Iudgement in matters they understand not? Answer M^r Dr.

14 In his 143. P (for I run up and down to find any thing like an Obie­ction) we are told that all who consider the excellency of Christian Religion cannot but give it preheminence before Iudaism and Mahometism. Very true, Mr Dr: yet you touch not the difficulty, unlesse you tell us which Christian Re­ligion amongst so many dissenting Sects, even in fundamentals, may be called the only true Christian Religion. If Arianism, or Palagianism, or Protestanism, damn men as deeply as Iudaism, what matters it, if one professe Iudaism? I as­sure you Doctor, I have heard some great A fallible Doctrin which may be false, de­structive to Faith. men say, that if all who profess Chri­stian Religion believed fallible Doctrin which may be false, they would not give à pin to chuse, whether they were Iewes, [Page 79] Arians; or Protestants. But why have not you in this place or through your whole large Account, set forth the Excel­lency of your Protestancy, and preferred that little late unknown thing, before all other Religion? Some cause there is of your deep silence, and I have not dis­sembled it in my Advertisement. You really know not what to say of it.

15 P. 132. We have this Proposi­tion. Infallibility in à body of men is as lia­ble to doubts and disputes, as in those books from whence only they derive their infallibi­lity. S^r, if I well understand this some what dark Assertion, please to tell me. Were not the Apostles an Infallible bo­dy of men? And was not their Infalli­bility owned as clear from doubts and disputes, when God had evidenced them by clear visible Signes and Wonders to be his faithful Oracles, even before their writing Scripture? Or did they­derive their Infallibility from the books they wrote? The true answer to these demands will be our Answer. The Church is as rationally proved an Infal­lible Oracle by her Illustrious signes and wonders (and appointed by God to teach) as ever any Apostle was, this I hold clearly evinced in my last Trea­tise Disc: 3. c. 15. n. 3. and c. 16. n. 5. If [Page 80] you M^r D^r can except against my proofs, please to speak, for hitherto you have answered nothing. I shew also, Prot: without Princi: c. 8. n. 2. 3. That God neither will, nor can, permit à false Religion to be more speciously illustra­ted by rational Signs, then his only true Religion is. Were this possible, he The true Church made discer­nable, from all false Sects, would (contrary to Truth and Goodness) oblige reason to embrace à false Religion. If therefore the only true and infallible Religion be manifestly discernable or made known by the lustre of Superna­tural Motives from all false Sects, we have enough. For it is most evident that our ever marked and Signalized Catholick Religion, illustrated by Mira­cles, and approved by the publick judge­ment of the very best and most learned who have lived since the Creation of the world, is the undoubted true Religion, where we learn what Christ taught, and what Doctrin the Apostles preached. And thus D^r Still: imperfect discourse P. 143 where he gives the preheminence to Christianity in general, above Iudaism, Mahometism &c. is driven home to that one only Religion amongst Christians, which must save Souls.

16 We say: 2. That this evidenced Catholick Church proves her selfe infal­lible [Page 81] Independently of Scripture, as the Apostles did before they wrote their sa­cred Books. It is-true, after those wri­tings are proved Divine to us upon Church Authority, we Argue from them, and evince her Infallible, but this only is done upon the Supposition of that proof, and not before; For we say and make it out clearly in the Treatises now cited, That the Church being the light of the world, and à City placed upon a conspi­cuous And proved infallible without re­course to Scripture. mountain, demonstrable as S. Au­stin teaches by every mans finger, is the Primum & indemonstrabile principium, the very first and indemonstrable principle proved by it selfe and for it selfe to be Gods Infallible Oracle, whereof more hereafter. Hence you se. 3. that as the Apostles neither proved nor derived their Infallibility from the Books they wrote, so we in the first place (if à true Analy­sis be made) prove not the Churches In­fallibility from Scripture, but evince this truth upon other Principles as is now declared. But saith D^r Still. It is against all just lawes of reasoning to make use of the Churches Infallibility to prove Scrip­tures by. Why so noble D^r? I am sure for the reasons already given, you will be forced to retract this inconsiderate Assertion. Do not you know first, that [Page 82] the bare letter of Scripture breed's end­less divisions even in fundamentals, not only between man and man, as is evi­dent by the jarrs you have with Arians, Pelagians &c. but also between God and man, while all your vehement conten­tions are driven at last to know, whether your discerning Faculty, or the Arians hit right vpon the meaning of what God speak's in Scripture, it being most certain that Verity it selfe approves not your open contradictions? Who can decide here but an Infallible Church? Do you not know. 2. That it is more then ridi­culous to draw either Iew or Heathen to believe these contradictious Doctrins as Divine or reasonable, while neither you nor Arians can ascertain any, that what either of you teach is from God, or à truth revealed by him? Who ought or can speak here but the Church? Do you not se. 3. That the clearness of Church Doctrin (universally known to all, whether Orthodox or others) beget's faith more easily then Scripture, yet ob­scure and unsenced? Hence it is, as I noted in my last Treatise. Disc: 2. c. 16. n. 11. That few or none Question what this Oracle teaches, as necessary, for that's plain, yet there are endless debates about the Scriptures meaning, and this only is [Page 83] Gods word, not intelligible in à hundred passages without the Churches interpre­tation. 4 As I noted also. The Infallibi­lity and Truth of every Divine Revela­tion relating to Necessaries, so necessarily The Church decides many doubts, not decideable by 'Scripture.' terminat's Divine Faith, that whoever believes and abstract's (as it were) from this double perfection intrinsic to what God speak's, believes not, because God speak's, but upon some other fallible Motive? Now none can ascertain any, that this or that particular Revelation is true and Infal­lible but an Infallible Church only. Therefore you err, M^r D^r 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 D^r 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. [Page 84] 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 D^r, but there are none of them in God's word.

[Page 85]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 D^r. 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 [...]s that we preferr the words of eternal [...]ruth before weak reason, easily beguiled. [...]ray tell me had the D^r seen those [...]wo Angels who came to Lot Gen: 19 in [Page 86] 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 D^r'^s Comfort.

19 Page 151. The D^r 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 grea [...] Mysteries of the Trinity, and the eterna [...] Godhead of Christ) the Catholic [...] Church cannot by reason of Gods specia [...] Assistance determin the contrary, or con­tradict it selfe in any universal doctrin [...] and therefore that Non-obedience hint [...] at, is à Chimaera, or à thing not at a [...] supposeable. It seem's our D^r would have the not worshiping Images to b [...] [Page 87] 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 D^r 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 [Page 88] comes D^r 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 D^r. T. G^s. 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 o [...] exercise the power of Orders? Hence you se D^r Still: blindness, who argues from the validity of giving Orders to the lawful giving them, and from the no power of giving Jurisdiction (the chie­fest thing aimed at by D. T. G.) to im­part it to men in England, uncapable of all Jurisdiction, by reason of their Here­sy. Thus much by the By, the rest I [Page 89] leave to D^r. T. G. best able to answer. Let us follow our D^r 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, M^r D^r, 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 [Page 90] 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, [Page 91] 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, its 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 D^r with [Page 92] 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 D^r 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 D^r 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 [Page 93] 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. D^r 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 D^r 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. [Page 94] 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 D^r 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 D^r 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 D^r evince by Scripture only, that the Church is falli­ble, or impugn the Infallibility she layes claim to by this Scripture, which he saith, is both doubtful and Controverted?

25 Page 197 He enquires into the Necessity of an Infallible interpretation of the doubtful places in Scripture and here loses himselfe, for in my whole life I never saw such à far fetcht rambling discourse as he begins with. P. 197. which summed up amount's only to this, that you must either believe the Dr in­fallible in giving an account of the pro­ceeding of the primitive Church in this matter, or remain as ignorant as you were before. For my part I dare not [Page 95] trust the D^r, for by what I have perused, he is horribly out of all sound Principles. Be it so or no, I am wholly unconcerned in this controversy, having hitherto only enquired after the means how to under­stand the sence of Scripture in such pas­sages as relate to the prime Necessaries of Salvation. The Godhead of Christ. A Tri­nity of distinct persons &c. Now when the D^r gives satisfaction in these particu­lars, have at him for the rest, In the mean time I supersede the labour which might be spent, and leave that to the accurate review of his worthy Adversary N. O. Thus much of the D^r'^s first part. And t'is more then I was obliged to take notice of, but because I wanted à long time his second discourse, I chose rather for the little leisure allowed from my other employments, to make the few reflections you have already, than to be forgetful of my good friend Doctor Stillingfleet. Now we enter into his second Discourse.

CHAP. V.

1 THere are, as I conceive, two wayes of answering à book. The one to follow an Adversary step by step, the other to reverse his Principles, or at least to solve such Arguments as the Author judges worth an Answer. If he judge amiss, or thinks weak argu­ments strong ones, à Respondent ought fairly to lay forth their want of strength, and shew wherein they are fallacious. The thing I chiefly aimed at in both Treatises was, as those know who read them, to vindicate the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church from the unjust censure of Sectaries, whether you take it as à large body spread the [Page 97] whole world over, or consider its Repre­sentative in general approved Councils. D^r Stilling: as appear's by his Title undertakes to answer these books, but doth it after à new mode, or the strangest way I ever yet saw in any. He waves all my Arguments, which I judge, prove clearly the Churches Infallibility, and entertain's himselfe with some few By­matters, little or nothing relating to this main difficulty.

2 You will perhaps better under­stand my meaning, if I briefly sum up The chiefe Contents in the Drs second Dis­course, briefly Collected, the chief contents of this Doctors idlely spent labour, in the second discourse from his 2. Chapter page 329 to page 433. Thus it is. First he enters into à serious matter with meer Drollery, and spiteful language. 2. He transcrib's some parcels of my Doctrin mangled, as he thought best for his own design, and leaves all as he found it, though here and there he featly intermingles some scoffes, thought by him pretty lests, and to make greater confusion, now you find him like à rat nibbling at one of my Treatises, now at the other, without method or order, and the whole strain of his writing is either to tell the Reader, what he saies without the least shadow of proof, which directly makes a­gainst the Churches Infallibility, [Page 98] or barely to relate what I assert for it, but replyes not at all to the Arguments I chiefly insist upon, as will presently appear. It is true, about his page. 362 he would fain batter my Answers to two Objections taken out of his Account, which meerly touch upon à Scholastical point. (How weakly we shall se here­after) but all this while not à word co­mes from him, which directly tend's to prove the Church fallible, nor can I find any of my Arguments solved. Yet this is the man, that in his Title-page pretend's to Answer my two books. 3. After some quarrels with the Superna­turality of Faith, and its obscure tenden­cy, He slip's aside into another Scho­lastical point, concerning the Resolution of Faith, and because the matter of it selfe is hard (and made harder by his jumbling) he get's into à Labyrinth of his own making, called the Rational Evi­dence of Christian Religion. My chief endeavour shall be to wind him out of it, which would soon be done, were he better versed in speculative learning.

3 The D^r as I said now, some what waspish, layes aside much of his gravity, and begins with, Ironies, Mockeries, and bitter language, called by some Iest earnest, and discharges that rounder shot of Toyes, [Page 99] Triffles, and Fancies, very thick upon me. Is not this hard proceeding? Methinks these men of the new Gospel are stran­gely priviledged to reproach, when the Of the Dr's Ironies and bitter Lan­guage. spirit moves. What à gallant lesson had he learn't us in the. 5. Page of his Preface to the former book: Not to revile though he be reviled, and here, weak man, he breaks his purpose, forget's his lesson and reproaches boldly? And will you know why? Forsooth, he takes it ill that I joyned him in my Title-page with Atheists, Iewes, Turks, and Sectaries. In real earnest, Mr D^r, though I said it not in plain terms, yet I thought you well deserved the place, but seing you resent my putting you after that rabble, you shall in my next book be upermost, and have à palce before them all. But in God's name what unluckie Spirit light on you in that deep Exclamation? O! what à pestilent Heretick is this Stillingfleet. Look to it Doctor. Ridentem dicere ve­rum quid vetat? If you in raillery make your selfe heretick, and others judge you one of the worser sort I will pray for you, but can not clear you of the guilt before you deserve better. There is more of this rambling. He tell's me. If either of my books were thrown at his head, he would have enough to defend himself, [Page 100] for they are very thick and heavy; But how would he defend that precious Pate, were his voluminous Account thrown after them? I am sure that's thicker, and heavier. To my great comfort, saith he, I never yet saw two such bulky books, whose Sub­stance might be brought into à less compass, or more full of Tautologies, and tedious repeti­tions. A homely complement. I hope, Sr. you except your own bulkie Account, or ought in all reason to do so, for in my whole life I never read any thing more stuff't with empty words, and supera­bounding Tautologies. To be short, I dare wager ten to one, if ever you and I meet in Holborn, that for one Tauto­logie in mine, I will shew five in yours, with à pretty addition of new ones in these your two last Treatises. Now whereas you tell me, the whole substance of my books lies in this one word, Infalli­bility, Know, Sr, you get the worst here, for the whole substance of all you have said, or can say, confessedly lies in à far weaker word called, Fallibility. Here it seem's, the D^r 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 D^r? I [Page 101] 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 D^r'^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, [Page 102] 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 D^r 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 [Page 103] 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 D^r.

8 I Assert. 2. As the D^r 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, [Page 104] what Doctrin Christ our Lord or his Apostles taught the world. So it is, Mr D^r, 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 D^r 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 [Page 105] 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 is without either shame, or grace, most unjust.

9 From P. 340. to 362. the D^r 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 [Page 106] 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 D^r 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.

[Page 107]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 [Page 108] 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 [Page 109] ought to speak, infallibly.

11 The D^r 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 [Page 110] 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 [Page 111] 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 Infallible Church delivers, which are known without that light, though by an in­feriour degree of certainty, the Calvinism is more in your head, then in my Doctrin. To say more of this subiect, were only to transcribe what I have in the place now cited.

13 P. 347, to P. 361. I find the like bundle of trash all along. Now moral certainty refuted above comes in again. Now the Question in this Controversy is Stated à new. Viz. Whether the Spirit of God may not by moral Arguments work in mens minds such à certain assent of Faith as The Dr err's in stating the question the Scripture requires for Salvation. Here the D^r err's for the Question is not [Page 112] whether Arguments morally certain may induce to believe, but whether Faith relying on moral inducements only, be Divine and Supernatural? This I deny. The next Question started P. 349. is, whether Supernatural Faith be at last resolved into God's Verity known by natural reason, which is only à Theolo­gical controversy, wholly impertinent to our present difficulty of the Churches Infallibility, or the undoubted certainty of Faith? Grant or deny, no hurt to either? My opinion is (and t'is no more but an opinion) That Faith relies not upon that veracity as known Scientifically, though I am far from excluding the na­tural knowledge thereof, from our capa­cities, before we believe à Divine Reve­lation. But saith the D^r. Supposing God had never discovered his own Ve­racity in Scripture, could not men have had Divine Faith? Yea, and with the Assistance of Grace Supernatural Faith also of God, as he is à Rewarder. Heb: 11. 6, in case they had never heard of either Church, or Scripture? To such, God speak's by his visible and Admirable Providence over the world, For his invi­sible perfections are manifested from the crea­tion of the world. Rom. 1. 19. The Heavens declare his glory &c. But what is all this [Page 113] to our matter in hand, when we have Gods veracity, and Revelation proposed by Church and Scripture, and easily suppose that first perfection known by natural reason?

14 In the next place the D^r has à fling at Cardinal Lugo. Suares, with others, and court's them after his homely manner with ieers and reproachful language. Poor man! Were these profound Do­ctors living, he would not be thought worthy to turn over books for them. Soon after he would have the terms of Divine, Supernatural, Infallible, and Inevident Faith banished Schools. That Of the Dr's rambling. is, because he understand's them not. Next he tell's us. P. 358. These things were necessary to be premised, before we could come to the true state of the Question, and thus it is. VVhether in order to the certainty of our Faith concerning Gods Revelation, an Infallible Testimony of the Church be neces­sary. This he proposes, and denies, yet never so much as offer's to meddle with And intolerable Shuf­fling. the Question. What is done? Marry, he first makes another large excursion, and relates some broken pieces of my Doctrin, then shamefully slip's aside, and enters upon à meer speculative Scholastical difficulty, concerning the [Page 114] Resolution of Faith. Is not this worse then shuffling. Suppose that neither Mr D^r nor I, give the best Resolution in this matter, doth i [...] therefore follow that Faith requires not the Churches infallible Testimony in this present state. No more followes from this, (were all true) save thus much only, that neither of us as yet have hit right upon the true Resolution. In à word, the necessary dependence of Faith upon the Church, is proved in both my last Treatises, because none can have certainty of the Divine Inspira­tion of Scriptures, of the Infallible truth of Scriptures, or finally of their genuin sense, unless an Infallible Church ascertain these particulars, and to these convincing proofs (wholly independent of the D^r'^s Resolution, and mine) no answer was ever yet, nor can be hereafter retur­ned.

15 The D^r told us just now, he would come to the true state of the Question concerning the Churches In­fallible Testimony, and to comply with his promiss, as I said above, he meddles not at all with it, but. P. 361. attaques my Resolution of Faith, and doth it in such an unlearned manner, as never D^r I think, did before him. First he laies down à part of my Doctrin, but as [Page 115] his custome is, answers nothing. 2. In lieu of answering, he object's, and tells us again an old story partly taken out of his Account. What proceeding is this? Our method is quite contrary, we ever solve an Argument directly when it is proposed, and should be laugh't at, did we to avoid the difficulty, only throw an another objection at an Adversary, to stop his mouth with.

16 A word now of my Doctrin, to the end all may se how this man deal's with me. Reas. and Relig. Disc. 1. c. 1. and. 6. I Assert. That as the primitive Christians resolved their Faith, just so we resolve ours, and argue thus. Had one demanded of those first converted multitudes after the Canon of Scripture was written, why they believed Christ to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world? They might have answered, Scripture, as we are taught, expresses these verities. But ask again, how know you, that your Scriptures are not sup­positious We now re­solve our Faith, as the primiti­ve Chri­stians did before us, as some Gospels have been? They would have said (for we suppose them reasonable) this we believe upon the undoubted Testimony of those bles­sed men the Apostles who wrot that Holy book. Yet another Question en­sues. How do you know that these [Page 116] Apostles were not Cheats, for there have been false Prophets and Apostles, but men inspired by Almighty God to teach and write his sacred verities? Had they proved this by Scripture the Circle would have been inevitable. For to say Scripture is Gods word because the Apo­stles tell us so, and to say the Apostles were infallible Oracles of truth, because the Scriptu­re affirm's that, implies à most vicious circu­lation. Their rational Answer there­fore would have been, for there is no other. The manifest wonders done by the Apostles, their strange Miracles and Conversions wrought the whole world over, their eminent Sanctity and sheding of blood for the Doctrin delivered by them, proved those blessed men to be Oracle divinely inspired, Gods most faith­ful and Commissioned Teachers. But all this Discourse hold's exactly, applyed to the Roman Catholick Church, for She evidences the like undeniable Miracles, greater Conversions, more martyrdoms since the Apostles dayes, most admirable Sanctity in thousands and thousands, therefore She in like manner is proved God's Oracle, as is more largely declared in the place now cited.

17 This Argument I urged against the D^r, and told him c. 6. that he was either obliged to shew wherein those [Page 117] first Apostolical Miracles and Conver­sions surpass'd these latter of the Church, or rationally to blame my inference, as defective and unconcluding. Viz. That the Church is not as fully evinced by her Signs to be God's Oracle, as the Apostles were by theirs. You may read. c. 6. n. 5. how egregiously the Dr trifled with this diffi­culty in his Account, and here he is worse, though he had seen all my exceptions made against him in his Answer returned to T. C. Observe I beseech you.

18 Against this, saith the D^r (he means of paralleling the Churches Mira­cles, Conversions &c. with those of the Apostles) I objected three things. Object Mr. Dr! In this place you are not to object, but to Answer the main ground I rely on in my Resolution, that is to shew wherein the parity between the Aposto­lical Church, and ours fail's, or is faulty; or if that cannot be done, to admit of my Inference. You perform neither, but The Dr in­stead of answering, object's again what had been solved. shamefully shift off what most presseth, and it is done most unluckily, for your objections contain nothing but what is directly replyed to by me in the. 1. 2. and 3. Chap: of that. 3. Discourse. You say first. This way of resolving Faith seem's vnreasonable, because an assent is hereby required beyond all degree of Evidence, no grounds being assign'd for it, but the [Page 118] motives of Credibility which are fallible. Here are three errours at once, plainly re­futed in the Chapters now cited, where I say, our true Christian Faith in this present state no more goes beyond the proportion and degree of evidence (be yet this unexplicated evidence what you will) then the Faith of the Primitive Christians went beyond it. And I urg'd you again and again to giue à disparity, or to shew wherein the tendency of their Faith was different from ours. 2. It is à flat calumny to say as you do, that, I assigne no other grounds for Faith but the motives of Credibility, which you suppose faillible. C. 2. n. 8. I say expresly, our Assent to matters of Faith is ultimatly grounded upon God's Divine Testimony, and not (as Faith) upon the motives, which induce to believe, and there parified the ground of the primi­tive Christians Faith with the ground we rely on, and their Motives with ours. For example. Some of them saw, others heard of the Apostles strange Miracles, admirable Sanctity &c. and thence ratio­nally inferred that they were men sent from God and believed their Doctrin, though hard and difficult, upon their infallible words. Thus I discourse as to the Church, and wish the D^r, would shew [Page 119] where I miss, or give any shadow of Dif­ference. 3. If the motives of credibility have à certain and infallible connexion with the Divine Revelation, which I grant, The Dr's supposition of fallible or probable motives in this place is wholly impertinent, and makes nothing against my Analysis.

19 Still he rambles on and knowes not, I think, what he would be at. It is not sufficient (saith he) to say, that the Infalli­bility of the Churches Testimony makes the Assent infallible, for the Assent is not according to the objectiue certitude of things, but the Evidence of them to our understanding. Of what objective certitude or evidence of things An obiective certitude spoken of, not expli­cated by this Dr. can this man speak, think ye? Will he say that à mysterious Trinity, or the In­carnation are evident to us, while we walk by Faith? Or dare he assert that the Truth, the Infallible Divine Inspiration, and true sense of Scripture appear evidently to our understanding; While we se innu­merable called Christians at implacable variance about these matters? Vnless this be maintain'd, wholly improbable, the evidence here mentioned concerning no man yet knowes what things, is plain Nonsence. Again what evidence hath the D^r of these ignote Things, who gives no greater certitude to any Assent but à [Page 120] moral one, which may be false? Yet he run's on. Supposing the Testimony of the Roman Church to be really infallible yet since the means of believing it are but probable and prudential, the assent cannot be according to the nature of the Testimony considered in it self, but according to the reasons which induce me to believe such à Testimony infallible. By the means here pointed at the D^r understand's the motive of credibility only, and therein err's, for we shall shew hereafter other means. But had we none, who tells him that the Motives are only probable, or barely prudential? I say they are in­fallible and essentialy connected with the Divine Revelation, though were they only moral, the certitude of Faith is yet defensible, as will appear in the next Chapter. 2. If the Churches Testimony considered in it self be infallible, as he supposes, it cannot but be known as it is infallible, for no man will say, that God founded an infallible Church with inten­tion to hide or remove from our sight her infallible Testimony, whose final end is to teach all infallibly. Therefore providence hath left certain means, whereby the learned may come to the knowledge of that necessary truth. I have spent three whole Chapters in the third Discourse upon this subject, yet the [Page 121] Dr replyes not to one of my Arguments. 3. What ever he urges here concer­ning the means of believing, upon pro­bable inducements (and it is all raked out of his Account) I have not only answered in my last Treatise, but re­torted also, as you may se. Disc. 3. c. 2. n. 5. 6. 7

20 I suppose there, that S. Iohn expressed an Infallible revealed Verity concerning the Mystery of the Incar­nation, when he told the world. The word is made flesh. I then thought Dr Still: yeilded an Assent so firm and in­fallible to the Revelation, that though an Angel should have preach't contrary, he would not upon any reason proposable disbelieve it. But that Mystery is no Self evident truth to us, neither can it be Scientifically proved by an other revealed verity, wholly as obscure: all therefore that can be done is to make it evidently cre­dible, by motives extrinsick to the My­stery believed? For example, as the Dr insinuates by universal Tradition, the exteriour Consent of many learned men &c.

21 Hereupon ensues à troublesome difficulty. This humane fallible Tra­dition, this Consent, and all other Moti­ves previous to the belief of the Incarna­tion, [Page 122] are in the D^r'^s Principles fallible, and may be false, yet his Faith termina­ted The Dr rai­ses his Faith higher than the Motives can lead to upon the revealed Incarnation, is so certain that it cannot be false, Ergo his Faith fixt there, is raised higher, and stand's firmer on that ground, then the Evidence of his Motives can induce to. And thus the D^r goes beyond all the proportion or degree of Evidence, preambulatory to his certain belief, and consequently must solve his own Argu­ment. This and more I have in the place now cited, but the D^r's courage fail'd to return an Answer. Perhaps he will tell me, his belief of the Incarnation goes not beyond the uncertain lights of his fallible motives. Grant this, and it followes evidently. 1. That he contra­dict's himself, as will be proved in the next Chapter. It followes. 2. That his Faith of this fundamental Mystery, for ought any man living can know, may be à Lye. 3. That all Christ's Doctrin as it is now believed by Faith, may be both fallible and false. 4. That God obliges the whole Christian world to believe that, as an infallible truth, which really may be à falshood. Lastly, that all the glorious Martyrs in forgoing Ages, were bound to maintain that with the losse of their lives, to be à truth; which [Page 123] only apparently was so, and might in reallity be no truth. If the D^r subscrib's to these consequences, he has not one drachm of true Faith in his heart. Now one word more with the D^r

CHAP. VI.

1 Dr Still: in his Account. Part. 1. c. 7. P. 207. Speak's thus. Moral certainty yeilds sufficient assurance, that Chri­stian Religion is infallibly true, and he proves the Assertion, because moral certainty may evidently shew us the Credibility of Christian Religion, and that from the credibility of it, the infallible truth of it may be proved, will appear by these two things. 1. That where there is evident Credibility in the matter propounded, [Page 124] there doth arise upon men an obligation to believe: And that is proved...... from What the Dr teaches. Gods intention in giving such Motives, which was to perswade them to believe, as appears by multitudes of places of Scripture; and withall, though the meer credibility of the Motives might at first suppose some doubts concerning the Infallibility of the Doctrin, yet it is not consistent with any doubt as to the obligation to believe, because there can be no other reason assigned of those Motives of credibility, than the induceing on men an obligation to Faith.

2. That where there is such an obligation to believe, we have the greatest assurance that the matter to be believed is infallibly true: which depend's on this manifest proof, that God cannot oblige men to believe à lye, it being repugnant to all our conceptions of the veraci­ty and Goodnes of God to Imagin that God should require of men (on the pain of eternal damnation) to believe something infallibly true, which is really false. Thus the D^r. Reflect courteous Reader. Is it so, that from the Credibility of Christian Religion, the Infallible truth of it may be proved? There is then no doubt at all, but if it be Advantage given by the Dr's own Doctrin. proved infallibly true, it may be also be­lieved as it is, infallibly true. Doth the D^r concede, that from the Evident Cre­dibility of Christian Doctrin, there arises in all men an Obligation to believe it, and that [Page 125] this obligation is not consistent with any doubt, as to the obligation of believing it? I wish no more from an Adversary, having enough to make good all I say concerning the Infallibility of Divine Faith. Doth he finally assert, that where there is such an obligation we have the greatest assurance, that the matter believed is infallibly true, because God cannot require of men to believe that as infallibly true, which is really false? I wholly agree with him thus farr, yet withall affirm that he plainly contradict's his own Doctrin. For, if when there is such an obligation to believe, we have the greatest assurance (that is infallible assu­rance or nothing) that the matter believed is infallible true, it is undisputably clear, that Faith which has that greatest assuran­ce, goes far beyond the certainty of the Motives which is only moral, and not so infallible certain as the very act of Faith is. Hence it followes that the D^r contradict's himself in all he teaches concerning the moral certainty of Faith, and must, while he hold's Faith infalli­bly certain grant, that as terminated upon the truth of à Revelation, it rises higher and goes beyond the strength of the motives, which only afford moral certainty, and not greater. But of this more presently.

[Page 126]2 In the mean time, I wish the D^r would make what he saies here, to agree with some odd expressions in his prece­dent page 206. There we are told, that certainty implies the taking away all suspicion of doubt, but in moral things all suspicion of doubt is removed upon moral evidence, and here he saith. Though the meer Credibility of the Motives (only morally certain) might at first suppose some doubt concerning the In­fallibility of the Doctrin, yet it is not consistent with any doubt, as to the obligation to believe. I Say contrary, if it may at first suppose some doubt, it must ever suppose it, for this moral certainty grounded on the Miracles internal to Scripture, as the D^r teaches, growes not less nor more per­swasive in time, but is alwaies the same, and therefore cannot remove all doubt from a Believers mind.

3 Hence I argue. This moral certain­ty at first capable of doubt, comes in time to be infallible certainty, or still retain's some doubt. In case it be improved, and grow up to infallible certainty, it yeilds not in certainty to the very act of Faith, where unto it perswades, and so the Dr's distinction, between moral certainty, and An Argu­ment propo­sed. his term's Infallibly true, becomes frivo­lous. Moral certainty, saith he, yeilds us sufficient assurance that Christian Religion, is [Page 127] infallibly true. Say now, that this moral cer­tainty is still consistent with some sus­picion of doubt, it must either derive that doubt into the very act of Faith, and make that doubtful, or it ought to be granted, that Faith rises higher, and goes beyond the strength of that moral doubtful cer­tainty, contrary to the Dr's Principles. I wish also he had explaind him self better in this other dark Proposition. Moral cer­tainty may be as great as Mathematical and Phisical, supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their natures, as in Mathe­matical and Phisical, as to theirs. These words. Supposing as little reason to doubt, spoil all he saies, for if moral certainty ever supposes some suspicion of doubt, how can that be as great as Mathematical or Physical, which supposes none? But enough of this jangling.

4 We now come to the main point, and shall endeavour to shew, that, although the Motives were only Morally certain, and not (as I hold) infallibly connected with Divine Revelation, yet the act of Faith it self, is infallibly certain, and consequently rises above that weaker light of the Motives. This I say to vindicate the absolute infal­libility of Faith from all iust exceptions, while Divines vary about the connexion of the Motives, with the Divine Reve­lation.

[Page 128]5 The proof of my Assertion stands firm upon two Principles laid down Prot. without Prin. Disc. 1. C. 5. n. 6. 7. And Reas: and Relig. Disc. 3. C. 8. n. 16. In the first place I say (and its à Maxim known by the light of nature) that God, who is Supereminently more infallible than all men and Angels are, ought to be be­lieved answerable to his Excellence, with à most firm assent. In the second place I assert, though we have not Evidence of the Divine Testimony in it self, yet when it is made evidently credible by clear Signs that God speaks to us, and for our Sal­vation, By Faith we assent not to the bare credibility of à Mystery. we, as rational creatures, are obliged to submit and believe him, because he command's us to believe, and are thereupon bound to assent, not to the bare credibility of the Mysteries pro­posed, but to the very truth of them, which is à further step; and we must step so far, because the evidence of the obligation grounded on Gods Command, will have us do so. Here then is our assurance of the truth of the Revelation assented to. And is not this what D^r Still: teaches in express terms? Though the meer Credibility of the Motives might first suppose some doubt concerning the Infallibility of the Doctrin, yet it is not consistent with any doubt as to the obligation to believe. Yet more plainly. VVhere there is an [Page 129] obligation to believe, we have the greatest assu­rance that the matter to be believed, is infalli­bly true.

6 For à further explanation of this speculative matter. Note first. That known distinction between the Credibi­lity of à Mystery and the Truth thereof, is carefully to be reflected on, which the D^r and all those who cry against the raysing Faith above the Motives, un­skilfully confound. Their errour lies here, that they only consider the con­nexion But to the Truth. of the Motives with the Truth of the Mystery, and say, the understanding by virtue of the Motives (only Morally certain) cannot assent to that Truth, and they say very right; but ponder not on the other side the weight of God's Com­mand, which obliges us to trust the first Verity, though we have no evidence of the Revelation in it self. And thus, to use the D^r'^s Instance. P. 362. one not versed in Mathematicks, who cannot assent to the truth of à Demonstration in à demonstrative manner, may yet firmly believe it demonstrative upon his Ma­sters credit, who knowes the truth scientifically, and were that Master In­fallible, he might justly chastise his Scho­lar, did he boggle in believing the Truth. Much more doth this hold in God, when [Page 130] he command's our assent to à Truth evidently seen, by the Divine under­standing, though obscure to us.

7 Note. 2. The motives we here speak of may, as I observed in my last Treatise, be considered two wayes. First as anteceding Faith, and naturally known ex sensatis, being obiects of sense, seen, or heard of by undoubted History. Thus we have assurance that there is in the world à great Moral Body of men called Catholicks, agreeing in the use of Sacraments, professing Obedience to one supream Pastor, who manifestly shew the Succession of their Pastors from the Apostles times, give evident Signs of Sanctity in thousands and thousands, relate such and such Miracles wrought in the Catholick Church &c. 2. These Motives may be considered as obiects of Faith, and numbred among other Cre­d [...]nda, for we believe Christ and his Apostles to have wrought true Miracles, the Church to be Holy and universal The twofold acception of Motives, declared. &c. And thus the Motives assented to, are not inducements to believe, but Believed Articles. This double acception of Motives all must own: For before the Apostles believed in Christ, they knew him to be à rational man, saw his Miracles, and by manifest signs discove­red [Page 131] his Innocency and Holiness of life, yet afterward they believed by Faith, that he was truly man, and not in ap­pearance only, that he wrought true Miracles, and believed him as we now do, both Holy and Innocent.

8 Note. 3. God has right to com­mand us two wayes. First by making his revealed will evidently known, which implies, as Divines speak, Eviden­tiam in Attestante, or à clear sight of his command, and speaking. 2. This su­pream Lord, in case he make his will known by Signs evidently Credible, has yet as much right to require obedience from us as if it were evident, he speak's. One clear Instance will give light to my Assertion. An absolute Prince set's forth à Proclamation, and some eye or eare-witnesses receive it from his own mouth, and know it to be his: Soon after the publick Cryer proclaim's it in other places, distant from the Court. I say those who hear it proclaimed, and se it attested by the Princes own marks and signatures, are as much obliged to yeild Obedience to it, as if they had received the contents of it from the Prince him­selfe. The right God has, to Command Faith. Pray, tell me, did you ever yet know that any town or City in England though distant from Court, when his [Page 132] Majesty set's forth à proclamation autho­ritively sealed by his own hand, boggle thus? It may be the publick Cryer seign's, what is not. It may be he has received à forged Writ, It may be, he knowes not the King's mind, therefore we will neither obey, nor assent to the Truth of it, but after all these Cryes and Signs only hold it credible, that such is the Kings pleasure, his will, and com­mand.

9 Apply this to our present case and you have all. God's Revelation hath been proclaimed the whole world over. Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and the Church commissioned to speak aloud, have Age after age published it, and made the truth of it evidently Credible by clearer Signs then ever Prince set forth his Pro­clamation. Have we the Princes own Seal and Marks for the one, we have Gods own Seal and Marks for the other. It is true, we saw not the Prince sub­signing his law or Proclamation, and therefore want that evidence of Truth considered in it self, no more saw we the Truth of God's Revelation when he first spake by his Prophets, and Apost­les, How faith is mode Cre­dible. but the Signatures of his Truths an­nexed to his Revelation remain still, and will do so to the worlds end. And [Page 133] what after all these glorious signs, shall we stand trifling with God in so weighty an affair as concern's eternal Salvation? Shall we tell him, because we se not evidently the Truth of his Revelation in it self, but only the evident Credibility of it, we will proceed warily and assent to its Credibility, but with all either abstract from the Truth, or absolutly deny it. I am sure Christ delivered contrary Do­ctrin, when he told S. Thomas. Beati qui non viderunt & crediderunt, nameing those blessed, who se not, yet believe. Thus much noted.

10 I say first. The evident Credi­bility of à Revelation, obliges all to ac­cept it, not only as evidently Credible (for so much is manifest without any what the Motives perswade to. Submission) but to assent to it as most absolutely true, and in this sence Faith goes above the light of Motives. One reason hereof is already given. If an earthly King can oblige his subjects to obey à law as truly his, made evidently Credible as is now declared, much more can the King of Kings lay that obliga­tion upon all, when his Revelation is made evidently Credible by Signs sur­passing the power of nature. Again. Evident Credibility founded on rational [Page 134] Motives perswad's and oblig's men to believe some thing, as the D^r grant's. I ask what? They need not to perswa­de to à belief of themselves, because their Evidence is seen before assent be given to the Revelation, and therefore both perswade, and oblige all to believe the Infallible Truth of the Revelation, though not evidently seen.

11 I Argue. 3. and this reason con­vinces. The blessed Apostles firmly believed Christ our Lord to be truly God, à Redeemer, and the long expected Mes­sias, and rested not in this judgement alone. It is only evidently Credible, that Christ is God, or the true Messias; and How the blessed A­postles belie­ved? consequently their Faith went above the force of all the Motives laid open to their eyes, and senses.

12 I prove the consequence mani­festly. Consider that great Miracle of raysing Lazarus from his grave, meerly as seen or known by sense, and preceded Faith, none can say that, that wonder (the like is of all other Miracles) evi­dently proved Christ to be God, or the true Messias. For God might have wrought that Miracle for some other end, than to assure any of Christ's Di­vinity. Nay, he might have impowred an Angel or à man not priviledged with [Page 135] the Hypostatical union to call one dead, to life again, as the Prophet Elias did. Kings. 3. 17. 21. Yea and to do all the Miracles which Christ wrought. What followes therefore from the sight of these Miracles? Thus much only and no more, that as that poor widow of Seraptia truly judged Elias, after his giving life to her Son, to be à man sent from God, and that all be spake was true, so the Apostles might rationally have con­cluded, that our Saviours Miracles were indeed from à Power above the force of What force Miracles, as seen have? nature, but that He was thereby evidently proved God, appeared no evident infal­lible verity deduced from his wonders. Yet those blessed men, and the Primitive Christians firmly believed all these Truths by Infallible Faith, and there­fore as I said now, went above the cer­tainty of the Motives, which, as seen, afforded no such infallible certainty.

13 Some may say. If all those glorious Miracles wrought by our Sa­viour, neither gave evidence of his being God, nor solely taken, ultimately deter­mined any to believe his Divinity, or so much as one Revealed verity; How came the Apostles and all Orthodox Christians with them to raise their Faith so high, as to believe infallibly Christs [Page 136] sacred Doctrin? I answer. Three things chiefly brought their Faith to Three things necessary for faith, this perfection. Prodigious works, or Miracles (as seen) perswaded much; Our Saviours sacred words, as heard, by those he taught, added more strength, and fi­nally the pious affection of the Will in every Believer that saw these works, and heard his words, when drawn on and encouraged by Christ's Command to eli­cite Faith, passed through all difficulties to the Contrary, and moved the under­standing to believe infallibly the truth of what ever that great Master did speak.

14 Shall I yet touch upon these particulars more plainly? All know that the greatest Miracles which were ever done without words or Doctrin de­livered by him that wrought them, make not our Christian Verities known, for had Christ appeared in the world and given life to twenty dead men, and all that time never spoken word of his Do­ctrin, none could have apprehended what to believe of our Christian Mysteries. Those therefore who saw his Miracles might well have thought him some ex­traordinary person sent from God (be­cause are further explicated. Divels cannot restore life to the dead) but could never know by those wonders, what he judged of Divine mat­ters, [Page 137] before they heard him speak. 2. Words alone without miraculous works induce none to believe; wherefore, had Christ come amongst us, and only told us, he was God and the true Messias, and wrought no Miracles, shewed no sancti­ty, or austerity of life, neither Iewes nor Gentils, nor indeed any, could in prudence have believed him. Hereof, se more in my notes upon Pooles Appen­dix n. 21. and learn withall; that Christ's admirable works and sacred words ioyntly ta­ken, highly conduce to beget Divine Faith in all. I say Ioyntly taken, whereof we have an Instance in that glorious Transfiguration upon Mount Thabor. The Disciples there present, saw our Saviours sacred face shine like the sun, and his garments white as snow. Yet that vi­sion alone, no way apt by it selfe to per­swade any of his being the Son of God, might have left the Apostles in suspence concerning that Mystery. 2. They heard à voice, as S. Peter speak's z. Epist. 1. 17. from the magnificent Glory. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. That voice added to the vision, gave more strength. 3. An express com­mand Close ensued upon that Vision and voice. Ipsum audite. Be sure to hear my beloved Son. Here all further delay [Page 138] ceased, and à strict obligation was layd on them to raise their Faith above all they saw or heard, as also most firmly to believe the truth of what ever Christ our Lord spake.

15 Upon this one Instance, all I would say is grounded. Ask therefore, why I by Faith goe above all the Signs and Miracles which Christ or his Church The effi [...]acy of God's Command in order to Faith shewes me, or why I infallibly believe the truth of every Revelation proposed? I answer the reason is, because God who hath right to oblige, when he intimat's his will by clear Signs, prodigious works and words) command's me to do so, and I am as much bound to obey him upon such summons, as if the truth of the Re­velation were made evident to me. Here you must either deny that God can lay such à command upon men, which is evidently false (for à temporal Prince as is now proved can do it) or grant, that I am obliged to obey his Command, and therefore can ascend with my Faith above the strength of all Motives, and believe the Truth of his Revelation infalli­bly. Otherwise you must say, God command's me to do what I cannot do, just as if he should bid me fly through the Air when I have neither power, nor wrings to fly with.

[Page 139]16 Now mark I beseech you. All our Adversaries Arguments either tend to prove that God cannot lay that obli­gation upon us when he gives such Mo­tives as perswade to believe (which yet saith D^r Still: appeares by multitudes of places of Scripture) or evince, that no­thing can bring men to believe the Truth of à Revelation, but the evidence of it, or à clear sight of that Truth we assent to by Faith, which is manifestly false. Reflect once more upon 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.

[Page 140]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 [Page 141] 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 [Page 142] true, and the obiection becomes force­les. Here I expect that such an Adver­sary as D^r 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 [Page 143] 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.

[Page 144]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 [...]liei [...] Faith. that men truly prudent and apprehensive of their eternal good, are not drawn by torments or inticements to deny in words any revealed verity, yet few in their wits, [Page 145] saith the Saint, will venture to do so for à truth known by natural science. Whereupon he inferr's, that Faith is not so much à Speculative act, as practical in order to the real effects of suffering and dying for God and his truth, attested by Revelation, though not evidently seen.

22 Some may here demand, whe­ther the Will can make the Motives in­ducing to Faith, to appear stronger then they are in themselves? I answer it cannot: For all know, that as ratio Veri, or truth, moves the understanding, so ratio Boni, or Good moves the will, and is its proper object. The will therefore can strongly adhere to what it rationally loves, and move the understanding to obey God, when it is evidently credible by clear Signs that He speak's, and requi­res obedience from us, but to force the in­tellectual power to se more light in the Motives than they of their own nature can give, is im­possible. One may here ask. How then can the will, as Divines teach, supply the inefficacy of the Motives were there want of efficacy in them, as there is none in my Opinion, for I hold them infallibly connected with the Divine Revelation? I answer. No otherwise, then by adding constancy, and à strong practical firmness [Page 146] to the assent of Faith; so much flame and fervour, that if the intellectual power had yet more evidence, the ad­hesion would not be greater. And thus, as both Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers speak, corde creditur ad Salutem. A pious will can captivate the under­standing, and move it to believe to Sal­vation.

23 By what is here said and further explicated in the place now cited, you se D^r Still jumbling discourse. P. 398. most weak and fixed upon no rational ground. If the Will, saith he, can deter­mine the understanding to assent beyond the strength of the Motives, it may determine it to assent with out any Motives at all. Not so, Mr Dr. It is far easier to assent upon some Motives, though weak ones, then for none at all, as is evident in the rash judgements men usually make, when by the perversness of the Will, they strongly judge upon most slight reasons such an one to be an Enemy, who never The Dr's ill way of arguing, rejected. intended mischief to any, much more therefore, can this power by her pious af­fection when She has grave and most weighty reasons proposed to obey God, move the understanding to comply with that obligation, and to believe most firmly.

[Page 147]24 Now comes in the D^r'^s jumbling! If, saith he the infallible assent of Faith comes from the power of the Will, then to what pur­pose is any formal obiect enquired after, or Motives of Credibility either? Mark first an improper speech, of an Assent comming from the power of the VVill. The assent, Sr, comes from the understanding comman­ded by the will to assent. He goes on. The Formal Obiect doth assign à reason of be­lieving from the Obiect it self, of which there can be none, if the VVill by her own power elicit that which is the proper assent of Faith. I Answer. The understanding, if we And his jumbling also. speak properly, elicit's the assent of Faith, that is produces it, and not the Wil. Now if the word Elicit import only à command, it is more then profoundly simple to assert as the D^r doth, that, that command takes away from the for­mal Obiect, all reason of believing. Ob­serve I beseech you. God obliges all to keep his precepts, and one is to believe the Incarnation upon this Motive or formal obiect, that eternal Truth has revealed it. The VVill because God re­quires that assent, readily submit's, and command's the understanding to believe the Mystery. How can this command of the will any way lessen or take from the formal Obiect all reason of believing, [Page 148] when it moves the understanding to be­lieve, because God speak's and will have us to believe so? It is impossible, unlesse You'le say, that because God enioyn's me not to steal, and the Will thereupon moves me to abstain from Theft I take away God's law by my obedience, which is à blasphemy. It is true, could the will, being of it selfe à blind faculty, elicit or produce Faith by its own power without any reason proposed (and this gross errour lay deep in the Dr's head when he The Dr's errour. Wrot) he might then talk at random, and tell us as he doth, of no need of any Motives of Credibility, of taking away the formal Obiect of Faith, and such like Nonsence, but all is contrary, For the Will can never move the Understan­ding to elicit Faith, without first having the formal obiect of Faith rationally propo­sed, and applyed by most grave and weighty Motives, as shall be now briefly declared.

25 I observed above. n. 5. That the Motives of Credibility may be conside­red two wayes. First, as rational lights preceding Faith or known by natural discourse, answerable to our Saviours words. Matt, 11. 4. Tell Iohn what you have heard and seen. 2. As Truths belie­ved by Faith, wherein there appear's no difficulty at all, if which is evident, one [Page 149] and the same Obiect can terminate two different cognitions. Thus the Apostles conversing with our Saviour, knew him by natural reason to be truly man, and yet induced by prudent Motives, they raised their Faith above sense, above all natural knowledge, and believed, he was indeed, Our Savi­ours Mira­cles as seen, were ratio­nal Motives to à beliefe of their truth. true Man. They saw the outward ap­pearance of his glorious Miracles, but by sence and natural discourse had no strict evidence of their being Truths (for sence may be deceived) or of the end for which they were wrought, however, led on by prudent Motives they believed them true Miracles, and not in appearance only. Now I ask, why could not our Saviours own Miracles, as seen, become rational inducements to believe the real truth of them, not evidently seen? All confess that, as seen and known by discourse, they had force enough to perswade to à Beliefe of what ever Christ spake, and God revealed. If so; There can be no reason why they might not also induce to à firm beliefe of their own being true Miracles; For, if the sight of them had so much force as to cast light upon another Obiect. Viz. The Divine Revelation, and to make the truth thereof, evidently Credible; that very sight was no lesse powerful to give the like clarity of their being evident credible Truths. At least all must say (and [Page 150] 'tis mainly for my present purpose) that our Saviours Miracles, together with the other external Motives seen or known by Natural discourse, did ultimately con­stitute the Divine Revelation in à compleat state of Credibility, which we call Gods own rational speaking to the world by Signs, or the last application of his speaking.

26 Now further. When this ratio­nal Proposition or ultimate application of God's speaking was made by miracles and other Motives, and layd open to the understanding of primitive Belie­vers, who saw Christs wonders, the Will thereby enlightned, could easily with her pious affection, move the Intelle­ctual power to elicit à most firm assent of Faith, because God speak's, or com­mand's Beliefe: which assent if ultimate­ly resolved, we shall find securely fixed both upon the Truth of the Revelation, as also upon the real Truth of the Moti­ves also, joyntly believed. And thus the Motives which were only inducements to Believers (solely considered) that is as they constituted à Revelation and themsel­ves evidently credible, can under the notion of Truths, conjoyned with the Divine Revelation terminate à certain, and infal­lible assent of Faith.

27 Perhaps some half Scholars in [Page 151] speculative learning, will esteem all now said confused stuff, and very likely, as Halfe Scho­lars talk, not valved. the D^r expresses himself (P. 427) desire the Reader to try his faculty upon it, whether it be intelligible? No great matter for that say I. Let Smatterers talke, I appeal to the judgement of such as have been long versed in Schools, and hope to enlighten the unlearned by this one clear Instance.

28 Had Christ our Lord after his raysing Lazarus from the dead, said only thus much to the then present Spectators. You have seen this one great wonder; my Disciples, and others have been Eye-witnesses of many more An Instance gives light to my Assen­tion. wrought by me. I speak now to you in the words, which my Evangelist shall hereafter register in the Gospel. Iohn. 10. 25. The works that I do in my Fathers name, they give Testimony of me, and with­all declare, that I am truly God and the Messias sent into the world. Believe me, induced to assent by the works you and others have seen, and moreover be­lieve, that these seen wonders are not counterfeited, but true Miraculous works. In this case it is clear, that the same Miracles first known by sense, or as they apply'd the Divine Revelation to the Believers understanding, made [Page 152] themselves together with the Revela­tion no more but evidently credible and therefore forced none to believe, but left that free, yet they imposed an obligation upon all rational men of be­lieving the real truth of these Miracles, and the Truth of the Revelation, where­of, neither those primitive Christians, nor we ever yet had any Evidence. This is to say in plainer terms (and mark well the distinction) Miracles and all other exteriour Motives, as seen or known, move to à beliefe of themselves un­der the notion of Truths, though not evi­dently seen or known as Truths, but belie­ved. so.

29 The whole discourse in this Chapter goes upon à supposition, that the Motives of credibility are not essen­tially connected with the Divine Reve­lation, though if that essential conne­xion be admitted (which is true Do­ctrin, and much avail's to raise Faith above the strength of all exteriour Mo­tives) An act of Faith termi­nated upon the Revela­tion and the truth of the Motives, more certain than huma­ne knowled­ge. yet the act of Faith terminated upon the Revelation and the Truth of the Motives, far surpasses in certainty the knowledge which any in this life can have of that connexion: for the know­ledge of that Connexion is only got by natural discourse, whereas the assent [Page 153] of Faith it self rest's upon the most su­pream Verity, I mean, God speaking, to the world. And thus in all opinions the certainty of Faith is defensible. As à rational assent, Faith depend's upon the Motives of Credibility, because God speak's by such Signs. As purely Di­vine, it rest's upon the Divine Reve­lation applyed by rational Motives, whereunto I add the lumen fidei, which represent's the Truth of the Motives, and the Revelation more clearly and im­mediatly, then any natural discourse can do, and upon that account much conduces to the Infallible certainty of Faith, as is largely declared. Reas. and Relig: Disc. 3. c. 9. n. 6 The last certain­ty comes from the pious affection of the will, as is already declared. Ha­ving said thus much, I desire D^r Still: to weaken any one of these Principles, upon Good Authority, or solid reason,

CHAP. VII.

1 I Am forced, courteous Reader, to passe by many impertinent excur­sions of the D^r, his ill language also with other lesser faults, for fear of making this Treatise too bulky, which may displease him, neither do I need to enlarge my self much upon his obiections, from P. 365. to P. 400. For they are all solved in my two former Treatises. Some few particulars I shall add, more to satisfy others in this speculative matter of our Analysis, than to answer the Dr who in very deed hath his full Answer already.

2 In the. P. now cited he complain's of my shuffling, because he hear's no more of the Churches infallible Testi­mony, whereby men believe the Scriptu­re to be the word of God. I stand asto­nish't at this clamorous Adversary. Where were his Eyes, where was his at­tention, if ever he read my Treatises? The very chief aime whereof, is, to shew [Page 155] not only to Christians, but to Iewes and Gentils also, that the first known ground of true Religion, is à Church manifested by Supernatural Motives proceeding from an infinit power and wisdom. This Church I have amply proved, to be God's own assured Oracle. The Pri­mum credible, or first believed Teacher in this present state, and that God speak's as immediatly and infallibly by it now, as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle. As therefore those, whom the blessed Apo­stles taught, having seen the Apostolical Signs, immediatly believed upon their word; So with as great reason may we, having penetrated the Churches glorious Marks, assent immediatly upon Her word, and believe all She obliges Chri­stians to believe. But to have assurance of the Scriptures Divine inspiration, as li­kewise of its true infallible sence, are believed Articles grounded upon the Churches Infallible Testimony, or rather upon God speaking by this Oracle, and here we must rest, or can believe Nothing. The Chur­ches Testi­mony, God's own Testi­mony I must therefore once more blame the Doctor, who forsooth thinks, the Faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is be­lieved ought to have such à Divine Testimony, and so à process in Infinitum, or à Circle will unavoydably follow. Such à Divine Testi­mony. [Page 156] Mr D^r, you understand not what I teach. I say expresly, that the Chur­ches Testimony is God's own Testimony, as immediatly assented to upon Church Authority (for he that hear's the Church hear's God) as ever Doctrin was believed upon any Apostles word. Thus much supposed and largely proved what need have we of another Testimony, distinct from that of the Church? Out of all, I concluded, that as there was neither vicious Circle nor process in Infinitum in those who terminated their faith upon S. Paul's preaching, for example, so there is neither the one nor other fault in me, when I assent to this truth. The Churches Testimony is God's own Testi­mony, and ground my faith upon it. Se more of this subiect. Reas. and Relig: Disc. 3. C. 6. n. 26.

3 We have another quarel. P. 367. Where I am told, if all the necessity of the Churches Proposition be no more, then to convey the Divine Testimony to us (and the D^r who cites my. 3. Disc. c. 4. n. 18. wishes me to take pains à little better, in proving that Such à condition must have Infallibility belonging to it) I answer, Mr D^r misrelates my Doctrin, for I speak not in that place of, the Chur­ches Proposition, but of her Motives [Page 157] whereby the Divine Testimony, whe­ther God speak's by Scripture or the Church, is applyed to us. Let him the­refore take the pains to cite more ex­actly, or surcease to charge me with that I never taught. From this very gross errour, proceed's another. Infallibility (saith he) is then only necessary when it is relied upon, and is the ground of believing, and not where it is à meer condition of understan­ding. In real truth, there is nothing here but à want of understanding in Mr D^r. Pray, Courteous Reader, peruse what I have. Disc. 3. C. 6. n. 18. 19. where I say, the Churches Testimony, is not à meer extrinsical condition, disposing to believe upon the Divine Testimony in Scripture, but a ioynt Motive with it, which compleat's the ancient Revelation in or­der to the beliefe of our Christian My­steries. Therefore, when I believe the Church to be infallible, because S. Paul teaches, She is the Pillar and ground of truth, and believe it also because God speak's that very truth by the Church, I no way separate the ancient Revelation from the Churches Testi­mony, but by one Indivisible act of Faith, be-lieve both at once. He­reof I have given à clear Instance, in the Chapter now cited. n. 22. 23. [Page 158] And constantly find by experience, that to evacuate the D^r'^s Arguments, no more is necessary, but only to point at what is noted in my former Treatises.

4 P. 369. He first pretend's to tell us VVhat these Motives of Credibility are. 2, How far they are necessary to Faith. 3. VVhat influence they have vpon the assent of Faith. Had he followed these par­ticulars closely according to his own opinion, he might well have given no little advantage against himself, but in lieu of doing so, he wisely start's aside, and for two or three pages, only relates what Suares, Cardinal Lugo and other great Divines say of these Motives, and though all of them speak much to my sence, and in things material, have nothing contrary to me, Yet P. 375. He bla­mes me because I must say, that the proofs taken from these Motives do not perswade men to believe, or which is all one, have no Influence vpon the act of Faith. Would to God this Dr would either not write evident untruths, or consider bet­ter what he writes. Pray you reflect. Do not I say. Protest: without Princ. Disc. 1. c. 5. n. 11. That the Motives to Faith manifestly point out that true Society of Christians wherein Gods Verities are taught, and make it discernable from all [Page 159] heretical Communities? Do not I say. n. 12. That if Gods goodness could permit these Motives like false Charms to delude the world, all might with just reason exclaim, as Rich. de S. Vict: once did. If we believe an errour it is you, o God, who have deceived us. Do not I say. n. 14. That without Motives, never any since Christianity began, rightly be­lieved in Christ our Lord, in Apostle, or Church? Have I not. Reas. and Relig. Disc. 2 through two whole Chapters laid down the Efficacy of these Moti­ves, and shewed what influence they have upon Reason and Faith also? Have I not proved them. c. 7. n. 3. 4. to be God's own Language, or publick way of spea­king The Dri unjust Ca­vils. to the world? And. c. 16. n. 30. plainly assert, that to separate the lustre of Motives from Christ and his Church, implies à subversion of Christian Reli­gion? And yet with me, saith our wor­thy D^r they perswade not to believe, nor have influence upon the act of Faith, though I say Faith never was, or can be without them.

5 But from whence comes this gross mistake of the D^r? Marry from hence, because I say that the act of Faith (as Faith) wholly relies upon other Prin­ciples. Good Mr D^r, cannot you con­ceive [Page 160] how one indivisible act (where in there are no separable parts) wholly re­lies or depend's upon several Principles, though with à different respect? Take One act of Faith Ne­cessarily de­pend's upon several Principles. for example à Conclusion deduced out of well ordered Premises, as à vital ope­ration, it wholly depend's upon the intel­lectual faculty, that produces it; As à thing in being, it wholly depends upon Gods general concurse which gives existen­ce to every creature, yet as à Conclusion it wholly relies on the Premises. The whole in­fluence of one of these different Princi­ples abates nothing, but is well consistent with the whole influence of their other as­sociated causes. Iust thus it is in an act of Faith. As vital, it wholly depend's on the Intellectual power, as supernatural, wholly on the infused habit, or something equivalent. For its Being, it depend's on Gods universal concurse, whereby every thing exist's, but as à rational operation, it wholly depend's on the Motives inducing to Faith, not that the motives, considered meerly as inducements, concurr by way of efficiency to that act, any more then pre­mises to à conclusion, but because the judgement of Credibility, which actually in­form's the mind in the very instant à Be­liever first elicit's Faith, illuminates his intellectual power, and manifestly shew's [Page 161] what he is ready to believe, is evidently Credible, or worthy à most certain assent, because God speak's by his own Oracle. O! but the act of Faith precisely fix't upon the Divine Revelation reasons not, and consequently, saith our D^r seem's unrea­sonable, or hath no ground to rely on.

6 This difficulty I have both pro­posed in express terms, and solved. Reas. Relig: Disc. 3. C. 16. n. 25. and say there, an act of Faith may be considered two wayes. First as it is à prudent reasonable submission to what ever God reveals. 2. as terminated upon the Revelation pro­posed by the Church, or any other infal­lible Oracle. Under the first notion of à prudent submission, it either necessarily im­plies, or presupposes the rational pru­dent judgment of credibility set fast on such Motives as converted the world, which judgement rightly denominat's Faith à reasonable Obsequiousness. But again consider the act in it self, I mean as it precisely tend's upon the Revela­tion, and à Mystery not evidently seen, it where an Act of Faith reasons not? cannot reason at all, nor more prove, or Scientifically know its obiect (as it rest's there) than Science as science be­lieve. Thus I then answered, and though the Doctor hitherto never took the least notice of my reply, [Page 162] yet we shall find him hereafter when his rational Evidence of Christian Religion co­mes to à trial, much born down with this very difficulty.

7 In the mean while to give some hints at what I shall then say. I ask when the D^r (who talks much of Faiths evidence) believes the Mystery of the Incarnation upon this sole ground that God reveals it in Scripture, what ratio­nal evidence can he derive into his Faith, if you precisely consider it, as fixed upon the Revelation and Mystery together? None arises from the nature of these things purely believed, unless he stoutly affirm (and he is as like to do it as any man li­ving) that he evidently see's by his new eyes of Faith the intrinsick infallible truth of the Revelation in it self, as also the two natures in Christ, Humane and Divine. I say by virtue of that act, as it is precise­ly terminated upon the obiect believed, which if I rightly understand him. P. 387. fine, he acknowledges to be obscure, and upon that account unmeet to ground Evidence? What then is to be done? O, saith the Dr I will fetch my Eviden­ce not from the Nature of the things belie­ved, for they are remote and dark, but from the evidence of sense as to the Mira­cles wrought by Christ, from the Testimony of [Page 163] those who saw Christ our Lord, and have delivered his Doctrin to us, and given the greatest Evidence of their fi­delity &c. Se his pages. 387 and 416. Very good, let all yet be as he pleases.

8 Hence it followes first. That the D^r'^s act of Faith as it tend's upon the Revelation, not evidently seen, and an obscure Mystery together, is so far blind, yea and like a Mole, working without light (They are his own words P. 353) as that Faith is, which he would im­pugn, The Dr own's Faith both clear and obscure and this I chiefly insist upon at present. It followes. 2. That his one indivisible act of Faith is both clear and obscure; as fixed upon his supposed evident Motives, it is clear, and under another respect obscure, as it adheres to an obscure obiect believed. For so he speak's. P. 387. I had rather thought, saith he, the more obscure the obiect had been (for its little better then Non-sence to call an act of Faith obscure) the greater necessity there had been of strong evidence to perswade &c. One word, Mr Dr by the way. I think it far greater Nonsence to call obiects à parte rei obscure, if we use proper lan­guage. A pore blind man stumbles at à stone, is the stone therefore obscure, while another sees it clearly, and stum­bles not? Thus all obiects obscure to [Page 164] our weak Capacities, are clear and evi­dent to God and Angels. Clarity and obscurity, Mr D^r, as I have often noted (but you never mend your faults when told of them) are inseparable proprieties of vital operations, and belong not to Things in rigour of speech, though in à vulgar way with à respect to our acts, the language may pass. Again, shift all you will, if the obiect in your sence be obscure, your act of Faith, as it is fi­xed upon that clouded verity, cannot but under that notion and respect, be obscure also.

9 It followes. 3. That, had the Dr pitch't on the true Evidence of Credi­bility, which is not done, I have all that for my Faith with much more to boot taken from the Churches long continuance, Her Miracles, Sanctity, Conversions, and other Motives. Whereof see, Reas. and Relig. Disc: 2. C. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Now if the Evidence of Credibi­lity once established necessary in the Church, be ever prerequired as an indu­cement to believe (as all confess) it little import's Christianity, whether it be discovered by the very act of Faith, or the Iudgement previous to Faith, sup­posing, as I said above, that this judge­ment inform's and illuminat's the un­derstanding, [Page 165] chiefly at every mans first Conversion. Did I come short of the where the Evidence of Credibility is found. Dr in the evidence of Credibility, he might justly blame me, but when in reallity he has none, as we shall se here­after, and I introduce such an Evidence as converted the world, Say I beseech you wherein am I faulty? Marry in this may the D^r reply, that I allow not evi­dence to the very act of Faith, but only to the previous judgement of Credibili­ty. No hurt at all, while the mind has the evidence of Credibility laid open, and the D^r'^s very act of Faith (such an one as it is) is partly clear, partly obscure.

10 But to quiet the D^r I can without prejudice to my Opinion, much less to Christian Religion, grant with many learned Divines, that one indivisible act of Faith rest's both upon the Moti­ves, and the revealed Mystery toge­ther. Nay more, I do hold that the Motives are God's own language whereby he speak's to the world, not imitable by any Enemy, for, etiam factis loquitur Deus, as S. Austin often cited, affirm's. Se Reas. Relig: Disc. 3. I say. 3. The The obliga­tion of be­lieving ari­ses from the Motives. obligation of believing first arises from the light of these Motives, for no man saies, he believes, because he believes, [Page 166] but therefore believes, because antecedently to his Faith, he judges it most reasonable note the ra­tional ground. (upon God's command) to believe, what is revealed. The Revelation therefore obscurely proposed to us cannot, as obs­cure, be the rational ground of our firm as­senting to it, and for this reason to avoyd confusion in the Analysis, I attribute Evi­dence to the previous judgement of Cre­dibility and not to the very act of Faith. Though I scruple nothing to grant that I believe also for the Motives, which, as I now said, have their influence upon Faith, and therefore the D^r flatly calum­niat's, when he tell's me over and over, that I believe without reason, without grounds and Motives; That I have Motives and evident Motives (P. 382). yet after all this Evidence, believing hath nothing to do with them. Iust as if à man should say (P. 384.) there is à par­ticular way of seing with ones eyes shut. He might better have said, his intellectual Eyes were darkened when he read my The Dr's cavil, groundless. Treatise, for no Author ever gave greater strength and efficacy to the Motives then I have done, when I say not only Faith, but Christ also, the Church, Scrip­ture, and all true Religion goes to wrack without them. I further assert, that à Believers mind is so far from being in à [Page 167] state of darkness, in the instant it elicits Faith, that even then it is environed with the light of these Motives, clearly represented by the judgement of credibi­lity, the lustre whereof is so great, that as many Divines teach, they make Faith evident in Attestance. This opinion I could maintain, and yet defend the ob­scurity of Faith in order to its Material obiect, as the D^r withall his pretended Evidence must do, whereof more pre­sently.

11 P. 376. He seem's some what resty, ruminates again his old difficulty and ask's, whether in requiring an Infallible assent of 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 [Page 168] most certain and infallible, and shall here for the better satisfaction of à less lear­ned Reader upon this hint given by the D^r, 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 [Page 169] 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 evi­ [...]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. [Page 170] That our D^r'^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 D^r'^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 D^r 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 [Page 171] 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 D^r 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. Its 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 [Page 172] 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 D^r 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 [Page 173] 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 D^r, 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 [...]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. [Page 174] 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.

1 HEre the D^r 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 [Page 175] 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 D^r'^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 [Page 176] knowledge of one God as à Rewarder, and have Faith available to Salvation. Now here is the D^r'^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 D^r. The ancient Christians had true Faith before the Canon of Scripture was extant. Now that holy Book being published and received all over, our D^r ground's his Faith upon it, only Ancient Christians had true Faith, befo­re scripture was written. as its 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 [Page 177] 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 [Page 178] 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 D^r, who hold's there is à Thing in being called the Church of England, where he preaches, and pre­tend's to settle his Faith upon Scripture only. Would he like it well, should [Page 179] 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 [Page 180] 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 D^r abuses himself and Reader, P 4 [...]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 [Page 181] 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 D^r'^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 D^r'^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 [Page 182] 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 D^r 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 D^r 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 D^r 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 [Page 183] 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 D^r 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 D^r 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 [Page 184] 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 to remain to the worlds end, the Pro­phets ceased to prophesy of His appea­ring in flesh, and had no longer that Infallible gift. Answearable hereunto one might assert, were it needful, that the High Priests infallible power in judging, fail'd also at that time, though the D^r will have à heard task to prove, that Caiphas's Judgement was erroneous, in case he ponder well S. Iohns words, c. 11. 50. You know nothing, neither do you what he repeat's to little purpose hath been Solved. consider that it is expedient for us, that one man dy for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this he said not of himself, but being the High Priest of that year he Prophecyed, That Iesus should dy for the Nation and not only for the Nation &c. [Page 185] Observe well. It was expedient that Christ should dy, and though à wicked man spake the words, yet the Spirit of truth which guided his tongue (for he spake not of himself) erred not. And this proves, that God often preserves truth as well by an unworthy Prelate, as by one really worthy where Order and Office is to be regarded, and not the dignity or Indignity of the person. Now whether all the subordinate Judges of the Sanhe­drin were infallible, is à new question not pertinent to the matter in hand. It is more satisfaction then I owe the D^r to shew that the Supream Judge of the Sanhedrin (who ever presided over the rest) much less the whole Church of the Iewes erred not. Witness S. Joseph of Arimathaea, Nicodemus, and in­numerable others, dispersed all Jury over, who all were faithful and free from errour.

10 Concerning the other Que­stion hinted at, None I think can doubt, but that the High Priests in all grand Judicatures were infallible, which Priviledge Moses certainly en­joyed, and Amarias also 2. Paralip. 19. 11. Moses induced by Iethro his Counsel. Exod. 18. 13, made Choice of some others to Judge in causes of [Page 186] lesser importance, reserving greater matters to himself. Num. 11. 16. God commanded Moses to call together seven­ty of the Elders in Israel for his assistan­ce, appointed to bear the burthen with him, and at their election had the Spi­rit of Prophesy. After Moses death, the Prophets, Iosue, Samuel, David, Elias, Eliseus &c succeeded, and these certain­ly were Infallible. But there is no need of staying longer upon this point, being, as I said, not pertinent to our present En­quiry relating to the Infallibility of our Christian Church.

11 The D^r P. 408. err's not à little, while he supposes the Infallibility of the Roman Church to be lodged in the Su­pream Ecclesiastical Iudges, and no where els, To this I answered directly. Reas. and Relig: Disc. 3. C. 12. n. 14. (much wonder it is the D^r'^s eyes saw it not) and said, when we resolve Faith into the Churches Infallible Authority, we un­derstand by the Church, the whole diffu­sed body of Orthodox Christians made mani­fest by Supernatural Motives and not in the first place, the Representative in Ge­neral Councils: For, that more explicite Beliefe had of General Councils con­naturally presupposes (when à right Analysis is made) the other general [Page 187] Truth assented to. Viz. This manifested Society of Christians is God's own Church, and the only way to Salvation. Hence all Ca­tholicks avouch that the whole Catholick Body consisting of Pastors to teach, and Hearers to learn, cannot totally err, or swerve from truth, whereunto properly belong those promises of the Gospel. Hell gates shall not prevail against the Church. The spirit of truth abides with Her for ever. She is the Pillar and ground of Truth &c.

12 The D^r err's again in his next An other Errour of the Dr. page, where he demand's why the con­current Testimony of all Christians may not afford as sufficient à ground to be­lieve the books of the new Testament, without an Ecclesiastical Senate, as those Jewes (who no more believed Christ Infallible, than the Sanhedrin did) might have à sufficient ground to believe, that the Prophesies came not in old time by the will of God? This I take to be the sence of the D^r'^s Querie, which after his manner he spin's out to à tedious length. I answer, though the Jewes had sufficient ground to believe, that those ancient Prophesies were not from man, but God, yet the concurrent Testimony of Chri­stians, in the Dr's Principles, is no certain ground to believe the Authority of the books of the new Testament. First be­cause, [Page 188] all that Testimony with him is fallible, and may be false, and if the Jewes The Chur­ches Tradi­tion, is in­fallible. had no surer Ground to believe the old Prophesies, they could not assent to them by Divine Faith. In our Catho­lick Principles there is no difficulty at all, because we hold the Tradition of the Church infallible. Yet as I noted in the last Treatise. the first consent of Chri­stians owning these books Divine, pre­supposed them taken as Divine upon the Authority of an Infallible Oracle, and first made them not accepted as Divine, for no man will say Scripture is first owned as à book Divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost, because Christians Say so, but contrary wise, therefore they say so, and agree in that truth, because God an­tecedently to the universal consent assu­red all by an Infallible Oracle, that they were of Divine Inspiration.

13 P. 410. we have fearful Doings about à man of clouts, where the Dr sadly complain's, that I fall unmercifully to work with this man of Clouts (He means himself) that I throw him first down and trample upon him, then I set him up again, to make him capable of more valour being shown upon him, then I kick him afresh and beat him of on side, then on the other, and so terribly triumph over him, that the poor man [Page 189] of Clouts blesseth himself, that he is not made of flesh and bones, for if he had it might have The Dr's more than rediculous Complaints. cost him some aches and wounds? What, in the name of God, put the D^r into this strange trembling fit? Wil not every one that read's these Threnes, judge that I have dealt most rudely with à Doctor, and deem my crime horrid, one surely of the first magnitu­de, to be wash't away with teares and sorrow? Please to hear it. Marry, I said, Disc. 2. c. 3. n. 9 (and the D^r cites my words) That I verily thought Mr Still: mistook one obiection for an other? And is this all? Not one syllable more, I assure you, that can give offence, un­less he be angry with me for not calling him Doctor when I knew nothing of his Doctorship.

14 P. 411. He ask's, how those belie­ved Infallibly who only heard of Christs Miracles, but saw them not? I answered. n. 15. Every immediate Conveyer or Propounder of Christ's Doctrin needs not to be Infallible, though before those Hearers, whether Barbartans or others be­lieve, Every one that proposes faith need's not to be in­fallible. an Infallible Oracle must be known and relyed on. Se more hereof. n. 16. for I am weary in following such weightless stuff, yet in the next page you have more of it, where he blames me as [Page 190] 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 [Page 191] 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 [Page 192] D^r, the Question is whether such à Prelate or Pastor may be divided from God's infallibleAnother 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 D^r 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 D^r neither understand's what is meant by rational Evidence, nor has any thing like it, for Protestant Religion.

CHAP. IX.

1 THe D^r 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? [Page 194] 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 D^r proceeds, whose rational Evidence, or unquestionable assurance of Christian Religion is proved [Page 195] 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 D^r'^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 R [...]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 Fathers, cited in that Chapter, yeilded up their reason, notwithstanding that strong insinuation of sense to the Contrary. And must not the D^r do so also, had he either seen our Lord Iesus à little Infant in Beth­lem, or those Angels that appea­red to Lot. Genesis 19? He would certainly have judged upon the [Page 196] suggestion of what he saw, that Christ our Lord was only man, and not God, and that those Angels were mortal men, and not Angels, yet had he then known by Divine Revelation. that Christ was truly God, and that those Angels were only men in appearance, as the Eucharist is seemingly bread, would he not, think ye, forthwith have rejected that fallacious suggestion of his sight, and firmly assen­ted to the Divine Revelation? Nay more, doth not the D^r tell us in his Ac­count P. 574. that we are not to look on bread and wine as naked Signs but as Signa efficacia, and that there is à real Pre­sence of Christ, in and with, those signs to the Souls of the Believers? This unex­plicated Presence of Christ in, and with bread (be it what you will) is as much contrary to Sence, as Christs real Pre­sence is, under the accidents of bread, I prove my assertion. These outward Accidents of bread either essentially exclude the presence of all other things from being there, or permit that God may by his omnipotent power put unde [...] them annother Substance. In case they be essentially incompatible with any other Substance but bread, how dare D [...] Still? tell us so asseverantly, that there is▪ in and with bread to the souls of Belie­vers, [Page 197] à real presence of Christ? such Souls I suppose believe not meer phan­sies. Now if the Accidents essentially exclude not another substance, I hope Christ's sacred body may be as well pre­sent with them as that real presence is, which the D^r assert's. O! but we Catholicks destroy the substance of bread. That is not at all pertinent to Protestants boggle not at the possi­bility of the change. our present purpose, neither doth the truth hereof belong to the judgement of sense, but only to Gods omnipotent power, For here is the only difficulty, whether God by his absolute power can conceil the real presence of our Saviours sacred body under the Accidents of bread? The Divel more skilful in na­tural things then the D^r, perswaded him­self. Matt: 4. that our Saviour could turn stones into bread. Why therefore may not we believe upon the greatest Authority, I mean God's own express word, that he changed bread into flesh? The learnedest Protestants that ever writ boggle not at the possibility of this change, but only Question the matter of fact, whether God has done, as we believe? Wherein most certainly we have the upper hand. if plain Scripture, the general consent of Fathers, and the Authority of all Orthodox Churches cited in the last Trea­tise, [Page 198] may plead our cause, and be admit­ted as sound Principles against the errour of à few Sectaries. Thus much premi­sed we goe on, and will examin more of the Dr's strange Discourse laid forth in, his Account. Part. 1. c. 5. P. 118. It is worth some reflection, though I think never Dr rambled on like him.

3 The whole substance comes to this. Sense is sometimes deceived, or to speak properly, reason upon the suggestion of sense err's: Ergo, it may alwaies err and be deceived, in its proper obiect. Or thus: Those of Sodom judged Angels appearing like men, to be really men, and not Angels, Ergo, they might rational­ly think that all they met with in the Streets, were Angels concealed under the outward shape of men, Why so? Because, forsooth, after that one Illusion, they were in reason never to make use of their senses afterward upon any other obiect for fear of the like deceipt. He­rein lies the whole strength of the D^r's weak talk. If saith he, what I se and all others se to be bread, be not really bread, by The whole Strength of the Dr's weak dis­course what means can our faculties difference truth from falshood? I answer most easily. For although it be à truth, that, that which appear's bread in the Holy Eucharist be [Page 199] not really bread, yet it is à meer dream to inferr from thence, that every moun­tain I cast my eyes upon, is not really à Mountain, but in appearance only, and consequently in the D^r'^s judge­ment à falshood, for what Consequen­ce is this? God wrought à Miracu­lous change upon bread, therefore He doth the like all the world over, and perhaps changes whole Castles, whole Towns, yea the whole Ocean into other substances; at least there is no security to the contrary, and therefore we may all justly question whether we inhabit real Houses, and doubt whether the fair City of London be raised to the great splendour it hath upon real Materials, as wood and stones, but rather upon such Materials, in appea­rance. A mad discourse if ever any was, which more ruin's all the Cities in the world, then the last dismal fire de­stroyed noble London.

4 Mark well, Courteous Reader, the force of my Argument, I do not by What is to be noted in my Argument. what is hitherto said goe about to prove the Conversion of bread into Christ's sa­cred body (that is cleared upon other grounds) but only proceed upon à Supposition, [Page 200] and assert, if, our Saviour wrought that Conversion and changed bread into his body, The D^r'^s Discourse is worse then Nonsence, who out of one Miraculous change (where he thinks our senses are beguiled) will force upon us an illusion so universal, that no man hereafter ought to trust his eyes, and tast, when he eates his Diner. Herein lies his gross mistake, which yet to his no little disgrace, he run's on with, in the following Instan­ces.

5 Tell me, saith he, what assurance could The Dr's Instances. the Apostles have of the Resurrection of Christ's individual body from the grave, but the jud­gement of Sense? Or, had S. Thomas believed Transubstantiation, might he not have thought our Saviour some invisible Spirit hid under those external accidents of his body, because, Hoc est corpus meum had told him, and the other Disciples, that the external accidents might remain, where the substance is changed? I passe by his Catacresis, judgement of sense, for sense makes no Judgement, and say, had the Disciples been so childish as to have argued like the D^r our wise Saviour would have soon vanquished that senceless plea and told them. My good Disciples, I assured you at my last supper, that the bread I took into my hands, I changed into my body (this [Page 201] must be supposed, or D^r Still: Argu­ment becomes forceles) but did I ever yet tell you, that the body you now be­hold with your Eyes is only à Spectre, or an apparition of my body? No? upon what ground then, or by what Autho­rity, can you rationally infer out of my working one miracle upon bread, that How Christ might have rebuked his Disciples, had they pleaded like the Dr. I must do the like now upon 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 [Page 202] answer, my ground is incomparably more sure, than any the D^r 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 D^r 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 Eye­witnesses 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 D^r 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. [Page 203] 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 D^r. 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 [Page 204] 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 D^r must prove, or he evin­ces nothing. Thus much noted, I challenge and charge the D^r 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 D^r 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 D^r 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, [Page 205] 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 D^r 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 [Page 206] 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 D^r'^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 D^r yeilds all) He is obliged to own this seeming Miracle of Anti­christ for 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 D^r Con­form's his Judgement to the perswa­sion of his senses in the one, and truly hold's à consecrated host to be bread, he [Page 207] 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 D^r, 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 D^r'^s, who believes that to be no true Miracle which to our Senses looks like a true one? [Page 208] In à word the D^r must either quit his so much cryed up Evidence taken from Sense, or will be forced to grant (which is horrid) that Antichrist Sh [...]ll work as true Miracles as ever Christ wrought.

10 Again, how can the D^r 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 D^r 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 [Page 209] 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 D^r 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 [Page 210] 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 de­ [...]ed in [...] own [...]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 [Page 211] 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 [Page 212] them, but thus much only, if what is sup­posed True, be true, it is true, and we ought to assent to it. Just as if one should say; if Peter be à man of his word, I may be­lieve evidenced null, and forceless. him, but as that conditional proves not Peter honest, no more do these Assertions of the D^r being only condi­tional, prove any thing true without à Minor to this sence. But these things are so, which Minor is wanting. The Dr think's he proves his Assertions upon these grounds; That the writers of Scrip­ture cannot be suspected of Ignorance, having had long conversation with him they wrot of. Their simplicity and candour in writing gives evidence they intended no deceipt, with all the rest that followes. I answer, these are nothing like rational proofs, but meer unproved Suppositions, whereunto neither Iewes nor Gentils give credit. I evince this demonstratively. Put the book of holy Scripture into the hands of à Heathen Philosopher, who never heard of Christ, of the Church, or of any other Motive for Christian Religion, but only takes so much as the D^r here pro­poses, and what the Scripture it selfe barely relates. Would this Philosopher, think ye, after his pondering the Dr'^s Dis­course and reading Scripture, forthwith acquiesse and say all is true, he reads? [Page 213] He were worse then besotted did he so. If prudent he would tell you, he had joyntly perused with Scripture the Turks Alcaron, and as he found strange wonders written of Christ in the one book, so also he met with great matters recounted of Mahomet in the other, for which the Turks pretend to have universal tradi­tion, but whether Scripture or the Alcaron speaks truth, whether such men, as the Dr mentions related exactly the Mira­cles of Christ, and his true Doctrin with those Miracles, the Philosopher knowes not, nor shall ever know, without à further proof taken from the testimony of some other Infallible Oracle, which makes the truths in Scripture evidently credible, and then proposes all, as Divine and infallible Verities.

14 The ultimate reason hereof is most convincing. All matters contai­ned in Scripture, whether Miracles or The reason of their nul­lity, said forth, Doctrin, are not ex terminis any Self evi­dence, nor can they give by themselves, so much as à great moral certainty of their Truth, or Credibility. Therefore they must be proved either true or evi­dently Credible by another Certain Oracle, or can never draw belief from any. I am sure S. Austin, who discoursed more profoundly, than the D^r ever did, judged [Page 214] So, when he told the Manichaes, He would not believe the Gospel unless the Au­thority of the Church moved him to believe it, and upon this firm ground all must believe, or believe nothing. The D^r'^s whole discourse proves only this conditional truth, that if the Primitive Christians had reason to believe the Doctrin of Christ, upon the induce­ment of his Miracles, they did well to believe, but that such Miracles were wrought he shewes not, save only by Scripture it selfe, hitherto neither proved True, nor Divine. I say proved. For no Christian doubt's of the truths there contained, though all justly question whether the D^r makes them to appear Truths, by à bare telling us of some Con­tents in that book, which neither Jew nor Gentil, nor indeed any can believe, unless more be said than the D^r bring's to light.

15 In à word, here lies the whole errour. He makes the Christian Do­ctrin Wherein the Dr's errour lies? couched in Scripture to prove it selfe, and drawes his rational Evidence of Credibi­lity from the Mysteries believed. Observe well. He believes the Resurrection of Christ from the dead (for this is an Ar­ticle of Faith) can he, I beseech you, make the Resurrection it self, as believed, [Page 215] the rational Motive of believing it, while after all his discourse, we are yet to seek for à proof of that very Scriptures Truth, and Divinity also, whereby the Resurrection is attested?

16 The D^r may reply, his evidence is not taken from the Mysteries of Faith, Apos [...] reply [...] seen, and prevented. and from our Saviours Miracles, (the like is of Apostolical wonders) as they are believed, but from the Humane consent of the Primitive Christians, who either saw or heard of such matters of fact wrought by Christ and his Apostles, which common consent passing among so many grave and pious men, made them in those dayes evidently Credible, and Morally certain though we abstract from all Divine Revelation in Scripture, and the Churches Infallible Authority. I answer first, if the D^r run's this way, his whole discourse fastidiously spun out against the Miracles of the Ro­man Catholick Church, fall's to nothing; for, if the common humane consent of the ancient Christians (Supposed nei­ther Devine Revelation nor infallible) raised The com­mon consent of the an­cient Chri­stians and modern, for Miracles parallel'd our Saviours Miracles to Moral cer­tainty, or evident Credibility, Then, why should not the like common humane Consent of Christians Now, make the [Page 216] Miracles owned in the Roman Catho­lick Church, morally certain, or evidently credible? And I speak of Miracles appro­ved by the Church, not of every forged tale, or pretended false wonder, which were not wanting in the Primitive times. If therefore the D^r say, that all since the Apostles dayes have been grosly deluded in recounting the Mira­cles wrought in the Catholick Church, both Jewes and Gentils will shrewdly pester him, and avouch as boldly, that those Primitive Christians, over Credu­lous, what Iewes may obiect. (like papists in these dayes) were no less beguiled in their crying up Apo­stolical Miracles. What say you to this M^r D^r? The parity taken from the primitive times and ours. I shall urge more fully hereafter, and tell the D^r, he shall long sweat at it, before he solves what I here object, if, which is ever to be noted, we stand only upon à common humane consent of men called Christians, and abstract from the Authority of an In­fallible Church.

17 I answer. 2. The enquiry here made, concern's not only the bare truth of these matters of fact recorded in Scrip­ture, but implies more, for we ask how what is here chiefly en­quired? these matters of fact are rationally proved truths written by the Assistance of the Holy [Page 217] Ghost, or how, (when supposed wrought sixteen Ages since), they are now con­veyed and applyed to us, as Truths of so high à nature? No common consent of Christians, meerly humane and long since past, can give Sufficient certainty hereof; sufficient, I say, to ground Divine Faith. Wherefore seing Scripture evidences not it's own truths, nor any reflection made upon Scripture can clear these doubts, an infallible living Oracle mani­fested by supernatural Signs must speak, and tell us, that these matters of fact were written, not like other things in humane History (which are lyable to errour) but by the special direction and inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

18 Hence we proceed to the second Question. If saith the Dr, I be asked why I The Dr's second que­stion propo­sed. believe the Doctrin contained in those books to be Divine? I answer. 1. That in the Age, when the Doctrin was delivered, there was sufficient reason to believe it Divine. He goes on. Supposing then, that we alrea­dy believe upon the former answer, that if Christ did such unparalleld Miracles, and rose from the dead, they who heard his Doctrin, had reason to believe it to be of God. He mean's Divine and revealed Doctrin, for all Doctrin of God, or from God, is not in our Sence now, Divine or revealed Doctrin. [Page 218] Thus much said, He asserts. 2. If they, the ancient Christians, had reason then, we have so now. Viz. to believe upon our Saviours unparalleld Miracles. From these matters of fact and Apostolical wonders, the D^r takes his rational Evi­dence, and conveigh's it to us by Tradi­tion, our excep­tions made against his evidence which supplies the want of our Senses, as to what Christ did and spake. I shall pre­sently insist more largely. n. 26. upon his Tradition. Here I am to show, that his Evidence in order to Christians now living, is nothing like rational Evidence, if (and this he requires) we exclude the Testimony of an Infallible Church.

19 To propose plainly what I would say, and to give the D^r the fai­rest play imaginable, I gratis admit, all the Miracles and matters of fact recor­ded in the Gospel to be most true, though hitherto not proved true by the Dr, but then ask, what use will he make of them? He may answer, he proves by these Miracles the Doctrin of Christ to be true. Admit this also. I demand further, and here lies the main business that concern's us at present, whether the Doctor can assure any by virtue of where the main diffi­culty is? those Miracles, who at this day, among so many dissenting Christians in points of Faith [Page 219] most fundamental, believe and profess Christ's true Doctrin? For his rational Evidence if it deserve the Title of ratio­nal, must drive hither at last, or its worth nothing to Christians now living, that is, he must shew by these long since wrought Miracles, whether Arians, Pelagians, Protestants, or Catholicks have à right beliefe of Christs Doctrin, for most certainly all of them believe not the true Doctrin delivered by Christ? I say it is impossible to make this out, unless the strangest Consequence that ever man heard of be good, and it's thus. Christ rose from the dead. He commanded the sea and winds, and they obeyed his voice, He gave life to dead Lazarus &c. Ergo the Arians, for exam­ple, profess Christ's true Doctrin, and Protestants not: Or Contrarywise, Protestants believe right, and the A­rians are in a wrong Faith? Unless this Inference, which is worse than Non-sence, pass current, the Doctors pretended rational Evidence taken from those ancient matters of fact, is the most fruitless, and most discomfor­table Evidence that ever wise man pitch't upon, whereof more presently. n. 27. [Page 220] Note in the mean while, he may perhaps (and no more but perhaps) tell us by his the Dr's ra­tional Evi­dence de­monstrated [...]seless, to Christians now living Evidence, that Christs Doctrin in it selfe is true, but shall never thereupon assure us, who among so many Dissenters in Necessaries to Salvation, believes or pro­fesses that true Doctrin. He may tell us that horrid debates arise amongst the learned of different Religions, but shall never tell us, how they can be composed or ended by à bare owning the truth of Christ's Miracles, which are carried up and down by à common humane consent of Christians, though they have none to attest them Infallibly true, in this pre­sent State.

20 Please now to consider, how differently we Catholicks proceed in this matter, and satisfy both Jewes and Gentils. We own all that Scripture contain's whether Miracles or Doctrin, true and Divine. To evince this, we lead you not to à dead book, or to matters of fact far off, but to an ever living Oracle, distinct from that book, called the Holy Catholick Church, which proves herselfe by her neerer visible matters of fact, (signal marks, and undoubted Miracles) as ra­tionally à true Oracle, whereby God speak's to the world, as ever any Apostle did. From this glorious, signalized, and [Page 221] long standing Church, we take our ra­tional Evidence and know, if the Primitive Christians took theirs right from the Apostolical wonders, we no way Inferiour, keep parallel with them, while we ratio­nally rely upon our clear manifested Oracle. Moreover, we prove that this Church which hath power from God to teach, and engages her whole Autho­rity to teach Truth, shewes herselfe by real Signs and Miraculous effects, the greatest Oracle now under God, appoin­ted to instruct the world. It is She, if Controversies arise concerning Faith, that composes all. She assures us that the verities in Scripture, written by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, are Divine. She applies and conveigh's these ancient truths to us. She tells us now, How diffe­rently we proceed from the Dr in our rational Evidence. and Infallibly, what Christ's Doctrin (long since made evidently Credible by his own most glorious Miracles) is. She finally ascertain's every one without doubt and hesitancy, who they are that profess this revealed Doctrin. And thus relying upon à rational evidenced Church, we Shew our selves rational men, and void of fear set our hearts at rest, while the D^r by à bare relation of our Saviours Miracles, now remote from us, proves not one of these particulars, but will, [Page 222] forsooth, evince the Doctrin in Scripture to be Divine upon à meer unproved Suppo­sition, that such matters of fact once were, which yet cannot be evinced true (sufficient as I said to ground Faith) much less Divine, without the Churches Testi­mony, whereby full assurance is given to all in this present State, that both Do­ctrin and Miracles are true and Divine.

21 The D^r therefore, should in the first place have proved the Divinity of Christ's Doctrin, and from thence he might have inferred it's Truth, but to evince it Divine to Christians now, upon what the Dr should aim [...] at, but per­form's not. à meer unproved Supposition. Viz. That such matters of fact are true, is a break-neck to his Discourse, and an una­proachable way of ever comming to the Conclusion he intend's, because his aime must be, or he doth nothing, to show by his Evidence, what Society of Christians now living, believes and professes; the true Doctrin of Christ; or how Chrst's true Society may be made discernable by those ancient Miracles from others, that teach damnable Doctrin. Herein he fail's, and shall fail, while an Infalli­ble Church is rejected.

22 These Considerations clearly laid down, no less clearly evince the D^r'^s reso­lution of Faith to be frivolous, and his [Page 223] rational Evidence, unreasonable, for tell me not by his Evidence, what Society of Christians are now right in Faith, prove me not, that Scripture was written by Divine assistance, Shew me not, that the truths related there, are Truths revealed by Almighty God, the whole Doctrin of that book, and all the Miracles in it, sig­nify nothing.

23 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 [Page 224] 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 D^r 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 [Page 225] 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 D^r 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 [Page 226] 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 D^r 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 D^r Stillingfleet.

CHAP. X.

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 D^r, 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 D^r is from med­ling with it. The most he would except against, you have at large. Reas: and [Page 237] 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, [Page 238] 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 out­faces 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 D^r shamefully [Page 239] 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 D^r to answer my Argu­ments upon this subiect hitherto never taken notice of, neither shall he hereaf­ter reply without apparent shuffling (to use his words) and running away from the main difficulty, here treated. How often have I told him that Divine Faith relies not upon the Motives of Credi­bility (though these as inducements lead to it) but upon God's speaking by the Church, as is now declared?

5 Having thus cleared the first act of Faith from all danger of à Circle, becau­se it ultimately rest's upon God's speaking by the Church, made by it self immediatly credible without recourse to Scripture, yet not known to be Divine or [Page 240] 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 D^r 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. [Page 241] 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 [Page 242] 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 D^r'^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 [...]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 [Page 243] 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 D^r'^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 [Page 244] 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 D^r'^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 D^r'^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 [Page 245] 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 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 D^r, when you [Page 246] 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 [Page 248] 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 D^r'^s Confusion and whole mistake lies here, that he has not yet got perfectly into his head the right notion of [Page 249] 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 D^r, 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 [Page 250] 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 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 [Page 251] 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 D^r 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 D^r, 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 [Page 252] 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 D^r'^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 [Page 253] 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 D^r 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 D^r 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.

[Page 254]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. Its more than à little strange, that the D^r 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 [Page 255] 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 [Page 256] 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 [Page 257] interpreted it so. Again. we believe this to be the Infallible sence of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so. And you, Mr D^r, 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 D^r 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 [Page 258] 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 D^r 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 D^r. 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 D^r 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 [Page 259] 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 Selfe­evidence, 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 D^r'^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 [Page 260] 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.

CHAP. I.

1. THough little might Suffice to refute the Dr's strange, rambling, and unprin­cipled Discourse; yet because the weightiness of this matter concerning Mira­cles, worthily deserves à larger Examination, we shall, God willing, bestow more pains upon it, in another small distinct Treatise; in this, we chiefly insist upon plain matters of fact. Now if you desire to know how I argued against the D^r for the truth of our Church Miracles. Reason and Religion. Disc: 2. C. 7. 8. you Shall have it very briefly.

2. I first urged C. 7. n. 7. our Saviours Miracles in the Church fore-told by our Saviour. own Prophesy. Iohn. 14. 12. I say unto you. He that believes in me, the works which I do, he shall do, and greater works then these shall he do. which Truth, even Calvin and other Sectaries [Page 4] upon this Passage (far more rational than the D^r) apply not to the Apostles only, nor to every believing Christian, but assert it belong's to the whole Body of the Church. This Pro­phesy without doubt contained à truth, and we see it with our eyes evidently fulfilled, not only in the Conversion of whole Nations to Christ, justly accounted Miraculous by S. Austin (far more in number then those our Saviour Con­verted) but also, in other Signal wonders wrought by God's Servants in this only Catho­lick Church.

3 To this Authority, frequently urged by Catholick Authors, our D^r answer's nothing, but as his manner is quarrel's, because I paral­lel Church Miracles and our Saviours together, and seem's to think I difference them not at all, though I with every one most willingly grant, that Christ Iesus shewed himself, the grea­test Our Sa­viours Sin­gular prero­gatives in working Miracles. Thaumaturgus the world yet beheld, and far surpassed all Angels and men, whether Patriarks, Propnets, or Apostles, in working Miracles. His singular Prerogative first appeared in this (so Faith teaches) that the wonders he wrought were done by his own Power and Virtue, as S. Cyril upon the. 6. of Luke ponder's, without borrowing assistance from any power above him, for as God, he had no Superiour; wherefore calling the Disciples together. Matt: 10. He impowred them, powerless of themselves, to do wonders, to cast out Divels and cure the infirm. 2. As S. Thomas notes. 22. Quest 178. a. 1. The Grace of working Miracles was no Constant and permanent Gift imparted to any, save only to our Saviour, who by virtue of his Hypo­statical [Page 5] union could doe wonders, when and as often as he pleased. A third singular Prerogative peculiar to Christ, arose from his being Lord of the whole world, and therefore wrought wonders all Nature over. As su­pream Master, he commanded à new Star to shine over him at his birth, and at his death darkned the lights of Heaven, with à word of his mouth he made the figtree barren, and commanded the winds and sea to obey him. In his Sacred Passion he split the rocks, rent the vaile of the Temple, moved the earth, as if all nature had trembled, to be­hold the God of Nature dye.

4. Observe now I beseech you, when we say Church Miracles answer in number and worth to those of our Saviour, we are far from ascribing the singular Prero­gatives These prero­gatives more particularly, Specifyea. already mentioned to either man or Angel, save only to the Word Incarnate. Neither goe we about to perswade, that the Miracles which Christ wrought and ratio­nally proved, he was one immediatly sent from God to redeem the word, Iohn 11. 42, were ever done in the like manner, or Circumstances by any. For as he was first in Power and Excellence, so also he she­wed himself the first most Victorious Con­querour over Sin and infidelity, vanquishing by his glorious wonders without violent hands, Iudaism and Gentilism. Again, here­in he hath preeminence above Mortals, that all the Miracles wrought by his Servants, whether Apostles or others, may be rightly [Page 6] called Christ's Miracles, not only because done in his Name, but upon this account also, that they are wrought by his Power. For if as S. Austin teaches, when one Baptizes Christ also Baptizes with him, upon the same reason we may justly say, when à Miracle is wrought by à holy Person, Christ our Lord by the Power and virtue he gives, works it with him, and therefore is not only the most powerful Thaumaturgus, but effe­ctually shewes it in concurring with all, that do these wonders.

5. Notwithstanding, to verify the Predi­ction of greater Wonders, we say, That far more, and of the like quality with those of our Saviours, have for the good of mankind, temporal and spiritual, been wrought in the Church, which is evident: For more blinde Our Asser­tion of grea­ter wonders, proved have seen, more lame have walked, more deaf heard, more dead have risen again, more poor have received the Gospel in the latter Ages of the Church, than before, when Christ and his Apostles preached; These mentioned in the Gospel. Matth: 11. 4. I insisted upon, and are without dispute greater in the Church, witness that one Miracle of Nations Conversion of Nations, greater, receiving the Gospel. Neither can the D^r gain­say my Assertion, but by denying all huma­ne Faith and plain matters of fact, recor­ded by such as have written largely of this subiect. One of the last Authors is the Eru­dite Silvester Petra Sancta, in his two learned Tomes called, Thaumasia verae Religionis. Prin­ted Anno 1643 and 1646. where the Mira­cles [Page 7] of the old and new Testament are pa­ralleld, and the Churches continued Miracles, most amply set down with their undenia­ble Proofs. But of this subiect more here­after. Now to my second Argument.

6 I argued. 2. n. 9. If Miracles, Gods The Necessi­ty of Mira­cles, laid forth. own Seals and Characters, were at the first preaching of the Gospel rational and ne­cessary Inducements for men to believe Christ's Doctrin, as also to distinguish the Orthodox Church from the Conventicles of Iewes and Hereticks, There is the like ne­cessity of their Continuance in after Ages. The reason hereof is thus given. n. 11. The Conversion of Infidels to Christ was not wrought by the Apostles only, or all at once, but successively in the ensuing Ages, when other Infidels rose up as barbarous, as uncivilized, and Ignorant of Christ's Doctrin as the former converted by the Apostles had been, if therefore Miracles were wholly Necessary, when those first blessed men preached, How come they now to be unnecessary, when these latter In­fidels are preach't to, and gain'd to Christ? These never made so happie à change because they heard Truths barely taught, but were convinced upon this strong Motive, that very many frequently saw our Chri­stian Verities Confirmed by Signs and won­ders from Heaven. Se this reason further urged. n. 12, though silently passed over by Mr Dr.

[Page 8]7. Chap: 8. I shew how efficacious Church miracles have been in after Ages, and moreover prove, that those who deny them strive against God, and do their ut­most Of what efficacy Mi­racles are. to render the Conversion of Iewes and Infidels, not only difficult but impossible, and I speak of such Miracles as have been wrought by the Professors of the Roman Catholick Church, ever reputed Orthodox from the Apostles time. In confirmation whereof, I produce first S. Irenaeus Adversus Haereticos. Lib. 2. C. 57. Some, saith he, cast out Divels, others foretel things to come, others by laying their hands on the Sick cure them. Now also, as we said, the dead have also risen, and lived with us for many yeares. In his. 6. Chapter, he assures us, that this Grace of working Miracles belong's only to the Catholick Church, and saith, Hereticks never restored sight to the blind, nor strength to the lame, nor wrought any such true Miracles in con­firmation of their Gospel. I produced also S. Basil speaking of that worthy Bishop of Neocaesarea S. Gregory, deservedly called Thau­maturgus, who removed à Mountain from the place it was in, and none ever yet doub­ted or questioned the admirable works of this Ancient Fa­thers most plain for Miracles wrought in the Church glorious Saint. S. Athanasius and S. Hierome amply relate the Miracles of S. Hilarion, as Severus Sulpitius doth the wonders of S. Mar­tin Bishop of Tours in France. And the same S. Hierome. Lib. adversas Vigilan: c. 4. saith, that the Signs and wonders wrought in the [Page 9] Temples of Martyrs prove highly beneficial both to Believers, and the Increduious. S. Am­brose Epist: 85 was an Eye-witness of strange Miracles done by the Reliques of S. Gervasius and Protasius, for proof whereof he appeal's to the sense and judgement of those who saw them. You have known, saith he, nay you have seen many dispossessed of Divels, many when they touched the Garments of Saints, freed from their Infirmities. S. Austin. Lib: 22 de Civitat: c. 8. is most copious in relating the Miracles wrought by the glorious Martyr S. Stephen; And Lib: contra Epist. Fundam. cap. 4. 5. assert's that the true Church of Christ, is proved and demon­strated S. Austins judgement. by Miracles.

8 These most evident Testimonies which evince glorious Miracles to have been wrought in the Church distinct from those registred in Holy Writ, our wise D^r takes little notice of, though I clearly laid them before his eyes with à further enlargement on every particular, and expected an Answer, But in lieu of this he bla­mes me, be cause I shew our Saviours Prediction of more numerous and greater Miracles exactly fulfilled. I could wish he had perused better S. Chrisostom's whole Book against the Pagans. Tomo 5. where speaking of S. Babylas Martyr, he shew's that our Saviour's Prophecy was ve­rifyed, What the Dr Cavil's as. not only in the cures wrought by S. Peters shadow and S. Pauls garments, but moreover by the Reliques and Monuments of Saints, namely S. Babylas, and from thence infer's that Christ is God, who did such wonders by his Ser­vants. But all this signifies nothing to the D^r, [Page 10] though Christ our Lord expresly saith, that his Saints should doe greater things; than himself had done.

9. Afterward I referred the D^r to our Vene­rable Bede, both learned and virtuous, for the undoubted Miracles of S. Cuthbert, and many others in England; then n. 6. I appealed to S. Bernard, who I hope may pass for an honest man in his relation of S. Malachies life. He had, saith S. Bernard, the Gift of Prophesy, cured the sick, changed mens minds to the better, and Not a word to S. Ber­nard, retur­ned by the Dr. raysed the dead to life. Again. Here I also in­troduced S. Bernards own Miracles, with the wonders of two other glorious Saints, S. Dominick and the Seraphical S. Francis, against whom the D^r spitt's à little venome, but hurts neither. Next to be brief (for I cannot here transcribe that whole 8 chapter) I touched upon the undubitable Miracles wrought in several places of Christendom, Loreto, Compostella, Montaigue &c. And finally concluded n. 18. with that admirable known cure wrought by Blessed Nor of the Miracles most evi­dently wrought as Montague. S. Xaverius upon F. Marcellus Mastrilli in the City of Naples; as also. c. 9. with another evident Miracle at Zaragosa in Spain, both done in our Memory. And though in my last Treatise I urged the D^r to return an answer to these two known matters of fact, divulged the whole world over, yet his heart failed to meddle seriously with either, and replyes nothing but what is to his shame, as will appear afterward.

10 Now before I come to weigh the Dr's weak Arguments, I will plainly discover some chiefe enormous frauds and intolerable cheats [Page 11] (one may rightly call them poysonable Ingre­dients) which he contrary to Conscience hath cast into his whole Treatise, with intention to beguile an unwary Reader.

11 One palpable cheat is, that he never A long sto­ries, of the Drs frauds, and open Ch [...]ts. distinguishes between the received Miracles of the Church, and those which particular men relate, whereof some are only probable, others dubious, and others false: These he differences not, but makes all fish that comes to his net. A Story told by Iames Finaughty, or Golganus, weigh's as much with him as the most Authen­tick Miracle recorded by S. Irenaeus, or S. Austin. Hence when he touches upon à lesse certain Miracle, he often closes his discourse with this nauseous repetition. And what is this comparable to the works of Christ and his Apostles?

12 By Church Miracles, I first understand such as the most ancient Fathers have left upon record, never Questioned, never called into doubt by any. These are innumerable, some few and clear ones, I set down. Reas: and Relig: already cited, but the Dr in à surly hu­mour What is meant by Church Miracles. galled with their Evidence, silently passes by them, not knowing what to reply. 2. I understand by Church Miracles such as in latter Ages have been approved by the See Apostolick, chiefly at the Canonization of Saints, whereof witnesses have been produced upon oath, and all imaginable Sincerity, (or Severity rather) used to avoid Impostures, and to make truth openly known. These and the forenamed Miracles our D^r unworthily account's as unvalvable, as every feigned story he rakes out of this or that [Page 12] private Author. Though Iohn an Oakes, or Hasenmullerus tell it, all with him passes for à Church Miracle.

13. A second cheat run's through his whole ill contrived discourse, which is to perswade the Reader, that the most learned and Holy Fathers of God's Church, who plainly assert Miracles to have been wrought by the choisest Servants in it, are open Impostors, and manifest Another unworthy Cheat. Lyars. The Sequel followes inevitably, for if the Dr's Arguments have any force, they evince (or prove nothing) that never since the Apostles dayes, the Church had one true Miracle wrought in it. Therefore not only the Church, notwithstanding Her great care in the examina­tion of Miracles, but the Fathers also that produce innumerable, are plain Impostor's and unexcusable Lyars. Let us se, how the Reader will rellish this desperate and Heathenish Proposition. Yet worse followes, and it is, that Antichrist's Signes and wonders may most justly be preferred before any true Miracle re­gistred by the Fathers, for this false Prophet will exhibit Miracles specious in appearance (though false) Christ's Church, saith this Doctor, Never shewed any really true. No. All are Fourbs, Lies, Fictions, Impostures, and what not?

14 A third cheat lies in à strange art he uses, very suitable to Arheistical humours, who believe nothing, and it is thus. To disparage these wonderful works of God, he fail's in his main enterprise, observe it well. He rejects all Church Miracles as fourbs. Ought not the D^r, I [Page 13] beseech you, to exchange Principles with us, A third Cheat, in denying all, and proving nothing. and prove what he denies by as great Authority as we allege for the contrary Affirmative, of their being undoubted Truths? This the Godly man never attempts, but be cause he will have Miracles appear ridiculous, he thinks his spiteful jeering at them proof enough to decry all, as incredible, despicable, and contemptible. Jeers fit well men of his humour, who hold fast to what they see and feel, loath to trouble their braines with more, but jeers Shall not serve his turn, and therefore I shall ever urge him when we plead for Miracles by unexcep­tionable Witnesses, to prove them false, or to grant the fact attested.

15 A fourth Cheat undermin's the most connatural way of conveying truth either absent, or past to mans understanding, and is called Humane Faith, which has great weight, when A fourth Cheat under [...] all Humane Faith. no just exception comes against it, but the Fool-hardy spirit of unbelieving Heathens, and Hereticks. Our Saviour's own Miracles be­fore the writing of Scripture were thus conveyed to many who saw them not, and judged pru­dently Credible upon Humane Authority. This Principle grounded in nature and appro­ved by Christ, the D^r wholly invalidates, for though our Cyrills, our Basils, our Austins, our Bernards, Bedes, and innumerable others re­count indubitable Miracles, though they point at the time when, and the place where, they were wrought, though they tell you such and such Eye-witnesses saw them; such Cures were done by the Reliques of Saints, yet Impostors they are for their pains, and guilty of that [Page 14] enormous Sin of impudently deceiving the world. Pray you consider. Would not those poor Shepherds thinke ye, present at our Saviours birth have gained Credit, had they told the Inhabitants neer Bethlem what they Saw and heard that night? And shall not the word of S. Ambrose, or S. Austin be taken, while both recount Miracles seen with their own eyes? Did that blind man cured by our Saviour Iohn. 9. perswade the Jewes upon his own and Parents Testimony, that he was their Son, and born blinde? And shall not à far greater number of Eye-witnesses that knew Iohn Clement born What force Humane Faith has? monstrously lame, and whole multitudes saw him in an Instant Miraculously cured in our Ladies Chappel at Montaigue, work upon the Dr's, dull Incredulity and induce him to believe upon humane faith this most strange and evi­dent wonder, obtained by the Intercession of the Mother of God? It happened in July. Anno 1603 in the Presence, as I said, of many Eye-witnesses, and forthwith became publick in Print and Pulpit. Sundry of the Gentlemen who attended the Earle of Hereford at that time An Evidens clear Mira­cle, wrought as Monta­gue, Lord Ambassadour from England, saw and conferred with the Party, and received Satis­faction both from him, and other publick Testimonies, given of the Cure. Thus Brereley Protest: Apolog: speak's. Tract 2. c. 3. Sect. 7. Subd: 5. Page (with me) 544. And the learned Iustus Lipsius then living at Lovain not far from Mon­taigu, relates most largely the whole Story in his Book intituled. Diva Sichimiensis, sive As­pricollis. Antwerp print 1605. C. 45.

16 Now because I only gave à glance at [Page 15] this Miracle, Reas. and Relig. Disc. 2. c. 8. n. 17 whereof the D^r takes no notice, I will here very briefly set down the Substance as Lipsius relates it. Erat, saith he, Bruxellae &c. There was at Beuxells Iohn Clement, Son to Iames Clement, Vpon Iohn Clement, amply rela­ted by Lipsius born lame, weak, and of à monstruous misshapen body, his leggs and feet contracted were turned upward, so that his knees and thighes joyned close to his brest and belly: That lump of his body gathered round like à Ball made the poor Patient, unfit to stand, lie down, or walk, and for that reason alwaies sate, forced by the help of his hands and two Crutches to push himself forward, whereupon the People who dayly gave this Iohn reliefe, usually called him in their vulgar language. Hansken in't schotelken, Little Iohn in à dish. In this afflicted condition, often hearing of the great Miracles wrought at Monta­gue he hoped to find help and comfort in that holy place, whither he was carried in à wagon, and having confessed his Sins, performed his Penance, The whole manner of the cure, declared. and received the Blessed Sacrament, feeling him self full of pain, he endeavoured to creep out of the Church for à little refreshment of Air, but could not stir, VVhether he would or no, he was forced to remain that whole day in the same place. Evening comming on, Solemn Laudes were sung, and this Patient, as he sate before the high Altar felt him self lifted up from the ground, when behold, his contracted and wrested feet, wholly loose, were stretched out, then also the doublet wherin his body was bound, burst assunder, and he in à moment stood bolt up. Other cloaths being brought, his strength and vigour more and more en­creased, his small dryed leggs, were then filled with flesh and bloud, And which is another wonder, à wound in his head, which he had received 15. dayes [Page 16] before, yet wide open, shut it selfe close together in that very time, he was cured. This whole multitudes What Iudge­ment the bost physi­lians made of it. saw, This at his return to Lovain and Bruxells he re­lated, when People ran out to see and meet him &c. I have, saith Lipsius, heard the most expert Phy­sitians of no easy Faith exclaime, and openly profess, that this cure vvas vvrought by the povverful hand of God, above the force of nature.

17 Please now, couteous Reader, to parallel this Miracle with that of the blind man in the Gospel, and ask what disparity can the D^r give between them, or what exceptions can he make to this latter strange wonder? Will he say, Iohn Clement was à Counterfeit? It's Impudence. Hundred and hundreds knew him in this miserable condition twenty yeares together after his Mothers death, who as Lipsius notes, ventre exsecto, dyed at his birth? Caeso Will he say, those many Eye-witnesses who beheld him cured in à moment of time, were All Excep­tions made against the Miracle wrought on Iohn Cle­ment, are evidently improbable. unsufficient to make the fact Credible, after­ward attested and examined by publick Autho­rity? More saw this wonder wrought upon the lame, then that other upon the blinde cured by our Saviour. Will he say, there was never such à man born lame, much less such à man cured as Iohn Clement, but that all are Lyars and Cheats who tell the Story? More justly might the Jewes have said, there was never such à man blinde as christ restored sight to, for they saw not that cure vvrought, yet believed it, upon the mans own word and his Parents, and therefore advised him, to glorify God for the favour done, though their obstinacy would not ascribe the Miracle to Christ. O! but here [Page 17] is à disparity. Scripture recount's the one Miracle; not the other. A most simple reply. We now insist upon humane Authority, and ask (which is ever to be noted) whether upon that ground, the latter Miracle be not made more credible then the first, and here we are told, the one is believed by Faith, because God saies so, and not the other. All the Miracles Christ wrought were presupposed true before the vvriting of Scripture, and not first true, because they are registred in that Book.

18 This humane Faith utterly ruined by our D^r, the Erudite Lipsius plead's by, and presses home. cap. 1. Vbi estis, qui paulò vetustiora elevatis &c. Where are you who extenuat and undervalve ancient Miracles? Ecce nova novitia, behold new ones done in This Mira­cle as Mon­tague pro­claimed all over. the Eyes of us all, and heard vvith our cares, renowned and solemnized by the frequent con­course and applause of People with great benefit to Nations. Quae fides potest esse in rebus hu­mani si haec non est? What faith can there be amongst men, if these things gain not credit? And therefore he saith in his Preface. Those deserve not to be called men that boggle at, or doubt of such illustrious vvonders, yet à Ieer, à Pish, and Flurt of our Dr's finger seem's for­cible enough to discredit these admirable, and no less manifest Testimonies of God's power, publickly shewed to the world.

19 More Cheats and fallacies of this D^r will better appear in the ensuing Discourse. Here A fift Cheat. is one more, and gross enough. He never refutes the known and certain Miracles of the Church, but now laugh's at one less certain, [Page 18] now at another related, as I said by private Authors, prudently judged over credulous in writing matters upon Hearsay. These support not our cause, for we plead, as S. Austin did by Miracles, Multitudine, & magnitudine, con­spicuous, undeniable, and thus our Saviour Ar­gues. Iohn 15. 24. The vvorks vvhich I have By what Miracles, we argue. done (not one work) no other has done. Acts. 2, Many vvonders and Signs vvere. vvrought by the Apostles in Hierusalem. What, if false or doubtful Scriptures have been forged under the Apostles names, as manifest happened in the Primitive times, must we therefore reject the true Scriptures already received? Yet this fallacy or cheat, is à main Prop to the very most of our Dr's rambling discourse, as shall be shewn afterwards.

20 A Second Cheat is, that when à Miracle appears strange or ridiculous to the Dr's fancy, A sixt Cheat grounded upon the Strangeness of Miracles. he slights it as counterfeit, turn's it off with à Iibe, and well instruct's Atheists and Hea­thens to deride the Miracles related in Scrip­ture. For what can be more ridiculous to an Atheist then to read of Moses his horned face? Of Balaams Asse speaking? Of Samsons de­stroying à thousand men with the Jawbone of an Asse, or of water issuing out of one tooth in that Jawbone, to quench the wea­ried mans thirst after his fighting? These and many more à Heathen Scorn's as highly as Miracles recorded in Scripture, more ridicu­lous to A­theists, than Church Mi­racles. the D^r doth our most certain Church Miracles. But thanks be to God, the Church and her Miracles are not like the walls of Jericho overthrown with loud Braying, or the emp­ty sound of à Dr's broken Trumpet. No. [Page 19] Christs Sacred Doctrin, witness the Apostles though à Scandal to the Iewes and à foolery to the Gentils, yet stand's invincible against all Oppo­sers. and so will the Church and her Miracles continue glorious to the end of Ages, mau­gre the attempt of Her weak Adversaries. Thus much premised we will in the next place consider the Dr's exceptions against Miracles, and ward off à few Cavils, Arguments drawn from Authority or reason I find not any, worth answering.

CHAP II.

1. AFter the D^r had set down some par­cels of my Discourse, and chiefly excepted against my comparing Church Mi­racles with those wrought by Christ and his Apostles, he thinks an Atheist would desire [Page 20] no more advantage against Christian Religion, then to have it granted, that those Primitive Miracles were no other than such, as are wrought in the Roman Catholick Church. I answer The D^r either here supposes, the Church never to have had one true Miracle in it, and upon that Supposition it's madness to talk of paralleling A­postolical Miracles believed by Faith, with Mira­cles never in being. For who can parallel fourbs, and fancied wonders, with Apostolical Mira­cles, really wrought? Or Contrarywise, He supposes true Miracles, as curing the lame, dis­possessing Divels, and raysing the dead to have manifestly illustrated the Church! Grant this, What ought to be suppo­sed, for à right Paral­lel. and he is obliged to give à disparity between the Primitive wonders, and these latter in the Church. This I alwaies urged, but the D^r leaves it unanswered.

2. Again, he perswades himselfe of great advantage given to Atheists (who as much slight the Apostolical Miracles as those of the Church) I see no such matter, and therefore Say contrary, and have proved it. If Church Miracles be rejected, the plainest Evidence of Credibility fail's, and if Christian Religion be made thus bare and naked of glorious Marks, Atheisin get's so much ground, that neither Christ nor his Miracles can gain belief of any; For, undermine the Church, and that is do­ne, How all faith is ruined. if you rob her of her Miracles and other Motives, Scripture it selfe, and the very wonders of Christ lose credit, and goe to wrack also, because the certainty we have of These, relies upon Church Authority, utterly discre­dited, when as the D^r, would have it, you [Page 21] expose her without Lustre, and thereby make her contemptible to Iewes, who anciently had true The Dr's Athcism. Miracles amongst them, and ridiculous to Gentils. Here is your Atheism, good Mr Doctor.

3. In the following page. 439. He enqui­res after the credibility of the ancient Mira­cles and the latter of the Church, and tells us two things are agreed on to make up sufficient credi­bility in à Testimony. Viz. The knowledge and fide­lity of the persons who deliver it, If they speak no­thing but what they were witnesses of, and never gave suspicion of fraud and deceipt, and offered the highest wayes of proof concerning their fidelity, then it is an unreasonable thing to disbelieve them. This saith he, is the case of those, who recorded our Saviours, and his Apostles Miracles &c. Hear now my reply. But S. Irenaeus, S. Ambrose, S. Austin and the other Fathers already cited, were such cer­tain witnesses, and never gave any suspicion of fraud; Their Authority, great Sanctity and worth, was Proof enough of their own fideli­ty. Therefore the Dr's Consequence hold's good for all the Miracles, these blessed men The Drs Consequence returned upon himsel­fe. have attested. Viz. It is an unreasonable thing not to believe them. In the next place, the Dr juggles in appealing to those who recorded our Saviours Miracles, for either he look's upon these wonders, as they are matters of Faith because recorded in Scripture, and that's nothing to our present purpose: Or, consider's them as seen or heard, by Humane faith, before the Evangelists wrote them. Here we come close to the Dr and assert, that not only the Miracles which S. Ambrose and S. Austin saw, but the latter also in [Page 22] the Church, namely, the Miraculous cure of F. Mastrilli in Naples; of the young man who had his leg restored by the Intercession of our Blessed Ladie at Zaragosa, of Iohn Clement's Miracles of undoubted Credit. stupendious cure, seen and attested by innume­rable witnesses, are upon humane Faith most certain. Of These, and the like openly known works of God we speak, manifestly clear from all impostures, and say they were never dispro­ved by any, Friend or Enemy. Let therefore the D^r either plainly discredit such, or hereaf­ter desist from impugning known Miracles.

4 He goes on. P. 440. The greatest number of Miracles in the Roman Church have been believed upon the credit of fables and uncertain reports. Mark first à shuffling. The greatest number, saith he. Speak out Dr. Are any true, or, are all false? If these three only now mentioned, be true (as hundreds more are) and all the Spight in Hell shall never prove one of them false, there is enough to stop your mouth with. Again, saith he. The Miracles in the Roman Church have been believed upon uncertain reports. Miracles approved by the Church never doub­ted of by prudent men. That is, some over Credulous have believed so, as many anciently upon uncertain reports be­lieved false Gospels, for true ones. What's this to our purpose? The only difficulty is, whether those we call Church Miracles, I mean such as have been strictly examined upon oath by the Prelates of the Church, and after examina­tion approved (we have innumerable of these) can be evinced counterfeit, or forged? It is à flat Calumny to account these fabulous. The Dr adds. The greatest number of those who de­livered the Miracles in the Roman Church [Page 23] have been contradicted by men of greater Authority than themselves. I answer the Church herselfe hath contradicted many fabulous Miracles, with great punishment laid on the Impostors, and therefore strictly command's her Prelates to use all diligence in the Examination of Mira­cles, before they be approved. Of these we speak, and know the D^r err's grosly, in saying such approved Miracles have been contradicted by men of great Authority. What man in his wits ever contradicted the Miracles seen by S. Ambrose and S. Austin or the visible boyling up of S. Ianuaries bloud, manifest to thousand and thousand Eye-witnesses? Or, not to entertain the Reader with an endless repetition of most certain known Miracles upon record, who can without impudence boggle at the Miracle of S. Xaverius wrought upon F. Mastrilli, or call into doubt, that other cure at Zaragosa,? These and innumerable more of the like quality, we urge and boldly assert, the D^r shall never speak à probable word against them.

5. What followes in the D^r. P. 441. is above all expression simple. None of these per­sons, saith he, ever laid down their lives to attest A Simple Obiection. the truth of any of their Miracles. Very wisely obiected! Did the blinde man cured by our Saviour. Iohn. 9. lay down his life to attest the truth of the Miracle wrought upon him? Did S. Peter, S. Paul, or any Apostle offer them­selves to death, or dye, for à proof of their Miracles? No. They lost their lives to attest the truth of the Gospel, which God pleased to confirm by Miracles, and so thou­sands and thousands Witnesses have done to [Page 24] attest the truths taught by the Roman Catho­lick Church, after innumerable Spectators had seen Miracles and solemnelly sworn, that what they had seen, was true. Is not this proof enough (matter of damnation if periured) to gain beliefe from wise and prudent men?

6. Next we are to attend the D^r, who tells us he is going on Pilgrimate to our Lady at Loreto, to view the Authentick Monuments and Miracles wrought there. He had done more wisely had he kept at home, or pretended à pilgrimage to the man in the Moon, (some think men are there), though its hard to get so high, And in the Dr's Principles, its wholly as difficult, to find out any Miraculous Chappel at Loreto, yet he in all hast is posting thither to pull that Chappel down, which in his judgement neither is, nor ever was in being. Of this we are to speak more largely.

CHAP. III.

1. NOw me thinks t'is high time to return to our D^r who. p 442. Set's down the Authentick Table of Teremanus hung up at Loreto, wherein the very most, or the Sub­stance of all hitherto related, is briefly Com­prised. It begin's thus. The Church of our B. Lady at Loreto &c. Will you have more Pa­tience to hear how the D^r refutes it, then I had in the reading. Is not this (they are his own words) à very pleasant story to be matched The Dr's ridiculous refu [...]tation. in point of Credibility vvith the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles? VVhat do these men think in their hearts of Christian Religion, that dare a­vouch such ridiculous fictions as these are and im­pose them on the Credulity of mankind? What Say you to D^r Still? Doth not this wise and profound Answer deserve à Mitre? Observe well. Many both grave and learned recount the Story, and he with à huste, not offering at the least proof against them, saies its ridiculous. [Page 38] Witnesses upon Oath deposed that their An­cestours saw the Chappel carried over the A­driatick sea. It might well, saith he, have been à Ship under sail or some such like thing, and because, he will have it so, it must be ridiculous. What if the D^r had seen Elias in à fiery Chariot, or the Prophet Habacuc car­ried away by the hair of his head into Babylon, would he have judged the one to be à blazing Comet like à wheelbarrow, and the other à Crow flying through the Air? The most sage and greatest men in the world highly reveren­ce this sacred Chappel, but he vviser than all, account's them fools and ridiculous for doing so. The learned Cardinal Baronius in his Annals, hold's the Miraculous Translation of this house most certain. Se how rudely the Dr treat's him. Baronius, saith he, should have had mo­re wit, or more honesty, and tells us afterward. p. 472. He was one whose Zeal carried him no further than the Popes interest. What's this but an idle crack of à petty Ministers potgun, The Dr's Slighting Baronius, discharged against à most eminent and renow­ned Person? Should one as inferiour to the D^r, as he is to the Cardinal, publish in Print, that all his scribling has been to gain à little vain applause of men, would he think him­selfe civilly dealt with? God best knowes, how much of this is true.

2. Yet we have more of the like blunde­ring. When Canisius gives à fuller account of this Story, and tells us that the Angels are Ministring Spirits, as appear's by their trans­porting Habacuc, and Philip. Acts. 7. 40. Our D^r replies very gravely. As though, saith he; [Page 39] Angels could not discharge that Ministery unless at some time or other, they took away an old house and mounted it into the Ayr. Is not this to answer The imper­tinent Ca­vils of our Dr, laid forth. pertinently think ye? Tursellin lib. 1. c. 6. recount's that the trees while the Chappel pas­sed by, made lowly reverence to it. A jeer refutes all. It seems, saith the D^r, they bovved so lovv, that they could never recover themselves af­ter. And might he not as well have scorned that stately tree which reverently bowed to our Saviour, witness Sozomenus. lib: 5. Cap. 21, and Nicephorus Lib: 10. c. 31. But this is the usual trick of our D^r when put hard to it for an Answer, to what pleases not, he makes short work, look's big, and laughs at it. Hence he slights those two witnesses Renalduccius, and Francis Prior, who attested upon oath that their Ancestors had seen the Chappel, and often visited it, scornfully calling them two Affidavit men, though he has not one Affidavit man, that ever questioned their Fidelity. Af this strain, he slights that exact Historian Hteronymus Angelita because, forsooth, he wrote his Story in Clement the 7^th. time, too late as the D^r thinks, and dedicated it to the Pope. Thus he slights the Authentick Table of the pious Provost Teremanus with one sim­ple Demand. Was ever so great à Miracle bet­ter attested than this? Reflect Gentle Rea­der. May this new mode passe Current in refuting Authors of known integrity by jeers, Ieers and Ironies the Dr's best and only Authors. and asking impertment Questions, you may cast all History aside, and let ranting, flouts, and Ironies have place, D^r Still: tells you it must be so, having little els to fill his book with, [Page 40] nor so much as one Author to oppose these Testimonies.

3. In the mean while, perhaps some thing better may occur, but its only the old rub­bish, former Hereticks have turned over to furnish the Dr with, and he ought to thank them for it. Here in à word lies the Chief charge, and in effect all that can be said. Three Writers, Dantes Aldigerius, Franciscus Petrarchae, and Ioannes Boccaccius, that prose­cuted the Italian History in the fourth Century, after the year one thousand, never mentioned the Miraculous translation of this house. And what saies our Dr, is it credible that so great à The only Argument of Heretiks. against the Chappels Translation Drawn from the Silence of Authors. Miracle should happen in those dayes without no­tice taken of it, by such inquisitive men? Be­sides. S. Antonin of Florence speaks not à word of it, and which is more. S. Vincentius Ferre­rius. Serm: de Assump. B. V. positively assert's, that the Chamber of our Lady was still in Na­zareth. And though the former are negative Testimonies (adds the D^r) yet they cannot be rejected by us, because we often make use of them as appear's by the Story of Pope Ioan. For Ba­ronius saith, that the not recording it, or the Silence of so long à time after, wherein there was just occasion to mention it, was more then à thousand witnesses to prove the falsity of it. And if silence be à thousand witnesses on their side, I hope it may be at least five hundred on ours. Thus M^r D^r. And afterward upon an other An Argu­ment taken out of Baro­nius spea­king of Pope Ioan. occasion. p. 472. harp's much upon the same string, and highly applaud's Baronius his excellent rule. Viz. What soever is delive­red by later Authors concerning the matters of [Page 41] Antiquity, and is not confirmed by the Authority of some ancient Writer, is contemned. By this rule in all these matters (saith our D^r) let us stand or fall. Jam content, M^r D^r, and before I soule the difficulty can easily preacquaint you with another great wonder, never mentioned, never taken notice of by any Author, but most silently pass't over by all ancient writers, yet you and all Protestants, hold it unquestiona­bly true.

4. In the year 1517. there appeared in Germany à very strange Machine (our D^r will have it well nigh as old as the Chappel at Lo­reto) called by some, if not the whole, at least the best Part of the House of the living God, that is, his Church, which should (had it been built by Jesus Christ) be more worth then à little Chappel. Not to keep you longer in Suspence, I mean by this Machine the whole Essential Fa­brick A great wonder held by prote­stants, never mentioned by ancient Author. of Protestancy, and beseech you mistake me not, but mark well what I enquire after? By Protestancy, I do not understand the Com­mon Tenets of Christian Religion, but the very essentials of this Novelty as it differ's or is distin­guished, by its reformation from that, which some Scornfully call Popery, and all condemned Heresies, whereof I have treated more largely. Reas: and Relig: Disc: 1. c. 20. n. 2. Thus much supposed.

5. It is most clear that this fancied Choise part of God's house appeared in Germany such à year, and from thence (to say nothing of other Transmigrations) Crossed the sea, and got into England. All this is evident. Now further. But no ancient Writer ever told the world [Page 42] where this Protestancy had been before Luther, or from what remote Part of the world it first came, or finally, who first transported it in­to Germany, therefore according to the Dr's rule, it justly deserves contempt. Shall I speak Who con­veyed this new Machi­ne of prote­stancy into Germany and Eng­land? more plainly? The essential Structure of Pro­testancy, say Sectaries, was ever in being from the time of Christ and his Apostles, Three dayes before Luther it was not in Ger­many, yet afterwards got thither, we seek for witnesses and would have this matter of fact plainly attested by some ancient Writer. And is not the D^r, think ye when pressed thus home, obliged to produce his VVriters and vvitnesses? One Author as credible as Tere­manus, one witness as faithful as Renalduccius shall content me. You, M^r D^r, make the Essentials of Protestancy Marvellously ancient. Make this out, Tell us, who were the Pro­fessors of it? Where they lived? Did ever man or Angel bring you the newes of this Machin's Translation from any Part of the world? Were any ever sent in such or such an Age to Nazareth, Dalmatia, or Italy, that slightly mention it? Writers and witnesses you ha­ve none, deep Silence therefore, and this Silence, and à destructive Negative, the only grounds of Protestancy. destructive Negative (No man though most inquisi­tive ever vvrote of Protestancy in former Ages) are the best and only Supports of it. We have often demanded Satisfaction to this particular, yet never had it, nor shall hereafter have any, whereof I am so Confident that I chal­lenge the D^r to Discuss this one particular with me in à Treatise apart, and I desire he would consider upon it.

[Page 43]6. It may be he will answer, the Essen­tials of Protestancy were carried hither and all the Not one Essential of Protestancy in the whole Bible. world over with Holy Scripture. I have preven­ted this Cavil in the place now cited, and told the D^r, it is impossible to find in the whole Bible so much as one Essential Tenet of this Religion as it is Protestancy, or called à reformed Religion, which point I also engage to examin with him, when he pleases. I answer 2. More numerous and far graver Authors (to say nothing of Church Authority) contradict this phansied conveyance of Protestancy with Scrip­ture, than ever opposed the Translation of our Ladies cell from Nazareth. Perhaps the Dr will Say. The difficulty now agitated concern's not Religion which is à thing wholly Spiritual, and depend's not on History, as the Translation of à house doth. No good D^r, rub your for­head à little. When you Simply talk of that ancient Faith from whence the Roman Church once swerved, must not you either pretend History for your Assertion, and tell us when or in what Age it swerved, or speak Non-sense? Again. Spiritual things, Religion chiefly, are both real, and of greatest concern, and ought we not A pure Eva­sion, rejected to enquire, how and when they are conveyed to us? Should now à new Sect of Hereticks arise, and set abroad à new Learning like yours, never heard of before, shall we not demand think ye, as Tertullian did Anciently? Qui estis vos? Who are you? Vnde? from whence came you? Shew your Commission, what Au­thority, sent you to preach &c? These Que­stions we propose to you concerning the Con­veyance of Protestancy into these Parts of the [Page 44] world and you answer nothing, therefore you must either help out your cause with this Nega­tive. What Pro­testants are forced to grant. No ancient writer ever took notice of it, and so by your own Principle make it Contempti­ble; or ingenuously confess the truth. that Luthers mad brains brew'd it, first broach'd it, and poysoned Posterity with it. You may say. Some Parallel, this Machine of Protestancy hath with the Holy house of Loreto, that it stand's unsupported, or without any Foundations. If this be Miraculous, or make for its Credit, I am content, but in passing consider how un­like it is, upon another Score. The Chappel of Loreto hath stood where it is, well nigh four hundred years, without repair or the alte­ration of one Stone, but this unsteedy Church How diffe­rent the Protestant Church is, from the Chappel at Loreto. of Protestancy in the compass of one Age, endlesly tampered with, changes almost every year, in so much that the old and new Structure of it, are nothing like one another.

7. Now to the Obiection proposed above, I answer. Had none within the compasse of that fourth Century after the year 1000, left à memory of this Chappels Translation, the Si­lence of Dantes, Petrach, and Boccace would The Obie­ction Propo­sed above, answered. have had more weight, but when, as Silv: Petr: Sanct: P. 35. notes well, Three Popes. Benedict the 12, Vrban the 6, and Boniface the 9, much about that time positively maintain the truth of this Miracle, as appear's by their Apo­stolical letters, the Silence of those others, being meerly à Negative Argument, prejudiceth not the cause at all. One reason of their Si­lence was the afflicted and much disturbed State of Italy in those dayes, caused first by [Page 45] the absence of popes from Rome, who early in that Age repaired to Avignon and made their Residence there, full seventy years. An­other might arise from that long Schism of fourty years, to say nothing of the ruin and Two reasons of Some Authors Silence. destruction which followed in Italy upon the bitter Enmity between those Guelphi and the Gibellins, well known to the world. These and some other distractions, as Silvester observes P. 28. much lessened the fame of this Chappels translation at the beginning, neither can it be any wonder, if three Writers in that Age (not fully as yet informed of all particulars) silently pass't it over, when besides those Monu­ments of piety, erected by Count Frangipa­nius and the Authority of the Popes now named, we have other witnesses clear and indubitable for this matter of fact.

CHAP. IV.

1. BEsides the Testimonies already alleged for the Translation of this Chappel, the fame of so great à wonder, alwaies conti­nued in Picenum by à never interrupted Tra­dition, [Page 46] where Age after Age Parents taught their Children, and Masters their Schollers, how, and in what manner the Chappel was Mi­raculously transported, and I hope Tradition in such matters may have some weight with our D^r. 2. A whole book was set forth in Print by the express command of the Bishop of Recanati, wherein the several Transmigra­tions of this house are recorded, Petra Sancta. P. 28. remit's the Reader to the book, though as yet I have not seen it. 3. Flavius Blondus in his Italiâ illustratâ, treating of Picenum. P. 339. tell's you where the house stand's, call's it Celeberrimum gloriosae Virginis Sacellum, the most renowned Chappel of the glorious Vir­gin, and adds this as à most certain and irre­fragable proof for it; that such as by their Vowes and earnest prayers sought assistance at Loreto, have by the Intercession of God's Sacred Mother most certainly been heard, and obtained many favours there 1. The D^r cannot let this Testimony pass, without Shuffling, and abusing the Author. Three frauds I observe in his Answer. First he saith, Blondus was Secretary to Eugenius the 4.^th about the year 1450, à good competent time after the Miracle was said to be wrought, whereas Bellarmine, de Scrip­tor. Eccles: testifies that Blondus Continued Three frauds discovered in the Dr. his Story from Anno. 407. to his own time Anno. 1400. though he lived till the year 1440, ten years short of the Dr's. 1450, neither was Eugenius alive in that year 1450. being made Pope Anno 1431 and sate 15 years 11. months and 12 dayes, and I am sure Blondus (most likely not then living) was no [Page 47] Secretary to à dead Pope. By all you may see the Dr's pretty clinch. About the year 1450. 2. He tells us. All Blondus saith is only, that there was à famous Chappel of our Lady at Loreto, as appeared by the many oblations there made. I answer Blondus as is now noted, hath much more, of the Signal great favours, which Favours obtained by the Inter­cession of our B. Lady. pious and devout People obtained from Al­mighty God by the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin, but the D^r thought it his wisest course to clap this under Deck, for fear of Scaring his people with any thing like à Miracle, wrought by our Lady. The last shuffling the cards is worst of all. Blondus, saith the D^r, speak's of many Oblations made at Lo­reto, but has not one word of the Chappels What Blon­dus evinces Miraculous translation. I answer, while he assert's that the Chappel stand's at Lo­reto, and that God hath wrought Mi­racles there, he joyntly affirm's, it was Mi­raculously translated thither, upon this con­vincing reason already laid down, that no hands ever built it at Loreto. I desire the D^r to enervate this one proof, which I judge cannot Mantuans Testimony be well answered.

2. Next we produce the clear Testimo­ny of Baptista Mantuanus, à Religious man of the Holy Order of Carmelits, à good Divi­ne, and an excellent Poet, who lived with 30 more of his Order at Loreto, and Compri­sed the Substance of the whole story in verse, part whereof I here set down.

The Sence is. What you here see neer the Shore of Picenum is the venerable Temple of our great Mother the Virgin, which the Angels in time past carried from Syria to this place, with their own hands. Some quaint pen may perhaps match this excellent latin with an English verse, If not; let it passe, as Hovv the Dr dispat­ches Man­tuan. you have it, in plain prose, while our D^r dis­patches Mantuan with à wet finger. Mantuan, saith he, read the Table hanging up in the Chap­pel, and no wonder if he found the Story fit for à Poets brain. Very short, and very pithless.

3. Yet more, to omit Teremanus and Hierom's Angelita's Testimonies, whereof we have spoken, what can any man in his wits oppose to Leander Albertus one of S. Dominick's Holy Order, both pious and learned? Read [Page 49] him in his Description of Italy, Tursellin. Lib: 2. C. 28. gives you his whole relation concer­ning the transmigration of the house. And Leander Albertus his Testimony I think no man ever spake with greater Zeal and fervour, citing most certain Records and Monuments of Antiquity. And how think you doth our D^r slight this virtuous mans Authority? Marry, first we are told, he wrote too late, and secondly, that he seem's to rely most upon the Miracles wrought at Loreto. To the first I answer, and pray you reflect, Had either Petrach or Bocca [...]cius (which is not done) made mention of the Chappels transla­tion, might not the D^r as well have excepted weakly ex­cepted against, by the Dr. against them, and told us they came too late with their Stories, for both these wrote well neer à hundred year's after its coming to Dal­matia? This Dr, it seem's, will either have matters of fact recorded presently when they happen, or is resolved to slight them, therefo­re I am obliged once more to remind him of his Protestancy, and must demand, whether any Writer ten or twenty years after Luthers re­volt told him, from whence this new Nothing came into the world? To the 2. d weak Cavil I answer, that the Miracles wrought at Lore­to, do and must suppose the Chappel Miraculous­ly translated thither, If, which is evident, no mortal hands ever erected it there.

4 Besides these Proofs, the Testimony of those Messengers sent by Clement the 7^th to Dalmatia, and Nazareth (The Testimony is still preserved) evidently convinceth the truth of what we now speak: Consider I beseech you, whether it be likely, or in any mean measure [Page 50] probable, that three Choise men selected out of the Popes own Family, should be sent by the These three Messengers relation cannot be doubted of. express command of the greatest Prelate upon earth, to take full information of every parti­cular concerning the Chappels Translation, (which was done as you heard above) and at their return, worse then Rogues, should prove Falsifyers of Evidences, and fool the Pope with à meer cheat, or Flimflam Story? Here I appeal to the judgement of every prudent man for à final Sentence, that knowes how severely Popes and Princes also proceed in such matters, and ask the D^r, whether all the jeers in his boudget, can make the Pope à fool, and these witnesses disloyal in their relation. We go on. Pope Clement the 8,^th having well pon­dered all the Evidences in behalfe of the Chap­pels What Cle­ment the eight Com­manded. Translation visited Loreto, and comman­ded à Short Epitome of the whole Story to be engraven in à marble Table, which is as followes.

[Page 52]5. What think ye, was this most Judicious Pope besotted, when he ordered the engraving of these words in marble, which would have cost him dear, an eternal reproach, could any Critick have found the least flaw in the whole A Conside­ration for the Reader. Story? No wise man, much lesse Popes, wit­tingly run the hazard of à disgrace for toyes or trifles. Few follow the Shuttle humour of D^r Still: who writes what comes into his head, right or wrong (all is one) whereof there are Instances enow in the former Treatise, and you shall have more plenty hereafter. Now,

6. Because it is full time (after this long, though necessary Digression) to solve the other part of the objection proposed above, I will here begin with one foul errour of this D^r. He tell's us. P. 451. that S. Vincentius Ferrerius. (E. The Dr err's in his quo­tation. W^s. admirable Saint) saith, Serm. de Assump. B. V. That the Chamber of our Lady was still in Naza­reth. E. W. answer's, and assures M^r D^r, that S. Vincentius hath two Sermons upon the As­sumption, and that he hath read both in two several Editions very diligently: The one in an old abbreviated Character, without the Year of our Lord, the other Antwerp print. Anno 1573. and E. W. thinks the D^r might have more ex­actly pointed at the Sermon, but this fault may appear little, the greater is, that S. Vincentius hath not one word in either Sermon so much as remo­tely like to what the D^r., imposes on him. But what if. S. Vincentius had Spoken in Some other Sermon of our Lady as the D^r Cites, would he not, think ye have either told us, he came too late with his story, or blamed him as he doth S. Antonin, for writing à Rapsody of all [Page 53] sorts of Miracles? I never saw the like Strain in any man. If Authors write not of Miracles the D^r Fault's their Silence, if they write, all is Whether Authors write or write not, the Dr bla­mes them. à Rapsody. Was there ever Man More like Aod both left and right handed? In case à right Thrust dispatch you not (which I never yet saw given to any Argument) à left one must do the deed, and and destroy you.

7. Now one word to Baronius his Rule, and the D^r quotes. Annal. A. D. 853 n. 65. Where you have another Slurr, for the number in my book (and I hold it a good one) is. N. 88. but the worser fault, is that he abuses Baronius, who n. 87. first refutes the Fable of Pope Ioan by Baronius refutes the Fable of Pope Ioan▪ by positive Proofs. à solid positive Proof Chiefly taken from the con­tinued Succession of true Popes, and the un­questionable Authority of Anastasius Bibliothe­carius that lived in the very year, when this She creature is supposed to have sate in S. Peters Chair, between Leo the 4.^th, and Benedict the 3. Yet Anastasius present at the Election then The Conti­nued Succes­sion of Po­pes, and the Authority of Anasta­sius. made, expresly testifyes, that Pope Leo being dead Benedict Six dayes after, was Chosen Pope, in so much that no place remained va­cant for the Monster Ioan. Now, saith Baro­nius, when Anastasius saw these things, and left all upon record, and no other Author of that Age, or afterward to the dayes of Marianus Scotus contradicted them, the Silence of so long à time (from Anastasius to Marianus) and of so high à concern, has more force than à thousand witnesses to blast the whole fable, when so many emergent occasions offered themselves to declare against it.

8. Here I note two egregious frauds of the [Page 54] D^r, one is, that he makes Silence only or à Negative Testimony the whole Proof of Baronius, Silence joyn'd to po­sitive proofs, evinces what Baro­nius inten­du. whereas it's à Silence which followed upon two Positive proofs: The true registred succession of Popes, and the Testimony of Anastasius. No man, saith Baronius ever contradicted him, no writer opposed him, and this negative joyned to à posi­tive proof, is à manifest Eviction. Besides, had our D^r read Bellarmin. lib. 3. de Romane Pontifice c. 24. §. Deinde non solus. He might have found that not only Anastasius, but Ado also, Bishop of Vienne in France who lived at that very time, Rhegino, Abbas Vrspergensis, Otho Frisingensis and all More Au­thors Cited. other writers, place Benedict the Immediate Successor to Pope Leo: so doth David Blundel the Historian of Amsterdam, in à whole book set forth against the Fable of Pope Ioan, and though he was à Sectary, yet overcome with the evi­dence of truth, he demonstratively Shewes the whole Story to be à shameful errour, à meer dotage, or madness. First, Blundel produces à whole list of Authors living in several Nations, who all unanimously place Benedict next to Pope Leo. 2. He drawes à convincing proof from Hincmarus Bishop of Rhems, ordained Bis­hop. David Blundels ir­refragable Argument. Anno 845. May the 17. Ten years before this Monster got into that See, for Ioan is sup­posed by those who are delighted with the Fa­ble to have reigned. Anno 855. two whole years, five months and four dayes. So Marianus Scotus tell's his Tale. Hincmarus lived many à long year after, for he dyed 21. December. Anno 882, and Anno 866. 25. Augusti wrote to Pope Nicolas, Benedicts Successor. In these letters he tell's the Pope that some years before, he [Page 55] had sent Legats upon business to Leo the 4.^th but saith Hincmarus, my Legats being advan­ced in their journey, understood that Leo was dead, notwithstanding they went on, came to Rome, and found there Pope Benedict to have im­mediatly succeeded Leo. This Argument, saith Blundel, evidently demonstrat's, that no Pope Ioan intervened, or sate between Leo and Bene­dict, unless you will phansy, that these Legats being on their way, made à halt of two whole years and 4. months, before they came to Ro­me, which is both improbable and ridiculous.

9. By what is said you see, that the D^r meer­ly cheat's when he tell's us. P. 451. that we, The Dr's endeavour to cheat the Reader. to cast off à matter of fact attested by much better Authors than Renalduccius, Prior, and Teremanus (He means the story of Pope Joan) use only Negative Testimonies. I have now proved the Contrary and assert, that neither Baronius nor any other Historian makes Silence or à Nega­tive Testimony, the best and only reproof of that fancied story. Let any at leasure peruse the ex­cellent Writer Florimundus Raemundus upon this Florimun­dus Raemun­dus decryes the Fable. subject, calling it. The Popular errour of Pope Ioan, he will find the whole Matter not only most profoundly discussed, but the gross errour, made so horrid and monstrous; that Sectaries may blush hereafter to mention it. To what the D^r add's of better Authors, than Renalduccius &c. I will shew him presently he hath none comparable, or rather indeed none at all, excep­ting one pure Simplician, Martinus Polonus, if yet he be for it.

10. In the mean while take notice of the Dr's second fraud. Baronius. N. 88. now cited, [Page 56] where he Speaks of great and most weighty occa­sions offered to decry this Story, fully mentions them. Photius, saith he, that false Bishop, an implacable Enemy to Popes, thrust out of his Bishoprick as one most unworthy the place, lived the whole time when Ioan is supposed to Weighty oc­casions fully set down by Baronius, have been Pope, and though Photius laid to the charge of Popes many lesser matters, yet he never objected this scandalous fact against them; No more did his Patron Michael who then governed the Empire in the East, (though set on by Photius to revile Popes,) ever touch upon the Scandal. All this and more, which The Dr Wa­ves, gives much force to Baronius his Argument drawn from Silence, our D^r silently passes over, and run's away with one piece of his Argu­ment, peevishly concealing the best strength in it. He might also have taken notice of what followes in Baronius. n. 89. concerning Leo the 9.^th who in his letter to Michael Bishop of Constantinople plainly tell's him of à constant One Most remarkable. naughty report Spread abroad, viz. That some Eunuchs and à woman once had been Patriarch there. And was it possible think ye, saith Baronius, that à most wise and prudent Pope, should make such an Objection, had the See of Rome been ever tainted with the like foul aspersion? All this our D^r, not daring to speak out, waves, and keeps close to himselfe, for fear the world should know truth.

11. Now we enter upon the main point, and will demonstrate two things. The first: that our D^r has not one Author for Pope Ioan, The main Matt [...]er examined. comparable to those three undervalued by him, who stand for the Translation of our Ladies [Page 57] Sacred Chappel. 2. I will shew, though he had any Authors yet in his principle, they are worth nothing.

12. Concerning the first. Two Writers only are cited as the Abettors of Pope Ioans fa­ble, Marianus Scotus, and Martinus Polonus, Before these, no man ever mentioned it. But saith Baronius. N. 83. Marianus his own Manuscript Marianus Saith not absolutely that Ioan was Pope. assert's not that à woman succeeded Leo, but only frigidly relates the matter thus. In the year 852, Pope Leo dyed in August, Cui successit Ioannes, qui ut asseritur fuit mulier, whom John succeeded, who as, is said, was à woman. Then Baronius add's. As Herold corrupted many other things in Marianus, so here also he fraudulently changed the Text in the first printed Copy, calls her Ioan, and asseverantly saith she was à wo­man. Again its certain, Marianus err's grossly in relating Pope Leo's death, that lived two whole years after the Term given him by this Author. Se Baronius, n. 87. whence it follo­wes, that unless Ioan sate Pope with Leo, she never was Pope. Conformable hereunto Bell: Other Au­thors Speak Conforma­bly. cited above, §. Quod autem tell's us, that he who set forth the Metropolis, or the elaborate Church History of Albertus Krantius at Cologne, Anno 1584, plainly saith, that nothing is found of this She Pope in Marianus his most ancient Copies. The like Ioannes Molanus, à Doctor of Lovain, testifies of Sigeberts own Copies, or Molanus his Testimony. at least judged to be his, which he read in the Monastery of Gemblace where Sigebert was once à Monk, not à word, saith. Molanus, found I in it of any Pope Ioan.

13. Martinus Polonus saith Bell: de Script: [Page 58] Eccl: was à simple man, and in place of true Stories feed's us with meer Fables: Neither doth he assert absolutly that Ioan was Pope, but only turn's you off with, à Fertur, its reported, and therefore relies upon an uncertain rumour. Se Bell. cited. §. Tertio, and pray ye call to mind what he has more in his Script: Eccles: where he How the Fable of Pope Ioan, got abroad? Saith, that this whole Fable of Pope Ioan, got out of Polonus his Book into the printed Co­pies of Marianus and Sigebert, for in their an­cient Manuscripts, it is not at all. It would be here too long à work and not to my present Pur­pose, being only to refute the main ground our Dr stand's upon to tell you, the occasion of this Flimflam Fable (the report of à wo [...]man being à She Patriarch at Constantinople first set it on foot) or how those who favour it, Clash amongst themselves: Some will have her an English woman, others born at Mentz or at least educated there, others make her à Student at Athens when no learning was Professed there. Some call her Ioan, others Isabel, others Tutia, others Gilberta, and no man knowes what. The Clas­hing of Au­thors Con­cerning Pope Ioan, ri­diculous More light you will have Concerning these particulars in Baronius, and the erudite Flori­mundus already cited.

14. I am now to make good my second Assertion against D^r Still: and to give all the fair play imaginable, let us contrary to manifest truth, suppose, that Marianus Scotus, Martinus Polonus, Sigebert, Platina, or who you will, re­lated the story of Pope Joan, I Say all these Authors are no more but insignificant Cyphers in the Dr's Principles. Observe my reason. He tells us, as you have heard, that because Dantes, [Page 59] Petrach, and Boccace took no notice of the Miraculous Translation of our Ladies Chap­pel, the wonder therefore ought in all Pruden­ce to be held incredible. Hence I argue. But The Dr convinced by his own principles. from the supposed reign of Pope Ioan to Ma­rianus Scotus, Sigebert, and Martinus Polonus, no Writer ever took notice of this She Pope. Ergo the Fable is also incredible, as will appear by an exact computation of years. Pray you ob­serve. This she Pope is supposed to have reigned. Anno 855. Marianus Scotus was born as himselfe testifies, Anno 1028, dyed Anno 1086, and consequently lived as Baronius notes. n. 79. at least two hundred and thirty years after Pope Joan's supposed reign, And what no notice taken of her all this while by any Author? Not à word by any. Here is à strange Silence. Now if we speak of Martinus Polonus, he lived four hundred years after, and The vast time that passed be­tween the supposed reign of Pope Ioan and Martinas Polonus. Sigebert fell not much short of him, Sectaries were much later. VVhat say we to this Silence. Doth our D^r, think ye, speak at all perti­nently when to undervalue the Testimonies of Teremanus, Renalduccins, and Prior, that ex­presly Say the Chappel was Miraculously trans­lated, he prefer's Marianus Scotus, and Marti­nus Polonus (for he has no Authors more an­cient) before them, as much better witnesses? Though neither dare avouch (but as you have heard faintly and without Spirit) that Pope Ioan ever sate at Rome. What blemish was Polonus much ble­mished. ever cast upon any of these three Authors com­parable to the Disgrace laid on one Polo­nus, judged by the wisest à witless fellow, à Relator of fables &c? In so much that Bellar­min [Page 60] saith, He would not have placed him amongst the Ecclesiastical Writers, had not the Magdeburgians and other Hereticks cited him? Again, how enormously is our D^r out of all reasonable discourse, when he tells us, Blondus and other Authors cited above, came too late with their Testimonies concerning the Chappels Translation, never reflecting upon Marianus and Polonus's slowness, who followed much later with their whimsy of Po­pe Joan? The one as I said now, two hun­dred and thirty years after Her Supposed Po­pedome; The Dr's Strange O­versight. and the other at least, four hundred. Where were the Dr's eyes in so great an O­versight? What can any man judge of him, but that he writes at random without discretion and judgement? But of Blondus more pre­sently, with à word or two of the Dr's great insincerity.

15. In the mean while take notice of four simple Questions proposed by the D^r, which he call's his Scruples. One is; How such à Four of the Dr's Scru­ples, Cleared. chamber should be able to hold without decay, for above a thousand and six hundred years? I an­swer, we have clear Evidence of its holding out without decay in Dalmatia and where it now stand's, for the space well nigh of four hundred years, and therefore Say, as this latter evident Preservation is deservedly ac­counted Miraculous, so the first and longer was, though all that time it had Foundations to stand upon, and for that reason may seem less Miraculous. He asks 2. How this house could possibly escape ruin when Authors say, The wholo Country about Nazareth was destroyed by [Page 61] Traian after the strange devastation of it made by Vespasian. I answer. The great destruction The sacred Chappel pre­served by divine Pro­vidence. of à whole Country necessarily implies not the Subversion of every little house in it, though it is most likely, that God by his special Pro­vidence secured the house, dear to our Blessed Lord and his sacred Mother, from the rage and fury of all those Enemies. He as'ks. 3. How the Church of the Annuntiation should be removed to Italy, and yet remain at Nazareth by the constant Tradition of the Eastern parts? Did ever man say and unsay like this D^r? Just now he will have the house destroyed in the general devastation of à whole Country, and here the constant Tradition of the Eastern parts, makes it still to remain at Nazareth. If it The Dr a­grees not with him­selfe. remain still at Nazareth: it was not destroyed, or if destroyed, it remain's not still there. A­gain, if it stand there still, the D^r must solve his first difficulty of its not de [...]caying, for above Sixteen Ages. What Sence or coherence have we in this mans writing? But of this egre­gious Cheat more presently.

16. He asks. 4. How the measure should be found exactly agreeing by those sent to exa­min it, when Thomas de Novaria saith, that he lately found out the only true foundations lar­ger than the Angels Chappel there built? And he places Thomas de Novaria in his Context with à blind marginal Note. Quaresm: (abbre­viated) Elucid: terrae Sanctae Lib. 7 c. 5. Whe­reas, His odd way in quoting Quares­mins. Franciscus Quaresmius should have been cited as the Principle Author, and Tho­mas à Novaria brought in as à witness by Quaresmius, for so he is. But the D^r thought [Page 62] it best to cast à mist before the eyes of à vulgar Reader for fear of having his notorious fraud discovered, which I will now lay open.

17. Quaresmius, Tom. 2. Elucidat: terrae Sanctae. lib. 7. cap. 5. Pereg. 3. page 837. set's down the long relation of Thomas à Novaria, where wee are told first, what difficulties both he and his companion. P. F. Iacobus encoun­tred in their Pilgrimage to Nazareth, yet by God's good assistance overcame all. Then, The relation made by Quares­mius, p. 8 [...]8. Colum. 2. paulo post medium, has these words. Locum igitur Sanctum ingressi &c. We entered into the holy place at Nazareth, on whose foundations the house of Loreto once stood, and being led into the dark Cave where the Sacred Virgin was saluted by the Angel, we reverently adored there, and soon after be­gan to clense the holy Sanctuary, and blessed that old Altar of the Annuntiation which the long-since living Christians had erected. Much more followes of great Miracles wrought in that place, and of two Pillars set up by the ancient Christians, as à Memorial of the An­gels Saluting our Lady &c. This is all Thomas Taken from Thomas à Novaria. à Novaria hath to our present purpose in Qua­resmius his 5. Chapter, whereunto the Dr remit's us, and you see its granted, that the Chappel had stood there without mentioning its being now at Nazareth, neither have you any word of those larger foundations in that Chapter, whereof the D^r speak's. Now if he say, our Ladies house stood indeed once at Nazareth, but afterward was destroyed; turn to the fore­going. 4^th. Chapter in Quaresmius, and you will find the Dr's whole fraud, or malice ra­ther [Page 63] unmasked, by his own quoted Author Thomas à Novaria, an Eye-witness of the Evi­dence.

18. For the better understanding of the whole Story, and the Dr's jugling, please to note with Quaresmius. §. Tertio. That Iacobus à Vandosma, à man most industrious and ac­curate, gives assurance, that in the place at Nazareth (from whence the house of Loreto was carried away) another little Church, called the Chappel of the Angel, or the Church of the Annuntiation, was built, not just equal to the The Church of the An­nuntiation erected, in the place, where the house of Lo­reto once Stood. old foundations of our Ladies Chamber, but lower, upon the Floor, or Pavement, and in à straiter Compass. Wherefore, saith he, the Chamber next to the dark cave being taken away by the Ministry of Angels, in place of it, this other Chappel was erected, having some addition of polisht stones laid by the inward foundations of the house of Loreto, to support better the whole fabrick of the Angels Chap­pel, and this the ancient Christians adjoyned. Now, saith Novaria, we (Viz. Himselfe and Jacobus à vandosma) meddled not with the inward enlargement, but beginning from the old and true foundations of our ladies Chamber, drew à right line, measured them exactly, and found to our great Joy this place in Naza­reth, per omnia, every way just equal to the The measure of the old foundations taken, exact­ly agree &c. foot of the foundations of the Holy house at Lo­reto. All things perfectly answer one another, all things exactly agree between this Chappel at Nazareth, and the holy house at Loreto. Dempto quod dixi: excepting what I noted of the inward enlargement, whereby the Angels [Page 64] Chappel, drawn in à little, is not fully so large as the foundations of the house of Loreto are. These truths saith Novaria we publish upon our certain knowledge, for the comfort of all faithful People to the end, that no man may hereafter doubt in à matter of so great Con­cern.

19. Reflect, courteous Reader in passing, before we return to the D^r, how earnestly would Novaria and Vandosma have stood for the still quiet owning, so great à treasure as the Novaria and Vandos­ma frankly acknowledge the Transla­tion of the Chappel, Sacred house of Loreto is (till now,) could they have done it in justice or conscience? How eagerly would they have pleaded. Olim possi­deo, Prior possideo. We here at Nazareth, not you at Loreto, preserve yet in being the Sacred Chamber, where the Angel saluted the Virgin, and God became man; had either Tradition, or any Authority boy'd them up, or patronized their cause? But no such Opposition was made. No. They contented themselves with the Angels Chappel, which they had under their charge. Anno 1626. and convinced by Eviden­ce, frankly acknowledged the Translation of the house to Loreto to be most true, and so likewise doth the whole Church of God, (wit­ness Quaresmius. C. 4. fine) Popes, saith he, have granted great Indulgences and Priviledges So likevvise doth quares­mius to the Holy house of Loreto, the frequent Concourse of People still honour it, God most certainly hath wrought great Miracles there, and done the like even in this at Naza­reth. And though, saith he, the Translation of the house of Loreto may in some things seem contrary to Sense which is fallacious, yet Sense [Page 65] of lesse value, ought to be postposed, and all due respect given to the judgement of the most wise, who never called the Miraculous Translation into The Tran­slation never called into question Question. Among these wise he numbers at the beginning of his. 4.^th Chapter, Canisius, Mantuanus and stiles him Lauilatissimum Theolo­gum, à worthy Divine, Hieronymus Angelita, Secretary to the Common wealth of Recanati, More Au­thors quoted à most diligent and sincere man, witness his whole book of the house of Loreto. Baronius, Rutilius, Benzonius, and finally Franciscus Alcarotus in Itinerario terrae Sanctae, besides many more, cited by these Authors.

20. By all now said, you see the Dr's fraudu­lent The Dr's fraud disco­vered and unjust Proceeding, when he asks. How the Church of the Annuntiation at Nazareth should be removed to Italy, and yet remain still at Nazareth by the constant Tradition of the Eastern parts? Has this man any Conscience think ye, when upon à meer cheat he would perswade the Reader, that our Ladies Chappel was never translated to Italy, and to his eternal discredit, ground's the Cheat upon à gross errour, in not distinguishing between the Church of the An­nuntiation, and the translated Chappel? To take where his cheat lies? away all shift and evasion. He either makes the Church of the Annuntiation one and the same with the Chappel of Loreto, or different? If the Same; All Authors, as you have heard, flatly contradict him, and there is no Tradition con­stant or unconstant for that. If, which is most true, they are distinct Chappels, his Question is no less fraudulent than impertinent, for suppose à distinction of these two Chappels, the one may well remain at Nazareth, as it doth, and [Page 66] yet no way clash with the Translation of the other to Loreto, as we have amply proved already. Be it how you will, the D^r is Sha­mefully out, for if our Ladies Cell where she was Saluted by the Angel be at Loreto, we have our intent: and if it still remaine at Nazareth, the Dr's Scruples of an old house lasting so long without decay, and escaping ruin in the The Dr clearly con­vinced. General devastation made by Vespasian, are sen­celess and signify nothing, but thus much only, that the D^r writes he knowes not what.

21. The second Cheat concern's the com­mensuration made between the Angels Chap­pel, and the ancient foundations of our Ladies Another cheat concer­ning the Commensu­ration made, cleared by Novaria. Chamber found larger, saith the D^r, than the Angels Chappel. We ask here for à further discovery of his fraud, what he mean's by the Angels Chappel? If he Speak of the house of Loreto (and this he must mean or nothing) his errour is intolerable, as is now made out. In case he would only Say, that the old foun­dations of our Ladies Chappel are larger than the Angels Chappel built upon them, Thomas à Novaria hath given à full account thereof, and told you, that the Angels Chappel drawn in à little by reason of an addition laid to the old foundations of our Ladies translated house, Non adaequatur (to use his words) answer's not exact­ly, and this makes not at all for the Dr's pur­pose, yet clearly laies open his malice or igno­rance, if not both together.

22. Ponder now, courteous Reader on the one side the proofs produced for the Miracu­lous Translation of the Sacred house of Lore­to; weigh well on the other, how pittifully [Page 67] the D^r fumbles, while he impugn's it. You have not from him so much as one Argument Arguments alledged for the Chappels Translation, clear, and urgent. (excepting à few Negatives) brought against it. You have not one Author alledged, that call's the Miracle into doubt, and though here­after he quotes some Catholick writers, that in his eyes seem to question such and such à Story, yet in his handling the present Relation of Lo­reto, he is wholly silent, and gives you none, but himselfe, calling it an incredible fiction. Against the­se the Dr let's flie à few jeers and dissatis­factory Ne­gatives. Ponder I say these things well, and you will se how powerfully truth outfaces falshood, and must conclude, with Petra Sanctae. P. 39. Those seem not men in their wits, that boggle at so clear à Miracle? What saith this Author? Will these Hereticks upon the Authority of Pliny. L [...]h. 2. C. 8. believe by humane faith, that two Mountains neer Modena rose up, vio­lently justled one another, and again returned to their old Postures? Can they believe, be­cause What won­ders Here­ticks own upon huma­ne Faith. Authors say it, that some Cities in Syria seated upon Mountains were thrown six miles off into à Plain and there remain'd entire without dammage, and here doubt whether God can remove à little house from place to place? In doing so, they must either Que­stion his Omnipotency and this is madness, or scruple the fidelity of Authors already produced, which are not inferiour, but far more Credi­ble, than either Pliny, or Theophanes.

CHAP. V.

1. TO insist in this place upon the evident known Miracles wrought by the Inter­cession of the Blessed Virgin at Loreto, or to mention the Donaries offered there as Testimo­nies of gratitude, would be only à Transcription of what Tursellin, and other writers have am­ply performed to my hands. In à word. Our Saviours own Miracles (The blind see, the lame walk, men possessed with Divels, free'd &c.) have Our Sa­viours own Miracles, Manifest at Loreto. been manifestly done at Loreto. To relate all or halfe, would require à Volume. I must therefore wave them, and remit you to Tursellin for further Satisfaction, my task being only to encounter the Dr's more than Childish Caviles against some few, he quarrels with. One related by Tursellin. lib. 2. c. 18. is briefly thus.

2. A certain Priest of Dalmatia taken by the Turks was urged to renounce his Religion, but would not, still calling upon Christ and the Sacred Virgin, whereupon the barbarous Turks threatned to pull out his bowels if he did not curse them both, which by no threats he would do, but contrarywise made à vow to our Lady at Loreto, that if he lived he would goe thither in Pilgrimage. In à word, they open'd his brest, [Page 69] pulled out his Entrails, put them into his hands A Miracle Wrought upon à Priest of Dalmatia. and bid him be gone. The Priest went away, and after many daies journey came to Loreto, shewed there his open brest and entrails in his hands to the Officers of the Chappel, gave thanks to the Virgin Mother, made his confes­sion, received the Blessed Sacrament, and dyed there. The Entrails were hung up in the Chappel till they were nigh consumed. You may see the rest of the Story in Tursellin, now cited. is not this à A visible proof of the Miracle. Swinging Miracle, saith our Dr? Pray you mark what à Swinging answer he return's to it. To ask, saith he, how à man can breath without his lungs, or live without à heart, or by what ves­sels the Circulation of bloud was performed, The Dr's simple Ex­ception a­gainst it. were but to gratify Carnal reason too much, and he saies well, for just so an Atheist to gratify Carnal reason, might propose as wise à Que­stion, and ask. How Moses. Exod. 3. Saw à bush burn without being consumed, for this as much transcend's the force of Nature, as to se à man breath without his lungs, there­fore saith is required, Humane faith in one case, Divine in the other. Marry, saith the D^r (and here is his swinging reply) men must certainly have great store of faith, or folly rather and impu­dence, that dare call these Legends by the name of Authentick Testimonies. Is not this, think ye, à profound refutation of à Testimony so evident, that Tursellin hold's it à sin to doubt of it. I say Evident, all circumstances considered, however be it less, the Dr's answer is childish, which amount's to this. He either will not, or The Dr and Atheists argue alike. cannot believe the Story, Ergo it is false? After this strain, should an Atheist say. I neither [Page 70] will not can believe the Miracles in Scripture, he would prove as well (that's nothing at all) those Miracles to be false, as the D^r doth this, for all he brings against it, is only his own bare and blunt denial, and cannot an Atheist be as blunt as he? O! but Scripture Miracles are better grounded. What then? That help's not the D^r at all, for here we parallel not the cer­tainty of Scripture Miracles considered in them­selves, with others believed upon Humane What it is, we impugn in the Dr. faith, but compare this Dr's simple Impugnation with that of Atheists, and say they are both alike, ridiculous, foolish, and weightless.

3. The D^r goes on. There are very few Persons in the World but at some time or other of their lives, do meet with extraordinary deliverances, either from diseases, or other dangers. If any of these had gone to Loreto, and there acquainted the Panitentiary with it, it had been entered into the Tables and preserved (as à Tooth-drawer doth teeth) for the reputation of the place. I set down these A flat Ca­lumny. ungodly words, to shew you the virulent hu­mour of this man, who in stead of proving, rail's, and Calumniat's, for its well known that no Miracles enter the Tables at Loreto, or any other holy place, but such only as after most rigid examination are prudently judged, not casual deliverances, but works above the force of nature. Read Tursellin lib. 3. c. 25. and see how Miraculously à young woman of Sienna, stark blinde, and wholly despaired of by Physi­cians, recovered her perfect sight in the Pre­sence of many, while she devoutly prayed to our Lady in the Chappel of Loreto. Raphael Riera set's down the Miracle, and saies he was [Page 71] present when God did the wonder. Can this, which most deservedly entred the publick Tables, be called one of the Dr's extraordinary Was the blinde Mans Cure in the Gospel ac­counted only an extraor­dinary De­liverance? Deliverances? If so, why was not the blinde Mans cure wrought by our Saviour. Iohn the 9. Undervalued by the Jewes, and thought only an extraordinary Deliverance, but no Miracle, because the Spirit of Atheism will have it so.

4. In the next place our D^r fiercely op­poses the Miracle wrought upon Pope Pius the second, an old man broken with Labours, and The Miracle wrought upon Pope Pius. besides, much afflicted with à dangerous Cough, and à burning Feaver. The good Pope as Tursellin relates. Lib. 1. c. 26. having offered his Gift of à weighty golden Chalice to our Lady at Loreto, and made à Vow to visit the place, implored by earnest prayer, the blessed Virgins favour for his speedy recovery. No sooner had he done so, saith Tursellin, but his Feaver in à moment went off, the troublesome cough left him, his weak and feeble limbs worn away with à long Infirmity regained Strength, and this very suddenly. Pius therefore willing to comply with his vow, undertook his journey towards The Pope suddenly Cured. Ancona, and Loreto, and the neerer he drew to Loreto, the better he found himselfe in health, being there strong and well able, he performed his promise, and from thence went to Ancona, where (old as he was) he stayed in the Summer­heats expecting the Commander of the Venetian Navy, but at last wearied out with delay and age together, relapsed into his Feaver, and there dyed. Here our D^r begins to flutter. Call you this à Miracle? I know not, saith he, what kind of Miracles the Lady of Loreto works, I am [Page 72] sure Christ and his Apostles never wrought such. You erre grossly Mr D^r, Christ our Lord, Luke the. The like Miracle wrought by our Saviour. 4. 38. Presently cured Simons wives Mother sick of à burning Feaver, who Presently arose and ministred to them. And thus Pope Pius, forth­with, in à moment recovered health. But saith the D^r. Away the Pope goes for Ancona and there dies of his feaver, and is dying of à disease à Mira­culous Cure? Here he cheat's egregiously, be­cause à very considerable time passed between the Popes recovery and his death, as is clearly gathered from Tursellins whole Naration, therefo­re, How the Dr Cheat's. unless the D^r would have an old decayed man to live alwaies, I know not what he would say. Again, suppose that an accident caused by the heats at Ancona, and à wearisom expecting Soul­diers there had taken away the Popes life sooner, can this impair the clear evidence of the Miracle done? Pray you imagin, that some ex­traordinary heat had bereaved Lazarus of life à whole Month after he rose from the dead, or, that one by chance had put out the eyes of the blinde Man, cured by our Saviour; would either the one or the other Cross Casvality have made Christ's Miracles lesse famous, void, or The Cheat made mani­fest by two Instances. uneffectual? Yet thus the D^r discourses while he saies à Miracle is à perfect work, and that dying of à disease is not Miraculous, never reflecting on the respite of time, or the unexpected Accident which intervened between the Popes Cure, and 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 D^r having done with Pope Pius, [Page 73] 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 D^r 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 [Page 74] 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, M^r D^r, 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 D^r, 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 D^r. A very Cheat say I Re­flect Reader, would not any man who read's these lines in the D^r, 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 D^r 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, [Page 75] as it is most false, the D^r 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 D^r, 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 D^r, 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 D^r 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 [Page 76] 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 D^r 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 ungodly Spirit have proposed as wise à Question, and ask'd whether our Saviour was not as kind to the vvoman taken in Adultery. Iohn. 8. 3. to whom [Page 77] he said, Goe and sin no more? And this very effect of sinning no more after our Lady had A Serious answer, to the Dr's ungracious [...]eer. wrought the Cure, really shewed it selfe in this poenitent Convertite, who lived ever after innocently, and free from all blemish of impurity. What followes in the D^r is not worth refuting. First, he excepts against the single Testimony of this woman, insufficient to make the Mira­cle credible, whereas Tursellin gives for fur­ther Proofs the marks of her wound which could not be feigned, and her virtuous innocent life perseverantly held on without change, to her dying day. These are pregnant Circum­stances. Yet is it not possible, saith our D^r, to sup­pose that the Priests for the reputation of their house, may help out à lame Miracle with an advantagious Circumstance or two? D^r look to it. Far sweeter and more advantagious Circumstances How the Dr argues by unproved Suppositions. have drawn you to Chear the world as you have done, not by relating Miracles (for you have none) but by writing manifest untruths laid open before your eyes. These Priests (hitherto of unstained Credit) you could never yet tax of one falshood, but by unproved Suppositions, which overthrow all the Miracles in Scripture. Come close if you dare to the point, and shew me but one lame Miracle recorded by these Priests, A fair Offer made to the Dr. and in lieu of that, I do hereby engage to de­monstrate no lame but twenty swinging, gross, and palpable untruth's in your Books. Is not this plain dealing?

11 Much worse followes in our D^r, who after à long tattle of rich Iewels and silver Shrines presented to our Ladies Chappel, talk's of vast endowments which may tempt men to [Page 78] strain à little in such trifles as à few circumstances are. I answer, it is very true, that S. Andrewes Church in Holborn is not so enriched with Je­wels, Chalices, or shrines as our Ladies at Lo­reto, but, Sr, know, these are immoveable treasures belonging to the sacred house no wayes His Cavil of vast endowments, retorted. appropriable or beneficial to particular Priests, more than to look on them. Concerning the Cavil of vast endowments, I dare boldly avouch, that D^r Still: drawes vaster Incomes from his Cure and Prebendship, than any three Priests get to themselves at Loreto. And may not such Revenues think ye tempt the D^r to strain far, and help him on, to publish the open untruths found in his writings, when to use his own words, there is such à reward for lying? Believe it men need not to propose Cassius his Question, Cui bono. For the D^r will tell you, he has got well by his Trade. If he be not à loser at last, he has better luck than many à poor Priest, at Loreto.

12. Having thus briefly shewed the Dr The Dr iustly bla­meable in what he wrongfully accuses others. justly blameable in that he wrongfully accuses others, I am, as I said, in the next place after his talk of Shrines and Iewels to contest à little with him about his bitter Invectives against Tables hanging upon walls, wherein Miraculous Cures are expressed to the end, Pilgrims may be better informed of Gods wonderful works done by the Intercession of our blessed Lady, and other Saints, now happy in Heaven. Can any one Imagin, saith he, if all the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles had been done in this manner, and the Testimony of them only taken from Tables hanging upon walls, that ever Christianity would [Page 79] have prevailed upon the Ingenuous part of Mankind? I stand amazed at the strange procedure of this His simple exception against Ta­bles hanging on walls, exasperated man. What can he mean by these empty words. If the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles had been done in this manner. The manner is clear, Christs Miracles were first really wrought, take for an Instance the raysing of Lazarus from the dead, and tell me, if either of his Sisters, Mary or Martha, had written the whole Story in à Table, and hanged it Retorted, and Shew'd à trifling toy. upon à wall in their Castle, whether that would have prejudiced in the least our Saviours Miracle, or proved an offence to any? No certainly. Our offence is no more, We prove Miracles to have been truly wrought at Loreto (first seen by Ey-witnesses) and to preserve à memory of them Some (after rigid exami­nation, and approbation given by the Prelat's of the Church) are appointed to express the work's of God in Tables? It is hard to find any thing amiss here. Unless the D^r will have all Tables Cashier'd and be angry with God, for writing the ten Commandements in Tables of Stone, or rail at Moses who comming from the Mountain. Exod. 31. 15. carried the two Tables of the Testimony in his hands written on both Sides. There is yet more of this weightless stuff. The Miracles of Christ and his Apostles, saith the D^r, were not taken from any What Ta­bles serve for? Tables hanging upon walls, but were wrought in the view of his Enemies &c. I answer, neither is the Original Testimony of Miracles done at Loreto, taken from any written Tables; these serve only for à Memorial of what God hath done, the primary Evidence is taken from [Page 80] those Ey-witnesses (long since perhaps dead and gone) who saw them wrought. And must not all discourse thus of the Miracles related in Scripture? Scripture t'is well known, gives no Evidence of its own Miracles, but supposes them truly done, and makes them to us matters of Divine Faith: So these Tables lay not be­fore Tables give not the first Evidence of Miracles. you the Primary Evidence of the Miracles there related, (for that is truly supposed) but make them credible upon humane faith.

13. To the Dr's second Cavil of Christ's Miracles being publickly wrought in the sight of enemies, I may well say, thanks be to God. that our Saviour has now more friends, than he had at his first preaching to the vvorld. Believe An other cheat refuted it, Miracles wrought in the Church evident­ly seen by both friends and Enemies, have gained many, Witness that strange wonder done at Zaragosa in Spain, of S. Januaries blood boyling up, and the Evident cure wrought upon John Clement. Now if any of these prodigious things contrary to the common Miracles publickly wrought in the Church. course of nature, had been written in publick Tables, as they are yet preserved upon Record, would, that think ye, have impaired their Credit or made them lesse Miraculous? It is à plain degree of madness to Judge So.

14. We have in the next place à Swinging Objection. They, saith the D^r, who attested the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles did not sit to receive Presents, or to tell tales, as he thinks those at Loreto do. One word, M^r D^r. We read. Act. 4. 35. That after the Apostles had given Testimony of our Saviours Miracu­lous The Apostle? received presents. Resurrection, very many sold what they had, [Page 81] and laid all down at the Apostles feet, so Io­seph, called Barnabas sold à piece of land, and brought the money to the Apostles. Did not those blessed men receive Presents for pious uses? Please now to Consider. All that belongs to the house of Loreto, is either reduced to the temporal means given by Pious Christians for the necessary maintainance of those who serve the Chappel, and do you not know saith the Apostle. 1. Cor. 9. 13. That they who mi­nister in the Holy place, eate the things that are of the holy place: and they that serve the Altar participate with the Altar &c. Now if D^r Still: except against such Donations, he is to quit Donaries offer'd at Loreto, of two Sorts, the Rents of S. Andrew and his Prebendship too, for these Originally came from the charitable Liberality of the like devout Christians, who cast their wealth at the Apostles feet, though (God knowes) they never intended that such men as the D^r is, should enioy them. Or. 2. both lauda­ble, He Cavils at the Donaries presented to our Lady at Loreto, and these, whether votive Oblations for the attaining favours, confident­ly hoped; or grateful acknowledgements of favours received, though they add nothing to the Priests Temporals, yet are praise worthy and approved by Antiquity. Read the an­cient and Learned Theodoret. Tom. 4. Paris print. 1642 Sermo: 8. de Martyribus p. 605, where speaking of the glorious, and well adorned Temples of the Martyrs, he saith. I, and others often meet there together, and we sing praises to and appro­ved by Anti­quity, wit­ness Theo­deret. Almighty God. Those that enioy perfect health beg à continuance of it, the infirm or diseased sue by their prayers for health. Women barren, petition [Page 82] to become Mothers, and when their request is granted, they pray that the Children may be pre­served from danger, yet we goe not to these Mar­tyrs as Gods, but pray to them as Intercessors &c. But how doth Theoderet show that those who ask with Faith and confidence, obtain what they petition for? He answers. [...] &c. The Donaries offered by good People openly witness that many have been cu­red, whereof some hang up little pictures of Eyes, others of feet, others of hands, made of gold and silver, and these Images presented by such Little Ima­ges of feet and hands, offer'd in the Temples of Martyrs. as have recovered health, though little, are acceptable to God, and testimonies of the favours received. Now if larger gifts have been offered at Loreto, they yet come short of the Primitive Christians Zeal, who laid down all they had before the Apostles feet.

15. Our D^r. P. 461. Still vexed at the hanging up of Tables, tell's us, it is à practise taken from Heathens, among whom nothing was more usual, than to set up votive Tables in the Temples of their Gods. I answer. If the D^r will have the Tables at Loreto taken down, because it Seem's à Heathenish custome to keep them there, He ought to pull down S. Andrewes Church in Holborn, and publick­ly disswade the whole Nation from building any more Steeple houses, for fear of doing A ridiculous Objection. what the Heathens did. Here, S^r, is the whole force of your Argument (which to me appears nonsence) Se how it run's without legs. Christians in somethings do, and ever will [Page 83] do, as the Heathens did, That is, they eate, drink, and sleep, they make Churches and frequent them, they hang up their Tables (I have seen some in Canterbury Church) as you not long Since hung up the Table of the Ten Commandements in your Churches. Ergo, Heathens and Chri­stians in Some things do the same. both you and we are Heathens, and with as good Logick proved Geese, because à Goos goes upon two legs, and so do all men, whe­ther Heathens, or not. It is your very Ar­gument easily put in form, Mr Dr. O! but the Heathens set up their votive Tables in the Temples of those Gods they were addicted to, some to Neptune in case of escape from Ship­wrack, others to Isis and Aesculapius in case of recovery from dangerous diseases, and the same custome faith Lambin upon Horace, con­tinues still, only in stead of the Heathen Gods, we do it to the Virgin Mary, or some Saint. And is not this à vast disparity? Observe well. The Heathens make their votive Tables or A vast dis­parity be­tween the practise of Heathens and Catho­licks, prayed to wicked dead wretches, whom they falsely called Gods. We pray to the Blessed Virgin most certainly in Heaven, and likewise to other Saints now glorious in Blisse, and say they are not the supream God, but Creatures made by his Omnipotent power. Ergo (and mark the nonsence, or dull Consequence) we do as Pagans doe, though most opposit to them in our Proceeding.

16. It is here needless to insist longer upon this particular, seing Dr. T. G. in his late learned Treatise. Catholicks no Idolaters. Part. 3. c. 1. hath stoutly foyled the D^r, and given à plain disparity between Catholicks honour [Page 84] relating to Saints, and the Heathens worship towards their Inferiour Deities. All I am to take Laid out la­tely by à Worthy Do­ctor. notice of in this place, is the impertinent sim­plicity of D^r Still. Who bring's in à whole drove of Poets, Virgil, Ovid, Tibullus &c. Men­tioning what Lambin upon Horace had obser­ved. But to what purpose, unless it be to show his skill in Poetry, I cannot Imagin, yet well remember that when Baptista Mantuanus, an excellent Poet, à Christian, à good Divine, and à Religious Man, was cited above to authorise the Translation of our Ladies Chap­pel, the D^r discarded him with à flurt of his finger. No wonder, saith he, if Mantuan found the story fit for à Poets brain to work upon. And here, Dr Stilling­fleets un­worthy Pro­ceeding. Heathens, and prophane Poets, are with great gravity Vshered in, to Countenance Lambins loud lye: Viz. That we honour the Blessed Virgin just as the Heathens did their false supposed Gods. In this occasion it seems the Poets brains were sanctified, and had very fit matter to work upon.

17 A main Objection remain's yet untou­ched, and is taken from à remarkable Testimony of Diodorus Siculus given of Isis in Fgipt. Biblioth. Histor. Lib. 1. p. 22. This Isis had great skill in Phy­sick, A vain Fable related by the Dr of Isis, and being advanced to Immortality took great content in the cure of men, to whom she often appea­red in their sleep, (as saith the D^r, it is in very many of those of Loreto) and shewed great readines to help them, The evidence whereof, is not taken from the Fables of the Greeks, but is proved by matter of fact, for the whole world bear's witness to it, by the honour given her. In à word she cured many given over by Physicians, the blind and lame have been [Page 85] healed by her, and which is more, saith Diodorus (the D^r wisely leaves it out) this Goddess in­vented à strange Medcine able to make men im­mortal, nay, she restored life to dead Horus, the last King of Egipt, and if you desire to hear what Isis said of herselfe, turn to the next Page in Diodorus. I, said she, am Queen of this whole Coun­try. The law established by me no man shall break. All à long Dotage and Madness. I am the Eldest daughter of the great God Saturn. I am both wife and daughter to King Osiris. I am she that first invented all kind of grain and Corn. I am the that dayly rises in the Dog-star. These Fop­peries and à hundred more you have related of à Heathen, and written by à Heathen, our wise D^r tells gravely, as à remarkable Story against the honour given to our Blessed Lady, and bid's. E. W. Produce more Authentick Sto­ries than these are.

18. What can the D^r drive at think ye? Will he perswade the Reader that Isis (the like is of Ceres and the Statue of Hercules cited after­ward) in real truth wrought such Miracles? Did she who believed not in one true God, effectually raise the dead to life? Did She restore sight to How the Dr is urged, if he own the­se pretended Heathenich Miracles, true. the blind, and health to the lame? Grant this; The D^r highly disparages our Saviours own Miracles and takes from them life and Vigour, in à word all Credibility. Observe my reason. Had the D^r been present when Christ raised Lazarus to life, or cured the blind man in the Gospel, might he not have slighted those won­ders, and said that the Goddess Isis had done as much as these came to, for she restored life to King Horus à long time dead, as the Egiptians [Page 86] recount upon undeniable Authentick Testimonies saith the D^r. She also cured many blind and The Doctrin of Christ, and Isis, quite Con­trary. lame, if therefore her Miracles are true, might not the D^r have Said, y ours, o Lord signify nothing to me, while you preach à quite Con­trary Doctrin to Isis and confirm it, as you tell us in the Gospel, by works which no other (least of all Heathens) had ever done, and here we shew you by à remarkable Testimony, that Isis, Ceres, and Hercules did before you came into the world, works as great as yours. How shall we discern between the true and the coun­terfeit wonders? Or shall we say all are alike true, or all alike Counterfeit?

19. On the other side, if the D^r Quotes not this remarkable Testimony to prove the truth of these Heathenish Miracles, but hold's all meer If the Dr, as he must, account them Foole­ries, they are pure Imper­tinences. fictions. To what purpose hath his Testimo­ny place here, or upon what account is it so remarkable? For, if we may truly suppose, that the Infidel Isis never raised à dead man to life, or cured the blind and lame, it is senceles to infer from thence, that God by the Intercession of our Lady never wrought any such Miracles, when to Confront the D^r, we produce (as he desires) undeniable Evidence, and appeal not only to Miracles wrought at Loreto, which as you have heard he turn's off with jeers, but more over, lay before his eyes those two late Miracles most manifestly wrought upon Iohn Clement at Montaigu, and that other done at Zaragosa. I am forced often to remind the Reader of these Miracles, because its à shame to se how un­worthily the D^r in his whole ensuing discourse [Page 87] (like one that would fain bite, but dares not) here and there twitches at them, but at last van­quished Miracles wrought by our B. Lady, most Cer­tain, with Evidence and quite dashed out of Countenance, Silently sit's down and fairs no­thing. Queen Christina of Sweden Proceeded otherwise, when being at Bruxells she heard much of the Latter Miracle, and treating with the Gouvernour there, Count Feuntsaldaria, asked whether his Excellence could procure her an Authentick Testimony of it from Zaragosa? The Count answered, he both could and would procure it from the Bishop of the place, and if need were from the Magistrate also, and, as I am certainly informed, did so. Where­upon the Queen received great satisfaction, prudently judging it à thing morally impossi­ble, that the whole Kingdom of Spain (to say nothing of other Nations) should be led by the nose, to own that as à true Miracle, which And held as Certain the whole world over. our D^r must say was Leger demain, or à jug­ling trick of the Spanish Clergy, and of all those witnesses that swore to it. But of this subject more hereafter, when we examin, whether Heathens and Hereticks ever wrought true Miracles. And. 2. show, how the Miracles of Christ and the Church may be discerned from the Counterfeit wonders of God's Enemies. Thus much concerning the Translation of the holy house at Loreto, judge, Courteous Reader, whether we have not found the D^r Shamefully out of the way, in his Pilgrimage thither, and we Shall, I assure you, find him as very à Strag­ler in his further Travels to Compostella &c. when we Prosecute the remainder of his En­quiry, [Page 88] which, God willing, I intend to perform at better Leisure. In the mean, what you have now set down, may well give the D^r à Present entertainment, and 'tis more, I believe, than he Can answer.