The infallibility of the Roman Catholick church and her miracles, defended against Dr. Stillingfleets cavils, unworthily made publick in two late books, the one called An answer to several treatises, &c., the other A vindication of the Protestant grounds of faith, against the pretence of infallibility in the Roman church, &c. / by E.W. ; the first part.

CHAP. III.

Doctor Stillingfleets Rule and ground of faith, proved no Rule. It lessens not in the least the Churches Infallibility.

1 OUr Dr by what I read in this first Part, chiefly build's his whole Religion upon the sufficiency of Scripture, easily understood in Necessa∣ries by à Faculty that every man hath of discerning of truth and falshood, where∣in he much cleaves to Socinianism, and followes exactly the steps of Mr Chiling∣worth. Here and there he recurr's to Gods Grace and to other helps, but saies not plainly what those helps are, nei∣ther can he, while his whole endeavour is to exclude the Church from being the Rule or ground of Faith.

2 In behalfe of Scripture he laies down this Proposition. P. 99. Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God, yet such à way of writing being made choice of by him, we may justly say, that it is repugnant to the nature of the designe and the Wisdom and Goodnes of God, to give Infallible

assistance to persons in writing his will for the benefit of mankind, if these writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely en∣deavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their Salva∣tion. From this Principle he would con∣clude, that if those writings may be un∣derstood by all persons, its needles to rely on any Church (whether fallible or infallible) for our instruction in ne∣cessaries, because Scripture alone wi∣thout the Church is the Master-Teacher, and à faculty granted every man of dis∣cerning truth and falshood, which can∣not but hit right upon these necessaries, knowes them all.

3 This Principle learnedly refuted by the Ingenious Author of Errour-Non∣plus't. P. 81. supposes what neither is pro∣ved nor ever shall be made probable. Viz. That an infinit Wisdom and Good∣ness 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 writ∣ten 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,

who relies on his private judgement, is secured from errour after à sincere en∣deavour to find his faith of all necessa∣ries 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, An∣titrinitarians, 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 Consub∣stantial with his eternal Father. Others to be truly Man. Some speak well of God's unity, but refuse to own à Tri∣nity of persons. Others finally submis∣sively yeild to these great Mysteries and hold them as undoubted revealed veri∣ties, the beliefe whereof is necessary to Salvation, after à due Proposal. Of such Articles I profess to speak, waveing at

present all others, if any be of lower con∣cern, 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 Chri∣stians that hold contradictions in the very Necessaries for Salvation, may be brought to à unity in Faith? Or con∣trarywise, hath not left any such easy way, or means. If not; Christ is à most uncharitable Saviour, who on the one si∣de obliges us to believe the fundamental Necessaries, yet on the other, cast's all even the most learned upon an impossibi∣lity of ever finding them, for if the certain means whereby to find what we seek for, fails (as is now supposed) our enquiry af∣ter Necessaries, is meerly à lost and fruit∣less labour.

6 Doctor Still: who tells us, that God is not wanting in Necessaries to the Sal∣vation of mankind, thinks, as you have heard, That Scripture pondered by eve∣ry mans discerning faculty, without any other infallible Guide, is the best Tea∣cher, the clearest light, and chiefest means whereby all sincere Endeavourers may easily attain the knowledge of these Ne∣cessaries. First, the D^r makes here too

much hast, for he should on this occa∣sion have given in an exact Catalogue of his Necessaries, these being of so high con∣cern, that if one be mistaken, or left out of his catalogue which is absolutely Ne∣cessary, Faith faulters, and Salvation depending on Necessary Faith, misca∣ries 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 sup∣posed.

7 My Argument goes on. The Learned Socinians, the learned Arians with others, read and ponder the same Scripture you read Mr Dr. They want no more the Faculty of discerning be∣tween 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 le∣arned Christians also. What redress

now? Where have we the means pre∣scribed by Christ to make us all of one Faith in this one Necessary already Spe∣cified? 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 fai∣ling, 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 wor∣thy beliefe, he may boldly abiure Christ, God and man, and yet be saved? In like manner I ask, whether, à learned Prote∣stant, if after à serious reading he judges that Christ is truly God and believes qui∣te 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

verily think his Principles carries him to that desperate concession) with what conscience can he oblige Christians under pain of damnation to believe Christs Godhead, as à revealed verity most ne∣cessary to Salvation? For in real truth it is not so, because men professing Chri∣stianity may be saved without that be∣liefe, and if Salvation may be had, though this Mystery be with contempt rejected, it fol∣lowes, that nothing of Christian Do∣ctrin 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 damna∣tion, upon their denying Christ's God∣head, 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 propo∣sed return's again as vigorously as ever. We therefore ask by what clear way or

means (Christ most certainly hath affor∣ded means) can à serious Seeker after Necessaries, discern between these since∣re not erring Christians, and those others who err? Unless these be easily distin∣guished, unlesse it be known to what par∣ticular 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 ne∣gligent, an Enquirer after Necessaries may as well close with the Arian and be∣lieve 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 Chri∣stians 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 particu∣lar 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

beliefe of Necessaries.) Can this man avoid the mischief intended, by virtue of à general knowledge, that some would de∣stroy 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 Sal∣vation, but by your Rule we know not particularly which of the Two goe about to ensnare us, both of you cannot be sup∣posed 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 be∣gan in à Labyrinth, nothing is ended the way, nothing concluded. Wil you say the Arian wants Gods grace? He ve∣rily judges you want it more, and wh•• is to be believed? Will you say the le∣arned 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 Scrip∣tures?

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 right∣ly understand Scripture, is yet à secret not knowable by your Rule.

10 By what is said you se the dis∣consolate condition all zealous Seekers after truth are left in. The Guidance of an Infallible Church is set naught by. The necessary truths for salvation, can∣not, 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 unneces∣aries, 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 dissen∣tions

about these Necessaries? Is it true, that all these cannot be supposed voluntarily to damn themselves by im∣piously 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 ••

may be understood by all Christians, who sincerely endeavour to know its meaning in Necessaries. A great diffi∣culty remain's concerning Iewes and Gen∣••ils. Viz. How such Aliens from Christ may be gained to believe the Necessa∣ries 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 con∣version? 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 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

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, for∣sooth, Scripture must prove both parts of the Contradiction? Again though Scripture were supposed clear in Neces∣saries, 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 con∣tradictions. 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,

13 I say first, if à true beliefe of the Divine word made flesh be à necessary for Salvation; and if the Truth, the Infallibi∣lity, or sence of the Revelation whereby the Mystery is attested lies dark, (yea im∣possible to be found out by Scripture alo∣ne) one of these two things inevitably follow. Viz. That the wise Providence of God hath either appointed some ora∣cle 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 Revela∣tion 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 ap∣pointed by God to declare the Truth the Infallibility, and sence of every revealed Necessary, and prove my Assertion. The end of Divine Revelation is to settle in all faithful minds à firm beliefe concer∣ning the Truth, Infallibility, and mea∣ning of every revealed Necessary (for why doth God reveal truly and infallibly but to beget in us true and Infallible ••aith?)

But Scripture it selfe evidences not this Divine truth, Infallibility, and meaning, nor tell's us which are Necessaries, therefore an Oracle appointed by God, is both im∣powred and obliged to declare these par∣ticulars certainly and Infallibly. I say Infalli∣bly, for if it faulter but in one, or give us only weak Topicks and doubtfull pro∣babilities, the end of God's Infallible Re∣velation 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 Re∣ligion. Disc. 2. c. 19. n. 2. 3. But no answer from him yet.

15 I Argued 2. what ever Necessa∣ry 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 Neces∣saries (for what God reveal's is infallibly true) therefore as doubtfully proposed, it appeares à changeling only, à fallible truth, wholly unfit to support Divine Faith. Some will say it is yet in it selfe à Divine truth, though proposed fallibly. Who knowes that? If neither Scripture, nor Oracle distinct from Scripture, nor all the Doctors and Pastors on earth can infallibly avouch that S. John spake à

Divine Infallible Truth when he said. The Word is made flesh, much lesse can they ascertain any of the sence of these words, or evince that they contain à Ne∣cessary 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 An∣swer, I suppose, that moral certainty as it is distinguished from Infallible certainty may in rigour be false, or if not; that mo∣ral, 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 Myste∣ry of the Incarnation in Scripture, do we say, he hath told us that Secret by à Revela∣tion, 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 Reve∣lation, though likely to be true, is yet be∣cause only morally certain, possible to be false or à lye? Grant this, and it fol∣lowes that, that high perfection of Infal∣libility intrinsick to Divine Revelation lies out of sight, and in order to Faith is, as if it were not, and therefore can have no Influence upon beliefe. The reason

hereof is manifest, for although we know if God Speak, he speak's infallibly, yet all the men on earth cannot know infallibly by Faith, or by any other act previous to faith, that his infallible Revelation enga∣ged in this Mystery, assert's it, or is cer∣tainly in being, because the best and su∣rest certainty men can attain in this life of any Revelation is only Moral and may be false, But such à knowledge deter∣min's none without fear and hesitancy to judge absolutely that God speaks in∣fallibly, or that he speak's as beseem's God, for our Salvation. By this short Discourse you se, it is in effect the very sa∣me to say. God reveal's not infallibly any one Necessary, as to say, we neither know nor can believe that he reveal's it infalli∣bly. 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 know∣ledge, did ever any Heterodox Christian

content themselves with it in such Te∣nets 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 in∣fallible Divine Truths

17 Now this Church evidenced by Supernatural wonders, (neither Prophet or Apostle had ever greater) is the Infal∣lible Oracle I have hitherto pointed at in general Terms only. Her Conver∣sions, Miracles, and other publick Signatu∣res of Gods infinit Power and VVisdom whe∣reby she is proved God's Oracle, are par∣ticularly declared Reas: and Relig: Disc: 3. c. 15. And her Infallibility is amply evin∣ced 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 Argu∣ments 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 certain∣ty terminated upon Gods Revelation, he

is so strait hearted, that nothing is allo∣wed by him but à great moral probabi∣lity which may be false. In lieu of an Infallible Church which plainly declares her Necessary Doctrin, he thrusts into our hands à Bible most certainly obscu∣re, 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 Judge∣ment 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 Au∣ditors with their sincere and serious en∣deavour made concerning Necessaries, dis∣sent from him? What if they underval∣ve his private discerning faculty, and pre∣fer their own, quite opposite to his? May both he and they hold contradi∣ctions 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 un∣sound,

but pernicious also, and distru∣ctive to Christian faith, as is now pro∣ved.

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 le∣arned 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 Chur∣ches Infallibility, but he is wary and kno∣wes well to shuffle, when need is.

Notes

• Dr Still:rule of Faith proved no rule.
• My Asser∣tion proved.
• A difficulty proposed con∣cerning ne∣cessaries.
• None can know by the Drs rule who are sin∣cere belie∣vers, who not.
• The force of my Argu∣ment, yet more illu∣strated.
• Neither the Drs rule, nor his ra∣tional Evi∣dence avail's to the Con∣version of Iewes and Gentils.
• The necessity of an Infalli∣ble living Oracle.
• Infallible and moral Certainty imply à dif∣ference.
• A moral certain Faith which may be false is not Faith.
• The Drs foolish Choi∣ce, and exchange of Principles.