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. IX.

D^r Stilling: pretended Evidence for Christian Religion proved nothing like Evidence. His Evidence taken from Sense in the Mystery of the holy Eucharist demonstrated Sensless. How vainly he endeavour's to prove by Miracles related in Scripture the Truth of the Doctrin there registred. A word of his Tradition, and many other errours.

1 THe D^r P. 416, goes about to ex∣plain what is meant by his ratio∣nal Evidence of Christian Religion, and ground's it upon the unquestionable assu∣rance 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 not this man say in points remote from us, when in à plain matter of fact, he be∣guiles his Reader with most loud un∣truths?

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 unparalla∣led 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 Re∣ligion to be assuredly true by Motives as obscu∣re as the very Doctrin of Christian Religion is, either evinces nothing, or makes à vicious Circle; But thus the D^r proceeds, whose rational Evidence, or unquestionable assurance of Christian Religion is proved

by matters of fact, Miracles I mean, wrought by Christ, which Miracles, are as obscure to à Heathen, and as much obiects of Faith to Christians, as the very Doctrin of Christ is, recorded in Scripture, Therefore he proves nothing. Se more hereof. n. 12. cited.

2 The other piece of the D^r'^s ratio∣nal Evidence taken from Sense which he 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 un∣changeable, 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 overa∣wes 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 Beth∣lem, or those Angels that appea∣red to Lot. Genesis 19? He would certainly have judged upon the

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 assen∣ted to the Divine Revelation? Nay more, doth not the D^r tell us in his Ac∣count 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 Pre∣sence of Christ, in and with, those signs to the Souls of the Believers? This unex∣plicated Presence of Christ in, and with bread (be it what you will) is as much contrary to Sence, as Christs real Pre∣sence 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 Belie∣vers,

à real presence of Christ? such Souls I suppose believe not meer phan∣sies. Now if the Accidents essentially exclude not another substance, I hope Christ's sacred body may be as well pre∣sent 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 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 na∣tural things then the D^r, perswaded him∣self. 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 Trea∣tise,

may plead our cause, and be admit∣ted as sound Principles against the errour of à few Sectaries. Thus much premi∣sed 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 rational∣ly 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. He∣rein 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 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

not really bread, yet it is à meer dream to inferr from thence, that every moun∣tain I cast my eyes upon, is not really à Mountain, but in appearance only, and consequently in the D^r'^s judge∣ment à falshood, for what Consequen∣ce is this? God wrought à Miracu∣lous 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 appea∣rance. A mad discourse if ever any was, which more ruin's all the Cities in the world, then the last dismal fire de∣stroyed noble London.

4 Mark well, Courteous Reader, the force of my Argument, I do not by what is hitherto said goe about to prove the Conversion of bread into Christ's sa∣cred body (that is cleared upon other grounds) but only proceed upon à Supposition,

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 Instan∣ces.

5 Tell me, saith he, what assurance could the Apostles have of the Resurrection of Christ's individual body from the grave, but the jud∣gement 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

must be supposed, or D^r Still: Argu∣ment becomes forceles) but did I ever yet tell you, that the body you now be∣hold with your Eyes is only à Spectre, or an apparition of my body? No? upon what ground then, or by what Autho∣rity, can you rationally infer out of my working one miracle upon bread, that 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 natu∣ral 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 in∣to 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 Mi∣racles confirm it, and the most learned Doctors that ever lived, shall leave this my Doctrin upon Record to the utter confusion of all Hereticks. The Dr may demand upon what ground can I imagin that our Saviour would have argued thus against his Disciples? I

answer, my ground is incomparably more sure, than any the D^r can give, or endeavour to perswade by, that the A∣postles were ever so sottish as to have thought of his ridiculous Obiection, For all I say here are Truths owned over Chri∣stendom and worthy to be spoken by out Saviour, but his Obiection never wise or Orthodox man seriously propo∣sed, before himself.

6 What followes in the D^r is no more but one Tautologie after another, Or the same thing (already casheired) said too often over. When, saith he, the assu∣rance of Christian Religion came from the jud∣gement of the Senses of those who were Eye∣witnesses of the Miracles, and the Resurrection of Christ, if the Senses of men may be so grosly deceived in the proper obiects of them in the case of Transubstantiation, what assurance could they have who were Eye-witnesses of them? A long period with many falsities, to no purpose. I have answered to what here import's, that though our senses be de∣ceived in the case of Transubstantiation (which is not true) yet we have as much certainty in every other thing we se or feel, as the D^r hath when he sees or feels the pulpit he preaches in, Vnless this Se∣quel be allowed of: My eyes are once decei∣ved (if yet so) ergo, they must alwaies be de∣ceived.

Or, à Iugler can make me se what is not, ergo, I never se what is. Again saith he. 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 con∣sequently 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 convin∣cing, 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 de∣ceived, nor so much beguiled as the eye is, when we se à straight stick crooked in the water, for here the Medium makes that to appear crooked

which is not, there in the Eucharist, the immediate obiect of sense is seen as be∣fore, 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, and this the D^r must prove, or he evin∣ces nothing. Thus much noted, I challenge and charge the D^r to disco∣ver 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 prudent∣ly judge, that he also changed those stones the Divel shew'd him. Matt: 4. into good bakers bread, though out∣wardly 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 custome hath been, silently passes by my reasons hitherto alledged, and only tells his old stories over again of our sen∣ses being deceived &c. I shall retort his own words upon him, and conclude,

that his School find's no answer to my Arguments.

8 Another grand errour of this Dr is, that he attributes more to the Eviden∣ce 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 pro∣per 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 trans∣form'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 out∣ward appearance dead to all senses by An∣tichrists 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 be∣tween

the true resuscitation of Iairus daughter Luke. 8. 55. and this counter feit Miracle of Antichrist? In his Prin∣ciples he cannot difference them, if gui∣ded 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 discour∣se further. He Iudges what he see's in 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 per∣swade, that it is not bread. Yeild this (and the D^r yeilds all) He is obliged to own this seeming Miracle of Anti∣christ 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 Con∣form's his Judgement to the perswa∣sion of his senses in the one, and truly hold's à consecrated host to be bread, he

cannot but upon the same Evidence Judge, that Antichrist's Miracle is à true Miracle. No disparity can be given. O! but Scripture so often fore∣warning us of Antichrist's false Mira∣cles, much abates, yea wholly with∣drawes every sound Christian from be∣lieving 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 there∣fore 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 Stron∣gest 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 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?

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 Chri∣stian 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 after∣ward) yet had they seen him in that in∣stant, can the Dr judge that the assuran∣ce of the Apostles Faith came from that sight? Doth he or any ground Faith upon the sight of those who beheld Christs Miracles, while the very best Eye-witnesses believed not, because they saw them, but upon this strong Motive, that Christ told them he was sent from God to teach eternal truth, and that now risen

he was the same Saviour, who had been dead. Gods Infallible word therefore (rightly called Divine Revelation, not seen by any mortal eye) grounded the A∣postles 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 Reli∣gion came from the judgement of sense, his meaning only was, that the sight of those Miracles were Inducements to be∣lieve 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 Chri∣stian Doctrin, by endeavouring to prove it immediatly true, before he evinces it evi∣dently credible: And this he doth by in∣troducing à new set of Motives (diffe∣rent from those of the Catholick Church) which both Jewes and Gentils scorn, and in reallity neither evidence the Truth to such men, nor the Credibility of Christian Religion, much lesse have any reference to the Thing he calls Protestancy, as will appear afterward.

11 To make my Assertion good, turn, courteous Reader, to the Doctors Account. Part. 1. c. 7. P. 204, where he

offer's to resolve the Faith of Prote∣stants, 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 Reli∣gion also, Supposing, what he will have with all might and main Supposed, that there is no Infallible Church.

12 There are, saith he, three Que∣stions to be resolved in the resolution of Faith. First if I be asked, on what grounds I believe the things to be true, which 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 de∣ceive men by their writings, and if I be certain that these which go under the name of their writings are undoubtedly theirs, I have sufficient grounds to believe the truth of them. He add's more. These writers cannot be suspected of ignorance, for they wrot these things when the story was new, and some of them had been conversant with the person and actions of him, whom they writ of. That they could have no intent

to deceive, appear's from their simplicity and Candour both of their actions and wri∣tings, 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 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 Pro∣positions carry no other weight with

them, but thus much only, if what is sup∣posed 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 be∣lieve him, but as that conditional proves not Peter honest, no more do these Assertions of the D^r being only condi∣tional, 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 Scrip∣ture 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 pro∣poses, and what the Scripture it selfe barely relates. Would this Philosopher, think ye, after his pondering the Dr'^s Dis∣course and reading Scripture, forthwith acquiesse and say all is true, he reads?

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 tradi∣tion, but whether Scripture or the Alcaron speaks truth, whether such men, as the Dr mentions related exactly the Mira∣cles 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 contai∣ned in Scripture, whether Miracles or Doctrin, are not ex terminis any Self evi∣dence, 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 evi∣dently 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

So, when he told the Manichaes, He would not believe the Gospel unless the Au∣thority 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 induce∣ment 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 Con∣tents 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 Do∣ctrin couched in Scripture to prove it selfe, and drawes his rational Evidence of Credibi∣lity from the Mysteries believed. Observe well. He believes the Resurrection of Christ from the dead (for this is an Ar∣ticle of Faith) can he, I beseech you, make the Resurrection it self, as believed,

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, 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 Ro∣man Catholick Church, fall's to nothing; for, if the common humane consent of the ancient Christians (Supposed nei∣ther Devine Revelation nor infallible) raised our Saviours Miracles to Moral cer∣tainty, or evident Credibility, Then, why should not the like common humane Consent of Christians Now, make the

Miracles owned in the Roman Catho∣lick Church, morally certain, or evidently credible? And I speak of Miracles appro∣ved 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 Mira∣cles wrought in the Catholick Church, both Jewes and Gentils will shrewdly pester him, and avouch as boldly, that those Primitive Christians, over Credu∣lous, (like papists in these dayes) were no less beguiled in their crying up Apo∣stolical 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 In∣fallible Church.

17 I answer. 2. The enquiry here made, concern's not only the bare truth of these matters of fact recorded in Scrip∣ture, but implies more, for we ask how these matters of fact are rationally proved truths written by the Assistance of the Holy

Ghost, or how, (when supposed wrought sixteen Ages since), they are now con∣veyed 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 mani∣fested 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 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 alrea∣dy 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.

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 Evi∣dence, and conveigh's it to us by Tradi∣tion, which supplies the want of our Senses, as to what Christ did and spake. I shall pre∣sently 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 fai∣rest play imaginable, I gratis admit, all the Miracles and matters of fact recor∣ded 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 those Miracles, who at this day, among so many dissenting Christians in points of Faith

most fundamental, believe and profess Christ's true Doctrin? For his rational Evidence if it deserve the Title of ratio∣nal, 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 exam∣ple, profess Christ's true Doctrin, and Protestants not: Or Contrarywise, Protestants believe right, and the A∣rians 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 discomfor∣table Evidence that ever wise man pitch't upon, whereof more presently. n. 27.

Note in the mean while, he may perhaps (and no more but perhaps) tell us by his 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 pro∣fesses 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 pre∣sent 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 ra∣tionally à true Oracle, whereby God speak's to the world, as ever any Apostle did. From this glorious, signalized, and

long standing Church, we take our ra∣tional Evidence and know, if the Primitive Christians took theirs right from the Apostolical wonders, we no way Inferiour, keep parallel with them, while we ratio∣nally rely upon our clear manifested Oracle. Moreover, we prove that this Church which hath power from God to teach, and engages her whole Autho∣rity to teach Truth, shewes herselfe by real Signs and Miraculous effects, the greatest Oracle now under God, appoin∣ted 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, 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,

forsooth, evince the Doctrin in Scripture to be Divine upon à meer unproved Suppo∣sition, 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 Testi∣mony, whereby full assurance is given to all in this present State, that both Do∣ctrin 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 à meer unproved Supposition. Viz. That such matters of fact are true, is a break-neck to his Discourse, and an una∣proachable 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 Infalli∣ble Church is rejected.

22 These Considerations clearly laid down, no less clearly evince the D^r'^s reso∣lution of Faith to be frivolous, and his

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, sig∣nify 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 toge∣ther, and are proposed in the Creed, as necessary believeable Verities. I believe in Iesus Christ. I believe the Holy Catholick Church. As therefore to believe all that

Christ taught, confessedly required the light of glorious Motives, whereby his Do∣ctrin 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 Con∣versions been wrought, no more Mar∣tyrs dyed for God's truth, no more con∣tempt 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 such necessity in succeeding Ages to confirm the same Doctrin by Miracles. I have answe∣red this very Obiection. Reas. and Relig: Disc: 2. c. 7. and shewed the Continua∣tion

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 there∣fore, 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, 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 Aposto∣lical Miracles being wrought for the be∣nefit of succeeding Ages, may well serve the turn in all after Times without more. I wish this man were sent with his Bible to some Barbarians in America, who

never perhaps heard of Christ or Scripture, and only read them such Miracles as Scripture relates, without working any himselfe, as S. Xaverius and other Mis∣sioners 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 be∣cause the main ground whereon he re∣lies is his much driven in, conveyance by Tradition, we will bestow à little pains upon it, and shew, if ever man lost him∣selfe in a Labyrinth, it is D^r Stillingfleet.

Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition, what Christ did, and spake.

25 THe Substance of the D^r'^s Dis∣course (Account. P. 205) is thus. Tradition to us doth only supply the want of our senses, as to what Christ did, and spake, it being à perpetuated sensation, and of the same use to us now, as if we had been actually present with Christ, and seen his Miracles, or heard his

Doctrin, when he delivered it. Soon after, It is apparent that the use of the senses to those who saw Christs Miracles, and heard his Doctrin, was not to give any Credibility to either of them, but only to be the means of conveying them those things, which might induce them to believe. The same is Tradition now to us, it doth not in it selfe make the Doctrin more cre∣dible, but supplies the use of our senses in a cer∣tain conveyance of those things which were Mo∣tives to believe them. Hence he inferr's, That the motives to the primitive Christians and to us are the same, only the manner of conveyance, differ's. 2. He inferr's, as it was not then necessary for those who saw our Saviours Mira∣cles wrought for the confirmation of his Do∣ctrin, to have the inward Testimony of the Spi∣rit, or any external Infallible Testimony of à Church, to assure them that those Miracles were really done by Christ, but God left them to the judgement of sense, so proportionably, neither of these two are now necessary for the resolution of Faith, but God instead of sense, leaves us to the evidence of Tradition. Thus the Dr, where you se his whole labour spent in vain, and à gross mistake with it, for he think's the main difficulty lies in the conveyance of the things written in Scriptu∣re to this Age, whereas the reall diffi∣culty is, to prove that there ever were any such things true, and written by Divine in∣spiration, as he supposes to be conveyed.

Unlesse this particular be first rationally evinced, the Turks will dare to argue as the D^r doth. In Mahomet's time there was reason to believe Mahomets Miracles and wonders, Ergo, there is reason to believe them now, because they are conveyed down by Tradition. And thus the follo∣wers of every false Sectarie may make any Religion true. But here is not all.

26 Mark I beseech you, how piti∣fully the D^r shuffles. He own's à tra∣dition which conveigh's unto us what Christ did and spake. That is, we may know by his fallible tradition received among Christians, that our Saviour wrought such Miracles, and spake such words, for example, I and my Father are one. The word is made flesh. This is my body &c. But how is any man wiser for that? How is our knowledge or faith improved by such à maimed or half per∣fect Tradition? While no man can certainly tell us, what the true meaning of those sacred words is. No man can de∣termine the debates which arise among Christians (the Arians and you) that draw plain Contradictions out of these words, now cited. Such à conveyance or tradition as could end these long strifes, would be to your purpose and comfort, Mr D^r, but you have none of it,

because you slight the Tradition and Authority of an Infallible Church. Though therefore you tell us twenty times over, you believe all truths expres∣sed in Scripture, yet while you cannot assure us upon tradition, or any other sound Principle, what those necessary truths are, which Faith in necessaries is de∣terminately to pitch upon, you only trifle away your time, and cheat your Reader, in seeming to discover great matters, whereas in real truth you speak not one word to the purpose. If, to solve the difficulty here briefly touched, you run up to your own discerning faculty, permit the Arian to keep you company and blame him not, if he trust to his discerning faculty quite contrary to yours. Se more hereof above, Chap. 4. n. 10. Thus much premised.

27 To answer the D^r I say first. Fallible Tradition which may be false (the Dr own's none Infallible) gives not so great certainty of Miracles Supposed true in Scripture, as Eye-sight did to those who beheld them. The reason is. Fal∣lible Tradition in the D^r'^s Principles easily alters in time, and may tell one Story for another, whereof more pre∣sently. If therefore that Tradition con∣veyed by hearing altered, as I shall shew,

most shamefully (and if fallible no won∣der at the change) what certainty have we now in this present Age, either of the Miracles, or of the Doctrin recorded in Scripture by virtue of it? Or how can the D^r parallel the certainty of à Mira∣cle conveyed down by fallible Tradition, with the sight of it? This must needs be à lame Parallel. For when I se à Mi∣racle I need not to prove the outward appearance of it evidently seen, but when that appearance passes down Age after Age upon Hearsay, or à faultering Tra∣dition which may change the Story from what it once was, I must either prove that Tradition true, or cannot prudently rely on it, chiefly in this present case, while we dispute against Iewes and Gentils, who utterly deny those Miracles to have ever been truly wrought by Christ. The ancient Jewes, all know, said Christ cast out Divels by the help of Beelze∣bub, and these modern men of the Syna∣gogue calumniate as boldly to this day.

28 I say. 2. Those ancient Miracles (if saith à Jew, ever any such were) to∣gether with the Doctrin, which is thought to be proved either true or evident∣ly credible by such wonders, can be no more certain now, than the fallible Tra∣dition is, which conveighs them to us. But this Tradition gives no man so much

as moral certainty either of the Miracles or Doctrin: I prove the Minor. That ancient Tradition, say Sectaries, noto∣riously changed not long after the Apost∣les dayes, when à universal deluge of errours spread it selfe the whole Chri∣stian world over, and the efficacy of Christs true Doctrin together with its old Tradition, was blotted out of mens memory; when the Roman Catholick Church once confessedly Orthodox, un∣luckily began Her universal Apostacy, and professed open Idolatry; when the Arians denyed the Mystery of the Incar∣nation and Trinity; Others, the two VVills in Christ, others his Sacred Huma∣nity, others, the Resurrection of the dead, others the necessity of Divine Grace, and others finally professed yet more horrid Doctrins, In so much, that the whole Christian word, (part of it one way, part another) erred most grosly in the very fundamentals of Faith. In those dismal dayes say I, when all Christian Societies nameable, and the Roman Church with them became so infatuated as to change the first received truths taught by Christ and his Apostles, the ancient true Tradi∣tion could not but change and faile also, the∣refore at this day Tradition is worthless and unualvable, because no man can know upon any sure Principle, what it anciently was.

29 The D^r may reply. All called Christians own the Bible and the Mira∣cles there related of Christ and his Apost∣les, which are sufficient to prove Christs Doctrin true, so far at least Tradition never failed. Small Comfort, God knowes, to have Tradition of the Scrip∣tures bare letter (which yet is not had in our Sectaries Principles. Se Reas: and Relig: Disc. 1. c. 6. n. 2.) If the Christian world long since, cheated out of their ancient Faith, bequeathed to posterity à false Doctrin in Lieu of that which Christ and his Apostles taught, and with that, à false Tradition also. Moreover, were those Miracles with their Tradi∣tion proved most true, the Arians will as well lay claim to them for à proof their Doctrin, as the D^r can do for that Reli∣gion he professes, and the like may all others pretend (if called Christians) though of à quite different belief in the very Essentials of Faith, unless this consequence utterly false be good. Christ our Lord wrought such and such Miracles, Ergo, Protestancy is à better Religion then Aria∣nism; Pelagianism is better then Nestorianism; and so of the rest. The D^r therefore must either make this out, that Christ and his Apostles wrought their Miracles to confirm all the erroneous Sects in

the world, or he speaks nothing to the purpose, when he tells us in his Account. P. 205. That the Motives of Faith both to them (the ancient Christians) and to us, are the same, only the manner of conveyan∣ce is different, those Primitive Believers Saw them, we hear of them by Tradi∣tion. In saying this he either thinks, that such Motives prove the truth of all Religions called Christian, which is horrid∣ly false, or only prove the true Christian Religion among so many dissenting Sects. Grant this, and we are in as much dark∣ness after the supposed Truth of these Mira∣cles and the D^r'^s long discourse, as we were before, and can never know by his Motives only, which is the true Religion. I earnestly desire the D^r would please to solve this one difficulty, which I judge cannot be Solved.

30 By all hitherto clearly laid down, we se. 1. The D^r'^s rational Evidence so much talked of, brought to nothing but empty words, for his whole proofs are meer unproved Suppositions. He en∣deavours to evince by Miracles internal to Scripture, the Divinity of the book, which is to say, one part of Scripture proves another, before the whole book is proved upon any certain Authority to be God's word, or written by the Holy Ghost. From

hence. 2. the necessity of an Infallible evidenced Church is necessarily inferred, which only bring's us out of the Laby∣rinth wherein the D^r is lost. This Church as I said, proves by her infallible and never interrupted Tradition, that Scripture is God's word; She, and She only, ascertain's all, that the Contents in Scripture are Divinely inspired, (and finally when difficulties arise concerning the Sence in controverted passages, rela∣ting to Necessaries, composes all strifes (otherwise endless) and bring's all to à perfect unity in Faith.

31 I say lastly. Could the D^r evin∣ce, that the book of Scripture contain's true Doctrin, could he shew the Doctrin of it to be, as it truly is, Divinely inspired, he yet hath not one clear Sentence in the whole Bible (understood according to the obvious sence of the words) which proves so much as one Tenet of Prote∣stant Religion, as Protestancy is distingui∣shed from Popery, and the Doctrin of all known condemned Hereticks. The proof of this Assertion is largely laid forth. Reas. and Relig: Disc: 1. c. 20. from. n. 4. to the end of that Chapter, and because I really judge Protestancy utter∣ly ruined upon the reasons there alleged, I petition Dr Still: to review that short

Discourse, and if I judge amiss, to unbe∣guile me by à plain Answer, showing wherein my Arguments are fallacious.

32 I except in that place against his empty Title called A rational Account of the grounds of Protestants Religion, and prove as I think demonstratively, that if you cast out of Protestancy all it's Negative Articles which the D^r confesses are no Essentials, the remainder will either be what the Catholick Church teaches, and therefore not peculiar to Protestancy, or the Doctrin of some one or other con∣demned Heretick: In so much, that in the whole Essence of Protestancy, you will not find one Truth revealed by Almigh∣ty God, necessary for Salvation, or ever taught by any Orthodox Church. And herein it differ's not only from Catho∣lick Religion, but, as I take it, from all ancient Heresies, for both Arians and Pe∣lagians (the like is of the rest) thought their particular Doctrins revealed by Al∣mighty God, and necessary to Salvation, Otherwise they had been worse than besotted, to abandon the Catholick Te∣nents for opinions meerly, or Positions not necessary to Salvation. Se more of this subiect. Disc. 3. c. 18. n. 8.

Notes

• The Dr's unworthy proceeding,
• An Argu∣ment propo∣sed.
• The Drs Argument taken from the Holy Eucharist, both here and formely, Solved.
• Protestants boggle not at the possi∣bility of the change.
• The whole Strength of the Dr's weak dis∣course
• What is to be noted in my Argument.
• The Dr's Instances.
• How Christ might have rebuked his Disciples, had they pleaded like the Dr.
• The Dr's Tautologies.
• and weak way of ar∣guing
• The Drs repeated Obiections
• clearly solved.
• If the Dr tell his old stories over again, he will be cal∣led à Bun∣gler.
• The Dr by virtue of his own Princi∣ple, must own Anti∣christ's Mi∣racles, for true Mira∣cles.
• What plain Scripture forces on us to believe in the blessed Sacrament.
• Divine Faith relies not upon the sight of à Miracle.
• the Dr's discourse de∣••••••ed in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 own ••ords.
• His preten∣ded rational evidence for the first act of faith.
• evidenced null, and forceless.
• The reason of their nul∣lity, said forth,
• Wherein the Dr's errour lies?
• Apos•• reply 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seen, and prevented.
• The com∣mon consent of the an∣cient Chri∣stians and modern, for Miracles parallel'd
• what Iewes may obiect.
• what is here chiefly en∣quired?
• The Dr's second que∣stion propo∣sed.
• our excep∣tions made against his evidence
• where the main diffi∣culty is?
• the Dr's ra∣tional Evi∣dence de∣monstrated ••seless, to Christians now living
• How diffe∣rently we proceed from the Dr in our rational Evidence.
• what the Dr should aim•• at, but per∣form's not.
• Christ was manifested by rational Motives and so is the Church.
• The Conti∣nuation of Miracles, proved necessary.
• The end of God's Con∣curring with his servants to work Miracles.
• The substan∣ce of the Drs Discourse laid down in his own words.
• He waves the real difficulty
• No man is wiser by the Dr's lame Tradition.
• How, the Dr Cheat's his Reader.
• Our Answer to the Dr.
• Fallible tra∣dition worth little in Di∣vine matters
• The reason why worth∣less in the Dr's Prin∣ciples.
• The Dr charges this Idolatry upon the Roman Church.
• The Arians and all here∣ticks lay as great claime to Christs Miracles, as the Dr or any other doth.
• What the Dr is obliged to clear?
• The necessity of an Infal∣lible Church, evinced from our discourse.
• Not one Protestant Tenet proved by Scripture.
• Nor one Necessary for Salva, tion found in Prote∣stancy.