The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 1 · Chapter 9

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 1 · Chapter 9

p. 261CHAP. IX. The Sense of the Fathers in this Controversie.

The Judgement of Antiquity enquired into, especially of the three first Centuries; and the reasons for it. The several Testimonies of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatianus, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and all the Fathers who writ in vindication of Christian Religion, manifested to concurr fully with our way of resolving Faith. T. C's. Answers to Vincentius Lyrinensis, à Gandavo, and the Fathers produced by his Lordship, pitifully weak. The particulars of his 9th. Chapter examined. S. Augustine's Testimony vindicated. T. C's. nauseous Repetitions sent as Vagrants to their several homes. His Lordships Considerations found too heavy for T. C's. Answers. In what sense the Scripture may be called a Praecognitum. What way the Jews resolved their Faith. This Controversie, and the first Part, concluded.

HAving thus largely considered, whatever you could pretend to,§. 1. for the advantage of your own cause, or the prejudice of ours, from Reason and Scripture; nothing can be supposed to remain considerable, but the judgement of the Primitive Church in this present Controversie. And next to Scripture and Reason, I attribute so much to the sense of the Christian Church in the ages next succeeding the Apostles, that it is no mean confirmation to me of the truth of the Protestant Way of resolving Faith, and of the falsity of yours, that I see the one so exactly concurring, and the other so apparently contrary to the unanimous Consent of Antiquity. For, though you love to make a great noise with Antiquity, among persons meanly conversant in it; yet those who do seriously and impartially p. 262enquire into the sense of the Primitive Church, and not guess at it by the shreds of Citations to your hands in your own writers (which is generally your way) will scarce in any thing more palpably discern your jugling and impostures then in your pretence to Antiquity. I shall not here enquire into the corruptions crept into your Church under that disguise, but, as occasion is ministred to me, in the following discourse, shall endeavour to pluck it off, but shall keep close to the matter in question. Three things then I design in this Chapter.

1. To shew the concurrence of Antiquity with us in the resolution of Faith.

2. Examine what you produce from thence, either to assert your own way, or enervate ours.

3. Consider what remains of this Controversie in your Book.

1. For the manifesting the concurrence of Antiquity with us; I shall confine my present discourse to the most pure and genuine Antiquity, keeping within the compass of the three first Centuries, or at least, of those who have purposely writ in vindication of the Christian Faith. Not that I do in the least distrust the consent of the succeeding Writers of the Primitive Church, but upon these Reasons. 1. Because it would be too large a task at present to undertake, since no necessity from what you object, but only my desire to clear the Truth, and rectifie the mistakes of such, who are led blindfold under the pretence of Antiquity, hath led me to this discourse. 2. Because in reason they could not but understand best the waies and methods used by the Apostles for the perswading men to the Christian Faith; and if they had mentioned any such thing as an Infallibility alwaies to continue in the Charch, those Pastors certainly who received the care of the Church from the Apostles hands, could not but have heard of it: And were strangely to blame if they did not discover and make use of it. Whatever therefore of truly Apostolical Tradition, is to be relyed on in such cases, must be conveyed to us from those persons who were the Apostles immediate Successors; and if it can be made manifest that they heard not of any such thing, in that, when occasion was offered, they are so far from mentioning it, that they take such different waies of satisfying men, which do manifestly suppose that they did not believe it. I know some of the greatest Patrons of the Church of Rome, and such who know best how to manage things with best advantage for the interest of that Church, have made little account of the three first ages, and confined themselves within the compass of the four first Councils, upon this pretence, because the Books and Writers are so rare before, and that those persons who lived then, had no occasion to write of the matters in Controversie between them and us. But if the ground why those other things which are not determined in Scripture, are to be believed by us, and practised as necessary, be, that they were Apostolical Traditions, Who can be more competent Judges what was so, and what not, then those who lived nearest the Apostolical times? and those certainly (if they writ of any thing) could not write of any thing of more concernment to the Christian world, than the knowledge of such things would be; or at least we cannot imagine but that we should find express intimations of them, where so many, so wise, and learned persons do industriously give an account of themselves, and their solemn actions to their Heathen persecutors. But however silent they may be in other things, which they neither heard, nor thought of, as in the Customs controverted between the Papists and us (which, no p. 263doubt, is the true reason why the three first ages are declined by Cardinal Perrone) yet there is not the least shadow of pretence, why they should be silent in this present Controversie, since the great business of their writings was to vindicate the Christian Faith, to perswade the Heathens to believe it, and to manifest the grounds on which they were induced to believe themselves. If therefore in this they do unanimously concurr with that resolution of Faith I have already laid down, nothing can be desired more for the evidence and confirmation of the truth of our way, than that it is not only most consonant to Scripture, but built on the truest Reason, and was the very same which the Primitive Christians used when they gave an account of their Faith: Which I shall do, not by some mangled citations, but deducing it from the scope and design of their writings, and drawing it successively down from the first after the Apostles, who appeared in Vindication of the Christian Faith.

I begin with Justin Martyr, who, as Photius saith of him, was foreign,§. 2. Phot. biblioth. Cod. 234. not far from the Apostles either in time or virtue; and who being a professed Philosopher before he became a Christian, we may in reason think, that he was more inquisitive into the grounds of Christian Faith, before he believed, and the more able to give an account of them, when he did. Whether therefore we consider those arguments which first induced him to believe, or those whereby he endeavours to perswade others to it, we shall find how consonant and agreeable he is to our grounds of Faith, how far from any imagination of the Churches Infallibility. In the beginning of his excellent Dialogue with Trypho, where (if I may conjecture) he represents the manner of his conversion in a Platonical way, introducing a solemn conference between himself, and an ancient person of great gravity, and a venerable aspect in a solitary place, whither he was retired for his meditations. Pet. Halloix is much troubled who this person should be,Pet. Halliox in vit. Just. Mart. c…p. 2. in not. Medulla Patr. p. 9. Whether an Angel in humane shape, or a man immediately conveyed by an Angel to discover Christianity to him, which, when he had done, he was as suddenly carried back again. Scultetus (I suppose from this story) asserts Justin Martyr to be converted by Divine Revelation. But, if I be not much mistaken, this whole Conference is no more than the setting forth the grounds of his becoming a Christian in the Platonical mode, by way of Dialogue (and probably the whole Disputation with Trypho, may be nothing else) but, however that be, it is apparent Trypho looked on him as a Platonist, by his Pallium, and Justin Martyr owns himself to have been so, and therefore it was very congruous for him to discourse after the Academick manner. In which discourse, when Justin Martyr had stood up in vindication of the Platonick Philosophy, and the other Person endeavours to convince him of the impossibility of attaining true happiness by any Philosophy. For when Justin had said, That by Philosophy he came to the Knowledge of God; the other person demanded, How they could know God, who had never seen him, nor heard him? He replied, That the foreign was foreign, God was only intelligible by our minds, as Plato said: He again asks, Whether there were such a faculty in the minds of men, as to be able to see God without a Divine Power and Spirit assisting it? Justin answers, that, according to Plato, the eye of the understanding was sufficient to discover that there is such a Being, which is the cause of all things, but the nature of it is ineffable and incomprehensible. Upon which he proceeds to enquire, What relation there was between God and the Souls of men, and what means to come p. 264to the participation of him; after a great deal of discourse on which subject between them, Justin comes at last to enquire, if there were no truth and certainty in Philosophy? By whose instruction, or by what means he should come to it? To which that person returns this excellent Answer, That there had been, a long time since, several persons much elder than the reputed Philosophers, foreign. Justin. Martyr. Dialog c. Tryph. p. 224, 225 ed Paris 1636.blessed men, just, and lovers of God, speaking by the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, foretelling things which have come to pass since, whom they call Prophets. These only saw the Truth, and declared it to men; neither flattering, nor fearing any, nor conquered with the love of honour: But they only spake the things which they heard and saw, being filled with the Holy Spirit. Whose Books are still extant; which, whosoever reads, and assents to, will find himself much improved in the principles and ends of things, and whatever becomes a Philosopher to know. For, they write not by way of argument or demonstration, but, that which is above it, they are most faithful witnesses of Truth. For the things which have, and do come to pass, do enforce men to believe the Truth of what they spake: And not only so, but they are most worthy to be believed, for the Miracles which they wrought. Moreover, they extol the Maker of the World, God and the Father, and declare to the World his Son Christ: which the false Prophets, who are acted by a seducing and impure spirit, neither have done, nor yet do do; but they attempt to shew some tricks for the amazement of men, and cry up the evil and deceiving spirits. But, do thou, above all things, pray, that the gates of light may be opened to thee. For these things are not seen nor understood by all, but only by them to whom God and Christ, shall grant the knowledge of them. A most signal and remarkable Testimony (as any is extant in all Antiquity) for acquainting us with the true grounds and reasons of Faith, which therefore I have at large produced. The very reading of which is sufficient to tell us, How true a Protestant this, whether Angel or Man was. When Justin asked him, What Teachers he should have to lead him to Truth; He tells him, There had been long before Philosophers, excellent persons in the world, called Prophets, men every way good, who did nothing for fear or favour, or love of themselves. But Justin might further ask, How he should come to be instructed by them? He tells him, Their Writings were still extant, wherein were contained such things as might hugely satisfie a Philosophical mind concerning the Origine and Principles of things. He might still enquire, Whether those things were demonstrated or no, in them? No, he replies; but they deserve assent as much, if not beyond any demonstration; because they manifest themselves to be from God, by two things, the exact accomplishment of the Prophecies made by them, and the unparalleld Miracles which were wrought by them. But, might not the evil spirits work such things? No: For, although their false Prophets …ay do several things to amaze men, yet they can do no such Miracles as … did; besides, all which they do, tends to advance these evil spirits in the world; but the design of the true Prophets, is to declare the True p. 265God, and his Son Christ. But, May then any one, by the innate power of his mind, yield a divine assent to these things? No: but, pray earnestly to God to enlighten your mind; for this is the effect of Divine Grace, in and through Christ. What part is there now of our resolution of Faith, which is not herein asserted? If you ask, Why you believe there were such men in the World as these Prophets? The continuance of their Books and common Fame sufficiently attest it. If you ask, Why you should believe them to be True Prophets? The excellency of their Doctrine, joyned with the fulfilling Prophecies, and working Miracles, abundantly prove it. But if you lastly ask, Whether, besides objective evidence, there be not some higher efficient requisite to produce a Divine Faith; The Answer is, That depends upon the Grace of God in Christ: So that here we have most evidently all those things concurring, which his Lordship asserts in the resolution of Faith; Moral inducement preparing the mind, rational evidence from the thing into which Faith is resolved, and Divine Grace requisite in the nature of an efficient cause. But, Where is there the least intimation of any Churches Infallibility requisite to make men believe with a firm and Divine Faith? No doubt that was a Divine Faith, which Justin was bid to pray so heartily for, and which was only in those to whom it was given; and yet even this Faith had no other assurance to build it self upon, but that rational evidence which is before discovered. That Divine Person never thought of mens believing with their Wills, much less that the Books of Scripture had no more evidence of themselves, than distinction of colours to a blind man; he did not think Christ an Ignoramus or Impostor, because he left no Church infallible, nor that God by the Prophets laid a Foundation upon sand, or that would last but a few years, because he did not continue such an Infallible Assistance as the Prophets had to the Church in all ages; yet these are all brave assertions of yours; which, doubtless, you would be ashamed of, and recant, if you had not, as Casaubon saith of the Person whom you could not tell whether he was a Jesuit or no (but by that character you might guess it) that he had frontem ferream, & cor involutum; a brow of steel, and a heartfull of Meanders (to use your own fine expression.) Upon this, Justin tells us, a divine ardour was raised in his mind, and a love of the Prophets and such as were the Friends of Christ, and, upon further consideration, foreign I found this the only certain and profitable Philosophy; and thereupon commends the Doctrine of Christ to Trypho and his Company for something which was certainly innate to it, that it had a kind of awe and majesty in it, and is excellent at terrifying and perswading those who were out of the right way, and brings the sweetest tranquillity to such as are conversant in it. And afterwards undertakes to demonstrate the truth of our Religion from the reasonableness of it,foreign. Id. p. 226. that we have not yielded our assent to vain and empty Fables, nor to assertions uncapable of evidence and demonstration; but to such as are filled with a Divine Spirit, overflowing with Power, and flourishing with Grace. And accordingly manageth his discourse quite through, shewing the insufficiency of the Ceremonial Law, and the Truth and Excellency both of the Person and Doctrine of Christ. But what need all this, if he had believed your Doctrine? It had been but proving the Church Infallible by Motives of Credibility; and then, to be sure, whatever was propounded to be believed by it, was infallibly true. But older and wiser, it seems, must hold here to; Justin, though so near the Apostles times, went a much further p. 266way about: but it was well for him he lived so long ago, else he might have been accused of Heresie, or making Faith uncertain, if he had lived in our times, and such Doctrine of his might have merited an Index Expurgatorius.

§. 3.But, it seems, he was not afraid of it then, for he often elsewhere speaks to the same purpose. For, in his Paraenesis to the Greeks, he makes it his business, first to shew the unreasonableness of believing those who were the great Authours of all their superstitions; for the Poets were manifestly ridiculous, the Philosophers at continual dissentions among themselves, so that there was no relying on them for the finding out of Truth, or the redress of the miseries of humane nature; and then comes to the Authours of our Religion, Paraenes. p. 9.who were both much elder than any of theirs, and did not teach any thing of their own heads, nor dissented from one another in what they delivered, or sought to confute each other as the Philosophers did, but foreign, without all jarring and contention, they delivered to men the Doctrine which they received from God. For, (saith he) it was not possible for them to know such great and divine things by nature, foreign. Id. ib.or humane wit, but by a heavenly gift descending from above upon holy men. It seems, Justin believed there was such evidence in the matters contained in Scripture, which might perswade men to believe that they came from God; that they were but as instruments to that foreign (as he expresseth it) to that Divine Spirit which did strike upon them; whence, with one consent and harmony they sound forth the Doctrine of God, the worlds Creation and Mans, the Immortality of the soul, Judgment to come, and all things else which are necessary for us to know, which they unanimously deliver to us, though at great distances from each other, both in regard of time and place. And so proves the Antiquity of the Writings of Moses above all the Wise men of the Greeks, by the testimony of their own Authours, Polemon, Appion, Ptolomaeus Mendesius, and many others, and concludes his discourse with this speech, That it is impossible for us to know any thing certainly concerning God or Religion, but from Divine Inspiration, which alone was in the Prophets. In his first Apology for the Christians, he tells us what it was, while he was a Platonist, which brought him to a good Opinion of Christianity, which was,Apolog. 1. p. 50· the observing the power and efficacy that Doctrine had upon the Christians to undergo with so much courage what was accounted most terrible to humane nature (which are, death and torments.) From whence he reasoned with himself, that although the Christians were so much calumniated, yet certainly they could not be vitious persons, who were so little fearful of those great Bug-bears of humane nature. For, Who is there, that is a lover of pleasure, foreign. Id. ib.or intemperate, or cruel, that can chearfully embrace death, so as thereby to be deprived of all his goods? And when he speaks of the Doctrine it self of Christianity, he saies, It is suitable to whatever was rational among the Platonists or other Philosophers, but far more agreeable to it self, and containing much more excellent things than ever they could attain to the knowledge of.P. …1, 52. In his second Apology for the Christians to the Emperour Antoninus Pius, he insists much on the excellency of the Do…trine of Christianity from the Precepts of it,P. 61, 6…, &c. chastity, love of enemies, liberality▪ P. …3.submission to authority, worship of God, &c. Afterwards he proves the truth and certainty of all we believe concerning Christ from the exact p. 267accomplishment of the Prophecies made concerning him in the Old Testament, which discourse he ends with this saying. So many and so great things being seen, are sufficient to perswade men to believe the truth of them, who are lovers of truth, foreign. Apol. 2. p. 89.and not seekers of applause, and under the command of passions. Thus we see, in all his discourses, where he had the most occasion administred to him, to discover the most certain grounds of Christian Faith, he resolves all into the rational evidence of the truth, excellency, and divinity of the Doctrine which was contained in the Scriptures. For in his second Oration to the Greeks, after he had spoken highly in commendation of the Scripture, calling it, The best expeller of all turbulent passions, and the surest extinguisher of those preternatural heats in the souls of men; foreign. Orat. 2. p. 4….which (saith he) makes men not Poets, nor Philosophers, nor Orators, but it makes foreign, dying men immortal, and mortals become gods; and transferrs them from the earth, foreign, to such places whose confines are far above Olympus; therefore, O ye Greeks, come and be instructed; be ye as I am, for I was as you are. And these were the things which prevailed with me, foreign. Id. ib.the divine power and efficacy of the Doctrine. What was it then, I pray, that Justin Martyr, of a Philosopher becoming a Christian, resolved his Faith into? If we may believe himself, it was into the evidence of the Doctrine of Christianity, and not into the Infallibility of any Church. The Testimony of this person, I have the more largely insisted on, both because he was so great a Philosopher, as well as Christian, and lived so near the Apostolical times. Next him we produce Athenagoras as a Philosopher too, as well as Christian, who flourished under Antoninus and Commodus, to whom he made his Apology in behalf of the Christians, in which he first undertakes to manifest the reasonableness of the Doctrine which they owned, the Foundation of it being the same with that which the best Philosophers acknowledged, the existence and unity of the Deity. But (saith he) if we had nothing but such reasons as he had produced, our perswasion could only be humane; but the words of the Prophets are they which establish our minds.—who being carried beyond themselves, foreign. Athenag. Apol. p. 9.by the impulse of the Divine Spirit, spake that which they were moved to, when the Spirit used them as Instruments through which he spake. Is not here a plain resolution of Faith into that Divine Authority by which the Prophets spake? and that not as testified by any Infallible Church, but as it was discernable by those persons he spake to, for he appeals to the Emperours themselves concerning it; which had been a fond and absurd thing for him to do, if the knowledge of that Divine Inspiration did depend meerly on the testimony of Christians as such, and were not to be discovered by some common Principles to them and others. Much to the same purpose Tatianus speaks in that eloquent Oration of his against the Greeks, who was Justin Martyrs Scholar; and we shall see, how agreeably he speaks to him, in the account he gives, how he became a Christian. After (saith he) he had abundantly discovered the vanity of the Theology, and Superstitions of the Greeks, he fell to the reading some strange Books, much elder and more Divine than the Writings of the Greek Philosophers. And to these p. 268(saith he) I yielded up my Faith, for the great simplicity and plainness of the style, and the freedom from affectation which was in the writers; foreign. Tatianus. p. 165.and that evidence and perspicuity which was in all they writ; and because they foretold things to come, made excellent promises, and manifestly declared the Monarchy of the World. What Protestant could speak higher of the Scripture, and of those internal arguments which are the grounds of Faith than Tatianus in these words doth? Yet we see, these were the arguments which made him relinquish the Greek learning of which he was a Professor at Rome, and betake himself to the profession of Christianity; though he was sure to undergo not only contempt from the world, but to be in continual hazard of his life by it. That innate simplicity of the writings of the Scripture joyned with the perspicuity of it (if at least those words be rightly translated foreign by sermo nusquam obscurus, and it doth not rather relate to the account of the worlds creation, which I conjecture it may do) but however, the certainty of the predictions, the excellency of the promises, and the reasonableness of the Doctrine were the things, which by the reading of the Books he was perswaded to believe them by. But all this while we hear no news of any Churches Infallibility in order to Faith.

§. 4. C. Valentin. cap. 5.We come therefore to Irenaeus, who was omnium doctrinarum curio…ssimus explorator as Tertullian speaks of him, a great searcher into all kind of learning, and therefore surely not to seek as to the true account of his Faith. Whose judgement herein, although we have had occasion to enquire into before, yet we have testimonies enough beside to manifest his consent with them. And although Irenaeus of all the ancient Fathers be looked on as the most favourable to Tradition, and is most cited to that purpose in these disputes; yet I doubt not but to make it appear, that where he speaks most concerning Tradition, he makes the resolution of Faith to be wholly and entirely into the Scripture: and they who apprehend otherwise do either take the citations out of him upon trust, or else only search him for the words of those citations, and never take the pains to enquire into the scope and design of his discourse. For clearing which, we must consider, what the subject was which he writ of, what the plea's of the adverse party were, what way Irenaeus takes to confute them, and to establish the Faith of Christians as to the matter which was in Controversie. The matter in dispute was this: Valentinus and his Scholars, not being contented with the simplicity of the Doctrine of the Gospel, and in probability the better to suit their opinions to the Heathen Mythology, had invented a strange Pedigree of Gods, the better as they pretended to give an account of the production of things, and the various dispensations which had been in the world: but knowing that the Christians did with the greatest resolution adhere to that Doctrine which was delivered by Christ and his Apostles, they could not suppose that they should embrace these figments unless they could some way or other father them upon them. Upon which they pretended that these very things which they delivered were really intended by Christ and the Apostles in their writings, but because so few were capable of them, they gave only some intimations of them there, but delivered these great mysteries privately only to those who were perfect; and that this was St. Pauls meaning when he said, I speak wisdome among them that are p. 269perfect. This Irenaeus gives us an account of, in the beginning of all his discourse:Iren. l. 1. c. 1. p. 4. ed. Erasm. but is more fully expressed in the original Greek of Irenaeus preserved by Epiphanius in the heresie of the Valentinians. On which account alone, as Petavius saith, Epiphanius hath well deserved of Posterity, Petav. not. in Epiph. in hares. Valent.for preserving entire those original Fragments of Irenaeus; his Greek therein being much more intelligible and smooth than the old harsh Latin version of him. His words are: All which things, are not expresly declared, foreign. Iren. apud Epiph. haeres. 31. sect. 14.in as much as all are not fit to understand them; but are mysteriously couched by our Saviour in parables, for such who are able to understand them. Thus they said, the 30. Aeônes were represented by the 30. years in which our Saviour did not appear publickly, and by the parable of the works in the vineyard in which the 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, hours, making up 30. did again denote their Aeônes; and that St. Paul did most expresly signifie them, when he used so often foreign. The Duodecad of Aeôns by the 12 years at which our Saviour appeared disputing with the Doctors. The raising of Jairus his daughter of 12 years, represented Achamoth being brought to light, whose passions were set forth by those words of our Saviour, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, in which were three passions of Achamoth, Sorrow, Fear, and Despair. With many things of a like nature; but hereby we sufficiently see what their pretence was, viz. That there were deep mysteries but obscurely represented in Scripture, but whose full knowledge was delivered down by an Oral Cabala from Christ and his Apostles. Now we must consider, what course Irenaeus takes to confute these pretensions of theirs.L. 1. c. 2. First he gives an account what that Faith was, which the Church dispersed up and down the world, received from the Apostles and their Disciples, viz. that thereby, they believed in one God, the Father Almighty, who made Heaven and Earth, the Sea and all in them, and in one Jesus Christ the Son of God, &c. which was directly contrary to the Valentinian Heresies, who supposed the Supream God and Demiurgus to be different, and so Christus and Salvator, and so in others. This Faith which the Church hath received, it unanimously keeps, L. 1. c. 3.though dispersed through the whole world; for although the languages be different, yet the Tradition is the same among them; whether they live in Germany, France, Spain, the East, Aegypt, Libya, or elsewhere. And after in the first Book he hath shewed the many different opinions of the several broods of these Hereticks; and in the second discovered the fondness and ridiculousness of them; in his third Book, he undertakes from Scripture to shew the falseness of them. And begins with that excellent expression before cited. For we have not known the disposition (or oeconomy) of our Salvation by others than by those, by whom the Gospel came to us, which they then first preached, L. 3. c. 1.and after by the will of God, delivered to us in writings to be the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith. Which being laid down by him at his entrance as the grand principle, on which he goes, will lead us to an easie understanding of all that follows. This therefore, he not only asserts, but proves; for whereas some of the Adversaries pretended, that the Apostles preached before they fully understood all they were to know, he shews how false that was, because after Christs Resurrection from the grave, they were endued with the Spirit of God descending from on high upon them; and were furnished with a perfect knowledge by which they went up and down preaching the Gospel, which all and each of them had the knowledge of. Thus Matthew in the Hebrew tongue set forth his Gospel, when Peter p. 270and Paul at Rome preached the Gospel and founded a Church; and after their departure Mark, the Disciple and Interpreter of Peter, writ those things which were preached. Afterwards John published his Gospel at Ephesus in Asia. And all these (saith he) delivered to us one God maker of Heaven and Earth, and one Christ his Son. To whom if one doth not assent, Quibus si quis non assentit, spernit quidem participes Domini, spernit autem & ipsum Christum Dominum, spernit verò & Patrem, & est à seipso damnatus, resistens & repug…ans saluti suae, quod faciunt omnes haeretici. Iren. l. 3. c. 1.he despiseth those who were our Lords companions, and therefore despiseth our Lord Christ, and likewise despiseth the Father, and is condemned of himself, resisting and opposing his own salvation which all Hereticks do. Can any thing be more plain, than that Irenaeus makes it his design to resolve Faith into the writings of Christ and his Apostles, and saith, That these writings were delivered as a Foundation of Faith, that the reason why the Christians believed but one God and one Christ, was, because they read of no more in the Gospels published by them, That he that despiseth them who were our Lords companions, despise himself and God, and condemn themselves. He doth not say, he that despiseth the lawfully sent Pastours of the Church meeting in General Councils, nor them who have power to oblige the Church to believe as well as the Apostles had, as you say, but evidently makes the obligation to believe, to depend upon that revelation of Gods will, which was made by the Apostles, and is by their writings conveyed down to us. Would not the Valentinians have thought themselves presently run down by such wayes of confutation as yours are, that they must believe the present Church infallible in whatever is delivered to be believed to the world?

But doth not Irenaeus himself make use of the Churches Tradition as the great argument to confute them by?§. 5. I grant he doth so, and it is on that very account that he might confute them, and not lay down the only sure Foundation of Christian Faith. For he gives that reason of his doing so in the beginning of the very next Chapter. For, (saith he) when we dispute against them out of the Scripture, Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scriptu…arum, quasi non rectè habeant, ne que si…t ex authoritate, & quia vari… si…t dicta, & quia no… possit ex hi… inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem. Iren. l. 3. c 2.they are turned presently to an accusing of the Scriptures as though they were not in all things right, and wanted Authority, and because of their ambiguity, and for that truth cannot be found out by them without the help of Tradition. I need not say, that Irenaeus prophesied of you in this saying of his, but it is as true of you as if he had. Your pretences being the very same, against the Scriptures being the rule of Faith, with those of the Valentinians; only that you deny not the truth of what is therein contained, for otherwise the want of Authority in themselves, the ambiguity of them, the impossibility of knowing the sense of them without Tradition, are the very same arguments which with the greatest pomp and ostentation are produced by you against the Scriptures, being the Rule whereby to judge of Controversies. Which we have no more cause to wonder at, than Irenaeus had in the Valentinians, because from them we produce our greatest arguments against your fond opinions. Now when the Valentinians pretended their great rule was on oral Tradition, which was conveyed from the Apostles down to them; to this Irenaeus opposeth the constant Tradition of the Apostolical Churches, which in a continued succession was preserved from the Apostles times, which was the same every where among all the Churches, which every one who desired it, might easily be satisfied about; because they could number them, who by the Apostles were appointed Bishops in Churches, and their successors, unto our own times, p. 271who taught no such thing, nor ever knew any such thing as they madly fancy to themselves. Et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Eccles…is & successores eorum us que ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, ne que cognovêrunt, quale ab his deliratur. L. 3. c. 3.We see then his appeal to Tradition was only in a matter of fact, Whether ever any such thing as their opinion which was not contained in Scripture, was delivered to them by the Apostles or no, i. e. Whether the Apostles left any oral Traditions in the Churches which should be the rule to interpret Scriptures by, or no? And the whole design of Irenaeus is to prove the contrary, by an appeal to all the Apostolical Churches, and particularly by appealing to the Roman Church, because of its due fame and celebrity in that Age wherein Irenaeus lived. So that Irenaeus appealed to the then Roman Church, even when he speaks highest in the honour of it, for somewhat which is fundamentally contrary to the pretensions of the now Roman Church. He then appealed to it, for an evidence against such oral Traditions which were pretended to be left by the Apostles as a rule to understand Scripture by; and, were it not for this same pretence now, what will become of the Authority of the present Roman Church.

After he hath thus manifested by recourse to the Apostolical Churches that there was no such Tradition left among them, it was very reasonable to inferr that there was none such at all; for they could not imagine, if the Apostles had designed any such Tradition, but they would have communicated it to those famous Churches which were planted by them, and it was absurd to suppose that those Churches who could so easily derive their succession from the Apostles should in so short a time have lost the memory of so rich a treasure deposited with them, as that was pretended to be; from whence he sufficiently refutes that unreasonable imagination of the Valentinians. Which having done, he proceeds to settle those firm grounds on which the Christians believed in one God the Father, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, which he doth by removing the only Objection which the Adversaries had against them. For when the Christians declared, the main reason into which they resolved their Faith as to these principles, was, Because no other God or Christ were revealed in Scripture, but them whom they believed, the Valentinians answered, this could not be a sufficient foundation for their Faith on this account, because many things were delivered in Scripture, not according to the truth of the things, but the judgment and opinion of the persons they were spoken to. This therefore being such a pretence as would destroy any firm resolution of Faith into Scripture, and must necessarily place it in Tradition; Irenaeus concerns himself much to demonstrate the contrary, by an ostension (as he calls it) that Christ and the Apostles did all along speak according to truth, and not according to the opinion of their auditours, which is the entire subject of the fifth Chapter of his third Book. Which he proves first of Christ, because he was Truth it self, and it would be very contrary to his nature to speak of things, otherwise then they were, when the very design of his coming was to direct men in the way of Truth. The Apostles were persons who professed to declare truth to the world, and as light cannot communicate with darkness, so neither could truth be blended with so much falshood as that opinion supposeth in them. And therefore neither our Lord nor his Apostles could be supposed to mean any other God or Christ then whom they declared. For this (saith he) were rather to increase their ignorance and confirm them in it, then to cure them of it; and therefore that Law was true which pronounced a curse on every one who led a blind man out of his way. And the p. 272Apostles being sent for the recovery of the lost sight of the blind, cannot be supposed to speak to men according to their present opinion, but according to the manifestation of truth. For, what Physitian intending to cure a Patient, will do according to his Patients desire, and not rather what will be best for him? From whence he concludes, Since the design of Christ and his Apostles was not to flatter but to cure mens souls; it follows, that they did not speak to them, according to their former opinion, but according to truth without all hypocrisie and dissimulation. From whence it follows, that if Christ and his Apostles did speak according to truth, there is then need of no Oral Tradition for our understanding Scripture, and consequently the resolution of our Faith as to God and Christ, and proportionably as to other objects to be believed, is not into any Tradition pretending to be derived from the Apostles, but into the Scriptures themselves; which by this discourse evidently appears to have been the judgement of Irenaeus.

§. 6. Hieron. ep. ad Magnum.The next which follows, is Clemens of Alexandria who flourished A. D. 196. whom St. Hierome accounted the most learned of all the writers of the Church: and therefore cannot be supposed ignorant in so necessary a part of the Christian Doctrine as the Resolution of Faith is. And if his judgement may be taken, the Scriptures are the only certain Foundation of Faith; for in his Admonition to the Gentiles after he hath with a great deal of excellent learning derided the Heathen Superstitions, when he comes to give an account of the Christians Faith, he begins it with this pregnant Testimony to our purpose. For (saith he) the Sacred Oracles affording us the most manifest grounds of Divine worship, foreign. Clem. Alex. foreign. p. 50. ed. Paris.are the Foundation of Truth ▪ And so goes on in a high commendation of the Scripture, as the most compendious directions for happiness, the best Institutions for government of life, the most free from all vain ornaments, that they raise mens souls up out of wickedness, yielding the most excellent remedies, disswading from the greatest deceit, and most clearly incouraging to a foreseen happiness; with more of the same nature. And when after he perswades men with so much Rhetorick and earnestness to imbrace the Scriptures foreign with the greatest readiness, he gives this as the reason of it, that so they might foreign entertain God in chaste souls. For the Word is that light to men, foreign. p. 55.by which we see God: and soon after speaking that the design of Religion is to make men like to God as much as possible, he adds, That truly they are the Sacred Scriptures which make men Holy and Deifie men, foreign. p. 56.i. e. by Assimilation. And in that large and eloquent Paraenesis which follows, wherein he perswades men to the forsaking their old customs and embracing Christianity, all the arguments he useth are drawn from the Scriptures, and not so much as the least mention of any Infallible Ensurancer of their truth and authority, but supposeth the evidence he produceth, sufficient to perswade them to the belief and love of them. In the first of his Stromata, he proves the truth of the Scriptures by the much greater antiquity of them then any of the Greek learning. foreign. Strom. 2. p. 362.In the second, where he particularly enquires into the nature and grounds of Faith, he hath this expression, He therefore that believes the Sacred Scriptures, having a firm judgement doth receive the voyce p. 273of God who gave the Scriptures, as an impregnable demonstration. (Although the text be commonly printed without the comma between foreign and foreign, yet the sense and context makes it evident that it ought to be there, and accordingly Sylburgius gives intimation of it in his notes, and Gentian Hervet in the translation as revised by Heinsius applies the demonstration to what follows, but very weakly joynes foreign with foreign and not with foreign, and so renders it firmum habens judicium cui contradici nequit, whereas it is plain that there he intends to give an account what that foundation is, …hich Faith doth stand on.) And after having made a large discourse concerning the nature of Faith comparing the judgement of Philosophers concerning it, he concludes with this saying, That it is an absurd thing for the followers of Pythagoras to suppose that his ipse dixit was instead of a demonstration to them; and yet those who are the lovers of truth not to believe the sure testimony of our only Saviour and God, foreign. p. 369.but to exact proofs of him of what he spake. Wherein he discovers that Christianity requires from men no unreasonable thing in expecting assent where no such kind of proofs as those used by Philosophers are; but if the Epicureans did suppose some kind of anticipation necessary to knowledge, if the Pythagoreans relyed on Authority, if Heraclitus quarrell'd with such as could neither hear nor speak, i. e. such as neither had Authority themselves, and yet would rely on none; it could not be judged any absurd thing that Christianity did require such an assent to what Christ delivered, especially considering that he was foreign, i. e. that he discovered sufficient reason why he was to be believed in whatever he spake. And thence elsewhere he sayes, That Faith is a sure demonstration, foreign. Strom. 6. p. 649.because truth follows whatever is delivered from God. And when he gives an account what that true knowledge is which the Christian hath, he shews what things are requisite to it; two things Knowledge supposeth foreign, enquiry and discovery; the Enquiry (saith he) is an impulse of the mind for the finding out of something by some signs which are proper to it; Discovery, is the end and rest of enquiry, which lyes in the comprehension of the thing, which is properly Knowledge. Now the signs by which things are discovered, are either precedent, concomitant, or subsequent. All these he thus applyes to the Scriptures. The discovery, as the end of our enquiry after God, is, foreign. Strom. 6. p. 674.the Doctrine delivered by his Son; but the signs whereby we know that he was the Son of God, precedent, are the Prophesies declaring his coming; concomitant, were the Testimonies concerning his birth; subsequent, are those Miracles, which were published, and manifestly shewed to the world after his Ascension. Therefore the peculiar evidence that the truth is with us, is, that the Son of God himself hath taught us. A place not so clear in it self, as miserably involved through the oscitancy of the Latin Interpreter, in which it is plain, that Clemens doth exactly, according to all rational principles of knowledge, give an account of the grounds of Christian Faith; the main principle of which, is, the doctrine delivered by Christ; which, that it ought to be assented to, appears by a full concurrence of all those signs which are necessary in enquiries; here are the greatest precedent signs (Prophesies, made so long before, exactly accomplished in him) the p. 274fullest concomitant signs (in the many wonderful things which happened at his coming into the world) and the clearest subsequent signs by those great and uncontrouled miracles, which were wrought in the world after his Ascension; all which put together do evidently prove that he was the Son of God who delivered this doctrine to us, and therefore deserves our most firm assent in what ever appears to be his Word. Can any thing then be more apparent then his resolution of Faith into the rational evidence of Christs being the Son of God, which is manifested to us not by the Infallible testimony of any Church, but by the Infallibl… …gns of it which were precedent to, attendant on, and consequent to his appearance in the world. If therefore (saith he) according to Plato,foreign. p. 675. truth can only be learned, either from God, or those who are come from him, we may justly boast that we learn the truth from the Son of God, taking the Testimonies out of those Sacred Oracles, which were first Prophesied and then fully declared, viz. by accomplishment. The main ground of Faith then, is such as the wisest Philosophers did admit of, viz. that whatsoever God said is true, and none can deliver truth but such as come from him, on which account there is nothing left, but evidence that he in whom we believe was the Son of God, which is abundantly manifested by the accomplishment of those Prophesies in him which were made so long before. After which he disputes against the same sort of Hereticks which Irenaeus did,P. 676, 678, &c. and upon the same principles, viz. that whatever God or Christ thought necessary for us to know or believe, is consigned to us in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles; and thence he cites that out of Peters foreign (a Book I suppose then extant under that name) foreign nothing without the written word, where was the unwritten word then? And in the end of that Book discovers the weakness of Philosophy, because it came from meer men: but men, as men, are no sufficient teachers when they speak concerning God. For (saith he) man cannot speak foreign things becoming God; foreign. p. 697.for being weak and mortal he cannot speak as he ought of a Being infinite and immortal, nor he that is the work of him who made it; besides he that cannot speak truth concerning Himself▪ how much less is he to be believed concerning God? For as much as man wants of Divine power, so much must his speech fall short of God, when he discourseth of him. For mans speech is naturally weak and unable to express God; foreign. Id. ib.not only as to his essence, but as to his power and works; thence he concludes a necessity that God by his Spirit must discover himself to men, which revelation he proves to be only extant among Christians, because of the many Divine testimonies that Christ was the Son of God, because the knowledge that came by him was so remarkably dispersed abroad in the world, and did prevail, notwithstanding all opposition and persecution. For (saith he) the Greek Philosophy if any ordinary Magistrate forbid it did presently sink; but our doctrine hath been forbid from its first publishing, by the Kings and Potentates of the earth, who have used their utmost industry to destroy both us and that together, but still it flourisheth, and the more for its being persecuted; for it dyes not like a humane doctrine, nor perisheth like a weak gift. foreign. p. 698.Thus we see that he insists on rational evidence as the great and sufficient testimony into which our Faith is resolved as to the being of a Divine Revelation. In his next Book he answers some objections p. 275of the Heathens against believing Christianity, of which the chiefest was, the dissension among the Christians, wherein (if ever) he had an opportunity to declare what the certain rule of Faith is, and what power God hath left his Church for determining matters to be believed by us. But for want of understanding this necessary foundation of Faith, viz. the Churches infallibility, he is fain to answer this objection just as a Protestant would do. 1. If this were an argument against truth, P. 753, &c▪the objectors had none themselves, for both Jews and Greeks had heresies among them. 2. The very coming of heresies was an argument of the truth of Scripture, because that had expresly foretold them. 3. This argument doth not hold any where else, therefore it should not in reason here, viz. where there is any dissent there can be no certainty; for though Physitians differ much from one another, yet Patients are not thereby discouraged from seeking to them for cure. 4. This should only make men use more care and diligence in the search and enquiry after truth; for they will find abundant recompence for their search in the pleasure of finding truth. Would any one say, because two apples are offered to him, the one a real fruit, the other made of wax, that therefore he will meddle with neither; but rather that he ought to use more care to distinguish the one from the other? If there be but one high way and many by-paths which lead to precipices, rivers, or the Sea, Will he not go in the highway because there are such false ones? but rather go in it with the more care, and get the exactest knowledge of it he can. Doth a Gardener cast off the care of his Garden because weeds grow up with his herbs? or rather, doth he not use the more diligence to distinguish one from the other? So ought we to do in discerning truth. 5. That all those who seriously enquire after truth may receive satisfaction. For either mans mind is capable of evidence, or it is not; if not, it is to no purpose to trouble ourselves with any thing of knowledge at all; if it be, then we must descend to particular questions, by which we may demonstratively learn from the Scriptures how the heresies fell off from them: foreign, &c. p. 755.and that the most exact knowledge is preserved in truth alone, and the ancient Church. If then Heresies must be demonstratively confuted out of Scriptures, what then doth he make to be the rule to judge of Controversies, but only them? For what he speaks of the ancient Church, he speaks of it as in conjunction with truth and in opposition to those novel Heresies of the Basilidians and Valentinians. For, that he doth not at all appeal to the judgement of any Church much less the present, as having any infallibility whereon men ought to rely in matters of Faith, appears likewise by his following words. But those (saith he) who are willing to imploy themselves in the most excellent things, foreign. Id. ib.will never give over the search of truth, till they have received a demonstration of it from the Scriptures themselves. Here we see, the last resolution of Assent, is into the Scriptures themselves, without any the least mention or intimation of any Infallibility in the Church, either to deliver, or interpret those Scriptures to us: And after, gives the true account of Heresies, viz. mens not adhering to the Scriptures. For (saith he) they must necessarily be deceived in the greatest things who undertake them, foreign. Id. p. 756.unless they hold fast the Rule of Truth, which they received from Truth it self. And in this following discourse he goes as high as any Protestants whatever (even such who suppose the Scripture to be principium indemonstrabile, by p. 276any thing but it self) for he makes the Doctrine delivered by Christ, to be the Principle of our Faith, and we make use of it (saith he) to be our foreign to find out other things by. But, whatever is judged, is not believed till it be judged, foreign. Strom. 7. p. 757.therefore that can be no Principle which stands in need of being judged. Justly therefore when we have by Faith received that indemonstrable Principle, and from the Principle it self used demonstrations concerning it self, we are by the voice of our Lord instructed in the knowledge of Truth. Nothing can be more plain in what he saith, than that, if there were a higher foreign than Scripture (as there must be, if we are to receive it on the account of the Churches Infallible Testimony) the Scripture could not be call'd the Principle of our Faith, but when we receive the Scripture, the evidence we have that it is our Principle must be fetched from it self; and therefore he does here in terms (as express as may be) resolve the belief of Scripture into internal arguments, and makes it as much a Principle supposed as ever his Lordship doth. And immediately after, when he proposeth that very Question, How this should be proved to others, We expect not (saith he) any proof from men, but we prove the thing sought for by the Word of God, foreign. Ibid.which is more worthy belief than any demonstration, or rather which is the only demonstration, by the knowledge of which, those who have tasted of the Scripture alone become believers. Can any one who reads these words ever imagine, that this man speaks like one, that said, That the Scriptures of themselves appear no more to be Gods Word, than distinction of colours to a blind man? How much beyond the Valentinians, and Basilidians would Clemens have accounted so great a madness? who so plainly asserts the Scriptures to be proved by themselves, and that not casually, or in the heat of argument; But lest we should not throughly apprehend his meaning repeats it again in the same page, foreign, perfectly demonstrating the Scriptures by themselves. And are not all these Testimonies of such persons so near the Apostolical times, sufficient to acquaint us what the grounds of the Resolution of Faith were in the Christian Church? when all of them do so unanimously fix on the Scripture, and not so much as mention the Infallible Testimonies of any Church, much less the Roman. Much more might be cited out of this excellent Authour to the same purpose, particularly where he refutes the Valentinians, who deserted the Scriptures, and pleaded Tradition: but the Testimonies already produced are so plain, that it will be to no purpose to produce any more.

§. 7.It were easie to continue an account of the same grounds of Faith, through the succeeding Writers of the Christian Church, who have designedly writ on that subject, in vindication of Christian Religion, which they unanimously prove to be Divine, chiefly by these Arguments; from the undoubted Miracles which were wrought by Christ, and his Apostles, from the exact fulfilling of Prophecies, and the admirable propagation of the Christian Doctrine; all which are particularly insisted on by Origen against Celsus; by Tertullian, in his Apologetick, adversus Scapulam, and elsewhere; by Minucius Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius; not to mention Eusebius in his Books of preparation and demonstration Evangelical; Cyril's Answer to Julian and others.Origines sacrae. l. 2. c. 7, 8, 9, 10. (But, having elsewhere more fully and largely considered that subject, I rather chuse to referr the Reader to what hath been there p. 277handled already, than to tire his patience with either repeating the same, or adding more Testimonies to the same purpose.) Only that which is most pertinent to our present purpose, I shall here add, Whether is it credible that those persons who fully understood the Doctrine of Christianity, who were themselves rational and inquisitive men, and writ for the satisfaction not only of subtle adversaries, but of doubting and staggering Christians, should so unanimously agree in insisting on the evidence of matter of fact, for the truth of the thing delivered in Scripture, and the fore-mentioned Arguments for the Divinity of the Doctrine therein delivered, had it not been the judgement of the Church they lived in, that the resolution of Faith was into those grounds on which they insisted? And is it again credible, that any of them should believe the Testimony of the Church to be necessary as infallible, in order to a Divine Faith, and that without it, the Scriptures could not be believed as Divine, and yet in all their disputes with the Gentiles concerning the Doctrine of Christianity, and with several Hereticks (as the Marcionists, &c.) concerning the Books of Scripture, upon no occasion should mention this grand Palladium of Faith, viz. the Infallibility of the present Church? And lastly, Is it credible, that when in our modern Controversies men do evidently maintain faction and interest, more than the common Principles of Christianity (that he must be blinder than one that can see no distinction of colours, that doth not discern on what account this Infallibility is now pretended) Is it, I say, credible▪ that a Doctrine pretended so necessary for our believing Scriptures with Divine Faith, should be so concealed; when it ought, for the honour and interest of Christianity to have been most divulged? Which now only in these last and worst times is challenged by an usurping party in the Church as left by Christ himself (when no other evidence can be given of it, but what was common to all ages of the Church) as belonging to such a party under the pretence of the Catholick Church, which doth so apparently use it only to uphold her pretended Authority, and so makes it serve to the worst ends, and the most unworthy designs.

Having thus far considered what the judgement of those Fathers was concerning the resolution of Faith, who lived nearest the Apostolical times;§. 8. I should now come to consider what you can produce out of Antiquity, for your Churches Infallibility, or more generally, for any infallible Testimony supposed in the Catholick Church (whatever that be) in order to a Foundation for Divine Faith: But you very prudently avoid the Testimonies of Antiquity in so necessary a subject as this is; for, those Testimonies mentioned in the foregoing Chapter, in explication of Matth. 28.20. takeing them, as you have in so loose and careless a manner produced them, make nothing at all for the Churches Infallible Testimonie; but only assert that which is not denied, that there shall alwaies be a Christian Church in the world. Our only remaining task then, as to this, is, to examine in what way you seek to enervate the Testimonies produced by his Lordship out of Antiquity, which you do in the latter part of Chap. 8. His Lordship had truly said,P. 10. n. 3…. That this method and manner of proving the Scripture to be the Word of God, which he useth, is the same which the ancient Church ever held, namely Tradition, or Ecclesiastical Authority first, and then all other arguments, but especially internal from the Scripture it self. For which he cites, first, The Church in S. Augustine's time. He was no enemy to Church-Tradition (saith his Lorship) yet when he would prove that the Authour of the Scripture (and so of the whole knowledge of Divinity, as it is supernatural) p. 278is God in Christ, he takes this as the all-sufficient way, and gives four proofs all internal to the Scripture. 1. The Miracles. 2. That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine. 3. That there hath been such performance of it. 4. That by such a Doctrine of Humility, the whole world almost hath been converted. And whereas ad muniendam fidem, for the defending of the Faith, and keeping it entire, there are two things requisite, Scripture and Church-Tradition; Vincent. Lyrinens. places authority of Scriptures first, and then Tradition. And since it is apparent, that Tradition is first in order of time, it must necessarily follow; that Scripture is first in order of nature, that is the chief upon which Faith rests and resolves it self. To this, (after you have needlesly explained his Lordships opinion in this Controversie) you begin to answer thus;P. 108. He cites first Vincentius Lyrinensis, l. 1. c. 1. who makes our Faith to be confirmed both by Scripture and Tradition of the Catholick Church. But, Are not you like to be trusted in citing Fathers who doubly falsifie a Testimony of your adversaries, when you may be so easily disproved? For 1. You tell us, he cites that first, which he produceth last. 2. You cite that as produced by him for the Foundation of Faith, which he expresly cites for the preservation of the Doctrine of Faith; so he tells you ad muniendam fidem, &c. Can any thing be more plain and obvious to any one who looks into that discourse of Vincentius, than that he makes it not his business to give an account of the general Foundations of Faith as to the Scriptures being Gods Word, but of the particular Doctrines of Faith, in opposition to the Heresies which arise in the Church. So that all that he speaks concerning Scripture, is not about the authority, but the sense and interpretation of it. If therefore I should grant you, that he speaks of Christian and Divine Faith, What is this to your purpose, unless you could prove that he speaks of that Divine Faith, whereby we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God. But yet your argument is very good to prove, that he speaks not of any humane fallible perswasion, but true Christian Divine Faith; for he opposes it to Heresie, and calls it sound Faith, and his Faith. It seems then, whatever Faith is sound for the matter of it, is presently Christian, Divine, and Infallible; and so, whosoever believes any thing which is materially true, in opposition to Heresies, needs never fear as long as he doth so, for according to you he hath Christian and Infallible Faith; but, what if the Devils Faith be as sound as any Catholicks', Must it therefore be Divine Faith? No (it may be you will answer) because he wants the formal object of Faith, and doth not believe on the account of your Churches Infallibility; I verily believe you; for he knows the jugglings of it too much to believe it infallible. But, take Vincentius in what sense you please, that is evident in him which his Lordship produced him for, that, for the preserving Faith entire, he places authority of Scripture first, and then Tradition (unless you will serve his Testimony, as you do his Lordships, because it makes for your purpose, say, He mentions Tradition first, and then Scripture) but, say you, He sayes Tradition doth as truly confirm Divine Faith, as Scripture, though Scripture doth it in a higher manner. If you did but consider, either what kind of Tradition, or what kind of Faith Vincentius insists on, you could not possibly think his words any thing to your purpose. For he speaks not of any Tradition infallibly attested to us, without which you pretend there can be no Divine Faith, but of such an Vniversal Tradition which depends wholly upon Antiquity, Vniversality, and Consent, and never so much as mentions, much less pretends to any thing of Infallibility: So p. 279that if you grant such a kind of Tradition, doth as truly confirm Faith as the Scripture,, then you must grant no necessity of an Infallible Testimony to assure us of that Tradition, for Vincentius speaks of such a kind of Tradition, as hath no connexion with Infallibility. For if Vincentius had ever in the least, thought of any such thing, so great and zealous an opposer of Heresies would not have left out that which had been more to his purpose, than all that he had said, For wise men, who have throughly considered of Vincentius his way, though in general they cannot but approve of it so far as to think it highly improbable, that there should be Antiquity, Vniversality, and Consent against the true and genuine sense of Scripture, yet when they consider this way of Vincentius, with all those cautions, restrictions, and limitations set down by him (…. 1. c. 39.) they are apt to think, that he hath put men to a wild-goose-chase to finde out any thing according to his Rules; and that S. Augustine spake a great deal more to the purpose, when he spake concerning all the Writers of the Church; That although they had never so much learning and sanctity, he did not think it true, because they thought so, Ali…s … ita lego, ut quantālibet sanctitate, doctrin… que praepolleant, non ideò verum putem, qui ipsi ita sens…runt, sed quia mihi, vel per illos authores C…nonicos, vel probabili ratione, quod à vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuêrunt. August. ep. 19.but because they perswaded him to believe it true, either from the Authority of Scripture, or some probable Reason. If therefore S. Austin's Authority be not sunk so low as that of the Monk of Lerins, we have very little reason to think that Tradition can as truly confirm Faith to us as the Scriptures, supposing that to have been the meaning of Vincentius. Which yet is not reasonable to imagine, since Vincentius himself grants, that in case of inveterate Heresie or Schism, either the sole Authority of Scripture is to be used, or at most the determinations of General Councils; nay,Lib. 1. c. 39. and in all cases doth suppose, that the Canon of Scripture is perfect, Quum …it perfectus Scripturarum Canon, sibi que ad omnia satis super que sufficiat, &c. l. 1. c. 2.and is abundantly sufficient of it self for all things. Can you yet therefore suppose, that Vincentius did think that Tradition did as truly confirm our Faith as the Scripture? Which is your assertion, and the only thing whereby you pretend that the Bishop hath misconstrued Vincentius; but whether be more guilty of it, I leave to impartial judgement.

The next Testimony you consider, is, that of Henricus à Gandavo. §. 9.For his Lordship had said, That the School had confessed, this was the way ever. For which he cites the Testimony of that Schoolman, That daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman, i. e. the Church, Sic quotidie apud illos qui foris sunt intrat Christus per mulierem, in Ecclesiam, & credunt per istam famam, &c. Hen. à Gand. sum. p. 2. A. 10. q. 1.and they believe by that fame which she gives (alluding to the story of the woman of Samaria.) But when they come to hear Christ himself, they believe His words before the words of the woman: For when they have once found Christ, Plus verbis Christi in Scripturâ credit, quam Ecclesiae testificanti: quia propter illam jam credit Ecclesiae. Et, si ipsa quidem contraria Scripturae diceret, ipsi no… crederet. Id.they do more believe his words in Scripture, than they do the Church, which testifies of him; because then propter illam, for the Scripture they believe the Church. And if the Church should speak contrary to the Scripture, they would not believe it. Thus (saith his Lordship) the School taught then. No, that did it not (say you.) But let us see, how rarely you prove it: For (you say) he speaks all this of a supernatural and Divine Faith to be given, both to the Scriptures, and the Church. Gandavensis certainly is much obliged to you, who venture to speak such great Absurdities for his sake; for if he be understood in both places of Divine and Infallible Faith, these rare consequences follow. 1. That the p. 280first beginning of Faith is equal to the highest degree of it; for when he speaks of the Church, he speaks of Christs entring by that, which can be meant of nothing else but the first step to Faith, as is plain in the parallel case of the woman of Samaria; but if this were Divine and Infallible, it must be equal to the highest degree, for that I suppose can be but Divine and Infallible, unless you can find out degrees in Infallibility. By this Rule, you make him that is but over the threshold, as much in the house, as he that is sate down to the Table; a plant at its first peeping out of the earth, to be as tall as at its full growth; and the Samaritans as firmly to believe in Christ at the first mention of him by the Woman, as when they saw and heard him. 2. By this you make an Infallible Faith to be built on a Fallible Testimony; for to what purpose else was the Similitude of the Woman of Samaria insisted on, but to parallel the Testimony of the Church with that of the Woman, and consequently the Faith built on the Churches Testimony to be like that which the Samaritans had of Christ upon the Womans Testimony; and if you believe that Faith Infallible, you must assert, an Infal…ble Faith to be built on a fallible Testimony, and yet to be as infallible, as that which is built on an Infallible Testimony: And then, I pray, tell me, To what end would you make your Churches Testimony Infallible, if Faith may be infallible without it?

But, it may be, though these seem hard things, yet you prove them invincibly:P. 108. No doubt of it; for, you say, That Christ enters by that Faith, but Christ cannot enter into a soul by a meer humane fallible perswasion, but by Divine Faith only. Nay, when he says, That he more believes the Scripture, than the Churches Testimony, he saith, That he believes the Church; But how can he believe without Faith? O the irresistible force of demonstrations! But what silly people are we, that thought a man might enter into a house by the door, though he met not with his hearty entertainment till afterwards? But, Do you really think, that Christ never enters into a soul, but by Divine and Infallible Faith? For Christ enters by that which gives him his first admission, but his full reception must be by a higher degree of Faith. Do you think men believe as much at first as ever after? If not, May not Christ be said to enter by that lower degree of Faith? I pray, What think you of the case in hand, Did not the belief of Christ enter by the Woman of Samaria? and was that, as Divine a Faith, as what they had afterwards? Nay, take Christs entring (as improperly as you can imagine it) for his hearty reception in the soul, Can that be no other waies but by an Infallible Faith? A Faith supposed to be built on infallible grounds, I grant; but whether all, who do truly believe in Christ, do build their Faith on grounds in themselves infallible, my charity to some deluded souls in your Church (as well as honest, but ignorant persons elsewhere) gives me just reason to question. But still there is a greater subtilty behind, which is, if he believes the Scripture more than the Church, then he must believe the Church equally with the Scripture; for that must be the meaning of what you say, when he sayes, He believes the Scripture more than the Church, he believes the Church; but how can he believe without Faith? Ergo, this must be Divine Faith, or else all the rest come to nothing. So that if I say, I believe the Scripture more than you, it follows, that I believe you as much as the Scripture, by the very same consequence. But you have gotten such a knack of contradicting your self, that poor Gandavo cannot fall into your hands, but you must make him do so too. When you say, A man cannot believe without Faith, I dare justifie it to be one of the greatest truths in your Book; but, p. 281if your meaning be, A man cannot believe without Divine Faith, I hope we Protestants sufficiently confute that; for you dare not deny that we believe at all, but (just as the Devils do) we must (according to you) believe and tremble, because our Faith is not Divine and Infallible. But still your subtilty works with you, for because Gandavensis saith, That we must yield our first Faith to the Scripture, but, secundam sub ista, a secondary Faith to the definitions and customs of the Catholick Church: You cry out, Here's prima & secunda fides; but yet both of them are properly and truly Faith. But, Are both of them properly and truly Divine Faith? If so, How comes the distinction of the first and second, one subordinate to the other, if both be equally Divine and Infallible? Nay, according to your Principles, the Faith given to the Church must be the first Faith, and to the Scriptures the second under that; because, for the sake of the Churches Testimony, we are to believe the Scriptures. And, Do you really think, there may be no discovery of Infidelity in rejecting a sufficient Testimony for Faith, where there is not an Infallible Testimony? But, whatever you think, your great enemy, Reason, tells us the contrary; and therefore what follows of believing the Church, sub poenâ perfidiae, is to no more purpose than what went before. The strength therefore of all that you say as to this Testimony of Gandavensis, lyes in the proof of this one thing; That no man can believe any thing without an Infallible Faith; yet I verily believe that you have miserably perverted the Schoolmens words, and think no more Infallible Testimony requisite for it, than your own words.

But, it may be, though you do so ill by the Schoolmen, you may use the Fathers more civilly.§. 10. Three things therefore you have to answer to those Testimonies of the Fathers, P. 109.which seem most to make use of internal Arguments. 1. That they use them not to such as had no Divine Faith, but to such as had. 2. That they do not use them as Primary, Infallible and Divine proofs, but as secondary arguments, perswasive only to such as believed Scripture to be Gods Word antecedently to them. 3. That they do not use only such proofs as are wholly internal to the Scripture it self. As to the two first conditions, you say 'tis evident, these proofs were made by Christians, namely the Holy Fathers; and commonly to Christians, who lived in their times. And as clear is it, that they never pronounced them to be the Primary, Infallible, and Divine Motives of their belief in that point, nor used they them as such. How false and absurd these Answers are, may appear by our precedent discourse, wherein we manifested, that the Christians insisted on those arguments there mentioned not for themselves and other Christians, but chiefly to convince and perswade by them the Gentile world to the belief of Christianity. And, Did they suppose these Heathens to have a Divine Faith already? Or, Did they look on such arguments as only secondary motives, when these were the chief, nay only arguments which they used to perswade them; if they had other that were Primary, Divine, and Infallible, and only made use of secondary, humane, probable motives, they were guilty of the highest betraying the Christian Cause imaginable. And you make them only to defend Christianity, as Vaninus did Divine Providence with such silly and weak arguments, that by their overthrow, the belief of it might fall with them. Indeed, if they had pretended the Infallible Testimony of the Church, there might have been just reason for such a Suspicion, and any wise men would have thought their design had been to make their Religion contemptible, and expose it to the derision of Atheists, instead of better establishing the Foundations of believing it. But those wise and holy p. 282men knew better the interest of Christianity, than to offer to defend it by Principles in themselves false, and much more liable to question than that was which they were to prove by them: and therefore made choice of arguments in themselves strong and evident, and built on Principles, common to themselves, and those whom they disputed against, i. e. they urged them with the greatest strength of Reason, and the clearest evidence of Divine Revelation, and never questioned but that a Faith built on those grounds, if effectual for a holy Life, was a true and Divine Faith. It seems then, your cause cannot be maintained, without the most sharp and virulent reflections on those Primitive Christians, who among all those arguments whereby they so successfully prevailed over the Gentile world, never did so much as vouchsafe to mention the least pretence to Infallibility; for which they are now accused of using only the blunter weapons, of humane and fallible motives, and not those Primary and Divine Motives of Infallibility. But this is not the first time we have seen, what desperate shifts a bad cause puts men upon.

It may be yet, your strength may lye in your last condition, viz. That these arguments used by them, were not internal. For, 1. You say, That of Miracles is external; P. 109.the Scriptures themselves work none, neither were ever any Miracles wrought to confirm, that all the Books now in the Canon (and no more) are the Word of God. I answer, 1. I have already told you of a double resolution of Faith, the one as to the Divinity of the Doctrine, the other as to the Veracity of the Books which contain it: when therefore Miracles are insisted on, it is not in order to the latter of these which we have sufficient assurance of without them, as I have already largely proved, both as to the Truth and Integrity of the Canon of Scripture; but Miracles, we say, are the arguments to prove the Divinity of the Doctrine by, because they attest the Divine Revelation of the persons, who deliver this Doctrine to the world. 2. As to us who receive the report of those Miracles, as conveyed to us by the Scripture, those may be said to be internal arguments to the Scripture, which are there recorded in order to our believing the Doctrine therein contained to be Divine. The Motives of Faith being delivered to us now joyntly with the Doctrine, although on different grounds we believe the Veracity of the Books of Scripture, and the Infallibility of the Doctrine contained in it. We believe that the Miracles were truly done, because they are delivered to us by an unquestionable Tradition, in such Authentick Writings as the Scriptures are; but we believe the Doctrine contained in the Books to be Divine, because attested by such Miracles, and we believe the Books of Scripture to be divinely inspired, because such persons cannot be supposed to falsifie to the world who wrought such great Miracles. 2. You say, The conversion of so many People and Nations by the Doctrine contained in Scripture, is also external to the Scripture. But still you suppose that these arguments are brought to prove these Books to be divinely inspired, which is denied; we say only, That the admirable propagation of the Doctrine of the Gospel, is a great argument that it was from God. And therefore, when afterwards you say, That supposing all those arguments mentioned by the Bishop out of S. Augustine, to be internal to the Scripture, yet they cannot infallibly and divinely prove that Scripture is the Word of God. If by Scripture, you mean the Writings, we pretend not to it; if by Scripture, you mean the Doctrine of it, we assert it, and think it no argument at all against that, which you add, That perswade they may, but convince they cannot; no doubt if they perswade, they p. 283do much more than convince; But, I suppose, your meaning is, they do it not effectually; if so, that is not the fault of the arguments, but of the person, who by his obstinacy, will not hearken to the clearest evidence of Reason. All that this can prove, is a necessity of Divine Grace to go along with external evidence, which you dare not assert, for fear of running into that private Spirit, which you objected to his Lordship on the same account. But it is very pretty which follows: You say, Supposing that all those arguments mentioned, of Miracles, nothing carnal in the Doctrine, P. 110▪performance of it, and conversion of the world by it, were all of them internal to Scripture, yet they could not prove infallibly the Scripture to be the Word of God; and to prove this, you tell us, concerning the third and fourth, How can it ever be proved, that either the performance of this Doctrine, or the conversion of Nations is internal to Scripture. But, Did you not suppose them before to be internal to Scripture? and though they were so, yet could not prove the Scriture, &c? and to prove that, you say they cannot be proved internal to Scripture. Which is just as if I should say, If you were Pope you would not be Infallible; and all the evidence I should give for it, should be only to prove that you were not Pope.

You conclude this Chapter with a Wonder (I mean not any thing of Reason which would really be so) But, say you, who can sufficiently wonder, that his Lordship, for these four Motives, should so easily make the Scripture give Divine Testimony to it self, upon which our Faith must rest, and yet deny the same priviledge to the Church. Seeing it cannot be denied, but that every one of these Motives are much more immediately and clearly applied to the Church, than to the Scripture. What? more immediately and clearly? and so clearly, that it cannot be denied? Prove but any one of them as to that Church, whose Infallibility is in question, viz. the present Roman-Church, and I will yield you the rest. Produce but any one undoubted Miracle, to confirm the Infallibility of your Church, or the Pastors of it, shew your Doctrine (wherein it differs from ours) not to be carnal, manifest the performance of the Christian Doctrine, only in the members of your Church, prove that it is your Church, as such, which hath preached this Doctrine, and converted whole Nations to the belief of it (in any other way than the Spaniards did the poor Indians) and we may begin to hearken with somewhat more patience to your arrogant and unreasonable pretence of Infallibility. Can any one then who hath any grain of reason left him, think that from these arguments, while his Lordship disputes most eagerly against the present Churches Infallibility, he argues mainly for it, as you very wisely conclude that Chapter. If this be arguing for your Churches Infallibility, much good may such arguments do you.

And so I come to the last part of my task as to this Controversie, which is, to examine your next Chapter,§. 11. which puts us in hopes of seeing an End of this tedious Controversie: But this containing very little new in it (and therefore deserves not to be handled apart) will on that account admit of a quicker dispatch. In which the first Section begins with S. Austin's Testimony, which should have been considered before, and now it comes out with the same Answer attending it, which was given so lately concerning primary and infallible, and secondary and probable Motives of Faith, the vanity of which is sufficiently discovered. Whereas in your Margent, P. 111.you bring an example of such a probable Motive, viz. when S. Austin saith to Faustus,Aug. c. Faustum. l. 28. c. 2▪ That as constant Tradition was sufficient for him to believe that that Epistle was Manichaeus his, which went under his name; so the same Tradition p. 284was sufficient to him to prove the Gospel was S. Matthew's, which was so universally received for his, ever since the writing of it. I am so far from thinking this a meer probable Motive, that it is the highest evidence the matter is capable of, and so S. Austin thought. Your paralleling the saying of Waldensis (That if the Church should speak any thing contrary to Scripture, he would not believe her) with another which you pretend to be S. Austin's; If the Scripture should speak any thing contrary to the Church, we could not believe that neither; and then saying that both proceed on an impossible supposition, must imply, that it is an equal impossibility for the Church to deliver any thing contrary to the Doctrine of Scripture, as for the Scripture to contradict it self; for to say, The Scripture should contradict the Church, signifies nothing, because the Being of the Church is founded on the Doctrine of Scripture. All that S. Austin saith, in the place you referr us to, comes to no more than this, If the Church were found deceived in the Writings of Scripture, then there could be no ground of any firm assent to them. And, is this, I pray, a fit parallel for that speech of Waldensis? Is this to say, If the Scripture speak any thing against the Church, it is not to be believed?

In your next Sect. N. 2, 3. you fall from Parallels, to Circles, and Semicircles (as you call them) in which you only shew us your faculty of mumbling the same things over and over, P. 111, 112.concerning his Lordships mistating the Question, about Infallible and Divine Faith, Apostolical Tradition, the formal Object of Faith, which I must, out of charity to the Readers patience, beg him to look back for the several Answers, if he thinks any thing needs it; for I am now quite tired with these Repetitions, there being not one word added here, but what hath been answered already. But, lest th…se should not enough tire us, the next Sect. N. 4. consists of the old puff-paste of ultimate Motive, and formal Object, of the Infallibility which is not simply Divine, P. 113.and others of a like nature, whose vanity hath been detected in the very entrance into this Controversie.

It seems you had a great mind to give the Bishop a blow, when you reach as far, as from p. 103, to p. 115. to do it, and yet fall short of it at last; for, though you charge him with a false citation of S. Austin, for these words, fidei ultima resolutio est in Deum illuminantem, yet in that Chapter, though not the words, yet the sense is there extant, when he gives that account of Christian Faith, That it comes not by the authority of men, Non jam hominibus, sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram firmante & illuminante. Aug. c. ep. Manich. c. 14.but from God himself confirming and inlightening our mind. Is not here a plain resolution of Faith in Deum illuminantem? And therefore your charge of false citation, and your confident denial, That there is any such Text to be found either there, or any where else in all S. Augustine, argue, you are not careful what you say, so you may but throw dirt in your adversaries face, though we may easily know from whence it comes, by the foulness of your fingers. And for your other challenge, of producing any Testimony of the Fathers which saith, That we must resolve our Faith of Scripture into the Light of Scriptures; I hope the Testimonies I have in this Chapter mentioned, may teach you a little more modesty: and for the other part of it, That we cannot believe the Scripture infallibly for the Churches authority, as far as a Negative can be proved, I dare appeal to the judgement of any one. Whether it be possible to believe that the Fathers judged, the Certainty, much less Infallibility of Christian Faith did depend on the Churches Infallible Testimony, and yet never upon the most just occasion do so much as mention it, but rather speak very much to the contrary.

p. 285His Lordship having thus at large delivered his mind in this important Controversie; to make what he had said the more portable, §. 12.summs up the substance of it in several Considerations. Which being only a recapitulation of what hath been fully discussed already, will need the shorter Vindication, in some brief strictures, where you unjustly quarrel with them. To his 1. That it seems reasonable, that since all Sciences suppose Principles; Theology should be allowed some too; the chiefest of which is, That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority; your Answer is considerable;P. 114. viz. that he confounds Theology, a discoursive Science, with Faith, which is an act of the Vnderstanding, produced by an Impulse of the Will, &c. But not to examine what hath been already handled, of the power of the Will in the act of Faith, it is plain when his Lordship speaks of Theology, he means Theology, and not Faith; and the intent of this Consideration was to shew, the unreasonableness of starting this Question in a Theological Dispute about the Church. In your Answer to the second, you say, That Fallible Motives cannot produce Certainty, which if you would prove, you would do more to the purpose than you have done yet, and by this argument, I could not be certain, whether you had done it or no, unless you brought some Infallible Motives to prove it. The third you pass over. The fourth you grant, though not very consistently with what you elsewhere say: As to what you say in answer to the fifth, concerning Miracles, P. 115.I agree with you in it, having elsewhere sufficiently declared my self as to them. For the sixth you referr to your former Answer, and so do I to the reply to it. In the seventh, his Lordship proves the necessity of some revelation from God rationally and strongly, and thence inferrs, That either there never was any such Revelation, or that the Scripture is that Revelation, and that's it we Christians labour to make good against all Atheism, Prophaneness, and Infidelity. To which you have two Exceptions.P. 116. 1. That this cannot be proved by the meer Light of Scripture, which His Lordship never pretended to. 2. That he leaves out the Word, only, which was the cause of the whole Controversie; What, between Christians and Atheists? For of that Controversie, he there speaks; but since you are so fond of your unwritten Revelations, pray prove the necessity of them as strongly against Atheists, as his Lordship hath done the necessity of a written one. In the last Consideration he musters up all the several arguments whereby men may be perswaded, that this Revelation is contained in those Books we call the Scripture; as the Tradition of the Church, the Testimony of former Ages, the consent of times, the Harmony of Prophets, and the Prophecies fulfilled, the success of the Doctrine, the constancy of it, the spiritual nature and efficacy of it, and lastly, the inward light and excellency of the Text it self; which, with a great deal of Rhetorick, is there set forth. But to all this you say no more than what hath been abundantly disproved, viz. That all these only justifie our belief, Ibid.when it is received as the ancients received it upon the Infallible Authority of Church-Tradition, but never otherwise. Whereas we have proved, that the ancients received it only on the same grounds, which are here mentioned, and therefore certainly are sufficient not only to justifie our Faith, but to perswade us to believe.

Your argument against what his Lordship saith of the necessity of the Spirit's assistance with these Motives, §. 13.and the Light of Scripture for producing Divine Faith, will equally hold against all those of your own side, who hold the necessity of Gods Spirit for believing the Churches Infallibility, and against all such of both sides, who hold any necessity of Divine Grace, p. 286for then you must say, that either that Grace is not necessary in order to salvation, or that those who want it, are neither truly Christians, nor capable of salvation. And how horridly soever these consequences sound in the ears of the unlearned, they can sound no worse than those multitudes of Scriptures do which tell men, That without true Divine Faith, and real Grace, they are under eternal condemnation. But, it may be, that the unlearned may not be affrighted with such sentences as those are, you think it a great deal better to let them hear little or nothing of the Scripture, and to let them be continually entertained with the sweet and melodious voice of the Church. No doubt, you thought, your next argument had done the business effectually;P. 116. For (say you) to make them more sensible of the foulness of this errour, viz. the danger of such who do not savingly believe, Let them consider, that when young and unlearned Christians are taught to say their Creed, and profess their belief of the Articles contained in it, before they read Scripture, they are taught to lye, and profess to do that, which they neither do, nor can do in his Tenet. An excellent argument against making Children say their Creed! but, Will not the same hold against all publick using of the Creed, because it is unquestionable but there are some who do not savingly or divinely believe it? Nay, Will it not much more hold against any in your Church, saying their Creed at all, unless they first believe your Church to be Infallible, which is very well known that all do not. For then, according to you, they do but lye, and profess to do that which they neither do, nor can do, without the Churches Infallible Testimony: And therefore you must begin a new work of Catechizing the members of your Church, to know whether they believe the Churches Infallibility, before they can say their Creed. Unless you solve it among your selves, by saying, It is not a formal lye, but only an aequivocation, which many of you say, is lawful in case of danger, as you see apparently this is. But if the aequivocation be said only to lye in the word Believe, you might easily discern the weakness of your argument, through it. For if some may truly believe what they do not savingly believe, there is no lye certainly told, in saying, They do believe as far as they do; which is by a firm assent to the Truth of all the Articles of Faith, by that which is call'd an historical, or dogmatical Faith, where there may be no saving Faith. But that because Children are taught (as a short systeme of the Articles of Faith) to say their Creed, we must be convinced of the foulness of our errour, is an apparent evidence, that either you apprehended our understandings to be very weak, or that you sufficiently discover your own to be so.

§. 14.The only quarrel which you have with his Lordships Synthetical way, is,P. 117. n. 7. That he confounds his Reader with multiplicity of arguments, and weakens the authority of the Church, without which (if you may be believed) he might tire himself and others, but never be able to make a clear resolution of Faith. How clear an account you have given of Faith in your Analytical way, by the Authority of the Church, hath been sufficiently laid open to you; but I wonder not that you quarrel with multiplicity of arguments, there being nothing which doth really weaken the authority of your Church so much as they do, and they are men certainly of your temper, who will be soon tired with too much reason. What follows concerning the captiousness of the Question as first propounded; and the vicious Circle you would free your selves of, by the Motives of Credibility; deserve no further answer. Only when you would make A. C. go your way, and both together prove the Church Infallible independently on Scripture, you did not certainly consider, p. 287that it is an Infallibility by Promise, which you challenge, and, for that end, in the precedent Chapter, were those places of Scripture produced by A. C. and urged by you. All that I shall return by way of Answer to your tedious discourse concerning Scriptures being a Principle supposed among Christians (the main of it depending on the circumstances of the dispute between his Lordship and Mr. Fisher) shall be in these following particulars.P. 118, &c. n. 8, 9, 10. 1. That in all Controversies among Christians, whose decision depends upon the authority of Scripture, the Scripture must be supposed as granted to be of Divine Authority by both parties. 2. That in that Question, Whether the Scripture contains all necessary things of Faith, that necessity must be supposed to relate to the things which depend upon Scripture, and therefore implies it believed on other grounds, that this Scripture is of Divine Revelation. For the Question is, Whether God hath consigned his Will so fully to us, in this Revelation of himself, that nothing necessary to be believed is left out of it? For men then to say, That this is left out of it, viz. to believe that this is a Divine Revelation, is an unreasonable Cavil, it being supposed in the very Question, that it is so. 3. That in this sense the Scripture may be said to be a supposed Principle, because it hath a different way of probation, from particular objects of Faith, revealed in Scripture. For to a rational Enquirer, who seems to doubt of the Truth of Scriptures, it is equally absurd to give him any one of these three Answers. 1. That it is a Principle to be supposed: for, though it be supposed as to the particular debate depending on Scripture; yet it is fond and absurd to say, It must be supposed when it is the thing in question. 2. That it is known meerly by its own Light: for the person I have to deal with, supposing himself equally capable to judge of Reason and Evidence, as my self, it doth but betray the weakness of my cause, or my inability to manage it, to pretend that to be evident, which it is much more evident that he doth not think so; and it is only to tell him, my Vnderstanding must rule his, and that whatever appears to me to have Light in it self, ought likewise so appear to him. 3. It is as absurd as either of the other two, to say, That you will prove to a rational Enquirer, the Scripture to be Gods Word, by an unwritten Word of God. For, 1. His Enquiry is, Whether there be any Word of God or no, you prove there is, because there is; for that is all you prove by your unwritten Word. He denies, or at least questions, Whether there be any, and particularly instanceth in Scripture; you think to end the Question, by telling him, He must believe it to be so, because there is another Word of God which attests it, which, instead of ending the first Question, begets a great many more. For, 2. He will be more to seek, concerning this unwritten Word than before; because he might use his Reason in judging concerning the written Word, but cannot as to this unwritten; it being only told him, There is such a thing, but he knows not what it is, how far it extends, who must deliver it, what evidence this hath beyond the other, that it comes from God, that it must be used as an argument to prove it with. If you send him to the Infallibility of the Church, you must either presume him of a very weak Vnderstanding, or else he would easily discern your perfect jugling in this; the veins of which I have discovered throughout this discourse. There remains nothing then but Reason, a Principle common to us both; by which I must prove, that the Scriptures are from God, which Reason partly makes use of the Churches Tradition, not in any notion of Infallibility, but meerly as built on Principles common to humane nature, and partly uses those other arguments which prove by the greatest p. 288rational evidence, that the Doctrine contained in Scripture, was from God; and if this were all the meaning of saying, The Scriptures are a Principle supposed, because of a different way of proving them, from particular objects of Faith, you can have no reason to deny it.

§. 15.The next thing his Lordship insists on, is, That the Jews never had, nor can have any other proof, P. 123. sect. 18. n. 5.that the Old Testament is the Word of God, than we have of the New. In your Answer to which, I grant that which you contend for, That the Tradition of Scriptures among them, was by their immediate Ancestors as well as others; I grant, That their Faith was not a Scientifical Knowledge, P. 122. n. 11.but a firm & perfect assurance only (but understand not what you mean, by saying, That otherwise it would not be meritorious) but am as far to seek as ever for any Infallibility in the Jewish Church, which should in every age be the ground of believing the Books of the Old Testament to be divinely inspired. And if you will prove a constant succession of Prophets from Moses till our Saviour's appearing (which you seem willing to believe) you would do something towards it; but for your permanent Infallible Authority in the High Priest and his Clergy, I have already shewed it to be a groundless, if not a wilful mistake.

What remains concerning the nature of Infallibility (which at last his Lordship makes to be no more than that which excludes all possibility of doubting, and therefore grants, that an Infallible Assurance may be had by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof) and how far that is requisite to Faith; P. 1…4. sect. 19.concerning moral Certainty, and what Assurance may be had by it; concerning the Canon of Scripture, Apostolical Tradition, the unwritten Word, S. Austin's Testimony about the Church, P. 123, &c. n. 12. ad fin. cap. 9.they are all points so fully discussed before, that out of pity to the Reader, I must referr him to their several places, which when he hath throughly considered, I will give him leave to summ up the several victories you have obtained in the management of it, which will be much more honourable for you, than for your self to do it, as you do most triumphantly in the end of this Controversie concerning the Resolution of Faith. And although I have not been much surprized with your attempts, yet I shall heartily conclude this great Debate with your last words in it. The Consequence I leave to the serious consideration of the Judicious Reader. I beseech God he may make benefit of it to his eternal felicity.

p. 289PART II. Of Schism.