The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 1 · Chapter 5 (2 of 3)

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 1 · Chapter 5 (2 of 3)

p. 126§. 11.2. But, suppose your way to be never so reasonable, yet if it effect not that it was brought for, it deserves little favour from inquisitive persons, and that I now come to evince, viz. That supposing your Church infallible, and that Infallibility proved by the Motives of Credibility, you do not escape the circle objected against your way. And really, whosoever considers your way of management of things, will find, that though you give out great words, and pretend to prove the Churches Infallibility, as Moses and Christ's was proved; yet your eye was all the while on nothing but the circle, and thought, if you could get rid of that, you should do well enough with any thing else. For, as though this circle had ridden you like an Ephialtes, you tumble, and groan, and toss this way and that, and when you think your self freed from it, it sits as close upon you as ever. When you come so miserably off with the proofs of your Churches Infallibility, you satisfie your self with this; 'Tis sufficient for the present to have declared how the Catholicks fall not into a circle, as his Lordship here pretends they do. Though this could not be sufficient for your design, who had promised in the page foregoing, to prove at large the Infallibility of the Church; yet you had done somewhat, if you had done this, which, if I much mistake not, you are as much to seek in, as in the proofs of your Churches Infallibility. And that I prove by three things, from the nature of that Faith whose resolution you promise, from the persons you prove it to, from the nature of that Infallibility which you attempt to prove.

1. From the nature of that Faith, you are enquiring a resolution for, which is not that which you call a Humane Faith, but a Divine Faith. When you go about to prove the Churches Infallibility, by the Motives of Credibility, is it a Divine Faith or no, which may be built on these Motives? chuse which part you please. If it be, then by your own Confession, a Divine Faith may be built on Prudential Motives; if it be not, then what is all this to the purpose? For the Question is not, Whether by any other kind of Assent you cannot avoid the circle; but, Whether in the resolution of Divine Faith you can or no? For, I hope, you deny not, but the Scriptures and the Churches Infallibility are both to be believed with the same kind of Assent, built upon an infallible Testimony; in this case I then ask, p. 127Why, with a Divine Faith, you believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God? You answer, Because the Church, which is infallible, delivers them so to us. If I then ask, Why with a Divine Faith you believe the Churches Infallibility? Answer me if you can, any other way, than because the Scriptures, which are infallible, say so. And thus you see, it is only your running away from the Question, makes you think your self out of the circle, and not any satisfactory Answer to it. Will you, or dare you say, That is an Assent of the same nature, which is built on the Motives of Credibility, with that which is grounded on an infallible Testimony? If it be not, bethink your self of a new Answer: if it be, bethink your self of a new Way to oppose us, and not to think it sufficient to charge us with building Divine Faith, on Prudential Motives, when you do it your self. But, if you should assert that to be a Divine Faith, which is built on the Motives of Credibility, you not only contradict your self, but the great Ones of your own party. For your Becanus saith,Becan. sum. p. 2. Tom. pa…tr. de fide. c. 1. q. 2. sect. 8. Valent. Tom. 1. disp. 1. q. 1. punct. 1. sect. 8. Colum. 35. That these Motives are the Foundation only of a prudent Assent, but not Infallible; and Valentius goes much higher, and tells us, The Faith grounded on these Motives is not divine, or infused, but acquisite, that it is in its nature uncertain and fallible, that it cannot be the Foundation of Christian Faith. If this be true, To what end do you go about to resolve Faith upon such uncertainties, in hopes to escape the circle you see others in. Thus you see, how insufficient your attempt is, because you speak not of the same kind of Assent as to the Scripture, and the Church.

2. You avoid not the Circle by the different considerations of the persons you offer to prove the Infallibility of the Church and Scripture to. You tell us, That when you prove the Infallibility of the Church by Scripture, P. 55. n. 1.you make use only of Arguments ad hominem, and argue ex principiis concessis against Sectaries, who deny the Infallibility of your Church, but admit the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, and therefore you may justly use Scripture-arguments against them. I grant it: but still I say, you avoid not the Circle by this subterfuge neither. For, 1. The question is not, Which way you will prove the Infallibility of the Church against those who deny it; but which way you resolve your own faith of the Churches Infallibility? therefore this signifies nothing at all as to your Question about the resolution of Faith; for I suppose you build not that on any thing which your adversary grants or denyes. Is there no difference between the way of proving a thing to an adversary, and the resolving ones own Faith? I question not, but you may dispute with him upon Principles he grants and you deny; but, I should think you no wise man to build your Faith upon such Principles. So that this evasion comes not near the business. 2. Even in disputing against your Adversaries you cannot avoid the circle, which I thus prove. You offer to prove to them the Church to be Infallible out of Scripture; for this you bring them particular places, and think presently to vanquish them with, Super hanc Petram, Pasce oves, & Dabo tibi claves; but hence ariseth another Question, How you come infallibly to know, that this is the sense of those places? You know, your Adversaries presently deny any such thing as Infallibility to be proved out of them. And, what way have you to assure them, this is the sense of them, but because your Church, which is infallible, delivers this to be the sense of them. And is not this then a plain circle? You are to believe the Church infallible, because the Scripture saith so; and you are to believe the Scripture saith so, because the Church is infallible. If this be not still a plain circle, you may p. 128question whether there be any such figure in Mathematicks.

3. I prove you cannot avoid the Circle from your own Confession of the nature of that Infallibility, which you say is in the Church. For you tell us, That the Churches Testimony doth not suppose any new Revelation from God, but only a supernatural Assistance of the Holy Ghost, P. 58. n. 4.preserving her from all errour in defining the Points of Christian Faith. By this Assertion, you destroy all possibility of avoiding the Circle by the Motives of Credibility; for if these had proved an immediate Divine Revelation in the Church, I confess you had proved the Churches Infallibility independently on Scripture; but, when you offer to prove only a Divine Assistance with the Church, in delivering former Revelations, you cannot: and the reason is, because you can bring no ground at all why such an Assistance should be necessary in the Church; or why it should be expected but from the Promises made in Scripture concerning such an Assistance of God's Spirit to be with the Church: and therefore the utmost your Motives of Credibility can pretend to, is only to notifie that Church from others, which you suppose infallible: but still the formal reason of your beleeving this Infallibility, cannot be from those Motives, but upon those Promises which you suppose to import such an Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church, which shall secure her from errour: So that still the Circle returns upon you: For, you believe the Scriptures infallible, because of the Churches Testimony; and you believe the Church infallible, because of the Promises in Scripture concerning the Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church, so as to secure her from all errour. And thus, I hope, I have made good this general Attempt upon your way of resolving Faith, by manifesting the great unreasonableness, and manifest insufficiency of it.

I now come to handle the particulars of this Chapter, which consists of two things,§. 12. Proofs and Evasions, the Proofs you produce for your Churches Infallibility, and your Evasions as to those Arguments which are objected by his Lordship. Both of these will deserve our Consideration; and if it appear, that your Proofs are weak, and your Evasions silly, you will have no great cause to triumph in this Attempt of yours. As to your Proofs, two things are considerable, your Method of proving, and the Proofs themselves. I begin with the first, which you deliver in these words.P. 55. n. 1. Wherefore, as to the last demand (in which only there is difficulty viz. How we know the Church to be infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost; we answer, that we prove it first in general, not by the Scripture, but by the Motives of Credibility, which belong to the Church, in the same manner as the Infallibity of Moses, and other Prophets, of Christ and his Apostles was proved, which was by the Miracles they wrought, and by other signs of an Infallible Spirit, direction, and guidance from God, which appeared in them. Whence it is clear, that we incurr no circle. That, supposing all that true which you said before, yet thereby you avoid not the circle, I shall take it for granted, I have already proved, till you better inform me: Our business now therefore is, to consider, which way you prove this Infallibility of your Church, which you tell us, is not by Scripture (for which I commend your ingenuity) but by the Motives of Credibility. But, lest any should think this a weak way of probation, you tell us, It is in the same manner that the Infallibility of all persons divinely inspired was proved, not excepting Christ himself. A most heroical and generous Attempt! For which the Church of Rome is infinitely obliged to you, if you make it good: For then it necessarily follows, that there is as great danger in not p. 129believing the Infallibility of your Church, as in not believing Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles. For, where there is an equal obligation to believe, there is an equal sin in not believing; and where the sin is equal, it stands to reason that the punishment should be so too. I suppose you deny not, but, Where there are equal Motives inducing to believe, there results an equal Obligation to Faith, because the Grounds obliging to assent, can be no other than the Motives inducing to it; and if these Motives be as strong and evident for your Churches Infallibility ▪ as for that of Moses and Christ, men must be as much obliged now to believe your Church infallible, as, that Moses and Christ were so. So that the denial of your Churches Infallibility, must needs be accounted by you to be as high a piece of Infidelity, as if one should call in question the Infallibility of Christ himself. For you assert, That you have the same Proofs for the Infallibility of your Church, which there were to prove him infallible. I do not therefore wonder at your sharpness and severity in your censures of all out of your Church, when upon your Principles the denying your Churches Infallibility, must needs be an offence of as high a nature, as if one denied the Infallibility of the Sacred Scriptures. But, lest you should not think these any Absurdities at all, we must come yet closer to the examination of your Proofs: For which we must enquire into these two things. 1. Whether the same Motives of Credibility belong to your Church, by which Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, shewed their Testimony to be infallible. 2. Whether, on supposition you had the same Motives, there were the same reason to believe the Testimony of your Church Infallible, as there was to believe Them to be so.

1. Whether the same Motives of Credibility belong to your Church or no. And here again, these things offer themselves to consideration. 1. By what means their Testimony was proved infallible. 2. Whether your Churches Testimony can be proved by the same Motives or no. For the first, you are pleased to give us this account, Why Moses was accounted infallible; P. 56. n. 2.for the Israelites seeing Moses to be a person very devout, mild, charitable, and chaste, and endowed with the gift of working miracles, were upon that ground obliged to receive him for a true Prophet; and to believe him infallible, by acknowledging as true and certain, whatever he proposed to them from God. All which I acknowledge to be very true; but am much to seek, how you will apply it to the proving your Churches Infallibility. What kind of Miracles those are which your Church pretends to, will be examined afterwards; the other Motives of Credibility mentioned, are Devotion, Mildness, Charity, and Chastity; and these, I suppose, you look on as those Motives, which must induce men to believe the Infallibility of your Church. But, do you really think, that every person who is devout, mild, charitable, and chast, is therefore infallible? If not, to what purpose do you produce them here? if you do, some out of your Church may be as infallible as those in it. Especially, if your superstitious Ceremonies be the greatest part of your devotion; and your burning of Hereticks, the Argument of your mildness; and your damning all out of your Church, be the best evidence of your Charity; and the lives of your Popes, the most pregnant Instances of your Churches Chastity. The rest of your discourse, wherein you endeavour after your way, to prove tha there were sufficient Motives of Credibility, to believe the Testimony of Christ and his Apostles, I suppose no Christian will deny; and that the Miracles wrought by them, were Proofs that their Testimony was infallible, I am so far from questioning, that all your other Motives signifie nothing without them. Which, because it p. 130hath so great an influence on the present dispute, I think it necessary to be a little further cleared, than it is by you, and chiefly for this end, to let you see, how much you have befooled your self in attempting to prove the Infallibility of your Church, in the same manner that Christ and his Apostles Infallibility was proved in, and yet insisting on that of Miracles, as the great evidence of their Infallibility, which your Church cannot with any face pretend to. I acknowledge it then as a great Truth, that it was necessary, that the Testimony of all such who pretend to be infallible, must be confirmed by such Miracles, as Christ and his Apostles wrought; Nay, that it is impossible, without such Evidence, to prove any Testimony infallible, where that Infallibility is pretended to, independently upon Scripture, as it is in your present case. Which will be thus made evident: Absolute Infallibility is not consistent with the shortness of the Humane Vnderstanding, for such an Infallibility must suppose an infinity of Knowledge; for, where there is a defect in the Apprehension, there is a possibility of deception; therefore only an Infinite Being can be absolutely infallible. Now, man's Vnderstanding being so finite, and limited in its Conceptions, it is on that account apt to be imposed upon, and to form false Notions of things; so that supposing no Being in the world of greater Perfections than man is, there never could be any such thing as Infallibility among men. For, though some mens Vnderstandings might outstrip others in the quickness of Conception, and solidity of Judgement; yet the Nature of Man being thus finite, that presumption would lye against all pretence of Infallibility. It being then impossible, that mans understanding should be in it self infallible, we must consider, whether there be a possibility it should receive any Infallibility from that Infinite Being, which is above it. This then must be taken for granted, that as an Infinite Vnderstanding cannot be deceived, so Infinite Goodness cannot deceive. And therefore, whatever doth immediately proceed from a Being infinitely Wise and Good, cannot but be infallibly True. And there is no repugnancy at all, in the nature of the thing, but that this Infinite Being may, in a way certain, but imperceptible by us, communicate to the Minds of Men such Notions of things, which are the effects of his own Wisdom and Counsel: and this is that we call Divine Inspiration. But then we are still to consider, That the understanding of a finite Creature, cannot be any further infallible, than as it receives those Notions which are imprinted upon it by the Infinite and Supreme Intellect of the world; and such a person is no further infallible in what he speaks, than as he delivers to the world those very Conceptions, which are thus formed in his mind. And this is that which the Apostle means when he sayes, That Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Pet. 1.21.2 Pet 1:21And so far as they were thus moved, so far they were infallible, and no further. But this Infallibility being not intended meerly for the satisfaction of the mind of him that hath it, but for the general good of the world, it is necessary that there be some way whereby men may come to understand who are infallibly assisted, and who not. For otherwise the world would be more exposed to delusions under this pretext of Infallibility; than if there were never any such thing in the world. Either therefore every man must be infallibly assured in his mind, that such a person is infallible in what he is to deliver, which is a needless piece of Enthusiasm; or else such external Evidences of it are to be used, which may induce all rational and considerative persons to the belief of it. Which is the way that God in his infinite Wisdom hath made choice of; by making those very persons, whose p. 131understandings are thus assisted by him to be the Instruments of doing some things above the power of nature. And nothing can be more reasonable, than to believe their Testimony True, who are imployed as such immediate Instruments of Divine Power; and if their Testimony be believed True, their Doctrine must be Infallible; for the greatest part of their Testimony is this, That they deliver not their Doctrines from themselves, but immediately from God. And consequently their Testimony must be owned as infallible, in whatever they deliver as from God; it being very unreasonable to think, that God would favour such persons with so extraordinary a Power, who should falsifie their message, and deceive the world. Thus you see, That whatever Motives of Credibility you would blind the world with, there can be no Motive independent on Scripture, which is sufficient to prove Infallibility, but such a power of working Miracles, which Moses, and the Prophets, and Christ, and his Apostles had, which last, as you truly say,P. 56. n. 2. received their Commission from Christ to preach every where, and to confirm their words with signs that followed; by which signs, all their hearers were bound to submit themselves unto them, and to acknowledge their words for infallible Oracles of Truth.

Now, What reasonable man could otherwise expect,§. 13. but that after you had so solemnly promised to prove the Infallibility of your Church, in the very same manner that Moses, with other Prophets, Christ and his Apostles were first proved to be infallible, which are twice your words;P. 55. n. 1. P. 56. n. 2. and your at large shewing, That the main ground why they were believed infallible, was, because of the Miracles wrought by them, whence they needed not the Testimony of Scripture: You should have shewed us what kind of parallel Miracles are wrought in your Church, to prove its infallibility. But, instead of that, when you come to the purpose, you shuffle us off, in a most ridiculous and impertinent manner: For, you tell us,P. 57. That as therefore Moses, our blessed Saviour, and his Apostles, were proved infallible by their works, signs, and miracles, without Scripture; so is the Church without help of the same sufficiently proved to be infallible by the Motives of Credibility. Well, but what, and where are these Motives of Credibility? Are they of the same kind and nature with the signs and miracles wrought by them or not? If not, How can the way and manner be the same, which you promised to prove the Churches Infallibility? If not, What assurance can you give us, that those will prove Infallibility, as well as their works and miracles? This should have been demonstrated, and those motives produced to the view of the world, if you had designed any other than jugling with your Readers. Instead of this, you tell us, That Hereticks, though they have the Scripture, yet being out of the true Church, they do wholly want these signs of Infallibility: of which, see Bellarmine, and other Catholick Authors discoursing more at large, de notis Ecclesiae. 'Tis sufficient for the present, to have declared how Catholicks fall not into a Circle, as his Lordship pretends they do. These are excellent waies of proof, and fit only for a Church that pretends to be infallible, and then most of all, when her Infallibility was to be proved. What did you lead us this long dance for, if you never intended to prove your Church infallible? Could you not have referred us to Bellarmine at first, as well as at last? Nay, and now you do turn us off to him, you bid us, go seek the Notes of the Church, and not the Proofs of Infallibility; which, sure, are different things, unless you suppose no Church True, but what is Infallible. But however, you are sure not to miss the Hereticks, they must have a blow at parting, They are p. 132out of the Church, and do wholly want these signs of Infallibility. What signs of Infallibility? speak out, and tell us, What they are, and where they lye, and how they may be known? for otherwise we may mistake in the Physiognomy of your Church, and instead of signs of Infallibility, we may see shrewd signs of imposture and delusion in her. And it is the more suspicious, because you are so afraid of producing them after so solemn a promise to do it. However, you tell us, 'Tis sufficient for the present to have declared how Catholicks fall not into a Circle: Well, I see, though we miss of of the Coals S. Laurence was broyled on, we shall have a Feather from the wing of a Seraphim; Though you fail of your promise, we shall have something as good; and as great a feat of activity as that had been, viz. to let us see, How the Papists dance in a round, and yet make no Circle. Your demonstrations are so good in this kind, it is pity you do not imploy your excellent wit in squaring Mathematical Circles, as well as this; and I shall as soon hope to see you perform the one, as the other. But, Can you, without smiling at our simplicity, tell us, (after such a wide-mouthed promise; as you made in the page foregoing; But, because we have often promised to prove the Infallibility of the Church, P. 56. n. 2.it will be necessary to insist somewhat longer upon this Point, and declare the matter at large) That it is enough to vindicate your selves from the Circle? Was this the thing you promised, or the proofs of your Churches Infallibility? I confess Quid feret hic tanto dignum promissor hiatu? came into my mind at first reading those words, and it proves accordingly. You really meant no such thing, as proving your Church infallible: and you are very excusable in it, though you had promised it; for no Promise can bind to impossibilities. But it may be yet, though these Proofs do not come after the Promise, they may have gone before it; For I find before a large Catalogue mentioned of such signs and motives, which may prove the Churches Infallibility, as sanctity of life, miracles, efficacy, purity and excellency of doctrine, fulfilling of Prophecies, succession of lawfully sent Pastors, Vnity, Antiquity, and the very name of Catholick, P. 55. n 1.&c. Number enough, if that would do it. But we shall see, what force these Motives are of, by these following Queries.

1. Is it all one with you, To know a Church to be true, and to make it infallible? These you call the Motives of Credibility for your Churches Infallibility, were wont to be esteemed only the Notes of Distinction of the True Church from all others. The Question, I suppose, concerning these, had this rise. There being, after the Reformation, several distinct Societies of men, pretending to be the True Christian Church, to which every Christian ought to associate himself; there was a necessity of pitching on some way, whereby the True Christian Church might be distinguished from other Communions; which begat a new Controversie, What were the proper Notes of this Society. Those of your party, as Bellarmine tells you, differed much in the number of them: Some of which are those by you mentioned; but whether they be the True Notes of the Church or no, which hath been largely examined by others, What are these to the proof of Infallibility, setting aside that of Miracles? Is it not possible that there should be a Society of Men joyning together in the Profession of Christian Religion, but these Men must presently be infallible in whatever they deliver as the Sense of their Society? Their visible Profession of Christian Religion, makes them a True Church: but cannot men seem to profess our Religion, unless they have a visible Infallible Head to guide them? Is Infallibility the Soul of a Church, which gives it its Being, I p. 133mean, a present Infallibility continually actuating and informing the Body of it? Cannot a man be known to be a True Man, unless he be inspired? Nor a Church distinguished from other Societies, but by a Spirit of Infallibility? The truth is, Let Bellarmine multiply his fifteen Notes of the Church to fifteen hundred, if he please; nay, let it pretend to what Infallibility it please: if any Society of men challenging the name of Church to it self, do destroy the end of its Constitution, or hold any thing directly contrary to the Foundation of its Institution; all other Notes in the world can never make it a True Church. So that the only certain Note of a True Church, is its Agreement with the primary Foundation of it in that Doctrine which was Infallible, and attested by Miracles undoubtedly Divine: That which holds the Doctrine of Christ, is the Christian Church; and the nearer any Society comes to that, the purer it is; the more it is distant from it, the more impure: and no man who honours the Christian Religion, can be bound to communicate with the Impurities of such a Church, let it bear it never so high under the pretence of Infallibility. If you boast never so much of your Vnity, Succession, Antiquity, the name of Catholick, &c. if your Doctrine be repugnant to what was originally delivered by the Founder of the Christian Church; your Society is not the True Christian Church. But, suppose it were, and that it were known so to be by such Notes as these are; Can you not conceive a Church should be consonant to the Doctrine of Christ, but it must be it self infallible in deciding Controversies? Cannot you imagine a Society consisting of all True Christians in the world, should be made up of such persons who all firmly believe that Doctrine infallible which Christ delivered, but yet judge themselves all fallible, and dare not usurp that royal prerogative of Heaven, in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned, but leave all to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws, because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul, and of all things that tend thereto? Is such an Idea of a Christian Church, a thing unreasonable, inconsistent, or contrary to any Law of its Foundation; or rather, is it not a very true and just representation of that Society of men, which our blessed Saviour instituted as a Church in the world?

2. Do you mean, That these Motives should prove the Christian Church at large infallible, or your present particular universal Church of Rome?§. 14. For some of your Motives seem to respect the one, and the rest the other Notion of it. When you mention miracles, efficacy, purity and excellency of Doctrine, fulfilling of Prophecies, do you really intend these for the proof of your present Roman-Churches Infallibility, as that is distinct from all other Churches of Christians in the world? If you do (as you must, if you speak to the purpose) shew us what miracles, efficacy, purity and excellency of Doctrine there are in your Church beyond and beside all other Churches in the world: What fulfilling of Prophecies among you, which makes your Church infallible? Is it the Prophecy, That your Church shall be infallible that is fulfilled? Shew then to us where that Prophecy is, and how it appears to be fulfilled? Is it because your Church pretends to be infallible? I do heartily acknowledge, some Prophecies are therein fulfilled, but such as your Church hath little ground to be proud of their accomplishment. But, to all impartial Christians, the accomplishment of those Prophecies, which speak of the degenerate state of the Church, as they are a great Confirmation of the Infallibility of the Divine Revealer of them, when they see it so remarkably in the signatures of your Church; so they are far from being any p. 134motive of credibility to them to prove your Church to be Infallible. Unless it be meant that the state of your Church is an infallible evidence that those Prophesies are fulfilled. But I pray, why should fulfilling of Prophesies, make your Church Infallible? I had rather thought, if you could have proved your Church to have been Prophetical, it had been more to your purpose. And if your Popes in Cathedrâ had foretold future events, which by their coming to pass, had evidenced to the world they had a true spirit of Prophesie, then indeed you had said something towards Infallibility. But that the meer fulfilling of Prophesies, owned Divine by all Christians, should prove your Church Infallible, is such a motive of Credibility concerning that Infallibility, that it proves nothing, but by this consequence, If Christ were Infallible, then your Church is. Or do you mean, because some Prophesies concerning your Church are fulfilled, therefore your Church is Infallible; by the same reason I hope you will not deny, but that Antichrist is Infallible, for when ever he did, doth, or shall appear, no doubt there will be fulfilling of Prophesies, and those very clear ones too. And therefore Antichrist and your Pope may go together for Infallibility.

But it may be yet you have some other motives besides fulfilling Prophesies, and those are miracles; now you speak indeed to the purpose. But yet still we poor Infidels (because out of your Church) desire a little satisfaction concerning them too. 1. We very reasonably desire, That he in your Church who pretends most to infallibility, should do these miracles himself. For that was alwayes the way in Scripture, for them whose testimony was to be believed Infallible, to be the workers of those miracles which should induce men to believe such an Infallibility. Do you think the Israelites would have believed Moses Infallible, if any ordinary Israelite had wrought those miracles which he did? unless you would suppose that those miracles were purposely wrought to have attested that Moses was Infallible. But yet God thought it much more fit, that Moses himself should be the instrument of doing them, and so it was with our Blessed Saviour. Let then your Church produce the several miracles wrought by your Popes to attest their Infallibility; or, if you believe Pope and Council the subject of Infallibility, produce the miracles to prove that. God was alwayes so just and reasonable, as not to expect the belief of any Infallibility without such evidences given for it as might perswade men to believe it: and you acknowledge, That independently on Scripture there can be no such proof of Infallibility as Miracles, and you require it from us to believe the present Church Infallible, where then are your present miracles wrought to attest this Infallibility? For as long as you require such an assent to the present Churches Infallibility, it is necessary on your own grounds, that the present Church should alwayes work miracles in order to the proving this Infallibility.

2. We desire such miracles as may sufficiently convince the Infidels as to this point of your Infallibility. For that was alwayes the way used in Scripture; The intention of miracles was to perswade those who did not believe. Would Pharaoh, or the Aegyptians have believed Moses, if all his miracles had been wrought in a corner, where none but Israelites had been present? Would the Jews have believed in Christ, if he had not come in publick among them, and wrought such frequent, publick, and uncontrouled miracles, that his greatest enemies durst not deny them? If you would then have us believe your present Churches Infallibility, let your Pope, or at least your Priests come and do such kind of miracles among p. 135us which may bear the examination of inquisitive men, and then try whether we will not believe your Infallibility; but till then, excuse us. Think not we are of such easie Faith, that the pretended growing out of a Leg in Spain, or any of your famous miracles wrought by your Priests in Italy, will perswade us to believe your Church Infallible. It is alwayes observed, your miracles are most talked on, where people are most ignorant, and therefore most apt to be deceived. Your Priests, like the Devils in the Primitive times, can do no feats when their opposers are by; It is an easie thing for a stump to grow a Leg in its passage from Spain hither; for Fama crescit eundo; such things are most believed where circumstances are least capable of examination. And the juglings and impostures of your Priests have been so notorious in this kind, that their pretences to miracles have made more Infidels then Catholicks, by making men more apt to question, whether ever there were any real miracles done, then believe the truth of yours. Very likely then it is, that you should perswade the world your Church is Infallible, because of the miracles wrought in it.

3. What discrimination do you put between those lying wonders which you are foretold shall be wrought at the coming of Antichrist, and those pretended miracles which are wrought among you? Convince us by sufficient evidence, that the things which seem most confirmed by your miracles, viz. Invocation of Saints, is a thing consonant to the doctrine established by the undoubted miracles of Christ and his Apostles? If it be contrary to it, either you must prove that doctrine false; or, if you admit it true, you prove your miracles to be false: because contrary to a doctrine established by miracles undoubtedly Divine. And God can never be supposed to attest with miracles the truth of doctrines contrary to each other. And thence the wisest of your Church are so far from insisting on this of miracles for a motive of credibility concerning your Churches Infallibility, that they leave it out from being a note of the Church; because Hereticks, as they say, may as to all outward appearance work as great miracles as the best Catholicks. And therefore Bellarmin saith,De Notis …cclesiae. cap. 14. No man can have an absolute certainty concerning the truth of miracles, because the Devil, though he cannot work true miracles, can work, as to appearance, the greatest. Therefore since the confirmation of Christian Religion by miracles undoubtedly Divine, there can be no relyance on the tryal of miracles for the truth of any doctrine: for those very miracles and doctrine must be judged according to that rule of Faith which was confirmed by Divine miracles. Thus we have examined those motives which seem most to prove Infallibility, and shewn how little they agree to the present Churches Infallibility.

3. As to the other motives, what evidence do you produce, That whereever they are, the Church is Infallible; and,§. 15. that these do infallibly belong to your Church? for both these must be made evident, or you do nothing. Now these motives are, Sanctity of life, Succession, Vnity, Antiquity, and the very name of Catholick, &c. How hard is it to conceive the connexion between these and infallibility! Nay, they are so far from it, that it hath been abundantly proved against your party, that these are no certain notes of the true Church, (which is a Controversie I shall not now discuss). And if the Church cannot be proved to be true by them, much less certainly will it be proved to be Infallible. But suppose all this, is your Church so remarkable for Sanctity of life, that it should be a motive for your Infallibility? Have your Popes been indeed such Holy men, that we may not question but they were moved by the Holy Ghost when they spake? Certainly, you p. 136have some other way to know it then all Histories both of friends and enemies, and the constant fame of the world, which hath then much abused us with stories quite of another nature. Or, is the state of your Church so pure and holy, that it must shew it self Infallible by that? But whom will you be judged by in this case? I desire you not to stand to the verdict of your Adversaries. Will you believe men of your own Communion? pray read what sad complaints are made of the degenerate state of your Church by Petrarch, Mantuan, Clemangis, Espencaeus, Erasmus, Cassander, and several others, and judge you whether we have not reason to cry up the Sanctity of your Church. But these, (it may be you will say) were discontented persons. Will you believe then your Cardinals? And if ever you will believe them, it should certainly be, when they meet to advise concerning the state of your Church; and was not this the expression of the Colledge of chosen Cardinals for reformation of the Church, under Paul 3. Per nos, inquimus, per nos, nomen Christi blasphematur apud gentes. Is not this a great evidence of your Sanctity? If you will not believe the Cardinals, you will not certainly question the judgement of him whom you would fain have to be Infallible, the Pope himself. And these are the words of Adrian 6. in his Instructions to his Legat at the diet of Norimberg A. D. 1522. Scimus in hâc Sede aliquot jam annis multa abominanda fuisse, abusus in Spiritualibus, excessus in mandatis, & omnia deni que in perversum mutata. If ever Pope was Infallible he was in saying so, and he could not but be in Cathedrâ when he said it. You see then what evidence you have from your selves concerning that Sanctity of life which is in your Church. But it may be still, you do not mean real Sanctity, but that the doctrine of your Church tends more to promote it, then that of any other Church. I heartily wish, the quite contrary could not be too truly said of it, and it is well known, that one of your great Artifices whereby you perswade great Persons to your Religion, is, the liberty it indulgeth them in sin here, and yet the hopes it gives them of heaven hereafter. Our doctrine requires indispensable obedience to all the precepts of Christ: Yours tells them, those which are the most strict and severe, are not precepts, but counsels of perfection. Ours, That there is no hope of Salvation without hearty amendment of life: Yours, That Pennance is requisite and external satisfaction to the Church; and for internals, that Contrition is very commendable, but if there be not that, Attrition will serve the turn. Ours, Charges men to look to their Salvation in this life, because when life is ended their estate is irrecoverable: Yours, That though men dye in their sins, yet they may be relieved by the prayers of the living, and that there is hope they may get through Purgatory to Heaven at last. So that supposing any persons to own Christianity to be true, it is hard to conceive there should be more Artifices imagined to reconcile the Love of the pleasures of sin here with the hopes of Heaven at last, than are used by those of your Profession. So that if I should suppose my selfa Heathen Philosopher, and any of your Profession should come and tell me, These were the Precepts, and these the Promises of Christian Religion, but I could believe none of them, but by the Infallible proposition of your Church, and that I was to know your Church Infallible by that Sanctity of life which was in it; when I had throughly considered not only the impieties committed by the great ones of your Religion, even in Rome in the first place, but the Artifices used to enervate all the Precepts of real Sanctity, and so plainly to see what interest and design is carried on under all these disguises: I should be insuperably assaulted with the thoughts that p. 137those of your Religion who were the Authours of these things, were so far from believing your Church Infallible, that they really believed neither Christian nor any other Religion in the world. So much for that Sanctity of life which is in your Chuch. As for your other motives of Vnity, Succession, Antiquity, and the name of Catholick, &c. they have so little affinity with any pretence of Infallibility, and do equally agree to those Churches, as the Greek and Abyssine, which you are so far from acknowledging Infallible, that you will not grant them to be true Churches (notwithstanding these Motives) that I cannot easily imagine to what end you produced them, unless to let us see, you had the gift of saying something, though nothing to the purpose.

When you have thus apparently failed in producing any shadow of proof for your Churches Infallibility by these motives of credibility, §. 16.we now come to see how good you are at the defensive part, who have been so unhappy in your Attempts. Therefore we must consider what arts you use in putting by the force of those arguments which are produced against you by his Lordship. After he had urged that question against you, How it may appear that your Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost, to which we have seen how impossible it is for you to give any satisfactory answer, he proceeds to another Argument which lies in these words; Besides, P. 61. n. 3. Aristot 1. Post. c. 2. T. 16.this is an inviolable ground of reason, That the principles of any conclusion must be of more credit then the conclusion it self. Therefore if the Articles of Faith, the Trinity, the Resurrection, and the rest, be the conclusions, and the Principles by which they are proved be only Ecclesiastical Tradition; it must needs follow, that the tradition of the Church is more infallible then the Articles of Faith, if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally resolved into the veracity of the Churches Testimony. To this your Answer is very considerable. 1. You tell us, That the ground of all this discourse is the authority of Aristotle cited in the Margent, which you repeat after him. But I pray, Whence learn'd you that this was all the ground of his discourse? For his Lordship doth not say, that Aristotle saith so, and therefore it is so; but saies, That it is an inviolable ground of reason, (which words you prudently left out, that there might appear some shadow for such a cavil) and cites only the concurrent testimony of Aristotle with that evidence of reason which is in it. And will you deny this to be an undoubted principle in reason, that, That which is assumed as the ground and reason why I assent to any thing, must be more certain and evident, then that is which I assent to on that ground? Certainly you must have an art above all other men to make the superstructure stronger then the foundation; the particular Problems in Mathematicks, more evident then the Postulata; the conclusion, surer then the Premisses. But you think to come off this absurdity. 2. By distinguishing between Science and Faith, or, as you express it, between the proceeding of the understanding when it works naturally and necessarily, by and from the evidence and clearness of its object: and when it works supernaturally and produceth supernatural and free acts, Pag. 57.meerly or at least principally from the impulse and inclination of the will; for in such cases the Maxim holds not, viz. That the principles of a Conclusion must be of more credit then the conclusion it self. Now the act of believing is such an act; that is, which the understanding elicites, rather by a voluntary and free inclination and consent of the will, then from any evident certainty in the object whereto it assents. A most judicious and profound discourse! to which I know not whether ever I can perswade my will, but I am sure, I never p. 138shall my understanding. Lest you should think, it is only some impulse of my will which hinders my assent, I shall fairly lay down the Reasons which keep me from it.

1. That all assent of the understanding is grounded upon evidence.

2. That however that evidence proceeds, yet the Foundation of assent must be more evident then the thing assented to. And these two I suppose will fully reach the scope of your Answer, by shewing that your distinction of acts natural and supernatural, is both untrue and impertinent.

1. That all assent is grounded upon evidence, i. e. that no man can assent to any thing meerly because he will, but there must be sufficient reason inducing and perswading to that assent. You acknowledge this to be true in acts of Knowledge, but not of Faith; but, What do you make to be the genus in your definition of Faith? I suppose you will say, it is an assent of the mind. If it be so, the mind cannot be supposed to elicite an act of the same nature in so repugnant a manner to it self, that it should assent to any thing without evidence. I know what discourses those of your party have, concerning the obscurity which is necessary to Faith. If you mean obscurity as to the object believed, i. e. that the matters to be believed are not so clear to us as demonstrations, I will not gainsay it: but if you mean obscurity or want of evidence, as to the reason inducing me to believe, I utterly deny any such obscurity to belong to Faith, or to be consistent with it. For God doth not require us to believe any thing without sufficient grounds for our believing it, and those grounds do bear a proportionable evidence to the nature of that assent which he requires. If he requires an Infallible assent he gives Infallible grounds; if he requires a firm and certain assent, he gives firm and certain grounds; if he requires only a probable assent, he gives only probable evidence. But still, such as the nature of the assent is, such is the evidence he gives for it. To make this plainer by an Instance. That Christ was the true Messias, he requires an assent built upon Infallible grounds, and therefore God gave such Infallible evidence of it by the Miracles which he wrought. That these Miracles were once really done, he requires our firm assent, and therefore gives certain evidence by an Universal and uncontrouled tradition; but whether St. Paul or any other Apostolical person were Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrews, he requires only an assent built on the most probable grounds, and therefore he hath given us no more for it. But still as the assent is, so the evidence must be. For Faith being an act of the mind, whose nature is to judge according to reason, we cannot suppose any act of it to proceed in a brutish manner by a meer impulse of the will. I deny not, but the will may be said to have some kind of influence upon the understanding, both in furthering and hindering assent: but it is not by any command it hath over the mind in its acts, but as it can divert the mind from, or incline it to, the searching into the evidence of the things. Therefore when we commonly say, Facile credimus quae volumus, and so on the contrary; it is not because of the wills immediate power upon the understanding, but, as the desire of a thing makes us inquisitive after it, so the dislike of it makes us unwilling to hear the reasons for it, and ready to entertain any pretence against it. Thus, I grant, the will may have power upon the mind as to the eliciting the act of Faith, not that I can assent to a thing as true, because I desire it to be true; but this inclination of the will removes those impediments which would obstruct my discovery of the evidence which is in it. You havs certainly a mind of another mould then others have that can believe thing p. 139which do not appear credible to you; yet such a kind of Faith as this, is very necessary for your Churches Infallibility; and for that, your discourse of believing by the impulse of the will, is very proper and seasonable. But other persons may think it an Imperfection in their minds, that they cannot believe any thing any further than it appears credible; that is, that they can go no further than they have legs; nor see when their eyes are shut, or the room dark. But, it may be, you will tell me, All this discourse proceeds on supposition, that Faith were a natural act of the mind; but you speak of a supernatural Faith. It may be so; but, I hope, you speak not of an irrational Faith, which must believe things beyond the evidence of their Credibility. Faith, whether natural or supernatural, acquired or infused, is still an act of the mind; and let it have but what belongs to it as such, and call it what you will. I deny not a peculiar Operation of Grace, in the eliciting the Act of Divine Faith; but still I say, The manner whereby it is wrought, must be agreeable to the nature of the Vnderstanding, and by discovering the Credibility which is in the Objects of Faith. If you say, The Assent is infused, I must say, The Evidence is first infused; for as Christ, when he healed the blind, did not make them see Objects which did not appear visible; so neither doth the Spirit of God in planting Faith make men discern Objects which do not appear credible; and the stronger the Assent is, the greater is the Evidence and Credibility of the Object. And can you call then that any free inevident Assent, which goes no further than the Object appears credible? It cannot be then any Act of the Will, but meerly of the Mind, which yields assent to any Object propounded as credible to it. So that in what way and manner Assent is required, in that same manner doth God give proportionable evidence: I deny not but that Assent is required to Objects inevident to sense and reason; but then I say, The Assent is not required to what is obscure and inevident; but to what is evident to us, and therefore credible. In the Incarnation of the Son of God, the manner of the Hypostatical Vnion is to us inevident, but then God doth not require our Assent to the Manner, but to the Truth of the thing it self. Where-ever God requires us to believe any thing as True, he gives us evidence that it is so: where-ever it appears the thing is inevident, we may lawfully suspend our Assent, and, for all that I know, it is our duty so to do.

But yet you have not done with this profound discourse; For you very learnedly distinguish a double proceeding in probations; the one is, §. 17.per principia intrinseca, which you very well English (by intrinsecal Principles) i. e. such as have a necessary, natural connexion with the things proved, Ibid.and do manifest and lay open the objects themselves; the other is, per principia extrinseca (by extrinsecal Principles) that is, such as have no natural or necessary connexion with, nor do produce any such evident manifestation of the things proved, but their efficacy, (viz. whereby they determine the understanding to assent) doth wholly depend on the worth and vertue of that external Principle, whereby such probations are made. This you apply to Knowledge and Faith, that as Knowledge proceeds in the former way, so Faith doth in the latter, which depends purely upon extrinsecal Principles, viz. the Authority, Veracity, Goodness, and Knowledge of God affirming it; which was immediately known to the Prophets and Apostles, but mediately to us, which how…ver, must be infallibly conveyed to us, which can only be by the testimony of the Church. This is the substance of your third Section; to which I answer, 1. That all Certainty in the acts of the Mind, whether in Knowledge p. 140or Faith, must equally suppose the Truth of some extrinsecal Principles, viz. the veracity and goodness of God: for otherwise we cannot certainly judge of those you call Principia intrinseca, to know what things have necessary and natural connexion with the things proved. For, unless I suppose that God is so True and Good, as not to suffer me to be deceived in the proper actings of my Faculties, I may judge such things to have connexions and dep…ndencies one upon another, which really have nothing so. And therefore, so far your distinction concerning Science and Faith, will not hold. But 2. If the meaning of this distinction be only this, That there is a different proceeding in a demonstration, from what there is in an act of Faith, I deny it not; but suppose it nothing to your purpose. For, though the evidence be discovered in a different way, yet there is in both proportionable evidence to the nature of the Assent. When I assent, because I know that the thing is true, the evidence of the thing it self, is the ground of that Assent; but, when I assent upon the Authority of any person, the Credibility of his Testimony, is the evidence on which that Assent is grounded. Though this latter evidence be of another kind, yet it is sufficient for that act of the mind, which is built upon it; and that Testimony which I establish a firm Assent upon, must be as evident in its kind, i. e. of Credibility, as the evidence of a thing demonstrable in the nature of a Demonstration. 3. The main strength of your Answer seems to lye in this, That in such an Assent as is built upon Authority; as in the case of Faith, when we do not immediately hear God speaking, but it is conveyed to us by the Testimony of others, it is necessary that this Testimony be infallible. But, good Sir, this is not our present Question, Whether it be necessary that this Testimony be infallibly conveyed to us, but, supposing such an infallible Conveyance, Whether that infallible Testimony must not be more credible than the matters which are believed upon it? But, as though never any such thing had been started: You give us a long discourse of the different proceeding of Science and Faith, but never offer to apply it to the business in hand. I must therefore ingenuously commend you for an excellent Art of gliding insensibly away from a business you cannot answer, and casting out a great many words not to the purpose, that you may seem to touch the matter, when you are far enough from it.

And therefore I say, Secondly, That however the evidence proceeds in matters of Faith, yet whatever is the Foundation of Assent, must be more evident than the thing assented to. Especially where you suppose the Assent to be infallible, and the Testimony infallible, which must ascertain it to us. This will be plainer by an instance. If I ask you, Why you believe the Resurrection of the dead, your Answer is, because of the Authority of him that reveals it: The next Question then is, Why you believe that God hath revealed it; your Answer is, Because the Testimony of the Church is infallible which delivers it. Whereby it is plain, That though your first Answer be from God's Authority, yet the last resolution of your Faith, is, the Infallibility of your Churches Testimony; and that being the last resolution, that Infallibility must be the Principle on which the belief of the rest depends. For, according to your Principles, though God had revealed it, yet if this Revelation were not attested by the infallible Testimony of your Church, we should not have sufficient ground to believe it. And if without that, we can have no sufficient ground to believe, then this Principle The Church is infallible, must be more credible than the Resurrection of the dead. Which was the Absurdity his Lordship charged upon you, and you are far from being able to quit your self of.

p. 141The next thing which you busie your self much in answering of, is, That according to these Principles of resolution of Faith, §. 18.you make the Churches Testimony the formal Object of Faith, which you acknowledge your self to be a great Absurdity, and therefore make use of many shifts to avoid. I shall reduce the substance of your verbose,P. 58. n. 4. and immethodical Answer into as narrow a compass as I can, without defalking any thing of the strength of it. You tell us then, That our Faith is resolved into God's Revelations, whether written, or unwritten, as its Formal Object; and our Infallible Assurance, that the things we believe as God's Revelations are revealed from him, is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions, teaching us, that they are his Revelations; And that the Formal Cause of our Assent in Divine Faith, is God's Revelation delivered to the Church without writing; but, because that is as it were at distance from us, it is approximated, or immediately applied to us by the infallible Declaration of the present Church. Hence it appears, our Faith rests only upon God's Revelation as its Formal Object, though the Churches Voice be a condition so necessary for its resting thereon, that it can never attain that Formal Object without it. And lastly, you tell us, The Churches Authority then being more known to us than the Scriptures, may well be some reason of our admitting them, yet the Scriptures still retain their prerogative above the Church: and thence you distinguish of the certainty of the Object and Subject; from all which you conclude, That the Churches Definition is not the Formal Object of Faith, but that our Faith relyes upon it as an Infallible Witness both of the written and unwritten Word of God, which is the Formal Object. This is the substance, in your long Answer, of what hath the face of reason and pertinency: Which I come to a close and particular examination of. And that you may not say, I pass over this important Controversie, without a through discussion of it; I shall first prove, that it necessarily follows from your Principles, That the Churches Infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith. And 2. That the Answers you give are far from being satisfactory that it is not.

1. That it necessarily follows from your Principles, That the Churches Infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith. In order to which, we must consider, what the scope and design of this Discourse is, concerning the Resolution of Faith. The Question started by M^r. Fisher, in the Conference, was, How his Lordship knew Scripture to be Scripture, or, How the Divine Authority of the Scriptures was to be proved. To this his Lordship returns a large Answer, to which you attempt a Reply in this Chapter, and mention this to be the main Question, How Scriptures may be known to be the Word of God. To this, you tell us, No satisfactory Answer can be given, but from the infallible Testimony of the Church, and the great reason given by you in all your discourse, is this, That this is an Article to be believed with Divine Faith, and Divine Faith must be built on an Infallible Testimony. The Question then resulting hence, is, Whether on these Principles you do not make the Infallible Testimony of the Church, the Formal Object of Faith? You deny, and we affirm it; but before I come to the particular Evidences of the Cause, some generall postulata must be laid down, which by the very state of the Controversie, must be acknowledged by you, which are;

1. That the Question in dispute is not concerning the Formal Object of all things divinely revealed, but concerning the believing this to be a particular Divine Revelation. For, it is obvious to any one that considers, what vast difference there is between those two Questions, Why you p. 142believe that to be True which God hath revealed; the plain and easie resolution of this, is, into the veracity and infallibility of God, in all his Revelations. But it is quite another Question, when I ask, Why you believe this to have been a True Divine Revelation? Or that such particular Books contain the Word of God. And it is apparent, by the whole process of the the Dispute, that the Question is not concerning the first, but the second of these two.

2. That the Question is not concerning any kind of perswasion, as to this Divine Revelation, but concerning that which you call Divine Faith.

3. That this Divine Faith must be resolved into some Testimony supposed infallible. These three are things agreed on between both parties, as appears by the whole management of this Controversie. Only you suppose this Infallible Testimony to be the Church, which your Adversary denies, and saith, It will follow from thence, that you make your Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith, which I thus prove:

1. That which is the only Ground and Foundation whereon a Divine Faith is built, must be the Formal Object of Faith: but the Infallible Testimony of your Church, is the only Foundation whereon Faith is built. By the Formal Object of Faith, I suppose you and I mean the same thing, which is the Foundation whereon the Certainty of the Assent is grounded, or the principal Objective Cause of Faith, viz. not every account that may be given Why men believe, but that which is the only Certain Foundation to establish a Divine Faith upon. Now, let any one but consider what the Question is, and what your resolution is, and then judge, Whether you make not the Churches Testimony the Formal Object. The Question is, How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God; which in other terms is, What the ground is why I assent to the Doctrine contained in Scripture as a Divine Revelation? You say, The Testimony of the Scripture it self cannot be that ground; You say, The Testimony of the Spirit cannot be it; You say, A Moral Certainty cannot be it, because then it is not Divine Faith: What then is the reason why you believe it? Do you not over and over say, It is because of the infallible Testimony of the Church, which gives us unquestionable assurance that this was a Divine Revelation; and yet for all this, this Testimony is not the Formal Object of this Divine Faith. The most charitable apprehension I can have of you, when you write things so inconsistent, is, either that you understand not, or consider not what you write of, but take what hath been said in such cases by men of your own party, and right or wrong that serves for an Answer. But for all this,4. you tell us confidently, That your Faith is not resolved into the voice of the Church, as into its Formal Object; but it is enough to say, Our Faith is resolved into God's Revelations (whether written or unwritten) as its Formal Object: and our infallible assurance, that the things we believe are Divine Revelations, is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions. These are excellent Notions if they would hang together. But,

1. We enquire not what is enough to say in such a case, but what ground you have for saying what you do. You have enough to say upon many subjects in this Book (or else your Book would never have swell'd to the bulk it hath) but you have generally very little reason for what you say.

2. Is that infallible Assurance, that the things we believe as God's Revelations, are revealed from him, a thing call'd Faith or no? If it be, as I hope you will not deny it, then by your own Confession, Faith is resolved into the Churches Testimony as its Formal Object; for, you say, This Infallible p. 143Assurance is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions, teaching us, that they are his Revelations. These are your own words. And, do you yet deny this Testimony of the Church to be the Formal Object of this infallible Assurance?

3. What is it you mean, when you say, That Faith is resolved into God's Revelations as its Formal Object? Is it, that the reason why we believe, is, Because God hath revealed these things to us? But that, you know, is not the matter at all in question, but, How we come to assent to such a Doctrine as a Divine Revelation? Answer me punctually to it; Can you possibly resolve your Faith into any thing else, as its Formal Object? If you can, I pray do us the favour to name it. If you resolve this Faith, as you seem to express your mind, into Divine Revelation, as its Formal Object; Shew us where that Revelation is extant, for which you believe Scripture to be the Word of God. Is it the Scripture it self, or a Revelation distinct from it? If you say, It is the Scripture it self, then you must make the infallible Testimony of your Church needless; for then we may have infallible Assurance, that the things we believe are Divine Revelations, without your Churches Testimony or Definitions: Then, what is become of the unwritten Tradition you mention in these words, If then it be demanded,P. 55. Why we believe such Books as are contained in the Bible to be the Word of God; we answer, Because it is a divine unwritten Tradition, that they are his Word; and this Divine Tradition is the Formal Object, whereon our Faith relyes. Well then, our last resolution of Faith is into this Divine unwritten Tradition: But, whence come you to know, that this Tradition is Divine? Into what Revelation is the belief of that finally resolved? Doth it appear to be so by it self, and then why may not the Scripture? or hath it some other Revelation, and Divine Tradition to attest it? And then the same Question returns concerning that, and so in infinitum, or else of necessity you must acknowledge one of these two things; Either that some Divine Revelation may sufficiently manifest it self, without any infallible Testimony of your Church: Or else, that this infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith. Of these two, chuse which you please.